United States Department of Agriculture

Proposed Revised Land

Management Plan 

for Colville National Forest

Draft Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement

Volume I. Summary, Chapters 1, 2, and 3

(through Soil Resources)

for the greatest good

January 2016
Cover Photo: First Thot Lake, Three Rivers Ranger District

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating 

in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political 

beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or 

funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary 

by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through 

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

i

Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

for the Colville National Forest 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Stevens, Ferry, and Pend Oreille Counties of Washington State

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Kalispel Tribe

Spokane Tribe of Indians

State of Washington

Ferry County, Washington

Pend Oreille County, Washington

Stevens County, Washington

Responsible Official: Jim Peña, Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

1220 SW 3rd Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97208

For Information Contact: Amy Dillon, Forest Plan Revision Team

Colville National Forest 

Colville Supervisor’s Office

765 South Main

Colville, Washington 99114

(509) 684-7000

Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/colville/landmanagement/planning

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) documents the analysis of six alternatives 

(no action, proposed action, and alternatives P, R, B, and O) developed by the Forest Service for the 

programmatic management of approximately 1.1 million acres administered by the Colville National 

Forest. For ease of reference, the accompanying proposed revised land management plan (revised forest 

plan) reflects the preferred alternative. The alternatives are described in chapter 2. The no-action 

alternative would keep in place the management direction from the 1988 land and resource management 

plan (1988 forest plan), as amended. Alternative P is the preferred alternative. 

The proposed action and alternatives P, R, B, and O address the following needs for action: (1) maintain 

or restore ecological conditions that contribute to the recovery and viability of terrestrial plant and 

wildlife species; (2) manage forest vegetation conditions to be more resilient to disturbances; (3) address 

climate change implications and vulnerabilities; (4) address changed social and economic conditions and 

preferences in light of ecosystem capacity; (5) accelerate improvement in watershed condition across the 

forest; and (6) integrate watershed and aquatic strategies across the forest.

Alternatives P, R, B, and O address new information and concerns that emerged during the 

implementation of the 1988 forest plan and comply with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. These 

alternatives also address significant issues (unresolved conflicts with the proposed action) that were 

identified from comments received during the scoping and public involvement period. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

ii

The Forest Service will use the “predecisional administrative review process,” also referred to as the 

“objection process” described in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B of the 2012 Planning Rule. This process gives an 

individual or entity an opportunity for an independent Forest Service review and resolution of issues 

before the approval of a plan revision; this subpart identifies who may file objections to a plan revision,

the responsibilities of the participants in an objection, and the procedures that apply to the review of the 

objection. Generally, individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to 

this plan revision during the opportunities for public comment for this decision may file an objection.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful 

to the agency’s preparation of the final EIS and proposed revised forest plan. Therefore, comments should 

be provided before the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns 

and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to 

participate in subsequent administrative or judicial review. Comments received in response to this 

solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for 

this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, 

anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent 

administrative or judicial reviews. Comments on the DEIS should be specific and should address the 

adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3)

Send Comments to: colvilleplanrevision@fs.fed.us

OR

Amy Dillon, Forest Plan Revision Team

Colville National Forest 

Colville Supervisor’s Office

765 South Main

Colville, Washington 99114

(509) 684-7280 FAX

Date Comments Must Be Received: Within 90 days following publication of the notice of 

availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The notice 

is expected to be published on or around February 5, 2016; 

however, it is the commenter’s responsibility to calculate 

the end of the 90-day period.
Summary - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

iii

1 Summary

2 Proposed Action

3 The Colville National Forest (or the Forest) proposes to revise its 1988 land management plan (forest 

4 plan). The area affected by the proposal includes about 1.1 million acres of public land. The revised forest 

5 plan would allocate National Forest System (NFS) lands to 13 management areas (MAs) including: 

6 Focused Restoration, General Restoration, Backcountry, Backcountry Motorized, Wilderness-Designated, 

7 Wilderness-Recommended, Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers, Scenic Byways, Administrative 

8 Recreation Sites, and Riparian Management Areas. The proposed MAs represent different management 

9 themes with varying emphasis such as vegetation management, watershed restoration, motorized and non10 motorized recreation, or special designations designed to sustain the social, economic, and ecological 

11 attributes of the Forest. 

12 Allocation to a specific MA is not intended to mandate or direct the Forest Service to propose or 

13 implement any action; rather, the MAs provide direction on desired conditions and allowable activities 

14 and uses, as described in the revised forest plan, regarding:

15 • Timber harvest/timber production;

16 • Commercial and personal use of special forest products and firewood;

17 • Fire (planned and unplanned ignitions);

18 • Livestock grazing;

19 • Motorized use; 

20 • Mechanized use;

21 • Over-snow motor vehicle use;

22 • Road construction and reconstruction; and 

23 • Minerals (leasable and saleable mineral materials).

24 Purpose and Need

25 The purpose of the action is to revise the 1988 forest plan for the Colville National Forest. The revised 

26 forest plan would guide natural resource management activities on the Forest, and address changed 

27 conditions and direction that have occurred since the original forest plan (1988 forest plan), while meeting 

28 the objectives of Federal law, regulation, and policy. Specifically, the revised forest plan would provide 

29 management direction for forest resources both forestwide and specific to management areas. 

30 Over the 25-year life of the forest plan, economic, social, and ecological conditions have changed. New 

31 laws, regulations, and policies are in place. Congressional direction, court decisions, conservation 

32 agreements, recovery plans, and scientific findings contribute to changed management conditions and 

33 support the need for revision. Endangered Species Act species listings have been updated, and new 

34 information based on monitoring and scientific research is available. Specific need for change topics 

35 include wildlife habitat, vegetative systems, climate change, social systems, and aquatic and riparian 

36 systems.

37 Due to these changed conditions and the age of the forest plan, the Colville National Forest began the 

38 process of revising its plan in 2003. The need for revision is based on legal requirements, changed 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

iv

39 conditions, and the Analysis of the Management Situation (2015). Revision is also warranted because the 

40 forest plan is beyond the 10- to 15-year duration provided by the National Forest Management Act 

41 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1606(e) (5) (A)).

42 Public Involvement

43 The Colville National Forest started forest plan revision in 2003, followed by public participation, which 

44 began in 2004 with community workshops about the need to change the existing forest plan. We held 

45 workshops in communities throughout northeastern Washington, with additional workshops on specific 

46 topics, including wilderness and recreation from 2005 to 2008. Meetings with representatives from local 

47 counties began in 2004, and are being held on a continuing basis throughout the forest plan revision 

48 process. Government-to-government consultation with tribal nations and staff-to-staff consultation with 

49 their resource specialists began early in the process and continues. State agencies are cooperating 

50 agencies. Federal agencies the Forest Service works closely with are the Department of Homeland 

51 Security and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A 2007 memorandum of agreement with the Washington 

52 State Association of Counties provides a framework for our work with the three local counties. Three 

53 federally recognized tribes have engaged at varied levels: the Colville Confederated Tribes (the Forest’s 

54 largest neighbors), and the smaller Spokane and Kalispel Tribes. We held additional meetings with 

55 interest groups, user groups, State and Federal officials, tribal staff, and industry groups.

56 In June 2011, the Forest Service published a combined notice announcing that the proposed actions for 

57 the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests were available for public review and comment. 

58 Public meetings and outreach efforts continued through 2013, based on the information related to both 

59 forests. 

60 The 90-day comment period per the 2011 notice drew 27,274 comment letters, of which 889 contained 

61 unique and substantially different comments. We received letters, emails, form letters, and public 

62 comment forms from tribes, individuals, organizations, agencies, businesses, and groups from 15 states in 

63 the United States and British Columbia, Canada; however, this does not include state affiliation for all of 

64 the form letters. We analyzed 3,250 comments from the 889 comment letters to identify the significant 

65 issues driving the alternatives. 

66 After the comment period, the regional forester determined that the most effective process to reflect 

67 public input and resource needs was to separate the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests’ 

68 plan revision effort. Moving forward from today, the DEIS reflects issues and alternatives specific to the 

69 Colville National Forest only. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of developing a 

70 proposed forest plan and completing a separate analysis specific to its resource needs and public input 

71 specific to that forest. All input, including public comments received to date, will continue to be part of 

72 each forest plan revision, as appropriate. 

73 Significant Issues

74 Six significant issues led to the development of multiple programmatic strategies (or alternatives) for 

75 revising the plan. A summary of these alternatives as well as analysis of the environmental consequences 

76 they pose are the focus of this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

77 • Old forest (late-successional) management, and timber production

78 • Motorized recreation trails 

79 • Access

80 • Recommended wilderness areas 
Summary - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

v

81 • Wildlife

82 • Riparian and aquatic resource management 

83 Alternatives

84 The six issues led the agency to develop six alternatives. Table 1 provides a short description of each 

85 alternative. 

86 Table 1. Short description of alternatives considered in detail

Alternative Short Description

1988 Forest Plan – No-action 

alternative

The “no-action alternative” reflects current management practices under the existing 

forest plan, as amended and implemented. It provides the basis for comparing the 

existing condition to the proposed action and the alternatives. 

If the decisionmaker were to choose to continue to implement the 1988 forest plan 

versus choosing a revised alternative, interim direction in the Inland Native Fish 

Strategy for the Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions (INFISH) 

and the Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife 

Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens) would be considered final direction 

for the Colville National Forest (i.e., would no longer be considered interim).

Continuing with the current forest plan would provide an annual predicted wood sale 

quantity (PWSQ) volume of 41 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of 

$19,335,000.

There is no recommended wilderness in the 1988 forest plan.

Proposed Action The June 2011 proposed action addresses the need for change. It applies 

landscape ecology concepts to provide for ecological resilience to disturbances, 

including the effects of climate change and incorporates new science related to the 

recovery of terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered species. 

The overarching emphasis of this alternative would be to apply active vegetation 

management in a dynamic landscape approach to increase vegetation resilience 

and move the landscape toward desired conditions. Silvicultural prescriptions such 

as variable density thinning and free selection would promote structural and 

landscape complexity on 71 percent of the forest. Planned and unplanned ignitions 

would be used as management tools across the Forest, but would be emphasized 

on 30 percent of the Forest. 

The proposed action would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) 

volume of 62 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $31,224,000.

The proposed action would recommend 101,390 acres of additional wilderness and 

would provide backcountry recreation management emphasis on 14 percent of the 

Forest. 

The proposed action adopts the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy 

(ARCS), replacing INFISH with a long-term strategy that uses best science and 

aligns species and water quality recovery plans. 

Alternative P The overall vegetation management approach, outputs in alternative P, and 

backcountry recreation management would be similar to the proposed action. 

Alternative P would create the Kettle Crest Special Interest Area (approximately 

82,800 acres). This management area allocation would recognize and protect 

outstanding recreation opportunities in a semi-primitive setting while allowing 

continued motorized and mechanized recreation opportunities.

In response to comments on the proposed action, alternative P would recommend 

68,300 acres of wilderness.

Like the proposed action, alternative P would adopt ARCS. However, it would also 

expand the key watershed network, and increase riparian protection through 

additional plan components (ARCS-modified).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

vi

Alternative Short Description

Alternative R Alternative R would emphasize a large-scale reserve approach for late-successional 

forest structure, emphasizing a passive management approach to reach desired 

conditions. Silvicultural prescriptions such as shelterwood with reserves and variable 

density thinning would be used on 22 percent of the Forest, in consideration of the 

21-inch upper diameter limit on cutting live trees. Planned and unplanned ignitions 

would be used as management tools across the Forest, but would be emphasized 

on 75 percent of the Forest.

Alternative R would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) volume 

of 14 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $6,692,000.

Alternative R would recommend 207,800 acres of additional wilderness.

Alternative R would take the same aquatic strategy approach as alternative P 

through ARCS-modified. 

Alternative B The intent of alternative B is to addresses the concerns of multiple constituencies in 

one alternative by balancing land allocations between areas emphasizing active 

management (timber management zones) (43 percent), emphasizing a mix of active 

and passive management (Restoration Areas) (31 percent), and emphasizing 

passive management (recommended and designated wilderness) (23 percent). 

Alternative B would retain the Eastside Screens, 21-inch upper diameter limit for 

cutting live trees, and the large-scale reserve approach for late-successional forest 

structure. It would include additional plan components limit mechanical restoration 

treatments (timber harvest) in late-successional structure to dry plant association 

groups only.

Alternative B would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) volume 

of 37 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $17,428,000.

This alternative would recommend 220,330 acres of additional wilderness and would 

emphasize non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Alternative B would retain and integrate the INFISH, continuing riparian area 

management similar to the no-action alternative.

Where plan components were not identified by the collaborative group, the 1988 

Colville Forest Plan (no-action alternative) would provide plan direction (remain 

unchanged).

Alternative O Similar to alternative B, the intent of alternative O is to balance land allocations 

between areas emphasizing active management (Responsible Management Areas) 

(39 percent), emphasizing a mix of active and passive management (Restoration 

Areas) (34 percent), and emphasizing passive management (backcountry and 

recommended/designated wilderness) (25 percent). 

Alternative O would create the Kettle Crest Special Interest Area. This management 

area allocation would recognize and protect outstanding recreation opportunities in a 

semi-primitive setting while allowing continued motorized and mechanized 

recreation opportunities.

Similar to alternative B, alternative O would retain the Eastside Screens, 21-inch 

upper diameter limit for cutting live trees, and the large-scale reserve approach for 

late-successional forest structure. It would include additional plan components to 

limit mechanical restoration treatments (timber harvest) to a one-time entry.

This alternative would recommend fewer acres of additional wilderness 

(15,950 acres) than alternative B, and would instead emphasize backcountry 

recreation opportunities (21 percent).

Alternative O would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) volume 

of 38 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $17,465,000.

Where the collaborative group did not identify plan components, the proposed action 

would provide plan direction. This includes the proposed action’s approach to adopt 

ARCS.
Summary - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

vii

87 All alternatives represent, to varying degrees, the principles of multiple-use, and ecological and economic 

88 sustainability. The alternatives provide basic protection of forest resources and comply fully with 

89 applicable laws, regulations, and policies. In addition, all the alternatives would:

90 • Meet the purpose and need for change or address one or more significant issues;

91 • Conserve soil and water resources and not allow significant or permanent impairment of the 

92 productivity of the land;

93 • Provide protections for riparian areas;

94 • Maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State, and/or local standards or 

95 regulations;

96 • Include measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for 

97 threatened and endangered species;

98 • Protect heritage resources;

99 • Recognize the unique status of American Indian tribes and their rights retained by trust and 

100 executive order with the United States, including consultation requirements;

101 • Provide sustained multiple uses, products, and services in an environmentally acceptable manner 

102 (including leasable and locatable minerals, timber, livestock forage, and recreation opportunities);

103 • Retain existing designated areas (e.g., wilderness areas, scenic byways, national scenic trails); 

104 and

• Retain all existing permitted activities and facilities.

1 105

106 The following would not change among alternatives: 

107 • Developed Recreation Sites — Existing developed recreation sites would be retained in all 

108 alternatives, and no developed recreation sites would be removed or created. Allocation of 

109 administrative recreation sites would remain constant for all action alternatives.

110 • Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers — The two rivers identified as eligible for inclusion in the Wild 

111 and Scenic River System for the 1988 forest plan (8 miles) are carried forward in this revision effort 

112 and would not vary by alternative. 

113 • Designated Wilderness — The Salmo-Priest Wilderness Designation would remain constant for all 

114 alternatives.

115 • Research Natural Areas (RNAs) – Allocations of RNAs would remain constant for all 

116 alternatives. 

117 Comparison of Alternatives

118 Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the effects of the alternatives. Table 2 provides a summary of 

119 effects by revision topic.

 1 All permits will be reviewed for compliance with the revised forest plan. Any permit found to be out of compliance will be 

brought into compliance as soon as practicable using a variety of tools, including modifications or amendments to the permit.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

viii

120 Table 2. Comparison of some plan revision key indicators 

Resource and Indicator No-action Proposed 

Action

Alt. P Alt. R Alt. B Alt. O

Vegetation

Uses a Fixed Reserves, connectivity corridors

and Diameter Limit Management Approach for 

Managing Late-successional Reserves and 

Old Forest Habitat Versus Dynamic 

Landscape Management Approach

Fixed Reserves, 

connectivity 

corridors and 

Diameter Limit

Dynamic 

Landscape

Dynamic 

Landscape

Fixed 

Reserves and 

Diameter Limit

Fixed Reserves, 

connectivity 

corridors and 

Diameter Limit

Fixed Reserves, 

connectivity 

corridors and 

Diameter Limit

Timber Production2

Acres/Percentage Suitable for Timber 

Production

535,725

48%

653,242

59%

656,628

60%

129,420

12%

384,485

35%

347,535

32%

Acres/Percent Harvest Allowed for Other 

Resource Objectives

323,025

29%

205,508

19%

202,122

18%

729,330

66%

474,265

43%

511,215

46%

Predicted Wood Sale Quantity3 MMBF

CCF

41

82,800

62

125,900

62

125,400

14

28,900

37

77,000

38

77,000

Roads

Percent of Forest Suitable for Roads 83% 73% 75% 75% 74% 74%

Recommended Wilderness

Acres/Percent Recommended for Wilderness 0 101,390

9%

68,300

6%

207,800

19%

220,330

20%

15,950

1%

Designation of Kettle Crest Special Interest 

Area No No Yes No No Yes

Recreation 

Percent Forestwide Where Roads, Trails, and 

Areas may be Designated for Motor Vehicle 

Use 

89% 79% 80% 76% 75% 78%

Wildlife

Old Forest Management Plan Direction 

Contribution to Viability

Low Moderate High High Low Low

Riparian Habitat

Number of Subwatersheds with Improved 

Trend 7 12 15 15 15 7

 2 All outputs present in annual measurements

3 Predicted wood sale quantity includes both commercial and non-commercial (e.g., firewood) wood products sold, on average, per year.
Contents - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

ix

Table of Contents

Volume I: Summary, Chapters 1, 2, and 3 (through Soil Resources)

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. iii

Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................. iii

Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................ iii

Public Involvement.............................................................................................................................. iv

Significant Issues................................................................................................................................. iv

Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ..............................................................................................1

Background ...........................................................................................................................................1

Development of the Proposed Action....................................................................................................2

Planning Area ........................................................................................................................................3

Need for Change....................................................................................................................................5

Decision Framework .............................................................................................................................7

Public Involvement..............................................................................................................................14

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.........................................................................29

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................29

Development of Alternatives...............................................................................................................29

Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................................30

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................58

Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................................................61

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences....................................................65

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................65

Terrestrial and Aquatic Conditions and Resiliency.................................................................................71

Forest Vegetation ................................................................................................................................71

Botany ...............................................................................................................................................100

Climate ..............................................................................................................................................115

Fire.....................................................................................................................................................126

Invasive Plants...................................................................................................................................149

Fisheries.............................................................................................................................................162

Hydrology..........................................................................................................................................261

Soil.....................................................................................................................................................351

Volume II: Chapter 3 (Wildlife through Tribal Resources), Chapter 4, Literature Cited, 

Glossary, Appendices, and Index

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................377

Social and Economic Conditions...............................................................................................................491

Economic Resources.............................................................................................................................491

Heritage Resources ...............................................................................................................................505

Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................................................518

Minerals and Geologic Resources.........................................................................................................545

Recreation .............................................................................................................................................555

Scenery..................................................................................................................................................610

Social Resources...................................................................................................................................642

Tribal Resources ...................................................................................................................................676

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................685

Literature Cited..........................................................................................................................................691

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................739
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

x

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 743

Appendix A. Public Involvement Summary ............................................................................................. 771

Appendix B. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts ............................................................... 781

Appendix C. Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................. 823

Appendix D. Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements ..................................................... 833

Index ......................................................................................................................................................... 851

Volume I. List of Tables

Table 1. Short description of alternatives considered in detail ..................................................................... v

Table 2. Comparison of some plan revision key indicators.......................................................................viii

Table 3. Short description of alternatives considered in detail ................................................................... 30

Table 4. Desired condition for forest structure (percent)............................................................................ 34

Table 5. Colville National Forest eligible wild and scenic rivers by segment and classification ............... 36

Table 6. Proposed management area (MA) descriptions and percentages of total forest by alternative .... 38

Table 7. Riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) width....................................................................... 45

Table 8. Riparian management area width.................................................................................................. 48

Table 9. Alternative R recommended wilderness....................................................................................... 54

Table 10. Alternative B recommended wilderness..................................................................................... 56

Table 11. Comparison of some plan revision key indicators...................................................................... 61

Table 12. Structure class definitions based on canopy cover and diameter................................................ 72

Table 13. Average annual treatment acres modeled by vegetation type and alternative ............................ 73

Table 14. Vegetation types, Landfire biophysical settings, plant association groups, and approximate total 

acres .................................................................................................................................................... 74

Table 15. Approximate total current acres in each structure class and vegetation type.............................. 75

Table 16. Current structure class percentage by vegetation type................................................................ 76

Table 17. Historical range of variability percentages by vegetation type for each structure class compared 

to current conditions ........................................................................................................................... 76

Table 18. Modeled forest structure levels at 20 years compared to HRV for all vegetation types and 

alternatives.......................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 19. Modeled forest structure levels at 50 years compared to HRV for all vegetation types and 

alternatives.......................................................................................................................................... 83

Table 20. Modeled forest structure levels at 100 years compared to HRV for all vegetation types and 

alternatives.......................................................................................................................................... 84

Table 21. Total acres of suitable forest land by alternative ........................................................................ 85

Table 22. Average annual volumes (million board feet (mmbf)) by alternative for the first decade.......... 86

Table 23. No-action alternative modeling results (percentage) .................................................................. 88

Table 24. Proposed action alternative modeling results (percentage)......................................................... 90

Table 25. Alternative R modeling results (percentage) .............................................................................. 92

Table 26. Alternative P modeling results (percentage)............................................................................... 94

Table 27. Alternative B modeling results (percentage) .............................................................................. 96

Table 28. Alternative O modeling results (percentage) .............................................................................. 99

Table 29. Sensitive plant habitat groups, number of species within each habitat and number of 

occurrences (sites)............................................................................................................................. 100

Table 30. Species summary of viability outcomes by alternatives........................................................... 102

Table 31. Resource vulnerabilities on the Colville National Forest ......................................................... 124

Table 32. Historic versus current fire return interval................................................................................ 127

Table 33. Fire regime groups by vegetation type for the Colville National Forest................................... 130

Table 34. Current conditions by vegetation type ...................................................................................... 131
Contents - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

xi

Table 35. Twenty-year predicted average fire regime condition class percent departure by forest type and 

alternative ..........................................................................................................................................135

Table 36. Wildland-urban interface acres unsuitable for mechanical treatment .......................................136

Table 37. No-action alternative predicted departure by vegetation type...................................................136

Table 38. Proposed action alternative predicted departure by vegetation type .........................................138

Table 39. Alternative R predicted departure by vegetation type ...............................................................141

Table 40. Alternative P predicted departure by vegetation type ...............................................................143

Table 41. Alternative B predicted departure by vegetation type ...............................................................145

Table 42. Alternative O predicted departure by vegetation type...............................................................147

Table 43. Prediction of Colville National Forest acres of invasive plant infestation ................................154

Table 44. Index values for soil-disturbing actions that favor invasion by invasive plants for each 

alternative of the Forest Plan Revision..............................................................................................155

Table 45. Lakes and reservoirs occupied by invasive aquatic species......................................................165

Table 46. Major subbasin hydrologic unit code (HUC) and size ..............................................................166

Table 47. Summary of listed species, species of concern, and species of interest ....................................175

Table 48. Habitat associations (spawning and rearing) for species-at-risk. ..............................................176

Table 49. Road attributes categories .........................................................................................................182

Table 50. Erosion risk categories ..............................................................................................................183

Table 51. Final erosion risk categories......................................................................................................183

Table 52. Erosion and sedimentation risk categories................................................................................183

Table 53. Total possible score by attribute................................................................................................185

Table 54. Final aquatic habitat condition rating........................................................................................185

Table 55. Kettle Interior Redband Subbasin AEC scores .........................................................................189

Table 56. Kettle Subbasin WSCT AEC scores..........................................................................................189

Table 57. Sanpoil Subbasin WSCT AEC scores.......................................................................................190

Table 58. Sanpoil Subbasin Interior Redband AEC scores.......................................................................190

Table 59. Pend Oreille Subbasin Bull Trout AEC scores..........................................................................190

Table 60. Pend Oreille Subbasin WSCT AEC scores...............................................................................191

Table 61. Colville Subbasin WSCT AEC scores ......................................................................................191

Table 62. Colville Subbasin Interior Redband AEC scores ......................................................................191

Table 63. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Interior Redband AEC scores ..........................................................192

Table 64. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin WSCT AEC scores ..........................................................................192

Table 65. Issues and key indicators for the aquatic habitat and species environmental consequences.....196

Table 66. MIS/focal species viability scores.............................................................................................208

Table 67. Management areas that share the same direction across all action alternatives........................210

Table 68. No-action management areas by subbasin (acres).....................................................................210

Table 69. Riparian habitat conservation area width ..................................................................................213

Table 70. Forest Service contribution to viability (the higher the score the greater the Forest Service 

Contribution) .....................................................................................................................................214

Table 71. Riparian habitat conservation area width ..................................................................................216

Table 72. INFISH priority and alternative B key watersheds ...................................................................217

Table 73. Proposed action management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion ............220

Table 74. Riparian widths for the proposed action, R, P, and O alternatives............................................226

Table 75. Proposed action key watersheds................................................................................................228

Table 76. Proposed action — objectives and projected improvements in key watersheds that are active 

priorities for restoration.....................................................................................................................230

Table 77. Alternative R management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion ................233

Table 78. Alternatives R, P, O - objectives and projected improvements in key watersheds that are active 

priorities for restoration.....................................................................................................................239

Table 79. Key watersheds for alternatives R, P, and O.............................................................................240

Table 80. Alternative P management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion.................243
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

xii

Table 81. Alternative B management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion................ 247

Table 82. Alternative O management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion................ 251

Table 83. Hydrologic stream classification for the Colville National Forest (Reidy Lierman et al. 2012)

.......................................................................................................................................................... 263

Table 84. Classification, naming conventions, and average size of hydrologic units in the hydrologic unit 

code system....................................................................................................................................... 265

Table 85. Region, subregions, and basins on the Colville National Forest............................................... 265

Table 86. Subbasins within the Colville National Forest administrative boundary.................................. 265

Table 87. Watersheds within the Colville National Forest administrative boundary ............................... 266

Table 88. Results of the watershed condition framework summarized by number of subwatersheds within 

each condition class .......................................................................................................................... 269

Table 89. Existing riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) acreage on the Colville National Forest 

within the administrative boundary................................................................................................... 272

Table 90. Riparian and wetland acreage for the Colville National Forest (National Wetlands Inventory)

.......................................................................................................................................................... 273

Table 91. Soil water flow category acreage across the Colville National Forest administrative forest and 

number of springs and seeps within each soil water flow category.................................................. 274

Table 92. Affects to hydrologic processes from timber harvest, die-off from insect and disease outbreaks, 

and wildland fire (Adams et al. 2012)............................................................................................... 275

Table 93. Historical range of variability percentage by vegetation type for five structure classes compared 

to current conditions. Values below HRV are shaded in black, values above HRV are shaded in gray 

(Day 2015). ....................................................................................................................................... 278

Table 94. Miles of road on the Colville National Forest........................................................................... 281

Table 95. Subwatersheds categorized by road density and riparian road density..................................... 282

Table 96. Number of crossings and relative risk of sediment delivery..................................................... 282

Table 97. INFISH priority watersheds on the Colville National Forest designated at the subwatershed 

scale .................................................................................................................................................. 284

Table 98. Differences in RHCA widths for INFISH priority and non-priority watersheds...................... 284

Table 99. Focus 5th field watersheds on the Colville National Forest ..................................................... 285

Table 100. Priority watersheds on the Colville National Forest ............................................................... 285

Table 101. Summary of existing priority and focus watersheds............................................................... 286

Table 102. Crosswalk between subbasins and WRIAs on the Colville National Forest administrative 

forest ................................................................................................................................................. 287

Table 103. Water quality standards for waters of the Colville National Forest (WAC 173-201A-200) .. 289

Table 104. Miles of stream by pollutant by subbasin on the Colville National Forest under an approved 

TMDL and WQIP, and miles of stream on the current 303d list not specifically covered under at 

TMDL and WQIP (WADoE 2014(a)) .............................................................................................. 291

Table 105. Certificated water rights and points of diversion in the name of the Colville National Forest* 

by purpose of use and volume........................................................................................................... 294

Table 106. Certificated water rights within the Colville National Forest administrative boundary in the 

name of others................................................................................................................................... 295

Table 107. Dams on the Colville National Forest..................................................................................... 295

Table 108. Riparian habitat conservation areas width and acreages on the Colville National Forest in noaction and alternative B .................................................................................................................... 301

Table 109. INFISH priority watersheds (designated at the subwatershed scale)...................................... 302

Table 110. Existing management areas and authorization of road building and timber production by 

management area .............................................................................................................................. 304

Table 111. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under the 

no-action alternative.......................................................................................................................... 305

Table 112. RMA widths and total acreage for the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O ............ 307

Table 113. Key watersheds in the proposed action................................................................................... 309
Contents - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

xiii

Table 114. Objectives for key watersheds that are a priority for restoration.............................................311

Table 115. Existing road density by 5th field watershed for the focused and general restoration 

management areas under the proposed action ...................................................................................313

Table 116. Proposed action management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

affect the hydrologic resource ...........................................................................................................315

Table 117. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under the 

proposed action..................................................................................................................................315

Table 118. Key watersheds (subwatershed scale) for alternatives R, P, and O.........................................319

Table 119. Key watersheds that are priorities for restoration and projected restoration activities based on 

key watershed objectives that will be completed through the life of alternative R...........................321

Table 120. Existing road density by 5th field watershed for the general restoration and late forest structure 

management areas in alternative R....................................................................................................324

Table 121. Alternative R management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

affect the hydrologic resource ...........................................................................................................326

Table 122. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under 

alternative R ......................................................................................................................................326

Table 123. Comparison of grazing plan components that are different between alternative R and other 

alternatives (not under INFISH)........................................................................................................327

Table 124. Existing road density by 5th field watershed for the focused and general restoration 

management areas in alternative P ....................................................................................................330

Table 125. Alternative P management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

affect the hydrologic resource ...........................................................................................................331

Table 126. Alternative B management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

affect the hydrologic resource ...........................................................................................................334

Table 127. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under 

alternative B ......................................................................................................................................335

Table 128. Alternative O management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

affect the hydrologic resource ...........................................................................................................338

Table 129. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under 

alternative O ......................................................................................................................................338

Table 130. Comparison of key indicators between alternatives................................................................341

Table 131. Adjudications and surface water limitations for WRIAs on the Colville National Forest ......344

Table 132. Number of applications, claims, certificates, and permits for WRIAs within the Colville 

National Forest ..................................................................................................................................346

Table 133. SWE classification and acres of Colville National Forest within each category (Kramer and 

Snook 2014) ......................................................................................................................................347

Table 134. Percent change in mean summer flow (cfs) from historic data and perennial stream mileage 

within each category under the 2040 and 2080 warming scenarios..................................................347

Table 135. Projected vulnerability of roads within 300 feet of perennial streams for 2040 and 2080 

categorized by percent increase in bankfull flows from VIC data ....................................................348

Table 136. Soil orders on the Colville National Forest .............................................................................353

Table 137. Droughty soil index for the Colville National Forest..............................................................356

Table 138. Map unit hydric ratings on the Colville National Forest.........................................................356

Table 139. Geologic tree nutrition values for the Colville National Forest ..............................................359

Table 140. Soil carbon densities from research.........................................................................................360

Table 141. Surface erosion risk.................................................................................................................360

Table 142. Deep-seated landslide risk.......................................................................................................362

Table 143. Shallow rapid landslide risk ....................................................................................................362

Table 144. Area extent of site productivity ratings for Old Forest Management areas by alternative (acres)

...........................................................................................................................................................366
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

xiv

Table 145. Area extent of silty ash-cap soils that are sensitive to motorized recreation trails due to bearing 

strength under higher soil moisture conditions by alternative .......................................................... 369

Table 146. Area extent of soils having different sensitivities to soil displacement by equipment operations 

due to presence or absence of ash-cap and ash-cap depth by alternative.......................................... 369

Table 147. Area extent of water-storing soils that are sensitive to motorized recreation trails due to soil 

disturbances that could negatively affect the soil hydrologic function by alternative ...................... 370

Table 148. Area extent of soils having different levels of drought stress within riparian and aquatic 

resource management areas .............................................................................................................. 370

Table 149. Area extent of water-storing soils within riparian and aquatic resource management areas.. 370

Volume I. List of Figures

Figure 1. Colville National Forest vicinity map ........................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Hierarchy of management direction for all national forests.......................................................... 9

Figure 3. INFISH Priority Watersheds for no action and alternative B...................................................... 46

Figure 4. Key watershed network under the proposed action..................................................................... 49

Figure 5. Key watershed network under alternatives P, R, and O .............................................................. 52

Figure 6. Approximate current total acres for each vegetation type ........................................................... 75

Figure 7. Total insect and disease activity 1980 to 2013 (acres) ................................................................ 77

Figure 8. Total fire acres on the Colville National Forest 1970 to 2013..................................................... 77

Figure 9. Total forest ecosystem carbon stocks and uncertainty estimates (95 percent confidence level)122

Figure 10. Carbon stock flux and uncertainty estimates (95 percent confidence level) ........................... 123
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

1

122 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

123 The Forest Service prepared this programmatic draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in 

124 compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal laws 

125 and regulations. This DEIS discloses the environmental impacts that would result from the 

126 proposed action and alternatives. This document is organized into four chapters:

127 • Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action. This chapter includes the history of the 

128 proposal, the purpose of and need for action, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that 

129 purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of 

130 the proposal and how the public responded. 

131 • Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action. This chapter provides a more 

132 detailed description of the agency’s proposed action and alternative methods for achieving 

133 the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by 

134 the public and other agencies. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the 

135 environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

136 • Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter 

137 describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

138 alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area, significant issues, and 

139 environmental component. 

140 • Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination. This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

141 agencies consulted during the development of the DEIS. 

142 • Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

143 presented in the DEIS.

144 • Index. The index provides page numbers by document topic.

145 Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be 

146 found in the project planning record located at the Colville National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

147 Background

148 The Colville National Forest is managed by the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department 

149 of Agriculture (USDA). As required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 

150 (16 U.S.C. 1604, et seq.), the Forest Service currently manages Colville National Forest under a 

151 land management plan (forest plan) approved in 1988. The 1988 forest plan, including its 

152 amendments, is the main document that guides Forest decision-making with respect to managing 

153 natural resources (e.g., soil, water, vegetation, and ecosystems) and human uses (e.g., recreation, 

154 thinning, livestock grazing, firewood gathering, special use permits, and search for solitude) of 

155 the Colville National Forest. The Newport Ranger District is still part of the Kaniksu National 

156 Forest, but has been administered by the Colville National Forest since 1974. Throughout this 

157 document, the terms “Colville National Forest” and “Forest” refer to both the Colville and that 

158 portion of the Kaniksu National Forest that Colville National Forest administers.

159 The Colville National Forest is proposing to revise its 1988 forest plan. Per direction in the 

160 NFMA and its implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219, every national forest must revise 

161 its land management plan:
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

2

162 • Every 10 to 15 years;

163 • When conditions or demands in the area covered by the plan have changed significantly;

164 • When changes in agency policies, goals, or objectives would have a significant effect on 

165 forest level programs; and

166 • When monitoring and evaluation indicate revision is necessary.

167 During the 25-year life of the forest plan, economic, social, and ecological conditions have 

168 changed. New laws, regulations, and policies are in place. Congressional direction, court 

169 decisions, conservation agreements, recovery plans, and scientific findings contribute to changed 

170 management conditions and support the need for revision. Endangered Species Act species 

171 listings have been updated, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research is 

172 available.

173 Due to these changed conditions and the age of the plan, the Colville National Forest began the 

174 process of revising its plan in 2003. During this process, the Forest developed multiple 

175 programmatic strategies (or alternatives) for revising its plan. A summary of these alternatives 

176 (chapter 2) as well as analysis of the environmental consequences (chapter 3) they pose are the 

177 focus of this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

178 Development of the Proposed Action

179 The Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests began a joint forest plan revision effort 

180 in 2004, with community workshops, county representative meetings, and tribal consultation. In 

181 June 2011, the scoping of the proposed action was initiated with the Federal Register Notice of 

182 Intent to Prepare an EIS and Revised Forest Plan. That scoping notice indicated the Forests would 

183 be revising under the provisions of the National Forest planning regulations in effect prior to 

184 November 9, 2000, referred to in this document as the 1982 Planning Rule. (See the following 

185 hyperlink for the 1982 procedures: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html.) 

186 On May 9, 2012, the agency established a new planning rule (the 2012 Planning Rule). The 2012 

187 Rule also provides transition language at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), allowing the responsible official 

188 to elect to use the provisions of the prior planning regulations to prepare plan amendments and 

189 revisions. The responsible official has elected to continue to follow the provisions of the planning 

190 regulations in effect prior to May 9, 2012, as indicated in the 2011 Notice of Intent. However, in 

191 consideration of transition time requirements, the Forest will develop the monitoring plan per 36 

192 CFR 219.12 of the 2012 Rule.

193 In 2014, after review of public input and the feasibility of the combined process, the regional 

194 forester determined that separating the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests’

195 revision efforts was the best way to reflect public input and resource needs. While the analyses 

196 for the forests are still considering all public comments received to date, the Colville DEIS and 

197 future documents will reflect issues and alternatives specific to the Colville National Forest. The 

198 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is completing a separate analysis and draft revised forest 

199 plan specific to its resource needs and public input.

200 The proposed revised forest plan updates the desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, 

201 special areas, suitability, and monitoring requirements that will guide management of the Colville 

202 National Forest for the next 10 to 15 years. It also changes the description and allocation of the 

203 management areas to achieve forestwide desired conditions and to provide opportunities for a 
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

3

204 range of activities. The proposed revised forest plan accompanying this DEIS addresses the need 

205 for changes as described below. 

206 Planning Area

207 The 1.1-million-acre Colville National Forest is located in the northeastern corner of Washington 

208 State within Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties. Ranger district offices are located in 

209 Republic, Kettle Falls, Metaline Falls, and Newport, and the supervisor’s office is located in 

210 Colville (see figure 1). 

211 Waters from the Colville National Forest feed Lake Roosevelt on the Columbia River, which is 

212 impounded by the Grand Coulee Dam, the largest power-supplying dam in the United States. The 

213 Grand Coulee Dam generates 21 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, supplying power to 

214 Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, California, Nevada, New Mexico, 

215 Utah, Arizona, and Canada. Hydropower and flood control on the Columbia River are governed 

216 by the Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada. In addition, two 

217 hydropower projects have acreage on the Colville National Forest on the Pend Oreille River. 

218 Boundary Dam generates one-third of Seattle City Light’s power, and Box Canyon Dam supplies 

219 power for Pend Oreille County.

220 Plant species data include about 2,400 vascular and nonvascular plant and fungi taxa that occur 

221 on the Forest and vicinity. Of those, 38 have been identified as Pacific Northwest Region 

222 sensitive species. The moonwort species, Botrychium lineare, occurs here at the only site in 

223 Washington State, thriving on the Colville National Forest. In addition, two wildflower-viewing 

224 sites are documented and described for public recreation opportunities. The wide range of 

225 geological and soil types, precipitation, and elevations spanning warm valley bottoms to cold 

226 mountain peaks create a diverse assortment of plant communities.

227 Three hundred twenty-three known species of vertebrate wildlife occur in the Forest, including 73 

228 species of mammals, 234 birds, 9 reptiles, and 7 species of amphibians. Thirty-one species or 

229 sub-species of fish inhabit Colville National Forest waters. Unique wildlife species such as red230 tailed chipmunk, northern bog lemming, and woodland caribou live on the Forest. The Selkirk 

231 Mountains and Kettle River Range are also the only place in America where woodland caribou, 

232 moose, elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer share the same habitat. Northeastern Washington is 

233 home to approximately 65 percent of Washington State’s white-tailed deer population, a majority 

234 of them on the Colville National Forest. 

235 The very eastern portion of the Forest is included in the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. The 

236 recovery area is one of two in Washington State and one of six in the Nation. It includes the 

237 Selkirk Mountains Ecosystem of northern Idaho, southern British Columbia, and northeastern

238 Washington. The recovery area supports a small population of grizzly bears estimated at 40 to

239 50 bears.

240 The Forest also contains recovery area and proposed critical habitat for the last remaining herd of 

241 woodland caribou in the continental U.S. The recovery area for the Selkirk Mountain woodland 

242 caribou, the most endangered mammal in the continental U.S., includes a portion of the Colville 

243 National Forest and public lands in northern Idaho and southern British Columbia. In 2013, only 

244 18 animals were counted in the entire recovery area. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

4

245 The Forest does not contain designated critical habitat for Canada lynx, but follows current 

246 science direction for managing Canada lynx habitat. The Kettle Crest is identified as a core area 

247 important for the recovery of Canada lynx in Washington.

248 Bull trout is federally listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Portions of 

249 streams on the Forest have been designated as critical habitat for the recovery of this species. 

250 The Forest provides a variety of recreation opportunities. The Salmo-Priest Wilderness 

251 (31,400 acres) is an example of the Okanogan Highlands landform and is the only wilderness in 

252 the northeastern section of the state. The Forest hosts 80 miles of National Recreation Trails. Two 

253 of the longest trails are the Kettle Crest (44 miles) and the Shedroof Divide (21.8 miles). The 

254 other two National Recreation Trails are the Lakeshore Trail, also known as Sullivan Lake 

255 (4.3 miles), and Pass Creek-Grassy Top (7.8 miles). The International Selkirk Loop is one of 31 

256 routes in the Nation designated as an All American Road. It winds through northeastern

257 Washington, northern Idaho, and southeastern British Columbia. The loop received the national 

258 Rural Community Assistance Action Award from the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service for 2000 to 

259 2001.

260

261 Figure 1. Colville National Forest vicinity map
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

5

262 Need for Change

263 The forest supervisor initiated forest plan revision based on legal requirements and significant 

264 changes that have occurred in conditions and demands since the 1988 forest plan went into effect. 

265 The Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) (2015) documents the need to establish or 

266 change forest plan management direction. Revision is also warranted because the forest plan is 

267 beyond the 10- to 15-year duration provided by the NFMA.

268 Using the information from the AMS, as well as information provided through public engagement 

269 and outreach with various public groups, organizations, agencies, officials, and individuals, the 

270 Colville National Forest identified five recommended needs for change in the 1988 forest plan. 

271 Wildlife Habitat

272 There is a need to maintain or restore ecological conditions that contribute to the recovery and 

273 viability of terrestrial plant and wildlife species. The 1988 forest plan needs to be updated to 

274 reflect new species listings, designated critical habitat, and current science relating to plant and 

275 animal species and their habitats. Some wildlife species have been added to the Federal 

276 Threatened and Endangered Species List and some have included a new designation of critical 

277 habitat (woodland caribou). A considerable body of information is now available concerning the 

278 viability of terrestrial wildlife and plant species of management focus. This includes viability 

279 assessments for the Interior Columbia Basin and for northeastern Washington. Key factors that 

280 influence viability of many of the species assessed include habitat alteration due to timber 

281 harvest, wildfire, and other vegetation management activities; restoration of riparian and wetland 

282 habitats; and reduction of habitat effectiveness and connectivity due to the potential impacts of 

283 roads. Climate change may alter how water systems function and it is projected to exacerbate the 

284 loss of old forest habitat due to increased fire rates. This creates a need to restore watershed 

285 conditions to be more resilient to disturbances to provide for the recovery and viability of wildlife 

286 and plant species.

287 Vegetative Systems

288 There is a need to manage forest vegetation conditions to be more resilient to disturbances. The 

289 Douglas-fir dry and Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer forest types are susceptible to 

290 continued severe insect and disease outbreaks. The existing forest plan does not adequately 

291 address the factors that have created these unsustainable conditions, nor does it adequately 

292 address the varied nature of the landscape. In addition, climate change is predicted to make these 

293 conditions even more challenging to sustain. Thus, there is a need to revise the forest plan to 

294 focus restoration actions in Douglas-fir dry and Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer 

295 landscapes, and create conditions that are more resilient to anticipated disturbances. Lodgepole 

296 pine forest types are also in need of updated management direction that addresses the challenges 

297 described above. For example, historically, frequent fires maintained low tree abundance on dry 

298 landscapes with fire cycles lengthening with Euro-settlement. Over time, stand density has 

299 increased due to fire suppression. In the absence of fire and without human intervention, 

300 competition for water and nutrients, insect and disease mortality, the number of shade-tolerant 

301 species, range of even-age class structure, and amount of dead material have increased (Everett et 

302 al. 2007). In the past 10 to 15 years, fire acres in eastern Washington have increased with 

303 amplified severity reflective of higher fuels levels and tree mortality influences, along with longer 

304 fire seasons. Experimental work has shown that these increasing trends can be reduced through 

305 active management when applied at a landscape scale (Schwilk et al. 2009).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

6

306 Climate Change

307 There is a need to address climate change implications and vulnerabilities. The existing forest 

308 plan does not address the potential effect of climate change. Recent scientific findings on climate 

309 change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014) have dramatically improved 

310 our understanding of how ecosystems have changed and are likely to change in the future. 

311 Changing climate conditions have affected ecosystem composition, structure, process, and spatial 

312 pattern, altering the character and distribution of habitats for surrogate plant and animal species. 

313 In addition, climate change has altered, and will continue to alter disturbance regimes, including 

314 forest insects and diseases, fire, and hydrologic regimes. Future conditions may be more 

315 favorable to some undesired non-native plant, wildlife, and aquatic species (IPCC 2014). The full 

316 impact of climate change on ecosystems is uncertain, but an integrated management direction that 

317 provides flexibility to respond to a changing environment is needed to maintain or restore the 

318 resilience of the national forests in the face of these changes.

319 Social Systems

320 There is a need to address changed social and economic conditions and preferences in light of 

321 ecosystem capacity. Colville National Forest provides a variety of opportunities for recreating, 

322 working, and practicing cultural and spiritual traditions. In turn, communities provide 

323 infrastructure and skills to support forest management. Sustainable social and economic 

324 opportunities depend on well-functioning and resilient ecological systems. During the past 

325 20 years, demographic and economic changes have altered how people use and access the Forest. 

326 Plan revision needs to address changed social, economic, and ecological conditions. There is a 

327 need for the Forest to contribute to predictable and sustained flows of economic and social 

benefits (e.g., ecosystem services4 328 ) within the capability of the ecosystem. Social changes include 

329 an increasing demand, largely due to population growth, for a variety of recreation opportunities 

330 on public lands. An example of changes in recreation use and visitor preferences is a trend toward 

331 shorter-duration visits to the Forest compared to those in the past. A more ethnically diverse 

332 population is visiting the Forest and visitors are now more likely to stay for a day or weekend, 

333 rather than for longer periods. In addition, demand for recreation opportunities in ‘front country’ 

334 areas is greater than for backcountry areas. New activities and modes of travel continue to appear, 

335 e.g., mountain bicycles with over-snow tires and snowmobiles that resemble motorcycles. Plan 

336 revision needs to address such a shift, within the capability of the available infrastructure and the 

337 ecosystem. Economic shifts in markets for timber products and declines in timber harvests have 

338 caused many eastern Washington wood processors to close. Plan revision needs to address the 

339 types and extent of forest management activities that can be accomplished within projected 

340 budgets.

341 Aquatic and Riparian Systems

342 There is a need to accelerate improvement in watershed condition across the Forest. The current 

343 forest plan and amendments do not adequately provide integrated management direction to 

344 maintain and restore properly functioning watersheds that provide a range of benefits on and off 

345 the Colville National Forest within a timeframe that is meaningful. This is supported by new 

 4 Ecosystem services are commonly defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. Ecosystem services include 

basic servicesprovisioning services like the delivery of food, fresh water, wood and fiber, and medicineand 

services that are less tangible and harder to measure but equally critical: regulating services like carbon sequestration, 

erosion control, and pollination; cultural services like recreation, ecotourism, and educational and spiritual values; and 

supporting services like nutrient cycling, soil formation, and primary productivity. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/About_ES/faq.shtml#ecoservices
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

7

346 science, the listing of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) under the Endangered Species Act 

347 (1988), designation of critical habitat for bull trout (2010), information provided by the bull trout 

348 recovery plan (2014), and the results of new assessment tools such as the national Watershed 

349 Condition Framework. Properly functioning watersheds provide stable and productive ecological 

350 systems and allow for conditions that support aquatic species viability and self-sustaining 

351 populations, contribute to the recovery and de-listing of threatened and endangered species, and 

352 restore stream systems that do not meet Washington State water quality standards (WADoE 

353 2014). 

354 There is also a need to integrate watershed and aquatic strategies across the Forest. The existing 

355 Colville Forest Plan was completed in 1988, and was amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

356 (INFISH; USDA 1995) in 1995. Since 1988, the Aquatic Restoration Strategy (ARS; USDA 

357 2005), the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS; USDA 2008) and the Watershed 

358 Condition Framework (Potyondy and Geier 2010) have been developed to reflect management 

359 direction recommended by current research and supported by regional and national policy. The 

360 ARS is a Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional operational strategy that reinforces the 

361 foundation of existing forest plan strategies, including broad-scale passive restoration, and 

362 strategically focused active restoration and guides implementation through establishment of 

363 specific goals and objectives and a formal process for near-term active restoration. The 2010 

364 National Watershed Condition Framework process evaluated current conditions at the 

365 subwatershed scale and identified priority subwatersheds where focused restoration could 

366 improve watershed condition on NFS lands. ARCS is a refinement of previous forest plan 

367 strategies (including the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, and INFISH) incorporating key 

368 concepts from the ARS and watershed condition framework, and is intended to provide the core 

369 set of desired conditions, suitability, objectives, standards and guidelines for aquatic and riparian 

370 management. ARCS provides additional watershed direction intended to restore and maintain 

371 watershed conditions and processes that sustain a full range of ecosystem services and support 

372 beneficial uses of water, with a focus on protection and restoration of native anadromous and 

373 non-anadromous fisheries. Consistency and integration of new research and regional and national 

374 direction on restoration and protection of watershed and aquatic habitat and function will 

375 contribute to the restoration and maintenance of riparian and aquatic habitats and beneficial uses 

376 of water and increase resilience to disturbance. 

377 Decision Framework

378 The entire environmental impact statement process, including the Draft EIS and Final EIS, is 

379 meant to inform the responsible official (the regional forester) so that s/he can decide which 

380 alternative (the proposed action, no action, or another alternative) to choose. 

381 This is a programmatic DEIS. The decisions that result from this process are broad-scale planning 

382 decisions that will guide the selection and design of future projects and activities on the Colville 

383 National Forest. Programmatic decisions are made in the forest plan, and they are expressed as 

384 goals (identified as desired conditions), objectives, standards, guidelines, management area 

385 allocations, special areas, suitability, and monitoring. The forest plan provides a broad framework 

386 that guides project-level decisions, but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any site-specific 

387 activities. Instead, the forest plan establishes limitations on what actions may be authorized and 

388 what conditions must be met during project-level decision making.

389 A forest plan establishes key decisions for the long-term management of a national forest. The 

390 1982 planning regulations establish the following as decisions required in forest plans:
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

8

391 1. Forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives including projections of goods and services that 

392 may be produced (36 CFR 219.11(b), 1982 Rule)

393 2. Forestwide management requirements (standards) (36 CFR 219.13 – 219.27, 1982 Rule)

394 3. Management area direction and prescriptions, including management practices (36 CFR

395 219.11(c), 1982 Rule)

396 4. Suitability for timber and grazing (36 CFR 219.14, 219.16, and 219.20, 1982 Rule)

397 5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11(d), 1982 Rule and 36 CFR 219.12, 

398 2012 Rule)

399 6. Recommendation to Congress of areas eligible for wilderness designation as required (36CFR 

400 219.17 (a), 1982 Rule) and rivers eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

401 Rivers System as required (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287), (36 CFR 297) and (47 FR 39454)

402 The regulations guiding the forest plan revision process give latitude to the Forest Service to 

403 determine the scope of topics included in the revision.

404 The Pacific Northwest Regional Forester will review the proposed plan, alternatives, and 

405 environmental consequences, and then decide which plan alternative best addresses the desired 

406 conditions, multiple-use opportunities, diverse needs of people, and sustainable management of 

407 the Colville National Forest as well as meeting the requirements of the National Forest 

408 Management Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

409 Relationship to Other Law, Regulation, Policy, and Strategic 

410 Guidance

411 Forest Service direction and guidance for managing National Forest System (NFS) lands comes 

412 from several sources and is not altered by forest plan revision. National and regional direction 

413 includes laws, executive orders, and regulations. Forest Service policy guides activities on 

414 national forests. All forest activities must comply with national direction and reflect national 

415 policy.

416 The hierarchy of management direction ranges from national and regional direction to site417 specific, project-level direction when the forest plan is implemented. Figure 2 shows the primary 

418 levels of direction.
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

9

419

420 Figure 2. Hierarchy of management direction for all national forests

421 National and Regional Direction and Guidance

422 As a Federal land management agency, the Forest Service must follow all applicable laws and 

423 regulations. If laws change or are amended, or if new laws are enacted, the Forest Service will 

424 comply with the changes or additions. The same situation applies to executive orders and agency 

425 policy, as expressed in Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH) directives. This 

426 direction does not need to be restated in the forest plan. Wherever the laws, regulations, or 

427 policies have more stringent requirements than forest plan direction, the Forest must and will 

428 comply with those requirements.

429 Examples of Federal laws with which forest plans must be consistent are the Endangered Species 

430 Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Wilderness Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,

431 Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Guidance for these 

432 laws comes from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the Forest Service Directive 

433 System (the Forest Service Handbooks and Forest Service Manuals). That material is not repeated 

434 in the proposed revised forest plan, but a summary of these may be found on the Forest Service 

435 national web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/. 

436 National rules applicable to all national forests, such as the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 

437 Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295) and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294) 

438 continue to apply, are not repeated in the proposed revised forest plan, and may not be altered 

439 through the forest plan revision process. 

440 Guidance for forest plans is from the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 

441 (http://www.fs.fed.us/plan/). This national-level plan is a framework for the National Forest 

442 System annual performance plan. It guides units such as individual national forests or ranger 

443 districts in proposing project-level work, while considering the opportunities and challenges 

444 detailed in their local unit plans. Like individual forest plans, the strategic plan focuses on 

445 outcomes or results that are to be achieved over time. Forest plans consider the National Strategic 

446 Plan in developing desired conditions and objectives. A goal of the USDA Strategic Plan 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

10

447 FY2014−2018 is to restore, sustain, and enhance the Nation’s forests, with a desired outcome for 

448 forests and grasslands to be healthy, productive, diverse, and resilient to disturbance. 

449 The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (1994−2000) was a broad-scale

450 effort to develop scientific knowledge of the ecological and biophysical trends, risks, and 

451 opportunities within the interior portion of the Pacific Northwest. One outcome of that project is 

452 The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy (2003; revised 2014) which includes an interagency 

453 memorandum of understanding (2014) that outlines how the strategy will be used to guide the 

454 amendment and revision of land and resource management plans for USDA Forest Service and 

455 USDI Bureau of Land Management administered lands within the Columbia Basin.

456 The Colville National Forest contributes to the accomplishment of national strategic guidance in 

457 accordance with its own unique combination of social, economic, and ecological conditions. The 

458 proposed plan helps define the Forest’s role in advancing the agency’s national strategy and 

459 reflects the national goals, which are based on the Government Performance and Results Act 

460 (2010). 

461 Forest-specific Resource Plans

462 A forest may have a forestwide resource plan, such as a fire management plan or access and travel 

463 management plan, which serves to implement the forest plan. These plans are consistent with, and 

464 subordinate to the forest plan.

465 Project-level Decisions

466 A forest plan does not authorize site-specific activities. Project activities such as timber harvest, 

467 trail construction, or motor vehicle use designations occur through subsequent project-specific 

468 decision-making, consistent with forest plan direction. Once finalized, the Forest will carry out 

469 on-the-ground projects and activities designed to accomplish management objectives and move 

470 the project area toward desired conditions described in the revised plan. Projects and activities 

471 will be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws and 

472 regulations. Project decisions must be consistent with the forest plan. 

473 Decisions Authorized per the 1988 Forest Plan

474 Once finalized in a record of decision, the revised forest plan will replace the current forest plan 

475 and the management direction within the current forest plan will no longer be applicable. It is not 

476 expected that the final revised plan direction would result in immediate re-evaluation or changes 

477 to on-going contracts, permits, or project decisions and activities when the Forest transitions to 

478 the revised forest plan. After the effective date of the revised plan, all new project decisions, 

479 contracts, permits, renewals, and other activities will be consistent with the plan direction.

480 Relationship to Other Entities

481 Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to review the planning and land use 

482 policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes. The review 

483 includes: 

484 1. Consideration of the objectives of other Federal, State and local governments, and Indians 

485 tribes, as expressed in their plans and policies;

486 2. An assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies;

487 3. A determination of how each Forest Service plan should deal with the impacts identified; and,
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

11

488 4. Where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for 

489 their resolution.

490 Agencies and governing entities contacted between 2003 and 2015 include U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

491 Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Kalispel Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the 

492 Colville Reservation, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Ferry County Board of Commissioners, Pend 

493 Oreille County Board of Commissioners, and Stevens County Board of Commissioners.

494 County Governments

495 Local government officials from the counties within and adjacent to the Colville National Forest 

496 have been invited to participate in forest plan development since the beginning of the planning 

497 effort (2003). Forest representatives have met with individual county board of commissioners as 

498 well as met with combined boards and with county departments. Between 2005 and 2015, the 

499 Forest Service met specifically with county commissioners more than 65 times. In addition,

500 county commissioners participated in plan revision collaboration and workgroup meetings, and 

501 Forest Service representatives met with various county committees and departments such as 

502 Stevens County Public Lands Advisory Committee.

503 Each county’s comprehensive plan has been assessed and considered during the revised plan 

504 development (Ferry County (2013), Pend Oreille County (2013), Stevens County (2008), and 

505 Okanogan County (2014)). The county land use plans describe local government goals and 

506 objectives for land management and provide opportunities for coordination between the Forest 

507 Service and the county. The following information is a summary of the full review that is located 

508 in the project record.

509 The over-arching theme of the Ferry County comprehensive plan’s vision statement is that “Ferry 

510 County would like to preserve its character and identity.” Ferry County offers a rural character of 

511 natural beauty and abundance. This includes values such as independence, privacy, and personal 

512 freedom that attract many people seeking both permanent residence and seasonal refuge. The 

513 primary goals that tie to national forest management include: 

514 1. Maintain a rural land use style, 

515 2. Preserve agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance.

516 3. Preserve natural resources throughout the County and offer special protection to areas 

517 designated as critical areas, or environmentally sensitive areas.

518 4. Provide safe and convenient areas for use of motorized and non-motorized vehicles and 

519 equipment;

520 5. Increase job opportunities and broaden the economic base in Ferry County through 

521 encouragement of industry that is compatible with other land uses; and 

522 6. Support multiple use on public lands.

523 7. Encourage and accommodate as many diverse recreational activities and areas as possible 

524 that are compatible with other land uses.

525 The Pend Oreille County comprehensive plan’s vision is based on a Statement of Values: Why 

526 We Live Here, where natural resources are conserved and land is used efficiently, ensuring that 

527 new development is compatible with the surrounding uses, sensitive to the surrounding natural 

528 areas, and retains the rural character of the community. Specific goals that connect with national 

529 forest management include: 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

12

530 1. Maintaining the rural character of Pend Oreille County, 

531 2. Protecting the traditional rural ways of making a living;

532 3. Encouraging employment opportunities; 

533 4. Maintaining an efficient, safe, and environmentally responsible road system; 

534 5. Supporting new development that is consistent with a realistic assessment of the availability 

535 of water; and protecting groundwater recharge areas and preventing the contamination of 

536 vulnerable groundwater resources; 

537 6. Protecting environmentally sensitive areas; 

538 7. Providing necessary public facilities and services, in places and at levels proportionate to 

539 planned development intensity and environmental protection. (USFS Landing Strip [Sullivan 

540 Lake], Sullivan Lake Ranger Station and Newport Ranger Station have been designated by 

541 Pend Oreille County as Essential Public Facilities); and 

542 8. Coordinating and collaborating with the U.S. Forest Service and other public resource 

543 agencies and managers to inventory recreational opportunities and promote the shared use 

544 and full enjoyment of publicly owned land in the County.

545 The comprehensive county plan’s (2008) vision for Stevens County emphasizes healthy 

546 landscapes where natural resources are conserved and land is used efficiently. Natural resources 

547 are well managed, healthy, productive and provide a steady, sustainable stream of products for 

548 economic viability while maintaining and enhancing opportunities for recreation. Specific goals 

549 related to national forest management:

550 1. Include economic development as one of the considerations in the process of land use 

551 planning, transportation planning, infrastructure planning, and the determination of urban 

552 growth areas.

553 2. Sustainable management decisions for public lands shall consider the diversity of customary 

554 practices, traditions, culture and ways of life found throughout the County

555 3. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries in the County, protect critical areas 

556 including surface and groundwater resources, and provide for the stewardship and productive 

557 use of forest, mineral, and agricultural lands.

558 4. Protect and enhance the character and quality of rural areas in ways that promote traditional 

559 rural lifestyles and industries,

560 5. Provide an efficient, functional, and environmentally responsible transportation network 

561 throughout Stevens County by utilizing and maintaining existing infrastructure, integrating 

562 transportation planning with other elements of the comprehensive plan, and coordinating with 

563 other Federal, State, tribal and local agencies.

564 6. Support the retention, enhancement, and development of recreation areas and activities, and 

565 parks and open space within Stevens County.

566 The west side of the Colville National Forest borders Okanogan County. The comprehensive 

567 county plan’s (2014) vision for Okanogan County emphasizes independence, privacy, and 

568 personal freedom for its citizens, works to strengthen the local economy, while also putting forth 

569 efforts to maintain a clean and healthy environment. The plan advocates for resource-based 

570 industries and activities such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and recreation while 
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

13

571 providing forest-related jobs for the local economy. The following uses are priority uses in 

572 support of the County's forestry economy:

573 1. Harvest and processing of forest products.

574 2. Equipment yards, repair and maintenance operations.

575 3. Manufacturing that requires proximity to forest products.

576 4. Home occupations and home-based industries.

577 5. Residential uses including vacation rental, single family, extended family, and farm worker 

578 housing, with covenants to assure compatibility with resource activities.

579 Although the interdisciplinary team did not find any direct conflicts or inconsistencies between 

580 the proposed plan’s management direction and the counties’ natural resource management 

581 objectives (where found), the county representatives perceive potential issues regarding economic 

582 effects related to recommended wilderness, expected timber outputs, and motorized access. 

583 All elements of the above plans were considered while developing alternatives for the Colville 

584 National Forest plan revision. The social and economic impacts to the counties are discussed in 

585 more detail in chapter 3.

586 State

587 Several Washington State agencies either are affected by, or affect, Forest management. These 

588 include Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural 

589 Resources, and Washington State Department of Ecology. The Forest coordinated information 

590 with these State agencies during all phases of the plan revision process. Those offices provided 

591 formal comments during the scoping and other public involvement stages. Statewide assessments 

592 were considered in the development of the revised forest plan (June 2010). 

593 Tribes

594 American Indian tribes are sovereign nations. They are government entities with which the Forest 

595 Service has established and continues to maintain government-to-government relationships. In 

596 government-to-government consultation, the Forest Service acknowledges the sovereignty of 

597 federally recognized American Indian tribes and the special government-to-government 

598 relationship between the tribes and the United States through Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 

599 (November 6, 2000). 

600 Tribes have reserved rights and privileges for their tribal members on any off-site reservation 

601 lands ceded through treaties or executive orders to the U.S. Government. The Forest Service 

602 manages some of those off-reservation lands ceded through treaties or executive orders. 

603 Therefore, the agency has certain legal responsibilities to American Indian tribes. The Forest 

604 Service is required to manage the lands under their stewardship with full consideration of the 

605 Federal trust responsibility and tribal rights and interests, particularly reserved rights where they 

606 exist. In meeting these responsibilities, the agency consults with the tribes whenever proposed 

607 policies or management actions may affect their interests.

608 Members of the planning interdisciplinary team consulted tribal representatives during 

609 development of the revised forest plan. The forest supervisor met with the Kalispel Tribe of 

610 Indians, Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; as a 

611 result, specific tribal comments were incorporated in this DEIS and revised forest plan.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

14

612 Federal

613 Management of Federal lands adjacent to the Colville National Forest was considered in the 

614 formulation of alternatives and their cumulative effects. This included the USDI Fish and Wildlife 

615 Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

616 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Air Force, and the Regional Interagency Executive 

617 Committee.

618 Consideration of national scenic trails, utility corridors, recommended wilderness, and other 

619 management concerns across boundaries were discussed with the Okanagan and Idaho Panhandle 

620 National Forests. The forests met to ensure management problems were not created because of 

621 Colville National Forest proposed forest plan direction.

622 Public Involvement

623 The Colville National Forest started forest plan revision in 2003, followed by public participation, 

624 which began in 2004 with community workshops about the need to change the existing forest 

625 plan. Workshops were held in communities throughout northeastern Washington, and additional

626 workshops on specific topics, including wilderness and recreation were held from 2005 to 2008. 

627 Meetings with representatives from local counties began in 2004, and are being held on a 

628 continuing basis throughout the forest plan revision process. Government-to-government 

629 consultation with tribal nations and staff-to-staff consultation with their resource specialists began 

630 early in the process and continues. State agencies are cooperating agencies; Federal agencies the 

631 Forest Service works closely with are the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Fish 

632 and Wildlife Service. A 2007 memorandum of agreement with the Washington State Association 

633 of Counties provides a framework for our work with the three local counties. Three federally 

634 recognized tribes have engaged at varied levels: the Colville Confederated Tribes (the Forest’s 

635 largest neighbors), and the smaller Spokane and Kalispel Tribes. Additional meetings with 

636 interest groups, user groups, State and Federal officials, tribal staff, and industry groups were 

637 held.

638 In June 2011, the Forest Service published a combined notice announcing the proposed actions 

639 for the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests were available for public review and 

640 comment. Public meetings and outreach efforts continued through 2013, based on the information 

641 related to both forests. 

642 The 90-day comment period per the 2011 notice drew 27,274 comment letters, of which 889 

643 contained unique and substantially different comments. We received letters, emails, form letters, 

644 and public comment forms from tribes, individuals, organizations, agencies, businesses, and 

645 groups from 15 states in the United States and British Columbia, Canada; however, this does not 

646 include state affiliation for all of the form letters. We analyzed 3,250 comments from the 889

647 comment letters to identify the significant issues driving the alternatives. 

648 As stated previously, the regional forester determined that the most effective process to reflect 

649 public input and resource needs was to separate the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

650 Forests’ plan revision effort. Moving forward from today, this DEIS reflects issues and 

651 alternatives specific to the Colville National Forest only. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

652 Forest is developing a proposed forest plan and completing a separate analysis specific to its

653 resource needs and public input specific to that forest. All input, including public comments

654 received to date, will continue to be part of each forest plan revision, as appropriate.
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

15

655 Significant Issues

656 Public, tribal, State, and local agency comments play an important role in the forest plan revision 

657 process. We reviewed all comments submitted on the proposed action to determine how they 

658 would be considered in the analysis. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 1501.7 

659 (a) (2) state that the agency will, “Determine the scope (§1508.25) and the significant issues to be 

660 analyzed in depth in the environmental impact statement.” We identified comments on old forest 

661 management, motorized recreation trails, road access, recommended wilderness, wildlife habitat,

662 and riparian and aquatic resource management as significant issues used to formulate alternatives. 

663 Other comments were used to refine the proposed action while still meeting the purpose of and 

664 need for plan revision; and others are considered in the environmental analyses. A report on the 

665 public comments is provided on the forest plan revision website:

666 http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/colville/landmanagement/planning

667 Following are the significant issues that led to the development of the alternatives described in 

668 chapter 2.

669 Old Forest (Late-successional) Management, and Timber Production

670 Some members of the public are concerned that the proposed action does not protect old forests 

671 and wildlife habitat as well as the current forest plan. Other members of the public are concerned 

672 that the proposed action does not allow enough timber production, which hurts the economy. 

673 Some are also concerned that the proposed action limits the Forest Service’s ability to defend 

674 forests from insects, disease, and fire. 

675 In their comments, some members of the public asked for increased timber production. They are 

676 concerned that the proposed action does not allow enough timber production, which hurts the 

677 economy. One representative comment stated:

678 “...the Colville would expect to continue to produce between 25 to 35 MMBF per year. 

679 The 1988 plan estimated the forest can and does produce 123.4 MMBF per year annually 

680 for the first decade... Eastside screens adopted in 1994 restricted timber sales in the San 

681 Poil Watershed for 15 years causing Colville Tribes milling operations to close. Because 

682 of the lack of active management of timber harvest, our forest has insect infestations, 

683 disease and stand replacing wildfires....”

684 Others expressed a different view that they “...are opposed to weakening protection for trees 

685 greater than 21 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Furthermore, since the process for an 

686 exception to cutting greater than 21-inches dbh trees is provided in the screens, we see no need to 

687 change guidance that has a default position of retention of these trees.”

688 Other members of the public are concerned that the proposed action does not safeguard old 

689 forests and wildlife.

690 “The final forest plan must at a minimum meet the standards and guidelines of the 

691 existing strategies, and should aim to improve them. Provide specific benchmarks that 

ensure viability of focal species. The FPR-PA5 692 recognizes the need of the forest plan to 

693 ensure viability of wildlife guided by new and emerging science. Please insure good 

694 monitoring and research to validate efficacy and resilience to changing climate.”

695 “For our forests to remain diverse and thriving, the forest plans must provide specific 

696 guidelines - both forestwide and within specific land allocations - to maintain and 

 5 FPR-PA = Forest Plan Revision – Proposed Action
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

16

697 connect habitat that supports viable wildlife populations for all native species. Many 

698 species rely on mature or old-growth forests to survive, so these types of forests must be 

699 protected and actively managed.”

700 “Is this the structural stage distribution of the original primary forest when it was affected 

701 by the historic fire regime before logging and fire suppression? If not, what is the current 

702 structural stage distribution at a watershed level? What factors make this particular 

703 structural stage distribution the “desired” one? Why is a greater percentage in the old 

704 forest stages not desired?”

705 Some are also concerned that the proposed action limits the Forest Service’s ability to defend 

706 forests from insects, disease, and fire. 

707 “During the course of the analysis it is important that the total areas that have restrictions 

708 for commodity production be quantified and analyzed relative to the potential effect of 

709 insect and disease moving between the management areas and the ability to suppress 

710 wildfires as they might affect private land, communities, and those areas that are 

711 designated for commercial timber production. This is an important concept that should be 

712 considered in determining how the desired conditions and objectives can be met relative 

713 to forest health and fire suppression.”

714 “AFRC is generally opposed to a diameter limit because it restricts silvicultural options... 

715 overstocking will lead to increasing forest health problems and should be considered.”

716 Evaluation Criteria 

717 The following indicators were used to evaluate this issue and to develop the variations between 

718 the alternatives:

719 • The effects on local economy (through commercial timber outputs) of alternative 

720 approaches in providing late structure forests. 

721 • The risk of wildfire, especially adjacent to communities.

722 • Contribution to the recovery and viability of late structure/ old forest-dependent species.

723 Key indicators:

724 • Predicted output, uses and activity levels

725 ♦ Timber (cubic feet)

726 ♦ Estimated percentage of forest structural stages (after 20, 50, and 100 years)

727 ♦ Estimated acres by wildfire risk level (fire regime condition class)

728 • Economic and social sustainability

729 ♦ Estimated economic differences between alternatives

730 • Location and acres of allocations, specifically related to roaded access within wildland731 urban interface (WUI)

732 • Comparison to the proposed action of the contribution to viability of late structure/old 

733 forest dependent species

734 Motorized Recreation Trails 

735 Public comments reflected opposing desires regarding motorized recreation opportunities, 

736 particularly the distribution and quantity of motorized trails. Some members of the public
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

17

737 expressed concerns that the distribution and quantity of motorized trails negatively affects

tourism and the local economy, while other stakeholders6 738 said that they want fewer miles of 

739 motorized trails and that they don’t like the resource damage, noise, and conflict associated with 

740 them. 

741 This comment expresses concern about expanding motorized recreation opportunities:

742 “It is inappropriate to reward user groups that break the law (i.e., trespass into 

743 Wilderness), cause the greatest resource damage to trails and vegetation, and probably 

744 cause the greatest impact to wildlife with new expanded opportunities to do more of the 

745 same.”

746 Another comment expressed an opposing view:

747 “There are currently more wilderness trails available in Washington State alone than any 

748 one person could hike in a lifetime. By making trails non-motorized we only eliminate 

749 access to more tax paying citizens... Motorized trail users, for the most part, are 

750 organized and concerned citizens that are out to enjoy the wonders of our natural world 

751 just like the non-motorized users.”

752 The public also raised concerns about the distribution and number of motorized and non753 motorized trails. Some stakeholders said that the distribution and number affect tourism and the 

754 local economy in the plan area. 

755 “We strongly support the stated goal of having 5% of the trail system adjacent to 

756 communities... Creating additional trails for mountain bicycling and other non-motorized 

757 recreation, readily accessible from the edges of the rural communities, will provide 

758 significant recreation, health, and economic benefits for their residents.”

759 “Both Motorized and Non-Motorized recreation are important parts of how many users, 

760 like me, experience the Forest, from hunters and anglers to backcountry horsemen and 

761 ORV users...Making this change would make it impossible for people with limited 

762 mobility to visit these areas. It would also hamper backcountry emergency rescues, 

763 making them more difficult and expensive.”

764 Evaluation Criteria

765 The following indicators were used to evaluate this issue and to develop the variations between 

766 the alternatives:

767 • The distribution of motorized and non-motorized recreation areas to assess contribution to 

768 motorized / non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

769 • The contribution of motorized recreation on the national forest to the local county economy.

770 • Contribution to the recovery and viability of wildlife and aquatic species that are sensitive 

771 to human disturbances that result from motorized recreational activities.

772 Key indicators:

773 • Predicted output, uses and activity levels for motorized/non-motorized use 

774 ♦ Wildlife - location and acres of allocations for motorized use

 6 Stakeholders = members of the public that have an interest in use and management of the Colville National Forest.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

18

775 ♦ Recreation - location, miles, and acres of allocation for motorized and non-motorized 

776 use

777 • Economic and social sustainability

778 ♦ Employment, income, and tax contributions related to recreation

779 ♦ Evaluation of access to motorized and non-motorized trails

780 Access

781 Some stakeholders expressed concern that the proposed action does not provide enough roads for 

782 recreation, grazing, fire suppression, timber harvest, and firewood collection. They commented

783 that lack of access would have a negative impact on economic well-being. Other stakeholders 

784 expressed concern that the Forest Service does not have the capacity to maintain the current road 

785 network and that unmaintained roads damage wildlife, water, and fish.

786 The following comments express views that the proposed action does not provide enough roads 

787 for cost-effective resource production, fire suppression, and recreation:

788 “The road density constraints of 2-3 miles per square mile are inadequate to service 

789 commodity production, fire suppression or motorized recreation, and will make 

790 prescribed burning and pre- commercial thinning more expensive.”

791 “Many of these designations are done over existing grazing allotments that will result in 

792 loss of cattle and vegetation management as cattlemen are no longer able to maintain 

793 economic viability. Cattle activity has been stated as able to continue with management 

794 changes, but these changes are not economically viable, and the local economies must not 

795 be devastated by this proposed action.”

796 The following comments express concerns that the proposed action does not provide enough 

797 roads for recreation and firewood collection, among other things:

798 “It is vital to our citizens to keep the forest open for public access, for firewood cutting, 

799 food gathering activities, recreation and hunting, just to name a few.”

800 “[C]losing roads makes it harder if not impossible for volunteers to access the area to 

801 help maintain the trails and other resources.”

802 “The ability for local, regional, and national citizens to gain value from and develop a 

803 sense of connection to these national forests depends on their ability to get to the land and 

804 experience it first-hand. As such, we recommend that all alternatives of the Forest Plan 

805 incorporate increased access aimed at enhancing the quality of experiences available to a 

806 broad spectrum of recreational users.”

807 Other stakeholders said they are concerned that the Forest Service does not have the capacity to 

808 maintain its current roads, and that unmaintained roads negatively affect wildlife viability, water 

809 quality, and fish populations.

810 “The Forest has a vastly oversized and unmanageable road system. This road system 

811 presents a substantial risk to soil, water, and aquatic resources...In the context of ever812 declining road maintenance budgets, the only appropriate management response is to 

813 reduce the number of roads.”
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

19

814 Evaluation Criteria 

815 The following indicators were used to evaluate this issue and to develop the variations between 

816 the alternatives:

817 • Evaluate the effects of road density limits on roaded access for recreation use, wildfire 

818 suppression, and vegetation management activities, specifically commercial timber harvest.

819 • Evaluate whether the management direction concerning road density, road location and 

820 objectives for treatment of high-risk roads is effective in restoration or preservation of 

821 watershed and hydrologic function and in contributing to the viability of aquatic, terrestrial 

822 plant, and wildlife species whose population and habitat are known to be sensitive to the 

823 impacts of roads. 

824 Key indicators:

825 • Predicted output, uses, and activity levels

826 ♦ Location and amount of allocations suitable for roads

827 ♦ Changes in road density desired conditions by allocation

828 ♦ Relative contribution to the recovery and viability of surrogate species

829 ♦ Objectives for reduction in miles of high-risk roads 

830 • Economic and social sustainability

831 ♦ Social impact related to recreation opportunities

832 ♦ Economic contribution related to timber production

833 Recommended Wilderness Areas 

834 While forest plans may make a preliminary recommendation for additional wilderness, only 

835 Congress can designate wilderness. Some stakeholders are concerned that the proposed action 

836 recommends too much additional wilderness. They commented that more wilderness areas hurt 

837 the economy by limiting timber harvest, grazing, mountain biking, and motorized recreation. 

838 Members of the public also raised concerns about the increased cost of managing additional 

839 wilderness.

840 Other stakeholders said that the proposed action does not include enough additional wilderness 

841 areas; they want more. They said that they want to make sure that wilderness provides habitat 

842 connections for wildlife. Additionally, some members of the public are concerned about 

843 protecting the uniqueness of these areas, and they said that additional wilderness improves the 

844 local economy.

845 These comments express the concern that too much wilderness hurts the local economy by 

846 limiting recreation, timber harvest, and grazing:

847 “[M]y perception so far is that wilderness eliminates mountain bikes, mechanical trail 

848 maint., forest management, fire response ability, any form of motorized shared use, and 

849 doesn't seem to play well with the cattle grazers or other land users”

850 ”Tourism by mountain bikers can help revitalize rural communities...we bring dollars to 

851 each community we visit; our recent stay in the Kettle Crest area saw us spending money 

852 on camping (North Lake RV Park & Campground), fuel, food (grocery stores and 

853 restaurants), liquor, maps and other bicycle‐related items.” 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

20

854 Other members of the public said that wilderness provides economic benefits to local 

855 communities:

856 “all of these lands provide significant wilderness character and a wild, scenic backdrop 

857 for the area’s many scenic driving routes and communities that promote the region’s 

858 rustic, remote, backcountry as part of their growing recreational and tourism economy” 

859 and “non-motorized trails are very important for the attractiveness to the affluent (money860 spending) hiking crowds of Spokane.”

861 Concerns were also raised about possible increases in overall wilderness management costs for 

862 the Forest:

863 “Trail work costs [substantially more] per mile than non-wilderness trail work. The USFS 

864 is funding trail work at a very reduced level, depending on volunteers. Wilderness trail 

865 maintenance is most always done with taxpayer monies, not volunteers. Wilderness trail 

866 work is the most time and labor intensive (thus most expensive) trail maintenance. 

867 (money that the USFS does not have.)” “The Forest Service can not adequately manage 

868 the wilderness currently in the inventory. Money for trail and bridge 

869 construction/maintenance is in short supply and from all indications will be in shorter 

870 supply in the near and mid term future.”

871 There were concerns that the recommendations did not include areas that may have outstanding 

872 wilderness character, and did not include areas that may contribute to habitat connectivity.

873 “We are concerned that several parts of the Kettle Crest were left outside the 

874 recommended wilderness boundary including Snow Peak, Jungle Hill and the Mt. Leona 

875 area. We recommend all of the Kettle Crest, north and south of Sherman Pass in the 

876 Profanity and Bald Snow areas, be included inside the recommended wilderness 

877 boundary...Hall Mountain and Grassy Top should be recommended for wilderness as 

878 they provide rugged terrain and are designated habitat for grizzly bears and woodland 

879 caribou. Quartzite with its old growth cedar grove would be the closest wilderness area to 

880 Spokane.”

881 “...when reviewing the documents describing the proposed additions I was quite 

882 surprised by how little of the lands that currently have wilderness characteristics are 

883 being recommended for the designation.”

884 Other stakeholders are concerned that some proposed wilderness areas do not meet the 

885 appropriate criteria for that designation:

886 “The recommended areas do not satisfy wilderness criteria. Wilderness areas should be 

887 areas that are untouched by human activity.”

888 “Within the boundaries of AbercrombieHooknose PWA in Steven’s County, stumps, 

889 dozer thinning, clear-cut logging activity and roads are clearly visible within the 

890 proposed wilderness area. This leads us to believe that the Forest Service has not ground891 truthed for wilderness characteristics within the boundaries of the Potential Wilderness 

892 Areas (PWA).” 

893 “This review must look at boundary locations and ease of locating on the ground, 

894 eliminating cherry stems (like Profanity as an example), and exclude recognizable areas 

895 of logging and roading before you develop any alternatives for the final draft EIS.”

896 Commenters expressed concern that proposed direction may not maintain wilderness character 

897 prior to wilderness designation by Congress, which can be a lengthy process.
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

21

898 “The plan should also make clear the forest service's intent ... by including language in 

899 the plan that will protect the wilderness characteristics of all of the CNF Potential 

900 Wilderness Areas (PWAs), and not just the roadless areas covered under the Roadless 

901 Area Conservation Rule.” 

902 “The PA fails to protect the wilderness character of recommend wilderness areas by 

903 allowing snowmobile use to continue in those recommended wilderness areas.”

904 The public also raised concerns about recreation in wilderness:

905 “...‛the following selected activities could continue to be authorized in Preliminary 

906 Administratively Recommend Wilderness Areas: Summer off-highway vehicle use ...; 

907 Winter motorized use ...; and Vegetation management activities would not be authorized 

908 in Preliminary Administratively Recommend Wilderness Areas.’ The above statement 

909 makes the motorized community VERY nervous. First off, the draft Plan even highlights 

910 ‛could continue to be authorized.’ It doesn’t GUARANTEE continued use. Why not? 

911 Second, we have witnessed these areas managed as de-facto Wilderness on Montana 

912 Forests and see no reason why that wouldn’t happen here.”

913 Evaluation Criteria

914 The following indicators were used to evaluate this issue and to develop the variations between 

915 the alternatives:

916 • Whether recommended wilderness areas contribute to the need for wilderness.

917 • The availability tradeoffs, especially summer and winter motorized uses.

918 • The market and non-market costs and benefits associated with wilderness.

919 Key indicators:

920 • Predicted output, uses, and activity levels

921 ♦ Location and amount of recommended wilderness

922 ♦ Miles of trail available for mechanized or motorized use

923 ♦ Acres suitable for timber harvest and grazing

924 Wildlife

925 The public is concerned that the proposed action does not adequately protect wildlife. They said 

926 that they want more protection for federally listed species such as grizzly bear, lynx, caribou, and 

927 other wildlife species of concern such as wolverine and northern goshawk. To protect these 

928 species, stakeholders said they want connected habitats, habitats that are not disturbed by roads 

929 and trails, as well as more large trees and snags. 

930 Other stakeholders are concerned that increasing wildlife protection decreases opportunities for 

931 recreation, timber production, and livelihoods.

932 These comments express concern that the proposed action does not protect wildlife adequately:

933 “[recommended wilderness] areas are also part of designated habitat for grizzly bears and 

934 caribou and provide connectivity for those and other species; wilderness protection would 

935 provide added habitat security.” 

936 “The potential to contribute to the sustainability of focal species that require low levels of 

937 human activity is another key ecological benefit of wilderness... These are grizzly bear, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

22

938 Canada lynx, wolverine, American marten, and woodland caribou (on Colville National 

939 Forest).”

940 “For wildlife species such as the grizzly bear, motorized trails and high-use trails are 

941 other important considerations in evaluating habitat suitability and may influence how 

942 you view the desired road density of a particular area. We urge you to articulate in the 

943 Forest Plan a clear vision for road management.”

944 “The plan must do more than define, describe, and highlight the importance of these 

945 ecological dynamics and components; the plan must explain how the CNF proposes to 

946 maintain and promote these dynamics and components across the landscape as well as the 

947 extent to which the CNF will permit natural disturbance to do this work...We agree with 

948 these statements regarding HRV of late-successional forest, the need to restore the large949 tree component of our forests, and the lack of snags >21′′ dbh.”

950 “When large and very large ‘hazard’ trees must be felled they should be left in place. 

951 Even prone, they can fill an important ecological function. Somehow, redirect 

952 woodcutters away from large/very large high value snags and toward the many, smaller 

953 diameter Douglas-firs that should be removed from the forest.”

954 Evaluation Criteria

955 The following indicators were used to evaluate this issue and to develop the variations between 

956 the alternatives:

957 • Contribution to habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife species.

958 • Contribution to the recovery and viability of snag-dependent wildlife species.

959 • Contribution to the recovery and viability of surrogate and listed wildlife species.

960 Key indicators:

961 • A comparison of the relative contribution to provide habitat connectivity for surrogate 

962 wildlife species.

963 • A comparison of the relative contribution to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife 

964 species.

965 • A comparison of the relative contribution to the recovery and viability of surrogate wildlife 

966 species.

967 • A comparison of the relative contribution to the recovery and viability of listed wildlife 

968 species.

969 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 

970 Some members of the public expressed concern that the proposed action does not adequately 

971 protect riparian areas such as those adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands, and rivers. They said that 

972 they want the Forest Service to limit the negative effects of roads, grazing, and off-highway 

973 vehicles in these areas. Other members of the public are concerned that the protection of these 

974 aquatic resources limits timber production, grazing, and recreation.

975 Public comments raised concerns that the proposed action does not provide watershed and aquatic 

976 resource protections that are as effective as current forest plan direction. Concerns centered on 

977 managing possible detrimental impacts of uses such as roads, livestock grazing, and motorized 

978 trails in riparian areas.
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

23

979 “The Forest has a vastly oversized and unmanageable road system. This road system 

980 presents a substantial risk to soil, water, and aquatic resources.”

981 “The Proposed Action should include and address the need for restoration of stream 

982 connectivity with floodplains, including restoration of off-channel habitats, particularly 

983 where roads are located within floodplains.”

984 “Many of these [grazing] allotments are co-located in sensitive areas with ESA

985 [Endangered Species Act] listed fish and are degrading both aquatic and riparian habitat. 

986 The effects from livestock grazing are well documented both by the Forest Service and in 

987 scientific literature. It is clear that stricter standards and guidelines need to be 

988 implemented to minimize the effects of grazing on listed fish and their habitat.

989 Specifically, grazing in key watersheds should, at a minimum, lead to the improvement or 

990 restoration of riparian conditions.”

991 “Summer off-highway vehicle use and winter motorized use can be very detrimental to 

992 stream channels and stream habitat (especially ATVs, motorcycles, etc.). It is very 

993 difficult to enforce appropriate use when these vehicles are allowed in riparian areas. 

994 Safeguards are needed for effective protection of riparian habitats.”

995 Other stakeholders commented that there is a need to balance uses.

996 “I’m concerned this tact will be used as a way to eliminate road miles/access for no valid 

997 reason. We support changes to roads and trails to meet these goals but don’t believe 

998 elimination is ever the only viable solution.” 

999 “Livestock grazing should be considered as a tool for vegetation management and 

1000 rangeland health.” 

1001 “Enclosing pictures of a ‘restoration project’ in Ferry County, before and after. This 

1002 project was supposedly to open up 2.5 miles of upland habitat to develop 

1003 ‘connectivity’... As you can see from the before and after pictures this area was made a 

1004 wasteland. Water is not flowing freely. There is no habitat connectivity. It did not 

1005 improve water quality or aquatic/riparian habitat. It destroyed aquatic/riparian habitat. 

1006 ICBEMP science put to use. Before ICBEMP and Eastside Screens, we had clean water, 

1007 riparian habitat and fish in these streams. Now we do not.”

1008 Another concern raised was potential impact of increased aquatic protection on ability to 

1009 effectively manage grazing allotments.

1010 “Watersheds are an important part of our Forest Service Grazing Allotments. The desired 

1011 condition should provide for improved forage for livestock. All planning activities that 

1012 have any effect on management or the number of AUM’s of the grazing allotments need 

1013 to be coordinated with local cattlemen associations, local governments and grazing 

1014 permit holders.” 

1015 Evaluation Criteria

1016 The following indicators were used to evaluate this issue and to develop the variations between 

1017 the alternatives:

1018 • The viability of threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants within riparian corridors 

1019 • The effectiveness of riparian management area widths and other plan components related to 

1020 aquatic conservation in riparian and upland areas to contribute to and enhance the recovery 

1021 of threatened, endangered and sensitive fish species, and maintain or restore watershed 

1022 function, water quality, and natural flow regime. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

24

1023 • Contribution to the recovery and viability of riparian-dependent wildlife species.

1024 Key indicators:

1025 • Acres designated for riparian habitat management

1026 • Plan components for protection and restoration of water resources and riparian systems

1027 • Acres within key and INFISH priority watersheds

1028 • Relative contribution to recovery and viability of riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife and 

1029 fish species.

1030 • Predicted trends for sensitive plant species

1031 Other Issues

1032 The Colville National Forest received comments that were considered and may have related plan 

1033 components, but did not drive development of alternatives. The National Environmental Policy 

1034 Act regulations, in Sec. 1501.7 (3) direct agencies to “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

1035 study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior review (§1506.3), 

1036 narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will 

1037 not have a significant effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage 

1038 elsewhere.” Specifically, these comments are: 

1039 • Outside the scope of the proposed action

1040 • Already decided by law, regulation, or other higher level decision

1041 • Irrelevant to the decision to be made

1042 • Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence: or

1043 • Those that contributed to other sections, such as the purpose of and need for action, or the 

1044 scope of the analysis

1045 Some of the comments are of widespread public interest. Below is a summary of those areas of 

1046 interest with an explanation of how they are considered in the forest plan revision process. It 

1047 should be understood these comments were not arbitrarily dismissed as they continue to provide 

1048 useful information.

1049 Other Topics Related to the Decision to be Made

1050 The following list is not all-inclusive, but it does highlight key topics of interest to the public that 

1051 will not be addressed in the DEIS. 

1052 Boundaries Designated By Congress

1053 It is outside the authority of the Forest to move any boundary established by Congress. 

1054 Congressionally designated areas on the Colville National Forest include the Salmo-Priest 

1055 Wilderness and the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. Changes to these congressionally 

1056 designated areas are not included in the forest plan revision effort.

1057 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

1058 Commenters expressed the desire to see more rivers eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic 

1059 Rivers System. The determination of eligibility for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

1060 Act is made through a process outlined in the Forest Service Handbook, 1909.12 Chapter 80. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

25

1061 Rivers found to be eligible remain eligible until a suitability assessment is completed, or another 

1062 eligibility process is conducted. 

1063 The responsible official has the discretion to determine whether and to what extent an issue is 

1064 appropriate for consideration in plan revision. As there has not been a change in circumstances 

1065 since the inventory completed for the 1988 forest plan, evaluation of eligibility for additional 

1066 rivers was not a revision topic and is not addressed in the DEIS. The proposed revised plan 

1067 carries forward the rivers identified as eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System 

1068 for the 1988 forest plan and includes plan components to maintain the free-flowing characteristic 

1069 and outstandingly remarkable values of eligible rivers. Rivers eligible for inclusion in the Wild 

1070 and Scenic River System do not vary by alternative. 

1071 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294) 

1072 The proposed action includes management direction for inventoried roadless areas identified in 

1073 the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. On October 21, 2011, the 10th Circuit Court of 

1074 Appeals reversed the Wyoming District Court and upheld the USDA's 2001 Roadless Rule in 

1075 Wyoming v. United States Department of Agriculture. The decision by the 10th Circuit resolves 

1076 10 years of litigation. The ruling confirms that the agency has the authority to manage and protect 

1077 roadless lands within the National Forest System and that the department complied with all 

1078 applicable laws in adopting the 2001 Roadless Rule. Under the 2001 Roadless Rule, new road 

1079 construction and reconstruction are generally prohibited in inventoried roadless areas, and timber 

1080 harvest is only permitted under a few limited exceptions. It is outside the authority of the 

1081 proposed revised forest plan to make any changes to boundaries of inventoried roadless areas. 

1082 Allotment Management 

1083 Many people expressed concerns regarding domestic cattle grazing. Some people want to end 

1084 grazing on national forests altogether. Eliminating grazing is inconsistent with Forest Service 

1085 policy. Opening and closing allotments or changing allotment boundaries are site-specific 

1086 decisions not made in this forest plan revision process. The proposed revised forest plan and 

1087 alternatives identify suitability for grazing and the DEIS discloses the effects of grazing on other 

1088 resources. Alternatives are not designed to change boundaries, end grazing, or make site-specific 

1089 changes to allotments. The proposed revised forest plan describes management direction, such as 

1090 desired conditions for the variety of vegetation types within grazing allotments, that may result in 

1091 future changes to allotment management plans. 

1092 Travel Management

1093 Due to high interest in the national forest travel management process, it is important to explain 

1094 that decisions about specific routes and areas for motor vehicle use are not proposed in this plan 

1095 revision. Instead, the proposed forest plan identifies where particular activities may or may not be 

1096 suitable to occur. The identification of an area as suitable or not suitable for a use is not a 

1097 commitment or final decision; rather it provides guidance for project- and activity-level decision1098 making. For example, the identification of lands suitable for motorized recreation is not an 

1099 authorization for motor vehicle use on a specific trail or within a specific area. The final decision 

1100 to designate a trail for motor vehicle use would be made following a project-level NEPA analysis, 

1101 consistent with the final revised forest plan suitability direction. 

1102 The Colville National Forest completed non-winter motor vehicle use designations as required by 

1103 Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) in 2008. Additional site-specific NEPA 

1104 analysis would be required for any future motor vehicle use map (MVUM) designation changes. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

26

1105 The proposed action and alternatives identify areas suitable for over-snow vehicle motor vehicle 

1106 use, but forestwide site-specific designations per Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule will 

1107 be made during subsequent site-specific NEPA analysis. In the interim, over-snow motor vehicle 

1108 use will continue to be governed by existing forest orders and route designations. 

1109 Many people asked that the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) be set aside, or that previous 

1110 decisions to designate roads, trails, or areas for motor vehicle use be modified in the revised 

1111 forest plan. It is not in the authority of the responsible official to set aside law, regulation, or 

1112 policy. Nor does the draft proposed plan make site-specific decisions that designate or prohibit 

1113 motor vehicle use as stated in the previous paragraphs.

1114 Climate Change

1115 Climate change concerns appeared in several comments. Some people do not consider climate 

1116 change a proven phenomenon, while others feel it should be the central impetus for change. 

1117 Forest Service policy is to consider the effects of climate change in forest plan revisions. Climate 

1118 change is likely to affect all vegetation types and biophysical resources, result in consequences 

1119 for many resources, affect the resilience of road and trail networks and other forest infrastructure, 

1120 and is part of the dynamic baseline condition. All alternatives focus on designing desired 

1121 conditions to provide healthy, resilient forests and more resilient infrastructure (e.g., trails, 

1122 campgrounds, roads) in the face of climate change and other disturbance factors. Climate change 

1123 is identified in the purpose of and need for action section of this DEIS as a reason for updating 

1124 the current forest plan. 

1125 Access for People with Disabilities 

1126 People commented that denial of motor vehicle access to people with disabilities violates the 

1127 Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act defers to Section 504 of the 

1128 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which says that no person with a disability can be denied participation 

1129 in a Federal program available to all other people solely because of his or her disability. In 

1130 conformance with section 504, wheelchairs or mobility devices are welcome on all NFS lands 

1131 that are open to foot travel, and they are specifically exempted from definition as a motor vehicle 

1132 in section 212.1 of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.1). There is no legal requirement to 

1133 allow people with disabilities to use off-highway vehicles (OHVs) or other motor vehicles on 

1134 roads, trails, and areas closed to motor vehicle use. Reasonable restrictions on motor vehicle use, 

1135 applied consistently to everyone, are not discriminatory. This concern has been decided by law. 

1136 Budget 

1137 Many people commented that the revised forest plan should not be constrained by a budget.

1138 However, it is not realistic or reasonable to ignore expected funding levels during forest plan 

1139 revision. Increases in budgets beyond expected levels could result in a faster rate of achievement 

1140 of the desired conditions than those projected by alternative. Recent budget trends are essentially 

1141 level or slightly declining and those trends are expected to continue in the near future. This is not 

1142 a significant issue to be analyzed in the DEIS because the forest plan does not influence or 

1143 control the budget for the Forest. 

1144 Many people commented that budget considerations should be included in the development of 

1145 forest plan objectives, commenting that budgets affect delivery of goods and services people 

1146 value about a national forest, such as trails and campgrounds, well-maintained roads to drive, and 

1147 the availability of people to monitor activities and enforce rules to prevent resource damage. The 

1148 proposed objectives do consider budget trends.
Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

27

1149 Fees 

1150 Some commenters raised the topic of fees for a variety of forest products and uses. Fees are an 

1151 administrative decision and are outside the scope of the forest plan revision process. 

1152 Solar and Wind-generated Power

1153 National- and regional-level assessments of potential for solar and wind power indicate the 

1154 Colville National Forest does not offer a high potential for either energy source; therefore, there is 

1155 no need to develop specific guidance in the proposed forest plan. 

1156 Recreation Residences

1157 Recreation residence permits are issued or renewed as a site-specific decision. Such decisions are 

1158 not included in the plan revision process or decision. 

1159 Record of Decision, Nationwide Application of Fire Retardant on National Forest 

1160 System Land, December 13, 2011 

1161 This record of decision established new national direction for the use of fire retardant applied 

1162 from aircraft to manage fires, and will be carried forward unchanged. The new direction includes 

1163 procedures for monitoring and reinitiating consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if 

1164 aerially applied fire retardant affects certain species or habitat. The direction also provides greater 

1165 protection for cultural resources

1166 Application of Laws and Regulations 

1167 Many commenters asked that existing laws and regulations be specifically mentioned and 

1168 interpreted as to applicability in the proposed forest plan, such as enlarging on the list of multiple 

1169 uses a national forest should have in relation to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. It is not the 

1170 role or purpose of a forest plan to interpret laws and regulations. Forest Service direction for 

1171 managing NFS lands comes from several levels. National and regional direction includes laws, 

1172 executive orders, and regulations. Forest Service policy guides activities on the Forest. All Forest 

1173 activities must comply with national direction and reflect national policy. Applicable laws and 

1174 regulations apply to the Colville National Forest and cannot be overridden by a forest plan, 

1175 making this issue outside the scope of the forest plan revision process. 

1176 Administrative or Site-specific Actions 

1177 Many commenters requested the inclusion of administrative actions, such as adding lookouts to 

1178 the recreation rental program. Administrative actions are made outside the authorities of the 

1179 proposed forest plan. Commenters also asked that the revised forest plan make site-specific 

1180 actions such as installing an outhouse at a specified trailhead. The proposed forest plan provides

1181 broad guidance and information for project and activity decision-making on the Colville National 

1182 Forest for approximately the next 15 years. Forest plans are strategic in nature. They do not 

1183 include project and activity decisions. Those decisions are made later or outside the forest plan 

1184 when proposals for a specific action in a specific area are made and analyzed, and there is the 

1185 opportunity for public involvement.

Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

1

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

29

1199 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

1200 Introduction

1201 This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for revising the 1988 Colville Forest 

1202 Plan. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences between 

1203 each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the 

1204 public. The revision includes changing all, or a portion of, the programmatic decisions that make up the 

1205 1988 forest plan. Some of the information used to compare alternatives is based on the design of the 

1206 alternative (i.e., the arrangement of management areas) and some of the information is based on the 

1207 social, environmental, and economic effects of implementing that alternative (i.e., expected outcomes for 

1208 social, economic, or ecological conditions). This chapter provides the following four discussions:

1209 • Development of alternatives;

1210 • Description of each alternative considered in detail, including the preferred alternative and 

1211 elements common to all alternatives;

1212 • Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study; and

1213 • Comparison of alternatives.

1214 Development of Alternatives

1215 As discussed in chapter 1, this revision of the forest plan is based on the “need for change.” Key issues 

1216 were identified in public comment on the proposed action. These issues drove alternative development. 

1217 Additional issues common to all alternatives were also identified and considered in the effects analysis. 

1218 Some additional items are addressed in the revision because they are required by planning regulations 

1219 (i.e., 36 CFR 219.14 through 219.26 (1982 Planning Rule)).

1220 The no-action alternative reflects current management practices under the 1988 forest plan, as amended 

1221 and implemented, and provides the basis for comparing alternatives to current management and levels of 

1222 output. While all alternatives provide a wide range of multiple uses, goods, and services, some give 

1223 slightly greater emphasis to selected resources based on the alternative response to various revision 

1224 topics.

1225 The proposed action is based on the need for change identified in the Analysis of the Management 

1226 Situation (AMS), implementation and monitoring of the current forest plan, and early public working 

1227 group meetings (2004). The alternatives to the proposed action were developed through the public 

1228 meetings that continued through 2008 and public comments on the 2011 proposed action scoping. The 

1229 alternatives represent a range of possible management options from which to choose. 

1230 Forest plans do not make budget decisions. However, alternatives emphasize different programs to 

1231 different degrees, with an expectation of appropriate funding. Should Congress emphasize specific 

1232 programs by appropriation, a redistribution of priorities would follow, regardless of the alternative 

1233 implemented.

1234 All alternatives to the proposed action considered in detail respond to the need for change or address one 

1235 or more significant issue. However, not all possible alternatives were carried into detailed study, as the list 

1236 of options would have been prohibitively large. Instead, the responsible official identified those 

1237 alternatives that both met the criteria and created a reasonable range of outputs, direction, costs, 

1238 management requirements, and effects from which to choose. All alternatives would meet law, regulation, 

1239 and policy.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

30

1240 Alternatives Considered in Detail

1241 In addition to the no-action alternative and the proposed action, the Forest Service developed four action 

1242 alternatives, which respond to the needs for change and issues identified by the public. Table 3 provides a 

1243 short description of each alternative. Additional detail is provided in the following sections.

1244 Table 3. Short description of alternatives considered in detail

Alternative Short Description

1988 Forest Plan – Noaction alternative

The no-action alternative reflects current management practices under the existing 

Forest Plan, as amended and implemented. It provides the basis for comparing the 

existing condition to the proposed action and the alternatives. 

If the decisionmaker were to choose to continue to implement the 1988 forest plan 

versus choosing a revised alternative, interim direction in the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

for the Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions (INFISH) and the 

Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for 

Timber Sales (Eastside Screens) would be considered final direction for the Colville 

National Forest (i.e., would no longer be considered interim).

Continuing with the current plan would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity 

(PWSQ) volume of 41 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $19,335,000.

There is no recommended wilderness in the 1988 forest plan.

Proposed Action

The June 2011 proposed action addresses the need for change. It applies landscape 

ecology concepts to provide for ecological resilience to disturbances, including the 

effects of climate change and incorporates new science related to the recovery of 

terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered species. 

The overarching emphasis of this alternative would be to apply active vegetation 

management in a dynamic landscape approach to increase vegetation resilience and 

move the landscape toward desired conditions. Silvicultural prescriptions would promote 

structural and landscape complexity on 71 percent of the forest. Planned and unplanned 

ignitions would be used as management tools across the forest, but would be 

emphasized on 30 percent of the forest. 

The proposed action would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) 

volume of 62 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $31,224,000.

The proposed action would recommend 101,390 acres of additional wilderness and 

would provide backcountry recreation management emphasis on 14 percent of the 

forest. 

The proposed action adopts the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS), 

replacing INFISH with a long-term strategy that uses best science and aligns species 

and water quality recovery plans. 

Alternative P

The overall vegetation management approach, outputs in alternative P, and backcountry 

recreation management would be similar to the proposed action. 

Alternative P would create the Kettle Crest Special Interest Area (approximately 

82,800 acres). This management area allocation would recognize and protect 

outstanding recreation opportunities in a semi-primitive setting while allowing continued 

motorized and mechanized recreation opportunities.

In response to comments on the proposed action, alternative P would recommend 

68,300 acres of wilderness. 

Like the proposed action, alternative P would adopt ARCS. However, it also would 

expand the key watershed network, and increase riparian protection through additional 

plan components (ARCS-modified).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

31

Alternative Short Description

Alternative R

Alternative R would emphasize a large-scale reserve approach for late-successional 

forest structure, emphasizing a passive management approach to reach desired 

conditions. Silvicultural prescriptions would be used on 22 percent of the forest, in 

consideration of 21-inch upper diameter limit on cutting live trees. Planned and 

unplanned ignitions would be used as management tools across the forest, but would be 

emphasized on 75 percent of the forest.

Alternative R would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) volume of 

14 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $6,692,000.

Alternative R would recommend 207,800 acres of additional wilderness.

Alternative R would take the same aquatic strategy approach as alternative P through 

ARCS-modified. 

Alternative B

The intent of alternative B is to address the concerns of multiple constituencies in one 

alternative by balancing land allocations between areas emphasizing active 

management (timber management zones) (43 percent), emphasizing a mix of active and 

passive management (Restoration Areas) (31 percent), and emphasizing passive 

management (recommended and designated wilderness) (23 percent). 

Alternative B would retain the Eastside Screens, 21-inch upper diameter limit for cutting 

live trees, and the large-scale reserve approach for late-successional forest structure. It 

would include additional plan components limit mechanical restoration treatments 

(timber harvest) in late-successional structure to dry plant association groups only.

Alternative B would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) volume of 

37 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $17,428,000.

This alternative would recommend 220,330 acres of additional wilderness and would 

emphasize non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Alternative B would retain and integrate the INFISH, continuing riparian area 

management similar to the no-action alternative.

Where plan components were not identified by the collaborative group, the 1988 Colville 

Forest Plan (no-action alternative) would provide plan direction (remain unchanged).

Alternative O

Similar to alternative B, the intent of alternative O is to balance land allocations between 

areas emphasizing active management (Responsible Management Areas) (39 percent), 

emphasizing a mix of active and passive management (Restoration Areas) (34 percent), 

and emphasizing passive management (backcountry and recommended/designated 

wilderness)(25 percent). 

Similar to alternative P, alternative O would create the Kettle Crest Special Interest Area 

(approximately 99,000 acres). This management area allocation would recognize and 

protect outstanding recreation opportunities in a semi-primitive setting while allowing 

continued motorized and mechanized recreation opportunities.

Similar to alternative B, alternative O would retain the Eastside Screens, 21-inch upper 

diameter limit for cutting live trees, and the large-scale reserve approach for latesuccessional forest structure. It would include additional plan components to limit 

mechanical restoration treatments (timber harvest) to a one-time entry.

This alternative would recommend fewer acres of additional wilderness (15,950 acres) 

than alternative B, and would instead emphasize backcountry recreation opportunities 

(21 percent).

Alternative O would provide an annual predicted wood sale quantity (PWSQ) volume of 

38 MMBF with an estimated wage contribution of $17,465,000.

Where the collaborative group did not identify plan components, the proposed action

would provide plan direction. This includes the proposed action’s approach to adopt 

ARCS.

1245
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

32

1246 The Preferred Alternative

1247 The responsible official, the regional forester for the Pacific Northwest Region, has identified alternative

1248 P as the preferred alternative for this DEIS, which is presented as the proposed plan. This does not 

1249 represent a decision, but rather an indication of the agency’s preference at this stage of analysis. 

1250 Public comments on the effects analysis and additional analysis of effects may result in refinement of this 

1251 alternative in the final EIS, or selection of a different alternative in the record of decision.

1252 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives

1253 All alternatives represent, to varying degrees, the principles of multiple-use and ecological and economic 

1254 sustainability. The alternatives provide basic protection of forest resources and comply fully with 

1255 applicable laws, regulations, and policies. In addition, all the alternatives would:

1256 • Meet the purpose and need for change or address one or more significant issues;

1257 • Conserve soil and water resources and not allow significant or permanent impairment of the 

1258 productivity of the land;

1259 • Provide protections for riparian areas;

1260 • Contribute to the recovery and viability of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and plant species;

1261 • Maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State, and/or local standards or 

1262 regulations;

1263 • Include measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for 

1264 threatened and endangered species;

1265 • Protect heritage resources;

1266 • Recognize the unique status of American Indian tribes and their rights retained by trust and 

1267 executive order with the United States, including consultation requirements;

1268 • Provide sustained multiple uses, products, and services in an environmentally acceptable manner 

1269 (including leasable and locatable minerals, timber, livestock forage, and recreation opportunities);

1270 • Retain existing designated areas (e.g., wilderness areas, scenic byways, national scenic trails); 

1271 and

• Retain all existing permitted activities and facilities.

7 1272

1273 In addition, the following plan components are common to all alternatives. (The components are 

1274 described in detail in the proposed revised plan, which accompanies this document.)

1275 Desired Conditions

1276 Desired conditions include descriptions of desired outcomes because of Forest Service management. The 

1277 desired conditions are described in detail in the proposed revised plan, which accompanies this document.

1278 Objectives

1279 Objectives are time-specific, measurable statements of a desired rate of progress toward a desired 

1280 condition or conditions. They should be based on reasonably foreseeable budgets.

 7 All permits will be reviewed for compliance with the revised forest plan. Any permit found to be out of compliance 

will be brought into compliance as soon as practicable using a variety of tools, including modifications or 

amendments to the permit.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

33

1281 Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

1282 Standards and guidelines include design considerations, mitigations, and constraints for project-level 

1283 decisions. Although the action alternatives share some common forestwide standards and guidelines, 

1284 many vegetation and road-related components vary by alternative. Riparian area plan components also 

1285 vary by alternative. 

1286 Suitability of Uses

1287 The criteria for the suitability of various uses (e.g., livestock grazing, timber harvest, recreation 

1288 opportunity) are the same in all alternatives. However, when the criteria are applied to the different 

1289 alternatives, there may be variations in the amount of land suitable for certain uses (i.e., if an alternative 

1290 has more recommended wilderness, there would be less land suitable for timber harvest). 

1291 Monitoring Strategy

1292 Monitoring and evaluation provide the strategy for determining the degree to which on-the-ground 

1293 management is maintaining or making progress toward desired conditions. All action alternatives share a 

1294 common monitoring framework, whereas the monitoring strategy for the no-action alternative is unique.

1295 Plan Components Common to All Action Alternatives

1296 Management direction for the following resource topic areas remains unchanged between action 

1297 alternatives. 

1298 Vegetation

1299 All action alternatives include the same long-term vegetation desired condition, which is defined by the 

1300 historic range of variability (HRV). The historical range of variability refers to the dynamic behavior and 

1301 function of ecosystems before dramatic changes occurred with European settlement, generally considered 

1302 to be the mid-1800s for this area (Aplet and Keeton 1999). The historical range of variability provides a 

1303 framework to determine changes to ecosystem attributes that have occurred between historical and current 

1304 conditions and recognizes that ecosystems experience a range of conditions across which processes are 

1305 resilient and self-sustaining.

1306 We used an assessment of forest dynamics and the historical range of forest structure to develop a range 

1307 of desired representation across structural stages within five vegetation types (Douglas-fir dry; Northern 

1308 Rocky Mountain conifer; Spruce/Subalpine fir; Subalpine fir/Lodgepole pine; and Western 

1309 redcedar/Western hemlock). These vegetation types reflect the plant association groups found on the 

1310 Colville National Forest.

1311 Having a range of forest structural stages provides resilience and is compatible with maintaining 

1312 characteristic disturbance processes such as wildland fire, insects and diseases, as well as habitat 

1313 conditions for associated wildlife species. A range of structure contributes to aesthetic settings, 

1314 particularly along scenic byways and highways.

1315 Table 4 describes forestwide desired conditions for each vegetation type. Although all action alternatives 

1316 include similar desired conditions for vegetation structure, the management approaches used to achieve 

1317 desired condition vary by alternative. Each alternative description provides more detail.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

34

Table 4. Desired condition for forest structure8 1318 (percent)

Vegetation Type Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

Douglas-fir dry 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Western hemlock / Western redcedar 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Spruce / Subalpine fir 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

1319 All action alternatives provide the same desired conditions (goals), standards and guidelines for non1320 forested vegetation types. Non-forested vegetation types such as subalpine and montane meadows, shrub1321 lands and wetlands are managed as unique habitats for plants and wildlife. 

1322 Invasive Species

1323 A 2005 decision that updated methods of treatment and increased the emphasis on prevention of invasive 

1324 plant species in the Pacific Northwest Region amended the current forest plan. Management direction 

1325 provided in this decision, the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and 

1326 Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005), is common to all 

1327 alternatives.

1328 Wildland Fire Management

1329 Use of natural ignitions for resource benefits would be expanded to the whole Forest, with the exception 

1330 of administrative and recreation sites. Analysis of weather conditions, ignition location, and resource 

1331 concerns would be used to make decisions related to the use of natural ignitions to achieve resource 

1332 benefits. Planned ignition would be allowed to achieve resource objectives forestwide in all action 

1333 alternatives. Desired conditions, guidelines, and standards for wildland fire management would remain 

1334 the same across all alternatives. The Record of Decision, Nationwide Application of Fire Retardant on 

1335 National Forest System Land, December 13, 2011, (USDA Forest Service 2011) established new national 

1336 direction for the use of fire retardant applied from aircraft to manage wildfires and would be applicable 

1337 across all alternatives.

1338 Air Quality

1339 The State of Washington regulates air quality. Existing laws and regulations define requirements. Desired 

1340 conditions, guidelines, and standards would remain the same as shown in the draft plan across all 

1341 alternatives. 

1342 Soils

1343 Management direction for soils would be common across all action alternatives. 

1344 Grizzly Bear

1345 Management of grizzly bear habitat does not vary between action alternatives. Grizzly bear management 

1346 is defined by the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, Colville National Forest Guidelines for 

 8 Structure Definition

Early Trees less than 10 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or canopy cover less than 10 percent

Mid Open Trees 10 to 20 inches d.b.h., canopy cover 10 percent and greater, but less than 40 percent

Mid Closed Trees 10 to 20 inches d.b.h., canopy cover 40 percent or greater

Late Open Trees 20 inches d.b.h. or greater, canopy cover 10 percent and greater, but less than 40 percent

Late Closed Trees 20 inches d.b.h. or greater, canopy cover 40 percent or greater
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

35

1347 Management in Occupied Grizzly Bear Habitat (USDA 1988), Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1348 1993), and Amended Biological Opinion for the Continued Implementation of the Colville National 

1349 Forest (and the Idaho Panhandle National Forest) Forest Plans (USDI 2001). The Forest would 

1350 incorporate management guidance from these documents in all action alternatives considered in this 

1351 DEIS. The forest has occupied grizzly bear habitat. 

1352 Woodland Caribou and Canada Lynx

1353 Management for woodland caribou and Canada lynx would not vary between action alternatives. 

1354 Woodland caribou habitat management currently follows direction identified in the 2001 USFWS 

biological opinion for seasonal habitat needs and the Colville National Forest winter recreation strategy9 1355

1356 (USFS 2003). Current management direction for Canada lynx is provided through the Canada Lynx 

1357 Interagency Agreement that relies on the science summarized in the Canada Lynx Conservation 

1358 Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013). The Forest would incorporate the management guidance from 

1359 these documents in all action alternatives considered in this DEIS.

1360 Heritage

1361 Laws and regulations provide guidance for protecting and managing heritage resources. The heritage 

1362 resource is also coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office and Indian tribes. This emphasis 

1363 and protection would be the same in all alternatives.

1364 Livestock Grazing

1365 The revised plan proposes no changes in the status, location, or boundaries of permitted range allotments

1366 or type of livestock. However, plan components that affect management of livestock grazing would vary 

1367 by alternative. 

1368 Minerals, Locatable 

1369 Federal lands open to locatable mineral entry under the Mining Act of 1872 would not change by 

1370 alternative. Desired conditions, guidelines, and standards concerning locatable minerals would be 

1371 common to all alternatives.

1372 Minerals, Saleable

1373 Federal lands available for mineral material permits do not change by alternative. Desired conditions 

1374 concerning saleable minerals would be common to all action alternatives.

1375 Motorized Recreation Suitability

1376 Motorized recreation would not be suitable in research natural areas, designated wilderness areas, and 

1377 recommended wilderness in all alternatives. (Although in some alternatives, use of existing motorized 

1378 trails within recommended wilderness management areas would be allowed to continue.) Suitability for 

1379 motorized use varies within other management areas.

1380 Current seasonal restrictions for deer and elk winter range would be maintained in all alternatives.

1381 Wild and Scenic Eligible Rivers

1382 As there has not been a change in circumstances since the inventory was completed for the 1988 forest 

1383 plan, evaluation of eligibility for additional rivers was not a revision topic and is not addressed in the 

1384 DEIS. The two rivers identified as eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System for the 1988 

 9 The Colville National Forest winter recreation strategy was completed to balance the needs of secure winter habitat for caribou 

with access for winter recreation activities.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

36

1385 forest plan (8 miles) are carried forward in this revision effort and would not vary by alternative. All 

1386 action alternatives would include plan components to maintain the free-flowing characteristic and protect 

1387 the outstandingly remarkable values of eligible rivers.

1388 Table 5. Colville National Forest eligible wild and scenic rivers by segment and classification 

River name Recommended classification Miles

South Fork Salmo River Wild 5

Kettle River Recreational 3

1389 Scenery Management System

1390 Scenery would be managed through the Scenery Management System in all action alternatives. The 

1391 valued landscape character descriptions would not replace other desired conditions, such as vegetation. 

1392 Rather, the vegetation desired conditions are a key component of the valued landscape character. Scenic 

1393 integrity objective zones would overlay the management areas. The direction for scenery management 

1394 applies regardless of the management area boundary. Applicability of plan direction is guided by the 

1395 principle that where there is an overlap of scenery management direction with other plan components, the 

1396 most restrictive plan direction applies, depending on site-specific conditions and the activity or use. 

1397 Lands and Special Uses 

1398 The Forest Service “Lands” program includes activities such as landownership adjustment, boundary and 

1399 title management (including land exchanges and acquisitions, granting or accepting of easements), and 

1400 other activities that are primarily real estate-type actions. The goals of this program include: 

1401 (1) consolidating landownership patterns to meet the objectives of forest land and resource management 

1402 plans and to improve land management efficiencies; (2) securing and protecting the rights, title, land, and 

1403 resources of public land from unauthorized use and occupancy; and (3) providing legally defensible 

1404 boundaries and accurate, complete landownership records of NFS lands. These program activities will 

1405 continue and management direction would not change across the action alternatives.

1406 The Forest administers a variety of lands and recreation uses under special use permits, leases, or 

1407 easements. The types of recreation and special use opportunities would remain the same across 

1408 alternatives, although the areas and acres of the forest where they might occur vary. Forest plan 

1409 management direction applicable to areas defined by special use permit, lease, or easement would not 

1410 change across the action alternatives.

1411 Management Areas

1412 Although all alternatives include management area allocations with applicable desired conditions, 

1413 standards, and guidelines, the land management emphasis, acres, names, and associated plan components 

1414 of the management areas vary by alternative. The no-action alternative (the 1988 plan) identifies 

1415 13 management areas based on vegetation and land use. The action alternatives offer a varying array of 

1416 management area prescriptions designed to achieve the need for change or address significant issues. 

1417 Management area direction ranges from areas emphasizing passive management in wilderness (natural 

1418 processes dominate vegetation change) to areas emphasizing active management in focused restoration or 

1419 responsible management areas (vegetation management through timber harvest and planned fire use).

1420 Table 6 provides an overview of all proposed management areas and their application across alternatives. 

1421 A ‘-’ indicates the management area is not included in the indicated alternative. Maps of the alternatives 

1422 are provided in the supplement folder and on the website. Two management areas overlay other 

1423 management areas as shown with an asterisk in the table. These are the riparian habitat 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

37

1424 conservation/riparian management areas in all alternatives and the Kettle Crest recreation special interest 

1425 area in alternatives P and O.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

38

1426 Table 6. Proposed management area (MA) descriptions and percentages of total forest by alternative

Management Areas Description No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

R P B O

Wood/Forage The management goal is to achieve optimum production of timber 

products while protecting basic resources.

39 - - - - -

Scenic/ Timber The management goal is to provide a natural appearing 

foreground, middle, and background along major scenic travel 

routes while providing wood products. 

20 - - - - -

Old Growth Dependent 

Species Habitat/ Late 

Forest Structure

The management goal is to provide essential habitat for wildlife 

species that require late and old forest habitat components (e.g., 

structure such as large and old trees, large snags, and downed 

wood) and contribute to the maintenance of diversity of wildlife 

habitats and plant communities. 

3 - 51 - - -

Caribou Habitat10 The management goal is to provide seasonal habitats for 

woodland caribou to contribute the Colville National Forest portion 

of a fully recovered population as specified in the Caribou 

Recovery Plan.

3 - - - - -

Winter Range The management goal is to meet the habitat needs of deer and 

elk to sustain carrying capacity at 120 percent of the 1980 level, 

while managing other resources (e.g., timber harvest, recreation) 

consistent with fish and wildlife management objectives. 

11 - - - - -

Scenic/Winter Range The management goal is to provide a natural appearing 

foreground, middle, and background along major scenic travel 

routes while providing for winter range management.

7 - - - - -

Focused Restoration11 Management area emphasis would focus on the restoration of 

ecological integrity and ecosystem function at the landscape 

scale using both active management (mechanical treatment and 

prescribed fire) and passive management (natural processes, 

including disturbances and succession) to restore natural 

processes and improve resiliency, while emphasizing important

fish and wildlife habitats. Spatially, these areas include the key 

watersheds, and grizzly bear and caribou recovery areas not 

included in Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized management 

areas. The active management focus in key watersheds would 

promote riparian goals.

- 23 - 28 - -

 10 The woodland caribou recovery area is integrated with the Focused Restoration management area under the proposed action and alternative P, and integrated 

with the Late Forest Structure management area in alternative R. 11 In the proposed action provided to the public in June 2011, Focused Restoration was labeled as Active Restoration 2.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

39

Management Areas Description No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

R P B O

General Restoration12 Management area emphasis would focus on enhancing 

ecological integrity and ecosystem function at the landscape 

scale using active management (mechanical treatment and 

prescribed fire) to restore natural processes and improve 

resiliency. 

- 48 22 45 - -

Active Management/ 

Responsible 

Management Areas

Management area emphasis would be to use active forest 

management (timber harvest and prescribed fire) to provide forest 

products to the local economy and move the forest toward desired 

conditions for resilience to insects, disease, and uncharacteristic 

wildfire. While the management emphasis would be the same for 

both these MAs, the “Responsible Management Area” was named 

through a collaborative process and is retained to honor the 

collaborative process. 

- - - - 43 39

Restoration Like the Focused and General Restoration MAs, management 

area emphasis would focus on the restoration of ecological 

integrity and ecosystem function at the landscape scale using 

both active management (mechanical treatment and prescribed 

fire) and passive management (natural processes, including 

disturbances and succession) to restore natural processes and 

improve resiliency, with limited mechanical treatment in late forest 

structure habitat. The landscape would be natural appearing in 

the majority of this management area, but in comparison to the 

Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized management areas,

these areas have National Forest System roads and areas of 

intensive, concentrated management activity or facilities. 

- - - - 31 34

Backcountry Management area emphasis would be to provide non-motorized 

backcountry recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing 

landscape. Mechanized uses may be allowed. The MA would

contribute habitat conditions for species that benefit from an 

unroaded and summer non-motorized landscape. 

8 8 2 8 less 

than 1

16

Backcountry Motorized Management area emphasis would be to provide motorized 

backcountry recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing 

landscape. Summer motorized use would be suitable and allowed 

where identified on the Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map. Both 

cross-country and trail-based winter over-snow vehicle use would 

be suitable. Mechanized would also be suitable. These MAs 

would contribute habitat conditions for species that benefit from 

an unroaded landscape. 

1 6 less 

than 1

5 less 

than 1

5

 12 In the proposed action provided to the public in June 2011, General Restoration was labeled as Active Restoration 3.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

40

Management Areas Description No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

R P B O

Recreation The management area goal is to provide roaded and unroaded 

recreation opportunities in a natural appearing setting, to provide 

semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation while 

meeting objectives of wildlife management, and to provide for 

quality winter recreation opportunities including downhill skiing, 

Nordic skiing, and other compatible uses. (This MA includes 

general recreation, recreation/wildlife, and skiing areas in the 

1988 Forest Plan.)

5 - - - - -

Wilderness −

Designated

Congress has designated the Salmo-Priest Wilderness on the 

Colville National Forest (31,445 acres). Management area 

emphasis is, and would continue to be under all action 

alternatives, to preserve the five qualities of wilderness character 

- untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation, and other features of values.

In addition, the management areas direction in all alternatives 

proposes specific objectives, standards, and guidelines for the 

use of prescribed fire in wilderness.

