UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICEa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2019. 7. 8. · standards and guidelines require maintenance or enhancement

Biological Evaluation for Fish Species

Annie Restoration Project

Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICE

OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE NATIONAL FOREST

Biological Evaluation/Aquatic Specialist Report

Fish Species

Annie Restoration

Prepared by: /s/ Gene Shull September 24, 2014

NAME Date

TITLE



Page 2 of 22

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 2

II. SPECIES CONSIDERED .................................................................................................................. 3 III. CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................................................................................... 3 IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 3

V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 5 VI. EXISTING CONDITION ............................................................................................................... 14 VII. Effects of the Proposed Project Alternatives ................................................................................. 15

Streambanks .................................................................................................................................. 16 Sediment ....................................................................................................................................... 18

Riparian Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... 19 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................ 20

VIII. DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................................. 21 IX. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 21

I. INTRODUCTION



Page 3 of 22

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to present an analysis of effects for the proposed

project on US Forest Service, Region 6 sensitive species and their habitat. The BE is prepared in

compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual 2670 and provides for compliance with

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50-402.12.

This BE addresses the single proposed action for the Annie Restoration Project. This project

proposes to harvest timber, reduce ladder fuels, pre-commercial thin, and modify the existing road

network. The project occurs on land administered by the US Forest Service (USFS), Okanogan-

Wenatchee National Forest (Oka-Wen NF).

II. SPECIES CONSIDERED

There are no fish within the project area. The closed fish presence is in Bonaparte Creek, about 3.5

miles below the project. Sensitive fish species on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest include

the following fish species:

Forest Service Sensitive:

o River lamprey (Lampetra ayresii)

o Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulterii)

o Umatilla dace (Rhinichthys umatilla)

o Columbia River (CR) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

o Upper Columbia River (UCR) Spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

o Upper Columbia River Steelhead (O. mykiss)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish within the Okanogan River Sub-basin that include UCR steelhead

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (threatened) and CR Bull Trout (threatened). The Okanogan River and the

lower ½ mile of Bonaparte Creek are designated critical habitat, but bull trout do not have any critical habitat

within the sub-basin. . Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (MSA) is habitat used by Chinook and coho salmon, of which summer Chinook use the

Okanogan River and so is designated EFH.

The project area is located at least 20 miles upstream from the Okanogan River and lower Bonaparte Creek

where some of these species are present. Due to the great distance and small anticipated effects of the project,

we do not expect any effects to any sensitive species or their habitat. The remaining document will focus on

effects to non-sensitive native fish.

III. CONSULTATION TO DATE

None

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Principal regulatory direction applicable to the management of fisheries resources on the Okanogan-

Wenatchee National Forest include:



Page 4 of 22

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

Okanogan National Forest, Forest Plan (USDA 1989), as amended

Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon

and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH; USDA/USDI, 1995b) for the

Okanogan-Bonaparte Watershed.

Draft Upper Sanpoil River & West Fork Sanpoil River Watershed Action Plan (SWAT 2010)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (1976) requires that the Forest Service manage for a

diversity of fish habitat to support viable fish populations (36 CFR 219.19). Regulations further state

the effects on these species and the reason for their choice as Management Indicator Species be

documented (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)).

Regulations of NFMA (219.12g) state, "Fish and wildlife habitats will be managed... to maintain and

improve habitat of management indicator species." Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (May 24,

1977) contain as part of their objectives minimizing the destruction, loss, and degradation of

wetlands, and to give preferential consideration to riparian dependent resources when conflicts among

land use activities occur.

A range of standards are included in the Okanogan National Forest (OWNF) Forest Plan (USDA

Forest Service 1989) are applicable to the management of riparian and aquatic resources. Forest Plan

standards and guidelines require maintenance or enhancement of riparian and aquatic habitat

parameters that affect fish and other aquatic life. These parameters include fine sediment, pool

habitat, large woody debris, riparian vegetation, and provision of fish passage at road crossings.

The PACFISH (USDA/USDI, 1995b) provides management guidance for the Okanogan-Bonaparte

Watershed.

Current forest management guidelines provide considerably more protection for aquatic and riparian

resources than was granted in the past. For example, under the PACFISH direction, all management

activities occurring within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) must maintain existing

ecological conditions or lead to improved conditions to be consistent with the management guidance.

Specifically, PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and standards and guidelines for

activities in RHCAs (or with the capacity to affect conditions in RHCAs) serve to “provide adequate

environmental safeguards for proposed or new and ongoing project and activities that pose an

unacceptable risk within RHCAs or that degrade RHCAs.”

Table 1. PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives for Annie Restoration Project Area

Streams.

Habitat Feature Riparian Management Objective

PACFISH

Pool frequency (<10’

width)

961

Pieces LWD2 >20 pieces/mile

Bank stability (non-forested

systems) >80% stable



Page 5 of 22

Lower Bank Angle (non-

forested systems)

>75% of banks <90° angle (i.e.

undercut)

Width:depth Ratio <10, mean wetted width: mean depth 1Pools/mile value reflects wetted width of 10’. Standards vary according to range of widths. Project

area contains mostly small streams <10’ wetted width. 2>12” diameter and >35’ length

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) standard widths for the PACFISH management area are

listed below. There are no fish bearing streams within the project area, but the streams drain into fish

bearing waters lower in the system.

Category 2 - Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Interim RHCAs consist of the

stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream

channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year flood plain, or to

the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential

tree. or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel),

whichever is greatest

Category 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre:

lnterim RHCAs consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the

riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of

moderately and highly unstable areas. or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential

tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed

ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest.

Category 4 - Seasonally flowing or Intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre,

landslides, and landslide-prone areas: This category includes features with high variability

in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the interim RHCAs must include:

a) the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas,

b) the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge

c) the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the

riparian vegetation, and

d) for Key Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide,

or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or

100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Vegetation Management

In general, the proposed actions for the Annie Restoration project focus on establishing the composition,

structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable,

resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions. The majority of the restoration treatment falls in the

drier portions of the landscape, which are not governed by the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment

Strategy. Activity planned in lynx habitat is planned to either extend forage production in existing stands,



Page 6 of 22

regenerate stands to promote future stand initiation structure that is compatible with lynx habitat needs, or to

thin and remove ground fuels in order to protect lynx habitat.

There are four main tools that are being proposed for restoring upland vegetation in the Annie PLTA;

commercial harvest to reduce stocking levels, reduce crown density, remove diseased trees and create

openings in which early seral species may become established; ladder fuel reduction to remove trees too

small to be of commercial value in order to reduce live ladder fuels, reduce competition with larger diameter

trees, to reduce shade within created openings and to reduce stocking levels; pre-commercial thinning to

expedite growth of desired species during the seedling and sapling stage; and underburning, which reduces

ground fuels, increases live crown heights, reduces young conifer stocking levels (and therefore extends the

duration of SEOC, SECC and OFSS structure) and invigorates native grasses, forbs and shrubs.

