Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences

Transcription

1 Environmental Consequences This chapter presents information about current resource conditions, and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the alternatives. These effects are the scientific and analytic basis for the Deciding Officer to base their decision on. The information presented in this chapter summarizes and cites the specialists reports that are found in the project analysis file. Full versions of specialists reports are available at the Republic Ranger District in Republic, Washington. Range Introduction Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about rangeland grazing is excerpted from the Project Range Report by Travis Fletcher and Brandon Weinmann, Rangeland Management Specialists (Fletcher and Weinmann 2012). The full text of this report is incorporated by reference and is available in the project analysis file. Framework Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands. (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976) It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood. (FSM ) Management of grazing by domestic livestock will be guided by the Forest Plan (pages 4-44, 4-45, 4-46 and 4-47). Individual direction regarding the implementation of grazing in the allotments would be contained in Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). The current AMPs for the allotments contained in the Boulder Grazing Complex are as follows: North Fork St. Peters Range Management Plan of 1982 South Fork St. Peters Range Management Plan of 1982 Snowcap Range Management Plan of 1984 Bulldog Range Management Plan of

2 Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing areas within these allotments consist of a mix of habitats which provide livestock foraging opportunities. There are two major types of forage producing lands that are present on the Colville National Forest and within the allotments of the. They are semi-permanent range and transitory range. Semi-permanent range is land that can produce forage on a sustained basis over time. These semi-permanent range areas are predominately open forests with some mountain grasslands, mountain meadows and homestead meadows and form the core of most grazing allotment foraging areas. In the past, semi-permanent range was further divided into primary and secondary rangelands. Primary rangelands are the semi-permanent range areas that livestock naturally graze first under a current management practice. It includes the accessible areas that have available water and would be grazed to allowable levels or beyond before livestock substantially graze other areas of the allotment. Secondary rangelands are the semi-permanent range areas, which under the existing management and improvement level, are substantially grazed only after the primary range has been grazed to proper use or beyond. Accessibility, lack of water, and/or present management system can be reasons for a secondary range designation. Transitory range areas are created following timber harvest, wildfire or fuels treatments where overstory trees and shrubs are removed and herbaceous understory vegetation is able to establish and flourish due to increased sun light and decreased competition. Transitory range areas are temporary in nature and are able to produce available forage for a period of 10 to 20 years before trees once again dominate the site. Transitory range areas are used and managed in conjunction with semi-permanent range areas and act to provide additional forage for livestock and wildlife and reduce pressure on riparian areas by providing for upland foraging sites. Capability and Suitability Forest planning regulations require the determination of capability and suitability at the Forest level. These regulations (36 CFR and.20) are derived from the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (Section 6, (g) (2) (a). The definitions and Terminology are described below: Capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of managment practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease. Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses forgone. A

3 unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices. Capability is first assessed to determine the practicality of livestock grazing on a given landscape. These attributes can be modified for each specific forest, or geographic area to represent a correlation between management objectives and the potential use of resources. Modifications represent varabilities such as changes in slope, climate limitations, availability of habitat, administrative use and alternatives. The suitability is then determined by using the specified attributes which are considered capable, however, not all land capable of supporting livestock is suitable for this management objective. Both identify criteria which is used as the standard to determine the management capabilites. Both capability and suitibility of livestock grazing within the area were identified by looking at a few attributes. Slopes less than 45% are considered to be capable of being grazed by cattle. Slope affects livestock distribution by the ease of access and availability of forage. Slopes steeper than this often are composed of rock outcroppings, talice slopes, ravines, lack water, and the available forage is more limited. This is why slope is an important factor when considering the capability of a landscape for grazing. Land within the project area less than 45% slope may be considered capable for grazing, but not all the land is actually available for forage consumption by livestock. Areas which are excluded from livestock grazing are those areas which demonstrate undesirable traits, or lack the needed potential for foraging due to poor soils, rock outcroppings, roads, water impoundments and man-made strucutres. Distance from water is used to assess areas on the landscape available for livestock grazing. Modifications to this attribute can depend on the variance of slope on the landscape, or the climate which influences the availability of water on the landscape. This attribute was not considered in the capability portion of this due to the abundance of water sources and livestock not having to travel long distances to meet biological needs. Areas greater than 60% canopy cover were considered not capable. These areas are typically covered by heavy, dense timber where the oppurtunity for forage and browse species is only available in limited proportions. This project has only one campground which excludes livestock grazing making this the only area of capable grazing lands considered not suitable within the project area, Capability and suitability analysis helps identify opportunites for livestock grazing and establishes a correlation between slope, distance from water and vegetational preferences by plant community types. From this, the availability of rangeland is identified by the total amount of acres which could be grazed

4 Existing Condition There are four grazing allotments contained within the boundary of the Boulder Grazing Allotment Complex project. They are the North Fork St. Peters, South Fork St. Peters, Snowcap and Bulldog allotments. All four of these allotments were divided into smaller sub-units or pastures, which support a combined number of 485 cow/calf pairs of permitted livestock annually. Grazing within these allotments occurs in correlation with the Allotment Management Plans that have been established for each allotment in the early to mid-1980s. The grazing season generally begins on June 1 each year and extends into fall with seasons ending between September 30 and October 15. According to past and recent upland utilization monitoring information, grazing use is occurring at acceptable levels and within the specified use levels. Each allotment has livestock management fences and developed springs with water troughs to support livestock grazing within the allotments. These particular allotments have several existing water developments constructed over a period of many years. Some water developments are in satisfactory condition, but the bulk of the water developments either need to be reconstructed, or updated. The main issue with several of these water developments is that they were constructed within the stream water source itself. This doesn t provide off stream watering capabilities for livestock and adds to resource concerns. Fewer off-stream livestock watering facilities results in livestock drinking from streams and undeveloped springs in the area. This has the potential to impact water quality on these allotments. These particular allotments all have a change in elevation, which effects how the pastures are grazed during the grazing season. Livestock are generally moved on a seasonal cycle from lowland elevations to higher elevations. The Bulldog allotment is the only allotment which is currently an exception due to the South Fork Boulder road washing out. The table below illustrates current numbers regarding stocking rates on the allotments located within the, Animal Unit Months (AUM s), the amount of forage consumed by livestock compared to the amount of available forage an allotment produces and the % of forage that livestock consume annually on an allotment. These numbers were derived from the capability/suitability acres analysis and based on an average of 580 lbs. of forage produced per suitable acre

5 Table 3.1 Available Forage Base Analysis Allotments North Fork St South Fork St Snowcap Bulldog Peters Peters Cow/calf Stocking Rate Current AUMs Suitable Acres Forage Pounds Consumed Forage Pounds Available % Forage Consumed ,888 2,948 10, , , , , ,000 3,415,040 1,709,840 5,880,620 6,774, % 14.8% 9.0% 7.6% An Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the average forage requirements for a 1000 pound cow and her calf which equates to 800 pounds of dry weight forage per month. Capability Whether lands are capable of grazing depends on conditions such as slope, aspect, geology, soil types, vegetation type, as well as climate. The allotments of the Boulder Grazing Complex cover a large area with a diverse landscape of mountain uplands dissected by valleys. Almost all of the allotments are considered forested. The range capability and suitability analysis is displayed below with percentages of fully capable and suitable lands ranging between 40% and 46% for the allotments within the. Areas with slopes over 45%, with canopy cover over 60%, and lands with low forage production were considered less than fully capable. Table 3.2 Allotment Percent Capable/Suitable North Fork St. Peters 44% South Fork St. Peters 46% Snowcap 41% Bulldog 40% Areas considered fully capable represent where livestock spend most of their time and where effects would most likely occur. Though livestock grazing may occur in areas that

6 are less than fully capable or suitable, it is expected that use would be infrequent or inconsistent. Forest Plan forage utilization standards are adequate to ensure that resource needs are met on lands considered less than fully capable. Timber and fuels management such as commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfires can reduce canopy cover below 60%, creating transitory rangeland and changing those areas to fully capable. Vegetation Most of the allotments are timbered. The principle forage species are made up of a variety of native grasses as well as other palatable grass species. Native shrubs also furnish browse for livestock. The suitable rangelands in these allotments are very productive areas and have a mix of native grasses and forbs. Transitory rangelands also exist in these allotments and are the result of past timber harvest, past wildfires and road construction activities. In some of the allotments, fires have resulted in improved upland forage conditions. Many of the smaller trees and shrubs were removed, leaving fairly opened stands of timber with understories that support livestock grazing. The number of transitory rangeland acres is continually changing because of the amount of timber harvest and the amount of time that has passed since the timber harvest or wildfires has occurred. Transitory rangelands created by timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction activities were seeded with palatable forage for wildlife and livestock forage. Usable forage available for wildlife and livestock is 50 percent of the total forage produced (CNF Land and Resource Management Plan 2-12, 1988). Of the 50 percent available to livestock and wildlife, 45 percent is available to livestock. This equates to there being 22.5 percent of the total forage produced that is available to livestock. As provided in the 1988 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the allowable use levels in upland areas are 45% for forest lands and 55% for grasslands in satisfactory condition. There have been a few isolated incidents of exceeding Forest Plan forage utilization standards on the allotments of the in the past, but monitoring information has shown that permitted livestock grazing has been within Forest Plan standards consistently since No Action No Grazing Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, permitted livestock grazing of National Forest System lands within the North Fork St. Peters, South Fork St. Peters, Snowcap and Bulldog allotments would not continue without a subsequent NEPA analysis. Vegetation Under the no grazing alternative, herbaceous plants and shrubs would no longer be utilized by livestock. Plant productivity, diversity and species composition may change

7 over time in absence of livestock grazing. Preferred plants with low tolerance to grazing may increase in abundance. Plants that are grazing tolerant may become decadent and overgrown. In all four allotments, the no grazing alternative would allow an increase in bunchgrass production for bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and other bunchgrasses within the allotments. The establishment of older non-palatable plants would occur over time, unless some type of disturbance such as fire occurred. In the absence of livestock grazing, more herbaceous vegetative material would remain on the landscape. Soil erosion that results from high intensity rain events may decrease due to the additional vegetation and vegetative litter being able to intercept rain drops and reduce their impact in open areas such as meadows and areas considered primary rangelands (Simanton et al. 1991). Areas that are under a forest canopy would likely experience no change in regards to decreased soil erosion since the tree and shrub overstories act to intercept precipitation (Wilcox et al. 1989). Soil erosion may decrease under the no action alternative due to the retention of additional herbaceous litter (Simanton et al. 1991) and a reduction in the amount of bare soil associated with areas of concentrated livestock use, such as trails, around water troughs, corrals and at stream crossings. Range Improvement Projects Range improvements including: fences, water systems and corrals would remain on the allotments but would no longer be the responsibility of the permittees to maintain. Subsequent decisions would be needed regarding construction of new improvements for other resource needs such as wildlife or recreational use. Alternative funding sources for maintenance of range improvements would need to be secured if range improvements were to remain functional, or they would deteriorate on the landscape. If livestock management fences and water developments are not maintained and fall into a state of disrepair, there could be negative impacts to wildlife (Rosenstock et al. 1999). Deteriorating fences could also have a negative impact on motorized and non-motorized recreation since loose wire could entangle motorized vehicles, people, horses and pets. Private, state and other federal lands within or adjacent to the project area that are unfenced or have poorly constructed and/or maintained fences would not experience incidental livestock use from Forest Service permitted livestock as a result of the no action alternative since livestock grazing would not be authorized. Without livestock grazing on the allotments there would no longer be salting and water developments located away from riparian areas. Both these management practices are designed to promote livestock distribution and reduce impacts to the riparian resources. Minerals and supplements put out for cattle are often used by wildlife, though they would not be present in the no action alternative. The amount of resource monitoring occurring on National Forest Land would be decreased under the no action alternative within the. Livestock monitoring and compliance inspections would not take place since no livestock

8 would be present. This means less Forest Service personnel on Forest Service land to inspect road systems, locate areas of resource impacts, less public contact encounters, and less Forest Service presence. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Utilization information collected for the allotments of the reveals that use has been consistently occurring within the acceptable limits established in the Forest Plan. This indicates that past and existing stocking levels on these allotments are appropriate to protect grasses in upland foraging sites. Utilization of highly palatable introduced grasses, such as timothy, orchard grass and Kentucky bluegrass in the vicinity of roads, landings, and skid trails would likely experience higher utilization levels than native grasses. Utilization standards in native upland sites would continue to be met under this alternative. Upland range plant communities grazed under the current management of all 4 allotments in BGC indicate that the current management is meeting desired conditions for the allotment and it is expected that future grazing management under the proposed action alternative would also. Due to stocking rates, seasons of use, range readiness standards, and utilization standards, the proposed action alternative is unlikely to negatively affect the long term condition of forested stands in any of the allotments. As a result of continuing to graze the allotments within the, maintenance of existing range improvements and salting in uplands would continue on all of the allotments. With the construction of additional range improvements, maintenance responsibilities would increase for all the grazing permittees over what is required presently. Usual maintenance for projects that are in good or satisfactory condition generally requires little to be done each year. Each improvement would have to be visited annually by the permittees to ensure it is functioning properly and maintenance would occur as needed prior to and throughout the grazing season. Vegetation Livestock grazing has and would continue to primarily occur on upland habitats within the allotments in the proposed action alternative. Grassland communities, open ponderosa pine, Douglas fir communities, and managed mixed conifer stands would continue to provide much of the forage for livestock within the allotment, and this is where effects from grazing would most likely occur. Upland water sources in the form of water developments would provide most of the water for domestic livestock, focusing grazing in the uplands versus riparian areas. Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass plant communities are the prominent range plant communities. These plant communities are typically dominated by bluebunch