3 3 3 3 3 3

Wilderness –

Recommended

Management area emphasis would be to protect and maintain the 

social and ecological characteristics that provide the basis for the 

wilderness recommendation. Depending on the alternative (see 

detailed alternative descriptions), non-conforming wilderness uses 

including motorized trail maintenance and reconstruction, and 

mechanized uses (e.g., mountain biking) may be allowed to 

continue until Congress takes action to designate the areas as 

wilderness. 

- 9 19 10 20 1

Research Natural 

Areas

Research natural areas (RNA) are established to provide study 

and protection of a full range of habitat types and remain in a 

relatively unaltered condition for non-manipulative research, 

observation, and study. Plan direction would continue to 

emphasize maintaining the research values of the areas. 

Management activities in a research natural area must be 

consistent with the purposes for which the RNA was established 

(or proposed) or specifically maintain the values of the RNA.

less 

than 1

less than 

1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

Eligible and Suitable 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Portions of two rivers on the Colville National Forest, the Kettle 

River (classified as recreational) and the South Fork Salmo River 

(classified as wild), have been identified as being eligible for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River Inventory. Plan 

direction would continue to emphasize maintaining the freeflowing characteristic and outstandingly remarkable values for 

which the river is determined eligible. 

less 

than 1

less than 

1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

41

Management Areas Description No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

R P B O

Scenic Byways Management area emphasis would be to maintain or enhance the 

qualities of the byway. The Colville National Forest includes all or 

part of the Sherman Pass Scenic Byway (designated as both a 

Washington State Scenic Byway and a National Forest Scenic 

Byway), the North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway (designated as a 

Washington State Scenic Byway), and the International Selkirk 

Loop (designated as an All-American Road). 

A 1⁄2-mile strip on either side of the byway centerline defines the 

scenic byway management area. Management direction would 

only apply to portions of the byway within National Forest System 

lands. 

less 

than 1

2 2 2 2 2

Nationally Designated 

Trails

Management direction is for all nationally designated trails located 

within the administrative boundaries of National Forest System 

lands. The corridor where management direction applies consists 

of the visible foreground, which is generally one-half mile in width 

either side of the centerline of the trail, including viewpoints, water 

sources, campsites, and spur trails to these features.

less 

than 1

less than 

1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

Kettle Crest Special 

Int. Area*

Special interest areas (SIAs) are a category of administratively 

designated special areas with outstanding special characteristics 

or unique values. These unique values consist of scenic, 

geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, historical, or 

recreational values. SIA management areas overlay other 

management areas. For example, a special interest area could 

also be managed for Focused or General Restoration. If there are

management area guidance conflicts, the most protective 

guidance will apply. Management area emphasis would be to 

ensure protection of the values for which the area is designated. 

- - - 8* - 9*

Administrative and 

Recreation Sites 

(Includes permitted 

and developed 

recreation sites)

The sites are established as separate management areas rather 

than overlays or inclusions in other management areas. The 

management direction remains unchanged from current plans.

less 

than 1

less than 

1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1

less 

than 1
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

42

Management Areas Description No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

R P B O

RHCA/RMAs* Depending on alternative, riparian habitat would be allocated to 

riparian management areas (RMA) under the Aquatic Restoration 

Conservation Strategy (ARCS) or riparian habitat conservation 

areas (RHCA) under Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the 

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions 

(INFISH)) This MA would overlay other MAs. They are mapped at 

the forest-scale, therefore locations may change based on 

project-level reconnaissance. RMAs and RHCAs occur on the 

margins of standing and flowing water and widths vary depending 

on feature type. The RMA/RHCA MA emphasis is to maintain and 

restore the riparian structure and function of perennial and 

intermittent streams, ponds, reservoirs, lakes, seeps, spring, and 

wetlands. This MA also provides connectivity for ripariandependent plants and animals.

13 16 16 16 13 16

TOTAL13 100 100 100 100 100 100

1427 *Overlaps with other management areas

1428

 13 Numbers in this table are rounded, and several management areas overlap other management areas; therefore, not all columns add up to exactly 100 percent.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

43

1429 Alternatives Description

1430 The proposed action is based on the need for a change. We developed additional action 

1431 alternatives in response to significant issues the public raised during the comment period. Each 

1432 sub-heading in this section (e.g., Timber Production, Access, Recommended Wilderness) 

1433 represents an issue as described in chapter 1. A comparison of alternatives is included at the end 

1434 of this section. 

1435 No Action

1436 The no-action alternative is the current land management plan as amended. Major amendments to 

1437 the current land management plan include the Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the 

1438 Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions (INFISH) (1995), Continuation of 

1439 Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for 

1440 Timber Sales (Eastside Screens) (1995), and the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant 

1441 Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (2005). 

1442 No-Action Alternative Relationship to the Significant Issues and the Need for Change

1443 Late-successional and Old Forest Management

1444 The 1988 forest plan management direction emphasizes a fixed reserves approach for old growth 

1445 habitat (MA 1) on about 3 percent of the forest (approximately 30,740 acres). Maintaining a fixed 

1446 reserve system does not guarantee all the allocated acres are in a condition that currently contain 

1447 old forests. Due to ongoing natural disturbance processes (fire or insect and disease), some stands 

1448 may currently be in an early or midseral forest structural stage. Fixed reserves are at least 

1449 300 acres in size, no scheduled timber harvest is permitted, and appropriate suppression occurs on 

1450 all wildfires. 

1451 Vegetation management on all other suitable lands follows the Eastside Screen amendment, 

1452 designed to maintain habitat components for species associated with eastside late-successional

1453 forests including retention of live trees over 21 inches d.b.h. (diameter at breast height). The 

1454 intent of the screens was to retain key habitat features, promote vigor and health of the forests,

1455 and preserve management options until replaced by a landscape-scale analysis process.

1456 Timber Production

1457 The 1988 Colville National Forest Plan describes the long-term sustained yield (LTSY) for the 

1458 forest at 170.7 million board feet (MMBF) per year with an annual allowable sale quantity (ASQ)

1459 of 123 MMBF.

1460 However, amendments such as INFISH and the Eastside Screens have changed the 

1461 implementation of forest plan, reducing both the LTSY and the ASQ. The effects of these 

1462 subsequent amendments are included in chapter 3. 

1463 Scheduled timber production is suitable on 49 percent of the forest. Timber harvest for other 

1464 resource objectives is allowed on 29 percent of the forest. The annual predicted wood sale 

1465 quantity under the no-action alternative (1988 forest plan, as amended) is 41 MMBF.

1466 Motorized Recreation Trails

1467 The current forest plan provides direction for motorized uses associated with both seasons. It 

1468 identifies where motorized recreation use may not be authorized or may be limited for the 

1469 protection of aquatic, plant and wildlife habitats. In addition, summer motorized recreation use is 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

44

1470 also restricted to those routes (roads and trails) identified on the Forest’s current-year motor 

1471 vehicle use map (MVUM), which was developed in response to Subpart B of the 2005 Travel 

1472 Management Rule (Forest Plan Amendment #31 – Clarification of Forest Plan Direction 

1473 Regarding Motor Vehicle Use (2008)). Summer motorized trails make up 36 percent of the total 

1474 summer trail miles designated for motor vehicle use on the Forest.

1475 About 1.2 percent of total forest acreage is in a backcountry motorized recreation management 

1476 area, providing limited motorized recreation opportunities in an unroaded setting.

1477 Access

1478 Currently, the Colville National Forest manages approximately 4,000 miles of National Forest 

1479 System roads. The 1988 forest plan identifies 83 percent of the forest as suitable for road 

1480 construction, but plan direction requires newly constructed project roads to be closed after use 

1481 unless otherwise justified in a site-specific analysis. Road density desired conditions vary from 

1482 0.4 mile per square mile to 1.5 miles per square mile of open road depending on the management 

1483 area emphasis to protect species such as elk and deer. Additional direction from the Interagency 

1484 Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) describes open road density (1 mile per square mile) and total 

1485 road density (2 miles per square mile) within bear management units in the Selkirk Ecosystem of 

1486 the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Other access management and road construction suitability 

1487 guidance comes from the 2013 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, the Caribou Winter 

1488 Recreation Strategy, and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

1489 However, there is concern that the current road system is not aligned with current and future 

1490 management objectives or budgets. In addition, the current forest plan does not address how roads 

1491 and road management may affect hydrologic function and processes, and water quality, or the 

1492 best science related to road-related disturbance effects to a broader list of species.

1493 Recommended Wilderness

1494 The Salmo-Priest Wilderness (congressionally designated) covers about 3 percent of the Colville 

1495 National Forest. The 1988 forest plan does not include any recommendations for additional 

1496 wilderness. 

1497 Wildlife

1498 The 1988 forest plan emphasizes habitat for deer and elk through guidelines for human access 

1499 (see previous Access section), retention or creation of thermal cover, and retention or creation of 

1500 forage. Other species were addressed through management area designation or specific standards 

1501 and guidelines. In 1995, the forest plan was amended with the Eastside Screens to provide 

1502 additional management guidance for wildlife species associated with late successional and old 

1503 forest habitat. However, this was intended to be interim direction, and implementation over the 

1504 last 20 years has revealed shortcomings in this one-suite of species management approach. In 

1505 addition to the issues related to addressing vegetative system resiliency for late-successional and 

1506 old forests discussed previously, the diameter size emphasis of the Eastside Screens lacks 

1507 direction for other important habitat structure elements such as snags and downed logs.

1508 In addition, the no-action alternative does not address the need to incorporate the conservation 

1509 strategy, critical habitat, and recovery plan direction for federally listed species and best science 

1510 for providing viability for other at-risk species.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

45

1511 Riparian and Aquatic Resources 

1512 The Colville Forest plan was amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA 

1513 Forest Service 1995a) which provides additional watershed direction intended to restore and 

1514 maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on National Forest lands for 

1515 native resident fisheries. INFISH established riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) and a 

1516 priority watershed network. INFISH also incorporated riparian management objectives (RMOs), 

1517 and additional goals, standards and guidelines (with no distinction between standards and 

1518 guidelines) to restore and maintain riparian and aquatic resources into the Colville Forest plan.

1519 The 1995 INFISH was intended to be an interim strategy and does not provide a comprehensive 

1520 watershed, aquatic, and riparian conservation and restoration strategy. Although there are 

1521 indications aquatic habitat conditions may be slowly improving under current management, 

1522 continuing with the interim strategy would not address the need to integrate restoration of 

1523 terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems or facilitate integrated management of aquatic resources with 

1524 upslope terrestrial vegetation and recreation management.

1525 Riparian Widths

1526 RHCAs defined in INFISH are areas where riparian-dependent ecosystems receive primary 

1527 emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines (USDA 

1528 Forest Service 1995a). RHCA widths are shown in table 7. RHCA widths may be increased or 

1529 decreased when necessary to attain RMOs when site-specific data supports the change. 

1530 Table 7. Riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) width

Stream and water body classification RHCA width

Fish-bearing streams 300 feet slope distance on each side (600 feet total)

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams 150 feet slope distance on each side (300 feet total)

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands greater than 

1 acre

150 feet slope distance around feature

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands 

less than 1 acre

100 feet slope distance in priority watersheds, 

50 feet slope distance in non-priority watersheds.

1531 Priority Watershed Network

1532 INFISH priority watersheds on the Colville National Forest were originally designated in 1998 

1533 and updated in 2001. INFISH designated as “priority” watersheds those areas “having excellent 

1534 habitat or strong assemblages of inland native fish, particularly bull trout, or watersheds that 

1535 provide for population distribution goals, or watersheds having a high restoration potential” 

1536 (USDA Forest Service 1995a). The INFISH priority network on the Colville National Forest is 

1537 shown in figure 3. RHCA widths in priority watersheds under INFISH are wider than RHCA 

1538 widths in non-priority watersheds for non-fish-bearing intermittent streams and wetlands less than 

1539 1 acre (table 7). In INFISH priority watersheds, watershed analysis is required before certain road 

1540 activities and construction of new recreation facilities are permitted in RHCAs, and there are 

1541 specific protections against increased sedimentation through prioritization of road treatments in 

1542 priority watersheds.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

46

1543

1544 Figure 3. INFISH Priority Watersheds for no action and alternative B

1545 Proposed Action

1546 We developed the proposed action to address the need for change related to managing vegetation 

1547 to be more resilient to disturbances, to maintain or restore ecological conditions that contribute to 

1548 species diversity and the recovery and viability of at-risk species, and to provide integrated 

1549 management direction to maintain and restore properly functioning watersheds. It also addresses 

1550 the need to provide a sustainable flow of timber and both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

1551 opportunities to provide economic and social contributions to the community and nation.

1552 In particular, the proposed action: (1) applies landscape ecology concepts to provide for 

1553 ecological resilience to disturbances, including wildfire and the effects of climate change, 

1554 (2) incorporates science related to the recovery of terrestrial and aquatic threatened and 

1555 endangered species, (3) integrates plan components for water resources and riparian areas, and 

1556 (4) recommends 101,390 acres as additions to the Wilderness Preservation System.

1557 Both active management, which includes timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, planned 

1558 ignitions, and passive management, which includes using unplanned ignitions and natural 

1559 processes, would be used to move vegetation toward desired conditions.

1560 Proposed Action Alternative Relationship to the Significant Issues

1561 Late-Successional and Old Forest Management

1562 Unlike the 1988 forest plan (no-action alternative), the proposed action would use a dynamic

landscape approach14 1563 for providing late forest structure, allowing late structure forests to shift 

1564 location in response to ecological processes (e.g., wildfires). Forestwide desired conditions for 

1565 forest structure would be based on historic range of variability (see table 4). Late-successional 

 14 See chapter 3 for a detailed description of the dynamic landscape approach.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

47

1566 forests would be managed in different ways depending on the management area-specific desired 

1567 conditions. For example, in management areas where roads are present, planned ignition and 

1568 timber harvest may both be utilized whereas in areas with less access or with other management 

1569 emphasis, unplanned ignitions may be the optimal tool.

1570 Timber Production

1571 Scheduled timber production would be suitable on 59 percent of the forest. Timber harvest for 

1572 other resource objectives would be allowed on 19 percent of the forest. The annual predicted 

1573 wood sale quantity would be 62 MMBF.

1574 Motorized Recreation Trails

1575 The proposed action would increase the opportunity for backcountry motorized and non1576 motorized recreation to address the increase in visitor use due to population growth and changing 

1577 demographics described in the need for change related to social systems. It would offer a range of 

1578 recreation settings in both the front (roaded setting) and backcountry (unroaded setting) to 

1579 accommodate how people use and access the forest.

1580 Approximately six percent of the forest would be allocated to the Backcountry Motorized MA, 

1581 which would be suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation. Approximately eight 

1582 percent of the forest would be allocated to the Backcountry MA, which would emphasize non1583 motorized recreation opportunities and would not suitable for motorized recreation. (Both would 

1584 be suitable for mechanized use.) The other roaded management areas would provide an additional 

1585 71 percent of the forest as suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation. 

1586 Access

1587 The proposed action would reduce suitability for roads to 73 percent of the forest (compared to 

1588 83 percent in the no-action alternative). It would also include desired conditions for total road 

1589 densities to address terrestrial wildlife (e.g., grizzly bear), hydrologic function, and aquatic 

1590 species (e.g., bull trout) habitat needs while continuing to maintain an access system of 

1591 authorized roads that are safe, affordable, and environmentally sound. The road density desired 

1592 conditions would vary from 2.0 miles per square mile in the Focused Restoration MA to 3.0 miles 

1593 per square mile in the General Restoration MA (both averaged at the 5th field watershed).

1594 Recommended Wilderness

1595 By law, all NFS lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation during the plan 

1596 revision process. This evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the 

1597 forest.

1598 The proposed action would recommend 9 percent of the forest for wilderness. These areas would 

1599 include Abercrombie-Hooknose (35,080 acres), Bald Snow (15,200 acres), Hoodoo 

1600 (11,010 acres), Profanity (26,550 acres), and Salmo-Priest Adjacent (13,550 acres) inventoried 

1601 roadless areas. Forest plan components would direct that the wilderness character and potential 

1602 for each area recommended is to remain intact until congressional action is taken or the area is 

1603 released from consideration through a future plan amendment or revision. Existing mechanized 

1604 uses would be allowed to continue, but no new motorized or mechanized recreation opportunities 

1605 would be allowed. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

48

1606 Wildlife

1607 In addition to the ecosystem plan components for managing vegetation through a dynamic 

1608 landscape approach and addressing habitat connectivity through road density desired conditions 

1609 (described above), the proposed action would include species-specific management direction for 

1610 surrogate wildlife species associated with late-successional habitat structures through proposed 

1611 plan components for late successional habitat, retention of snag habitat, and down woody debris. 

1612 Riparian and Aquatic Resources

1613 The proposed action would address the need for updated, integrated direction for watershed, 

1614 aquatic and riparian management and would increase the pace and scale of aquatic restoration. 

1615 Riparian and aquatic resource direction that would be included in the proposed action is based on 

1616 the Region 6 Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) (USDA Forest Service 2008), 

1617 which is a refinement of earlier strategies and plans including the Aquatic Restoration Strategy 

1618 (ARS) (USDA 2005), the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM, 1994), 

1619 PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995), and INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995). ARCS 

1620 includes designation of riparian management areas, designation of a key watershed network, and 

1621 a core set of desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines, designed to provide 

1622 ecological conditions conducive to maintaining, restoring, and enhancing habitat necessary to 

1623 sustain aquatic and riparian-dependent species on NFS lands. 

1624 Riparian Widths

1625 Riparian management areas (RMAs) are areas where riparian-dependent resources receive 

1626 primary emphasis and are designated for all streams and aquatic features. RMAs would not 

1627 prohibit management activities, but management in RMAs should contribute to maintaining or 

1628 moving RMAs toward desired conditions. Compared to the no-action alternative, the RMAs in 

1629 the proposed action would be more protective due to the increased RMA-width buffer on 

1630 intermittent streams and natural lakes and ponds.

1631 Table 8. Riparian management area width

Stream and water body classification Riparian Management Area width

Fish-bearing streams 300 feet slope distance on each side (600 feet total)

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams 150 feet slope distance on each side (300 feet total)

Lakes and natural ponds 300 feet slope distance around feature

Constructed ponds, and reservoirs and 

wetlands greater than 1 acre

150 feet slope distance around feature

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams; 

wetlands, seeps, and springs less than 1 acre, 

and unstable or potentially unstable areas

100 feet slope distance from stream (200 feet total), 

100 feet slope distance around wetland, seep, spring, or 

unstable or potentially unstable area

1632 Key Watersheds

1633 Key watersheds are a network of watersheds that serve as strongholds for important aquatic 

1634 resources or have the potential to do so through focused restoration (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

1635 Key watersheds are designated at the subwatershed scale and were selected based on population 

1636 condition of focal aquatic species (interior redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and bull 

1637 trout), and aquatic habitat condition and function. Management in key watersheds minimizes risk 

1638 and maximizes restoration and preservation of ecological health. The key watershed network in 

1639 the proposed action was identified in 2011, and would expand the INFISH priority network in the 

1640 no-action alternative with the addition of 13 additional subwatersheds. Four subwatersheds in the 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

49

1641 INFISH priority network were not included in the key watershed network for the proposed action

1642 because they did not have the aquatic habitat conditions or focal species population necessary for 

1643 designation as a key watershed.

1644 The proposed action also includes measureable restoration objectives for key watersheds. The 

1645 establishment of a key watershed network and measurable restoration objectives for key 

1646 watersheds is a significant difference between the proposed action and the no-action alternative. 

1647

Figure 4. Key watershed network under the proposed action15 1648

1649 Alternative P (Modified Proposed Action)

1650 Alternative P responds to public concern that management direction as shown in other 

1651 alternatives could result in lower revenue to local economies, reduced ability to address fuel 

1652 levels and wildfire risk to adjacent communities, protection of water quality, and ability to 

1653 provide a mix of recreation opportunities, while also addressing multiple-use management and 

1654 development of resilient landscapes. This alternative would propose the same management areas 

1655 as the proposed action, but would vary the location of those allocations on the landscape with the 

1656 intent to provide a sustained flow of economic contributions to the local communities, and adds 

1657 the Kettle Crest Special Interest Area (approximately 82,800 acres). 

1658 In particular, alternative P would: (1) apply landscape ecology concepts to provide for ecological 

1659 resilience to disturbances, including wildfire and the effects of climate change, (2) incorporate 

1660 science related to the recovery of terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered species, 

1661 (3) integrate plan components for water resources and riparian areas using ARCS-modified, and 

1662 (4) recommend 68,300 acres as additions to the Wilderness Preservation System.

 15 Management direction and desired conditions apply only to NFS lands. Portions of key watersheds outside the 

Colville National Forest boundary are shown for informational purposes only. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

50

1663 Both active management (timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, and planned ignitions), and 

1664 passive management (unplanned ignitions and natural processes), would be utilized to move 

1665 vegetation toward desired conditions.

1666 Alternative P Relationship to the Significant Issues and the Need for Change

1667 Late-Successional and Old Forest Management

1668 Unlike the no-action alternative, alternative P would use the dynamic landscape approach 

1669 described in the proposed action to manage vegetation toward desired conditions (figure 4). 

1670 Timber Production

1671 Scheduled timber production would be suitable on 60 percent of the forest. Timber harvest for 

1672 other resource objectives would be allowed on 18 percent of the forest. The annual predicted 

1673 wood sale quantity would be 62 MMBF. 

1674 Motorized Recreation Trails

1675 Alternative P is similar to the proposed action, increasing the opportunity for backcountry 

1676 (unroaded setting) motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Approximately five 

1677 percent of the forest would be allocated to the Backcountry Motorized MA, which would be 

1678 suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation. Approximately eight percent of the forest 

1679 would be allocated to the Backcountry MA, which would emphasize non-motorized recreation 

1680 opportunities and would not suitable for motorized recreation. (Both would be suitable for 

1681 mechanized use.) The other roaded management areas would provide an additional 73 percent of 

1682 the forest as suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation. 

1683 Access

1684 Alternative P would reduce suitability for roads to 75 percent of the forest (compared to 

1685 83 percent in the no-action alternative). Similar to the proposed action, it would also include 

1686 desired conditions for total road densities to address terrestrial wildlife (e.g., grizzly bear), 

1687 hydrologic function, and aquatic species (e.g., bull trout) habitat needs while continuing to 

1688 maintain an access system of authorized roads that are safe, affordable, and environmentally 

1689 sound. However, in alternative P, the road density desired conditions would vary from no greater 

1690 than 1.0 mile per square mile in the Focused Restoration MA to no greater than 2.0 miles per 

1691 square mile in the General Restoration MA (both averaged at the 5th field watershed).

1692 Recommended Wilderness

1693 Alternative P would recommend 6 percent of the forest for wilderness. These areas would include 

1694 Abercrombie-Hooknose (37,660 acres), Bald Snow (14,693 acres), and Salmo-Priest Adjacent 

1695 (16,710 acres) inventoried roadless areas. Forest plan components would direct that the 

1696 wilderness character and potential for each area recommended is to remain intact until 

1697 congressional action is or the area is released from consideration through a future plan 

1698 amendment or revision. Existing mechanized uses would be allowed to continue, but no new 

1699 motorized or mechanized recreation opportunities would be allowed. 

1700 Wildlife

1701 Like the proposed action, alternative P would provide ecosystem plan components for managing 

1702 vegetation through a dynamic landscape approach, and would address habitat connectivity 

1703 through road density desired conditions and motorized recreation suitability (described above). 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

51

1704 And, like the proposed action, it would include species-specific management direction for 

1705 surrogate wildlife species that are associated with these late-successional habitat structures 

1706 through proposed plan components for large trees, retention of snag habitat, and down woody 

1707 debris. 

1708 Riparian and Aquatic Resources

1709 Riparian and aquatic resource direction in alternative P would be based on ARCS (described in 

1710 the proposed action), but would incorporate additional management direction to address issues 

1711 specific to the Colville National Forest. The incorporation of additional desired conditions, 

1712 objectives, and standards and guidelines is referred to as “ARCS-modified.”

1713 Examples of the additional plan direction in ARCS-modified include: 

1714 1. Additional desired conditions for general water resources and roads in RMAs.

1715 2. Clarity to riparian management area objectives that address improvement of riparian 

1716 function at dispersed and developed recreation sites, restoration of riparian processes 

1717 altered by roads, and restoration of upland vegetation in riparian management areas 

1718 toward historic range of variation. 

1719 3. Additional objectives for key watersheds tied to the National Watershed Condition 

1720 Framework and threatened, endangered and sensitive species recovery plans.

1721 4. Plan components to prevent and control aquatic invasive species, improve watershed

1722 and aquatic habitat function, improve aquatic organism passage, and address 

1723 livestock grazing effects to greenline areas.

1724 Riparian Widths

1725 RMA widths would be the same as the proposed action (table 8).

1726 Key Watersheds

1727 At the time the proposed action alternative was released to the public, the key watershed network 

1728 was delineated at the subwatershed scale. Boundaries, names, and numbers of subwatersheds 

1729 have changed since that release, and additional fish distribution and aquatic habitat data were

1730 gathered. The key watershed network in alternatives R, P, and O was updated using the most 

1731 current (2014) subwatershed delineations, fish distribution data, and aquatic habitat condition 

1732 data (figure 5). The key watershed network would be larger in alternative P than in the proposed 

1733 action. 

1734 Compared to the proposed action, five subwatersheds were added to the key watershed network 

1735 and three subwatersheds were removed because they had less than 25 percent Colville National 

1736 Forest ownership.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

52

1737

1738 Figure 5. Key watershed network under alternatives P, R, and O

1739 Alternative R

1740 Alternative R responds to the public comments that support static late forest structure reserve land 

1741 allocations, emphasis on maintaining habitat components for species associated with eastside late 

1742 successional forests, and a 21-inch upper diameter limit on cutting live trees, similar to the no1743 action alternative. Public issues concerning potential impacts that road access and summer 

1744 motorized trail use may have on aquatic, riparian, and wildlife habitats, including grizzly core 

1745 areas and habitat connectivity are addressed through lower road density desired conditions, few 

1746 acres allocated for backcountry motorized recreation, and a high proportion of recommended 

1747 wilderness areas. Likewise, alternative R responds to public concerns that ARCS would not 

1748 provide watershed, aquatic, and riparian resource protection as effective as the INFISH.

1749 In particular, alternative R would: (1) substantially increase late-successional reserves in both the 

1750 number of acres and the size and connectivity of the areas, (2) integrate plan components for 

1751 water resources and riparian areas using ARCS-modified, and (3) recommend 207,800 acres as 

1752 additions to the Wilderness Preservation System.

1753 Although active management (timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, and planned ignitions) 

1754 would be used as management tools where suitable, alternative R would have more emphasis on 

1755 passive management (unplanned ignitions and natural processes) to move vegetation toward 

1756 desired conditions as a result of management area allocations.

1757 Alternative R Relationship to the Significant Issues and the Need for Change

1758 Late-successional and Old Forest Management

1759 Like the no-action alternative, this alternative would use a fixed reserve management approach to 

1760 maintain late forest structure in fixed geographic locations. Fixed reserves would be allocated 

1761 across 51 percent of the forest in a Late Structure MA. Although not suitable for timber 

1762 production, timber harvest would be used as a management tool to maintain and improve 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

53

1763 resiliency of the late and old forest habitat components (e.g., structure such as large and old trees, 

1764 large snags, and downed wood). In addition, alternative R would retain emphasis on maintaining 

1765 habitat components for species associated with eastside late successional forests and the 21-inch 

1766 upper diameter limit on cutting live trees. 

1767 Timber Production

1768 Scheduled timber production would be suitable on 12 percent of the Forest. Timber harvest for 

1769 other resource objectives would be allowed on 66 percent of the Forest. The annual predicted 

1770 wood sale quantity would be 14 MMBF.

1771 Motorized Recreation Trails

1772 The amount of area allocated to backcountry recreation opportunities (unroaded setting) is similar 

1773 to the no-action alternative. Less than one percent of the forest would be allocated to the 

1774 Backcountry Motorized MA (suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation) and 

1775 approximately two percent of the Forest would be allocated to a Backcountry MA (not suitable 

1776 for motorized recreation). (Both would be suitable for mechanized recreation use.) Although the 

1777 other roaded MAs would provide an additional 73 percent of the Forest as suitable for summer 

1778 and winter motorized recreation, the increase in recommended wilderness (see description below) 

1779 would reduce both motorized and mechanized recreation opportunities compared to the no-action

1780 alternative.

1781 Access

1782 Alternative R would reduce suitability for roads to 75 percent of the Forest (compared to 

1783 83 percent in the no-action alternative). It would also include desired conditions for total road 

1784 densities to address terrestrial wildlife (e.g., grizzly bear), hydrologic function, and aquatic 

1785 species (e.g., bull trout) habitat needs while continuing to maintain an access system of 

1786 authorized roads that are safe, affordable, and environmentally sound. The road density desired 

1787 conditions would vary from no greater than 1.0 mile per square mile in the Late Forest Structure 

1788 MA to no greater than 2.0 miles per square mile in the General Restoration MA (both averaged at 

the 5th 1789 field watershed).

1790 Recommended Wilderness

1791 This alternative would recommend 19 percent of the Forest as wilderness. The areas that would 

1792 be recommended are described in table 9. Forest plan components would direct that the 

1793 wilderness character and potential for each area recommended is to remain intact until 

1794 congressional action is taken or the area is released from consideration through a future plan 

1795 amendment or revision. Mechanized and motorized use would not be suitable and a site-specific 

1796 prohibition (per 36 CFR 261) would accompany the record of decision for the forest plan.

1797
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

54

1798 Table 9. Alternative R recommended wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area Acres

Abercrombie-Hooknose 37,650

Bald Snow 18,810

Cougar Mountain 6,210

Deer Creek 5,820

Grassy Top 2,200

Hall Mountain 7,890

Harvey Creek 5,720

Hoodoo 11,060

Jackknife 8,940

Owl Mountain 11,060

Profanity 37,770

Quartzite 5,340

Salmo-Priest Adjacent 15,980

South Huckleberry 9,680

Thirteenmile 10,890

Twin Sisters 14,610

1799 Wildlife

1800 Although alternative R would maintain the fixed reserves management approach for late1801 successional and old forest habitat, it also would include species-specific management direction 

1802 for surrogate wildlife species that are associated with these late-successional habitat structures 

1803 through proposed plan components for large trees, retention of snag habitat, and down woody 

1804 debris. Also, compared to the no-action alternative, habitat connectivity would be addressed 

1805 through reduced road density desired conditions and reduced acres suitable for motorized 

1806 recreation. (See previous motorized trail recreation, access, and recommended wilderness 

1807 descriptions).

1808 Riparian and Aquatic Resources

1809 Riparian management area widths, the key watershed network and designation process, and 

1810 riparian and aquatic resource goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines (ARCS-modified) are 

1811 the same as alternative P. Unlike the no-action alternative, this addresses the need for updated, 

1812 integrated direction for watershed, aquatic, and riparian management.

1813 Alternative B

1814 Alternative B combines feedback from timber and environmental interest groups and incorporates 

1815 management strategies supported by the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. Alternative B

1816 would address the concerns of multiple constituencies in one alternative by balancing land 

1817 allocations between areas emphasizing active management (timber management zones), 

1818 emphasizing a mix of active and passive management (restoration areas), and emphasizing 

1819 passive management (designated and recommended wilderness). 

1820 Like the no-action alternative, alternative B would retain the Eastside Screens, 21-inch upper 

1821 diameter limit for cutting live trees, and the large-scale reserve approach for late-successional 

1822 forest structure. However, it would include additional plan components to limit mechanical 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

55

1823 restoration treatments (timber harvest) in late-successional structure to dry plant association 

1824 groups only.

1825 Where plan components were not identified by the collaborative group, the 1988 Colville Forest 

1826 Plan (no-action alternative) would provide plan direction (remain unchanged).

1827 Active management (timber harvest and non-commercial thinning) would be emphasized in the 

1828 Active Management MA, although the retention of the Eastside Screens would limit their 

1829 continued application over time. Passive management (unplanned ignitions and natural processes) 

1830 would be emphasized in the other management areas across the Forest. 

1831 Alternative B Relationship to the Significant Issues and the Need for Change

1832 Late-Successional and Old Forest Management 

1833 Like the no-action alternative, this alternative would use a fixed reserve management approach to 

1834 maintain late forest structure in fixed geographic locations on 31 percent of the Forest. However, 

1835 alternative B would include plan components to exclude timber harvest as a management tool in 

1836 late-successional mixed conifer stands. Restoration of ecological integrity and ecosystem function 

1837 would be achieved primarily through natural process with limited active management activity in 

1838 late forest structure habitat. In addition, alternative B would retain the 21-inch upper diameter 

1839 limit on cutting live trees.

1840 Timber Production

1841 Scheduled timber production would be suitable on 35 percent of the Forest. Timber harvest for 

1842 other resource objectives would be allowed on 43 percent of the Forest. The annual predicted 

1843 wood sale quantity would be 37 MMBF.

1844 Motorized Recreation Trails

1845 Alternative B would provide less backcountry motorized recreation opportunities (unroaded 

1846 setting) than the no-action alternative as less than one percent would be allocated to the 

1847 Backcountry Motorized MA. Although an additional 74 percent of the Forest would be suitable 

1848 for summer and winter motorized recreation in the other roaded management areas, the increase 

1849 in recommended wilderness (see description below), would reduce both motorized and 

1850 mechanized recreation opportunities compared to the no-action alternative.

1851 Access

1852 Alternative B would reduce suitability for roads to 74 percent of the Forest (compared to 

1853 83 percent in the no-action alternative). Additionally, this alternative would cap total miles of 

1854 NFS roads at the current level, about 4,000 miles, and would include a standard stating that for 

1855 any miles added to the NFS road system, an equal amount of existing road miles would be 

1856 required to be decommissioned. This standard was developed to address public concerns about 

1857 potential resource damage caused by the road system and would be intended to mitigate road1858 related resource impacts in contrast with the road density desired condition approach of the 

1859 proposed action. 

1860 Recommended Wilderness

1861 Alternative B would recommend 20 percent of the Forest for wilderness. The areas that would be 

1862 recommended are described in table 10. Forest plan components would direct that the wilderness 

1863 character and potential for each area recommended is to remain intact until congressional action 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

56

1864 is taken or the area is released from consideration through a future plan amendment or revision.

1865 Mechanized and motorized use would not be suitable and a site-specific prohibition (per 36 CFR 

1866 261) would accompany the record of decision for the forest plan.

1867 Table 10. Alternative B recommended wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area Acres

Abercrombie-Hooknose 37,600

Bald Snow 19,880

Bodie Mountain 4,510

Clackamas Mountain 430

Cougar Mountain 6,140

Deer Creek 5,820

Grassy Top 2,200

Hall Mountain 7,890

Harvey Creek 5,690

Hoodoo 11,690

Jackknife 8,940

Jackson Creek 3,000

Owl Mountain 11,060

Profanity 37,650

Quartzite 5,360

Salmo-Priest Adjacent 15,960

South Fork Mountain 1,190

South Huckleberry 9,920

Thirteenmile 10,870

Twin Sisters 14,530

1868 Wildlife 

1869 Like the no-action alternative, alternative B would maintain the fixed reserves management 

1870 approach for late-successional and old forest habitat, but it also would include species-specific 

1871 management direction for surrogate wildlife species that are associated with these late1872 successional habitat structures through proposed plan components for retention of snag habitat 

1873 and down woody debris. Also, compared to the no-action alternative, habitat connectivity would 

1874 be addressed through reduced acres suitable for roads and motorized recreation. (See previous 

1875 motorized trail recreation, access, and recommended wilderness descriptions.)

1876 Riparian and Aquatic Resources

1877 Like the no-action alternative, alternative B would continue riparian and aquatic management 

1878 under INFISH. Riparian habitat conservation area widths, the priority watershed network, and 

1879 riparian and aquatic resource goals objectives, standards, and guidelines would all remain the 

1880 same as the current forest plan. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

57

1881 Alternative O

1882 Alternative O was designed to reflect areas of agreement expressed by participants at a series of 

1883 public meetings that focused on motorized recreation, wilderness recommendations, and 

1884 vegetation management. 

1885 Similar to alternative B, the intent of alternative O would be to balance land allocations between 

1886 areas emphasizing active management (Responsible MA), emphasizing a mix of active and 

1887 passive management (Restoration MA), and emphasizing passive management (backcountry MAs 

1888 and recommended/designated wilderness). Like the no-action alternative, this alternative would 

1889 retain the Eastside Screens, 21-inch upper diameter limit for cutting live trees, and the large-scale 

1890 reserve approach for late-successional forest structure. 

1891 Where the collaborative group did not identify plan components, the proposed action would 

1892 provide plan direction. This would include management direction to (1) incorporate science 

1893 related to the recovery of terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered species and 

1894 (2) integrate plan components for water resources and riparian areas (ARCS).

1895 Alternative O would designate 99,000 acres as the Kettle Crest Recreation SIA.

1896 Alternative O Relationship to the Significant Issues and the Need for Change

1897 Late-Successional and Old Forest Management 

1898 Like the no-action alternative and alternative B, this alternative would use a fixed reserve 

1899 management approach to maintain late forest structure in fixed geographic locations on 

1900 34 percent of the Forest. It would include plan components to exclude timber harvest as a 

1901 management tool in late-successional mixed conifer stands. Restoration of ecological integrity 

1902 and ecosystem function would be achieved primarily through natural process with limited active 

1903 management activity in late forest structure habitat. In addition, alternative O would retain the 21-

1904 inch upper diameter limit on cutting live trees.

1905 Timber Production

1906 Scheduled timber production would be suitable on 32 percent of the Forest. Timber harvest for 

1907 other resource objectives would be allowed on 46 percent of the Forest. The annual predicted 

1908 wood sale quantity would be 38 MMBF.

1909 Motorized Recreation Trails

1910 Alternative O would increase the opportunity for backcountry (unroaded setting) motorized and 

1911 non-motorized recreation opportunities. Approximately 5 percent of the Forest would be allocated 

1912 to the Backcountry Motorized MA (suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation) and 

1913 approximately 16 percent would be allocated to the Backcountry MA (not suitable for motorized 

1914 recreation). (Both would be suitable for mechanized use.) An additional 73 percent of the Forest

1915 would be suitable for summer and winter motorized recreation in the other roaded MAs. 

1916 Unique to this alternative and in acknowledgement of ongoing public disagreement around 

1917 wilderness recommendations, a 99,000-acre recreation special interest area along the Kettle Crest 

1918 would be created including areas both north and south of Sherman Pass. Management emphasis 

1919 of the Kettle Crest Special Interest Area would emphasize outstanding recreational values in a 

1920 semi-primitive setting and would allow uses (roads, motorized and non-motorized recreation, and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

58

1921 vegetation management for example) to the extent that the uses were in harmony with the special 

1922 recreation values of the area. 

1923 Access

1924 Alternative O would reduce suitability for roads to 74 percent of the Forest (compared to 

1925 83 percent in the no-action alternative). Additionally, this alternative would cap total miles of 

1926 NFS roads at the current level, about 4,000 miles, and would include a standard stating that for 

1927 any miles added to the NFS road system, an equal amount of existing road miles would be 

1928 required to be decommissioned. This standard was developed to address public concerns about 

1929 potential resource damage caused by the road system and would be intended to mitigate road1930 related resource impacts, in contrast with the road density desired condition approach of the 

1931 proposed action. 

1932 Recommended Wilderness

1933 Alternative O would recommend 1 percent of the Forest for wilderness, the Salmo-Priest 

1934 Adjacent area (15,950 acres). Forest plan components would direct that the wilderness character 

1935 and potential for each area recommended is to remain intact until congressional action is taken or 

1936 the area is released from consideration through a future plan amendment or revision. Existing 

1937 mechanized uses would be allowed to continue, but no new motorized or mechanized recreation 

1938 opportunities would be allowed.

1939 Wildlife 

1940 Like the no-action alternative, alternative B would maintain the fixed reserves management 

1941 approach for late-successional and old forest habitat, but it also would include species-specific 

1942 management direction for surrogate wildlife species that are associated with these late1943 successional habitat structures through proposed plan components for retention of snag habitat 

1944 and down woody debris. Also, compared to the no-action alternative, habitat connectivity would 

1945 be addressed through reduced acres suitable for roads and motorized recreation. (See motorized 

1946 trail recreation, access, and recommended wilderness descriptions above.)

1947 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

1948 Like the proposed action, riparian and aquatic resource direction would be integrated through the 

1949 implementation of ARCS. However, riparian area widths and the key watershed network and 

1950 designation process would be the same as alternatives R and P.

1951 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

1952 Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

1953 reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

1954 were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

1955 proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods to address the need for change. 

1956 Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need to revise the forest plan, 

1957 duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would 

1958 cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered but 

1959 dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

1960 Biological Capability Only 

1961 It was suggested that biological capability should be the only consideration in developing 

1962 alternatives, rather than considering budget or perceived political or social constraints. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

59

1963 First generation forest plans were developed and approved under national direction unconstrained 

1964 by budget assumptions. Without considering reasonably foreseeable budgets, the 1980s-era forest 

1965 plan established unrealistic expectations of activity and output. It would be disingenuous to 

1966 continue to portray unrealistic objectives based on unconstrained or much higher budget levels.

1967 The Forest Service has learned it is important to analyze the effects of plan alternatives within the 

1968 fiscal capability of the unit, because financial constraints are often the primary limiting factor in 

1969 achieving desired conditions.

1970 Alternatives that give priority to a single resource 

1971 The public suggested alternatives that would emphasize protection and restoration of watershed 

1972 conditions or the unconstrained use of mineral-rich areas over all other resources. Alternatives 

1973 that would not meet the intent of the NFMA’s regulations for revising forest plans were also 

1974 suggested.

1975 Use of biological considerations only, or managing the Forest as if it were all critical habitat for 

1976 threatened or endangered species, in developing alternatives would not meet the intent of NFMA 

1977 regulations for revising forest plans. The regulations speak to considering ranges of resource 

1978 outputs, being responsive to public issues and management concerns, and delivering plans that 

1979 provide for multiple uses. Access to and use of minerals is already covered by existing law, 

1980 regulation, and policy. 

1981 Snowpack alternative

1982 This alternative would emphasize retaining snowpack and returning stream flows to historic 

1983 levels, implying that current stream flows are less than past conditions. The suggested approach 

1984 to accomplish this would be by limiting tree cutting. However, increasing the density of the forest 

1985 canopy would not feasibly increase stream flows (water yield). Rather research has shown that 

1986 water yields increase and run-off time is altered when a substantial amount of the tree canopy

1987 area of a forested watershed is removed (Bosch and Hewlett 1981). 

1988 Inventoried Roadless Areas alternatives

1989 Some members of the public suggested an alternative that promoted removing any constraints to 

1990 road building and commercial timber harvest within inventoried roadless areas. 

1991 However, management of inventoried roadless areas (outside of Idaho and Colorado), must 

1992 follow the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). The rule generally 

1993 prohibits new road construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas, and timber 

1994 harvest is only permitted under a few limited exceptions. While NEPA allows consideration of 

1995 alternatives that are contrary to rules, this issue has been litigated and affirmed by the courts.

1996 Forest Rangeland and Renewable Resources Planning Act

1997 The planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.12(f)(6) (1982) require that at least one alternative be 

1998 developed “which responds to and incorporates the RPA [Resources Planning Act] Program 

1999 tentative resource objectives for each forest displayed in the regional guide.” 

2000 The last RPA Program was developed in 1995. The requirement for a “RPA Program” was 

2001 replaced in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 with a requirement for the 

2002 Agency to develop a Strategic Plan. Currently, the Forest Service Strategic Plan (FY2014 to 

2003 2018) provides broad overarching national guidance for forest planning and national objectives 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

60

2004 for the Agency. All of the alternatives considered in detail in this EIS integrate these broad 

2005 strategic objectives.

2006 Minimum Level of Management 

2007 Under this alternative, only the minimum level of management needed to maintain and protect the 

2008 Forest as a part of the National Forest System would be accomplished. No acres would be 

2009 classified as suitable for timber production or grazing, no trees would be harvested, and no timber 

2010 would be produced. Management would be solely focused on preventing resource damage or 

2011 addressing the safety of forest visitors and would be limited to management of the recreation 

2012 facilities, roads and trails. Treatments in wildland urban interface areas would continue to meet 

2013 liability concerns.

2014 It was determined that this alternative should not be considered in any further detail because it 

2015 would not meet the need for change identified for revising the current forest plan or address the 

2016 significant issues raised by the public. It would also not meet the legal requirements of the 

2017 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and National Forest Management Act to provide for multiple 

2018 uses and benefits of the national forests.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

61

2019 Comparison of Alternatives

2020 Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the effects of the varying management allocations and plan components across alternatives. The 

2021 following table provides a summary of effects by revision topic.

2022 Table 11. Comparison of some plan revision key indicators

Resource and Indicator No Action Alt Proposed Action Alt P Alt R Alt B Alt O

Vegetation

Uses a Fixed Reserves and 

Diameter Limit Management 

Approach for Managing Latesuccessional Reserves and Old 

Forest Habitat Versus Dynamic 

Landscape Management 

Approach

Fixed Reserves 

and Diameter Limit

Dynamic 

Landscape

Dynamic 

Landscape

Fixed Reserves 

and Diameter Limit

Fixed Reserves 

and Diameter Limit

Fixed Reserves 

and Diameter Limit

Timber Production16

Acres/Percentage Suitable for 

Timber Production

535,725

48%

653,242

59%

656,628

60%

129,420

12%

384,485

35%

347,535

32%

Acres/Percent Harvest Allowed 

for Other Resource Objectives

323,025

29%

205,508

19%

202,122

18%

729,330

66%

474,265

43%

511,215

46%

Predicted Wood Sale Quantity 

(PWSQ)

MMBF

CCF 41

82,800

62

125,900

62

125,400

14

28,900

37

77,000

38

77,000

Roads

Percent of Forest Suitable for 

Roads

83% 73% 75% 75% 74% 74%

 16 All outputs present in annual measurements
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

62

Resource and Indicator No Action Alt Proposed Action Alt P Alt R Alt B Alt O

Total Road Density Desired 

Conditions versus Capping 

Road Miles at Existing

Road densities 

between 0.4-2 

mi/mi2

Road densities 

between 2-3 mi/mi2

and no net 

increase in key 

watersheds

Road densities 

between 1-2 mi/mi2

and no net 

increase in key 

watersheds and 

riparian MAs

Road densities 

between 1-2 mi/mi2

and no net 

increase in key 

watersheds and 

riparian MAs

Cap on existing 

mile and no net 

increase in key 

watersheds

Cap on existing 

miles

Recommended Wilderness

Acres/Percent Recommended 

for Wilderness

0 101,390

9%

68,300

6%

207,800

19%

220,330

20%

15,950

1%

Existing Mechanized and 

Motorized a Suitable Use

Does Not Apply Yes Yes No No Yes

Change to Miles of Trail 

Currently Designated for Motor 

Vehicle Use (MVUM)

0 0 0 -39 -39 0

Change to Miles of Trail Suitable 

for Mechanized Use (Mountain 

Bikes)

0 -155 -17717 -220 -228 -3118

Designation of Kettle Crest 

Special Interest Area No No Yes (82,800 acres) No No Yes(99,000 acres)

Recreation 

Percent Forestwide Where 

Roads, Trails, and Areas may be 

Designated for Motor Vehicle 

Use (Suitable for Motorized 

Recreation)

89% 79% 80% 76% 75% 78%

Percent Forestwide with Nonmotorized Recreation plan 

direction—Includes nonmotorized Backcountry MA, 

RNAs, Recommended 

Wilderness, and Wilderness

11% 21% 20% 24% 25% 22%

 17 Change in miles is based on effects if recommended wilderness became wilderness through congressional designation. 18 Change in miles is based on effects if recommended wilderness became wilderness through congressional designation.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

63

Resource and Indicator No Action Alt Proposed Action Alt P Alt R Alt B Alt O

Socio-Economic

Estimated Employment 

Contribution (no. of jobs all 

resource areas)

937 1,146 1,144 721 904 910

Estimated Wage Income 

Contribution by Timber Harvest 

($1,000s)

$19,335 $31,224 $31,089 $6,692 $17,428 $17,465

Wildlife

Old Forest Management Plan 

Direction Contribution to Viability

Low Moderate High High Low Low

Snag Habitat Plan Direction 

Contribution to Viability

Low Moderate High High Low Low

Habitat Connectivity Plan 

Direction Contribution to Viability

Low Moderate High Moderate Low Low

Plan Direction Contribution to 

Recovery (Caribou/Lynx)

Low/Low High/Moderate High/High High/Moderate Low/Low Low/Low

Riparian Habitat

Acres/Percent within Key or 

INFISH Priority Watersheds

214,283 

acres/19% —

INFISH Priority 

Watersheds

371,943 

acres/34% — Key 

Watersheds

451,525 

acres/41% — Key 

watersheds

451,525 

acres/41% — Key 

Watersheds

214,283 

acres/19% —

INFISH Priority 

Watersheds

451,525 

acres/41% — Key 

Watersheds

Riparian-dependent Wildlife and 

Fish Species – Riparian 

Management Direction Relative 

Contribution to Recovery and 

Viability

Least of all 

alternatives

Higher than no 

action, but less 

than Alts P and R

Second highest of 

all alternatives

Highest of all 

alternatives

Least of all action 

alternatives, but 

better than the no 

action

Better than no 

action and Alt B, 

but less than Alts 

P and R

Number of Subwatersheds with 

Improved Trend 7 12 15 15 15 7
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

64

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

65

2041 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

2042 Consequences

2043 Introduction

2044 This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the planning area 

2045 and the predicted effects of implementing each alternative on those environments. It also presents the 

2046 scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in chapter 2. More detailed 

2047 information, including methodology and assumptions, can be found in the resource specialist reports 

2048 located in the “Plan Set of Documents” on the website and available upon request.

2049 For estimating the effects at the programmatic-Forest Plan level, the assumption has been made that the 

2050 kinds of resource-management activities allowed under the plan component direction are reasonably 

2051 foreseeable future actions to achieve the desired conditions. However, the specific location, design, and 

2052 extent of such activities are generally not known at this time. The decisions are made on a site-specific 

2053 (project-by-project) basis. Therefore, the discussions here refer to the potential for the effect to occur and 

2054 are in many cases only estimates. The effects analyses are useful when comparing and evaluating 

2055 alternatives on a forestwide basis, but are not intended to be applied directly to specific locations on the 

2056 Forest.

2057 Related Information

2058 The following is explanatory information related to effects analysis discussed in this chapter.

2059 Programmatic Framework of the Land Management Plan 

2060 The proposed plan and its alternatives do not authorize implementation of management activities 

2061 described in the effects analyses. The proposed plan and its alternatives provide a programmatic 

2062 framework that guide site-specific actions, but they do not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or 

2063 activity. 

2064 Because the proposed plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities (including 

2065 ground-disturbing actions), there can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications or long 

2066 term environmental consequences of managing the forests under this programmatic framework. The 

2067 proposed plan sets the stage for what future management actions are needed to achieve desired outcomes 

2068 (desired conditions, objectives, special areas) and provides the sideboards (suitability, standards, 

2069 guidelines) under which future activities may occur in order to manage risks to ecological, social, and 

2070 economic environments. To actually implement site-specific projects, project and activity-level planning, 

2071 environmental analysis and decisions must occur. For example, the proposed plan may contain direction 

2072 to close or rehabilitate roads in order to benefit riparian areas; however, a subsequent site-specific 

2073 analysis and decision must be made for proposals that involve road closures or decommissioning.

2074 Environmental Analysis and Overall Assumptions

2075 In development of the environmental analyses that follow, the best available science was considered and 

2076 is documented in the “Plan Set of Documents.” The environmental analyses focus on the need for change 

2077 and issues identified through the scoping process. Overall assumptions were made in the analyses of 

2078 alternatives and include the following. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

66

2079 Fiscal capability assumption

2080 In order to evaluate the effects of the plan alternatives assumptions are needed about the level of 

2081 management activities over the life of the forest plan which is 10 to 15 years. The level of management 

2082 activities for the Colville National Forest is based on a reasonable idea of the fiscal capability of the 

2083 Forest. Fiscal capability is subject to variation during the Federal budget process over the course of the 

2084 next 15 years, but for the purposes of land management planning the fiscal capability is based on the 

2085 current situation and recent trends in Forest budget. As fiscal capability changes in the future, 

2086 management activities on the ground may increase or decrease. The following is a brief summary of the 

2087 fiscal capability. 

2088 Budget Trends 

2089 For the past 5 years, the total budget has averaged 17 million dollars per year. The 5-year funding levels 

2090 have remained at a relatively constant level (they varied up to 10 percent) and are expected to remain 

2091 around this level for the near future. 

2092 Based on the above budget trend, this analysis assumes the following:

2093 • The expected amount of acres treated (prescribed fire, mechanical fuels, stand improvement 

2094 activities, or timber harvest) will remain constant over the life of the forest plan, approximately 

2095 6,000 to 12,000 acres per year on average. 

2096 • Roadwork on the forest will average 20 miles per year of reconstruction, construction or 

2097 decommissioning over the life of the plan.

2098 Agreements and Partnerships

2099 The Forest has received funding outside the allocated budget for special projects from special budget 

2100 allocations, such as those for collaborative forest restoration. Several partnerships with organizations 

2101 provide grant monies for projects and provide substantial volunteer time. They are not included in the 

2102 fiscal capability because these opportunities are unusual, tied to specific management activities, and/or 

2103 time-limited. 

2104 Climate Change Assumption

2105 This analysis draws on existing synthesis and assessments prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on 

2106 Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Climate Change Science Program Science Assessment Products (CCSP 

2107 SAP) as well as information from Forest Service Research to provide an overview of consistent scientific 

2108 information on climate change projections for the planning area. Specifically assumptions about climate 

2109 change for the planning area is based on information developed by the U.S. Forest Service Pacific 

2110 Northwest Research Station, University of Washington Climate Change Group, and the U.S. Forest 

2111 Service Climate Change Resource Center. The key area of risk identified and related to this analysis is the 

2112 expected forest mortality and long-term transformation of forest landscapes, caused by the combined 

2113 effects of increasing wildfire risk, changing precipitation patterns, insect outbreaks, and increased spread 

2114 of tree diseases. 

2115 Travel Management Assumption

2116 The Forest has a motor vehicle use map in place that designates the roads and trails that are open to 

2117 motorized use. The Forest does not have any open motorized play areas. For purposes of this analysis, the 

2118 assumption is that there will be no changes to travel management designation on National Forest System 

2119 lands.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

67

2120 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

2121 NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

2122 maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, 

2123 this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a 

2124 manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare; create and maintain conditions under which 

2125 man and nature can exist in productive harmony; and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements 

2126 of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). Short-term uses are those that 

2127 generally occur for a finite period. Long-term productivity refers to the ability of the land to produce a 

2128 continuous supply of a resource. 

2129 The change in the programmatic management of the Colville National Forest under any of the action 

2130 alternatives would not provide for any short-term uses that would jeopardize the long-term productivity of 

2131 the lands and resources of the forests because productivity is addressed at the project level. Descriptions 

2132 of short-term and long-term environmental consequences can be found in the “Environmental 

2133 Consequences of Each Alternative by Resource” section of this chapter. 

2134 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Consequences

2135 The proposed plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does not 

2136 authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Therefore, decisions made in the proposed plan do not 

2137 cause unavoidable adverse environmental consequences. The application of standards and guidelines

2138 during future project and activity decision-making would provide resource protection measures and would 

2139 limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental impacts. For a detailed discussion of types of 

2140 environmental consequences expected from future activities, see specific resource topic areas in this 

2141 chapter. 

2142 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

2143 Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

2144 species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those lost for a period but could be 

2145 regained, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas kept clear for use as a power 

2146 line right-of-way or road. 

2147 Because the proposed plan does not directly authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity 

2148 (including ground-disturbing actions), none of the alternatives causes an irreversible or irretrievable 

2149 commitment of resources. Future project-level decisions under any of the alternatives may result in 

2150 potential irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, which would be disclosed accordingly.

2151 American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

2152 Agencies must make a good faith effort to understand how Indian religious practices may come into 

2153 conflict with other forest uses and consider any adverse impacts on these practices in their decision2154 making practices. Within the boundaries of the Colville National Forest, there are three potentially 

2155 affected tribes: the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Spokane Tribe of Indians and 

2156 Kalispel Tribe. Federal guidance for tribal consultation directs the Forest to increase and improve the 

2157 involvement of tribes in the decision-making process in the areas where our decisions affect tribes and 

2158 their tribal rights and interests. There is a trust responsibility with regard to managing the resources on 

2159 which the reserved rights are based. 

2160 The Forest is also required to consult with all Federally recognized tribes that had/have traditional uses 

2161 within the Forest boundary. This consultation extends to the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Spokane Tribe 

2162 of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. No effects on American Indian social, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

68

2163 economic, or subsistence rights are anticipated as a result of this Forest Plan revision effort. No matter 

2164 which alternative is chosen for implementation, the Forest will be required to consult with tribes when 

2165 management activities may impact tribal rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use, according to the 

2166 Consultation Protocol. Formal consultation with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation was 

2167 initiated in 2003. Formal consultation with the Spokane and Kalispel Tribes was initiated in 2015. 

2168 Desired conditions for American Indian Rights and Interests, for all action alternatives, would be for the 

2169 Colville National Forest to: 

2170 − recognize and maintain culturally significant species and the habitat necessary to support healthy, 

2171 sustainable, and harvestable plant and animal populations to ensure that rights reserved by tribes 

2172 are not significantly impacted or diminished; 

2173 − recognize, ensure, and accommodate tribal member access to the Forest for the exercise of tribal 

2174 rights and cultural uses consistent with law, policy, and regulation; and 

2175 − recognize and protect traditional cultural areas as associated with the traditional beliefs of a Tribe 

2176 about its cultural history.

2177 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland 

2178 No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland as defined by the National Resource Conservation Service 

2179 has been identified in the planning area. Forest Plan revision or the Forest Plan would not directly affect 

2180 such lands, although implementation of the Plan could have indirect effects. Regardless of the alternative 

2181 selected for implementation, National Forest System lands would be managed with sensitivity to the 

2182 values of all private and public lands.

2183 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

2184 Potential effects to species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be found in chapter 3, as 

2185 well as in the Wildlife, Aquatics, Fisheries, and Botany specialist reports (project file). The Biological 

2186 Assessment and Biological Evaluation will be finalized for the revised Forest Plan and final EIS. 

2187 Management direction to protect the threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species, or to 

2188 provide for their habitats, can be found in the revised draft Forest Plan (forestwide and management area 

2189 desired conditions, standards, and guidelines). 

2190 Wetlands and Floodplains 

2191 The Forest Plan revision and Forest Plans do not directly implement any management activities that 

2192 would result in loss of wetland or floodplains. Revised forestwide management direction identifies the 

2193 need to restore currently degraded wetlands and floodplains, and provides a broad spectrum of standards 

2194 and guidelines designed to protect soil, water, riparian, and aquatic resources. The goals and intent of 

2195 Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) would be met 

2196 through compliance with this direction. Documentation for this conclusion can be found in this EIS, 

2197 chapter 3 and in the revised Forest Plan (desired condition, standards, and guidelines). 

2198 Conflicts with Other Agency or Government Goals or Objectives 

2199 Contact, review, and public involvement with other Federal and State agencies indicate no major conflicts 

2200 between the revised Forest Plan and the goals and objectives of other governmental entities.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

69

2201 Regulatory Framework

2202 Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply

2203 As a Federal land management agency, the Forest Service must follow all applicable laws and regulations. 

2204 If laws change or are amended, or if new laws are enacted, the Forest administration will comply with the 

2205 changes or additions. The same situation applies to executive orders and agency policy, as expressed in 

2206 forest service manual (FSM) and handbook (FSH) directives. These laws are considered in the course of 

2207 the analysis of effects. A more comprehensive list of laws, regulations and policy is located in Appendix 

2208 D.

2209 Guidance for these laws comes from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the Forest Service 

2210 Directive System (the Forest Service Handbooks and Forest Service Manuals).

2211 National rules applicable to all national forests, such as the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Parts 212, 

2212 251, 261, and 295) and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294) apply.

2213 Federal laws of which forest plans and revised forest plans must be consistent are:

2214 Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.) – This act is the comprehensive Federal law that 

2215 regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes the 

2216 Environmental Protection Agency to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to 

2217 protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. 

2218 Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) – Establishes the basic structure for regulating 

2219 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates quality standards for surface 

2220 waters. 

2221 Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA] (16 U.S.C 1531-1536, 1538-1540) – Provides for the 

2222 conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their 

2223 range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend.

2224 Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 – Requires public lands to be managed in a manner that 

2225 will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, 

2226 water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain 

2227 public lands in their natural condition and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy 

2228 and use.

2229 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [RPA] [As Amended Through 

2230 Public Law 106-580, Dec. 31, 2000] (16 U.S.C. 1601) – Establishes standards for how the Forest Service 

2231 manages the national forests, requires the development of land management plans for national forests and 

2232 grasslands, and directs the Forest Service to develop regular reports on the status and trends of the 

2233 nation’s renewable resources on all forest and rangelands.

2234 Granger-Thye Act of 1950 - Allows concessionaire fees for recreation facilities to be reduced for work 

2235 performed to maintain and enhance those facilities. 

2236 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) – Expedites the preparation and 

2237 implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal land and assisting rural communities, 

2238 states and landowners in restoring healthy forest and watershed conditions on State, private and tribal 

2239 lands. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

70

2240 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 – States that the national forests are established and shall be 

2241 administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, and 

2242 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable surface 

2243 resources of the national forests for the multiple use and sustained yield of products and services. 

2244 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA] (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) – Directs all Federal

2245 agencies to consider and report the potential environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions, and 

2246 established the Council on Environmental Quality. 

2247 National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA] (Act of October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600) –

2248 Requires the provision for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services in accordance with 

2249 the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and the coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

2250 watershed, wildlife, fish, and wilderness. 

2251 National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-655; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) – Provides for the 

2252 preservation of historical and archaeological sites in the U.S. The act created the National Register of 

2253 Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices. 

2254 Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1121, 1131-1136) – Created the National Wilderness Preservation 

2255 System, which protects nearly 110 million acres of wilderness areas in states throughout the nation. 

2256 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences by Resource

2257 This section includes analysis of each of the resources affected by our alternatives and is arranged 

2258 alphabetically under two headings: “Terrestrial and Aquatic Conditions and Resiliency,” and “Social and 

2259 Economic Conditions.”

2260 Terrestrial and Aquatic Conditions Social and Economic Conditions

2261 Forest Vegetation Economic 

2262 Botany Heritage 

2263 Climate Change Livestock Grazing

2264 Fire Minerals and Geology

2265 Invasive Plants Recreation

2266 Fisheries Scenery

2267 Hydrology Special Uses 

2268 Soil Social

2269 Wildlife Tribal

2270
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

71

2271 Terrestrial and Aquatic Conditions and Resiliency

2272 Forest Vegetation

2273 This section analyzes the issues of old forest management and timber production as it relates to six 

2274 different alternatives for the revised forest plan on the Colville National Forest. The classification of 

2275 vegetation on the forest is described, and the historical range of variation is compared to the current 

2276 condition. Recent timber harvest levels, as well as projected future levels are described for each 

2277 alternative. The projected vegetation condition after 100 years is modeled and compared to the historical 

2278 range of variation for each alternative.

2279 Affected Environment

2280 Background

2281 The Colville National Forest is considered to be part of the Northern Rocky Mountains, with the Kettle 

2282 River Range on the west half of the forest, and the Selkirk Mountains defining the eastern half. The 

2283 Cascade mountain range lies to the west of the area and has a significant influence on precipitation 

2284 patterns and rain shadow effects that influence vegetation.

2285 Vegetation on the Colville National Forest is highly complex and varied as a result of a wide diversity of 

2286 soil parent materials, highly diverse topography, interaction of continental and maritime climatic patterns, 

2287 significant and persistent disturbance processes that include fire, insects, and disease, and strong 

2288 influences by larger scale climatic events including the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the 

2289 Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Heyerdahl et al. 2008). 

2290 Climate patterns for the Colville are influenced by a transition between an intense rain shadow effect in 

2291 the west formed by the Cascades, and the inland expression of maritime climate in the east caused by the 

2292 convergence and uplifting of moist air masses over the Rockies. The result is a considerable west-east 

2293 variation in precipitation across the forest. This variation can be seen expressed in vegetation from open, 

2294 dry Douglas-fir types along the Okanogan-Ferry County line on the western boundary of the Forest, to 

2295 more moist redcedar-hemlock vegetation types near the Idaho border on the eastern boundary of the 

2296 Forest (Williams et al. 1995).

2297 Soil parent material is highly varied and originates from sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic 

2298 processes. The entire area has been influenced by glaciation and has been covered by major continental 

2299 ice sheet advances in the past, as evidenced by rounded off hills and glacial deposits of varying depths. 

2300 Volcanic influences are also frequently evident with columnar basalt layers and volcanic ash, including 

2301 deposits from the large Mt. Mazama eruption, as well as more recent deposits from the Mt. St. Helens 

2302 eruption in 1980 (Quigley et al. 1996).

2303 Methods

2304 Vegetation Composition

2305 Vegetation composition for the planning area was classified based on plant association groups (PAGs), 

2306 which are groups of plant associations with similar moisture and temperature regimes. The PAG data was 

2307 produced in 2012 and covers the entire Colville National Forest. Forested PAGs were then assigned to a 

2308 Landfire biophysical setting (BpS), and a subsequent common name vegetation type. Landfire biophysical 

2309 settings represent vegetation that may have been dominant on the land before European settlement and are 

2310 based on an approximation of the historical disturbance regime (LANDFIRE 2007). These biophysical 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

72

2311 settings provide a good description of general vegetation characteristics, along with historical disturbance 

2312 regimes, successional pathways, and basic spatial information. They also provide a link between the 

2313 vegetation analysis presented here and the fire/fuels analysis. 

2314 Forest Structure

2315 Current forest structure information comes from the Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and 

2316 Analysis (LEMMA) Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) data. The GNN data is a consistently interpreted 

2317 vegetation data set based on an imputation processes utilizing a 2012 Landsat image (GNN 2012). Forest 

2318 Inventory and Monitoring (FIA) plots, Continuous Vegetation Survey (CVS) plots, ecology plots, and 

2319 other established vegetation plots were utilized as source data in the imputation process. Table 12 shows 

2320 how structure types were defined. 

2321 Forest tree structure has a great influence on how stands develop, which species are able to grow and 

2322 reproduce, and has been identified as an important factor in assessing fire behavior as well as providing 

2323 various wildlife habitats. Forest structural stages are a product of successional processes and include both 

2324 natural and human influenced disturbance. There are several major disturbance processes that influence 

2325 forest structural stage development including fire, insects and diseases, windthrow, climate variations 

2326 such as droughts, landslides and avalanches, and human induced influences such as livestock grazing and 

2327 timber harvest.

2328 Table 12. Structure class definitions based on canopy cover and diameter

Structure Definition

Early Trees less than 10 inches d.b.h. or canopy cover less than 10 percent

Mid Open Trees 10 to 20 inches d.b.h., canopy cover 10 percent or greater and less than 40 percent

Mid Closed Trees 10 to 20 inches d.b.h., canopy cover 40 percent or greater

Late Open Trees 20 inches or greater d.b.h., canopy cover 10 percent or greater and less than 40 percent

Late Closed Trees 20 inches or greater d.b.h., canopy cover 40 percent or greater

2329 Tree structure is classified into five general groups based on diameter and canopy cover as shown in table 

2330 12. Haugo et al. (2015) used a similar approach to defining structure classes, and the GNN data (2012) 

2331 lends itself well to easily analyzing forest structure at multiple scales using these definitions. The 

2332 diameter is based on the quadratic mean diameter in inches of trees whose heights are in the top 25 

2333 percent of all tree heights in the stand. This generally means that the diameters of the larger co-dominant 

2334 trees in a stand are used to define the structure class. 

2335 Historic Range of Variability

2336 Historic range of variability (HRV) analysis was used to evaluate forest structure. The historical range of 

2337 variability refers to the dynamic behavior and functioning of ecosystems before dramatic changes 

2338 occurred with European settlement, generally considered to be the mid-1800s for this area (Aplet and 

2339 Keeton 1999). The historical range of variability provides a framework to determine changes to 

2340 ecosystem attributes that have occurred between historical and current conditions and recognizes that 

2341 ecosystems experience a range of conditions across which processes are resilient and self-sustaining. 

2342 When allowed to move beyond the limits of the range of variability, ecosystems move into a state of 

2343 disequilibrium or disorganization (Kaufmann et al. 1994, Holling and Meffe 1996, Egan and Howell 

2344 2001).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

73

2345 Vegetation modeling 

2346 A state and transition model, ST-Sim (2014), was used to simulate forest dynamics and development of 

2347 forest structure through time. This model provided forest structure for each vegetation type, as well as 

2348 potential timber production outputs. The model was run for 300 years for each vegetation type and 

2349 average values from years 101 to 300 were used to develop HRV ranges. The model showed how 

2350 different potential management areas (MAs) and actions affect forest structure and forest products 

2351 through time. Table 13 shows the three actions that were modeled to occur annually, along with estimated 

2352 acres for each action by vegetation type and alternative. These acres are based on budget assumptions and 

2353 the requirement to have non-declining timber output over time. Additional details of how these actions 

2354 were modeled can be found in the project record.

2355 Table 13. Average annual treatment acres modeled by vegetation type and alternative

Vegetation Type Treatment Type No 

Action

Alt. P 

Proposed 

Action

Alt. R Alts. B

and O

Douglas-fir dry Mechanical Fuels Treatment 615 3,074 615 1,229

Prescribed Fire 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153

Timber Harvest 500 2,500 500 1,000

Northern Rocky Mountain Mixed Conifer Mechanical Fuels Treatment 481 1,925 0 963

Prescribed Fire 1,686 1,686 1,686 1,686

Timber Harvest 388 1,550 0 775

Western redcedar/western hemlock Mechanical Fuels Treatment 0 0 0 309

Prescribed Fire 0 0 0 0

Timber Harvest 0 0 0 0

Subalpine Fir/Lodgepole pine Mechanical Fuels Treatment 0 0 0 0

Prescribed Fire 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040

Timber Harvest 1,900 950 475 475

2356 Three management categories were created to model vegetation across the forest through time, with each 

2357 plan management area assigned to a category. These management categories are wilderness/other, harvest, 

2358 and production. The wilderness/other category consists of congressionally designated areas or areas 

2359 proposed for wilderness designation where active vegetation management is limited to the use of fire. The 

2360 harvest category includes those areas where scheduled timber harvest is not planned, and where there 

2361 would only be incidental timber harvest for specific resource benefit to meet management objectives. The 

2362 production category includes areas where scheduled timber harvest would be planned, and where a full 

2363 suite of active management could occur, including harvest, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuels 

2364 treatment. See the project record for a full listing of management areas and categories.

2365 State and transition models are only an approximation of complex forest dynamics (Peterson et al. 2011). 

2366 However, they can provide useful information on how forest structure changes through time, and what 

2367 types of outputs can be expected. The individual state and transition models for each vegetation type used 

2368 for this effort were originally developed under the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP 2013) 

2369 and then modified based on local knowledge and experience (see appendix B of the specialist report for 

2370 details).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

74

2371 Current Conditions

2372 Vegetation Composition

2373 The Colville is composed primarily of vegetation in the dry Douglas-fir type, characterized by ponderosa 

2374 pine and Douglas-fir plant associations across the lower elevations of the forest. On the eastern, wetter 

2375 half of the forest, mixed conifer stands dominate at higher elevations and more northerly aspects, with 

2376 western hemlock plant associations and a variety of tree species such as western redcedar, western larch, 

2377 and western white pine. On the western, drier side of the forest, similar elevations and aspects produce 

2378 stands of lodgepole pine and subalpine fir, frequently found with western larch and Douglas-fir. The 

2379 wettest portions of the forest support stands of western redcedar and western hemlock. Table 14 shows 

2380 how plant association groups were categorized into Landfire biophysical settings and vegetation types. 

2381 Figure 6 clearly shows the majority of acres occurring in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, followed by 

2382 the Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer type. 

2383 Table 14. Vegetation types, Landfire biophysical settings, plant association groups, and approximate total 

2384 acres 

Vegetation Type Landfire Biophysical Setting 

Number and Name

Plant Association Groups* Acres

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest –

Ponderosa Pine – Douglas-fir

PP/AGSP-PUTR dry shrub-grass

DF-PP/AGSP-PUTR-FEID-ARUV

DF/CARU-SPBE-PAMY-ARUV-SYOR

DF/SYAL-PHMA

DF/VACA-VAME-VAMY

486,045

Northern Rocky 

Mountain mixed 

conifer

1010471 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest

WH/GASH-XETE-VAME-HODI-ARNE

WH/GASH-BENE-RHMA-PAMY-CLUN

WH/ACCI-GASH-BENE-ACTR-POMU

308,365

Western redcedar / 

western hemlock

1010471 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest (95%) 

1010472 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest - Cedar Groves 

(5%)

WH/POMU-TIUN-OXOR-ARNU3

WH/OPHO-ATFI-LYAM

WH/MEFE-XETE-RUPE

95,820

Subalpine fir / 

lodgepole pine

1010452 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest – Larch

PIAL/VASC-LUHI-CARU

SAF/CARU-PAMY

SAF/VASC-VACA-VAME-LIBOL

SAF/RHAL-XETE-ARLA-POPU

173,699

Spruce / subalpine fir 1010560 - Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Mesic-Wet Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland (90%)

1011610 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Conifer Swamp (10%)

SAF/TRCA3-ATFI-GYDR-STAM-riparian 20,240

2385 *See appendix A of the specialist report for plant acronym definitions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

75

2386

2387 Figure 6. Approximate current total acres for each vegetation type

2388 Forest Structure

2389 Table 15 shows total current acres in each structure class and vegetation type, along with total 

2390 percentages. The majority of the forest is in the mid closed structure class (57 percent), with lesser 

2391 amounts in the early (19 percent) and late closed (15 percent) classes. 

2392 Table 15. Approximate total current acres in each structure class and vegetation type

Early Mid 

Open

Mid 

Closed

Late 

Open

Late 

Closed

Total 

(Acres)

Total 

(%)

Douglas-fir dry 58,325 34,023 277,046 24,302 92,349 486,045 44%

Northern Rocky Mountains 

mixed conifer

58,589 12,335 200,437 3,084 33,920 308,365 28%

Spruce / subalpine fir 4,250 0 12,144 0 3,846 20,240 2%

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine 57,321 6,948 85,113 3,474 22,581 191,052 17%

Western hemlock / western 

redcedar

33,537 0 49,826 0 12,457 95,820 9%

Total (Acres) 212,023 53,306 624,566 30,860 151,116 1,101,522

Total (%) 19% 5% 57% 3% 15%

2393 Table 16 shows the percentage of each structure class within each vegetation type. Subsequent analyses of 

2394 structure classes by vegetation type will only use percentages.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

76

2395 Table 16. Current structure class percentage by vegetation type

Early Mid Open Mid 

Closed 

Late 

Open 

Late 

Closed 

Douglas-fir dry 12 7 57 5 19

Northern Rocky Mountains mixed conifer 19 4 65 1 11

Spruce / subalpine fir 21 0 60 0 19

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine 33 4 49 2 13

Western hemlock / western redcedar 35 0 52 0 13

2396 The historic range of variability (HRV) was developed for forest structures across the different vegetation 

2397 types. Table 17 compares current structure conditions for each vegetation type to HRV.

2398 Table 17. Historical range of variability percentages by vegetation type for each structure class compared to 

2399 current conditions

Early Mid 

Open 

Mid 

Closed 

Late 

Open 

Late 

Closed 

Douglas-fir dry Current 12 7 57 5 19

Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer Current 19 4 65 1 11

Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Spruce / Subalpine fir Current 21 0 60 0 19

Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine Current 33 4 49 2 13

Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Western hemlock / Western redcedar Current 35 0 52 0 13

Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

2400 Black shading indicates values below HRV, while gray shading indicates values above HRV.

2401 For all vegetation types except subalpine fir/lodgepole pine, there is an abundance of mid structural stage 

2402 and a lack of late stages. This reflects the effects of fire exclusion, as well as the widespread stand2403 replacing fires of the early 1900s and past timber management. The majority of forest stands are in a mid2404 closed structure condition, showing smaller tree sizes than would be expected historically, and for the dry 

2405 type, more canopy cover.

2406 The subalpine fir / lodgepole pine type shows an abundance of late closed stage and a lack of early stage, 

2407 which is consistent with fire exclusion and the ecology of lodgepole pine dominated stands. Given the 

2408 effects of mountain pine beetle and a stand-replacing fire regime, there historically would be little late 

2409 structure in this type, and the majority would be in early and mid-structure classes. Current conditions 

2410 show that more of this type has transitioned into the late closed stage, likely due to the lack of disturbance 

2411 required to move these stands back to an early stage. Current conditions in both the mid open and late 

2412 open shows a small percentage, whereas historically these would not have existed. This again is likely due 

2413 to fire exclusion and active pine beetle activity causing mortality and reducing canopy cover. This could 

2414 also reflect recent management in lodgepole pine stands, where canopy cover has been temporarily 

2415 reduced.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

77

2416 Insects and Disease

2417 Levels of insect and disease related mortality across eastern Washington have been widely publicized 

2418 over the past several years. In most cases the scale of recent insect outbreaks are unprecedented (WA 

2419 DNR 2014-2). Fire suppression, grazing, and harvesting have been identified as the principal factors 

2420 resulting in increased stocking levels, increased levels of mid and late seral species, and homogenization 

2421 of spatial patterns. Widespread fires in the 1920s and 1930s also created large areas of even-aged forests. 

2422 All of these factors contribute to uncharacteristic conditions that support larger scale and more persistent 

2423 insect outbreaks (Hessburg et al. 1994). Insect and disease affected acres have consistently exceeded fire 

2424 affected acres for the Colville National Forest. Figure 7 shows total insect and disease activity since 1980, 

2425 while figure 8 shows fire acres since 1970.

2426

2427 Figure 7. Total insect and disease activity 1980 to 2013 (acres)

2428

2429 Figure 8. Total fire acres on the Colville National Forest 1970 to 2013
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

78

2430 A recent report from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR 2014-2) notes that the 

2431 acres of trees killed or damaged by insects and diseases is 150 percent greater than in the 1990s, 

2432 200 percent greater than in the 1980s, and 175 percent greater than in the 1970s. 

2433 The National Insect and Disease Risk Map (NIDRM) predicts continued high levels of insect and disease 

2434 related mortality over the 15-year period between 2013 and 2027, with particularly high levels occurring 

2435 in northeastern Washington and on the Colville National Forest. Over 42 percent (449,430 acres) of the 

2436 Colville National Forest are identified as experiencing greater than 25 percent basal area loss between 

2437 2013 and 2027 due to insects and diseases based on the NIDRM. The majority of this risk comes from 

2438 mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, and root diseases. Basal area is the cross 

2439 sectional area of a tree stem including the bark measured at 4.5 feet off the ground and is used as a 

2440 measure of tree density.

2441 In 2012, a forest health hazard warning was issued by the State of Washington for portions of eastern 

2442 Washington, including the western portion of the Colville National Forest within Ferry County. This 

2443 represented the first time this state authority was ever used since its inception. This designation was 

2444 focused on western spruce budworm and pine beetles, and was based on recent insect damage, projected 

2445 future damage, and potential for on-the-ground action to address the damage (WA DNR 2014-1). 

2446 Recent insect and disease flights have noted increases in Douglas-fir beetle, fir engraver, pine bark 

2447 beetles, and western spruce budworm. All of these increases can be attributed to the increasing amounts of 

2448 Douglas-fir and older lodgepole pine across the landscape, as evidenced by most of these vegetation types 

2449 being in a mid-closed or late-closed structure type. Higher tree densities, as well as an increase in mid-to2450 late successional species such as Douglas-fir and western redcedar, have contributed to conditions that are 

2451 favorable to insect outbreaks (Ferrell 1986, Gibson 2009, Schmitz 1996). Multi layered tree canopies 

2452 dominated by Douglas-fir and grand fir facilitate western spruce budworm outbreaks (Blackford 2004). 

2453 The non-native disease white pine blister rust is also contributing to tree stress, resulting in increased 

2454 vulnerability to mountain pine beetle mortality in western white pine and whitebark pine (Bockino and 

2455 Tinker 2012). 

2456 After four years of defoliation by spruce budworm, bark beetle activity has been increasing – primarily 

2457 Douglas-fir bark beetle and fir engraver. Defoliators (e.g., western spruce budworm) do not kill trees 

2458 directly, however continued defoliation over a number of years impacts tree defense capabilities and 

2459 results in vulnerability to mortality from bark beetles. As trees are defoliated and die, ground fuel beds 

2460 increase leading to a potential for higher fire severity. Mountain pine beetle attacks can have the potential 

2461 of changing crown fire rates within lodgepole tree canopies (Page et al. 2012).

2462 Infestation of mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine has been somewhat persistent since 1980 but shows 

2463 an increase in acres after 2000. Some of the increase may be due to climate change impacts where 

2464 mountain pine beetles at higher elevations are completing life cycles in one year instead of two years and 

2465 more larvae are surviving warmer winters. (Williams and Liebhold 2002, Mitton and Ferrenberg 2012, 

2466 Rosenberger et al. 2012)

2467 The interaction of increased tree densities, increased insect levels of both defoliators and bark beetles, 

2468 increased fuel levels, and climate change impacts, such as water stress, are all influencing the levels of 

2469 current late forest structures and will continue to influence future late forest structure development.

2470 Need for Change

2471 The forest has identified six different needs that require action, three of which are directly addressed in 

2472 this section. The first is the need to manage forest vegetation conditions to be more resilient to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

79

2473 disturbances. As noted previously, HRV is a means to assess changes that have occurred and provide a 

2474 reference condition within which ecosystems are resilient and responsive to disturbances. By developing 

2475 HRV ranges within each vegetation type, and then assessing how well each alternative moves vegetation 

2476 toward these ranges, it is possible to determine how forest management affects resiliency.

2477 The second need related to forest vegetation is to address climate change implications and adaptations. 

2478 This is highly related to the first need, and forests that are resilient to disturbances should implicitly be 

2479 well adapted to possible effects from climate change. Moving forest vegetation toward HRV will result in 

2480 more resilient vegetation conditions, and therefore, will result in forests better adapted to climate change. 

2481 Additionally, some alternatives (proposed action and P) provide additional flexibility in responding to 

2482 climate change impacts by having broad management areas that allow a variety of management options to 

2483 address unforeseen impacts.

2484 The third need related to forest vegetation is social and economic conditions. This section specifically 

2485 addresses timber production levels between the alternatives and provides estimates of outputs needed to 

2486 move forest vegetation toward desired conditions.

2487 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2488 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address 

2489 late forest structure management and timber production. These are:

2490 • The recent history of high levels of disturbance resulting from insect and disease activity that would

2491 likely continue into the future.

2492 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of restoring 

2493 landscape resiliency. 

2494 • Social and economic concerns surrounding timber production levels and promotion of late forest 

2495 structure.

2496 The recent and projected insect and disease-related mortality show a need to move the forest structure 

2497 across the landscape toward HRV.

2498 Haugo et al. (2015) analyzed restoration needs across Oregon and Washington and found that one of the 

2499 areas with the highest level of need for restoration was northeastern Washington, including the Colville 

2500 National Forest. A need for both disturbance and succession related change was shown. Several other 

2501 recent studies have shown the need for active restoration across western forests (Brown et al. 2004, 

2502 Hessburg et al. 2005, Franklin et al. 2008). Methods for restoration are project specific, but generally 

2503 include modification of forest structure and species composition to move individual stands and larger 

2504 landscapes toward HRV (Jain and Graham 2005).

2505 Environmental Consequences

2506 Methodology

2507 The current conditions, trends toward desired conditions, and legal and planning rule requirements are the 

2508 three areas that are analyzed in this section.

2509 The 1982 Planning Rule has certain requirements for calculation of timber outputs. ST-Sim was used to 

2510 help calculate the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) and long-term sustained yield (LTSY). The measure will 

2511 be board foot volume.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

80

2512 Assumptions

2513 • State and transition models are useful, but far from an exact representation of ecological processes. 

2514 ST-Sim models were calibrated using local knowledge and by using the Forest Vegetation 

2515 Simulator (FVS) (Keyser 2008, Moeur and Vandendriesche 2009, Robinson and Beukema 2012).

2516 • GNN is a consistently interpreted data set that covers the entire forest. Accuracy of the 

2517 classification is reasonable for forest wide analysis down to the scale of a 12th field Hydrologic 

2518 Unit Code (HUC). 

2519 • Late forest structure management under the no-action alternative (maintaining the current Old 

2520 Growth Management Areas) and R alternative would primarily be passive, where structural changes 

2521 would be the result of successional process, insect and disease interactions, and fire that escapes 

2522 initial attack. Some treatments may occur to reduce fire risk by fuels reduction or manipulation of 

2523 structure and species composition to increase tree vigor to maintain old structure for a longer period 

2524 of time. Also, fuels reduction would take place in areas that fall within Wildland Urban Interface 

2525 (WUI) areas.

2526 • Alternatives that propose continuation of Eastside Screens should result in similar, but more 

2527 spatially static, late closed forest structure levels when compared to the landscape approach. 

2528 However, late open structure is difficult to create and maintain under Eastside Screens due to the 

2529 limit of cutting trees over 21 inches d.b.h.. Eastside Screens requires evaluation of the current 

2530 condition and a comparison against the historical range of variability. If the landscape is below 

2531 HRV, then there are limitations on cutting trees greater than 21 inches d.b.h.. If the landscape is 

2532 above HRV, then large trees could be cut to achieve specific objectives. The Eastside Screens 

2533 emphasize maintaining connectivity between late forest structure areas but does not give specific 

2534 guidance on planning for late forest structure replacement. 

2535 • Late forest structure management under the B and O alternatives that have Restoration Zones would

2536 have active management with the emphasis of retaining levels of late forest structure which are at 

2537 or approach the maximum HRV values.

2538 • Late forest structure management under the R alternative, a large-scale reserve approach, would

2539 have minimal active management with the emphasis of retaining levels of late forest structure 

2540 which are at or approach the maximum HRV values.

2541 • General Forest land in the no-action alternative and non-reserve areas within B, O, and R 

2542 alternatives would be managed for timber production using the shelterwood with reserves 

2543 regeneration method. Retaining Eastside Screens would make two-aged management difficult 

2544 because of the 21-inch diameter cap, and in reality would result in uneven-aged stands within the 

2545 non-reserve land, with further promotion of closed canopy, mid and late seral stands. 

2546 • The proposed action and P alternative would promote structural and landscape complexity. The 

2547 overarching emphasis would be moving the landscape toward HRV by modifying structure to 

2548 increase resilience and adaptability. Forest lands in the general and focused restoration areas would

2549 be managed using variable density thinning, free selection, and other silvicultural treatments 

2550 tailored to meet both landscape and site-specific objectives (Franklin et al. 2007, Graham et al. 

2551 2007, Aukema and Carey 2008, Puettmann et al. 2009, Franklin and Johnson 2012, DeRose and 

2552 Long 2014).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

81

2553 Incomplete and Unavailable Information

2554 Climate Change

2555 While it is possible to reflect potential climate change influences with state and transition models, the 

2556 results here would not show any potential climate change influences due to the unknown factors of how 

2557 much change, where the change would influence system dynamics, and how fast the change could occur. 

2558 Climate science currently does not have forest-scale predictions and probabilities needed for state and 

2559 transition modeling. Furthermore, there is no agreement between climate models on how vegetation 

2560 would respond, with widely divergent predictions for dry forest types, which are the majority of forest 

2561 types that are found on the Colville National Forest (Peterson et al. 2014). 

2562 Even given the uncertainty of how vegetation would respond to climate change, there is broad consensus 

2563 that moving forests toward more resilient conditions should be a general goal of forest management 

2564 (Millar et al. 2007, DeRose and Long 2014). Resilience has been defined as “the capacity of a system to 

2565 absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same 

2566 function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004). Moving forest structure across the 

2567 landscape toward HRV is one way to increase resilience, and may be the best option currently available 

2568 for managing lands where future climate is uncertain (Keane et al. 2009). 

2569 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

2570 The context for the effects analysis is through the modeled management areas and at a forest wide scale. 

2571 ST-Sim was loaded with current conditions for each management area and then used to model each 

2572 vegetation type by alternative. Outputs at 20, 50, and 100 years are used to evaluate effects. Emphasis and 

2573 analysis is on modeled forest structure values at 100 years as compared to HRV values.

2574 Summary of Effects 

2575 Under the current fire suppression model that does not utilize or limits use of natural ignitions to achieve 

2576 desired conditions, late forest structure would accumulate within wilderness and other areas, where 

2577 vegetation management is limited to the use of fire, until stand density-related mortality occurs or fires 

2578 escape initial control efforts. Early successional habitats would likely be lacking under this scenario until 

2579 a disturbance occurs resulting in an excess of early structure type. For late forest structure, the result 

2580 could tend to be more of a boom and bust cycle with long periods of time required for early structure to 

2581 grow into late forest structure.

2582 In the proposed action and alternatives P, R, O, and B there are various amounts of acres recommended 

2583 for wilderness. All of these areas fit into the wilderness/other category described in the modeling where 

2584 the use of fire is the only tool to achieve desired conditions. It is uncertain how the fire tool would be used 

2585 to achieve desired conditions. Currently, natural ignitions are usually suppressed, including in designated 

2586 wilderness areas, although this plan allows more flexibility in using natural fire as a tool.

2587 Both the proposed action and alternative P were modeled using variable density thinning (VDT) as the 

2588 primary tool for actively managing forests and moving them toward HRV. Alternatives R, B, and O were 

2589 modeled using shelterwood with reserves as the primary tool. Appendix B of the specialist report contains 

2590 details of what types of harvest activities occur under each alternative, and how they were modeled.

2591 Late forest structure levels

2592 Table 18, table 19, and table 20 show modeled forest structure conditions for all alternatives and 

2593 vegetation types compared to HRV for 20, 50, and 100 years out, respectively. Results indicate that late 

2594 open forest structure in the Douglas-fir dry type would be within HRV in 100 years for all scenarios, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

82

2595 while late closed forest structure would be well within HRV for the proposed action and alternative P, and 

2596 just barely within or above HRV for all other alternatives. Results past 100 years indicate that all 

2597 alternatives maintain the late open structure in Douglas-fir dry within HRV, although the proposed action

2598 and alternative P create and maintain more than the other alternatives. For late closed structure in 

2599 Douglas-fir dry, the proposed action and alternative P maintain the structure type at the midpoint of HRV, 

2600 while the other alternatives are either at or over the upper limit of HRV. For the late closed structure in the 

2601 Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer type, no alternatives maintain this structure within HRV past 

2602 100 years. There is a small window of time when late closed is within HRV, however it quickly exceeds 

2603 the upper limit. The growth within this vegetation type exceeds the effects from the assumed treatments; 

2604 hence, most of this vegetation type eventually ends up in the late closed structure type.

2605 Alternative O has the most structure classes (12) within HRV at 100 years, while the B alternative has 

2606 eleven. The proposed action, P, and R alternatives have eight structure classes within HRV, and the no2607 action alternative has the least with four structure types within HRV. It is important to note that the 

2608 amounts of each structure type vary with time, and choosing a different point in time would result in 

2609 alternatives having a different number of structure types within HRV. For instance, the O alternative is 

2610 within HRV at 100 years for late closed in Douglas-fir dry, but at 110 years it is above HRV. Also, table 

2611 18, table 19, and table 20 do not attempt to indicate how far above or below HRV a structure type may be. 

2612 For instance, in the Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer type, late open structure is within HRV for 

2613 the O alternative (5 percent) but not in the P alternative (7 percent), even though the P alternative is just 1

2614 percent higher than the HRV range (4 to 6 percent).

2615 The following symbols represent HRV levels in tables 18 through 20.

2616 Above (+) HRV

2617 Below (-) HRV

2618 Within (@) HRV

2619 Table 18. Modeled forest structure levels at 20 years compared to HRV for all vegetation types and 

2620 alternatives

Structure Level No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Early Structure

Douglas-fir dry - @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer @ - - - @ @

Western hemlock / western redcedar @ - - - @ @

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine - - - - - -

Spruce / subalpine fir @ @ @ @ @ @

Mid Open

Douglas-fir dry @ + @ + + +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - + @ + + +

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Mid Closed

Douglas-fir dry + + + + + +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer + + + + + +

Western hemlock / western redcedar + + + + + +

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine @ @ @ @ @ @
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

83

Structure Level No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Spruce / subalpine fir + + + + + +

Late Open

Douglas-fir dry - - - - - -

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Late Closed

Douglas-fir dry @ @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Western hemlock / western redcedar - - - - - -

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Spruce / subalpine fir - - - - - -

Total Structure Classes Within HRV 6 4 6 4 6 6

2621 Table 19. Modeled forest structure levels at 50 years compared to HRV for all vegetation types and 

2622 alternatives

Structure Level No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Early Structure

Douglas-fir dry - @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Western hemlock / western redcedar - - - - @ @

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine - @ @ @ + @

Spruce / subalpine fir - - - - - -

Mid Open

Douglas-fir dry @ + @ + @ +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - + @ + + +

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Mid Closed

Douglas-fir dry + + + + + +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer + + + + + +

Western hemlock / western redcedar + + + + + +

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine - - - - - -

Spruce / subalpine fir + + + + + +

Late Open

Douglas-fir dry - - - - - -

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + @ @

Late Closed

Douglas-fir dry @ @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Western hemlock / western redcedar @ @ @ @ @ @
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

84

Structure Level No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Spruce / subalpine fir - - - - - -

Total Structure Classes Within HRV 3 4 6 4 6 6

2623 Table 20. Modeled forest structure levels at 100 years compared to HRV for all vegetation types and 

2624 alternatives

Structure Level No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Early Structure

Douglas-fir dry - @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Western hemlock / western redcedar - - - - - -

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine - @ @ @ @ @

Spruce / subalpine fir - - - - - -

Mid Open

Douglas-fir dry @ @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - @ @ @ @ @

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Mid Closed

Douglas-fir dry @ @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - - - - - -

Western hemlock / western redcedar - - - - @ @

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine - - - - - @

Spruce / subalpine fir @ @ @ @ @ @

Late Open

Douglas-fir dry @ @ @ @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - + @ + @ @

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + @ @

Late Closed

Douglas-fir dry + @ + @ @ @

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer + + + + + +

Western hemlock / western redcedar + + + + + +

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine + + + + + +

Spruce / subalpine fir + + + + + +

Total Structure Classes Within HRV 4 8 8 8 11 12

2625
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

85

2626 Timber Production

2627 Several factors influence timber production levels. The first are legal requirements as specified in the 

2628 National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

2629 (MUSYA), and the 1982 Planning Rule under which this forest plan is being revised. The second is 

2630 budget and workforce.

2631 The MUSYA defines “sustained yield of the several products and services” as “the achievement and

2632 maintenance in perpetuity of a high level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable 

2633 resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.”

2634 NFMA stipulates criteria for determining suitability of forest lands for timber production. It also specifies 

2635 that timber harvest acres be split into two categories: lands suitable for timber production and other lands 

2636 for harvest. Requirements to comply with MUSYA are also included as part of timber suitability 

2637 determinations.

2638 The 1982 Planning Rule summarizes NFMA requirements for determining lands suitable for timber 

2639 production into four criteria: (1) Has not been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the 

2640 Chief of the Forest Service, (2) Is forest land, (3) can be successfully regenerated in five years, and (4) 

2641 harvest would not result in irreversible resource damage. Table 21 shows total suitable forest land by 

2642 alternative as determined by this method. Appendix C in the specialist report contains full details of how 

2643 these numbers were developed.

2644 Table 21. Total acres of suitable forest land by alternative

Structure Level No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Total Suitable Forest Land 535,725 653,242 129,420 656,628 384,485 347,535

2645 The 1982 Planning Rule also requires the calculation of long-term sustained yield capacity (LTSY) based 

2646 on productivity and the calculation of allowable sale quantity (ASQ) that is tied to lands that are suitable 

2647 for timber production. 

2648 For the time horizon of this particular planning cycle, the next 20 years, no significant decline in timber 

2649 productivity is assumed.

2650 Current and anticipated budgets control workforce levels, sets priorities, and thereby constrains the 

2651 number of acres that can be analyzed for conditions and management needs, areas that can be put into 

2652 timber sales and administered, and other management needs. 

2653 The modeling output from ST-Sim was used to develop the timber production limits by alternative. Each 

2654 alternative was run for a 300-year period.

2655 The long-term sustained yield is the highest uniform wood yield that may be sustained given multiple-use 

2656 objectives on lands managed for timber production. LTSY assumes that all suitable land for timber 

2657 production is in the desired condition. LTSY was calculated assuming that the HRV midpoint for each 

2658 structure class was the desired condition.

2659 The allowable sale quantity reflects the quantity of timber that may be sold from lands suitable for timber 

2660 production, within tree utilization standards, for the first decade of the plan given an unlimited budget. It 

2661 is expressed as an annual average throughout the plan. It takes into account harvest from lands that are not 

2662 in the desired condition, and therefore is slightly lower than the LTSY. Like the LTSY calculation, the 

2663 desired condition was assumed to be the midpoint of HRV for each structure class. Since the desired 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

86

2664 condition requires more forest stands within a late structure condition, time is required for the trees to 

2665 grow larger, and therefore ASQ is lower than LTSY.

2666 The projected wood sale quantity (PWSQ) is the estimated quantity of timber and all other wood products 

2667 that is expected to be sold from the plan area for the plan period. The PWSQ consists of the projected 

2668 timber sale quantity as well as other woody material such as fuelwood, firewood, or biomass that is also 

2669 expected to be available for sale. The PWSQ includes volume from timber harvest for any purpose based 

2670 on expected harvests that would be consistent with the plan components. The PWSQ is also based on the 

2671 planning unit’s fiscal capability and organizational capacity. PWSQ is neither a target nor a limitation on 

2672 harvest, and is not an objective unless the responsible official chooses to make it an objective in the plan. 

2673 The projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) is the estimated quantity of timber meeting applicable 

2674 utilization standards that is expected to be sold during the plan period. As a subset of the projected wood 

2675 sale quantity (PWSQ), the projected timber sale quantity includes volume from timber harvest for any 

2676 purpose from all lands in the plan area based on expected harvests that would be consistent with the plan 

2677 components. The PTSQ is also based on the planning unit’s fiscal capability and organizational capacity. 

2678 PTSQ is neither a target nor a limitation on harvest, and is not an objective unless the responsible official 

2679 chooses to make it an objective in the plan. 

2680 Table 22 shows the long-term sustained yield (LTSY), allowable sale quantity (ASQ), projected wood 

2681 sale quantity (PWSQ), and projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) for each alternative for the first decade. 

2682 See appendix C of the specialist report for details of how each number was calculated, as well as PWSQ 

2683 and PTSQ numbers for the second decade.

2684 Table 22. Average annual volumes (million board feet (mmbf)) by alternative for the first decade

No action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

LTSY 18.3 97.5 7.5 97.4 13.9 12.2

ASQ 18.3 67.6 7.5 67.0 13.9 12.2

PWSQ 40.6 62.1 14.3 61.8 37.4 37.5

PTSQ 26.9 48.4 9.3 48.1 23.7 23.8

2685 The ASQ and LTSY values calculated for the no-action, R, B, and O alternatives are significantly lower 

2686 than those for the proposed action and alternative P because of the requirement of the 1982 Planning Rule 

2687 to provide a non-declining flow of timber. The different lines represent different management intensities, 

2688 with the 1x management intensity being the current assumed intensity of 5,000 acres per year each of 

2689 timber harvest, mechanical fuels treatments, and prescribed burning. As can be seen, management 

2690 intensities greater than 1/2x result in wildly fluctuating outputs which violate the non-declining flow 

2691 requirement. The 1/2x management intensity results in an even and non-declining flow of timber, and 

2692 thus, this becomes the basis for the ASQ and LTSY. No action and alternatives R and B all have similar 

2693 non-declining flow graphs. 

2694 Underlying the lower ASQ and LTSY values is the fact that the no-action, R, B, and O alternatives 

2695 continue the direction of Eastside Screens. The diameter limits imposed by Eastside Screens essentially 

2696 means that once a stand reaches late structure, there is very limited opportunity to do any harvest within 

2697 that stand. Since the no-action, R, B, and O all continue the Eastside Screens, within a fairly short amount 

2698 of time (approximately 50 years); more than half of the forest is within a late structure type. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

87

2699 No-action Alternative

2700 The no-action alternative follows the current Colville Forest Plan as amended. The current management 

2701 direction of having individual, defined old forest management areas within a matrix of general forest with 

2702 emphasis on timber production using two-aged regeneration methods would continue. This alternative 

2703 continues the use of Eastside Screens, which includes conducting a HRV analysis, and generally not 

2704 cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

2705 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2706 The no-action alternative retains the Eastside Screens that were intended to be interim direction until the 

2707 forest plan was revised. Eastside Screens restricts cutting of 21-inch diameter and larger trees in many 

2708 situations requiring justification for cutting, even when site-specific objectives may warrant removal. 

2709 Retaining all trees greater than 21 inch diameter can result in situations where tree vigor is reduced to a 

2710 point where density related mortality factors could cause significant mortality resulting in loss of late 

2711 forest structure.

2712 The Eastside Screens process requires assessment of current conditions and comparison to pre-settlement 

2713 HRV. When conditions are below HRV, the Eastside Screens prohibit the removal of greater than 21” 

2714 diameter trees. When conditions are above HRV, there are more opportunities to remove large trees based 

2715 on specific criteria and for specific objectives. Desired future conditions reflect HRV, thus following the 

2716 Eastside Screen process should move the forest toward late structure levels as listed in the HRV tables. 

2717 The main difference between no action and the proposed action is the fixed locations of late forest 

2718 structure reserves in the no-action alternative, with no opportunity to maintain or enhance it if there is 

2719 little or no actual late forest structure within the reserve, whereas the proposed action’s landscape 

2720 approach supports planning for replacement in a dynamic landscape. Additionally, the diameter limit 

2721 imposed by Eastside Screens creates a situation where certain structure types are generally difficult to 

2722 create and maintain, such as early or late open. Once trees within a stand grow larger than 21 inches 

2723 d.b.h., the number of management options is restricted to essentially fire, and there is little opportunity to 

2724 reduce densities and create early structure or maintain open structure types. 

2725 Managing late closed forest structure at or near the maximum end of the HRV range has a number of 

2726 risks. Higher stocking results in stand density levels that are within the zone of competition induced 

2727 mortality, where trees are experiencing increased levels of mortality from high levels of competition for 

2728 resources such as light and water. The risk of mortality from bark beetles and other insects is greatly 

2729 increased, and stand structure can change from a late closed structure back to early structure. Within the 

2730 old forest management areas, some natural processes, such as succession, are allowed to function, but 

2731 others, such as wildfire, are not. 

2732 An emphasis on late forest structure can result in reduced amounts of other forest structural states such as 

2733 early successional stages. Inadequate representation of early successional structure is a frequent issue 

2734 across the forested landscape (Swanson et al. 2010).

2735 Modeling Results

2736 Modeling results (table 23) indicate that in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, the current excess of mid 

2737 closed structure class moves into the late open and late closed structure classes. At 100 years, the majority 

2738 of this vegetation type is in the late open structure type (49 percent) and late closed structure type (37 

2739 percent), with the remainder in mid closed (7 percent) and early (5 percent). Mid open, mid closed, and 

2740 late open are all within HRV.

2741 In the northern Rocky Mountains mixed conifer type, the majority of structure is within the late closed 

2742 class (83 percent), followed by mid closed (14 percent) and only 4 percent in the early class. Late closed 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

88

2743 is the only structure class within HRV at 100 years, although this is a temporary situation and shortly after 

2744 100 years there is an excess of late closed.

2745 Nearly all of the western hemlock / western redcedar type is in the late closed structure class (96 percent). 

2746 Only 3 percent is in mid closed and 1 percent in early. No structure class is within HRV in this vegetation 

2747 type. 

2748 For subalpine fir / lodgepole pine, the majority is in the early structure class (52 percent), with the 

2749 remainder in mid closed (45 percent) and only 3 percent in late closed. All structure classes are within 

2750 HRV in this vegetation type.

2751 In the spruce / subalpine fir type, results show that there would be a lack of early structure type (only 3 

2752 percent), although there would be an abundance of late closed type (62 percent). The remainder is in the 

2753 mid closed type (35 percent). Only the mid closed structure class is within HRV for this vegetation type.

2754 Table 23. No-action alternative modeling results (percentage)

Early Mid 

Open

Mid 

Closed

Late 

Open

Late 

Closed

Douglas-fir dry Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Current 12 7 57 5 19

20 Years 5 8 53 15 19

50 Years 5 8 36 28 23

100 Years 5 2 7 49 37

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer

Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Current 19 4 65 1 11

20 Years 7 0 70 0 22

50 Years 3 0 60 0 38

100 Years 4 0 14 0 83

Western hemlock / western redcedar Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Current 21 0 60 0 19

20 Years 1 0 65 0 34

50 Years 0 0 35 0 65

100 Years 0 0 0 0 100

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Current 33 4 49 2 13

20 Years 27 18 41 2 12

50 Years 41 24 23 1 10

100 Years 38 21 26 5 11

Spruce / subalpine fir Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

Current 35 0 52 0 13

20 Years 15 0 69 0 16

50 Years 7 0 70 0 24

100 Years 4 0 34 0 63
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

89

2755 Proposed Action

2756 The proposed action implements a landscape approach using active management to move forest structure 

2757 toward HRV. The main difference between the proposed action and the P alternative are the number of 

2758 acres recommended for wilderness. This alternative replaces Eastside Screens with a series of desired 

2759 HRV conditions and removes the restriction of cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

2760 The landscape approach to forest structure management in this alternative proposes to use HRV as the 

2761 desired future condition. All future actions that affect forest vegetation would be assessed and compared 

2762 to HRV, with the goal of moving the overall landscape toward HRV. Restoring forest structure would

2763 result in also moving species composition, process, and spatial pattern toward more resilient conditions, 

2764 with a higher likelihood of sustaining desired levels of late forest structure across the landscape. 

2765 Restoring landscape heterogeneity through forest structure results in a high flexibility to adjust to climate 

2766 change influence and provides reduced risk of fire to adjacent communities.

2767 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2768 The proposed action does not include the Eastside Screens, and does not limit the cutting of trees 

2769 21 inches in diameter and larger. The proposed action alternative, with its landscape approach, has desired 

2770 conditions for levels of late forest structure that are to be met at a landscape scale. Large trees can be cut 

2771 when the landscape is in excess of late forest structure, or, when site-specific objectives call for removal, 

2772 as long as post-treatment conditions still meet or move toward desired conditions. The diameter limit 

2773 imposed by Eastside Screens creates a situation where HRV cannot be met for certain structure types, 

2774 such as early or open, because there is not a means to create and/or maintain these types. Once trees 

2775 within a stand grow larger than 21 inches d.b.h., the number of management options is essentially 

2776 restricted to fire, and there is little opportunity to reduce densities and create early structure or maintain 

2777 open structure types. The ability to actively manage stands that grow into larger diameter classes means 

2778 that the proposed action is better able to create and maintain structure types, such as early and late open, 

2779 than alternatives that maintain the Eastside Screens. This is especially true in the Douglas-fir dry type that 

2780 makes up the majority of the forest, where late forest levels are closer to the midpoints of the HRV range.

2781 Modeling Results

2782 Modeling results (table 24) indicate that in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, late open structure would

2783 occupy the most area (59 percent), followed by late closed (22 percent). All structure types are within 

2784 HRV for this vegetation type.

2785 In the northern Rocky Mountains mixed conifer type, the majority of structure would be in the late closed 

2786 class (77 percent), followed by mid closed (12 percent). Mid open is the only structure type within HRV 

2787 in this vegetation type, while both late open and late closed are above HRV, and early and mid-closed are 

2788 below HRV.

2789 For western hemlock / western redcedar, 100 percent is within the late closed structure class. No structure 

2790 class is within HRV for this vegetation type, largely because no active management is assumed to occur 

2791 within this type.

2792 For subalpine fir / lodgepole pine, the majority is within the early structure class (56 percent), followed by 

2793 mid closed (22 percent) and mid open (11 percent). Early is the only structure class within HRV in this 

2794 vegetation type.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

90

2795 In the spruce / subalpine fir type, results show that there would be a lack of early structure type (3 

2796 percent), although there would be an abundance of late closed type (65 percent). The remainder is in the 

2797 mid closed class (32 percent). Both early and late closed are outside of HRV in this vegetation type.

2798 Table 24. Proposed action alternative modeling results (percentage)

Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed

Douglas-fir dry Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Current 12 7 57 5 19

20 Years 7 14 45 17 16

50 Years 8 18 22 36 16

100 Years 8 6 4 59 22

Northern Rocky Mountains 

mixed conifer

Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Current 19 4 65 1 11

20 Years 7 7 64 1 21

50 Years 2 6 53 2 36

100 Years 2 1 12 7 77

Western hemlock / western 

redcedar

Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Current 21 0 60 0 19

20 Years 1 0 65 0 34

50 Years 0 0 34 0 66

100 Years 0 0 0 0 100

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Current 33 4 49 2 13

20 Years 37 9 41 1 12

50 Years 57 12 21 1 9

100 Years 56 11 22 3 9

Spruce / subalpine fir Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

Current 35 0 52 0 13

20 Years 14 0 69 0 18

50 Years 6 0 68 0 26

100 Years 3 0 32 0 65

2799 Alternative R

2800 This alternative implements an expanded late forest structure reserve network, recommends high levels of 

2801 recommended wilderness, and retains a production oriented general forest utilizing two-aged management 

2802 practices. The late forest structure reserve network is based on northern goshawk occupied territories, 

2803 elevational criteria, and currently identified late forest structures based on GNN data. Late forest structure 

2804 reserves have little active management. This alternative continues the use of Eastside Screens which 

2805 includes not cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

91

2806 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2807 The R alternative retains the Eastside Screens that were intended to be interim direction until the forest 

2808 plan was revised. Eastside Screens restricts cutting of 21-inch diameter and larger trees in many 

2809 situations, even when site-specific objectives may warrant removal. Retaining all trees greater than 21 

2810 inch diameter can result in situations where tree vigor is reduced to a point where density related 

2811 mortality factors could cause significant mortality resulting in loss of late forest structure.

2812 The Eastside Screens process requires assessment of current conditions and comparison to pre-settlement 

2813 HRV. When conditions are below HRV, there are narrow criteria for removing large, greater than 21-inch

2814 diameter trees. When conditions are above HRV, there are more opportunities to remove large trees based 

2815 on specific criteria and for specific objectives. Desired future conditions reflect HRV, thus following the 

2816 Eastside Screen process should move the forest toward late structure levels as listed in the HRV tables. 

2817 The main difference between the R alternative and the proposed action is the fixed locations of late forest 

2818 structure reserves in the R alternative, with little opportunity to maintain or enhance it if there is no actual 

2819 late forest structure within the reserve, whereas the proposed action’s landscape approach supports 

2820 planning for replacement in a dynamic landscape. Additionally, the diameter limit imposed by Eastside 

2821 Screens creates a situation where certain structure types are difficult to create and maintain, such as early 

2822 or late open. Once trees within a stand grow larger than 21 inches d.b.h., the number of management 

2823 options is restricted to essentially fire, and there is little opportunity to reduce densities and create early 

2824 structure or maintain open structure types. 

2825 Managing late closed forest structure at or near the maximum end of the HRV range has a number of 

2826 risks. Higher stocking results in stand density levels that are within the zone of competition induced 

2827 mortality, where trees are experiencing increased levels of mortality from high levels of competition for 

2828 resources such as light and water. The risk of mortality from bark beetles and other insects is greatly 

2829 increased, and stand structure can change from a late closed structure back to early structure. Within the 

2830 late forest structure management areas, some natural processes, such as succession, are allowed to 

2831 function, but others, such as wildfire, are not. 

2832 An emphasis on late forest structure can result in reduced amounts of other forest structural states such as 

2833 early successional stages. Inadequate representation of early successional structure is a frequent issue 

2834 across the forested landscape (Swanson et al. 2010).

2835 The use of a reserve system for late forest structure and the remainder for timber production results in less 

2836 likelihood of having resilient forests in the long term. Late forest structure presence on the landscape is 

2837 likely to be cyclical, with long time periods required to move from early to late structure. There is also 

2838 limited flexibility to respond to climate change or other landscape-scale changes.

2839 Within timber production areas, reduced late forest structures are likely as an emphasis on two-aged 

2840 management tends to cut trees at or near the culmination of mean annual increment, which is around 

2841 80 years, before reaching late forest structure.

2842 Modeling Results

2843 Modeling results (table 25) indicate that in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, most structure would be 

2844 within the late open class (45 percent), followed by late closed (35 percent). All structure types except for 

2845 late closed are within HRV. While the proposed action and P alternatives maintain both late open and late

2846 closed around the midpoint of the HRV range, this alternative results in an amount of late open closer to 

2847 the lower HRV limit, while having an overabundance of late closed.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

92

2848 In the northern Rocky Mountains mixed conifer type, late closed contains the most area (80 percent), with 

2849 mid closed (13 percent) taking up most of the remainder. Mid open (1 percent) and late open (4 percent) 

2850 are the only structure types within HRV, and there is a lack of early (3 percent).

2851 For western hemlock / western redcedar, all structure is within the late closed class (100 percent). No 

2852 structure class is within HRV for this vegetation type. 

2853 For subalpine fir / lodgepole pine, the early structure class is dominant (59 percent), followed by mid 

2854 closed (27 percent) and late closed (7 percent). Early is the only type within HRV at 100 years for this 

2855 vegetation type.

2856 In the spruce / subalpine fir type, results show that there would be a lack of early structure class 

2857 (3 percent), although there would be an abundance of late closed class (63 percent). The mid closed class 

2858 (34 percent) is within HRV for this vegetation type, while both early and late closed are outside of HRV.

2859 Table 25. Alternative R modeling results (percentage)

Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed

Douglas-fir dry Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Current 12 7 57 5 19

20 Years 6 7 52 16 19

50 Years 8 7 35 28 22

100 Years 8 3 8 45 35

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer

Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Current 19 4 65 1 11

20 Years 7 3 67 1 22

50 Years 2 3 56 2 37

100 Years 3 1 13 4 80

Western hemlock / western 

redcedar

Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Current 21 0 60 0 19

20 Years 2 0 65 0 34

50 Years 0 0 36 0 64

100 Years 0 0 0 0 100

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Current 33 4 49 2 13

20 Years 37 5 45 1 12

50 Years 59 6 25 1 9

100 Years 59 5 27 2 7

Spruce / subalpine fir Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

Current 35 0 52 0 13

20 Years 15 0 68 0 17

50 Years 7 0 69 0 24

100 Years 3 0 34 0 63
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

93

2860 Alternative P

2861 This alternative implements a landscape approach to managing forest structures by using active 

2862 management to improve adaptability and resilience and move the landscape toward HRV. The main 

2863 difference between the proposed action and the P alternative is the number of acres recommended for 

2864 wilderness. The alternative replaces Eastside Screens with a series of desired conditions and removes the 

2865 restriction of cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

2866 The landscape approach to forest structure management in this alternative proposes to use HRV as the 

2867 desired future condition. All future actions that affect forest vegetation would be assessed and compared 

2868 to HRV, with the goal of moving the overall landscape toward HRV. Restoring forest structure would

2869 result in also moving species composition, process, and spatial pattern toward more resilient conditions, 

2870 with a higher likelihood of sustaining appropriate levels of late forest structure across the landscape. 

2871 Restoring landscape heterogeneity through forest structure results in a high flexibility to adjust to climate 

2872 change influence and provides reduced risk of fire to adjacent communities.

2873 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2874 Alternative P does not include the Eastside Screens, and does not limit the cutting of trees 21 inches in 

2875 diameter and larger. Alternative P, with its landscape approach, has desired conditions for levels of late 

2876 forest structure that are to be met at a landscape scale. Large trees can be cut when the landscape is in 

2877 excess of late forest structure, or, when site-specific objectives call for removal, as long as post treatment 

2878 conditions still meet or move toward desired conditions. The diameter limit imposed by Eastside Screens 

2879 creates a situation where HRV cannot be met for certain structure types, such as early or open, because 

2880 there is not a means to create and/or maintain these types. Once trees within a stand grow larger than 

2881 21 inches d.b.h., the number of management options is essentially restricted to fire, and there is little 

2882 opportunity to reduce densities and create early structure or maintain open structure types. The ability to 

2883 actively manage stands that grow into larger diameter classes means that the P alternative is better able to 

2884 create and maintain structure types, such as early and late open, than alternatives that maintain the 

2885 Eastside Screens. This is especially true in the Douglas-fir dry type that makes up the majority of the 

2886 forest, where late forest levels are closer to the midpoints of the HRV range.

2887 Modeling Results

2888 Modeling results (table 26) indicate that in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, all structure types are 

2889 within HRV. 

2890 In the northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer type, the majority of structure is within the late closed 

2891 class (77 percent) and mid closed (12 percent). Mid open (1 percent) is the only structure type within 

2892 HRV, although late open (7 percent) is just 1 percent higher than HRV. There is a lack of early (2 percent) 

2893 and mid closed (12 percent).

2894 For western hemlock / western redcedar, all of the structure is within the late closed type (100 percent). 

2895 No structure class is within HRV in this vegetation type, largely because no active management is 

2896 assumed to occur within this type.

2897 For subalpine fir / lodgepole pine, the early structure class dominates (57 percent), with lesser amounts in 

2898 mid closed (12 percent) and late closed (9 percent). Early is the only structure type within HRV. 

2899 In the spruce / subalpine fir type, results show that there would be a lack of early structure class (3 

2900 percent), although there would be an abundance of late closed class (63 percent). Only mid closed (33 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

94

2901 percent) is within HRV in this vegetation type, with early being below HRV and late closed being above 

2902 HRV.

2903 Table 26. Alternative P modeling results (percentage)

Early Mid 

Open 

Mid 

Closed 

Late 

Open

Late 

Closed 

Douglas-fir dry Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Current 12 7 57 5 19

20 Years 6 14 45 18 17

50 Years 9 18 21 36 16

100 Years 8 6 5 59 22

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Current 19 4 65 1 11

20 Years 7 7 63 1 21

50 Years 2 6 54 2 36

100 Years 2 1 12 7 77

Western hemlock / western redcedar Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Current 21 0 60 0 19

20 Years 1 0 63 0 35

50 Years 0 0 34 0 66

100 Years 0 0 0 0 100

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Current 33 4 49 2 13

20 Years 35 10 41 1 12

50 Years 57 13 20 1 9

100 Years 57 11 21 2 9

Spruce / subalpine fir Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

Current 35 0 52 0 13

20 Years 14 0 66 0 21

50 Years 8 0 65 0 27

100 Years 3 0 33 0 63

2904 Alternative B

2905 This alternative emphasizes two management areas that focus on forest vegetation; the Restoration MA, 

2906 which emphasizes late forest structure, and the Active MA, which emphasizes a two-aged approach to 

2907 timber production by using the shelterwood with reserves regeneration method. Input from the Northeast 

2908 Washington Forestry Coalition’s alternative on vegetation, road, aquatic management and wilderness 

2909 recommendations are included in this alternative. Proposed management not provided in the coalition’s 

2910 alternative comes from the proposed action. This alternative also responds to those advocating for 

2911 increased wilderness and to public concerns that the amount and location of summer and winter 

2912 motorized use may impact aquatic, riparian and wildlife habitats. This alternative continues the use of 

2913 Eastside Screens, which includes not cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

95

2914 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2915 The B alternative retains the Eastside Screens that were intended to be interim direction until the forest 

2916 plan was revised. Eastside Screens restricts cutting of 21-inch diameter and larger trees in many 

2917 situations, even when site-specific objectives may warrant removal. Retaining all trees greater than 21 

2918 inches diameter can result in situations where tree vigor is reduced to a point where density-related 

2919 mortality factors could cause significant mortality resulting in loss of late forest structure.

2920 The Eastside Screens process requires assessment of current conditions and comparison to pre-settlement 

2921 HRV. When conditions are below HRV, there are narrow criteria for removing large, greater than 21-inch2922 diameter trees. When conditions are above HRV, there are more opportunities to remove large trees based 

2923 on specific criteria and for specific objectives. Desired future conditions reflect HRV, thus, following the 

2924 Eastside Screen process should move the forest toward late structure levels as listed in the HRV tables. 

2925 The main difference between the B alternative and the proposed action is the fixed locations of late forest 

2926 structure reserves in the B alternative, with little opportunity to maintain or enhance it if there is no actual 

2927 late forest structure within the reserve, whereas the proposed action’s landscape approach supports 

2928 planning for replacement in a dynamic landscape. Additionally, the diameter limit imposed by Eastside 

2929 Screens creates a situation where certain structure types are difficult to create and maintain, such as early 

2930 or late open. Once trees within a stand grow larger than 21 inches d.b.h., the number of management 

2931 options is restricted to essentially fire, and there is little opportunity to reduce densities and create early 

2932 structure or maintain open structure types.

2933 Managing late closed forest structure at or near the maximum end of the HRV range has a number of

2934 risks. Higher stocking results in stand density levels that are within the zone of competition-induced 

2935 mortality, where trees are experiencing increased levels of mortality from high levels of competition for 

2936 resources such as light and water. The risk of mortality from bark beetles and other insects is greatly 

2937 increased, and stand structure can change from a late closed structure back to early structure. Within the 

2938 late forest structure management areas, some natural processes, such as succession, are allowed to 

2939 function, but others, such as wildfire, are not. 

2940 An emphasis on late forest structure can result in reduced amounts of other forest structural states such as 

2941 early successional stages. Inadequate representation of early successional structure is a frequent issue 

2942 across the forested landscape (Swanson et al. 2010).

2943 The use of a reserve system for late forest structure and the remainder for timber production results in less 

2944 likelihood of having resilient forests in the long term. Late forest structure presence on the landscape is 

2945 likely to be cyclical, with long time periods required to move from early to late structure. There is also 

2946 limited flexibility to respond to climate change or other landscape-scale changes.

2947 Within timber production areas, reduced late forest structures are likely as an emphasis on two-aged 

2948 management tends to cut trees at or near the culmination of mean annual increment, which is around 

2949 80 years, before reaching late forest structure.

2950 Modeling Results

2951 Modeling results (table 27) indicate that in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, most of the structure is 

2952 within the late open class (42 percent), followed by late closed (32 percent), early (12 percent), mid 

2953 closed (10 percent), and mid open (4 percent). All structure classes are within HRV for this vegetation 

2954 type. While the proposed action and P alternatives maintain both late open and late closed around the 

2955 midpoint of the HRV range, this alternative results in an amount of late open closer to the lower HRV 

2956 limit, while having an amount of late closed that is at the upper HRV limit.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

96

2957 In the northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer type, late closed occupies the most area (77 percent), 

2958 while mid closed (10 percent) and early (8 percent) make up nearly all of the rest. Mid open and late open 

2959 are the only structure types within HRV for this vegetation type, while there is an overabundance of late 

2960 closed and a lack of early and mid-closed.

2961 For western hemlock / western redcedar, most structure is within the late closed class (90 percent), while 

2962 mid closed (8 percent) and early (2 percent) make up the rest. Mid closed is the only structure class within 

2963 HRV, while both early and late closed are outside of HRV.

2964 For subalpine fir / lodgepole pine, the vast majority of area is within the early structure class (62 percent), 

2965 while mid closed (30 percent) and late closed (6 percent) make up the remainder. Only the early type is 

2966 within HRV for this vegetation type, with both mid closed and late closed outside of HRV.

2967 In the spruce / subalpine fir type, results show that there would be a lack of early structure type (3 

2968 percent), although there would be an abundance of late closed type (64 percent). Mid closed (32 percent) 

2969 is within HRV, while both early and late closed are outside of HRV.

2970 Table 27. Alternative B modeling results (percentage)

Early Mid 

Open 

Mid 

Closed

Late 

Open 

Late 

Closed

Douglas-fir dry Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Current 12 7 57 5 19

20 Years 7 9 49 15 19

50 Years 11 8 32 26 22

100 Years 12 4 10 42 32

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Current 19 4 65 1 11

20 Years 9 4 64 1 21

50 Years 7 4 51 2 36

100 Years 8 1 10 4 77

Western hemlock / western redcedar Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Current 21 0 60 0 19

20 Years 4 0 61 0 35

50 Years 6 0 30 0 63

100 Years 2 0 8 0 90

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Current 33 4 49 2 13

20 Years 40 2 45 1 12

50 Years 66 3 22 0 8

100 Years 62 1 30 0 6

Spruce / subalpine fir Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

Current 35 0 52 0 13

20 Years 15 0 68 0 16

50 Years 8 0 68 0 25

100 Years 3 0 32 0 64

2971
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

97

2972 Alternative O

2973 This alternative proposes two management areas to address vegetation management: the Restoration MA 

2974 to move forest structure to within the historical range of variability, and the Responsible MA that 

2975 emphasizes two-aged management for timber production by using the shelterwood with reserves 

2976 regeneration method. The total percentage of the Forest allocated to vegetation management is similar to 

2977 the B alternative, though the O alternative has a greater percentage in the Restoration MA than the B 

2978 alternative. The Forest Service fully developed this alternative using the proposed action to fill in the gaps 

2979 not addressed in the collaborative process. This alternative continues the use of Eastside Screens, which

2980 includes not cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

2981 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

2982 The O alternative retains the Eastside Screens that were intended to be interim direction until the forest 

2983 plan was revised. Eastside Screens restricts cutting of 21-inch diameter and larger trees in many 

2984 situations, even when site-specific objectives may warrant removal. Retaining all trees greater than 21 

2985 inches diameter can result in situations where tree vigor is reduced to a point where density-related 

2986 mortality factors could cause significant mortality resulting in loss of late forest structure.