COMMERCIAL HARVEST: There are several types of commercial harvest planned that vary as to objective

and intensity.

Commercial Ponderosa Pine Restoration is planned for 314 acres– Ponderosa pine trees of various sizes up

to 16 inches diameter, compose from 5 to 25% of these stands. They are surrounded by small to medium sized

Douglas-fir and western larch of various levels of dwarf mistletoe infections. These stands are dry forest

within 1.5 miles of the forest boundary. The current canopy closure is from 40 to 80% with an average of

50%.

The objective is to allow the fire resilient ponderosa pine trees within these stands to thrive and propagate,

while reducing canopy closure in the WUI. This would be accomplished by removing nearby (within 50 feet)

Douglas-fir trees as well as dwarf mistletoe infected Douglas-fir and western larch within 200 feet of cone

bearing ponderosa pine trees. This harvest treatment would result in canopy cover ranging from 10 to 80%,

with an average of 25%.

This would be followed by ladder fuel reduction and underburning, with the objective to reduce ground fuels,

increase live crown heights and increase pine seedling establishment opportunities. Although regeneration is

desired and expected, this prescription would not be considered a regeneration harvest treatment because

expected openings would be less than three acres in size and the overall stands would be considered

sufficiently stocked. This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription #s 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 as

well as P&N #2.

Commercial Western Larch Restoration is planned for 548 acres– these stands are composed of small to

medium sized Douglas-fir and western larch with a fairly consistent spacing, which was the result of previous

harvest treatments. These stands are in dry forest within 1.5 miles of the forest boundary. The amount of

dwarf mistletoe infection varies in each species from light (dwarf mistletoe rating - DMTR of 0-1) to very

heavy (DMTR 5-6). There are occasional ponderosa pine trees and aspen clones scattered about. Most of the

aspen clumps have been released from conifer domination and are in good condition except for the few in

areas where timber harvest has not taken place in the last 50 years.

The objective is to reduce canopy cover in the WUI, increase the component of fire resilient species and to

provide a more diverse stand structure in the area. The strategy to accomplish this would be to create openings

where dwarf mistletoe is the most intense in order to promote western larch, which is early seral and fire

resilient and more adapted to this northern aspect than ponderosa pine. These openings would make up 40-50

% of the stands. Thinning would take place in the rest of the prescription area, targeting the more heavily

dwarf mistletoe infected trees for harvest but leaving healthy patches of trees up to 5 acres in size scattered

throughout the prescription area, thus leaving a more clumpy and diverse stand condition. No openings or

clumps would be greater than 10 acres in size. Most of the stands included in the prescription would be

considered Stand Initiation after completion.



Page 7 of 22

This would be followed by ladder fuel reduction and underburning, with the objective to reduce ground fuels,

increase live crown heights and increase western larch seedling establishment opportunities. As many of the

openings would be larger than three acres and because it is desired to increase the proportion of western larch

in the stand, these openings would be planted with western larch seedlings and would be monitored for

successful regeneration. This treatment would implement P&N#1, Landscape Prescription #s 1, 3-9; and P&N

#2

Irregular Shelter wood Harvest Promoting Ponderosa Pine is planned for 113 acres– These stands are

among the driest stands in the project area. One side of the prescription area transitions into dry meadow. All

of these stands are within 1.5 miles of the forest boundary. There is a mosaic of stand conditions, with patches

of healthy trees of various stocking levels surrounded by patches with heavy infections of dwarf mistletoe in

the Douglas-fir and western larch. Ponderosa pine trees are found as scattered individuals and in clumps and

patches and are in fair or better condition.

The objective for these stands is to reduce crown cover in the WUI, increase the proportion of fire resilient

species, to release ponderosa pine overtopped by Douglas-fir trees, and to maintain and promote larger trees.

This would be accomplished by thinning the healthy patches of Douglass-fir and creating openings where the

diseased patches are located. Most of the ponderosa pine would stay in the stand to provide seed and to be

promoted to larger size classes. The openings would be planted with ponderosa pine after ladder fuel

reduction and underburning have created planting sites. It is expected that about one half to two thirds of the

acreage would be planted and would be monitored for successful regeneration. This treatment would

implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription #s 1, 3, 5, 8 and P&N #2.

Commercial Thin is prescribed for 180 acres – These stands are in key locations on the landscape regarding

fire movement. However, because they also qualify as pileated wood pecker habitat, it is important that the

overstory trees maintain at least 50 percent canopy closure and that the medium and large trees, which are the

critical component of pileated woodpecker habitat, remain.

The objective is to reduce the potential for crown fires while protecting key components of pileated

woodpecker habitat. This would be accomplished by removing the understory and the more heavily diseased

and less dominant trees in the overstory and reduce ground fuels to acceptable levels. Few, if any openings

would be created and those would be less than ¼ acre in size. Where existing ground fuels are not too heavy,

the dry forest stands would be underburned after harvest and ladder fuel treatments. The higher elevation, cold

forest stands, which have tree species that are sensitive to fire, and heavy ground fuels would be piled and

burned, but the largest diameter logs would remain as they lie. All non-commercial understories would be

felled, piled and burned. This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription #s 3, 5 and P&N

#2.

Sanitation/ Thin Harvest is prescribed for 308 acres– These stands are all within 1.5 miles of the forest

boundary. All but one of these stands is in dry forest, with the exception being in the transition from dry to

cold forest. They all have multiple canopies with total canopy cover above 50%, and in most cases, 70% or

higher. Most of these stands have enough dwarf mistletoe infections in the Douglas-fir and western larch that

together with high crown cover and multiple canopies have a moderate or high risk of crown fire.

The objective for these stands is to reduce crown cover and stand conditions that increase the risk of crown fire

in the WUI as well as to maintain and promote the larger trees. This would be attained by harvesting the

smaller and more dwarf mistletoe infected trees. Where there are no large trees and dwarf mistletoe infections

are heavy, there may be created openings up to three acres in size. The ladder fuels would be fell and either

piled and burned or burned together with activity slash and natural fuels. This treatment would implement

P&N #1, Landscape Prescription #s 3-8, P&N #2



Page 8 of 22

Western Larch Regeneration is planned for 42 acres– These dry forest stands have total canopy closures

between 50 and 70 percent. They are made up of sparse, small sized, mostly heavily mistletoe infected

Douglas-fir and western larch over thicker, equally diseased Douglas-fir, western larch and lodgepole pine

understory.

The objective is to establish a fire resilient stand. This would be achieved by harvesting all of the dwarf

mistletoe infected western larch trees and most of the Douglas-fir, dropping the canopy cover to between 5 and

10%. The healthiest and largest diameter Douglas-fir trees would be left as shelter and legacy trees. No

diseased western larch would remain, as it would be a source of dwarf mistletoe to the western larch that

would be planted after felling the entire understory and burning for site preparation. This treatment would

implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription #s 1, 3, 5, 6, 8.