9 wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg s bluegrass, and prairie junegrass. Lupine, yarrow, balsamroots, buckwheat, phlox, and other species are usually present. Early season grazing (April to June 15) can be detrimental to bunchgrass species if continued over several grazing seasons (Johnson et al. 1992). Early seral or degraded conditions of these communities often show increases in annual brome species and some forbs (Johnson et al. 1992). Overgrazing within the allotments of the Boulder Grazing Complex is observed in very few places, such as areas adjacent to salting locations and water troughs, etc., and make up far less than 1% of the planning area. These isolated areas are not representative of the overall allotment management. Water Sources In general, developing water sources within the allotments would provide livestock additional places to drink which would better distribute livestock and increase foraging opportunities. Riparian vegetation would also be improved by installing these range improvement projects since livestock would likely be utilizing the water troughs to drink, rather than the undeveloped water sources in the vicinity. Specifically, developing a water source and installing a water trough in the Johnson pasture would provide livestock an additional place to drink while protecting the spring site and the riparian vegetation in this location. The site of the new water development is approximately ½ mile from any other developed water source on the North Fork St. Peters allotment and this range improvement project would allow for better livestock distribution and increased foraging opportunities in this pasture. If livestock are able to better utilize forage in this portion of the North Fork St. Peters allotment it could equate to reduced utilization levels observed in other portions of the allotment. Developing one water source within the South Fork St. Peters allotment would provide livestock additional places to drink which would act to better distribute livestock and increase foraging opportunities in the Green Spring and Pete s Loop Pastures. Riparian vegetation would also be improved by installing these range improvement projects since livestock would likely be utilizing water troughs to drink, rather than the undeveloped water sources in the vicinity. If livestock are able to better utilize forage in this portion of the South Fork St. Peters allotment it could equate to reduced utilization levels observed in other portions of the allotment. In addition, developing five new water sources within the Bulldog allotment would provide livestock additional places to drink which would act to better distribute livestock and increase foraging opportunities in the Upper Bulldog and Middle Bulldog pastures. If livestock are able to better utilize forage in this portion of the Bulldog allotment it could equate to reduced utilization levels observed in other portions of the allotment. In addition, the creation of the Middle Bulldog travel corridor In the Bulldog allotment would improve livestock distribution in the middle Bulldog pasture and make additional forage available for livestock. As a result of spreading the livestock use out over a greater area, livestock impacts are expected to decrease and utilization levels should be more consistent across the pasture

10 Also, developing three new water sources within the Snowcap allotment would provide livestock additional places to drink which would act to better distribute livestock and increase foraging opportunities in the Lower Boulder and Summit pastures. Water Development Reconstruction Reconstructing water developments would provide consistent off-site watering opportunities for livestock since it is expected that having a functioning water development would attract livestock to drink from it rather than from springs or streams that feed the troughs. This, in turn, should result in increased health and vigor of woody vegetation by reducing grazing impacts on the riparian areas. The amount of livestock trailing in and across riparian areas is expected to be reduced since livestock s preference would be to drink at the water trough locations, not at various and random locations along streams and springs. Brush Barriers and Riparian Exclosures Constructing brush barriers and riparian exclosures would act to protect and enhance both woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation occurring within the exclosure device. The areas proposed for brush barrier construction are being affected by livestock and these projects would eliminate livestock use of these areas for a period of 5 to 10 years while native vegetation is allowed to grow and mature. The riparian exclosures proposed would be long term exclosures and would remain in place until riparian management objectives are achieved. Loss of forage due to exclosures is minimal and should have no impact on livestock grazing or forage utilization. Hardened Crossings Construction of hardened crossings would create armored areas in the stream where livestock could access to drink water without causing stream bank damage. These sites would be constructed at existing stream access point and therefore livestock use in those areas would continue. Once constructed, the hardened crossings would reduce sedimentation by sloping and armoring the stream banks. Livestock use of the stream in proximity to the proposed hardened crossings is expected to decrease since livestock prefer to water at such areas compared to natural stream crossings. Drift Fences The proposed Middle Bulldog Gap and Bulldog Renner Drift fences would act as the physical allotment or pasture boundary and would act to stop livestock from drifting off of the Bulldog allotment or out of the appropriate pasture. By containing livestock within the appropriate pasture on the allotment, permittees would be more efficient when gathering and moving livestock and would not have to spend as much time looking for stock that has drifted elsewhere. The proposed West Boundary Drift Fence and Lower Boulder Pasture Fence extension, once constructed, would act as the physical allotment boundaries for the Snowcap allotment and would act to stop livestock from drifting off of the allotment and onto private property to the west and east

11 Pasture Creation The proposed action alternative proposes to add infrastructure, such as fencing and cattleguards, to create an additional pasture within the Snowcap allotment. This would change the allotment management from a two pasture allotment to a three pasture allotment which would allow for an improved deferred-rotation grazing system to be implemented. A deferred-rotation grazing system would allow for periods of deferment and vegetative recovery. This would result in healthier upland and riparian vegetation and sustain the rangeland resource into the future. A deferred rotation grazing system would allow range plants in the three pastures to be utilized for a shorter amount of time and the plants in each pasture would have the ability to either, grow and develop in the absence of grazing, or re-grow in the absence of grazing following a period of early season use. Deferment would allow upland grasses to complete their life cycles, seed production and carbohydrate storage cycles in the absence of grazing which would sustain plant health. Time spent managing and moving livestock under the proposed action would increase for the permittee of the Snowcap allotment with the creation of a third pasture compared to that required for the current two pasture system. Cumulative Effects No action No Grazing Alternative Many Forest grazing permittees produce livestock to provide for their livelihood. One permittee commented that grazing livestock on National Forest System lands allows them to grow winter feed for their cattle on their private property. Without continued authorization of grazing on Forest Service allotments within the Boulder Grazing Complex, permittees would likely have to modify their current operations, livestock numbers and/or grazing patterns. The effect to permittees would be of unknown proportions due to the intimate individual details of each ranching operation that extend beyond the boundaries of the Forest Service allotment. This action could result in negative outcomes for local agriculture, local economies and local communities. Private, state and other federal lands within or adjacent to the project area that are unfenced or have poorly constructed and/or maintained fences would not experience incidental livestock use from Forest Service permitted livestock as a result of the no action alternative since livestock grazing would not be authorized. The potential for permitted livestock to drift off of the Forest and get into the stock restricted area surrounding the town of Orient, WA would be less should the no action alternative be selected. Without grazing permittees needing to access water troughs and fences by using closed roads to perform maintenance activities, these roads would become less used and some

12 could become impassable. When combined with past, present and future road decommissioning, this could lessen the impacts of roads on the landscape. Proposed Action Between approximately 1975 and 1995 there was a dramatic increase in the amount of roads and timber harvest units which provided livestock access to riparian areas in the project area. In the past, many of these activities also prescribed the use of palatable forage species when seeding for erosion control. This created an environment that attracted livestock into riparian areas and provided desirable forage that allowed them to stay in these areas rather than moving on to native upland foraging areas. This has acted to cause livestock to have an adverse impact on water quality. Water quality within the has the potential to be influenced by livestock grazing. Permitted livestock grazing, livestock grazed on private property, human activities and wildlife species such as beaver all have impacts on water quality and fecal coliform levels in streams within the project area. By providing off-stream water sources for livestock that allow for increased upland grazing opportunities, permitted livestock are expected to spend less time in riparian areas than they currently do. As a result, water quality within and downstream from the would likely improve with implementation of the proposed action. Past timber harvest activities within the have resulted in a positive effect on the forage base. Timber harvest created openings in the forest which provided temporary additional forage for livestock by way of creating transitory rangelands. When transitory rangeland is created and available, it reduces the level of grazing pressure on primary and secondary rangeland. Transitional rangelands also provide an abundance of forage for livestock which produces heavier calves for the producers and higher economic gains when their calves are sold at market. Timber harvest is expected to continue in the area at current rates. The Deer-Jasper timber and fuels reduction project is currently in the planning stages and covers most of the area contained within the Snowcap grazing allotment with a few acres also being in the Bulldog allotment. Through implementation of the Deer-Jasper project, grazing opportunities would be improved with the thinning of the forest and the resulting creation of transitional rangelands. The post-implementation forest would appear more open and better suited to livestock grazing than conditions observed presently. Impacts to range and livestock management are expected to be mitigated through the Deer-Jasper project. Livestock foraging opportunities are expected to improve in all pastures of the Snowcap allotment, but the newly created Bulldog Cabin pasture is likely to see the greatest improvements in available forage. The entire area of the has been designated as a range area by Ferry County. This means that livestock can run at large; therefore it is the responsibility of landowners within the project area to fence their property should they not want permitted livestock to enter their property. Where private property fencing does not exist, it is expected that permitted livestock would utilize this land

13 Also, as a result of the area being designated as a range area, livestock should be expected to be seen on roads within the area. This includes County Road 602 also known as the Boulder Highway. The presence of livestock on public roadways does expose drivers to the risk of livestock/vehicle accidents. Under the proposed action, the recreating public would continue to have interactions with livestock on roads, trails and in the general forest. Since forest trail systems are located within the grazing allotments, summer and fall forest users should expect that livestock and livestock manure may be on trails. As a result of continued livestock use, developed water sources would continue to be maintained and available to people utilizing the Forest for recreational horse riding. In 1998, road damage sustained to the FS 6110 road (South Fork Boulder road) resulted in the bottom approximate 2.5 miles of this road system being closed. The closing of this road segment and the resulting loss of access has had direct and sustained effect to range management on the Bulldog, Lambert and CC Mountain grazing allotments. The alternative way for permittees to enter the area accessed by the 6110 road is to use the 6113 or Bulldog Cabin road which adds substantial distance compared to the 6110 route. A successful allotment management strategy for the Bulldog allotment has eroded due to a lack of access through the lower portions of this allotment. Livestock used to enter the allotment in the lower elevations and progress to the higher elevation pastures as the season progressed. Currently livestock are trucked onto the Bulldog allotment by the 6113 road and enter the Middle Bulldog pasture and do not take advantage of opportunities in the Lower Bulldog pasture. Everyday livestock management and range improvement project maintenance have been complicated by a lack of access. Permittees spend more time traveling to and from their allotments and less time completing the work related to livestock management. Should access be restored through the lower portions of the South Fork Boulder drainage, range and livestock management would improve and permittees would be more efficient in the management of allotments in the area. Grazing permittees have always been responsible for maintenance of range improvement projects and project maintenance is a term and condition of their grazing permits. Range improvement project maintenance is expected to increase with the proposed action alternative. Each improvement would have to be visited annually to ensure it is functioning properly and maintenance would occur as needed prior to and throughout the grazing season. Therefore, the increase in the number of projects to maintain would likely have an impact on the permittees time over that currently required. The proposed livestock exclosures that would be accomplished either by fencing or brush barriers, combined with current existing exclosures, would act to further protect riparian resources and water quality within the allotments of the. Excluding livestock from the proposed areas would allow riparian vegetation to improve in density and structural age class. Improved riparian vegetation would allow for increased stream bank stability improved stream channel characteristics

14 Continuing to permit the current number of livestock on the allotments within the Boulder Complex would allow for a sustained level of livestock production for the permittees, which equates to sustaining the local economy. Continuing the permitting of livestock within the project area could have some impact on post harvest regeneration rates of timber on NFS and private lands. Impacts to tree regeneration have been observed to be insignificant in dry, upland areas and therefore, the impact is likely minimal. With developments in wolf recovery it is expected that the allotments within the Boulder Grazing Complex would have wolves present in the future. There are currently no confirmed wolf packs in the area, but wolf sign has been observed. Impacts to range management are unknown at the present time, but wolf presence could potentially alter livestock use patterns on the allotments in the future compared to the past and present. Much of the high elevation areas within the make up a portion of the Profanity Potential Wilderness Area (PWA). Livestock grazing is an allowable use in the Profanity PWA. Should the Profanity PWA eventually be designated as Wilderness by Congress, livestock grazing would likely continue since permitted livestock grazing would have been authorized within the PWA prior to any designation as Wilderness. However, whether livestock grazing would be allowed within the Profanity PWA after wilderness designation would ultimately be determined by Congress through the language contained in the designating legislation

15 Noxious Weeds Introduction Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about noxious weeds is excerpted from the Project Invasive Plants Report by Travis Fletcher, Forest Noxious Weed Coordinator (Fletcher 2012b). The full text of this report is incorporated by reference and is available in the project analysis file. Many noxious weed species are present and established within the Boulder Complex, therefore, only the prevention of weed spread and/or the compounding of weed problems that could result from the alternatives will be discussed. The project will not address the treatment of existing weed locations or the spread of weeds that could occur independently of the actions proposed in alternatives. Treatment of existing noxious weeds within the project area is addressed in the Colville National Forest Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1998) and supported by the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program EIS and ROD (USDA Forest Service 2005). Framework Direction provided in the Forest Plan is that emphasis will be given to the control and reduction of noxious weed infestations. The Forest has also developed the Seeding and Planting Guide for the Colville National Forest, which addresses the need to seed vegetation such as grasses and legumes on highly disturbed sites and provides guidance to match sites with appropriate plant species. Direction is also provided by the Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines document, which was developed to minimize the introduction of noxious weeds, minimize conditions that favor the establishment of noxious weeds, and minimize conditions that favor the spread of noxious weeds. The Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (October 11, 2005) provides for seven standards for prevention of noxious weeds. There are three that apply to this project which are: Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread would be addressed in.grazing allotment management plans; vegetation management plans and other land management assessments. Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that would operate outside the limits of the road prism.require the cleaning of all heavy equipment prior to entering National Forest System Lands. Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management