2987 The Eastside Screens process requires assessment of current conditions and comparison to pre-settlement 

2988 HRV. When conditions are below HRV, there are narrow criteria for removing large, greater than 21-inch2989 diameter trees. When conditions are above HRV, there are more opportunities to remove large trees based 

2990 on specific criteria and for specific objectives. Desired future conditions reflect HRV, thus following the 

2991 Eastside Screen process should move the forest toward late structure levels as listed in the HRV tables. 

2992 The main difference between the O alternative and the proposed action is the fixed locations of late forest 

2993 structure reserves in the O alternative, with little opportunity to maintain or enhance it if there is no actual 

2994 late forest structure within the reserve, whereas the proposed action’s landscape approach supports 

2995 planning for replacement in a dynamic landscape. Additionally, the diameter limit imposed by Eastside 

2996 Screens creates a situation where certain structure types are difficult to create and maintain, such as early 

2997 or late open. Once trees within a stand grow larger than 21 inches d.b.h., the number of management 

2998 options is restricted to essentially fire, and there is little opportunity to reduce densities and create early 

2999 structure or maintain open structure types.

3000 Managing late closed forest structure at or near the maximum end of the HRV range has a number of 

3001 risks. Higher stocking results in stand density levels that are within the zone of competition induced 

3002 mortality, where trees are experiencing increased levels of mortality from high levels of competition for 

3003 resources such as light and water. The risk of mortality from bark beetles and other insects is greatly 

3004 increased, and stand structure can change from a late closed structure back to early structure. Within the 

3005 late forest structure management areas, some natural processes, such as succession, are allowed to 

3006 function, but others, such as wildfire, are not. 

3007 An emphasis on late forest structure can result in reduced amounts of other forest structural states such as 

3008 early successional stages. Inadequate representation of early successional structure is a frequent issue 

3009 across the forested landscape (Swanson et al. 2010).

3010 The use of a reserve system for late forest structure and the remainder for timber production results in less 

3011 likelihood of having resilient forests in the long term. Late forest structure presence on the landscape is 

3012 likely to be cyclical, with long time periods required to move from early to late structure. There is also 

3013 limited flexibility to respond to climate change or other landscape-scale changes.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

98

3014 Within timber production areas, reduced late forest structures are likely as an emphasis on two-aged 

3015 management tends to cut trees at or near the culmination of mean annual increment, which is around 

3016 80 years, before reaching late forest structure.

3017 Modeling Results

3018 Modeling results (table 28) indicate that in the Douglas-fir dry vegetation type, most of the structure 

3019 would be within a late open class (45 percent) and late closed (32 percent). All structure classes are within 

3020 HRV for this vegetation type. While the proposed action and P alternatives maintain both late open and 

3021 late closed around the midpoint of the HRV range, this alternative results in an amount of late open closer 

3022 to the lower HRV limit, while having an amount of late closed that is at the upper HRV limit.

3023 In the northern Rocky Mountains mixed conifer type, late closed structure occupies the most area 

3024 (77 percent), followed by mid closed (11 percent), early (6 percent), late open (5 percent) and mid open 

3025 (2 percent). Mid open and late open are within HRV, while there is an overabundance of late closed and a 

3026 lack of early and mid-closed.

3027 For western hemlock / western redcedar, the bulk of structure is within the late closed class (90 percent), 

3028 with mid closed (8 percent) and early (2 percent) occupying the rest. Only mid closed is within HRV for 

3029 this vegetation type, while both early and late closed are outside of HRV.

3030 For subalpine fir / lodgepole pine, 55 percent is within the early structure class, while 37 percent is within 

3031 mid closed and 6 percent in late closed. Early and mid-closed are within HRV for this vegetation type, 

3032 while there is an overabundance of late closed.

3033 In the spruce / subalpine fir type, results show that there would be a lack of early structure type (3 

3034 percent), although there would be an abundance of late closed type (67 percent). Mid closed (30 percent) 

3035 is the only structure class that is within HRV, while both late closed and early are outside of HRV.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

99

3036 Table 28. Alternative O modeling results (percentage)

Early Mid 

Open

Mid 

Closed

Late 

Open 

Late 

Closed

Douglas-fir dry Historical 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Current 12 7 57 5 19

20 Years 6 10 50 15 19

50 Years 9 9 32 28 22

100 Years 11 4 8 45 32

Northern Rocky Mountains mixed conifer Historical 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Current 19 4 65 1 11

20 Years 9 5 64 1 21

50 Years 5 4 52 2 36

100 Years 6 2 11 5 77

Western hemlock / western redcedar Historical 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83

Current 21 0 60 0 19

20 Years 4 0 62 0 35

50 Years 6 0 31 0 63

100 Years 2 0 8 0 90

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine Historical 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Current 33 4 49 2 13

20 Years 38 2 47 1 12

50 Years 62 2 28 0 8

100 Years 55 1 37 0 6

Spruce / subalpine fir Historical 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

Current 35 0 52 0 13

20 Years 14 0 68 0 19

50 Years 7 0 67 0 26

100 Years 3 0 30 0 67

3037 Cumulative Effects

3038 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

3039 The area for considering cumulative effects includes the lands within the Colville National Forest 

3040 administrative boundary.

3041 Socio-economic choices can have the potential to influence cumulative effects. In the recent past, there 

3042 have been some significant shifts in ownership of lands previously managed for industrial forestry 

3043 objectives or large ranches being sold with possible conversion to other uses. Management objectives of 

3044 the new owners, mostly unknown at this time, could influence a number of dynamics such as water 

3045 quality and quantity, habitat connectivity, and fire management.

3046 The cumulative environmental effects of the proposed management under all alternatives are to move a 

3047 portion of the vegetation toward desired conditions. These efforts would contribute to overall landscape 

3048 restoration goals and increase the resilience and adaptability of forest vegetation.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

100

3049 Botany

3050 This section considers two groups of rare plants that occur or may occur in the planning area, federally 

3051 listed threatened, endangered, or proposed (TE) and USDA Forest Service Region 6 sensitive plant 

3052 species (S). Threatened and endangered species are those formally listed by the USDI Fish and Wildlife 

3053 Service under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

3054 Affected Environment

3055 Sensitive plants are designated by the regional forester, however, lists are periodically updated as new 

3056 data on species occurrences, threats, and risks as well as habitat conditions and trends are assessed to 

3057 inform species conservation status, vulnerability, and conservation priority. 

3058 Since 1988, sensitive species surveys and review of other data documented additional populations of 

3059 many species, with the result that some were judged more secure and others rare and at risk. For example, 

3060 in 1988 Viola renifolia was thought to be extirpated in Washington State, but through plant survey efforts, 

3061 65 sites are now documented on the Colville National Forest. Other species like Botrychium minganese

3062 turned out to be more widespread than previously thought and these were removed from the regional 

3063 sensitive species list.

3064 The Colville National Forest (Forest) does not currently have any federally threatened, endangered, or 

3065 proposed threatened plant species. Any newly designated or discovered taxa listed by the ESA would be 

3066 managed appropriately throughout the life of this plan.

3067 Sensitive species include those vascular and non-vascular plant taxa and fungi from the R6 Regional 

3068 Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Many threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species depend 

3069 on special or unique habitats that may be rare or represent a small portion of a particular landscape. In 

3070 forested landscapes these TES plant habitats include meadows; wetlands, including marshes, bogs, fens, 

3071 carrs, swamps, springs and seeps; riparian areas; alpine fellfields; rock outcrops; cliffs; and talus. 

3072 For the purpose of analyses and discussion of the current affected environment, rare plant habitats were 

3073 grouped into five types as described in the Forest Service Natural Resource Management Threatened, 

3074 Endangered, and Sensitive Plants application (NRM TESP) database (2013) and the Field Guide to the 

3075 Rare Plants of Washington (Camp and Gamon 2011). Plants within each group share broad environmental 

3076 similarities and natural disturbance regimes, resource potential, and management opportunities that 

3077 facilitate assessment of sensitive species site and habitat conditions and trends. table 29 displays the 

3078 distribution of rare plant taxa and sites across the environmental gradient of the Colville National Forest. 

3079 Table 29. Sensitive plant habitat groups, number of species within each habitat and number of occurrences 

3080 (sites)

Habitat Group Number of Sensitive Species Number of Sites

Alpine and subalpine meadows, fellfields, and parklands 5 44

Cliffs, talus, and rock outcrops 2 6

Dry meadows, open dry forests, and shrub steppe 6 115

Moist openings and wet forests 5 215

Wetlands, moist meadows, and riparian 20 186

3081 While plant diversity is an important attribute across all the habitat groups, the table shows that plant 

3082 habitats encompassing wetlands, moist meadows, and riparian ecosystems provide habitat for the bulk of 

3083 the documented sensitive plant species. Since 1998 and the implementation of the NRM TESP database, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

101

3084 rare plant surveys have been conducted on 92,000 acres of the Forest to meet a number of management 

3085 concerns. Information on occurrences is lacking on the remainder of the planning area.

3086 Environmental Consequences

3087 Assumptions

3088 • Diversity objectives would be achieved for all native plant species through ecosystem diversity 

3089 (coarse filter) plan components except for federally listed species (if discovered) and R6 sensitive 

3090 species. The latter classes of plants are managed with consideration of species and habitat specific 

3091 plan components including desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines (fine filter). 

3092 • A conservation outcome for any group of sensitive species reflects the conservation outcome for 

3093 each species in that group. 

3094 • Current vacant grazing allotments would continue in non-grazing status.

3095 Introduction

3096 Under the 1982 planning rule, national forests were required to manage habitat in order to maintain viable 

3097 populations of existing species in planning areas. The planning rule further defines a viable population as 

3098 “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued 

3099 existence is well distributed in the planning area.” 

3100 Critical information about factors limiting rare species distributions and populations is often lacking and 

3101 until studies describing the complex abiotic and biotic interactions between species and their 

3102 environments can be completed, conservation principles would advocate for a cautious approach to rare 

3103 plant species management. As budgets limit study efforts, it is often enough to determine that there are a 

3104 critical number of well-distributed, stable rare plant occurrences that ensure continued viability of the 

3105 species of concern in the planning area. Particularly, this threshold is sought when the determination is 

3106 that threats associated with resource management are countered with abatement, avoidance, or mitigation 

3107 actions. In addition, species security is enhanced if habitat effectiveness is maintained in special and 

3108 unique habitats supporting rare plant populations. Habitat effectiveness may be enhanced directly through 

3109 management activities that reduce risks or indirectly by enhancing ecosystem integrity and resilience. It 

3110 is, however, relevant to achieving conservation goals that sensitive plant source populations be protected 

3111 from disturbances outside the historic range of variation. The details of life history traits and reproduction 

3112 as well as interactions such as herbivory, mutualism (two organisms of different species benefitting from 

3113 a relationship), and pollinator ecology remain incomplete due to the sheer number of candidates for 

3114 priority study. Progress is measured incrementally as annual sensitive species inventories are entered into 

3115 corporate databases for future analyses of condition and trend.

3116 Process

3117 Conservation outcomes for the sensitive species are summarized below for all alternatives and will focus 

3118 on risks to maintaining viable plant populations and habitats within the plan area. Generally, the action 

3119 alternatives were not driven by plant viability issues. Therefore, a set of TES plant, soil, vegetation, 

3120 riparian management area, and livestock grazing desired future condition statements, objectives, 

3121 standards, and guidelines are assessed as contributing to plant viability. This was done in threat-risk 

3122 matrix associated with changes in alternative management areas. Some effects to species viability were 

3123 similar across alternatives. Where a set of plan components had differing influence on conservation 

3124 outcomes, the results are described below.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

102

3125 This assessment occurs within a vulnerability, threat and risk matrix inherent in land and resource 

3126 management planning. Threats were identified from literature (Camp and Gamon 2011) and local NRM 

3127 TESP database sources (USDA FS 2013). Viability risk to TES plant species (High, Medium, or Low) is 

3128 defined as occupied habitat exposed to activities that damage or degrade habitat or populations. High risk 

3129 is defined as impact levels that affect the Forest’s ability to contribute to TES plant viability. This is 

3130 defined as greater than 67 percent of occupied habitat appreciably impacted. In conclusion, plan 

3131 components, including desired future conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, land suitability, and 

3132 land management allocations, as well as habitat group affinities are evaluated to describe the degree to 

3133 which risks will be managed to affect desired conservation outcomes under each plan alternative. 

3134 Conservation Outcomes

3135 Table 30 summarizes viability outcomes for each habitat group by alternative. For all habitat groups 

3136 except “wetlands, moist meadows, and riparian,” the proposed action and other action alternatives “may 

3137 impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a 

3138 loss of viability to the population or species” (MIIH). For “wetlands, moist meadows, and riparian,” the 

3139 no-action alternative would result in an action that “would impact individuals or habitat and may 

3140 contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” 

3141 (WIFV=Will Impact Future Viability).

3142 Table 30. Species summary of viability outcomes by alternatives

Habitat Groups No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Alpine and subalpine meadows, fellfields, parklands MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Cliffs, talus, rock outcrops MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Dry meadows, open dry forests, shrub steppe MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Moist openings, wet forests MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wetlands, moist meadows, riparian WIFV MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

3143 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

3144 The spatial context for effects analysis includes all lands within the Colville National Forest 

3145 administrative boundary. Temporal consideration is given to management of rare plant resources on the 

3146 Forest for a period of fifteen to twenty years in the future, the approximate life of the forest plan.

3147 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

3148 Resource management plans for other Federal, State, and tribal lands adjacent to the Forest include 

3149 provisions for the protection and management of rare plant resources. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

3150 Forest, Panhandle National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

3151 Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Kalispel 

3152 Indian Reservation, and Colville Confederated Tribes recognize resource values associated with 

3153 maintenance of rare plant populations and supporting habitat. Sensitive species lists may differ in details 

3154 because of different agency criteria and agency habitat ownership. The state lists and state ranks are 

3155 developed and maintained by the Washington Natural Heritage Program in collaboration with public 

3156 agency, university, and private cooperators with botanical interests. The Pend Oreille County Public 

3157 Utility District (PUD) and Seattle City Light have conducted rare plant surveys and are implementing 

3158 conservation measures as needed in compliance with hydroelectric licenses on the eastern portion of the 

3159 Forest along the Pend Oreille River. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) have recently been completed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

103

3160 with current management direction and future AMPs would incorporate changes as plan revision is 

3161 implemented.

3162 Summary of Effects 

3163 Plan components, including desired future conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, land suitability, 

3164 and land management allocations, as well as habitat group affinities are evaluated to describe the degree 

3165 to which risks would be managed to affect desired conservation outcomes under each plan alternative. 

3166 Many of the effects are common to all alternatives and plant habitat groups, and are discussed in the 

3167 following section. Other effects are evaluated by plant habitat group and alternative in Effects for 

3168 Alternatives by Plant Habitat Group.

3169 Environmental Change

3170 The effects of climate change are common to all five rare plant habitat groups and all alternatives. 

3171 Climate change predictions for the Inland Pacific Northwest include average temperature increases, 

3172 changes in precipitation amounts, precipitation patterns, snowpack accumulations, snowmelt, and run-off 

3173 regimen. These changes would affect extant sensitive plant populations and habitat components resulting 

3174 in shifting spatial physiological optimums and habitat effectiveness. The detailed changes are unknown at 

3175 the forest plan scale, but some general conclusions allow the relative ranking of vulnerable habitats and 

3176 species:

3177 • High-elevation alpine and subalpine habitats would shift upward in elevation with increasing 

3178 temperatures and result in loss of suitable habitat on the higher mountainous areas (Astrup Felde et 

3179 al. 2012, Miller-Struttmann et al. 2015, Munson and Sher 2015, Walther et al. 2002).

3180 • Cliffs, talus, and rock outcrops where small changes in available moisture seeps and increased 

evapotranspiration19 3181 demand would impact plants established in stressful, rocky environments.

3182 • Dry shrublands, grasslands, and forests supporting sensitive plants would experience greater 

3183 evapotranspiration and changes in moisture patterns and drought that impact plant species 

3184 composition and cover and, thus, habitat effectiveness of these communities (EcoAdapt 2015).

3185 • Moist openings and wet forests would shrink in extent as both groundwater and precipitation input 

3186 changes reduced and higher temperatures create greater evapotranspiration demand leading to 

3187 compositional and structural shifts in associated plant communities (EcoAdapt 2015).

3188 In addition, climate change components would interact with pollinator ecology, plant phenology, invasive 

3189 plant infestations, habitat connectivity, and fire regime shifts to indirectly impact existing sensitive 

3190 species populations and their habitats (Miller-Struttmann et al. 2015). Shifts in some of these habitat 

3191 factors may outpace the ability of plant species to adapt to changing environments (Walther et al. 2002). 

3192 This leads to more isolated populations that increases stress in already vulnerable species. Condition and 

3193 trend monitoring, and conservation of genetic material in seed banks have been identified as strategies to 

3194 deal with these changing environments. 

3195 Fire suppression on Federal lands has led to fuels accumulation in some fire types, resulting in wildfires 

3196 that are uncharacteristic in both fire effects and scale. Climate change may affect those factors and lead to 

3197 more frequent or higher severity fires within these habitats (Devine et al. 2012). Plan alternatives that 

3198 promote landscape-scale restoration of sustainable vegetation types within historic and future ranges of 

3199 variation would also provide habitat capable of supporting sensitive species populations. Restoration of

3200 the historic fire regime and the use of fire as a tool in ecosystem recovery efforts would improve current 

 19 Loss of water from the soil both by evaporation and by transpiration from plants.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

104

3201 vegetation condition and positively influence the trend trajectory (Franklin and Johnson 2012, Ingalsbee 

3202 2015).

3203 In all of these situations, understanding site and vegetation dynamics, monitoring the most vulnerable 

3204 species, off-site gene conservation with seed collections and storage, and population supplementation 

3205 would help meet conservation goals. The responses of sensitive plants to additional environmental 

3206 stressors are unknown and may result in negative conservation outcomes.

3207 Alteration of hydrologic regime 

3208 All alternatives provide guidance and direction regarding wetlands and riparian areas in each of the five 

3209 rare plant habitat groups. Wetlands and riparian areas would be managed as riparian management areas or 

3210 riparian habitat conservation areas where aquatic and riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

3211 emphasis and where special management direction applies. While there are small differences in riparian 

3212 widths associated with each alternative, the risk analysis was unable to detect a small change between 

3213 alternatives. Therefore, the species risk ratings were unchanged between the set of alternatives and were 

3214 evaluated as a single factor common to all alternatives. Plant and aquatic/riparian standards and 

3215 guidelines common to all alternatives promote the maintenance or enhancement of riparian/wetland 

3216 processes and functions, including hydrologic connectivity and regime, and would protect existing 

3217 sensitive species sites and suitable habitat from degradation. 

3218 Gopher disturbance

3219 Northern gophers have been identified as an herbivore threat to several sensitive species occupying 

3220 meadows and riparian rare plant habitat groups. Gopher populations could reach thresholds, which would 

3221 affect both habitat effectiveness and plant population conditions and trends for Botrychium hesperium, B. 

3222 paradoxum, B. pedunculosum, and Ophioglossum pusillum. Preferred food for these underground3223 dwelling herbivores include herbaceous material (grass, roots, and forbs) produced during the growing 

3224 season as well as tree and shrub material during the winter months. Their tunneling and mound building 

3225 activity could disturb existing plants. Exposure of mineral soil could create an opportunity for invasive 

3226 plants to become established in meadow habitats and compete with sensitive plants.

3227 Gophers are ecosystem engineers and provide valuable ecosystem services including improvement of soil 

3228 properties and as prey species supporting a host of predators in a complex food web (Case et al. 2013, 

3229 Jones et al. 2008). Monitoring gopher mounds for indicators of potential impacts and implementing 

3230 integrated pest management practices if needed would reduce the likelihood of negative effects to the 

3231 sensitive species. Risks associated are generally low, but may be medium when large gopher populations 

3232 become established in meadow ecosystems. Essentially, the species risk ratings were unchanged for the 

3233 full set of alternatives and were evaluated as a single factor common to all alternatives.

3234 Invasive plants

3235 Invasive plants were identified as a threat to three of the rare plant habitat groups: 

3236 • Dry meadows, open dry forests, shrub steppe, rocky sites 

3237 • Moist openings and wet forest sites

3238 • Wetlands, moist meadows, riparian areas

3239 The invasive plant risk rating is from analyses of effects (both direct competition and nearby threat 

3240 occurrence) represented by invasive plant infestation proximity to sensitive plant sites. That rating was 

3241 completed during analyses to identify priority watersheds for the Watershed Condition Framework 

3242 (USDA FS 2015). The total percentage of area for these two categories (direct competition and threat 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

105

3243 impact) was rated as Low, Medium, or High. An elevated risk was associated with particular species 

3244 occurrences in priority watersheds and includes Botrychium hesperium from dry meadows, open dry 

3245 forests, as well as Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Cicuta bulbifera, and Dryopteris 

3246 cristata from wetlands, moist meadows and riparian areas. If the invasive threat was alternatively 

3247 identified in the literature or database observations, then the risk was rated as low. That was the situation 

3248 for Botrychium pedunculosum, Sisyrinchium montanum, and Viola renifolia in moist openings and wet 

3249 forest sites. The sensitive species risk ratings and plan components related to invasive plants were 

3250 unchanged for the set of alternatives and were evaluated as a single factor common to all alternatives. An 

3251 integrated invasive plant management program with emphases on prevention, effective control, and 

3252 restoration would improve conservation outcomes.

3253 Livestock grazing and trampling

3254 For all rare plant habitat groups except cliffs, talus and rock outcrops, livestock grazing and trampling 

3255 may affect sensitive plants directly and habitat effectiveness indirectly. These interactions depend on the 

3256 palatability of the plant species for certain livestock and the fragility of habitat components that, together, 

3257 influence habitat effectiveness. Improperly timed herbivory (i.e., grazing) removes current year’s 

3258 vegetative growth and flower or fruit structures before maturation. Recurrent annual grazing during the 

3259 growing season would interrupt critical life history events and may affect seedling recruitment and 

3260 subsequent maintenance of population structure. Demographic studies support the critical need for 

3261 periodic reproductive success in perennial vegetation systems. It is crucial, as well, for annual plants to 

3262 produce reproductive structures and annual seed crops, in particular during poor growing years. A link 

3263 between carbohydrate storage and plant vigor is affected by heavy season-long grazing and can lead to 

3264 individual plant impacts and changes in plant community composition and structure (Kovalchik and 

3265 Clausnitzer 2004). 

3266 Trampling affects not only the vegetation directly, but the soils and habitat supporting rare plant 

3267 populations. This is particularly an issue in maintenance of wet soils throughout the grazing season after 

3268 attainment of range readiness in terrestrial vegetation types (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer 2004). Lowered 

3269 habitat effectiveness, reflected in the reduced ability to support desired vegetation components and 

3270 ecosystem functions, could be a detrimental outcome. Maintenance of soil productive capacity and 

3271 essential attributes is critical for the contribution of ecosystem services from Forest lands. This grazing 

3272 and trampling risk is assessed as the proportion of each species’ total occupied habitat occurring within 

3273 allotments and represents the exposure of these sensitive species to impacts. It is recognized that plant 

3274 sensitivity to both grazing and trampling varies spatially and temporally with attributes of the grazing 

3275 system and site-specific characteristics including associated plant species, soil moisture, and soil texture, 

3276 in addition to seasonal sensitivity shifts connected to plant phenology. Risks were assigned for the active 

3277 growing season.

3278 Plant collecting

3279 For all rare plant habitat groups and alternatives, unauthorized plant collection risk levels are associated 

3280 with ease of access to sites and habitat. Documented sites within roadless areas (such as wilderness, 

3281 recommended wilderness, research natural areas, etc.), or with lower road densities are at lower risk than 

3282 those occurring in management areas with higher density roads and public access. While there are permits 

3283 for commercial or personal use of native plant materials, terms and conditions associated with plant 

3284 collection prohibit sensitive and listed plant taxa from collection. Should they be found on the forest, the 

3285 collection of federally listed plant species can only be authorized under the authority of the U.S. Fish and 

3286 Wildlife Service. Scientific plant materials collection of sensitive species (also personal use permit) 

3287 authorization is delegated from Region 6 to the Forest level and should not affect sensitive plant 

3288 populations. Risks associated with unauthorized plant collection have been identified for three sensitive 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

106

3289 species (Cypripedium parviflorum, Eurybia merita, and Gaultheria hispidula) discussed below by habitat 

3290 group. There is little risk for the remaining 35 taxa, because they have not been identified as targets for 

3291 collection.

3292 Effects for Alternatives by Plant Habitat Group

3293 The threats and risks to sensitive plant occurrences within a particular management area are altered by 

3294 forestwide and management area plan components, including desired future conditions, standards, and 

3295 guidelines for suitable conservation outcomes. Effects, therefore, vary by plant habitat group and 

3296 alternative and are discussed below for each group. 

3297 Alpine and Subalpine Meadows, Fellfields, and Parklands Habitat Group

3298 Summary of Effects

3299 The conservation outcome is the same for all alternatives: May impact individuals or habitat, but would

3300 not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

3301 species.

3302 Alpine and subalpine meadows, fellfields, and parklands habitats are generally a high vulnerability group 

3303 with exposure to environmental change from climatic and fire regime factors (Miller-Struttmann et al. 

3304 2015, Munson and Sher 2015). Whitebark pine is exposed to threats from insect and disease, as well as 

3305 environmental changes (Devine et al. 2012). Additionally, this group of species has exposure to livestock 

3306 grazing, recreational activity, hydrologic regime alteration, and plant collecting. Together, this creates 

3307 high to medium levels of risk for desired conservation outcomes. 

3308 Conservation measures in the current direction do not focus on essential habitat components and critical 

3309 life history events that support development of sustainable populations and maintenance of high habitat 

3310 effectiveness. They do not consider climate change as an additional environmental stressor. The no-action 

3311 alternative would maintain existing conditions and trends, vulnerabilities, and risks to these sensitive 

3312 species. Indications are that trends for some sensitive plant populations and habitat are declining under 

3313 current management. On the other hand, action alternatives (i.e., the proposed action and alternative P) 

3314 that promote landscape-scale restoration of sustainable vegetation types within historic and future ranges 

3315 of variation would continue to provide capable habitat as a corollary to protection of the source 

3316 populations. This includes restoration of disturbances, such as fire, that are responsible for landscape 

3317 character. The proposed conservation goals to maintain or enhance existing populations are mediated by 

3318 application of plan components. These include protective standards and guidelines as well as 

3319 implementation of plant monitoring that targets population and habitat conditions and trends. 

3320 Although alternatives R and B would allocate similar acres to the recommended wilderness management 

3321 area, where human-caused effects may be reduced, the risks are driven by threats somewhat independent 

3322 of that management allocation. In addition, the remaining action alternatives allocate more acreage of this 

3323 habitat to the Backcountry management area where effects on sensitive plant species are similar to those 

3324 in recommended wilderness, so the conservation outcome across all alternatives is the same.

3325 Threats and Risks to Viability

3326 Alteration of hydrologic regime

3327 Some of these sensitive plant occurrences are found in headwater or streamside environments where this 

3328 habitat element may frame conservation concerns. This threat includes activities that affect the amount, 

3329 timing, or quality of water maintaining sensitive plant habitat within wetlands and riparian sites. The risk 

3330 rating is related to the exposure of plant sites to potential change. This is assessed as the proportion of the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

107

3331 total occupied habitat of each species that occurs within wetland or riparian ecosystems (L: 0 to 

3332 33 percent, M: 34 to 67 percent, H: 68 to 100 percent). Risks associated with this threat are generally 

3333 medium; however, the effect is somewhat magnified by the high vulnerability of most species found in 

3334 this rare plant habitat group.

3335 Insects and Disease

3336 Detailed information on threats of insect and disease affecting sensitive species is lacking for most taxa. 

3337 However, there are assessments describing the existing threats for the Pinus albicaulis ecosystem from 

3338 both western white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle (USDI FWS 2011, Spies et al. 2010). Across 

3339 the range of Pinus albicaulis, these agents have contributed significantly to recent tree mortality. This 

3340 species is a candidate for Federal listing with a “warranted but precluded” finding issued in 2011. 

3341 Continued implementation of the Pacific Northwest whitebark pine restoration strategy would be a critical 

3342 management action to accomplish conservation goals. In the Pacific Northwest, whitebark pine is highly 

3343 vulnerable to insects and diseases (Devine et al. 2012), thus, the risk is rated as high for this species and 

3344 low for the remainder of the sensitive species in this rare plant habitat group. 

3345 Environmental change

3346 See summary of effects section.

3347 Livestock grazing and trampling

3348 See summary of effects section.

3349 Plant collecting

3350 See summary of effects section. In addition, a low risk is associated with unauthorized plant collection for 

3351 Eurybia merita in this habitat group. There is little risk for the remaining four taxa, since they have not 

3352 been identified as targets for collection.

3353 Recreational use

3354 This threat category includes site use and development, and trail use and construction. Two species in this 

3355 group, Carex proposita and Eurybia merita, occur in meadow habitats that are favored for recreational 

3356 use or trails development. The risk for these taxa was high when 67 percent or greater exposure of 

3357 existing sites occurred in management areas with non-wilderness recreation emphases. Potential effects 

3358 include disturbance from trampling and camping. Vulnerability is high because of the limited number of 

3359 sites and plants, and the total size of all occurrences. The proposed conservation goal to maintain or 

3360 enhance existing populations is mediated by application of plan components including protective 

3361 standards and guidelines as well as implementation of monitoring that targets population and habitat 

3362 conditions and trends. Establishing trails and camping areas in locations that avoid these populations in 

3363 addition to monitoring and initiating further surveys in suitable habitat are management actions that 

3364 would improve conservation outcomes for these two species. 

3365 Cliffs, Talus, and Rock Outcrops Habitat Group

3366 Summary of Effects 

3367 The conservation outcome is the same for all alternatives: May affect individuals or habitat, but would

3368 not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

3369 species (MIIH).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

108

3370 Cliffs, talus, and rock outcrops habitats supporting Cryptogramma stelleri, Dryas drummondii var. 

3371 drummondii, and Lycopodium dendroideum are a high vulnerability group with exposure to threats 

3372 including environmental change from climatic factors and recreation use. 

3373 The no-action alternative would maintain existing conditions and trends, vulnerabilities, and risks to these 

3374 sensitive species. Indications are that current population trends are static or improving. However, 

3375 conservation measures in the current direction do not focus on essential habitat components Critical life 

3376 history events that support development of sustainable populations and maintenance of high habitat 

3377 effectiveness nor do they consider climate change as an additional environmental stressor. On the other 

3378 hand, action alternatives that promote conservation goals to maintain or enhance existing populations are 

3379 mediated by application of plan components. These include protective standards and guidelines as well as 

3380 implementation of plant monitoring that targets population and habitat conditions and trends. 

3381 Threats and Risks to Viability

3382 Environmental change

3383 See summary of effects section .

3384 Plant collecting

3385 See summary of effects section.

3386 Recreational use

3387 This threat category includes site use and development, and trail use and construction. The risk for these 

3388 taxa was high if 67 percent or greater exposure of existing sites occurred in management areas with non3389 wilderness recreation emphases. Potential effects include disturbance from recreational trampling, 

3390 climbing, and shoreline development. Vulnerability is high because of the limited number of sites and 

3391 plants, and the total size of all occurrences. The proposed conservation goal to maintain or enhance 

3392 existing populations is mediated by application of plan components including protective standards and 

3393 guidelines as well as implementation of monitoring that targets population and habitat conditions and 

3394 trends. Establishing trails, climbing routes, and camping areas in locations that avoid these populations 

3395 would contribute to the sustainability of these three species. Effectiveness monitoring and initiating 

3396 further surveys in suitable habitat also support conservation goals. All action alternatives provide 

3397 guidance and direction to accomplish these actions, while the no-action alternative lacks specific 

3398 direction. 

3399 Road building and maintenance

3400 Risk associated with road building and maintenance is related to direct effects of physical disturbance to 

3401 sensitive plant populations. The potential use of native rock sources for road construction and surfacing 

3402 includes identification of borrow pits and gravel sources. The risk for these species occurrences in this 

3403 habitat group is currently low since the species occur, principally, in unroaded allocations. 

3404 Dry Meadows, Dry Forests, and Shrub Steppe Habitat Group

3405 Summary of Effects

3406 The conservation outcome is the same for all alternatives: May impact individuals or habitat (MIIH), but 

3407 would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population 

3408 or species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

109

3409 Dry meadows, open dry forests, and shrub steppe habitats supporting Antennaria parvifolia, Astragalus 

3410 microcystis, Botrychium ascendens, B. hesperium, B. paradoxum, and B. pedunculosum are rated for 

3411 vulnerability as medium to high vulnerability with exposure to threats including environmental change, 

3412 gopher disturbance, invasive plants, livestock grazing and trampling, recreation use, road building, and 

3413 timber harvest activities. 

3414 The no-action alternative would maintain existing conditions and trends, vulnerabilities, and risks to these 

3415 sensitive species. Indications are that current population trends are static or improving while habitat 

3416 condition may be trending downward. Conservation measures in current direction do not focus on 

3417 essential habitat components and critical life history events that support development of sustainable 

3418 populations and maintenance of high habitat effectiveness nor do they consider climate change as an 

3419 additional environmental stressor. On the other hand, action alternatives that promote conservation goals 

3420 to maintain or enhance existing populations is mediated by application of plan components. These include 

3421 protective standards and guidelines as well as implementation of plant monitoring that targets population 

3422 and habitat conditions and trends. 

3423 The risks to sensitive plant occurrences within a particular management area are altered by forestwide and 

3424 MA plan components including desired future conditions, standards, and guidelines for effective 

3425 conservation outcomes. 

3426 Threats and Risks to Viability

3427 Environmental change

3428 This threat is used to qualitatively summarize the effects to the environment supporting sensitive plant 

3429 species. It includes factors such as climate change, fire regime shifts, plant succession, and soil raveling

3430 and erosion. Additionally, in fire-maintained meadows, past fire suppression and subsequent plant 

3431 succession has affected habitat effectiveness for Antennaria parvifolia. Plan alternatives that promote 

3432 landscape-scale restoration of sustainable vegetation types within historic and future ranges of variation 

3433 would also provide habitat capable of supporting sensitive species populations. Restoration of the historic 

3434 fire regime and the use of fire as a tool in ecosystem recovery efforts would improve current vegetation 

3435 condition and influence habitat trend trajectory in a positive sense. 

3436 In some portions of the landscape, soil-forming processes, including soil raveling and erosion, continue to 

3437 affect sensitive plant environments for Astragalus microcystis and affect existing populations. The genus 

3438 Astragalus has an affinity for early seral stages in disturbance regimes, so it is possible the species could 

3439 be adequately maintained. Site observations indicate the species has increased its cover in disturbed areas 

3440 left to recover. Timber harvest activities conducted adjacent to occupied shrublands, livestock grazing, 

3441 and prescribed fire are management activities that affect this species. Improper livestock grazing, 

3442 unnaturally high fire frequency, and invasion by exotic plants are the biggest threats to the sensitive 

3443 species occupying these habitats. Higher fire frequencies are to be expected with a higher proportion of 

3444 non-native invasive species in the plant community.

3445 Gopher disturbance

3446 See summary of effects section.

3447 Invasive plants

3448 See summary of effects section.

3449 Livestock grazing and trampling

3450 See summary of effects section.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

110

3451 Plant collecting

3452 See summary of effects section.

3453 Recreational use

3454 This threat category includes site use and development, trail use and construction, and recreational vehicle 

3455 use. Ten species have been identified to occur in habitats that are favored for recreational development 

3456 such as shorelines, or in meadows accessed by off-highway vehicle (OHV) users, or on cliffs in potential 

3457 rock-climbing routes. In this habitat group, Astragalus microcystis and the Botrychium species are 

3458 exposed to these risks. The risk for these taxa was high, if 67 percent or greater exposure of existing sites 

3459 occurred in management areas with non-wilderness recreation emphases. 

3460 The risk from OHV incursions into occupied habitat has recently declined to a low level with the 

3461 completion of the Colville National Forest Travel Management Subpart A analysis; OHV use in 

3462 vulnerable habitat is restricted. Otherwise, the risk is high for recreational developments including trails. 

3463 Establishing trails and camping areas in locations that avoid these populations would reduce risk and

3464 contribute to the sustainability of these three species. The proposed conservation goal to maintain or 

3465 enhance existing populations is mediated by application of plan components including protective 

3466 standards and guidelines as well as implementation of monitoring that targets population and habitat 

3467 conditions and trends. Effectiveness monitoring and initiating further surveys in suitable habitat also 

3468 support conservation goals. All action alternatives provide guidance and direction to accomplish these 

3469 actions, while the no-action alternative lacks specific direction. 

3470 Road building and maintenance 

3471 Risk associated with road building and maintenance is related to direct effects of physical disturbance to 

3472 sensitive plant populations. Risk for the species would be elevated (Medium to High) for the no-action

3473 alternative. These risks would be reduced in the proposed action and other action alternatives. Since 

3474 additional plan components mediate desired conservation outcomes in all action alternatives, the total 

3475 effects would be reduced and would support sensitive species sustainability. 

3476 Timber harvest activities

3477 The risks associated with timber harvest activities include direct effects to plant populations from physical 

3478 effects as well as indirect effects from environmental site changes due to light, moisture, or soil property 

3479 alterations related to the treatments. Antennaria parvifolia sites in the dry forest rare plant habitat group 

3480 are at risk to exposure. 

3481 Some of the indirect effects may benefit early seral species in a forested landscape. Antennaria parvifolia

3482 may benefit from treatments, but a conservative approach should also consider protection and monitoring 

3483 of source populations both pre-and post-treatment. Potential exposure to this threat is high, but total 

3484 effects would be reduced by both plan components and potential species responses to management 

3485 activities. All alternatives support sensitive species sustainability outcomes. 

3486 Moist Openings and Wet Forests Habitat Group

3487 Summary of Effects

3488 The conservation outcome is the same for all action alternatives: May impact individuals or habitat 

3489 (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

3490 population or species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

111

3491 Moist openings and wet forest habitats support Botrychium crenulatum, Lycopodium dendroideum, 

3492 Sisyrinchium montanum, and Viola renifolia. Two of those species are rated as highly vulnerable 

3493 (Sisyrinchium montanum and Lycopodium dendroideum); Botrychium crenulatum and Viola renifolia are 

3494 rated low vulnerability. High vulnerability reflects a low number of sites and total plants, and small total 

3495 size of occupied sites. Exposure to threats include alteration of hydrologic regime, environmental change, 

3496 gopher disturbance, invasive species, livestock grazing and trampling, recreation use, road building, and 

3497 timber harvest activities. 

3498 The no-action alternative would maintain existing conditions and trends, vulnerabilities, and risks to these 

3499 sensitive species; local data indicate that current site trends are mixed with static and improving trends for 

3500 Lycopodium dendroideum and Viola renifolia, respectively. Conservation measures in current direction do 

3501 not focus on essential habitat components and critical life history events that support development of 

3502 sustainable populations and maintenance of high habitat effectiveness, nor do they consider climate 

3503 change as an additional environmental stressor. On the other hand, action alternatives that promote 

3504 conservation goals to maintain or enhance existing populations are mediated by application of plan 

3505 components. These include protective standards and guidelines as well as implementation of plant 

3506 monitoring that targets population and habitat conditions and trends. 

3507 Threats and Risks to Viability

3508 Alteration of hydrologic regime

3509 Some of these sensitive plant occurrences are found in streamside environments where this habitat 

3510 element frames conservation concerns. This threat includes activities that affect the amount, timing, or 

3511 quality of water maintaining sensitive plant habitat within wet forest and wet openings. The risk rating is 

3512 related to the exposure of plant sites to potential change. This is assessed as the proportion of the total 

3513 occupied habitat of each species that occurs within wetland or riparian ecosystems (L 0 to 33 percent, M 

3514 34 to 67 percent, H 68 to 100 percent). Risks associated with this threat are high and medium; however, 

3515 the effect is somewhat magnified by the high vulnerability of two species found in this habitat group.

3516 Environmental change

3517 This threat is used to qualitatively summarize the effects to the environment supporting sensitive plant 

3518 species. In this habitat group, discussion focus is on climate change (see summary of effects section) and 

3519 fire regime shifts. 

3520 Fire suppression on Federal lands has led to fuels accumulation in some fire types with resultant wildfires 

3521 that are uncharacteristic in both fire effects and scale. Additionally, in fire-maintained meadows, past fire 

3522 suppression and subsequent plant succession may affect habitat effectiveness for taxa in this group like 

3523 Sisyrinchium montanum. Plan alternatives that promote landscape-scale restoration of sustainable 

3524 vegetation types within historic and future ranges of variation would also provide habitat capable of 

3525 supporting sensitive species populations. Restoration of the historic fire regime and the use of fire as a 

3526 tool in ecosystem recovery efforts would improve current vegetation condition and influence habitat trend 

3527 trajectory in a positive sense. 

3528 Gopher disturbance

3529 See summary of effects section.

3530 Invasive plants

3531 See summary of effects section.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

112

3532 Livestock grazing and trampling

3533 See summary of effects section.

3534 Plant collecting

3535 See summary of effects section.

3536 Recreational use

3537 This threat category principally includes recreational vehicle use. Ten species have been identified to 

3538 occur in habitats that are favored for recreational development such as shorelines, or in meadows accessed 

3539 by OHV users, or on cliffs in potential rock-climbing routes; in this habitat group Sisyrinchium montanum

3540 is exposed to risks of OHV use in meadows. The risk for this taxa was medium to low in management 

3541 areas with non-wilderness recreation emphases. 

3542 The risk from OHV incursions into occupied habitat has recently declined to a low level with the 

3543 completion of the Colville National Forest Travel Management Subpart A analysis; OHV use in 

3544 vulnerable habitat was restricted. Establishing trails and camping areas in locations that avoid populations 

3545 of these four sensitive species would reduce risk and contribute to the sustainability of these taxa. The 

3546 proposed conservation goal to maintain or enhance existing populations is mediated by application of plan 

3547 components including protective standards and guidelines as well as implementation of monitoring that 

3548 targets population and habitat conditions and trends. Effectiveness monitoring and initiating further 

3549 surveys in suitable habitat also support conservation goals. All action alternatives provide guidance and 

3550 direction to accomplish these actions, while the no-action alternative lacks specific direction. 

3551 Road building and maintenance 

3552 Risk associated with road building and maintenance is related to direct effects of physical disturbance to 

3553 sensitive plant populations. Risks for these four species are low to medium for all alternatives because of 

3554 the lower percent of occurrences in roaded areas. There are slightly lower risks in the proposed action and 

3555 alternatives P and R but the difference has no effect on the conservation outcome. Even a medium risk 

3556 becomes a conservation concern for Sisyrinchium montanum because of the high vulnerability of this 

3557 species. These risks are reduced in action alternatives since additional plan components mediate desired 

3558 conservation outcomes. 

3559 Timber harvest activities

3560 The risks associated with timber harvest activities include direct effects to plant populations from physical 

3561 impacts as well as indirect effects from environmental site changes due to light, moisture, or soil property 

3562 alterations related to the treatments. 

3563 Potential exposure to this threat is variable for this suite of species. Risk remains high to medium for 

3564 Viola renifolia across all action alternatives. For Lycopodium dendroideum and Sisyrinchium montanum, 

3565 risks are generally low to medium. These differences reflect the degree of fidelity to MAs in which timber 

3566 harvest occurs across alternatives. Total effects are reduced by common plan components across the 

3567 action alternatives. All alternatives support sensitive species sustainability outcomes. 

3568 Wetlands, Moist Meadows, and Riparian Habitat Group

3569 Summary of Effects

3570 The conservation outcome for the no-action alternative is: Will affect individuals or habitat with a 

3571 consequence that the action may contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to 

3572 the population or species. The conservation outcome is the same for all action alternatives: May effect 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

113

3573 individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of 

3574 viability to the population or species.

3575 Wetlands, moist meadows, and riparian habitats support the majority of the Forest sensitive plant species, 

3576 20. Only one of these taxa is rated as low vulnerability; the remainder are rated high (9 species) and 

3577 medium vulnerability (10). Seven species in this group are represented on the Forest by a single 

3578 occurrence; six taxa with fewer than 10 individual plants are documented. High vulnerability reflects a 

3579 low number of sites and total plants, and small total size of occupied sites. Exposure to threats include 

3580 alteration of hydrologic regime, environmental change, gopher disturbance, invasive plants, livestock 

3581 grazing and trampling, plant collection, recreation use, road building, timber harvest activities, and 

3582 windthrow (trees uprooted or broken by wind). 

3583 Local data indicate that current habitat trends are mixed with 43 wetland, moist meadow, or riparian sites 

3584 trending downward in habitat effectiveness. Population trends are mixed with seven species indicating 

3585 declining trends, nine are static, and eight have improving trends (the remaining three have no indication). 

3586 The no-action alternative would maintain existing conditions and trends, vulnerabilities, and risks to these 

3587 sensitive species. In particular, the nine highly vulnerable species are at risk of loss of sustainability. 

3588 Conservation measures in current direction do not focus on essential habitat components and critical life 

3589 history events that support development of sustainable populations and maintenance of high habitat 

3590 effectiveness nor do they consider climate change as an additional environmental stressor. On the other 

3591 hand, action alternatives that promote conservation goals to maintain or enhance existing populations are 

3592 mediated by application of plan components. These include protective standards and guidelines as well as 

3593 implementation of plant monitoring that targets population and habitat conditions and trends. 

3594 Threats and Risks to Viability

3595 Alteration of hydrologic regime

3596 Most of these sensitive plant occurrences are found in wetlands, moist meadows, and riparian habitats 

3597 where this habitat element frames conservation concerns. This threat includes activities that affect the 

3598 amount, timing, or quality of water maintaining sensitive plant habitat within this group, including 

3599 maintenance of ecosystem services from beavers. The risk rating is related to the exposure of plant sites to 

3600 potential change. This is assessed as the proportion of the total occupied habitat of each species that 

3601 occurs within wetland or riparian ecosystems (L 0 to 33 percent, M 34 to 67 percent, H 68 to 

3602 100 percent). Risks associated with this threat are high for 19 species and medium for the remaining one. 

3603 However, plan components proposed for all but the no-action alternative are expected to maintain habitat 

3604 effectiveness for the species in this group.

3605 Environmental change

3606 This threat is used to qualitatively summarize the affects to the environment supporting sensitive plant 

3607 species. In this habitat group, discussion focus is on climate change and fire regime shifts. This habitat 

3608 group is a top priority when considering climate change effects and mitigation measures in project 

3609 planning and implementation. In addition, climate change may lead to more frequent or higher severity 

3610 fires within these habitats. Plan alternatives that promote landscape-scale restoration of sustainable 

3611 vegetation types within historic and future ranges of variation would also provide habitat capable of 

3612 supporting sensitive species populations. Restoration of the historic fire regime and the use of fire as a 

3613 tool in terrestrial ecosystems would inform recovery efforts in these habitats.

3614 Gopher disturbance

3615 See summary of effects section.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

114

3616 Invasive plants

3617 See summary of effects section.

3618 Livestock grazing and trampling

3619 See summary of effects section. The species risk ratings were unchanged for the set of alternatives and 

3620 were evaluated as a single factor common to all alternatives; nine species were rated as high risk, two 

3621 were rated as medium risk, and nine as low risk; two of the high vulnerability species in this group are 

3622 exposed to excessive risk from livestock grazing and trampling. The risk from this threat is a contributing 

3623 factor in determination of the conservation outcome for species in this habitat group. The action 

3624 alternatives address this risk with plan components, standards and guidelines to contribute to species 

3625 viability. 

3626 Plant collecting

3627 See summary of effects section. In addition, risks associated with unauthorized plant collection have been 

3628 identified for two species in this rare plant habitat group. The risk is high for Cypripedium parviflorum

3629 and low for Gaultheria hispidula. There is little risk for the remaining 18 taxa, since they have not been 

3630 identified as targets for collection.

3631 Recreational use

3632 This threat category principally includes recreational vehicle use. Ten species have been identified to 

3633 occur in habitats that are favored for recreational development such as shorelines, or in meadows accessed 

3634 by OHV users, or on cliffs in potential rock-climbing routes; in this habitat group, Botrychium 

3635 paradoxum, Botrychium pedunculosum, Dryopteris cristata, Geum rivale, and Ophioglossum pusillum are 

3636 exposed to risks of OHV use in meadows. The risk for these taxa is medium to low in management areas 

3637 with non-wilderness recreation emphases. The risk from OHV incursions into occupied habitat has 

3638 recently declined to a low level with the completion of the Colville National Forest Travel Management 

3639 Subpart A analysis; OHV use in vulnerable habitat was restricted. 

3640 Establishing trails and camping areas in locations that avoid populations of these 20 sensitive species 

3641 would reduce risk and contribute to the sustainability of these taxa. The proposed conservation goal is to 

3642 maintain or enhance existing populations. Application of plan components, including protective standards 

3643 and guidelines and implementation of monitoring that targets population and habitat conditions and 

3644 trends, is mediated. Effectiveness monitoring and initiating further surveys in suitable habitat also support 

3645 conservation goals. All action alternatives provide guidance and direction to accomplish these actions, 

3646 while the no-action alternative lacks specific direction. 

3647 Road building and maintenance 

3648 Risks associated with road building and maintenance are related to direct effects of physical disturbance 

3649 to sensitive plant populations. Risks for these 20 species are low for all alternatives because of the lower 

3650 percent of species occurrences in roaded areas and the currently existing and proposed direction on 

3651 maintenance of ecosystem integrity within the wetland-riparian habitat group. There are slightly lower 

3652 risks in the proposed action and alternatives P and R, but the difference has no effect on the conservation 

3653 outcome. Additionally, road density and location standards contribute to species viability by lowering 

3654 risks from associated impacts. Nonetheless, monitoring high vulnerability species when road management 

3655 activities may affect sites would inform continuing conservation measures.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

115

3656 Timber harvest activities

3657 The risks associated with timber harvest activities include direct effects to plant populations from physical 

3658 impacts as well as indirect effects from environmental site changes due to light, moisture, or soil property 

3659 alterations related to the treatments. 

3660 Potential exposure to this threat is low for this suite of species. Total effects are reduced by common plan 

3661 components that maintain and promote ecosystem integrity, process, and function across the alternatives. 

3662 All alternatives support sensitive species sustainability outcomes for this particular threat. 

3663 Windthrow 

3664 Since the majority of the Forest sensitive species are found in wetland or riparian habitats, a windthrow 

3665 (trees uprooted or broken by wind) risk to existing sites and habitats has been identified. The risk results

3666 from the interaction of site factors, extreme weather events, and the ability of a tree to withstand strong 

3667 winds without breakage or blowdown, including rooting habit and disease occurrence. Where this threat 

3668 negatively affects existing sensitive species populations or affects habitat effectiveness, it is associated 

3669 with sites in conifer- or hardwood-dominated riparian stands. However, if blowdown occurs at the edge of 

3670 wetland habitats, it is generally an addition to habitat diversity. The windthrow threat is generally a low 

3671 risk except for sites supporting Botrychium lineare and B. crenulatum where it is elevated to a medium 

3672 level because of past events. In addition, the interaction of this threat alone with vulnerability ratings 

3673 implies different outcomes for the two Botrychiums and it reinforces the conservation risk associated with 

3674 a single, chance event affecting a lone site supporting a small population (B. lineare). While the 

3675 alternatives that address ecosystem integrity and resilience with landscape level restoration goals can be 

3676 judged to provide less risk for this threat, the species risk ratings were unchanged for the set of 

3677 alternatives and were evaluated as a single factor common to all alternatives.

3678 Cumulative Effects (Common to all Alternatives)

3679 Cumulative effects include the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that contribute to 

3680 TES plant species viability. Resource management plans for other Federal, State, and tribal lands adjacent 

3681 to the Colville National Forest include provisions for the protection and management of rare plant 

3682 resources. The cumulative effect of adjacent lands management would not change any of the direct and 

3683 indirect effects because management direction supports rare plant viability. While sensitive species lists 

3684 may differ in details because of different agency criteria and agency habitat ownership, the state lists and 

3685 state ranks are developed and maintained by the Washington Natural Heritage Program in collaboration 

3686 with public agency, university, and private cooperators with botanical interests. Resource management 

3687 projects focused on restoration of riparian and terrestrial resources associated with the Vision 2020 

3688 Project are assumed to follow management direction that would contribute to the viability of TES plant 

3689 species and would not contribute to additional cumulative effects. The Pend Oreille PUD relicensing 

3690 would not contribute to further effects and would implement conservation measures as needed to renew 

3691 hydroelectric licenses. Allotment Management Plans would be managed to standard and would not 

3692 contribute to further cumulative effects.

3693 Climate Change

3694 This climate change discussion compiles and synthesizes scientific information on past and projected 

3695 trends in regional climate and climate-related impacts to National Forest System lands. It also identifies 

3696 possible management options to reduce ecosystem vulnerability to climate change and to increase 

3697 ecosystem resilience to both climate and non-climate stressors. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

116

3698 Background on Climate Change

3699 Warming of the climate system is evident from observation of increases in global average air and ocean 

3700 temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (IPCC 2014). 

3701 Climate change is expected to profoundly alter vegetation structure and composition, terrestrial ecosystem 

3702 processes, and the delivery of important ecosystem services over the next century. Since 1750, 

3703 atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have increased from 280 to over 390 parts per million 

3704 (ppm) and are expected to continue rising, reaching 450 to 875 ppm by 2100 (Peterson et al. 2014). The 

3705 scientific community generally agrees that substantial warming of Earth’s surface (2.0 to 4.5 °C) will 

3706 accompany the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is 

3707 a prominent greenhouse gas (IPCC 2014).

3708 Terrestrial ecosystems strongly influence the global carbon cycle and combined with oceans, are 

3709 estimated to absorb about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2) currently being released by human activities 

3710 (Dilling et al. 2003). Simulated global patterns of carbon flux suggest that western U.S. forests are a 

3711 carbon sink (Potter and Klooster 1999). Temperate forest ecosystems contain a significant amount of soil 

3712 carbon (Rasmussen 2006) and tree-based carbon (Hurteau et al. 2008). These carbon stocks are significant 

3713 resources that prevent additional significant carbon inputs into the global carbon cycle and provide a 

3714 mechanism for carbon storage from natural and anthropogenic sources.

3715 Biogeographical Setting and Natural Resources

3716 The 1.1-million-acre Colville National Forest in northeastern Washington is bordered to the north by 

3717 British Columbia, to the west by the Okanogan National Forest, to the east by the Idaho Panhandle 

3718 National Forests, and to the south by a portion of the Colville Confederated Tribes Indian Reservation. 

3719 The Forest has three ranger districts: Republic, Newport-Sullivan Lake, and Three Rivers. The Forest 

3720 Supervisor’s office is located in Colville, Washington (Gaines et al. 2012).

3721 Northeastern Washington is geologically complex and includes the Columbia Basin and the Okanogan 

3722 Highlands, which function as a transition zone between the Cascade and the Rocky Mountain Ranges. 

3723 Between one-third and one-half of the Forest was burned during the 1920s and 1930s, thus the current 

3724 forest is relatively young. Federally listed species include the endangered woodland caribou (Rangifer 

3725 tarandus), threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). There are currently 

3726 no federally listed plants on the Colville; however, the moonwort (Botrychium lineare W.H. Wagner) was 

3727 determined to be warranted but precluded (Gaines et al. 2012).

3728 Carbon Stewardship

3729 The management of forest and ecosystem carbon is an important responsibility of land management 

3730 agencies. This is not to imply that maximizing carbon storage should be the most important or overriding 

3731 purpose of land management. Land managers and their stakeholders should determine the state of the 

3732 carbon resource, where carbon stewardship fits in the goals of resilient ecosystems, and how carbon 

3733 management might be blended with other ecosystem services. Carbon management is complex, 

3734 maximization of carbon storage is not necessary the best management strategy. Carbon stewardship needs 

3735 to consider ecosystem function and risk of disturbance to carbon (i.e., wildfire) (Hurteau et al. 2009). 

3736 Forest carbon stewardship is best described through an expression of directives. Management to 

3737 maximize carbon storage or alter carbon storage in an ecosystem needs to take place in context with other 

3738 natural processes as well as land management goals and objectives. The below carbon stewardship 

3739 directives are intended to provide considerations for integrating carbon management with planning and 

3740 implementation processes. The processes are attempting to adapt forests to the impacts of a changing 

3741 climate, increased disturbance cycles, 100 years of fire suppression in fire-adapted ecosystems, and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

117

3742 increasing environmental pollution load. These preliminary forest carbon stewardship directives are 

3743 intended to be refined, updated, and integrated based on field experience and best available science as it 

3744 continues to emerge.

3745 Emphasize ecosystem function and resilience first. Carbon sequestration capacity depends on sustaining 

3746 and enhancing ecosystem function to maintain resilient forests adapted to changing climate and other 

3747 conditions.

3748 Recognize carbon sequestration as one of many ecosystem services. Carbon sequestration is one of the 

3749 many benefits provided by forests, grasslands, and forest products, now and in the future. Carbon 

3750 sequestration should be considered in context with other ecosystem services.

3751 Consider system dynamics and scale in decision making. Evaluate carbon sequestration and cycling at 

3752 landscape scales over long time frames. Explicitly consider uncertainties and assumptions in evaluating 

3753 carbon sequestration consequences of ecosystem stewardship options.

3754 Use the best information and methods to make decisions concerning carbon stewardship. Base carbon 

3755 stewardship and policy decisions on the best available science based knowledge and information about 

3756 system response and carbon cycling in ecosystems and wood products. Use this information wisely by 

3757 dealing directly with uncertainties, risks, opportunities, and tradeoffs through sound and transparent risk 

3758 management practices.

3759 Work for program integration and balance. Carbon stewardship and management is part of a balanced and 

3760 comprehensive program of sustainable ecosystem management and response to ecosystems outside the 

3761 historic range of variability. As such carbon stewardship has ecological, economic, and social implications 

3762 and interactions with other Forest Service programs and strategies.

3763 Forest-level Predictions of Climate Change

3764 Though the science of predicting potential climate change has been improving, currently there is no site3765 specific information available that would indicate the potential rate or direction of climate change at a 

3766 level detailed enough to use for vegetation modeling or specific land management at the Forest or project 

3767 level. Scientific research and historical data has allowed for the development of models at regional scale 

3768 that develop general predictions of potential future scenarios over the long term. Analysis for specific 

3769 years or specific areas on the Colville National Forest is not possible with current models or analysis.

3770 Regional Climate Change Overview

3771 Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases have increased rapidly 

3772 over the past century or more. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expected to continue to rise for the 

3773 foreseeable future, although future rates of increase may vary with changes in the global economy and the 

3774 success or failure of international efforts to reduce or limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. 

3775 Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations are of concern primarily because of their potential to influence 

3776 global temperatures (i.e., the “greenhouse effect”), higher CO2 concentrations may also influence 

3777 vegetation growth and water-use efficiency and are therefore linked more directly to forest ecosystem 

3778 functioning and natural resource management. Other greenhouse gases affected by land management are 

3779 methane (CH4) and, to a much lesser extent, nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from motorized vehicles 

3780 including heavy equipment (IPCC 2014).

3781 Temperatures have been increasing in Washington State over the past century. In the last 100 years, 

3782 temperatures have increased by about 1.5 °Fahrenheit (Mote 2003a). The warming trends have been 

3783 strongest in the winter months and weakest in the autumn months. Precipitation has also been increasing 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

118

3784 during the past century with the largest relative increases occurring during the spring in the eastern 

3785 portion of the state (Mote 2003b).

3786 The Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington has projected future changes in climate of 

3787 the Pacific Northwest based on climate projections produced for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

3788 Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report. They predict that temperatures will raise an average of 0.5 °F 

3789 per decade over the next century (Elsner et al. 2009), a potentially larger increase than experienced in the 

3790 past 100 years. Predictions are for warming trends to be greater in the eastern part of the state. 

3791 Precipitation projections for the region are more variable than temperature projections. In general, 

3792 precipitation is predicted to increase in the winter and decrease in the summer (Mote et al. 2005a).

3793 Winter temperatures play a large role in determining whether precipitation falls as snow or rain. Despite 

3794 increases in precipitation in eastern Washington State, warming temperatures have led to decreases in 

3795 snowpack. Mote (2003a) reported reductions of 30 to 60 percent in April 1 snowpack from 1920 through 

3796 2000 over much of Washington State. The largest decreases in snowpack have been at lower elevations 

3797 (less than 5,900 feet). Projected temperature increases for the coming century are expected to increase the 

3798 proportion of winter precipitation falling as rain, increase the frequency of winter flooding, reduce 

3799 snowpack, increase winter streamflow, result in earlier peak flows, and decrease late spring and summer 

3800 flows (Hamlet et al. 2007; Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999). The snowpack in the Cascades is projected to 

3801 decrease by 44 percent by 2020 and by 58 percent by 2040 relative to the recent past. Peak runoff is 

3802 expected to occur 4 to 6 weeks earlier (Climate Change Impacts Group 2004), while reduced summer 

3803 streamflows will be more common and widespread (Miles et al. 2000; Snover et al. 2003; Stewart et al. 

3804 2004). April 1 snow water equivalent (SWE) is projected to decrease by an average of 27 to 29 percent 

3805 across the state by the 2020s, 37 to 44 percent by the 2040s, and 53 to 65 percent by the 2080s (Elsner et 

3806 al. 2009). SWE on April 1 is an important metric for evaluating snowpack changes because in the PNW, 

3807 the water stored in the snowpack on April 1 is strongly correlated with summer water supply. The 

3808 reduction of snowpack in the regions of highest elevation is projected to be less significant. There is no 

3809 discussion of uncertainty or confidence intervals in the modeling methodology presented in the above 

3810 references.

3811 Baseline Climate Data

3812 Temperatures increased across the region from 1895 to 2011, with a regionally averaged warming of 

3813 about 1.3 °F (Kunkel et al. 2013). While precipitation has generally increased, trends are small as 

3814 compared to natural variability. Both increasing and decreasing trends are observed among various 

3815 locations, seasons, and time periods of analysis. Studies of observed changes in extreme precipitation use 

3816 different time periods and definitions of “extreme,” but none find statistically significant changes in the 

3817 Northwest (Groisman et al. 2004). These and other climate trends include contributions from both human 

3818 influences (chiefly heat-trapping gas emissions) and natural climate variability, and consequently are not 

3819 projected to be uniform or smooth across the landscape or through time.

3820 As a result of changes in long-term average trends, some conditions/events we now consider to be 

3821 extreme will occur more frequently or with greater magnitude, while others will occur less frequently 

3822 (e.g., more unusually warm periods and fewer cold spells). In many cases, changes in the frequency and 

3823 magnitude of extreme events (droughts, severe fires, etc.) will have the most significant and long-lasting 

3824 consequences for land and resource management.

3825 Projected Climate Trends

3826 The climate observations and projections reported here are long-term trends in average conditions. 

3827 Climate has varied and will continue to vary, from year-to-year and decade-to-decade around the long3828 term trend. The effects of longer-term climate trends may be either amplified or moderated by climate 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

119

3829 variability resulting from the shorter-term El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal 

3830 Oscillation.

3831 The Pacific Northwest is projected to be within a range of an 11 percent decrease to a 12 percent increase 

3832 for 2030 to 2059 and a 10 percent decrease to an 18 percent increase for 2070 to 2099 in annual 

3833 precipitation (Mote and Salthe 2010). For every season, some models project decreases and some project 

3834 increases (Kunkel et al. 2013), yet one aspect of seasonal changes in precipitation is largely consistent 

3835 across climate models. For scenarios of continued growth in global heat-trapping gas emissions, summer 

3836 precipitation is projected to decrease by as much as 30 percent by the end of the century (Kunkel et al. 

3837 2013; Mote and Salthe 2010). Northwestern summers are presently dry and although a 10 percent 

3838 reduction (the average projected change for summer) is a small amount of precipitation, unusually dry 

3839 summers have many noticeable consequences, including low streamflow and greater extent of wildfires 

3840 due to lower fuel moisture levels throughout the region (Littell et al. 2010). Projected temperature 

3841 increases are large relative to natural variability; the relatively small projected changes in precipitation are 

3842 likely to be masked by natural variability for much of the century (Deser et al. 2012).

3843 Description of Observed and Projected Changes

3844 Climate models are unanimous in projecting increasing average annual temperatures over the coming 

3845 decades in the Pacific Northwest. The average of multiple climate model projects predicts annual 

3846 temperatures will increase 2.2 °F by the 2020s and 3.5 °F by the mid-21st century, compared to the 

3847 average for 1970 to 1999. Temperature increases are projected to occur during all seasons, with the 

3848 greatest increases projected in summer. Beyond mid-century, model projections diverge substantially in 

3849 response to differences among scenarios in assumed emissions, with increases in average annual 

3850 temperature ranging from 5.9 °F to 9.7 °F in the Pacific Northwest by the end of the 21st century.

3851 Projected changes in Pacific Northwest precipitation are more variable among models, but generally 

3852 suggest no substantial change in the average annual amount of precipitation from the variability 

3853 experienced during the 20th century. Given the variability in results among models, projections of 

3854 precipitation are considered less certain than temperature projections. Most of the models project 

3855 decreases in summer precipitation, increases in winter, and little change in the annual mean.

3856 Observed regional warming has been linked to changes in the timing and amount of water availability in 

3857 basins with significant snowmelt contributions to streamflow. Since around 1950, area-averaged 

3858 snowpack on April 1 in the Cascade Mountains decreased about 20 percent (Mote 2006; Pierce et al.

3859 2008), spring snowmelt occurred 0 to 30 days earlier depending on location, late winter/early spring 

3860 streamflow increases ranged from 0 percent to greater than 20 percent as a fraction of annual flow 

3861 (Hidalgo et al. 2009; Reclamation, 2011) and summer flow decreased 0 percent to 15 percent as a fraction 

3862 of annual flow (Stewart et al. 2005), with exceptions in smaller areas and shorter time periods (Mote et al. 

3863 2008). It is unknown if snowmelt predictions for the Cascade Mountains reflect potential conditions for 

3864 the mountains of the Colville National Forest.

3865 Hydrologic response to climate change will depend upon the dominant form of precipitation in a 

3866 particular watershed, as well as other local characteristics including elevation, aspect, geology, vegetation, 

3867 and land use (Mote, P.W. 2003a; Safeeq et al. 2013). The largest responses are expected to occur in basins 

3868 with significant snow accumulation, where warming increases winter flows and advances the timing of 

3869 spring melt (Hidalgo et al. 2009; Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2005). By 2050, snowmelt is projected to shift 

3870 three to four weeks earlier than the 20th century average, and summer flows are projected to be 

3871 substantially lower, even for predicted greenhouse gas emissions scenarios that assumes substantial 

3872 emissions reductions (Elsner et al. 2009). Basins with a significant groundwater component may be less 

3873 responsive to climate change than indicated by other research literature (Tague et al. 2008).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

120

3874 Changes in river-related flood risk depends on many factors, but warming is projected to increase flood 

3875 risk the most in mixed basins (those with both winter rainfall and late spring snowmelt-related runoff 

3876 peaks) and remain largely unchanged in snow-dominant basins; 27 regional climate models project 

3877 increases of 0 percent to 20 percent in extreme daily precipitation, depending on location and definition of 

3878 “extreme” (for example, annual wettest day). Averaged over the region, the number of days with more 

3879 than 1 inch of precipitation is projected to increase 13 percent in 2041 to 2070 compared with 1971 to 

3880 2000 under a scenario that assumes a continuation of current rising emissions trends, though these 

3881 projections are not consistent across models (Wehner, M.F., 2013). This increase in heavy downpours 

3882 could increase flood risk in mixed rain-snow and rain-dominant basins.

3883 Climate Change in Northeastern Washington

3884 Increasing temperatures and a greater annual variation in precipitation in northeastern Washington are 

3885 predicted from expected increases in anthropogenic CO2. The Pacific Northwest has warmed, on average, 

3886 1.3 °F between 1895 and 2011, with statistically significant warming occurring in all seasons except for 

3887 spring. All but five of the years from 1980 to 2011 were warmer than the 1901 to 1960 average. The trend 

3888 is for continued future warming. The frost-free season (and the associated growing season) has 

3889 lengthened by 35 days from 1895 to 2011 in the Pacific Northwest. (Snover et al. 2013, Parks 2010) 

3890 Temperature records show significant seasonal and annual decreases in the number of frost days and 

3891 changes in spring minimum temperatures. Warmer spring temperatures coupled with increases in mean 

3892 and variance of spring precipitation correspond strongly to earlier snowmelt out, an increased number of 

3893 snow-free days, and observed changes in stream flow timing and discharge (Pederson et al. 2011).

3894 The variation in precipitation will have effects on water release timing, length of the growing season, and 

3895 soil moisture conditions. Predicted increases in early season snowmelt/late season precipitation (Miller et 

3896 al. 2003) (which will increase fuel loading due to greater understory growth) and hotter, drier summers 

3897 have the high potential to increase wildfire activity and associated carbon emissions from forested areas 

3898 (Miller and Urban 1999; Kim 2005). Research shows increases in understory biomass with amplified 

3899 pollution and climate change, suggesting future increases in fire severity and fire size (Hurteau and North

3900 2009). Climate change modelers agree that climate will become more extreme as oscillations between wet 

3901 and drought conditions become more common. It is suggested that land managers not recreate a fixed pre3902 settlement condition, but strive for forest conditions that are more resilient and resistant to 

3903 uncharacteristic disturbance impacts (North et al. 2009 and Millar et al. 2008).

3904 There has been a general decline in snowpack; Cascade spring snowpack has declined 23 percent between

3905 1930 and 2007. There is predicted a relatively steady loss rate of snowpack at 2.0 percent per decade, 

3906 yielding a loss of 16 percent from 1930 to 2007. (Stoelinga et al. 2010) Over the past four decades, 

3907 records show a tendency toward decreased snowpack with peak snow water equivalent arriving and 

3908 melting out earlier. The declining snowpack will result in earlier stream flow timing, small increase in 

3909 annual stream flow, increasing winter stream flow, and declining summer stream flow (Snover et al. 

3910 2013).

3911 Observed Trends in Forest Carbon

3912 Analyses of trends in North American terrestrial ecosystem productivity during the late 20th century 

3913 based on satellite imagery generally confirm a net carbon sink for the North American continent, although 

3914 there is considerable year-to-year and geographical variation (Potter et al. 2007; Running et al. 2004; 

3915 Nemani et al. 2003; Potter et al. 2003; Slayback et al. 2003; Hicke et al. 2002; Myneni et al. 2001). The 

3916 inter-annual and spatial variability of productivity are commonly attributed to anomalies in seasonal 

3917 temperature and precipitation, and ecosystem disturbances such as drought, fire, and insect outbreaks 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

121

3918 (Potter et al. 2008a; Piao et al. 2007; Potter et al. 2007; Boisvenue and Running 2006; Angert et al. 2005; 

3919 Goetz et al. 2005; Running et al. 2004; Nemai et al. 2003; Nemani et al. 2002).

3920 Recent estimates find that the terrestrial ecosystems of the United States remove approximately 505 

3921 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon per year (± 50 percent) from the atmosphere and store it as plant 

3922 material and soil organic matter (King et al. 2007; Pacala et al. 2007). Estimates of the net sink from 

3923 forests, forest soils and wood products range from 203 to 293 Mt C per year, or roughly half of the total 

3924 sink. Wood products account for approximately 6 to 12 percent (30 to 57 Mt per year) of the total U.S. 

3925 carbon sink (U.S. EPA 2008; Birdsey et al. 2007) Forests and wood products offset approximately 10 to 

3926 20 percent of U.S. fossil fuel emissions (U.S. EPA 2008; Pacala et al. 2007).

3927 The reservoir of stored carbon in U.S. forests is approximately 42,700 to 66,600 Mt (U.S. EPA 2008; 

3928 Birdsey et al. 2007). Public forestlands contain approximately 37 percent of this carbon reservoir. 

3929 National Forests store an estimated 8,900 Mt of carbon, or from 13 to 21 percent of all forest carbon of 

3930 the United States. (Smith and Heath 2004) Carbon stocks on the Colville National Forest contribute 

3931 approximately 0.14 percent to 0.21 percent of the total U.S. forest carbon reservoir on public lands 

3932 (USDA Forest Service 2015). Trends in carbon stocks and flux on the Colville National Forest can be 

3933 inferred from 20th century trends in forest age and structure classes. Recent scientific literature 

3934 documents the general pattern of changes in carbon stocks and net ecosystem productivity. On the 

3935 Colville National Forest, the distribution of forest age and structure classes has changed substantially 

3936 since the early 20th century. Intermediate age classes (40 to 100 years of age) have increased in area, 

3937 while the amount of young stands has decreased. In most forest types, the abundance of older, late 

3938 successional stands has declined. The cause of these changes varies by forest type and geographic 

3939 location, but the most wide-spread agents of change are root disease, white pine blister rust, timber 

3940 harvest, and the substantial decline in acres burned since 1940. A significant portion of the increase in 

3941 intermediate age classes is the result of forest re-growth following large stand-replacing fires in the early 

3942 20th centuries.

3943 Total carbon stocks decline as a result of disturbance and then increase, rapidly during intermediate years 

3944 and then at a declining rate, over time until another significant disturbance (regeneration timber harvest or 

3945 tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insects, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees. 

3946 Carbon flux and net ecosystem productivity are lowest, and usually negative (a carbon source to the 

3947 atmosphere) in young stands (0 to 30 years) following disturbance because carbon emissions from decay 

3948 of dead biomass exceed the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the 

3949 stand. As the stand develops, net ecosystem productivity increases and the stand becomes a carbon sink. 

3950 Net ecosystem productivity and carbon sink strength generally peak at the intermediate stage of stand 

3951 development, then decline with age but often remain positive (Canadell et al. 2007; Pregitzer and 

3952 Euskirchen 2004).

3953 Hessburg et al. (2000) constructed historical and current vegetation maps from 1932 to 1966 and 1981 to 

3954 1993 aerial photographs, respectively for sample sub-basins within the interior Columbia River basin. 

3955 Comparing historic and current vegetation maps, they found that forests of northeastern Washington, 

3956 northern Idaho, and northwestern Montana experienced a significant increase in area of intermediate 

3957 structural classes. Stand initiation structures (new forests) declined significantly due to fire exclusion, 

3958 despite timber harvest activity. However, they noted that timber harvest activities reduced the abundance 

3959 of medium- and large-sized trees distributed in other forest structures as remnants of stand-replacing fires.

3960 Net ecosystem productivity is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration 

3961 (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through 

3962 photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, 

3963 decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER). When net ecosystem productivity is 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

122

3964 positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with positive net ecosystem productivity are 

3965 referred to as a carbon sink. When net ecosystem productivity is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon 

3966 than they absorb. Ecosystem with negative net ecosystem productivity is referred to as a carbon source.

3967 The following information is based on the publication Climate Change Advisor’s Office, Office of the 

3968 Chief, 2014, Baseline Assessment of Forest Carbon Stocks Including Harvested Wood Products – USDA 

3969 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. It is stated in the methodology that at scales of the individual 

3970 national forest level, uncertainty can exceed 25 percent and at the individual carbon pool level (seven 

3971 separate pools were modeled) that uncertainty can exceed 100 percent. The estimates of carbon pools and 

3972 fluxes come from a draft pre-decisional document

3973 As of 2012, the Colville National Forest stores approximately 93.5 teragrams (Tg) of carbon. A teragram 

is one trillion grams, a unit of mass equal to 1012 3974 grams. A gram is equal to the weight of a paperclip; 

3975 454 grams makes a pound. From 1990 to 2012, the modeled number varies from 90 to 94 Tg.

3976

3977 Figure 9. Total forest ecosystem carbon stocks and uncertainty estimates (95 percent confidence level)

3978 The average density of forest carbon is approximately 200 megagrams of carbon per hectare (Mg C/ha) 

3979 (approximately 200 U.S. tons) on the Colville National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2015).

3980 Projected trends in forest carbon stocks and flux estimates indicate that currently Colville National Forest 

3981 is a net carbon sink, absorbing approximately 0.2 Tg of carbon a year. In the early 1990s, it is modeled 

3982 that the Colville was a net carbon source releasing approximately 0.7 Tg of carbon a year (USDA Forest 

3983 Service 2015). All these modeled numbers are within the uncertainty intervals suggesting that in a given 

3984 year the Colville can be a net source or sink for carbon.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

123

3985

3986 Figure 10. Carbon stock flux and uncertainty estimates (95 percent confidence level)

3987 Harvested wood products (HWP) are products made from wood including lumber, panels, paper, 

3988 paperboard, and wood used for fuel (Skog 2008). HWP fraction of the carbon pool is small compared to 

3989 ecosystem carbon (Butler et al. 2014). In the context of total forest carbon, including both ecosystem 

3990 carbon and carbon from harvested wood products, it is estimated that HWP carbon stocks represent 

3991 5.25 percent of total forest carbon storage associated with national forest in the Pacific Northwest Region 

3992 in 2012. This is 5 times less than the uncertainty in the national level modeling and up to 20 times less 

3993 than the uncertainty in modeling specific carbon pools (USDA Forest Service 2015). At the national level, 

3994 based on EPA’s total U.S. HWP 2005 stock estimate of 2,354 Tg of carbon (U.S. EPA 2012), the Pacific 

3995 Northwest Region HWP carbon stocks represent 5.8 percent of total HWP carbon stocks (Butler et al. 

3996 2014). Recent literature suggestions that in the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service the decay 

3997 of HWP harvested from 1909 to 2012 now exceeds additions to the HWP carbon pool from products 

3998 harvested from National Forest System lands (Butler et al. 2014).

3999 Environmental Consequences

4000 For applicable resources, the possible environmental consequences associated with climate change are 

4001 discussed in this section.

4002 Resource Vulnerabilities on the Colville National Forest 

4003 The following identified vulnerabilities were developed during a two-day workshop of Forest Service 

4004 mangers and scientists. These managers and scientists reviewed current climate change science and 

4005 identified resources vulnerable to expected climate change (Gaines et al. 2012).

4006 Based on the scientific understanding developed on the first day of the two-day climate change workshop, 

4007 participants were asked to identify and rank resources (as high, moderate, or low) in relation to perceived 

4008 vulnerability to climate change. Vulnerability was defined as the extent to which a natural or social 

4009 system is susceptible to sustained damage from weather extremes, climate variability, and change (and 

4010 other interactive stressors) (Binder et al. 2009). Vulnerabilities were categorized into those related to the 

4011 management of vegetation and habitats, and those related to aquatics and infrastructure. The 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

124

4012 vulnerabilities related to vegetation and habitat management included two general themes: the 

4013 conservation of biodiversity, and the restoration of resilient forests and disturbance regimes. The 

4014 vulnerabilities related to aquatic and infrastructure resources included water quality and quantity, the risk 

4015 to roads and other facilities from changes to hydrologic regimes, and at-risk aquatic species and habitats 

4016 (Gaines et al. 2012).

4017 Table 31. Resource vulnerabilities on the Colville National Forest

Resource 

Vulnerability Area

Ranking Vulnerability

Vegetation and 

habitat

High • Plant migration could reduce the availability of white bark pine and shift the 

location of other forest types reducing the availability of alpine habitats (such 

as expansion of plant populations to higher elevations due to changes in 

snowpack levels and temperature changes). 

• Habitat specialists (caribou, lynx, and wolverine denning habitat) will have 

the most difficult time adjusting. 

• Riparian and wetland habitats may be particularly vulnerable. 

• Habitat connectivity will be reduced for some species and may be most 

detrimental for low-mobility habitat specialists. 

• Dry forest stands with high tree densities and fuel loads become 

increasingly susceptible to fire, insects, disease, and drought. 

• Larger and more frequent disturbances could make it difficult for 

forests/habitats to recover and cause them to be more susceptible to invasive 

species. 

• Past management for timber production and fire exclusion has made old 

forests more susceptible to fire, including severe fire. 

• Species with narrow ecological amplitude and endemics may be at high risk 

for local extinction.

Moderate • Elk and deer may be vulnerable to increased diseases. 

• Species on the edges of their ranges or with limited mobility may be at risk 

for local extinction. Reevaluations may be necessary to provide for fine filter 

provisions to maintain species viability.

Low • Habitat generalists (grizzly bear, wolves, red squirrel, black bear) that are 

more mobile may fair better. 

• Increased carbon dioxide might increase growth of already overstocked 

stands.

Aquatic and 

infrastructure

High • Municipal/agricultural watersheds may lose the capacity to deliver water at 

current levels. 

• Reduced cold water in streams could reduce fish habitat availability and 

alter the timing of spawning or the ability of fish to spawn. 

• Roads and other facilities could be threatened by increased frequency of 

extreme hydrologic events such as floods and debris flows. 

• Some aquatic species could become more susceptible to disease and 

changes in stream productivity. 

• Water availability for ecosystem processes (e.g., soil water for plant growth) 

could be reduced or shifted seasonally.

Moderate • Ski area operation could be affected by reduced winter snowpack. 

• Riparian areas could become harder to manage as stream networks 

become smaller and less connected (loss of perennial headwater streams). 

• Grazing allotments may be changed owing to changes in water availability 

and forage productivity.

Low • Sustaining tribal use areas may become more difficult as resources become 

scarcer. 

• Roads may require more maintenance owing to increased use. Facilities 

may receive greater use (and wear) from longer recreational seasons.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

125

4018 Management Strategies for the Adaptation to Climate Change

4019 In 2008, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a report: Preliminary Review of Adaptation 

4020 Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources. One chapter was developed by U.S. Forest 

4021 Resource research scientists and other outside scientists directly concerning the current science available 

4022 on adaptation responses for National Forest Systems lands (Joyce et al. 2008).

4023 Below is a summary of specific adaptation responses that have potential to allow the Colville National 

4024 Forest to create resilient landscapes and assist in the management of natural systems within the dynamics 

4025 of climate change. This summary is in line with the Forest Carbon Principles presented above: developing 

4026 resilience, promoting diversity and function in ecosystems, and using the best scientific knowledge to 

4027 understand systems and manage them for the long term.

4028 • Reducing, minimizing, or eliminating the potential for introduction, establishment, spread and 

4029 impact of invasive species across all landscapes and ownerships.

4030 • Under a changing climate, landscape fragmentation may exacerbate or cause unexpected changes in 

4031 species and ecosystems.

4032 • Primary premise for adaptive approaches is that change, novelty, uncertainty, and uniqueness of 

4033 individual situations are expected to define the planning backdrop of the future. No single approach 

4034 would fit all situations.

4035 • The Forest Service needs to implement a variety of management approaches to reduce the impact of 

4036 existing stressors on National Forest System lands.

4037 • Resistance practices include thinning and fuels abatement treatments at the landscape scale to 

4038 reduce crown fire potential and risk of insect epidemic, maintaining existing fuel-breaks.

4039 • Maintaining prior species may require significant extra and repeated efforts to supply needed 

4040 nutrients and water, remove competing understory, fertilize young plantations, develop a cover 

4041 species, thin, and prune.

4042 While there may be specific questions that research scientists need additional data and work to answer, 

4043 the Forest Science and related universities and institutions have a robust base of scientific research and 

4044 management strategies that can respond to the changing conditions of climate change: the direct, indirect, 

4045 and cumulative effects of variations in temperature and water availability that would occur in the coming 

4046 decades. 

4047 Summary

4048 The modelled predictions of climate change in the future are for increasing temperatures, changes in how 

4049 precipitation occurs across the landscape (less snow persistence), higher stream peak flows, and increases 

4050 in summer moisture stress. Maximizing carbon stock retention and conservation of existing carbon stocks 

4051 while restoring forest stands to durable, natural stand structures should be goals of forest management, in 

4052 order to increase and retain long-term carbon stocks (Beedlow et al. 2004). Current and future 

4053 management of National Forest System lands can use adaptation principles and the base of scientific 

4054 research to manage the land and resources of the Colville National Forest for the benefit of the people of 

4055 the United States and ensure the Forest is conserved for multiple uses by future generations.

4056 The effects analysis for each resource will consider climate change in their effects analysis based on this 

4057 summary.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

126

4058 Fire

4059 Fire managers have been faced with increasing costs, urban development, and unprecedented fire 

4060 behavior. Decades of government policy directed at extinguishing every fire on public lands have 

4061 contributed to the disruption of natural fire processes. This section summarizes effects related to fire from 

4062 the specialist report and based on indicators of fire regime condition class and management options in the 

4063 wildland-urban interface (Curtis 2015).

4064 Introduction/Background

4065 National Fire Policy and Wildland-urban Interface

4066 The current Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was signed in 1995 and updated in 2001. The 

4067 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy guides the philosophy, direction, and implementation of fire 

4068 management planning, activities, and projects on Federal lands. The policy helps ensure consistency, 

4069 coordination, and integration of wildland fire management programs and related activities throughout the 

4070 Federal government.

4071 On August 8, 2000, the President directed the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and the 

4072 Department of the Interior to prepare a report recommending how best to respond to that year’s severe 

4073 fires, reduce the impacts of those fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient fire management 

4074 resources in the future. On September 8, 2000, the President accepted their report, “Managing the Impacts 

4075 of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment,” which provided an overall framework for fire 

4076 management and forest health programs (66 FR 751-777).

4077 These recommendations initiated a number of policies including the National Fire Plan, the Healthy 

4078 Forests Initiative (HFI), long-term stewardship contracting authority, and the Healthy Forests Restoration 

4079 Act (HFRA). These policies led to the preparation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) to 

4080 define the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to establish priorities for wildfire preparedness and 

4081 hazardous fuels reduction work in these areas. 

4082 The wildland-urban interface, commonly referred to as WUI, exists where humans and infrastructure 

4083 intermix with wildland fuels. There are 17 communities within 10 miles of the Colville National Forest 

4084 boundary that have been identified both as communities at risk by County CWPPs and identified as 

4085 “Urban Wildland Interface Communities with the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk from 

4086 Wildfire” (Federal Register Vol. 66 No. 160). They include Addy, Chewelah, Colville, Curlew, Cusick, 

4087 Danville, Ione, Kettle Falls, Laurier, Malo, Marcus, Metaline, Metaline Falls, Newport, Orient, Republic, 

4088 and Usk. In addition, the County CWPPs also list communities at risk that are not included on the Federal 

4089 Register. They include: Alladin, Arden, Barstow, Bluecreek, Boyds, Clayton, Daisy, Dalkena, Diamond 

4090 Lake, Echo, Evans, Furport, Loon Lake, Marble, Northport, Onion Creek, Orin, Toroda, Valley, and

4091 Waitts. While the CWPP listed communities that are not included on the Federal Register list will not 

4092 have treatments reported in the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS), projects on the forest 

4093 will continue to benefit these communities by reducing wildfire risk along the forest boundary near these 

4094 communities. The entirety of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille counties were analyzed and included in 

4095 each county’s CWPP.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

127

4096 Affected Environment

4097 Fire History and Behavior

4098 The Colville National Forest is grouped into five broad forest types. These groupings are based on 

4099 potential vegetation and response to disturbance, particularly fire. All five types can be categorized as 

4100 forested conifer systems, with elevation, aspect, and moisture determining the species.

4101 Disturbance in general and fire in particular plays a critical role in shaping and maintaining forested 

4102 ecosystems. The manner in which fire behaves in a system both historically and contemporarily can be 

4103 described in terms of two key metrics: frequency and severity. Fire frequency is measured and reported 

4104 here as mean fire return interval (MFRI). Both historic and current mean fire return intervals are noted in 

4105 each description below. Historic, or natural fire return intervals and severity are used as a point of 

4106 comparison as they represent the levels with which natural, functioning ecosystems develop and persist. 

4107 For the purpose of this analysis, mean fire return interval refers to how often (on average) the vegetation 

4108 type would have fire move across its entirety. For example, historically, fire burned across all dry 

4109 Douglas-fir stands approximately every 40 years, and is noted as having a historic mean fire return 

4110 interval of 40 years. Given current fire suppression and the rate of prescribed fire being used, it would 

4111 take 188 years for fire to burn across all dry Douglas-fir stands, and is noted as having a current fire 

4112 return interval of 188 years. It is important to note that the natural fire return interval and associated 

4113 severity is quite different for each vegetation type. Table 32 summarizes the change in fire return intervals 

4114 for each vegetation type:

4115 Table 32. Historic versus current fire return interval

Vegetation Type Historic Fire Return Interval Current Fire Return Interval

Dry Douglas-fir 40 188 

Subalpine Fir/Lodgepole Pine 225 225

Mesic Mixed Conifer 50-150 233

Western Red Cedar/Western Hemlock 200 200

Spruce/Subalpine Fir 150 218

4116 The vegetation type’s historic fire return interval is largely driven by the same environmental factors that 

4117 determine dominant vegetation, namely climate, elevation, and soil type.

4118 Across much of the lower elevations of the forest, sites are occupied by dry Douglas-fir stands which 

4119 were historically characterized by frequent, low intensity fires. Within these stands, late forest structure 

4120 was historically represented by both open canopy (less than 40 percent canopy cover) and closed canopy 

4121 (greater than 40 percent canopy cover) large and very large trees. Historically, the dry Douglas-fir 

4122 vegetation type would have supported 38 to 78 percent of the stands were classified as Late Development 

4123 Open, with 1 to 32 percent classified as late development closed. Mid development open stands occurred 

4124 across 2 to 8 percent of this vegetation type, and 4 to 13 percent was classified as mid development 

4125 closed. These stand characteristics were developed and maintained by frequent surface fires in the mid4126 open and late-open structures that kill seedlings/saplings and prevented widespread closed canopy 

4127 conditions. Surface fires in the limited mid development closed stands were historically rare, and given 

4128 the surface fuel build up most fire in the closed stands burned with mixed severity, which would transition 

4129 the stands to mid-development open. With regular fire return intervals, mid-open stands would transition 

4130 to late-open stands. Late-open conditions would continue while frequent fire intervals persisted. Missing 

4131 fire returns would allow for establishment of younger cohorts of understory trees and transition stands to a 

4132 late-closed condition. Late-closed conditions in the dry Douglas-fir type are important features on the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

128

4133 landscape, however widespread closed canopy systems are prone to large-scale stand-replacing fire events 

4134 that were not historically widespread in this system and are detrimental to ecosystem health and integrity. 

4135 The historic mean fire return interval in this forest type was approximately 40 years and in the northern 

4136 ranges younger age/size classes may be more extensive owing to larger and more frequent mixed or 

4137 stand-replacement fires. This type is extensive on the Colville National Forest, but has not been captured 

4138 adequately in previous mapping projects (LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model Descriptions)

4139 This forest type has a current mean fire return interval of 188 years, meaning that fire is not currently 

4140 playing its natural role in this system. This increase in fire return interval has led to unnatural amounts of 

4141 mid-development closed stands across the vegetation type putting the system at risk for 

4142 uncharacteristically severe fire events.

4143 At higher elevations along the Kettle Crest, subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands are the dominant 

4144 vegetation. These subalpine fir/lodgepole stands were historically characterized by a long fire return 

4145 interval (over 225 years) and historically supported primarily stand-replacing fire events. Within 

4146 subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands, historic conditions had only 2 percent of this vegetation type in late 

4147 development closed canopy conditions, and typically did not support late development open canopy 

4148 stands, due to high severity fire being the dominant disturbance regime. Historically, 33 to 53 percent of 

4149 the stands would have been in mid development closed canopy conditions, with 45 to 65 percent in early 

4150 development. Mid and late forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence 

4151 (naturally stand-replacing), and would revert to early development. The current mean fire return interval 

4152 in this vegetation type is 225 years indicating that fire is currently occurring at natural levels. 

4153 East of the Columbia River at mid-elevation and higher, northern rocky mountain (mesic) mixed conifer 

4154 stands dominated the landscape. This vegetation type naturally supported primarily mixed severity fire 

4155 with a 50- to 150-year return interval creating a mosaic of mid and late development closed canopy stands 

4156 and small, patchy open canopied stands. Open canopied stands would historically regrow into closed 

4157 stands quickly (less than 30 years) due to recruitment and canopy infill, therefore, the location of open 

4158 canopy conditions shifted across the landscape through time. Within these mixed conifer stands, late 

4159 development open stands historically occurred across only 4 to 6 percent of this vegetation type, while 44

4160 to 60 percent of the stands would have represented late development closed conditions. Mid development 

4161 open was considered to be 1 to 3 percent, and 18 to 30 percent was classified as mid development closed. 

4162 Early development stands accounted for 9 to 25 percent of the vegetation type. Fires were mostly mixed 

4163 severity with a 50- to 150-year frequency. Current mean fire return interval is 233 years, indicating that 

4164 fire levels are less frequent than historic levels and fire is not currently playing its natural role in shaping 

4165 the landscape. .

4166 Scattered through drainages east of the Kettle Crest, western red cedar/western hemlock stands were the 

4167 dominant vegetation. Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, historically 55 to 83 percent of 

4168 stands were in late development closed conditions, with no late development open stands. High severity 

4169 fire occurred approximately every 200 years, reverting late development stands to early development, 

4170 which occupied 4 to 24 percent of vegetation type. Mid development closed stands occurred on 7 to 

4171 27 percent of the landscape. There was historically no mid development open stands. This forest type had 

4172 longer fire return intervals, approximately 200 years, with high-severity fire. This forest type is still 

4173 within range of its historic mean fire return interval indicating that fire is playing its natural role in 

4174 shaping and maintaining this system. 

4175 Spruce/subalpine fir stands occupied drainages at higher elevations along the Kettle Crest, and in some 

4176 limited areas of the Kaniksu Mountains. Spruce/subalpine fire stands historically had 29 to 57 percent of 

4177 stands in the late development closed condition, with no late development open stands. Thirteen to 

4178 41 percent of the vegetation type was in mid development closed canopy conditions, and 14 to 46 percent 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

129

4179 in early development. Replacement fire historically occurred every 150 years. The current mean fire 

4180 return interval in this forest type is 218 years indicating that fire is occurring less frequently than 

4181 necessary to shape and maintain this system.

4182 Over a century of fire suppression practices have impacted the ability of fire to play its natural role across 

4183 the Forest. Fire frequency and severity has been altered from historic condition in most vegetation types 

4184 contributing to shifts in vegetative conditions outside the natural range of variation and in places creating 

4185 conditions susceptible to uncharacteristic fire events. 

4186 On the Colville National Forest, fire season is generally June 1 to October 1. The potential for lightning is 

4187 most likely during this period as temperatures begin to climb and relative humidity values are low. From 

4188 2000 to 2014, the majority (85 percent) of fire starts on the Forest were caused by lightning, with an 

4189 average of 20 fire starts per year. The remaining fires (15 percent) were caused by equipment, smoking, 

4190 campfires, arson, or miscellaneous causes. All fires on Colville National Forest land during this timeframe 

4191 took place between the months of April and October. During this time, over 47,000 acres have burned on 

4192 the Forest. Approximately 30 percent were unplanned ignitions.

4193 Fire Regime Condition Class

4194 A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the 

4195 absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but it includes the influence of aboriginal burning 

4196 (Agee 1993). Fire regimes are described in terms of fire frequency and severity. Coarse-scale definitions 

4197 for natural fire regimes have been developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002) and 

4198 interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell (2001) and Hann et al. (2008). The five 

4199 natural fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) 

4200 combined with the severity of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. These five regimes are:

4201 Fire Regime I – 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed 

4202 severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

4203 Fire Regime II – 0- to 35-year frequency and high (stand-replacement) severity (greater 

4204 than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

4205 Fire Regime III – 35- to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent 

4206 of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

4207 Fire Regime IV – 35- to 100+ year frequency and high (stand-replacement) severity 

4208 (greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced;

4209 Fire Regime V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand-replacement) severity.

4210 All fire regimes are represented across the forest, though Fire Regime V is present only in isolated 

4211 patches. The following table shows the fire regime groups for each vegetation type on the Colville 

4212 National Forest.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

130

4213 Table 33. Fire regime groups by vegetation type for the Colville National Forest

Vegetation Type Fire Regime Group Historic 

Frequency

Historic Severity

Douglas-fir dry Fire Regime Group I 40 years Surface

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine Fire Regime Group IV >225 years Replacement

Northern Rocky Mountain Mixed Conifer Fire Regime Group III 50-150 years Mixed-Severity

Western Redcedar / Western Hemlock Fire Regime Group V >200 years Replacement

Spruce / Subalpine fir Fire Regime Group IV 150 years Replacement

4214 Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from historical 

4215 conditions in relation to fire, the role fire historically played in that system, and vegetative structure 

4216 (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001, Hann et al. 2008). FRCC is an estimate of the departure from 

4217 the natural fire regime. FRCC assessments measure departure in two main components of ecosystems: 

4218 (1) fire regime (fire frequency and severity) and (2) by comparing the abundances of each seral stage (by 

4219 potential vegetation type) to historical amounts. There are three classes of FRCC, based on low (FRCC 

4220 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC3) departure from the central tendency of the natural fire regime 

4221 structure (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001, Han et al. 2004). FRCC 1 is considered to be within 

4222 the historic range of fire regimes, while FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 are outside the range. While fire rates and 

4223 severity play a role in determining FRCC, vegetation structure plays an equal role. Changes and 

4224 manipulation of structural stages on the landscape through means other than fire (e.g., commercial 

4225 harvest, mechanical fuels reduction, insect and disease outbreaks, etc.) play an equal role in determining 

4226 FRCC.

4227 In FRCC 1 (less than 33 percent departure), there is little to no departure from the historic range. 

4228 Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels are similar to those of the historic regime and do not pre4229 dispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Wildland fires are characteristic of the 

4230 historical fire regime behavior, severity, and patterns, being departed from historical frequencies by no 

4231 more than one return interval.

4232 In FRCC 2 (33 to 66 percent departure) vegetation composition, structure, and fuels have moderate 

4233 departure from the historic regime and pre-dispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem 

4234 components. Wildland fires are moderately uncharacteristic compared to the historical fire regime 

4235 behaviors, severity, and patterns, being departed (either increased or decreased) from historical 

4236 frequencies by more than one return interval. This results in moderate changes to one or more of the 

4237 following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns (Hardy et al. 2001).

4238 In FRCC 3 (greater than 66 percent departure) vegetation composition, structure, and fuels have high 

4239 departure from the historic regime and predispose the system to high risk of loss of key ecosystem 

4240 components. Wildland fires are highly uncharacteristic compared to the historical fire regime behaviors, 

4241 severity, and patterns. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return 

4242 intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, 

4243 severity, or landscape patterns (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001).

4244 A Fire Regime Condition Class analysis of Forest lands was completed using the Fire Regime Condition 

4245 Class Software Application. See Methodology under Environmental Consequences for a full description 

4246 of model inputs, assumptions, and limitations.

4247 Currently, much of the Colville National Forest has some degree of departure from historic conditions as 

4248 a result of past fire and timber management. Because of these departed conditions, fire does not currently 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

131

4249 play its historic role across much of the landscape, and as a result, the Colville is at risk of losing key 

4250 ecosystem components such as soil quality, large trees, and habitat. 

4251 Table 34. Current conditions by vegetation type

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

FRCC* VCC** Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain DryMesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest –

Ponderosa Pine –

Douglas-fir

48,6045 71 3 2 89% 87%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole pine

1010452 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain DryMesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest – Larch

173,699 35 1 1 6% 47%

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mixed 

Conifer

1010471 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest

308,365 51 2 2 66% 45%

Western 

Redcedar / 

Western 

Hemlock

1010471 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest (95%) /

1010472 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest - Cedar 

Groves (5%)

95,820 53 2 2 66% 45%

Spruce / 

Subalpine fir

1010560 - Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine 

Mesic-Wet Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

(90%) / 

1011610 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Conifer Swamp (10%)

20,240 26 1 1 1% 44%

4252 *FRCC = fire regime condition class

4253 **VCC = vegetation condition class

4254 Need for Change

4255 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

4256 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address

4257 old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape scale. These are:

4258 • Contemporary fire rates and severity are not in line with historic ranges for many vegetation types. 

4259 In the Douglas-fir dry type, a lack of frequent, low severity fire and contemporary/historic 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

132

4260 vegetation management has led to fuel accumulation and stand structure that is conducive to large, 

4261 stand-replacing fire events that were not historically common. Likewise, a lack of mixed-severity 

4262 and stand-replacing fire in systems that were historically maintained by them along with 

4263 contemporary forest management practices has led to an imbalance of structure states. Projected 

4264 impacts from climate change have the potential to interact with and increase uncharacteristic levels 

4265 of disturbance. This elevates the importance of restoring landscape resiliency. 

4266 There is an additional concern for at-risk stands that contribute to late forest structure because these 

4267 stands typically have heavy fuel accumulation and dense canopies, both of which increase potential for 

4268 fire transmission and spread. While stand-replacing fire is not uncharacteristic in many of the vegetation 

4269 types on the Forest, the potential for high severity fire in late forest structure is particularly concerning 

4270 because the forest has considerably less old forest and associated habitat on the landscape than would 

4271 have historically occurred. This lack of landscape redundancy in late forest structures means that even 

4272 moderate acreage loss due to fire events would further exacerbate the imbalance of forest structures.

4273 Access

4274 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: 

4275 1) current funding is not sufficient to properly maintain the existing road system at current 

4276 operational maintenance levels, 

4277 2) the current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, 

4278 and 

4279 3) the existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

4280 throughout current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), 

4281 Forest Plan amendments (Eastside Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the 

4282 Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c 

4283 and 1995]), national-level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear 

4284 No-Net-Loss, Lynx Agreement, the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy). 

4285 In addition, access to wildfires and fuel treatment locations continues to be a concern. As road density 

4286 increases or decreases, response time to wildfires will change accordingly. Costs for fuel treatments 

4287 would also change depending on the level of access.

4288 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4289 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 

4290 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for additional 

4291 wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the National 

4292 Wilderness Preservation System. 

4293 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

4294 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible areas 

4295 showed some are available to fill this need.

4296 Environmental Consequences

4297 Methodology 

4298 This analysis examines how the plan alternatives address the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and how 

4299 well they contribute to returning wildfire to a more natural role. This is done by comparing the existing 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

133

4300 Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) with the projected FRCC for each alternative to determine the 

4301 percent of how well each alternative contributes to moving the forest toward desired conditions. Analysis 

4302 results are shown by average departure, which is the amount of departure in percent from historic 

4303 conditions. FRCC 1 is less than 33 percent departed, FRCC 2 is 33 to 66 percent departed, and FRCC 3 is 

4304 greater than 66 percent departed from historic conditions.

4305 All alternatives use mechanical and fire treatments to reduce fuel loads and tree densities, thus reducing 

4306 the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires which pose threats to ecosystems and communities. However, some 

4307 alternatives have more of a management emphasis on the restoration of and development of healthy, 

4308 resilient ecosystems. As a result, some alternatives are expected to be more effective in changing the risk 

4309 of uncharacteristic fire than others. These treatments assist in moving forested systems into more natural 

4310 landscape conditions thereby allowing fire to play a more natural role. FRCC is a tool used to determine if 

4311 a landscape is moving toward desired conditions. It measures how close or far a system has departed from 

4312 its natural fire regime.

4313 All of the alternatives contain objectives for treating (mechanical and burning) vegetation to improve 

4314 structure and composition, including reducing surface/ladder fuels and canopy density. However, some 

4315 alternatives focus these efforts only in certain areas while managing for other objectives (including timber 

4316 production) elsewhere. This FRCC outcome was compared by alternative at 20 years of implementation, 

4317 the expected length of the plan, plus time allotted to develop a new forest plan. At 20 years in the future, 

4318 some movement toward desired conditions would be seen, but effecting change in natural processes at 

4319 current and expected levels as prescribed by these alternatives would likely take much longer than 20

4320 years.

4321 The Fire Regime Condition Class Software Application (FRCCsa) was used to analyze the vegetation and 

4322 fire regime departure for the Colville National Forest lands. The FRCCsa uses biophysical settings (BpS) 

4323 and their associated succession classes (S-Class) as the baseline for pre-European settlement disturbance 

4324 processes. A description of the biophysical settings and associated S-Classes can be found at 

4325 www.landfire.gov. The FRCCsa quantifies the departure of current vegetation structure and composition, 

4326 fire severity, and fire frequency from a set of reference conditions representing the historical range of 

4327 variation. The tool derives several metrics of departure at the S-Class, BpS, and landscape levels. 

4328 Fire Frequency and Severity need to be calculated to use the tool, and are utilized to determine the 

4329 amount of departure from reference frequencies and severities. To estimate current fire frequency, an 

4330 analysis of historic and current fires was conducted. Following the methods contained in the Fire Regime 

4331 Condition Class Guidebook, a Fire Atlas mapping both planned and unplanned ignitions was created with 

4332 data from 1909 to 2014. Local knowledge and expert opinion determined that an average of 75 percent of 

4333 the acres within burn perimeters were actually burned during the fires, and this average was used to 

4334 determine actual acres burned within each biophysical setting. The total area burned was divided by Fire 

4335 Atlas time period to estimate current mean annual burned acres. The total acres of each BpS were divided 

4336 by the reference fire return interval to determine historic mean annual burned acres. The reduction factor 

4337 (historic/current) was multiplied by the reference return interval to determine current mean fire return 

4338 interval. Reference fire return intervals were used for Fire Regime IV areas as the reference return interval 

4339 was longer than the fire atlas data years.

4340 Current potential fire severity was calculated by running the Flammap fire behavior model using a 

4341 landscape file from Landfire (www.landfire.gov). Fuel model, canopy bulk density, canopy cover, canopy 

4342 base height, canopy height, aspect, slope, and elevation layers comprise the landscape file. Using 90th 

4343 percentile weather conditions derived from analyzing local weather stations, a Flammap run with flame 

4344 length and crown fire activity outputs was created. For the purpose of the analysis, surface fire was 

4345 considered Low Severity (0 to 25 percent tree mortality), passive crown fire was considered Mixed 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

134

4346 Severity (26 to 75 percent tree mortality), and active crown fire was considered High Severity (76 to 

4347 100 percent tree mortality). A value for each severity was assigned (Low, 15 percent; Mixed, 50 percent, 

4348 High 90 percent), then the mid-point severity was multiplied by percentage of each BpS it was present on. 

4349 The results were added together to calculate the current severity for each BpS. 

4350 For each alternative, S-class layers were modified to match vegetation modelling results. The fire atlas 

4351 data were updated to add new fires, both planned and unplanned ignitions. The amount of planned 

4352 ignitions in each BpS was determined by analyzing historic planned ignition acres completed, and 

4353 averaging the acres completed each year. To determine the amount of unplanned ignitions that could be 

4354 used to meet resource objectives, historic lightning data was analyzed in the areas where fire could be 

4355 managed in this manner during periods when fire effects would produce low-mixed severity fire. Using 

4356 the Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) tool, the ignitions were run using moderate fire conditions typically 

4357 experienced in the last 30 to 60 days of the typical fire season. Using these conditions meets the intent of 

4358 using fire to meet resource objectives with low and mixed severity effects. Fire frequency was then 

4359 updated and entered into the FRCCsa. Fire severity was calculated by taking the amount of acres treated 

4360 per alternative (commercial thinning, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuels reduction) in each BpS and 

4361 then reducing the amount of high and mixed severity fire based on the assumption that 50 percent of 

4362 treatments would focus on moving high severity areas to mixed severity, 40 percent of treatments would 

4363 focus on moving mixed severity to low severity, and that 10 percent of treatments would focus on 

4364 maintaining low fire severity conditions.

4365 Assumptions

4366 • Modelled treatments, fire severity, and fire return intervals would closely match actual conditions in 

4367 the future.

4368 • Budget would allow for implementation of all mechanical and prescribed fire treatments.

4369 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

4370 The administrative boundary of the Colville National Forest is the spatial extent of this analysis. The 

4371 temporal context for the affected environment is 105 years, which is the oldest data for wildfires in the 

4372 Forest’s corporate GIS database. For the effects analysis, the temporal context looks forward 20 years in 

4373 regards to Fire Regime Condition Class.

4374 Summary of Effects 

4375 Fire Regime Condition Class

4376 Mean fire return intervals decrease with the use of prescribed fire and allowing unplanned ignitions to be 

4377 managed for resource benefit. Mean fire return interval only considers prescribed fire and wildfire on the 

4378 landscape. Fire severity is generally reduced across the landscape in areas where any type of treatment 

4379 (mechanical and/or fire) is implemented.

4380 Table 35 shows average fire regime condition class percent departure by forest type after 20 years. This is 

4381 a relatively short time for management to affect changes at the forest scale, so only a 2 to 3 percent 

4382 decrease is seen in the Douglas-fir dry forest type under the action alternatives. Mechanical and 

4383 prescribed fire treatments in the Douglas-fir dry forest type would focus on reducing fire severity, but due 

4384 to the stands missing multiple fire returns, the relatively high mean fire return interval continues to keep 

4385 this vegetation type severely departed from historic conditions.

4386 The most notable changes occur in western red cedar/western hemlock stands. These stands have a longer 

4387 mean fire return interval and are still within range of historic fire returns. In all alternatives, these stands 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

135

4388 would continue to move toward more late development closed conditions that more closely match historic 

4389 conditions.

4390 Table 35. Twenty-year predicted average fire regime condition class percent departure by forest type and 

4391 alternative

Vegetation Type Current No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Douglas-fir dry 71 69 67 67 67 68 67

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine 35 29 23 23 24 21 22

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer

51 53 49 48 49 48 48

Western redcedar / western 

hemlock

53 52 50 50 49 48 49

Spruce / subalpine fir 26 33 33 32 31 32 32

4392 Overall, the differences in management prescribed are not sufficient to change FRCC in the 20-year time 

4393 period, though some vegetation types do begin trending toward a change in FRCC.

4394 Access

4395 As road densities decrease, or roads are closed to allow for new roads, fire response times would likely 

4396 increase, though there is “no evidence for an effect of linear feature presence or densities” (roads, 

4397 powerlines, pipelines) on fires escaping during initial attack (Arienti et al. 2006). In addition, although 

4398 fire boundaries are influenced by multiple topographic and vegetation constraints, roads tend to have the 

4399 largest influence of any single variable, particularly in lower elevation landscapes with relatively high 

4400 road densities (Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2011).

4401 Wilderness

4402 Current management of the Salmo-Priest Wilderness would remain largely unchanged across all 

4403 alternatives.

4404 Recommended wilderness areas are discussed in each alternative.

4405 Wildland-urban Interface

4406 All alternatives would restrict treatment in portions of the wildland-urban interface (WUI), as it is mapped 

4407 in the county CWPPs. In all alternatives, except no action, recommended wilderness, current wilderness, 

4408 and research natural areas would not allow timber harvest to be used as a tool. Recommended wilderness 

4409 is the most restrictive management allocation in all alternatives that drives the differences in acres 

4410 unsuitable for mechanical treatment. In the no-action alternative, Management Areas 1, 3b, 3c, 4, 9, 10, 

4411 and 11 do not allow timber harvest. Table 36 shows by alternative how many acres within the WUI would 

4412 not allow timber harvest as a tool.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

136

4413 Table 36. Wildland-urban interface acres unsuitable for mechanical treatment

Alternative Acres

No Action 62,709

Proposed Action 30,451

R 83,730

P 35,966

B 92,787

O 13,889

4414 No-action Alternative

4415 Overall, the forest would remain moderately departed from historic fire return intervals and severities. 

4416 Stand departures would change from current conditions as follows:

4417 Table 37. No-action alternative predicted departure by vegetation type

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire 

Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared 

to Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Dry-Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Ponderosa 

Pine – Douglas-fir

486,045 69% Down 2% 2 87% 86%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole pine

1010452 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Dry-Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Larch

173,699 29% Down 6% 1 6% 47%

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mixed 

Conifer

1010471 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest

308,365 53% Up 2% 2 66% 38%

Western 

Redcedar / 

Western 

Hemlock

1010471 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest (95%) /

1010472 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Cedar 

Groves (5%)

95,820 52% Down 1% 2 66% 38%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

137

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire 

Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared 

to Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Spruce / 

Subalpine fir

1010560 - Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine 

Mesic-Wet SpruceFir Forest and 

Woodland (90%) / 

1011610 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Conifer Swamp 

(10%)

20,240 33% Up 7% 2 1% 44%

4418 *VCC = vegetation condition class

4419 Vegetation departures would generally continue to increase in most vegetation types. Mechanical 

4420 treatments would account for the lower departure value in Western Redcedar/Western Hemlock stands, as 

4421 these stands typically would not experience enough wildfire or prescribed fire to account for the change in 

4422 departure. The landscape would be 57 percent departed from historic conditions with a landscape FRCC 

4423 of 2.

4424 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

4425 Mechanical fuels reduction and prescribed fire treatments could occur as scheduled treatments across 

4426 82 percent of the landscape. Treatments would be planned following direction from the 1988 forest plan

4427 as amended. A fixed reserve approach would be used to manage late forest structure, where no scheduled 

4428 timber harvest is permitted.

4429 Within dry Douglas-fir stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts, 15 percent of the stands would be 

4430 classified as late development open, and 19 percent of the stands as late development closed. The largest 

4431 amount of stands (53 percent) would be classified as mid development closed. Closed canopied stands, 

4432 especially those in the mid development stage are particularly susceptible to stand-replacing fire events 

4433 due to dense canopies and abundant ladder fuels. Once late development open structure was reached, 

4434 regular fire treatments would be needed to maintain this condition.

4435 Within subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands modeling 20 years in the future predicts, 2 percent of stands 

4436 would be classified as late development closed, with no stands classified as late development open. Late 

4437 forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence, and would revert to early 

4438 development. 

4439 Within mixed conifer stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts, 22 percent of the stands within this 

4440 vegetation type would be considered late development closed, with 0 percent late development open. 

4441 Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts 34 percent of 

4442 the stands would be classified as late development closed. These stands would continue to experience 

4443 natural stand-replacement fire if left to natural disturbances. 

4444 Within spruce/subalpine fire stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts, 16 percent of the 

4445 vegetation type would be classified as late development closed. Replacement fire historically occurred 

4446 every 150 years, with that fire return interval and severity expected to persist without management 

4447 intervention.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

138

4448 Fire would play its natural role across 23 percent of the landscape, supporting the retention of late forest 

4449 structure in the Douglas-fir dry type as low severity fire moves through those areas that typically 

4450 experienced low severity fire. Mixed and high severity fire would also be expected if fire plays its natural 

4451 role in all other vegetation types. Seventy-seven percent of the landscape exhibits a departure from natural 

4452 fire process and would remain predisposed to losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten 

4453 late forest structure and timber production. 

4454 Wilderness

4455 There would be no recommended wilderness areas in the no-action alternative. Management of the 

4456 Salmo-Priest Wilderness would not change. 

4457 Stands would remain in their current Fire Regime Condition Class, but would continue to miss fire cycles 

4458 which would lead to progression to FRCC 2 and 3, leaving them at risk of losing key ecosystem 

4459 components.

4460 Monitoring Recommendations 

4461 Use FRCC assessment to track changes in landscape departure over time.

4462 Use FLAMMAP and FSPro to track predicted changes in fire behavior over time.

4463 Collect field fuels data on a limited basis, where doing so will improve modelling or applications of 

4464 future treatments.

4465 Report monitoring results to the public on a timely basis.

4466 Proposed Action

4467 Stand departures relating to fire frequency and severity would change from current conditions as follows:

4468 Table 38. Proposed action alternative predicted departure by vegetation type

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire 

Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared to 

Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 -

Northern Rocky 

Mountain DryMesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest –

Ponderosa Pine –

Douglas-fir

486,045 67 Down 4% 2 89% 86%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole pine

1010452 -

Northern Rocky 

Mountain DryMesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Larch

173,699 23 Down 12% 1 6% 47%

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mixed 

Conifer

1010471 –

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest

308,365 49 Down 2% 2 66% 38%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

139

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire 

Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared to 

Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Western 

Redcedar / 

Western 

Hemlock

1010471 –

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed

Conifer Forest 

(95%) /

1010472 –

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest –

Cedar Groves 

(5%)

95,820 50 Down 3% 2 66% 38%

Spruce / 

Subalpine fir

1010560 - Rocky 

Mountain 

Subalpine MesicWet Spruce-Fir 

Forest and 

Woodland (90%) / 

1011610 -

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Conifer 

Swamp (10%)

20,240 33 Up 7% 2 1% 44%

4469 *VCC = vegetation condition class

4470 The use of prescribed fire and allowing for unplanned ignitions to be used to meet resource benefits 

4471 would work toward lowering the mean fire return interval slightly. Fire severity would be moderated 

4472 through the use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. The landscape overall is 54 percent departed 

4473 from historic conditions, resulting in a landscape FRCC of 2.

4474 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

4475 Mechanical fuels reduction and prescribed fire treatments could occur as scheduled treatments across 

4476 71 percent of the landscape. Treatments would be planned using a “whole landscape” approach which 

4477 would promote late forest structure in shifting locations across the forest over broad time horizons as 

4478 treatments work to enhance and maintain old forest conditions. Rather than designating specific 

4479 geographic locations where old forest would be managed for, this alternative seeks to develop and 

4480 maintain overall landscape proportions of old forest while recognizing that specific locations change 

4481 through time due to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. This approach closely mimics historic 

4482 landscape patterns represented by a mosaic of forest structure shaped by fire of differing severities. The 

4483 whole landscape approach aims to promote fire resilient species composition and structure at the 

4484 landscape scale, specifically in vegetation types that would historically have fire-resilient species such as 

4485 ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch. 

4486 Prescribed fire use would slightly decrease the mean fire return interval, though the landscape would still 

4487 remain severely departed from historic return intervals. Treatments are expected to shift some high fire 

4488 severity areas to moderate severity, and some moderate severity areas to low severity as overall fuel 

4489 loading and canopy closure is reduced. Overall, the landscape FRCC remains moderately departed with 

4490 an FRCC 2. Fire is able to play its natural role across 27 percent of the forest, maintaining resilient stands 

4491 in those areas. These areas would include both low and mixed severity fire regimes. However, 73 percent 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

140

4492 of the forest is at risk of losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten both timber production 

4493 and late forest structure.

4494 Within dry Douglas-fir stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts 17 percent of the stands would be 

4495 classified as late development open, and 17 percent of the stands as late development closed. The largest 

4496 amount of stands (50 percent) would be classified as mid development closed. Closed canopied stands, 

4497 especially those in the mid development stage are particularly susceptible to stand-replacing fire events 

4498 due to dense canopies and abundant ladder fuels. Once late development open structure was reached, 

4499 regular fire treatments would be needed to maintain this condition.

4500 Within subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 12 percent of stands 

4501 would be classified as late development closed, with no stands classified as late development open. Late 

4502 forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence, and would revert to early 

4503 development. 

4504 Within mixed conifer stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts, 20 percent of the stands within 

4505 this vegetation type would be considered late development closed, with 2 percent late development open. 

4506 Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, ,modeling 20 years into the future predicts 18 percent 

4507 of the stands would be classified as late development closed and would continue to experience natural 

4508 stand-replacement fire if left to natural disturbances. 

4509 Within Spruce/subalpine fire stands, 20 years into the future predicts 16 percent of the vegetation type 

4510 would be classified as late development closed. Replacement fire historically occurred every 150 years, 

4511 with that fire return interval and severity persisting without management intervention.

4512 Fire would play its natural role across 27 percent of the landscape, supporting the retention of late forest 

4513 structure in the Douglas-fir dry type as low severity fire moves through those areas that typically 

4514 experienced low severity fire. Mixed and high severity fire would also be expected if fire plays its natural 

4515 role in all other vegetation types. Seventy-three percent of the landscape exhibits a departure from natural 

4516 fire process and would remain predisposed to losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten 

4517 late forest structure and timber production. Losing key ecosystem components in late forest structure 

4518 would impact dependent surrogate wildlife species habitat (Gaines 2015). 

4519 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4520 Approximately 101,390 acres would be recommended for wilderness. Tools for fire management would 

4521 remain unchanged until Congress acts to designate the areas as wilderness. If areas are designated by 

4522 Congress, the use of some tools for fire management (i.e., chainsaws, helispots, etc.) would require 

4523 approval prior to their use.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

141

4524 Alternative R 

4525 Stand departures of each vegetation type would change as follows:

4526 Table 39. Alternative R predicted departure by vegetation type

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared 

to Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Ponderosa Pine –

Douglas-fir

486,045 67 Down 4% 2 87% 86%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole 

pine

1010452 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Larch

173,699 23 Down 12% 1 6% 47%

Northern 

Rocky 

Mountain 

Mixed Conifer

1010471 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest

308,365 48 Down 3% 2 66% 38%

Western 

Redcedar / 

Western 

Hemlock

1010471 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest 

(95%) /

1010472 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest –

Cedar Groves (5%)

95,820 50 Down 3% 2 66% 38%

Spruce / 

Subalpine fir

1010560 - Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Mesic-Wet 

Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland (90%) / 

1011610 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Conifer Swamp 

(10%)

20,240 32 Up 6% 2 1% 44%

4527 *VCC = vegetation condition class

4528 Stand departure would be lower in all vegetation types except Spruce/Subalpine fir. Mean fire return 

4529 intervals would decrease slightly through the use of prescribed fire and the use of unplanned ignitions. 

4530 Fire severity would be reduced through the use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Overall, the 

4531 landscape would be 53 percent departed from historic conditions with an FRCC of 2.

4532 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

4533 Within dry Douglas-fir stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 16 percent of the stands would 

4534 be classified as late development open, and 18 percent of the stands as late development closed. The 

4535 largest proportion of stands (52 percent) would be classified as mid development closed. Closed canopied 

4536 stands, especially those in the mid development stage are particularly susceptible to stand-replacing fire 

4537 events due to dense canopies and abundant ladder fuels. Once late development open structure was 

4538 reached, regular fire treatments would be needed to maintain this condition.

4539 Within subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands, modeling 20 years into the future predict 12 percent of stands 

4540 would be classified as late development closed, with no stands classified as late development open. Late 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

142

4541 forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence, and would revert to early 

4542 development. 

4543 Within mixed conifer stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 22 percent of the stands within 

4544 this vegetation type would be considered late development closed, with 1 percent late development open. 

4545 Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 33 percent 

4546 of the stands would be classified as late development closed and would continue to experience natural 

4547 stand-replacement fire if left to natural disturbances. 

4548 Within the spruce/subalpine fire stands, modeling 20 years into the future 17 percent of the vegetation 

4549 type would be classified as late development closed. Replacement fire historically occurred every 150 

4550 years, with that fire return interval and severity persisting without management intervention.

4551 Fire would play its natural role across 39 percent of the landscape, supporting the retention of late forest 

4552 structure in the Douglas-fir dry type as low severity fire moves through those areas that typically 

4553 experienced low severity fire. Mixed and high severity fire would also be expected if fire plays its natural 

4554 role in all other vegetation types. Sixty-one percent of the landscape exhibits a departure from natural fire 

4555 process and would remain predisposed to losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten late 

4556 forest structure and timber production. Losing key ecosystem components in late forest structure would 

4557 impact dependent surrogate wildlife species habitat (Gaines 2015). 

4558 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4559 Approximately 207,800 acres would be recommended as wilderness under alternative R. Mechanized 

4560 uses would not be allowed prior to Congress acting to designate the areas as wilderness. Some fire 

4561 management tools (chainsaws, helispots, etc.) would require approval prior to their use in the 

4562 recommended wilderness.

4563 Monitoring Recommendations

4564 Use FRCC assessment to track changes in landscape departure over time.

4565 Use FLAMMAP and FSPro to track predicted changes in fire behavior over time.

4566 Collect field fuels data on a limited basis, where doing so would improve modelling or applications of 

4567 future treatments.

4568 Report monitoring results to the public on a timely basis.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

143

4569 Alternative P

4570 Alternative P would change stand departure in each vegetation type as follows:

4571 Table 40. Alternative P predicted departure by vegetation type

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared 

to Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Ponderosa Pine –

Douglas-fir

486,045 67 Down 4% 2 89% 86%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole 

pine

1010452 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Larch

173,699 24 Down 11% 1 6% 47%

Northern 

Rocky 

Mountain 

Mixed Conifer

1010471 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest

308,365 49 Down 2% 2 66% 38%

Western 

Redcedar / 

Western 

Hemlock

1010471 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest 

(95%) /

1010472 – Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest –

Cedar Groves (5%)

95,820 49 Down 4% 2 66% 38%

Spruce / 

Subalpine fir

1010560 - Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Mesic-Wet 

Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland (90%) /

1011610 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Conifer Swamp 

(10%)

20,240 31 Up 5% 2 1% 44%

4572 *VCC = vegetation condition class

4573 Stand departure would decrease in all vegetation types except Western Red Cedar/Western Hemlock and 

4574 Spruce/Subalpine fir. This is due to no treatments being modeled in Western Red Cedar/Western Hemlock 

4575 stands, and limited treatments in Spruce/Subalpine Fir Stands. Mean fire return intervals would decrease 

4576 slightly through the use of prescribed fire and the use of unplanned ignitions. Fire severity would be 

4577 reduced through the use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Overall, the landscape would be 

4578 55 percent departed from historic conditions, with a landscape FRCC of 2.

4579 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

4580 Within dry Douglas-fir stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts 18 percent of the stands would be 

4581 classified as late development open, and 17 percent of the stands as late development closed. The largest 

4582 amount of stands (45 percent) would be classified as mid development closed. Closed-canopied stands, 

4583 especially those in the mid development stage are particularly susceptible to stand-replacing fire events 

4584 due to dense canopies and abundant ladder fuels. Once late development open structure was reached, 

4585 regular fire treatments would be needed to maintain this condition.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

144

4586 Within subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 12 percent of stands 

4587 would be classified as late development closed, with no stands classified as late development open. Late 

4588 forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence, and would revert to early 

4589 development. 