Irregular Shelterwood Promoting Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine Fir is planned for 208 acres– These

cold forest stands currently have a mix of overstory species that include, Douglas-fir, western larch, subalpine

fir, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. Much of the Douglas-fir and western larch are heavily infected

with dwarf mistletoe. The understory is patchy, with pockets of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce and other

pockets of Douglas-fir and western larch.

The objective is to create hare forage habitat for Canada lynx, replacing stands that do not have the potential to

achieve, and to protect and maintain existing large trees. This will be accomplished by harvesting all heavily

disease Douglas-fir and western larch less than 18 inches in diameter and by felling all understory Douglas-fir

and western larch. The harvest and post-sale slash would be piled by hand or by excavator then burned. The

remaining subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine would provide seed for natural regeneration to

fill in between the patches of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce understory. Regeneration would be

monitored and if the stands are not regenerated within two years of burning the piles then Engelmann spruce or

lodgepole pine would be planted. This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription #s 2, 3, 5,

6, 8, 9.

NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Underburn – Underburning is planned for most of the dry forest stands in the Annie PLTA. Underburning is

intended to reduce ground fuels to within historical levels, raise live crown heights and invigorate or encourage

grass, forb and shrub species that are dependent on fire to thrive on the landscape. Where underburning is

prescribed for site preparation, a slightly hotter fire is desired that exposes mineral soil for natural seeding and

planting sites. Underburning would be performed in the spring or fall, when fuel moistures and air conditions

are such that objectives can be met.

In many stands, stocking levels or fuel conditions may need to be reduced before underburning can be

implemented within objective parameters. In these stands, a combination of timber harvest and/or ladder fuel

reduction and/or ground fuel piling and burning would take place first. In stands where live and ground fuels

are low enough that underburning would not likely cause damage to residual stands or soils, underburning

would be the only treatment applied. A total of 675 acres would be underburned with no prerequisite

activities. This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescriptions #s 1, 4; P&N #2.

Ladder Fuel Reduction – Ladder fuel reduction is the term used to fell understory trees that put overstory

trees at risk to crown fire. Generally these are non-commercial sized trees (up to 9 inches in diameter at breast

height). Depending on stand conditions, all or part of this size class may be felled. In most cases ladder fuel

reduction is in combination with timber harvest and/or underburning. In the case where most of the stand is

made up of younger trees that do not have thick bark to protect them from prescribed underburning, 99 acres



Page 9 of 22

were identified for ladder fuel reduction alone, with the slash to be piled and burned. This treatment would

implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescriptions #s 1-7; P&N #2.

Incidental Riparian Underburn may take place on 129 acres and Incidental Upland Underburn may take

place on 109 acres - Underburning is most cost effective when applied to large blocks of land at a time and

when stands can be underburned together with neighboring stands. Another way to keep costs down and

reduce impacts to soil is to avoid building fire control lines where strategic lighting patterns can be reasonably

expected to keep fire where it is intended to be applied. However, when these strategies are employed there

are places that may receive incidental amounts of unintended but acceptable prescribed fire. This treatment

would implement P&N #2.

Minor Ladder Fuel Reduction and Underburning would take place in stands adding up to 95 acres. Using

existing roads, skid trails and natural features as prescribed fire control lines also keeps cost and resource

damage down. Sometimes these low cost prescribed fire control lines are slightly within stands that are not

intended for full treatment. In these cases ladder fuel reduction and underburning would be applied to small

areas not needing fuel treatment to facilitate cost effective underburning on the landscape. This treatment

would implement P&N #2

Pre-commercial Thinning is planned on 70 acres – There are natural and planted stands of young trees that

are overstocked to meet stand objectives. There are two separate objectives of pre-commercial thinning in two

distinct stand conditions; 1) is to reduce competition to and thin ponderosa pine and western larch seedlings

and saplings on dry sites, allowing them to grow more quickly to a fire resistant size class (Stands 212 and

203); 2) to reduce stocking in a mixed lodgepole pine/Douglas-fir stand in order to maintain more open

conditions favored by great gray owl (stand 373). Stocking would be reduced by felling excess or undesirable

seedlings and saplings. Resulting slash would be piled and burned. This treatment would implement P&N #1,

Landscape Prescription # 1.

It is planned to Pre-commercial Thin 72 acres of western larch within Canada lynx habitat. These stands of

young western larch and Engelmann spruce were established via shelterwood harvest prior to 2003. Most of

the western larch seedlings and saplings are above the intermixed, clumpy Engelmann spruce seedlings.

Western larch fare poorly when overstocked and take a considerable length of time to achieve large diameters.

The objective for these stands is to reduce inter-tree competition and provide for a future multi-storied stand

that provides snowshoe hare forage. This would be achieved by thinning between western larch trees to 12-16

foot spacing, leaving all of the other species in place. This way the dominant western larch would maintain

their dominance and vigor and the tree species that provide winter forage for hare would stay in the understory.

This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription # 1; and P&N #3.

Ponderosa Pine Release is planned for 299 acres – These stands have a light overstory of medium to large

diameter ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with heavy ladder fuels in between and below. The objective for

these stands is to protect and promote large diameter, fire resistant and healthy trees. This would be

accomplished by felling understory Douglas-fir trees within 20 feet of ponderosa pine trees of 15 inches

diameter at breast height or larger. This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape Prescription # 1.

Up to 130 acres of lodgepole pine would receive a Hedging treatment– These stands have 10 percent canopy

cover of overstory, which is primarily made up of dwarf mistletoe infected larch. The understory consists of

90 percent lodgepole pine and 10% western larch. The high number of saplings with low, live branches is

currently providing high quality snowshoe hare forage. Forage opportunities are beginning to diminish as

lower branches are dying for lack of sunlight as neighboring trees shade them out.

The objective for these stands is to reduce inter-tree competition and promote individual tree development of

the understory, extend the high quality forage habitat stage of these lodgepole stands while not reducing forage



Page 10 of 22

in the short term. This would be accomplished by thinning the understory to 10 by 10 foot spacing. However,

instead of felling the excess trees at the root collar, the trees would be topped at 4 to 5 feet in height. This

would leave live branches for forage and cover as well as encourage the cut trees to sprout new growth that

would be in reach of snowshoe hare. Resulting slash would be lopped and scattered, piled nearby or piled in

existing openings to be burned. As this is a new technique, it would be applied as an experiment and would be

monitored closely for success. Typically, little funding is available for timber stand improvements not in dry

forest or near forest boundaries, so the ability for the district to implement this prescription is dependent on

non-traditional funding sources, and therefore, may not take place. Both scenarios will be analyzed in Chapter

3. This treatment would implement P&N #3.

Future Underburning – In order to sustain and maintain the effects fuel treatments until the next vegetation

management project, a second application of underburning is proposed to take place from 7 to 10 years after

the first application in order to retard the return of an understory and to reduce ground fuels that have since

accumulated. This would take place on up to 2,254 acres, as shown in the Fuel Treatment Column in Table 2.