16 Desired Conditions The occurrence and spread of noxious weeds would be reduced as a result of integrated pest management (USDA Forest Service 1988, page 4-64). Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects Existing Condition Noxious weeds are non-native plants that have been introduced and can be highly destructive, competitive and difficult to control. Noxious weeds can lead to degraded plant and animal habitat, displace native vegetation, and increase erosion and some are toxic to animals. Priority Weed Species The following table displays the noxious weed and invasive species known to exist within the project area and their control category as determined by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. Table 3.3 Noxious weeds in the planning area and their State designations. Species Common Name Control Category Yellow Hawkweed Class B Designate Orange Hawkweed Class B Designate Houndstongue Class B Plumeless Thistle Class B Designate Musk Thistle Class B Tansy Ragwort Class B Designate Canada Thistle Class C Bull Thistle Class C Absinth Wormwood Class C Common Mullein Unclassified Diffuse Knapweed Class B Spotted Knapweed Class B Designate Hoary Alyssum Class B St. Johnswort Class C Oxeye Daisy Class B Cheatgrass Unclassified The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has developed control categories to prioritize noxious weed species based on the seriousness of the threat they pose. Noxious weeds are classified into three major classes; Class A, Class B, and Class C

17 Class A weeds are non-native species whose distribution in Washington State is still limited. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations are the highest priority. Eradication of all Class A plants is required by law. There are no known Class A plant species within the project area. Class B weeds are non-native species which are presently limited to portions of the state. These species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet widespread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In areas where Class B species are already abundant, control is decided at the County level with containment as a primary goal. For species listed as Class B Designate, control is required. For species listed as Class B, control is required in vehicle corridors and areas of limited distribution and encouraged in areas of large infestations. Class C weeds are species that are already present and widespread across the state and control is encouraged in areas of large infestations, but not required. The above species listed as unclassified are invasive plants, but are not considered to be noxious weeds. Weed Treatments The Colville National Forest has documentation of noxious weed treatments dating back to the late 1970s, though utilizing herbicides to control noxious weeds was not common until the late 1990s. The planning area has had multiple noxious weed control efforts since 1998 which have acted to reduce the amount of noxious weed infested acres within the project area, and reduce the potential for spread. The Colville National Forest utilizes an integrated pest management approach to controlling noxious weeds. Noxious weed treatments have primarily focused on herbicide application, but cultural, mechanical and biological control methods have also been employed. The area contained within the boundaries of the Boulder Complex project area was most recently treated for noxious weeds in Spread of Noxious Weeds No Action Alternative If grazing were no longer permitted on the Bulldog, North Fork St. Peters Creek, South Fork St. Peters Creek and Snowcap allotments, there would likely be little to no noticeable difference in spread of noxious weeds. This is because the known noxious weed species within the are spread by a wide variety of vectors including wind, birds, gravity, vehicles, humans, animals and wildlife. Vehicles seem to be the primary vector of noxious weed spread by transporting noxious weed reproductive parts to non-infested areas. Elimination of livestock is unlikely to have an appreciable affect on rate or distance of spread since vehicle use is likely to continue. The exception to this is the spread of houndstongue, which may attach to hair or fur and be transported to new locations. Livestock are not the sole vector for seed dispersal and

18 therefore the seeds from these plants would continue to be spread by other means even in the absence of livestock grazing. Because other vectors would still be operating in the project area, the rate of houndstongue spread is likely to continue as is, or change only slightly. A biological agent known as Mogulones cruciger (weevil) was released in British Columbia in 1997, and preliminary results indicate the insect is having a significant impact on houndstongue. This biological agent is not approved for use or distribution in the United States, but it is moving its way south from Canada and has been seen as far south as Curlew, Washington. It is very likely that the Mogulones cruciger weevil exists within the. Yellow hawkweed, orange hawkweed, Canada thistle, bull thistle, plumeless thistle and musk thistle are all spread by wind blown seed. In addition to wind-blown seed dispersion, both yellow and orange hawkweed also spread by rhizomatous tillers (roots). These noxious weeds would continue to spread in the absence of livestock grazing. Diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed, absinth wormwood, common mullein, hoary alyssum, tansy ragwort, oxeye daisy and St. Johnswort all produce small seeds that are generally spread by wildlife, water, gravity, or in soil and seeds clinging to a vector. These noxious weeds would also continue to spread in the absence of livestock grazing. Under the no action alternative, small denuded areas resulting from concentrated livestock use, such as near water troughs, salting areas, corrals and livestock trails, would eventually have vegetation establish in the absence of livestock grazing. These areas, once vegetated, would be less susceptible to noxious weed invasion assuming that they are re-vegetated with desirable non-invasive species. These currently denuded areas represent a small area within the ; therefore the risk they currently pose is likely inconsequential. Many times the grazing permittees are the first people to observe and identify new noxious weed infestations within their allotments since they are frequently present within the allotment checking on and providing for their livestock. In the no action alternative, without grazing permittees presence and knowledge, some new noxious weed infestations would likely go undiscovered by Forest Service personnel. Proposed Action Alternative Under the proposed action, livestock grazing has the potential to influence weed establishment and spread through vegetation consumption, seed transport, and soil disturbance. Livestock grazing can affect the ability of native plant communities to outcompete and prevent invasive species from becoming established and spreading. Invasive plants can compete with and out-compete native species resulting in a decline in native species diversity and affect plant community condition and succession. The on-going presence of livestock within the allotments of the Boulder Grazing Complex may continue to spread houndstongue due to its seeds becoming attached to livestock hair. As livestock pass through areas with houndstongue plants, ripe seeds become caught in the animal s hair and get transported to other areas. The risk is that

19 seeds could detach and be deposited in areas that do not have houndstongue, thereby creating new infestations. Since livestock are but one of the means for this plant to disperse seed, the risk of exposing new areas to houndstongue infestation with the presence of livestock is marginal. This is especially true in light of the biological agents that would likely be impacting houndstongue plants in the project area in the near future and therefore reducing the occurrence of this plant on the landscape. The proposed action alternative has prescribed utilization standards, conservative stocking rates, and a deferred grazing systems that, when combined, act to reduce negative effects to plant community health. This in turn would reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of invasive species. Under the proposed action, ground disturbing activities may increase the potential for invasive plants to become established, however many invasive species can become established without disturbance. Areas where livestock are concentrated can result in soil disturbance that may lead to the establishment and spread of invasive plants. These areas include corrals and water developments and are considered high risk areas for soil disturbance. The establishment of invasive plants as a direct result of livestock at range improvements has not been a common occurrence on the allotments of the Boulder Grazing Complex. The proposed construction of fences and water developments would result in very small isolated areas of soil disturbance where noxious weeds could establish. Potential areas of noxious weed invasion associated with fencing include disturbed soils around brace posts and cattleguard installation. Potential areas of noxious weed invasion associated with water development construction and use would be denuded areas around water troughs and disturbed soils where pipelines would be buried. Because of the small size of the disturbed areas, they should be re-vegetated with desirable species in one, but possibly two growing seasons. These areas are routinely monitored both for maintenance needs and noxious weed infestations by permittees and Forest Service personnel. In areas where construction-type equipment would be used for project implementation, such as the proposed cattleguard installation and hardened crossing construction, there is a risk of noxious weed seeds and reproductive parts being introduced. The potential for noxious weeds becoming established at the above mentioned sites would be effectively mitigated by requiring the washing or cleaning of equipment prior to entering the National Forest and using only aggregate and fill from sites identified to be free of noxious weeds and noxious weed seeds. Cumulative Effects There has been an increasing trend in the introduction and spread of noxious weeds on the allotments of the Boulder Complex since the 1950s starting with goatweed followed by diffuse knapweed. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, a major increase in road construction and timber harvest created opportunity for the establishment of diffuse knapweed and many other newly introduced noxious weeds during this time. Livestock numbers were stable or in a declining trend during that same time period. With increased

20 disturbance and access, the spread of noxious weeds increased. In the 1980s, an increase in the amount and species of noxious weeds generally went unabated except for some minor mechanical treatments until the early 1990s. Due to the amount of roads that exist within the and the maintenance and use of these roads, noxious weed populations are expected to increase and spread in the future regardless of livestock grazing. Soil disturbance, such as that found to be associated with roads and motorized trails, appears to be critically important in the beginning of the invasion process since it creates openings for noxious weeds to occupy (Masters and Sheley, 2001). Fuel treatments, timber management and road construction and maintenance, all of which produce areas of soil disturbance, are likely to continue into the future. These areas of new disturbance are likely to remain the locations that are most susceptible to noxious weed invasion despite following the Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines because of exposed mineral soil and the presence of vectors that spread noxious weeds. Currently, livestock are a small contributor to noxious weed spread in the allotments of the when compared to motorized recreation and driving, which appear to be the main vectors for noxious weed spread based on the majority of noxious weed populations being associated with roads and user-created trails in the area. Within the, grazing permittees have the ability to travel level 1 Forest Service roads and trails with motorized vehicles to access some range improvements and complete livestock management practices such as salting and livestock inspections. This motorized access has the potential to introduce invasive plant reproductive parts to these areas. Permittee use of these routes is infrequent and unlikely to create bare soil conditions, therefore the risk of invasive plant establishment is low since vegetative cover would discourage invasive plant establishment. Driving for pleasure, motorized recreation, hunting, hiking, firewood gathering, dispersed recreation and camping are all expected to continue independent of the proposed action, therefore noxious weeds would continue to be spread by these sources. There have been past wildfires, both small and large, that have burnt within the Boulder Grazing Complex that have altered the appearance of the landscape. The risk of wildfires burning in the project area exists into the future. Wildfire has the potential to create bare soil conditions and therefore there would be opportunity for invasive plant establishment and spread following a wildfire event. The timing of livestock grazing return to any, all or portions of the allotments post-wildfire would be determined by and documented in fire rehabilitation plans. The Deer Jasper timber and Fuels reduction project is planned to occur within the Boundary of the with it primarily being contained within the Snowcap allotment. This project is planned to be implemented in the near future and

21 would create disturbance of the existing vegetation and soil. The Deer Jasper project could increase the risk of invasive plant establishment and spread. This risk is likely to be minimal due to the pre-implementation and post-implementation noxious weed treatments that would occur, as well as the re-vegetation requirements for the project. Forest road 6110, also known as the South Boulder Road, was closed in 1998 when a landslide removed a portion of the road after a period of record rainfall. Authorized access to the lower portions of South Fork Boulder Creek by motorized means was removed with the construction of earthen berms in an attempt to stop use of this route. There has been an analysis of many alternatives to restore access to the lower portion of the South Fork Boulder Creek drainage. Implementation of this effort could create areas of soil disturbance and slightly increase the amount of drivable road miles within the. Should there need to be newly constructed road to allow access again to the lower portions of South Fork Boulder Creek drainage, re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes would be required and, therefore would reduce the risk of noxious weed establishment. Increasing the amount of drivable road miles in the South Fork Boulder Creek drainage, relating to restoring access, would not noticeably change the risk of invasive plant establishment or the cost of treating invasive plants in this drainage or the greater. In spite of present and on-going noxious weed treatments in the area, which are implemented independent of this Environmental Assessment and the proposed action, populations of noxious weeds are expected to slightly increase and evolve based on trends that have been experienced to date. Effectiveness of noxious weed treatments is monitored and results have shown that the benefits of treatment can be observed for 2 to 5 years following an herbicide application event depending on the herbicide used and the type of soil present

22 Sensitive Plants Introduction This analysis was conducted by Colville National Forest Botanist Kathy Ahlenslager (2012) and can be found in full in the project file. No federally listed threatened or endangered plants or plants proposed for federal listing are known to occur in the BGC analysis area (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007 and 2009). Data Collection Intuitive-controlled sensitive plant surveys were conducted in 2009 and The intuitive controlled method first involves walking through the project area and the perimeter of the potential habitat. Next, the surveyor conducts a complete examination of specific areas of the project or walks more than once through an area. A map showing areas surveyed is on filed at the Colville National Forest Supervisor s Office. Framework Forest Service regulations direct the agency to ensure that management activities do not contribute towards listing or cause a loss of viability of species identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester. A sensitive plant is one thought to be vulnerable to becoming threatened or endangered due to low population levels or significant threats to its habitat (FSH ). The Forest Service Handbook (FSH ) directs sensitive plant management on NFS lands: All actions are taken to assure that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive species or result in an adverse modification of their essential habitat. Direction for the management of sensitive plants is also found in the standards and guidelines for the Forest Plan, No actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any plant or animal species or cause the need for listing any species threatened or endangered will be authorized, funded, or carried out by the Colville National Forest. When evaluating the potential effects of an activity on any species, the species status, its dependency on the affected habitat, and the extent or limitation of the habitat, will be evaluated as they influence the viability of populations within the Forest or the range of the species. The Colville National Forest is mandated to protect species viability for plants listed on the 2011 Regional Forester s Special Status Species List of Sensitive Vascular Plants. Botanical surveys on NFS lands are conducted for sensitive species documented or suspected to occur in planning areas with suitable habitat

23 Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects Sensitive Plant Species Two sensitive plant species are known from the Bulldog Allotment in the project area: crenulate moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) and black snake-root (Sanicula marilandica). Within two miles of the project area, Five sensitive plant species are documented from 11 sites: crenulate moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum), yellow lady s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), naked kidney lichen (Nephroma bellum), black snakeroot (Sanicula marilandica), and kidney-leaved violet (Viola renifolia). Potential habitat exists in the analysis area for 45 suspected sensitive vascular and non-vascular plant species. Treatments for noxious weeds would be the same in both alternatives. No Action Alternative Under No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue and natural processes would dominate. This alternative does not include livestock grazing or any proposed action projects. On-going activities such as fire prevention and suppression, dispersed recreation, mining, road maintenance, noxious weed treatments, and established special use permits would continue. No new activities would be initiated to accomplish proposed project goals. The effects of this alternative may impact individual sensitive plants, but are not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of any sensitive plant species. Proposed Action Alternative Since the intent of some of the proposed projects is to restore riparian areas, there should be a positive effect on sensitive plant habitat. The presence of livestock has the potential to add to the spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds displace native vegetation, including the habitats of sensitive plants. Trampling and destruction of individual sensitive plants by cattle may occur. Maintenance, monitoring, and actively moving cattle throughout the allotment can reduce potential impacts to sensitive plants caused by continued grazing. If the design criteria proposed for noxious weed control for this project area are implemented, then the proposed activities should not increase noxious weed distribution and so not affect sensitive plant populations. The effects of the proposed action may impact individual sensitive plants, but are not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of any sensitive plant (vascular or nonvascular) species. Effects described above are only valid if the design elements are implemented (see Chapter 2). If the design elements are implemented, the project may have an impact on individual plants, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Cumulative Effects The combined effects of cattle grazing and noxious weeds could negatively affect sensitive plant species over their ranges. Noxious weeds are not threats at the locations