4590 Within mixed conifer stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 21 percent of the stands within 

4591 this vegetation type would be considered late development closed, with 1 percent late development open. 

4592 Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 36 percent 

4593 of the stands would be classified as late development closed and would continue to experience natural 

4594 stand-replacement fire if left to natural disturbances. 

4595 Within the spruce/subalpine fire stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 20 percent of the 

4596 vegetation type would be classified as late development closed. Replacement fire historically occurred 

4597 every 150 years, with that fire return interval and severity persisting without management intervention.

4598 Fire would play its natural role across 26 percent of the landscape, supporting the retention of late forest 

4599 structure in the Douglas-fir dry type as low severity fire moves through those areas that typically 

4600 experienced low severity fire. Mixed and high severity fire would also be expected if fire plays its natural 

4601 role in all other vegetation types. Seventy-four percent of the landscape exhibits a departure from natural 

4602 fire process and would remain predisposed to losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten 

4603 late forest structure and timber production. Losing key ecosystem components in late forest structure 

4604 would impact dependent surrogate wildlife species habitat (Gaines 2015). 

4605 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4606 Approximately 68,300 acres would be recommended as wilderness. Mechanized uses would be allowed 

4607 to continue until Congress acts to designate the areas as wilderness. If the areas are designated as 

4608 wilderness by Congress, approval to use some tools (chainsaws, helispots, etc.) would need to be obtained 

4609 prior to their use.

4610 Monitoring Recommendations

4611 Use FRCC assessment to track changes in landscape departure over time.

4612 Use FLAMMAP and FSPro to track predicted changes in fire behavior over time.

4613 Collect field fuels data on a limited basis, where doing so would improve modelling or applications of 

4614 future treatments.

4615 Report monitoring results to the public on a timely basis.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

145

4616 Alternative B

4617 Stand departures relating to fire frequency and severity would change from current conditions as follows:

4618 Table 41. Alternative B predicted departure by vegetation type

Vegetation 

Type

Landfire Biophysical 

Setting

Acres Avg 

Departure

Departure 

Compared 

to Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Ponderosa Pine 

– Douglas-fir

486,045 68 Down 3% 2 89% 86%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole 

pine

1010452 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Larch

173,699 21 Down 14% 1 6% 47%

Northern 

Rocky 

Mountain 

Mixed Conifer

1010471 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest

308,365 48 Down 3% 2 66% 38%

Western 

Redcedar / 

Western 

Hemlock

1010471 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest (95%) /

1010472 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest – Cedar Groves 

(5%)

95,820 48 Down 5% 2 66% 38%

Spruce / 

Subalpine fir

1010560 - Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine 

Mesic-Wet Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

(90%) / 

1011610 - Northern Rocky 

Mountain Conifer Swamp 

(10%)

20,240 32 Up 6% 2 1% 44%

4619 *VCC = vegetation condition class

4620 Stand departure is lowered in all vegetation types except Spruce/Subalpine Fir. Overall, mean fire return 

4621 intervals decrease slightly, and severity is changed through the use of mechanical and prescribed fire 

4622 treatments. Overall, the landscape is 51 percent departed from historic conditions, and has a landscape 

4623 FRCC of 2.

4624 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

4625 Late forest structure restoration is the highest priority within the Restoration Zone management area of 

4626 alternative B, which encompasses 31 percent of the forest. Restoring late forest structure in dry forest 

4627 types would allow fire to resume its natural role in those areas, as species composition and structure 

4628 would support resiliency to low severity fire in the Douglas-fir dry type. Some restoration activities 

4629 (timber harvest for example) would not occur in moist mixed conifer forests, meaning that mixed and 

4630 high severity fire would continue to be expected in those areas. Because mixed and high severity fire 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

146

4631 serves critical natural processes in the moist mixed conifer type, this is expected to enhance and improve 

4632 fire regime condition class within the restoration zone management area. 

4633 The Active Management area includes 43 percent of the forest. All activities (timber harvest, thinning, 

4634 prescribed fire) are available for use as treatments focus on a stable flow of forest products in all 

4635 vegetation types. The vegetation treatments prescribed in the active management area are primarily 

4636 designed to promote production of wood products. These treatments have limited value in restoring 

4637 natural disturbance and fire process into these forested ecosystems. 

4638 Within dry Douglas-fir stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts 15 percent of the stands would be 

4639 classified as late development open, and 19 percent of the stands as late development closed. The largest 

4640 proportion of stands (49 percent) would be classified as mid development closed. Closed canopied stands, 

4641 especially those in the mid development stage are particularly susceptible to stand-replacing fire events 

4642 due to dense canopies and abundant ladder fuels. Once late development open structure was reached, 

4643 regular fire treatments would be needed to maintain this condition.

4644 Within subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 12 percent of stands 

4645 would be classified as late development closed, with no stands classified as late development open. Late 

4646 forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence, and would revert to early 

4647 development. 

4648 Within mixed conifer stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 21 percent of the stands within 

4649 this vegetation type would be considered late development closed, with 1 percent late development open. 

4650 Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 35 percent 

4651 of the stands would be classified as late development closed and would continue to experience natural 

4652 stand-replacement fire if left to natural disturbances. 

4653 Within spruce/subalpine fire stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 16 percent of the 

4654 vegetation type would be classified as late development closed. Replacement fire historically occurred 

4655 every 150 years, with that fire return interval and severity persisting without management intervention.

4656 Fire would play its natural role across 38 percent of the landscape, supporting the retention of late forest 

4657 structure in the Douglas-fir dry type as low severity fire moves through those areas that typically 

4658 experienced low severity fire. Mixed and high severity fire would also be expected if fire plays its natural 

4659 role in all other vegetation types. Sixty-two percent of the landscape exhibits a departure from natural fire 

4660 process and would remain predisposed to losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten late 

4661 forest structure and timber production. Losing key ecosystem components in late forest structure would 

4662 impact dependent surrogate wildlife species habitat (Gaines 2015). 

4663 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4664 Approximately 220,330 acres would recommended as wilderness under alternative B. Mechanized uses 

4665 would not be allowed prior to Congress acting to designate the areas as wilderness. Some fire 

4666 management tools (chainsaws, helispots, etc.) would require approval prior to their use in the 

4667 recommended wilderness.

4668 Monitoring Recommendations 

4669 Use FRCC assessment to track changes in landscape departure over time.

4670 Use FLAMMAP and FSPro to track predicted changes in fire behavior over time.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

147

4671 Collect field fuels data on a limited basis, where doing so would improve modelling or applications of 

4672 future treatments.

4673 Report monitoring results to the public on a timely basis.

4674 Alternative O

4675 Alternative O would change stand departure of vegetation types as follows:

4676 Table 42. Alternative O predicted departure by vegetation type 

Vegetation Type Landfire Biophysical 

Setting Acres Avg Departure

Departure 

Compared 

to Current 

Conditions

VCC* Frequency 

Departure

Severity 

Departure

Douglas-fir dry 1010451 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain DryMesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest –

Ponderosa Pine –

Douglas-fir

486,045 67 Down 4% 2 87% 84%

Subalpine fir / 

Lodgepole pine

1010452 - Northern 

Rocky Mountain DryMesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest – Larch

173,699 22 Down 13% 1 6% 47%

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mixed 

Conifer

1010471 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest

308,365 48 Down 3% 2 66% 38%

Western Redcedar 

/ Western Hemlock

1010471 – Northern 

Rocky Mountain Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest (95%) / 1010472 

– Northern Rocky 

Mountain Mesic Montane 

Mixed Conifer Forest –

Cedar Groves (5%)

95,820 49 Down 4% 2 66% 38%

Spruce / Subalpine 

fir

1010560 - Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine 

Mesic-Wet Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

(90%) / 1011610 -

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Conifer Swamp 

(10%)

20,240 32 Up 6% 2 1% 44%

4677 *VCC = vegetation condition class

4678 Departure would decrease across all vegetation types except Spruce/Subalpine fir. Mean fire return 

4679 intervals would decrease slightly with the use of prescribed fire and the use of unplanned ignitions. Fire 

4680 severity would be reduced through the use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Overall, the 

4681 landscape would be 52 percent departed from historic conditions, with a landscape FRCC of 2.

4682 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

4683 Within dry Douglas-fir stands, modeling 20 years in the future predicts 15 percent of the stands would be 

4684 classified as late development open and 19 percent of the stands as late development closed. The largest 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

148

4685 proportion of stands (50 percent) would be classified as mid development closed. Closed-canopied 

4686 stands, especially those in the mid development stage are particularly susceptible to stand-replacing fire 

4687 events due to dense canopies and abundant ladder fuels. Once late development open structure was 

4688 reached, regular fire treatments would be needed to maintain this condition.

4689 Within subalpine fir/lodgepole pine stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 12 percent of stands 

4690 would be classified as late development closed, with no of stands classified as late development open. 

4691 Late forest structure in this vegetation type would persist until fire occurrence, and would revert to early 

4692 development. 

4693 Within mixed conifer stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 21 percent of the stands within 

4694 this vegetation type would be considered late development closed, with 1 percent late development open.

4695 Within western red cedar/western hemlock stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 34 percent 

4696 of the stands would be classified as late development closed. 

4697 Within spruce/subalpine fire stands, modeling 20 years into the future predicts 18 percent of the 

4698 vegetation type would be classified as late development closed. Replacement fire historically occurred 

4699 every 150 years, with that fire return interval and severity persisting without management intervention.

4700 Fire would play its natural role across 35 percent of the landscape, supporting the retention of late forest 

4701 structure in the Douglas-fir dry type as low severity fire moves through those areas that typically 

4702 experienced low severity fire. Mixed and high severity fire would also be expected if fire plays its natural 

4703 role in all other vegetation types. Sixty-five percent of the landscape exhibits a departure from natural fire 

4704 process and would remain predisposed to losing key ecosystem components, which could threaten late 

4705 forest structure and timber production. Losing key ecosystem components in late forest structure would 

4706 impact dependent surrogate wildlife species habitat (Gaines 2015). 

4707 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4708 Approximately 15,950 acres would be recommended as wilderness. Mechanized uses would be allowed 

4709 to continue until Congress acts to designate the areas as wilderness. If the areas are designated by 

4710 Congress as wilderness, approval to use some tools (chainsaws, helispots, etc.) would need to be obtained 

4711 prior to their use.

4712 Monitoring Recommendations

4713 Use FRCC assessment to track changes in landscape departure over time.

4714 Use FLAMMAP and FSPro to track predicted changes in fire behavior over time.

4715 Collect field fuels data on a limited basis, where doing so would improve modelling or applications of 

4716 future treatments.

4717 Report monitoring results to the public on a timely basis.

4718 Cumulative Effects (Common to all Alternatives)

4719 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 

4720 Of all the ongoing and foreseeable future actions that have the potential to affect fire, especially unwanted 

4721 wildfire, climate change is likely to be the single most important factor. The effects of climate change 

4722 would likely combine with some of the effects that result from implementing the alternatives, to produce 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

149

4723 cumulative impacts. In general, the fire seasons are expected to become longer, large wildfires are 

4724 expected to occur more often, and total area burned is expected to increase. By increasing the amount of 

4725 prescribed fire use, as well as the amount of natural, unplanned ignitions that are used to meet resource 

4726 objectives, the action alternatives would be expected to partially offset predicted effects from the climate 

4727 change. The more fire use (and mechanical treatments) that occurs as a result of the action alternatives, 

4728 the greater the fuels would be reduced and the forest vegetation restored to more resistant and resilient 

4729 conditions, which would mitigate climate change effects.

4730 Through CWPPs there has been an emphasis to treat Forest Service land as well as State lands and private 

4731 property within the WUI. The efforts identified in all alternatives, in combination with past, current, and 

4732 future treatments on private and State lands would help to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire 

4733 impacts to communities and the national forest. Treatments carried out on the majority of private lands 

4734 bordering the Colville National Forest are done with grants from the WA-DNR. WA-DNR Landowner 

4735 Assistance Foresters assist with planning those treatments with the intent of reducing fire hazards, which 

4736 reduces the risk to both the private lands being treated and the potential of fire moving off private land 

4737 onto Forest Service land. Treatments on NFS land would also serve to reduce the potential of fire moving 

4738 off of Forest Service land onto private land. 

4739 Neighboring land managers (Colville Confederated Tribes, BLM, Okanogan/Wenatchee National Forest, 

4740 Idaho Panhandle National Forest) are also implementing projects that produce emissions (smoke). There 

4741 may be additional impacts to Colville National Forest lands in terms of air quality, visibility, and human 

4742 health. Tribal participation in the Washington Smoke Implementation Plan is voluntary, though the other 

4743 agencies follow guidance from the State.

4744 Invasive Plants

4745 Invasive plants are recognized as a major threat to native vegetation and wildlife, as well as to social and 

4746 economic conditions. Invasive plants are defined as “non-native plants whose introduction does, or are 

4747 likely to, cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” per E.O. 13112. The Chief of 

4748 the Forest Service declared invasive species as one of the four main threats to ecosystem health (USDA 

4749 Forest Service 2004). The threat is considered serious because invasive plants have the potential to 

4750 displace or change native plant communities and can increase wildfire hazard, degrade fish and wildlife 

4751 habitat, eliminate rare and endangered plants, impair water quality and watershed health, and adversely 

4752 affect a wide variety of other resource values, such as recreational opportunities.

4753 Introduction

4754 Language concerning why Forest Plans need to consider invasive plants is contained within Forest 

4755 Service Handbook (FSH) 2150 and 2109 which state that: “All pesticide-use activities on National Forest 

4756 System lands must be consistent with the standards and guidelines and other management direction in 

4757 applicable Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans). Forest Plans generally mandate 

4758 the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for management of forest pests such as insects, diseases, 

4759 animals, and invasive or unwanted vegetation. Forest Plans should also contain relevant language relating 

4760 to the management of areas as diverse as Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, Botanical Areas, other 

4761 reserved areas such as Wild and Scenic Rivers, seed orchards, and nurseries, in addition to general forest 

4762 and multiple-use areas.” Other Direction is found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2900 at 2903.2 which 

4763 states that: When applicable, invasive species management actions and standards should be incorporated 

4764 into resource management plans at the forest level, and in programmatic environmental planning and 

4765 assessment documents at the regional or national levels.”
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

150

4766 The area affected by invasive plant species has increased throughout the Interior Columbia Basin during 

4767 the last 100 years. The same trend has occurred in northeastern Washington during the last 30 years. 

4768 Invasive plant populations are increasing at a rate of 8 to 12 percent per year on National Forest System 

4769 Lands (USDA Forest Service 2005 and 1999). Vegetation types that are most susceptible to invasive plant 

4770 infestation are dominated by dry forest, dry grass, dry shrub, and cool shrub types.

4771 Invasive plants are spread by natural vectors (such as birds, wildlife, insects, wind and water) as well as 

4772 human-related vectors (such as contaminated hay, vehicles, equipment, riding stock, pack stock, hiking 

4773 and livestock grazing). While transportation vectors are important in the spread of invasive plants, soil 

4774 disturbance also plays a critical role. Invasion and dominance by invasive plants is highly correlated with 

4775 soil disturbance, but are not limited to disturbed areas (Cox, 1999). Invasive plants can readily invade, 

4776 occupy, and/or dominate conifer plantations, road prisms, trail heads, trails, mined sites, gravel pits, river 

4777 corridors, wildlife wallows and bedding areas and rangelands, but they can also establish in naturally 

4778 occurring disturbances and small forest openings. Recognized human management activities that have 

4779 some potential to influence invasive plant establishment and spread are; timber and other vegetation 

4780 management, road construction, road decommissioning, road maintenance, livestock grazing, fire and 

4781 fuels management, recreation and recreation management and mining. Prevention measures are assumed 

4782 to slow the rate of spread (assumed to slow by half to 4 to 6 percent; R6 2005 FEIS).

4783 Affected Environment

4784 Invasive plants occupy approximately 20,000 acres within the Colville National Forest. Most infested 

4785 acres occur along roads and on dry south facing slopes in low elevations, but there are infestations known 

4786 to exist in areas of past timber harvest, forest openings, recreation sites, trails, and shorelines of lakes, 

4787 ponds, rivers and streams. Thirty-five different invasive plants are known to exist on the Forest with all 

4788 but three being broadleaf herbaceous plants. The average annual amount of acres treated for invasive 

4789 plants is 2,152 acres per year and was based on efforts for years 2012 through 2014.

4790 Currently, the Colville National Forest uses an integrated approach in managing invasive plants, which 

4791 includes prevention measures, inventory, treatment, and monitoring. Integrated pest management is the 

4792 coordinated use of multiple tactics to assure stable ecosystem function and maintain pest damage below 

4793 economic levels, while minimizing hazards to human, animals, plants and the environment. The Forest 

4794 uses a variety of treatment methods to control invasive plants and treatment methods are determined by 

4795 plant attributes and site-specific conditions found at treatment locations. The different treatment methods 

4796 used by the Colville National Forest and some examples of each method include:

4797 • Releasing approved biological control agents – Host-specific organisms

4798 • Cultural – Using fertilizer

4799 • Manual Removal – Hand pulling and digging

4800 • Mechanical Treatment – Mowing

4801 • Chemical – Applying herbicide

4802 These approaches to managing invasive plants would be continued in the no-action alternative and all 

4803 action alternatives.

4804 In 2005, the regional forester amended the 1988 forest plan with the record of decision (ROD) for the

4805 Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005). This amendment added 

4806 management direction for invasive plants to the 1988 forest plan, including goals, objectives, standards 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

151

4807 and a monitoring framework, which guide the Forest in responding to Invasive Plant management 

4808 challenges. Appendix A displays the goals, objectives, and standards from the R6 2005 ROD. Current 

4809 forest plan direction for managing invasive plants would continue for the no-action alternative and all 

4810 action alternatives.

4811 In addition to the invasive plant direction contained in the 2005 FEIS and ROD, the Colville National 

4812 Forest developed Noxious Weed Prevention Guidelines in 1999, which also guide the Forest. Guidance 

4813 contained in the Colville National Forest Noxious Weed Prevention Guidelines would continue for the no4814 action alternative and all action alternatives.

4815 All alternatives were assessed for their predicted ability to meet the desired condition and by the degree to 

4816 which ground disturbance could lead to conditions that would increase the invasive species spread rate.

4817 Current and ongoing management direction has the potential to meet this desired condition. The 

4818 Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005) disclosed that the adopted 

4819 invasive plant management direction had a “moderate to high potential to reduce rate of spread,” and 

4820 concluded that effective treatment of the existing populations along with prevention measures applied to 

4821 land uses and activities could reduce the current 8 to 12 percent rate of spread to about 4 to 6 percent. 

4822 Thus, to meet the desired condition, both current infestations and new infestations need to be contained, 

4823 controlled, or eradicated.

4824 Need for Change

4825 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

4826 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address 

4827 old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape scale. These are:

4828 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect and 

4829 disease activity that would likely continue into the future.

4830 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of restoring 

4831 landscape resiliency. 

4832 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the increased 

4833 risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by climate change 

4834 impacts. 

4835 Motorized Recreation Trails

4836 The current land management plan provides direction for summer and winter motorized uses, including 

4837 identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection of aquatic, 

4838 plant, and wildlife habitats.

4839 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high-quality, 

4840 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the 

4841 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 

4842 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a broad 

4843 range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, rock climbing, boating, mushroom and 

4844 berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an environmentally sound 

4845 manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

152

4846 Access

4847 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: 

4848 1) The Forest can no longer afford to properly maintain the road system at current operational 

4849 maintenance levels, 

4850 2) The current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, and 

4851 3) The existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

4852 throughout current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), 

4853 Forest Plan amendments (Eastside Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, 

4854 Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995]), national4855 level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear No-Net-Loss, Lynx 

4856 Agreement, the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy). 

4857 Recommended Wilderness Areas

4858 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 

4859 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for additional 

4860 wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the National 

4861 Wilderness Preservation System. 

4862 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

4863 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible areas 

4864 showed some are available to fill this need. 

4865 Wildlife

4866 The current Forest Plan provides limited protection for habitat connectivity, providing wildlife and 

4867 aquatic crossing structures, and managing activities adjacent to the structures so they are used by wildlife.

4868 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

4869 The current Forest Plan includes riparian management direction from the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

4870 (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995). This approach appears to have either maintained or 

4871 improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. 

4872 Objectives for riparian management areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the riparian 

4873 and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to riparian4874 dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the 

4875 transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water quality and flows, and

4876 contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and upland species. 

4877 Desired conditions for riparian management areas within any given watershed are to have compositions of 

4878 native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions commensurate 

4879 with natural processes.

4880 Environmental Consequences

4881 Methodology

4882 Since activities associated with timber management and production create the largest amount of bare soil 

4883 conditions, the acres of suitable timberlands by alternative would be used as a surrogate to predict the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

153

4884 amount of risk for invasive plant spread. Specific locations that are likely to be at risk for invasive plant 

4885 establishment and spread through vegetation and fuels management are roads, landings and skid trails 

4886 because of the high levels of use which occur and result in bare soils.

4887 Potential changes to access on the Colville National Forest through the various alternatives will also be 

4888 discussed in this section to evaluate how invasive plants could be influenced by management activities.

4889 This section will not consider livestock grazing in evaluating the effects of the various alternatives since 

4890 allotment status and stocking rates would not change as a result of the Forest Plan Revision effort or the 

4891 alternatives considered.

4892 Assumptions

4893 • The 1998 Environmental Assessment for the Colville National Forest Integrated Noxious Weed 

4894 Treatment (Forest Service 1998) analyzed and approved the use of manual, biological, and chemical 

4895 control agents (herbicides) for the treatment of noxious or invasive species. This document and 

4896 Decision made to implement “alternative C” would continue to guide invasive plant management 

4897 on the Colville National Forest until such time as it is replaced by a newer document/decision.

4898 • The 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive 

4899 Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) along with its 

4900 standards, goals and objectives would continue to guide the Colville National Forest for the no4901 action alternative.

4902 • Compliance with terms and conditions that implement the reasonable and prudent measures 

4903 described in applicable Biological Opinions providing protection for federally listed species. 

4904 Methods of Analysis

4905 This analysis relies on the timber suitability analysis and the acres generated for each alternative in it. To 

4906 compare the different alternatives, they are evaluated against the no-action alternative that would continue 

4907 existing management.

4908 Also considered in this analysis are the desired conditions for road densities since forest roads have the 

4909 potential to influence rates of spread and acres infested for invasive plants.

4910 Incomplete and Unavailable Information

4911 Numbers of road miles projected to exist through implementation of the revised Forest Plan.

4912 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

4913 This analysis is completed for all National Forest System lands within the administrative boundaries of 

4914 the Colville National Forest. It is assumed that the effective life of the plan would be 15 to 20 years, and 

4915 this analysis discusses the effects to invasive plants over this time period.

4916 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

4917 • Invasive plants on private property that threaten to spread to NFS lands.

4918 • Invasive plants on NFS lands with the potential to affect adjacent private lands

4919 • People driving on roads and motorized trails on NFS lands

4920 • Livestock grazing

4921 • Climate change
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

154

4922 Summary of Effects 

4923 Given the Colville National Forest’s current level of invasive plant occurrence, and a predicted rate of 

4924 spread equaling 5 percent per year, it is expected that completing approximately 2,000 acres of invasive 

4925 plant treatments and/or restoration activities relating to restoring native vegetation would allow the Forest 

4926 to proceed toward and achieve a desired condition where invasive plant infestations are not increasing in 

4927 number or size, occur at low densities, and are reduced or removed.

4928 Table 43 documents that beginning with approximately 20,000 acres of invasive plants and accomplishing 

4929 2,000 acres of treatment each year, while experiencing a 5 percent rate of spread would allow the Forest 

4930 to trend to nearly no invasive plants within 15 years following implementation. The information in the 

4931 table is only used as an analysis tool and, given the reality of invasive plant populations being in a 

4932 constant state of change, it is anticipated that the process of invasive plant invasion and treatment will be 

4933 dynamic and may not follow predictions.

4934 Table 43. Prediction of Colville National Forest acres of invasive plant infestation

Year Beginning Acres New Acres Treated Acres Ending Acres

1 20,000 1,000 2,000 19,000

2 19,000 950 2,000 17,950

3 17,950 898 2,000 16,848

4 16,848 842 2,000 15,690

5 15,690 784 2,000 14,474

6 14,474 724 2,000 13,198

7 13,198 660 2,000 11,858

8 11,858 593 2,000 10,451

9 10,451 523 2,000 8,973

10 8,973 449 2,000 7,422

11 7,422 371 2,000 5,793

12 5,793 290 2,000 4,083

13 4,083 204 2,000 2,287

14 2,287 114 2,000 401

15 401 20 421 0

4935 The actions and activities resulting from the various alternatives have the potential to create conditions 

4936 conducive to the spread of invasive plants, but management direction would be in place to limit the 

4937 potential extent of spread and infestation. However, since invasion and dominance by invasive plants is 

4938 highly correlated to soil disturbances (Cox 1999), the greater the potential extent and intensity of timber 

4939 harvest, fuels reductions, road maintenance and prescribed fire, the greater the potential for indirect 

4940 effects from soil disturbances (e.g., conditions favorable to invasive plants).

4941 To compare alternatives, an index was created to display the relative amount of soil disturbing activities 

4942 related to timber harvest and associated actions for each alternative. The index relies upon the timber 

4943 suitability analysis completed for the Forest Plan Revision effort. The amount of suitable acres for the no4944 action alternative would be the base line and would have a coefficient value of one. It is assumed that the 

4945 risk for invasive plant establishment and spread would be associated with suitable forestland and that the 

4946 amount of potential soil disturbance would change equally with the change in acres suitable.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

155

4947 The index values for the proposed action and alternatives R, P, B and O are displayed relative to the no4948 action alternative in table 44. There is no standard for measuring soil disturbance as a predictor of 

4949 nonnative plant invasion, either as an observable measurable value or as a percent of managed lands. The 

4950 index serves only to compare alternatives and suggest which alternatives are more or less likely to create 

4951 conditions favorable to the invasion of nonnative invasive plants. In fact, management direction for the 

4952 Invasive Plants program requires that each project prevent or minimize potential for invasive species 

4953 introduction, establishment, and/or spread.

4954 Table 44. Index values for soil-disturbing actions that favor invasion by invasive plants for each alternative of 

4955 the Forest Plan Revision

No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Suitable Forest Lands

(acres) 535,725 653,242 129,420 656,628 384,485 347,535

Index Values 1 1.22 0.24 1.23 0.72 0.65

4956 Compared to the no-action alternative, the proposed action and alternative P would represent a greater 

4957 risk for invasive plant establishment and spread by creating opportunities for invasive plants, while 

4958 alternatives R, B, and O represent less risk. At the project level, all management activities would be 

4959 designed to include measures that would help prevent invasive plant spread.

4960 No-action Alternative

4961 The no-action alternative would result in the same level of risk for invasive plants as has been 

4962 experienced under the existing 1988 Plan. This is because the amount of suitable forestlands does not 

4963 change in this alternative from the 1988 Plan.

4964 Timber Production

4965 An index value rating of one found in table 44 for the no-action alternative equates to the risk of invasive 

4966 plant establishment and spread from timber production, and associated road and fuels reduction work, 

4967 being equal to the current risk. The costs associated with treating invasive plants and the acres needing 

4968 treatment are predicted to be the same as it is currently.

4969 Motorized Recreation Trails

4970 The no-action alternative would result in the same level of risk from motorized recreation trails, and use 

4971 of these trails, as current management. Therefore, there is no change.

4972 Access

4973 The no-action alternative would result in the same level of risk from access as current management. 

4974 Therefore, there is no change.

4975 Wildlife

4976 The quality of wildlife habitat resulting from invasive plant establishment and spread for this analysis is 

4977 influenced by the amount of risk present. Since the largest risk factor is related to timber production, and 

4978 associated management practices, risks to wildlife habitat would be in alignment with the risks from 

4979 timber management. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

156

4980 The no-action alternative would result in the same level of risk to the quality of wildlife habitat from 

4981 invasive plants as current management. Therefore, there is no change.

4982 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

4983 The no-action alternative would result in the same level of risk to riparian and aquatic resource 

4984 management as current management. Therefore, there is no change at the forestwide level. 

4985 Proposed Action

4986 The proposed action alternative would result in an elevated level of risk for invasive plants compared to 

4987 the no-action alternative and that which has been experienced under the existing 1988 Plan. This is 

4988 because the amount of suitable forestlands is predicted to increase and proposed road density limits are 

4989 not likely to have an appreciable change.

4990 Timber Production and Management

4991 An index value rating of 1.22 found in table 44 for the proposed action equates to the risk of invasive 

4992 plant establishment and spread from timber production, and associated road and fuels reduction work, 

4993 being 22 percent greater than the risk in the current Forest Plan. This 22 percent increase in risk has the 

4994 potential to result in a need to treat more acres of invasive plants than experienced currently. This 

4995 potential need to treat more acres could also result in increased costs for invasive plant treatment, 

4996 increased monitoring and inspection efforts, and increased coordination efforts around invasive plant 

4997 issues.

4998 Motorized Recreation Trails

4999 The proposed action could experience a slightly higher level of risk from motorized recreation trails, and 

5000 use of these trails, to invasive plants spread when compared to current management. While the 

5001 management area identified as “Backcountry Motorized” is projected to increase by approximately 

5002 4 percent, it cannot be said with any level of certainty that the actual presence on motorized trails would 

5003 increase under this alternative.

5004 Access

5005 The proposed action would not likely result in a substantial change in risk to invasive plant spread from 

5006 access compared to current management. With road density limits of 2 miles per square mile for focused 

5007 restoration areas and 3 miles per square mile for general restoration areas, there would not be an 

5008 appreciable change in open road miles.

5009 Wildlife

5010 The quality of wildlife habitat resulting from invasive plant establishment and spread for this analysis is 

5011 influenced by the amount of risk present. Since the largest risk factor is related to timber production, and 

5012 associated management practices, risks to wildlife habitat would be in alignment with the risks from 

5013 timber management. 

5014 The proposed action would result in a 22 percent increase in risk to the quality of wildlife habitat from 

5015 invasive plants compared to current management.

5016 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

5017 The proposed action would result in a similar level of risk to riparian and aquatic resource management 

5018 from invasive plant establishment and spread as current management. Therefore, there would be little 

5019 change. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

157

5020 Alternative R

5021 Alternative R would result in a substantially reduced level of risk for invasive plants compared to the no5022 action alternative and that which has been experienced under the existing 1988 Plan. This is because the 

5023 amount of suitable forestlands is predicted to decrease as a myriad of protections are proposed in this 

5024 alternative.

5025 Changes to road density are likely to result in fewer roads on the Forest. Having fewer open roads would 

5026 reduce the amount of bare soil associated with roads and human-related vectors of spread through 

5027 vehicles would be decreased.

5028 Timber Production and Management

5029 An index value rating of 0.24 found in table 44 for alternative R equates to the risk of invasive plant 

5030 establishment and spread from timber production, and associated road and fuels reduction work, being 

5031 76 percent less than the risk in the current Forest Plan. This 76 percent decrease in risk has the potential to 

5032 result in a need to treat fewer acres of invasive plants than experienced currently. This potential need to 

5033 treat fewer acres could also result in decreased costs for invasive plant treatment and decreased 

5034 monitoring and inspection efforts. 

5035 Motorized Recreation Trails

5036 Alternative R would experience a reduced level of risk from motorized recreation trails, and use of these 

5037 trails, to invasive plants spread when compared to current management. The “Backcountry Motorized” 

5038 Management Area in this alternative would only comprise approximately 1 percent of the Colville 

5039 National Forest. This is 60 percent less than the area identified in the “No Action” alternative and the 

5040 1988 plan.

5041 Assuming that actual miles of motorized recreation trails would be reduced as a result of the change in the 

5042 amount of “Backcountry Motorized” acres, the trail system would have a lower risk to invasive plant 

5043 establishment and spread by there being fewer miles of trail available for use. 

5044 Access

5045 Alternative R would result in a reduction in the risk to invasive plant spread from access compared to 

5046 current management. With road density limits of 1 mile per square mile for focused restoration areas and 

5047 2 miles per square mile for general restoration areas, there would be fewer roads available to be driven. 

5048 Therefore, potential for invasive plants to be spread from the road system would be less.

5049 Since this alternative would result in a reduction in the amount of road miles over the life of the plan, 

5050 there would be less bare soil associated with the maintenance and use of these roads. It is expected that 

5051 decommissioned roads would have permanent vegetative cover, which would naturally deter invasive 

5052 plants by not providing available niches to occupy in the future.

5053 Wildlife

5054 The quality of wildlife habitat resulting from invasive plant establishment and spread for this analysis is 

5055 influenced by the amount of risk present. Since the largest risk factor is related to timber production, and 

5056 associated management practices, risks to wildlife habitat would be in alignment with the risks from 

5057 timber management. 

5058 The proposed action would result in a 76 percent decrease in risk to the quality of wildlife habitat from 

5059 invasive plants compared to current management.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

158

5060 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

5061 Through implementation of alternative R there would be a similar risk to riparian management, compared 

5062 to the no-action alternative, since similar strategies would be employed in regard to limiting ground 

5063 disturbance within the riparian management areas. Following the guidance in the Aquatic Riparian 

5064 Conservation Strategy Modified (ARCS-Mod) concerning Aquatic Invasive Species the risk of infestation 

5065 and spread of these plants would be reduced by the efforts to clean equipment and avoid contaminating 

5066 new sites. 

5067 Alternative P

5068 Alternative P would result in an elevated level of risk for invasive plants compared to the no-action

5069 alternative and that which has been experienced under the existing 1988 Plan. This is because the amount 

5070 of suitable forestlands is predicted to increase. The increase is likely curbed to some degree by the 

5071 reduction in road miles that should be expected over the life of the plan for this alternative.

5072 Timber Production and Management

5073 An index value rating of 1.23 found in table 44 for alternative P equates to the risk of invasive plant 

5074 establishment and spread from timber production, and associated road and fuels reduction work, being 23 

5075 percent greater than the risk in the current Forest Plan. This 23 percent increase in risk has the potential to 

5076 result in a need to treat more acres of invasive plants than experienced currently. This potential need to 

5077 treat more acres could also result in increased costs for invasive plant treatment, increased monitoring and 

5078 inspection efforts, and increased coordination efforts around invasive plant issues. 

5079 Motorized Recreation Trails

5080 Alternative P could experience a slightly higher level of risk from motorized recreation trails, and use of 

5081 these trails, to invasive plants spread when compared to current management. While the management area 

5082 identified as “Backcountry Motorized” is projected to increase by approximately 3 percent, it cannot be 

5083 said with any level of certainty that the actual presence on motorized trails would increase under this 

5084 alternative.

5085 Access

5086 Alternative P would result in a reduction in the risk to invasive plant spread from access compared to 

5087 current management. With road density limits of 1 mile per square mile for focused restoration areas and 

5088 2 miles per square mile for general restoration areas, there would be fewer roads available to be driven. 

5089 Therefore, potential for invasive plants to be spread from the road system would be less.

5090 Since this alternative would result in a reduction in the amount of road miles over the life of the plan, 

5091 there would be less bare soil associated with the maintenance and use of these roads. It is expected that 

5092 decommissioned roads would have permanent vegetative cover, which would naturally deter invasive 

5093 plants by not providing available niches to occupy in the future.

5094 Wildlife

5095 The quality of wildlife habitat resulting from invasive plant establishment and spread for this analysis is 

5096 influenced by the amount of risk present. Since the largest risk factor is related to timber production, and 

5097 associated management practices, risks to wildlife habitat would be in alignment with the risks from 

5098 timber management. 

5099 The proposed action would result in a 23 percent increase in risk to the quality of wildlife habitat from 

5100 invasive plants compared to current management.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

159

5101 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

5102 Through implementation of alternative R there would be a similar risk to riparian management, compared 

5103 to the no-action alternative, since similar strategies would be employed in regard to limiting ground 

5104 disturbance within the riparian management areas. Following the guidance in the Aquatic Riparian 

5105 Conservation Strategy Modified (ARCS-mod) concerning Aquatic Invasive Species the risk of infestation 

5106 and spread of these plants would be reduced by the efforts to clean equipment and avoid contaminating 

5107 new sites. 

5108 Alternative B

5109 Alternative B would result in a reduced level of risk for invasive plants compared to the no-action

5110 alternative and that which has been experienced under the existing 1988 Plan. This is because the amount 

5111 of suitable forestlands is predicted to decrease.

5112 Timber Production and Management

5113 An index value rating of 0.72 found in table 44 for alternative B equates to the risk of invasive plant 

5114 establishment and spread from timber production, and associated road and fuels reduction work, being 

5115 24 percent less than the risk in the current Forest Plan. This 24 percent decrease in risk has the potential to 

5116 result in a need to treat fewer acres of invasive plants than experienced currently. This potential need to 

5117 treat fewer acres could also result in decreased costs for invasive plant treatment and decreased 

5118 monitoring and inspection efforts.

5119 Motorized Recreation Trails

5120 Alternative B would experience a reduced level of risk from motorized recreation trails, and use of these 

5121 trails, to invasive plants spread when compared to current management. The “Backcountry Motorized” 

5122 Management Area in this alternative would comprise less than 1 percent of the Colville National Forest. 

5123 This is 60 percent less than the area identified in the “No Action” alternative and the 1988 plan.

5124 Assuming that actual miles of motorized recreation trails would be reduced as a result of the change in the 

5125 amount of “Backcountry Motorized” acres, the trail system would have a lower risk to invasive plant 

5126 establishment and spread by there being fewer miles of trail available for use. 

5127 Access

5128 Alternative B would result in the same level of risk from access as current management since the numbers 

5129 of miles of roads are described to stay the same. Therefore, there is no change.

5130 Wildlife

5131 The quality of wildlife habitat resulting from invasive plant establishment and spread for this analysis is 

5132 influenced by the amount of risk present. Since the largest risk factor is related to timber production, and 

5133 associated management practices, risks to wildlife habitat would be in alignment with the risks from 

5134 timber management. 

5135 Alternative B would result in a 24 percent decrease in risk to the quality of wildlife habitat from invasive 

5136 plants compared to current management.

5137 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

5138 Alternative B would result in the same level of risk to riparian and aquatic resource management as 

5139 current management. Therefore, there is no change. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

160

5140 Alternative O

5141 Alternative O would result in a reduced level of risk for invasive plants compared to the no-action

5142 alternative and that which has been experienced under the existing 1988 Plan. This is because the amount 

5143 of suitable forestlands is predicted to decrease.

5144 Timber Production and Management

5145 An index value rating of 0.65 found in table 44 for alternative B equates to the risk of invasive plant 

5146 establishment and spread from timber production, and associated road and fuels reduction work, being 

5147 35 percent less than the risk in the current Forest Plan. This 35 percent decrease in risk has the potential to 

5148 result in a need to treat fewer acres of invasive plants than experienced currently. This potential need to 

5149 treat fewer acres could also result in decreased costs for invasive plant treatment and decreased 

5150 monitoring and inspection efforts. 

5151 Motorized Recreation Trails

5152 Alternative O could experience a slightly higher level of risk from motorized recreation trails, and use of 

5153 these trails, to invasive plants spread when compared to current management. While the management area 

5154 identified as “Backcountry Motorized” is projected to increase by approximately 3 percent, it cannot be 

5155 said with any level of certainty that the actual presence on motorized trails would increase under this 

5156 alternative.

5157 Access

5158 Alternative O would result in the same level of risk from access as current management since the numbers 

5159 of miles of roads are described to stay the same. Therefore, there is no change.

5160 Wildlife

5161 The quality of wildlife habitat resulting from invasive plant establishment and spread for this analysis is 

5162 influenced by the amount of risk present. Since the largest risk factor is related to timber production, and 

5163 associated management practices, risks to wildlife habitat would be in alignment with the risks from 

5164 timber management. 

5165 Alternative O would result in a 35 percent decrease in risk to the quality of wildlife habitat from invasive 

5166 plants compared to current management.

5167 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

5168 Alternative O would result in a similar level of risk to riparian and aquatic resource management from 

5169 invasive plant establishment and spread as current management. Therefore, there would be little change. 

5170 Cumulative Effects (Common to all Alternatives)

5171 Cumulative effects may arise from the introduction of invasive species from lands adjoining the plan area. 

5172 These lands consist of other Federal (BLM), tribal, State, county, or privately owned lands. The plant 

5173 invasion process occurs in three phases: introduction, establishment, and spread. Invasive species are 

5174 introduced via vectors, such as wind, water, or wildlife, in addition to the actions of people, which move 

5175 seeds or plant fragments from one location to another. Wind and water, in particular, are major natural 

5176 dispersal agents. For example, windblown seed of rush skeleton weed can be carried up to 20 miles 

5177 (USDA Forest Service 2005). Water is a primary aid in the dispersal of many species, including Japanese 

5178 knotweed. Rivers and waterways have been identified as one of the biggest spread mechanisms for 

5179 invasive plants (Sheley et al. 1995).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

161

5180 Various wildlife species can contribute to the spread of invasive plant species by dispersing seeds in their 

5181 dung, on their coats or feathers, or between their hooves. Ants have even been identified as one of the 

5182 dispersal agents for the seeds of Scotch broom (Parker, et al. 1998). Though invasive plant propagules 

5183 (seeds or plant fragments capable of establishing) may originate from outside sources, there is potential 

5184 for them to affect the Colville National Forest. Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis area is 

5185 considered northeastern Washington and it includes lands of all ownership. 

5186 People traveling to the Colville National Forest may transport invasive plant propagules from adjacent or 

5187 even distant lands. This may be done through a variety of means: motor vehicles, clothing and footwear, 

5188 pets, stock, etc. Motor vehicles, in particular, have been shown to pick up and move invasive species 

5189 seeds that can be deposited along roads (Schmidt 1989 and Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). Roadside 

5190 habitats are particularly susceptible to plant invasions for a number of reasons. Roads eliminate some of 

5191 the physical and environmental barriers that help prevent invasion by increasing available light and 

5192 dispersal opportunities. Disturbances associated with the use and maintenance of roads provide habitat 

5193 easily exploited by invasive species, which can then seed themselves relatively swiftly along roadsides or 

5194 be transported by animals or people (vehicles). Roads are primary vectors for the spread of invasive 

5195 plants and the most likely vector for human transport of invasive plant propagules from outside the plan 

5196 area.

5197 Cumulative effects may be incurred from the transport and establishment of nonnative invasive plants 

5198 from sources adjacent to the plan area. Likewise, weeds from the National Forest System lands could 

5199 spread to adjacent areas. However, these effects are expected to be small compared to the anticipated 

5200 spread from invasive plants sites within the plan area. While the forest plan addresses invasive plant 

5201 spread via prevention standards, invasive plants would continue to move freely across borders, to and 

5202 from ownerships, because the movement of seeds and propagules via wind, water, or wildlife are largely 

5203 beyond the control of the Forest Service.

5204 An effect associated with mechanical treatments and livestock grazing is the potential to spread invasive 

5205 species from adjacent lands. New weed populations could occur from vehicle-transported seeds, disturbed 

5206 soils and increased light availability following mechanical treatments or creation of seedbeds by livestock 

5207 use. Livestock and wildlife can spread weed seeds, but livestock and wildlife use results in fewer new 

5208 weed populations than those established along roads and trails by seeds spread from vehicle tires, 

5209 equipment tracks, and/or attached soil (Tyser and Worley 1992, Tyser and Key 1988, Gelbard and 

5210 Harrison 2003). This circumstance is attributed to the higher amount of biotic and below ground biotic 

5211 resistance experienced in areas other than roads and trails (Gelbard and Harrison 2003). All alternatives 

5212 would contribute similarly to the control, treatment, and eradication of invasive plant species introduced 

5213 from outside the forests. 

5214 Cumulative effects may also result from climate change. Much of the research on invasive species 

5215 interactions with climate change has contributed to the growing body of evidence that global warming has 

5216 enabled invasive species to expand to areas where they were not previously able to persist (Dukes and 

5217 Mooney 1999, Weltzin et al. 2003, Thuiller et al. 2007, and Walther et al. 2009). Some researchers have 

5218 modeled range expansions for some invasive species (Centaurea solstitialis and Tamarix) while 

5219 predicting reduced invasion risk and significant range contractions for others (Bromus tectorum, 

5220 Euphorbia esula, and Centaurea biebersteinii) by the year 2100 (Bradley et al. 2009). As the climate 

5221 changes, the ranges of invasive plant species would change; some species may become less invasive, and 

5222 others may become more invasive. Given their adaptive traits, invasive plants may be able to out-compete 

5223 native species in the migration process to new suitable habitat (Hellamann et. al. 2008). Compared to a 

5224 stable climate, the degree to which climate change has contributed to the current spread of invasive plants 

5225 is unclear.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

162

5226 The forest plan responds to the challenges of increased risk of invasion from invasive plants, whether or 

5227 not introduced from external sources and whether or not climate change may influence their spread, by 

5228 incorporating standards to prevent the transport and establishment of invasive plant propagules and by 

5229 including objectives to reduce the area infested by invasive plants over time. The cumulative effects do 

5230 not add significantly to effects expected from this alternative.

5231 By the Colville National Forest implementing invasive plant control measures and prevention strategies 

5232 through the Forest Plan revision, a positive cumulative effect would be realized when considered in light 

5233 of the control and prevention measures being employed on adjacent ownerships which include the Idaho 

5234 Panhandle National Forest, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, private lands under the control of 

5235 county weed boards, State lands and Canadian lands to the north managed by the Ministry of Forestry.

5236 Monitoring Recommendations

5237 The Inventory and Monitoring Plan Framework contained as appendix M of the 2005 Preventing and 

5238 Managing Invasive Plants EIS is incorporated into the Forest Plan Revision as required monitoring for 

5239 invasive plants.

5240 Fisheries

5241 This section summarizes effects to fisheries and aquatic habitat from the related specialist report 

5242 (MacDonald, Day and Honeycutt 2015), with special emphasis on the issues of “riparian and aquatic 

5243 resource management,” “access,” and “old forest management and timber production.”

5244 Affected Environment

5245 Overview

5246 The 1.1-million-acre Colville National Forest accounts for approximately 2.6 percent of the total land area 

5247 in Washington State. The Forest is divided into four ranger districts comprising about one-third of the 

5248 total area of Ferry, Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties. Located in the northeastern corner of Washington, 

5249 the Forest is bordered by British Columbia on the north; the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the 

5250 west; the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east; and to the south by a portion of the Confederated 

5251 Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 

5252 The Forest is divided by the 130-mile long Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area and a portion of the 

5253 Columbia River reservoir created by Grand Coulee Dam. The Forest is dominated by two north-south 

5254 mountain ranges; the 7,000 foot Selkirk Range that includes the Salmo-Priest Wilderness and the Kettle 

5255 River Range. The Forest is comprised of three zones with a unique climate, topography, and vegetation. 

5256 Dry forests of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominate the rolling landscape of the Okanogan Highlands 

5257 west of the Kettle Crest. The crest, a high ridge of subalpine fir, separates the western portion of the 

5258 Forest from the valleys and forested mountains to the east. To the east, within the Salmo-Priest 

5259 Wilderness in the Selkirk Range, the cedar and hemlock forest are comparable to those on the west side of 

5260 the Cascade Range. A more detailed description of the physiography, climate, geomorphology, and land 

5261 use history is included in the watershed section in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and in Day (2015).

5262 The multiple uses of the forest landscape can affect the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics 

5263 and functions of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Principal Forest resources are timber, wildlife, fish, 

5264 water, forage, and recreation. The Forest annual timber harvest has averaged 41 million board feet 

5265 (MMBF) over the last 10 years. The average grazing program has included 29,500 animal unit months. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

163

5266 The Forest is popular with recreationists with over a half million recreation visitor days per year. Popular 

5267 activities include rustic camping, forest product gathering, off-highway vehicle use, four-season trail use, 

5268 driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, backcountry non-motorized travel, hunting and fishing, and wildlife 

5269 viewing. Fishing license sale revenue for the tri-county area (Pend Oreille, Ferry and Stevens counties), 

5270 where the Colville National Forest lies, averaged $292,987 per year for the period from 2007 through 

5271 2009. Approximately 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads provide access to recreation areas and 

5272 areas to collect renewable forest products such as firewood, berries, rocks, mushrooms, and Christmas 

5273 trees. The Colville National Forest manages 32 campgrounds, 2 candidate wild and scenic rivers, the 

5274 Salmo-Priest wilderness, a ski area (49 Degrees North), and administers 15 recreation residences. These 

5275 management activities and uses of the Forest can impact the quality and function of riparian and aquatic 

5276 habitat. The following describes the current conditions on the Forest and the process used to determine 

5277 the conditions. 

5278 Riparian Habitat

5279 Riparian zones are found adjacent to streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands, providing a transitional zone 

5280 between terrestrial and aquatic components of the landscape (Gregory et al. 1991). Although riparian 

5281 zones occupy a small part of the overall Forest land base, they support a diverse vegetation community 

5282 not found in the upland areas. Riparian zones provide important foraging, cover, travel corridors, and 

5283 nesting habitat for birds, small and large mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Healthy riparian zones with 

5284 an abundance of trees and other native woody species and forbs provide for channel and floodplain 

5285 stability and integrity. Healthy riparian vegetation adjacent to streams and on floodplains slow flood 

5286 waters and reduce the likelihood of downstream flooding.

5287 Riparian zones improve water quality by filtering runoff, sediment, and nutrients from adjacent upland 

5288 slopes. Riparian zones provide stream cover and shade, which helps keep the summer water temperatures 

5289 cool for salmonids and other aquatic species, and are a source of large woody debris to stream channels. 

5290 Riparian zones also contribute to the aquatic food base as a source of terrestrial insects that fall into 

5291 channels and by providing detritus input which is used by myriad of macroinvertebrate species, which in 

5292 turn are forage for fish and certain bird species such as the American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). 

5293 Healthy, functioning riparian zones are vital for providing good water quality and diverse aquatic habitat 

5294 (Naiman et al. 1992, FEMAT 1993).

5295 Riparian conditions on the Forest are highly variable. Overall, some riparian zones on the forest are 

5296 functioning at or near their potential or are considered to be improving. However, there are many areas 

5297 where they are functioning below their potential. Degraded riparian conditions have primarily resulted 

5298 from livestock grazing, mining, timber harvest, fire management, road development, and water 

5299 diversions. Livestock grazing has been the most important factor leading to bank damage, conversion of 

5300 riparian vegetation species to upland species or non-native species, and sedimentation. On forested 

5301 landscapes, silviculture, road building, and fire suppression have altered riparian conditions by changing 

5302 the riparian vegetation composition and structure; reducing the amount of large trees that provide large 

5303 woody debris and shade; and altering channel morphology. To a lesser degree, disturbances associated 

5304 with developed and dispersed recreation have impacted riparian habitat. Additional information regarding 

5305 the current condition of riparian habitat is contained in the watershed section of DEIS Chapter 3 and in 

5306 Day (2015) and later in this section.

5307 Stream Channel Conditions

5308 There are a variety of aquatic and riparian ecosystems on the Forest: streams, rivers, ponds, reservoirs, 

5309 wetlands, and riparian areas. These ecosystems support complex communities of vertebrate and 

5310 invertebrate aquatic life along with an assortment of riparian and aquatic plants. The Forest includes 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

164

5311 approximately 6,670 miles of stream including approximately 2,480 miles of perennial stream and 4,190 

5312 miles of intermittent stream. Approximately 500 stream miles are fish-bearing. All streams within the 

5313 Forest eventually flow into the Columbia River. There are no anadromous fish (i.e., salmon and steelhead) 

5314 on the Forest as passage onto the Forest was blocked with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam.

5315 Stream channel morphology responds to the flow of water and soil and vegetative inputs from adjacent 

5316 land forms creating distinctive patterns such as pools, riffles, glides and side channels. Different channel 

5317 characteristics during varying flows provide a diverse range of aquatic habitats.

5318 In 1989, the Forest began to use stream surveys as the dominant inventory/monitoring tool to assess

5319 stream function and condition. By the end of 2012, greater than 95 percent of fish-bearing streams have 

5320 been inventoried on the Forest. Many streams have been inventoried twice. The results of the surveys 

5321 show that many of the reaches surveyed are not meeting the riparian management objectives (RMOs) as 

5322 defined by INFISH. 

5323 A limiting factor for understanding the individual potential of most streams on the Forest has been the 

5324 lack of reference conditions from similar stream reaches in unmanaged or lightly managed watersheds. 

5325 However, many stream reaches are not meeting the RMOs and the aquatic habitat is judged to be 

5326 functioning at risk or not properly functioning as described in the following Species Status, Watershed 

5327 Condition and Foundation for Effects Assessment discussion. Based on the existing stream inventory 

5328 data, common deficiencies in stream habitat conditions on the Forest include:

5329 • Pools per mile are limited and large pools (greater than 3 feet in depth) even more so, thus limiting 

5330 overwintering, spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.

5331 • Large woody debris per mile is limited along many reaches. Large wood can be an important 

5332 channel structural component that helps create pools and provide cover for fish.

5333 • Watersheds in the eastern half of the forest, particularly in the south half of the Pend Oreille River 

5334 subbasin are composed of predominately sensitive, decomposed granitic land types making them at 

5335 greater risk for increased erosion from land management activities.

5336 • Watersheds with active livestock grazing and heavy dispersed recreation use are more likely to have 

5337 some reaches with excessive bank disturbance resulting in reduced stream bank cover and widening 

5338 stream channels due to localized bank erosion and sediment deposits. Increases in channel width 

5339 result in decreased stream depths and more surface area exposed to solar radiation making the 

5340 streams more susceptible to increased water temperatures. 

5341 • Watersheds with high road densities and with roads located within riparian areas are more likely to 

5342 have some reaches displaying stream bank alteration with reduced stream bank cover and 

5343 accelerated sediment delivery to the channels from road surfaces. 

5344 Stream channel and watershed conditions will be further discussed later in this section.

5345 Lakes

5346 There are 102 lakes, ponds and reservoirs on the Forest, the largest of which is Sullivan Lake. Most lakes 

5347 are low-elevation. There are very few high-elevation lakes on the Forest. The lakes range from 0.6 acre to 

5348 large reservoirs. A majority of the lakes and reservoirs are stocked with salmonids for sport fishing. The 

5349 riparian habitat around many of the lakes has been affected by both dispersed and developed recreational 

5350 use. Activities such as dispersed recreational camping and fishing result in limited, isolated damage, 

5351 particularly along near-shore areas. Fluctuating reservoir levels due to hydropower energy production 

5352 affects near-shore aquatic and wetland plant and animal communities, and the success of near-shore fish 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

165

5353 spawning. The impacts due to hydropower are or will be addressed during hydropower project relicensing 

5354 and will be highlighted later in this section. 

5355 Some shallow-water lakes and large reservoirs are presently being affected by the spread of invasive 

5356 aquatic plants such as Eurasian water-milfoil (EWM), Yellow Flag Iris (YFI), and curly pondweed (CP).

5357 Table 45. Lakes and reservoirs occupied by invasive aquatic species

Lake or Reservoir Name Invasive Aquatic Species

Boundary Reservoir EWM,CP

Box Canyon Reservoir EWM,CP

Sherry Lake EWM

Gillette Lake EWM

Thomas Lake EWM

Heritage Lake EWM

Nile Lake EWM

Bead Lake EWM

Marshall Lake EWM

Pierre Lake YFI

5358 Water Quality

5359 Streams and lakes on the Forest generally have good quality. Where water quality is impaired, as defined 

5360 by Clean Water Act standards, the primary pollutants are fecal coliform high stream temperature, 

5361 dissolved oxygen and pH. Approximately three miles of stream are listed as water quality impaired for 

5362 fecal coliform, 15 miles for temperature, 15 miles for pH and 22 miles for dissolved oxygen. A more 

5363 complete discussion of the current water quality on the Forest and actions to improve water quality is 

5364 included in the watershed section of this chapter and in Day (2015).

5365 Species Status, Watershed Condition and Foundation for Effects 

5366 Assessment

5367 Background 

5368 The 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) requires the USDA Forest Service to set up a 

5369 process for the development and revision of land and resource management plans (LRMP) for Forests and 

5370 Grasslands throughout the United States. The first planning rule, adopted in 1979 and amended in 1982 

5371 and 1983, known as the 1982 planning rule, has guided the development, amendment and revision of the 

5372 majority of current land management plans in effect throughout the National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

5373 The 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.19) requires National Forests to manage habitat in order “to 

5374 maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 

5375 area,” and further defines a viable population as “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution 

5376 of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area”. 

5377 The USDA has attempted to revise the planning rule provisions several times since the original planning 

5378 rule was implemented in 1982. Between 2000 and 2008, three new planning rules were proposed, 

5379 challenged, and ultimately remanded back to the USDA by the U.S. District Court. Direction for 

5380 management of species differs between the 2000/2005/2008 and 1982 planning rules in regards to 

5381 viability and sustainability of species. Under the 2000, 2005, and 2008 Planning Rules, National Forests 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

166

5382 were required to assess “the contribution of National Forest System (NFS) lands to the sustainability of 

5383 ecosystems and species” as opposed to “maintaining viable population of species.”

5384 After the 2008 planning rule was remanded back to the USFS, the Forest was again revising the LRMP 

5385 with the 1982 planning rule. Although a new planning rule was released in 2012, the Forest, which started 

5386 plan revision under the 2000 planning rule, decided to complete their plan revision under the 1982 

5387 planning rule. The plan will be revised under the transition provisions of the 2012 Planning rule (36 CFR 

5388 219), which state that the responsible official may complete and approve the plan revision in conformance 

5389 with the provisions of the prior planning regulation, including the transition provisions of the reinstated 

5390 2000 rule (36 CFR part 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). The 

5391 transition provisions allow the use of the 1982 planning procedures (See CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised 

5392 as of July 1, 2000). Given that the 1982 planning rule is again in place, the objective of this evaluation 

5393 (starting in 2010) was to refine the current “ecological sustainability” model where appropriate to ensure 

5394 the evaluation approach addresses “species viability” criteria of the 1982 planning, while meeting the 

5395 intent of the 2012 planning rule. The remainder of this section will describe the status of aquatic species 

5396 on the Forest and the condition of watersheds on the Forest. 

5397 Watershed hierarchy is a key concept to understand. Watersheds are natural divisions of the landscape and 

5398 the basic functioning unit of hydrologic systems and processes. Watersheds can be described or analyzed 

5399 in a variety of scales ranging from large river basins to individual streams. 

5400 Watersheds are hierarchical (smaller ones are nested within larger ones) making them an appropriate 

5401 context for considering many ecological processes. Physical processes such as rainfall, runoff, erosion, 

5402 and sedimentation interact within the watershed boundaries to shape the landscape. Biological processes 

5403 also occur within watershed boundaries. Environmental changes commonly culminate and appear at the 

5404 watershed scale. Changes in soil, vegetation, topography, and chemicals change the quantity and quality 

5405 of water, sediment, and organic material that flow through a watershed influencing the characteristics of 

5406 stream channels and aquatic habitat. The different watershed scales are identified through a numbering 

5407 system called the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). The hydrologic unit system is a standardized watershed 

5408 classification developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). Hydrologic units are watershed boundaries 

organized in a nested hierarchy by size. They range in size from regions to smaller units20 5409 . For this 

5410 analysis three scales of watershed will be discussed in order of decreasing hierarchy: subbasin (HUC 8), 

5411 watershed (HUC10), and subwatershed (HUC 12). Additional information and explanation of the 

5412 watershed hierarchy is contained in the watershed section of this document and in Day (2015). 

5413 The Forest includes five subbasins that provide the framework for describing the fish species status and 

subsequently assessing the effects of different alternatives, as shown in the following table.

21 5414

5415 Table 46. Major subbasin hydrologic unit code (HUC) and size

Subbasin Name (8th level HUC*) HUC Total Subbasin Size

(Acres)

Colville National Forest

Acres

Sanpoil River 17020004 627,732 105,291

Kettle River 17020002 659,201 321,743

Upper Columbia River-Lake Roosevelt 17020001 1,327,733 212,863

Colville River 17020003 650,712 145,579

Pend Oreille River 17010216 698,349 557,449

 20 See http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html 21 The Forest includes a small portion of the Upper Spokane subbasin but there are no fish-bearing streams within the subbasin on 

Forest so the Upper Spokane subbasin is not discussed.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

167

5416 In order to meet the sustainability requirements of the 2000 planning rule, the Forest (with the Okanogan5417 Wenatchee National Forest and Blue Mountain National Forests), participated in a Region 6 pilot effort to 

5418 develop a process to address the contribution of National Forest System (NFS) lands to the “sustainability 

5419 of aquatic species”. The result of the regional pilot process is a paper titled, Process for Evaluating the 

5420 Contribution of National Forest System Lands to Aquatic Ecological Sustainability (Reiss et al. 2008). 

5421 Reiss et al. (2008) developed the Aquatic Ecological Condition (AEC) model to evaluate the status of 

5422 local populations of focal species and their habitat at the HUC12 or sub-watershed scale. The results are 

5423 then aggregated to produce an ecological sustainability or viability outcome for each focal species at the 

5424 subbasin (HUC 8) scale. 

5425 The following describes process used for assessing the current status of aquatic species, watershed and 

5426 habitat condition. More detail, including the complete scientific basis for the AEC, is provided in Reiss et 

5427 al. (2008).

5428 Aquatic Species Assessment and Current Status

5429 The process developed by Reiss et al. (2008) relies on the use of “focal species” to assess current aquatic 

5430 species status and later to assess the potential effects of alternatives on species viability. There are many 

5431 aquatic native and non-native species that inhabit streams and rivers on the Forest. It is not possible to 

5432 analyze viability for all the aquatic species present in subbasins within Forest lands. The focal species 

5433 serve as surrogates for other aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species. 

5434 There are limitations to the focal species approach. The assumption that the condition and needs of one 

5435 species will overlap completely with other species, even those with the same habitat association, is 

5436 inherently problematic. The intent is that by analyzing and assessing the viability of focal species that 

5437 utilize a variety of habitats at different temporal and spatial scales, and designing conservation strategies 

5438 that address the results of the analysis, other aquatic species will benefit. Species that should not be 

5439 selected as focal species include those about which very little is known and those that are dependent 

5440 exclusively or primarily on habitat that is not substantially affected by management of National Forest 

5441 System lands (FSH 1909.14 Chapter 43.22d, as cited in Reiss et al. 2008).

5442 The process to determine focal species includes four steps (Reiss et al. 2008):

5443 Step 1(a) - Create a list of all known fish species and other aquatic species found on lands 

5444 managed by the Forest and adjacent to the Forest.

5445 Step 1(b) - Determine species-at-risk 

5446 Step 2 - Identify applicable spawning and rearing habitat associations for each species

5447 Step 3 - Categorize the species-at-risk identified above into habitat associations

5448 Step 4 - Choose species from each association as focal to serve as indicators of other species 

5449 occupying the same habitat. 

5450 Colville National Forest Focal Species

5451 Step 1(a) - Create a list of all known fish species and other aquatic species found on lands managed by 

5452 the Forest and adjacent to the Forest.

5453 The following species and associated narratives are from Reiss et al. (2008) unless otherwise cited.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

168

5454 Family ACIPENSERIDAE

5455 White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) occur predominantly in the mainstem Columbia River and are 

5456 identified in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin plan as present, though all records are below the Forest 

5457 boundary. The white sturgeon is a long-lived, large bodied species that inhabit deep water, using fast 

5458 moving tributaries for spawning. The only known spawning site in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin is near 

5459 the confluence of the Pend Oreille and Columbia Rivers. 

5460 Family SALMONIDAE

5461 Westslope cutthroat trout (WSCT) (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). WSCT are the native cutthroat trout 

5462 within the Forest (see Behnke 2002). WSCT are estimated to currently occupy approximately 59 percent 

5463 of the species’ total historic range and 58 percent of the historic range in Washington State (May 2009). 

5464 WSCT are presently found in all five subbasins on the Forest, however distribution of this species is 

5465 extremely limited. Historically, fluvial or adfluvial populations existed within the Kettle River, Sanpoil, 

Pend Oreille and Colville subbasins.

22 5466 The native adfluvial and fluvial life history is nearly extirpated 

5467 with most remaining native populations exhibiting a resident life history form. WSCT is a Forest Service 

5468 Region 6 sensitive species. 

5469 With the exception of annually stocked lowland lakes, WSCT are generally found in headwater streams 

5470 where stream temperatures are cold and human impact is limited. The conversion of riverine habitat on 

5471 the Pend Oreille and Columbia Rivers into reservoirs without providing fish passage as well as dams and 

5472 dikes on major tributaries have possibly eliminated the migratory life-history forms of WSCT. 

5473 Historic land management practices including logging, grazing, and road construction has impacted 

5474 WSCT habitat. Additionally, the introduction of the coastal rainbow (O. mykiss irredius) Yellowstone 

5475 cutthroat (O.clarki bouvieri) have led to hybridization of WSCT populations. The WSCT historic 

5476 distribution on the Forest may have been reduced through the introduction of non-native brook trout 

5477 (Salvelinus fontinalis), as brook trout have been found to displace cutthroat trout (Benjamin and Baxter 

5478 2010, Peterson et al. 2004). Most genetically pure WSCT populations are located behind either dams or 

5479 natural falls or are found in high gradient headwaters. 

5480 Trotter et al. (2001) conducted a genetic analysis from 19 stream trout populations on the Forest. The 

5481 populations were ranked from A to F depending upon the level of genetic introgression. A population 

5482 received an A ranking – Pure stock if all individuals carried genetic markers of the species or subspecies 

5483 of interest, and there was no history of stocking the water with hatchery fish of the same species or 

5484 subspecies. A population received a B ranking if one to nine percent of the individuals sampled carried 

5485 evidence of genetic influence from another species or subspecies, but appearance-wise are all “good” 

5486 representatives of the species or subspecies of interest. The B ranking also applied to populations with no 

5487 detectable hybridization, but there was a history of stocking the water with hatchery fish of the same 

5488 species or subspecies. Trotter et al. (2001) concluded that the WSCT populations in the South Fork 

5489 Sanpoil, Rocky Creek, Silver Creek and East Fork Smalle Creek merited an A-rating. Additionally, the 

5490 populations in Fourth of July Creek, Harvey Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek, Upper Sullivan Creek, 

5491 Slate Creek and Cedar Creek and East Branch Le Clerc Creek were given B ratings. 

5492 The re-licensing terms for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project include the construction and operation of a 

5493 hatchery to produce native salmonids to outplant into tributaries draining into Boundary Reservoir. 

 22 In general terms, a fluvial life history refers to a species that exhibits a migratory life history where spawning and early rearing 

occur in tributary streams and then juvenile fish migrate to larger streams to rear and mature before returning to the natal stream 

to spawn. An adfluvial life history is similar to fluvial but the juvenile fish migrate to a lake to rear and mature before returning 

to the natal stream to spawn. A resident life history refers to fish that spawn and rear in the same stream although they may move 

throughout the stream during their life cycle
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

169

5494 Initially the priority species would be WSCT but could include bull trout or other native salmonids. The 

5495 terms of the re-licensing also include establishing population goals to establish self-sustaining populations 

5496 of the native fish. Seattle City Light is to monitoring the success of the outplanting program until the 

5497 population goals are met.

5498 Interior redband trout (O. mykiss gairdneri) are a form of rainbow trout native to the east side of the 

5499 Cascade Mountain crest (Behnke 2002). Redband trout are distributed within the Kettle, Sanpoil, Upper 

5500 Columbia, and Colville subbasins. This species is identified as a SOI due to its status as a Forest Service 

5501 Region 6 sensitive species. Naturally occurring pure WSCT and interior redband usually do not inhabit 

5502 the same streams on the Forest.

5503 Coastal rainbow trout have been stocked in lakes and streams on the Forest for over 80 years by county 

5504 and State fish and game agencies. The past stocking has led to introgression between the two subspecies 

5505 in 14 sub-watersheds. All local populations appear exhibit only the resident in life history form although 

5506 historically migratory life history forms were likely present. May et al. (2012) estimate that within the 

5507 subbasins included on the Forest (including all ownerships), redband trout currently occupy 

5508 1,655 kilometers (23 percent) of the historically occupied 7,174 kilometers of stream. Trotter et al. (2001) 

5509 found pure redband trout in Lone Ranch and Canyon Creeks. The Kettle subbasin has the pure redband 

5510 trout populations in Deadman Creek and tributaries, Trout Creek and tributaries, Little Boulder Creek, 

5511 South Fork Saint Peters Creek, Tonata Creek and tributaries, Lone Ranch, and Pierre Creek. The Upper 

5512 Columbia subbasin has populations in Canyon Creek, Lane Creek, Hall Creek, Nancy Creek, and Barnaby 

5513 Creek. South Fork Obrien Creek has the only population in the Sanpoil subbasin. The Colville subbasin 

5514 has two small populations in the South Fork of Chewelah Creek and Strauss Creek. There are no known 

5515 populations in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Competition with the introduced brook trout may be limiting 

5516 redband trout populations as well. 

5517 Like the WSCT, interior redband trout tributary habitat has also been degraded by historic management 

5518 practices such as logging, road building and grazing resulting in accelerated sediment delivery to streams, 

5519 and degraded riparian vegetation and fish habitat. 

5520 On March 3, 2013, the Regional Forester for USDA Forest Service Region 6 signed the Rangewide 

5521 Conservation Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Interior Redband Trout. The 

5522 agreement outlines a process of cooperation, coordination, and data sharing among the entities with either 

5523 management responsibility or interest for the conservation of interior redband trout. The intent of the 

5524 agreement is to enhance the cooperation and coordination of interior redband trout conservation efforts. 

5525 Other signatories include the Regional Foresters of Forest Service Regions 1, 4, and 5; the states of 

5526 California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, the USDI Bureau of Land Management, the USDI 

5527 Fish and Wildlife Service; five Indian tribes and Trout Unlimited. 

5528 Coastal rainbow trout (O. m. irredius) are not native to the Forest but have been planted widely across the 

5529 state as a game fish. Pure populations that have not inter-bred with native rainbow have been identified 

5530 via genetic testing in three of five subbasins on the forest: Colville, Pend Oreille and Lake Roosevelt. 

5531 Coastal rainbow trout commonly hybridize with interior redband trout or WSCT. 

5532 Kokanee (O. nerka kennerlyi). Kokanee salmon, a landlocked form of sockeye salmon are a very 

5533 desirable sport fish. Historically, anadromous sockeye salmon were found in northeastern Washington and 

5534 southern British Columbia. The anadromous sockeye life history ended with the construction of Grand 

5535 Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. The presence of kokanee on the Forest appears to have originated 

5536 through stocking programs. Kokanee are annually stocked by WDFW in Lake Roosevelt. Kokanee spawn 

5537 in Sullivan and Pierre Lakes on the Forest. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

170

5538 Kokanee from Lake Roosevelt attempt to spawn in the Sanpoil River tributaries on the Forest although 

5539 success has not been documented. With the exception of the Lake Roosevelt adfluvial population, 

5540 kokanee are generally found in oligotrophic lakes, where water temperatures are cold. The species 

5541 provides an important subsistence fishery for the Colville Tribe and a sport fishery for local communities.

5542 Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) Sullivan and Bead Lakes are two of only nine lakes in Washington 

5543 State thought to support remnant pygmy whitefish populations. In 2004 the species was also found in Mill 

5544 Pond Reservoir which is downstream of Sullivan Lake. Pygmy whitefish sometimes use tributary streams 

5545 to spawn but can also spawn in shallow lakebed habitat. The main threats that have been identified for 

5546 pygmy whitefish are introduced predatory species, silting of spawning streams and lake eutrophication. 

5547 Mountain whitefish (P. williamsoni) are found in two subbasins on the forest, the Kettle and Pend Oreille. 

5548 Whitefish display seasonal movements from streams for spawning and feeding to deep, slow water for 

5549 over-wintering habitat. Spawning occurs in late fall as females broadcast adhesive eggs over a gravel 

5550 substrate. Mountain whitefish are not found in the small streams on the Forest but in the larger systems 

5551 that primarily do not flow through the Forest.

5552 Brown trout (Salmo trutta) are an introduced fish originating in northern Europe. Reproducing, self5553 sustaining populations exist in four subbasins on the Forest. In the Pend Oreille subbasin brown trout are 

5554 abundant in tributaries to Boundary and Box Canyon Reservoirs. Substantial populations exist in 

5555 Sullivan, Le Clerc, Cee Cee Ah, Skookum and Indian Creeks. Brown trout are also found in the Colville 

5556 River subbasin, primarily in Chewelah Creek. In the Kettle River subbasin, brown trout are annually 

5557 stocked in Renner Lake for recreational fishing. Large adult brown trout have been found in the main 

5558 Sanpoil River, however no spawning activity has been observed on National Forest lands. With the 

5559 exception of a population in Renner Lake, all other populations appear exhibit adfluvial or fluvial life 

5560 histories.

5561 Brown trout tend to be an effective predator in lakes, rivers and streams. Brown trout are abundant in the 

5562 large rivers and reservoirs. The bull trout draft recovery plans for north central Washington recommend 

5563 removal of brown trout and other non-native fish as a strategy for recovery. 

5564 Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are a native char species in the interior Columbia Basin. Bull trout 

5565 exhibit a variety of life history strategies in the inland Columbia Basin: fluvial, adfluvial and resident and 

5566 all three life history strategies may be found within the same population (USFWS 2014). Bull trout have 

5567 the most specific habitat requirements of the native salmonids: requiring colder water temperatures 

5568 compared to other salmonids; the cleanest substrates; complex stream habitat including deep pools, 

5569 overhanging banks and large woody debris; and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and 

5570 downstream foraging, migration , and overwintering habitats (USFWS 2014).

5571 Bull trout were listed as a Threatened Species under the ESA in 1998 (63 FR 31647). . Bull trout were 

5572 once widely distributed in four of the five subbasins that overlay the Forest but are currently considered to 

5573 be extirpated in the Sanpoil, and Kettle River subbasins (USFWS 2014). They are found in very small 

5574 numbers in the Pend Oreille subbasin, and although considered extirpated in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin 

5575 (USFWS 2014), bull trout have recently been observed in Sheep Creek. Native Americans historically 

5576 fished for bull trout in the Sanpoil River, and Le Clerc Creek.

5577 The Forest lies within the Pend Oreille Core Area (USFWS 2014). A core area represents the closest 

5578 approximation of a biologically functioning unit consisting of habitat that could supply all the necessary 

5579 elements for every life stage (e.g., spawning, rearing, migratory and adult) and include one or more 

5580 groups of bull trout (USFWS 2014). While overall the bull trout populations in the Pend Oreille Core area 

5581 are considered stable with a moderate, but not imminent risk of extinction in the last status review 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

171

5582 (USFWS 2008), local bull trout population numbers on the Forest appear to be very low putting the 

5583 populations at high risk of extirpation (see Rieman and McIntyre 1993). There have been few recent 

5584 observations of bull trout on the Forest. The most recent observations include:

5585 1. Cedar Creek (Stevens County) - the watershed is primarily in the U.S. but the lower reaches are in 

5586 B.C. Two juvenile bull trout were found in the lower portion of Cedar Creek in Canada by British 

5587 Columbia biologists in 1996. There are numerous road crossings with the potential to block fish 

5588 passage in the lower part of the drainage. Day snorkeling the East Fork Cedar Creek on NFS lands in 

5589 1996 did not find bull trout presence.

5590 2. South Fork Salmo River - over 90 percent of the larger Salmo River watershed is in B.C. The Salmo 

5591 River has a relatively healthy population of bull trout. Juvenile bull trout were observed while 

5592 snorkeling in the Canadian portion of the South Fork in 1998. Juvenile and adult bull trout were 

5593 captured as early as 1975 and as late as 1995 in the portion of the watershed within the U.S. This 

5594 portion is within the Salmo-Priest Wilderness. Most of the Salmo River bull trout habitat is in Canada 

5595 so the Salmo River system was not included within the core area.

5596 3. Slate Creek - Five individual bull trout were caught in the mouth of this creek between 1994 and 

5597 1997. One individual was caught twice. All were adult except for one juvenile.

5598 4. Sullivan Creek - one adult bull trout was found poached in lower Sullivan Creek in 1994 below Mill 

5599 Pond Dam, an impassable blockage to fish approximately 3.25 miles from the mouth. 

5600 5. Cedar Creek (Ione Creek) (Pend Oreille County) - one adult bull trout observed while snorkeling in 

5601 1995 above the old municipal dam for Ione. The dam was removed in 2005.

5602 6. Le Clerc Creek - three juvenile bull trout were found while electrofishing in the East and West 

5603 Branches in 1993. Two juvenile bull trout were observed during snorkeling in the East Branch in 

5604 1995. One juvenile bull trout was observed while snorkeling in the East Branch in 1998. According to 

5605 USFWS (2012) there has been no recent documentation of bull trout juveniles or spawning since 

5606 2001 when a bull trout was observed on a redd and the population likely no longer exists.

5607 7. Mill Creek (Pend Oreille County) - One adult bull trout was observed during snorkeling within the 

5608 lowest mile of the creek in 1995.

5609 8. Indian Creek - one bull trout was observed while snorkeling on the lowest mile of this creek on 

5610 private lands in 1997.

5611 Bull trout are threatened by historical and current land use activities. The construction and operation of 

5612 Albeni Falls, Box Canyon, and Boundary Dams on the Pend Oreille River have fragmented habitat, and 

5613 impeded bull trout migration. The construction of other dams and diversions without fish passage in Pend 

5614 Oreille River tributaries have further fragmented habitat and reduced connectivity. Habitat has been also 

5615 degraded by past timber harvest and livestock grazing. The introduction of non-native species continues 

5616 to impact bull trout populations through competition, predation, and hybridization (USFWS 2002, 

5617 USFWS 2014).

5618 The presence of brook trout, which are widespread on the Forest, pose a particular threat to bull trout. 

5619 Bull trout and brook trout would hybridize resulting in hybrid offspring that are often, but not always 

5620 sterile. Where hybridization occurs declines in the bull trout population or even local extirpations have 

5621 occurred (see USFWS 2014). Brook trout may have a competitive advantage over bull trout and displace 

5622 bull trout displacing bull trout into higher elevation streams, especially at warmer water temperatures 

5623 (Rieman et al. 2006, McMahon et al. 2007, Rodtka and Volpe 2007).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

172

5624 The re-licensing terms for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project include programs to improve conditions 

5625 for bull trout and aid recovery of the population. The programs identified include improving passage for 

5626 fish both upstream and downstream of the dam; riparian and stream channel habitat improvement; 

5627 improving road conditions; and non-native trout suppression and eradication programs (USFWS 2012). 

5628 However, the USFWS (2012, page 160) acknowledges that it may take 14 years before benefits of the 

5629 programs result in slow but steady increases in bull trout numbers. 

5630 The USFWS (2002) states that for recovery bull trout local populations need to be re-established in Cedar 

5631 Creek (Pend Oreille County), Indian Creek, Mill Creek, Sullivan Creek (including Sullivan Lake and 

5632 tributaries) Slate Creek, Calispell Creek, Tacoma Creek, Ruby Creek, and the Le Clerc Creek complex 

5633 (including the East and West Fork of Le Clerc Creek and Fourth of July Creek).

5634 Bull trout critical habitat on the Forest has been designated in Cedar Creek, Slate Creek, Sullivan Creek, 

5635 Le Clerc Creek, Mill Creek and Indian Creek, Ruby, Tacoma, Smalle, and Winchester Creeks (75 FR 

5636 63898).

5637 Brook trout (S. fontinalis) are an introduced char species from the eastern U.S. that have been planted 

5638 widely across the state as a game fish for the last 80 to 90 years becoming widely distributed in all five 

5639 subbasins that overlay the Forest. The species is abundant in most subwatersheds within the subbasins. 

5640 Brook trout seem to be limited by natural or unnatural barriers and very high gradients found in most 

5641 headwaters on the forest. Most populations exhibit only a resident in life history. Presently, brook trout 

5642 are only stocked on the Forest in lakes without inlets or outlets. The brook trout is a desirable sport fish. 

5643 Brook trout have been found to inter-breed with and out-compete native bull trout. Brook trout are also 

5644 known to have negative impacts on native WSCT populations through inter-specific competition and 

5645 predation. Though there is little research on the effect of brook trout stocking on native rainbow 

5646 populations, habitat overlap would likely create competition between these species as well. Under the 

5647 terms of the FERC re-licensing for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project, Seattle City Light will be 

5648 sponsoring non-native trout, particularly brook trout, suppression and eradication projects.

5649 Lake trout (S. namaycush) are an introduced species found only in Bead Lake on the Forest. Lake trout 

5650 are a popular sport fish. The species is occasionally caught in Lake Roosevelt, and Box Canyon and 

5651 Boundary Reservoirs when the fish become entrained out of Priest or Pend Oreille Lake. Lake trout live 

5652 in lakes and have a piscivorous diet. Lake trout compete with bull trout and are considered one of the 

5653 biggest threats to bull trout populations in the Lake Pend Oreille Core Area. Efforts to control the lake 

5654 trout population in Lake Pend Oreille including angler incentive programs, and trap and gill netting 

5655 programs (see USFW 2012 page 113). Spawning takes place in the fall in shoals, but no redds are created. 

5656 Family CYPRINIDAE

5657 Tench (Tinca tinca) are an introduced species that is found on the Forest in the Pend Oreille and Colville 

5658 subbasins. They inhabit the Little Pend Oreille Lakes, Parker, and Sullivan Lakes on the Forest. Tench 

5659 inhabit the shallow areas of lakes and ponds in dense vegetation. Spawning occurs from late May through 

5660 late June.

5661 Chiselmouth (Arcocheilus alutaceus) inhabit lakes and slow streams east of the Cascade Range and are 

5662 considered “common to abundant” in the upper Columbia River. The species is found in waters adjacent 

5663 to the Forest in the Pend Oreille, Lake Roosevelt and San Poil subbasins. This species is also present on 

5664 the Forest in Cusick creek, a tributary to Box Canyon reservoir in the Pend Oreille subbasin. 

5665 Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus) is found on the Forest only in Bead Lake in the Pend Oreille subbasin. 

5666 The species is also found in Lake Roosevelt and Box Canyon and Boundary Reservoirs adjacent to the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

173

5667 forest. Peamouth primarily inhabit lakes and reservoirs. They occupy the deeper habitat during the day 

5668 and move to shallows at night. Spawning occurs from late May through early June in streams and among 

5669 lake shores on a gravel or rubble bottom.

5670 Northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) are a native species that have increased in numbers on 

5671 the mainstem Columbia and Pend Oreille Rivers as dams have created large, slow-water systems. Most 

5672 pikeminnow are found adjacent to the Forest in Lake Roosevelt, Box Canyon and Boundary Reservoirs 

5673 and the lower San Poil River. Presence on the Forest has been documented in one body of water, Bead 

5674 Lake. Pikeminnow inhabit lakes and slow water areas of streams. As juveniles they consume aquatic 

5675 insects, but in adult form are highly piscivorous. 

5676 Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are a common stream species that are found in the Lake 

5677 Roosevelt and Pend Oreille subbasins adjacent to the forest. They mainly inhabit fast water portions of 

5678 cool streams, though they may move to slower water refuges during the winter months.

5679 Speckled dace (R. osculus) presence has only been documented on the forest in Sullivan Lake in the Pend 

5680 Oreille subbasin but the species also occurs in the Colville River subbasin adjacent to the forest. This 

5681 species is a generalist and inhabits streams and lakes. 

5682 Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) are found in lakes and slow-water habitat. The species is found 

5683 in the San Poil River, Cottonwood Creek and Sullivan Lake in the Colville, Pend Oreille and San Poil 

5684 subbasins, respectively on the forest. Shiners have the potential to compete with juvenile trout and 

5685 kokanee for food resources where habitat overlaps and are also important as a forage fish for larger trout. 

5686 Umatilla dace (R. umatilla) Umatilla dace are found in the Columbia River Basin east of the Cascade 

5687 Mountains from Umatilla, OR to British Columbia, Canada. In Washington State, Umatilla dace 

5688 specimens have been reported from the Columbia, Yakima, Okanogan, Similkameen, Kettle and Colville 

5689 Rivers. It is not known if Umatilla dace inhabit waters within the Forest boundary. 

5690 Family CATOSTOMIDAE

5691 Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) are found on the Forest only in the Pend Oreille subbasin in 

5692 both Bead and Sullivan Lakes. This species is also found in Lake Roosevelt and Box Canyon and 

5693 Boundary Reservoirs adjacent to the forest. Primary habitat is coldwater lakes and streams, with early 

5694 spring spawning and only short migrations recorded. 

5695 Bridgelip sucker (C. columbianus) lives in pools and backwaters of larger rivers, primarily on the east 

5696 side of the Cascade Range. This species is present in the Lake Roosevelt and San Poil subbasins adjacent 

5697 to or downriver from the forest. 

5698 Largescale sucker (C. macrocheilus) are found throughout waters adjacent to the Forest but have only 

5699 been documented on the Forest in the Pend Oreille subbasin. These are the most common of all sucker 

5700 species inhabiting both lakes and streams. Larger, slow moving systems are favored. 

5701 Family GADIDAE

5702 Burbot (Lota lota) is the only freshwater species of cod found in North America. Burbot are found in 

5703 Sullivan and Bead Lakes in the Pend Oreille subbasin on the forest. This species is also found in Lake 

5704 Roosevelt adjacent to the forest. Burbot feed on other lake fish species, foraging more actively in the 

5705 summer. Spawning takes place in late winter. It is presently unclear whether burbot was native to the 

5706 Forest or introduced. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

174

5707 Family CENTRARCHIDAE

5708 Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is an introduced species from the eastern U.S. The species is 

5709 found in Pierre, Ellen and Pepoon Lakes on the Forest, in the Lake Roosevelt and Kettle subbasins. 

5710 Largemouth bass is tolerant of warm water and does best in shallow weedy lakes and the backwaters of 

5711 rivers.

5712 Smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui) is an introduced species from the eastern and midwestern U.S. The 

5713 species is found in Boundary and Box Canyon Reservoirs in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Smallmouth bass 

5714 is tolerant of warm water but usually inhabits cool, clear streams or lakes with some current.

5715 Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) is also an introduced species from the eastern U.S. The species 

5716 is found in Pierre Lake, Kettle subbasin, on the Forest. Black crappie is generally found in the clear 

5717 waters of large streams or in reservoirs and medium-sized lakes.

5718 Family COTTIDAE

5719 Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) is found in riffles in stream systems. It is found in 13 subwatersheds in 

5720 the subbasins of the Sanpoil, the Colville (Chewelah Creek, Mill Creek), the Kettle River (Deadman 

5721 Creek), and the Pend Oreille (Big and Little Muddy Creeks, Jim Creek, Lost Creek, Sullivan Creek, 

5722 Smalle Creek, Ruby Creek, Skookum Creek, and Winchester Creek).

5723 Aquatic Invertebrates

5724 California floater (Anodonta californiensis) is a native mussel that is found from Mexico to southern 

5725 British Columbia. It is known to occur near the mouth of the Kettle River and in Curlew Lake in the 

5726 Kettle subbasin, near the mouth of the Colville River in the Colville subbasin and in Cusick Creek in the 

5727 Pend Oreille subbasin. The California floater requires clean fresh water. In the larval stage, the mussel is 

5728 parasitic to specific minnow hosts in the Gila genus. Maintaining healthy native populations is important 

5729 to ensure suitable hosts are available. Juvenile clams fall from fish where they attach to gravel or rocks in 

5730 clean, well-aerated waters. After growing for some time, young clams are washed downstream where they 

5731 settle in sandy or soft muddy bottoms in the slower waters of lakes or large rivers where they mature. This 

5732 species is considered a SOI due to state candidate listing. 

5733 There are numerous aquatic insects for which we have no inventory or population information. Due to the 

5734 lack of information these species cannot be discussed. 

5735 Step 1 (b) - Determine species-at-risk.

5736 Establishing a list of species-at-risk is an important element in the process of selecting focal species. 

5737 Species listed as threatened or endangered (TES), species-of-concern (SOC), and species-of-interest 

5738 (SOI) are identified using planning rule definitions (FSH 1909.12:43.22). All ESA listed TES , SOC and 

5739 SOI form a suite of species (hereafter referred to as species-at-risk) recognized as potentially sensitive to 

5740 management actions from which focal species are chosen to serve as surrogates for assessing current 

5741 conditions and potential effects of alternatives to other aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species, and 

5742 other species-at-risk. The following criteria, established in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 43.22, determine how 

5743 species–at-risk are sorted. 

5744 Listed species (TE) - Listed species are those listed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

5745 Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

5746 Service as threatened or endangered under the ESA (FSH 1909.12, 43.22a).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

175

5747 Species-of-concern (SOC) - Species-of-concern are species for which the responsible official determines 

5748 if management actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the ESA. Identified species-of-concern 

5749 may include entities such as distinct population segments or evolutionarily significant units that may be

5750 listed under the ESA. Species that meet one or more of the criteria below are considered SOC (FSH 

5751 1909.12, 43.22b):

5752 Species has a rank of G-1 through G-3 on the NatureServe ranking system (NatureServe 2006 

http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm).23 5753

5754 • Species has been identified as candidate and proposed species under the ESA. 

5755 • Infra-specific (sub-specific) taxa have a rank of T-1 through T-3 on the NatureServe ranking system 

5756 (NatureServe 2006).

5757 • Species was petitioned for Federal listing and a positive “90-day finding” was made.

5758 • Species was recently delisted (delisted in the past five years and regulatory agency monitoring is 

5759 still considered necessary).

5760 Species-of-interest (SOI) - Species-of-interest are species for which the responsible official determines 

5761 that management actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological or other multiple-use 

5762 objectives (FSH 1909.12, 43.22c). The responsible official may review the following for potential 

5763 species-of-interest:

5764 • Species with a rank of S-1 (critically imperiled) and S-2 (imperiled) on the NatureServe ranking 

5765 system (NatureServe 2006).

5766 • State-listed threatened and endangered species that do not meet the criteria as species-of concern.

5767 • Additional species that valid, existing information indicates are of regional or local conservation 

5768 concern due to factors that may include significant threats to populations or habitat, declining trends 

5769 in populations or habitat, rarity, or restricted ranges (e.g., narrow endemics, disjunct populations, or 

5770 species at the edge of their range).

5771 • Additional species that need plan components established for them, such as species of public 

5772 interest including hunted, fished, and other species identified cooperatively with state fish and 

5773 wildlife agencies consistent with the Sikes Act.

5774 The species-at-risk are listed in the following table.

5775 Table 47. Summary of listed species, species of concern, and species of interest

Species Present on Colville 

National Forest? Status

Bull trout Yes ESA Threatened

Westslope cutthroat Yes SOI (state candidate, Forest Service Region 6 sensitive)

Redband/rainbow Yes SOI; (Forest Service Region 6 sensitive)

Kokanee Yes SOI (tribal and sport fishing importance)

Pygmy whitefish Yes SOI; (state and Forest Service Region 6 sensitive)

California floater No SOC (state candidate)

Umatilla dace Unknown Forest Service Region 6 sensitive

 23 The 2006 NatureServe database was used for determining potential surrogate species
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

176

5776 Management Indicator Species (MIS) –The 36 CFR 219.19 (1982 planning rule) directs forests to 

5777 establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of MIS’ habitat (see further MIS discussion 

5778 below). Species are selected as MIS because their population changes may indicate the effects of land 

5779 management activities (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)). There is only one aquatic MIS in the Colville National 

5780 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; “Trouts,” with no specific species or subspecies indicated. 

5781 “Trouts” were selected to represent species utilizing lacustrine, riverine and riparian habitat. 

5782 Strategic Species - In Region 6, strategic species are designated to place emphasis on filling information 

5783 gaps (such as distribution), which will better support management’s understanding about conservation 

5784 status. Strategic species may not be considered “sensitive” under Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 and 

5785 therefore the effects of proposed actions and alternatives may not be analyzed for them. The following 

5786 aquatic vertebrates are designated as a strategic species for the Colville National Forest:

5787 • Native Trout Group: Westslope Cutthroat Trout

5788 • Redband Trout 

5789 Step 2. Identify Applicable Spawning and Rearing Habitat Associations for Each Species - Habitat 

5790 associations are defined as the type of habitat that a particular species primarily uses for spawning and 

5791 rearing. By choosing to focus on spawning and rearing habitat, we identify a potential limiting factor for 

5792 the species’ survival. Though foraging areas and migratory corridors are important, without access to 

5793 suitable spawning and rearing habitat, the species will not survive (Reiss et al. 2008).

5794 Habitat associations are categorized as headwaters, minor tributaries, major tributaries, main-stem rivers, 

5795 and lakes and reservoirs. From a hydrologic standpoint, these categories may be general and potentially 

5796 difficult to define. For the purposes of this assessment general stream habitat associations are headwaters 

5797 (1st and 2nd order fish-bearing streams), minor tributaries (3rd order), major tributaries (4th order), main5798 stem rivers (5th order and higher), and lakes and reservoirs (Reiss et al. 2008). 

5799 Step 3 – Categorize the Species-at-Risk into Habitat Associations and Step 4 Choose Species from each 

5800 Association as Focal Species to serve as indicators of other species occupying the same habitat type. 

5801 The following table provides the results from both Steps 3 and 4 in a one-reference table (Reiss et al. 

5802 2008).

5803 Table 48. Habitat associations (spawning and rearing) for species-at-risk. 

5804 Note: Species in bold text are Colville National Forest selected MIS/focal species.

Headwaters Minor tributaries Major tributaries Mainstem Rivers Lakes and 

Reservoirs

Bull Trout

Westslope 

Cutthroat

Interior Redband 

Bull Trout

Westslope 

Cutthroat

Interior Redband 

Bull Trout

Westslope 

Cutthroat

Interior Redband

Bull Trout

Westslope 

Cutthroat

California Floater

Umatilla dace

Bull Trout

Westslope 

Cutthroat

Pygmy Whitefish

Kokanee

5805 The Forest selected focal species are bull trout, WSCT and interior redband trout. These species were 

5806 given priority as focal species because:

5807 1) Bull trout are federally listed under the ESA, and WSCT and interior redband trout are a Regional 

5808 Forester’s sensitive species and Colville National Forest strategic species. All three species fall 

5809 under the MIS category of Trouts.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

177

5810 2) There is available information and data for these species through various subbasin plans, draft 

5811 recovery plan (USFWS 2014), Colville National Forest monitoring, FERC re-licensing, etc. 

5812 3) The life history strategies of these species, their presence in a wide range of watersheds across the 

5813 forest, and the multiple habitat types these species are associated with.

5814 4) These species are dependent on habitat that is substantially affected by management of NFS lands 

5815 (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 43.22d).

5816 The California floater was not selected, as it is known to occur in only one stream on the Forest. The 

5817 Umatilla dace was not considered as a focal species, as it is not known or suspected to be found on the 

5818 Forest. Pygmy whitefish were not selected, as they are found in only two lakes and are not suspected to be 

5819 substantially affected by management on the Forest. Forest management activities designed to meet the 

5820 needs of the focal species are expected to provide for the necessary habitat quality for these species. 

5821 Kokanee salmon, brown trout, and brook trout fall under the MIS “Trouts” category. However while 

5822 popular sport fish, they are not native to the Forest. Management designed to meet the needs of the focal 

5823 species is expected to provide habitat conditions for any desired non-native species. In fact the non-native 

5824 fish are not necessarily good focal species as the re-licensing for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project 

5825 includes terms for non-native fish suppression and eradication programs.

5826 Colville Forest Plan Revision Management Indicator Species

5827 The 1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.19) directs forests to establish objectives for maintenance and 

5828 improvement of habitat for MIS. Species are selected as MIS because their population changes may 

5829 indicate the effects of land management activities (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)). Each forest plan alternative is 

5830 to establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for the MIS. The MIS are to be 

5831 used to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations. Alternatives are to be 

5832 evaluated in terms of both the amount and quality of habitat and of the population trends for the MIS. The 

5833 selection of MIS are to represent, where appropriate (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)):

5834 • Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists for the 

5835 planning area.

5836 • Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management 

5837 programs.

5838 • Species commonly hunted, fished or trapped.

5839 • Non-game species of special interest.

5840 • Additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to 

5841 indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological 

5842 communities or on water quality.

5843 There is only one aquatic MIS identified for the current Colville National Forest Land and Resource 

5844 Management Plan: Trouts, with no specific species or subspecies indicated. Trouts were selected to 

5845 represent species utilizing lacustrine, riverine and riparian habitat. In the case of the Forest the Trouts may 

5846 include native bull trout, WSCT, and interior redband trout; as well as non-native trouts; brook trout, 

5847 coastal rainbow trout, brown trout, lake trout, and kokanee salmon that have been introduced for sport 

5848 fishing. Without identifying any particular species Trouts could also include the mountain whitefish and 

5849 pygmy whitefish which are in the same family (Salmonidae) as the aforementioned Trouts.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

178

5850 When the current Colville Forest Plan was written no fish species were listed as Threatened or 

5851 Endangered under the ESA. Since then one species, the bull trout, has been listed as a Threatened Species 

5852 with critical habitat designated on the Forest. WSCT, interior redband, pygmy whitefish and Umatilla 

5853 dace are Forest Service, Region 6 sensitive species.

5854 The focal species were chosen to assess current aquatic species status and to assess the potential effects of 

5855 alternatives on species viability. In a sense the focal species, bull trout, WSCT and interior redband trout, 

5856 are used in a similar manner as the MIS under 1982 planning rule in the development of the Draft 

5857 Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and subsequent forest plan. 

5858 The three focal species will be carried forward as both focal and MIS (hereafter referred to as (MIS/focal 

5859 species) because the bull trout are a threatened species, the three species have special habitat needs that 

5860 may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; the interior redband and WSCT are 

5861 species of concern and game fish; and because population changes could be indicators of the effects of 

5862 management activities on other species, biological communities, or on water quality.

5863 The native mountain whitefish and pigmy whitefish were not selected as focal species or considered to be 

5864 identified as MIS. The mountain whitefish are not generally found in the small streams on the Forest but 

5865 in the larger systems that primarily do not flow through the Forest. Pygmy whitefish are only found in 

5866 two lakes on the Forest. The main threats that have been identified for pygmy whitefish are introduced 

5867 predatory species, silting of spawning streams and lake eutrophication. The Umatilla dace is not known to 

5868 occur on the Forest. Providing for the habitat needs of the MIS/focal species through the plan components 

5869 (Desired Conditions, Objectives, Key Watersheds, Riparian Management Areas, and Standards and 

5870 Guidelines) (see DEIS Chapter 4) is expected to reduce the potential for adverse amounts of sediment or 

5871 silt being deposited in spawning streams and reduce the potential for Forest management programs 

5872 contributing to lake eutrophication. In addition, the Forest would collaborate with the State of 

5873 Washington, tribes, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on projects to decrease predators impacting 

5874 mountain pygmy whitefish on the Forest. 

5875 The non-native brook trout, brown trout, lake trout, kokanee salmon and coastal rainbow trout were not 

5876 considered as MIS. Although these species are popular sport fish they are also threats to the native 

5877 MIS/focal species through competition for food and habitat, predation on the focal species, and 

5878 hybridization with the focal species. Lake trout compete with bull trout and are considered one of the 

5879 biggest threats to bull trout populations in the Lake Pend Oreille core area. Efforts to control the lake trout 

5880 population in Lake Pend Oreille including angler incentive programs, and trapping and gill netting 

5881 programs. The terms for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project re-licensing include implementing non5882 native fish population suppression and eradication efforts in streams tributary to the Boundary Reservoir. 

5883 It would not make sense to select a non-native fish species as a MIS when some populations may be 

5884 actively suppressed or eradicated. 

5885 Land management activities such as timber harvest, the transportation system (both roads and trails), 

5886 grazing, and recreation can adversely impact the habitat for native salmonid species. The three focal/MIS 

5887 species were selected based upon the rationale presented in the selection of focal species discussion. The 

5888 habitat requirements for the ESA Threatened bull trout including: requirements for cold water 

5889 temperatures, clean substrates; complex stream habitat including deep pools, overhanging banks and large 

5890 woody debris; and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and downstream foraging, migration, 

5891 and overwintering habitats, make the species the potentially the most susceptible of the focal species to 

5892 impacts from the management programs identified in the forest plan. Monitoring the status of bull trout 

5893 habitat may, therefore, be expected to be a good indicator of the status of habitat for other aquatic species 

5894 on the Forest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

179

5895 The historic range of WSCT and interior redband trout has been greatly reduced due to degraded habitat 

5896 and stocking non-native species, especially non-native forms of cutthroat trout, coastal rainbow trout, and 

5897 brook trout. However there are sub-watersheds that still support genetically pure WSCT or interior 

5898 redband trout populations. While neither bull trout, WSCT, nor interior redband populations are widely 

5899 distributed across the Forest, between the three species their habitat and populations are found across the 

5900 range physical and biological watershed conditions on the Forest.

5901 The Forest Service contribution to the three species’ population viability will be assessed for each 

5902 alternative. Additionally the habitat conditions for the three species will be assessed through the aquatics 

5903 and watershed forest plan monitoring program. The monitoring program, discussed in Chapter 4 of the 

5904 DEIS, has been incorporated into all alternatives to determine if land management actions implemented in 

5905 accordance with the plan components are improving watershed conditions, riparian and stream habitats 

5906 toward the desired conditions. PacFish/InFish Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO) (discussed later in 

5907 this document), is expected to continue to provide information regarding the trends in aquatic habitat 

condition.

24 5908 The Forest annually conducts stream habitat surveys on approximately 17 miles stream using 

5909 a standard Region 6 stream survey protocol. The surveys also collect information of fish distribution at 

5910 the time of the survey although the surveys are not designed to provide a population estimate. Monitoring 

5911 information that is described in the Watershed portion of the DEIS will provide valuable information 

5912 regarding the status of aquatic habitat. The watershed monitoring includes periodically updating the WCF 

5913 and a Regional Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring program.

5914 Programs implemented by other agencies are expected to provide information regarding fish population 

5915 trends especially in the Pend Oreille subbasin. For example the terms for re-licensing the Boundary 

5916 Hydroelectric Project include a conservation hatchery program to re-build the populations of native fish. 

5917 The terms for the hatchery program include establishing population goals for self-sustaining populations 

5918 of the native fish. Seattle City Light is to monitor the success of the out-planting program until the 

5919 population goals are met.

5920 Aquatic Species Viability Evaluation/ Aquatic Ecological Condition Model

5921 The 2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR 219.19(a)(7)(ii)(A-B & D), states; “Evaluations of species diversity 

5922 must include, as appropriate, assessments of the risks to species viability and the identification of 

5923 ecological conditions needed to maintain species viability over time based on the following: The viability

5924 of each species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate, and 

5925 proposed species must be assessed. Individual species assessments must be used for these species... For 

5926 all other species, including other species-at-risk and those species for which there is little information, a 

5927 variety of approaches may be used, including individual species assessments and assessments of 

5928 MIS/focal species or other indicators used as surrogates in the evaluation of ecological conditions needed 

5929 to maintain species viability. In analyzing viability, the extent of information available about species, their 

5930 habitats, the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the ecological conditions needed to support them must be 

5931 identified. Species assessments may rely on general conservation principles and expert opinion. When 

5932 detailed information on species habitat relationships, demographics, genetics, and risk factors is available, 

5933 that information should be considered.”

 24 See Appendix1 page 15 in the April 18, 2014 letter from the Deputy Regional Directors to FS Pacific Northwest and Rocky 

Mountain Research Station Director, NOAA Fisheries Branch Chiefs (West Coast Region), BLM District/Field Managers 

(Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana), FWS Field Supervisors (Pacific Region), EPA Office of Water Directors (Regions 8, 

9, and 10), EPA Operations Office Directors (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington),EPA Region Forest/Range Manager 

(Region 10) Updated Interior Columbia Basin Strategy: A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

180

5934 To meet the above direction, the Aquatic Ecological Condition (AEC) model was developed to assess the 

5935 current condition of aquatic habitat and MIS/focal species population status and to inform the species 

5936 viability assessment. Reiss et al. (2008) utilized a decision-support model in order to formalize the 

5937 assessment procedures, assumptions and factors that would contribute to healthy, ecologically sustainable 

5938 aquatic species populations and their habitat. The decision-support model (DSM) is a computer-based 

model (Netweaver) that applies a consistent evaluation process across time and space.

25 5939 This type of 

5940 model was chosen because it uses an explicit process for assessing condition and documents the data and 

5941 relations between attributes assumed in the assessment. Decision Support Models use data to evaluate a 

5942 conclusion. For the AEC model, the conclusion being analyzed is; Subwatersheds (HUC12) on the Forest 

5943 provide Aquatic Ecological Conditions that are properly functioning and support viable populations of 

5944 aquatic MIS/focal species. Data used in the assessment lend varying levels of support to this conclusion, 

5945 ranging from full support (+1) to no support (-1). The HUC12 AEC assessment depends on two topics; 

5946 MIS/focal species local population condition and habitat condition within each sub-watershed on the 

5947 Forest. Both of these topics are dependency networks composed of aggregated evaluation scores from 

5948 other attributes (shown below). These scores may be interpreted as strength of evidence, where +1 

5949 indicates strong evidence of the conclusion and -1 indicates no evidence of the conclusion. A score of 0 is 

5950 assigned by the model when the strength of evidence lies midway between the +1 and -1 scores and/or 

5951 does not provide evidence for or against the conclusion. Scores from -1 to -0.34 were considered NOT 

5952 PROPERLY FUNCTIONING for a model attribute or total AEC; scores from -0.33 to +0.33 are 

5953 considered FUNCTIONING AT RISK for viability; scores from +0.33 to +1.0 are considered 

5954 FUNCTIONING APPROPRIATELY for viability. The AEC model was originally run for the Forest in 

5955 2008. The Forest decided not to use the 2008 AEC model results due to a variety of factors including:

5956 • Subwatershed boundaries have changed since the original assessment

5957 • Documentation of the 2008 AEC modeling process for the Forest is not clear and the personnel who 

5958 developed and ran the model have moved to other agencies or retired; thus it is difficult to analyze 

5959 the model results without better understanding of the model inputs. This concern was further 

5960 highlighted as the model results seem to over-estimate the number of watersheds in a “poor” 

condition given the more recent 2010 watershed condition framework (WCF) effort.

26 5961

5962 • Existing information on in-stream habitat was not utilized in the 2008 model. Updating the 2008 

5963 analysis allowed the Forest to integrate the available stream habitat information and the WCF 

5964 exercise to provide a more complete assessment of the current AEC across the Forest.

5965 • Current fish distribution and status information is more robust than what was available in 2008.

5966 A second exercise to assess the AEC was undertaken in 2014. For the 2014 AEC modeling, the Forest 

5967 followed the basic procedures outlined in Reiss et al. (2008) but the information and analysis described 

below utilized EXCEL spreadsheets instead of the DSM.

27 5968

5969 HUC12s (sub-watersheds averaging 10,000 to 40,000 acres) were chosen to evaluate viability due to the 

5970 configuration of the HUC12 boundaries being considered the best surrogate for local populations of 

5971 MIS/focal species in the interior Columbia Basin (Reiss et al. 2008). MIS/focal species local population 

5972 condition was evaluated using data on fish distribution, population status and abundance, habitat and 

5973 genetic connectivity, and impact of non-native species. These attributes were selected to evaluate the 

5974 health, diversity, resilience and distribution of populations of MIS/focal aquatic species within the 

5975 planning area.

 25 Documentation including the scientific rationale used to develop the AEC model can be found in Reiss et al. (2008) 26 A description of the WCF effort and results are included in the Chapter 3 Hydrology section of the DEIS and in Day 2015 27 Kate_Aqautic_Function_9_22-14 and KeyWatershedSpreadsheet_9-29-2014-Excel
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

181

5976 Distribution - The distribution of MIS/focal species was primarily evaluated using “expert opinion” 

5977 derived from biologists (and/or hydrologists) familiar with local conditions and studies. 

5978 The status assessment includes two attributes: status and abundance. Local spawning populations were 

5979 characterized as strong or depressed based on current versus historic abundance, full expression of life 

5980 history traits, and population trends. When information was not sufficient to apply the criteria, “unknown 

5981 status” was assigned. Some HUC12s were identified as exclusively non-spawning/rearing areas (i.e., 

5982 migratory corridor, over-wintering, or foraging). We included an additional attribute: genetically pure 

5983 population. This attribute was evaluated based on assumptions about populations, and information from 

5984 genetic studies. 

5985 The abundance attribute of the HUC12 MIS/focal species assessment describes local population status by 

5986 addressing the average number of adults spawning annually. In many cases abundance was unknown so a 

5987 score of 0 was applied.

5988 Connectivity also includes two attributes; habitat barriers and genetic connectivity. Habitat barriers 

5989 evaluates the degree to which access to habitat is limited by barriers to upstream and downstream fish 

5990 movement within the HUC12. Only human-made barriers within the boundary of the HUC12 are 

5991 considered in this attribute, though natural barriers may limit access as well. Barriers that protect resident 

5992 fish populations from an invasive species are scored as beneficial.

5993 Genetic connectivity describes the degree of connectivity between local populations within the HUC8 and 

5994 thus the potential for a functioning meta-population. Although data for this attribute were determined at 

5995 the HUC8 scale, the impact of isolation was assessed for each local population. Connectivity was 

5996 primarily evaluated through expert opinion.

5997 Non-native effects assesses the effects of non-native species on MIS/focal species. We focused on threats 

5998 via introgression and not competition because the effects of introgression are more direct and thus 

5999 quantifiable. However, we did consider competition where it appears non-native fish may have displaced 

6000 a MIS/focal species population.

6001 HUC 12-Scale Model: Habitat Condition

6002 The habitat condition component of the HUC12 AEC model was designed to assess ecological processes 

6003 and watershed function, rather than evaluate the specific habitat needs of any particular species (see Reiss 

6004 et al. 2008 for scientific rationale used to develop the model). Aquatic and riparian resources, water 

6005 quality and species viability are dependent on the protection of naturally occurring processes. Processes 

6006 such as, wildfire, flooding, sediment delivery to streams, natural flow regimes and retention of riparian 

6007 vegetation (provides shade, moderates stream temperatures, provides recruitment of downed trees, etc.) 

6008 are essential to the proper functioning of the stream channel and habitat that provides for the viability of 

6009 aquatic species. Attributes were selected to serve as indicators of the routing of water, sediment, wood, 

6010 and nutrients through the watershed—the processes that create and maintain the habitat conditions 

6011 necessary to sustain healthy populations of aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. Channel shape and 

6012 function, and the large woody debris attributes are included as indicators of current stream channel and 

6013 overall aquatic habitat condition. 

6014 The Forest followed a process similar to and consistent with Reiss et al. (2008). The following model and 

6015 attributes and attribute weights were developed by the Forest based on Reiss et al. (2008), and with input 

6016 from Forest Service Region 6 Regional Office fish biologist, hydrologist and planning staff.

6017 The road density attribute is used in the habitat condition model not only as an indicator of the potential 

6018 risks roads present to aquatic habitat and watershed processes but as an indicator of the intensity of 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

182

6019 anthropogenic disturbances in a watershed, not just those risks due directly to effects of the roads 

6020 themselves. Roads have been shown to affect the routing of water, sediment, wood, and nutrients to 

6021 stream channels resulting in accelerated erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels; altered channel 

6022 structure and lateral migration of the channel in the flood plain; reduced large wood recruitment into the 

6023 stream channel and shorter residence times of wood in the stream; and altered flow paths leading to 

6024 diversion or extension of channels onto un-channeled portions of the landscape. 

6025 Roads are also associated with activities, past and present, that create negative effects on watershed and 

6026 aquatic conditions beyond those solely attributable to the road, such as fishing, fish stocking (particularly 

6027 non-native species), disease introduction, beaver removal, timber harvest, splash-damming, permanent 

6028 dams for water storage and power production, recreation (particularly dispersed recreation camping next 

6029 to streams), livestock grazing, irrigation withdrawals, fire suppression and ignition, and mining.

6030 The road density (miles/sq. mile) attribute was calculated by subwatershed by dividing the total miles of 

6031 road under all jurisdictions within the Forest proclaimed boundary by the area of the proclaimed Colville 

6032 National Forest boundary.

6033 Roads in proximity to water attribute is similar to the channel constriction attribute described in Reiss et 

6034 al. (2008), recognizing that roads near aquatic habitat can have additional effects to the habitat. 

6035 Streamside roads can reduce stream shade and increase water temperatures, simplify channel form (cut 

6036 off side channels, straighten streams through confinement), and create impediments to the movement of 

6037 aquatic species. The rationale given in Reiss et al. (2008) is further supported by recent work specific to 

6038 the interior Columbia Basin. Meredith et al. (2014) found the presence of roads adjacent to streams 

6039 resulted in significant reductions of in-channel wood. The proximity to water attribute by subwatershed 

6040 was calculated by dividing total road miles of all roads under all jurisdictions in the riparian habitat 

6041 conservation areas designated by INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) by the square mile of RCAs.

6042 The road attributes were categorized or “scored” consistent with the WCF, where a score of 1 is 

6043 considered to be “good” condition, a score of 2 representing “fair” and a score of 3 is considered “poor” 

6044 condition. The following table displays how the road density and proximity to water attributes were 

6045 categorized.

6046 Table 49. Road attributes categories

Road Density

(mile per square mile?) Road Density Risk category Riparian Road Density category

less than 1 1 1

1-2.4 2 2

>2.4 3 3

6047 The roads attributes were further evaluated for erosion and sedimentation risk. High road densities in 

6048 sensitive HUC12s can more severely disrupt watershed processes and potentially have more serious 

6049 impacts to water quality, aquatic habitat, and the species themselves than the same densities in less 

6050 sensitive HUC12s. The weight that the road density evaluation score receives in the model varies 

6051 according to a HUC12’s sensitivity to soil disturbance. 

6052 The roads in landtype associations (LTA) with high erosion and sedimentation potential attribute is similar 

6053 to the road density by sensitive soils attribute in Reiss et al. (2008). LTAs are ecological land units 

6054 delineated based on similarities in landform pattern, geomorphic processes, regolith and bedrock features 

6055 and their influence on physical and biological processes, climate, and potential vegetation (Davis et al. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

183

2004).

28 6056 Both the hydrology and soils sections in this document include additional discussion of LTAs. 

6057 The LTAs were rated based on erosion risk using the following factors:

6058 • Sediment delivery efficiency

6059 • Surface runoff from snowpack

6060 • Surface runoff from summer storms

6061 • Deep-seeded landslide risk

6062 • Shallow, rapid landslide risk

6063 • Soil erosion

6064 Each of the erosion risk factors were put into three categories that were weighted equally.

6065 Table 50. Erosion risk categories

Category Points

Low 1

Moderate 2

High or Flashy 3

6066 The points for the six factors were summed to determine the “final” erosion risk score. Therefore the 

6067 highest total score is 18, the lowest six.

6068 Table 51. Final erosion risk categories

Total Points Final Erosion Risk

6-8 Low

9-12 Moderate

12-18 High

6069 The following table displays how subwatersheds with roads in LTAs with high erosion and sedimentation 

6070 risk were categorized.

6071 Table 52. Erosion and sedimentation risk categories

Miles of Road in LTAs with high 

erosion and sedimentation risk

Road Erosion and 

Sedimentation Risk 

Category

0-8 1

8.1-15 2

>15 3

6072 Two upslope vegetation attributes were included in the AEC model: fire condition class, and insects and 

6073 disease. The definitions, rating and scoring for the two attributes were obtained from the WCF database. 

6074 These two attributes were chosen to help describe the health of forest vegetation as a component of a 

 28 Landtype Associations are defined for the Colville National Forest in Davis (2004)
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

184

6075 healthy watershed and to assess the potential risk of historically uncharacteristic wildfire, and insect and 

6076 disease outbreaks. 

6077 The fire regime condition class (FRCC) measures the degree vegetation conditions have departed from a 

6078 reference condition expected with natural fire frequency intervals. The departure from reference 

6079 conditions may result in changes to key ecosystem components, such as vegetation characteristics 

6080 (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; 

6081 fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances, such as insect and disease 

6082 mortality, grazing, and drought. The degree of departure may be due to (but are not limited to) fire 

6083 suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, 

6084 and introduced insects and disease. The FRCC is a measure of ecological trend and the potential for 

6085 uncharacteristic disturbance to the ecosystem from fire. There are three fire regime condition classes 

6086 described below: 

6087 • FRCC 1 represents ecosystems with low (less than 33 percent) departure and that are still within the 

6088 estimated historical range of variability during a specifically defined reference period.

6089 • FRCC 2 indicates ecosystems with moderate (33 to 66 percent) departure.

6090 • FRCC 3 indicates ecosystems with high (greater than 66 percent) departure from reference 

6091 conditions.

6092 Insects and disease along with fire are important regulators of forest change. Insects and disease can 

6093 negatively affect resource values and ecosystem functions including reducing the ability of forest 

6094 canopies to intercept snow and prevent excessive runoff. Recent increases in forest area affected by insect 

6095 outbreaks and possible links to fire suppression have created a resurgence of interest in their possible 

6096 effects to water quantity, quality, and risks.

6097 The riparian wetland vegetation attribute addresses riparian vegetation condition. Important functions of 

6098 riparian vegetation include (FEMAT 1993, Gregory et al. 1991):

6099 a. The input of fine organic matter and nutrients to aquatic habitat

6100 b. Providing for bank stability

6101 c. Filtering sediment due to surface erosion thus controlling the amount reaching the aquatic system

6102 d. A source of large woody debris

6103 e. Shading the aquatic habitat thus helping to control water temperature

6104 f. Controlling the microclimate within the riparian zone and adjacent to the aquatic habitat

6105 The riparian wetland vegetation attribute scores were obtained from the WCF database.

6106 Reiss et al. (2008) recognized the importance of including in-stream attributes as indicators of aquatic 

6107 habitat condition, however, did not due to lack of data on non-Federal lands. Reiss et al. (2008) did 

6108 recognize the value of including stream channel attributes if available. Since the Forest had recently 

6109 assessed all subwatersheds within the Forest administrative boundary with a consistent framework 

6110 through the WCF exercise, the decision was made to include attributes that would help describe the 

6111 current condition of stream habitat. The previously discussed attributes assess factors that influence 

6112 aquatic habitat but do not specifically describe current aquatic habitat condition for the MIS/focal species. 

6113 Therefore, the Forest decided to include attributes to describe aquatic habitat conditions which when 

6114 combined with the upslope and riparian attributes, and MIS/focal species status scores, were felt to 

6115 provide a more complete picture of the AEC. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

185

6116 Two in-channel attributes were chosen to describe in-stream habitat conditions:

6117 • Channel shape and function

6118 • Large woody debris

6119 Stream channels are formed and shaped in response to the timing and quantity of flow and sediment 

6120 delivery over time. Short-term changes in water or sediment delivery due to a disturbance such as a fire or 

6121 flood may cause a channel response resulting in a changed condition. However if the channel forming 

6122 processes are intact and allowed to recover, the stream channels and aquatic habitat are usually resilient 

6123 (see Montgomery and Buffington 1998, Leopold 1994, Rosgen 1996). 

6124 Allowing stream channels to interact with floodplains and preserving the lateral, longitudinal, and 

6125 temporal variability between stream channels, floodplains and riparian habitats are paramount to maintain 

6126 natural heterogeneity and complexity of aquatic habitat (Naiman et al. 1992). In-stream large woody 

6127 debris, where it is a natural part of the aquatic system, is an important feature that creates complex 

6128 channel structure and fish habitat by collecting sediment, forming riffles and pools, providing cover, and 

6129 facilitating biological productivity (Naiman et al. 1992). Complex habitats that are resilient to disturbance 

6130 are important for the survival and productivity of aquatic species populations (Reeves et al. 1995)

6131 The scores for the habitat portion of the AEC were obtained by multiplying the score for each attribute by 

6132 its weight and summing the scores for each subwatershed. The properly functioning, functioning at risk, 

6133 and not properly functioning scores were then converted to a +1 to -1 scale and combined with the 

6134 MIS/Focal Species Status to obtain the AEC score for a subwatershed.

6135 Table 53. Total possible score by attribute

Attribute Total Score Possible

Large Woody Debris 0.3

Channel Shape and Function 0.3

Riparian Wetland Veg Condition 0.3

Road Density 0.45

Proximity to Water 1.2

Roads in LTAs with high erosion and 

sedimentation potential 0.15

Fire Condition Class 0.15

Insects and Disease 0.15

Total 3

6136 Table 54. Final aquatic habitat condition rating

Final Aquatic Habitat Condition Rating Final Habitat Score Score Included in the AEC Model

Properly Functioning 1.0-1.4 +0.33 to +1.0

Functioning at Risk 1.5-2.4 -0.33 to +0.33

Not Properly Functioning 2.5-3 -1 to -0.34

6137 AEC Results – Current Watershed Condition and Species Status on the Colville National Forest

Table 55 displays the HUC12 AEC model results by MIS/focal species, by subbasin.

29 6138

 29 Kate_Aquatic_ Function_9_22-14-Excel and KeyWatershedSpreadsheet_9-29-2014-Excel
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

186

6139 Kettle Interior Redband

6140 The total AEC scores for interior redband in the Kettle subbasin range from a high of 0.4 (functional) in 

6141 the Sand Creek-Kettle River subwatershed to -0.6 (not properly functioning) in the West Deer Creek 

6142 subwatershed. The MIS/focal species scores are within the properly functioning range in eight 

6143 subwatersheds; in five subwatersheds the population is rated functioning at risk; and the local population 

6144 score is not properly functioning in two subwatersheds. The low local population scores are generally due 

6145 to unknown redband abundance, abundant brook trout and a past history of stocking non-native rainbow 

6146 trout. The habitat scores are considered not properly functioning in 10 of the 15 subwatersheds occupied 

6147 by interior redband. No subwatershed habitat scores fall within the properly functioning range. A lack of 

6148 large woody debris in the stream channels, high road densities and riparian road densities are commonly 

6149 driving the low habitat scores. In all subwatersheds the channel shape and function attribute is rated 

6150 functioning at risk. The fire regime indicator is rated functioning at risk in many of the subwatersheds and 

6151 the riparian vegetation indicator is rated as not properly functioning in the Trout Creek, Tonata Creek, 

6152 Saint Peter Creek, Little Boulder Creek and West Deer Creek subwatersheds. 

6153 Kettle WSCT

6154 Westslope cutthroat trout inhabit six subwatersheds within the Kettle River subbasin. Only the Sand 

6155 Creek-Kettle River has a properly functioning AEC score, the remaining five subwatersheds are rated 

6156 functioning at risk. The MIS/focal species population is rated not properly functioning in the East Deer 

6157 Creek-Kettle River, functioning at risk in four subwatersheds, and within the properly functioning range 

6158 in Sand Creek-Kettle River. The low population scores are driven by low or unknown abundance, barriers 

6159 and presence of non-native fish including possible presence of introduced non-native cutthroat trout. The 

6160 functioning at risk watershed condition scores are due to ratings for channel function and shape, low 

6161 amounts of woody debris, road and riparian road densities. The riparian vegetation attribute is functioning 

6162 at risk in the South Fork Boulder Creek subwatershed. The fire regime indicator is functioning at risk in 

6163 the North Fork Boulder-Boulder creek and South Fork Boulder Creek subwatersheds. 

6164 Sanpoil WSCT 

6165 Within the Forest only the North Fork Sanpoil River-Sanpoil subwatershed is inhabited by WSCT. The 

6166 local population is functioning at risk due to unknown abundance and a lack of connectivity with other 

6167 WSCT populations. The watershed condition within the North Fork Sanpoil River-Sanpoil subwatershed 

6168 is functioning at risk due to poor riparian vegetation conditions and high riparian road densities. Channel 

6169 shape and function, fire regime, insects and disease and road densities are all rated functioning at risk. 

6170 Only the large wood attribute and sediment risk from roads on sensitive soils are considered properly 

6171 functioning.

6172 Sanpoil Interior Redband

6173 Interior redband trout are found in four subwatersheds within the Sanpoil subbasin. Two subwatersheds 

6174 have a total AEC within the functioning at risk category and two are rated not properly functioning. All 

6175 local populations are rated not properly functioning except O’Brien Creek which is functioning at risk. 

6176 Brook trout predominate and interior redband trout may no longer be present in all but the O’Brien Creek 

6177 subwatershed. The O’Brien Creek population is at risk due to unknown abundance, reduced range, and 

6178 lack of connectivity with other redband populations. Habitat is functioning at risk in O’Brien and 

6179 Thirteenmile-Sanpoil River subwatersheds and rated as not properly functioning in the Scatter Creek and 

6180 Ninemile Creek subwatersheds. Only the insect and disease and road on sensitive soils attributes are rated 

6181 as properly functioning in O’Brien Creek, riparian road densities are not properly functioning. 

6182 Thirteenmile Creek-Sanpoil River subwatershed is functioning at risk due to impaired channel shape and 

6183 function, road densities and high riparian road densities. High road and riparian road densities, and a lack 

6184 of large woody debris primarily drive the low watershed condition rating for Scatter Creek-Sanpoil River 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

187

6185 subwatershed. The Ninemile Creek watershed condition is degraded due to high road and riparian road 

6186 densities combined with all other indicators except the road on sensitive soils indicator are rated 

6187 functioning at risk. 

6188 Pend Oreille Bull Trout

6189 Bull trout local population status and overall AEC scores are generally rated as not properly functioning. 

6190 Only the Headwaters South Salmo River received a positive population score, although population status 

6191 is functioning at risk. The local populations in North Fork Sullivan Creek,-Sullivan Creek, Slate Creek, 

6192 West Branch Le Clerc Creek and East Branch Le Clerc Creeks were rated at risk. The low population 

6193 scores are due to low or unknown abundance, competition with non-native trout, and barriers.