Table 2: Alternative Two, Proposed Action, Commercial and Non-commercial Treatments and Surface

Fuel Treatments by Unit: Stand and (Acres) Fuel Treatment Approx Acres

Treated

Ponderosa Pine Restoration – 9(13), 12(34), 15(38), 17(88),

18(23), 58(84), 102(18), 161(1), 211(11), 216(4) Underburn. Future Underburn 314

Western Larch Restoration –19(6), 20(145), 21(9), 22(47),

23(62), 26(6), 27(13), 28(31), 252(229)

Underburn for site prep for natural

regeneration. Future underburn 548

Irregular Shelterwood Harvest Promoting Ponderosa

Pine– 006(14), 007(60), 053(13), 205(4), 256(16), 298(6)

Whip felling, followed by underburn for

site preparation for planting 113

Commercial Thin Harvest–128(75), 231(19), 273(30),

304(7), 431(17)

Ladder Fuel Reduction, hand pile or

excavator pile and burn piles, may be

followed by Underburn. Future

Underburn

180

Sanitation/Thin Harvest–2(14), 10(30), 32(62), 33(19),

34(7), 44(24), 106(37), 133(14), 134(15), 204(28), 208(5),

232(20), 234(13), 257(13)

Ladder Fuel Reduction, hand pile or

excavator pile and burn piles, followed

by Underburn. Future Underburn

308

Western Larch Regeneration –68(14), 83(28) Whip felling, followed by underburn for

site preparation for planting. 42

Irregular Shelterwood Harvest Promoting Engelmann

Spruce and Subalpine Fir- 107(24), 108(87), 125(31),

276(67)

Whip Felling, hand pile and burn piles

or excavator pile and burn piles for site

preparation for natural regeneration

208

Total Commercial 1,713

Ladder Fuel Reduction and Underburn – 4(46), 8(16),

46(65)

Ladder Fuel Reduction, Handpile, burn

piles, followed by Underburn. Future

Underburn

127

Ladder Fuel Reduction –11(46), 072(53) Ladder Fuel Reduction, Handpile, and

burn piles 99

Underburn – Underburn. Future Underburn 675

Minor Ladder Fuel Reduction and Minor Underburning –

49(29), 51(13), 64(41), 126(12)

Ladder Fuel Reduction, Handpile, burn

piles, followed by Underburn. Future

Underburn.

95

Incidental Riparian Underburn – 13(2), 14(9), 16(38),

57(21), 104(10), 105(29), 111(13), 206(7)

Fire control lines would be established

around perimeters and prescribed fire 129



Page 11 of 22

Stand and (Acres) Fuel Treatment Approx Acres

Treated

allowed to creep into these stands.

Incidental Upland Underburn – 109(14)

Fire control lines would be established

around perimeters and prescribed fire

allowed to creep into these stands.

14

Pre-commercial Thin – 212(11), 373(9), 203(50) Hand pile and burn piles or lop and

scatter 70

Pre-commercial Thin Western Larch – 110(22), 124(9),

127(41)

Hand pile and burn piles or lop and

scatter 72

Ponderosa Pine Release – 1(54), 103(74), 112(99), 115(9),

120(13)

Hand pile and burn piles or lop and

scatter 299

Hedging – 67(130) Hand pile and burn piles or lop and

scatter 130

Total Non-Commercial 1710

Biomass Removal – If there is a market for biomass or it is determine from a fuels management standpoint

that removal of biomass is desirable, it may be removed. At this time, biomass removal is not expected.

Road Management

A Travel Analysis was completed for the Annie Restoration project in accordance with Forest Service Manual

(FSM) 7700, Chapter 7712. An interdisciplinary process was used involving resource specialists from the

Tonasket Ranger District and Okanogan – Wenatchee National Forest to complete the analysis. The team was

charged with analyzing all of the roads, both authorized (part of the National Forest Road System) and

unauthorized, in the Annie Restoration project area and rating their relative risk or benefit to resources. Based

on that rating, recommendations were made for each road as to whether a road should be open and if so,

maintained to what level, closed or decommissioned. Details of the travel analysis conducted for Annie PLTA

are available in the project analysis files. Note that miles are estimates only.

Road management is broken into three phases; 1) starting with the existing roads, which roads will be

used and opened to allow for timber harvest activities? Unauthorized roads that are planned to be

used for harvest are made part of the system (During Harvest); 2) which roads will be left open or

opened to allow access for fuels management and reforestation? (After Harvest); 3) and after all

projects have been implemented, which roads will be open, closed or decommissioned (Post Project).

Below is a summary of proposed road management changes in Alternative Two. Road specific

details of the proposed management can be found in the appendix. All road management would be

the implementation of P&N #4.

During Harvest:

There are currently 34.4 miles of open roads in the project area. An additional 13.3 miles

would be opened to facilitate timber harvest. These roads would receive any maintenance

needed to bring them up to standards necessary to allow safe and efficient use.

0.42 miles of temporary roads would be created and then decommissioned after timber haul is

complete.

The maintenance level for 1.63 miles of road (last 1.63 miles of open portion of 3100300

road) would change from 3 (for passenger vehicles) to 2 (for high clearance vehicles).

After Harvest:



Page 12 of 22

0.35 miles of what is currently unauthorized road, which would not be needed for post-sale

activities, would be decommissioned.

1.98 miles of additional road would be opened to implement post-harvest activities

Post-Project:

1.3 miles of system road would be decommissioned.

A total of 28.8 miles of open and 15.0 miles of closed system road would remain.

15.3 miles of unauthorized roads would be decommissioned as funding becomes available.

Aspen and Wet Meadow Restoration

In a portion of stand 019 there is a decadent aspen patch that would be released from encroaching

conifers as part of the Western Larch Restoration prescription. This aspen patch and the land nearby

would be fenced in order to exclude cattle browsing the expected sprouts and thereby promote the

expansion and maintenance of this aspen clump. This permanent fence line would be approximately

1,150 feet in length and would enclose approximately 2 acres.

Alternative Two also includes a proposal to install approximately 2,800 feet of fence in conjunction

with an existing pasture fence around 22 acres of wet meadow (Snyder’s Meadow). This fence is

intended to be permanent and would exclude all livestock until soil conditions are restored (it is

estimated this will take at least three years). Fencing would be installed and maintained by the Forest

Service until the soil conditions are restored. At that point, if the permittee wishes to utilize this area

for limited grazing, he would be responsible for fence and gate maintenance; otherwise the Forest

Service would retain that responsibility. This treatment would implement P&N #1, Landscape

Prescription # 1.