24 of known sensitive plants for this project. With the addition of the design elements, especially related to noxious weed monitoring and considering the effects of other ongoing activities in the project area, no effects to sensitive plant population viability are anticipated from this project and therefore no cumulative effects are anticipated

25 Soils Introduction The section summarizes the existing condition information, along with the direct, indirect and cumulative effects from the alternatives, as analyzed in the Boulder Grazing Complex Soils Report, by Soil Scientist Hillary Talbott-Williams in the project analysis file (Talbott-Williams 2012). Data Collection The Soil Survey of North Ferry County Area, Washington (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 1982), the Land type Associations of North Central Washington (Davis et al. 2004), and the Geologic Map of the Republic 30 by 60 Quadrangle (Miller 2000) and the soil scientist s personal knowledge of this area obtained through numerous visits during the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011 provide the underlying information on which this analysis is built. Framework The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (US Congress 1960) directs the Forest Service to achieve and maintain outputs of various renewable resources in perpetuity without permanent impairment of the land s productivity. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (US Congress 1976) requires the Forest Service to safeguard the land s productivity. Forest Service policy is to limit the loss in long-term soil productivity potential. The Pacific Northwest Regional policy (FSM 2500, Watershed and Air Management, R6 Supplement ) and the Forest Plan emphasize protection of soil productivity by ensuring detrimental soil conditions that occur would not exceed 20 percent of the activity area. The Forest Service Manual 2500 (Chapter 2550 Soil Management) defines soil productivity as The inherent capacity of the soil resource to support appropriate site specific biological resource management objectives, which includes the growth of specific plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses. It also defines soil quality as The capacity of a specific kind of soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation and ecosystem health. The Colville National Forest is directed by the Region 6 soil quality standards to leave a minimum of 80% of the activity area in an acceptable soil quality condition. For the purposes of this analysis, the activity area is the pasture

26 Existing Conditions, Direct and Indirect Effects The project area encompasses grazing allotments on both sides of the Kettle Crest mountain range. While livestock have access to a large area, livestock use is light over most of it. More concentrated livestock use is found predominantly along roadsides and closed road beds, on old landings seeded with palatable grasses, and near water. This analysis will focus on the concentrated livestock use areas within the allotments. Timber harvest has been the most widespread and impactive use of the project area. The following table shows the percentage of each allotment that has had some timber activity and consequently some potential DSC (Detrimental Soil Condition) in the last 50 years along with estimates of DSC related to grazing use. Table 3.4 Existing DSC by allotment and pasture Allotment and Pasture Bulldog Percent of pasture area potentially in DSC from timber harvest Percent of pasture in DSC from grazing Lower 1% <1% Middle 1% <1% Upper 6% <1% Snowcap Summit 2% <1% Lower Boulder 2% <1% North Fork St. Peters McCann 7% 1-2% Long Alec 4% 1-2% Corral 3% 1-2% Johnson Unknown 1-2% South Fork St. Peters Green Spring Unknown 1-2% Mt. Leona 4% 1-2% Pete s Loop Road 14% 1-2% Existing detrimental conditions for each pasture were estimated using the following assumptions: Any area with past harvest is at 15% DSC. Sampling in previously harvested areas within the project area showed some harvest unit having a higher percentage of DSC, but the vast majority was less than 10%

27 Most livestock activity in these allotments is on existing roads and landings or within 50 feet of a wetland or creek. There is not much forage or water away from these areas. This causes impacts to be intensive but very spatially limited. Estimated livestock related DSC is less than 1% in the larger pastures and 1-2% in the smaller pastures. No Action Alternative Removing livestock from these allotments would remove the ongoing impact of trampling and trailing on sensitive soils. In some areas, the reestablishment of vegetation on bare soil areas would occur within the first year or two. In most areas, several years or longer would be needed to reestablish vegetation. Compacted moist swales and loafing areas would very slowly start to recover their porosity as vegetation slowly becomes established and root systems and soil organisms increased. Riparian and wetland plant cover and litter would increase, and the rate of organic matter accumulation in the soil would likely slowly increase. Disturbed stream banks would continue to erode for awhile, but would slowly stabilize either because of increased vegetative cover or because they would reach a new equilibrium. Existing Condition and the Proposed Action Alternative Upland grassy slopes These areas occur on moderately steep south and west facing slopes. They are more common on the west side of the Kettle Crest in the North Fork St. Peters and South Fork St. Peters allotments. Livestock use in these areas is generally moderate to light due to lack of water or limited access. Continued grazing would have little impact in these areas. The grazing intensity of the uplands would increase somewhat if livestock are successfully drawn into grazing the more open grassy uplands by improved water developments and management. This would cause increased compaction in the form of trailing on dry ground to, near, and between troughs, and may cause very small areas of localized erosion. The extent of compacted soil in new trails would be very small at a landscape scale and effects on soil productivity would be negligible. Proposed pasture creation in the Snowcap allotment may indirectly affect soil by allowing livestock to be distributed more evenly across the allotment. This may help relieve some of the pressure on heavily used areas. Distributing livestock use spatially and in time would mean less impact to soils in areas where cattle have congregated and stayed in the past. Maintenance of an existing livestock travel corridor may affect soil in much the same way. Maintaining a travel corridor in the uplands would facilitate the active management of livestock and make it easier for them to be moved from pasture to pasture away from riparian resources

28 Riparian areas, wetlands, and water developments The project area contains 180 acres of mapped wetlands. Some occur in conjunction with streams and some are in small depressions. Cattle use of the riparian areas is intense in some cases, but in general access is limited by natural barriers such as thick brush or trees and steep slopes. The most intense cattle use of riparian areas is where they have easy access at road crossings. Small, high gradient streams are especially hard hit where they are crossed by more than one road (known as stacked roads ). The animals access the channel at culvert inlets and then trail along the creek to the next crossing. Frequently used dispersed campsites and several unauthorized roads/ohv trails can be found along South Boulder Creek. One OHV trail in particular along South Boulder Creek goes through a riparian wetland and has caused rutting and puddling. Increasing the livestock s use of the grassy uplands should decrease the intensity of their impacts along streams. However, with continued grazing, impacts such as bank trampling and hoof churning of riparian and wetland soils would continue to some extent. Proposed pasture creation and creation of a livestock corridor would potentially benefit riparian and wetland soils by better dispersing livestock across the allotment and allowing for more active management of livestock. The proposed reconstruction of water developments would improve soil condition. The areas around these existing troughs would remain compacted and likely bare due to heavy hoof traffic. However, improved maintenance and function would decrease or eliminate the saturated conditions that lead to erosion, puddling, and deep churning. Overall erosion would decrease because of these projects. New troughs or new locations for existing troughs would cause a small area around the trough to become compacted and bare. These troughs would be designed to prevent the surrounding soil from becoming muddy and churned. This includes such actions as locating troughs on old road beds out of wet seepy areas and hardening trough areas with rock. In addition, proposed brush barriers and riparian exclosures that keep cattle out of wet areas would allow wetland and riparian soil to regain plant cover which would reduce erosion. The soils would begin to accumulate organic matter and slowly recover. Proposed hardened crossings would lessen riparian soil impacts by providing an area that livestock could cross and drink that is resistant to trampling. In conjunction with brush barriers or riparian exclosures, this would reduce the extent of riparian soil and stream bank that are impacted by livestock. Previously logged moist swales near roads The soil in these swales is very similar to the surrounding soil, but usually has a thicker, darker surface horizon because of the persistent moisture and may have a thicker ash cap. Judging by the large stumps, these moist swales likely had cedar and/or spruce growing in them and no defined channel before they were logged. During logging, the soil was

29 compacted in places by machinery and bare patches were seeded with palatable grasses. The combination of moisture, palatable forage, and easy access from nearby roads means that these swales receive grazing pressure. The combination of logging and cattle trampling has led to some degraded soil conditions. Continued use of these disturbed areas does not increase the total area of detrimental soil conditions. Better distribution of the livestock under the proposed action may reduce the intensity and duration of grazing in these areas. Compacted soils would remain compacted and erosion would continue however. The proposed Upper Bulldog water development may help to draw cattle away from the wet area near the junction of and the Bulldog Cabin road. The proposed Dry Creek brush barrier would help keep livestock out of the wet soil and riparian area which would reduce erosion and allow the soil and vegetation to begin to recover. Road prisms and old landings In all the allotments, livestock graze extensively along the margins of open roads and on the road bed and margins of closed roads. The productivity of these soils is already drastically altered, so grazing livestock along roads has negligible effect on soil productivity. However, livestock grazing along roads is problematic where cattle trail up and down road cuts that are either unstable or wet from seeps. While the effect on soil productivity is low, trailing can cause road maintenance and erosion problems. This is a problem specifically along the Boulder Highway where road construction exposed large cut banks of sandy outwash soil. Under the proposed action, livestock would continue to graze along roadsides, especially roadsides seeded in palatable grasses. Since the roadside grazing is limited to cut and fill slopes, the effects on site-productivity would be nil. Where cattle trail up and down sandy road cuts, localized erosion would continue. Creation of a new pasture in the Snowcap allotment would prevent livestock from accessing the steep sandy cut banks of the Boulder highway. This would allow the cut banks to continue to slowly revegetate and would slowly reduce the amount of erosion from these slopes. Cumulative Effects The Snowcap allotment is part of the Deer Jasper vegetation management project that is currently in the analysis phase. The Deer Jasper project would include both commercial and non-commercial timber harvest and prescribed fire, and may include road construction and decommissioning. Timber harvest creates skid trails that are often used by livestock and game as travel routes. Livestock use on old skid trails compacts them further, but only in a very narrow strip about 1-2 feet wide. Skid trails are already considered detrimentally compacted, so this does not increase the extent of detrimental compaction. The main effect of livestock use of skid trails is the slowed recovery of vegetative cover on the trail and very slight localized erosion where the soil remains bare. This does not constitute an appreciable impact on soil productivity

30 Construction of new specified roads or temporary roads in conjunction with the Deer Jasper project may create new travel corridors for livestock. If the roads lead to or are in close proximity to wetlands or riparian soils, livestock could access previously unaffected sensitive soils. Care would need to be taken when planning any new roads to prevent livestock entry into sensitive areas. The project area has some motorized recreation, nonmotorized recreation, and some dispersed camping. Unauthorized motorized use off of roads and trails impacts soil and can be a problem particularly in wet areas that may already be impacted by livestock. Most wet areas in these allotments are not open meadows which would typically attract mudders but one unauthorized trail near South Fork Boulder Creek goes through a wet area in Lower Bulldog pasture. Livestock use of that trail is light, but could be a problem if it increases. If the decision is made sometime in the future to reopen the South Boulder road, dispersed camping would likely increase and the easier access may also encourage more OHV use. Pioneered OHV trails can become livestock trails and the combined livestock and vehicle traffic would prevent the trails from becoming unidentifiable on the landscape. This is especially problematic in sensitive riparian soils like those along Boulder Creek. Development of new dispersed campsites and new footpaths from camp areas to the creek could open up more access for livestock. When new dispersed sites are created, the soil within the site becomes compacted and bare. Because livestock and people tend to like the same areas, it is common for livestock to use dispersed camps for loafing areas, which exacerbates the compaction and the disturbance. The cumulative reduction in soil productivity or soil quality from noxious weeds, bare and compacted soil from areas of cattle concentration, and unauthorized OHV use is expected to be well within Regional and Forest Plan Standards. Even in circumstances outside normal use, cumulative impacts of the above concerns should total less than 5 percent. Combined with potential impacts from continued grazing and from past and future timber harvest, potential effects to soil quality or soil productivity would be within Regional and Forest Plan Standards

31 Hydrology Introduction This chapter describes the existing hydrologic condition and potential impacts of the alternatives for the watersheds in the BGC. The full Hydrology report along with the supporting documents is available in the project file (Hickenbottom 2012). Data Collection The existing condition was obtained from historical and current fieldwork, Geographic Information System (GIS) generated reports, historical hydrology files, historical records, aerial photographs, published scientific literature, model outputs, roads analysis and current on-going research and monitoring. Framework The principle regulatory framework governing management of watershed resources on the Colville National Forest (CNF) for this analysis includes: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) Colville National Forest System Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1988) Federal Water Pollution Act (Clean Water Act) as amended (33 U.S.C , October 18, 1972, as amended ) Washington State Water Quality Standards Washington State Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Executive Order Protection and Management of Floodplains Executive Order Protection and Management of Wetlands Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects The assessment of existing condition describes the current condition of the project area, and provides a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action. This analysis bases the effects of the proposed action on five watershed resource indicators. Watershed Condition Watershed condition helps gage the effects of past disturbances in a watershed, such as roads in project watersheds (grazing does not have an effect on watershed condition). The density and distribution of roads, as well as field observations of ditch line and road conditions within most of the watersheds in the project area, indicate there is a moderate to high probability that the hydrologic regime is altered. Road surfaces limit infiltration, which causes surface runoff during storm events and snowmelt. Roads are also subject to surface and mass erosion. Surface erosion is the dominant erosion process on roads in the North Fork Boulder, South Fork Boulder, Saint Peter, West Deer, Long Alec, Lambert, and Lower Curlew Creek watersheds. In addition, past timber harvest and fire