6194 As with the population status ratings, the watershed condition scores are also generally not properly 

6195 functioning. Watershed condition is rated as properly functioning only in the Headwaters South Salmo 

6196 River subwatershed, North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek, and Slate Creek subwatersheds. The 

6197 functioning at risk and not properly functioning ratings are due to at risk or not properly functioning

6198 ratings for large woody debris (16 subwatersheds), channel shape and function (17 subwatersheds), 

6199 riparian vegetation condition (18 subwatersheds), insects and disease (four subwatersheds), road densities 

6200 (19 subwatersheds) riparian road densities (19 subwatersheds) and roads on sensitive soils (eight 

6201 subwatersheds). Additionally all subwatersheds were rated functioning at risk for the fire regime attribute.

6202 Pend Oreille WSCT 

6203 Of the 24 Pend Oreille subwatersheds rated for WSCT, only the Headwaters South Salmo River received 

6204 a functional AEC. The AEC for the Winchester Creek, North Fork Calispell Creek, Skookum Creek, 

6205 Cusick Creek-Pend Oreille River and Maitlen Creek-Pend Oreille River is rated as not properly 

6206 functioning. All other subwatersheds received a functioning at risk score. Local species population status 

6207 is rated as properly functioning in the Headwaters South Salmo River, West Branch Le Clerc Creek, East 

6208 Branch Le Clerc Creek, and Harvey Creek. Twelve local populations are rated as functioning at risk and 

6209 eight local populations are rated as not properly functioning. The functioning at risk and not properly 

6210 functioning scores are due to a combination of unknown or low abundance, competition with non-native 

6211 trout and lack of connectivity with other WSCT populations due to barriers. 

6212 The watershed condition is rated as properly functioning in Headwaters South Salmo River, North Fork 

6213 Sullivan Creek-Sullivan, and Slate Creek. The watershed condition is rated as functioning at risk in seven 

6214 subwatersheds and not properly functioning in 14 subwatersheds. Factors contributing to the at risk and 

6215 not properly functioning ratings include; diminished amounts of large woody debris (17 subwatersheds), 

6216 impaired channel shape and function (20 subwatersheds), riparian vegetation condition (17 

6217 subwatersheds), insects and disease (nine subwatersheds), high road densities and riparian road densities 

6218 (21 subwatersheds) and roads on soils sensitive to erosion (nine subwatersheds). Additionally all 

6219 subwatersheds are rated functioning at risk for the fire regime indicator.

6220 Colville WSCT 

6221 The subwatersheds with WSCT in the Colville subbasin, include the Little Pend Oreille Lakes, 

6222 Cottonwood Creek, and South Fork Mill Creek. Cottonwood Creek received an overall AEC score in the 

6223 functioning at risk range while the Little Pend Oreille lakes and South Fork Mill Creek subwatersheds are 

6224 rated as not properly functioning. The local population scores are all in the functioning at risk range due 

6225 to low abundance, a predominance of brook trout, and isolation due to man-made barriers preventing 

6226 connectivity with other populations. The Cottonwood Creek subwatershed condition is functioning at risk

6227 while both Little Pend Oreille Lakes and South Fork Mill Creek are rated as not properly functioning. The 

6228 Cottonwood rating is due to large woody debris amounts scored as not properly functioning. The channel 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

188

6229 shape and function, road densities and riparian road density attributes are functioning at risk. The not 

6230 properly functioning watershed condition ratings for Little Pend Oreille Lakes and South Fork Mill Creek 

6231 subwatersheds are due to functioning at risk or not properly functioning scores for all the watershed 

6232 condition attributes except insects and disease and for roads on soils sensitive to erosion.

6233 Colville Interior Redband Trout

6234 The Colville subbasin includes four subwatersheds with interior redband trout. The total AECs for the 

6235 South Fork Chewelah Creek-Chewelah Creek and North Fork Mill Creek are rated functioning at risk

6236 while the AEC for the South Fork Mill Creek and North Fork Chewelah Creek is rated as not properly 

6237 functioning. The local populations are considered to be functioning at risk due to low abundance, isolation 

6238 by barriers, high numbers of brook trout or hybridization with non-native trout. The watershed condition 

6239 is considered not properly functioning in all four subwatersheds due to at risk or not properly functioning

6240 scores for all watershed condition attributes except insects and disease, roads on soils sensitive to erosion, 

6241 and the fire regime attribute in the North Fork Mill Creek and North Fork Chewelah Creek watersheds.

6242 Lake Roosevelt Interior Redband

6243 Interior redband trout populations are found in nine subwatersheds. No subwatersheds received a properly 

6244 functioning AEC score, four are rated as functioning at risk and five received a not properly functioning

6245 rating. Six local populations are functioning at risk and three are not properly functioning. Factors 

6246 contributing to the low scores include limited distribution, low population numbers, isolation due to 

6247 barriers, competition with non-native brook trout, and hybridization with non-native trout. Isolation above 

6248 barriers are protecting small populations of interior redband from hybridization with non-native rainbow 

6249 trout in the South Fork Sherman Creek, Upper Sherman Creek, and Lower Sherman Creek 

6250 subwatersheds. 

6251 No subwatersheds received a properly functioning watershed condition score. Five received a functioning 

6252 at risk rating and the remaining four are rated as not properly functioning. All subwatersheds were 

6253 functioning at risk or not properly functioning for riparian road densities and channel shape and function. 

6254 Seven subwatersheds were rated functioning at risk or not properly functioning for large woody debris, 

6255 five for the riparian vegetation condition attribute, three for fire regime, three for insects and disease, 

6256 seven for total road densities, and two for roads on soils sensitive to erosion. 

6257 Lake Roosevelt WSCT

6258 The Lake Roosevelt subbasin includes five subwatersheds with WSCT populations. Four of the five 

6259 subwatersheds received a functioning at risk AEC while Meadow Creek was rated not properly 

6260 functioning. All the local populations are rated as functioning at risk except Meadow Creek which is not 

6261 properly functioning. The watershed condition scores for North Deep Creek, American Fork and Lower 

6262 Big Sheep Creek are rated as functioning at risk. Rocky Creek and Meadow Creek are not properly 

6263 functioning. The local population scores are influenced by low abundance, isolation due to barriers and 

6264 the apparent displacement of WSCT populations by brook trout. The watershed condition scores are due 

6265 to all subwatersheds receiving a functioning at risk rating for the large woody debris, channel shape and 

6266 function, road density, and riparian road density attributes. Three of the five subwatersheds are rated as 

6267 functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the riparian vegetation attribute; three are functioning at 

6268 risk for fire regime and one for the insect and disease indicator.

6269 Summary

6270 The AEC for most subwatersheds on the Forest is rated as functioning at risk or not properly functioning. 

6271 The local population’s MIS/focal species status is rated functioning at risk or not properly functioning in 

6272 most subwatersheds. Subwatersheds with local populations rated as properly functioning include eight 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

189

6273 redband populations and one WSCT population in the Kettle subbasin, and four WSCT populations in the 

6274 Pend Oreille subbasin. The poor local population status ratings are generally due to low abundance of the 

6275 MIS/focal species, hybridization, apparent displacement or competition from non-native fish, especially 

6276 brook trout, barriers and a lack of connectivity between populations.

6277 As with the local population status the watershed condition is rated as functioning at risk or not properly 

6278 functioning in most subwatersheds. Only the Headwaters South Salmo River, North Fork Sullivan Creek6279 Sullivan Creek and Slate Creek subwatersheds in the Pend Oreille subbasin were rated as properly 

6280 functioning. Factors influencing the watershed condition scores commonly include low ratings for large 

6281 woody debris and channel shape and function, high road and riparian road densities. Degraded riparian 

6282 vegetation conditions also influenced the ratings in a number of subwatersheds. Many watersheds were 

6283 considered functioning at risk for the fire regime attribute, while the insect and disease attribute did not 

6284 receive a properly functioning rating in a few subwatersheds. Road densities within LTAs sensitive to 

6285 erosion were identified as a potential problem in some subwatersheds in the Pend Oreille, Colville and 

6286 Lake Roosevelt subbasins.

6287 Table 55. Kettle Interior Redband Subbasin AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200021301 Trout Creek 0.75 -0.60 0.1

170200021701 Tonata Creek 0.81 -0.60 0.1

170200022002 North Fork Deadman Creek 0.44 -0.50 0.0

170200022003 Deadman Creek 0.44 -0.40 0.0

170200021904 Sand Creek-Kettle River 0.50 0.20 0.4

170200021706 Lone Ranch Creek 0.50 -0.30 0.1

170200022004 Hodgson Creek-Kettle River 0.00 0.20 0.1

170200021304 Saint Peter Creek 0.19 -0.60 -0.2

170200021905 South Fork Boulder Creek 0.34 -0.40 0.0

170200021906 North Fork Boulder Creek-Boulder Creek 0.34 -0.50 -0.1

170200021902 Deep Creek -0.25 -0.40 -0.3

170200021903 Little Boulder Creek -0.19 -0.20 -0.2

170200022001 Toulou Creek 0.00 -0.40 -0.2

170200021302 Lambert Creek -0.53 -0.30 -0.4

170200021705 West Deer Creek -0.75 -0.50 -0.6

6288 Table 56. Kettle Subbasin WSCT AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name

HUC12 

MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200021907 East Deer Creek-Kettle River -0.63 0.30 -0.2

170200021904 Sand Creek-Kettle River 0.50 0.20 0.4

170200021906 North Fork Boulder Creek-Boulder Creek 0.21 -0.50 -0.1

170200022001 Toulou Creek 0.31 -0.40 0.0

170200021902 Deep Creek -0.25 -0.40 -0.3

170200021905 South Fork Boulder Creek -0.29 -0.40 -0.3
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

190

6289 Table 57. Sanpoil Subbasin WSCT AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200040101 North Fork Sanpoil River-Sanpoil River -0.31 -0.30 -0.3

6290 Table 58. Sanpoil Subbasin Interior Redband AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200040102 O`Brien Creek -0.13 -0.30 -0.2

170200040108 Thirteenmile Creek-Sanpoil River -0.50 0.00 -0.3

170200040106 Scatter Creek-Sanpoil River -0.75 -0.40 -0.6

170200040107 Ninemile Creek -0.75 -0.50 -0.6

6291 Table 59. Pend Oreille Subbasin Bull Trout AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170102160702 Headwaters South Salmo River 0.16 0.90 0.5

170102160403 North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek -0.29 0.70 0.2

170102160903 Slate Creek -0.16 0.40 0.1

170102160201 Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.56 -0.20 -0.4

170102160302 West Branch Le Clerc Creek -0.24 -0.10 -0.2

170102160303 East Branch Le Clerc Creek -0.24 -0.50 -0.4

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.35 -0.20 -0.3

170102160102 Winchester Creek -0.63 -0.50 -0.6

170102160103 Smalle Creek -0.69 -0.40 -0.5

170102160206 Tacoma Creek -0.53 -0.50 -0.5

170102160304 Ruby Creek -0.63 -0.70 -0.7

170102160402 Headwaters Sullivan Creek -0.94 -0.50 -0.7

170102160401 Harvey Creek -0.75 -0.20 -0.5

170102160101 North Fork Calispell Creek -0.88 -0.70 -0.8

170102160104 Calispell Creek -0.50 0.00 -0.3

170102160202 Skookum Creek -0.63 -0.50 -0.6

170102160207 Cusick Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.53 -0.60 -0.6

170102160306 Lost Creek -0.63 -0.40 -0.5

170102160901 Big Muddy Creek -0.53 -0.50 -0.5

170102160904 Flume Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.75 -0.10 -0.4

170102160905 Pewee Creek-Pend Oreille River -1.00 -0.70 -0.9

170102160204 Cee Cee Ah Creek -0.38 -0.40 -0.4

170102160307 Maitlen Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.63 -0.50 -0.6

6292
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

191

6293 Table 60. Pend Oreille Subbasin WSCT AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170102160702 Headwaters South Salmo River 0.50 0.90 0.7

170102160403 North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek -0.13 0.70 0.3

170102160903 Slate Creek 0.13 0.40 0.3

170102161003 Cedar Creek -0.25 0.20 0.0

170102160302 West Branch Le Clerc Creek 0.43 -0.10 0.2

170102160303 East Branch Le Clerc Creek 0.36 -0.50 -0.1

170102160103 Smalle Creek 0.06 -0.40 -0.2

170102160206 Tacoma Creek 0.27 -0.50 -0.1

170102160401 Harvey Creek 0.44 -0.20 0.1

170102160402 Headwaters Sullivan Creek 0.06 -0.50 -0.2

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River 0.01 -0.20 -0.1

170102160304 Ruby Creek 0.01 -0.70 -0.3

170102160201 Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.38 -0.20 -0.3

170102160102 Winchester Creek -0.53 -0.50 -0.5

170102160905 Pewee Creek-Pend Oreille River 0.06 -0.70 -0.3

170102160101 North Fork Calispell Creek -0.41 -0.70 -0.6

170102160204 Cee Cee Ah Creek 0.05 -0.40 -0.2

170102160306 Lost Creek 0.01 -0.40 -0.2

170102160901 Big Muddy Creek 0.11 -0.50 -0.2

170102160104 Calispell Creek -0.50 0.00 -0.3

170102160202 Skookum Creek -0.75 -0.50 -0.6

170102160207 Cusick Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.41 -0.60 -0.5

170102160904 Flume Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.50 -0.10 -0.3

170102160307 Maitlen Creek-Pend Oreille River -0.63 -0.50 -0.6

6294 Table 61. Colville Subbasin WSCT AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200030106 Cottonwood Creek 0.20 0.20 0.2

170200030201 Little Pend Oreille Lakes -0.25 -0.50 -0.4

170200030301 South Fork Mill Creek -0.26 -0.60 -0.4

6295 Table 62. Colville Subbasin Interior Redband AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200030109 South Fork Chewelah Creek-Chewelah 

Creek -0.18 -0.50 -0.3

170200030301 South Fork Mill Creek -0.26 -0.60 -0.4

170200030302 North Fork Mill Creek -0.01 -0.60 -0.3

170200030108 North Fork Chewelah Creek -0.25 -0.70 -0.5
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

192

6296 Table 63. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Interior Redband AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200011401 Upper Hall Creek 0.09 0.20 0.1

170200011301 South Fork Sherman Creek 0.03 -0.40 -0.2

170200011302 Upper Sherman Creek -0.31 -0.50 -0.4

170200011303 Lower Sherman Creek 0.00 -0.50 -0.3

170200011306 Barnaby Creek -0.25 -0.50 -0.4

170200011304 Nancy Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 0.25 0.20 0.2

170200011207 Flat Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake -0.53 -0.30 -0.4

170200011307 Quillisascut Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt 

Lake -0.75 0.00 -0.4

170200011205 Crown Creek -0.53 -0.20 -0.4

6297 Table 64. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin WSCT AEC scores

HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 MIS/Focal 

Species Score

Watershed 

Condition Score

Final AEC 

Score

170200011004 North Fork Deep Creek -0.38 -0.30 -0.3

170200011105 American Fork -0.25 -0.30 -0.3

170200011107 Lower Big Sheep Creek -0.25 -0.10 -0.2

170200011001 Rocky Creek -0.09 -0.50 -0.3

170200011002 Meadow Creek -0.22 -0.60 -0.4

6298 PIBO Surveys

6299 The AEC assessment provides information on the current status of MIS/focal species populations and 

6300 watershed and stream channel condition. That assessment of current aquatic habitat condition on the 

6301 Forest is further informed through habitat trend information provided by the PACFISH/INFISH

6302 Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program (PIBO). PIBO began implementation in 2001 

6303 (while the Forest only comes under the INFISH strategy, the PIBO program includes areas managed 

under both the PACFISH and INFISH strategies).

30 6304 The monitoring program was designed to answer the 

6305 question: “Are key biological and physical components of aquatic and riparian communities being 

6306 improved, degraded, or restored within the range of steelhead (O. mykiss) and bull trout?” As the program 

has progressed, PIBO is using an “index” approach to answer the question.

31 6307 The index approach outlined 

6308 in Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010) compares six in-channel habitat attributes; residual pool depth, percent 

pools, D50,

32 6309 fines in pool tails, wood frequency, and bank angle. The individual attributes are combined 

6310 into a total index and there is an additional index for the aquatic macroinvertebrate community. The 

6311 scores for the individual attributes and the final index are then compared to scores from reference stream 

6312 reaches, in reference watersheds within the same ecoregion, and across the PIBO monitoring area. PIBO 

6313 also evaluated the data to determine if habitat trends on reaches where they had repeat surveys (often 

6314 three) were improving (moving in a direction considered to be favorable habitat for salmonids). For the 

6315 trend analysis, the attributes bank stability (percent bank covered with plants or rock) and percent 

6316 undercut bank were added.

 30 PIBO PacFish Infish Biological Opinion Monitoring http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/index.html) 31 Personal communication, telephone conversation between Ken MacDonald and Erik Archer, PIBO (March 20, 2014) and email 

Erik Archer to Ken MacDonald (Preliminary Colville Results) (March 21, 2014)

32 D50 is a measure of the stream substrate mean particle size of the stream substrate. Definitions for all the stream habitat 

attributes can be found in Kershner et al. (2004).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

193

The following summarizes the PIBO results within the subbasins on the Forest.

33 6317 In all cases below, the 

6318 “managed” stream results are compared to the results from reference streams in the same ecoregion and 

6319 the term significant refers to statistical significance (p less than 0.10). Consistent with the WCF ratings, 

6320 the distribution of the total index scores for streams on the Forest are less (impaired habitat condition) 

6321 than would be expected based upon the reference watersheds. There are however indications of some 

6322 positive trends in habitat condition as, on a forestwide basis, there has been a statistically significant 

6323 positive trend in the bank stability, percent undercut bank, and bank angle indicators, and the overall 

6324 index scores.

6325 Kettle Subbasin

6326 The total index score for sampled streams in the Kettle subbasin were significantly lower than observed in 

6327 reference streams within the ecoregion. The bank angle, percent pools, macroinvertebrates, and D50 

6328 indicators were all significantly lower (poor quality) than observed in reference streams. The PIBO 

6329 surveys revealed that within the sites monitored in the Kettle subbasin the macroinvertebrate community, 

6330 percent undercut bank, large wood frequency, residual pool depth and the percent pools and bank angle, 

6331 as well as the total index were moving in a positive direction. The large wood and pool depth changes 

6332 were significant. Bank stability, the D50 and percent fines in pools showed negative, but not statistically 

6333 significant trends.

6334 San Poil Subbasin

6335 Only four managed streams in the San Poil subbasin were available for comparison therefore the 

6336 statistical significance of differences in attribute and final scores and trends could not be determined

6337 Pend Oreille Subbasin

6338 The fine sediment indicators of pool fines and D50, were in significantly “worse” condition than 

6339 reference watersheds. The large woody debris indicator scores were significantly greater than reference 

6340 streams. All other indicators and the total habitat index score were not significantly different than 

6341 reference streams, however the distribution of the total index scores appear skewed toward the lower end 

6342 of the distribution of the reference stream scores. The total index: bank stability, percent undercut bank, 

6343 bank angle, large wood, pool depth and pool frequency trends were positive; with the improving trends in 

6344 bank stability, large wood, percent fines in pools and pool depth changes statistically significant. The 

6345 macroinvertebrate community and D50 also showed a slight negative trend that is not statistically 

6346 significant.

6347 Colville Subbasin

6348 The overall habitat index score was significantly lower for the sampled streams in Colville subbasin than 

6349 the expected condition based upon reference stream conditions. Pool fines, the macroinvertebrate 

6350 community and D50 scores were significantly lower quality compared reference streams. In the Colville 

6351 subbasin, the macroinvertebrate community, bank stability, large wood, percent fines in pools D50, pool 

6352 depths and percent pools showed a positive trend. The changes in percent pools, fines in pools and bank 

6353 stability were significant. Negative trends were shown for the bank angle, and percent undercut bank, 

6354 Upper Columbia-Lake Roosevelt Subbasin

6355 The total habitat index for the Upper Columbia-Lake Roosevelt subbasin was not significantly different 

6356 than the index results for reference streams. The sediment indicators, D50 and percent fines in pool tails 

 33 Data obtained in emails from Eric Archer, PIBO to Ken MacDonald (Preliminary Colville Results) (March 21, 2014) (Results) 

(March 25, 2014) and Telephone Conversation between Eric Archer, PIBO and Ken MacDonald (March 25, 2014) and revised 

report (Habitat Conditions in the Colville National Forest) from Eric Archer to Ken MacDonald (January 31, 2015)
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

194

6357 had significantly lower scores than reference streams, while wood frequency scores were significantly 

6358 higher than reference streams. The trend for the index score for the Upper Columbia-Lake Roosevelt 

6359 Subbasin is positive but the change is not significant. The trend for the macroinvertebrate community, 

6360 bank stability, percent undercut bank, bank angle, large wood frequency, D50, pool depths and percent 

6361 pools were positive, with the changes in large wood frequency significant. A negative trend was recorded

6362 for percent fines (an increase in fines) in pools but the change is not statistically significant.

6363 Need for Change

6364 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

6365 Three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address old forest management, especially 

6366 the current reserve system approach at the landscape scale. These are:

6367 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect and 

6368 disease activity that would likely continue into the future.

6369 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of restoring 

6370 landscape resiliency. 

6371 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the increased 

6372 risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by climate change 

6373 impacts.

6374 Motorized Recreation Trails

6375 The current land management plans provide direction for summer and winter motorized uses, including 

6376 identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection of aquatic, 

6377 plant, and wildlife habitats.

6378 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high quality, 

6379 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the 

6380 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 

6381 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a broad 

6382 range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, rock climbing, boating, mushroom and 

6383 berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an environmentally sound 

6384 manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

195

6385 Access

6386 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: 

6387 1. The Forest can no longer afford to properly maintain the road system at current operational 

6388 maintenance levels, 

6389 2. The current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, and 

6390 3. The existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

6391 throughout current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), 

6392 Forest Plan amendments (Eastside Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, 

6393 Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995]), national6394 level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear No-Net-Loss, Lynx 

6395 Agreement, the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy). 

6396 Recommended Wilderness Areas

6397 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 

6398 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for additional 

6399 wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the National 

6400 Wilderness Preservation System. 

6401 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

6402 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible areas 

6403 showed some are available to fill this need. 

6404 Wildlife

6405 The current Forest Plan provides limited protection for habitat connectivity, providing wildlife and 

6406 aquatic crossing structures, and managing activities adjacent to the structures so they are used by wildlife.

6407 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

6408 The current Forest Plan includes riparian management direction from the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

6409 (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995). This approach appears to have either maintained or 

6410 improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. 

6411 Objectives for riparian management areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the riparian 

6412 and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to riparian6413 dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the 

6414 transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water quality and flows, and 

6415 contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and upland species. 

6416 Desired conditions for riparian management areas within any given watershed are to have compositions of 

6417 native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions commensurate 

6418 with natural processes.

6419 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

6420 Methodology

6421 There was a 2-step process for the environmental consequences assessment for fish and aquatic habitat for 

6422 each alternative. First, the key indicators for the issues were assessed providing the framework to describe 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

196

6423 the relative conservation value to aquatic species of the alternatives based upon an assessment of the 

6424 relative risks and protections the alternatives are judged to provide (table 65).

6425 Table 65. Issues and key indicators for the aquatic habitat and species environmental consequences

Issue Key Indicators

Old Forest Management and Timber 

production

The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest 

Structure), General Restoration, and a timber production emphasis. 

Motorized Trails and Access Desired Conditions for road densities

Acres allocated to motorized access.

Recommended Wilderness Total acres in Recommended Wilderness.

Riparian and Aquatic Resource 

Management

ACS Direction, RMA Delineation and RMA Direction. 

Key Watershed Acres, Management Direction for Key Watersheds, MIS/Focal 

Species, Key Watershed and Restoration Objectives.

Change in distribution of aquatic invasive species.

Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments. 

6426 Once the environmental consequences of an alternative were determined based upon the key indicators, 

6427 the Forest Service contribution to providing for the viability of the MIS/focal species was modeled based 

6428 on the procedures outlined in Reiss et al. (2008). 

6429 Viability Model and Forest Service Contribution to Viability

6430 The viability as described in Reiss et al. (2008) utilizes a DSM, similar to what was used in the AEC to 

6431 determine the current status of the MIS/focal species. The viability model however evaluates the 

6432 conclusion that the MIS/focal species populations at the subbasin scale are sustainable or viable based on 

6433 their current status. The HUC 12 AEC results are aggregated to the subbasin (HUC 8) scale to provide a 

6434 broader assessment of population and habitat status to better capture the distribution and ability of the 

6435 local populations to interact across a broader landscape. The subbasin scale assessment allows a broader 

6436 assessment of natural and human-made disturbance that may be missed if only the AEC results are 

6437 considered alone (Reiss et al. 2008). 

6438 After the viability of the MIS/focal species populations on the Forest was estimated, the Forest Service 

6439 contribution to the ecological viability of the MIS/focal species’ populations was assessed by alternative. 

6440 This assessment was also performed at the subbasin scale (Reiss et al. 2008). The viability and Forest 

6441 Service Contribution to Viability models was explained further in the Methods section below.

6442 Assumptions

6443 • Forest Budgets would remain relatively constant at current levels, recognizing there may be 

6444 increases or decreases in any one year.

6445 • The MIS/focal species approach to determining the AEC, viability analysis and the Forest Service 

6446 Contribution to Viability truly captures the conservation requirements for other species that are not 

6447 analyzed. 

6448 • Alternatives with more reliance on standards than guidelines are more conservative (from an 

6449 aquatic perspective) compared to guidelines. 

6450 • Where identified, the desired condition road densities are attainable.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

197

6451 Methods of Analysis

6452 Rationale for Key Indicators Addressing the Issues

6453 The following describes the rationale for selecting the key indicators for each key issue. The rationale was 

6454 developed based upon the literature regarding the potential effects of land management activities on 

6455 aquatic habitat and fish populations; and management direction based upon work completed for the 

6456 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (see Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), The Interior 

6457 Columbia Deputy Team Strategy and Framework documents (discussed below), and the Forest Service 

6458 Region 6 Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) (USDA Forest Service 2008).

6459 Old Growth Forest Management and Timber Production

6460 The key indicator for assessing the effects of vegetation management and timber production is: the 

6461 number of acres that have a Focused Restoration, General Restoration, or timber production emphasis.

6462 Vegetation management through timber sales for timber production or as a fuel treatment (e.g., thinning, 

6463 prescribed fire) to reduce the potential for uncharacteristically severe wildfires can adversely affect 

6464 watershed processes, aquatic and riparian habitat (see Spence et al. 1996, Meehan 1991; and Day 2015 ). 

6465 The potential for adverse effects is greatest on lands specifically allocated for timber production due to 

6466 the emphasis on commodity production; potentially resulting in intense vegetation manipulation and more 

6467 ground disturbance due to logging and roads than is expected where vegetation management emphasizes 

6468 the restoration of forest vegetation . However, managing vegetation to provide a vegetation composition 

6469 and structure that is more characteristic of the natural fire regime and to promote late forest structure 

6470 appropriate to the biophysical environment is a component of managing for natural watershed function 

6471 and may result in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are more resilient to disturbance from fires or 

6472 insects and disease. 

6473 Historically fires were a natural disturbance on the landscape. Since European man settled the west, 

6474 logging, grazing, fire suppression, and the introduction of exotic plants has changed the natural plant 

6475 structure and composition of terrestrial ecosystems resulting in the potential for larger and more severe 

6476 fires in many landscapes (Hessburg and Agee 2003). Large fires can result in accelerated erosion due to 

6477 surface erosion or debris slides increasing the sediment supply to streams and changing channel structure 

6478 (Wondzell and King 2003, Benda et al. 2003). However, disturbances such as fires and the resulting 

6479 erosion processes also help create diverse fish habitat through the introduction of large woody debris and 

6480 coarse substrates that maintain productive fish habitat (Reeves et al. 1995).

6481 Fires can cause direct mortality to fish resulting in local extirpations. However, fish populations, 

6482 especially salmonids, have been observed to rapidly recover after an episodic disturbance such as a 

6483 wildfire; as long as the population and habitat are connected to adjoining populations, (Sestrich et al. 

6484 2011, Rieman et al. 2003, Rieman et al. 1995). As was discussed in the Affected Environment section, a 

6485 number of the local populations for the MIS/focal species are isolated above barriers or in streams with 

6486 little connectivity to adjacent populations and are, therefore, more susceptible to extirpation by a large 

6487 disturbance. 

6488 The AEC results show s that a number of subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly 

6489 functioning for the fire regime and Insects and disease attributes. Management that emphasizes late forest 

6490 structure and terrestrial vegetation conditions as may be expected under the natural or historic disturbance 

6491 regime may be beneficial to overall watershed health and reduce the potential for uncharacteristically 

6492 severe wildfires. For the potential benefits to watershed conditions and aquatic species to be realized the 

6493 other attributes of watershed condition would need to be improved as well, or at least maintained.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

198

6494 Motorized Trails and Access

6495 The key indicators for the Motorized Recreation Trails and Access issues are; the desired conditions for 

6496 road densities and acres allocated to motorized access.

6497 Roads can have numerous adverse effects on fish and fish habitat including the interruption or alteration 

6498 of geomorphic and hydrologic processes. Geomorphic impacts of roads include chronic and long-term 

6499 sediment delivery to aquatic habitat, accelerated mass failures of cuts and fills depositing large quantities 

6500 of sediment, and altered channel morphology if the roads confine streams and prevent access to the 

6501 floodplain. Roads constructed in riparian areas damage or remove vegetation thus reducing stream shade 

6502 and large woody debris input. Roads constructed in the floodplain may inhibit natural stream channel 

6503 migration processes (Gucinski et al. 2001). Meredith et al. (2014) found that in the interior Columbia 

6504 Basin, the presence of near-stream roads resulted in reduced amounts of large woody debris in streams. 

6505 The effects of roads on hydrologic processes include the interception of rainfall directly on the road 

6506 surface and road cutbanks affecting subsurface water moving down the hillslope; concentrating flow on 

6507 the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and diverting or rerouting water from normal flow paths 

6508 were the roads not present. Roads can deliver pollutants to aquatic habitat as the chemicals applied to 

6509 roads or from vehicles runs off a road into a stream (Gucinski et al. 2001). Additional discussion 

6510 regarding the effects of roads on geomorphic and hydrologic processes is contained in the watershed 

6511 section of chapter 3 and in Day (2015).

6512 Roads can influence fish populations by creating passage barriers at culverts at road/stream crossings. 

6513 Blocking passage is a serious issue as maintaining connectivity between populations of a species and 

6514 providing access to blocked habitat are important factors in a species’ long-term persistence, such 

6515 connectivity to adjacent populations and habitat may be an important strategy for species to persist in a 

6516 changing climate (ISAB 2007). 

6517 In addition to the effects of the roads on the physical environment and passage, roads are an indicator of 

6518 the level of potential human uses or management intensity that may affect fish population. Lee et al. 

6519 (1997) found strong fish populations in the interior Columbia Basin were more frequently found in areas 

6520 of low road density than high road density. Similarly, Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010) found reference 

6521 watersheds generally provided higher quality physical stream habitat than managed watersheds with 

6522 higher road densities. Following Lee et al. (1997), the USFWS (1999) considers watersheds with road 

6523 densities less than 1 mile per square mile and no valley bottom roads as one measure of properly 

6524 functioning watersheds for bull trout recovery. The USFWS considers road densities of 1 to 2.4 miles per 

6525 square mile to be functioning at risk, and road densities greater the 2.4 miles per square mile to be not 

6526 properly functioning.

6527 OHV trails that are not designed or maintained properly, including the drainage system, can be sources of 

6528 chronic and long-term sediment delivery to streams. Negative impacts of soil and watershed functions 

6529 from OHV activities include soil compaction, reduced water infiltration capacity, increased erosion, and 

6530 damage to vegetation. Extensive networks of OHV routes across a landscape, especially on steep slopes, 

6531 can direct or alter the direction of surface flows forming gullies that channel sediment and contaminants 

6532 into aquatic systems (Ouren et al. 2007).

6533 The effects of roads and trails on watershed function can be reduced by considering the location, design, 

6534 and employing design or maintenance methods to disperse runoff (Furniss et al. 1991). Road removal or 

6535 decommissioning creates a short-term disturbance which may temporally increase sediment but over the 

6536 long-term, decommissioning can reduce chronic erosion and the threat of landslides.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

199

6537 Recommended Wilderness

6538 The key indicator for the Recommended Wilderness Area issue is the total acres in recommended 

6539 wilderness. As mentioned above, fish populations and aquatic habitat are generally in better condition on 

6540 lands with less management impact; especially low road densities. Although some management activities 

6541 such as non-motorized recreation and grazing can occur in recommended wilderness, and in some 

6542 alternatives motorized recreation can continue on the current trail system, and active vegetation 

6543 management to restore forest structure to be more resilient to disturbance would not occur, it assumed that 

6544 overall these areas would be protective of watershed function and fish habitat.

6545 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

6546 The key indicators used to assess the alternative approaches to riparian and aquatic resource management 

6547 are: the Aquatic Conservation Strategy direction, the definition of RMAs and management direction for 

6548 RMAs; the acres of key watersheds, MIS/focal species habitat and bull trout designated critical habitat 

6549 within key watersheds; objectives for key watersheds and watershed restoration; the change in 

6550 distribution of aquatic invasive species (AIS); and the potential for improvement in riparian vegetation 

6551 conditions within grazing allotments due to RMA standards and guidelines. The alternatives do not 

6552 change grazing allotments; however, the management direction for grazing within RMAs will be 

6553 discussed. All alternatives will then be assessed for the potential Forest Device Contribution to viability 

6554 of the MIS/focal species.

6555 The protection of riparian ecosystems is central to all salmonid conservation efforts (FEMAT 1993, 

6556 Spence et al. 1996, and Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). As national forest land and resource management 

6557 plans (LRMPs) and Bureau of Land Management resource management plans were about to be revised, 

the Interior Columbia Deputy Team34 6558 issued in 2003, the Interior Columbia Strategy, A Strategy For 

6559 Applying The Knowledge Gained By The Interior Columbia Ecosystem Management Project To The 

6560 Revision Of Forest and Resource Management Plans And Project Implementation. Direction for using the 

6561 Strategy was clarified in August 21, 2008, when the Deputy Team issued further direction through a 

6562 memo titled A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Component of the Interior 

6563 Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions (hereafter referred to as 

6564 Framework). The intent of the Framework was to include the information generated in the Interior 

6565 Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) to facilitate consistency 

6566 among plans in terms of the structure of riparian and aquatic components while providing for a high level 

6567 of agency decision discretion in the substance of individual plan revisions. 

6568 Consistent with the aquatic conservation strategies of the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH 

6569 Strategies, and suggested by Quigley and Arbelbide (1997), the Framework includes six components:

6570 • Riparian Conservation Areas, Riparian Management Areas or other land use allocations to provide 

6571 direction regarding aquatic and riparian conservation. These special management areas are not “no 

6572 management” zones but areas where riparian dependent species receive management emphasis. The 

6573 riparian management and delineation of these areas needs to recognize the important functions they 

6574 are established for including: 

6575 a. The input of fine organic matter and nutrients to aquatic habitat.

6576 b. Providing for bank stability. 

 34 The Interior Columbia Deputy Team includes the Assistant Regional Director for the USFWS, the EPA Deputy Regional 

Administrator, the Deputy Regional Foresters for FS Regions 1, 4, 6, the BLM Idaho Deputy State Director for Resource 

Services, the BLM Oregon/Washington Deputy State Director for Resource Planning, Use and Protection, the NMFS Assistant 

Regional Administrator, the PNW and RMRS Deputy Station Director.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

200

6577 c. Filtering sediment due to surface erosion thus controlling the amount reaching the 

6578 aquatic system. 

6579 d. A source of large woody debris. 

6580 e. Shading the aquatic habitat thus helping to control water temperature. 

6581 f. Controlling the microclimate within the riparian zone and adjacent to the aquatic 

6582 habitat. 

6583 g. Recognition of small and intermittent streams and managing unstable lands to 

6584 account for aquatic function and values.

6585 • Protection of Population Strongholds for Listed or Proposed Species and narrow endemics. The 

6586 revised plans should identify watersheds (HUC10 or HUC12) to be managed for the protection of 

6587 ESA listed or proposed species. The intent is to identify habitat networks of existing strongholds 

6588 with robust populations and high quality habitat for the species to support expansion and 

6589 recolonization to adjacent watersheds.

6590 • Multiscale Analysis. Recognizing the hierarchical nature of watersheds, plans should describe how 

6591 multiscale analysis was used in plan revisions and how multiscale analysis will be used in 

6592 subsequent project-level decisions.

6593 • Restoration Priorities and Guidance. The plans should identify restoration priorities by general 

6594 types and geographic areas.

6595 • Management Direction (desired conditions, objectives, management actions). The plans should 

6596 provide management direction that identifies desired outcomes or future conditions (conditions and 

6597 objectives) for aquatic resources. 

6598 • Monitoring/Adaptive Management to:

6599 a. Determine if a plan is being implemented correctly and is achieving desired results

6600 b. Provide a mechanism for accountability and oversight,

6601 c. Evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts

6602 d. Provide a feedback loop so that management direction may be evaluated and 

6603 modified. 

6604 • Climate Change. The discussion of climate change was added by the Deputy Team to account for 

6605 the effects of climate change on the success or failure of management actions to achieve an 

6606 aquatic/riparian conservation strategy. 

6607 Region 6 of the Forest Service includes lands managed under the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and 

6608 INFISH. Based on broad-scale monitoring programs, the Aquatic Conservation Strategies (ACS) of 

6609 INFISH, PACFISH and the Northwest Forest Plan appear to have been effective in improving aquatic 

6610 habitat and watershed condition (Archer et al. 2009, Lanigan et al. 2012, Meredith et al. 2012). As forest 

6611 plans were to be revised, Region 6 wanted a regionally consistent approach to the management of 

6612 watersheds, and riparian and aquatic habitat. The Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS)

6613 (USDA Forest Service 2008) was developed based upon the lessons learned implementing the Northwest 

6614 Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH, and new information that had become available since the earlier 

6615 strategies were developed; especially the roll of disturbance and the dynamic nature of watersheds, 

6616 riparian and aquatic systems (see Reeves et al. 1995). 

6617 The ARCS is designed to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds, and aquatic and 

6618 riparian ecosystems on National Forest lands. Naiman et al. (1992) define the components ecologically 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

201

6619 healthy watersheds as the basin geomorphology, hydrologic pattern, water quality riparian vegetation 

6620 characteristics, and habitat characteristics; and the management of ecologically healthy watersheds 

6621 requires the preservation of the interactions between these components and accounting for spatial and 

6622 temporal variability (Naiman et al. 1992). Another purpose of the ARCS is to develop networks of 

6623 properly functioning watersheds that support populations of fish and other aquatic and riparian-dependent 

6624 resources across the Region. The intent of the ARCS is to maintain and restore the dynamic ecological 

6625 processes responsible for creating and sustaining habitats over broad landscapes, as opposed to just at the 

6626 individual project or small watershed scale (USDA Forest Service 2008). The ARCS is intended to 

6627 provide a core set of desired conditions, suitability, objectives, standards and guidelines for aquatic and 

6628 riparian management for national forests to design the forest plan direction (USDA Forest Service 2008).

6629 Consistent with the Interior Columbia Deputy Team Framework the ARCS includes five elements:

6630 1. Riparian management areas (RMAs) along permanently flowing stream, ponds, lakes, wetlands, 

6631 seeps, springs, intermittent streams and unstable sites where management activities are to maintain, 

6632 restore or enhance the ecological health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and dependent resources. 

6633 2. Key watersheds. Key watersheds are a network of watersheds selected to serve as strongholds for 

6634 important aquatic resources or having the potential to do so. Management emphasizes minimizing 

6635 risk and maximizing restoration or maintaining ecosystem health. Key watersheds are selected based 

6636 upon the requirements of the MIS/focal species. The key watershed concept has been found to be an 

6637 effective strategy as in the Northwest Forest Plan area the watershed condition of key watersheds 

6638 appears to be improving at a faster rate than non-key watersheds (Lanigan et al. 2012.) 

6639 3. Mid-Scale Analysis of Watersheds. Watershed or mid-scale analysis provides a basis for development 

6640 of watershed-scale restoration strategies and provides the basis for defining desired conditions, 

6641 management objectives and monitoring.

6642 4. Watershed Restoration. Watershed restoration is defined as an integrated set of actions and treatments 

6643 designed to facilitate the recovery of watersheds and related aquatic ecosystem structure and function. 

6644 5. Monitoring. Monitoring is a strategic assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of 

6645 management activities and the ecological trends toward desired conditions.

6646 Each alternative includes an ACS that is either based upon INFISH, the ARCS, or a revised version of the 

6647 ARCS. The direction in INFISH, the ARCS and the revised ARCS includes goals or desired conditions, 

6648 objectives including restoration objectives, RMAs, key watersheds and standards and guides. There is no 

6649 specific direction for mid-scale analysis in any alternative so the topic is not discussed. Such an analysis 

6650 generally occurs during plan implementation. Two types of Mid-Scale Analysis were completed for the 

6651 DEIS. The AEC is a broad, mid-scale analysis at the subwatershed scale. The viability assessment and the 

6652 Forest Service Contribution to Viability Assessment are subbasin-scale analyses. The aquatic monitoring 

6653 component of the revised plan is common to all alternatives.

6654 Aquatic Conservation Strategy Direction, Desired Conditions, RMAs Key watersheds and Standards and 

6655 Guidelines. The environmental consequences for an alternative will be assessed in terms of the relative 

6656 effectiveness of the ACS components; desired conditions, the definition of RMAs, standards and 

6657 guidelines, the size of the key watershed network, and the overlap of the Key watersheds with important 

6658 habitat for MIS/focal species, to meet the desired conditions and contribute to the viability of the 

6659 MIS/focal species.

6660 Objectives for Key Watersheds and Watershed Restoration. There is a need to accelerate improvement in 

6661 watershed condition across the Forest. The current forest plan and amendments do not adequately provide 

6662 integrated management direction to maintain and restore properly functioning watersheds that provide a 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

202

6663 range of benefits on and off the national forest within a timeframe that is meaningful. This is supported by 

6664 new science, the listing of bull trout under the ESA, designation of bull trout Critical Habitat, information 

6665 in the draft bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002, USFWS 2014), and the results of new assessment 

6666 tools such as the National Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). Properly functioning watersheds 

6667 provide ecological systems that are resilient to disturbance, and allow for habitat conditions that support 

6668 aquatic species, contribute to the recovery and de-listing of threatened and endangered species, and 

6669 restore waters listed as impaired under the Clean water Act (303[d] listed waters). All alternatives include 

6670 objectives for watershed restoration.

6671 Aquatic Invasive Species. Invasive species are a threat to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Aquatic 

invasive species (AIS) include invasive plants, invertebrates, pathogens, and non-native fish35 6672 . Invasive 

6673 species may disrupt the food web, compete with native species for food and space, may be predators on 

6674 native fish, or introduce diseases. The management direction for controlling and managing to prevent AIS 

6675 will be discussed for each alternative.

6676 Potential Improvement of Riparian Vegetation within Grazing Allotments. The potential effects of 

6677 livestock grazing on fish habitat have been well documented (e.g., Platts 1991, Spence et al. 1996). Al6678 Chokhachy et al. (2010) found the presence of cattle in watersheds sampled across the interior Columbia 

6679 Basin and the Missouri River Basin often resulted in degraded physical aquatic habitat conditions, 

6680 especially where grazing occurred in watersheds with high road densities. The potential adverse effects of 

6681 grazing include soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams; soil compaction; alteration or removal of 

6682 riparian vegetation that provides shade, cover, a terrestrial food source and stabilizes stream banks; 

6683 altered channel morphology including channel widening, increased bank instability and loss of undercut 

6684 banks. The alternatives do not change grazing allotments however the anticipated effectiveness of the 

6685 management direction for grazing within RMAs for each alternative will be discussed.

6686 Viability and Forest Service Contribution to Viability Assessment

6687 MIS/Focal Species Viability Assessment (see Reiss et al. 2008 for further description and rationale)

6688 The viability assessment evaluates the conclusion that the current MIS/focal species’ populations are 

6689 viable. The viability of individual MIS/focal species populations is evaluated at the subbasin scale where 

6690 the species is currently present. Ecosystems are dynamic over time so not all habitat within subbasin will 

6691 be in good condition all the time and even natural, undisturbed population numbers will be variable. 

6692 MIS/focal species are judged to be viable when a large enough proportion of habitat is in good ecological 

6693 condition, habitat forming processes are functional, and the local populations of a MIS/focal species 

6694 (subwatershed scale) are not isolated; having access to other habitat and local populations (see Reiss et al. 

6695 2008).

6696 The AEC analysis assessed the status of local populations within the subwatersheds. However, the AEC 

6697 does not capture the ability of the local populations to interact with other local populations or assess the 

6698 distribution of local populations across the broader landscape. Similarly, the AEC assesses the watershed 

6699 and habitat conditions at the subwatershed scale, but may miss natural and human-made disturbance 

6700 patterns that become apparent at a larger scale. It should be noted that this viability assessment is 

6701 addressing the MIS/focal species viability on the Forest only, primarily assessing national forest lands. 

6702 While factors that may influence the larger population of a MIS/focal species are considered, this 

6703 assessment is not as broad or inclusive as a viability assessment that the USFWS may undertake for an 

6704 ESA status review. 

 35 Non-native fish introduced by state agencies in the past as sport fish are not considered invasive although it may now be 

understood that they can be a threat to native species and management actions may be implemented to reduce their numbers
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

203

6705 The two attributes assessed to determine the population viability of the MIS/focal species within a 

6706 subbasin on the Forest are; the Subbasin Condition and Connectivity within the subbasin. The viability 

6707 was assessed in the manner described in Reiss et al. (2008) only instead of using a DSM the information 

was put into an Excel spreadsheet (Honeycutt 2014 in prep).

36 6708 The attributes discussed below are 

6709 aggregated to attain an overall subbasin viability score for the MIS/focal species ranging from +1 (high 

6710 support for the conclusion that the MIS/focal species populations on the Forest are viable) to -1 (low 

6711 support for the conclusion that to populations are viable). Unlike Reiss et al. (2008), we did not estimate 

6712 the historic viability, assuming that before development by European man all the MIS/focal species were 

6713 viable at the subbasin scale. 

6714 Condition

6715 The Subbasin condition is assessed with three attributes; distribution, patch and the AEC. The distribution 

6716 attribute assesses the percentage of the potential spawning and rearing habitat in the subbasin currently 

6717 occupied by the MIS/focal species. The distribution reflects the impact of fragmentation and includes 

6718 populations isolated by natural barriers. The patch attribute assesses the connected length of stream 

6719 available to the MIS/focal species. Habitat patches within the subbasin are delineated by aggregating all 

6720 connected stream kilometers of occupied habitat. If there are no barriers, the entire subbasin is one large 

6721 patch. Where natural or man-made barriers exist, the occupied habitat above the barrier is its own patch. It 

6722 is generally assumed that large, connected patches provide a better chance for a viable population over 

6723 time than small isolated patches. Finally, the AEC attribute is the area-weighted average of the 

6724 subwatershed scores within the subbasin. 

6725 Connectivity

6726 The connectivity of river systems is a major factor determining the potential for viable populations. 

6727 Where streams are connected, local populations have the potential to function as a meta-population with 

6728 some degree of genetic exchange over generations. Connectivity also allows an adjacent population to re6729 found a local population that becomes extinct due to a disturbance such as a fire or flood. There are two 

6730 connectivity attributes; population connectivity and habitat connectivity. Population connectivity 

6731 evaluates the overall connectivity of each local population within the subbasin. The habitat connectivity 

6732 evaluates the ability of MIS/focal species to access unoccupied, potential habitat in the subbasin (see 

6733 Reiss et al. 2008).

6734 Colville National Forest Contribution to MIS/Focal Species’ Ecological Viability (see Reiss et al. 

6735 2008 for further description and rationale)

6736 The extent to which the different alternatives may contribute to the viability is assessed at the subbasin 

6737 scale as well. This is a relative risk assessment based upon the risk different management allocations may 

6738 pose to the MIS/focal species, the current condition of the MIS/focal species populations and habitat, and 

6739 the amount of habitat on National Forest System lands. The emphasis of this assessment is on 

6740 management of Forest lands, in other words management that the Forest has control over. There are 

6741 numerous actions and conditions of other lands that affect the MIS/focal species future viability; 

6742 residential development, road systems; hydroelectric projects; etc., over which the Forest has more 

6743 limited management authority. Hence, this a relative assessment of how well Forest management as 

6744 described for each alternative may be expected to contribute to the viability of the MIS/focal species.

6745 The contribution to viability assessment includes three attributes; protection, the percent of habitat 

6746 occupied by a MIS/focal species on the Forest, and the AEC of the subbasin. As with the AEC and 

6747 Viability assessments, Reiss et al. (2008) used a DSM to estimate the level of protection or conservation 

6748 value of an alternative toward MIS/focal species viability. We again used an Excel spreadsheet to inform 

 36 2014_11_19ViabilityAssessment-Excel
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

204

our analysis.

37 6749 The Forest Service contribution is assessed by MIS/focal species in each occupied 

6750 subbasin, by alternative. The scores of the attributes are averaged resulting in a +1 (high support for the 

6751 conclusion that that an alternative would contribute to MIS/focal species’ ecological viability) to -1 (low 

6752 support for the conclusion). 

6753 Protection

6754 The Management areas (MAs) described in the alternatives are assessed for the level of protection the 

6755 allocation is expected to provide for aquatic habitat and watershed condition. A basic premise is 

6756 allocations with no or few roads are more protective than allocations with higher road densities. Lands 

6757 where terrestrial vegetation will be managed with a restoration emphasis is more protective or less risky 

6758 to aquatic habitat and watershed condition than lands with a timber production emphasis. 

6759 The MAs that informed the aquatic effects portion of the DEIS, based upon the four issues; Old Forest 

6760 Management and Timber Production, Motorized trails and Access, Recommended Wilderness, Riparian 

6761 and Aquatic Resource Management, were assessed for their relative protection afforded aquatic resources 

6762 and watershed condition. The MAs included in the assessment are: Recommended Wilderness, 

6763 Backcountry Motorized, Backcountry Non-Motorized, Focused Restoration, General Restoration 

6764 (including late Forest Structure in alternative R), Active Management Area and Responsible Management 

6765 Area. The current designated wilderness was also included. Within each MA the following management 

6766 activities that relate to the key indicators in the aquatics effects analysis were assessed based on the level 

6767 of protection (or inversely the level of risk to the aquatic habitat); non-motorized trails, motorized trails, 

6768 timber harvest, and roads. At the beginning of the analysis each allocation starts with a protection value of 

6769 +1 and then points are subtracted based upon the potential intensity of an activity within the MA. If an 

6770 activity is not allowed in an MA there is zero deduction. For example roads, motorized use and timber 

6771 harvest are not allowed in wilderness so there are no deductions for those activities within the Wilderness 

6772 MA.

6773 Non-Motorized Trails. If non-motorized trails are present -0.1 is deducted for the MA. The reason is that 

6774 the presence of the trails do affect a watershed to a small degree and use of the trail does pose a risk to 

6775 riparian habitat by trampling vegetation, may increase fishing pressure and possible introduction of AIS 

6776 or a non-native fish.

6777 Motorized Trails. If motorized trails are present but the use is no longer permitted (recommended 

6778 wilderness in some alternatives) -0.1 was deducted. If motorized trail use is allowed the deduction is -0.2.

6779 Timber Harvest. Timber harvest deductions are based on the potential intensity of the activity. While the 

6780 restoration MAs often emphasize terrestrial vegetation restoration which may help improve watershed 

6781 condition, vegetation management activities do pose some risk to aquatic resources. It is assumed the 

6782 intensity of vegetation management will be higher in General Restoration MAs than Focused Restoration 

6783 MAs where there is more emphasis on aquatic resources and wildlife. The most risk or least protection is 

6784 on those MAs that have greater timber production emphasis and allow even-aged management. Focused 

6785 Restoration areas therefore received a -0.1 deduction; General Restoration a -0.2 deduction and the 

6786 Responsible Management and Active Management MAs a -0.3 deduction. 

6787 The no-action alternative MAs are based on the current forest plan so for timber harvest we “lumped” the 

6788 MAs based upon the intensity of timber management. The Caribou, Old Growth, Recreation/Wildlife, 

6789 Scenic/Winter Range, Winter Range MAs received a -0.2 deduction for timber harvest based on current 

6790 management. The Private Lands Originally, Recreation, Scenic/Timber and Wood/Forage MAs received a 

6791 -0.3 deduction.

 37 2015_10_12_Forest service ContributionViability-Excel
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

205

6792 Roads. The road deductions were based upon whether roads are allowed or not, and if allowed the desired 

6793 road densities. If roads are allowed and the road density desired condition is up to 1.0 mile per square 

6794 mile then -0.2 was deducted. Even low road densities affect hydrologic processes and can affect aquatic 

6795 habitat. The 1.0 mile per square mile density is at the upper range of road densities that in general 

6796 watersheds may be properly functioning and potentially support strong fish populations. If the road 

6797 density desired condition is no greater than 2 miles per square mile there is a -0.3 deduction. The 2.0 

6798 miles per square mile road density is within the range where watersheds are generally considered 

6799 functioning at risk for road density as is the potential for the presence of strong fish populations. Road 

6800 densities of 3.0 miles per square miles are considered not properly functioning for watershed condition 

6801 and strong fish populations and received a -0.4 deduction. Alternatives that have no road density desired 

6802 condition received a -0.5 deduction as these alternatives keep the current road mileage on the Forest 

6803 where most watersheds are already functioning at risk or not properly functioning for road densities in the 

6804 AEC assessment.

6805 The total score for a MA is obtained by subtracting the deductions for a total protection value. So 

6806 wilderness with only a -0.1 deduction is considered highly protective (0.9), while an MA with even-age 

6807 timber management, and high road densities gets a low protection score. All MAs were assumed to have 

6808 non-motorized trails and motorized trails unless they are specifically not allowed.

6809 The total protection scores for the MAs for an alternative is the area-weighted average of the score for 

6810 each land use allocation by subbasin. In this assessment, the score was determined by assessing the 

6811 subbasin as a whole as opposed to doing the same assessment by subwatershed and aggregating the 

6812 results together as described in Reiss et al. (2008). Another difference between this assessment and Reiss 

6813 et al. (2008) is the treatment of key watersheds. Key watersheds, other than the no-action alternative and 

6814 alternative B, are primarily in the Focused Restoration MA, although there may be some Backcountry, 

6815 Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness. Instead of assessing the protection value of key watersheds 

6816 based on allowed activities in the key watersheds, it is assumed the key watersheds have an added 

6817 protection value of their own as management within key watersheds emphasizes minimizing risk and 

6818 maximizing restoration or retention of ecological health (see previous key indicator rationale). Therefore 

6819 the percent area of key watershed within a subbasin was added to the protection score. Finally, grazing 

6820 and RMAs are not specifically discussed. The grazing allotments are not changed in the different 

6821 alternatives so grazing is just discussed as a key indicator in the Aquatic effects. The RMAs for different 

6822 alternatives is also discussed as a key indicator.

6823 Percentage of Occupied Habitat on the Colville National Forest

6824 This attribute quantifies the proportion of the total occupied spawning and rearing habitat of a MIS/focal 

6825 species on the Forest within a subbasin. 

6826 Aquatic Ecological Condition 

6827 The AEC attribute is the area-weighted average of the habitat condition AEC scores of the National Forest 

6828 lands within the subbasin to help determine the “Forest Service” contribution to viability.

6829 The final protection score for an alternative by subbasin and MIS/focal species is the average of 

6830 protection, percent of occupied habitat on National Forest lands, and the AEC. The viability assessment 

6831 and the Forest Service Contribution scores represent an interpretation of the relative role of Colville 

6832 National Forest lands to provide for the viability of a MIS/focal species in a subbasin by alternative. It 

6833 should be noted that when the Forest Service contribution to ecological viability scores are low, this does 

6834 not necessarily indicate that Forest Service management direction is insufficient, but rather that 

6835 management is not addressing all factors that contribute to species ecological viability. Much of the other 

6836 management not addressed may be off National Forest lands such as roads managed by other entities. A 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

206

6837 low Forest Service contribution may also be due to presence on non-native fish and isolation due to 

6838 natural barriers and man-made barriers off the National Forest. 

6839 Incomplete and Unavailable Information

6840 Some incomplete or unavailable information includes:

6841 • The rate and magnitude of restoration activities would depend upon budgets social and technical 

6842 constraints, therefore for estimating a rate for changing watershed condition is unknown.

6843 • The use of the MIS/focal species concept is assumed to provide for the viability of other aquatic 

6844 species including invertebrate species for which little is known on the Colville National Forest.

6845 • Although the locations of the land allocations is known the actual level of management activity 

6846 within a subbasin overtime is not known.

6847 • The actual effects of climate change (see below)

6848 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

6849 The analysis of the effects of the alternatives on the MIS/focal species and aquatic habitat is completed at 

6850 several scales. First the current status of the MIS/focal species’ populations and the watershed/aquatic 

6851 habitat condition was assessed at the subwatershed (HUC 12) scale to determine the AEC. The current 

6852 viability of the species was then assessed at the subbasin scale (HUC 8). The effects of the alternatives 

6853 based upon the plan components is assessed at the scale of the Forest and the final estimate of the 

6854 potential effects to MIS/focal species’ viability on the Forest, or the Forest Service contribution to 

6855 viability is assessed at the subbasin scale. The temporal context for the assessment is the current time 

6856 period, with the relative benefits or risks to the species due to implementation of an alternative estimated 

6857 through the life of the revised forest plan as defined by the alternative.

6858 Summary of the Effects of All Alternatives 

6859 Focus Watersheds and Priority Watersheds

6860 All alternatives include key watersheds (including the INFISH Priority Watersheds) and Focus 

6861 Watersheds. While the key watersheds vary by alternative, the Focus watersheds are common to all 

6862 alternatives. 

6863 Forest Service Region 6 developed the Region 6 Aquatic Restoration Strategy (ARS) in 2005 to provide 

6864 guidance for watershed and aquatic and riparian improvement at a regional scale (see Hydrology section 

6865 in the DEIS). As the ARS is scaled down for implementation at the forest level, the National Forests are to 

6866 work with partners to identify Focus Watersheds (HUC10). The idea of the Focus Watersheds are to take a 

6867 whole watershed approach to restoration to meaningfully affect change in watershed condition as opposed 

6868 to practicing “random-acts-of-kindness” by scattering restoration efforts over a broad landscape ( Roni et 

6869 al. 2010). Working with the partners, Forests are to then develop a watershed action plan (WAP) that 

6870 identifies the needed restoration work that is technically and socially feasible. The current Forest Focus 

6871 Watersheds are the Le Clerc-Pend Oreille River (HUC 171021602), The Upper Sanpoil River (HUC 

6872 1702000401) and Chewelah Creek-Colville River (HUC 1702000301). WAP have been prepared for the 

6873 Upper and West Forks Sanpoil River, and Le Clerc Creek. A WAP has not been completed to date for the 

6874 Chewelah Creek-Colville River. 

6875 National Forests throughout the United States were mandated in 2010 to implement the WCF, which was 

6876 discussed for the AEC model. The results of the assessment were used to identify Priority subwatersheds 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

207

6877 to focus management to improve impaired watershed function (see Hydrology section of the DEIS for 

6878 more information on Focus Watersheds and Priority subwatersheds). 

6879 Monitoring

6880 Watershed conditions, stream and riparian habitat would be monitored through the life of the plan to 

6881 determine;

6882 1. If plan implementation is achieving the watershed and aquatic objectives.

6883 2. The effects of various resource management activities on watershed, riparian and aquatic resources.

6884 The Forest would continue to cooperate with the PIBO monitoring program to determine current habitat

conditions and to track the trends of aquatic habitat condition.

38 6885 Additionally, the Forest would continue 

6886 assessing aquatic habitat condition using the Region 6 Level II stream survey protocol, or future versions. 

6887 Currently the Forest surveys about 17 stream miles annually. The Level II surveys also collect 

6888 information on fish distribution at the time of the survey but are not designed to estimate population size. 

6889 Changes in watershed condition would be determined through periodic updates of the WCF and the 

6890 effectiveness the protection of watershed, riparian and aquatic resources during the implementation of 

6891 land management projects would be monitored through Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring. 

6892 For more information regarding the WCF, BMP and additional water quality monitoring see the 

6893 Watershed section of the DEIS. 

6894 The Forest would continue to cooperate and coordinate with monitoring programs implemented by other 

6895 entities such as those associated with the Boundary Hydroelectric Project. For example, the Boundary 

6896 Project re-licensing terms include a hatchery program to re-build the populations of native fish, initially 

6897 focusing on WSCT. The terms for the hatchery program include establishing population goals for self6898 sustaining populations of the native fish. Seattle City Light is to monitor the success of the out-planting 

6899 program until the population goals are met. 

6900 Current Viability of MIS/focal Species

6901 The assessment of the current MIS/focal species viability on the Forest, bull trout, WSCT and interior 

6902 redband trout, evaluates the conclusion that the MIS/focal species’ populations are viable at the subbasin 

6903 scale. MIS/focal species are judged to be viable when a large enough proportion of habitat is in good 

6904 ecological condition, habitat forming processes are functional, and the local populations of a MIS/focal 

6905 species (subwatershed scale) are not isolated; having access to other habitat and local populations. The 

6906 inputs to the viability assessment include the distribution of the MIS/focal species within the subbasin, the 

6907 patch size, the weighted average of the AEC scores (that describe the habitat and population and habitat 

6908 connectivity. The MIS/focal species viability score for a subbasin species status within subwatersheds) 

6909 can range from +1 (high support for the conclusion that the MIS/focal species populations on the Forest 

6910 are viable) to -1 (low support for the conclusion that the populations are viable). The following table 

6911 displays the final viability model scores for the MIS/focal species by subbasin.

 38 See Appendix1 page 15 in the April 18, 2014 letter from the Deputy Regional Directors to FS Pacific Northwest and Rocky 

Mountain Research Station Director, NOAA Fisheries Branch Chiefs (West Coast Region), BLM District/Field Managers 

(Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana), FWS Field Supervisors (Pacific Region), EPA Office of Water Directors (Regions 8, 

9, and 10), EPA Operations Office Directors (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington),EPA Region Forest/Range Manager 

(Region 10) Updated Interior Columbia Basin Strategy: A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

208

6912 Table 66. MIS/focal species viability scores 

Subbasin Pend Oreille Columbia Kettle Colville SanPoil

Species WSCT BT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT

Viability -0.22 -0.42 -0.70 -0.43 -0.73 -0.09 -0.40 -0.53 -0.89 -0.61

6913 WSCT=westslope cutthroat, IRT=interior redband, BT=bull trout

6914 As displayed in table 66, in no subbasin, for any MIS/focal species, is there support for the conclusion the 

6915 populations are currently viable. If one were to categorize the scores as +1 to +0.33 is viable, 0.33 to -

6916 0.33 as viability is at risk and greater than -0.33 as not viable, the viability of the WSCT in the Pend 

6917 Oreille subbasin and interior redband in the Kettle subbasin would be considered at risk. All other 

6918 populations would be considered not currently viable at the subbasin scale. This is not surprising as in the 

6919 AEC assessment the status of most local populations was rated as functioning at risk or not properly 

6920 functioning, as were the habitat condition scores. There were no positive scores for patch size other than 

6921 for bull trout in the Pend Oreille meaning most populations occupy or have access to a stream network 

6922 smaller than what is considered beneficial for long-term viability. The overall scores reflect the threats to 

6923 the MIS/focal species due to: the overall poor population status; impaired watershed functions and aquatic 

6924 habitat generally in a “poor” condition compared to reference streams; and poor distribution of the 

6925 MIS/focal species within the subbasins due to natural isolation above waterfalls, man-made barriers 

6926 including those off the Forest; and the abundance of non-native fish, especially brook trout. In some cases 

6927 the natural barriers are protecting the WSCT and interior redband populations from invasion by the non6928 native trout. The following summarizes the viability by subbasin. 

6929 Pend Oreille

6930 The MIS/focal species in the Pend Oreille subbasin are WSCT trout and bull trout. The WSCT 

6931 populations are well distributed but their viability is at risk due to the presence of non-native trout, culvert 

6932 barriers, and habitat degradation. The bull trout populations have also been affected by non-native trout, 

6933 culvert barriers and habitat degradation. Bull trout have not been recently observed on the Forest hence 

6934 the species has a poor distribution score. The bull trout migratory life history and connectivity between 

6935 populations is also impaired due to hydroelectric dams on the mainstem rivers. 

6936 Upper Columbia/Lake Roosevelt

6937 The WSCT and redband trout are MIS/focal species in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin. The WSCT 

6938 populations are mainly found in watersheds flowing into the eastside of Lake Roosevelt and are isolated 

6939 from the lake and other populations by natural barriers. The interior redband trout populations are mainly 

6940 found in watersheds draining into the west side of the lake and are also isolated by natural barriers. The 

6941 isolated populations of both species have small patch sizes and the AEC scores reflect degraded habitat 

6942 conditions. Non-native trout are probably preventing the two MIS/focal species from expanding their 

6943 ranges but the barriers are also preventing the non-native trout from invading the currently occupied 

6944 WSCT and interior redband trout habitat. 

6945 Kettle

6946 WSCT and interior redband trout inhabit the Kettle subbasin. The WSCT populations are isolated in two 

6947 subwatersheds by natural barriers resulting in a low distribution and patch score. The AEC scores are low 

6948 due to low or unknown population numbers and degraded habitat conditions. The distribution of the 

6949 WSCT populations is likely restricted by the presence of non-native trout but as with the Lake Roosevelt 

6950 populations, the natural barriers are preventing the non-native trout from invading the currently occupied 

6951 WSCT habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

209

6952 The interior redband trout are distributed across 15 subwatersheds although many populations are 

6953 probably hybridized with non-native coastal rainbow trout. Pure populations are isolated from the Kettle 

6954 River by man-made and natural barriers resulting in small patch sizes. The MIS/focal species population 

6955 status is relatively healthy in eight subwatersheds, but the isolated populations combined with some 

6956 degraded habitat conditions and non-native trout below the barriers are threats to the interior redband 

6957 populations. 

6958 Colville

6959 The small interior redband trout and WSCT populations in the Colville subbasin are isolated by natural 

6960 and man-made barriers. The population viability of both species is threatened due to small, isolated 

6961 populations, degraded habitat conditions and the wide distribution of non-native trout.

6962 Sanpoil

6963 There is a small WSCT population within one subbasin in the Sanpoil subbasin. The population is isolated 

6964 from the rest of the subbasin by a natural barrier. The limited distribution, small population number, small 

6965 patch size, and lack of connectivity with other WSCT populations, combined with watershed conditions 

6966 rated as functioning at risk are threats to the population viability. 

6967 Small populations of interior redband trout are distributed in only four subwatersheds within the Sanpoil 

6968 subbasin. The populations are isolated due to natural barriers resulting in small patch sizes and poor 

6969 population and habitat connectivity. Widely distributed non-native trout are likely preventing both WSCT 

6970 and interior redband trout from becoming more widely distributed. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

210

6971 No-action Alternative

6972 The current plan delineates broad management areas (MAs) where the general management intent is 

6973 similar. Table 67 displays the MAs that share the same management direction in all alternatives.

6974 Table 67. Management areas that share the same direction across all action alternatives

Management areas with direction that 

remains the same across alternatives

Management direction and comparison to existing plan 

direction 

Administrative and Recreation Sites 

(Includes permitted and developed recreation 

sites)

The sites are established as separate management areas rather than 

overlays or inclusions in other management areas. The management 

direction remains unchanged from current plans.

Eligible and suitable wild and scenic 

rivers 

(Includes all rivers identified in the current 

forest plans and those additional proposed 

eligible rivers) 

Plan direction emphasizes maintaining the eligibility of the areas. 

Overarching management direction from legislation, policy, and 

directives bounds the direction.

Research Natural Areas

Emphasizes maintaining the research values of the areas. 

Boundaries of these areas remain unchanged from current. 

Overarching management direction from policy, directives, and 

establishment records bounds the direction.

Scenic Byways

Emphasizes maintaining the scenic values and functions of the area 

and remains unchanged across alternatives. Overarching 

management direction from policy and directives bounds the 

proposed plan revision direction.

Special Interest Areas (SIA)

Proposes new SIAs, combines others, and removes current SIAs that 

do not fit the category. Overarching management direction from 

directives bounds the proposed plan revision direction. Plan revision 

direction emphasizes maintaining the special values of the area and 

remains unchanged across alternatives. The boundaries and amount 

of SIAs are affected by wilderness recommendations changing 

across alternatives.

Wilderness

Congressionally designated wilderness boundaries do not change 

across alternatives. Management direction within Wilderness also 

does not change across alternatives. A notable change from current 

management is a proposal to allow the Forest to authorize use of 

prescribed fire within wilderness areas.

6975 Management areas specific to the current plan are displayed in the following table.

6976 Table 68. No-action management areas by subbasin (acres)

Management Area Colville

Franklin D. 

Roosevelt 

Lake

Kettle Pend 

Oreille Sanpoil Total

Caribou Habitat 30,280 30,280

Downhill Skiing 2,024 2,024

No Management Area Assigned 17 17

Old Growth Dependent Species Habitat 4,674 6,772 7,097 10,335 4,290 33,168

Private Lands Originally 91 77 20 1025 1213

Recreation 8,511 9,722 9,158 11,146 4,642 43,179

Recreation/Wildlife 2,248 978 9,235 12,461

Research Natural Area 401 2269 2350 5020
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

211

Management Area Colville

Franklin D. 

Roosevelt 

Lake

Kettle Pend 

Oreille Sanpoil Total

Scenic Timber 22,595 42,961 46,498 89,594 14,472 216,120

Scenic/Winter Range 8,101 7,588 11,736 47,067 1,861 76,353

Semi-Primitive, Motorized Recreation 3,449 10,118 13,567

Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Recreation 29,942 16,824 33,696 7,534 87,996

Wilderness Management 31,400 31,400

Winter Range 16,422 16,877 37,483 34,506 20,396 125,966

Wood/Forage 48,082 74,556 158,418 109,254 32,601 422,911

Total 108,477 194,593 298,330 404,099 97,381 1,103,162

6977 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

6978 Key Indicators

6979 The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General Restoration, and a 

6980 timber production emphasis30,741 acres (about 3 percent of the Forest is allocated to Old Growth 

6981 Dependent Species Habitat. 

6982 Number of acres where management to produce timber is allowedabout 891,000 (about 81 percent of 

6983 the Forest). However, vegetation management in the Caribou, Old Growth Dependent Species, 

6984 Recreation/Wildlife, Scenic/Winter Range and Winter Range MAs is more likely to be similar to 

6985 vegetation management in the Focused Restoration or Late Forest Structure MAs in the proposed action

6986 and alternatives R and P, the Restoration Zone in alternatives B and O. These No Action MAs include 

6987 about 25 percent of the Forest (approximately 278,230) which is similar to the proposed action. More 

6988 intense timber production is expected in the recreation, Scenic/Timber and Wood/Forage MAs totaling 

6989 about 682,200 acres (62 percent of the Forest) which is more than the Active Management Area of 

6990 alternative B and Responsible Management Area included in alternative O. The risks to watershed 

6991 processes and aquatic habitat associated with timber production would occur over more of the Forest than 

6992 any other alternative. 

6993 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

6994 Key Indicators 

6995 Desired conditions for road densities- No desired conditions that specifically address watershed condition 

6996 or aquatic habitat.

6997 Acres allocated to Motorized RecreationIn total approximately 931,221 acres, about 85 percent of the 

6998 Forest is available for off-road motorized. Off-road vehicle use would continue to be allowed in 

6999 designated areas and trails over approximately 698,575 acres (about 65 percent of the Forest); allowed but 

7000 subject to seasonal closures or other restrictions on approximately 232,646 acres (about 21 percent of the 

7001 Forest; and discouraged or not allowed on about 168,370 acres (15 percent of the Forest)

7002 There are approximately 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads on the Forest and another 

7003 approximately 2,500 miles of roads owned by other jurisdictions within the boundaries of subwatersheds 

7004 that include the Forest. The AEC assessment found most subwatersheds on the Forest to be functioning at 

7005 risk or not properly functioning for the road density and riparian road density attribute. The no-action 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

212

7006 alternative, along with alternatives B and O do not include desired conditions for road densities and cap 

7007 the road system at 4,000 miles. While some MAs within the no-action alternative have desired conditions 

7008 limiting open road densities, primarily to benefit wildlife, roads that are closed to use but still on the 

7009 landscape continue to impact watershed processes and are considered “open” from a watershed and 

7010 aquatic habitat perspective. The no-action alternative along with alternatives B and O present the most 

7011 risk to aquatic resources and watershed conditions due to roads.

7012 Off-road vehicle use would continue to be allowed in designated areas and trails over approximately 

7013 698,575 acres (about 65 percent of the Forest); allowed but subject to seasonal closures or other 

7014 restrictions on approximately 232,646 acres (about 21 percent of the Forest; and discouraged or not 

7015 allowed on about 168,370 acres (15 percent of the Forest). Off-road use increases the potential for 

7016 accelerated sediment delivery to streams and damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. These risks 

7017 may increase if recreation use increases as expected and budgets to manage and maintain the system as 

7018 described in Appendix 3 of the specialist report do not keep pace.

7019 Recommended Wilderness Areas

7020 The current Forest Plan has no areas recommended for wilderness.

7021 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

7022 Key Indicator-ACS Direction, RMA Delineation and RMA Direction

7023 Under the no-action alternative, current forest plan direction for watershed, aquatic and riparian resources 

7024 would remain as defined by INFISH.

7025 INFISH includes eight riparian goals (similar to desired conditions) establishing the expectation for 

7026 providing the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas and fish habitat; riparian 

management objectives (RMOs) that are numeric descriptors for good fish habitat39 7027 ; riparian habitat 

7028 conservation areas (RHCAs) (similar to RMAs) where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

7029 emphasis and specific standards and guides for land management activities are to be applied; Priority 

7030 Watersheds designated to protect and conserve inland native fish habitat and populations; Watershed 

7031 Analysis, a systematic procedure for determining how a watershed functions in relation to its physical and 

7032 biological components; watershed restoration to improve the current condition of watersheds to restore 

7033 degraded habitat and to provide long-term protection to riparian and aquatic resources (although no 

7034 restoration strategy was originally included); and Monitoring (USDA Forest Service 1995) (see appendix 

7035 1 of the specialist report for a complete description of the ACS for each alternative.)

7036 The delineation of riparian management areas, where riparian-dependent ecosystems receive primary 

7037 emphasis would continue under the INFISH RHCA definitions (table 69). Standards and guidelines direct 

7038 management within the RHCAs to meet the numeric RMOs.

 39 The specific measurable RMOs are for the following in-stream features; pool frequency; water temperature; large woody 

debris; bank stability; lower bank angle and width/depth ratio The RMOs are to remain in place unless they are revised through 

watershed or site-specific analysis
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

213

7039 Table 69. Riparian habitat conservation area width

Stream and water body classification Riparian habitat conservation area width 

Fish-bearing streams 300 ft. slope distance on each side (600 ft. total)

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing 

streams 150 ft. slope distance on each side (300 ft. total)

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands 

greater than 1 acre 150 feet slope distance around feature

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, 

wetlands less than 1 acre

100 ft. slope distance in priority watersheds, 50 ft. slope distance in 

non-priority watersheds.

7040 The INFISH standards and guidelines for RHCAs constrain management activities (timber, roads, 

7041 livestock grazing, recreation, minerals, fire/fuels, lands, general riparian, watershed and habitat 

7042 restoration, fisheries and wildlife restoration) in order to achieve the Riparian Goals and RMO’s and 

7043 ensure protection of physical and biological resources.

7044 The results of stream surveys conducted by the Forest show that many of the reaches surveyed are not 

7045 meeting the RMOs as defined by INFISH, although recent analysis of habitat trends show conditions may 

7046 be slowly improving.

7047 Key Indicator –Key Watershed; Acres, Management Direction, MIS/Focal Species and Objectives

7048 There are currently 13 Priority watersheds that cover 214,283 acres or about 19 percent of the Forest.

7049 The RHCA widths for intermittent streams are wider in Priority Watersheds than in non-priority 

7050 watersheds (100 feet versus 50 feet) however, there are no other specific goals, desired conditions, or 

7051 other direction specific to the priority watersheds. The Priority Watersheds are located in the Pend Oreille 

7052 subbasin. Most Priority Watersheds support both bull trout critical habitat and WSCT populations. There 

7053 are no Key or priority watersheds in the other subbasins within the Forest.

7054 Key Indicator - Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments

7055 Managing grazing allotments would continue under INFISH riparian goals and the four INFISH grazing 

7056 standards and guidelines that focus on attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, which may or may 

7057 not be appropriate to site-specific hydrologic, geomorphic and riparian vegetation conditions. There are 

7058 no other specific physical or biological indicators specified. Allotments with bull trout Critical Habitat 

7059 would continue to be governed by biological opinions issued by the USFWS and may include more 

7060 specific measures to limit impacts on bull trout and bull trout habitat. 

7061 Although stream habitat on the Forest in many locations are “degraded” compared to reference streams, 

7062 conditions may be slowly improving. The PIBO index indicators for fine sediment and bank angle are 

7063 trending in a negative direction in some streams, a possible indication of grazing affecting aquatic habitat. 

7064 The impacts of grazing may be most acute in watersheds with high road densities.

7065 Key Indicator – Change in distribution or Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)

7066 There is no INFISH direction specific to dealing with the threat of aquatic invasive species. There is one 

7067 standard and guideline. AIS and preventing their distribution is indirectly addressed in the INFISH 

7068 riparian goals. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

214

7069 Forest Service Contribution to Viability

7070 Although there is some indication aquatic habitat is improving with implementation of INFISH, the AEC 

7071 for most subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk or not properly functioning and little 

7072 improvement would be expected given there are no road desired conditions, no extra protection to aquatic 

7073 and riparian resources from recommended wilderness, and the more of the land base is open to intensive 

7074 timber production under the no-action alternative than any other alternative. The no-action alternative

7075 provides the least Forest Service contribution to improve the viability of the MIS/focal species than any 

7076 other alternative (table 70).

7077 Table 70. Forest Service contribution to viability (the higher the score the greater the Forest Service 

7078 Contribution)

Forest Service

Contribution Pend Oreille Roosevelt Kettle Colville Sanpoil

Species WSCT BT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT

No Action 0.01 -0.26 -0.34 -0.34 -0.36 -0.10 -0.29 -0.49 -0.46 -0.41

Proposed 

Action 0.10 -0.17 -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 0.04 -0.26 -0.46 -0.04 -0.34

Alternative R O.13 -0.14 -0.04 -0.03 -0.13 0.12 -0.15 -0.35 -0.38 -0.33

Alternative P 0.13 -0.14 -0.06 -0.06 -0.17 0.09 -0.22 -0.43 -0.37 -0.32

Alternative B 0.03 -0.24 -0.32 -0.31 -0.31 -0.05 -0.28 -0.48 -0.42 -0.37

Alternative O 0.07 -0.20 -0.11 -0.10 -0.21 0.05 -0.27 -0.48 -0.40 -0.34

7079 WSCT=westslope cutthroat trout, IRT-interior redband trout, BT=bull trout

7080 As mentioned in the Methods section, the final score for an alternative is the average of the relative 

7081 protection to watershed and aquatic resources afforded by the MAs, the percent of occupied habitat on the 

7082 National Forest lands, and the AEC (which includes watershed and habitat condition and the species 

7083 status). The Forest Service Contribution scores represent an interpretation of the relative role of Forest 

7084 lands to provide for the viability of a MIS/focal species in a subbasin by alternative. It should be noted 

7085 that when the Forest Service contribution to ecological viability scores are low it does not necessarily 

7086 indicate that Forest Service management direction is insufficient, but rather that Forest Service 

7087 management is not addressing all factors that contribute to species ecological viability. Much of the other 

7088 management issues not addressed may be off National Forest lands such as roads managed by other 

7089 entities and hydroelectric dams. A low Forest Service contribution may also be due to presence on non7090 native fish and isolation due to natural barriers and man-made barriers off the National Forest as well as 

7091 the current status of the MIS/focal species and habitat conditions as reflected in the AEC. As has been 

7092 discussed, the viability of the MIS/focal species is currently threatened because: many MIS/focal species 

7093 are isolated above natural as well as anthropogenic barriers and population status affected by the 

7094 widespread distribution and abundance of non-native trout; and degraded habitat conditions both on and 

7095 off the Forest.

7096 The no-action alternative provides a current baseline from which to judge the relative potential change in 

7097 the Forest Service contribution to MIS/focal species viability between alternatives. 

7098 Effects – No Action

7099 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

7100 Old forest management in the current forest plan occurs in old growth fixed reserves and is also guided by 

7101 the Eastside Screens. The fixed reserves cover 30,741 acres or about three percent of the Forest. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

215

7102 Eastside Screens direct that no tree over 21 inches in diameter be harvested. Timber production is allowed 

7103 in the Recreation, Scenic/Timber, Scenic/Winter Range, Wood/Forage and Winter Range MAs that cover 

7104 almost 81 percent of the Forest. However, vegetation management in the Caribou, Old Growth Dependent 

7105 Species, Recreation/Wildlife, Scenic/Winter Range and Winter Range MAs is more likely to be similar to 

7106 vegetation management in the Focused Restoration or Late Forest Structure MAs of the proposed action

7107 and alternatives R and P, and the Restoration Zone in alternatives B and O. The aforementioned No 

7108 Action MAs include about 25 percent of the Forest, which is similar to the proposed action. 

7109 More intense timber production is expected in the Recreation, Scenic/Timber and Wood/Forage MAs 

7110 totaling about 682,200 acres (62 percent of the Forest). The area with a timber production emphasis is 

7111 more than the Active Management Area of alternative B and the Responsible Management Area included 

7112 in alternative O. The watershed condition and AEC for most subwatersheds on the Forest are rated as 

7113 functioning at risk or not properly functioning and little improvement may be expected over the current 

7114 baseline conditions. The risks to watershed processes and aquatic habitat associated with timber 

7115 production continue to occur over more of the Forest than any other alternative. While past timber harvest 

7116 may have degraded the riparian vegetation attribute of the AEC, the transportation system needed to 

7117 support the timber program is a bigger impact on watershed processes. Recent work completed by PIBO 

7118 shows, that after almost 20 years of implementing INFISH, stream habitat conditions may be improving 

7119 but the rate of improvement is slow, and habitat conditions on the Forest are in “poor” condition 

7120 compared to reference streams. Therefore aquatic habitat may continue to show slow improvement but 

7121 most watersheds would likely continue to function at risk or be not properly functioning. 

7122 Motorized Recreation and Access

7123 Roads are allowed on over 80 percent of the Forest. Currently, there are approximately 4,000 miles of 

7124 National Forest System roads. There are approximately 2,500 miles of roads owned by other jurisdictions 

7125 within the boundaries of subwatersheds that include the Forest. Roads not only disrupt watershed 

7126 processes but their presence can have an impact on fish populations as well. Generally, watersheds that 

7127 exhibit properly functioning watershed condition and support strong fish populations have road densities 

7128 less than 1.0 mile per square mile and no valley bottom roads. Watersheds with road densities of 1 to 

7129 2.4 miles per square mile are generally considered to be functioning at risk for maintaining watershed 

7130 processes and strong fish populations, and watersheds with road densities greater the 2.4 miles per square 

7131 mile are considered to be not properly functioning. The AEC assessment found most subwatersheds on 

7132 the Forest to be functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the road density and riparian road 

7133 density attributes. The impaired watershed conditions are expected to continue under the no-action 

7134 alternative. While some MAs include desired conditions limiting open road densities at least seasonally 

7135 there are no specific desired conditions for watersheds function or fish habitat. A road that is closed to 

7136 access, such as for deer winter range, but still existing on the landscape is still has an imprint on 

7137 watershed processes and therefore such roads are considered “open” in our road density calculations.

7138 The Forest currently decommissions about four miles of road per year and completes three to five fish 

7139 passage improvement projects annually and it is assumed this rate would continue under the no-action 

7140 alternative. Road decommissioning should help improve watershed conditions, especially when 

7141 concentrated in “focus” watersheds and may be expected to reduce fine sediment delivery to streams over 

7142 the long-term. However with an emphasis on timber production the overall road densities are not expected 

7143 to be significantly reduced on the Forest as a whole.

7144 Off-road vehicle use would continue to be allowed in designated areas and trails over approximately 

7145 698,575 acres (about 65 percent of the Forest); allowed but subject to seasonal closures or other 

7146 restrictions on approximately 232,646 acres (about 21 percent of the Forest; and discouraged or not 

7147 allowed on about 168,370 acres (15 percent of the Forest). Off-road use increases the potential for 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

216

7148 accelerated sediment delivery to streams and damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. These risks 

7149 may increase if recreation use increases as expected and budgets to manage and maintain the system do 

7150 not keep pace.

7151 Recommended Wilderness

7152 The current forest plan includes no lands recommended as potential wilderness. The no-action alternative

7153 is the only alternative that does not include recommended wilderness.

7154 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

7155 Watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat direction is provided by INFISH. The existing forest plan and 

7156 amendments focus heavily on Goals, Objectives and Standards and Guidelines to implement the 

7157 watershed, aquatic, and riparian direction (see appendix 1 of the specialist report for INFISH plan 

7158 direction and comparison to action alternatives). Under the no-action alternative current forest plan 

7159 direction for watershed, aquatic and riparian resources would remain as defined in INFISH.

7160 INFISH includes eight riparian goals (similar to desired conditions) establishing the expectation for 

7161 providing the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas and fish habitat; Riparian 

Management Objectives (RMOs) that are numeric descriptors for good fish habitat,

40 7162 Riparian habitat 

7163 conservation areas (RHCAs) (similar to RMAs) where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

7164 emphasis and specific standards and guides for land management activities are to be applied; Priority 

7165 Watersheds designated to protect and conserve inland native fish habitat and populations; Watershed 

7166 Analysis, a systematic procedure for determining how a watershed functions in relation to its physical and 

7167 biological components; watershed restoration to improve the current condition of watersheds to restore 

7168 degraded habitat and to provide long-term protection to riparian and aquatic resources (although no 

7169 restoration strategy was originally included); and Monitoring (USDA Forest Service 1995).

7170 The delineation of riparian management areas would continue under the INFISH RHCA definitions (table 

7171 71). RHCA widths may be increased or decreased when necessary to attain RMOs when site-specific data 

7172 supports the change. Standards and guidelines direct management within the RHCAs to meet the numeric 

7173 RMOs although there is no distinction between a standard and a guideline.

7174 Table 71. Riparian habitat conservation area width

Stream and water body 

classification Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width 

Fish-bearing streams 300 ft. slope distance on each side (600 ft. total)

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing

streams 150 ft. slope distance on each side (300 ft. total)

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands 

greater than 1 acre 150 ft. slope distance around feature

Seasonally flowing or intermittent 

streams, wetlands less than 1 acre

100 ft. slope distance in priority watersheds, 50 ft. slope distance in nonpriority watersheds.

7175 INFISH designated what are termed Priority Watersheds. Within Priority Watersheds inland native fish 

7176 are to receive special attention and treatment (USDA Forest Service 1995). The criteria to designate 

7177 priority watersheds include:

 40 The specific measurable RMOs are for the following in-stream features; pool frequency; water temperature; large woody 

debris; bank stability; lower bank angle and width/depth ratio The RMOs are to remain in place unless they are revised through 

watershed or site-specific analysis
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

217

7178 1. Watersheds with excellent habitat of strong assemblages of inland native fish, with a priority on bull 

7179 trout populations

7180 2. Watersheds that provide for meta-population objectives

7181 3. Degraded watersheds with a high restoration potential

7182 Watersheds in good condition are to serve as anchors for the potential recovery of depressed populations, 

7183 and provide colonists for adjacent areas where habitat had been degraded by land management or natural 

7184 events. Those watersheds with lower quality habitat and high potential for restoration would become 

7185 future sources of good habitat through focused restoration. The RHCA widths for intermittent streams are 

7186 wider in Priority Watersheds than in non-priority watersheds (100 feet versus 50 feet) however, there are 

7187 no other specific goals, desired conditions, or other direction specific to the priority watersheds. 

7188 The results of stream surveys conducted by the Forest show that many of the reaches surveyed are not 

7189 meeting the RMOs as defined by INFISH. Deficiencies were noted in pool frequency and the number of 

7190 large pools, large woody debris, bank conditions and stream widths riparian vegetation and sediment. 

7191 However, given the natural variability in stream habitat conditions due to weather, disturbance and the 

7192 physical environment a “one-size-fits-all” approach, such as the use of RMOs may not adequately 

7193 describe habitat conditions (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2011). 

7194 Archer et al. (2009) and Meredith et al. (2012) found that the PACFISH and INFISH strategies appeared 

7195 to be working although streams within managed watersheds are generally in a more degraded condition 

7196 than more unmanaged or reference watersheds (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2010). Using an index approach, 

7197 PIBO data was assessed for sampled streams on the Forest. After almost 20 years implementing INFISH, 

7198 a number of individual components of aquatic habitat and overall habitat scores on the Forest tended to be 

7199 (but not universally) less (impaired habitat condition) than would be expected compared to reference 

7200 streams. However, the results indicate positive trends for a number of the stream habitat indicators, 

7201 suggesting that habitat may be slowly improving under current management. The bank angle and fine 

7202 sediment indicators, D50 and percent fines, appear to be most commonly in what might be considered an 

7203 impaired condition.

7204 There are currently 13 priority watersheds where inland native fish are to receive special emphasis. The 

7205 priority watersheds cover 214,283 acres or about 19 percent of the Forest. Watersheds in good condition 

7206 would serve as anchors for the potential recovery of depressed populations, and provide colonists for 

7207 adjacent areas where habitat had been degraded by land management or natural events. Those watersheds 

7208 with lower quality habitat and high potential for restoration would become future sources of good habitat 

7209 through focused restoration. The RHCA widths for intermittent streams are wider in priority watersheds 

7210 that in non-priority watersheds (100 feet versus 50 feet), however, there are no other specific goals, 

7211 desired conditions, or other direction specific to the priority watersheds. 

7212 The priority watersheds are only located in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Most of the priority watersheds 

7213 support both bull trout and WSCT populations. The following table displays the priority watersheds 

7214 including all designated bull trout critical habitat on the Forest.

7215 Table 72. INFISH priority and alternative B key watersheds 

Subwatershe

d Number Subwatershed Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres

Colville National 

Forest Ownership 

Acres

Species/C

H

170102160201 Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,224 14,463 BT, WSCT

170102160202 Skookum Creek 31,811 14,192 BT, WSCT
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

218

Subwatershe

d Number Subwatershed Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres

Colville National 

Forest Ownership 

Acres

Species/C

H

170102160301 Middle Creek-Pend Oreille River 23,209 5,066 BT

170102160302 West Branch Le Clerc Creek 21,672 15,099 WSCT, CH

170102160303 East Branch Le Clerc Creek 26,663 11,145 WSCT,CH

170102160401 Harvey Creek 32,999 27,554 BT, WSCT

170102160402 Headwaters Sullivan Creek 45,516 45,417 WSCT,CH

170102160403 North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan 

Creek 12,709 11,259 WSCT,CH

170102160702 Headwaters South Salmo River 20,697 12,472 BT, WSCT

170102160704 Outlet South Salmo River 14,013 3,460 BT, WSCT

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,832 28,890 WSCT

170102160903 Slate Creek 20,195 19,907 WSCT,CH

170102161003 Cedar Creek 17,209 5,359 WSCT,CH

Total Acres 349,747 214,283

7216 WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior Redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat

7217 While native fish are to receive special management emphasis within priority watersheds, there is no 

7218 additional management direction provided such as specific desired conditions, objectives, or standards 

7219 and guides specific to the priority watersheds. 

7220 There is no INFISH direction specifically addressing the threat of aquatic invasive species. There is one 

7221 standard and guideline: 

7222 • FW-4 Cooperate with Federal, tribal, and State fish management agencies to identify and eliminate 

7223 adverse effects on native fish associated with habitat manipulation, fish stocking, fish harvest, and 

7224 poaching. 

7225 AIS and preventing their distribution is indirectly addressed in the INFISH riparian goal to maintain or 

7226 restore the:

7227 • diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian zones.

7228 • riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within 

7229 the specific geo-climatic region.

7230 • habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, 

7231 and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities.

7232 Currently, the Forest AIS strategy includes a milfoil weed control project in the Little Pend Oreille Lakes 

7233 and using preventive measures such as disinfecting field gear to reduce the accidental spread of AIS. 

7234 These activities are expected to continue.

7235 Active grazing allotments overlap with RHCAs, including those that provide habitat for MIS/focal 

7236 species. Managing grazing allotments would continue under INFISH riparian goals and the four INFISH 

7237 grazing standards and guidelines that focus on attainment of riparian management objectives, which may 

7238 or may not be appropriate to site-specific hydrologic, geomorphic and riparian vegetation conditions. 

7239 There are no other specific physical or biological indicators specified. Aquatic habitat tends to be of poor 

7240 quality on the Forest compared to reference streams, but after almost 20 years of implementing INFISH,

7241 there is indication that aquatic habitat conditions on the Forest are slowly improving. The bank stability, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

219

7242 percent undercut bank, and bank angle attributes of aquatic habitat, which can be affected by grazing, are 

7243 showing some improving trends on the Forest. However, the bank angle attribute and the fine sediment 

7244 indicators, D50 and percent fines, which also can be affected by grazing, are commonly in a “poor 

7245 condition”, although it must be noted the extent to which grazing is or is not contributing to the current 

7246 habitat conditions is not determined at this time. Allotments with bull trout critical habitat would continue 

7247 to be governed by biological opinions issued by the USFWS and may include more specific measures to 

7248 limit impacts on bull trout and bull trout habitat.

7249 Cumulative Effects

7250 A general discussion of cumulative effects common to all alternatives is included in the section; Past 

7251 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis. The watershed condition 

7252 and status of most of the MIS/focal Species’ local populations are functioning at risk or not properly 

7253 functioning, although there is some indication of slow improvement in aquatic habitat condition. Road 

7254 densities and riparian road densities which are two major attributes causing the poor watershed condition 

7255 scores may not significantly improve, despite restoration, due to the amount of land available for timber 

7256 production, the current Forest road system, and the 2,500 miles of road managed by other entities, which 

7257 is not expected to change. 

7258 The Forest would continue with actions as described in the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020

7259 project. Such actions, especially when they are implemented in a whole watershed restoration approach, 

7260 should help restore watershed condition to some degree. However, given the road system and the fact that 

7261 after 20 years of implementing INFISH on the Forest stream habitat is only slowly improving, watershed 

7262 condition and stream habitat may not be expected to significantly improve forestwide. The magnitude of 

7263 the improvement within a subwatershed would depend upon the amount of work that is socially 

7264 acceptable and technically feasible to implement. The MIS/focal species’ population status are 

7265 significantly affected by high numbers and wide distribution of non-native fish, isolation above barriers 

7266 and low MIS/focal species numbers, and problems in the migratory corridors on the larger rivers. The 

7267 terms associated with relicensing of hydroelectric dams on mainstem rivers adjacent to the Forest should 

7268 have beneficial impacts to native fish, especially bull trout and WSCT.

7269 Climate Change

7270 The overall effects of climate change were presented in the Summary of Effects Common for all 

7271 Alternatives section. Under the no-action alternative, Colville National Forest aquatic resource 

7272 management direction for managing for stronghold populations that may contribute to the MIS/focal 

7273 species persistence under different climate change scenarios is contained in the INFISH direction for 

7274 priority watersheds. The priority watersheds are Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River, Skookum Creek, 

7275 Middle Creek Pend Oreille River, West Branch Le Clerc Creek, East Branch Le Clerc Creek, Harvey 

7276 Creek, Headwaters Sullivan Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek, Headwaters South Salmo 

7277 River, Outlet South Salmo River, Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River, Slate Creek, and Cedar Creek. The 

7278 Priority watersheds may provide the potential to rebuild populations and improve habitat, especially in the 

7279 East Fork and West Fork Le Clerc Creeks, which are focus watersheds. Where implemented, habitat 

7280 restoration projects, improved aquatic passage, road decommissioning should help protect MIS/focal 

7281 species populations and improve connectivity for bull trout populations in those streams, especially in the 

7282 East and West Branch Le Clerc Creek and Ninemile Creek where restoration actions are to be focused in 

7283 the near-term. The threat to the MIS/focal species due to the high abundance and broad distribution of 

7284 non-native trout may be exacerbated in a warming climate. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

220

7285 Monitoring Recommendations

7286 The monitoring program was previously described in the Summary of Effects Common for all 

7287 Alternatives.

7288 Proposed Action

7289 The proposed action reflects current management policies of the Forest. The proposed action provides for 

7290 a mix of wilderness, motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities to address the increase in 

7291 visitor uses due to population growth and changing demographics. Similar to the current forest plan, the 

7292 proposed action allows the existing level of authorized road access with approximately 80 percent of the 

7293 Forest in a roaded recreation setting. Some key differences between the proposed action and the current 

7294 plan include; a dynamic approach to managing old forests rather than fixed reserves, more area 

7295 emphasizing backcountry motorized use, and approximately 101,390 acres identified as recommended 

7296 wilderness.

7297 In addition to including the Recommended Wilderness MA, two restoration management areas are 

7298 proposed, Focused Restoration and General restoration. Focused restoration areas are defined by key 

7299 watersheds, and grizzly bear and caribou recovery areas that are not included in Backcountry and 

7300 Backcountry Motorized MAs. General Restoration areas spatially include all areas not already included in 

7301 another MA. 

7302 The road density desired conditions for Focused and General Restoration areas vary between the proposed

7303 action, and alternatives R and P. Road density is defined as the miles of all National Forest System roads 

7304 per square mile of National Forest System land. The total National Forest System road density is averaged 

7305 over the whole MA (Focused or General Restoration) within a watershed (HUC10).

7306 Table 73. Proposed action management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion

Management Area Colville Franklin D. 

Roosevelt Lake Kettle Pend Oreille Sanpoil Total*

Focused Restoration 0 31,073 46,989 179,079 0 257,143

General Restoration 101,808 96,764 166,104 106,538 62,348 533,844

Backcountry 5,270 13,627 20,448 32,907 18,587 90,838

Backcountry Motorized 1,357 11,807 40,459 5,259 2,844 61,726

Wilderness Recommended 0 30,002 24,009 38,876 8,498 101,390

Wilderness-Congressionally 

Designated 0 0 0 31,400 31,400

7307 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology

7308 The proposed action addresses the need for updated, integrated direction for watershed, aquatic and 

7309 riparian management. Riparian and aquatic resource direction included in the proposed action is based on 

7310 the ARCS (USDA Forest Service 2008). The ARCS includes designation of riparian management areas 

7311 (RMAs), designation of a key watershed network, and a core set of desired conditions, goals, objectives, 

7312 and standards and guidelines designed to provide ecological conditions conducive to maintaining, 

7313 restoring, and enhancing habitat necessary to sustain aquatic and riparian-dependent species on National 

7314 Forest System lands. 

7315 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

7316 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General 

7317 Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

221

7318 • Focused Restoration – 257,143 acres. 

7319 • General Restoration – 533,844 acres

7320 The proposed action employs a landscape approach to restoring vegetation conditions, including late 

7321 forest structure forests across the Forest. Approximately 71 percent of the Forest is available for timber 

7322 harvest in the restoration MAs with the intent to restore forest vegetation conditions. The Focused 

7323 Restoration MA includes about 23 percent of the Forest and the General Restoration Area about 

7324 48 percent of the Forest. The amount of land in these two MAs is almost reversed in alternative R. 

7325 Alternative P has similar amounts of land in the two MAs; about 28 percent in Focused restoration and 

7326 almost 45 percent in General Restoration. 

7327 The intent of timber harvest and other vegetation management activities is to create vegetation conditions 

7328 that are more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations. Management to 

7329 restore vegetation to conditions, including old forests or late forest structure that are more resilient to 

7330 disturbances such as fire, drought and insects and disease may help improve watershed conditions. The 

7331 restoration management approach would likely have fewer risks to aquatic habitat and watershed 

7332 condition than management with a timber production emphasis. It is assumed that there would be more 

7333 active management within the General Restoration MA and therefore potentially more risk to aquatic 

7334 resources due to vegetation management activities, as the Focused Restoration MA has a greater emphasis 

7335 to provide habitat for wildlife and key watersheds. However, the potential increased risks due to 

7336 vegetation management in the General Restoration MA compared to the Focused Restoration areas is 

7337 small as the intent in both areas is to improve upslope vegetation conditions. The potential benefits to 

7338 watershed condition and aquatic habitat due to terrestrial vegetation management may not be fully 

7339 realized due to the desired road densities (see below).

7340 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

7341 Key Indicators

7342 • Desired Conditions for road densities – Road density desired conditions are 2.0 miles per square mile

7343 in Focused Restoration MA and 3.0 miles per square mile in General Restoration MA. 

7344 • Acres allocated to motorized use – Approximately 954,000 acres or 87 percent of the Forest, 

7345 however, it should be noted that 101,390 of those acres are in recommended wilderness where only 

7346 existing trails can be used and no new trails developed.

7347 Watershed conditions would continue to be impaired as road densities above 2.4 miles per square mile are 

7348 generally considered indicative of a not properly functioning watershed and are not conducive to 

7349 supporting strong fish populations. The 2.0 miles per square mile road density desired conditions still falls 

7350 in the range where watershed conditions and the ability of a watershed to support strong fish populations 

7351 is at risk. 

7352 Off-road vehicle use is allowed over most of the Forest including in recommended wilderness where the 

7353 trails currently exist. The continued off-road use increases the potential for accelerated sediment delivery 

7354 to streams and damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. The level or magnitude of the risks would 

7355 depend in part, whether the Forest can maintain the trail system to keep pace with the expected growing 

7356 demand.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

222

7357 Recommended Wilderness Areas

7358 Key Indicator - Total Area in Recommended Wilderness – 101,390 acres

7359 The 101,390 acres allocated to recommended wilderness would be protective of streams within those 

7360 lands. While no roads can be constructed within recommended wilderness, the proposed action would 

7361 allow existing motorized recreation uses to continue, presenting more risk to watershed processes, 

7362 riparian and aquatic habitat than alternatives in which motorized recreation is not to be permitted within 

7363 recommended wilderness.

7364 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

7365 Key Indicator – ACS Direction, RMA Delineation and RMA Direction

7366 The proposed action ACS, based upon the Region 6 ARCS (USDA Forest Service 2008) includes desired 

7367 conditions, standards and guidelines, and a key watershed network designed to provide the ecological 

7368 conditions conducive to maintaining, restoring, and enhancing habitat necessary to sustain aquatic and 

7369 riparian-dependent species on National Forest System lands. Watershed, aquatic, and riparian direction 

7370 address both ecosystem and species diversity at watershed and landscape scales by providing the core set 

7371 of desired conditions, objectives and standards and guidelines for general water resources, key watersheds 

7372 and riparian management areas

7373 The proposed action includes riparian management areas (RMAs), similar to the RHCAs in the no-action 

7374 alternative. Two notable differences between the proposed action RMAs and the existing INFISH RHCA 

7375 definitions are: (1) a 300-foot RMA for lakes and natural ponds compared to INFISH riparian width of 

7376 150 feet; and (2) the proposed riparian width of 100 feet for all seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, 

7377 wetlands, seeps and springs less than one acre; compared to the existing direction of 100 feet in Priority 

7378 watersheds, and 50 feet in non-priority watersheds. The increase in RMAs, compared to the INFISH 

7379 direction contained in the no-action alternative, recognizes the importance of these areas for maintaining 

7380 watershed function and protecting downstream aquatic habitat as well as associated riparian dependent 

7381 species (USDA Forest Service 2008).

7382 Direction for managing RMAs to benefit riparian-dependent resources, includes two desired conditions. 

7383 Direction for managing other resource programs within the RMAs is provided by 13 standards and 28 

7384 guidelines. In the current forest plan there is no distinction between standards and guidelines within the 

7385 INFISH RHCAs. The inclusion of specific standards and guidelines provides clear direction for resource 

7386 management within RMAs.

7387 The proposed action also includes six key watershed and riparian management objectives for improving 

7388 riparian and aquatic habitat. The objectives address grazing concerns, restoring riparian processes at 

7389 dispersed recreation sites and on user-constructed trails, and to restore fish passage in key watersheds.

7390 Key Indicator – Key Watersheds, Management Direction, MIS/Focal Species and Objectives

7391 The proposed action carries forward the concept of key watersheds as a primary element to maintain and 

7392 improve aquatic conditions for the MIS/focal species’ populations, other aquatic species, and to provide 

7393 high water quality. Management in key watersheds emphasizes minimizing risk and maximizing 

7394 restoration or retention of ecological health.

7395 The proposed action identifies 22 HUC 12 subwatersheds as key watersheds covering 371,943 acres or 

7396 almost 34 percent of the Forest; compared to the 13 Priority Watersheds in the no-action alternative that 

7397 include 214,283 acres (about 19 percent of the Forest). In the no-action alternative all the Priority Key 

7398 Watersheds are located in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. The proposed action includes a broader network that 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

223

7399 not only benefits bull trout and includes bull trout critical habitat, but expands the key watershed network 

7400 for WSCT and includes subwatersheds with interior redband trout populations. 

7401 Management direction is provided through three desired conditions that address key watershed

7402 contribution to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered fish species, watershed 

7403 integrity, and minimizing the risk due to roads. Unlike INFISH which has no standards specific to key 

7404 watersheds, the proposed action includes three. There is to be no net increase in roads in a key watershed

7405 and there are two standards for hydroelectric development. The proposed action includes six objectives 

7406 for key watersheds, emphasizing that management within key watersheds is to focus on; the restoration or 

7407 protection of watershed, aquatic and riparian function; reducing the impacts of roads on watershed 

7408 function; improving aquatic organism passage at road/stream crossings, range management actions; 

7409 enhancing late forest structure in upland plant communities within RMAs and improving stream channel 

7410 and floodplain function. Additional, specific objectives have also been developed to guide restoration 

7411 activities. The expansion of key watersheds to include more subwatersheds supporting WSCT and interior 

7412 redband trout is expected to better protect those populations than under the current key watershed

7413 network, as experience within the Northwest Forest plan area has shown key watershed designation 

7414 generally results in improved watershed conditions (Lanigan et al. 2012). The improved conditions

7415 observed within key watersheds is due to the overall management direction provided by desired 

7416 conditions and standards, but also focused restoration.

7417 Key Indicator - Change in distribution of aquatic invasive species (AIS):

7418 There is no specific direction within the proposed action that addresses AIS prevention, control, or 

7419 eradication other than a desired condition; “Native assemblages of riparian dependent plants and animals 

7420 are free of persistent non-native species.” There is also indirect direction for managing AIS risk in the 

7421 overall and riparian desired conditions for healthy watersheds and aquatic systems, maintaining and 

7422 recovering native species. 

7423 Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments

7424 Grazing management within RMAs is guided by watershed and RMA desired conditions and RMA 

7425 standards and guidelines. The proposed action includes one standard addressing livestock handling, 

7426 management and watering facilities, and four guidelines. One guideline specifically addresses streambank 

7427 alteration, and utilization of herbaceous and woody vegetation. The guideline provides a starting point for 

7428 managing grazing within RMAs to protect riparian and aquatic habitat. 

7429 The Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability

7430 The proposed action is expected to contribute to the viability of the MIS/focal species to a greater degree 

7431 than the no-action alternative. Compared with the no-action alternative the proposed action includes more 

7432 lands allocated to MAs that are felt to be “protective“ of watershed processes and aquatic habitat 

7433 (Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized), more lands that have 

7434 a “moderate” level of protection (Focused Restoration); and while timber is expected to be an output from 

7435 both the Focused and General Restoration areas, there is more emphasis of restoring forest vegetation 

7436 conditions than timber production in the proposed action than the no-action alternative. There is also a 

7437 significantly larger key watershed network that expands the key watersheds to include more 

7438 subwatersheds with bull trout and WSCT in the Pend Oreille subbasin; and subwatersheds with interior 

7439 redband trout in the Lake Roosevelt and Kettle subbasins. The Forest’s contribution to viability is 

7440 improved as well by road density desired conditions for the Focused and General Restoration Areas, but 

7441 the overall contribution compared to alternatives R and P is reduced because the desired road densities, 

7442 especially for the General Restoration MA, are higher than the road densities generally found in 

7443 functioning watersheds that provide habitat for strong fish populations. The RMAs in the proposed action
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

224

7444 are expanded compared to the no-action alternative to included extra consideration for all intermittent 

7445 streams, recognizing the importance of these small streams for providing high quality water to 

7446 downstream aquatic habitat.

7447 Table 70 in the no-action alternative discussion displays the relative Colville National Forest contribution 

7448 to viability in the subbasins for the MIS/Focal Species by alternative. The proposed action increases the 

7449 Forest Service contribution to the focal species viability in all subbasins for all the MIS/focal species. If 

7450 the ratings for the MIS/Focal Species are averaged across the subbasins, the Forest Service contribution to 

7451 MIS/focal species’ viability under the proposed action is greater for all species than in no-action 

7452 alternative and alternative B but less than in alternatives R and P; and less than, but somewhat similar to 

7453 alternative O.

7454 Effects – Proposed Action

7455 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

7456 Approximately 71 percent of the forest is available for timber harvest in the Focused and General 

7457 Restoration MAs. The intent of timber harvest and other vegetation management activities is to create 

7458 vegetation conditions that are more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect 

7459 infestations. Although endemic levels of insects and diseases create snags which in turn provide woody 

7460 debris to streams, and low-severity fires can deliver wood and nutrients to aquatic system, many of the 

7461 subwatersheds are functioning at risk for the fire regime indicator and a few are not properly functioning

7462 in the AEC assessment. A few subwatersheds are functioning at risk for insects and disease. Epidemic 

7463 insect population levels and/or high-severity fire can lead to vegetation losses or sediment increases above 

7464 desired levels for native fish populations.

7465 Management to restore vegetation to conditions, including late forest structure, as may be expected under 

7466 historical and anticipated environmental conditions is a component of managing for healthy, resilient 

7467 watersheds and may help improve watershed conditions. There are likely less risks to aquatic resources 

7468 due to vegetation management in the Focused Restoration MA than in the General Restoration MA, as the 

7469 Focused Restoration includes a greater emphasis for wildlife habitat and key watersheds. The restoration 

7470 management approach for both the MAs would likely have fewer risks to aquatic habitat and watershed 

7471 condition than management with a timber production emphasis; however, the potential benefits of 

7472 terrestrial vegetation management may not be fully realized due to the desired road densities (see below).

7473 Motorized Recreation and Access.

7474 Motorized trails are not authorized in research natural areas, wilderness, or on national scenic trails. 

7475 Wilderness designation further precludes mechanized use with minor exceptions. Motorized trails may be 

7476 authorized in specified locations at recreation or administrative sites. 

7477 The proposed action has two Backcountry MAs, motorized and non-motorized. In the proposed action, 

7478 approximately 6 percent of the Forest is allocated to Backcountry Motorized (BCM) management and 

7479 approximately eight percent is allocated to Backcountry Non-motorized (BC). Motorized trail use and off7480 trail over-snow use is allowed in the BCM management areas but not in BC areas. Summer and winter 

7481 motorized use would be authorized within the Focused and General Restoration MAs.

7482 Roads are currently allowed on about 80 percent of the Forest and the proposed action continues to allow 

7483 road access in those areas. Road access would not be allowed within recommended or designated 

7484 wilderness areas, BCM and BC MAs, or research natural areas. Road density desired conditions are 

7485 identified for the Focused and General RAs. The desired road density in the Focused Restoration Areas is 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

225

7486 2.0 miles per square mile averaged over the Focused Restoration areas within watershed and 3.0 miles per 

7487 square mile in the General Restoration areas.

7488 Most subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the AEC road 

7489 density and riparian road density attributes. The road attributes are a prime reason for impaired watershed 

7490 function. Roads are currently allowed on 80 percent and the proposed action would continue to allow 

7491 access to these areas. Road access is not allowed in wilderness areas, recommended wilderness, 

7492 backcountry motorized and non-motorized management areas or research natural areas; about 26 percent 

7493 of the Forest. 

7494 The proposed action identifies desired road densities for the Focused Restoration and General Restoration 

7495 Areas. The Focused Restoration MA, approximately 23 percent of the Forest, has a road density desired 

7496 condition of 2.0 miles per square mile. The General Restoration MA, about 48 percent of the Forest, has a 

7497 desired road density of 3.0 miles per square mile. Watersheds with road densities of 1.0 to 2.4 miles per 

7498 square mile are generally considered functioning at risk for watershed condition and for providing the 

7499 conditions necessary to support strong fish populations. Road densities greater than 2.4 miles per square 

7500 mile are generally considered not properly functioning. The Forest’s ability to achieve the desired road 

7501 densities would be depend upon budgets and in some cases public acceptance. Implementation of the 

7502 proposed action may improve watershed conditions in Focused Restoration areas that currently exceed 

7503 2.0 miles per square mile, with the greatest improvements likely to occur as restoration objectives are met 

7504 in key watersheds. However, approximately 71 percent of the Forest watersheds may be expected to 

7505 remain functioning at risk or not properly functioning for road densities. 

7506 The desired conditions, standards and guides for aquatic resources provide direction for minimizing the 

7507 effects of roads especially in key watersheds and RMAs

7508 Off-road vehicle use is allowed over most of the Forest including in recommended wilderness where the 

7509 trails current exist. The continued off-road use increases the potential for accelerated sediment delivery to 

7510 streams and damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. The level or magnitude of the risks would 

7511 depend in part if budgets to manage the system keep pace with the expected growing demand. 

7512 Some improvement to impaired watershed condition due to roads and off-road vehicle use may occur due 

7513 to the Aquatic and Riparian Management plan components, including overall desired conditions, RMA 

7514 standards and guidelines, and key watershed direction (see Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management). 

7515 The Forest currently decommissions about 4 miles of road a year and completes 3 to 5 fish passage 

7516 improvement projects annually, and it is assumed the activities would continue at the present rate. Road 

7517 decommissioning should improve watershed function, especially in focus and Key watersheds but the 

7518 overall effectiveness at improving watershed condition may be constrained by the desired road densities. 

7519 Implementation of the objectives for restoration, Key watersheds and RMAs may help reduce the impacts 

7520 of roads and trails that are left on the landscape.

7521 Recommended Wilderness

7522 The proposed action identifies 101,390 acres, about 9 percent of the Forest, to be managed as 

7523 recommended wilderness. The wilderness character of these areas is to be maintained until Congress 

7524 either designates them as wilderness or releases an area from consideration. Existing motorized trails are 

7525 allowed. While there may be some impacts to watershed processes and fish habitat associated with use of 

7526 the existing trails, overall, the recommended wilderness areas, with no roads or management other than 

7527 recreation, should be protective of aquatic habitat.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

226

7528 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

7529 The proposed action ACS is based upon the Region 6 ARCS (USDA Forest Service 2008). The ARCS and 

7530 subsequently the Forest’s ACS includes desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and a key watershed 

7531 network designed to provide the ecological conditions conducive to maintaining, restoring, and enhancing 

7532 habitat necessary to sustain aquatic and riparian-dependent species on National Forest System lands. 

7533 Watershed, aquatic and riparian direction address both ecosystem and species diversity at watershed and 

7534 landscape scales by providing the core set of desired conditions, objectives and standards and guidelines 

7535 for general water resources, key watersheds and riparian management areas. 

7536 Overall, direction is provided by plan components that include 11 desired conditions that apply to all 

7537 watersheds, aquatic and riparian systems. These are similar to the riparian goals of INFISH. Desired 

7538 conditions apply to all watersheds and are intended to provide a comprehensive description of the 

7539 characteristics of healthy functioning water, fisheries and riparian resources toward which land 

7540 management should be directed. The 11 desired conditions direct National Forest System Lands to 

7541 contribute to; the distribution, diversity and resiliency of watershed and landscape-scale features; 

7542 uninterrupted physical and biological processes within and between watersheds; habitat and ecological 

7543 conditions that are capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of native and desired non-native 

7544 aquatic and riparian dependent plant and animal species; the physical integrity of aquatic systems and 

7545 riparian habitat; water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems; the 

7546 sediment regime within the natural range of variation; in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain 

7547 riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient and wood routing; the 

7548 timing, variability and duration of floodplain inundation; the timing, variability and water table elevation 

7549 in wetlands, seeps and springs; the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in 

7550 riparian management areas (including wetlands); and native assemblages of riparian-dependent plants and 

7551 animals. 

7552 The ACS identifies RMAs similar to the INFISH RHCAs except additional consideration is given to the 

7553 riparian areas adjacent to intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, seeps and springs and unstable 

7554 and potential unstable areas in all watersheds. The increase in RMAs provides additional protection to 

7555 these areas, recognizing their importance for maintaining watershed function and protecting downstream 

7556 aquatic habitat as well as associated riparian dependent species (USDA Forest Service 2008).

7557 Table 74. Riparian widths for the proposed action, R, P, and O alternatives

Stream and Water body Classification Riparian Management Area (RMA) Widths

Fish-bearing streams 300 feet each side

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams 150 feet each side

Constructed ponds and reservoirs and wetlands greater 

than 1 acre 150 feet

Lakes and natural ponds 300 feet

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, 

seeps and springs less than 1 acre and unstable and 

potentially unstable areas

100 feet

7558 Desired Conditions for RMAs include: 

7559 • RMAs within any given watershed reflect a natural composition of native flora and fauna and a 

7560 distribution of physical, chemical and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance 

7561 regimes.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

227

7562 • Key riparian processes and conditions (slope stability, vegetative root strength, wood delivery, etc.) 

7563 are operating consistently with local disturbance regimes. 

7564 Standards and guidelines provide direction for management activities within RMAs. Standards and 

7565 guidelines are defined as (2012 planning rule: section 219.7):

7566 (iii) Standards. A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, established 

7567 to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, 

7568 or to meet applicable legal requirements.

7569 (iv) Guidelines. A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for 

7570 departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help 

7571 achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet 

7572 applicable legal requirements.

7573 Direction for managing RMAs to benefit riparian-dependent resources, including direction for managing 

7574 other resource programs within the RMAs, is provided by 14 standards and 26 guidelines. In the current 

7575 forest plan there is no distinction between standards and guidelines within the INFISH RHCAs. The 

7576 inclusion of specific standards and guidelines provides clear direction for resource management within 

7577 RMAs.

7578 The direction for RMAs also include four riparian management objectives specifically addressing 

7579 improving riparian processes and function in grazing programs, restoring dispersed recreation sites and 

7580 user-constructed trails, and restoring fish passage in the key watersheds. The riparian objectives are 

7581 different than the RMOs in INFISH and the no-action alternative. The INFISH RMOs were considered to 

7582 be general descriptors of good fish habitat that could be changed by a Forest with more site-specific

7583 information. The RMO “one-size-fits-all” approach is somewhat problematic and may not adequately 

7584 describe habitat conditions due to the natural variability in stream habitat conditions caused by weather, 

7585 disturbance and the physical environment (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2011). 

7586 Key watersheds are defined as a network of watersheds selected to serve as strongholds for important 

7587 aquatic resources or having the potential to do so. They are areas crucial to TES and areas that provide 

7588 high quality water important for downstream aquatic habitat. The protocol for developing key watersheds 

7589 is provided by Reiss et al. (2008). The proposed action designates an expanded network of key 

7590 watersheds compared to the no-action alternative by identifying 22 HUC 12 subwatersheds as key 

7591 watersheds covering 371,943 acres, or almost 34 percent of the Forest; compared to the 13 priority 

7592 watersheds in the no-action alternative that include 214,283 acres (about 19 percent of the Forest). In the 

7593 no-action alternative, all the priority key watersheds are located in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. The 

7594 proposed action includes a broader network that not only benefits bull trout and includes bull trout critical 

7595 habitat, but expands the key watershed network to other subbasins benefiting additional WSCT 

7596 populations and includes subwatersheds with interior redband trout populations. Watershed and aquatic 

7597 habitat condition is expected to improve within Key watersheds as found by Lanigan et al. (2012) over 

7598 time. The improved watershed conditions are due to the management direction for the key watersheds, the 

7599 management intent to minimize risks to watershed condition and aquatic habitat within key watersheds, 

7600 and the emphasis on restoration (discussed below).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

228

7601 Table 75. Proposed action key watersheds 

Subwatershed 

Number Subwatershed Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres

Colville 

National 

Forest

Ownership 

Acres

MIS/

Focal Species 

CH

170102160102 Winchester Creek 10,482 5,627 WSCT, CH

170102160103 Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,223 14,462 BT, WSCT

170102160106 Smalle Creek 17,753 11,058 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160109 Tacoma Creek 39,519 27,182 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160202 West Branch Le Clerc Creek 21,671 15,098 BT, WSCT, CHCH

170102160203 East Branch Le Clerc Creek 26,662 11,145 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160204 Ruby Creek 19,597 18,385 BT, CH

170102160302 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,831 28,890 WSCT

170102160303 Harvey Creek 32,998 27,553 BT, WSCT

170102160304 Headwaters Sullivan Creek 45,516 45,417 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160305 North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek 12,708 11,258 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160306 Slate Creek 19,911 19,907 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160307 South Salmo River 22,271 15,932 BT

170200010104 North Fork Deep Creek 49,256 26,633 WSCT

170200010306 Barnaby Creek 23,107 14,299 IRT

170200010401 Upper Hall Creek 31,648 13,785 IRT

170200010402 Sitdown Creek 14,484 0

170200010403 Middle Hall Creek 15,480 1,927 IRT

170200020401 Trout Creek 23,434 14,121 IRT

170200020501 Tonata Creek 14,453 13,780 IRT

170200020608 North Fork Deadman Creek 13,449 13,185 IRT

170200020609 Deadman Creek 26,518 22,299 IRT

Total 563,971 371,943

7602 WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat

7603 Management activities in key watersheds are to emphasize minimizing risk and maximizing restoration or 

7604 retention of ecological health. Three desired conditions are identified for key watersheds:

7605 • Networks of watersheds with good habitat and functionally intact ecosystems that contribute to and 

7606 enhance conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered fish species

7607 • Roads do not present risk to aquatic resources; 

7608 • Key watersheds have high watershed integrity.

7609 The proposed action includes three standards for management within key watersheds:

7610 1. There shall be no net increase at any time in the mileage of Forest roads in any key watershed unless 

7611 doing so results in a reduction in road-related risk to watershed condition.

7612 2. Hydroelectric and other water development authorizations shall include requirements for in-stream 

7613 flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore native fish and other desired aquatic species 

7614 populations, riparian dependent resources, favorable channel conditions, and aquatic connectivity.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

229

7615 3. New hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not be located in a key watershed unless it 

7616 can be demonstrated they have minimal risks and/or no adverse effects to fish and water resources for 

7617 which the key watershed was established.

7618 The proposed action also includes six objectives for restoration for key watersheds. 

7619 • Key watershed objective 1: Management in key watersheds focuses on restoration or preservation 

7620 of watershed, aquatic, and riparian function and recovery of threatened and endangered species. The 

7621 East Branch LeClerc Creek, West Branch LeClerc Creek, Deadman Creek, Barnaby Creek, Harvey 

7622 Creek, North Fork Deadman Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek, Tonata Creek, and 

7623 Ruby Creek subwatersheds are priorities for active restoration. Additional key watersheds that are 

7624 priorities for restoration would be identified as priority work is completed.

7625 • Key watershed objective 2: Reduce road hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery through 

7626 storm damage risk reduction, full hydrologic decommissioning, and other acceptable treatment 

7627 measures;

7628 • Key watershed objective 3: Restore or maintain aquatic organism passage at road/stream 

7629 crossings for all species, seasons, flows, and life stages within 15 years of plan implementation, 

7630 through culvert replacement or installation and improvement of hydrologic and aquatic habitat 

7631 function and resiliency to a range of flows thorough natural channel design and other acceptable 

7632 treatment measures;

7633 • Key watershed objective 4: Improve hydrologic and aquatic function through range infrastructure 

7634 improvements, including riparian fencing, movement and improvement of watering troughs, and 

7635 other acceptable treatments;

7636 • Key watershed objective 5: Enhance late forest structure in upland vegetation within riparian 

7637 management areas;

7638 • Key watersheds objective 6: Restore hydrologic, geomorphic, and riparian process and function 

7639 through streambank stabilization, restoration of lateral and vertical hydrologic connectivity and 

7640 improvement of stream channel and floodplain function.