Easement Grant for Extending the 3100337 Road to the Washington DNR

The Washington Department of Natural Resources has requested to construct about 0.2 miles of new

road across National Forest land and open about 0.1 miles of unauthorized road to access an 80 acre

parcel in Section 30, Township 37 North, Range 30 East, W.M., which they plan to harvest in the

next several years. The 3100337 road is a spur off the 3100335 road. A 24” culvert is proposed to be

placed in the drainage crossing. A portion of this route off the 3100300 road may be reconstructed.

As part of this reconstruction, a culvert on Forest Road 3100335 at approximately M.P. 0.37 may be

reconstructed.

Culvert Replacement As funding becomes available, undersized culverts would be replaced with appropriately sized

culverts on the following roads:

Forest Road 3100300 at approximately M.P. 3.27 (to be covered with 1’ of gravel as part

of road reconstruction during the timber sale),

Forest Road 3100310 at approximately M.P. 0.17 (to be replaced during road

reconstruction for the timber sale) , and

Forest Road 3100335 at approximately M.P. 0.37 (may be replaced as part of DNR road

reconstruction discussed above)



Page 13 of 22

The 3100300 and 3100335 culverts are presently “functioning” (i.e. water is able to flow through the

culverts). It is presently believed that these two culverts are not in danger of failure due to log haul

and they can be safely crossed by planned vehicles. The culvert on the 3100310 road was determined

was not properly functioning and that putting logging traffic over it would damage it further, so it is

being replaced as part of the project. As part of road reconstruction, additional cover in the form of

crushed rock may be applied at these sites.

Hunters Camp

As funding is available, the spur into Hunter’s Camp will be repaired (likely through the placement of

gravel surfacing to build up the road surface).

Water Developments As funding is available, 4 new water developments (three troughs and a crib) will be established. The

locations of the troughs will be near the center of Section 28 near the 3100234 road (spring present), in the SE

¼ of Section 29 between the 3100359 and the 3100300 roads (3 springs present), and on the boundary between

Sections 20 and 21 between the 3100300 and 3100340 roads (spring). A crib is proposed to be constructed in

the N 1/2 of Section 29 near the junction of 3100300 and 3100350 roads. In addition, the Lost Creek trough,

in Section 17, will be moved further away from the creek, if adequate flow can be developed. Movement of

this trough was analyzed in a previous analysis, the Cornell Grazing Analysis, and would be considered a

cumulative effect for this project.

Riparian Protection

As funding and treatment prescriptions allow, 10 to 15 trees would be felled in the riparian area in the vicinity

of the 3100300, 3100359, and 3100360 roads to discourage cattle use of the riparian area.

Road Gates

As funding allows, effective road gates would be established on Forest Roads 3100300 to the lookout,

3100350, and 3100360/365 to replace existing gates that have not been effective in stopping unauthorized road

use.

Range Fence Construction Construct up to 1 ¼ miles of new range fence in Sections 32 and 33, between the North Anne and South Anne

pastures, to replace the existing natural barrier that may be lost as part of vegetation treatments.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

FUELS MANAGEMENT

Post-harvest conditions and post burn fire effects monitoring are evaluated by fire managers and silviculturist

to ensure management objectives are met. When post-harvest fuel loadings are determined to exceed

acceptable parameters for fire managers to continue with broadcast burning without putting the remaining

overstory survival at risk, fire managers may utilize adaptive management techniques to dispose of residual

activity slash. Methods to dispose of slash could include excavator piling, hand piling, mastication, chipping,

or underburning in multiple entries. Natural fuels and maintenance burn treatments may also take multiple

entries under varied fire intensities to ensure management objectives are met.

It is possible that market conditions could preclude sale of commercial volume planned for harvest within less

accessible portions of ground based units. In that case mostly smaller, non-merchantable sized trees, generally

less than 9 inches dbh would be felled in stands where there is road access. Activity fuels, such as boles and

branches would be treated by hand/excavator piling, chipping, or by retaining it on site for a year and then

burning fine fuels. Where access is difficult, such as on steep slopes more than about 300 feet from a road, if



Page 14 of 22

commercial treatments of smaller trees is not economically feasible based on market conditions at the time,

prescribed fire would be implemented where it can be applied safely. Some areas would not be treated at all

because of the cost and risks involved. The amount of prescribed burning, pre-commercial thinning and ladder

fuel reduction would be governed by the amount of funding available. Should funds be available from

appropriated sources, or should revenue from sale of wood products that is planned for removal by a

commercial sale or stewardship contract be sufficient, a higher percentage of the non-commercial treatments

would be accomplished. Depending on the market demand for small diameter material, small diameter trees

may be removed by mechanical methods or yarded to landings and chipped for removal by a commercial

operator. Otherwise they would be felled, piled or lopped and scattered, and then burned.

VI. EXISTING CONDITION

The Annie Project area is located approximately 20 miles east of Tonasket, Washington along

Highway 20. The project area, in total, is approximately 5,240 acres and lies mostly within the

Okanogan River – Bonaparte Creek 12th

field watershed while a few acres lie within the West Fork

Sanpoil River and Toroda Creek 12th

field watersheds. National Forest System lands within the

Okanogan River – Bonaparte Creek 12th

field watershed are designated as a Key Watershed in

PACFISH. Key Watersheds contribute to the conservation of at risk stocks of salmonids such as

steelhead and chinook.

There are 8 miles of stream within the Annie Project Area that include 5.9 perennial miles and 2.0

intermittent miles. Streams in the project area are small and there are no fish present. The closest

stream with fish listed on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is lower Bonaparte Creek and that is

over 25 miles away. The nearest documented fish bearing stream is 2.5 miles downstream in

Bonaparte Creek. Due to the distance to fish and mitigation measures, this project would have no

effect to sensitive or Management Indicator Species fish or their habitat. The following existing

conditions are for project area streams.

Aquatic Resource Indicators:

Forest Service activities occurring in the project area are hazard fuels treatments, road management

and their maintenance, recreation, and livestock grazing. Of these activities, livestock grazing and

roads are the most impacting activities on aquatic resources. Aquatic/riparian habitat indicators

impacted from these activities include streambanks, fine sediment, and riparian vegetation.

Streambanks - Streambank stability is one of several indicators of stream and riparian health. The

desired bank stability for streams in project area is 90% or greater with adequate vegetation that

provides good root strength and resists both natural and altered stream erosion rates.