32 have affected portions of each watershed. This has affected water yield and timing through reductions in forest canopy and soil compaction from skid trails and landings. Structures that are used to cross streams have a limited life span and capacity. There is always some period of time when a flood or landslide event would exceed the capacity of the crossing to safely pass water and debris. When stream crossings fail, large amounts of road fill can be directly delivered to streams, detrimentally affecting water quality and habitat for aquatic organisms. No Grazing Alternative There would be no direct effects to the watershed/hydrology because roads are not addressed in this project. Proposed Action Alternative Overall, there would be minimal direct effects to the watershed/hydrology because roads are not addressed with this project, and only 2 stream crossing improvements would be done. The roads would continue to degrade and generate sediment for the duration of their existence. Sediment Yield Sediment yield addresses sediment content as it affects water quality. Sediment yields are dependent on several factors such as climate, topography, soil type, vegetation, historic land use, and the dominant erosion processes (Stednick 2000). By altering infiltration rates, evapotranspiration rates, and disturbing the soil, forest management activities including road construction, timber harvesting, site preparation, cattle grazing and fuel reduction can greatly increase overland flow rates and sediment yields. The modeling and field data reveals that road erosion and sediment delivery is substantial in some areas, with a majority of all delivered road sediment coming from native surfaced roads. Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is increasing in meadows and other accessible areas of the watershed. Their use causes damage to riparian and other vegetation and exposes soil on steep slopes to sheet and rill erosion and sedimentation. Sediment production and delivery, as used in this analysis, refers to landslide potential and surface erosion. Roads and cattle trails are the primary focus for this issue, although other issues will be discussed when they have the potential to create or increase erosion. Minimizing the potential for roads to intercept, concentrate, and route water to streams and unstable slopes can reduce sediment production and delivery. Maintaining soil organic layers and functioning riparian zones are also strategies that are used to minimize sediment production and delivery. Dominant management-related sediment sources have been from non-maintained roads and road construction activities. The construction of many of the roads in the North Fork Boulder, South Fork Boulder, Saint Peter, West Deer, Long Alec, Lambert, and Lower Curlew watersheds occurred before standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) were required and presumably produced more sediment

33 Livestock grazing has also affected riparian areas and channel banks where animals can access the streams. Livestock grazing has influenced channel hydrologic function and sediment loads by changing channel shapes in heavily impacted areas, or removing vegetative stream cover. Disturbed channel shapes are wider and shallower than undisturbed. Historically, the channels appear to have carried a large amount of sand as a result of natural conditions, but the human influence since logging began, as well as wildfires and grazing has increased the quantity delivered to the streams. No Action Alternative This would result in the greatest long-term beneficial effects to the values at risk (stream morphology, water quality, etc.) because the cattle would be removed from the stream banks. There would be a measurable change in all streams that have been detrimentally affected by cattle use. They would no longer cause stream bank damage and increase sediment in the streams. However, without addressing any of the road issues, the sediment generated from the roads would continue and increase over time. Proposed Action Alternative There would be an immediate short-term increase in sediment, but a slight overall reduction in sediment risk and a slight decrease in sediment yield in the long-term. This assumes that the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and any ensuing restoration activity would be implemented. Proposed range improvement projects have been specifically designed to avoid or reduce the potential for sediment production and delivery. See Chapter 2 for information about design criteria and Appendix A for the Best Management Practices (BMPs). Channel Morphology Channel morphology is a means of measuring the function status of a channel based on its physical dimensions, patterns, and profile. Channel morphology in the project subwatersheds has been altered through two primary processes: sediment deposition and channel encroachment. Sediment deposition has occurred in areas subjected to road building, timber harvesting, recreation use, cattle use, and natural processes. Channel encroachment has occurred where roads and timber harvesting have taken place adjacent to streams and their floodplains. Throughout the analysis area, several of the streams surveyed show reaches that are currently being affected by decreased vegetative cover and/or road conditions. Physical stream functions are being compromised by a combination of erosion and a reduction in riparian vegetation to stabilize stream banks (Fisheries and Hydrology Project Files)

34 Table 3.5 Summary table showing number of streams surveyed and corresponding function determination Watershed South Fork Boulder Creek Lower Curlew Creek North Fork Boulder Creek # of Streams Surveyed # of Reaches Surveyed Stream Function Determination PFC=1, FAR=14, NPF=4 3 5 PFC=0, FAR=3, NPF= PFC=3, FAR=15, NPF=3 Saint Peter Creek PFC=0, FAR=6, NPF=5 West Deer Creek 5 12 PFC=0, FAR=3, NPF=2 Lambert Creek 3 6 PFC=0, FAR=2, NPF=1 Long Alec Creek 3 8 PFC=1, FAR=2, NPF=0 PFC=Properly Functioning Condition FAR=Functioning At Risk NPF=Not Properly Functioning A properly functioning reach supports its designated beneficial uses. A functioning-atrisk stream reach can still support its designated beneficial uses. The functioning-at-risk status indicates that there have been management effects on the reach and the potential for degradation is higher than that of a properly functioning reach. A functioning-at-risk reach may or may not be stable; and may or may not support its designated beneficial uses. A not-properly-functioning reach does not support its designated beneficial uses. For more detailed information regarding function calls, please see Hydrology Appendix H.7 in the project file (Hickenbottom 2012). No Action Alternative This would result in the greatest long-term beneficial effects to the values at risk because the cattle would be removed from the stream banks. Removing cattle would directly affect channel morphology in a beneficial way. There would be a measureable change in all streams that have been detrimentally affected by cattle use. Stream banks would heal, sediment and fecal contamination would decrease, and the channels would stabilize. Proposed Action Alternative There would be short-term beneficial changes to channel morphology. The changes may be measurable. However, overall morphology would be maintained. Many of the known sediment delivery sources would be rehabilitated (i.e. improving road crossings, removing cows from the stream, etc.), but cattle use would still be occurring. Water Quality Water quality addresses the chemical characteristics that could affect the quality of municipal water and secondary source waters, as per the Safe Drinking Water Act. Due to several of the streams on the forest not meeting Washington State Water Quality

35 Standards, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) wrote a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) (Water Cleanup Plan) document in June of 2005 as required by the Clean Water Act. The document covered all exceedences of the Temperature, Bacteria, ph and Dissolved Oxygen criteria on the Colville National Forest and set Daily Loads for 13 Temperature and 13 Bacteria sites. The Daily Loads are the state standards and the Implementation Plan of October 2006 requires annual reporting of improvement activities to the DOE. Table 3.6 TMDL listings in the Project Area Watersheds Watershed North Fork Boulder South Fork Boulder Stream Boulder Creek North Fork Boulder Creek South Fork Boulder Creek U.S. Creek # of listings Pollutant of Concern **1996 Listing **1998 Listing #2004 Listing #2008 Listing 1 Temperature Cat 4A Cat 4A 1 ph Cat 2 Cat 2 4 ph Cat 2 Cat 2 Temperature X Cat 2 Cat 2 Fecal Coliform X Cat 2 Cat 2 DO X Cat 2 Cat 2 1 ph X Cat 2 Cat 2 Saint Peter St. Peter Creek South Fork St. Peter Creek North Fork Saint Peter Creek 3 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3 Fecal Coliform X X Cat 5 Cat 5 Cat 5 Cat 5 X X Cat 2 Cat 2 Temperature Cat 2 Cat 2 Fecal Coliform Cat 2 4 DO Cat 2 Cat 5 ph Cat 2 Fecal Coliform Cat 5 Cat 5 Temperature Cat 5 West Deer There are no water quality listings in this watershed. Long Alec Lambert There are no water quality listings in this watershed. Lambert Creek Temperature Cat 2 Cat 2 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform X X Cat 4A Cat 4A Cat 5 Temperature Cat

36 9 Temperature Cat 5 Temperature Cat 5 Temperature Cat 5 Temperature Cat 5 ph Cat 2 Unnamed Tributary 1 Temperature Cat 5 Lower Curlew There are no water quality listings in this watershed. * DO = Dissolved Oxygen; Thermal Mod. = Thermal Modification/Temperature Impairment # Category definitions are described in Hydrology Appendix H.2. In summary, the Integrated Report classifies all of the state's waters into one or more of five different categories, which correspond to the five categories of the report: Category 1: Waters of the State Attaining Standards tested for; Category 2: Waters of Concern; Category 3: Waters of the State with Insufficient Data and Information to Determine if Any Standards are Attained; Category 4: Impaired or Threatened for One or More Standards and has a TMDL; 4a indicates water bodies with completed and approved TMDLs that are being implemented; Category 5: TMDL Needed (This is the 303(d) list). ** An X in the 1996 or 1998 column indicates that parameter was on Washington State s 303(d) list for that year. No Action Alternative This would result in the greatest long-term beneficial effects to the values at risk because the cattle would be removed from the stream banks. There would be direct short term and long term beneficial effects. Past monitoring across the forest shows that removing cattle from these areas would remove the fecal coliform concerns caused by cattle. Water quality, as it relates to fecal coliform, would improve. However, without road improvements or decommissioning, water quality as it relates to sediment would continue to decline. Proposed Action Alternative In the North Fork Boulder Creek, South Fork Boulder Creek, and Saint Peters Creek watersheds risks to beneficial uses would be somewhat reduced. Water quality issues associated with the approved TMDL would be addressed with improvements striving to benefit the TMDL process and reduce pollutants of concern. The proposed actions for keeping cattle away from the streams would have a net beneficial effect and would work toward the approved TMDL Desired Future Condition. Water Yield Water yield timing and peak flow levels may change as road systems intercept ground water or act as a conduit for rapid runoff during high intensity rainstorms or rapid snowmelt periods. Roads change slope hydrology and may affect water runoff. Roads act like an extension of the stream channel system, and roads can intercept and divert water into stream channels and increase the rate that water leaves the site. Past timber harvest, fire, and grazing have affected portions of each watershed. This has affected water yield and timing through reductions in forest canopy and soil compaction from skid trails, landings, and cattle trails. Timber harvest, cattle grazing and road construction has occurred on private, corporate, and state land. Management induced or

37 natural changes in water yield are most discernible in first and second order streams (MacDonald, 1989). The analysis of the four other watershed condition indicators suggests the watersheds currently support stable water yields and have not been drastically altered. No Action Alternative In the absence of a future stand-replacing wildfire, the current levels of water yield and peak flows would be expected to continue. If a stand-replacing fire were to occur, water yield and peak flows would increase until vegetation reestablishes. Although it would not be measurable, there would be some beneficial effect to water yield, due to the decrease in soil compaction with the removal of cattle. Proposed Action Alternative Proposed activities are expected to minimally affect water yield. Because there are no proposals to remove roads, and no removal of grazing, there would be no beneficial effects to water yield; the current detrimental effects would continue. Therefore, there would be no change from the existing condition. The proposed action meets Forest Plan requirements for water resources. The Proposed action also meets other regulations pertaining to water quality and beneficial uses, as described at the end of the watershed/hydrology discussions. For detailed descriptions of the individual watersheds in the BGC analysis area and a discussion of the key resource indicators in each, see the full hydrology report (Hickenbottom 2012). The following table is a summary of the direct and indirect effects by indicator of the different alternatives considered on the hydrological resource

38 Table 3.7 Summary of the direct and indirect effects on the hydrologic resource Indicator Proposed No Action Existing Condition Comments Action Watershed Adverse Adverse Adverse Existing roads continue to degrade and generate sediment Sediment Channel Morphology Water Quality Water Yield With the implementation of the BMP s there would be an improvement With the implementation of the BMP s, there would be an improvement over the existing condition Would move the TMDL towards the desired future condition Minimal benefit The better alternative in the long term; elimination of cattle trampling Effects are beneficial; there would be no cattle directly impacting the channel The best alternative in the longterm Minimal benefit but better than Proposed Action Adverse Adverse Adverse due to existing roads and cattle presence which contribute sediment and feces Water yield not drastically altered by the existing condition Existing roads continue to supply sediment Proposed Action fixes most of the known sources of channel degradation Existing roads continue to contribute sediment and degrade water quality Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area in this project, for hydrology resources, is South Fork Boulder Creek, Lower Curlew Creek, North Fork Boulder Creek, Saint Peter Creek, West Deer Creek, and Long Alec Creek. Lambert Creek watershed would be minimally analyzed due to the small amount of the proposed project area within this watershed. These areas were chosen based on the degree and types of proposed activities planned within these basins. The appropriate scale or geographic bounds for cumulative effects

39 analysis relates to an area that would be affected by the proposed action. This area is referred to as the cumulative effects analysis area and may vary between resources. The task of selecting the geographical boundaries involved several factors, including the scope of the project considered, the features of the land, and point of diminishing effects. The boundaries of the cumulative effects analysis area are drawn along natural topographic features and are largely comprised of watershed delineations. Approximately 30% of the cumulative effects area is on private lands or other lands outside of the Colville National Forest Administrative boundary. Watershed Condition No Grazing Alternative Under the No Grazing alternative, risk to beneficial uses would still increase. The beneficial uses would likely be supported in years that did not experience extreme events. However, the amount of resource damage experienced during the future extreme events (e.g. 100-year flood, stand-replacing wildfires) would be more severe than current conditions. Roads would continue to be utilized, especially riparian roads. This in combination with other management activities would continue to degrade the roads and contribute detrimental effects to the watersheds. Under the no grazing alternative, there would still be cumulative effects but not from grazing. The cumulative effects would be a result of the Deer-Jasper Vegetation Management Project which is currently in the analysis phase. This project may include road construction and decommissioning. This would affect the watersheds by either increasing or decreasing road density. The removal of cattle grazing would alleviate some of the detrimental effects of having the roads on the landscape, but not by much. Proposed Action Alternative Watershed condition, as it relates to road density, would degrade or stay the same. The Proposed Action does nothing to address the road density issues within these watersheds. Conditions would not be improved. Although road density would not increase on National Forest System Lands, it would not decrease either, and the current effects to the system would continue as no improvements would be implemented. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, risk to beneficial uses would still increase. The beneficial uses would likely be supported in years that did not experience extreme events. However, the amount of resource damage experienced during the future extreme events (e.g. 100-year flood, stand-replacing wildfires) would be more severe (i.e. 100 fold) than current conditions. Accordingly, beneficial uses may be impacted to a greater extent and the recovery would be slower under the proposed action alternative than under the no grazing alternative. There would be cumulative effects from roads that would continue to be utilized by cattle, especially riparian roads. Vegetation projects, such as the Deer-Jasper Project, may include road decommissioning and road construction or reconstruction. This in combination with continued grazing under past management activities (without the implementation of the adaptive management strategy) would continue to degrade the roads and contribute detrimental effects to the watersheds. It would also contribute to creating new cattle access routes and use. The road density in the watersheds would either decrease or increase depending on project proposals. This in combination with