7641 Additionally, there are objectives for key watersheds that identify restoration activities specific to the 

7642 individual key watersheds. The objectives identify treating 68 miles of road to reduce impacts on water 

7643 quality and watershed processes; improving aquatic organism passage at 30 road/stream crossings; 

7644 improving range infrastructure to reduce the potential for detrimental impacts to riparian and aquatic 

7645 habitat due to grazing on 240 acres; improving the structure and composition of upland vegetation within 

7646 RMAs on between 450 and 900 acres; and restoring 70 miles of stream. The combined direction for key 

7647 watersheds should improve watershed condition as roads are decommissioned and riparian vegetation is 

7648 improved. The benefits may improve watershed conditions the most where the actions are focused in a 

7649 watershed. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

230

7650 Table 76. Proposed action — objectives and projected improvements in key watersheds that are active 

7651 priorities for restoration

Key Watershed 

Prioritization

Road 

Treatments 

Road 

Improvement

(miles)

Road Treatments 

Aquatic Organism 

Passage 

Improvement

(# of crossings)

Range 

Infrastructure 

Improvement

(acres)

Riparian 

Vegetation 

Structure 

Improvement

(acres)

Stream 

Restoration

(miles)

East Branch 

LeClerc Creek 3 5 20 0 10

West Branch 

LeClerc Creek 3 1 20 0 10

Deadman Creek 5 1 30 75-150 3

Barnaby 5 5 30 75-150 4

Harvey Creek 10 2 0 0 4

North Fork 

Deadman Creek 5 1 30 75-150 3

North Fork SullivanSullivan Creek 15 1 0 0 20

Tonata Creek 4 4 50 75-150 3

Ruby Creek 3 4 30 75-150 3

Treatments in 

additional key 

and/or priority 

watersheds 

(estimate addition 

3 subwatersheds)

15 6 30 75-150 10

Total for the life of 

the plan (essential 

projects completed 

for 12 key 

watersheds)

68 miles 30 crossings 240 acres 450-900 acres 70 miles

7652 All key watersheds are in the Focused Restoration MA. The intent to restore terrestrial vegetation should 

7653 help improve the resiliency of watersheds to disturbance although the actual benefit would depend upon 

7654 the amount of terrestrial restoration activity that actually occurs in a watershed or subwatershed. key 

7655 watershed and riparian management objectives to reduce road related sediment should help improve water 

7656 quality and fish habitat, but changing watershed conditions to full functioning may be limited by the road 

7657 density desired condition of 2.0 miles per square mile that is considered a risk to watershed processes and 

7658 strong fish populations.

7659 There is no specific direction within the proposed action that addresses AIS prevention, control, or 

7660 eradication other than a desired condition; “Native assemblages of riparian dependent plants and animals 

7661 are free of persistent non-native species. There is also indirect direction for managing AIS risk in the 

7662 overall and riparian desired conditions for healthy watersheds and aquatic systems, maintaining and 

7663 recovering native species. 

7664 A number of subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the AEC Riparian 

7665 Vegetation attribute. Aquatic habitat tends to be of poor quality on the Forest compared to reference 

7666 streams, but after almost 20 years of implementing INFISH, there is indication that aquatic habitat 

7667 conditions on the Forest are slowly improving. The bank stability, percent undercut bank and bank angle 

7668 attributes of aquatic habitat, which can be affected by grazing, are showing some improving trends on the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

231

7669 Forest. However, the bank angle attribute and the fine sediment indicators, D50 and percent fines, which 

7670 also can be affected by grazing are commonly in a “poor condition.” The extent to which grazing is or is 

7671 not contributing to the current habitat conditions is not determined at this time. Grazing management 

7672 within RMAs is guided by watershed and RMA desired conditions and RMA standards and guidelines. 

7673 The proposed action includes one standard addressing livestock handling, management and watering 

7674 facilities, and four guidelines. One guideline describes utilization within the RMA that states: Within 

green-line vegetation area adjacent to all watercourses.

41 7675

7676 • do not exceed 20 percent streambank alteration;

7677 • do not exceed 40 percent utilization of mean annual vegetative production on woody vegetation;

7678 • maintain at least 4 to 6 inches or do not exceed 40 percent utilization of mean annual vegetative 

production on herbaceous vegetation.

42 7679

7680 Streambank alteration is an indicator of damage to streambanks that can lead to bank instability, 

7681 accelerated delivery of sediment to stream channels, loss of undercut banks and increasing bank angles 

7682 with an associated loss of cover for fish and contributing to channel widening. When discussing standards 

7683 or guidelines for streambank alteration it is important to identify the protocol to be used as the allowable 

7684 percent alternation would depend upon the protocol (different protocols may have different results for the 

7685 same level of bank alteration (Archer 2014)). It is assumed that the Forest would continue to use the 

7686 Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol (Burton et al. 2011). Bengeyfield (2006) suggest bank 

7687 alteration of 20 percent or less should be protective of streambanks, however, Bengeyfield (2006) used a 

7688 different protocol. A standard of 20 percent bank alteration using the MIM protocol is consistent with the 

7689 recommendations of Archer (2014) based upon the PIBO monitoring information. Not exceeding 

7690 40 percent utilization of mean annual vegetative production on woody vegetation should protect riparian 

7691 shrubs and bushes from excessive grazing (Winward 2000). Maintaining 4 to 6 inches stubble height is 

7692 designed to protect the health of riparian vegetation. Clary and Leininger (2000) suggest that a 4-inch 

7693 stubble height is a starting point for improved riparian grazing but raising the stubble height to 6 to 

7694 8 inches may be required to protect willows and limit bank trampling. Therefore, depending upon the 

7695 conditions at a site, a 4-inch residual stubble height may not be sufficient for improving riparian 

7696 vegetation conditions. Root strength is important for maintaining stable streambanks, preventing bank 

7697 erosion, and for the development of undercut banks that provide cover for fish. Overall utilization of 

7698 herbaceous vegetation can result in slow or diminished root growth, thus, potentially affecting the health 

7699 of riparian vegetation and reducing the root strength. The standard for not exceeding 40 percent utilization 

7700 of the mean annual vegetative production of herbaceous vegetation is at the upper end of the 

7701 recommendations of Archer (2014). The guideline establishes the upper limits for bank alteration, 

7702 utilization and stubble height as the starting point for identifying grazing management strategies within 

7703 RMAs. 

 41 National Forests can modify the numeric values in these guidelines to more effectively achieve desired conditions. Rationale 

for these changes should be documented

42 Sampling and assessment of these parameters is intended to portray the general condition of banks and riparian vegetation 

along an individual stream reach within each pasture. It is assumed that there will be some variability in conditions within the 

reach, including occasional, limited area of concentrated animal use, such as water gaps or crossings. 

*Numeric values in this standard represent minimum levels of what cannot be exceeded and should be more conservatively 

modified where determined necessary to effectively achieve desired conditions. Rationale for these changes must be documented. 

Standards can be applied solely or in combination as appropriate to site-specific conditions. Sampling and assessment of these 

parameters is intended to portray the general condition of banks and riparian vegetation along an individual stream reach within 

each pasture after the grazing season. It is assumed that there will be some variability in geomorphic, hydrologic and vegetation 

conditions within designated monitoring areas, including occasional, limited area of concentrated animal use, such as water gaps 

or crossings.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

232

7704 The other guidelines address considering the removal of existing livestock handling or management 

7705 facilities form RMAs, avoidance of livestock trailing, bedding, loading and other handling activities, and 

7706 avoiding trampling threatened or endangered fish species’ redds. The specific direction to avoid red 

7707 trampling is important as redd trampling can cause direct mortality to the eggs or alevins.

7708 The grazing guidelines, when used in total, should help manage livestock grazing to protect riparian and 

7709 aquatic habitat. The bank alteration and utilization standards may be more protective and actually be 

7710 reached before the stubble height is grazed down to 4 to 6 inches. The bank alteration standard however 

7711 needs to be measured very soon after the cattle are removed from an allotment and before the fall rains 

7712 that may wash away signs of alteration (Archer 2014). 

7713 Cumulative Effects

7714 Information regarding cumulative effects that is common for all alternatives is included in the Past, 

7715 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 

7716 the influence of the proposed action, such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with 

7717 hydroelectric projects are common for all alternatives. The activities associated with the Northeast 

7718 Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would continue and be guided by the proposed action direction. 

7719 The ACS for the proposed action is based on the Region 6 ARCS which was based upon the lessons 

7720 learned through implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH, as well as science 

7721 that came to light after those plans were written. The ACS clarifies standards and guidelines for RMAs 

7722 and key watersheds as well as restoration objectives that should provide more direction for improving 

7723 watershed, aquatic and riparian habitat conditions that may result in those conditions improving at a faster 

7724 rate than has occurred under the no-action alternative.

7725 However over the Forest most subwatersheds may remain functioning at risk or not properly functioning 

7726 due to the road density desired conditions for the Focused Restoration (2.0 miles per square mile) and 

7727 General Restoration (3.0 miles per square mile) MAs and the transportation system managed by other 

7728 entities. Actual achievement of the road density desired conditions would be dependent upon budgets for 

7729 restoration and social acceptance.

7730 Restoration work and attaining the ACS desired conditions may be greatest where Colville National 

7731 Forest actions and coordinated with the actions of other entities such as those associated with the 

7732 Boundary Hydroelectric Project. 

7733 Climate Change

7734 The general description of the potential effects of climate change remain the same as discussed in the 

7735 Effects Common to All Alternatives section. The increased overall direction of the ACS including 

7736 forestwide desired conditions, riparian and key watershed standards and guides; the key watershed

7737 network covering approximately 34 percent of the Forest; desired conditions for and management to 

7738 improve the vegetative structure and composition of Forests; and objectives for improving riparian and 

7739 watershed conditions may remove human stressors to the environment and provide a somewhat better 

7740 opportunity for aquatic species to adjust to climate change. Specific Key watershed objectives to improve 

7741 aquatic organism passage should help improve the habitat and MIS/focal species population connectivity 

7742 as the projects are implemented. However, the road density desired conditions may continue to pose a risk 

7743 to MIS/focal species’ persistence in the face of climate change. 

7744 A particular risk to the MIS/focal species would remain the presence of non-native fish, low MIS/focal 

7745 species population numbers, and isolated and fragmented populations. In addition to the Forest actions 

7746 described above, the non-native fish population suppression or eradication, habitat improvement and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

233

7747 improved passage at the hydroelectric project dams may be key factors in conserving the MIS/focal 

7748 species.

7749 Monitoring Recommendations 

7750 The monitoring program was previously described in the Summary of Effects Common for all 

7751 Alternatives.

7752 Alternative R

7753 Riparian and aquatic resource direction in alternative R is based on the proposed action direction, but 

7754 incorporates additional desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines that address 

7755 contemporary issues specific to the Forest raised by the public, regulatory agencies, and internally during 

7756 scoping.

7757 Table 77. Alternative R management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion

Management Area Colville

Franklin D. 

Roosevelt 

Lake

Kettle Pend 

Oreille Sanpoil Total

Late Forest Structure 84,792 120,823 160,038 195,906 3,990 565,549

General Restoration 17,023 13,517 59,778 93,241 61,222 244,781

Backcountry 0 0 7,570 12,214 437 20,221

Backcountry Motorized 1,357 63 0 5,279 0 6,699

Wilderness Recommended 5,339 48,945 70,928 55,951 26,699 207,800

Wilderness-Congressionally 

Designated 0 0 0 31,400 31,400

7758 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

7759 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), 

7760 General Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.

7761 • Focused Restoration (Late Forest Structure) − 565,550 acres

7762 • General Restoration – 245,063

7763 Alternative R retains the two restoration MAs introduced in the proposed action. The Focused Restoration 

7764 Area includes about 51 percent of the Forest and the General Restoration area about 22 percent of the 

7765 Forest. Alternative R includes more land in the Focused Restoration MA and less in the General 

7766 Restoration MA than either the proposed action or alternative P. In addition, approximately 484,000 acres 

7767 within the Focused Restoration MA are to be managed with an emphasis on late forest structure.

7768 Vegetation management to restore vegetation to conditions, including late forest structure that may be 

7769 more expected under historic and anticipated disturbance regimes, is a component of managing for 

7770 healthy watersheds. Vegetation management including timber harvest as outlined for alternative R may be 

7771 more beneficial toward improving watershed conditions than the proposed action due to more land within 

7772 the Focused Restoration MA.

7773
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

234

7774 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

7775 Key Indicator - Desired Conditions for Road Density

7776 • Focused Restoration Areas − 1.0 mile per square mile

7777 • General Restoration Areas – 2.0 miles per square mile

7778 Road density desired condition for Focused restoration MA is 1.0 mile per square mile. Road density 

7779 indicator for General Restoration is 2.0 miles per square mile. Most subwatersheds on the forest are not 

7780 properly functioning or functioning at risk for the AEC road density and riparian road density attributes. 

7781 Implementing alternative R would potentially help improve watershed condition more than the proposed 

7782 action. If the road density desired conditions are attained watershed conditions may be expected to 

7783 improve. The Focused Restoration MA, with a desired average road density of 1.0 mile per square mile

7784 covers about half percent of the Forest. In general road densities of 1.0 mile per square mile are the upper 

7785 bounds of what are considered properly functioning watersheds, conducive to providing habitat for strong 

7786 fish populations. The General Restoration MA with a desired average road density of 2.0 miles per square 

7787 mile includes a little less than one-quarter of the Forest. Watersheds with 2.0 miles per square miles are 

7788 generally considered to be functioning at risk for watershed condition and supporting strong fish 

7789 populations. The extent to which the road density desired conditions would be attained will depend upon 

7790 budgets and social acceptance.

7791 Key Indicator - Acres allocated to motorized recreation - Approximately 833,630 acres, about 

7792 76 percent of the Forest.

7793 The alternative includes 207,800 acres of recommended wilderness (second most of the alternatives), 

7794 where not only new roads won’t be built, but no motorized recreation is permitted, reducing the risk of 

7795 accelerated sediment delivery from motorized trails compared to the proposed action. Motorized 

7796 recreation is allowed on approximately 817,311 acres; 74 percent of the Forest.

7797 Recommended Wilderness

7798 Key Indicator - Recommended Wilderness Areas

7799 Alternative R allocates approximately 19 percent of the Forest to recommended wilderness, second 

7800 highest amount of all the alternatives. The restrictions on motorized use of all kinds reduces the risk of 

7801 accelerated sediment delivery to streams from any existing trails.

7802 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

7803 Riparian and aquatic resource direction in alternative R is based on direction in the proposed action, but 

7804 incorporates additional desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines that address 

7805 contemporary issues specific to the Forest raised by the public, regulatory agencies, and internally during 

7806 scoping. 

7807 Key Indicator – ACS Direction, RMA Delineation, and RMA Direction

7808 Watershed direction within the alternative R incorporates the desired conditions for watersheds, aquatic 

7809 and riparian systems that were described in the proposed action with clarifying language added to several 

7810 of the desired conditions. Alternative R also includes the addition of desired conditions for TES species, 

7811 one for roads, and five additional standards to decrease the spread of AIS and to minimize the disruption 

7812 of hydrologic processes due to roads and trails. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

235

7813 The alternative R definition of RMAs and the associated widths are the same as in the proposed action. 

7814 The management direction for RMAs includes 16 standards and 23 guidelines. Several of the RMA 

7815 guidelines in the proposed action are standards in alternative R, some additional standards have been 

7816 added, and specificity has been added to the language describing some standards and guidelines. 

7817 Changing guidelines to standards may add additional clarity and certainty to expectations concerning how 

7818 management actions are to be implemented within RMAs. An additional desired condition is also added 

7819 regarding livestock grazing.

7820 Key Indicator – Key Watershed Acres, Management Direction for Key Watersheds, MIS/Focal 

7821 Species, Key Watershed and Restoration Objectives

7822 The alternative R Key watershed network includes 25 subwatersheds covering 452,051 acres, compared 

7823 to 22 key watersheds covering about 371,943 acres in the proposed action. Three subwatersheds were 

7824 removed from the proposed action key watershed network because they had less than 25 percent National 

7825 Forest System ownership. The key watershed network includes the bull trout critical habitat and expands 

7826 the network to include subwatersheds with interior redband trout and additional subwatersheds with 

7827 WSCT. The alternative R along with alternatives P and O (discussed later) provide the greatest benefit to 

7828 the MIS/focal and aquatic species due to the key watershed network.

7829 Alternative R includes the three key watershed desired conditions as in the proposed action with some 

7830 clarifying language added and the three key watershed standards. The key watershed objectives are 

7831 similar to those as described for the proposed action (see appendices 1 and 2 of the specialist report) with 

7832 additional objectives to improve range infrastructure to protect riparian habitat, restore the structure and 

7833 composition of upland vegetation within RMAs and for stream restoration.

7834 Key Indicator – Change in the Distribution of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) 

7835 Alternative R includes standards developed specifically for prevention, control, and eradication of AIS. 

7836 Such plan components provide more clear and urgent direction to implement appropriate AIS 

7837 management actions than the proposed action and no-action alternatives and thus alternative R may be 

7838 provide more protection from AIS invasion than no action and the proposed action.

7839 Key Indicator – Improvement in riparian conditions within grazing allotments.

7840 Alternative R includes three standards and two guidelines for grazing within RMAs. The guideline in the 

7841 proposed action for that refers to maintaining 4- to 6-inch stubble height and no more than 20 percent 

7842 bank alteration is changed to maintaining at least 8-inch stubble height and to not exceed 25 percent bank 

7843 alteration.

7844 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability

7845 Alternative R provides the greatest Colville National Forest contribution to MIS/focal species viability of 

7846 all alternatives. The Forest contribution for alternative R is the highest for WSCT and interior redband 

7847 trout of any alternative and equal to alternative P for bull trout. The reason that alternative R exhibits the 

7848 greatest potential contribution is the expanded key watershed network that includes the bull trout critical 

7849 habitat and has an increased the key watershed area for WSCT and interior redband trout compared to no 

7850 action, the proposed action, and alternative B. Alternative R includes the second greatest amount of 

7851 recommended wilderness of all alternatives and the greatest amount of land within the Focused 

7852 Restoration MA. The potential benefits of the amount of land within the Focused MA is the 1.0 mile per 

7853 square mile road density desired condition compared to the 2.0 miles per square mile desired condition 

7854 included in the proposed action. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

236

7855 Although not included in the “scoring,” alternative R maintains the definition for RMAs that is included 

7856 in the proposed action, extending the amount of lands within RMAs around intermittent streams. 

7857 Alternative R, compared to the no-action alternative, relies more on standards than guidelines to provide 

7858 management direction and includes standards for the prevention, control and eradication of AIS. The 

7859 distinction between standards and guidelines is mentioned standards may add additional clarity and 

7860 expectations concerning how management actions are to be implemented within RMAs than a guideline 

7861 may offer. 

7862 Effects – Alternative R

7863 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

7864 Alternative R uses a fixed reserve management approach to maintain old forest habitats and late forest 

7865 structure. The reserves are called “late forest structure emphasis areas” and overlay other management 

7866 areas, guiding the vegetation management emphasis for the area. The desired conditions, standards, and 

7867 guidelines in the old forest emphasis areas are the same as the proposed action’s plan direction for old 

7868 forests and direction for goshawk habitat. The key difference between the proposed action and alternative

7869 R for late forest structure that these areas in the proposed action are managed dynamically at the 

7870 landscape scale, whereas in alternative R they are managed in a static reserve system. 

7871 Old forest emphasis areas emphasize habitat for key watersheds and wildlife species including grizzly 

7872 bear and goshawk. Road density direction is a desired condition of 1.0 mile per square mile on average. 

7873 Alternative R allocates about 51 percent of the Forest to Focused Restoration and about 22 percent of the 

7874 Forest to General Restoration.

7875 Timber harvest is permitted in the Focused and General Restoration MAs. On approximately 484,000 of 

7876 those acres the goal is to provide late forest structure appropriate to the vegetation community. Other than 

7877 in the approximately 484,000 acres reserved for late forest structure, vegetation management within the 

7878 Restoration MAS is to emphasize providing the vegetation structure and composition to provide for forest 

7879 communities that are resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations, similar to 

7880 the proposed action. Many of the subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk for the fire regime 

7881 indicator in the AEC assessment, and a few are not properly functioning. Vegetation management to 

7882 restore vegetation to conditions including, late forest structure, that may be more expected under historic 

7883 and anticipated disturbance regimes may help improve watershed conditions. Vegetation management 

7884 including timber harvest as outlined for alternative R may be more beneficial toward improving 

7885 watershed conditions due to the road density desired conditions compared to the proposed action. The 

7886 potential risks to aquatic resources due to vegetation management projects, especially timber sales would 

7887 likely be greatest in the General Restoration area due to the higher desired conditions for road density and 

7888 an expected greater amount of active vegetation management than in the Focused Restoration Area.

7889 Motorized Recreation and Access

7890 Alternative R provides one percent of the Forest for summer motorized trail opportunities in a 

7891 backcountry, unroaded setting and two percent of the Forest for summer non-motorized trail opportunities 

7892 in a backcountry, unroaded setting. Summer and winter motorized trails may be authorized in 

7893 administrative and recreation sites and are not authorized on national scenic trails or in research natural 

7894 areas, recommended wilderness, or wilderness. Seasonal restrictions and closures may apply to areas such 

7895 as deer and elk winter range. Summer and winter motorized use would be authorized within the Focused 

7896 and General Restoration management areas, providing a roaded recreation setting. 

7897 The alternative includes 207,800 acres of recommended wilderness (second most of the alternatives). The 

7898 recommended wilderness allocation combined with the Backcountry Recreation MA and current 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

237

7899 Wilderness comprise about 24 percent of the Forest where no motorized recreation is permitted, reducing 

7900 the risk of accelerated sediment delivery from motorized trails. However, motorized use is still allowed on 

7901 most of the Forest where some accelerated erosion and potential damage to riparian and aquatic habitat 

7902 may occur, especially if management is not able to maintain the trail system given the expected increase 

7903 in use.

7904 Roads are currently allowed on about 80 percent of the Forest and alternative R would continue to allow 

7905 roads in those areas. Like all other alternatives, new road access would not be allowed in recommended or 

7906 designated wilderness areas, backcountry motorized and non-motorized management areas, or research 

7907 natural areas. 

7908 Alternative R includes desired condition for road density in the focused and general restoration MAs. 

7909 Desired road density in the focused restoration MA is no greater than 1.0 mile per square mile averaged 

7910 over focused restoration areas within the 5th field watershed. The desired road density in the general 

7911 restoration MA is no greater than 2.0 miles per square mile averaged over general restoration areas within 

7912 the 5th field watershed.

7913 Most subwatersheds on the forest are not properly functioning or functioning at risk for the AEC road 

7914 density and riparian road density attributes. Implementing alternative R would potentially help improve 

7915 watershed condition more than the proposed action. The majority of lands within key watersheds are 

7916 within the focused restoration MA, which includes a desired average road density of 1.0 mile per square 

7917 mile, or other MAs that restrict road development including backcountry non-motorized, recommended 

7918 wilderness, and wilderness. The benefits of the alternative to watershed and aquatic resources is extended 

7919 to the plan area as a whole, compared to the proposed action and no-action alternatives, as the focused 

7920 restoration MA includes about one-half of the Forest. In general, road densities of 1.0 mile per square 

7921 mile are the upper bounds of what are considered properly functioning watersheds, conducive to 

7922 providing habitat for strong fish populations. The general restoration MA with a desired average road 

7923 density of 2.0 miles per square mile includes only about one-quarter of the Forest. Watersheds with 2.0 

7924 miles per square mile are generally considered to be functioning at risk, however, between the two MAs 

7925 there should be some improvement in watershed conditions and fish habitat if the desired road densities 

7926 are attained. As with the proposed action and alternative P, the ability of the Forest to attain the desired 

7927 road densities would depend upon budgets and social acceptance. Achieving the desired road densities is 

7928 most likely in the key watersheds due to focused restoration.

7929 Recommended Wilderness

7930 Alternative R includes approximately 207,800 of recommended wilderness, second highest amount of all 

7931 the alternatives, where no new roads or motorized use is allowed. The restriction on motorized use of all 

7932 kinds provides benefit to watershed conditions and aquatic habitat by reducing the risk of sediment 

7933 delivery to streams and aquatic habitat due to the use of existing motorized trails, and the construction of 

7934 new roads or trails. 

7935 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

7936 Watershed direction in the alternative R contains plan components (desired conditions, objectives and 

7937 standards and guidelines) for general watershed resources; key watersheds and RMAs. Watershed, aquatic 

7938 and riparian forest plan direction is designed to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds 

7939 and aquatic and riparian ecosystems on National Forest System lands. 

7940 Watershed direction within the alternative R incorporates the desired conditions for watersheds, aquatic 

7941 and riparian systems that were described in the proposed action; adds clarifying language to several of the 

7942 desired conditions, and incorporates an additional desired condition regarding TES fish: National Forest 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

238

7943 lands contribute to the recovery of Threatened and Endangered fish species and conservation of Regional 

7944 Foresters sensitive fish species. Aquatic habitat supports spawning, rearing and other key life history 

7945 requirements. 

7946 Five additional standards were added that apply not only to overall watershed management but to RMAs 

7947 as well. These standards include direction to decrease the potential spread of AIS when working in water; 

7948 including during fire suppression activities, utilizing Early Detection and Rapid Response principles to 

7949 respond to a potential introduction of an AIS, and an overall standard to minimize the disruption of 

7950 hydrologic processes due to roads and trails.

7951 The alternative R definition of RMAs and the associated widths are the same as in the proposed action. 

7952 The management direction for RMAs includes 16 standards and 23 guidelines. Standards may add 

7953 additional clarity and expectations concerning how management actions are to be implemented within 

7954 RMAs than a guideline.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

239

7955 Table 78. Alternatives R, P, O - objectives and projected improvements in key watersheds that are active priorities for restoration

Key Watershed Objective 6:

Key Watershed Prioritization Key Watershed Objective 7: Road Treatments

Key Watershed 

Objective 8: Range 

Infrastructure 

Improvements

Key Watershed 

Objective 9: 

Riparian Vegetation 

Structure

Key Watershed 

Objective 10: Stream 

Restoration

Management in key 

watersheds focuses on 

restoration or preservation of 

watershed, aquatic, and 

riparian function and recovery 

of threatened and endangered 

species. Improve watershed 

condition class in key 

watersheds that are a priority 

for restoration. Key watersheds 

that are a priority for restoration 

include:

Reduce road-hydrologic 

connectivity and sediment 

delivery on roads through 

storm damage risk 

reduction treatments, full 

hydrologic 

decommissioning, and 

other accepted treatment 

measures on 

hydrologically connected 

road (miles)

Restore or maintain aquatic 

organism passage at 

road/stream crossings for all 

native species, seasons, flows, 

and life stages through culvert 

replacement or installation and 

improvement of hydrologic and 

aquatic habitat function and 

resiliency to a range of flows 

through natural channel design 

and other acceptable treatment 

measures (# of crossings)

Improve hydrologic 

and aquatic function 

through range 

infrastructure 

improvements, 

including riparian 

fencing, movement 

and improvement of 

watering troughs, and 

other acceptable 

treatments(acres)

Move upland 

vegetation in riparian 

management areas 

toward HRV (acres)

Restore hydrologic, 

geomorphic, and riparian 

process and function 

through activities 

including streambank 

stabilization, restoration 

of lateral and vertical 

hydrologic connectivity, 

and improvement of 

stream channel and 

floodplain function 

(miles)

East Branch LeClerc Creek 3 miles 5 20 0 10

West Branch LeClerc Creek 3 miles 1 20 0 10

Deadman Creek 5 miles 1 30 75-150 3

Upper Sherman Creek 5 miles 5 0 75-150 2

South Fork Sherman Creek 5 miles 9 0 75-150 4

Barnaby 5 miles 5 30 75-150 4

Harvey Creek 10 miles 2 0 0 4

Tonata Creek 4 miles 4 50 75-150 3

North Fork Deadman Creek 5 miles 1 30 75-150 3

North Fork Sullivan-Sullivan 

Creek 15 miles 1 0 0 20

Ruby Creek 3 miles 4 30 75-150 3

Treatments in additional key 

and/or priority watersheds 

(estimate addition 3 

subwatersheds over 15 years)

15 miles 6 30 75-150 10

Total for the life of the plan 

(essential projects completed 

for 14 subwatersheds)

78 miles 44 crossings 240 acres 600-1200 acres 76 miles
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

240

7956 Alternative R includes additional key watersheds than are included in the proposed action. The key 

7957 watershed network includes 25 subwatersheds covering 452,051 acres. The key watershed network was 

7958 expanded in alternative R based on updated fish distribution data and improved data on aquatic habitat 

7959 function since designation of the proposed action key watershed network. Five subwatersheds were added 

7960 to the key watershed network included in the proposed action and three subwatersheds were removed 

7961 from the proposed action key watershed network because they had less than 25 percent National Forest 

7962 System ownership. The alternative R key watersheds include bull trout critical habitat and expand the key 

7963 watersheds providing habitat for WSCT and interior redband trout. Alternative R, along with alternatives 

7964 P and O (discussed in the following sections) provides the greatest potential benefit to the MIS/focal and 

7965 other aquatic species due to the key watershed network.

7966 Table 79. Key watersheds for alternatives R, P, and O

Subwatershed 

Number Subwatershed Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres

Colville 

National 

Forest

Ownership 

Acres

MIS/Focal 

Species/ CH

170102160102 Winchester Creek 10,482 5,628 WSCT, CH

170102160103 Smalle Creek 17,754 11,058 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160201 Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,224 14,463 BT, WSCT

170102160206 Tacoma Creek 39,519 27,182 BT, WSCT,CH

170102160302 West Branch Le Clerc Creek 21,672 15,099 BT, WSCT, 

CHCH

170102160303 East Branch Le Clerc Creek 26,663 11,145 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160304 Ruby Creek 19,597 18,385 BT, CH

170102160401 Harvey Creek 32,999 27,554 BT, WSCT

170102160402 Headwaters Sullivan Creek 45,516 45,417 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160403 North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek 12,709 11,259 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160702 Headwaters South Salmo River 20,697 12,472 BT

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,832 28,890 WSCT

170102160903 Slate Creek 20,195 19,907 BT, WSCT, CH

170102161003 Cedar Creek 17,209 5,359 BT, WSCT, CH

170200011004 North Fork Deep Creek 49,257 26,634 WSCT

170200011301 South Fork Sherman Creek 22,004 21,899 IRT

170200011302 Upper Sherman Creek 26,381 26,260 IRT

170200011303 Lower Sherman Creek 20,987 15,98 IRT

170200011306 Barnaby Creek 23,108 14,299 IRT

170200011401 Upper Hall Creek 31,648 13,786 IRT

170200021301 Trout Creek 23,435 14,122 IRT

170200021701 Tonata Creek 14,453 13,781 IRT

170200021907 East Deer Creek-Kettle River 23,385 15,443 WSCT

170200022002 North Fork Deadman Creek 13,450 13,185 IRT

170200022003 Deadman Creek 26,518 22,300 IRT

Total 642,692 451,525
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

241

7967 The alternative R key watershed direction carries over the key watershed desired conditions in the 

7968 proposed action with some clarifying language added and includes the proposed action’s three key 

7969 watershed standards. The key watershed objectives are similar to those as described for the proposed 

7970 action with additional objectives to improve range infrastructure to protect riparian habitat, restore the 

7971 structure and composition of upland vegetation within RMAs and for stream restoration. Additionally the 

7972 objectives identify the amount and type of actions expected within the key watersheds to move watershed 

7973 and stream channels toward the desired conditions. Over the life of the plan the objectives identify:

7974 • Reducing road-hydrologic connectivity and sediment risk on 78 miles of road.

7975 • Restoring or passage at road/stream crossings for all life stages of native aquatic species and 

7976 improving the hydrologic and aquatic habitat function at 44 crossings.

7977 • Improving range infrastructure over 240 acres.

7978 • Restoring between 600 to 1,200 acres of upland vegetation conditions within RMAs.

7979 • Restoring 76 miles of stream.

7980 Alternative R includes standards developed specifically for prevention, control, and eradication of AIS. 

7981 Such plan components provide more clear and urgent direction to implement appropriate AIS 

7982 management actions, and therefore, may be more protective against AIS becoming established than the 

7983 proposed action and no-action alternatives.

7984 A number of subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the AEC Riparian 

7985 Vegetation attribute. As mentioned in the proposed action discussion, aquatic habitat tends to be of poor 

7986 quality on the Forest compared to reference streams, but there appears to be slow improvement in aquatic 

7987 habitat after 20 years of implementing INFISH. The extent to which grazing is or is not contributing to 

7988 the current habitat conditions is not determined at this time. Alternative R includes three standards and 

7989 two guidelines for grazing within RMAs. The one guideline in the proposed action for streambank 

7990 alteration and woody vegetation utilization and stubble height is revised to read:

7991 Within green-line vegetation area adjacent to all watercourses:

7992 • Do not exceed a 25 percent streambank alteration;

7993 • Do not exceed a 40 percent utilization of available mean annual vegetative production on woody 

7994 vegetation;

7995 • Maintain at least 6 to 8 inches residual stubble height and utilize no more than 40 percent of mean 

7996 annual vegetative production on deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation.

7997 The rationale for the guideline was presented in the discussion of the grazing guideline in the proposed 

7998 action. The 6- to 8-inch stubble height may be more protective of woody species such as willow (Clary 

7999 and Leininger 2000) than a guideline for maintaining 4 to 6 inches residual stubble height. The 

8000 combination of no more than 25 percent bank alteration combined with the 6- to 8-inch stubble height and 

8001 no more than 40 percent utilization should be allowed for the maintenance and improvement of riparian 

8002 vegetation conditions, and thus, be protective of streambanks and stream channel conditions. While the

8003 allowable 25 percent streambank alteration is greater than the 20 percent allowed in the proposed action, 

8004 the 8-inch residual stubble height plus the 40 percent utilization limits should be protective of riparian 

8005 vegetation and thus streambanks. The guideline reflects the recommendations of Archer (2014), based on 

8006 PIBO results, for improve riparian habitat and stream channel conditions while allowing livestock 

8007 grazing. The bank alteration stubble height and utilization guidelines set a starting point for designing 

8008 grazing strategies that are potentially more protective of riparian vegetation and stream habitat than the 

8009 no-action and proposed action alternatives. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

242

8010 Cumulative Effects

8011 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 

8012 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 

8013 the influence of alternative R, such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric 

8014 projects and the transportation system managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The 

8015 activities associated with the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by 

8016 the alternative R key watershed objectives and restoration direction. 

8017 The watershed condition of most subwatersheds and the subbasins as a whole on the Forest are not 

8018 properly functioning or functioning at risk with the road systems appearing to be a primary driver. 

8019 Alternative R road density desired conditions in Focused Restoration Areas and General Restoration MAs 

8020 are more within the range considered supportive of good watershed conditions and strong fish 

8021 populations. The desired conditions for roads, plus vegetation management to improve the composition 

8022 and structure of forests, should help make watersheds and stream channels more resilient to disturbance. 

8023 It would be less likely for watersheds within the General Restoration MA to become properly functioning 

8024 for watershed condition due to the desired road density of 2.0 miles per square mile. The realized benefit 

8025 however would depend upon the timeframe the road density desired conditions can be met and the 

8026 amount of terrestrial management occurs in any watershed or subwatershed. 

8027 Watershed conditions may improve through the implementation of the ACS. The desired conditions; 

8028 standards and guides; and objectives are designed to provide for and restore watershed riparian and 

8029 aquatic habitat conditions. The benefits may be greatest where watershed and riparian restoration, 

8030 especially in key watersheds, is coordinated with vegetation management and road management to attain 

8031 the desired conditions. The ACS with an increase in the area covered by RMAs, additional standards and 

8032 guides and a larger key watershed network with specific restoration actions identified than has occurred 

8033 under INFISH and may be expected under the other alternatives except alternative P.

8034 The status of many MIS/focal species’ local populations are likely to remain at risk due to the presence of 

8035 non-native fish, isolation above natural and man-made barriers to migration. Coordinating restoration 

8036 actions on Forest with the work of other entities, such as work tied to hydroelectric project relicensing, 

8037 provide the most potential for improving the population status of MIS/focal species. 

8038 Climate Change

8039 The general description of the potential effects of climate change remain the same as discussed in the 

8040 Past, Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The increased 

8041 overall direction of the ACS including forestwide desired conditions, riparian and key watershed 

8042 standards and guides; the key watershed network covering approximately 41 percent of the Forest; desired 

8043 road densities more in the range of what is considered beneficial to aquatic species and watershed 

8044 function; desired conditions for and management to improve the vegetative structure and composition of 

8045 Forests; and objectives for improving riparian and watershed conditions may remove human stressors to 

8046 the environment to provide a better opportunity for aquatic species to adjust to climate change. A 

8047 particular risk to the MIS/focal species would remain the presence of non-native fish, low MIS/focal 

8048 species population numbers and isolated and fragmented populations. In addition to the Colville National 

8049 Forest actions described above, the actions associated with hydroelectric project re-licensing including, 

8050 the non-native fish population suppression or eradication, habitat improvement and improved passage at 

8051 the hydroelectric project dams may be key factors in conserving the MIS/focal species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

243

8052 Monitoring Recommendations

8053 The monitoring program was previously described in the Summary of Effects Common for all 

8054 Alternatives.

8055 Alternative P

8056 Similar to the proposed action, alternative P includes a whole landscape approach to providing late forest 

8057 structure, including about 7 percent of the Forest as recommended wilderness, and includes the Focused 

8058 and General Restoration MAs. Desired road densities for the Focused and General Restoration MAs are 

8059 the same as for alternative R. Alternative P also proposes to allocate about five percent of the Forest to 

8060 backcountry non-motorized recreation versus about 8 percent in the proposed action.

8061 Table 80. Alternative P management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion

Management Area Colville

Franklin D. 

Roosevelt 

Lake

Kettle Pend 

Oreille Sanpoil Total

Focused Restoration 4 61,422 58,769 185,920 3 306,118

General Restoration 101,843 66,757 159,117 100,026 65,206 492,949

Backcountry 5,338 19,481 44,426 29,110 24,690 123,045

Backcountry Motorized 1,357 11,893 36,072 5,255 0 54,577

Wilderness Recommended 0 23,624 0 42,353 2,356 68,300

Wilderness-Congressionally 

Designated 0 0 0 31,400 0 31,400

8062 The definition of RMAs, the key watershed network and plan components for watersheds, RMAs and key 

8063 watersheds are the same as alternative R. 

8064 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

8065 Key Indicator - The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), 

8066 General Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.

8067 • Focused Restoration – 306,118 acres

8068 • General Restoration – 492,949 acres

8069 As in alternative R, the roaded portion of the Forest is divided into the Focused and General Restoration 

8070 MAs. The major difference between the two alternatives is alternative P allocates more land to the 

8071 General Restoration MA (about 492,949 acres; 45 percent of the Forest) than the Focused Restoration MA 

8072 (about 306,000 acres; 28 percent of the Forest). Timber harvest is allowed in both restoration MAs. The 

8073 objective for vegetation management, including timber harvest, is to improve the resiliency of forests to 

8074 disturbance. Many subwatersheds on the Forest are considered to be functioning at risk for the fire regime 

8075 attribute of the AEC, so vegetation management within the restoration areas may help improve watershed 

8076 condition. The risks to watershed processes and aquatic habitat associated with vegetation management is 

8077 probably greater in the General Restoration MA, as the Focused Restoration MA includes more 

8078 management emphasis for wildlife habitat and key watersheds. The potential benefits of vegetation 

8079 management improving watershed condition across the Forest is less than alternative R due to the greater 

8080 amount of land with a 2.0 mile per square mile road density desired condition.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

244

8081 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

8082 Key Indicator- Desired Conditions for Road Densities

8083 • Focused restoration – 1.0 mile per square mile

8084 • General restoration – 2.0 miles per square mile

8085 Roads are allowed over 80 percent of the forest as in the other alternatives. Most subwatersheds on the 

8086 Forest are not properly functioning or functioning at risk for the road and riparian road density attributes 

8087 of the AEC. Alternative P with desired road densities of 1.0 mile per square mile in the Focused 

8088 Restoration MA and 2.0 miles per square mile in the General Restoration MA may result in improved 

8089 watershed conditions compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B and alternative O; but the 

8090 potential improvement is less than alternative R due to more lands within the General Restoration MA. 

8091 New roads cannot be constructed in Recommended Wilderness, or Backcountry Motorized or 

8092 Backcountry non-motorized MAs.

8093 Key indicator – Acres Allocated to Motorized Use

8094 Motorized recreation is allowed on about 853,926 acres the Restoration MAs and Backcountry Motorized 

8095 MA. The current levels of motorized recreation are allowed in recommended wilderness, which brings the 

8096 total amount of land open to motorized recreation to 922,259 acres or about 84 percent of the Forest.

8097 Recommended Wilderness Areas

8098 Key Indicator – Total acres in Recommended Wilderness

8099 Alternative P only proposes to allocate 68,300 acres or about 6 percent of the Forest to recommended 

8100 wilderness. Therefore, the protection afforded to watershed condition and aquatic habitat is less than the 

8101 recommended wilderness in the proposed action (9 percent of the Forest) and alternative R (19 percent) 

8102 and alternative B (about 20 percent of the Forest). Alternative P does recommend more recommended 

8103 wilderness than the no-action and O alternatives. As in the proposed action, existing motorized and 

8104 mechanized use is maintained until Congress makes a decision on potential wilderness designation.

8105 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

8106 The alternative P ACS incorporates the ARCS-mod strategy that was described for alternative R. The plan 

8107 components; desired conditions, the definition of RMAs, the key watershed network, standards and 

8108 guidelines, and objectives are the same as alternative R as are the anticipated effects.

8109 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability

8110 Only alternative R provides a greater contribution to MIS/focal species viability than alternative P. 

8111 Alternative P includes the same key watershed network and definitions and management direction for 

8112 RMAs as alternative R. The alternative P contribution to bull trout viability is the same as alternative R as 

8113 the watersheds with bull trout critical habitat are included in the key watershed network. The total amount 

8114 of lands within Recommended Wilderness, Wilderness and the two Backcountry MAs is also similar 

8115 between the two alternatives, although the actual mix varies. Alternative P contributes slightly less to the 

8116 viability of WSCT and interior redband trout than alternative R. Although the key watershed network is

8117 the same for both alternatives, alternative P includes more lands within the General Restoration MA and 

8118 the associated desires road density of 2.0 miles per square mile.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

245

8119 Effects – Alternative P

8120 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

8121 Alternative P uses the whole landscape approach to provide late forest structure. Like the proposed action

8122 and alternative R the roaded portion of the Forest is divided into two vegetation restoration areas, the 

8123 Focused Restoration 306,100 acres (about 28 percent of the Forest) and General Restoration 

8124 493,200 acres (about 45 percent of the Forest) MAs. The major difference between the two restoration 

8125 MAs are the desired road densities and the Focused Restoration MA also emphasizes habitat for Key 

8126 watersheds, and wildlife species. Timber harvest is allowed in both restoration MAs. 

8127 As in the proposed action and alternative R, timber harvest is allowed on about 73 percent of the Forest in 

8128 the Focused and General Restoration MAs. These areas are to be managed to provide the vegetation 

8129 structure and composition, including late forest structure, for forest communities that are resilient to 

8130 disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations. Many of the subwatersheds on the Forest 

8131 are functioning at risk for the fire regime indicator in the AEC assessment, and a few are not properly 

8132 functioning. As with alternative R, vegetation management to restore vegetation to conditions as may be 

8133 expected under historic and anticipated disturbance regimes, may improve watershed condition especially 

8134 in the Focused Restoration MAs if the desired road densities are attained. 

8135 Watersheds in the General Restoration area may not become fully functioning due to the desired road 

8136 densities although there may be some improvement from the current conditions as the road densities in 

8137 not properly functioning watersheds are reduced toward the desired levels The potential risks to aquatic 

8138 resources due to vegetation management projects, especially timber sales, would likely be greatest in the 

8139 General Restoration area due to the higher desired conditions for road density and a likely higher level of 

8140 vegetation management than in the Focused Restoration Area. Management direction for RMAs should 

8141 minimize the potential adverse impacts to riparian dependent resources due to timber sales. Vegetation 

8142 management including timber harvest as outlined for alternative P may be more beneficial toward

8143 improving watershed conditions due to the road density desired conditions compared to the proposed 

8144 action but less so than alternative R. As with alternative R and the proposed action, achieving the desired 

8145 road densities is most likely in the key watersheds due to focused restoration, and would depend upon 

8146 budgets and social acceptance. 

8147 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

8148 Alternative P would continue to allow roads over 80 percent of the Forest. Similar to all other alternatives,

8149 new roads are not allowed in recommended wilderness, backcountry motorized, or backcountry non8150 motorized MAs, or research natural areas. The desired road density in Focused Restoration MA is no 

8151 greater than 1.0 mile per square mile and in the General Restoration Area no greater than 2.0 miles per 

8152 square mile. About 5 percent of the Forest is allocated for backcountry motorized recreation. 

8153 Similar to alternative R, watershed conditions and the AEC for the MIS/focal species may improve as the 

8154 desired road densities are attained, but watersheds in the General Restoration MA would likely remain 

8155 functioning at risk even if the desired road densities are attained. Alternative P allocates the second most 

8156 amount of area to backcountry recreation. The recommended wilderness, current wilderness and 

8157 backcountry recreation areas combine to comprise 20 percent of the Forest where roads are not allowed. 

8158 However, motorized use is still allowed over 80 percent of the Forest where some accelerated erosion and 

8159 potential damage to riparian and aquatic habitat may occur, especially if management is not able to 

8160 maintain the trail system given the expected increase in use.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

246

8161 Recommended Wilderness

8162 Alternative P proposes to add 68,300 acres or about 6 percent of the Forest. Therefore, the protection 

8163 afforded to watershed condition and aquatic habitat is less than the recommended wilderness in the 

8164 proposed action (9 percent of the Forest), alternative R (19 percent), and alternative B (about 20 percent 

8165 of the Forest). Alternative P does recommend more recommended wilderness than the no-action and O 

8166 alternatives. Motorized and mechanized use is allowed pending a Congressional decision on wilderness 

8167 designation. Sediment may continue to be delivered to streams and aquatic habitat due to the use of the 

8168 existing motorized trail system. The level of effect on aquatic habitat would likely depend upon the ability 

8169 of the Forest to maintain the trails, given the expected increased recreation use.

8170 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

8171 The alternative P ACS incorporates the strategy that was described for alternative R. The Plan 

8172 Components: desired conditions, the definition of RMAs, the key watershed network, standards and 

8173 guidelines, and objectives are the same as alternative R as are the anticipated effects.

8174 Cumulative Effects

8175 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 

8176 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 

8177 the influence of alternative P such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric 

8178 projects and the transportation system managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The 

8179 activities associated with the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by 

8180 the alternative P restoration direction. 

8181 The watershed condition of most subwatersheds and the subbasins as a whole on the Forest are not 

8182 properly functioning or functioning at risk with the road systems appearing to be a primary driver. A 

8183 number of subwatersheds are also functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the fire regime and 

8184 insect indicators of the AEC. The alternative P road density desired conditions in Focused Restoration 

8185 Areas covering about 28 percent of the Forest are more within the range considered supportive of good 

8186 watershed conditions and strong fish populations. The desired conditions for roads plus vegetation 

8187 management to improve the composition and structure of forests in the Focus Restoration MAs may help 

8188 make watersheds more resilient to disturbance and reduce the adverse impacts to aquatic habitat. The 

8189 realized benefit however would depend upon the timeframe the road density desired conditions can be 

8190 met and the amount of terrestrial management that occurs in any watershed or subwatershed. It would be 

8191 less likely for watersheds within the General Restoration MA to become properly functioning for 

8192 watershed condition due to the desired road density of 2.0 miles per square mile. 

8193 Watershed conditions may improve through implementation of the ACS. The desired conditions; 

8194 standards and guides; and objectives are designed to provide for and restore watershed riparian and 

8195 aquatic habitat conditions. The benefits may be greatest where watershed and riparian restoration, 

8196 especially in key watersheds, is coordinated with vegetation management and road management to attain 

8197 the desired conditions. The ACS with an increase in the area covered by RMAs, additional standards and 

8198 guides and a larger key watershed network, with restoration objectives, than the no-action or proposed 

8199 action alternatives may be expected to improve aquatic habitat at a faster rate than has occurred under 

8200 INFISH.

8201 Many populations of the MIS/focal species are likely to remain at risk due to the presence of non-native 

8202 fish, isolation above barriers and other barriers to migration. Coordinating restoration actions on Forest 

8203 with the work of other entities, such as work tied to hydroelectric project relicensing, provide the most 

8204 potential for improving the population status of MIS/focal species. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

247

8205 Climate Change

8206 The general description of the potential effects of climate change remain the same as discussed for the 

8207 Past, Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis. The increased overall 

8208 direction of the ACS including forestwide desired conditions, riparian and key watershed standards and 

8209 guides; the key watershed network covering approximately 41 percent of the Forest; the Focus 

8210 Restoration MA with desired road densities more in the range of what is considered beneficial to aquatic 

8211 species and watershed function; desired conditions for and management to improve the vegetative 

8212 structure and composition of Forests; and objectives for improving riparian and watershed conditions; 

8213 may remove some human stressors to the environment to provide a better opportunity for aquatic species 

8214 to adjust to climate change, especially if actions are concentrated in key watersheds. A particular risk to 

8215 the MIS/focal species would remain the presence of non-native fish, low MIS/focal species population 

8216 numbers and isolated and fragmented populations. In addition to the Colville National Forest actions 

8217 described above, the non-native fish population suppression or eradication, habitat improvement and

8218 improved passage at the hydroelectric project dams may be key factors in conserving the MIS/focal 

8219 species.

8220 Monitoring Recommendations

8221 The monitoring requirements are the common for all alternatives.

8222 Alternative B

8223 Two MAs focus on forest vegetation: the Restoration Zone MA, which emphasizes old forests or late 

8224 forest structure on 31 percent of the landscape, and the Active Management area, which emphasizes 

8225 timber production on 43 percent of the Forest. The Restoration Zone and the Active Management Area are 

8226 similar to Focused or General Restoration areas in the proposed action and other alternatives. Active 

8227 management to restore late forest structure is limited to only dry plant association groups. Also, unlike the 

8228 proposed action, in alternative R and alternative P, the Active Management MA emphasizes even-aged 

8229 management for timber production.

8230 Table 81. Alternative B management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion

Management Area Colville

Franklin D. 

Roosevelt 

Lake

Kettle Pend 

Oreille Sanpoil Total

Restoration 17,301 59,902 103,416 140,786 17,123 392,262

Active Management Area 84,491 74,515 116,645 152,616 48,200 476,467

Backcountry 0 0 0 4,835 0 4,835

Backcountry Motorized 1,357 0 0 5,249 0 6,606

Wilderness Recommended 5,356 49,640 78,278 59,275 27,761 220,330

Wilderness-Congressionally 

Designated 0 0 0 31,400 0 31,400

8231 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

8232 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have a focused restoration (or late forest structure), 

8233 general restoration, timber production emphasis.

8234 • Focused restoration – The Restoration MA includes 338,538 acres
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

248

8235 • General Restoration – The Active Management Area includes 476,752 acres. Even-aged 

8236 management for timber production is allowed.

8237 Timber harvest is allowed in both the Restoration and Active Management MAs. 

8238 Vegetation management within the Restoration MA emphasizes enhancing the ecological integrity and 

8239 ecosystem function by restoring late forest structure, natural processes and the resiliency of forests. 

8240 Within the Active Management MA, the focus is to provide a stable flow of forests products to the local 

8241 economy, maintain the infrastructure necessary to provide forest products while increasing the Forest’s 

8242 resilience to insects, disease and uncharacteristic fire. Alternative B allocates less land to a focused 

8243 restoration type of management than alternative R, but more than is allocated in the proposed action; and 

8244 similar amount as in alternatives P and O. Unlike the proposed action, alternatives R and P, the emphasis 

8245 on timber production in the Active Management MA increases the risk to watershed processes and aquatic 

8246 habitat compared to vegetation management in the proposed action, alternatives R and P and the 

8247 Restoration MA of this alternative. Any potential benefit to watershed conditions that may be accrued by 

8248 managing for more resilient forests is likely to be diminished as the current level of 4,000 road miles is to 

8249 be retained across the Forest.

8250 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

8251 Key Indicator – Desired conditions for road densities.

8252 There are no road density desired conditions that would potentially improve watershed conditions. There 

8253 may be some reduction in road densities within the Restoration MA but access would be maintained 

8254 within the Active Management Area to facilitate the flow of forest products. Overall the current level of 

8255 4,000 road miles on the Forest is to be maintained and therefore watershed conditions are not expected to 

8256 be greatly improved.

8257 Key Indicator – Acres allocated to motorized access.

8258 Alternative B allocates the least amount of lands to Backcountry Motorized and Backcountry MAs. 

8259 Motorized access including motorized trails is allowed on 821,886 acres in the Active Management Area, 

8260 Restoration and Backcountry Motorized MAs, approximately 75 percent of the landscape. 

8261 Recommended Wilderness Areas

8262 Key Indicator – Total acres in Recommended Wilderness.

8263 Alternative B recommends 220,330 acres as proposed wilderness, slightly less than alternative R and 

8264 more than any other alternative. As in alternative R, motorized use is not allowed in recommended 

8265 wilderness, enhancing the benefits of the allocation for watershed and aquatic resources compared to the 

8266 proposed action, alternative P and alternative O.

8267 Riparian Aquatic and Resource Management

8268 Alternative B continues current riparian and aquatic management under INFISH. The RMA widths to not 

8269 provide extra consideration to intermittent streams as in the other alternatives. As in the proposed action, 

8270 the Priority Watersheds are only located in the Pend Oreille subbasin benefiting bull trout, a few WSCT 

8271 populations and no interior redband trout populations. Stream habitat on the Forest may be slowly 

8272 improving in the 20 years INFISH has been implemented, but most subwatersheds and aquatic habitat 

8273 condition is still considered impaired. The trends in watershed condition and stream habitat are expected 

8274 to be similar as would be expected under the no-action alternative
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

249

8275 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability

8276 Implementation of alternative B is expected to contribute the least to MIS/focal species viability 

8277 compared to all alternatives except the no-action alternative (table 70 in the no-action alternative). The 

8278 relatively low contribution is due to maintaining the current amount of road mileage on the Forest, a 

8279 significant amount of the Forest in the Active Management MA and the relatively small number of key 

8280 watersheds. Alternative B also maintains the INFISH ACS, which after 20 years is showing some slow 

8281 improvement in stream habitat, but most subwatersheds and stream habitat is, and may be expected to 

8282 continue to be, in a functioning at risk or not properly functioning state with watershed conditions not 

8283 generally considered conducive for strong fish populations.

8284 Effects – Alternative B

8285 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

8286 Alternative B includes two MAs that emphasize vegetation management, the Restoration Zone and the 

8287 Active Management Zone. Both the Active Management Area and the Restoration Zone allow use of 

8288 timber harvest, prescribed fire, and thinning of stands to meet vegetation management objectives. 

8289 Vegetation management in the 338,528-acre Restoration Zone emphasizes enhancing the ecological 

8290 integrity of forests by restoring late forest structure and natural processes and resiliency of the terrestrial 

8291 vegetation landscape. Standards limit management for late forest structure objectives to dry plant 

8292 associations only, as forests in these plant associations are likely to be highly departed from historic 

8293 conditions due to past management and fire suppression, although moist mixed conifer forests may 

8294 require some restoration as well. 

8295 The Active Management Area includes 43 percent of the Forest. The emphasis in the Active Management 

8296 Zone is to provide a stable flow of forest products to the local economy and sustain forest products 

8297 infrastructure while increasing the Forest’s resilience to insects, disease, and uncharacteristic fire. Even8298 aged management is allowed subject to guidelines for timber production. The risks to watershed, riparian 

8299 and aquatic resources due to vegetation management are expected to be greater in the Active Management 

8300 MA compared to the Restoration MA due to the greater emphasis on timber production.

8301 The fire regime and insect indicators of the AEC are functioning at risk or not properly functioning in 

8302 most subwatersheds on the Forest. Vegetation management to improve the resiliency of forests to 

8303 disturbance, such as uncharacteristically severe wildfire, may help improve the fire regime and insect and 

8304 disease attributes of watershed condition especially in the Restoration MA. However, overall watershed 

8305 conditions are unlikely to improve in the either the Restoration or Responsible MAs as any benefit 

8306 accrued by improving the Forest’s resiliency to disturbance would be off-set by maintaining the 

8307 transportation system at current levels. 

8308 Motorized Trails and Access 

8309 Alternative B provides the least amount of summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

8310 opportunities in a backcountry, unroaded setting, with less than one percent of the forest allocated to 

8311 backcountry motorized trail recreation. 

8312 Motorized recreation is allowed on about 75 percent of the Forest. Like all other alternatives, new road 

8313 access would not be allowed in recommended or designated wilderness areas, backcountry motorized 

8314 (trail access only) and non-motorized management areas, or research natural areas. Motorized recreation 

8315 increases the risk for accelerated sediment delivery to streams from the trails and use of the trails as well 

8316 as the potential for degrading riparian areas and stream habitat by off-trail use. The level to which the 

8317 potential adverse impacts occur would depend upon the Forest’s ability to management the trail system 

8318 given the expected increase in recreation use.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

250

8319 Alternative B does not include desired road densities as in the proposed action, and alternatives R and P. 

8320 Alternative B caps the total miles of National Forest System roads at the current level, about 4,000 miles, 

8321 and uses a standard that would require at least one mile of road to be decommissioned when adding a mile 

8322 to the system. Most subwatersheds are already functioning at risk or not properly functioning for road and 

8323 riparian road densities with road densities above those generally supporting strong fish populations. While 

8324 there may be some reduction in road density within the Restoration MA due to watershed improvement 

8325 activities the overall forestwide watershed condition is not expected to improve.

8326 Recommended Wilderness

8327 Alternative B allocates 220,330 acres to recommended wilderness, the most of any alternative. Motorized 

8328 and mechanized uses are not permitted in the recommended wilderness prior to their potential designation 

8329 by Congress. The restriction on motorized use of all kinds reduces the risk of sediment delivery to aquatic 

8330 habitat in the recommended wilderness due to the use of existing motorized trails and the construction of 

8331 new roads or trails.

8332 Riparian Aquatic and Resource Management

8333 Alternative B continues current riparian and aquatic management under INFISH and effects of the ACS 

8334 are the same as described for the no-action alternative. The RHCA widths, the Priority Watershed 

8335 Network, and riparian and aquatic resource goals objectives, standards, and guidelines are the same as no 

8336 action. The RHCAs do not extend the same consideration to intermittent streams as the other alternatives 

8337 so may not be as protective of watershed processes. The potential benefits of key watershed designation 

8338 only occurs in the Pend Oreille subbasin. The key watersheds include bull trout critical habitat and some 

8339 WSCT populations but fewer WSCT populations than the other alternatives, except No Action, and no 

8340 interior redband trout populations are included in the key watersheds. Stream habitat on the Forest may be 

8341 slowly improving in the 20 years INFISH has been implemented, but most subwatersheds and aquatic 

8342 habitat is considered impaired. The trends in watershed condition and stream habitat are expected to be 

8343 similar as would be expected under the no-action alternative.

8344 Cumulative Effects

8345 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 

8346 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 

8347 the influence of the Forest, such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric 

8348 projects and the transportation system managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The 

8349 activities associated with the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by 

8350 the alternative B restoration direction. 

8351 The watershed condition and status of most of the MIS/Focal Species’ populations are functioning at risk 

8352 or not properly functioning although there is some indication of slow improvement in aquatic habitat 

8353 condition. Road densities and riparian road densities which are two major attributes causing the poor 

8354 watershed condition scores may not significantly improve despite restoration due to the amount of land 

8355 available for timber production, maintaining the current miles of National Forest System roads and the 

8356 2,500 miles of road managed by other entities, which is not expected to change. 

8357 The Forest would continue with actions as described in the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 

8358 project. Such actions, especially when they are implemented in a whole watershed restoration approach, 

8359 should help restore watershed condition to some degree. The magnitude of the improvement within a 

8360 subwatershed would depend upon the amount of work that is socially acceptable and technically feasible 

8361 to implement. However, given the current road system and the fact that after 20 years of implementing 

8362 INFISH on the Forest stream habitat is only slowly improving, watershed condition and stream habitat 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

251

8363 may not be expected to significantly improve forestwide. The MIS/focal species’ population status is 

8364 significantly affected by the high numbers and wide distribution of non-native fish, isolation above 

8365 barriers and low MIS/focal species numbers, and problems in the migratory corridors on the larger rivers. 

8366 Climate Change

8367 The overall effects of climate change were presented in the Past, Present and Foreseeable Future 

8368 Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. Under alternative B, the Forest aquatic 

8369 resource management direction for managing for stronghold populations that may contribute to the 

8370 MIS/focal species persistence under different climate change scenarios is contained in the INFISH 

8371 direction for Priority Watersheds. The Priority watersheds may provide the potential to rebuild 

8372 populations and improve habitat to allow bull trout and WSCT the opportunity to adapt to climate change, 

8373 especially in the East Fork and West Fork Le Clerc Creeks and Ninemile Creek, which are Focus 

8374 watersheds. As mentioned in the cumulative effects section, the actual benefits to fish habitat and 

8375 populations from such work is likely to be limited due to maintaining the current number of roads on the 

8376 Forest. The potential effects of climate change may be greatest for this alternative and the no-action 

8377 alternative as the amount of subwatersheds and populations expected to be functioning at risk or not 

8378 properly functioning is expected to remain as is. The threats to MIS/focal species viability due to 

8379 population isolation and fragmentation, combined with the wide distribution of non-native fish and poor 

8380 habitat conditions may be exacerbated in a warming climate. 

8381 Monitoring Recommendations

8382 Monitoring recommendations are common to all alternatives.

8383 Alternative O

8384 Alternative O emphasizes summer and winter non-motorized opportunities in a backcountry, unroaded 

8385 setting and minimizes recommended wilderness. Late forest structure is managed with a fixed reserve 

8386 system. Alternative O includes two management areas to address vegetation management: the Restoration 

8387 Zone MA to restore the historic range of variation, and the Responsible Management Area that 

8388 emphasizes timber production. The management zones are very similar to those proposed in alternative B. 

8389 The total percentage of the Forest allocated to vegetation management is similar to alternative B though 

8390 alternative O has a greater percentage in the Restoration Zone MA than alternative B.

8391 Table 82. Alternative O management area acres by subbasin pertinent to aquatics discussion

Management Area Colville

Franklin D. 

Roosevelt 

Lake

Kettle Pend 

Oreille Sanpoil Total

Restoration 23,993 62,766 110,389 140,463 31,419 369,030

Responsible 77,805 65,358 108,242 146,071 33,763 431,239

Backcountry 5,354 42,856 44,448 54,576 27,068 174,302

Backcountry Motorized 1,356 11,878 35,241 5,259 0 53,734

Wilderness 

Recommended 0 0 0 15,950 0 15,950

WildernessCongressionally 

Designated

0 0 0 31,400 0 31,400
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

252

8392 The plan components for watershed, riparian and aquatic management; desired conditions, standards and 

8393 guides, and the definition of RMAs is the same as the proposed action. Alternative O however 

8394 incorporates the same key watershed network as in alternatives R and P.

8395 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

8396 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have a focused restoration (or late forest structure), 

8397 general restoration, timber production emphasis.

8398 • Focused restoration – The Restoration MA includes 369,030 acres

8399 • General Restoration – The Responsible Management Area includes 431,525 acres. Even-aged 

8400 management for timber production is allowed.

8401 Timber harvest is allowed in both the Restoration and Responsible Management MAs. 

8402 Vegetation management and timber production as described for alternative O is very similar to alternative

8403 B. Vegetation management within the Restoration MA emphasizes enhancing the ecological integrity and 

8404 ecosystem function by restoring late forest structure, natural processes and the resiliency of forests. The 

8405 emphasis for vegetation management in the Responsible Management MA is for sustainable active 

8406 management to provide a steady flow of forest products to the local economy and maintain the 

8407 infrastructure necessary to provide forest products, while increasing the Forest’s resilience to insects, 

8408 disease and uncharacteristic fire.

8409 Alternative O allocates approximately 39 percent to a focused restoration type of management in the 

8410 Restoration MA. The amount of land in the Restoration MA is less than the Focused Restoration MA in 

8411 alternative R, more than the Focused Restoration MA in the proposed action and alternatives P and the 

8412 Restoration MA in alternative B. Similar to alternative B, the emphasis on timber production in the Active 

8413 Management MA increases the risk to watershed processes and aquatic habitat compared to vegetation 

8414 management within the General Restoration MAs in the proposed action, alternatives R and P. Any 

8415 potential benefit to watershed conditions that may be accrued by managing for more resilient forests is 

8416 likely to be diminished as the current level of 4,000 road miles is to be retained across the Forest.

8417 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access

8418 Key Indicator – Desired conditions for road densities.

8419 As in alternative B, there are no road density desired conditions that would potentially improve watershed 

8420 conditions. There may be some reduction in road densities within the Restoration MA but access would 

8421 be maintained within the Responsible MA to facilitate the flow of forest products. Overall, the current 

8422 level of 4,000 road miles on the Forest is to be maintained, and therefore, watershed conditions are not 

8423 expected to be greatly improved.

8424 Key Indicator – Acres allocated to motorized access.

8425 Alternative O allocates the most amount of lands to the Backcountry MA and approximately 5 percent of 

8426 the Forest is allocated to motorized recreation in a backcountry setting. Motorized recreation is allowed in 

8427 the Backcountry motorized, Restoration and the Responsible MAs as well as recommended wilderness

8428 resulting in approximately 79 percent of the landscape being available to motorized recreation.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

253

8429 Recommended Wilderness Areas

8430 Key Indicator – Total acres in Recommended Wilderness.

8431 Alternative O recommends 15,950 acres as proposed wilderness, the least amount of any action 

8432 alternative. Motorized and mechanized uses would be maintained at current levels in these areas until 

8433 Congress makes a decision on wilderness designation for the recommended wilderness management 

8434 areas.

8435 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

8436 The alternative O plan components for watershed, riparian and aquatic resource management; desired 

8437 conditions, the definition of RMAs, standards and guidelines, and objectives are the same as the proposed 

8438 action. The primary difference between both alternative O and the proposed action compared to 

8439 alternatives R and P is a greater reliance on guidelines than standards; there is not an additional desired 

8440 condition for TES fish there is no specific direction for managing AIS species, or a standard for 

8441 minimizing the disruption of hydrologic processes due to roads and trails. Alternative O incorporates the 

8442 same key watershed network and key watershed objectives as alternatives R and P which encompasses 

8443 more land than the proposed action. 

8444 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability

8445 Implementation of alternative O contributes to the MIS/Focal Species Viability to a greater degree than 

8446 the no-action alternative and alternative B. The alternative O contribution to viability for the three 

8447 MIS/focal species is less than alternatives R and P and similar to the proposed action (table 70 in the no8448 action alternative). 

8449 A positive aspect of alternative O is the same key watershed network as in alternatives R and P. 

8450 Alternative O is not expected to contribute to MIS/focal species viability to the same degree as alternative

8451 R due to no road density desired conditions and little land allocated to recommended wilderness. Most 

8452 subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for watershed condition. 

8453 Little overall improvement would be expected under alternative O by maintaining the transportation 

8454 system at the current levels resulting in watershed conditions that generally do not support strong fish 

8455 populations. 

8456 Effects – Alternative O

8457 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

8458 Alternative O includes two MAs that emphasize vegetation management, the Restoration Zone and the 

8459 Responsible Management Zone. The two MAs are very similar to the Restoration and Active 

8460 Management MAs in alternative B as are the anticipated affects to watershed, aquatic and riparian 

8461 resources. Both the Responsible MA and the Restoration MA allow use of timber harvest, prescribed fire, 

8462 and thinning of stands to meet vegetation management objectives. Vegetation management in the 

8463 Restoration Zone emphasizes enhancing the ecological integrity of forests by restoring late forest 

8464 structure and natural processes and resiliency of the terrestrial vegetation landscape 

8465 The emphasis in the Responsible Management MA is to provide a stable flow of forest products to the 

8466 local economy and sustain forest products infrastructure while increasing the Forest’s resilience to insects, 

8467 disease, and uncharacteristic fire. Even-aged management is allowed subject to guidelines for timber 

8468 production. The road system would be retained in the active management areas to facilitate the flow of 

8469 forest products. The risks to watershed, riparian and aquatic resources due to vegetation management are 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

254

8470 expected to be greater in the Responsible Management MA compared to the Restoration MA due to the 

8471 greater emphasis on timber production.

8472 The fire regime and insect indicators of the AEC are functioning at risk or not properly functioning in 

8473 many subwatersheds on the Forest. Vegetation management to improve the resiliency of forests to 

8474 disturbance, such as uncharacteristically severe wildfire, may help improve watershed condition 

8475 especially in the Restoration MA. The potential risks of adverse impacts on watershed and aquatic habitat 

8476 are greater in the Responsible MA than the Restoration MA and the Focused and General Restoration 

8477 MAs in the proposed action, alternative R, and alternative P, due to the emphasis on timber production. 

8478 Also, unlike the proposed action, alternative R, and alternative P, overall watershed conditions are 

8479 unlikely to improve in the either the Restoration or Responsible MA s as any benefit accrued by 

8480 improving the Forest’s resiliency to disturbance may be offset by maintaining the transportation system at 

8481 current levels. 

8482 Motorized Trails and Access

8483 Alternative O allocates the greatest amount of land to backcountry recreation where motorized use is not 

8484 allowed and there are to be no new roads. While some minor disruption of watershed processes may occur 

8485 on hiking trails here would be no potential for accelerated sediment delivery or damage to riparian and 

8486 aquatic due motorized recreation in the 174,300-acre Backcountry MA. 

8487 Like all other alternatives, new road access would not be allowed in recommended or designated

8488 wilderness areas, backcountry motorized (trail access only) and non-motorized management areas, or 

8489 research natural areas. Motorized recreation would be allowed on approximately 79 percent of the Forest, 

8490 including within recommended wilderness with the associated risk for accelerated sediment delivery to 

8491 streams from the trails and use of the trails, as well as the potential for degrading riparian areas and 

8492 stream habitat by off-trail use. The level to which the potential adverse impacts occur would depend upon 

8493 the Forest’s ability to management the trail system given the expected increase in recreation use.

8494 Alternative O includes no road density desired conditions that would potentially improve watershed 

8495 conditions. There may be some reduction in road densities within the Restoration MA but access would 

8496 be maintained within the Active Management Area to facilitate the flow of forest products. Most 

8497 subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the road and riparian road density 

8498 attributes of the AEC. Overall, the current level of 4,000 road miles on the Forest is to be maintained and 

8499 therefore little improvement in watershed conditions are expected.

8500 Recommended Wilderness

8501 Alternative O recommends just under 16,000 acres as potential new wilderness. recommended wilderness

8502 is considered to protect watershed processes, aquatic, and riparian habitat as no roads are to be built or 

8503 other management activities occur other than recreation. Under alternative O, however, existing 

8504 motorized use would be allowed to continue until Congress decides on wilderness designation. Therefore 

8505 the risks to watershed, riparian and aquatic resources due to sediment from the trail system would remain.

8506 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

8507 Alternative O incorporates the same ACS as the proposed action with a greater reliance on guidelines than 

8508 standards than in alternatives R and P. Like the proposed action, alternative O does not include the desired 

8509 conditions for TES fish or the standards for managing AIS that are included in alternatives R and P. 

8510 Unlike the proposed action, alternative O does include the same key watershed network as alternatives R 

8511 and P that includes 25 subwatersheds compared to 22 in the proposed action, primarily providing extra 

8512 protection for interior redband trout. The riparian and aquatic resource effects are the same as described in 

8513 the proposed action, other than the effects of the key watershed network. While there may be some 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

255

8514 reduction in road density and the effects to watershed and aquatic habitat from the existing roads may be 

8515 reduced due to focused watershed restoration efforts, the benefits of key watershed designation are 

8516 expected to be less than either alternative R or P as there are no desired conditions for road densities.

8517 Cumulative Effects

8518 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 

8519 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The alternative O 

8520 cumulative effects are similar as alternative B. The activities outside the influence of the Forest, such as 

8521 the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric projects and the transportation system 

8522 managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The activities associated with the Northeast 

8523 Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by the alternative B restoration direction. 

8524 The watershed condition and status of most of the MIS/focal species’ populations are functioning at risk 

8525 or not properly functioning although there is some indication of slow improvement in aquatic habitat 

8526 condition. Even with the same key watershed network as alternatives R and P the ACS that is felt to be 

8527 more complete than INFISH in alternative B, and the continued implementation of the Northeast 

8528 Washington Forest Vision 2020 Project watershed conditions and fish population status are not expected 

8529 to significantly improve. Maintaining the current miles of road on the Forest combined with the 

8530 2,500 miles of road managed by other entities would result in road densities that would keep most 

8531 subwatersheds in a functioning at risk or not properly functioning status. Such road densities generally do 

8532 not provide the conditions for strong fish populations.

8533 Climate Change

8534 The overall effects of climate change applicable to all alternatives were presented in the Past, Present and 

8535 Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. Under alternative O, the Forest 

8536 aquatic resource management direction for managing for stronghold populations that may contribute to 

8537 the focal species persistence under different climate change scenarios is contained in the ACS direction 

8538 including key watersheds. Although alternative O includes a more comprehensive ACS, including a 

8539 broader key watershed network than alternative B, the effects of climate change are expected to be similar 

8540 to those described for alternative B. The key watershed network may provide some potential to rebuild 

8541 populations and improve habitat to allow the MIS/focal species the opportunity to adapt to climate 

8542 change, especially in the East Fork and West Fork Le Clerc Creeks and Ninemile Creek which are Focus 

8543 watersheds. 

8544 The viability of the MIS/focal species on the Forest is threatened by low population numbers, population 

8545 isolation and fragmentation. The high road densities that would result in subwatersheds to continue to be 

8546 functioning at risk or not properly functioning and would probably not provide the habitat conditions 

8547 necessary to recover for strong fish populations. The status of the fish populations, combined with 

8548 degraded watershed and habitat conditions and the wide distribution of non-native fish may exacerbate 

8549 the effects of a warming climate.

8550 Monitoring Recommendations

8551 The monitoring program is common to all alternatives.

8552 Summary of the Effects of the Alternatives on Aquatic Resources

8553 The current viability of the three MIS/focal species, WSCT, interior redband trout and bull trout is at risk 

8554 within all subbasins on the Forest. The viability of the MIS/focal species on the Forest is generally 

8555 threatened by poor watershed conditions, low abundance of the species and a lack of connectivity 

8556 between habitats and populations both on and off the Forest. The MIS/focal species are also threatened by 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

256

8557 the widespread distribution of non-native fish including brook trout, coastal rainbow trout and past 

8558 introductions of non-native subspecies of cutthroat trout. The no-action alternative would continue current 

8559 management programs, including the INFISH aquatic strategy. There are indications that aquatic habitat 

8560 conditions may be slowly improving under current management the overall AEC for most subwatersheds 

8561 on the Forest would likely continue to be functioning at risk or not properly functioning as little change in 

8562 overall road densities on the Forest is expected, there is no additional protection afforded to aquatic 

8563 resources through recommended wilderness, and more of the land base is open to relatively intense timber 

8564 harvest than under the action alternatives. Of all alternatives, the no-action alternative provides the least 

8565 Forest Service contribution to the viability of the MIS/focal species.

8566 The proposed action is expected to contribute to the viability of the MIS/focal species to a greater extent 

8567 than continued management under the no-action alternative. Compared to the no-action alternative, the 

8568 proposed action includes more lands in recommended wilderness, backcountry and backcountry 

8569 motorized allocations that are generally considered to be “protective” of watershed processes and aquatic 

8570 habitat. The proposed action includes more lands that are considered to have a “moderate” level 

8571 protection in the Focused and General Restoration MAs. While timber harvest is allowed as a tool in the 

8572 two MAs, the emphasis for vegetation management is to restore terrestrial vegetation structure and 

8573 composition. The proposed action also includes a significantly larger network of key watersheds than the 

8574 no-action alternative providing greater potential benefits to not only bull trout but also WSCT and interior 

8575 redband. RMAs are also expanded to give extra consideration to intermittent streams than in the no-action 

8576 alternative. The contribution to MIS/focal species viability though is less than alternatives R and P,

8577 however, primarily due to desired road densities in the General Restoration MA that are higher than the 

8578 road densities generally associated with properly functioning watersheds capable of supporting strong fish 

8579 populations.

8580 Alternative R provides the greatest contribution to MIS/focal species viability of all alternatives. 

8581 Alternative R is expected to provide the greatest Forest Service contribution to the viability of WSCT and 

8582 interior redband of any alternative and the expected contribution to bull trout viability is similar to 

8583 alternative P. Both alternatives R and P include more key watershed acres than the proposed action

8584 providing additional benefits to WSCT and interior redband trout. Alternative R also includes the second 

8585 most amount of land allocated to recommended wilderness of all alternatives. Both alternative R and P 

8586 include the Focused and General Restoration MAs where the desired road densities of 1.0 mile per square 

8587 mile and 2.0 miles per square mile are more within the range of road densities generally associated with 

8588 strong fish populations and properly functioning watersheds. The major difference between alternative R 

8589 and P is that alternative P includes more land within the General Restoration MA. Both alternatives R and 

8590 P include aquatic conservation direction similar to the proposed action but include more standards and 

8591 guidelines to direct management within RMAs.

8592 Alternative B is expected to contribute the least toward the MIS/focal species viability than any action 

8593 alternative as the alternative includes the same key watershed network as the no-action alternative, hence 

8594 significantly less than the other action alternatives. Alternative B also maintains the current road network. 

8595 The watershed and stream channel conditions within most subwatersheds on the Forest are currently 

8596 considered to be functioning at risk or not properly functioning and would likely remain so under 

8597 alternative B.

8598 Similar to the proposed action, alternative O may be expected to contribute toward the viability of 

8599 MIS/focal species to a greater degree than alternative B and the no-action alternative but less so than 

8600 alternatives R and P. While alternative O includes the same key watershed network as alternatives R and 

8601 P, alternative O does not include the alternative R and P road density desired conditions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

257

8602 Cumulative Effects (Common to all Alternatives)

8603 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 

8604 The future status of fish populations, aquatic and riparian habitats on the Forest would be influenced not 

8605 only by management on the Forest but also by the management of surrounding lands and actions 

8606 implemented by other entities within the subbasins. The potential effects to aquatic habitat due to timber 

8607 harvest, roads and recreation management would continue on the Forest. The potential risks to aquatic 

8608 habitat would vary depending upon the timber production emphasis, road desired conditions and 

8609 recreation emphasis; motorized versus non-motorized recreation. The grazing program remains the same 

8610 through all alternatives. The magnitude and severity of cumulative effects would depend upon; the 

8611 management direction for the land allocations, the amount of land within the different land allocations, 

8612 the ACS for an alternative, and the location and timing of management activities. The ACS plan 

8613 components including; the desired conditions, key watersheds, RMAs, the number of key watersheds, and 

8614 management direction provided by standards and guidelines would be important to mitigating potential 

8615 cumulative effects. The future design of land management projects including the location, design criteria 

8616 and incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) at the project level would be important factors in 

8617 determining the potential cumulative effects, either positive or negative, to fish populations, aquatic and 

8618 riparian habitat. Fish habitat quality on the Forest appears to be slowly improving. The improvement in 

8619 habitat conditions is expected to continue. The potential rate and magnitude of improvement would

8620 depend upon the alternative. 

8621 Projected human population growth would continue to put demands to forest resources, especially 

8622 recreation. Recreational use of the Forest is projected to increase due to population growth as more people 

8623 seek outdoor activities. The anticipated increase in recreation may put demands on infrastructure such as 

8624 roads and trails. The degree to which the Forest can attain the desired conditions for road densities and 

8625 OHV use, and maintain the infrastructure to improve watershed conditions may be challenging. Increased 

8626 recreation use may also increase impacts on riparian habitat. As development of private land continues, 

8627 the Forest Service anticipates a greater dependence on the Forest for nature-based activities and 

8628 experiences that are becoming less accessible elsewhere. In many locations, resource impacts and 

8629 crowding associated with recreation use are growing, with damage to riparian areas and unauthorized trail 

8630 development being of particular concern. The Forest has been and would continue to aggressively manage 

8631 OHV use through monitoring and restoration of user-built trails similar to what is described in Appendix 

8632 3 of the specialist report. The extent to which recreation and especially OHV use would contribute to 

8633 cumulative effects that are adverse to fish populations and habitat would depend on the Forest having the 

8634 resources to manage the program. 

8635 The road system on both the Forest and adjacent lands is an important watershed condition attribute 

8636 resulting in the current, impaired watershed condition in most subwatersheds. The transportation system 

8637 managed by other jurisdictions is not expected to change in the future, resulting in approximately 2,500 

8638 miles of road within the subwatersheds over which the Forest has no management authority. Roads would

8639 continue to contribute to the cumulative effects that have resulted in the impaired watershed and stream 

8640 channel conditions on the Forest. The degree to which the road system contribution to cumulative effects 

8641 may be reduced would depend upon achieving restoration objectives and the Forest’s ability to maintain 

8642 the desired road system.

8643 The AEC analysis found that few subwatersheds on the Forest have watershed conditions or MIS/focal 

8644 species populations that are considered to be properly functioning. The ability of the Forest to improve 

8645 watershed conditions would depend on the Forest’s ability to manage the expected increased demands for 

8646 use of the Forest and continue to implement the current watershed restoration programs, in addition to the 

8647 restoration objectives described for the alternatives. The Forest, in the Northeast Washington Forest 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

258

8648 Vision 2020 project, is planning to accomplish the following by the year 2020 in order to improve upslope 

8649 and watershed conditions: 

8650 • Establish forest vegetation on 35,000 acres 

8651 • Improve forest vegetation on 13,600 acres, 

8652 • Treat 2,000 acres to manage noxious weeds and invasive plants

8653 • Protect maintain or improve 100 acres of water or soil resources.

8654 • Restore or enhance 20 miles of stream habitat.

8655 • Restore or enhance 45,600 acres of terrestrial habitat.

8656 • Improve maintenance on 1,840 miles of high clearance system roads and 165 miles of passenger car 

8657 system roads receiving maintenance.

8658 • Decommission 52 miles of road

8659 • Improve aquatic organism passage at 31 stream crossings. 

8660 • Improve to standard 785 miles of trail.

8661 • Utilize timber sales to treat 42,500 acres of forestlands and treat hazardous fuels on 136,000 acres 

8662 to reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire.

8663 The activities identified in Forest Vision 2020 are expected to contribute to achieving both desired 

8664 conditions and objectives. A whole watershed restoration strategy where restoration is focused on meeting 

8665 the objectives for specific watersheds should help restore watershed condition to some degree and 

8666 potentially improve the resiliency of watersheds and aquatic habitat to disturbance. 

8667 The ability to restore healthy native fish populations on the Forest would be challenged by the past 

8668 introduction, and resulting established populations, of non-native trout. Restoring the populations of the 

8669 MIS/focal species on the Forest would be greatly influenced by actions implemented by other entities 

8670 both on and off the Forest. The hydroelectric projects on the mainstem rivers would continue to impact 

8671 migratory fish populations including WSCT and bull trout. Riverine habitats have been converted to 

8672 reservoir habitat and the dams impede fish passage. The mitigation measures included in the re-licensing 

8673 for the hydroelectric dams on mainstem rivers adjacent to the Forest should provide some beneficial 

8674 impacts to MIS/focal species populations and aquatic habitat on the Forest. Some actions to be 

8675 implemented include (USFWS 2012):

8676 • Removing Mill Pond Dam on Sullivan Creek and installing a cold water pipe in Sullivan Lake.

8677 • Providing upstream fish passage at Boundary Dam

8678 • Eradicating non-native fish and supplementing the native WSCT and bull trout populations.

8679 • Habitat improvement projects both on and off the Forest.

8680 Additionally, Pend Oreille PUD under actions associated with the Box Canyon license would be 

8681 providing upstream and downstream fish passage at Box Canyon Dam, restoring 164 miles of tributary 

8682 habitat, eradicating non-native fish and supplementing with natives, controlling aquatic invasive weed 

species and controlling erosion on Forest lands along Box Canyon Reservoir.

43 8683

 43 Email Brian Peck, CNF to Ken MacDonald (FW: Project Operations Compliance Report submitted in FERC P-2144-000 by 

Seattle City Light, et al.) (March 21, 2014). Terms of Seattle City Light’s license are available at: 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20140318-5216 (March 25, 2014)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

259

8684 Uncharacteristic fire may affect both watershed conditions and MIS/focal species populations. While 

8685 disturbances such as fire and subsequent erosion events can be beneficial for long-term productive 

8686 habitat, significant fish mortality can also occur. The MIS/focal species’ populations can often recover 

8687 quickly from such disturbances if the populations are connected to other populations, or have a migratory 

8688 life history where some individuals are not present at the time of the disturbance. On the Forest, however, 

8689 a number of the MIS/focal species’ local populations are isolated and no longer appear to express the 

8690 historic migratory life history type. Severe fires in subwatersheds with the isolated populations could 

8691 result in the extirpation of a local population. The degree to which these populations become more 

8692 resilient to such disturbances would depend upon improvement in the different attributes of the AEC and 

8693 restoration actions to be implemented off the Forest by other entities.

8694 Climate Change

8695 Climate change is the largest unknown factor that would influence long-term cumulative effects. There is 

8696 a wide range of climate change models that give an equally wide range of future trajectories. There is 

8697 general agreement that climate will warm, but no certainty on rate. Major shifts in several tree species are 

8698 expected by the end of the century as is a doubling of fire acres by 2040, and a tripling of fire acres by 

8699 2080 (see Vegetation section).

8700 In addition to the potential changes to terrestrial vegetation and the resulting potential for increased 

8701 wildfires, climate change may also produce profound impacts to fish and aquatic habitat. As summarized 

8702 by Staab et al. (2014), climate change across the Pacific Northwest is expected to result in:

8703 • declines in snowpacks;

8704 • increased streamflow and associated flooding in the winter and early spring;

8705 • decreased streamflow in the late spring, summer and fall; 

8706 • increased stress on scarce summer water supplies;

8707 • increased stress on salmon and other cold-water species due to declining summer streamflows and 

8708 rising stream temperatures.

8709 Streamflow patterns are expected to change in northeastern Washington with decreasing snowpacks in 

8710 mid-elevation and wetter locations. Most subbasins on the Forest have a mixed rain and snow winter 

8711 precipitation pattern, with only the Pend Oreille considered to be a snow dominated subbasin as a whole; 

8712 however it may transition to a more mixed pattern by 2040 (Snover et al. 2013). In the mountains of 

8713 northeastern Washington, snowpacks are expected to persist at higher elevations but at diminished levels, 

8714 with large portions of the mountains of northeastern Washington possibly losing their April 1 snow-water 

equivalent (see Staab et al. 2014),

44 8715 which may result in lower summer flows and potentially an increase 

8716 in stream temperatures that are stressful for native salmonids (Mantua et al. 2010). Additional changes in 

8717 streamflow regimes that may be expected include peak streamflows occurring earlier in the spring, a 

8718 slight increase in the 20-year recurrence interval flood, and some reduction in low flows (Mantua et al. 

8719 2010).

8720 Although many biotic and abiotic factors interact to determine suitable habitats for different fish species 

8721 at a specific location, warming streams, declining summer flows, and increasing flood risk are, in general, 

8722 all expected to negatively affect coldwater fish populations such as trout. Bull trout are especially 

 44 Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) is a common snowpack measurement. It is the amount of water contained within the snowpack. 

It can be thought of as the depth of water that would theoretically result if you melted the entire snowpack instantaneously 

(USDA Natural resources Conservation Service, March 22, 2014) 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/or/snow/?cid=nrcs142p2_046155. (March 2
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

260

8723 vulnerable given that spawning and rearing are constrained by their location in upper watersheds and the 

8724 species’ requirement for cold water temperatures. Warming water temperatures may reduce the miles of 

8725 stream suitable for bull trout spawning and rearing (Rieman et al. 2007; Wenger et al. 2011). Increased 

8726 water temperatures may also put bull trout at a competitive disadvantage with brook trout where the two 

8727 species overlap (Rodtka and Volpe 2007, McMahon et al. 2007). Williams et al. (2009), hypothesize that 

8728 westslope cutthroat trout populations in northeastern Washington are at high risk due to warming 

8729 temperatures, however Wenger et al. (2011) felt westslope cutthroat trout distribution may not be strongly 

8730 influenced by climate change where brook trout are not present. The potential for WSCT populations to 

8731 hybridize with the non-native rainbow trout is greater in streams with higher mean summer water 

8732 temperatures (Muhlfield et al. 2009). 

8733 While climate change may give brook trout a competitive advantage over bull trout, climate change 

8734 would also influence brook trout distribution. Like bull trout, Wenger et al. (2011) feel brook trout 

8735 populations would be negatively affected by climate change, which may be an advantage to westslope 

8736 cutthroat trout whose distribution appears to be negatively influenced by the presence of brook trout. 

8737 Rainbow and redband trout may not be as susceptible to warmer water temperatures as they generally are 

8738 more tolerant of higher water temperatures (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Issak et al. (2010) found that over a 

8739 13-year period increased stream temperatures, primarily driven by climate and to a lesser degree 

8740 wildfires, minimally affected the thermal habitat for rainbow trout but reduced bull trout habitat.

8741 Climate change would influence the distribution of non-native fishes as well. Warming water 

8742 temperatures may increase the range of non-native predators such as smallmouth bass and northern pike 

8743 (Esox lucius) from large rivers into tributaries. 

8744 The USFWS (2012) in their biological opinion for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project felt that if the 

8745 current climate change models and predictions for Pacific Northwest aquatic habitats are relatively 

8746 accurate, bull trout in the Pend Oreille River basin are likely to be impacted through at least one or more 

8747 of the following pathways:

8748 • Changes in distribution of bull trout within the core area, such as reduced spawning habitat, and/or 

8749 seasonal thermal blockage in the migratory corridors associated with increased stream temperatures

8750 • Disturbance or displacement of eggs, alevins, juveniles, and adults of resident and/or migratory 

8751 adults during winter flooding events

8752 • Short- or long-term changes in habitat and prey species due to stochastic events during winter 

8753 floods

8754 • Changes in flow/out-migration timing in the spring for bull trout and their prey species

8755 • Increased migration stressors from lower stream flows and high stream temperatures during 

8756 spawning migrations

8757 The USFWS (2012) also judged some specific habitat effects may include:

8758 • Changes in flows in Sullivan Creek due to altered snowpack and snowmelt, which may change the 

8759 timing of higher flows in lower Sullivan Creek, resulting in a barrier to bull trout migration in July 

8760 and August.

8761 • Changes in temperature and flows within Sullivan and Slate Creeks may alter the species 

8762 composition and abundance of the macroinvertebrate and fish populations with adverse 

8763 consequences to bull trout food base. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

261

8764 • Increased temperatures in Boundary Reservoir would decrease the amount of time that the reservoir 

8765 is suitable for bull trout migration. Increased temperatures could alter the migratory pattern of bull 

8766 trout for times entering tributary streams to spawn as well as migration times to and from the Lake 

8767 Pend Oreille system. Warmer temperatures within Boundary Reservoir would improve conditions 

8768 for non-native predators. 

8769 Few MIS/focal species fish populations on the Forest are judged to be properly functioning as described 

8770 in the AEC. The negative effects caused by the widespread distribution of the non-native fish may be 

8771 exacerbated by climate change. In the face of climate change efforts to conserve native fish species 

8772 should focus on restoring degraded habitat, improving riparian vegetation, providing habitat and 

8773 population connectivity, providing flows in stream for ecosystem purposes, and providing for a network 

8774 of intact habitats to support large populations (ISAB 2007; Haak and Williams 2012).

8775 Hydrology

8776 This section summarizes effects related to hydrology from the specialist report, with special emphasis on 

8777 the publicly identified issues of “riparian and aquatic resource management,” “access,” and “old forest 

8778 management and timber production” (Day 2015). While other issues, including recommended wilderness, 

8779 and motorized recreation trails are tangentially applicable to water resources, public concerns on these 

8780 issues are not specific to the hydrologic resource. Analysis of the riparian and aquatic resource 

8781 management, access, and old forest management and timber production issues would indirectly address 

8782 the potential effects of recommended wilderness and motorized recreation trails to water resources, and 

8783 how these effects vary across alternatives.

8784 Affected Environment

8785 Setting

8786 Physiography

8787 The Forest is located in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and is bisected from west to east by Lake 

8788 Roosevelt on the Columbia River, impounded by the Grand Coulee Dam, and the Kettle and Selkirk 

8789 mountain ranges in the western and northeastern sections of the forest, respectively. Average elevation is 

8790 3,800 ft. and ranges between 1,394 feet near Lake Roosevelt to 7,200 feet in the high ridges of the Selkirk 

8791 Range. The Selkirk Range includes the Salmo-Priest Wilderness—the only designated wilderness on the 

8792 Forest. 

8793 Climate

8794 Climate is consistent with both maritime and continental regimes, with air masses from both the Pacific 

8795 Ocean and interior North America crossing the region. Climate is influenced primarily by latitude, 

8796 topography, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, prevailing westerly winds, and development and movement 

8797 of weather systems over the North Pacific (Phillips and Durkee 1972). The majority of precipitation falls 

8798 between October and April as snow. Summers are usually dry, with most precipitation associated with 

8799 thunderstorms. Humidity is low throughout the year. 

8800 Annual precipitation varies between 10 to 55 inches per year and increases with elevation. The western8801 most section of the forest is in the rain shadow of the North Cascades and has annual precipitation levels 

8802 of 10 to 15 inches per year. The eastern portion of the Forest has a moist near-maritime climate caused by 

8803 the forcing of westerly air flow over the 5,000- to 7,000-foot peaks of the Kettle River and Selkirk ranges. 

8804 Throughout the year, maritime air from the Pacific exerts a moderating influence on temperatures with 

8805 more extreme summer and winter temperatures caused by drier air from the interior. The greatest 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

262

8806 precipitation levels occur in the Selkirk Mountains, where uplifting of prevailing winds results in 

8807 increased precipitation (Baldwin 2006). 

8808 Geomorphology

8809 The Forest is located in the Okanogan Highlands Section of the northern Rocky Mountain forest-steppe8810 coniferous forest-alpine meadow province, delineated through the national hierarchical framework of 

8811 ecological units (ECOMAP 1993). This framework provides a nationally standardized method for the 

8812 classification, mapping, and description of ecological units at multiple scales based on similarity in 

8813 potential vegetation, climate, and geomorphology. The Okanogan Highlands are characterized by 

8814 moderate slopes with broad, rounded summits weathered from repeated continental glaciation. Ice sheets 

8815 covered the areas during the Pleistocene, and their retreat formed the Columbia and Pend Oreille valleys 

8816 (WA DNR 2015). Glacial scour has exposed rock outcrops on many slopes. Most of the area is covered 

8817 with glacial till, outwash, and debris. Glacial lakes, rivers and streams are common as well as mountains 

8818 with both narrow and broad valleys (McNab and Avers 1994). The history and effects of continental 

8819 glaciation on the Forest is discussed in greater detail in the soils specialist report (Farr and Craigg 2015).

8820 Geology

8821 The Okanogan Highlands is divided into two geographic regions divided by the Columbia River; the 

8822 Selkirk, Chewelah, and Huckleberry Mountains to the east, and the Kettle, and Sanpoil Mountains to the 

8823 west. The eastern Okanogan Highlands contains the oldest sedimentary and metamorphic rocks in 

8824 Washington formed from the deposition of sediments with metasedimentary rocks overlain by layers of 

8825 marine rocks including sandstone (metamorphosed into quartzite), shales, and limestones. The western 

8826 Okanogan Highlands is less complex geologically than the eastern section, and contains metasedimentary 

8827 rocks formed from the deposition of volcanic sediments (Lasmanis 1991). The western Okanogan 

8828 Highlands is an important mineral-producing area with gold, silver, magnetite, pyrite, molybdenum, and 

8829 cobalt mineral deposits (WA DNR 2015).

8830 Land Use History

8831 Historical disturbances and management practices affect water quantity and quality and the physical 

8832 processes within a stream system, including erosion and sedimentation and the distribution of organic 

8833 material (ICBEMP). The combined impacts of past land uses and disturbance patterns as well as current 

8834 management and development have shaped and continue to affect hydrologic function and physical 

8835 stream characteristics. 

8836 Abundant salmon runs attracted the first humans to northeastern Washington, and evidence exists that 

8837 people existed in the region as early as 9,000 to 12,000 years ago (Holstine 1987). Based on the 

8838 availability of salmon, the area became one of the most important prehistoric trading sites in the Pacific 

8839 Northwest; however, effects to the physical environment from early inhabitants were minor and diffuse 

8840 (Holstine 1987). Early uses affecting hydrologic systems increased as European settlers moved into the 

8841 area. The remnants of these activities including mining, logging, homesteads, livestock grazing, and road 

8842 building can be found across the landscape. 

8843 Beginning in the mid-1800s, fur trapping was one of the most widespread uses resulting in significant 

8844 declines in beaver populations. Beaver dams in small streams alter hydrology, geomorphology, and 

8845 habitat, increasing water and sediment storage (Pollack et al. 2003). Beaver dams also dissipate stream 

8846 energy, provide channel stability, and create diverse aquatic habitat (Gurnell 1998). Loss of beaver 

8847 populations has affected hydrology and sediment dynamics and has contributed to channel incision and 

8848 lowering of groundwater levels (Pollack et al. 2003) across the Forest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

263

8849 Fires burned across 160,000 acres of the Forest in 1910. Historical accounts suggest that as late as 1916 

8850 areas that had burned to the ground were still bare. In 1917, fires again swept through the area, burning 

8851 23,000 acres in the western portion of the Forest. Fires in the 1920s burned over half of the timber land on 

8852 the Forest (Holstine 1987). The effects to stream channels of increased erosion, sedimentation, and peak 

8853 flows from these fires can still be observed. Channel incision common in streams across the Forest was 

8854 likely accelerated following the fires of the early 1900s. 

8855 Placer mining of gold began in 1855 and ended by the 1870s when prospectors began upland “hard rock” 

8856 mining for gold, silver, and lead which continues in the present (Holstine 1987). 

8857 Changes in hydrologic and erosional and depositional processes from land uses including homesteading, 

8858 logging agriculture, grazing, mining, road construction, and hydro-developments (dams, irrigation, and 

8859 flood control) have altered flow and sediment regimes, floodplain and riparian function and resulted in 

8860 loss and fragmentation of aquatic habitat (Wissmar 2004). Current land uses including maintenance and 

8861 construction of roads, fire exclusion, silvicultural practices, planned and unplanned wildland fire, mining, 

8862 livestock grazing, and alteration of hydrologic regime and stream morphology through dams and 

8863 diversions, and stream and watershed restoration are discussed in greater detail throughout this section. 

8864 Surface Water Characteristics

8865 Climate, geology, and physiography are large-scale drivers of hydrologic processes, and control 

8866 hydrologic regime and stream channel characteristics. Most streams across the Forest flow through glacial 

8867 outwash within narrow valleys. Present-day glacial lakes and wet valleys are associated with the last 

8868 retreat of glaciers across the region (McNab and Avers 1994). 

8869 Streamflow Regime

8870 Most streams have a snowmelt flow regime with a peak in flow from April-June during spring snowmelt 

8871 and no discernable peaks in discharge from fall/winter rains. The annual hydrograph from 84 years of 

8872 gage data on the Kettle River near Laurier shows the typical seasonal discharge pattern for unregulated 

8873 streams across the Forest.

8874 There are approximately 20 stream gages on or near the Forest, however many of these gages are on 

8875 regulated systems and have variable years of data available. Therefore, streamflow data from these gages 

8876 does not necessarily represent all streamflow regime types on the Forest. Reidy Lierman et al. (2012) 

8877 classified flow regimes for ungaged streams and rivers across Washington using gage data and climactic 

8878 and physical drainage basin characteristics. Across the Forest, 97 percent of streams are categorized as 

8879 either snowmelt, ultra-snowmelt, or snow-rain systems. Only 3 percent of streams are hydrologically 

8880 classified as groundwater systems. Characteristics of these different systems are described in the 

8881 following table (Reidy Lierman et al. 2012). 

8882 Table 83. Hydrologic stream classification for the Colville National Forest (Reidy Lierman et al. 2012)

Stream 

Hydrologic 

Classification

Description

Percent of Streams 

on the Colville 

National Forest

Snowmelt Peak in flow during spring snowmelt, with little discernable 

winter rain influence 84%

Ultra Snowmelt Higher-elevation streams that exhibit a peak at spring slightly 

later in spring than snowmelt-regime streams 12%

Snow-Rain Mixture of spring snowmelt and winter rain 1%

Groundwater Predictable annual minimum and base flow values, exhibit a 

slight increase at snowmelt, but no increase from winter rains 3%
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

264

8883 Water Yield

8884 Water yield refers to the runoff from a drainage basin and is calculated as precipitation minus 

8885 evapotranspiration. Physiography, geology, and spatial variation in the magnitude and timing of 

8886 precipitation are controls of water yields for streams and rivers across the Forest. Water yield at low-flow 

8887 was calculated for select gages across the Forest based on average streamflow (cubic feet/second (cfs)) in 

July and August divided by the drainage area upstream of the stream gage (mi2 8888 ) for the development of 

8889 the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Forest (discussed later in this section). In the drier,

8890 western section of the Forest water yields are less than in the wetter, eastern portion of the Forest.

8891 Colville National Forest Contribution to Water Supply

8892 Brown and Froemke (2009) estimated the annual contribution of water supply for all National Forests in 

8893 the contiguous United States based on data from 1953 to 1994. Water supply estimates were calculated as 

8894 “precipitation minus natural evapotranspiration,” with the assumption that water that infiltrates into the 

8895 soil is not evaporated or transpired is eventually available as surface water (Brown and Froemke 2009). 

8896 Estimated annual contribution to water supply from lands within the Forest administrative boundary is 

8897 65,121 million cubic feet per year. Estimated annual contribution from lands within the Forest ownership 

8898 boundary is 51,525 cubic feet per year. 

8899 Watershed Hierarchy and Spatial Bounds of Analysis

8900 Major Drainage Basins

8901 The Forest is located entirely in the Columbia River basin, which originates in Canada and flows 

8902 southwest through Washington forming the border between Washington and Oregon to its mouth at the 

8903 Pacific Ocean. Major river basins include the Pend Oreille, Sanpoil, Kettle, and Colville. The Pend 

8904 Oreille River originates in Montana, flows through Idaho into Washington where it flows north into 

8905 Canada to its mouth at the Columbia River. The Pend Oreille River is the fourth largest contributor of 

8906 streamflow to the Columbia River. The Forest east of the Selkirk Mountain Crest drains into the Pend 

8907 Oreille River. The Sanpoil River drains the southwest portion of the Forest west of the Kettle Crest and 

8908 flows directly into Lake Roosevelt downstream of the Forest administrative boundary. The Kettle River 

8909 receives most of the runoff from the northwestern portion on the Forest. It flows north into Canada, and 

8910 south to its confluence with Lake Roosevelt (Columbia River) west of the community of Kettle Falls. The 

8911 Colville River drains the central portion of the Forest east of the Selkirk Range, and west of Lake 

8912 Roosevelt. The Colville River drains into the eastern side of Lake Roosevelt near Kettle Falls.

8913 Watershed Hierarchy

8914 A watershed is an area of land where all the water drains into a particular water body. Watersheds occur at 

8915 various scales and are appropriate boundaries for hydrologic analysis because physical processes 

8916 including rainfall, precipitation, runoff, erosion, and sedimentation interact within watershed boundaries 

8917 to shape the landscape (MacDonald 2015), affecting hydrologic function, stream condition, water quality, 

8918 and water uses. 

8919 Watershed boundaries are delineated for this analysis using the hydrologic unit (HU) system. Hydrologic 

8920 units are delineated and classified by the USGS based on size using a standard nested-hierarchical system 

8921 with six levels of classification of successively smaller watersheds (FGDC 2005). Individual hydrologic 

8922 units are denoted both numerically by a unique hydrologic unit code, and name. Classification and 

8923 general size of hydrologic units within the system are shown in table 84. The table also includes an 

8924 example of both the name and number of the hydrologic hierarchy of the Ninemile subwatershed.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

265

8925 Table 84. Classification, naming conventions, and average size of hydrologic units in the hydrologic unit 

8926 code system

HU name # of digits 

in HUC

HU Level Average Size (mi2

) Example Name Example 

Number

Region 2 1st 180,000 Pacific Northwest 

Region

17

Subregion 4 2nd 17,000 Upper Columbia 

Subregion

1702

Basin 6 3rd 10,000 Upper Columbia Basin 170200

Subbasin 8 4th 700 Sanpoil Subbasin 17020004

Watershed 10 5th 227

(40,000-250,000 acres)

Upper Sanpoil 

Watershed

1702000401

Subwatershed 

(SWS)

12 6th 4

(10,000-40,000 acres)

Ninemile Subwatershed 170200040107

8927 The Forest is located in the Pacific Northwest region, two subregions, and the Pend Oreille, Upper 

8928 Columbia, and Spokane basins.

8929 Table 85. Region, subregions, and basins on the Colville National Forest

Region Region 

Number

Subregion Subregion 

Number

Basin Basin 

Number

Kooteney, Pend Oreille, and 

Spokane River Basins Subregion

1701 Pend Oreille Basin

Spokane Basin

170102

170103

Pacific 

Northwest 

Region

17 Upper Columbia; Columbia River 

above the confluence with the 

Snake River, excluding the 

Yakima River Subregion

1702 Upper Columbia 170200

8930 The administrative forest boundary of the Forest is located within six subbasins, all within the Columbia 

8931 River drainage. A small portion of the administrative forest (15,826 acres) falls within the Upper Spokane 

8932 subbasin. Although a portion of the Forest administrative boundary falls within the Upper Spokane 

8933 subbasin, there is no Forest Service ownership within the subbasin. Therefore, RHCAs, roads, and other 

8934 features affecting hydrologic function are generally not analyzed in the Upper Spokane subbasin. 

8935 Subbasins on the Forest and the percentage of each subbasin within the Forest administrative boundary 

8936 are shown in the following table.

8937 Table 86. Subbasins within the Colville National Forest administrative boundary

HUC 8 

Number

Subbasin Name Colville National 

Forest

Administrative 

Acres

Total Acres (in 

U.S. only)

% subbasin within 

Colville National 

Forest Administrative 

Forest

17020001 Upper Columbia River 

(FDR Lake)

212,863 1,327,733 16

17020002 Kettle River 321,743 659,201 49

17020003 Colville River 145,579 650,712 22

17020004 Sanpoil River 105,291 627,732 17

17010216 Pend Oreille River 557,449 698,349 80

17010308 Little Spokane 15,826 453,912 3
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

266

8938 There are 27 5th field watersheds within greater than 1 percent of land area within the Forest 

8939 administrative boundary. The hierarchy of these watersheds within their respective subbasins and percent 

8940 acres of the Forest administrative boundary within each watershed are shown in the following table.

8941 Table 87. Watersheds within the Colville National Forest administrative boundary

Subbasin Watershed Name HUC 10 Total 

Acres (in 

U.S. and 

Canada)

Colville National 

Forest

Administrative 

Acres

% Watershed 

within Colville 

National Forest

Administrative 

Forest

Upper Columbia 

River (FDR Lake)

Deep Creek 1702000110 122,290 66,529 54

Big Sheep Creek 1702000111 143,633 15,060 10

Onion Creek-Franklin D 

Roosevelt Lake

1702000112 186,401 19,895 11

Sherman Creek-Franklin D 

Roosevelt Lake

1702000113 211,509 94,641 45

Hall Creek-Franklin D 

Roosevelt Lake

1702000114 110,157 16,741 15

Kettle River Boundary Creek 1702000210 147,279 1,844 1

Rock Creek-Kettle River 1702000211 152,801 1,829 1

Toroda Creek 1702000212 104,125 7,698 7

Curlew Creek 1702000213 98,976 43,232 44

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle 

River

1702000217 154,221 71,280 46

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 1702000219 180,245 131,405 73

Deadman Creek-Kettle 

River

1702000220 102,133 64,423 63

Colville River Chewelah Creek-Colville 

River

1702000301 273,840 72,981 27

Little Pend Oreille River 1702000302 117,703 19,537 17

Mill Creek 1702000303 90,809 45,556 50

Stensgar Creek-Colville 

River

1702000304 168,840 7,508 4

Sanpoil River Upper Sanpoil River 1702000401 181,184 99,663 55

West Fork Sanpoil River 1702000402 198,987 4,828 2

Middle Sanpoil River 1702000403 120,607 802 1

Pend Oreille River Calispell Creek 1701021601 91,577 64,144 70

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille 

River

1701021602 195,073 125,202 64

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille 

River

1701021603 159,801 145,116 91

Sullivan Creek 1701021604 91,224 91,203 100

South Salmo River 1701021607 62,989 15,944 25

Slate Creek-Pend Oreille 

River

1701021609 127,186 105,844 93

Cedar Creek-Pend Oreille 

River

1701021610 59,488 10,007 17

Little Spokane Upper Little Spokane River 1701030801 178,244 15,826 9
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

267

8942 There are 109 subwatersheds with acreage in the Forest administrative boundary. There are 

8943 104 subwatersheds with greater than 5 percent of total area in the Forest administrative boundary, and 

8944 75 subwatersheds with greater than 25 percent of total area in the Forest boundary. There have been 

8945 several changes to subwatershed names and numbers since the forest plan revision process began. 

8946 Subwatersheds and 5th field watersheds used in this analysis reflect the most current acreages, names, and 

8947 numbers at the time this analysis was completed in 2014. 

8948 The terms subbasin, watershed, subwatershed, priority watershed, focus watershed, and key watershed are 

8949 used throughout this section. While the term watershed can refer specifically to a 5th field watershed 

8950 designated in the hydrologic unit system, the term also refers to the drainage area that contributes runoff 

8951 to a specific stream. Throughout this section priority and key watersheds are delineated at the 

8952 subwatershed scale, and focus watersheds are delineated at the 5th field watershed scale.

8953 Existing condition is analyzed at different watershed scales depending on the type of analysis, quality and 

8954 extent of data, and the scale that best fits the intent of the analysis. Existing condition is primarily 

8955 analyzed at the scale of the Forest administrative boundary. Where appropriate, existing condition is 

8956 analyzed at the smaller subwatershed scale. The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) described in 

8957 detail later in this document analyzed data for subwatersheds with greater than 25 percent Forest 

8958 administrative ownership. The spatial and temporal bounds for effects analysis are described under

8959 Environmental Consequences in this section.

8960 Existing Condition—Watershed Function, Water Quality, Quantity, and Water Uses

8961 Watershed Function

8962 Watershed hydrologic function includes the processes that convert precipitation to streamflow, including 

8963 canopy interception, snowmelt, surface runoff, infiltration, subsurface flow, and groundwater flow. 

8964 Hydrologic function is influenced by upland physical and vegetation condition, ground cover, soil 

8965 properties and function, stream channel condition, and riparian vegetation condition, all of which affect 

8966 the rate and timing of water, nutrients, and sediment into streams. Watershed function is a component of 

8967 ecosystem function where ecosystems are dynamic and resilient to perturbations to structure, 

8968 composition, and processes of their biological and physical components (USDA 1998), and includes 

8969 hydrologic, vegetative, aquatic, and riparian biological characteristics, physical structure, and water 

8970 quality.

8971 Watershed Condition

8972 A fundamental goal of the Forest Service is “To protect NFS watersheds by implementing practices 

8973 designed to maintain and improve watershed condition, which is the foundation for sustaining ecosystems 

8974 and the production of renewable natural resources, values, and benefits” (FSM 2521). Watershed 

8975 condition is defined as “The state of the physical and biological characteristics and processes within a 

8976 watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil functions supporting aquatic ecosystems” (Potyondy and 

8977 Geier 2010). Properly functioning watersheds have five characteristics (Williams et al. 1997, and 

8978 Potyondy and Geier 2010):

8979 • Provide for high biotic integrity, and support adaptive animal and plant communities that reflect 

8980 natural processes;

8981 • Resilient and recover rapidly from natural and human disturbances;

8982 • Exhibit a high degree of connectivity along the stream both laterally across the floodplain and 

8983 valley bottom, and vertically between surface and subsurface flows;
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

268

8984 • Important ecosystem services including high water quality, recharge of streams and aquifers, 

8985 maintenance of riparian communities, and resiliency to climate variability and change;

8986 • Maintain long-term soil function.

8987 The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) was conceptualized at the National scale to change the 

8988 Forest Service’s approach to landscape and watershed restoration. The WCF established a nationally 

8989 consistent approach to classify watersheds based on underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic 

8990 functions and targets implementation of focused restoration activities in priority subwatersheds. The WCF 

8991 provides outcome-based performance measures for documentation of improvement in watershed 

8992 condition at Forest, Regional, and National scales (Potyondy and Geier 2010). 

8993 National Forests throughout the U.S. implemented the WCF process in 2010. Subwatersheds on the 

8994 Forest were classified into three categories through the WCF based on classes described in FSM 2521.1

8995 and Potyondy and Geier (2010):

8996 • Class 1: Functioning Properly—SWSs that exhibit high geomorphic hydrologic, and biotic 

8997 integrity relative to natural potential conditions. The watershed is functioning similar to natural 

8998 wildland conditions (Karr and Chu 1999, Lackey 2001). There are minimal adverse human impacts 

8999 on natural physical or biological processes, and the watershed is able to naturally recover to 

9000 previous condition in response to natural and human disturbance (Yount and Neimi 1990);

9001 • Class 2: Functioning at Risk—SWSs exhibit moderate integrity as described above;

9002 • Class 3: Impaired Function—SWSs exhibit low integrity as described above. Adverse human 

9003 impacts have caused a threshold to be exceeded where the watershed is no longer as resilient to 

9004 physical and biological processes.

9005 Subwatersheds are classified by watershed condition framework based on geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

9006 biotic integrity relative to potential natural condition, which relates to geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

9007 biological watershed function. Integrity is evaluated in the context of the natural disturbance regime and 

9008 geoclimatic setting and includes aquatic and terrestrial components because water quality and aquatic 

9009 habitat are related to the integrity and functionality of the upland and riparian areas across the watershed 

9010 (Potyondy and Geier 2010).

9011 The watershed condition framework classification process includes four process categories including 

9012 “aquatic physical,” “aquatic biological,” “terrestrial physical,” and “terrestrial biological.” These process 

9013 categories are represented by 12 indicators comprised of attributes that represent underlying ecological 

9014 function and processes that affect soil and hydrologic function (Potyondy and Geier 2010). Each indicator 

9015 attribute receives a rating that is summed and averaged to produce an indicator score. The indicator scores 

9016 within each process category are averaged, and the final watershed condition score is computed as a 

9017 weighted average of the four process category scores. 

9018 The results of the watershed condition framework for the Forest with data compiled in 2010 are used 

9019 throughout this analysis to describe the existing condition of attributes and indicators that affect 

9020 watershed function for SWSs across the Forest. Certain parameters have been updated with greater detail 

9021 to reflect newer data analyzed for the Forest Plan Revision process. This process is discussed in greater 

9022 detail elsewhere in this document. Additional analysis is discussed in the following sections where 

9023 applicable. Results of the watershed condition framework by subwatershed are shown in table 88.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

269

9024 Table 88. Results of the watershed condition framework summarized by number of subwatersheds within 

9025 each condition class

Process 

Category Indicator Attribute

Class 1 

Functioning 

Properly

(# of 

Subwatersheds)

Class 2 

Functioning at 

Risk (# of 

Subwatersheds)

Class 3 Impaired 

Function (# of 

Subwatersheds)

Aquatic Physical 64 24 1

Water Quality 67 13 9

Impaired Waters 61 19 9

Water Quality 

Problems 58 22 9

Water Quantity Flow 

Characteristics 86 3 0

Aquatic Habitat 11 47 31

Habitat 

Fragmentation 48 16 25

Large Woody 

Debris 15 44 30

Channel Shape 

and Function 4 80 5

Aquatic Biological 13 37 39

Aquatic Biota 12 26 51

Life Form 

Presence 12 26 51

Native Species 12 26 51

Exotic and/or 

Invasive Species 12 26 51

Riparian 

Wetland 

Vegetation

Vegetation 

Condition 34 21 34

Terrestrial Physical 15 74 0

Roads and 

Trails 5 11 73

Open Road 

Density 6 9 74

Road 

Maintenance 5 9 75

Proximity to 

Water 6 10 73

+Mass Wasting n/a n/a n/a

Soils

Soil Productivity 89 0 0

Soil Erosion 89 0 0

Soil 

Contamination 79 10 0
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

270

Process 

Category Indicator Attribute

Class 1 

Functioning 

Properly

(# of 

Subwatersheds)

Class 2 

Functioning at 

Risk (# of 

Subwatersheds)

Class 3 Impaired 

Function (# of 

Subwatersheds)

Terrestrial Biological 89 0 0

Fire Regime Fire Condition 

Class 32 57 0

Forest Cover Loss of Forest 

Cover

89 0 0

*Rangeland 

Vegetation

*Vegetation 

Condition 83 2 0

Terrestrial 

Invasive 

Species

Extent and Rate 

of Spread 85 4 0

Forest Health 87 2 0

Insect and 

Disease 64 23 2

Ozone 89 0 0

Final Score 15 73 1

9026 +Mass wasting was not assessed in this analysis, but is addressed elsewhere in this document.

9027 *Attribute and indicator assessed only in subwatersheds with range allotments

9028 Composite results of the WCF for the Forest indicate that 82 percent of SWSs are “functioning at risk.” 

9029 Only 1 SWS was rated as “not functional,” and 15 SWSs are “functioning properly.” Scores in the aquatic 

9030 physical process category are generally good, with 72 percent of SWSs functioning properly. Both water 

9031 quality and water quantity attributes show the majority of SWSs “functioning properly.” Aquatic habitat 

9032 conditions are the primary driver of reduced function within the aquatic physical process category; 

9033 88 percent of SWS were rated as either functioning at risk or not functional for the aquatic habitat 

9034 indicator. 

9035 Scores are low across the aquatic biological process category, with scores of functioning at risk and not 

9036 functional for most indicators and attributes. Riparian wetland condition scores are higher than other 

9037 indicators and attributes in this process category. Aquatic habitat is discussed in greater detail in the 

9038 aquatics BA/BE (MacDonald 2015). 

9039 Within the Terrestrial Physical process category, roads attributes and indicators are the primary driver of 

9040 low scores. Eighty-three percent of SWSs received not functional scores in all road attributes and 

9041 indicators. Roads are discussed in greater detail in the roads section of this analysis. Soil attributes and 

9042 indicators were rated functioning properly across most SWSs.

9043 Most indicators and attributes within the Terrestrial Biological process category are rated functional, with 

9044 a greater percentage of SWSs falling within the functional at risk category in the fire condition class and 

9045 insect and disease attributes.

9046 Select indicators and attributes from the WCF were used in the aquatic ecological condition (AEC) model 

9047 to assess the function of aquatic ecological conditions and its ability to support viable populations of 

9048 aquatic focal species. The AEC model was used to determine key watersheds in the forest planning 

9049 process and to assess aquatic species viability. The AEC process and results are discussed in the fisheries 

9050 report (MacDonald 2015). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

271

9051 Streams

9052 There are approximately 2,483 miles of perennial streams that flow throughout the year within the Forest 

9053 administrative boundary. There are approximately 4,191 miles of intermittent streams across the Forest 

9054 that flow either seasonally or spatially (flow subsurface in some reaches). The intermittent stream 

9055 category for purposes of this analysis also includes ephemeral channels, which flow for a short period 

9056 following precipitation or snowmelt. Ephemeral streams generally do not have the surface groundwater 

9057 interaction to support riparian or wetland vegetation and do not show evidence of yearly scour. Other 

9058 water features on the Forest include lakes, ponds, reservoir, and seeps and springs.

9059 Stream Channel Condition and Function

9060 Stream channel condition and function is affected by processes occurring throughout a watershed. Stream 

9061 channel condition is often discussed in terms of the habitat it provides for fish; however channel 

9062 conditions also affect how stream system responds to changes in inputs of water, nutrients and sediment 

9063 from natural or anthropogenic disturbance. Although stream systems are variable, functional streams are 

9064 generally more resilient to disturbance and recover from faster than non-functional systems. 

9065 The “channel shape and function” attribute was assessed for WCF using stream channel condition data 

9066 collected using the level II Region 6 stream inventory protocol (USDA 2012(b)) for most named streams 

9067 across the Forest. Streams in most SWSs are functioning at risk (80) with four SWSs functioning 

9068 properly, and five SWSs with impaired function.

9069 Data collected on stream channel variables that are indicators of channel shape and function under the 

9070 PACFISH INFISH Effectiveness Monitoring Program (PIBO EMP) collected on selected reaches across 

9071 the Forest since 2001 indicate that channel conditions in reaches in managed watersheds are poorer than 

9072 in reference reaches located in watersheds with minimal disturbance. See MacDonald 2015 for further 

9073 discussion of the PIBO EMP and results of monitoring.

9074 Riparian and Wetland Function

9075 Although riparian and wetland ecosystems comprise a small portion of lands on the Forest, they provide 

9076 important ecological function and habitat for plants and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (Wissmar 2004). 

9077 Riparian areas and wetlands provide ecological, economic, and social benefits and are valued for 

9078 recreation, livestock grazing, mining, transportation corridors, and water supply for cropland and 

9079 irrigation (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer 2004). They provide a linkage between upland and stream habitats 

9080 and are important habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and a variety of plants. Vegetation production 

9081 is generally higher in wetland and riparian ecosystems than in the uplands, and riparian structure and 

9082 function influence the rate, amount, and timing of discharge of water, sediment, nutrients, and other 

9083 potential pollutants (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer 2004). 

9084 Historical and current uses in riparian areas have influenced structure, composition, and function of these 

9085 ecosystems, and conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of function is a high priority on the Forest. 

9086 Riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems are diverse in eastern Washington, with 163 recognized 

9087 aquatic, wetland, and riparian plant associations or community types (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer 2004).

9088 Riparian Areas

9089 Riparian areas act as a filtration system for overland water and sediment runoff before it enters the stream 

9090 system. This function is especially important where watersheds have experienced disturbance or 

9091 management that alters the routing of water and sediment upslope of the riparian area. Trees and shrubs in 

9092 riparian areas create shade, regulate air, soil, and water temperature, and provide inputs of downed trees 

9093 and woody debris to the stream system (Wissmar 2004). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

272

9094 Roots of riparian vegetation provide bank stability and slow the rate of erosion and potential channel 

9095 migration (Gregory et al. 1991). Riparian vegetation also slows flowing water during high flow events, 

9096 trapping sediment within the floodplain (Platts et al. 1985), resulting in a reduction in the sediment load in 

9097 flood water (Wondzell 2001).

9098 INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) designates riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) to be 

9099 managed for the benefit of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Since RHCAs are designated by width 

9100 rather than riparian function or existence of riparian vegetation, there is often upland vegetation on the 

9101 outer width of RHCAs. RHCA widths designated by INFISH vary based on stream/wetland type and are 

9102 wider in priority watersheds (designated by INFISH). Acres of RHCA across the Forest by stream type 

9103 are shown in table 89. Since RHCA width only apply to management on lands owned by the Forest, 

9104 RHCA acreage is calculated for lands owned by the Forest rather than lands within the Colville National 

9105 Forest administrative boundary.

9106 Table 89. Existing riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) acreage on the Colville National Forest within 

9107 the administrative boundary

RHCA Designation/Description RHCA Width (ft.) RHCA Acres across the 

Colville National Forest

Fish Bearing Perennial 300 35,427

Non-fish Bearing Perennial 150 49,075

INFISH Natural Waterbody; ponds, lakes, 

reservoirs

150 6,091

INFISH Non-fish Bearing Intermittent 50 25,987

INFISH Wetland less than 1 acre 50 805

INFISH Wetland >1 acre 150 14,736

Priority Watershed No Fish Intermittent 100 15,904

Priority Watershed Wetlands less than 1 acre 100 233

Priority Watershed Wetlands > 1 acre 150 2,434

Total 150,692

9108 Riparian Wetland Vegetation Condition

9109 Conditions across riparian areas on the Forest vary across subwatersheds. Thirty-four subwatersheds are 

9110 rated as properly functioning; these riparian areas have native mid to late seral vegetation in dynamic 

9111 equilibrium with the stream or wetland system in greater than 80 percent of riparian areas. Twenty-one 

9112 subwatersheds are rated as functioning at risk with native vegetation showing a moderate loss of vigor, 

9113 with a lesser component of mid to late seral vegetation occupying 25 to 80 percent of riparian areas. 

9114 Thirty-four subwatersheds are rated as “not functional,” with native vegetation displaying a loss in vigor 

9115 and cover and composition are mostly early seral. Riparian areas in SWSs rated not functional are 

9116 generally disconnected from surface water and shallow groundwater, and reflect the loss of available soil 

9117 water (Potyondy and Geier 2010).

9118 Degraded riparian conditions are influenced by livestock grazing, mining, timber harvest and associated 

9119 infrastructure, fire suppression, and road construction and use. Riparian conditions are also affected by 

9120 stream channel function and the ability of the stream system to provide water to support persistence of 

9121 riparian vegetation. Channel incision can lower the water table, making the water table too low to support 

9122 riparian vegetation (Wondzell and Swanson 1999).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

273

9123 Wetlands

9124 Wetlands are critical for water storage and slowing the release of flood water and snow melt, recharge 

9125 groundwater, and recycle nutrients (Keddy 2010). The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is a detailed 

9126 spatial inventory of wetland data mapped across the lower 48 states competed by the U.S. Fish and 

9127 Wildlife Service. Wetland type and acreage across the Forest are shown in table 90. 

9128 Table 90. Riparian and wetland acreage for the Colville National Forest (National Wetlands Inventory)

Wetland Type General Description Total Acres

Freshwater Emergent Wetland Herbaceous marsh, fen, swale, or wet 

meadow, palustrine emergent

5,001

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Forested swamp or shrub bog wetland, 

palustrine forested/shrub

6,767

Total 11,768

9129 Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems

9130 Groundwater is the portion of precipitation that infiltrates into soil and bedrock and flows subsurface until 

9131 it reaches the surface in streams, lakes, springs, seeps, and wetlands (USDA Forest Service 2014(b)). 

9132 Ground and surface water are interconnected, with groundwater contributing to flow, chemistry, and 

9133 temperature of streams, lakes, springs, and wetlands, providing the water to support terrestrial and aquatic 

9134 plants and animals. Groundwater is also critical to water supply and provides drinking water to 

9135 communities across the country (USDA Forest Service 2007). 