Fisheries and hydrologist resource specialists reviewed about 5 miles of streams across the project

area, which equals about 62 percent of the total streams in the project area. Stream channels reviewed

in the field ranged from low gradient channels with easy cattle access to steep channels with little or

no access, allowing for a good representation of the total streams across the project area. Cattle signs

were present along most of the reaches with about 1/3 of the streams having moderate to heavy bank

trampling. Most streams across the allotments have soft, fine grained streambanks that are vulnerable

to trampling from livestock. The stream running through the Hunter’s Camp, off the 3100300 road,

had the heaviest bank impacts from livestock. Another high use site is at the headwaters of Little



Page 15 of 22

Bonaparte Creek where livestock are walking and browsing along the creek as they move from road

to road.

In addition to the above surveys, the Tonasket Ranger District conducted Tonasket Riparian

Assessment Protocol (TRAP) surveys on 11 reaches within the project area in 1996 (USDA 1996).

Observations were made on streambank condition, fine sediment levels, streamside vegetation

conditions, and riparian vegetation conditions associated from livestock trampling and browsing.

Streambanks at six of the eleven sites had moderate bank instability relating to bank erosion and lack

of stabilizing vegetation.

Riparian vegetation - Livestock access primarily occurs in the riparian areas in more open conditions

where the sunlight allows for shrubs and hardwoods to grow and in the meadow streams. Access to

the densely forested reaches is limited and subsequent impacts to vegetation are little to none. Where

livestock have access, they browse and trample vegetation. The degree of impacts range from minor

browsing and trailing, where vegetation is mostly intact, to severe browsing and trampling, where

most expected vegetation is gone and the remaining species are providing little stream function.

Limited streambank vegetation data exists for the Annie Restoration project area streams. During the

field review, livestock impacts to streamside vegetation appeared consistent with the extent and

degree of bank trampling observations described above, which is close to 1/3 of the stream-type

riparian areas having moderate to heavy browsing and trampling. Most of the streams have light to

no riparian grazing.

Sediment - The amount of fine sediment in streams is a common indicator of stream health. The

sediment standard for the Okanogan Forest Plan (1989) is for spawning habitat to have less than 20

percent fines (<1mm). There are no fish in the project area and therefore the sediment standard does

not apply. However, project area streams should meet resource objectives of the “sediment regime

(including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) [being

consistent with conditions] under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. Field

observations by the project fish biologist and hydrologist suggest fine sediment levels are moderate to

high in most areas across the project area. Where livestock access is easy and use is moderate to high,

fine sediment levels appeared high. TRAP surveys observed high fine sediment on four of the eleven

sites reviewed and moderate fine sediment levels at 6 locations. This is consistent with the field

observations during the summer of 2013. Forest Service Road (FSR) 3100300 stands out as having

the greatest sediment delivery to the stream network from water running down the road on two long

sections.

In summary, most stream channels are being impacted by livestock and road impacts. Conditions are

moderate and appear not to be consistent with the aquatic resource objectives for this landscape.

VII. Effects of the Proposed Project Alternatives on Threatened, Candidate and Sensitive

Aquatic Species Analyzed in Detail

Alternative 1 – No Action



Page 16 of 22

Certain aquatic resource and RHCAs conditions in the project area would continue to improve

without treatment such as LWD levels, stream shade, and riparian vegetation (conifer overstory).

Current aquatic and riparian management objectives have and will continue to allow these habitat

indicators to improve over past conditions when these areas had less protection. Alternatively,

livestock and roads would continue to disturb habitat indicators like fine sediment, bank stability,

riparian vegetation (understory/ ground cover). Existing moderate to high fine sediment levels would

continue without proposed road or grazing changes. Snyder Meadow would continue to receive heavy

grazing use and wetland properties would be retarded.

In the long-term, the risk of detrimental effects of catastrophic wildfires across the landscape would

not be reduced if proposed vegetation and fuels treatments were not implemented. The project area

already has elevated fine sediment levels from livestock grazing and riparian roads. The addition of

more sediment from wildfire effects would exacerbate the already high fine sediment levels.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct Effects - There would be no direct effects to fish or any aquatic resources from the No Action

Alternative because the project area is over 3 miles above fish presence.

Indirect Effects – There is potential for indirect affects to fish downstream through an increase in fine

sediment levels. A new permanent road crossing is proposed over a live stream that flows into Little

Bonaparte Creek that creates a point source for sediment delivery. Streambanks and riparian

vegetation would not be affected where fish are located due to the distance downstream. There is no

mechanism for effects to these habitat indicators or other fish habitat attributes. Elements of the

project will affect streambanks and riparian vegetation within the project area. Stream temperature is

discussed in detail under the hydrology report.

Streambanks

Most streambanks across the project area consist of fine grained soils that are highly vulnerable to

grazing impacts of trampling and trailing. Field observations found some streams to have heavy bank

trampling; particularly Snyder Creek has heavy trampling along the lower two miles.

Timber harvest, fuels, and road work are expected to have little effect to streambank condition across

the project area because of the use of stream buffers and proximity to streams. A few riparian roads

would be removed and a few closed roads would have stream crossings removed that would allow for

the banks to recover long-term (decommissioned) or until the next timber entry (closed roads).

Grazing Adjustments

The proposed action includes installing four water new developments and moving one existing

development away from sensitive streams, fencing off Snyder Meadow, and falling trees along a

stream to stop trailing. These activities are expected to have varying levels of success in reducing

impacts to riparian areas.



Page 17 of 22

The use of off-stream water sources has had mixed results in reducing cattle presence and impacts in

riparian areas. Some studies observed off-stream water sources reduced the amount of time spent

along and subsequent impacts to streams (Miner et al. 1992, McInnis and McIver 2001, Porath et al.

2002). However, Porath et al. (2002) found off-stream water did not reduce the amount of time cattle

spent along streams during the hot part of the grazing season, which is when cattle often spend most

of their time in riparian areas (Marlow and Pogacnik 1986). Porath et al. (2002) cited cooler air

temperatures and more lush forage along streams as attractants that water developments to not

address. The Miner et al. (1992) study occurred during the winter when air temperatures across the

study area were cold and the cattle were fed hay because natural forage was not available, making this

study not very applicable to summer grazing. Since these studies were conducted, more recent studies

(discussed below) have shown off-stream water sources sometimes do not reduce impacts or change

distribution in some instances. Agouridis et al. (2005) found off-stream water sources did not reduce

streambank erosion rates when cattle still had free access to streams. Haan et al. (2010) found that

off-stream water sources did not affect the percentage of time cattle in streams when they had

unrestricted stream access. These studies cited other factors like cooler air temperatures and more

preferred forage in riparian areas would still attract livestock to grazing or loafing along streams that

off-stream water sources does not provide. Therefore, some reduction in time spent along streams

may occur that would lead to reduced streambank trampling, but there is evidence these

developments are not always successful during the hotter part of the grazing season. Continued

streambanks and vegetation disturbance is expected to occur with the use of off-stream water

developments and excess sediment delivery is expected.