40 continued livestock grazing would exacerbate the detrimental effects of road density (sediment erosion, altered hydrologic processes, etc.). Sediment Yield No Grazing Alternative Watershed recovery would continue at the current rate, in the absence of a large disturbance such as wildfire or flood. The risk of sediment erosion would depend on the extent of the vegetation change, conditions of the soil, floodplain and channel conditions, and weather following natural events, due to the effect of removing cattle from the land. The removal of cattle grazing would result in a reduction of sediment yield in the watersheds. Although roads would still be present and would contribute an increase in sediment erosion, any effects would not be further magnified by cattle grazing. Projects such as Deer-Jasper would contribute to sediment erosion, either temporary through timber removal or road decommissioning, or permanent through new road construction or reconstruction. The removal of cattle would not add to these effects. Proposed Action Alternative The combination of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action alternative, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, would result in a short-term decrease in sediment, but an overall increase in sediment risk and a net increase in sediment yield in the long-term. Based on the direct and indirect effects, the risk of sediment delivery from cattle reaching a live channel is moderate to high, depending on the site. Although this may appear to be localized, cumulatively all of these sites detrimentally affect the watershed. The effects are measureable through sediment increases and transport issues and channel morphology alterations. The amount of sediment produced by the proposed action would still be higher than that of the no grazing alternative due to the continued presence of cattle. This project would not impair or degrade beneficial uses within the watersheds overall; but it would do very little to help reduce the degree of sediment generated in the long-term. Overall, the cumulative effects would be beneficial because actions are being taken to address critical issues in several of the watersheds. The watersheds that may see the most beneficial effects would be Saint Peters Creek, South Fork Boulder and North Fork Boulder. This is due to the number of proposed range improvement projects in relation to the size of the watersheds. Lower Curlew, West Deer, Lambert and Long Alec Creek watersheds would see no change in sediment production due to the lack of proposed improvements. These watersheds would continue with their current trend. Sediment yield associated with cattle grazing is assumed to recover relatively quickly, whereas roads tend to produce a level of long-term, chronic sediment yield; such us the case with the South Boulder Road. It has, and continues to produce increased erosion. It remains a source of sediment yield, and adds to the cumulative effects of the activities and functions within the watershed

41 The proposed action of continued grazing in combination with future timber sales including road decommissioning, construction and reconstruction would add to the cumulative effects in the watersheds. Cattle would use the new (or improved) roads, thus increasing sediment generated. The effects of motorized recreation, non-motorized recreation, and dispersed camping contribute detrimentally to the sediment issues as well. Adding cattle activity to these other actions may exacerbate the amount of sediment being generated. Channel Morphology No Grazing Alternative Implementing the No Grazing Alternative would be cumulatively beneficial over time and space. As riparian function improves on individual reaches of a given stream, the channel downstream from the affected reach would benefit from less energy being contained in the channel, as well as decreased sediment levels, and more favorable temperature regimes (Rosgen, 2001). These changes would have subsequent beneficial effects on other aspects of riparian function, such as fisheries, wildlife, and irrigation (Shepard, 1989). Cumulative beneficial effects would be most evident in reaches that are presently functioning-at-risk or not-properly-functioning or those that are presently listed for water quality violations. The time it takes for cumulative beneficial effects to be manifested in downstream reaches can be expected to lag behind the establishment of those direct beneficial effects. There would be no cumulative detrimental effects from implementing the no grazing alternative. The no grazing alternative would move streams towards the desired future condition. Although future management activities would occur (Deer-Jasper Vegetation Project), the activities associated with the timber project would not be within the stream channels. Therefore, the morphology of the channels would most likely not be affected by the timber sale. Cumulatively, removing grazing would help improve the morphology. Proposed Action Alternative The effects of implementing conservation measures through adaptive management actions would result in cumulative beneficial effects over time and space. As riparian function improves on individual reaches of a given stream, the channel downstream from the affected reach would benefit from less energy being contained in the channel, as well as decreased sediment levels, and more favorable temperature regimes (Rosgen, 2001). These changes would have subsequent beneficial effects on other aspects of riparian function, such as fisheries, wildlife, and irrigation (Shepard, 1989). Cumulative beneficial effects would be most evident in reaches that are presently functioning-at-risk or not-properly-functioning or presently listed for water quality violations such as fecal coliform. It s likely that the more direct effects of grazing, dewatering, and channel migration might well compromise any beneficial effects within the allotments. The time it takes for cumulative beneficial effects to be manifested in

42 downstream reaches can be expected to lag behind the establishment of those direct beneficial effects. The proposed adaptive management actions would help to move the streams towards the desired future condition. The effects of certain actions would be determined by monitoring physical and vegetative indicators of riparian function. The results of this monitoring would, in turn, guide management direction. Future vegetation projects, in combination with motorized and non-motorized activities, in combination with continued grazing, would have a detrimental cumulative effect. The proposed action through the implementation of range improvement projects would help improve stream conditions. But to continue the grazing activities, and not improve any of the other issues (roads, recreation) would not help improve morphology. Many of the beneficial outcomes of the activities would be off-set by the already altered surroundings. Water Quality No Grazing Alternative The effects of implementing the No Grazing Alternative would result in cumulative beneficial effects over time and space. As riparian function improves on individual reaches of a given stream, the channel downstream from the affected reach would benefit from less energy being contained in the channel, as well as decreased sediment levels, and more favorable temperature regimes (Rosgen, 2001). These changes would have subsequent beneficial effects on water quality. Cumulative beneficial effects would be most likely evident in reaches that are presently listed for water quality violations. The time it takes for cumulative beneficial effects to be manifested in downstream reaches can be expected to lag behind the establishment of those direct beneficial effects. There would be no cumulative detrimental effects from implementing the no grazing alternative. Based on the preceding effects discussion, the no grazing alternative would have beneficial cumulative effects and move the streams and watersheds toward the desired future condition and improve water quality. By removing cattle grazing from the system, water quality would improve. Cattle are a large contributor of fecal coliform in many of the waters in these watersheds. By removing cattle, the quality of the waters would improve over time. Even with future project activities, the water quality would still improve. Proposed Action Alternative There would be beneficial cumulative effects to the North Fork Boulder, South Fork Boulder, Saint Peters, and West Deer Creek watersheds; and negligible effects on Lambert, Lower Curlew, and Long Alec Creek watersheds from the Proposed Action Alternative. There would be some detrimental cumulative effects to all the watersheds due road related issues

43 The effects of implementing conservation measures through adaptive management actions would result in cumulative beneficial effects over time and space. As riparian function improves on individual reaches of a given stream, the channel downstream from the affected reach would benefit from less energy being contained in the channel, as well as decreased sediment levels, and more favorable temperature regimes (Rosgen, 2001). These changes would have subsequent beneficial effects on water quality. Cumulative beneficial effects would be most likely evident in reaches that are presently considered waters of concern for water quality issues. The time it takes for cumulative beneficial effects to be manifested in downstream reaches can be expected to lag behind the No Grazing Alternative. The adaptive management actions proposed would help move the streams toward the desired future condition and improve water quality. Water quality concerns related to fecal coliform would improve with the implementation of the proposed action and with any needed mitigation implemented through the adaptive management strategy. There would be a detrimental effect to the watershed if future projects, such as the Deer-Jasper Vegetation Project, create new travel corridors for livestock. But, with the adaptive management activities, this detrimental effect can be mitigated. Water Yield No Grazing Alternative Water yield or peak flows would be minimally affected. Although cows would be removed from the watersheds, the effects of the roads would still be present. Soil compaction would continue to reduce water infiltration, so effects to water yield and peak flows would virtually remain the same. Cumulatively, water yield would slightly decrease (due to removing the cows) in the short-term but then return to the current trend due to the roads and existing forest cover. Watershed recovery would continue at the current rate, in the absence of a large disturbance such as wildfire or flood. Effects to water yield and peak flows from a potential fire are highly variable depending on timing, location, size, weather, and suppression activities. Runoff timing and quantity would reflect the magnitude of the disturbances. The risk of peak flows would depend on the extent of the vegetation change, conditions of the soil, floodplain and channel conditions, and weather following natural events. In the absence of a stand-replacing wildfire, stand cover would increase, as no fuels treatments would occur. The watersheds would continue to support current water yields and peak flows. If a stand-replacing fire were to occur, then the stand cover would decrease, which would in turn increase peak flows and increase water yield. The decrease in stand cover would be dependent upon the size and severity of the fire. Proposed Action Alternative The proposed activities and the direct and indirect effects of increased peak flows combined with the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, would not result in significantly adverse cumulative effects to the watersheds in the Boulder

44 Grazing Complex. There would be little, if any change, in the watersheds. The trends would continue at their current rate and direction. Watershed recovery would continue at the current rate, in the absence of a large disturbance such as wildfire or flood. Effects to water yield and peak flows from a potential fire are highly variable depending on timing, location, size, weather, and suppression activities. Runoff timing and quantity would reflect the magnitude of the disturbances. The risk of peak flows would depend on the extent of the vegetation change, conditions of the soil, floodplain and channel conditions, and weather following natural events. In the absence of a stand-replacing wildfire, stand cover would increase, as no fuels treatments would occur. The watersheds would continue to support current water yields and peak flows. If a stand-replacing fire were to occur, then the stand cover would decrease, which would in turn increase peak flows and increase water yield. The decrease in stand cover would be dependent upon the size and severity of the fire. The following table is a summary of the cumulative effects of the different alternatives considered by indicator on the hydrologic resource. Table 3.8 Summary of the cumulative effects on the hydrologic resource Indicator Watershed Condition Past Actions Road building before the advent of BMPs. Existing Condition Poor high to moderate risk rating due to high road density causing interruption in the hydrology system of the watershed. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Risk to beneficial uses increases due to the continued effect of the roads on the landscape. This risk would occur even if you removed grazing. Overall, watershed condition would continue to deteriorate. Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Grazing in combination with the road issues would exacerbate the detrimental effects to the hydrologic system. Open roads allow for increased cattle access and an increase in the effects that roads have on the watershed. Sediment Timber Harvest and road building before the Poor due to high road density which has caused increased erosion and a lack of There would be a slight decrease in sediment delivery over Grazing in combination with erosion from roads would exacerbate the

45 advent of BMPs. Also, past wildfires and past grazing. riparian vegetation in some places. time. The roads on the landscape would continue to erode and generate sediment. The sediment specifically from grazing use would lessen, but the roads would still continue to contribute sediment. detrimental effects of sediment erosion. Open roads and the lack of riparian vegetation, allow for increased cattle access and an increase in sediment erosion. There would be an incremental increase in sediment erosion. Channel Morphology Timber Harvest and road building before the advent of BMPs. Also, past wildfires and past grazing. Poor to Stable not-properlyfunctioning to functioning-atrisk (site specific). This is due to the direct effects of cattle in the stream channels. Bank erosion and altered morphology result; thus moving the streams towards not-properlyfunctioning status. The effect would be beneficial. There would be no direct impact to channels due to livestock grazing. The effect of livestock on the system is most evident in the channel morphology of the streams. This alternative would have a beneficial cumulative effect on the morphological system. Removing the livestock use would allow these channels to heal. Grazing in combination with the past activities would exacerbate the detrimental effects to channel morphology by increasing channel instability. Increased cattle use to the streams would result in more changes in channel condition and altered morphology

46 Water Quality Timber Harvest and road building before the advent of BMPs. Also, past wildfires and grazing. Poor to Good in compliance to out of compliance (site specific). Some sites are out of state water quality compliance due to fecal numbers. This is the best alternative in the long term. Removing livestock grazing from the watersheds would remove a source of fecal coliform. This would in term have beneficial cumulative effects on the water quality. The introduction of fecal coliform by livestock would be eliminated. Grazing in combination with past activities may exacerbate the problem. While livestock presence would continue within the allotments of the Boulder Grazing Complex, it is anticipated that livestock would spend less time in riparian areas. Tough reduced, there is still potential for livestock to contribute fecal coliform to streams which could detrimentally affect water quality. BMPs would be used to help mitigate these concerns. Proper BMPS should improve on this condition, but would require increased monitoring and adaptive management. The hydrology system of the watersheds has stabilized from the past activities. Water yield would not be Water Yield Timber Harvest and road building before the advent of BMPs. Stable has since recovered from the past activities. This alternative would have a minimal benefit but would be more beneficial than the proposed

47 Also, past wildfires. action. The removal of livestock would help to reduce compaction issues, which would in turn alleviate compaction s effect on water yield. drastically altered by the presence of continued grazing