9136 Groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are areas that require access to groundwater to maintain the 

9137 community of plants, animals, and physical processes. Examples of GDEs include, springs, seeps, fens, 

9138 and wetlands. Proper hydrologic function is critical to maintaining conditions in GDEs that support 

9139 wetland plants and animals. Management activities with the potential to impact GDEs include grazing, 

9140 road building and maintenance, recreation, vegetation management, large wildfires, and climate change. 

9141 Impacts to GDEs from these activities are mitigated through standards, guidelines, and BMPs, which are 

9142 discussed in the effects analysis of this section.

9143 Inventories of GDEs on the Forest have primarily been completed at the project level. The national 

9144 hydrography dataset (NHD) shows mapped springs and seeps and provides a basis for quantifying springs 

9145 and seeps across the Forest, however this dataset underrepresents the actual number of springs, seeps, and 

9146 other groundwater dependent ecosystems. A summary of the number of springs and seeps across the 

9147 Forest from NHD data is shown in table 91. Location of GDEs can also be approximated using the 

9148 National Wetland Inventory’s categorization of palustrine emergent wetlands which occupy only 12 acres 

9149 on the Forest. Data from the NWI also underrepresents GDEs and underscores the need for project-level 

9150 analysis of location and condition of GDEs during planning.

9151 The Forest Service released a draft groundwater management directive on May 7, 2014, to amend its 

9152 internal direction to establish comprehensive direction for management of groundwater resources on NFS 

9153 lands. The intent of the proposed directive was to clarify roles and establish new processes and 

9154 procedures for special uses involving withdrawal of groundwater resources (FSM 2560(draft)). The 

9155 proposed directive was withdrawn on June 19, 2015, because concerns were raised through collaboration 

9156 with tribes, conservation organizations, States and other organizations that the proposed directive may 

9157 exceed the Agency’s authorities and infringe on State authorities to allocate water (Federal Register 

9158 2015). The intent of any new groundwater directive would be to establish a clear and consistent approach 

9159 for evaluation and monitoring of the effects of different actions on groundwater resources on NFS lands 

9160 through a collaborative process (Federal Register 2015). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

274

9161 Groundwater Aquifers

9162 The Forest is underlain by aquifers that occur in pre-Miocene rocks including igneous, metamorphic, 

9163 volcanic, and marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks that vary in permeability and water yield. Higher 

9164 water-yielding aquifers in unconsolidated-deposits consisting of primarily of sand and gravel with lesser 

9165 components of clay and silt occupy less than 25 percent of the Forest land base (Whitehead 1994). 

9166 Aquifers occurring in unconsolidated deposits occur primarily in the eastern portion of the Forest. 

9167 Surface and Groundwater Interaction

9168 The interaction between surface and groundwater is a function of climate, geology and aquifers, and soils. 

9169 Soil affects how water moves across the landscape, and the quantity and timing of stream discharge. Soil 

9170 water movement was modeled across the Forest using soil erodibility, soil runoff potential, and soil 

9171 available water storage (Farr et al. 2015). Soil water flow categorization and description, and springs and 

9172 seeps (from NHD) are shown in table 91.

9173 Table 91. Soil water flow category acreage across the Colville National Forest administrative forest and 

9174 number of springs and seeps within each soil water flow category

Soil Water Flow 

Category

Description Total Acres Number of Seeps 

and Springs

Runoff Primary water movement is on the surface of 

the soil

393,297 61

Storage Water primarily infiltrates and is stored in the 

soil

693,438 116

Lateral Flow Water infiltrates and water movement is 

primarily subsurface

180,149 29

No Category n/a 0 5

Total 1,266,884 211

9175 Over half (54 percent) of the area of the Forest have soils that support infiltration and storage. Thirty-one 

9176 percent of the soils support runoff of water across the soil surface; however, runoff potential is also 

9177 affected by vegetation and litter cover, and precipitation intensity. Lateral flow is the primary soil water 

9178 flow mechanism on 14 percent of soils across the Forest. Springs and seeps are most prevalent in areas 

9179 where storage is the primary soil water flow mechanism.

9180 Land Uses and Disturbances Affecting Watershed Function

9181 Climate, topography, geology/soils and topography interact to affect runoff, erosion, and ultimately water 

9182 quality and quantity, and stream channel function (Elliot 2010). The primary land uses that affect 

9183 watershed function addressed in this section include vegetation management, wildland fire, insect and 

9184 disease outbreaks, grazing, roads, and watershed restoration. 

9185 The Role of Upland Vegetation Condition in Hydrologic Processes

9186 Forest vegetation plays a significant role in hydrologic processes (Hubbart 2007). In an intact forest 

9187 ecosystem when precipitation falls as rain, vegetation intercepts a percentage of water that evaporates 

9188 back into the atmosphere. Un-intercepted precipitation falls to the forest floor, where uncompacted soils 

9189 and the vegetative litter layer allow water to slowly infiltrate into the soil. Infiltrated water enters the 

9190 groundwater system where it is used by plants and other organisms, and transpired back into the 

9191 atmosphere through plant photosynthesis. Infiltrated groundwater eventually flows back onto the surface, 

9192 feeding streams, lakes, rivers, springs, and other surface waters. A small percentage of precipitation may 

9193 not be intercepted or infiltrated and may travel overland in a process known as overland flow. Overland 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

275

9194 flow is limited on forested lands with little disturbance to locations where precipitation intensity exceeds 

9195 infiltration capacity (Horton overland flow), when soils are saturated and precipitation continues to fall 

9196 (saturation excess overland flow), or disturbance results in soil compaction or loss of ground cover.

9197 Precipitation falling as snow is associated with climatic processes, but is also dependent on forest cover. 

9198 In winter, trees intercept significant amounts of snow that often sublimates (changes directly from solid to 

9199 gas state) and never reaches the ground, reducing the amount of precipitation available to infiltrate or run 

9200 off the landscape (Elliot 2010). Creation of canopy openings can alter rates of snow accumulation and 

9201 alter the timing of snowmelt (Troendle and King 1985). Troendle et al. (2001) report that in coniferous 

9202 forests in cold snow zones, 25 to 35 percent of snow would be intercepted and sublimated or evaporated. 

9203 Studies have shown that snow water equivalent and snow melt rates are higher in open areas than in 

9204 forested areas (McCaughey and Farnes 2001, Skidmore et al. 1994). In a study in northern Idaho, 

9205 measured snow water equivalent was 200mm less under a canopy than in an open area (Hubbart 2007). 

9206 The effect of changes in upland vegetation on hydrologic function is dependent on the processes through 

9207 which changes in vegetation cover affect water cycle components, including evapotranspiration, snow 

9208 accumulation and melt rates, infiltration, and overland flow (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Removal of canopy 

9209 cover through timber harvest, insect and disease outbreaks, or wildland fire alters the hydrologic cycle by 

9210 reducing interception by vegetation, altering evaporation and transpiration. Removal of vegetation and 

9211 organic matter from the forest floor can also increase watershed runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. 

9212 Removal of leaf litter and other vegetation material from the forest floor also increase runoff and erosion 

9213 and sedimentation processes (Robichaud et al. 1993). Removal of forested vegetation can also affect 

9214 water yield and peak flows. Reduction in canopy cover interception and evapotranspiration can increase 

9215 the amount of precipitation available and the timing of runoff and recharge to surface water systems 

9216 (Goodell 1965, Woods 1966). Effects to hydrologic process and function for timber harvest, die-off from 

9217 insect and disease, and wildland fire are shown in table 92.

9218 Table 92. Affects to hydrologic processes from timber harvest, die-off from insect and disease outbreaks, 

9219 and wildland fire (Adams et al. 2012)

Associated Change Die-off Harvest Fire

Canopy Cover Loss X X X

Soil Compaction from Vegetation Removal 

Activities

X (if salvaged) X X (if salvaged)

Heat-induced soil water repellency X

Litter layer/understory burning X

Water yield X X X

Increased peak flows X X X

9220 Timber Harvest

9221 Direct removal of vegetation through timber harvest can affect watershed processes including runoff, 

9222 erosion, and sedimentation, water yield, and peak flows; however, the infrastructure to support vegetation 

9223 removal has the greatest impact to hydrologic processes and function. Furniss et al. (1991) concluded that 

9224 forest roads contribute more sediment than all other forest activities combined on a per-unit area basis 

9225 (Meehan 1991). The majority of sediment from timber harvest activities is related to road construction 

9226 and increased use of existing roads (Lee et al. 1997, Chamberlain et al. 1991, Dunne and Leopold 1978). 

9227 Removal of trees through timber harvest can also affect water yield. Studies on the effects of vegetation 

9228 removal on water yield show highly variable effects, and generally have not been undertaken on a scale 

9229 greater than small watersheds (Ziemer 1987). At small scales, changes in water yield are easier to 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

276

9230 measure, while changes in runoff per unit area are hard to measure directly for larger areas because 

9231 changes are too small for direct measurement (Huff et al. 2000). In conifer forests a reduction in forest 

9232 cover less than 20 percent, resulted in no detectable increase in water yield (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; 

9233 Stednick 1996). Megahan et al. (1995) found no significant increase in either annual or monthly 

9234 streamflow in a paired catchment study in Idaho, where 23 percent of one watershed was clearcut through 

9235 helicopter-logging and burned. A study on a clear-cut in 25 percent of the study basin in the Uinta 

9236 Mountains of Utah found up to a 147mm (52 percent) increase in annual water yield with the largest 

9237 increases in May to August. Increases in water yield persisted for the 20 years data was collected after 

9238 harvest (Burton 1997). A 30-year study of watershed response to timber practices at the High Ridge 

9239 evaluation area in the Northern Blue Mountain showed low-magnitude, short-term increases in water 

9240 yield after clear cutting (Helvey et al. 1995). 

9241 The greatest relative increases in water yield and streamflow from vegetation removal in the Pacific 

9242 Northwest are observed in the summer low-flow season, however larger overall increases occur during 

9243 snowmelt (Harr 1979; Troendle et al. 2001; Brown et al. 2005). In a study in northwestern California, 

9244 Keppeler and Ziemer (1990) found that relative water yields were greater during summer low-flow, than 

9245 annual flows, with increases diminishing 5 years post-harvest.

9246 Generally, water yield increases in proportion to forest vegetation removed, with lower magnitude in 

9247 response in dry regions (Stednick 1996; Brown et al. 2005). Water yield typically increases in the first 

9248 year following fire or logging, but slowly decreases to pre-disturbance levels as vegetation reestablishes 

9249 (Hibbert 1967; Peterson et al. 2009). The magnitude of increases in water yield is dependent on 

9250 precipitation patterns 2 to 3 years after disturbance as vegetation begins to recover. The duration of water 

9251 yield and peak flow increases following vegetation removal or mortality is dependent on timing and 

9252 intensity of precipitation and snowmelt rates (MacDonald 2000), and rate of vegetation recovery. Areas 

9253 with high precipitation generally have vegetation regenerate resulting in the rapid return of streamflow to 

9254 pre-disturbance state. However, these same higher-precipitation watersheds also have the most 

9255 pronounced, yet short-lived increase in water yield (Stanley and Arp 2002). Therefore, short-term 

9256 increases in water yield may be more pronounced on the eastern side of the Forest. Smaller magnitude 

9257 increases in water yield would be expected in the drier western section of the Forest, however these 

9258 effects may be longer in duration, as vegetation may take longer to reestablish.

9259 While small-scale studies show that water yield can be increased through focused forest management, the 

9260 scale of treatment needed to increase water yield on NFS lands is constrained by a variety of factors. Only 

9261 portions of areas on NFS lands can be economically treated based on physical, environmental, and 

9262 political constraints (Ziemer 1987). Although it has not been studied locally, a 1983 study for NFS lands 

9263 in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California found that if multiple use/sustained yield guidelines were 

9264 followed, water yield could be increased by 1 percent above current levels (Kattelman et al. 1983). This 

9265 increase would likely be undetectable from a water use perspective; U.S. Geological Society stream gages 

9266 usually have up to a 5 percent error (Rothacher 1970). In addition, most of the projected increases would 

9267 occur during snowmelt in wetter years, rather than during summer low-flow and in drought years. 

9268 Vegetation removal also affects peak flows. In a compilation of paired and modeled watershed studies in 

9269 western North America, the largest increases in peak flows were reported for small storms (less than 1 

9270 year recurrence interval), with increases in peak flows diminishing with higher magnitude storms (Grant 

9271 et al. 2008). The largest peak flow increases were in watersheds that had been 100 percent clearcut, but 

9272 there was no pattern between treatment type and magnitude of peak flow increase (Grant et al. 2008). 

9273 While vegetation treatment type affects peak flow, other management treatment considerations including 

9274 road density, hydrologic connectivity, and drainage efficiency (Wemple et al. 1996), and riparian buffer 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

277

9275 widths also influence peak flows (Grant et al. 2008). Increased erosion and runoff from forest roads 

9276 generally have a greater influence on peak flows than vegetation removal (Wemple et al. 2001).

9277 Potential effects of timber harvest and vegetation removal are mitigated through BMPs and 

9278 implementation of forest plan standards and guidelines, including limiting the temporal and spatial scale 

9279 of treatments, limiting vegetation treatment in riparian areas and other unstable areas, and properly 

9280 locating skid trails, landings, and temporary roads to limit erosion. While implementation of BMPs is 

9281 included in all alternatives, standards and guidelines for timber harvest and other vegetation management 

9282 activities vary by alternative, and are discussed in the effects analysis section.

9283 Differences in land available for timber harvest, and the primary types of vegetation management 

9284 activities and their potential effects are discussed in the Environmental Consequences section. In addition, 

9285 timber harvest and other vegetation treatments generally require additional access through roads (either 

9286 temporary or system), therefore potential effects of increased creation and use of roads for vegetation 

9287 management activities are also discussed in the effects analysis section of this section. 

9288 Wildland Fire

9289 Wildland fire includes both unplanned and planned initiations (prescribed fire). Prescribed fire is initiated 

9290 to achieve resource management objectives, primarily to reduce the risk of high severity fires. Wildland 

9291 fire was once a common occurrence in forest lands across the Forest, however fire exclusion since the 

9292 early 1900s has resulted in changes in forest structure and species composition resulting in increased risk 

9293 of higher severity and intensity wildfires when they do occur (Hessberg and Smith 1999). Fire severity 

9294 describes the effects of a fire to soil structure, infiltration capacity and biotic components and affects 

9295 runoff and soil erosion potential from fire effects. Fire intensity describes fire effects to vegetative 

9296 characteristics including tree mortality and consumption of understory vegetation and down wood 

9297 (Debano et al. 1998) and affects runoff rates, peak flows, water yield, and riparian canopy cover. 

9298 Fire kills trees and decreases canopy cover, partially or completely burns ground cover, and may form 

9299 water-repellant soils (hydrophobic) depending on burn intensity. Soil water storage, interception, and 

9300 evapotranspiration are reduced when vegetation is removed or killed by fire and when organic matter on 

9301 the soil surface is consumed by fire (DeBano et al. 1998; Neary et al. 2005). Fire consumption of ground 

9302 vegetation and hydrophobic soils increase overland flow and erosion and sedimentation risk. Burned areas 

9303 are vulnerable to accelerated soil erosion which can increased post-fire sediment yield (Neary et al. 2005).

9304 Increases in surface erosion following wildfire have been well documented (Helvey 1980, Robichaud and 

9305 Hungerford 2000; Wondzell and King 2003; and Neary et al. 2005); however, effects are spatially 

9306 variable based on soil condition, burn severity, and timing and magnitude of precipitation (Robichaud and 

9307 Hungerford 2000). Helvey et al. (1985) found that annual sediment yield increased as much as 180 times 

9308 above pre-fire levels following a high-mortality wildfire in the Entiat experimental forest in the eastern 

9309 Cascades of Washington. Water yields and peak flows can also increase from large fires due to loss of 

9310 canopy cover and reduction in evapotranspiration (Helvey 1980). Effects of vegetation removal through 

9311 timber harvest on water yield discussed in the previous section are similar to the effects of wildland fire. 

9312 Prescribed fire is used as a management tool to by itself or in conjunction with thinning to reduce fuel 

9313 loading and the risk of uncharacteristically large fires (Mitchell et al. 2009). The most effective way to 

9314 reduce fire severity is forest thinning in conjunction with prescribed burning (Covington et al. 1997, 

9315 Graham et al. 1999). Most prescribed fires are ignited under conditions that limit the potential for high9316 severity fires (Wondzell 2001), they have less of an effect on vegetative litter and soil organic structure, 

9317 and result in a lower risk of erosion and changes in water yield and peak flows (DeBano et al. 1998). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

278

9318 Climate change is expected to alter fire return intervals as well as potential effects from increasingly 

9319 large, severe fires. There is a close correlation with climate conditions and severity and extent of wildfires 

9320 in the western U.S., and projected changes in temperatures and precipitation in the interior Pacific 

9321 Northwest are expected to increase the risk of larger, more severe fires (Littell et al. 2010, Westerling et 

9322 al. 2003).

9323 Potential effects to hydrologic processes from prescribed fire are mitigated through BMPs and standards 

9324 and guidelines that limit fire intensity and severity, ground-disturbing activities (including firelines), and 

9325 retain adequate groundcover. While more difficult to mitigate, effects from unplanned ignitions are 

9326 mitigated through burned area emergency response (BAER) activities, and post-fire rehabilitation of 

9327 firelines and other infrastructure. In addition, forest vegetation management in all alternatives focuses on 

9328 increasing landscape resiliency to large-scale wildland fire.

9329 Insects and Disease

9330 Large-scale insect and disease outbreaks can have similar effects to hydrologic function as large scale 

9331 wildland fire in the scale of disturbance and mortality of overstory vegetation (Wondzell 2001). Increase 

9332 in dead trees may increase fuel loading and increase susceptibility to large fires (Hessberg et al. 1994). 

9333 There are limited studies on the effects of die-off from insect and disease outbreaks on erosion and 

9334 sedimentation, but indirect effects include increased inputs of litter to the forest floor, and increased large 

9335 woody debris to the stream system and upland environment (Wondzell 2001). Die-off from insects and 

9336 disease can also alter water yield and peak flows through the same processes discussed in the Timber 

9337 Harvest and Wildland Fire sections. Adams et al. (2012) hypothesize that in snowmelt-dominated 

9338 watersheds, there would be decreases in evapotranspiration and increased flows if canopy cover from die9339 off exceeds 20 percent.

9340 Vegetation Condition

9341 The structure and composition of forest vegetation on the Forest has changed since Euro-American 

9342 settlement (Wondzell 2001). Historic range of variability (HRV) analysis was used to evaluate existing 

9343 forest structure condition for 5 vegetation types across the Forest and is discussed in detail in the Forest 

9344 Vegetation Report (Day 2015). HRV describes the dynamic behavior and functioning of ecosystems 

9345 before European settlement and provides a framework to determine changes between historic and current 

9346 conditions (Aplet and Keeton 1999). When forest conditions move beyond the limits of HRV, they move 

9347 into a state of disequilibrium making them more susceptible to disturbances, including insect and disease 

9348 outbreaks and stand-replacing fires (Kaufmann et al. 1994). As discussed above, these large-scale 

9349 episodic disturbances affect hydrologic and watershed function and processes and water quality.

9350 Table 93. Historical range of variability percentage by vegetation type for five structure classes compared to 

9351 current conditions. Values below HRV are shaded in black, values above HRV are shaded in gray (Day 2015).

% 

CNF

Early 

%

Mid 

Open %

Mid 

Closed %

Late 

Open %

Late 

Closed %

Douglas-fir dry 39% Current % 12 7 57 5 19

Historical % 6-16 2-8 4-13 38-78 1-32

Northern Rocky Mountain 

mixed conifer

30% Current % 19 4 65 1 11

Historical % 9-25 1-3 18-30 4-6 44-60

Spruce / subalpine fir 2% Current % 21 0 60 0 19

Historical % 4-24 0 7-27 0 55-83
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

279

% 

CNF

Early 

%

Mid 

Open %

Mid 

Closed %

Late 

Open %

Late 

Closed %

Subalpine fir / lodgepole pine 19% Current % 33 4 49 2 13

Historical % 45-65 0 33-53 0 3

Western hemlock / western 

redcedar

10% Current % 35 0 52 0 13

Historical % 14-46 0 13-41 0 29-57

9352 There is an abundance of mid-structural and a lack of late-stage structure across 4 of 5 vegetation types on 

9353 the Forest. These stands have smaller tree sizes and greater canopy cover than would be expected 

9354 historically, which is consistent with fire suppression and other changing land use patterns (Day 2015). 

9355 The overabundance of stands in the mid-closed structural class makes them more susceptible to large9356 scale disturbance and increases the risk of effects to hydrologic and watershed function. 

9357 Livestock Grazing

9358 Livestock grazing is one of the most widespread uses in the interior northwest, however, grazing on the 

9359 Forest is less widespread and intensive than on other forests east of the Cascades in Oregon and 

9360 Washington. Livestock effects include trampling of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of vegetative 

9361 cover (Platts 1991), which can increase stream and channel instability and result in unstable banks and 

9362 incised and widened stream channels (Marston 1994). However, the impact of grazing depends on timing, 

9363 intensity and frequency as well as type of animals. (Heitschmidt and Stuth 1991). Although grazing can 

9364 affect upland conditions, effects to hydrologic and aquatic function are most pronounced in riparian areas 

9365 and areas with active water because these areas are most sensitive to livestock disturbance, and they are 

9366 often where use is concentrated.

9367 Livestock concentrate in riparian areas and trampling and overutilization of riparian vegetation by 

9368 livestock has contributed to the decline of riparian ecosystem structure and composition across the interior 

9369 Pacific Northwest (Lee et al. 1997; Johnson 1992). Riparian areas in the western United States comprise 

9370 approximately 1 to 2 percent of summer range, but provide 20 percent of forage available for livestock 

9371 (Clary and Webster 1990).

9372 The effects of grazing can be minimized with proper management of grazing, and implementation of 

9373 practices that keep livestock out of streams and other aquatic features as well as riparian areas. Additional 

9374 grazing protections were implemented following the establishment of INFISH guidelines in 1995. These 

9375 guidelines were intended to provide protection for riparian areas to protect resident fish and water quality 

9376 and move conditions toward attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). Analysis of status 

9377 and trend of stream channel variables is discussed in detail in MacDonald et al. 2015.

9378 PIBO monitoring trend data indicate that since implementation of INFISH, several stream habitat 

9379 attributes have improved, with macroinvertebrate communities, bank stability, bank angle, pool tail fines, 

9380 and percent pools showing positive, but not statistically significant trends. Substrate size (D50) has 

9381 shown a negative though not statistically significant trend. Increases in large woody debris, pool depth, 

9382 and percent undercut banks show a statistically significant improving trend in most subbasins (Archer 

9383 2015). At most sites, PIBO trend data was calculated for two years of sampled data over a 10-year period 

9384 (each site sampled once every 5 years). Two data points generally do not provide enough data to make 

9385 conclusions regarding long-term trends. 

9386 The timeframe for measureable changes in stream channels may be decades or centuries and is often 

9387 related to larger scale disturbance, such as floods and fires, making it difficult to isolate the effects of 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

280

9388 management on stream channel adjustments. With a longer record of data, trends may be detected. Other 

9389 studies on changes in channel morphology following livestock exclusion support this conclusion. These 

9390 studies have shown mixed improvement in stream channel condition and function because morphological 

9391 change is often on a timescale longer than conducted studies, and is sensitive to processes at the 

9392 watershed rather than reach scale (McDowell and Magilligan 1997; Medina and Martin1988; and Kondolf 

9393 1993).

9394 Approximately 363,845 acres (33 percent) of the Forest are classified as capable for cattle grazing, and 

9395 448,160 acres (41 percent) are suitable for sheep grazing. There are a total of 58 allotments on the Forest; 

9396 42 are active, and 16 are not currently grazed. Of the 16 vacant allotments, 7 are likely to be used again in 

9397 the foreseeable future. An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of forage used by a cow and a calf 

9398 pair, one horse, or five sheep or goats for one month. AUMs have fluctuated between approximately 

9399 28,000 and 33,000 over the past 10 years (Fletcher 2015), and forest plan alternatives do not propose 

9400 changes to allotment boundaries, use, or AUMs. However, standards and guidelines pertaining to range 

9401 management differ by alternative and are analyzed in the Environmental Consequences section.

9402 Roads

9403 Roads have wide-ranging effects on hydrologic processes and watershed function. The compacted surface 

9404 of roads lowers infiltration capacity, which alters and concentrates overland flow and increases erosion 

9405 and delivery of sediment to the stream system, which can degrade water and habitat quality (Furniss 

9406 1991). Roads can also intercept subsurface flow and convert it to rapid surface runoff, extending channel 

9407 networks and increasing watershed efficiency (Wemple et al. 1996). Roads reduce vegetative cover in 

9408 streamside areas and accelerate delivery of water and increase erosion and sedimentation into streams 

9409 (Megahan, 1983). Accelerated erosion, runoff, and sediment delivery from roads increases streambed fine 

9410 sediment, which affects aquatic habitat and macroinvertebrates, and makes streambeds and banks more 

9411 susceptible to erosion during high flow events (Cover et al. 2006). At crossings, excessive flow velocities 

9412 and undersized culverts can alter stream channel function and increase the risk of channel and crossing 

9413 instability at high flows (Furniss et al. 1998). Other road-related impacts include reduced potential large 

9414 wood available for in-channel wood and shade from riparian areas. Meredith et al. (2014) found the 

9415 presence of roads adjacent to streams reduced adjacent in-channel wood. 

9416 Slope position of roads is a critical factor in the interaction between roads and streams. Ridge-top roads 

9417 can influence watershed hydrology by channeling flow into small headwater swales, accelerating channel 

9418 development. Mid-slope roads can intercept subsurface flow, extend channel networks, and accelerate 

9419 erosion (Gucinski et al. 2001). Roads adjacent to and crossing streams, or hydrologically connected to 

9420 streams have the greatest influence on streamflow, streamside shade, and accelerated sediment delivery to 

9421 the stream system (Croke et al. 2005). Hydrologically connected roads (portions of roads that route water 

9422 and/or sediment directly to the stream system) increase flow routing efficiency and can increase peak 

9423 flows and sedimentation (Wemple et al. 1996). Roads also simplify adjacent channels and riparian and in9424 stream habitat, and prevent natural channel adjustments (Spence et al. 1996).

9425 Several road metrics provide a means to assess the potential effects and risk of roads. Road density is

9426 often used as a measure of risk particularly in areas of active timber harvest (Lee et al. 1997, Sharma and 

9427 Hilborn 2001). However, road density does not adequately assess the varying effects of roads across the 

9428 landscape that are dependent on geology, precipitation, and location of roads in relation to the stream 

9429 system (Lee et al. 1997). McCafferty et al. (2007) found a significant positive correlation between total 

9430 road density, open road density, number of stream crossings, and fine sediment in streams. Traffic density 

9431 on open roads can also present a larger erosion and sedimentation risk than closed roads. Reid and Dunne 

9432 (1984) found that a heavily used road segment contributes 130 times as much sediment as a closed road.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

281

9433 The road indicator in watershed condition framework was calculated using open road density (road 

9434 maintenance levels 2 to 5), proximity of roads to water, and the degree of road maintenance (Potyondy 

9435 and Geier 2010). Results of the watershed condition framework for the roads and trails indicator show 

9436 that roads are affecting hydrologic function across most of the Forest, with most subwatersheds rated as 

9437 impaired for road indicators. In these subwatersheds the density and distribution of roads and trails 

9438 indicate that there is a high probability that the timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of 

9439 flows is altered by the road system.

9440 Additional metrics to assess the existing condition of the road system on the Forest are presented here. 

9441 Total miles of road on the Forest, road density, riparian road density by subwatersheds, estimates of 

9442 hydrologic connectivity, and number and relative risk of stream crossings are presented in this analysis. 

9443 Calculations in this analysis were performed using all open and closed roads (ML 1-5) roads regardless of 

9444 jurisdiction within the Forest administrative boundary. Decommissioned roads were also included in this 

9445 analysis because spatial data does not include detail on the level of hydrologic decommissioning 

9446 completed on decommissioned roads. Therefore, decommissioned roads are assumed to have a continued 

9447 effect on the hydrologic system. Since they are used for one-time access as needed in a single timber sale 

9448 or associated project, temporary roads were not included in this analysis. However, temporary roads can 

9449 have an impact on hydrologic and aquatic function if they are not properly removed and stabilized 

9450 following use.

9451 Road density and mileage numbers presented here use the metrics that best represent the effects of roads 

9452 and relative risk to the hydrologic system, and provide a more focused analysis of road condition and 

9453 relative risk than the road and trails indicator ratings from the watershed condition framework. Road 

9454 mileage and densities presented here may be different from those contained in other forest plan revision 

9455 documents. Additional calculations of road density using different criteria are presented by management 

9456 area and watershed in the effects analysis section. Calculation methodology for this road density metric is 

9457 described when the data are presented. 

9458 Total miles of road on the Forest are shown in table 94. There are total of 5,221 miles of roads under all 

9459 jurisdictions within the Forest administrative boundary. Fifty-seven percent of roads are open, and 

9460 19 percent are non-forest system roads. Approximately 15 percent of the roads are located in RHCAs and 

9461 two-thirds of the roads in RHCAs are open.

9462 Table 94. Miles of road on the Colville National Forest

Road Type Miles % of Total Road Miles Miles in RHCAs % of Total Road Miles

Total Existing Roads 5,221 100% 797 15%

Open 2,957 57% 547 10%

Closed 2,263 43% 250 5%

9463 Road density of open and closed roads was computed at the subwatershed scale for all subwatersheds 

9464 with greater than 25 percent of land within the Forest administrative boundary. Road density and riparian 

9465 road density in each subwatershed was categorized based on relative risk, where less than 1 mile per 

9466 square mile is good, 1 to 2.4 miles per square mile is fair, and greater than 2.4 miles per square mile is 

9467 poor condition (Potyondy and Geier 2010). Road density and road density in riparian areas is shown in 

9468 table 95. Road densities across subwatersheds on the Forest are generally in the fair to poor categories; 

9469 only 5 subwatersheds have road density of less than 1 mile per square mile, and 57 percent of 

9470 subwatersheds have road densities greater than 2.4 miles per square mile. Road densities in riparian areas 

9471 are higher than general road densities; 73 percent of subwatersheds have riparian road densities greater 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

282

9472 than 2.4 miles per square mile, and only 4 subwatersheds have riparian road densities less than 1 mile per 

9473 square mile.

9474 Table 95. Subwatersheds categorized by road density and riparian road density

Road Density Category Number of subwatersheds in each road density 

category

Road Density Road Density Condition 

Rating

Total Road Density Riparian Road Density

less than 1 mi/mi2 Good 5 4

1-2.4 mi/mi2 Fair 27 16

>2.4 mi/mi2 Poor 43 55

Total 75 75

9475 Hydrologically connected roads and crossings are a higher risk to the stream system than mid-slope and 

9476 ridgetop roads because they deliver water and sediment directly to the stream system. Several tools and 

9477 models can be used to assess the relative hydrologic risk of the road system, and determine the location of 

9478 roads were risk could be minimized through focused restoration and road improvements. One tool is the 

9479 field and model based Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP). Road sediment 

9480 delivery data collected across four watersheds in the Pacific Northwest using GRAIP, including the NF 

9481 Suislaw and North Fork John Day watersheds in Oregon and the Bear Valley and the MF Payette 

9482 watersheds in Idaho, found that 2 to 10 percent of road drain points (depending on watershed) deliver 

9483 90 percent of sediment from the road to the stream system (GRAIP 2014). Results of this analysis suggest 

9484 that when the location and relative sediment production and delivery of high-risk roads is known, 

9485 treatments can focus on a relatively small percentage of the road system to reduce hydrologic impacts.

9486 There are an estimated 2,285 road/stream crossings across the Forest. Relative risk of sediment delivery 

9487 to the stream system from the crossings was assessed using length and gradient of road on each side of the 

9488 crossing approach. Number of crossings and relative risk are shown in table 96. Fifty-four percent of 

9489 crossings on the Forest are at high risk for sediment delivery.

9490 Table 96. Number of crossings and relative risk of sediment delivery

# of Crossings Crossing Risk

350 Low

694 Medium

1,241 High

2,285 Total

9491 Crossings and roads within RHCAs were used to estimate hydrologic connectivity of the road system. 

9492 There are an estimated 862 miles of hydrologically connected road across the Forest (17 percent of the 

9493 road system). These roads have the highest risk of sediment delivery and other impacts to the stream 

9494 system and are the primary focus of road treatments to improve hydrologic function and aquatic habitat 

9495 across the Forest.

9496 Some of the effects of roads to watershed function can be mitigated through road design and location 

9497 (Furniss et al. 1991), implementation of BMPs, and treatments to reduce erosion and hydrologic 

9498 connection of roads to the stream system. Treatments including road surfacing, improvement of road 

9499 drainage through construction of waterbars or drainage dips, and seasonal closures to prevent road 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

283

9500 damage during wet weather can reduce erosion and sedimentation (Burroughs and King 1989, and Bilby 

9501 et al. 1989). Hydrologic road decommissioning is also an effective method to restore hydrologic function 

9502 on roads that are no longer needed for access or forest management. While road decommissioning 

9503 treatments have been found to reduce erosion and sedimentation, the technique does not eliminate all road 

9504 related sediment delivery to streams (Madej 2001), and erosion and sedimentation may increase in the 

9505 first two-three years after treatment (Luce et al. 2001). Other road maintenance activities can increase 

9506 short-term sediment routing to streams through the exposure of additional soil, alteration of slope stability 

9507 in cut and fill areas, removal of vegetation, and alteration of drainage patterns (Reid and Dunne 1984, 

9508 Luce and Black 2001).

9509 Effectiveness of road treatments is dependent on type of treatment, erosion rates, and timing and amount 

9510 of precipitation. While road decommissioning is usually the most effective method to reduce road 

9511 hydrologic risk, simply closing the entrance to a road does not reduce hydrologic risk. Full hydrologic 

9512 decommissioning, including removal of culverts, de-compaction of road surface, and return to natural 

9513 land contour (if needed) are the most effective treatments to reduce road hydrologic risk.

9514 Effectiveness of hydrologic road decommissioning and storm damage risk reduction (SDRR) treatments 

9515 was evaluated across the Pacific Northwest using GRAIP (Nelson et al. 2012; Cissel et al. 2014). Road 

9516 decommission was monitored on 68 km of road and hydrologic connectivity was reduced by 58 percent, 

9517 and sediment delivery was reduced by 64 percent. SDRR treatments were monitored on 86 km of road 

9518 and hydrologic connectivity was reduced by 9 percent, and sediment delivery was reduced by 51 percent. 

9519 Post-storm inventories of decommissioned and control roads found that connectivity was reduced by 

9520 44 percent and fine sediment delivery was reduced by 80 percent. Roads treated through SDRR showed a 

9521 67 percent reduction in fine sediment delivery, but an 11 percent increase in hydrologic connectivity post 

9522 storm.

9523 While there are numerous treatments to mitigate the hydrologic effects of roads, not all effects of roads 

9524 are preventable. A 1983 study in northwestern California showed that 24 percent of road-related erosion 

9525 could have been prevented from conventional engineering techniques, with the remaining 76 percent of 

9526 erosion caused by site condition and road location (McCushion and Rice 1983). Although this study was 

9527 only on 344 miles of road, it illustrates the concept that the mere existence of roads increases erosion and 

9528 sedimentation and supports the practice of full decommissioning of the road prism to minimize risk. 

9529 GRAIP effectiveness monitoring shows that decommissioning treatments were more effective in reducing 

9530 sediment delivery and road hydrologic connectivity than SDRR treatments (Nelson et al. 2012).

9531 Watershed Restoration and Monitoring

9532 Over the last two decades, watershed restoration and has become a larger focus of land management 

9533 across the National Forest System. New direction on watershed restoration since the 1988 Land 

9534 Management Plan is a primary need for change addressed in this forest plan revision. 

9535 INFISH 

9536 The 1988 Colville Forest Plan was amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH; USDA 1995) 

9537 which provides additional direction intended to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds 

9538 and aquatic ecosystems on National Forest lands for native resident fisheries. INFISH was implemented 

9539 in response to the potential listing of resident fish species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

9540 INFISH prescribed riparian management objectives (RMOs) and designated priority watersheds. RMOSs 

9541 are discussed in greater detail in the fisheries analysis section. INFISH designated priority watersheds as 

9542 those “Watersheds having excellent habitat or strong assemblages of inland native fish, particularly bull 

9543 trout, or watersheds that provide for population distribution goals, or watersheds having a high restoration 

9544 potential” (USDA FS, INFISH EA). Priority watersheds are a long-term, strategic network of watersheds 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

284

9545 that serve as strongholds for native fishes and provide high-quality water. Priority watersheds under 

9546 INFISH were originally designated in 1995 and were amended in 2001. INFISH-designated priority 

9547 subwatersheds for the Colville National Forest are shown in the following table. 

9548 Table 97. INFISH priority watersheds on the Colville National Forest designated at the subwatershed scale

Subwatershed Name Subwatershed Number

Cedar Creek 170102161003

East Branch Le Clerc Creek 170102160203

Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River 170102160103

Harvey Creek 170102160303

Headwaters Sullivan Creek 170102160304

Headwaters South Salmo River* 170102160702

Middle Creek-Pend Oreille River 170102160301

North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek 170102160305

Outlet South Salmo River* 170102160704

Skookum Creek 170102160202

Slate Creek 170102160306

Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River 170102160302

West Branch Le Clerc Creek 170102160202

9549 Riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) widths in priority watersheds under INFISH are wider than 

9550 RHCA widths in non-priority watersheds for non-fish-bearing intermittent streams and wetlands less than 

9551 1 acre (table 98). INFISH did not specify additional more-restrictive standards or guidelines for priority 

9552 watersheds. 

9553 Table 98. Differences in RHCA widths for INFISH priority and non-priority watersheds

INFISH RHCA Designation for nonpriority watershedsINFISH Priority Watershed RHCA 

designation

Non-fish-bearing intermittent 50 100

Wetland less than 1 acre 50 100

9554 Aquatic Restoration Strategy 

9555 The Region 6 Aquatic Restoration Strategy (ARS) was originally developed in 2005 to provide guidance 

9556 for watershed and aquatic and riparian condition improvement at a regional scale through both passive 

9557 and active restoration techniques (USDA Forest Service 2005). Passive restoration is the broad-scale 

9558 natural recovery of the aquatic ecosystem and includes coordination, analysis, planning, and design 

9559 activities to maintain or improve habitat conditions while implementing projects across multiple resource 

9560 areas (USDA Forest Service 2005). Examples include implementation of best management practices, 

9561 designation of riparian habitat conservation areas (or riparian management areas), compliance with laws, 

9562 regulations, permits, and plans, interagency coordination, monitoring, and adaptive management. Active 

9563 restoration includes management actions with the specific goal of restoring the processes that improve 

9564 aquatic and riparian habitat function. Active restoration is focused on a more limited scale than passive 

9565 restoration. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

285

9566 ARS prioritized basins for aquatic restoration based on modeling of aquatic resource condition, watershed 

9567 sensitivity, and sensitivity to management (USDA Forest Service 2005). Through the basin prioritization 

9568 process, the Upper Columbia basin was designated as high priority and the Pend Oreille and Spokane 

9569 basins were designated as low priority basins. Since the prioritization of these basins, there is recognition 

9570 that the basin scale is meaningful for planning at the regional scale, but it may not reflect restoration goals 

9571 at the scale of individual forests (MacDonald, personal com). 

9572 Through the ARS, the Forest identified 3 focus watersheds to focus active restoration (table 101). Focus 

9573 watersheds were identified in 2008 based on the need for watershed restoration to improve aquatic habitat 

9574 condition, function, and water quality, the presence or potential presence of native fish populations, 

9575 partnership potential and planned or completed NEPA documentation for restoration.

9576 Table 99. Focus 5th field watersheds on the Colville National Forest

Watershed Name Watershed Number

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 1701021602

Upper Sanpoil River 1702000401

Chewelah Creek-Colville River 1702000301

9577 In partnership with the Okanagan National Forest and the Colville Confederated Tribes, the Forest 

9578 completed a watershed action plan (WAP) for the Upper and West Forks of the Sanpoil River in 2012 

9579 (SWAP 2012). The LeClerc Creek Watershed Action Plan (Hickenbottom et al. 2009) was completed in 

9580 2009. These watershed action plans describe limiting factors to structural and biological aquatic function 

9581 and prioritize aquatic restoration projects for the improvement of water quality, watershed function, 

9582 aquatic habitat, riparian function and structure (Hickenbottom et al. 2009, SWAP 2012). A WAP for the 

9583 Chewelah Creek-Colville River watershed has not yet been completed. 

9584 Watershed Condition Framework

9585 In 2010, national forests throughout the U.S. were mandated to implement the Watershed Condition 

9586 Framework process, with the goal of identification of current conditions of subwatersheds on NFS lands. 

9587 The results of the assessment were used to identify priority subwatersheds where focused management 

9588 over a 5- to 10-year period could improve constituent elements that impair watershed function. The 

9589 watershed condition framework process and results are discussed in greater detail in the Existing 

9590 Condition section. The Forest identified 3 priority watersheds through this process (table 101), and 

9591 completed watershed action plans outlining essential project to improve watershed condition for 3 priority 

9592 watersheds, in 2011 and 2012, including West Branch LeClerc Creek, East Branch LeClerc Creek, and 

9593 Ninemile Creek (CNF 2011 2012(a and b)). Completion of essential projects within these subwatersheds 

9594 is currently in progress. Essential projects in the East Branch LeClerc subwatershed are scheduled for 

9595 completion in 2016. Once essential projects in existing subwatersheds are completed, additional priority 

9596 subwatersheds would be identified.

9597 Table 100. Priority watersheds on the Colville National Forest

Subwatershed Name Subwatershed Number

West Branch LeClerc Creek 170102160202

East Branch LeClerc Creek 170102160203

Ninemile Creek 170200040107
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

286

9598 Summary of Existing Priority Watersheds

9599 The watershed hierarchy of existing focus and priority watersheds for restoration is shown in the 

9600 following table. 

9601 Table 101. Summary of existing priority and focus watersheds

Focus Watershed Name 

(Designated through ARS)

Priority Subwatershed

Name (Designated by INFISH 

and watershed condition 

framework)

INFISH Priority 

Subwatershed

Watershed 

Condition 

Framework Priority 

Subwatershed

Chewelah Creek-Colville River N/A

Upper Sanpoil River Ninemile Creek X

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River West Branch LeClerc Creek X X

East Branch LeClerc Creek X X

Cedar Creek X

Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille 

River

X

Harvey Creek X

Headwaters Sullivan Creek X

Headwaters South Salmo River X

Middle Creek-Pend Oreille River X

North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan 

Creek

X

Outlet South Salmo River X

Skookum Creek X

Slate Creek X

Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River X

9602 Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

9603 The Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) was developed by Forest Service Region 6 in 

9604 2008 to consolidate management direction from the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, INFISH, and ARS 

9605 into a framework document to be used in forest plan revision. ARCS includes five elements including; 

9606 designation of riparian management areas (RMAs), designation of a key watershed network, mid-scale 

9607 analysis of watersheds, watershed restoration, and monitoring. The interaction of these five elements 

9608 forms the basis for watershed, aquatic, and riparian ecosystem management and restoration (USDA Forest 

9609 Service 2008). 

9610 Scientific studies completed after the initiation of the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, and INFISH 

9611 support their assumptions and general framework, however, there was a need for a unified aquatic 

9612 conservation strategy that incorporated new science and addressed and clarified issues identified through 

9613 more than a decade of field-level implementation (Naiman and Bilby 2000, Spence et al. 1996, Reeves 

9614 2006, Heller and McCammon 2004). Providing refinement to earlier strategies is the primary basis for the 

9615 development of ARCS. ARCS includes better recognition of the role of disturbance in building ecosystem 

9616 resiliency, consideration of scale effects on ecosystem processes, confirmation of the value of watershed9617 scale analysis, the need for better monitoring, and better establishment of the linkage between 

9618 management intent and aquatic strategy.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

287

9619 Most alternatives in this forest plan revision use ARCS as the framework for management of hydrologic 

9620 and aquatic resources, however ARCS-modified plan components are included in alternatives R and P.

9621 ARCS-Modified

9622 The ARCS supports forests adding specificity and local detail to tailor management of watersheds and 

9623 riparian resources to local systems and conditions. As forests work through a public and internal 

9624 collaborative process, plan components may be added to those provided in ARCS that are forest-specific 

9625 and science-based (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

9626 Based on public and internal comments, best available science, and new policies on Forest Service 

9627 management of aquatic and riparian resources, including the Watershed Condition Framework, plan 

9628 components in ARCS were updated in alternatives P and R. The updated plan components are referred to 

9629 as “ARCS-modified.” ARCS-modified plan components were updated based on discussions with the 

9630 Forest Plan interdisciplinary team, resource specialists in the Pacific Northwest regional office, and other 

9631 reviewers of the draft forest plan. 

9632 Most of the updates made to ARCS plan components ARCS-modified add clarity to individual plan 

9633 components (i.e., guidelines worded properly as guidelines, standards worded as standards). The 

9634 interdisciplinary team also considered operational constraints in the evaluation of each standard and 

9635 guideline within ARCS. Specific differences between ARCS and ARCS-modified are discussed in the 

9636 environmental consequences section.

9637 During the forest plan revision process, the terms “ARCS” and “ARCS-modified” are used to distinguish 

9638 differences in aquatic and riparian direction between alternatives. Once a revised forest plan decision is 

9639 signed, the terms ARCS and ARCS-modified will no longer be used. The plan components and aquatic 

9640 direction within ARCS will become part of the revised forest plan.

9641 Water Quality, Quantity, and Uses

9642 Water quality and water uses on the Forest are managed cooperatively with other State and Federal 

9643 agencies responsible for preservation and management of water quality, and quantification and 

9644 management of water rights and uses. In Washington, Water Resources Inventory Areas (WRIAs) are the 

9645 administrative and planning boundaries used by State agencies as the basis and scale for management of 

9646 water quality, water uses and rights, and management of fish and wildlife. WRIAs were formalized under 

9647 WAC 173-500-040 and authorized under the Water Resources Act of 1971, RCW 90.54. The Washington 

9648 Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the responsibility for development and management of designation 

9649 and management of WRIA administrative and planning boundaries (WADoE 2014(d)). There are seven

9650 WRIAs that contain the Forest administrative boundary. Generally WRIAs follow subbasin boundaries, 

9651 however, the Franklin D. Roosevelt subbasin is divided into the Upper Lake Roosevelt and Middle Lake 

9652 Roosevelt WRIAs.

9653 Table 102. Crosswalk between subbasins and WRIAs on the Colville National Forest administrative forest

Subbasin WRIA Name WRIA Number

Pend Oreille River Pend Oreille 62

Upper Columbia River—FDR Lake Upper Lake Roosevelt 61

Middle Lake Roosevelt 58

Colville River Colville 59

Kettle River Kettle 60

Sanpoil River Sanpoil 52

Upper Spokane *Little Spokane 55

9654 *There is no Colville National Forest ownership within the Little Spokane WRIA.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

288

9655 Water Quality

9656 Water produced on the Forest is generally of high quality; research on the effects of land management has 

9657 shown that water quality in undisturbed forests is usually good. In managed watersheds, water quality is 

9658 affected by land-use practices (USDA FS 2000). The most widespread pollutants of concern on the Forest 

9659 are fecal coliform bacteria and temperature. High summer air temperatures during summer low-flows and 

9660 reduction in stream shading can increase summer stream temperature. Fecal coliform levels are elevated 

9661 from both native mammals and livestock grazing both on and off NFS lands. Dissolved oxygen and pH 

9662 are also pollutants of concern but are not as widespread as fecal coliform and temperature.

9663 Sediment is also considered a pollutant if high levels of fine sediment accumulation are affecting aquatic 

9664 habitat and channel function. Fine sediment accumulation is a natural channel function and varies based 

9665 on geology, streamflow, and channel gradient (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Accumulation of fine 

9666 sediment is evident in some streams on the Forest from localized bank erosion and roads.

9667 Best Management Practices

9668 Preventing water quality impacts is more effective than restoring damage from management activities. 

9669 Implementation and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is the fundamental basis of the 

9670 Forest Service water quality management program to protect, restore, or mitigate water quality impacts 

9671 from activities on NFS lands (USDA Forest Service 2012). BMPs are methods, measures, or practices to 

9672 reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (36 CFR 219.19). Site-specific 

9673 BMPs are implemented at the project level using WA forest practices rules (222 WAC), regional guidance 

9674 (USDA FS 1988), forest plan direction, and national BMP guidance. 

9675 Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of BMPs has been completed across project activities on the 

9676 Forest since the development of regional BMPs, however monitoring completed at the project scale was 

9677 not integrated into a larger program of consistent BMP monitoring and reporting. The Forest Service’s 

9678 national BMP program was established in 2012 to establish consistent direction for BMP implementation 

9679 to control non-point source pollution on NFS lands to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, 

9680 water quality, and riparian resources and meet the intent of State and Federal water quality laws and 

9681 regulations, executive orders, and USDA and Forest Service directives. The national BMP program also 

9682 establishes a consistent process to monitor, evaluate, and report implementation and effectiveness of 

9683 BMPs in the protection of water quality at multiple scales (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

9684 BMP implementation and effectiveness has been systematically monitored across National Forest Lands 

9685 in California since 1992, using protocols similar to the more recent national BMP protocols. From 2008 to 

9686 2010, randomized monitoring showed 91 percent of BMPs were implemented, and 80 percent of 

9687 implemented BMPs were rated effective. BMPs for timber harvests, fuels treatments, and vegetation 

9688 management were consistently highly effective, while BMPs for other activities, including roads, range 

9689 management, recreation, and mining, were less effective (USDA Forest Service 2013). At sites where 

9690 BMPs were not implemented or effective the monitoring program includes a strong feedback loop to take 

9691 corrective action on non-compliance scenarios.

9692 BMP monitoring completed on the Forest since 2012, using the national BMP protocol indicate that most 

9693 projects monitored were implemented correctly, and that BMPs were generally effective in protecting 

9694 water quality. When BMPs were not implemented correctly, monitoring provided the feedback to 

9695 implement corrective actions where needed to improve future BMP implementation and effectiveness 

9696 (Colville National Forest 2013).

9697 Water quality across streams in the Forest has improved in recent years as a result of changes in 

9698 management from INFISH direction, implementation of best management practices (BMPs), direction 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

289

9699 from the Regional Aquatic Restoration Strategy, fish recovery plans, and increased emphasis on 

9700 watershed restoration and partnerships. The Forest has been working on grazing allotments to implement 

9701 BMPs including off-stream watering, and riparian exclusion fencing. In addition, the Forest has worked to 

9702 restore riparian areas, stabilize stream banks, and implemented measures to prevent off-highway vehicle 

9703 use near streams and wetlands (CNF 2013). 

9704 Beneficial Uses and the Clean Water Act

9705 The principal law governing pollution in the Nation's streams, lakes, and estuaries is the Federal Water 

9706 Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500, enacted in 1972), commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

9707 The CWA is the primary Federal law that protects the Nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, aquifers 

9708 and coastal areas from point and non-point source pollution. The primary objective of the CWA is to 

9709 restore and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters through regulation of point and non-point source 

9710 water pollution.

9711 Through the CWA, each state is required to provide guidance and direction for the protection and 

9712 restoration of water bodies (40 CFR 131.12). In Washington, the United States Environmental Protection 

9713 Agency (EPA) has designated authority for compliance with the CWA to The Washington Department of 

9714 Ecology (WADoE). As required under the CWA, Ecology identified beneficial uses and developed water 

9715 quality standards to protect beneficial uses. Water quality standards for the primary pollutants on streams 

9716 and rivers across the Forest are shown in table 103. Designated beneficial uses established for national 

9717 forests, wilderness areas, and national parks in Washington include (WAC 173-201A-200; Baldwin 2006): 

9718 • Salmon and trout spawning, core rearing and migration

9719 • Extraordinary primary contact recreation

9720 • Domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply

9721 • Stock watering

9722 • Wildlife habitat

9723 • Harvesting (fish, etc.)

9724 • Commerce and navigation

9725 • Boating

9726 • Aesthetic values

9727 Table 103. Water quality standards for waters of the Colville National Forest (WAC 173-201A-200)

Parameter Standard

Temperature 16°C (60.80F) (7 day average of daily maximum temperature)

pH 6.5-9.0*

Fecal Coliform geometric mean above 50 colonies per 100 milliliters with the 90th percentile of the 

samples not exceeding 100 colonies per 100 milliliters

Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 mg/L (lowest 1-day minimum)

Total Dissolved Gas Shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point of sample collection

+Turbidity 5 NTU over background when background is 50 NTU or less. A 10% increase in turbidity 

when background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.

9728 *Based on naturally occurring dissolved calcite from regional limestone geology, the upper range of the standard for pH was raised 

9729 from 8.5 to 9.0 (Whiley and Baldwin 2005).

9730 + Sediment in water bodies fits into two categories; suspended sediments (measured and regulated by the turbidity standard), and 

9731 bedded sediments. There is no approved water quality standard for sediment in Washington. Bedded sediments are difficult to 

9732 regulate and implement without site specificity on background erosion rates (Seeds and Foster 2010).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

290

9733 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA regulation (40 CFR 130.2(J), and 130.7), delegates the 

9734 authority to list waters that do not meet water quality standards or beneficial uses to individual states. 

9735 Washington determines its 303(d) list through the water quality assessment (WQA) process. Once a water 

9736 body is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list, it is Ecology’s responsibility to develop a Total Maximum 

9737 Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant of concern. A TMDL is a quantitative plan and analysis procedure 

9738 for attaining and maintaining water quality standards and specifies the total load of pollutant a waterbody 

9739 can carry and still meet beneficial uses. The TMDL and associated Water Quality Implementation Plan 

9740 (WQIP) outline the process through which beneficial uses can be met through the identification of sources 

9741 of pollutants, and actions that lead to improved water quality (40 CFR 130.2(H)). 

9742 A 2000 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Ecology and Region 6 of the U.S. Forest Service 

9743 designates the Forest Service as the management agency for meeting CWA requirements on NFS lands. 

9744 Through this MOA, the Forest Service is responsible for ensuring that all waters on NFS lands meet or 

9745 exceed water quality laws and regulations and that activities on NFS lands are consistent with protections 

9746 provided in Washington Administrative Code and relevant state and water quality requirements (USDA 

9747 FS and WADoE 2000). The MOA recognizes the contribution of existing Forest Service direction, 

9748 including the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), INFISH, and BMPs in 

9749 meeting water quality laws and regulations, and states that the Forest Service and Ecology will 

9750 collaborate to address 303(d) listings through the development of TMDLs and WQIPs (USDA Forest 

9751 Service and WADoE 2000). While the 2000 MOA has not been updated, the Forest Service and Ecology 

9752 continue to manage CWA compliance under MOA. 

9753 The 2008 Water Quality Assessment (WQA) and 303(d) list was approved by EPA Dec. 21, 2012 (U.S.

9754 EPA 2012). The 2008 WQA and 303(d) list is considered the ‘2012 Water Quality Assessment’ to reflect 

9755 when the assessment was approved rather than when the assessment was scheduled for completion 

9756 (WADoE 2014(b)). The 2012 WQA 305(b) list and 303(d) list contains 42 stream reaches on the Forest 

9757 that do not meet water quality standards and includes all impaired stream segments added to the 303(d) 

9758 list since 2004 that are not under an approved TMDL (WADoE 2014(a, b, and f)). Impairment pollutants 

9759 include fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature. Portions of Big Muddy Creek, 

9760 Brown’s Creek, Buck Creek, Middle and North Fork Calispell Creek, Cedar Creek, Cee Ah Creek, 

9761 Cottonwood Creek, East Deer Creek, Exposure Creek, Fisher Creek, Halfmoon Creek, Harvey Creek, 

9762 Lambert Creek and an unnamed tributary, East, West, Middle, and main stem LeClerc Creek, North Fork 

9763 and main stem Lone Ranch Creek, Lost Creek, McAhee Creek, Meadow Creek, Mill Creek, Pend Oreille 

9764 River, Ruby Creek, Sandwich Creek, North Fork, South Fork, and main stem Sherman Creek, South Fork 

9765 and main stem Skookum Creek, Slate Creek, Smackout Creek, North Fork St. Peter Creek, North Fork 

9766 and main stem Sullivan Creek, Tacoma Creek, and Wilson Creek are on the 2008 303(d) list. Bead Lake 

9767 is the only lake on the Forest on the 303(d) list and is listed for PCBs and dioxins found in fish tissue 

9768 samples. 

9769 To meet the goals outlined in the MOA and comply with the CWA, Ecology began working with the 

9770 Forest in 2002 on a TMDL for temperature, bacteria, pH, and dissolved oxygen and Water Quality 

9771 Implementation Plan (WQIP) (WADoE 2006) for waters across the Forest on the 1998 303(d) list. EPA 

9772 approved the TMDL and WQIP for fecal coliform on 8 waterbody segments and temperature on 4 

9773 segments from the 1998 303(d) list as well as 41 temperature-impaired waterbody segments added to the 

9774 303(d) list during the TMDL development process in 2005 (EPA 2005, Whiley and Baldwin 2005). The 

9775 TMDL for pH and dissolved oxygen was not approved at this time because the submittal report lacked 

9776 some of the required components in the dissolved oxygen and pH analysis (Baldwin 2006). EPA also 

9777 approved a TMDL for the Colville River and its tributaries for fecal coliform in 2003 (Coots 2002, 

9778 Murray and Coots 2003, Baldwin 2005). There are several stream segments on the Forest included in the 

9779 Colville River TMDL. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

291

9780 Although water bodies added to the 303(d) list since TMDLs and WQIPs were finalized are not included 

9781 in the TMDLs, they are included in monitoring plans on the Forest (discussed below). Miles of stream by 

9782 pollutant by subbasin covered under TMDLs and WQIPs, and not covered under TMDLs and WQIPs are 

9783 shown in table 104.

9784 Table 104. Miles of stream by pollutant by subbasin on the Colville National Forest under an approved TMDL 

9785 and WQIP, and miles of stream on the current 303d list not specifically covered under at TMDL and WQIP 

9786 (WADoE 2014(a))

Pollutant by Miles of Streams 

Covered under a TMDL and 

WQIP (*Category 4a)

Pollutant by Miles of Streams not Specifically 

Covered under a TMDL or WQIP (*Category 5)

Subbasin Bacteria Temperature Bacteria Temperature pH DO

Colville 8.5 2 0.2 1.4 0 0

Franklin D 

Roosevelt Lake

2.0 0 0 7.5 2.4 0.6

Kettle 2.0 0.8 0.8 2.8 1.4 1.3

Pend Oreille 0 2.2 2.2 3.3 11.0 20.1

Sanpoil 0 0 0 0 0 0

Little Spokane 0 0 0 0 0 0

9787 * Category 4a waters have known pollution problems that have an approved TMDL being actively implemented. Category 5 waters 

9788 are classified as polluted waters that require a TMDL or WQI plan and are traditionally known as the 303(d) list.

9789 The Forest is working to reduce fecal coliform bacteria from varied sources, including recreation and 

9790 livestock grazing. Outhouses in developed campgrounds have been replaced and sealed vault toilets have 

9791 been installed at select dispersed recreation sites further from surface waters (Baldwin 2005). Work also 

9792 continues to improve BMPs on active grazing allotments, including installation of off-stream watering 

9793 and fencing (WADoE 2013(a)). In compliance with the WQIP, the Forest has monitored 13 streams 

9794 annually for fecal coliform bacteria following procedures described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan 

9795 in the TMDL (Baldwin 2006). A 2013 assessment of 10 years of fecal coliform monitoring results 

9796 determined that six streams continually met the fecal coliform standard, and one stream met standards 

9797 most years. These seven streams were removed from the monitoring program, and a 2014 request was 

9798 made to remove these streams from the TMDL. Nine additional monitoring sites were added across the 

9799 Forest in 2013 (WADoE 2013(a)). 

9800 In 2013, Ecology concluded that the Forest has made significant progress in the last eight years toward 

9801 meeting the requirements of the bacteria TMDL and improving water quality on the Colville National 

9802 Forest. Based on monitoring and restoration progress toward meeting fecal coliform standards, the final 

9803 target date to reduce bacteria concentrations to meet water quality standards has been extended from 

9804 October 2013 to October 2018 (Colville National Forest 2014). Monitoring and restoration activities will 

9805 continue with the goal of meeting the fecal coliform standard by 2018. 

9806 The Forest is also working to monitor and improve temperature in impaired stream reaches. The WQIP 

9807 and TMDL requires temperature monitoring and compliance at 37 sites by 2056. The Forest has 

9808 temperature data for 78 streams with varying years of data. A subset of these 78 temperature monitoring 

9809 sites are on temperature-impaired streams. Progress continues to increase temperature monitoring sites 

9810 and to improve the processes that impair stream temperature.

9811 The majority of waterbodies across the Forest meet water quality standards and support designated 

9812 beneficial uses, however the current 303(d) list and TMDLs do not necessarily include all the streams 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

292

9813 across the Forest where water quality may be impaired. Many streams do not have the monitoring data to 

9814 determine if water quality is impaired. Protection measures for activities with the potential to impact 

9815 water quality, including BMPs and forest plan standards and guidelines that focus on riparian areas and 

9816 other vulnerable areas ensure that waters of the Forest will continue to be of high quality. Focused 

9817 restoration activities to improve hydrologic processes will continue to preserve and improve water quality 

9818 where needed. Those waterbodies that do not meet these goals are monitored, and WQIPs and TMDLs are 

9819 in place to improve conditions.

9820 Water Quantity and Uses

9821 In the Columbia River basin, an estimated 38 percent of water yield originates from National Forest lands 

9822 (Sedell et al. 2000). This water is valued from ecological, economic, social, and cultural purposes. Water 

9823 from National Forests is used for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses for defined purposes 

9824 recognized by Federal and state agencies. This section describes both consumptive and non-consumptive 

9825 water uses across the Forest. 

9826 Instream Flows

9827 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is responsible for recommending instream 

9828 flows for watershed planning, administration of water rights, and protection of fish and wildlife (WAC 

9829 75), and Ecology is required to maintain instream flows sufficient to protect and preserve beneficial uses 

9830 (RCW, 90.54 and 90.22). Instream flows are defined by Ecology as a specific streamflow level (cfs) at a 

9831 specific location on a given stream. Instream flows change from month to month and protect a quantity of 

9832 streamflow for instream resources (WADoE 2013(b)). WDFW more narrowly describes instream flow as 

9833 flows needed to protect stream habitat (Wald 2009). Generally, in-stream flow requirements are set only 

9834 when a potential or existing project affects flow in a river system, the impacts of altered flow on instream 

9835 resources is evaluated using accepted instream flow study guidelines (WDFW and WDoE 2004). WDFW 

9836 recommends, requests, or requires, as applicable minimum instream flows that: 

9837 A. Protect full fish and wildlife potential; 

9838 B. Maintain riparian and instream wildlife habitat; 

9839 C. Manage water use and allocation to provide channel forming and maintaining flows;

9840 D. Protect hyporheic flows;

9841 E. Maintain fish passage and safe downstream fish migration;

9842 F. Provide mitigation for, or enhancement of adversely affected fish and wildlife habitat to ensure 

9843 “no net loss” of function and value;

9844 G. Provide habitat for desirable aquatic non-game wildlife species, even in streams without 

9845 populations of fish;

9846 H. Preserve future enhancement and/or compensation options where potential fish habitat is unused 

9847 because of barriers to immigration;

9848 I. Avoid adverse impacts on estuarine and marine habitats; and

9849 J. Provide connectivity of channel processes such as movement of sediment and debris.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

293

9850 WDFW also recognizes the importance of high flows for providing geomorphic conditions for fish 

9851 migration and spawning, including transport of sediment and organic matter, maintenance of channel 

9852 geometry, formation of new channels, and creation of meanders, and side channels (Wald 2009).

9853 Source Water Protection Areas

9854 Source water is untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes, or underground aquifers that is used to 

9855 provide public drinking water, and to supply private wells used for human consumption (U.S. EPA 2012). 

9856 A source water protection area is the land area contributing to a public water system where potential 

9857 contamination could affect drinking water supply.

9858 Many communities in northeastern Washington rely on water from the Forest for drinking. The Safe 

9859 Drinking Water Act is the 1974 Federal law that sets standards for drinking water quality. The law 

9860 requires actions to protect drinking water and its sources, and sets national standards for drinking water to 

9861 protect against naturally occurring and man-made contaminants (U.S. EPA 2012). A 1996 amendment to 

9862 the Safe Drinking Water Act requires each state to implement Source Water Assessment Programs 

9863 (SWAP). The SWAP program in Washington is administered by the state Department of Health Office of 

9864 Drinking Water (ODW). There are four requirements under the SWAP program: (1) Delineation of source 

9865 water protection areas that serve greater the 25 individuals for each source, (2) Inventory each source 

9866 water protection area for potential contaminant sources, (3) Conduct a susceptibility assessment for each 

9867 drinking water source, and (4) Make the findings available to interested parties (WA Dept of Health). 

9868 The SWAP program designates both surface and groundwater source water protection areas and classifies 

9869 water systems as Group A and B. Group A is a designation specific to Washington and includes public use 

9870 water systems large enough to be regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (those serving over 25 

9871 individuals). Group B public water systems serve fewer than 25 individuals (WA Dept of Health). 

9872 Surface sourcewater protection areas

9873 Surface source water protection areas are delineated by the upstream watershed that contributes to the 

9874 point of use (WA Dept of Health). Waters of the Forest are upstream of surface water systems that service 

9875 Cusick, Grand Coulee, Kettle Falls, Metaline, Metaline Falls, Orient, and Riverbend. Designated surface 

9876 source water protection areas have also been delineated for water systems for Grand Coulee Dam, Forty 

9877 Nine Degrees North Ski resort, and Columbia Cedar (Surface Water Protection spatial data). All surface 

9878 water protection areas on the Forest provide water to Group A water systems. 

9879 Groundwater sourcewater protection areas

9880 There are 31 Group A and 51 Group B water systems that are groundwater-sourced within the Forest 

9881 administrative boundary. One, 5, and 10-year time of travel wellhead protection areas are delineated by 

9882 WA Dept of Health for all group A groundwater systems, and a 600-foot fixed radius is used as the 

9883 wellhead protection boundary for group B systems. 

9884 Forest Service Drinking Water Systems

9885 The Forest manages 15 drinking water systems across the Forest at campgrounds and administrative sites. 

9886 These include Noisy Creek, Lake Leo, Mill Pond, Swan Lake, Pierre Lake, Gillette, Panhandle, Sullivan 

9887 Lake, Edgewater, Long Lake, South Skookum Lake, Pioneer Park, and Sherman Overlook campgrounds, 

9888 Batey-Bould trailhead, and the Bead Lake boat launch..

9889 Water Rights

9890 A water right is a legal authorization to use a certain amount of water for a specific purpose of use. Water 

9891 rights in Washington are managed by Ecology. There are three types of water rights documents:
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

294

9892 1) A “claim” is a claim to use water that predates the state’s water permitting system, the validity of 

9893 which must be confirmed through judicial processes; 

9894 2) A “permit” is permission by the state to develop a water right and gives the permit-holder 

9895 permission to proceed with construction of a water system to put water use; 

9896 3) A “certificate” is issued when all conditions of the permit have been met—and is a legal record of 

9897 the water right. Certificates are appurtenant to the land on which the water is used (WADoE 

9898 2013(c)).

9899 Data on water rights was summarized from spatial data obtained from Ecology. Figures presented in this 

9900 analysis are estimates only. There are approximately 115 certificated water rights and 356 points of 

9901 diversion in the name of the USDA Forest Service on the Forest. The Forest does not have any current 

9902 claims, applications, or permits for which a certificate has not been issued. The primary purpose of use for 

9903 consumptive rights on the Forest is livestock (table 105), with only 8 certificates for other uses. Total 

9904 certificated storage volume is 477 acre-feet per year; certificated diversion volume is 4.55 cfs. A total of 

9905 17 irrigated acres also have certificated water rights. Water rights are concentrated in the drier western 

9906 portion of the Forest.

9907 Table 105. Certificated water rights and points of diversion in the name of the Colville National Forest* by 

9908 purpose of use and volume

Purpose of Use # of 

Certificates

# of 

points of 

diversion

Certificated 

storage volume 

(acre-feet)

Certificated 

diversion 

(cfs)

Irrigated 

Acres

Livestock 107 348 447 3.7

Domestic single/Irrigation 1 1 0.01 1

Domestic multiple 1 1 0.05

Domestic multiple/irrigation 2 2 19 0.54 15

Domestic multiple/recreation 

beautification

1 1 1 0.01

Domestic multiple/fire 

protection/recreation beautification

1 1 0.1

Domestic multiple/fire 

protection/irrigation

1 1 4 0.1 1

Domestic multiple/fire protection 1 1 6 0.035

Total 115 356 477 4.55 17

9909 *Several certificates are in the name of the Kaniksu National Forest, but are located within and managed by the Colville National 

9910 Forest.

9911 There are approximately 536 certificated water rights in the name of others within the Forest 

9912 administrative boundary. The largest consumptive uses within the Forest administrative boundary by 

9913 volume are for domestic use, municipal use, irrigation, and power generation. Storage rights in the name 

9914 of others within the Forest administrative boundary total 111,193 acre-feet. A total of 6,114 irrigated acres 

9915 also have certificated water rights.

9916
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

295

9917 Table 106. Certificated water rights within the Colville National Forest administrative boundary in the name of 

9918 others

Applications Claims Permits Certificates

Total Number 11 712 61 536

Storage Volume (acre-feet) 

unless otherwise noted

1700 gpm 316,314 33,802 111,193

Irrigated Acres 480 36,327 98 6,114

9919 Certificated water rights for consumptive uses in the name of the Forest Service within the Forest 

9920 administrative boundary constitute less than 1 percent of both storage volume and irrigated acres of total 

9921 certificated rights. The majority of water volume certificated for consumptive uses within the Forest 

9922 boundary are in the name of others. Certificated water rights within the Forest administrative boundary 

9923 are small in comparison to water yield from the Forest and consumptive uses downstream of the Forest. 

9924 Water availability on lands off-forest are discussed in the Cumulative Effects section.

9925 Dams

9926 The Forest currently administers four dams including the West Branch LeClerc Creek Dam, Little Twin 

9927 Lakes Dam, and Big Meadow Lake Dam, Bayley Lake Dam. There are an additional five dams within the 

9928 administrative boundary of the Forest that are owned by public utilities or local governments. Additional 

9929 details on dams on the Forest are shown in table 107. Management of these dams does not vary by forest 

9930 plan alternative, and management and mitigation of effects of these dams is expected to continue under all 

9931 alternatives.

9932 Table 107. Dams on the Colville National Forest

Dam Name Owner Subbasin Stream/River 

Name

Notes

Little Twin Lakes 

Dam

Colville National 

Forest (CNF)

Colville Camp Creek 70-acre reservoir maintained 

for recreation and fish and 

wildlife

Big Meadow Lake 

Dam

CNF Franklin D 

Roosevelt Lake

Meadow Creek 83-acre reservoir maintained 

for recreation and fish and 

wildlife

Bayley Lake Dam CNF Colville Bayley Creek Impounds Bayley Lake, a 17-

acre reservoir, located on the 

Little Pend Oreille Wildlife 

Refuge. Lake is maintained for 

recreation, fish, and wildlife. 

Dam is on the Colville National 

Forest.

West Branch LeClerc 

Creek Dam

CNF Pend Oreille West Branch 

LeClerc Creek

Log crib dam that does not 

create impoundment; filled with 

fine sediment. Removal is an 

essential project in the WB 

LeClerc Watershed Action Plan 

Metaline Falls 

Municipal Water Dam

Metaline Falls Pend Oreille Tributary to 

Sullivan Creek

Diversion dam supplying water 

to the Community of Metaline 

Falls

Boundary Dam Seattle City Light Pend Oreille Pend Oreille See text

Mill Pond Dam Pend Oreille 

PUD

Pend Oreille Sullivan Creek Scheduled for removal in 2019
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

296

Dam Name Owner Subbasin Stream/River 

Name

Notes

Sullivan Lake Dam Pend Oreille 

PUD

Pend Oreille Harvey Creek/ 

Outlet Creek

Dam enhances the natural 

lake. Managed by Pend Oreille 

PUD for recreation, and water 

supply for interbasin transfers.

Box Canyon Dam Pend Oreille 

PUD

Pend Oreille Pend Oreille See text

9933 Hydroelectric Dams

9934 There are three hydropower projects on the Forest, including Boundary Dam, the Sullivan Creek Water 

9935 Supply Project, and Boundary Dam. In addition, though not within the Forest administrative boundary, all 

9936 of the waters of the Forest eventually drain into Lake Roosevelt, on the Columbia River. Lake Roosevelt 

9937 is impounded by the Grand Coulee dam—the largest power supplying dam in the United States. The 

9938 Grand Coulee Dam generates 21 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, supplying power to 

9939 Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, 

9940 Arizona, and Canada (USBR 2014).

9941 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates all operating non-Federal dams that 

9942 generate electrical energy. FERC licenses these projects and permits the dam owner to use public waters 

9943 for energy generation. The license specifies the conditions for construction, operation, and maintenance of 

9944 the project, is enforceable by FERC through fines or injunctions, and may be revoked for non-compliance 

9945 (FERC Licensing 2014). Settlement agreements signed in conjunction with issuance of FERC licenses for 

9946 Box Canyon Dam, Boundary Dam, and the surrender of the hydropower license for the Sullivan Creek 

9947 Water Supply project, provide funds and comprehensive plans for restoration of hydrologic and aquatic 

9948 resources on the Forest to mitigate effects from hydropower production

9949 Box Canyon Dam

9950 Opened in 1956, the Box Canyon Dam is a gravity-type hydroelectric dam on the Pend Oreille River 

9951 operated by the Pend Oreille PUD. The dam is 62 feet high, 160 feet long, and creates the Box Canyon 

9952 Reservoir which stretches 55 miles to Albeni Falls Dam near the Idaho border. The dam impounds water 

draining an area of 24,900 mi2 9953 and has a surface area between 7,000 and 9,000 acres depending on pool 

9954 elevation. The dam is capable of producing 62 MW of power. The Box Canyon Dam operates “run of 

9955 river”—flows released from the project approximate the flows released upstream from the Albeni Falls 

9956 Dam (Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County). The Box Canyon Dam project occupies 

9957 190 acres on the Forest (Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County).

9958 The Box Canyon Dam was relicensed in 2005. Under the settlement agreement signed in 2010, the Pend 

9959 Oreille PUD committed to a variety of treatments to improve hydrologic and aquatic function, and 

9960 fisheries in tributaries of the Box Canyon reservoir. Most of these tributaries are on the Forest, and 

9961 projects under this settlement agreement on Forest lands will be completed in collaboration with the PUD 

9962 and other state and Federal partners (Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County).

9963 Boundary Dam

9964 The Boundary Dam on the Pend Oreille River is a concrete arch gravity-type hydroelectric dam that 

9965 supplies more than one third of Seattle City Light’s Power and began operations in 1967. The dam is 

9966 340 feet high from its bedrock foot and is 740 feet long. The reservoir created by the dam is 17.5 miles 

9967 long and extends to the base of the Box Canyon Dam. The reservoir created by the dam is 1,794 acres and 

drains an area of 25,200 mi2 9968 (FERC 2011). The dam has the capacity to produce 1040MW at peak 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

297

9969 output—40 percent of the Seattle’s electricity demands (Seattle City Light 2014(1)). The Boundary Dam 

9970 project occupies 609 acres on the Forest (City of Seattle).

9971 Sullivan Creek Water Supply Project

9972 The Sullivan Creek Water Supply Project includes the Sullivan Dam, and Mill Pond Dam. The Sullivan 

9973 Dam enhances the existing Sullivan Lake to a surface area of 1,240 acres. The area impounded by Mill 

9974 Pond Dam covers a 63-acre area. The project occupies 522 acres on the Forest and will be operated under 

9975 a special use permit with the Forest once mitigations in the settlement agreement for the surrender of the 

9976 license of the project are complete. The Pend Oreille PUD purchased the project in 1959, including water 

9977 rights, and obtained a FERC license (FERC 2011). 

9978 The application to relicense the Boundary Project was filed in 2009. In 2010, a joint offer of settlement 

9979 for the Boundary Dam and Sullivan Creek water supply project was filed that proposed consolidation of 

9980 the relicensing of the Boundary project and Pend Oreille PUD’s surrender of license for the Sullivan 

9981 Creek Project. The joint settlement agreement was signed by the City of Seattle, Pend Oreille PUD, the 

9982 Kalispel Tribe, several state and Federal Agencies (including the Colville National Forest ), and two non9983 governmental organizations. FERC issued a 42-year license in 2013. As part of the settlement agreement, 

9984 Seattle City Light committed $60 million to a 42-year program of watershed improvements including 

9985 evaluation and improvement of passage for resident salmonids, improvement of aquatic habitat, fish 

9986 stocking, groundwater well decommissioning, acquiring and managing land for wildlife, recreation 

9987 enhancement, and enhancement and protection of cultural resources (FERC 2011; Seattle City Light 

9988 2014(b)). The FERC license for the Sullivan Creek project was surrendered and a settlement for the 

9989 project was reached in 2010. The settlement agreement included changes in the timing of flow release of 

9990 Sullivan Lake, an increase in lake elevation, installation of a cool water release pipe to allow colder water 

9991 from the bottom of the lake to discharge into Sullivan Creek and the removal of Mill Pond Dam in 

9992 partnership with Seattle City Light (WADoE 2014(d)).

9993 Need for Change

9994 This analysis addresses the following needs to revise the 1988 forest plan: 

9995 • Accelerate improvement in watershed condition across the Forest. The current forest plan and 

9996 amendments do not adequately provide integrated management direction to maintain and restore 

9997 properly functioning watersheds that provide a range of benefits on and off the Colville National 

9998 Forest within a meaningful timeframe. This is supported by best available science, the listing of bull 

9999 trout (Salvelinus confluentus) under the Endangered Species Act (1988), designation of critical 

10000 habitat for bull trout (2010), information provided by the bull trout recovery plan (2014), and the 

10001 results of new assessment tools such as the national Watershed Condition Framework. Properly 

10002 functioning watersheds provide stable and productive ecological systems and allow for conditions 

10003 that support aquatic species viability and self-sustaining populations, contribute to the recovery and 

10004 de-listing of threatened and endangered species, and restore stream systems that do not meet 

10005 Washington State water quality standards (WADoE 2014(f)). 

10006 • Integrate watershed and aquatic strategies across the Forest. The existing Colville Forest Plan was 

10007 completed in 1988, and was amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH; USDA 1995) in 

10008 1995. Since 1988, the Aquatic Restoration Strategy (ARS; USDA 2005), the Aquatic and Riparian 

10009 Conservation Strategy (ARCS; USDA 2008) and the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF; 

10010 Potyondy and Geier 2010) have been developed to reflect management direction recommended by 

10011 current research and supported by regional and national policy. The ARS is a Forest Service Pacific 

10012 Northwest Regional operational strategy that reinforces the foundation of existing forest plan 

10013 strategies, including broad-scale passive restoration, and strategically-focused active restoration and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

298

10014 guides implementation through establishment of specific goals and objectives and a formal process 

10015 for near-term active restoration. The 2010 National Watershed Condition Framework process 

10016 evaluated current conditions at the subwatershed scale and identified priority subwatersheds where 

10017 focused restoration could improve watershed condition on NFS lands. ARCS is a refinement of 

10018 previous forest plan strategies (including the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, and INFISH) 

10019 incorporating key concepts from the ARS and WCF, and is intended to provide the core set of 

10020 desired conditions, suitability, objectives, standards and guidelines for aquatic and riparian 

10021 management. ARCS provides additional watershed direction intended to restore and maintain 

10022 watershed conditions and processes that sustain a full range of ecosystem services and support 

10023 beneficial uses of water, with a focus on protection and restoration of native anadromous and non10024 anadromous fisheries. Consistency and integration of new research and regional and national 

10025 direction on restoration and protection of watershed and aquatic habitat and function will contribute 

10026 to the restoration and maintenance of riparian and aquatic habitats and beneficial uses of water and 

10027 increase resilience to disturbance. 

10028 • Address climate change implications and vulnerabilities. The existing forest plan does not address 

10029 the potential effect of climate change. Recent scientific findings on climate change 

10030 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014) have dramatically improved our 

10031 understanding of how ecosystems have changed and are likely to change in the future. Changing 

10032 climate conditions have affected ecosystem composition, structure, process, and spatial pattern, 

10033 altering the character and distribution of habitats for key surrogate plant and animal species. In 

10034 addition, climate change has altered, and will continue to alter disturbance regimes, including forest 

10035 insects and diseases, fire, and hydrologic regimes. Future conditions may be more favorable to 

10036 some undesired non-native plant, wildlife, and aquatic species (IPCC 2014). The full impact of 

10037 climate change on ecosystems is uncertain, but an integrated management direction that provides 

10038 flexibility to respond to a changing environment is needed to maintain or restore the resilience of 

10039 the national forests in the face of these changes.

10040 Environmental Consequences

10041 Methodology 

10042 This section describes the analysis process to determine the environmental consequences to watershed 

10043 function, water quality, and water uses from implementation of six forest plan alternatives. Environmental 

10044 consequences are not site-specific at the broad-scale of forest planning, therefore several indicators will 

10045 be discussed in qualitative terms based on best available science, and professional judgment. Quantitative 

10046 analysis of potential effects is presented where appropriate and applicable. This section discusses the 

10047 broad-scale environmental consequences and relative trends and provides a means to compare the 

10048 potential effects of alternatives. 

10049 Assumptions

10050 • In estimation of effects of alternatives at the forest plan level, it is assumed that the kinds of 

10051 management activities allowed under the prescriptions will occur to achieve the goals and 

10052 objectives of each alternative. The actual location and design of treatments is not known, and will 

10053 be determined through project-level, site-specific NEPA decisions. Therefore, this analysis refers to 

10054 potential effects that could occur, but cannot be applied to specific locations. Effects analysis at the 

10055 forest plan scale is useful for comparing alternatives, but cannot be applied to specific locations 

10056 other than at the broad scale of management areas and ecological regions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

299

10057 • Data representing forestwide conditions many not represent site-specific water quality, quantity, or 

10058 watershed function. Additional site-specific analysis is needed at the project scale during 

10059 implementation of this forest plan.

10060 • Measurable objectives for water resources, key and priority watersheds, and RMAs identify priority 

10061 treatment activities, extent (i.e., miles, acres, number of crossings improved), and timing of 

10062 completion were developed in the forest plan revision process. Effects of meeting these objectives 

10063 through the life of this forest plan are based on the assumption that forest budgets will remain 

10064 relatively constant, but will vary from year to year. The actual rate of improvement of watershed 

10065 condition is dependent on internal and partner financial contributions, and staffing levels.

10066 • Forest plan guidelines provide guidance for carrying out projects and activities to achieve desired 

10067 conditions and objectives. Guidelines do not force action, but provide design criteria that should 

10068 apply when an action is being taken. Standards are mandatory constraints on project activities and 

10069 are established to achieve desired conditions, mitigate or avoid undesirable effects, and meet 

10070 applicable legal requirements. Standards provide strict design criteria, allowing no variation, 

10071 whereas guidelines allow variation if the result would be equally effective to move toward 

10072 achievement of desired conditions. Therefore, standards provide a greater assurance of specific 

10073 protections than guidelines. 

10074 • Issues addressed in this analysis are those identified through the scoping process for the forest plan 

10075 revision, and issues specific to hydrologic resources.

10076 • Previously decommissioned roads were included in road calculations because full hydrologic 

10077 closure of these roads is not certain. At the scale of the Forest, total mileage of previously 

10078 decommissioned road makes up less than 1 percent of NFS roads.

10079 • Estimates of primary vegetation management tools used in all alternatives are based on modeling of 

10080 treatment by vegetation type (described in Day 2015). For each alternative, an estimated acres of 

10081 treatment type per year by vegetation type is presented based on modeling. These figures are used 

10082 as means to compare alternatives, and are not assumed to represent actual acres that will be treated. 

10083 Vegetation management is not authorized under this document, and treatments will be evaluated in 

10084 subsequent project-specific treatment. Differences in primary vegetation management tools used in 

10085 each vegetation type vary by alternative and potential effects are broadly discussed by alternative. 

10086 Since there is little variation in treatment type by alternative, potential indirect effects of vegetation 

10087 treatments by alternative are discussed in terms of estimated (modeled) acres of treatment, and the 

10088 acreage within each management area where vegetation treatment is authorized.

10089 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

10090 The spatial bound for analysis of indirect effects is all lands within the Forest ownership boundary, and 

10091 within the five subbasins with Forest ownership for cumulative effects. The temporal boundary of indirect 

10092 and cumulative effects is 15 years, the estimate amount of time management would continue under the 

10093 revised forest plan. Vegetation condition was modeled for 100 years. Climate change analysis to inform 

10094 cumulative effects analysis uses projections for the 2040s and 2080s

10095 Summary of Effects 

10096 Restoration Priority and Focus Watersheds

10097 Priority and focus watersheds are the same across alternatives. Essential projects outlined in watershed 

10098 action plans in priority and focus watershed would continue in all alternatives, however, restoration 

10099 activities would be prioritized based on key watershed objectives in the proposed action and alternatives 

10100 R, P, and O.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

300

10101 Water Quality

10102 The Forest will continue to comply with the Clean Water Act in all alternatives. The Forest will continue 

10103 to work with Ecology to implement the Colville National Forest TMDL and the TMDL for the Colville 

10104 River through monitoring of fecal coliform and water temperature. As new streams on the Forest are 

10105 added to the 303(d) list, they will be included, as funding and strategic project planning allows in the 

10106 Forest’s fecal coliform and temperature monitoring program. The memorandum of agreement (MOA) 

10107 between Ecology and the Forest recognizes the contribution of existing Forest Service direction, including 

10108 ICBEMP, INFISH, and BMPs in meeting water quality laws and regulations, and states that the Forest 

10109 Service and Ecology will collaborate to address 303(d) listings through the development of TMDLs and 

10110 WQMPs (USDA Forest Service and WADoE 2000). 

10111 Potential indirect effects of implementation of this forest plan on water quality vary by alternative, based 

10112 on differences in goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines and are discussed in effects analysis by 

10113 alternative.

10114 Grazing

10115 There are no proposed changes in the location or boundaries of permitted range allotments or type of 

10116 livestock across alternatives. Boundaries, AUMs, and management of allotments are expected to change 

10117 over time, based on site-specific analysis through the NEPA and allotment management planning process, 

10118 however this does not vary by alternative. Grazing standards and guidelines differ by alternative and 

10119 grazing practices may vary based on differences in standards and guidelines in each alternative. Potential 

10120 differences are discussed in the effects analysis section. 

10121 Best Management Practices

10122 Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) would continue to be one of the primary 

10123 mechanisms to ensure that aquatic and hydrologic function are preserved in all alternatives. Project-level 

10124 monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of BMPs using nationally consistent protocols would 

10125 continue under all alternatives. BMP monitoring would be used to identify and implement corrective 

10126 actions to address site-scale problems with BMP implementation and effectiveness. Adaptive management

10127 would be used to correct systematic, programmatic-level issues (i.e., lack of transfer of BMPs from 

10128 planning to project implementation, project design criteria specified in NEPA not included into contract 

10129 provisions, etc.). Accountability for addressing lack of effectiveness and implementation of BMPs is a 

10130 critical component of water resource protection and compliance with the CWA.

10131 Water Uses

10132 Water uses across the Forest are expected to be the same across all alternatives. Standards protecting key 

10133 watersheds from certain uses differ by alternative and are discussed in effects analysis. 

10134 No-action Alternative

10135 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

10136 Acres of RHCAs and management and protection of RHCAs

10137 Present management of riparian areas under INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) includes designation of 

10138 riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

10139 emphasis and additional standards and guidelines apply to management. RHCAs overlay approximately 

10140 150,692 (13 percent) of the Forest. RHCAs are mapped, but actual locations of RHCAs may be changed 

10141 and updated based on project level planning and reconnaissance. RHCA widths vary by water body type 

10142 and intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre receive a wider buffer in INFISH priority 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

301

10143 watersheds than these features in non-INFISH priority watersheds. RHCA widths and acreages are shown 

10144 in the following table.

10145 Table 108. Riparian habitat conservation areas width and acreages on the Colville National Forest in no10146 action and alternative B

Stream and water body classification Riparian habitat conservation area width Total Acres

Fish-bearing streams 300 ft. slope distance on each side (600 ft. total) 35,427

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams 150 ft. slope distance on each side (300 ft. total) 49,075

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands greater 

than 1 acre

150 feet slope distance around feature 23,261

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, 

wetlands less than 1 acre

100 ft. slope distance in priority watersheds, 

50 ft. slope distance in non-priority watersheds.

42,929

Total 150,692

10147 RHCAs are intended to protect desired riparian functions, including sediment filtration, stream 

10148 temperature moderation, production of fine organic matter and large woody material, and stream bank 

10149 stability. Research on the effectiveness of riparian protection measures suggests that a width of one site10150 potential tree is sufficient to protect riparian function in most systems (Wenger 1999). Pollock and 

10151 Kennard (1998) found that buffer widths of 50 to 250 feet were sufficient to preserve riparian function in 

10152 eastern Washington, with differences in effective widths dependent on soils, slope, and vegetation.

10153 Riparian and Aquatic Plan Components

10154 Riparian and aquatic plan components including objectives, standards, and guidelines in the no-action

10155 alternative are from INFISH (see appendix B of the specialist report for comparison of plan components 

10156 across all alternatives). INFISH includes riparian goals rather than desired conditions, and riparian 

10157 management objectives (RMOs) that define numeric stream habitat objectives for width to depth ratio, 

10158 bank stability, bank angle, large woody debris, stream temperature, percent fine sediment , dominant 

10159 substrate, and pool frequency, that describe high quality habitat. RMOs were developed from existing 

10160 stream habitat data and were designed to provide benchmarks for evaluation of current stream conditions. 

10161 Although RMOs have been widely applied, analysis of their usefulness or applicability across ecoregions 

10162 has not been widely researched. Criticisms of numeric stream habitat objectives including the failure to 

10163 account for variability and recognition of the difficulty of separation of land use effects from natural 

10164 disturbance. (Kershner and Roper 2010). RMOs are discussed in greater detail in the fisheries section of 

10165 this DEIS (MacDonald et al. 2015).

10166 INFISH includes standards and guidelines (with no differentiation between standards and guidelines) for 

10167 RHCAs that constrain management within RHCAs to achieve RMOs. Standards and guidelines address 

10168 activities including timber management, livestock grazing management, recreation management, mineral 

10169 management, fire and fuels management, lands, general riparian area management, watershed and habitat 

10170 restoration, and fisheries and wildlife restoration. RHCA widths may be increased or decreased when 

10171 necessary to attain RMOs when site-specific data and watershed analysis supports the change. 

10172 Acres in INFISH Priority Watersheds

10173 INFISH priority watersheds on the Forest were originally designated in 1998 and updated in 2001. 

10174 INFISH designated as “priority” watersheds “having excellent habitat or strong assemblages of inland 

10175 native fish, particularly bull trout, or watersheds that provide for population distribution goals, or 

10176 watersheds having a high restoration potential” (USDA Forest Service 1995a). There are 214,283 acres 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

302

10177 (19 percent total National Forest System ownership) in INFISH priority watersheds under National Forest 

10178 System ownership in the no-action alternative (table 109).

10179 Table 109. INFISH priority watersheds (designated at the subwatershed scale)

Subwatershed 

Number

Subwatershed Name Total Subwatershed 

Acres

Administrative 

Forest Acres

Colville National Forest

Ownership Acres

170102160201 *Exposure Creek-Pend 

Oreille River

41,224 23,376 14,463

170102160202 Skookum Creek 31,811 31,728 14,192

170102160301 *Middle Creek-Pend 

Oreille River

23,209 21,760 5,066

170102160302 West Branch Le Clerc 

Creek

21,672 21,672 15,099

170102160303 *East Branch Le Clerc 

Creek

26,663 26,651 11,145

170102160401 *Harvey Creek 32,999 32,991 27,554

170102160402 *Headwaters Sullivan 

Creek

45,516 45,510 45,417

170102160403 *North Fork Sullivan 

Creek-Sullivan Creek

12,709 12,703 11,259

170102160702 *Headwaters South Salmo 

River

20,697 12,475 12,472

170102160704 Outlet South Salmo River 14,013 3,469 3,460

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille 

River

41,832 33,477 28,890

170102160903 Slate Creek 20,195 19,911 19,907

170102161003 *Cedar Creek 17,209 7,074 5,359

Total Acres 349,747 29,2795 214,283

10180 There are no standards, guidelines, goals, or measurable objectives specific to INFISH priority watersheds 

10181 in the no-action alternative. However, the intent of INFISH is for priority watersheds in good condition to 

10182 serve as anchors for the potential recovery of depressed aquatic populations, and provide colonists for 

10183 adjacent watersheds with degraded habitat. Priority watersheds with lower habitat are the focus of 

10184 restoration activities to improve habitat quality and function. 

10185 Watershed and Aquatic Restoration

10186 Based on the original intent of the short time period for implementing INFISH, a restoration strategy was 

10187 not included in this amendment. The intent of INFISH was for forests to use watershed analysis to 

10188 determine restoration strategies and projects, with INFISH priority watersheds being the highest priority 

10189 for restoration. Historically, aquatic restoration across the INFISH priority network has not accelerated 

10190 since this watershed network was designated in 1995 (and expanded in 2001) on the Forest, except in a 

10191 select number of subwatersheds. Instead, the pace of restoration was increased through designation of 

10192 focus watersheds identified through ARS and priority subwatersheds identified through WCF. Investment 

10193 in watershed restoration to improve aquatic habitat and hydrologic function has and would continue to 

10194 occur in several subwatersheds within the INFISH priority network, including the East and West Branches 

10195 of LeClerc Creek, and the Headwaters and North Fork of Sullivan Creek, but there are no specific plans to 

10196 accelerate the pace of restoration in other subwatersheds in the INFISH priority network under the no-
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

303

10197 action alternative. Therefore, restoration in INFISH priority watersheds would continue at the current 

10198 pace under the no-action alternative.

10199 Watershed and aquatic restoration would focus on completion of essential projects outlined in watershed 

10200 action plans in focus (Sanpoil, LeClerc, and Chewelah Creek watersheds) and national priority 

10201 watersheds (East and West Branch LeClerc Creek, and Ninemile Creek subwatersheds). In addition, 

10202 opportunistic restoration would continue across the Forest based on partnerships, funding from FERC 

10203 relicensing, Vision 20/20 (see MacDonald (2015) for specific projects), and completed NEPA for 

10204 vegetation management, grazing, and recreation projects.

10205 Based on current restoration plans in place under the no-action alternative for the next 15 years, treatment 

10206 is expected on 51 miles of road, 15 crossings to improve aquatic organism passage, 54 miles of stream 

10207 channel, 70 acres of rangeland infrastructure, and 75 to 150 acres in RHCAs to move toward HRV. 

10208 Improvement in watershed condition class is estimated in seven subwatersheds.

10209 Roads/Access 

10210 Acres of management areas where road-building activities are permitted 

10211 Approximately 218,266 acres (20 percent of Colville National Forest ) in the no-action alternative are in 

10212 management areas where construction of new roads is prohibited. 

10213 Road density desired conditions

10214 Road density desired conditions range from 0.4 to 2 miles per square mile of open road (ML 2-5) and are 

10215 dependent on species or resource in need of protection. Since road density desired conditions do not 

10216 consider closed ML 1 roads, they do not adequately address the potential impacts of the road system on 

10217 hydrologic and aquatic function and habitat. 

10218 Road management plan components

10219 Standards and guidelines, and BMPs specific to road construction focus on minimizing erosion and 

10220 sediment risk from the road system to attain RMOs and minimize adverse effects to inland native fish. In 

10221 INFISH priority watersheds, watershed analysis is required before certain road activities and construction 

10222 of new recreation facilities are permitted in RHCAs, and there are specific protections against increased 

10223 sedimentation through prioritization of road treatments in priority watersheds. 

10224 Old Forest Management, Timber Production, and Upland Vegetation Condition

10225 Active Vegetation Management

10226 Existing management areas (MAs) and authorization of road building and timber production by MA are 

10227 shown in table 110. Timber production is allowed in MA-3A (Recreation), MA-5 (Scenic/Timber), MA-6 

10228 (Scenic/ Winter Range), MA-7 (Wood/ Forage), and MA-8 (Winter Range). These management areas 

10229 cover 80.7 percent of the Forest, the largest land base available for active vegetation management of all 

10230 alternatives. Actual acres treated per year are constrained by forest budgets and additional constraints at 

10231 the project level. 

10232
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

304

10233 Table 110. Existing management areas and authorization of road building and timber production by 

10234 management area

Management Area Acres New roadbuilding 

authorized?

Timber Production 

Authorized?

Caribou Habitat 30,306 N N

Downhill Skiing 2,026 N N

No Management Area Assigned 19 N N

Old Growth Dependent Species Habitat 32,859 N N

Private Lands Originally 1,262 N N

Recreation 43,153 Y Y

Recreation/Wildlife 12,474 N N

Research Natural Area 4,707 N N

Scenic Timber 216,525 Y Y

Scenic/Winter Range 76,128 Y Y

Semi-Primitive, Motorized Recreation 13,571 N N

Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Recreation 86,880 N N

Water 2,365 N N

Wilderness Management 31,400 N N

Winter Range 126,207 Y Y

Wood/Forage 423,305 Y Y

*RHCAs 150,692 Y, within standards 

and guidelines

N, except where needed 

to maintain or meet RMOs

10235 Primary Vegetation Management Tools

10236 Partial harvest would be the primary vegetation management tool in the Douglas-fir dry MAs where 

10237 harvest is authorized with 500 acres of treatment estimated per year. Thinning, regeneration harvest, and 

10238 mechanical fuels treatments are used in the northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer vegetation type. 

10239 Regeneration harvest would be the primary tool in the subalpine fir/lodgepole pine vegetation type with 

10240 388 acres of treatment per year estimated. Mechanical fuels treatments would also be used in this 

10241 vegetation type. Prescribed fire would be used in Douglas-fir dry, northern Rocky Mountain conifer, and 

10242 subalpine fir/lodgepole pine vegetation types and is estimated on 4,879 acres. A total of 1,096 acres of 

10243 mechanical fuels treatments per year are estimated under the no action alternative.

10244 Historic Range of Variability

10245 Six out of 19 structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under the no-action

10246 alternative, which has the least number of structure classes within HRV (table 111). Eight structure classes 

10247 are below HRV, and five are above. Late open and closed structure conditions show the greatest departure 

10248 from HRV. Levels of disturbance and management do not occur across enough acres over 100 years under 

10249 the no-action alternative to create open structure conditions that existed historically. Areas that would 

10250 historically have contained large trees with open canopy conditions, and greater resistant to wildfire and 

10251 insect and disease outbreaks would be in a closed canopy condition with greater susceptibility to 

10252 disturbance (Day 2015). Greater susceptibility of forest stands to disturbances including large fires and 

10253 insect and disease outbreak increases the risk to hydrologic function from disturbance. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

305

10254 Table 111. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under the no10255 action alternative

Vegetation Type Early 

Structure

Mid-open 

Structure

Mid-closed 

Structure

Late Open 

Structure

Late Closed 

Structure

Douglas-fir dry @ - + - +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer - - + - @

Western hemlock/ Western 

redcedar - n/a - n/a +

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine @ n/a @ n/a @

Spruce/ Subalpine fir - n/a @ n/a +

10256 @=within HRV; -=below HRV; +=above HRV; and n/a=structure class does not exist within this vegetation type

10257 Vegetation Management Plan Components

10258 INFISH provides stricter standards and guidelines for vegetation management activities than the Forest 

10259 Plan it amended. Timber harvest and fuelwood cutting in RHCAs is prohibited under INFISH except in 

10260 the event of safety, catastrophic events, or if watershed analysis indicates that vegetation treatment is 

10261 needed to move toward attainment of RMOs. In addition, INFISH includes standards and guidelines that 

10262 minimize roads and landings in RHCAs. Standards and guidelines and BMPs are the primary mechanisms 

10263 to protect water quality and riparian function from vegetation management activities under the no-action

10264 alternative.

10265 Grazing Plan Components

10266 Current allotment boundaries and AUMs would continue under the no-action alternative. INFISH 

10267 provides stricter standards and guidelines than the Forest Plan it amended on grazing to move toward 

10268 attainment of RMOs. These standards and guidelines apply primarily in RHCAs and would continue to be 

10269 implemented under the proposed action. It is assumed that allotment management under the proposed 

10270 action would meet guidelines for grazing in RHCAs, and that changes in grazing management to attain 

10271 RMOs would be implemented through project-level NEPA, and allotment management plans. There are 

10272 no specific numeric guidelines for grazing in RHCAs in INFISH and the no-action alternative. Standards 

10273 and guidelines and BMPs are the primary mechanisms to protect water quality and riparian function from 

10274 grazing under the no-action alternative. PIBO monitoring indicates that stream conditions across the 

10275 Forest are improving (see MacDonald 2015 and discussion of PIBO data discussed previously in this 

10276 section) under INFISH standards and guidelines, however most stream channel parameters are outside of 

10277 reference conditions.

10278 Summary of Effects and Comparison to Other Alternatives

10279 The no-action alternative provides less protection to the processes that improve or preserve hydrologic 

10280 function than the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O. The no-action alternative would provide a 

10281 slower pace of recovery of hydrologic function through passive and active restoration than the proposed 

10282 action and alternatives R, P, and O. Effects of the no-action alternative in relation to other alternatives 

10283 include:

10284 • The no-action alternative does not address the need for change in this forest plan revision; the pace 

10285 of watershed restoration is not increased from current levels, watershed and riparian direction is not 

10286 integrated. Specific watershed and riparian objectives in the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, 

10287 and O should increase the pace and scale of watershed restoration, and improve resiliency to the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

306

10288 potential hydrologic effects of climate change more effectively than the plan components in the no10289 action alternative and alternative B. 

10290 • Narrower RHCA widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds are less restrictive than RMA 

10291 widths in the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, and O and may not improve or preserve 

10292 hydrologic and riparian function as well as wider RMA widths. 

10293 • There are fewer acres of priority watersheds in the no-action alterative than in the key watershed 

10294 network in the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O. While restoration activities are not 

10295 expected on every acre within key watersheds, the larger key watershed network in the proposed 

10296 action and alternatives R, P, and O and specific restoration objectives in key watersheds would 

10297 accelerate the pace of restoration of hydrologic function than in the smaller INFISH priority 

10298 network.

10299 • The no-action alternative does not accelerate improvement in watershed condition as much as the 

10300 proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O. The INFISH priority network would remain and there 

10301 are not specific plans to accelerate the pace of restoration across the INFISH priority watershed 

10302 network. There are no measureable objectives for the INFISH priority watershed network other than 

10303 essential projects outlined in watershed action plans for focus watersheds designated through ARS, 

10304 and priority watersheds designated through WCF. 

10305 • RMOs would continue to be used as benchmarks for evaluation of current stream conditions, even 

10306 though they may not adequately account for natural variability or separate land use effects from 

10307 natural disturbance.

10308 • The no-action alternative manages toward eight riparian goals, the proposed action and alternatives 

10309 R, P, and O focus on the attainment of desired conditions for aquatic and riparian function and 

10310 watershed condition. 

10311 • Approximately 20 percent of Colville National Forest land base is in management areas where 

10312 construction of new roads is prohibited. Construction of new roads is prohibited in a higher 

10313 percentage of the Forest in all other alternatives including the proposed action. Road density desired 

10314 conditions range from 0.4 to 2 miles per square mile of open road (ML 2-5) and depend on species 

10315 or resource in need of protection. Unlike the prosed action and alternatives R, P, and O, road density 

10316 desired conditions include ML 1-5 roads. Inclusion of ML 1 (closed) roads in road density 

10317 calculations provides a better metric for improvement in aquatic and riparian function because 

10318 closed roads have an effect on hydrologic processes.

10319 • Approximately 80 percent of the Colville National Forest land base is available for timber 

10320 production; all other alternatives have less land open to these activities.

10321 • Standards and guidelines in the no-action alternative do not effectively address contemporary issues 

10322 of watershed function, including protection of streambank and floodplain integrity from livestock 

10323 grazing, and reduction of erosion and sedimentation and disruption of hydrologic processes from 

10324 roads and trails. Standards and guidelines in the no-action alternative may not protect watershed 

10325 function and water quality as effectively as the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, and O.

10326 • Standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments are less stringent in 

10327 the no-action alternative than the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O. 

10328 • Six out of 19 vegetation structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under 

10329 no action. Forests that are departed from HRV generally are at greater risk for large fires and insect 

10330 and disease outbreaks, which can impact hydrologic function and aquatic ecosystems. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

307

10331 • The no-action alternative does not increase the pace of increasing resiliency of infrastructure and 

10332 water uses to potential effects of climate change; infrastructure upgrades would continue at the 

10333 current pace.

10334 Proposed Action Alternative

10335 The proposed action was released to the public in June 2011. It reflects current management policies of 

10336 the Forest and meets the intent of recovery plans for terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered 

10337 species, based on science that has evolved since the existing Colville Forest Plan was published in 1988. 

10338 An emphasis on management that applies landscape ecology concepts to provide for ecological resilience 

10339 to disturbances, including the effects of climate change, has also been added based on current scientific 

10340 knowledge. Management areas (MAs) in the proposed action are designated where management intent is 

10341 similar. 

10342 Direction for management of aquatic resources is based on the Region 6 Aquatic and Riparian 

10343 Conservation Strategy (ARCS) (USDA Forest Service 2008) and provides a comprehensive core set of 

10344 plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines) to maintain and restore the 

10345 ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems across the Forest. ARCS also designates riparian 

10346 management areas (RMAs) and a key watershed network.

10347 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 

10348 Riparian Management Areas

10349 Riparian and aquatic resource direction included in the proposed action is based on the Region 6 Aquatic 

10350 and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) (USDA Forest Service 2008), which is a refinement of 

10351 earlier strategies including the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM, 1994), 

10352 PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995), INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995), and the R6 Aquatic 

10353 Restoration Strategy (ARS) (USDA Forest Service 2005). The proposed action includes designation of 

10354 riparian management areas (RMAs), which include portions of watersheds where aquatic and riparian10355 dependent resources receive special management. RMAs overlay approximately 179,236 acres 

10356 (16 percent) of the Forest, compared to 13 percent under the no-action and B alternatives. RMAs are 

10357 mapped, but actual locations of RMAs may be changed and updated based on project level planning and 

10358 reconnaissance. 

10359 Table 112. RMA widths and total acreage for the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O

Stream and water body classification Riparian Management Area (RMA) width Acres

Fish-bearing streams 300 ft. slope distance on each side (600 ft. total) 34,840

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams 150 ft. slope distance on each side (300 ft. total) 48,791

Lakes and natural ponds 300 ft. slope distance around feature 10,138

Constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands 

greater than 1 acre 150 ft. slope distance around feature 15,844

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams; 

wetlands, seeps, and springs less than 1 acre, 

and unstable or potentially unstable areas

100 ft. slope distance from stream (200 ft. total), 

100 ft. slope distance around wetland, seep, spring, 

or unstable or potentially unstable area

69,623

Total 179,236

10360 An increase in total acres of RMAs from the no-action alternative gives greater protection to riparian 

10361 function and structure than the no-action alternative and the B alternative at lakes and natural ponds 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

308

10362 (where riparian distance is increased from 150 to 300 feet), and intermittent streams and wetlands, seeps, 

10363 and springs less than 1 acre (where riparian distance is increased from 50 feet in non-INFISH priority 

10364 watersheds to 100 feet across the Forest). There is no research to indicate that riparian reserve widths 

10365 under the Northwest Forest Plan provide more protection than necessary to meet riparian desired 

10366 conditions and objectives (Everest and Reeves 2007). This finding supports the expansion of RMA widths 

10367 from INFISH RHCA widths to be more consistent with Riparian Reserve widths from the Northwest 

10368 Forest Plan. 

10369 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Plan Components

10370 The proposed action includes objectives, standards, and guidelines specific to RMAs. Objectives for 

10371 RMAs include:

10372 • Modification of grazing practices in RMAs to move toward desired conditions

10373 • Restoration of riparian processes at dispersed recreation sites 

10374 • Consolidation of user-created access routes in RMAs

10375 • Provide upstream fish passage at road stream crossings

10376 Standards address activities including chemical application, fuel containment, fuel wood cutting, road and 

10377 stream crossing construction and reconstruction, location of livestock handling and watering facilities, 

10378 location of mine waste, pump screening, fire suppression, fuel chipping, new and existing special uses, 

10379 and development of new hydroelectric facilities. Guidelines address activities including, RMA function, 

10380 water drafting, hazard tree retention, harvest and thinning, road and stream crossing construction and re10381 construction, livestock grazing, recreation facilities, mineral development, fire suppression, and 

10382 watershed restoration project design. There are 28 guidelines and 17 standards for RMAs in the proposed 

10383 action. These standards and guidelines and BMPs form the primary mechanisms of protection of riparian 

10384 and aquatic function under the proposed action.

10385 Key Watersheds

10386 Key watersheds are one of the primary elements within the proposed action that maintain and improve 

10387 hydrologic and aquatic function. Key watersheds are a network of watersheds that serve as strongholds 

10388 for important aquatic resources or have the potential to do so through focused restoration (USDA Forest 

10389 Service 2008). Key watersheds are designated at the subwatershed scale and were selected based on 

10390 population condition of focal aquatic species (interior redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and bull 

10391 trout), and aquatic habitat condition and function (see fisheries report for description of this 

10392 methodology). Management in key watersheds minimizes risk and maximizes restoration of preservation 

10393 of ecological health. The key watershed network in the proposed action was identified in 2011, and 

10394 expands the INFISH priority network in the proposed action with the addition of 13 additional 

10395 subwatersheds. Four subwatersheds in the INFISH priority network were not included in the key 

10396 watershed network for the proposed action because they did not have the aquatic habitat conditions or 

10397 focal species population necessary for designation as a key watershed under Reiss et al. (2008).

10398 There are 371,943 acres of key watersheds under National Forest System ownership (34 percent of total 

10399 Colville National Forest ownership) in the proposed action (table 113). Existing miles and road density of 

10400 NFS roads in RHCAs within the Forest ownership boundary in key watersheds are shown in table 113. 

10401 Key watersheds are included in the focused restoration, backcountry, backcountry motorized, research 

10402 natural area, recommended wilderness, and wilderness management areas. The Winchester Creek SWS is 

10403 the only key watershed located in the general restoration MA in the proposed action. Subwatershed 

10404 names, numbers, and boundaries have changed since the creation of management areas in the proposed 

10405 action, and inclusion of Winchester Creek in the general restoration MA is a legacy of these changes.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

309

10406 Table 113. Key watersheds in the proposed action

Key Watershed 

Number

Key Watershed 

Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres

Colville National 

Forest

Ownership Acres

Riparian 

Road Miles

Riparian 

Road Density

170102160102 Winchester Creek 10,482 5,627 10.7 4.2

170102160103 Exposure CreekPend Oreille River 41,223 14,462 9.7 1.7

170102160106 Smalle Creek 17,753 11,058 9.9 1.9

170102160109 Tacoma Creek 39,519 27,182 25.1 2.7

170102160202 West Branch Le 

Clerc Creek 21,671 15,098 5.6 0.9

170102160203 East Branch Le 

Clerc Creek 26,662 11,145 11.0 2.7

170102160204 Ruby Creek 19,597 18,385 13.1 2.2

170102160302 Sweet Creek-Pend 

Oreille River 41,831 28,890 16.5 2.1

170102160303 Harvey Creek 32,998 27,553 17.6 1.9

170102160304 Headwaters Sullivan 

Creek 45,516 45,417 45.1 3.9

170102160305

North Fork Sullivan 

Creek-Sullivan 

Creek

12,708 11,258 1.8 0.6

170102160306 Slate Creek 19,911 19,907 10.5 2.3

170102160307 South Salmo River 22,271 15,932 0.1 0

170200010104 North Fork Deep 

Creek 49,256 26,633 15.7 2.2

170200010306 Barnaby Creek 23,107 14,299 9.1 2.4

170200010401 Upper Hall Creek 31,648 13,785 3.7 1.0

170200010402 Sitdown Creek 14,484 0 0 0

170200010403 Middle Hall Creek 15,480 1,927 0.9 0.8

170200020401 Trout Creek 23,434 14,121 10.7 3.6

170200020501 Tonata Creek 14,453 13,780 16.2 5.9

170200020608 North Fork 

Deadman Creek 13,449 13,185 8.8 1.1

170200020609 Deadman Creek 26,518 22,299 10.7 2.6

Total 563,971 371,943

10407 Watershed and Aquatic Restoration

10408 The proposed action prioritizes watershed restoration through measureable objectives in key watersheds, 

10409 and additional RMA objectives to improve aquatic and hydrologic condition and function and move 

10410 toward desired conditions. Plan components specific to key watersheds, including measureable objectives 

10411 are discussed in this section. 

10412 Key watersheds where restoration would be prioritized were identified based on limiting factors to 

10413 hydrologic and aquatic function that could be improved through focused restoration projects identified in 

10414 the WCF and AEC processes (see MacDonald et al. 2015). Measurable objectives for key watersheds that 

10415 are priorities for active restoration would contribute to the maintenance and restoration of desired 

10416 conditions in key watersheds. Desired conditions for key watersheds include:
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

310

10417 • Key watersheds are networks of watersheds with good habitat and functionally intact ecosystems 

10418 that contribute to and enhance recovery of threatened and endangered species;

10419 • Roads do not present risk to aquatic resources;

10420 • Key watersheds have high watershed integrity

10421 Future projects in key watersheds would focus on achieving key watershed-specific, RMA, and aquatic 

10422 and riparian system desired conditions. While watershed improvement treatments are not expected on 

10423 every acre of key watershed through the life of this forest plan, specific measurable objectives for key 

10424 watersheds where restoration is focused are expected to accelerate the pace of aquatic restoration across 

10425 the key watershed network. 

10426 Specific objectives for key watersheds were developed that are intended to achieve desired conditions. 

10427 Objectives for the key watershed network under the proposed action include:

10428 • Key watershed objective 1 Watershed Restoration Prioritization: Management in key 

10429 watersheds focuses on restoration or preservation of watershed, aquatic, and riparian function and 

10430 recovery of threatened and endangered species. Improve watershed condition class in key 

10431 watersheds that are a priority for restoration within 15 years of forest plan implementation. Key 

10432 watersheds that are a priority for restoration include East Branch LeClerc Creek, West Branch 

10433 LeClerc Creek, Deadman Creek, Barnaby Creek, Harvey Creek, North Fork Deadman Creek, North 

10434 Fork Sullivan Creek, Sullivan Creek, Ruby Creek, and Tonata Creek subwatersheds. Additional key 

10435 watersheds that are a priority for restoration would be identified, as appropriate through the life of 

10436 the plan.

10437 • Key watershed objective Road Treatments: Reduce road-hydrologic connectivity and sediment 

10438 delivery on roads through storm damage risk reduction treatments, full hydrologic 

10439 decommissioning, and other accepted treatment measures on 78 miles of hydrologically connected 

10440 road within 15 years of forest plan implementation.

10441 • Restore or maintain aquatic organism passage and improve hydrologic and aquatic habitat function 

10442 at 36 road/stream crossings for all native aquatic species, seasons, flows, and life stages within 

10443 15 years of Forest plan implementation through culvert replacement or crossing improvement and 

10444 natural channel design or other acceptable treatment measures that provide for natural stream 

10445 channel function at all flows.

10446 • Key watershed objective Range Infrastructure Improvements: Improve hydrologic and aquatic 

10447 function through range infrastructure improvements, including riparian fencing, movement and 

10448 improvement of watering troughs, and other acceptable treatments on 250 acres within 15 years of 

10449 plan implementation.

10450 • Key watershed objective Riparian Vegetation Structure: Move upland vegetation within 

10451 riparian management areas in key watersheds toward HRV on 1,200 acres within 15 years of plan 

10452 implementation.

10453 • Key watershed objective Stream Restoration: Restore hydrologic, geomorphic, and riparian 

10454 process and function on 76 miles of stream within 15 years of forest plan implementation through 

10455 activities including streambank stabilization, restoration of lateral and vertical hydrologic 

10456 connectivity and improvement of stream channel and floodplain function.

10457 Objectives for key watersheds and estimates of restoration work that would be completed through the life 

10458 of this plan in key watersheds that are priorities for active restoration are shown in the following table.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

311

10459 Table 114. Objectives for key watersheds that are a priority for restoration

Key Watershed 

Prioritization

Road 

Treatments 

Road 

Improvement

(miles)*

Road Treatments 

Aquatic Organism 

Passage 

Improvement (# of 

crossings) 

Range 

Infrastructure 

Improvement

(acres)

Riparian 

Vegetation 

Structure 

Improvement 

(acres)

Stream 

Restoration 

(miles)

West Branch LeClerc Creek 3 5 20 0 10

East Branch LeClerc Creek 3 1 20 0 10

Deadman Creek 5 1 30 75-150 3

Barnaby 5 5 30 75-150 4

Harvey Creek 10 2 0 0 4

North Fork Deadman Creek 5 1 30 75-150 3

North Fork Sullivan Creek 3 1 0 0 0

Sullivan Creek 15 6 0 0 20

Tonata Creek 4 4 50 75-150 3

Ruby Creek 3 4 30 75-150 3

Treatments in additional key 

and/or priority watersheds 

(estimate addition 3 

subwatersheds) 

12 6 30 75-150 10

Total for the life of the 

plan (essential projects 

completed for 12 key 

watersheds)

68 miles 36 crossings 240 acres 450-900 acres 70 miles

10460 The following standards were developed for key watersheds in the proposed action:

10461 • There shall be no net increase at any time in the mileage of Forest roads in any key watershed 

10462 unless doing so results in a reduction in road-related risk to watershed condition;

10463 • Hydroelectric and other water development authorizations shall include requirements for in-stream 

10464 flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore native fish and other desired aquatic species 

10465 populations;

10466 • New hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not be located in a key watershed.

10467 Through the life of this revised forest plan, completion of essential projects in 12 key watersheds is 

10468 estimated. Treatments to achieve this goal include; 68 miles of reduction in road hydrologic connectivity 

10469 through decommissioning and storm damage risk reduction treatments, improvement of aquatic organism 

10470 passage at 36 crossings, 240 acres of range infrastructure improvements, 450 to 950 acres of riparian 

10471 vegetation improvements to move upland vegetation in riparian areas toward HRV, and 70 miles of 

10472 improvement of hydrologic and geomorphic channel function through in-stream channel improvements.

10473 Roads/Access 

10474 Acres of Management Area Where Road Building Activities are Permitted

10475 Approximately 291,096 acres (26 percent of Colville National Forest) in the proposed action are in 

10476 management areas where construction of new roads is prohibited, including backcountry, backcountry 

10477 motorized, research natural areas and both designated and recommended wilderness. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

312

10478 Road Density Desired Conditions

10479 Road densities of less than 1 mile per square mile with no valley bottom roads are considered low enough 

10480 to support proper watershed and aquatic function (Potyondy and Geier 2010). Road densities of 1 to 

10481 2.4 miles per square mile are considered functional at risk, and road densities greater than 2.4 miles per 

10482 square mile are considered not functional. While road density provides a broad-scale metric to assess 

10483 watershed condition, the location, type, and condition of roads provides a better approximation for 

10484 potential effect of the road system on hydrologic and aquatic function.

10485 While road densities vary across the management areas, a road density desired condition of no greater 

10486 than 2 miles per square mile of ML1-5 roads is included in the focused restoration management area 

10487 (257,157 acres, 23 percent of Colville National Forest ), and no greater than 3 miles per square mile in the 

10488 general restoration management area (533,891 acres, 48 percent of Colville National Forest ). Existing 

10489 road densities calculated by management area at the 5th field watershed scale for the focused and general 

10490 restoration management areas are shown in table 115. There are no watersheds within the focused 

10491 restoration MA where existing condition meets the road density desired condition of 2 miles per square 

10492 mile. There are 8 watersheds within the general restoration MA that meet the road density desired 

10493 condition of 3 miles per square mile, and 9 watersheds that do not meet road density desired conditions.

10494
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

313

10495 Table 115. Existing road density by 5th field watershed for the focused and general restoration management 

10496 areas under the proposed action

5th field Watershed Name Road Density (mi/mi2)

Meets Road Density 

Desired Condition of 

2 mi/mi2?

Focused Restoration MA

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 3.3 N

Curlew Creek 2.6 N

Deep Creek 3.7 N

Hall Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 5.3 N

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 2.1 N

Sherman Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 2.8 N

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.7 N

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.1 N

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 3.9 N

10497

5th field Watershed Name Road Density (mi/mi2).

Meets Road Density 

Desired Condition of 

3 mi/mi2

?

General Restoration MA

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 3.0 Y

Chewelah Creek-Colville River 4.3 N

Curlew Creek 3.6 N

Deep Creek 3.4 N

Hall Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 4.3 N

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 2.6 Y

Little Pend Oreille River 3.3 N

Mill Creek 2.7 Y

Onion Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 2.8 Y

Sherman Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 2.8 Y

Stensgar Creek-Colville River 3.0 Y

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.0 Y

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 4.1 N

Toroda Creek 2.5 Y

Upper Sanpoil River 3.2 N

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 4.6 N

West Fork Sanpoil River 3.7 N

10498 Road Management Plan Components

10499 A specific objective for reduction in road hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery through 

10500 treatment of an estimated 68 miles of hydrologically connected road through the life of the plan would 

10501 improve hydrologic and aquatic function and reduce road risk and density. Roads that are hydrologically 

10502 connected to the stream system are the focus of restoration activities because watershed-scale road 

10503 analyses across the Pacific Northwest have shown that less than 10 percent of road segments deliver 

10504 90 percent of road-generated sediment to the stream system. Therefore, treatment of the highest risk 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

314

10505 hydrologically connected road has the greatest potential to reduce the risk of roads to aquatic habitat and 

10506 hydrologic function (GRAIP 2014). 

10507 In addition to specific road density desired conditions for the general and focused restoration management 

10508 areas, desired conditions for aquatic and riparian systems, RMAs, and key watersheds focused on 

10509 minimizing hydrologic interruption, erosion, and sedimentation from the road system are included in the 

10510 proposed action. Projects implemented under the proposed action would be designed with the goal of 

10511 achieving these desired conditions. 

10512 The proposed action includes standards for sidecasting, fill placement, and avoidance of hydrologic flow 

10513 paths during road construction, maintenance, and reconstruction. Also included in the proposed action is a 

10514 standard for reconstructing stream crossings to accommodate 100-year flows, avoid diversion of 

10515 streamflow onto roads in the event of crossing failure, and provide fish passage for all species and life 

10516 stages. Guidelines in the proposed action include avoidance of road construction in RMAs, wetlands, and 

10517 unstable areas, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings to allow for riparian-dependent species 

10518 passage, and retention of fish passage barriers where they restrict access by non-native fish species. 

10519 Standards, guidelines, BMPs, and restoration objectives to minimize hydrologic impacts from the road 

10520 system are the primary mechanisms to protect water quality and riparian function from roads under the 

10521 proposed action. 

10522 Old Forest Management, Timber Production, and Upland Vegetation Condition 

10523 Active Vegetation Management 

10524 Timber production is allowed in both focused and general restoration management areas, which cover 

10525 790,987 acres (71 percent of the Forest). This is less than the no-action and B alternatives, similar to 

10526 alternatives P and O, and more than alternative R. Acres treated are constrained by forest budgets, and 

10527 project-level considerations. BMPs are the primary mechanism to limit the potential effects of vegetation 

10528 management activities on water quality and hydrologic function. 

10529 Primary Vegetation Management Tools 

10530 Variable density thinning would be the primary tool for active commercial vegetation management in the 

10531 focused and general restoration MAs in the proposed action in the Douglas-fir dry and northern Rocky 

10532 Mountain mixed conifer vegetation types in the proposed action with an estimated (modeled) treatment of 

10533 4,050 acres per year. Mechanical fuels treatments are estimated on 5,000 acres per year in these 

10534 vegetation types. Mixed and light severity prescribed fire would be used in open-canopy stands on a 20-

10535 year rotation to maintain open conditions in the Douglas-fir dry and northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

10536 conifer vegetation types with treatment modeled for 3,839 acres per year. Shelterwood harvest with 

10537 reserves would be the primary commercial vegetation management tool in the subalpine fir and lodgepole 

10538 pine vegetation type with an estimated (modeled) 950 acres of treatment per year. Stand-replacing 

10539 prescribed fire would be used in the subalpine fir and lodgepole pine vegetation type with an estimated 

10540 treatment of 1,040 acres per year. There are no modeled vegetation treatments in the Western 

10541 redcedar/Western hemlock and spruce/subalpine fir vegetation types.

10542 Acres of Colville National Forest lands by management area and activities authorized in each 

10543 management area are shown in table 116.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

315

10544 Table 116. Proposed action management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

10545 affect the hydrologic resource

Management areas Acres New roadbuilding 

authorized? Timber production authorized?