Fencing Snyder Meadow will help restore meadow function and reduce trampling on the small

outgoing streams. Most studies tracking responses of riparian vegetation to cattle exclusion have

noted rapid increases in height and vigor (Odion and others 1988, Kondolf 1993, Knapp and

Matthews 1996). Recovery has shown to vary depending on the resource damaged. For example,

streamside vegetation tends to recover the fastest (~5-15 years) when grazing is excluded.

Compositional changes from forb- or nonnative grass-dominated communities towards native grass-

and sedge-dominated communities have also been widely documented in montane riparian meadows

following rest from cattle grazing (Leege and others 1981, Kauffman 1983, Odion and others 1988).

Excluding cattle from the Snyder Meadow for a few years is expected to have a measurable

improvement in meadow vegetation and the meadow stream conditions. Because existing conditions

are mostly functioning at risk, eliminating cattle pressure would likely result in a large vegetative

response. Following the exclusion, cattle would be allowed to graze the meadow for a few weeks

every year, which is expected to maintained improved conditions and may provide continued

recovery. Clary (1999) conducted a study in Idaho that examined no grazing, light (20-25%

utilization) and moderate grazing (35-50% utilization) along a wet or partially wet meadow and

concluded that all three treatments resulted in improvements in streambank morphology, as well as

vegetation, following historic heavier grazing. The proposed grazing strategy for the meadow would

be similar to the moderate grazing method described above. Excluding cattle from the Snyder

Meadow for a few years is expected to substantially improve meadow conditions, including the small

streams within them.

There is evidence of cattle trailing along the upper reach of Little Bonaparte Creek that has resulted in

excessive bank trampling. To reduce pressure in this area, 10 to 15 green trees will be felled across



Page 18 of 22

the stream and adjacent to the channel to discourage trailing. This is expected reduce bank trampling

and reduce sediment delivery to a stream that drains into Bonaparte Creek, which is fish bearing.

Localized improvements in the meadow and headwaters of Little Bonaparte Creek would be effective

in reducing streambank impacts. Relocating a water trough and constructing 4 new water

developments away from streams is expected to reduce streamside grazing some, but not enough to

noticeably improve streambank conditions.

Sediment

The scientific literature identifies a number of different mechanisms associated with forest

management that are responsible for producing and delivering sediment to streams. Mechanisms

associated with harvest and yarding include surface erosion processes (rills and sheetwash), skid

trails, rutting associated with yarding, gullies, and mass wasting processes that can lead to sediment

delivery to streams. Broadcast burning has potential to increase erosion and sediment delivery to

streams depending on fire severity, timing, duration, proximity of burned area to channels, as well as

vegetation composition, disturbance history, soils, and topography (Beche et al. 2005; Elliot et al.

2010). Most of these would be spatially separated from streams sufficient to avoid and/or mitigate

any harvest-related or fuels treatement-related increases in fine sediment delivery to streams.

However, the greatest source of sediment delivery to streams in managed watershed is roads and their

associated management activities (Liqouri et al. 2008).

Vegetation treatments

Proposed tree harvest and yarding is not expected to result in any measurable increases in sediment

deposition to the stream network because nearly all of the ground-based activities proposed would

occur outside of RHCAs and/or 300 feet from streams. Additionally, harvest would occur in

wintertime with snow cover and frozen ground and would have very small or non-existent effects to

potential for sediment mobilization. Harvest activities should generate no measurable increase in

sediment yield due to buffers and wintertime implementation. See Hydrology Report for more details.

Fuels treatments

There is potential for localized, short term fine sediment generation associated with the fuels

treatments. However, nearly all activities proposed would occur outside of RHCAs and/or 300 feet

from streams. Up to 129 acres of fuels treatments would occur in RHCAs, but using design criteria

like no active lighting in RHCAs, preselecting water drafting sites, low to moderate fire behavior is

the objective, no dozer line in RHCAs, and using existing roads when possible as control lines.

According to the project hydrologist, there should not be any significant increase in fine sediment

from the proposed treatments. The fuels treatments should generate no measurable increase in

sediment yield due to buffers and design criteria. .

Transportation-related project elements

Roads within the project represent the largest component of erosion prone area (bare soil) that may

potentially contributes sediment to streams (Annie Hydrology Report). The project includes funded

(timber sale) and yet-unfunded (NEPA decision) phases. Overall, both phases of the project would

result in improvements to riparian function, particularly in terms of local hydrology (erosion and

sedimentation), but also as measured by length of stream currently encroached or otherwise impacted



Page 19 of 22

by roads. The timber harvest phase would result in more than an 0.3 mile reduction of roads

(decommission) across the project area (funded by timber sale and will occur) and a reduction in

stream crossings (6 of 17) is the minimum number removed; however it is likely that a few additional

pipes will be removed on ML-1 closed roads, as described in the Transportation Section). There are

an additional 2 culverts on roads to remain open that will be upgraded to pass 100 year return interval

flood events. Each of these road and stream crossing removals and improvements would result in

improved local hydrology and move the stream segments affected toward restoration in the long-

term.

The proposed road system, post project, would have 43.8 miles of road in the Annie Restoration

project area including 28.8 miles of open road and 15.0 miles of closed road. A total of 16.9 miles of

road would be decommissioned including 1.59 miles of existing NFS roads and 15.3 miles of existing

unauthorized roads. 3.7 miles of existing unauthorized roads would become NFS roads. Included in

these totals would be 4.4 miles of riparian roads (within 300 feet of stream) decommissioned and 5.8

miles of riparian roads to be closed and hydrologically disconnected. This will remove/disconnect

10.2 miles of road system from the riparian zone and should create a marked improvement in

sediment delivery to streams post project.

There will be temporary increase in sediment while there is a temporary increase in open road density

values during harvest activities. Following harvest, there is potential for increased sediment from

roads during the post-harvest fuels treatments. Through proposed road closure and decommissioning,

both as project activities are completed and post-project, open road density in both alternatives would

decrease or stay the same in all discrete management areas.

Open road density in the Upper Bonaparte Creek 6th

level HUC would decrease post-project. Given

that the Annie Restoration project area includes only about 13% of the entire HUC (8.1 mi²), this

decrease helps move the HUC towards the “Functioning Properly” watershed condition classification.

All of these actions will improve hydrologic function in the project area over time. The actions will

reduce soil compaction, pedestalling, hoof shear, etc. in the riparian zone and over time restore soil

porosity and allow vegetation to become established lowering the amount of sediment reaching the

stream channels. The establishment of vegetation will also improve stream temperature. This will

improve watershed conditions that drain into fish habitat downstream.

Grazing Adjustments

Grazing improvements are expected to result in slight reductions in streamside grazing use associated

with moving of one existing water development further from streams, adding some new

developments, and dropping some trees around a high use stream reach. Each of the measures

combined are not expected to noticeably move sediment conditions on a positive trend because of

their effectiveness and/or the small scale of improvements.