48 Riparian Areas and Fisheries Introduction This section presents the existing condition and effects analysis for the Boulder Grazing Complex Range Project for Fisheries and the Inland Native Fisheries Strategy (INFISH). The full Fisheries report for the BGC project is available in the project file (Honeycutt 2012). Data Collection Fisheries population surveys were done in the analysis area in 1989, 1992, 1994, and 2006 in conjunction with Region 6 Hankin and Reeves habitat surveys. In the non fish-bearing tributaries, there were 74 sites surveyed in the analysis area on allotments in the summers of 2009 and Framework The principle regulatory framework governing management of fishery resources on the Colville National Forest (CNF) for the analysis includes: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) Colville National Forest System Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1988) Inland Native Fish Strategy, 1995 (INFISH) Minimum standards for accomplishment of the riparian management goals are included in the Colville National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (CNF LRMP) with amendments. These amendments include the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), which outlines specific objectives such as pools/mile, water temperature, amount of woody debris, and others. Existing Conditions, Direct and Indirect Effects Fisheries The fish-bearing streams within the planning area include North Fork Boulder Creek, South Fork Boulder Creek, Cabin Creek, US Creek, Indian Creek, the North Fork St. Peter Creek, and the South Fork St. Peter Creek. No pure Westslope Cutthroat trout have been found within the planning area. They were stocked in the 1930 s in Curlew Lake. However, none have been found since. Boulder Creek has rainbow trout that are rainbow/interior redband/westslope cutthroat trout hybrids. This analysis would focus on Redband/Rainbow Trout and Eastern Brook trout

49 Since the habitat needs for Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Bull trout are the same as Redband/Rainbow trout, the effects would be the same. A small population of rainbow trout is present in the planning area in North Fork St. Peter Creek. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has stocked rainbow trout in Curlew Lake on and off for at least 25 years. Whether these fish are native to North Fork St. Peter Creek or progeny from fish previously stocked in Curlew Lake is unknown. Cutthroat trout / rainbow trout hybrids were found in Boulder Creek and its tributaries. Cattle grazing, mining, stand-replacing fires, and road building have reduced the habitat quality in the fish bearing streams in the planning area. Brook trout populations are found in Curlew Creek, North Fork Boulder Creek, South Fork Boulder Creek, Cabin Creek, US Creek, Indian Creek, the North Fork St. Peter Creek, and the South Fork St. Peter Creek. The populations are what would be expected for these types of streams. They have possibly out-competed the rainbow trout in the area for habitat. Brook trout spawn at an earlier age than rainbow trout therefore the requirements for adult habitats are shallower. Eastern brook trout populations do better in poor quality habitats and therefore have surpassed the redband trout as the main fish species present in these streams.. Habitat Cattle foraging along the roads, stream channels, and wetlands are impacting riparian areas across the analysis area. Most of the direct impacts occur in the non fish bearing tributaries. The sediment produced from trampling is impacting downstream fisheries. Riparian Management Objectives Existing Condition and Effects of the Alternatives Most of the fish bearing streams in the planning area are not directly impacted by cattle because they have armored banks, are well forested, and there are no large meadow systems where cattle would stay for long periods of time. Large Woody Debris (LWD) The surveyed reaches on the South Fork of St Peter Creek do not meet the INFISH riparian management objectives for LWD. Past riparian harvest, burns, and wood removal has reduced the amount of wood available for the stream. For non-fish bearing systems, wetlands and small streams, large woody debris recruitment has been impacted by cattle. Removing cattle (no action alternative) would not affect LWD recruitment in Boulder Creek, North Fork Boulder, South Fork Boulder, and Cabin Creek. Large woody debris recruitment would increase on non fish-bearing streams. Areas where riparian vegetation has been suppressed would recover. Removing cattle would not affect LWD recruitment in the North and South Forks of St Peter Creek

50 Under the proposed action alternative, large woody debris recruitment would increase on non fish-bearing streams. Areas where riparian vegetation has been suppressed would recover through the implementation of the proposed projects. The effect would be less than the no action alternative since not all affected areas have been found and identified. Bankfull Width to Depth (BFWD) The BFWD riparian management objective is being met in all of the reaches except two on the South Fork of Boulder Creek and one on the North Fork of Boulder Creek. The South Fork of Boulder Creek exceedances are caused by cattle impacts, dispersed recreation, and increased sediment supply from the 1998 landslide, road washouts, and one of the tributaries. The North Fork of Boulder Creek exceedance is caused by mass wasting and sedimentation. Part of the sediment supply coming in to the North Fork is the Highway cutslopes. These cutslopes consist of a sandy soil type that erodes easily. When disturbed, these slopes do not revegetate easily. Cattle have been negatively impacting the revegetation efforts (Ahlenslager, Bailey, 2010 monitoring). Cattle have also been loafing in the small riparian areas along the cutslopes further inhibiting revegetation. The cattle travel up the small streams to the next roads. This travel is causing downcutting and/or widening of the streams. On the South facing aspects, cattle have caused down cutting or channel widening. Removing cattle use under the no action alternative would move the sites toward meeting the INFISH riparian management objective for BFWD. Cattle grazing at numerous road crossings have reduced the riparian vegetation and stream s ability to effectively store sediment on floodplains and terraces. By removing one component of sediment input, grazing, there may be a measureable difference at these locations in BFWD. On the South facing aspects, cattle have caused down cutting or channel widening. The streams are more accessible due to the lack of boulders and numerous road crossings. The proposed range improvement projects in the proposed action would move the sites toward meeting the INFISH riparian management objective for BFWD. Cattle grazing at numerous road crossings have reduced the riparian vegetation and stream s ability to effectively store sediment on floodplains and terraces. The proposed projects that reduce access to these crossings would reduce the impacts which, in turn, may have a measureable effect to BFWD ratios. Not all crossings would get treated however. Sedimentation is expected to continue from road crossings. Removing cattle use under the no action alternative would move sites that are not currently meeting the INFISH riparian management objective for BFWD toward meeting this measure

51 Pools per Mile For fish bearing streams, the INFISH pools per mile riparian management objective is not being met in half of the reaches in the planning area. The streams not meeting this standard have shallow pools. These shallow pools are probably more of a limitation of the stream power and the substrate than impacts from cattle. Shallow pools make the streams in the planning area marginal for large fish above 6 inches. The prevalence of brook trout is likely due to the shallow pools. Some pools may be individually affected by cattle crossings, but overall cattle are not retarding the attainment of this riparian management objective. However, in non-fish bearing systems like small streams, pools per mile may have been impacted by cattle. Under both the no action and proposed action alternatives, the pools per mile in Boulder Creek, North Fork and South Fork Boulder, and North and South Fork St Peter Creek may increase as the sedimentation is reduced. Pools per mile in the non fish-bearing tributaries would increase as the banks stabilize and vegetation recovers. Temperature Trout are very sensitive to temperature increases. The riparian management objective is for no measurable increase in maximum water temperature. Temperature has not been affected by cattle and therefore there would be no impact to temperature by removing cattle grazing under the no action alternative or by continuing grazing under the proposed action alternative. The North Fork and South Fork of Boulder Creek do not meet the state standards for trout. The South Fork Boulder Creek temperature issue may come from the 1998 Tom s Creek debris torrent which removed riparian vegetation along the creek. The North Fork Boulder Creek temperature issue may come from the solar radiation from the highway and fill slopes and a beaver pond. Areas damaged by cattle along this creek are not large enough to have an effect on temperature. Small Streams In general, streams in the project area depend on riparian vegetation to keep cattle use out, stabilize stream banks, and provide large wood to stabilize stream banks. Firewood gathering along small streams along roads has impacted woody debris levels in these small streams. Down wood is important in these streams to keep cattle out of the bottoms. Numerous water troughs are located directly in the stream channels causing severe erosion. Some water troughs have not been adequately maintained which is creating new stream channels. Where a stream has stacked culverts, trailing in the stream channel from one road to the next is causing severe downcutting or widening of the stream bank. The small streams in the analysis area do not have the large boulders in their banks, or the thick vegetation to keep cattle out. In many cases these small streams had clear-cuts around them which created open access to the stream channels. Livestock handling facilities and allotment boundary fences in riparian areas force cattle to stay in riparian areas for long periods of time

52 Second Creek and Third Creek have historic and current cattle damaged areas. Access to both of these creeks is easy for livestock. The valley gradients are gentle and cows can traverse the riparian areas easily. The riparian areas in the West Deer Creek watershed are being turned into home sites, and pasture land. Major roads such as the Boulder-Deer Highway go through the riparian area in some places. These activities have reduced the large woody debris levels in the creeks. These streams depend on boulder and woody debris for stabilization. There has been a decline in woody debris in these systems from the development, so boulders provide most of the structure. Wetlands There are approximately 180 acres of wetlands. Wetlands are specialized habitats that provide a source of biodiversity because they often support unusual species of flora and fauna. They also serve as a critical component in a watershed s hydrologic budget by moderating both high and low flows due to their sponge effect (their ability to absorb and store water). When wetlands are also located in association with streams, they may exert a strong control on surface water quality. Because of their high moisture content, wetland soils are very sensitive to soil displacement and rutting as well as changes in the groundwater regime that may be induced by removal of the adjacent vegetation. Cattle are negatively affecting wetlands where they have easy access to them by removing vegetation. Effects by Alternative No Grazing Alternative The removal of grazing would increase in stream wood by allowing riparian vegetation that has been suppressed to recover, stream bank stability, overhead shading, pool habitat, and decrease the level of embeddedness of the streambed. It is expected that there would be an improvement in spawning and rearing conditions for the fish populations due to the reduction of fine sediment coming from the non-fish bearing tributaries. The North and South Forks St Peters Creek are impacted by cattle directly. Access to these streams is at a limited number of crossings. These crossings are generally gravel areas used by spawning fish. Removing grazing would change the habitat present at the crossings. The current crossings are more than double the channel width due to cattle breaking down stream banks. The channels at the crossings would narrow which improves habitat for trout. Proposed Action Alternative The changes to the grazing system and project proposals would increase in-stream wood, overhead shading and pool habitat and decrease the level of embeddedness of the streambed. The reduced embeddedness of the substrate is expected to improve spawning and rearing conditions for the existing fish. Numerous projects are proposed in areas impacted by cattle. These sites were located during field visits by fisheries and hydrology personnel. Brush barriers, a riparian

53 exclosure, and drift fencing are prescribed to keep cattle out of riparian areas. A hardened crossing would address direct impacts to the banks of Bulldog creek. New and reconstructed water developments would draw cattle out of riparian areas. A new pasture created by installing 2 cattle guards would reduce the amount of time cattle spend on the slopes of the Boulder Highway. An adaptive management and monitoring program provides strategies to remedy future issues. This important component would ensure that the area is improving from current conditions. The North and South Forks Saint Peter Creek are impacted by cattle directly. Direct impacts from cattle include trampling on redds and fish, although this has not been observed to cause a measureable effect to the fishery. These crossings are generally gravel areas used by spawning fish. The current crossings are more than double the channel width due to cattle breaking down stream banks. Under the proposed action, the channels at the crossings would narrow which improves habitat for trout. The projects are expected to draw cattle out of the riparian areas and keep them from using the crossings. The crossings would be addressed through the adaptive management monitoring. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for fisheries includes the lower portion of Boulder Creek, the Curlew River and the Kettle River from Boulder Creek to Napolean Bridge. These are the main fish populations that would be affected by activities in the analysis area. Timber Harvest From 1995 to the present, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) have been established through Forest Plan direction. Since this time, much of the riparian vegetation in the analysis area has been undisturbed by timber harvest. Past timber harvesting has resulted in changes in forest cover. Timber harvest can increase total water yield, increase peak flows and decrease summer low flows. As young trees mature and forest cover increases, any effects from past harvest are expected to decline. The percentage of acreage of NFS lands in the analysis area in open condition has greatly decreased since the 1980s. Barring unforeseen natural events such as wildfire, this trend is expected to continue. Roads The specific effects of the existing road systems on the sub-watersheds of the analysis area are not defined in the existing collected information. The actual level of sediment input from roads in these watersheds is not known since the natural level of erosion into these streams is not known. It is known that the fish habitat in these streams with the present level of roads is still suitable for two trout species, eastern brook and rainbow trout. These species persist in fish-bearing streams and successful reproduction is occurring as evidenced by the representation of different age classes of the species present

54 Forest Service roads within the planning area would continue to be maintained at slightly reduced levels in the future due to an anticipated decline in road maintenance budgets. The Deer Jasper and Malo projects have significant road decommissioning and reconstruction projects associated with them. Riparian Management Objectives Temperature In the near future, the Deer Jasper proposed timber harvest would cause an increase in created openings on NFS lands within the Snowcap allotment. Any timber harvest on private lands within or adjacent to the analysis area may also increase the overall amount of openings in the watershed. The Malo timber sale is ongoing and continues to cause an increase in created openings on NFS lands within the South and North Fork Saint Peters allotments. No downstream cumulative effects to stream temperatures are anticipated to occur under this action alternative since the capability of riparian vegetation to shade the streams and modify water temperatures to some degree within RHCAs would remain intact and undisturbed except for limited riparian vegetation disturbance during the construction and reconstruction of stream crossings. Pools per Mile Road obliteration and the removal of culverts during the decommissioning of roads within the riparian areas as part of the Malo and Deer Jasper Timber Sales may cause a temporary increase in sediment introduction into certain segments of streams within the analysis area. Pool habitat may be affected by these actions on NFS lands. These activities would increase the sediment input in the short term which may increase the amount of sediment in pools on low gradient sections of streams located downstream. The BGC proposed action alternative, together with the proposed restoration activities within these timber sales, is likely to have an overall beneficial effect to pool habitat due to protection of the riparian vegetation from both harvest and impacts from livestock. Large Woody Debris Riparian treatments under the Malo Eastlake Fuels Reduction project were designed to increase tree size for LWD recruitment. The Deer Jasper Timber sale would be designed this way as well. Under the proposed action, a long term increase in large wood recruitment on fish bearing stream segments is anticipated as currently over-utilized riparian vegetation slowly recovers under the new grazing system. Over time, the vegetation would mature and eventually start contributing to large in-stream wood. The availability of large in-stream wood for cover, foraging, sediment collection and pool formation should increase for fish populations on NFS lands within the analysis area. Bankfull Width to Depth Ratio The standards and guidelines for INFISH Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would prevent any stream channel modification during future upland timber harvest filtering any overland soil movement and protecting stream bank integrity. Small

55 amounts of channel would be modified on the segments of streams within the proposed crossing corridors however. Any potential harvest on private timberlands within or adjacent to the analysis area could reduce riparian vegetation on non-fish bearing and intermittent streams. The potential effect on the bankfull width depth ratios of streams on these private lands is dependent upon the level of riparian harvest. Bankfull width/depth ratios are expected to improve under the proposed action. This beneficial effect should more pervasive than the small amount of modification that would occur under the future timber sale. Cumulatively, the proposed alternative should not, when considering the effects to stream conditions caused by future road work on NFS lands within the analysis area, detrimentally affect functioning channel habitat in the cumulative effects reaches for this reason. Summary Trout (MIS species) populations in the analysis area may increase. Due to reduced sedimentation, the populations would be more resilient to sediment pulses from natural events. The proposed action would not retard or prevent the attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native fish. Choosing this alternative would comply with the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH. Bull trout are not known to inhabit the project area nor the larger watershed. There is no effect from implementation of the proposed action alternative to this subspecies or critical habitat. Westslope Cutthroat trout, Pygmy Whitefish, and Umatilla Dace are also not known to inhabit the project area nor the larger watershed. There is no impact from implementation of the proposed action alternative to these subspecies or habitat. As pure interior redband trout are known to inhabit the project area, implementation of the action alternative would not likely lead toward a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of this subspecies or its habitat

56 Wildlife Introduction The following section is excerpted from the Biological Evaluation/Management Indicator Species Report for the Reauthorization and is available in the project file (McCarty 2012). Data Collection Information on wildlife habitat conditions in this report are based on site visits to the allotments in October/November 2010, including an Interdisciplinary Team field trip to the Allotments, and information collected from Forest Service databases. Other members of the interdisciplinary team, and Three Rivers Ranger District and Colville National Forest staff also provided information. Data and analyses from existing records and documents prepared for other resource management projects within this allotment were also utilized. Complete inventories and/or habitat assessments covering the entire allotment were not performed due to time and budget constraints. Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects Domestic livestock can affect wildlife species directly by trampling on individuals or eggs of smaller-statured species, such as reptiles or amphibians, or by physically displacing larger species such as mule deer. Grazing by domestic livestock can affect wildlife species by altering the composition and structure of plant communities (Robinson and Bolen 1989). Grazing shortens the height of herbaceous vegetation, which can reduce security and nesting cover for some species, increase the susceptibility of some small mammals and birds to predation, and reduce the biomass of insects and other invertebrates which are an important food source for other wildlife species (Krausman et.al. 2009). Grazing by livestock also reduces the amount of forage available for wildlife, and, if excessive, can result in the establishment of invasive plant species. However, the altered vegetation caused by livestock can have positive effects for some wildlife species (Bock et.al. 1993, Ivey 1996) or unsubstantial effects on others (Johnson and Anthony 2008). In addition, grazing of grass and forbs can stimulate growth of adjacent shrubs and small trees and rejuvenate perennial bunchgrasses (Robinson and Bolen 1989). Fencing used to manage livestock can affect certain wildlife species by blocking their movements or causing injury or death when individuals get caught in wire when attempting to cross. Grizzly Bear (Threatened) Management Framework

57 The Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (USDI 1986), the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 1993), and the Forest Plan all provide direction for grizzly bear management. These allotments are outside designated recovery habitat for grizzly bears. Existing Condition There are no confirmed records of grizzly bears from the project area, although there have been unconfirmed reports of sightings. In the spring of 2012 at least 4 and possibly 5 grizzly bears were documented about 15 miles from the project area boundary. One small animal was photographed about 10 miles from the project area boundary. These animals probably came from a small population of bears that primarily spend time in the higher elevations to the north of the sightings, in Canada. Members of this population have been suspected of traveling into the U.S. to take advantage of spring emergence habitat along various streams and in openings. The Forest Service, along with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Boise Cascade ran a series of hair snares along the border in 2001 but did not document any grizzlies moving into the U.S., though several were documented in Canada within 1.5 miles of the border. Recent sightings come from within 10 miles of the project area. Grizzlies can be found to the north across the Canadian Border and farther east in northern Idaho and Montana. Grizzly bears are wide-ranging carnivores and can move long distances. Habitat loss and human-caused mortality have both been identified as limiting factors to species recovery. Grizzly/Livestock Interactions When livestock are grazed in bear-occupied habitat, there is a potential for bears to locate and feed on livestock carrion and calves, and could result in bear control measures. A bear that has fed on stock carrion could learn to associate domestic herds with food. Potentially encouraging predation on a calf or possibly injure a cow. There have never been any depredations of cattle by grizzly bears documented on the Colville National Forest. The Boulder Complex Range Allotments permittees cattle have their calves offforest, well before being turned on to the allotment. Therefore, bears do not have access to afterbirth or very young, highly vulnerable calves. When they are actively foraging, grizzly bears often appear to ignore cattle and have been observed grazing right alongside domestic stock. Spring Forage Grizzly bears emerge from the den in late March or April. At this time they are underweight and physiologically stressed. Over the next few months it is critical that the animals consume large amounts of the most nutritious foods available in order to replenish fat reserves lost during hibernation. Palatable grasses, sedges, and herbs provide spring forage for grizzly bears. If bears do not have access to this forage or to higher quality foods such as big game carrion, they may not be able to survive the next denning or post-denning periods. Sows entering the den in less than optimal shape may give birth to fewer cubs or none at all

58 Spring forage plants can be found within the riparian corridors, in forested wetlands, and under the tree canopy of some forest stands within the allotments. Green forage in upland areas of the allotments tends to be under-utilized by cattle, while forage is overutilized in certain key meadows and riparian sites. In part this is due to poor existing controls over stock movement across the allotment. Bears are more likely to access small, relatively remote forested wetlands than are cattle. Late Summer/Fall Forage As spring turns to summer, bears follow the green-up of forage plants to progressively higher elevations (USDA 1986). In the late summer and fall months, berry-producing shrub fields become important foraging sites as the fruit ripens. Discrete shrub fields exist mainly at higher elevations in the allotment. Berry-producing shrubs are often present in the understories of more open-canopied forest stands across the allotment. Snowberry, bearberry, and huckleberries appear to be the most common species in the allotments. Den sites Grizzlies tend to dig their dens on steep slopes where the wind and topography is likely to cause an accumulation of snow, and where the snow is unlikely to melt during warm periods (USDI 1993). Higher elevations, northerly aspects and remote areas that are isolated from human activity appear to be preferred by most bears. The allotments appear to contain high-quality denning habitat for grizzlies. Hiding Cover Hiding cover for grizzly bears is defined as vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult bear from human view at a distance of 200 feet (USDA et al. 1990). Hiding cover appears to be abundant across the allotments. Cattle browsing on alder and other shrubs have reduced the density and vigor of these plants in certain riparian shrub fields in the allotments. The reduced density of vegetation has resulted in increased line-of-sight distances through these prime bear foraging areas. Bears may be more vulnerable to disturbance or to being poached in areas lacking adequate hiding cover. Seclusion An important requirement of grizzly bears is seclusion from human disturbance; particularly the disturbance associated with open roads and motorized trails (Gaines et al. 2003). Each year a road-use permit is issued to the grazing permittees to allow them to legally drive behind gates on roads closed to the public (restricted roads) to round up stray cows in the fall. Occasionally they will place a salt block or repair pasture fencing behind a gate. In any given year, the total number of vehicle entries on restricted roads by the permittee is very small (about 0-5). Seclusion appears to be adequate across the allotments. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative A (no grazing)

59 Browsing of riparian shrubs and aspen by cattle would cease, leading to increases in regeneration and overall density of these hardwoods. Over time, horizontal cover at impacted sites would improve. This alternative has the greatest potential to improve hiding cover and reduce human disturbance in the allotment over time. Alternative B (proposed action) This alternative would employ continuous annual monitoring of riparian shrub utilization. If utilization has met standards, cattle would be moved to a different pasture. In certain locations, there would be new exclosure fencing/brush barriers installed to protect riparian shrubs where they are being over-browsed. Over time, there should be an upward trend in riparian shrub density and diversity where this habitat component has been impacted by livestock, improving horizontal cover along these stream segments. Human disturbance would increase in the short term but fall to previous levels post project implementation. Direct Effects Grizzly bears may be displaced by grazing cattle physically or by consumption of bear forage. Grizzlies may be disturbed by human noise and presence when constructing and maintaining allotment structures, and maintaining cattle (e.g. changing pastures). Hiding/seclusion cover may be negatively impacted, though this is expected to be insignificant due to measures taken to protect riparian areas. Livestock carcasses, introduced foods (human, livestock, and pet), and refuge may cause human/bear interactions and likely bear control actions. Indirect Effects Management of allotments and livestock and the livestock themselves may provide vectors for noxious weeds, thus negatively impacting grizzly bear forage. Effects Determination Based upon the available information and the evaluation of the direct, indirect effects, and the interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects discussion, it has been determined that the implementation of the proposed project would have a may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect grizzly bears. Canada Lynx (Threatened) Management Framework Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in March of 2000 (USDI 2000). An interagency team finalized the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000) several months later. The LCAS is a culmination of the latest research findings on lynx, and proposes guidelines, objectives, and standards, for all projects on public lands within designated lynx range. In response to the LCAS, lynx analysis units (LAUs) were identified to facilitate analysis of lynx habitat on a smaller scale (Map H)

60 LAUs do not depict actual lynx home ranges, they were delineated generally along watershed boundaries, and their size approximates the home range area used by an individual lynx. Areas outside of LAUs are not considered important for supporting reproducing lynx (LCAS pages 7-2 to 7-4). Analysis of lynx habitat focuses on the availability of forage and denning habitat, and travel corridors within one or more Lynx Analysis Units. Project planning standards in the LCAS related to livestock grazing in lynx range include: Delay grazing in openings created by wildfire or timber harvest until shrubs and trees can successfully regenerate; Manage grazing in aspen stands to allow for regeneration of the clones; Manage grazing within riparian areas and willow carrs to maintain and achieve midseral or higher condition to provide cover and forage for prey species. Forage cover Forage cover consists of densely stocked regenerating timber stands of sufficient height and species composition (deciduous trees and shrubs or lodge pole pine) to provide food and cover for wintering snowshoe hare or alternate prey (e.g. red squirrel or grouse). Denning Cover Denning cover consists of mature and/or old growth coniferous stands with high densities of down wood, usually located on northerly aspects that provide cooler microclimates. The common component of denning habitat is large down wood as either downed logs or root wads. Den sites found previously in Washington were in mature timber stands dominated by spruce and subalpine fir. These forest types generally are found above 4000 feet elevation. Lynx seem to prefer areas of low topographic relief (McKelvey et al. 2000). Livestock grazing is not considered a factor in the development or maintenance of denning habitat, thus this habitat type will not be analyzed further. Travel corridors and cover Travel corridors create linkages between foraging and den sites. Corridors are semi-permanent land features (forested ridges and saddles, road edges, riparian areas) or general forest areas containing trees and/or shrubs of sufficient size and density to provide cover for lynx traveling over the landscape. Current information suggests that lynx might not directly avoid or be displaced by most low-use forest roads; however roads can still negatively affect lynx by allowing human disturbance in denning habitat and increasing access for incidental or unauthorized hunting or trapping. Existing Conditions Lynx occupy the boreal, sub-boreal, and western montane forests of North America that have cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare, upon which lynx

61 prey almost exclusively (Nature Serve 2011). The best available information indicates that overall habitat suitability of any area for lynx is overwhelmingly tied to the availability of snowshoe hare, their principle prey species, especially during the winter (Ruggiero et al 1994). In Washington, lynx use a mosaic of high elevation forest types, from early successional to mature coniferous and deciduous stands, primarily in subalpine fir habitat types where lodgepole pine is a major seral species, generally between 4,100 6,600 feet. The following is a list of LAUs by name and acreage within the BCG project boundary: North Boulder 13,528 ac; Indian 11,037 ac; Long Alec 7,013 ac; Lambert North 5,727 ac; U.S. 5,366 ac; Lambert 1,563 ac; East Deer 67 ac; and Deadman 11 ac. The following table lists the approximate area of each allotment that is within a LAU and the map shows the general locations of the primary lynx habitat (see Table 3.9 and Map H). Table 3.9 Percent of Allotments in each LAU Allotment % in Lynx Habitat LAU Names North Fork Saint Peters 64% Long Alec, Lambert North, Indian South Fork Saint Peters 34% Lambert North, Indian, Lambert Bulldog 54% Long Alec, North Boulder, Lambert North, Indian, US, Deadman Snowcap 73% Long Alec, East Deer, North Boulder, Indian There have been unconfirmed lynx sightings in and near these allotments. A three year lynx survey exposed no breeding pairs on the districts. It is still possible for a single lynx to traverse the project boundaries as there is ample habitat and prey available. Most of the areas outside of LAUs are not expected to provide suitable habitat for resident lynx, but may be used by lynx to travel between resident areas. Lynx distribution in northeastern Washington has been monitored by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service through documentation of winter track sightings, trapping records, camera stations, hair snag inventories, volunteer observations, and incidental sightings. There are no confirmed lynx in the project boundary. Browsing by wild and domestic ungulates can negatively affect lynx if it reduces snowshoe hare winter browse. The current level of grazing within the LAU areas does not reduce vegetation to the point where openings would restrict use of an area by lynx or snowshoe hare

62 The section under gray wolf discusses effects to big game browse, which is similar to the browse used by snowshoe hare. The current levels of cattle affect the amount of riparian woody browse available for big game or snowshoe hare. Intense foraging by domestic or wild ungulates can change the composition of plant communities. Plant communities important to lynx or prey include riparian areas, aspen stands and high-elevation willow communities. Riparian areas at high elevations are negatively affected by cattle grazing. Aspen trees provide important food resources for big game and other wildlife. See the Aspen subsection under the grey wolf section for further details

63 Map H: Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) in the BGC project area