Riparian Vegetation

Proposed harvest does not include any harvesting within RHCAs, therefore there would be no effects

to riparian vegetation from harvest. Design criteria and implementation of BMPs would ensure that

key habitat processes (LWD recruitment, shade, sediment filtration, etc.) would be

protected/maintained during fuels treatments. All disturbance would be restricted to either outside

true riparian/wetland areas and to the outer bands of RHCAs. Disturbance would be short-lived (<1y



Page 20 of 22

in any discrete location) and spread across the project area across a period of perhaps as many as

three years, and primarily during the winter. Overall, we consider the disturbance associated with the

timber harvest to be of insignificant magnitude

The road decommissioning would return a small proportion of riparian roads to forested ground,

resulting in a slight reduction in road miles within Riparian Reserves. All other activities would not

occur within Riparian Reserves or would not change the existing amount or condition of Riparian

Reserves and therefore would have no causal mechanism to affect it.

Grazing improvements are expected to result in slight reductions in riparian grazing use associated

with moving existing water developments further from streams, adding some new developments, and

dropping some trees around a high use stream reach. Similarly as above, the measures combined are

not expected to noticeably move sediment conditions on a positive trend because of their

effectiveness and/or the small scale of improvements.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of these multiple activities are presented specifically in terms of the habitat

parameters previously discussed.

Temperature: Ongoing actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area during the

timeframe that the Annie Restoration Project actions would occur are not expected to exceeded

current levels of shade maintenance, channel geometry, and hydrologic regime. It is not expected that

grazing, fire suppression, road use, or other actions, would act cumulatively with project actions to

increase stream water temperatures, particularly at the sub-watershed scale and/or in fish habitat

typically downstream of the project area.

Sediment: Ongoing actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area during the

timeframe that the Annie Restoration Project actions would occur are not expected to exceed current

levels of sediment delivery, affect streambank integrity more than current rates, or have any other

effects that could increase sedimentation. The net effect of the Annie Restoration Project is expected

to be an improvement (decrease) to sedimentation yield and erosion rates. It is not expected that any

other activity would act cumulatively with project actions to increase fine sediment delivery rates,

generate turbidity, or increase levels of embeddedness in stream habitat, particularly as measured at

the sub-watershed scale or in fish habitat downstream of the project area. Because the measured net-

effect of the project should be negative (i.e. a reduction in sediment yield), the project would act

restoratively to benefit the sediment indicator.

Roads: Roads are the major ongoing activity deteriorating aquatic habitat and watershed processes in

the project area. No major ongoing actions related to roads are expected to impart major changes in

the number of road miles, road density, number of stream crossings, etc. While there is a small level

of user-built road construction occurring in the project area, it is mostly related to illegal use of ATV

and dirt bikes accessing existing non-system roads constructed long ago for timber sales. It is not

expected that any other activity would act cumulatively with project actions to negatively affect road

system related metrics affecting local hydrology or aquatic habitat, particularly as measured at the



Page 21 of 22

sub-watershed scale and/or in fish habitat typically downstream of the project area. Because the

likely net-effect to roads of the Annie Restoration Project is negative (i.e. a reduction in total mileage,

road density and RHCA roads), the project would act restoratively to benefit the roads indicator, with

associated beneficial effects to fish, hydrologic, and wildlife resources.

VIII. DETERMINATIONS

Based on the description of the proposed alternatives and the analysis considered, the following

determinations were found:

There are no sensitive fish species within the project area and this project is located over 20 stream

miles from any listed fish. Anticipated project effects are minor and it is my determination that there

would be no effects to any sensitive fish species.

Primarily the addition of one new permanent road crossing within the Little Bonaparte Creek

drainage would increase the drainage network and add a permanent source for fine sediment. This site

is located about 3.5 miles from the nearest fish presence and so the impacts would be minor.

IX. REFERENCES

Agouridis CT, Workman SR, Warner RC, Jennings GD (2005) Livestock grazing management

impacts on stream water quality: a review. Journal of American Water Resoure Association, 41:591–

606.

Beechie, T. J. and T. H. Sibley, 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris,

and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

126:217-229.

Elliot, W.J., I.S. Miller, and L. Audin, Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management

in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.

Haan, M. M., Russell, J. R., Davis, J. D. and Morrical, D. G. 2010. Grazing management and

microclimate effects on cattle distribution relative to a cool-season pasture stream. Rangeland

Ecol. Manage. 63: 572-580.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in

northeastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 36:683-685.

Knapp, R.A., and K.R. Matthews. 1996. Livestock grazing, golden trout, and streams in the Golden

Trout Wilderness, California: impacts and management implications. N. Amer. J Fisheries Manage.

16:805-820.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment to livestock exclosure, White



Page 22 of 22

Mountains, California. Restoration Ecology, December:226-230.

Leege, T. A., D. J. Herman, and B. Zamora. 1981. Effects of cattle grazing on mountain meadows in

Idaho. Journal of Range Management 34(4):324–328.

Liqouri, M., Mardin, D., Benda, L., Coats, R., and Ganz, D. 2008. Scientific Literature Review of

Forest Management Effects on Riparian Functions for Anadromous Salmonids. Sound Watershed

Consulting.

McInnis, M. L., and J. McIver. 2001. Influence of off−stream supplements on streambanks of riparian

pastures. J. Range Manage. 54(6): 648−652.

Marlow, C.B., Pogacnik, T. and Quinsey, S., 1987. Streambank stability and cattle grazing in

southwestern Montana. J. Soil Water Conserv., 42:291-296.

Miner, J. R., J. C. Buckhouse and J. A. Moore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce the amount of time

hay-fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore improve water quality)? Rangelands

14(1):35-38.

Odion, D. C., T. L. Dudley, and C. D’Antonio. 1988. Cattle grazing in southeastern Sierran meadows:

ecosystem change and prospects for recovery. Pages 277–292 in C. A. Hall and V. Doyle-Jones

(eds.), Plant biology of eastern California. White Mountain Research Station Symposium, Vol. 2.

Porath, M.L., P.A. Momont, T. DelCurto, N.R. Rimbey, J.A. Tanaka, and M.McInnis. 2002. Off

stream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improved cattle distribution.

Journal of Animal Science 80(2):346-356

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan. Okanogan National

Forest.

USDA/USDI. 1995b. Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of Interim Strategies for

Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds on Federal Lands in Eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service and

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 163 pgs. This document is known as

PACFISH.

USDA 1996. Tonasket Riparian Assessment Protocol Surveys. Available at the Tonasket Ranger

District.

SWAT. 2012. Upper Sanpoil River & West Fork Sanpoil River Watershed Action Plan. USDA and

Colville Confederated Tribes.

Documents

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICEa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2019. 7. 8. · standards and guidelines require maintenance or enhancement