Focused Restoration 257,157 Y, 2 mi/mi2 Y

General Restoration 533,892 Y, 3 mi/mi2 Y

Backcountry 90,846 N N

Backcountry Motorized 61,726 N N

Research Natural Area 5,703 N N

Scenic byways 19,564 Y N

Recommended Wilderness (RW) 101,390 N N

Congressionally Designated (CD) 

Wilderness 31,400 N N

*RMAs 179,236 Y—within standards 

and guidelines

N—vegetation management can be 

used as a tool to meet or maintain 

desired conditions, goals and 

objectives

Total Acres 1,101,709

10546 *MAs overlay other management area and are not included in total acreage calculations.

10547 Historic Range of Variability

10548 Six out of 19 structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under the proposed 

10549 action (table 117). The same number of structure classes are within HRV for no action, the proposed 

10550 action, and alternatives P and B. Six structure classes are below HRV, and seven are above. The late 

10551 closed forest structure would be above HRV in three of five vegetation types. Levels of disturbance and 

10552 management do not occur across enough acres over 100 years under the proposed action to create open 

10553 structure conditions that existed historically. Areas that would historically have contained large trees with

10554 open canopy conditions, and greater resistant to wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks would be in a 

10555 closed canopy condition with greater susceptibility to disturbance (Day 2015).

10556 Table 117. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under the 

10557 proposed action

Vegetation Type Early 

Structure

Mid-open 

Structure

Mid-closed 

Structure

Late Open 

Structure

Late Closed 

Structure

Douglas-fir dry @ @ + - +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer - + + @ @

Western hemlock/ Western 

redcedar - n/a - n/a +

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine + n/a - n/a @

Spruce/ Subalpine fir - n/a @ n/a +

10558 @=within HRV; -=below HRV; +=above HRV; and n/a=structure class does not exist within this vegetation type

10559 Vegetation Management Plan Components

10560 Standards for fuel wood cutting, application of herbicides and other pesticides, and fuel chipping are 

10561 included in the proposed action. Guidelines are included for hazard tree felling, timber harvest and 

10562 thinning in RMAs, location of landings, skid trails, and staging, decking, and yarding activities in RMAs. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

316

10563 Standards, guidelines, and BMPs are the primary mechanisms to protect water quality and riparian 

10564 function from vegetation management activities under the proposed action.

10565 Grazing Plan Components

10566 Current allotment boundaries and AUMs would continue under the proposed action. Plan components in 

10567 the proposed action provide stricter guidelines than INFISH to attain goals, objectives, and desired 

10568 conditions. A guideline with stricter criteria for minimizing streambank alteration, decreasing vegetation 

10569 utilization, and increasing stubble height should move toward desired conditions in a shorter timeframe 

10570 than the no-action alternative. Specific guidelines within greenline vegetation area adjacent to all 

10571 watercourses include:

10572 • Do not exceed 20 percent streambank utilization

10573 • Do not exceed 40 percent utilization of mean annual vegetation production on woody vegetation

10574 • Maintain at least 4 to 6 inches or do not exceed 40 percent utilization of mean annual vegetative 

10575 production of herbaceous vegetation.

10576 Standards, guidelines, BMPs, and restoration objectives to mitigate the impact of grazing on hydrologic 

10577 function and water quality are the primary mechanisms to preserve water quality and hydrologic function 

10578 under the proposed action.

10579 Summary of Effects and Comparison to Other Alternatives

10580 The proposed action provides more protection for preservation and restoration of hydrologic function, 

10581 water quality, and water uses than the no-action and B alternatives. The proposed action does not provide 

10582 as much protection for preservation and restoration of hydrologic function, water quality, and water uses 

10583 as the R, P, and O alternatives. Effects of the proposed action in relation to other alternatives include:

10584 • The proposed action addresses the need for change more effectively than no action and alternatives 

10585 B and O. Through plan components and principles from ARCS, and specific objectives for 

10586 restoration in key watersheds, the pace and scale of watershed restoration and resiliency to potential 

10587 hydrologic effects of climate change are increased in the proposed action. The proposed action does 

10588 not address the need for change as effectively as alternatives P and R.

10589 • Wider RMA widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than the no-action alternative and 

10590 alternative B would improve and preserve hydrologic and riparian function better than narrower 

10591 RHCA widths in no action and alternative B.

10592 • There are more acres of key watersheds in the proposed action than in the INFISH priority network 

10593 in no action and alternative B. There are fewer acres of key watersheds in the proposed action than 

10594 in the R, P, and O alternatives. While restoration activities are not expected on every acre within 

10595 key watersheds, the larger key watershed network in the proposed action would accelerate the pace 

10596 of restoration of hydrologic function than in the smaller INFISH priority network in no action and 

10597 alternative B.

10598 • The proposed action would accelerate improvement in watershed condition faster than no action 

10599 and alternative B. Measurable objectives in key watersheds would accelerate restoration and 

10600 preservation of hydrologic function. There are fewer subwatersheds in the proposed action key 

10601 watershed network than in the key watershed network for alternatives R, P, and O. 

10602 • Desired conditions are identified for general aquatic riparian and watershed condition; no action

10603 and alternative B focus on general riparian goals rather than desired conditions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

317

10604 • Approximately 26 percent of Colville National Forest land base is in management areas where 

10605 construction of new roads is prohibited. Twenty-three percent of the Colville National Forest land 

10606 base is within the focused restoration MA where desired condition for road density is 2 miles per 

10607 square mile.

10608 • Approximately 71 percent of Colville National Forest land base is in management areas where 

10609 active vegetation management is authorized. This is less than no action and alternative B, similar to 

10610 alternatives P and O, and greater than alternative R.

10611 • Six out of 19 vegetation structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under 

10612 the proposed action. Departure from HRV in the proposed action is the same as no action, and 

10613 alternatives P and O. 

10614 • Standards and guidelines address watershed function, including protection of streambank and 

10615 floodplain integrity from livestock grazing, reduction of erosion and sedimentation and disruption 

10616 of hydrologic processes from roads and trails. Standards and guidelines in the proposed action

10617 should protect watershed function and water quality more effectively than no action and alternative 

10618 B. Standards and guidelines in the proposed action are less restrictive than in alternatives R and P.

10619 • There is a greater emphasis on grazing standards and guidelines in the proposed action, A guideline 

10620 with numeric criteria for streambank alteration, herbaceous and woody utilization, and stubble 

10621 height should be more effective in moving toward desired conditions in RMAs in grazing 

10622 allotments than no action and alternative B. Standards and guidelines for grazing in the proposed 

10623 action are not as restrictive as in alternatives R and P.

10624 • Standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments are more stringent in 

10625 the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O than in no action and B alternative. 

10626 • Measureable objectives and focused restoration activities in key watersheds in the proposed action

10627 would increase the pace of increasing resiliency of infrastructure and water uses to potential effects 

10628 of climate change. Since the key watershed network is smaller in the proposed action than 

10629 alternatives R, P, and O, the proposed action would be less effective in increasing resiliency to 

10630 climate change than alternatives R, P, and O.

10631 Alternative R 

10632 Alternative R responds to public comments that the proposed action does not provide watershed, aquatic, 

10633 and riparian resource protections that are as effective as current forest plan direction. Aquatic direction 

10634 and plan components in alternative R are based on a modified version of ARCS (referred to throughout 

10635 this plan as ARCS-modified), which adds clarification to desired conditions, objectives, standards, and 

10636 guidelines to address issues specific to the Forest. 

10637 Changes from ARCS to ARCS-modified were based on public and internal comments, best available 

10638 science, and new policies on Forest Service management of aquatic and riparian resources, including the 

10639 Watershed Condition Framework. ARCS-modified plan components were updated based on discussions 

10640 with the Forest Plan interdisciplinary team, resource specialists in the Pacific Northwest regional office, 

10641 and other reviewers of the draft forest plan. 

10642 Most of the updates made to ARCS plan components in ARCS-modified add clarity to individual plan 

10643 components. Operational constraints were also considered in the evaluation of each standard and 

10644 guideline within ARCS.

10645 Alternative R includes three new guidelines related to aquatic invasive species, one new guideline 

10646 addressing fuel storage in RMAs, a new standard to limit hydrologic impacts from roads, trails, and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

318

10647 developed recreation sites, and 5 standards that were guidelines in the proposed action. RMAs are the 

10648 same as the proposed action and alternatives P and O. There are more subwatersheds within the key 

10649 watershed network than in the proposed action.

10650 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 

10651 Acres of RMAs 

10652 RMA widths and acreages are the same as the proposed action and alternatives P and O. 

10653 Riparian and Aquatic Plan Components

10654 Alternative R includes desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines for general water 

10655 resources and RMAs. Desired conditions for general water resources, key watersheds, and RMAs have 

10656 been updated and clarified in alternative R. An additional desired condition addressing roads in RMAs is 

10657 included in alternative R. A desired condition was also added to alternative R to address the existing 

10658 condition in focus and priority watersheds. RMA and general water resources objectives address limiting 

10659 factors to hydrologic, aquatic, and riparian function, and focus on improving watershed condition through 

10660 the life of the plan and are discussed in detail in the watershed and aquatic restoration section. 

10661 Standards in alternative R address activities including chemical application, fuel containment, fuel wood 

10662 cutting, road and stream crossing construction and reconstruction, location of livestock handling and 

10663 watering facilities, location of mine waste, pump screening, fire suppression, fuel chipping, new and 

10664 existing special uses, and development of new hydroelectric facilities. Guidelines under the proposed 

10665 action that address activities including, RMA function, water drafting, hazard tree retention, harvest and 

10666 thinning, road and stream crossing construction and re-construction, livestock grazing, recreation 

10667 facilities, mineral development, fire suppression, and watershed restoration project design are standards in 

10668 alternative R. Alternative R has a greater emphasis on standards than the proposed action; there are 27 

10669 guidelines and 21 standards for general water resources, key watersheds, and RMAs in the proposed 

10670 action. Standards, guidelines, and BMPs are the primary mechanisms to protect hydrologic, aquatic, and 

10671 riparian function in alternative R.

10672 Key Watersheds

10673 The key watershed network is expanded in alternative R based on updated fish distribution data, improved 

10674 data on aquatic habitat function, and changes in boundaries, names, and numbers of subwatersheds since 

10675 designation of the key watershed network for the proposed action. Five subwatersheds were added to the 

10676 key watershed network in the proposed action. Additionally, three subwatersheds were removed from the 

10677 proposed action key watershed network because they contain less than 25 percent National Forest System 

10678 ownership. 

10679 There are 451,525 acres of key watersheds under National Forest System ownership (41 percent of total 

10680 Colville National Forest ownership) in alternative R. Under alternative R, key watersheds are included in 

10681 the late forest structure, backcountry, backcountry motorized, research natural area, recommended 

10682 wilderness, and wilderness management areas. While watershed improvement treatments are not expected 

10683 on every acre of key watershed through the life of this forest plan, specific measurable objectives for key 

10684 watersheds are expected to accelerate the pace of aquatic restoration across the key watershed network. 

10685 Water quality and hydrologic function are expected to improve from restoration projects to meet specific 

10686 objectives outlined in the forest plan.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

319

10687 Table 118. Key watersheds (subwatershed scale) for alternatives R, P, and O

Key Watershed 

Number Key Watershed Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres

Colville 

National 

Forest

Ownership 

Acres

Riparian 

Road 

Miles

Riparian 

Road 

Density

170102160102 Winchester Creek 10,482 5,628 10.7 4.2

170102160103 Smalle Creek 17,754 11,058 9.9 1.9

170102160201 Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille 

River 41,224 14,463 9.7 1.7

170102160206 Tacoma Creek 39,519 27,182 25.1 2.7

170102160302 West Branch Le Clerc Creek 21,672 15,099 5.6 0.9

170102160303 East Branch Le Clerc Creek 26,663 11,145 11.0 2.7

170102160304 Ruby Creek 19,597 18,385 13.1 2.2

170102160401 Harvey Creek 32,999 27,554 17.6 1.9

170102160402 Headwaters Sullivan Creek 45,516 45,417 45.1 3.9

170102160403 North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan 

Creek 12,709 11,259 1.8 0.6

170102160702 Headwaters South Salmo River 20,697 12,472 0.1 0

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River 41,832 28,890 16.5 2.1

170102160903 Slate Creek 20,195 19,907 10.5 2.3

170102161003 Cedar Creek 17,209 5,359 1.4 1.2

170200011004 North Fork Deep Creek 49,257 26,634 15.7 2.2

170200011301 South Fork Sherman Creek 22,004 21,899 11.6 2.3

170200011302 Upper Sherman Creek 26,381 26,260 15.4 2.8

170200011303 Lower Sherman Creek 20,987 15,998 6.7 6.7

170200011306 Barnaby Creek 23,108 14,299 9.1 2.4

170200011401 Upper Hall Creek 31,648 13,786 3.7 1.0

170200021301 Trout Creek 23,435 14,122 10.7 3.6

170200021701 Tonata Creek 14,453 13,781 16.2 5.9

170200021907 East Deer Creek-Kettle River 23,385 15,443 4.2 1.5

170200022002 North Fork Deadman Creek 13,450 13,185 8.8 1.1

170200022003 Deadman Creek 26,518 22,300 10.7 2.6

Total 642,692 451,525

10688 Three desired conditions for key watersheds in alternative R are similar to the proposed action, but have 

10689 been updated for clarity. These desired conditions address riparian composition, key riparian processes, 

10690 and livestock grazing, which are the same in alternative R and the proposed action. Standards for key 

10691 watersheds are similar to the proposed action with clarification in the description of the “no net increase 

10692 in road miles” standard. 

10693 Watershed and Aquatic Restoration

10694 Identification of key watersheds that are a priority for restoration and objectives for key watersheds are 

10695 the same as the proposed action, except Upper Sherman Creek and South Fork Sherman Creek were 

10696 added as restoration priorities in alternative R. Key watersheds that are priorities for restoration and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

320

10697 projected restoration completed through the life of this forest plan are shown in table 119. Key watershed 

10698 objectives include:

10699 • FW-OBJ-WR-05. Key Watershed Restoration Prioritization: Management in key watersheds 

10700 focuses on restoration or preservation of watershed, aquatic, and riparian function and recovery of 

10701 threatened and endangered species. Improve watershed condition class in key watersheds that are a 

10702 priority for restoration within 15 years of forest plan implementation. Key watersheds that are a 

10703 priority for restoration include: 

10704 East Branch LeClerc Creek, West Branch LeClerc Creek, Deadman Creek, Barnaby Creek, Harvey 

10705 Creek, North Fork Deadman Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek, Sullivan Creek, Ruby Creek, Upper 

10706 Sherman Creek, South Fork Sherman Creek, and Tonata Creek subwatersheds. Additional key 

10707 watersheds that are a priority for restoration will be identified, as appropriate through the life of the 

10708 plan.

10709 • FW-OBJ-WR-06. Key Watershed Road Treatments: Reduce road-hydrologic connectivity and 

10710 sediment delivery on roads through storm damage risk reduction treatments, full hydrologic 

10711 decommissioning, and other accepted treatment measures on 78 miles of hydrologically connected 

10712 road within 15 years of forest plan implementation.

10713 Restore or maintain aquatic organism passage and improve hydrologic and aquatic habitat function 

10714 at 50 road/stream crossings for all native aquatic species, seasons, flows, and life stages within 15 

10715 years of Forest plan implementation through culvert replacement or crossing improvement and 

10716 natural channel design or other acceptable treatment measures that provide for natural stream 

10717 channel function at all flows.

10718 • FW-OBJ-WR-07. Key Watershed Range Infrastructure Improvements: Improve hydrologic 

10719 and aquatic function through range infrastructure improvements, including riparian fencing, 

10720 movement and improvement of watering troughs, and other acceptable treatments on 250 acres 

10721 within 15 years of plan implementation.

10722 • FW-OBJ-WR-08. Upland Vegetation Structure in RMAs in Key Watersheds: Move upland 

10723 vegetation within riparian management areas in key watersheds toward HRV on 1,200 acres within 

10724 15 years of plan implementation.

10725 • FW-OBJ-WR-09. Stream Restoration in Key Watersheds: Restore hydrologic, geomorphic, 

10726 and riparian process and function on 76 miles of stream within 15 years of forest plan 

10727 implementation through activities including streambank stabilization, restoration of lateral and 

10728 vertical hydrologic connectivity and improvement of stream channel and floodplain function.

10729
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

321

10730 Table 119. Key watersheds that are priorities for restoration and projected restoration activities based on key 

10731 watershed objectives that will be completed through the life of alternative R

Key Watershed 

Prioritization

Road 

Treatments

Road 

Improvement 

(miles)*

Road 

Treatments

Aquatic 

Organism 

Passage 

Improvement 

(# of crossings) 

Range 

Infrastructure 

Improvement

(acres)

Riparian 

Vegetation 

Structure 

Improvement 

(acres)

Stream 

Restorati

on 

(miles)

West Branch 

LeClerc Creek 3 5 20 0 10

East Branch 

LeClerc Creek 3 1 20 0 10

Deadman Creek 5 1 30 75-150 3

Upper Sherman 

Creek 5 5 0 75-150 2

South Fork 

Sherman Creek 5 9 0 75-150 4

Barnaby Creek 5 5 30 75-150 4

Harvey Creek 10 2 0 0 4

Tonata Creek 4 4 50 75-150 3

North Fork 

Deadman Creek 5 1 30 75-150 3

North Fork 

Sullivan Creek 3 1 0 0 0

Sullivan Creek 15 6 0 0 20

Ruby Creek 3 4 30 75-150 3

Treatments in 

additional key 

and/or priority 

watersheds 

(estimate addition 

3 subwatersheds 

over 15 years) 

12 6 30 75-150 10

Total for the life 

of the plan 

(essential 

projects 

completed for 14 

subwatersheds)

78 miles 50 crossings 240 acres 600-1,200 acres 76 miles

10732 Objectives for restoration in RMAs are expanded and clarified in alternative R from those included in the 

10733 proposed action. In addition, alternative R includes an objective for management of upland vegetation in 

10734 RMAs to move toward HRV. Two RMA objectives apply to subwatersheds outside of key watersheds, 

10735 since key watershed objectives address the same activities within key watersheds. Objectives for RMAs 

10736 in alternative R include:

10737 • MA-OBJ-RMA-01. Improve Riparian Function at Dispersed and Developed Recreation Sites: 

10738 Over the next 15 years, restore riparian processes and balance need for occupancy and access to 

10739 water at 50 dispersed and developed recreation sites, through education, enforcement, and 

10740 engineering where recreational use results in bank damage, reduction in water quality, and/ or a 

10741 reduction in stream shade. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

322

10742 • MA-OBJ-RMA-02. Restoration of Riparian Habitat and Processes on Roads: Restore 

10743 hydrologic and riparian habitat function within RMAs in non-key watersheds by reducing road10744 related impacts on 30 miles of road within 15 years.

10745 • MA-OBJ-RMA-03. Restoration of Late Forest Structure: Move upland vegetation within 

10746 riparian management areas outside of key watersheds toward HRV on 500 acres within 15 years of 

10747 plan implementation.

10748 Alternative R also includes general water resources objectives, not included in the proposed action:

10749 • FW-OBJ-WR-01. Aquatic Invasive Species: Within the next 15 years, implement aquatic 

10750 invasive species prevention measures at all developed recreation sites providing direct and/or 

10751 indirect access to water bodies, such as boat ramps and other campgrounds, resorts and day use 

10752 areas that provide portal zones for hand carried watercraft. Implement aquatic invasive species 

10753 prevention measures as part of all aquatic survey and inventory procedures and other management 

10754 activities that pose high potential for invasion vectors to occur. 

10755 • FW-OBJ-WR-02. Aquatic Invasive and Non-Native Species: Within the next 15 years, 

10756 implement aquatic invasive species control and eradication at 10 sites where such invasions have 

10757 become established and prevent attainment of listed fish recovery plan goals and/or effects to 

10758 social, economic and ecological systems are determined to be unacceptable. 

10759 • FW-OBJ-WR-03. General Watershed Function and Restoration: Within the next 15 years, 

10760 decrease sediment delivery from management activities on 1,000 acres including but not limited to 

10761 roads, livestock, illegal ORV use, vegetation management, and dispersed and developed campsites. 

10762 Restore hydrologic, aquatic and riparian processes through activities that stabilize stream bank 

10763 erosion, and other accelerated channel destabilizing processes (i.e., headcutting), improve lateral 

10764 and vertical hydrologic connectivity, and improve stream channel and floodplain function on 10

10765 miles of streams. 

10766 • FW-OBJ-WR-04. Fish Passage Improvement: Restore aquatic organism passage at 45 

10767 road/stream crossings and man-made instream structures including water diversions and dams 

10768 outside of key watersheds for all native species, seasons, flows, and life stages within 15 years of 

10769 forest plan implementation, through culvert replacement or installation and improvement of 

10770 hydrologic and aquatic habitat function and resiliency to a range of flows through natural channel 

10771 design and other acceptable treatment measures. 

10772 • FW-OBJ-WR-10. Watershed Restoration in Focus and Priority Watersheds: Over 15 years, 

10773 implement the watershed condition framework through completion of essential projects outlined in 

10774 watershed action plans in existing focus and priority watersheds to improve watershed condition 

10775 class. Focus watersheds designated at the 5th field watershed scale include, Upper Sanpoil, 

10776 Chewelah Creek-Colville River, and LeClerc Creek-Pend Oreille River watersheds. Priority 

10777 watersheds designated at the subwatershed scale include Ninemile Creek, East Branch LeClerc 

10778 Creek, and West Branch LeClerc Creek subwatersheds.

10779 Appendix C of the specialist report includes details on how water resources and RMA objectives were 

10780 calculated. The water resources and RMA objectives included in alternative R provide additional direction 

10781 and a stronger focus on aquatic restoration than the proposed action.

10782 Measurable objectives for key watersheds are similar as the proposed action; however, the specific key 

10783 watersheds that are priorities for active restoration where these objectives apply are expanded from the 

10784 proposed action in alternative R. Specific objectives were developed in alternative R for the 

10785 subwatersheds added to the key watershed network. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

323

10786 Completion of essential projects in 14 key watersheds, and 1 priority watershed is estimated under 

10787 alternative R. Treatments to achieve this goal include; 78 miles of reduction in road hydrologic 

10788 connectivity through decommissioning and storm damage risk reduction treatments, improvement of 

10789 passage at 44 crossings, 240 acres of range infrastructure improvements, 600 to 1,200 acres of riparian 

10790 vegetation improvements to move upland vegetation in RMAs toward HRV, and 76 miles of improvement 

10791 of hydrologic and geomorphic channel function through in-stream channel improvements. Completion of 

10792 projects outside of key and priority watersheds is expected to improve hydrologic, aquatic and riparian

10793 function through the treatment of erosion at 50 dispersed recreation sites, 30 miles of road in RMAs, 

10794 1,000 acres where erosion problems are identified. In addition, control or eradication of aquatic invasive 

10795 species at 10 sites, 500 acres of improvement of upland vegetation in RMAs, improvement of aquatic 

10796 organism passage at 45 crossings and man-made in-stream structures, and 10 miles of stream restoration 

10797 would also improve hydrologic, aquatic, and riparian function.

10798 Roads/Access

10799 Acres of Management Area Where Road Building Activities are Permitted

10800 In alternative R, approximately 271,931 acres (25 percent of Colville National Forest) are in management 

10801 areas where construction of new roads is prohibited, including backcountry, backcountry motorized, 

10802 research natural areas and both designated and recommended wilderness. 

10803 Road Density Desired Conditions

10804 While existing road densities vary across the management areas, road density desired condition of ML1-5 

10805 roads is no greater than 1 mile per square mile in the late forest structure management area 

10806 (565,565 acres, 51 percent of Colville National Forest ), and no greater than 2 miles per square mile in the 

10807 general restoration management area (245,110 acres, 22 percent of Colville National Forest ). Existing 

10808 road densities calculated by management area at the 5th field watershed scale for the late forest structure 

10809 and general restoration management areas are shown in table 120. There are no watersheds within the 

10810 general restoration MA where existing condition meets the desired condition of 2 miles per square mile. 

10811 There are no watersheds within the late forest structure MA that meet the desired condition of 1 mile per 

10812 square mile. Objectives for treatment of roads to decrease sediment delivery should move toward meeting 

10813 road density desired conditions through the life of this forest plan.

10814
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

324

10815 Table 120. Existing road density by 5th field watershed for the general restoration and late forest structure 

10816 management areas in alternative R

5th field Watershed Name Road Density (mi/mi2)

Meets Road Density Desired 

Condition of 

2 mi/mi2?

General Restoration MA

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 4.5 N

Chewelah Creek-Colville River 6.5 N

Curlew Creek 4.0 N

Deep Creek 6.4 N

Hall Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 9.0 N

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 4.6 N

Little Pend Oreille River *14.5 N

Mill Creek 3.8 N

Onion Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake *36.2 N

Sherman Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 4.9 N

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.9 N

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 5.3 N

Toroda Creek 4.5 N

Upper Sanpoil River 3.5 N

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 4.0 N

West Fork Sanpoil River 5.3 N

10817

5th field Watershed Name Road Density (mi/sq 

mi)

Meets Road Density Desired 

Condition of 

1 mi/mi2?

Late Forest Structure MA

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 3.6 N

Chewelah Creek-Colville River 5.1 N

Curlew Creek 4.2 N

Deep Creek 4.8 N

Hall Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 6.1 N

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 4.4 N

Little Pend Oreille River 4.6 N

Mill Creek 3.4 N

Onion Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 3.6 N

Sherman Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 3.9 N

Stensgar Creek-Colville River 3.2 N

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 5.0 N

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 4.5 N

Toroda Creek 4.8 N

Upper Sanpoil River 7.2 N

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 4.6 N

10818 *Low land area included in road density calculation may make road density calculations appear high.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

325

10819 Road Management Plan Components

10820 In addition to road density desired conditions for the general and focused restoration management areas, 

10821 desired conditions for aquatic and riparian systems, RMAs, and key watersheds focused on minimizing 

10822 hydrologic interruption, erosion, and sedimentation from the road system are included in alternative R. 

10823 Road treatment projects through the life of this forest plan under alternative R would move toward desired 

10824 conditions. 

10825 Standards and guidelines to protect aquatic and riparian resources are in the RMA standards and 

10826 guidelines section of the forest plan. Alternative R includes standards for restriction of sidecasting, 

10827 placement of fill, or plowed snow in RMAs or other hydrologically connected areas, and avoidance of 

10828 hydrologic flow paths during road construction, maintenance, and reconstruction. Also included in 

10829 alternative R is a standard for reconstructing stream crossings to accommodate 100-year flows, avoiding 

10830 diversion of streamflow onto roads in the event of crossing failure, and providing fish passage for all 

10831 species and life stages at crossings. Guidelines in alternative R include construction or reconstruction of 

10832 stream crossings to allow for riparian-dependent species passage, and retention of fish passage barriers 

10833 where they restrict access by non-native fish species. Two road guidelines in the proposed action were 

10834 changed to standards in alternative R, including a no net increase in system roads in RMAs (avoidance of 

10835 road construction in RMAs guideline in the proposed action), and minimizing hydrologic connectivity 

10836 and sediment delivery from the road system. Standards, guidelines, BMPs, and restoration objectives to 

10837 minimize hydrologic impacts from the road system are the primary mechanisms to protect water quality 

10838 and riparian function from roads under alternative R.

10839 Old Forest Management, Timber Production, and Upland Vegetation Condition

10840 Active Vegetation Management

10841 Timber production would be allowed in General Restoration areas, comprising 245,110 acres (22 percent 

10842 of the Forest). Alternative R has the least amount of MAs allocated to active vegetation management. 

10843 Acres treated are constrained by forest budgets, and project-level considerations. BMPs, standards, and 

10844 guidelines are the primary mechanism to limit the potential effects of vegetation management activities on 

10845 water quality and hydrologic function. 

10846 Primary Vegetation Management Tools

10847 Partial harvest, variable density thinning, and shelterwood with reserves would be the primary tools for 

10848 active commercial vegetation management with an estimated (modeled) treatment of 975 acres per year 

10849 under alternative R. Mixed severity prescribed fire would be used in open-canopy stands on a 20-year 

10850 rotation to maintain open conditions in the Douglas-fir dry and northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer 

10851 vegetation types. Stand-replacing prescribed fire would be used in the subalpine fir and lodgepole pine 

10852 vegetation type. 

10853 Acres of Colville National Forest lands by management area and roadbuilding and timber production 

10854 authorized by management area are shown in the following table.

10855
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

326

10856 Table 121. Alternative R management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

10857 affect the hydrologic resource

Management Areas Acres New roadbuilding 

authorized? Timber Production Authorized?

Late Forest Structure 565,565

Y

1 mi/mi2 desired 

condition for road 

density

Y

General Restoration 245,110

Y

2 mi/mi2 desired 

condition for road 

density

Y

Backcountry 20,230 N N

Backcountry Motorized 6,698 N N

Research Natural Area 5,704 N N

Scenic Byways 19,109 Y

Wilderness –

Recommended 207,800 N N

WildernessCongressionally 

Designated

31,400 N N

*RMAs 179,236 Y—within standards 

and guidelines

N—vegetation management can be used 

as a tool to meet or maintain desired 

conditions, goals and objectives

Total 1,101,717

10858 *MAs overlay other management area and are not included in total acreage calculations.

10859 Historic Range of Variability

10860 Four out of 19 structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under alternative R 

10861 (table 122). Alternative R has the least number of structure and vegetation types within HRV of all 

10862 alternatives. Seven structure classes are below HRV, and eight are above. Late open structure conditions 

10863 show the greatest departure from HRV. The late closed forest structure would be above HRV in four out of 

10864 five vegetation types. Levels of disturbance and management do not occur across enough acres over 

10865 100 years under alternative P to create open structure conditions that existed historically. Areas that would 

10866 historically have contained large trees with open canopy conditions, and greater resistant to wildfire and 

10867 insect and disease outbreaks would be in a closed canopy condition with greater susceptibility to 

10868 disturbance (Day 2015).

10869 Table 122. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under 

10870 alternative R

Vegetation Type Early 

Structure

Mid-open 

Structure

Mid-closed 

Structure

Late Open 

Structure

Late 

Closed 

Structure

Douglas-fir dry @ + + - +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer - + @ - @

Western hemlock/ Western redcedar - n/a - n/a +

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine + n/a - n/a +

Spruce/ Subalpine fir - n/a @ n/a +

10871 @=within HRV; -=below HRV; +=above HRV; and n/a=structure class does not exist within this vegetation type
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

327

10872 Vegetation Management Plan Components

10873 Standards for fuel wood cutting, chemical application of herbicides and pesticides, and fuel chipping are 

10874 included in alternative R. A guideline is included for hazard tree felling. Three guidelines in the proposed 

10875 action addressing timber harvest and thinning in RMAs to move upland vegetation toward HRV, location 

10876 of landings, skid trails, and staging and decking areas, and yarding activities in RMAs were changed to 

10877 standards in alternative R. Standards, guidelines, and BMPs are the primary mechanisms to protect water 

10878 quality and riparian function from vegetation management activities under alternative R.

10879 Grazing Plan Components

10880 Current allotment boundaries and AUMs would continue under alternative R. Alternative R includes a 

10881 stricter guideline for stubble height in greenline areas to reflect best available science, and two guidelines 

10882 in the proposed action are standards in alternative R. These changes provide the framework to better 

10883 manage grazing in areas critical to aquatic and riparian function toward attainment of desired conditions. 

10884 Specific objectives for rangeland improvements in key watersheds that are priority for active restoration 

10885 should also accelerate the pace of improvement of range infrastructure and management in RMAs. 

10886 Comparison of grazing components between alternative R and other alternatives are shown in table 123.

10887 Table 123. Comparison of grazing plan components that are different between alternative R and other 

10888 alternatives (not under INFISH)

Proposed Action and Alternative O Alternatives R and P

RMA Guideline GM

Within green-line vegetation area adjacent to all 

watercourses:

• Do not exceed 20 percent streambank alteration;

• Do not exceed 40% utilization of mean annual 

vegetative production on woody vegetation;

• Maintain at least 4-6 inches or do not exceed 40% 

utilization of mean annual vegetative production on 

herbaceous vegetation

MA-GDL-RMA-09

Recreational and permitted grazing management –

green-line vegetation areas

Within green-line vegetation area adjacent to all 

watercourses:

• A 25 percent stream bank alteration shall not be 

exceeded;

• A 40 percent utilization of available mean annual 

vegetative production on woody vegetation shall not 

be exceeded;

• Maintain at least 6 to 8 inches residual stubble 

height and utilize no more than 40% of mean annual 

vegetative production on deep-rooted herbaceous 

vegetation.

RMA Guideline GM

During allotment management planning consider removal 

of existing livestock handling or management facilities 

from RMAs

MA-STD-RMA-13Recreational and permitted grazing 

management – allotment management planning

During allotment management planning, impacts from 

existing livestock handling or management facilities 

located within riparian management areas shall be 

minimized or eliminated.

RMA Guideline GM

Generally avoid trampling of federally listed threatened or 

endangered fish redds by livestock

MA-STD-RMA-14

Recreational and permitted grazing management –

fish redds

Prohibit livestock access to federally listed threatened or 

endangered fish redds.

10889 Standards, guidelines, BMPs, and restoration objectives to minimize the impact of grazing on hydrologic 

10890 function and water quality are the primary mechanisms to preserve water quality and hydrologic function 

10891 under alternative R.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

328

10892 Summary of Effects and Comparison of Other Alternatives

10893 Alternative R provides the best protection for preservation and restoration of hydrologic function, water 

10894 quality, and water uses of all alternatives. Effects of alternative R in relation to other alternatives include:

10895 • Alternative R addresses the need for change more effectively than no action, the proposed action, 

10896 and alternatives B and O. Through plan components and principles from ARCS-modified, and 

10897 specific objectives for restoration of general watershed function across the forest, and restoration in 

10898 key watersheds and RMAs, the pace and scale of watershed restoration and resiliency to potential 

10899 hydrologic effects of climate change are increased in alternative R. 

10900 • Wider RMA widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than no action and alternative B 

10901 would improve and preserve hydrologic and riparian function better than narrower RHCA widths in 

10902 no action and alternative B.

10903 • There are more acres of key watersheds in alternative R than in the INFISH priority network in no 

10904 action and alternative B, and the key watershed network in the proposed action. While restoration 

10905 activities are not expected on every acre within key watersheds, the larger key watershed network in 

10906 alternative R would accelerate the pace of restoration of hydrologic function than in the smaller 

10907 INFISH priority network in no action and alternative B and the smaller key watershed network in 

10908 the proposed action.

10909 • Alternative R would accelerate improvement in watershed condition faster than no action, the 

10910 proposed action, and alternative B. Measurable objectives for water resources, RMAs and the 

10911 expanded key watershed network would accelerate restoration and preservation of hydrologic 

10912 function. 

10913 • Desired conditions are identified for general aquatic riparian and watershed condition; DCs are not 

10914 identified in no action and alternative B.

10915 • Approximately 25 percent of Colville National Forest land base is in management areas where 

10916 construction of new roads is prohibited. Fifty-one percent of the Colville National Forest land base 

10917 is within the focused restoration MA where desired condition for road density is 1 mile per square 

10918 mile.

10919 • Approximately 22 percent of the Colville National Forest land base is in areas where active 

10920 vegetation management is authorized; this is the least amount of acres designated for this use 

10921 among all alternatives.

10922 • Four out of 19 structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under 

10923 alternative R. Alternative R has the least number of structure and vegetation types within HRV of 

10924 all alternatives. 

10925 • There is a greater emphasis on grazing standards in alternative R (and alternative P), and stricter 

10926 numeric criteria for stubble height in MA-GDL-RMA-09 should be more effective in moving 

10927 toward desired conditions in RMAs in grazing allotments than no action, the proposed action, and 

10928 alternatives B and O.

10929 • Standards and guidelines address watershed function, including protection of streambank and 

10930 floodplain integrity from livestock grazing, reduction of erosion and sedimentation and disruption 

10931 of hydrologic processes from roads and trails. Alternative R has a stronger emphasis on standards 

10932 than the proposed action, which should protect watershed function and water quality more 

10933 effectively than no action, proposed action, and alternatives B and O. 

10934 • Standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments are more stringent in 

10935 alternatives R, P, O, and the proposed action than in no action and alternative B. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

329

10936 • Measureable objectives and focused restoration activities in alternative R would increase the pace 

10937 of increasing resiliency of infrastructure and water uses to potential effects of climate change faster 

10938 than the proposed action, and alternative B. 

10939 Alternative P 

10940 Alternative P addresses public concern that wilderness designation may result in lower revenue to local 

10941 economies due to reduced recreational opportunities. Alternative P has less recommended wilderness than 

10942 the proposed action. Forest plan direction for watershed, aquatic, and riparian resources is the same as the 

10943 R alternative.

10944 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

10945 Acres of RMAs 

10946 RMA widths and acreages are the same as the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O.

10947 Riparian and Aquatic Plan Components

10948 Desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines are the same as alternative R.

10949 Key Watersheds 

10950 Acres, management, and objectives in key watersheds are the same as alternative R. 

10951 Watershed and Aquatic Restoration

10952 The pace and scale of watershed and aquatic restoration is the same as alternative R.

10953 Roads/Access 

10954 Acres of Management Area Where Road-building Activities are Permitted

10955 Approximately 283,119 acres (26 percent of Colville National Forest) in alternative P are in management 

10956 areas where construction of new roads is prohibited, including backcountry, backcountry motorized, 

10957 research natural areas and both designated and recommended wilderness. 

10958 Road Density Desired Condition

10959 While existing road densities vary across management areas, desired condition for road density of ML1-5 

10960 roads is no greater than 1 mile per square mile in the focused restoration management area (306,092 

10961 acres, 28 percent of Colville National Forest ), and no greater than 2 miles per square mile in the general 

10962 restoration management area (493,267 acres, 45 percent of Colville National Forest ). Existing road 

10963 densities calculated by management area at the 5th field watershed scale for focused and general 

10964 restoration management areas are shown in table 124. There are no watersheds within the focused 

10965 restoration MA where existing condition meets the desired condition of 1 mile per square mile. There are 

10966 no watersheds in the general restoration MA that meet the desired condition of 2 miles per square mile. 

10967 Measureable objectives in key watersheds and desired conditions for water resources, key watersheds, 

10968 and RMAs would contribute toward reduction in road densities within the focused restoration MA, 

10969 through treatment of hydrologically connected road segments.

10970
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

330

10971 Table 124. Existing road density by 5th field watershed for the focused and general restoration management 

10972 areas in alternative P

5th field Watershed Name Road Density mi/mi2 Meets Road Density Desired Condition of 

1 mi/mi2

?

Focused Restoration MA

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 3.0 N

Curlew Creek 2.6 N

Deep Creek 3.7 N

Hall Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 5.2 N

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 2.1 N

Sherman Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 2.8 N

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.7 N

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.2 N

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 3.9 N

10973

5th field Watershed Name Road Density 

mi/mi2 Meets Road Density Desired Condition of 

2 mi/mi2?

General Restoration MA

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 3.1 N

Chewelah Creek-Colville River 4.2 N

Curlew Creek 3.5 N

Deep Creek 3.4 N

Hall Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 4.3 N

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 2.6 N

Little Pend Oreille River 3.3 N

Mill Creek 2.7 N

Onion Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 2.8 N

Sherman Creek-Franklin D Roosevelt Lake 2.8 N

Stensgar Creek-Colville River 3.0 N

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.0 N

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 3.9 N

Toroda Creek 2.5 N

Upper Sanpoil River 3.0 N

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 3.0 N

West Fork Sanpoil River 3.7 N

10974 Road Management Plan Components

10975 Desired conditions, objectives and standards and guidelines for roads are the same as alternative R.

10976 Old Forest Management, Timber Production, and Upland Vegetation Condition

10977 Active Vegetation Management

10978 Timber production would be allowed in management areas Focused and General Restoration areas, 

10979 comprising 799,359 acres (72 percent of the Forest). This is less than no action and alternative B, similar 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

331

10980 to the proposed action and alternative O and more than alternative R. Acres treated are constrained by 

10981 forest budgets, and project-level considerations. BMPs, standards, and guidelines are the primary 

10982 mechanism to limit the potential effects of vegetation management activities on water quality and 

10983 hydrologic function. 

10984 Primary Vegetation Management Tools

10985 Variable density thinning would be the primary tool for active commercial vegetation management in the 

10986 focused and general restoration MAs in alternative P in the Douglas-fir dry and northern Rocky Mountain 

10987 mixed conifer vegetation types in the proposed action with an estimated (modeled) treatment of 

10988 4,050 acres per year. Mechanical fuels treatments are estimated on 5,000 acres per year in these 

10989 vegetation types. Mixed and light severity prescribed fire would be used in open-canopy stands on a 20-

10990 year rotation to maintain open conditions in the Douglas-fir dry and northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

10991 conifer vegetation types with treatment modeled for 3,839 acres per year. Shelterwood harvest with 

10992 reserves would be the primary commercial vegetation management tool in the subalpine fir and lodgepole 

10993 pine vegetation type with an estimated (modeled) 950 acres of treatment per year. Stand-replacing 

10994 prescribed fire would be used in the subalpine fir and lodgepole pine vegetation type with an estimated 

10995 treatment of 1,040 acres per year. There are no modeled vegetation treatments in the Western 

10996 redcedar/Western hemlock and spruce/subalpine fir vegetation types.

10997 Acres of Colville National Forest lands by management area and roadbuilding and timber production 

10998 authorized by management area are shown in table 125.

10999 Table 125. Alternative P management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

11000 affect the hydrologic resource

Management Areas Acres New roadbuilding 

authorized? Timber Production Authorized?

Focused Restoration 306,134

Y

1 mi/mi2 desired condition 

for road density

Y

General Restoration 493,282

Y

2 mi/mi2 desired condition 

for road density

Y

Backcountry 123,055 N N

Backcountry Motorized 54,577 N N

Research Natural Area 5,707 N N

Scenic Byways 19,356 Y

*Special Interest Area 82,800 N N

Wilderness –Recommended 68,300 N N

Wilderness-Congressionally 

Designated 31,400 N N

*RMAs 179,236 Y—within standards and 

guidelines

N—vegetation management can be 

used as a tool to meet or maintain 

desired conditions, goals and objectives

Total 1,101,890

11001 *MAs overlay other management area and are not included in total acreage calculations.

11002 Historic Range of Variability

11003 Number of structure classes departed from HRV is the same as the proposed action.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

332

11004 Vegetation Management Plan Components

11005 Standards and guidelines for vegetation management are the same as alternative R.

11006 Grazing

11007 Current allotment boundaries and AUMs would continue under alternative P. Standards and guidelines for 

11008 grazing management and potential indirect effects are the same as alternative R. Specific objectives for 

11009 rangeland improvements in key watersheds that are priority for active restoration are the same as 

11010 alternatives R and O. 

11011 Summary of Effects and Comparison of Other Alternatives 

11012 Alternative P is similar to alternative R in providing protections for preservation and restoration of 

11013 hydrologic function, water quality, and water uses. Alternative P would be slightly less effective than 

11014 alternative R, and more effective than no action, the proposed action, and alternatives O and B.

11015 • Similar to alternative R, alternative P addresses the need for change more effectively than the no11016 action alternative, the proposed action, and alternatives B and O. Through plan components and 

11017 principles from ARCS, and specific objectives for restoration of general watershed function across 

11018 the forest, and restoration in key watersheds and RMAs, the pace and scale of watershed restoration 

11019 and resiliency to potential hydrologic effects of climate change are increased in alternative P. 

11020 • Wider RMA widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than no action and alternative B 

11021 would improve and preserve hydrologic and riparian function better than narrower RHCA widths in 

11022 the no-action alternative and alternative B.

11023 • There are more acres of key watersheds in alternative P than in the INFISH priority network in the 

11024 no-action alternative and alternative B, and the key watershed network in the proposed action. 

11025 While restoration activities are not expected on every acre within key watersheds, the larger key 

11026 watershed network in alternative P would accelerate the pace of restoration of hydrologic function 

11027 than in the smaller INFISH priority network in the no-action alternative and alternative B and the 

11028 smaller key watershed network in the proposed action.

11029 • Alternative P would accelerate improvement in watershed condition faster than the no-action 

11030 alternative, the proposed action, and alternative B. Measurable objectives in the expanded key 

11031 watershed network would accelerate restoration and preservation of hydrologic function. 

11032 • Desired conditions are identified for general aquatic riparian and watershed condition; DCs are not 

11033 identified in no action and alternative B.

11034 • Approximately 26 percent of Colville National Forest land base is in management areas where 

11035 construction of new roads is prohibited. Twenty-eight percent of the Colville National Forest land

11036 base is within the focused restoration MA where desired condition for road density is 2 miles per 

11037 square mile. This is less than in alternative R, and higher than in the proposed action.

11038 • Approximately 72 percent of the Colville National Forest land base is in MAs where timber 

11039 production is authorized. This is similar to the proposed action and alternative O, less than no action

11040 and alternative B, and greater than alternative R.

11041 • Standards and guidelines address watershed function, including protection of streambank and 

11042 floodplain integrity from livestock grazing, reduction of erosion and sedimentation and disruption 

11043 of hydrologic processes from roads and trails. Standards and guidelines in alternative P are more 

11044 restrictive, and should protect watershed function and water quality more effectively than no action, 

11045 the proposed action, and alternatives B and O. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

333

11046 • Six out of 19 vegetation structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management in 

11047 alternative P. Departure from HRV in alternative P is the same as no action, the proposed action, 

11048 and alternative B. 

11049 • Standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments are more stringent in 

11050 alternatives R, P, O, and the proposed action than in no action and alternative B. 

11051 • Measureable objectives and focused restoration activities in key watersheds in alternative P would 

11052 increase the pace of increasing resiliency of infrastructure and water uses to potential effects of 

11053 climate change. Since the key watershed network is expanded from the proposed action in 

11054 alternative R, this alternative would be more effective in increasing resiliency to climate change 

11055 than no action, the proposed action, and alternative B. 

11056 Alternative B

11057 Alternative B combines feedback from diverse interest groups and incorporates management strategies 

11058 supported by the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. Alternative B addresses the concerns of 

11059 multiple constituencies in one alternative by designating restoration and timber management zones, 

11060 recommending the highest level of wilderness designation and the least amount of area for backcountry 

11061 management and backcountry motorized use. 

11062 Forest plan direction for watershed, aquatic, and riparian resources would remain the same as the no11063 action alternative.

11064 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 

11065 Acres of RHCAs 

11066 Acreage, management, and protection of RHCAs are the same as in the no-action alternative. 

11067 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Plan Components

11068 Riparian goals, riparian management objectives, standards, and guidelines are the same as the no-action

11069 alternative.

11070 INFISH Priority Watersheds 

11071 Acres and management in INFISH priority watersheds are the same as the no-action alternative. 

11072 Watershed and Aquatic Restoration

11073 The pace and scale of watershed and aquatic restoration is the same as the no-action alternative.

11074 Roads/Access 

11075 Acres of Management Area Where Road Building Activities are Permitted

11076 Approximately 268,921 acres (24 percent of Colville National Forest ) in alternative B are in management 

11077 areas where construction of new roads is prohibited, including backcountry, backcountry motorized, 

11078 research natural areas and both designated and recommended wilderness. 

11079 Road Density Desired Conditions

11080 This alternative caps total miles of National Forest System roads at the current level, about 4,000 miles, 

11081 and uses a standard that would require at least one mile of road to be decommissioned when adding a mile 

11082 to the system. There are no specific road density desired conditions in MAs in alternative B.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

334

11083 Road Management Plan Components

11084 Desired conditions, objectives and standards and guidelines for roads are the same as the no-action

11085 alternative.

11086 Old Forest Management, Timber Production, and Upland Vegetation Condition

11087 Active Vegetation Management 

11088 Timber production would be allowed in the Active Management and Restoration areas, comprising 

11089 815,345 acres (74 percent of the Forest). 

11090 Primary Vegetation Management Tools

11091 In alternative B, variable density thinning and shelterwood with reserves would be the primary vegetation 

11092 management tools in all vegetation types with the exception of the spruce/subalpine fir type, which has no 

11093 anticipated vegetation management. Prescribed fire of varying intensity is expected in the Douglas-fir dry, 

11094 northern Rocky Mountain mixed conifer, and subalpine fir/ lodgepole pine (wilderness only) vegetation 

11095 types. Timber harvest of 2,250 acres per year is estimated (modeled) under alternative B. Mechanical 

11096 fuels treatments and prescribed fire are estimated (modeled) at 2,501, and 3,839 acres per year, 

11097 respectively. 

11098 Acres of management areas and roadbuilding and timber production authorized by management area are 

11099 shown in table 126.

11100 Table 126. Alternative B management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

11101 affect the hydrologic resource

Management Areas Acres New roadbuilding 

authorized?

Timber Production 

Authorized?

Active Management Area 476,804 Y Y

Restoration 338,541 Y Y

Backcountry 4,835 N N

Backcountry Motorized 6,606 N N

Research Natural Area 5,713 N N

Scenic Byways 17,614 Y N

Wilderness –Recommended 220,330 N N

Wilderness-Congressionally Designated 31,400 N N

*RHCAs 179,236 Y, within standards and 

guidelines

N, except where needed 

to maintain or meet 

RMOs

Total 1,101,880

11102 Historical Range of Variability

11103 Six out of 19 structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under alternative B 

11104 (table 127). The same number of structure classes is within HRV for no action, the proposed action, and 

11105 alternative P. Five structure classes are below HRV, and eight are above. The late closed forest structure 

11106 would be at or above HRV in all vegetation types. Levels of disturbance and management do not occur 

11107 across enough acres over 100 years under alternative B to create open structure conditions that existed 

11108 historically. Areas that would historically have contained large trees with open canopy conditions, and 

11109 greater resistant to wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks would be in a closed canopy condition with 

11110 greater susceptibility to disturbance (Day 2015).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

335

11111 Table 127. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under 

11112 alternative B

Vegetation Type Early 

Structure

Mid-open 

Structure

Mid-closed 

Structure

Late Open 

Structure

Late 

Closed 

Structure

Douglas-fir dry + + + - +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer @ + @ - @

Western hemlock/ Western 

redcedar - n/a @ n/a +

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine + n/a - n/a @

Spruce/ Subalpine fir - n/a @ n/a +

11113 @=within HRV; -=below HRV; +=above HRV; and n/a=structure class does not exist within this vegetation type

11114 Vegetation Management Plan Components

11115 Standards and guidelines for vegetation management are the same as the no-action alternative.

11116 Grazing Plan Components

11117 Current allotment boundaries and AUMs would continue under alternative B. Standards and guidelines 

11118 for grazing management and potential indirect effects are the same as the no-action alternative.

11119 Summary of Effects and Comparison of Other Alternatives

11120 Effects to hydrologic function, water quality, and water uses in alternative B is similar to the no-action

11121 alternative and provides less protection to the processes that improve or preserve hydrologic function than 

11122 the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O. Alternative B would provide a slower pace of recovery 

11123 of hydrologic function through passive and active restoration than the proposed action and alternatives R, 

11124 P, and O. Effects of alternative B in relation to other alternatives include:

11125 • Alternative B does not adequately address the need for change in this forest plan revision; the pace 

11126 of watershed restoration is not increased from current levels, watershed and riparian direction is not 

11127 integrated. Specific watershed and riparian objectives in the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, 

11128 and O should increase the pace and scale of watershed restoration, and improve resiliency to the 

11129 potential hydrologic effects of climate change more than no action and alternative B.

11130 • Narrower RHCA widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds are less restrictive than RMA 

11131 widths in the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, and O and may not improve or preserve 

11132 hydrologic and riparian function as well as wider RMA widths. 

11133 • There are fewer acres of priority watersheds in alternative B than the proposed action and 

11134 alternatives R, P, and O. While restoration activities are not expected on every acre within key 

11135 watersheds, the larger key watershed network would accelerate the pace of restoration of hydrologic 

11136 function than in the smaller INFISH priority network in alternative B.

11137 • Alternative B does not accelerate improvement in watershed condition; the INFISH priority 

11138 network would remain and there are not specific plans to accelerate the pace of restoration in the 

11139 INFISH priority watershed network. There are no measureable objectives for the INFISH priority 

11140 watershed network in alternative B. 

11141 • RMOs would be used as benchmarks for evaluation of current stream conditions, even though they 

11142 may not adequately account for natural variability or separate land use effects from natural 

11143 disturbance.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

336

11144 • Desired conditions are not identified for general aquatic, riparian, and watershed condition.

11145 • Approximately 20 percent of Colville National Forest land base is in management areas where 

11146 construction of new roads is prohibited. The cap on existing road mileage in alternative B is not as 

11147 protective as the 2 miles per square mile objective for the focused restoration and late forest 

11148 structure MAs in the proposed action and alternatives R and P. 

11149 • Six out of 19 vegetation structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under 

11150 alternative B. Departure from HRV in alternative B is the same as no action, the proposed action,

11151 and alternative P. 

11152 • Standards and guidelines would not address contemporary issues of watershed function, including 

11153 protection of streambank and floodplain integrity from livestock grazing, reduction of erosion and 

11154 sedimentation and disruption of hydrologic processes from roads and trails. Standards and 

11155 guidelines in alternative B may not protect watershed function and water quality as effectively as 

11156 the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, and O.

11157 • Standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments are less stringent in 

11158 alternative B than the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O. 

11159 • Alternative B does not increase the pace of increasing resiliency of infrastructure and water uses to 

11160 potential effects of climate change. 

11161 Alternative O

11162 This alternative comes from a series of public, collaborative meetings run by the Forest Service that 

11163 focused on motorized recreation, wilderness recommendations, and vegetation management and reflects 

11164 areas of general agreement among participants in those meetings. The Forest Service fully developed this 

11165 alternative using the proposed action to fill in the gaps not addressed in the collaborative process. 

11166 Forest plan components, including general goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines are the same as 

11167 the proposed action. RMAs are the same as the proposed action and alternatives R and P. The key 

11168 watershed network, and objectives specific to key watersheds are the same as the R and P alternatives.

11169 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 

11170 Acres of RMAs 

11171 RMA widths and acreages are the same as the proposed action and alternatives R and P.

11172 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Plan Components

11173 Desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines are the same as the proposed action.

11174 Key Watersheds 

11175 Acres in key watersheds are the same as alternative R. The priority key watershed network and 

11176 measureable objectives for key watersheds are the same as alternatives R and P. Standards and guidelines 

11177 for key watersheds are the same as the proposed action. 

11178 Watershed and Aquatic Restoration

11179 The pace and scale of watershed and aquatic restoration in key watersheds is the same as the proposed 

11180 action. However, like the proposed action, there are no measureable objectives for general water 

11181 resources, and RMA objectives are the same as the proposed action. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

337

11182 Roads/Access

11183 Acres of Management Areas Where Road Building Activities are Permitted

11184 Approximately 268,921 acres (24 percent of Colville National Forest) in alternative B are in management 

11185 areas where construction of new roads is prohibited, including backcountry, backcountry motorized, 

11186 research natural areas and both designated and recommended wilderness. 

11187 Road Density Desired Conditions

11188 There are no specific road density desired conditions in MAs in alternative O. Road direction is the same 

11189 as alternative B; road miles are capped at their current level (approximately 4,000 miles).

11190 Road Management Plan Components

11191 Desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines for roads are the same as the proposed 

11192 action; however, there are no specific road density desired conditions in MAs in alternative O. Similar to 

11193 the proposed action, and alternatives R and P, alternative O includes FW-STD-WR-03, which states that 

11194 there would be no net increase in mileage of NFS roads in key watersheds at any time, unless doing so 

11195 improves watershed condition.

11196 Old Forest Management, Timber Production, and Upland Vegetation Condition 

11197 Active Vegetation Management

11198 Timber production could occur in both the Responsible Management Area and the Restoration Zone, 

11199 comprising 801,124 acres (72 percent of the Forest). 

11200 Primary Vegetation Management Tools

11201 Anticipated vegetation management tools and estimated (modeled) acres of treatment per year in 

11202 alternative O are the same as alternative B. 

11203 Acres of Colville National Forest by management area and roadbuilding and timber production authorized 

11204 by management area in alternative O are shown in table 128.

11205
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

338

11206 Table 128. Alternative O management areas and activities authorized in each management area that can 

11207 affect the hydrologic resource

Management Areas Acres New roadbuilding 

authorized? Timber Production Authorized?

Backcountry 174,311 N N

Backcountry Motorized 53,734 N N

Research Natural Area 5,713 N N

Restoration 369,053 Y Y

Responsible 431,562 Y Y

Scenic Byways 19,607 Y N

*Special Interest Area 99,000 N N

Wilderness –Recommended 15,950 N N

Wilderness-Congressionally Designated 31,400 N N

*RMAs 179,236 Y, within standards 

and guidelines

N—vegetation management can 

be used as a tool to meet or 

maintain desired conditions, goals 

and objectives

Total 1,101,370

11208 *MA overlays other management area and is not included in total acreage calculations.

11209 Historic Range of Variability

11210 Eight out of 19 structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management under alternative O; 

11211 this is the most structure classes within HRV of all alternatives (table 129). Four structure classes are 

11212 below HRV, and seven are above. Late and mid-open structure conditions show the greatest departure 

11213 from HRV. The late closed forest structure would be at or above HRV in all vegetation types. Levels of 

11214 disturbance and management do not occur across enough acres over 100 years under alternative O to 

11215 create open structure conditions that existed historically. Areas that would historically have contained 

11216 large trees with open canopy conditions, and greater resistance to wildfire and insect and disease 

11217 outbreaks would be in a closed canopy condition with greater susceptibility to disturbance (Day 2015).

11218 Table 129. Vegetation and structure type within HRV modeled after 100 years of management under 

11219 alternative O

Vegetation Type Early 

Structure

Mid-open 

Structure

Mid-closed 

Structure

Late Open 

Structure

Late 

Closed 

Structure

Douglas-fir dry + + + - +

Northern Rocky Mountain mixed 

conifer @ + @ - @

Western hemlock/ Western 

redcedar - n/a @ n/a +

Subalpine fir / Lodgepole pine @ n/a @ n/a @

Spruce/ Subalpine fir - n/a @ n/a +

11220 @=within HRV; -=below HRV; +=above HRV; and n/a=structure class does not exist within this vegetation type

11221 Vegetation Management Plan Components

11222 Standards and guidelines for vegetation management are the same as the proposed action.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

339

11223 Grazing Plan Components

11224 Current allotment boundaries and AUMs would continue under alternative O. Standards and guidelines to 

11225 move streams and RHCAs toward attainment of RMOs and indirect effects are the same as the proposed 

11226 action. Specific objectives for rangeland improvements in key watersheds that are priority for active 

11227 restoration are the same as alternatives R and P. 

11228 Summary of Effects and Comparison of Other Alternatives

11229 Alternative O is similar to the proposed action in providing protections for preservation and restoration of 

11230 hydrologic function, water quality, and water uses. Alternative O would be less effective than alternatives 

11231 R and P, and more effective than no action and alternative B. Effects of alternative O in relation to other 

11232 alternatives include:

11233 • Similar to the proposed action, alternative O addresses the need for change more effectively than no 

11234 action and alternative B. Through plan components and principles from ARCS, and specific 

11235 objectives for restoration in key watersheds, the pace and scale of watershed restoration and 

11236 resiliency to potential hydrologic effects of climate change are increased in alternative O. 

11237 Alternative O does not address the need for change as effectively as alternatives P and R.

11238 • Wider RMA widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than no action and alternative B 

11239 would improve and preserve hydrologic and riparian function better than narrower RHCA widths in 

11240 no action and alternative B.

11241 • There are more acres of key watersheds in alternative O than in the INFISH priority network in no 

11242 action and alternative B, and the key watershed network in the proposed action. While restoration 

11243 activities are not expected on every acre within key watersheds, the larger key watershed network in 

11244 alternative O would accelerate the pace of restoration of hydrologic function than in the smaller 

11245 INFISH priority network in no action and alternative B and the smaller key watershed network in 

11246 the proposed action.

11247 • Alternative O would accelerate improvement in watershed condition faster than no action, the

11248 proposed action, and alternative B. Measurable objectives in the expanded key watershed network 

11249 would accelerate restoration and preservation of hydrologic function. 

11250 • Desired conditions are identified for general aquatic riparian and watershed condition; DCs are not 

11251 identified in no action and alternative B.

11252 • Approximately 26 percent of the Forest land base is in management areas where construction of 

11253 new roads is prohibited. The cap on existing road mileage in alternative O is not as protective as the 

11254 2 miles per square mile objective for the focused restoration and late forest structure MAs in the 

11255 proposed action and alternatives R and P. 

11256 • Eight out of 19 vegetation structure classes are within HRV after 100 years of land management 

11257 under alternative O. Alternative O has the most structure classes within HRV of all alternatives. 

11258 • Standards and guidelines address watershed function, including protection of streambank and 

11259 floodplain integrity from livestock grazing, reduction of erosion and sedimentation and disruption 

11260 of hydrologic processes from roads and trails. Standards and guidelines in alternative O should 

11261 protect watershed function and water quality more effectively than no action and alternative B. 

11262 Standards and guidelines in alternative O are less restrictive than in alternatives R, and P.

11263 • Standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments are more stringent in 

11264 alternatives R, P, O, and the proposed action than in no action and B alternative. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

340

11265 • Measureable objectives and focused restoration activities in key watersheds in alternative O would 

11266 increase the pace of increasing resiliency of infrastructure and water uses to potential effects of 

11267 climate change. Since the key watershed network is expanded from the proposed action in 

11268 alternative O, this alternative would be more effective in increasing resiliency to climate change 

11269 than no action, the proposed action, and alternative B.

11270 Comparison of Key Indicators between Alternatives

11271 The six indicators related to riparian and aquatic resource management and predicted effects by 

11272 alternative are summarized in the following table.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

341

11273 Table 130. Comparison of key indicators between alternatives

Element No Action Proposed Action Alternative R Alternative P Alternative B Alternative O

RHCA/RMA acreage 150,692 acres 179,236 acres 179,236 acres 179,236 acres 150,692 acres 179,236 acres

Acres CNF ownership of 

Priority/Key watersheds

214,283 acres;

19% CNF 

ownership

371,943 acres;

34% CNF 

ownership

451,525 acres;

41% CNF ownership

451,525 acres;

41% CNF ownership

214,283 acres;

19% CNF ownership

451,525 acres;

41% CNF ownership

Estimated miles of road 

treated 51 miles 68 miles 108 miles 108 miles 51 miles 68 miles

Estimated number of 

crossings where 

passage is improved

15 crossings 36 crossings 95 crossings* 95 crossings* 15 crossings 36 crossings

Estimated miles of instream channel 

improvements

54 miles 70 miles 86 miles* 86 miles* 54 miles 70 miles

Estimated acres of 

range infrastructure 

improvement 

70 240 240* 240* 70 240

Estimated acres of 

treatment of upland 

vegetation in RMAs to 

move toward HRV

75-150 450-950 600-1,200* 600-1,200* 75-150 450-950

Number of 

subwatersheds where 

conditions are improved

7 12 15* 15* 7 12

Acres where road 

building is prohibited

218,266 acres

20% CNF 

ownership

291,096 acres;

26% CNF 

ownership

271,931 acres;

25% CNF ownership

283,199 acres;

26% CNF ownership

268,921 acres;

24% CNF ownership

268,921 acres;

24% CNF ownership

Acres with 1 mi/mi2 road 

density objective n/a n/a 565,565 acres;

51% CNF ownership

306,092 acres;

28% CNF ownership n/a n/a

Acres with 2 mi/mi2 road 

density objective n/a

257,157 acres;

23% CNF 

ownership

245,110 acres; 22% 

CNF ownership

493,267; 

45% CNF ownership n/a n/a

Acres with 3 mi/mi2 road 

density objective n/a

533,892 acres;

48% CNF 

ownership

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

342

Element No Action Proposed Action Alternative R Alternative P Alternative B Alternative O

Other road restrictions

Road density 

desired 

conditions for 

ML 2-5 range 

from 0.4-2 

mi/mi2

. No 

desired 

conditions for 

ML 1 roads

No net increase in 

NFS road mileage 

in key watersheds

No net increase in 

NFS road mileage in 

key watersheds

No net increase in 

NFS road miles in 

RMAs in a 

subwatershed

No net increase in 

NFS road mileage in 

key watersheds

No net increase in 

NFS road miles in 

RMAs in a 

subwatershed

Cap on existing road 

miles

No net increase in 

NFS road mileage in 

key watersheds;

Cap on existing road 

mileage

Acres where active 

mechanical vegetation 

management is 

authorized 

885,318 acres;

80% CNF 

ownership

790,987 acres;

71% CNF 

ownership

245,110 acres;

22% CNF ownership

799,359 acres;

72% CNF ownership

815,345 acres;

74% CNF ownership

801,124 acres;

72% CNF ownership

Number of vegetation 

structure classes within 

HRV after 100 years

6 6 4 6 6 8

11274 *Total includes estimates from water resource objectives for both key watersheds, and non-key watersheds.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

343

11275 Cumulative Effects

11276 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 

11277 The five subbasins with Forest ownership also have private, Federal, tribal, state, or county ownership 

11278 outside of the Forest boundary. Many of the impacts to hydrologic function and water quality on the 

11279 Forest are from activities occurring on lands under other ownership. Impacts include roads, grazing, 

11280 mining, development, timber management, dams and diversions, hydropower production and 

11281 development. All alternatives would maintain or improve hydrologic function, water quality, and water 

11282 uses, which helps mitigate the effects of off-forest activities.

11283 Past management activities and disturbance on National Forest System lands including timber harvest, 

11284 grazing, road building and wildland fire can have cumulative effects on the hydrologic system. Impacts to 

11285 hydrologic function and water quality from past management includes soil compaction, erosion and 

11286 sedimentation in stream banks and channels, alteration of riparian vegetation, channel widening and 

11287 incision, and loss of stream channel complexity and function. Upland and stream channel recovery from 

11288 disturbance takes decades, and sometimes centuries to recover to a properly functioning condition, 

11289 however changes in aquatic management across Region 6 have improved conditions (Archer 2014). 

11290 Aquatic direction in INFISH was intended to reverse aquatic and riparian degradation from management 

11291 activities, and significantly changed the management of aquatic resources on NFS lands in the Pacific 

11292 Northwest (Heller and McCammon 2004). 

11293 Active partnerships with State, county, Federal, tribal and non-profit organizations would continue, and 

11294 restoration of hydrologic and aquatic function on off-forest lands would continue.

11295 Water Availability

11296 Water availability is discussed at the subbasin scale in this analysis because the water provided by the 

11297 Forest is an important component of water availability for more intensive downstream uses, and 

11298 downstream water uses can cumulatively impact water uses and availability on the Colville National 

11299 Forest. While consumptive uses in the name of the Forest are a small percentage (less than 1 percent) of 

11300 uses at the subbasin scale, water uses as well as the water supplied from the Forest is upstream of more 

11301 intensive consumptive uses. Ecology released analyses on the availability of water for the five major 

11302 subbasins (six WRIAs) on the Forest in 2012 that provide general information on the availability of water 

11303 for new consumptive uses. 

11304 Below is a general discussion of water availability in each subbasin, including adjudications, surface 

11305 water source limitations (SWSLs), other factors affecting water availability and the issuance of new water 

11306 rights. Adjudication is a legal process to determine who has a valid water right, how much water can be 

11307 used, and who has priority during shortages. The adjudication process accounts for water needed for 

11308 resource use, protection and planning, and transfer of water rights (WADoE 2014(e)). SWSLs are 

11309 recommended by Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect flows to maintain fish populations and can 

11310 either specify that the limitations apply at low-flow or that waters are closed to new uses (RCW 

11311 77.57.020). 

11312
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

344

11313 Table 131. Adjudications and surface water limitations for WRIAs on the Colville National Forest

WRIA Name 

and Number Adjudications*

Low Flow 

Surface Water 

Source 

Limitations

Surface Water Source 

Limitations Closure

Colville 59

Bulldog Creek, Chewelah Creek, Deer 

Creek, Hoffman Creek, Jumpoff Joe 

Creek/Lake, Narcisse Creek, Sherwood 

Creek, Spring Creek, and Thomason Creek

Kettle 60 Twin Creek and Myers Creek

All of the WRIA 

not closed by 

SWSL

Curlew Creek, Goosmus 

Creek, Lambert Creek, Little 

Goosmus Creek, Sand 

Creek; portions of Tonasket 

Creek, Toroda Creek, and 

Toulou Creek

Middle Lake 

Roosevelt 58

Alder Creek, Corus Creek, Chewelah Creek, 

Jennings Creek, Harvey Creek, Magee 

Creek, O-Ra-Pak-En Creek, Quillisascut 

Creek, Stranger Creek

All of the WRIA 

not closed by 

SWSL

Ninemile Creek, North Fork 

of Hall Creek

Pend Oreille 62 Renshaw Creek, Little Calispel Creek, 

Marshall Creek/Lake

All of the WRIA 

not closed by 

SWSL

Davis Creek, Harvey Creek, 

Indian Creek, Maitlen Creek, 

and Skookum Creek and 

portions of Bracket Creek 

and East Fork of Smalle 

Creek

Sanpoil 52 All of the WRIA 

Upper Lake 

Roosevelt 61 Pingston Creek 

All of the WRIA 

not closed by 

SWSL

Deep Creek, Onion Creek, 

and Williams Lake

11314 *Generally, most of the water has been appropriated in adjudicated basins, and new appropriations are not available (WADoE 

11315 2012(d)).

11316 Across subbasins on the Forest, the majority of precipitation occurs during the winter months, when 

11317 demand is lowest. In summer, rain is infrequent and streams are dependent on groundwater to maintain 

11318 low or baseflows. Groundwater availability and yield is limited by both climate and geology—only 3 

11319 percent of streams across the Forest are considered groundwater systems (Reidy-Liermann et al. 2012), 

11320 and groundwater-dependent ecosystems including seeps and springs make up considerably less than 1 

11321 percent of Forest lands (NHD spatial data). Therefore, surface water is least available when demand for 

11322 water is highest (WADoE 2012(a-f)).

11323 Within the Pend Oreille WRIA, Ecology is in the process of considering the establishment of streamflow 

11324 requirements in areas of the WRIA that are restricted or closed to new uses or are expected to experience 

11325 increased pressure based on population growth and climate change. Flow studies have been initiated on 

11326 the South Fork of Kalispell and Indian Creek (WADoE 2012(d)). The Kalispel Indian Reservation is 

11327 located in this WRIA, and there are tribal concerns about maintaining flows for fish habitat. Federally 

11328 Reserved Rights have not been quantified in this WRIA, therefore the legal availability of this water has 

11329 not been determined (WADoE 2012(d)).

11330 The Colville WRIA has an instream flow regulation establishing base flows to protect beneficial uses and 

11331 protect senior water rights (WAC 173-559-030). Tributaries of the Colville River are closed to further 

11332 consumptive appropriation except for reservoir storage, from November 1 through May 31 and in-house 

11333 single domestic supply if an alternative source is not available (WADoE 2012(a)). The Upper and Lower 

11334 Colville River is closed to further consumptive appropriation from July 16 to September 30.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

345

11335 The WRIA 59 (Colville River) Water Resource Management Board, which consists of local citizens, 

11336 local, state, and Federal agencies (including the Forest) has been working on watershed planning activities 

11337 in the Colville River Watershed over the past 15 years. Key activities of the Water Resource Management 

11338 Board include development of a watershed implementation plan, an instream flow study, and research on 

11339 water storage projects to meet future water needs.

11340 While the Middle Lake Roosevelt is not closed to new water uses, the majority of water is appropriated, 

11341 and new uses are subject to SWSLs. Adjudicated basins within this WRIA have annual water shortages 

11342 (WADoE 2012(c)).

11343 The Sanpoil WRIA is not closed to new water uses, however, the majority of water is appropriated, and 

11344 new uses are subject to SWSLs. There are no adjudicated watersheds in the Sanpoil WRIA (WADoE 

11345 2012(e)). Federally Reserved Rights are not quantified in the Sanpoil WRIA, however, it is likely new 

11346 appropriations in the lower Sanpoil River would impact Federal Reserved Water Rights of the Colville 

11347 Indian Tribe (which owns the majority of the lower subbasin). Future surface water applications for single 

11348 domestic or stock watering may be approved if there is no alternative source of water supply, and the use 

11349 would not affect existing Federal reserved rights (WADoE 2012(e)). 

11350 The doctrine of reserved water rights has evolved to ensure that Indian reservations and other Federal

11351 lands would have sufficient water to fulfil the purpose for which they were established. Federal reserved 

11352 rights have a priority date of when the lands were set aside, in contrast to state-based appropriative rights 

11353 which have a priority date of when the water was first put to beneficial use.

11354 The revised Forest Plan addresses water availability primarily through increasing ecological function and 

11355 resiliency. Forest practices that increase and preserve watershed and riparian function, including best 

11356 management practices, forest plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines), 

11357 and vegetation management activities that increase resiliency to disturbance are expected to improve 

11358 landscape resiliency to low flows. 

11359 The revised Forest Plan includes components to improve and restore hydrologic function, which allows 

11360 the landscape to hold water longer and release water slower in the summer months when streamflow is 

11361 low. Desired conditions for water resources provide the framework for hydrologic function, and 

11362 implementation of the revised forest plan would move the Forest toward these desired conditions. 

11363 Watershed restoration objectives outline specific activities that would improve landscape function and 

11364 resiliency. In addition, the revised forest plan includes a robust set of standards and guidelines for 

11365 protection of water resources and riparian management areas.

11366 Water Rights

11367 Applications, claims, certificates, and permits for WRIAs with Forest administrative forest ownership are 

11368 shown in table 132. Within the six WRIAs, the majority of consumptive certificated water rights are 

11369 located off the Forest.

11370
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

346

11371 Table 132. Number of applications, claims, certificates, and permits for WRIAs within the Colville National 

11372 Forest

WRIA Name and Number Applications Claims Permits Certificates

Colville 59 56 2,728 50 1,495

Kettle 60 13 1,067 21 656

Middle Lake Roosevelt 58 9 742 16 657

Pend Oreille 62 11 1,049 72 691

Sanpoil 52 16 529 5 221

Upper Lake Roosevelt 61 18 548 5 305

11373 Climate Change

11374 The existing forest plan does not address the potential effect of climate change. Integrated management 

11375 direction that provides flexibility and increased resiliency to respond to a changing environment is one of 

11376 the primary needs for change driving this forest plan revision process. 

11377 Climate change is expected to affect physical hydrologic processes including the amount, timing, and type 

11378 of precipitation. Changes in snowpack, (Hamlet et al. 2005) and timing of snowmelt are also expected, 

11379 which can affect streamflow (Mantua et al. 2010) and temperature (Isaak et al. 2011, Luce et al. 2014). 

11380 Changes in climate would also affect forest vegetation which may have additional impacts on hydrologic 

11381 processes and water available for consumptive uses and ecological and biological values (Adams et al. 

11382 2012).

11383 A climate change vulnerability assessment of hydrologic resources on the Forest is presented here. This 

11384 analysis identifies key water resource values on the Forest that may be altered through climate change. 

11385 This analysis focuses on vulnerable infrastructure and water resource values for consumptive uses and 

11386 analyzes how potential change in hydrologic variables from climate change may impact these resources. 

11387 Water Uses

11388 Water uses are key resource to focus climate change vulnerability assessment for the Forest because 

11389 changes in timing and quantity of flows could affect multiple uses of water. Consumptive water uses on 

11390 the Forest are a small proportion of consumptive uses at the subbasin scale. The primary climate change 

11391 mechanisms with the potential to affect water uses both on and off the Forest are changes in the timing 

11392 and amount of precipitation falling as snow, and the timing of snowmelt. 

11393 Snowpack

11394 Loss of snowpack in the Pacific Northwest is one of the most certain aspects of climate change (Kapnick 

11395 and Hall 2012, Mote et al. 2005). Increasing temperatures across the PNW over the last 50 years have 

11396 caused more precipitation to fall as rain, reduced spring snowpack and earlier snowmelt. The sensitivity 

11397 of snowpack across the Forest was assessed using data from Kramer and Snook (2014) that analyzed 

11398 snowpack data from the Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS) (NOHRSC 2004). SNODAS 

11399 integrates ground, airborne, and satellite snow observations with weather prediction models to produce 

11400 1-km resolution daily snow data. Snow water equivalent (SWE) on April 1 (when snowpack is at its peak) 

11401 SNODAS data from 2003-2012 was used to spatially classify and characterize snowpack sensitivity 

11402 (USDA Forest Service 2014(a)). April 1 SWE was classified based in differences in snowpack between 

11403 warmer, drier El Niño and cooler, wetter La Niña years to spatially project potential changes in snowpack 

11404 under a warmer climate scenario. 

11405 Classification of snowpack vulnerability and acres of National Forest System land in each category are 

11406 shown in table 133.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

347

11407 Table 133. SWE classification and acres of Colville National Forest within each category (Kramer and Snook 

11408 2014)

SWE Category Description Acres of CNF 

Administrative Forest

Percent CNF 

Administrative Forest 

Acres

No Snow No snow on April 1 141,917 10%

Ephemeral Snow

April 1 SWE was less than 1.5 inches 

during warm dry years, and greater 

than 1.5 inches in cold wet years.

819,575 60%

Persistent-Most 

Sensitive

The timing of peak snowmelt in the 

warmest, driest years occurred more 

than 30 days earlier that the coldest, 

wettest years.

249,422 19%

Persistent-Least 

Sensitive

Timing of peak snowmelt occurred less 

than 30 days earlier in warm, dry years 

than cold, wet years.

147,837 11%

11409 Snowpacks classified as persistent least-sensitive to warmer temperatures are located along the crests of 

11410 the Kettle and Selkirk mountains. Mountain snowpacks are most sensitive to warmer temperatures in the 

11411 mid-elevation bands in the Kettle and Selkirk Mountains. The majority of the Forest is in the ephemeral 

11412 snow zone where April 1 snowpack is generally not large enough to have high inter-annual variability. 

11413 Snow in this zone is not as critical for sustained runoff during spring snowmelt, because snow generally 

11414 melts before peak snowmelt. The ephemeral snow zone would likely see the greatest transition from snow 

11415 to rain in warmer conditions. 

11416 Changes in snow accumulation and the timing of snowmelt have potential implications for decreases in 

11417 summer low flows when flows are critical to satisfy consumptive water uses as well as in-stream flow and 

11418 habitat requirements. 

11419 Low Flow Analysis

11420 Summer low flows are influenced by the timing of snowmelt as well as physical landscape properties 

11421 including geology, vegetation, and degree of watershed alteration from roads and other disturbances. 

11422 These factors influence the process of converting precipitation into discharge (Safeeq et al. 2013).

11423 The western U.S. streamflow metric dataset was developed by Wenger et al. (2010) using daily 

11424 simulations of the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) macro-scale hydrologic model Projections of future 

11425 low flow using the VIC hydrologic model (Wenger et al. 2010) were used to assess potential change in 

11426 summer low flow on perennial streams across the Forest using the NHD plus stream layer. 

11427 Percent change in mean summer flow (cfs) from historic data was calculated for the 2040 and 2080 

11428 warming scenarios. The magnitude of change in summer low flow is projected to be less than in other 

11429 regions across the Pacific Northwest east of the Cascade Mountain Range. Miles of stream within each 

11430 percent change category are summarized in table 134

11431 Table 134. Percent change in mean summer flow (cfs) from historic data and perennial stream mileage within 

11432 each category under the 2040 and 2080 warming scenarios

Percent change Change Category Vulnerability Year 2040 Miles Year 2080 Miles

>(-10) 1 Low 1,879 241

-10-(-20) 2 Moderate 2,220 2,815

>(-20) 3 High 26 1,069
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

348

11433 Potential decreases in summer low flows are relatively minor under 2040 projections with increases in 

11434 low flow vulnerability in 2080. In 2040, the greatest vulnerability is in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness—

11435 where elevations are the highest, however, only 26 miles of stream are within this category. Most streams 

11436 are at moderate risk for reduction in low flows, with lower risk in the western portion of the Forest. In 

11437 2080, 1,069 miles of stream are projected to have a high risk decreased summer flow (greater than 

11438 20 percent change in low flow) compared to 26 miles in 2040. Low flow vulnerability in 2080 is highest 

11439 in the Selkirk Range and on the Kettle Crest.

11440 Infrastructure Risk

11441 Hydrologic changes as a result of climate change may impact the infrastructure system on the Forest 

11442 through reduced and earlier runoff of snowpack resulting in earlier use of roads, higher peak flows and 

11443 flood risk, and reduced low-flows in summer. 

11444 Projected change in bankfull flow magnitude (cfs) was used in this analysis to assess potential risks to 

11445 roads located near perennial streams. Stream reaches within 300 feet of roads administered by the Forest 

11446 were used to determine miles of road at risk under the 2040 and 2080 warming scenarios using VIC data 

11447 (table 135). While there are several factors that affect the vulnerability of infrastructure to high flows, 

11448 roads near perennial streams were selected for this analysis because roads in valley-bottoms adjacent to 

11449 the stream network increases infrastructure sensitivity to flooding, channel migration, and bank erosion. 

11450 Most existing stream crossings are aging culverts that are vulnerable to flood peaks and associated 

11451 sediment and debris. Bankfull flows are projected to increase in 2040, with greater magnitude changes 

11452 projected for 2080.

11453 Table 135. Projected vulnerability of roads within 300 feet of perennial streams for 2040 and 2080 categorized 

11454 by percent increase in bankfull flows from VIC data

Percent 

change

Change 

Category Vulnerability Year 2040 Miles of Vulnerable Road

Year 2080 Miles of 

Vulnerable Road

less than 0-10 1 Low 1,081 785

10-20 2 Moderate 372 346

>(-20) 3 High 142 464

Total 1,595 1,597

11455 Adaption to Climate Change

11456 All alternatives in this analysis have components to adaptively manage hydrologic resources to respond to 

11457 hydrologic changes in climate. The proposed action and alternatives R, P, and O address climate change 

11458 through inclusion of desired conditions that address hydrologic and aquatic processes to improve 

11459 resiliency to climate change. No action and alternative B include riparian goals and RMOs included in 

11460 INFISH that do not address the need for change based on climate change as effectively as the proposed 

11461 action and alternatives R, P, and O. While riparian goals in INFISH address the function and processes 

11462 that improve climate change resiliency, the narrow RMOs do not provide the same flexibility for adaptive 

11463 management as the aquatic and riparian plan components in the proposed action and alternatives R, P, and 

11464 O. In addition, most aquatic and riparian objectives in alternatives R and P (ARCS-modified), and to a 

11465 lesser extent in the proposed action and alternative O (ARCS) have prioritized potential restoration 

11466 treatments of roads, culverts, and recreation sites based on spatial analysis of vulnerability of these 

11467 resources to changes in peak and low flows. Several other aquatic and riparian objectives respond to 

11468 climate change vulnerability through increasing resiliency of the landscape through in-stream restoration, 

11469 improvement of range infrastructure, and treatment of upland vegetation in RMAs. Standards and 

11470 guidelines under alternatives R and P, and to a lesser extent, the proposed action and alternative O provide 

11471 the framework to respond to changes in climate, including MA-STD-RMA-10, in which new or replaced 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

349

11472 culverts would accommodate a 100-year flow with associated bedload and debris. As the magnitude of 

11473 100-year flows change over time, calculation of this figure may also change, however this standard would 

11474 still remain applicable.

11475 No-action Alternative Cumulative Effects

11476 The no-action alternative would continue to improve hydrologic function and water quality and improve 

11477 watershed and hydrologic function through restoration activities in focus and priority watersheds 

11478 (designated through the WCF process), and to a lesser degree in INFISH priority watersheds as funding 

11479 and partnership opportunities are available. The no-action alternative would help mitigate potential effects 

11480 from off-forest activities with the potential to affect hydrologic function, water quality, and water uses. 

11481 Focused restoration activities would improve resiliency of infrastructure to climate change. When 

11482 analyzed with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities both on and off the Forest, the 

11483 no-action alternative would improve hydrologic function and be responsive to climate change, but may 

11484 not be as effective as the proposed action, and alternatives R, P, and O.

11485 Proposed Action Cumulative Effects

11486 The proposed action would continue to improve hydrologic function and water quality and improve 

11487 watershed and hydrologic function through restoration activities in 11 key watersheds designated as 

11488 priorities for restoration. The proposed action expands the key watershed network from the INFISH 

11489 priority network. The proposed action includes wider RMA widths than RHCA widths in the no-action 

11490 alternative, and includes RMA-specific standards and guidelines. Additional desired conditions, goals, 

11491 objectives, standards, and guidelines in the proposed action would improve and preserve aquatic function 

11492 and water quality. The proposed action also includes standards for development of hydroelectric and other 

11493 water use developments that would limit new consumptive water uses. When analyzed with past, present, 

11494 and reasonably foreseeable future activities both on and off the Forest, the proposed action would 

11495 improve hydrologic function and be responsive to climate change, but may not be as effective as 

11496 alternatives R and P. 

11497 Alternative R Cumulative Effects

11498 Alternative R would continue to improve hydrologic function and water quality and improve watershed 

11499 and hydrologic function through restoration activities in 13 key watersheds designated as priorities for 

11500 restoration. Alternative R expands the key watershed network from the INFISH priority network and the 

11501 key watershed network in the proposed action. Alternative R proposes wider RMA widths than RHCA 

11502 widths in the no-action alternative, and includes RMA-specific standards and guidelines. Desired 

11503 conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in alternative R were updated to better preserve 

11504 and improve aquatic function and water quality. Alternative R includes standards for development of 

11505 hydroelectric and other water use developments that would limit new consumptive water uses. When 

11506 analyzed with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities both on and off the Forest, 

11507 alternative R is the most effective alternative for improvement of hydrologic function and responsiveness 

11508 to climate change. 

11509 Alternative P Cumulative Effects

11510 Similar to alternative R, alternative P would continue to improve hydrologic function and water quality 

11511 and improve watershed and hydrologic function through restoration activities in 13 key watersheds 

11512 designated as priorities for restoration. Alternative P expands the key watershed network from the INFISH 

11513 priority network and the key watershed network in the proposed action. Alternative P proposes wider 

11514 RMA widths than RHCA widths in the no-action alternative, and includes RMA-specific standards and 

11515 guidelines. Desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in alternative P were updated 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

350

11516 to better preserve and improve aquatic function and water quality. Alternative P includes standards for 

11517 development of hydroelectric and other water use developments that would limit new consumptive water 

11518 uses. When analyzed with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities both on and off the 

11519 Forest, alternative P would improve hydrologic function and be responsive to climate change, but may not 

11520 be as effective as alternative R. 

11521 Alternative B Cumulative Effects

11522 Alternative B would continue to improve hydrologic function and water quality and improve watershed 

11523 and hydrologic function through restoration activities in focus and priority watersheds (designated 

11524 through the WCF process), and to a lesser degree in INFISH priority watersheds as funding and 

11525 partnership opportunities are available. Alternative B would help mitigate potential effects from off-forest 

11526 activities with the potential to affect hydrologic function, water quality, and water uses. Focused 

11527 restoration activities would improve resiliency of infrastructure to climate change. When analyzed with 

11528 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities both on and off the Forest, alternative B would 

11529 improve hydrologic function and be responsive to climate change, but may not be as effective as the 

11530 proposed action, and alternatives R, P, and O.

11531 Alternative O Cumulative Effects

11532 Alternative O would continue to improve hydrologic function and water quality and improve watershed 

11533 and hydrologic function through restoration activities in 13 key watersheds designated as priorities for 

11534 restoration. Alternative O expands the key watershed network from the INFISH priority network. 

11535 Alternative O includes wider RMA widths than RHCA widths in the no-action alternative, and includes 

11536 RMA-specific standards and guidelines. Additional desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and 

11537 guidelines in the proposed action would improve and preserve aquatic function and water quality. 

11538 Alternative O also includes standards for development of hydroelectric and other water use developments 

11539 that would limit new consumptive water uses. When analyzed with past, present, and reasonably 

11540 foreseeable future activities both on and off the Forest, alternative O would improve hydrologic function 

11541 and be responsive to climate change, but may not be as effective as alternatives R and P.

11542 Summary

11543 Overall, the proposed action provides more protection for preservation and restoration of hydrologic 

11544 function, water quality, and water uses than the no-action and B alternatives. The proposed action does 

11545 not provide as much protection for preservation and restoration of hydrologic function, water quality, and 

11546 water uses as the R, P, and O alternatives.

11547
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

351

11548 Soil

11549 Soil resource information is a core component of national forest planning. Information about the soil 

11550 resource provides planning teams with an understanding of the inherent capability of different portions of 

11551 the landscape to meet a variety of land management objectives. Understanding the inherent soil 

11552 capabilities and limitations of the landscape also assures that planned activities are both obtainable and 

11553 sustainable over time. This analysis focuses on the “motorized recreation trails” and “late forest structure” 

11554 issues, since they are the most relevant to soil resources.

11555 Affected Environment

11556 The Colville National Forest has a wide diversity of soil types from the minimally developed, nutrient 

11557 poor soil and rock outcrop complexes of the steep mountain slopes and ridges to the deep, fertile soils of 

11558 the lower valleys. Cooler temperatures, shorter growing seasons and steep topography are the prime 

11559 factors behind the lack of soil development in the upper elevations of the Forest. Conversely, warmer 

11560 temperatures, a longer growing season, and gentle topography found within the lower forest elevations 

11561 provide more favorable conditions for soil development.

11562 Soil Development

11563 Soil development is dominated by five major soil formation factors: time, parent material, topography, 

11564 climate, and biology. The two greatest influences on the development of the soils on the Colville National 

11565 Forest are continental glaciation and distant volcanic activity.

11566 During the Pleistocene Epoch (approximately 2.4 million to 18 thousand years ago), a continental glacier 

11567 called the Cordilleran Ice Sheet built up, advanced and retreated several times covering much of western 

11568 Canada as well as northern Washington and Idaho and northwestern Montana in the United States 

11569 including the area covered by the Colville National Forest. The ice sheets advanced and then retreated 

11570 several times, according to the sequence of sediments that the ice sheets left behind. However, the most 

11571 completely understood ice sheet advance is the one that occurred most recently, between 200,000 and 

11572 18,000 years ago. This most recent advance obscured much of the evidence of the earlier advances. 

11573 In places where the ice sheet flowed across bedrock, such as in eastern Washington, it smoothed the 

11574 mountains and hills into more streamlined and rounded shapes. The highest peaks on the Colville 

11575 National Forest remained unglaciated as the ice sheet moved around and not over them. The ice sheet 

11576 valley fill and terraces of glacial outwash around its margins in the northern part of eastern Washington. 

11577 Katabatic winds, driven by the temperature contrasts between the ice and the land, picked up and moved 

11578 the finer-grained sediments from the outwash both out of and onto the area of the Colville National 

11579 Forest.

11580 Glacial soils fall into three, general categories: lacustrine, outwash and till. Lacustrine soils are derived 

11581 from ancient glacial lakebeds. These soils are higher in silt or clay content than other glacial soils, 

11582 resulting in higher water-holding capacities and higher fertility. Lacustrine soils are more susceptible to 

11583 hillslope and wind erosion than till or outwash because of their fine texture. Streams flowing from 

11584 glaciers deposited outwash soils. Water of varying speeds deposits particles of different sizes, sometimes 

11585 resulting in distinct layers of gravel, sand, and rock in the soil profile. Usually, glacial outwash soils drain 

11586 rapidly and have low organic matter content. Some glacial outwash soils contain a layer of wind 

11587 deposited silt (loess) that increases their moisture-retaining capacity and fertility. Glacial till was 

11588 deposited directly, mixed, deformed or compressed by glaciers and often results in a mixed particle size 

11589 soil that is variably drained. Glacial till that was laid down beneath glaciers is known as basal till and has 

11590 a dense, compacted layer, or densic layer, at a depth of about 18 to 36 inches that can extend more than 

11591 10 feet. This densic layer is often impenetrable to both plant roots and infiltrating water, forming a 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

352

11592 perched water table. Because of this, sites with basal till soils often drain poorly. If the densic layer is very 

11593 shallow the soils may not be able to support trees or more deeply rooted plant species by virtue of wetland 

11594 conditions.

11595 Although lacking volcanoes, younger than 40 million years old within the Forest boundaries, many soils 

11596 in the forest owe their productivity to volcanic activity. Volcanic ash from the eruption of Mount Mazama 

11597 (now Crater Lake) 7,900 years ago has significantly influenced forested soils of the area. Additional 

11598 volcanic ash and loess influenced by volcanic ash were deposited by eruptions of Mount Rainier, Mount 

11599 St. Helens, and Glacier Peak. These ash-influenced soils can be found throughout the western United 

11600 States. Locally, these soils are characterized by a bright brown “cap” of volcanic ash 6 inches or more in 

11601 thickness. These ash-cap soils, in contrast to other soils, are important to forest management due to their 

11602 low bulk density, high porosity, and high infiltration and water and nutrient retention capabilities. These 

11603 soil properties reduce drought stress on plants during extended summer dry periods found in the forest. 

11604 Given the distance from the volcanoes, the ash cap is much more stable, resistant to erosion, and greater 

11605 bearing strength than the pumice based soils, closer to the sources.

11606 Landtypes

11607 Soils of the Colville National Forest can be divided into five landform groups based on similar 

11608 geomorphic processes (Davis et al. 2004):

11609 • Soils on glaciated and scoured mountain slopes (673,990 acres) 

11610 Soils on glaciated and scoured mountain slopes are formed from metasedimentary, igneous, and 

11611 pyroclastic geologies that have been shaped by continental glaciation. Scoured areas tend to have thin 

11612 rocky soils. Lesser areas of deeper soil can be found in glacial till in draws and north facing slopes.

11613 • Soils on glacial moraines (397,794 acres)

11614 Glacial deposition is the most common land forming process in glacial moraines. The most common rock 

11615 types are metamorphic, intrusive, and volcanic. Springs, seeps, and pothole lakes are common.

11616 • Soils on unglaciated mountains (120,144 acres)

11617 This landform group consists of dissected and structure controlled mountain slopes and rounded ridge 

11618 tops. These are the only landforms on the forest that are not glacially influenced. Moderately deep 

11619 residual soils can be found on the ridge tops. Erosion and mass wasting are the primary landform drivers 

11620 on the mountain slopes. These soils are formed from igneous intrusive and metasedimentary geologies.

11621 • Soils on valley bottoms (120,036 acres)

11622 These landforms are located in valley bottoms of varied size. Glacial meltwater, fluvial flooding, and 

11623 glacial lake sedimentation are the major land forming factors. These soils are formed from relatively 

11624 young surficial deposits of glacial till, alluvium, landslide debris, and glacial outwash. Rock types are 

11625 mixed and varied in these landforms.

11626 • Soils on glacial troughs and cirques (16,403 acres)

11627 These landtypes are glacial valleys formed from alpine and continental glaciation. Ridges were scoured 

11628 and slopes steepened by glacial erosion. Alluvial fans and glacial moraine deposits are found at the lower 

11629 slopes. The most common rock type is metasedimentary.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

353

11630 Soil Taxonomy

11631 The system of soil classification used by the National Cooperative Soil Survey has six levels. Beginning 

11632 with the broadest, these categories are order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and series. Each 

11633 level of taxonomy gives more detailed information about the soils. The dominant soil orders found in the 

11634 Forest are Inceptisols and Andisols followed by Mollisols and Alfisols (table 136).

11635 Inceptisols are soils with poorly developed characteristics. Most Inceptisols occur under forested 

11636 landscapes in a variety of climatic conditions. They tend to occur on steep slopes where erosion is 

11637 continuously removing topsoil or convex toeslopes where colluvium is being deposited. Time tends to be 

11638 the limiting factor of soil development in these soils.

11639 Table 136. Soil orders on the Colville National Forest

Soil Order Acres % of Administrative Forest

Inceptisols 666,134 49%

Andisols 477,507 35%

Mollisols 64,416 5%

Alfisols 39,630 3%

Others (including Entisols, Histosols, and Spodosols) 110,462 8%

11640 Andisols are soils that have formed from volcanic ash or other volcanic material. These soils have 

11641 characteristic chemical and physical properties that include high water holding capacity and the ability to 

11642 keep large quantities of phosphorus unavailable to plants. While volcanic ash plays an important role in 

11643 the soils of the Forest, not all the soils have ash depths that would classify to Andisols. Many soils are 

11644 within Andic and Vitrandic suborder, great group, or subgroups.

11645 Mollisols are grassland soils with thick dark surface horizons. These dark surface horizons are the result 

11646 of long-term additions of organic matter primarily through grass roots. These soils were formed in areas 

11647 with a short fire return interval that prevented the growth of woody vegetation and stimulated the growth 

11648 of native grasses. Some Mollisols may be relics of periglacial tundra.

11649 Alfisols are soils that have clay-enriched subsoils and high base saturation. These soils have typically 

11650 formed in forested ecosystems and tend to have high soil fertility.

11651 Current Conditions and Trends

11652 Soil Quality

11653 Soil is the foundation of the ecosystem. Soil quality is the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, 

11654 within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or 

11655 enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation and ecosystem health. Soil 

11656 productivity is the inherent capacity of the soil resource to support appropriate site-specific biological 

11657 resource management objectives, which include the growth of desirable plant species, plant communities, 

11658 or a sequence of plant communities, all to support multiple land uses.

11659 Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 2550 Soil Management directs soil resource management on 

11660 National Forest System lands. The objectives of the national direction are (1) to maintain or restore soil 

11661 quality on National Forest System lands, and (2) to manage resource uses and soil resources on National 

11662 Forest System lands to sustain ecological processes and function so that desired ecosystem services are 

11663 provided in perpetuity. Soil function is any ecological service, role, or task that soil performs.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

354

11664 The FSM identifies six soil functions: soil biology, soil hydrology, nutrient cycling, carbon storage, soil 

11665 stability and support, and filtering and buffering. In order to provide multiple uses and ecosystem services 

11666 in perpetuity, these six soil functions need to be active and effectively working. Each of these six soil 

11667 functions are discussed in the following sections. Interpretive maps have been developed to assist in 

11668 understanding how these functions are operating within different ecosystems. These soil functions and the 

11669 interpretive maps are also referenced in the discussion of Environmental Consequences.

11670 Soil Biology 

11671 Soil biology is the ability to provide habitat for a wide variety of organisms including plants, fungi, 

11672 microorganisms and macro-organisms in the upper sections of the soil. Diversity of soil biology is 

11673 beneficial for several reasons:

11674 The complex process of decomposition and nutrient cycling requires a varied set of organisms. 

11675 • An intricate group of soil organisms can compete with disease-causing organisms and prevent a 

11676 problem-causing species from becoming dominant. 

11677 • Several organisms are involved in creating and maintaining the soil structure important to water 

11678 dynamics in soil. 

11679 • Many antibiotics and other drugs and compounds used by humans come from soil organisms. 

11680 • Most soil organisms cannot grow outside of soil, so it is necessary to preserve healthy and diverse 

11681 soil ecosystems to preserve beneficial microorganisms. 

11682 The major drivers of soil biological function are presence of organisms and thermodynamics. The 

11683 organism influences on the soil include plant and animal actions from root growth and distribution to 

11684 macro pore creation by small mammals. The thermodynamics of the site control moisture and temperature 

11685 of the soil profile. Vegetation canopy and soil cover (forest floor, fine and coarse woody debris) provide 

11686 macro and microhabitat and climate conditions on-site in order to support the soil organisms. Important 

11687 characteristic soils are formed on unglaciated areas with remnant plant communities; these are typically 

11688 older, well-developed soils.

11689 Soil Hydrology

11690 Soil hydrology is the ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit water, both vertically and 

11691 horizontally. Soil hydrology is extremely important on the Forest, because the ecosystem productivity is 

11692 typically limited by water. Soil can regulate the drainage, flow, and storage of water and solutes, including 

11693 nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, and other nutrients and compounds dissolved in the water. With proper 

11694 functioning, soil partitions water for groundwater recharge and use by plants and animals. Sensitive soils 

11695 for the hydrologic function are soils with volcanic ash deposits, soils susceptible to drought, and hydric 

11696 soils (wetlands).

11697 Volcanic Ash Soils

11698 The surficial volcanic ash deposits, or ash cap, of the soils on the Forest are instrumental to the high 

11699 productivity of the Forest. The ash-cap on the Forest is characterized by a low bulk density, high water 

11700 holding capacity, and a high cation exchange capacity that can lead to a concentration of nutrients. The 

11701 ash-caps found on the Forest are in varying forms from thick mantles of pure ash to layers of ash mixed 

11702 with weathered mineral soil.

11703 The ash deposited on the Forest tends to be fine particles forming loam and silt loam textured soils. The 

11704 high water holding capacity of the ash-cap is arguably the most important feature of the ash-cap locally. 

11705 The ash was deposited over rocky and sandy coarse textured soils with relatively low water holding 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

355

11706 capacities in northeastern Washington and therefore the majority of the plant-available water in this 

11707 landscape is held in the ash cap.

11708 Ash-caps are extremely susceptible to decreased soil quality due to compaction, erosion, and soil mixing. 

11709 Ashy soils have low soil bearing capacity and therefore compact very easily within a large range of soil 

11710 moisture levels. Compaction causes a restriction to plant rooting, lowered water-holding capacity, and 

11711 lowered infiltration rates. Ashy soils also do not recover from compaction as quickly as other soil types. 

11712 Several hypotheses exist regarding the slower recovery times; including the low amounts of clay and 

11713 therefore limited natural shrink and swell cycles or the possible physical locking of jagged edge ash 

11714 particles during compaction.

11715 Ash-cap layers tend to be resistant to erosive forces when fully vegetated due to high infiltration rates and 

11716 strong soil structure. When vegetation and litter layers are removed, the ashy surface is highly susceptible 

11717 to severe erosion. Loss of the ash-cap layer would reduce the water-holding capacity and increase the 

11718 overall soil bulk density. These effects would decrease available soil moisture and tree root penetrability. 

11719 The effects of mixing the ash-cap with subsoil are similar and would result in comparable productivity 

11720 decreases. Since volcanic ash is not replaced, the effects of erosional losses of the ash-cap would be long 

11721 term. Areas with ground disturbance may become more favorable for weed invasion, which could reduce 

11722 overall soil productivity.

11723 A map of areas and types of ash-cap soils on the Colville Forest was created using the Natural Resources 

11724 Conservation Service SSUGRO soil data layer. The purpose of this interpretive map is to show where 

11725 ash-cap soils occur and the relative thickness and makeup of the different volcanic ash soils. Four 

11726 categories were identified based on whether or not an ash-cap was present and soil taxonomic 

11727 classification of the ash-caps (Soil Survey Staff 2014). Andisols include soils in the Andisols soil order 

11728 that have an ash-cap at least 24 inches thick. Ash-cap soils in the Andic subgroup have at least 8 inches of 

11729 ash-cap and contain minerals weathered from volcanic ash. Ash-cap soils in the Vitrandic subgroup also 

11730 have at least eight inches of ash-cap and have higher volcanic glass content compared to Andic 

11731 subgroups.

11732 Droughty Soils

11733 Drought affects trees directly by slowing or arresting growth, and causing injury or death. It also affects 

11734 them indirectly, by increasing their susceptibility to wildfire, insect pests and disease. A drought may be 

11735 short-lived, perhaps lasting one growth season, but its impact on a tree’s health—and, ultimately, a 

11736 forest’s—can last much longer. Trees have evolved protective mechanisms to deal with water stress, but 

11737 there are many external factors that determine the effects of drought, including soil composition and 

11738 topography, as well as the species mix, age and density of trees. These soils that are susceptible to drought 

11739 can inform management as to desired tree density and areas at risk to insect and disease outbreaks.

11740 Oregon State University has created a soil drought index layer for the Pacific Northwest Region of the 

11741 Forest Service (table 137). This layer represents an initial approximation of the potential for droughty soil 

11742 conditions in forested landscapes in Washington and Oregon. The index is based upon best-available soils 

11743 data and satellite-derived estimates of actual and potential evaporation. Potential evapotranspiration 

11744 (PET) is an estimate of the evaporation and transpiration that would occur if an adequate supply of 

11745 moisture were available. Actual evapotranspiration (AET) measures the actual loss of moisture from soil 

11746 and plant surfaces, and so the degree to which AET falls below PET may be interpreted an indicator of 

11747 moisture limitation. Some studies have found that prolonged periods of low AET to PET ratio (AET/PET) 

11748 during a growing season are highly correlated with reduced dryland crop yields. AET/PET has been used 

11749 as a broad-scale indicator of potential drought stress.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

356

11750 Table 137. Droughty soil index for the Colville National Forest

Droughty Soil Index Acres Percent of Administrative Forest

April, May, June

Low 5,915 0%

Low to Moderate 546,751 41%

Moderate 643,988 48%

Moderate to High 147,427 11%

High 840 0%

July, August, September

Low 7,374 1%

Low to Moderate 464,796 35%

Moderate 644,360 48%

Moderate to High 182,961 14%

High 45,432 3%

11751 Hydric Soils

11752 Hydric soils and wetlands are areas on the landscape that tend to retain moisture on the landscape and are 

11753 sensitive to human activities. There are very limited amounts of hydric soils on the Colville National 

11754 Forest. The NRCS classifies map units in the Soil Survey program as to the amount of the map unit that is 

11755 hydric. There are 2,989 acres of soils mapped as 100 percent hydric on the forest and 2,247 acres of soils 

11756 mapped as predominately hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric) (table 138). This combines to less than 

11757 1 percent of the Forest land base. Map units that are made up of hydric soils may have small areas, or 

11758 inclusions, of non-hydric soils in the higher positions on the landform, and map units made up of non11759 hydric soils may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landform. Map units that are 

11760 not listed do not meet the definition of hydric soils because the dominant soil component does not have 

11761 one of the hydric soil indicators. A portion of these map units, however, may include hydric soils. There 

11762 are inclusions in most map units that can be hydric, therefore the total land base on the forest that have 

11763 hydric soils is likely underestimated due to the level of mapping and classification. In all soil surveys, 

11764 every map unit includes areas of soil components or miscellaneous areas that are not identified in the 

11765 name of the map unit. Many areas of these components are too small to be delineated separately. 

11766 Generally in these soil surveys, inclusions can make up to 20 percent of a map unit.

11767 Table 138. Map unit hydric ratings on the Colville National Forest

Hydric Class Acres Percent of Administrative Forest

Non Hydric (0%) 1,181,432 87%

Predominately Non Hydric (1-32%) 171,480 13%

Predominately Hydric (66-99%) 2,247 0.17%

Hydric (100%) 2,989 0.22%

11768 Hydric soils are defined as soils formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough 

11769 during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions within the upper part. A soil is defined as 

11770 saturated when all pores are filled with water, excluding all air. The saturated soil closest to the soil 

11771 surface indicates the level of the water table. Anaerobic conditions exist when biologically available 

11772 oxygen is absent from the soil.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

357

11773 Positions in the landscape that have high water tables are more likely to have wet and potentially hydric 

11774 soils. The same is true for soils that are prone to flooding or ponding. The following landscape positions 

11775 are locations that may contain hydric soils, based on the timing and duration of saturation and anaerobic 

11776 soil conditions. 

11777 • Depressional areas collect and store runoff water from the surrounding landscape after rain events. 

11778 Saturation is not sustained for long periods after rain events. Mineral soils are likely to be present 

11779 and may or may not be hydric. Vegetation can consist of trees, shrubs and herbs.

11780 • Flood plains that are seasonally flooded may contain hydric soils. Hydric soils usually form in the 

11781 backwater area, where water is retained for extended periods. Soils are typically mineral with trees 

11782 and shrubs being the dominant vegetation.

11783 • Seeps occur at the bases of slopes where the groundwater table intersects the soil surface. They are 

11784 often found where a slope grades into flat land. The high water table in seeps is sustained by 

11785 groundwater discharge. There can be mineral or organic soils, and the vegetation in and around the 

11786 seep can consist of trees, shrubs and herbs.

11787 In hydric soils, soil organic matter accumulates because the microorganisms decompose plant and animal 

11788 material more slowly than in anaerobic soils. This decrease in decomposition causes organic matter to 

11789 build up at the surface. As a result, anaerobic soils usually have a dark or almost black surface. Common 

11790 rates of organic accumulation may average 2 inches every 100 years. A dark surface horizon, underlain by 

11791 a gray horizon is one common indicator. Another indicator of a hydric soil is a horizon that is 

11792 predominantly gray with accumulations of iron along root channels or in masses. In the horizons with 

11793 accumulated iron, there are also areas that are depleted, making them lighter than the main horizon color 

11794 (Hurt et al. 1996).

11795 The presence of hydric soils is one-third of the requirements needed to meet a jurisdictional wetland. The 

11796 two other requirements include wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology refers to the 

11797 movement of water in the environment. However, wetland hydrology specifically implies the soil is 

11798 saturated to the surface for approximately 5 percent of the growing season, or is frequently flooded or

11799 ponded. Hydrophytic vegetation is adapted to survive in saturated and anaerobic soils. Wetlands are 

11800 universally sensitive to machine traffic due to saturation throughout the growing season and high organic 

11801 matter content of the soils.

11802 Nutrient Cycling

11803 Nutrient cycling is the movement and exchange of organic and inorganic matter back into the production 

11804 of living matter. Soil stores, moderates the release of, and cycles nutrients and other elements. In contrast 

11805 to the annual harvests associated with agriculture, forest harvest—and hence nutrient removal—typically 

11806 occurs only once per rotation or every 40 to 120 years. This not only reduces the rate of removal, but the 

11807 long-time interval makes natural additions of nutrients by atmospheric deposition and by weathering of 

11808 soil minerals very important in maintaining nutrient status. Sensitive soil attributes for nutrient cycling 

11809 include the forest floor vegetation quantity composition, and coarse soil texture subject to leaching. Soils 

11810 formed on quartzite are problematic, in that they are very low in nutrients from parent material and have 

11811 little capacity for retaining deposited nutrients.

11812 During these biogeochemical processes, analogous to the water cycle, nutrients can be transformed into 

11813 plant available forms, held in the soil, or even lost to atmosphere or water. Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, 

11814 and many other nutrients are stored, transformed, and cycled through soil. Decomposition by soil 

11815 organisms is at the center of the transformation and cycling of nutrients through the environment. 

11816 Decomposition liberates carbon and nutrients from the complex material making up life forms and puts 

11817 them back into biological circulation so they are available to plants and other organisms. Decomposition 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

358

11818 also degrades compounds in soil that would be pollutants if they entered ground or surface water. Nutrient 

11819 cycling can be assessed by considering organic matter composition on a site (forest and rangeland floor, 

11820 fine and coarse woody material) and the nutrient availability (topsoil horizons and nutrient deficiencies).

11821 Nearly all the nitrogen in forest systems is bound to organic matter. Very little of the total pool of nitrogen 

11822 is available to plants; only about 2.5 percent of total organic nitrogen is released annually (Grigal and

11823 Vance 2000). The rate of nitrogen release from organic matter (mineralization) is controlled by microbial 

11824 decomposition, which in turn is controlled by environmental factors as well as the amount and chemical 

11825 composition of organic matter (Grigal and Vance 2000). Rates of nitrogen mineralization are highly 

11826 spatially variable within stands (Johnson and Curtis 2001). The availability of nitrogen from organic 

11827 matter has been said to “most often limit the productivity of temperate forests” (Hassett and Zak 2005). 

11828 Logging residues are a source of nitrogen during early periods of stand growth after harvest (Hyvönen et 

11829 al. 2000)(Mälkönen 1976). Dead woody material left after logging provides carbon-rich material for 

11830 microbes to feed upon; and typically microbial populations increase after forest harvests due to the input 

11831 of logging residues. Microbes immobilize nitrogen in their tissues and limit losses that could otherwise 

11832 occur through leaching or volatilization. As dead woody material gradually decomposes during the 15–20 

11833 years following harvest, microbial populations decline and slowly release the nitrogen to growing 

11834 vegetation. One research study found that nearly all the nitrogen and much of the phosphorous that moved 

11835 down through the litter layer into mineral soil was in organic forms as a result of microbial 

11836 transformations of organic matter in the forest floor (Qualls et al. 1991). This indicates that some nitrogen 

11837 and phosphorous can be moved from the litter layer into mineral soil where it may be stable for a longer 

11838 period. Phosphorus is another essential nutrient that is mainly supplied, in forms available to plants, by 

11839 the microbial breakdown of organic materials. A deficiency of available phosphorus can limit plant 

11840 metabolism of nitrogen, and some forests may be limited by phosphorus availability (Trettin et al. 2003). 

11841 Inorganic phosphorus is often present in soil minerals, but under low-pH conditions often found in forest 

11842 soils; soluble aluminum and iron react with inorganic phosphorus to form insoluble compounds that are 

11843 unavailable to most plants (Pritchett 1979). Sulfur, like nitrogen, occurs in soil primarily as organic 

11844 compounds and is made available for plant growth through oxidation by microbes to sulfate forms (Fisher 

11845 and Binkley 2000). Carbonic acid weathering of the feldspathinc, ferro-magnesian igneous rocks, very 

11846 common on the Forest yields aluminum, iron, calcium, and magnesium ions in low soil pH.

11847 Soil Organic Matter

11848 The soil organic layer is extremely important to all soils on the Forest, especially those formed from low11849 nutrient geology like granite and quartzite which weathers slowly. Soil organic matter is fundamentally 

11850 important to sustaining soil productivity. Soil organic matter is influenced by fire, silviculture activities, 

11851 and decomposition/accumulation rates. The organic component of soil is a large reserve of nutrients and 

11852 carbon and is the primary site for microbial activity. Forest soil organic matter influences many critical 

11853 ecosystem processes, including the formation of soil structure. Soil structure influences soil gas exchange, 

11854 water infiltration rates, root penetration, and water-holding capacity. Soil organic matter is also the 

11855 primary location for nutrient recycling and humus formation, which enhances soil cation exchange 

11856 capacity and overall fertility. Soil organic matter depends on inputs of biomass (e.g., vegetative litter, fine 

11857 and coarse woody debris) to build and maintain the surface soil horizons, support soil biota, enhance 

11858 moisture-holding capacity, and prevent surface erosion. Nevertheless, in natural systems organic matter 

11859 fluctuates with forest growth, mortality, fire, and decay.

11860 Low-nutrient Soils

11861 A rating on soil nutrient availability based on geology types has been developed by the Intermountain 

11862 Tree Nutrient Cooperative at the University of Idaho (table 139). Tree nutrition value is an interpretation 

11863 of rock geochemistry and its nutritive status. Soils formed from quartzite geologies tend to be very 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

359

11864 nutrient poor. This is especially true when the volcanic ash layer is no longer on site. Soil wood loss may 

11865 alter processes of forest regeneration and growth, favoring species requiring lower soil moisture and 

11866 lower nutrient levels, and provide for a greater potential for soil erosion. Potential loss or reduction of 

11867 organic matter can lead to a decline in several key soil and foliar nutrients (Powers et al. 2005). Further 

11868 effects also include a reduction of habitat for species requiring soil wood as dens or as substrate for 

11869 invertebrates, bacteria and fungi, which affect food availability for small rodents and their predators.

11870 Table 139. Geologic tree nutrition values for the Colville National Forest

Geology Tree Nutrition Value Acres % Administrative Forest

High 50,075 4%

Moderate 922,817 68%

Low 278,203 20%

Very Low 104,050 8%

11871 Carbon Storage

11872 The carbon storage function is defined as the ability of the soil to store carbon. The carbon cycle 

11873 illustrates the role of soil in cycling nutrients through the environment. Globally, more carbon is stored in 

11874 soil than in the atmosphere and above-ground biomass combined. Limiting factors of soil carbon storage 

11875 are depth and rockiness. Carbon compounds are inherently unstable and owe their abundance in soil to 

11876 biological and physical environmental influences that protect carbon and limit the rate of decomposition 

11877 (Schmidt et al. 2011). Soil organic matter is formed by the biological, chemical, and physical decay of 

11878 organic materials that enter the soil system from sources aboveground (e.g., leaf fall, crop residues, 

11879 animal wastes and remains) or belowground (e.g., roots, soil biota). The organic compounds enter the soil 

11880 system when plants and animals die and leave their residue in or on the soil. Immediately, soil organisms 

11881 begin consuming the organic matter; extracting energy and nutrients; and releasing water, heat, and 

11882 carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere. Thus, if no new plant residue is added to the soil, soil organic 

11883 matter would gradually disappear. If plant residue is added to the soil at a faster rate than soil organisms 

11884 convert it to carbon dioxide, carbon would gradually be removed from the atmosphere and stored 

11885 (sequestered) in the soil. Large quantities of soil organic matter accumulate in environments such as 

11886 wetlands, where the rate of decomposition is limited by a lack of oxygen, and high-altitude sites where 

11887 temperatures are limiting to decomposition. Most carbon in mineral soil comes from root turnover 

11888 (Schmidt et al. 2011), although some is moved from the forest floor into upper mineral soil layers (Qualls 

11889 et al. 1991).

11890 A soil carbon stock was determined for the forest using local data from the soil surveys of the area and 

11891 local research. The soil carbon stock includes carbon compounds in the forest floor litter layer and the 

11892 mineral soil to a depth of 1 meter (or depth to bedrock if the soil is shallower than 1 meter). Forest floor 

11893 carbon numbers were generated using data from the National Cooperative Soil Survey, research data as 

11894 analyzed by (Smith et al. 2006), and regional data collected by (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006). Soil organic 

11895 carbon (SOC) was estimated for the Colville National Forest using data from the National Cooperative 

11896 Soil Survey. A modified equation following the methods of (Batjes 1996) was used to calculate the total 

11897 SOC to a depth of one meter for the mineral soil. This results in a forest floor carbon stock of 103 Tg 

11898 (113.5 million tons) with and average density of 103 Mg C/ha (46.0 tons/acre) and a mineral soil carbon

11899 stock of 172 Tg (189.6 million tons) SOC in the top one meter of soil with an average carbon density of 

11900 127 Mg C/ha (56.7 tons/acre). The total soil carbon stock, organic and mineral layers, for the Colville 

11901 National Forest is approximately 275 Tg (303.1 million tons) C with a density of 203 Mg C/ha 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

360

11902 (90.6 tons/acre). This carbon density is within the ranges found in several research projects, as displayed 

11903 in the table below.

11904 The carbon storage potential was determined for the forest. The factors used to develop this map include 

11905 the inherent soil productivity, soil depth, and percent rock fragments in the soil profile.

11906 Table 140. Soil carbon densities from research

Environment SOC (Mg C/ha) Source

Cool, conifer forests of U.S. 403-494 (Kern, 1994)

Cool, temperate forests of Maine 130 (Davidson and Lefebvre, 1993)

Global temperate forests 118 (Schlesinger, 1977)

Cool, temperate forest of north central U.S. 84-152 (Franzmeier et al., 1985)

11907 Support and Stability

11908 Soil stability and support is necessary to anchor plants and structures. Inherent soil properties, like soil 

11909 texture and particle size distribution, play a major role in physical stability. Soil has a porous structure to 

11910 allow passage of air and water, withstand erosive forces, and provide a medium for plant roots. Soils also 

11911 provide anchoring support for human structures and protect archeological artifacts. The need for structural 

11912 support can conflict with other soil uses. For example, soil compaction may be desirable under roads and 

11913 houses, but it can be detrimental for the plants growing nearby. The conflict of stability and support with 

11914 plant growth capabilities is constant when dealing with roads, skid trails, recreation trails, and forest 

11915 productivity. Sensitive soils for the support and stability function are soils with high erosion hazards and 

11916 soils with high mass wasting hazards. Support and stability can be assessed by evaluating risk of erosion 

11917 and mass wasting and observing soil deposition.

11918 Highly Erosive Soils

11919 The susceptibility of soil to erosion, or the relative loss of exposed soil to erosional forces, is expressed 

11920 by soil erosion ratings. Surface erosion risk was developed for the Landtype Associations of north central 

11921 Washington (Davis et al. 2004). This rating represents the susceptibility of the bare, un-vegetated surface 

11922 to erosion by wind and water. Approximately 37 percent of the forest has a high risk for surface erosion 

11923 (table 141). Basically, if practices or conditions occur that remove vegetative cover and expose the 

11924 surface soil layer to erosional forces, then the erosion susceptibility rating applies. Skid trails, fire lines, 

11925 machine piles areas, and severely burned areas are examples of practices and conditions that expose soils 

11926 to erosional forces such as wind and rain.

11927 Table 141. Surface erosion risk

Surface Erosion Risk Acres Percent within Forest Administrative Boundary

Low 220,237 16%

Moderate 629,664 46%

High 507,295 37%

11928 Landslide-prone Soils

11929 Forest soils that have high mass wasting hazards are considered landslide prone. Landslide or mass 

11930 wasting are terms used to describe the downslope movement of material under the influence of gravity. 

11931 Water is usually only a minor part of the moving material. A slide is a rapid, planar movement of a large 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

361

11932 mass of earth and other debris down a hill or a mountainside. Slumps involve a mass of soil or other 

11933 coherent material sliding along a curved surface (shaped like a spoon). Slumps and planar slides form 

11934 crescent-shaped cliffs, or abrupt scarps at the top of the slide slope. More than one scarp can exist down 

11935 the slope. Slumps form a depression or back slope, between the scarp and the mass that moved. Soil creep 

11936 is a long-term process. The combination of small movements of soil or rock in different directions over 

11937 time are directed by gravity gradually downslope. The slumps and soil creep make trees and shrubs curve 

11938 to maintain their perpendicularity. The surface soil can migrate under the influence of cycles of freezing 

11939 and thawing, or hot and cold temperatures, inching its way toward the bottom of the slope forming 

11940 terracettes. Flows are movement of earth materials and vegetative debris that more resemble fluid 

11941 behavior. Water, air, and ice are often involved in enabling fluid-like motion of the material. Falls, 

11942 including rockfalls and topples are where rock cascades down a slope, but without fluid or sufficient 

11943 volume to behave as a flow. The accumulation of fallen rock material residing at the base of the slope is 

11944 known as talus.

11945 Landslides are likely to occur in areas near where they have occurred in the past or as reactivation of 

11946 older mass wasting. In many cases, the landscape features provide evidence of past and ongoing landslide 

11947 activity. Mass wasting is part of the evolution of the landscape, delivering material to be carried away by 

11948 streams. Landslides are triggered by earthquakes, major storms, volcanic activity, or human activities that 

11949 may cause slopes to become unstable. The additional weight of rains or snow melt can cause slopes to fail 

11950 or reactivate older landslides. The most significant factors were steepness of the original slope angle, 

11951 undercutting of the toe of the slope by erosion or excavation, and height of saturation of the slope (Jones 

11952 et al. 1961).

11953 Landslide hazards ratings for the Colville National Forest were developed for the Landtype Associations 

11954 of North Central Washington (Davis et al. 2004). (Landslide hazard ratings are currently being developed 

11955 for Forest Service Region 6, including adjustments for smaller subsets. These ratings would not be 

11956 available until after this Plan is finalized.) There are ratings for both deep-seated and shallow rapid 

11957 landslides. Deep-seated landslides include rotational slumps and other mass movement that is sporadic or 

11958 slow and involves thick masses of material over a relatively large area. Factors used to assess deep-seated

11959 landslide risk were:

11960 • Easily weathered bedrock high in clays

11961 • Geologic structural features such as folding and faulting

11962 • Geomorphic shape features such as escarpments and concave topography

11963 • Fine-textured surficial deposits

11964 • Slope gradients greater than 20 percent

11965 • Indications of concentrated groundwater

11966 • Indications of surface and subsurface water

11967 Approximately 3 percent of the forest has a high risk for deep seated landslides, as shown in table 142. 

11968 The only area on the forest that was determined to have a high risk at the landtype classification scale is 

11969 the Pend Oreille River Valley.

11970
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

362

11971 Table 142. Deep-seated landslide risk

Deep-seated Landslide Risk Acres Percent within Forest Administrative Boundary

Low 837,452 62%

Moderate 483,928 36%

High 35,817 3%

11972 Shallow rapid landslides include debris slides such as debris avalanches, flows and torrents. These slides 

11973 are relatively small and shallow. Seven factors were used to develop this risk rating:

11974 • Slope gradients greater than 40 percent

11975 • Convergent drainages and/or catchment basins

11976 • Unconsolidated coarse textured soils

11977 • Interface of materials with discontinuous hydrologic properties

11978 • Sparse vegetation patterns

11979 • Geomorphic features such as debris chutes or alluvial fans

11980 • High low order drainage density especially with parallel patterns

11981 Approximately 1 percent of the forest has a high risk for shallow rapid landslides (table 143). The only 

11982 area of the forest with a high risk of deep-seated landslides at the landtype scale occurs in the Salmo11983 Priest area of the Selkirk Mountains. For information on the impacts of these landslides on water quality 

11984 and fisheries, see the sediment delivery risk analysis discussed in the fisheries and the hydrology sections.

11985 Table 143. Shallow rapid landslide risk

Shallow Rapid Landslide Risk Acres Percent within Forest Administrative Boundary

Low 581,955 56%

Moderate 759,961 43%

High 15,280 1%

11986 Filtering and Buffering

11987 Soil acts as a filter to protect the quality of water, air, and other resources. Toxic compounds or excess 

11988 nutrients can be degraded or otherwise made unavailable to plants and animals. The minerals and 

11989 microbes in soil are responsible for filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing, and detoxifying organic 

11990 and inorganic materials, including industrial and municipal by-products and atmospheric deposits. Soil 

11991 absorbs contaminants from both water and air. Microorganisms in the soil degrade some of these 

11992 compounds; others are held safely in place in the soil, preventing contamination of air and water. 

11993 Wetlands soils especially function as nature's filters. Filtering and buffering on the Forest is impacted by 

11994 chemical pollutants and industrial contamination at a very small scale. Wetlands are also discussed in the 

11995 hydrology section.

11996 Inherent Soil Productivity 

11997 Inherent soil productivity can be described as a summation of the six ecological soil functions. The main 

11998 function drivers of inherent soil productivity on the Colville are soil hydrology and nutrient cycling. 

11999 Inherent soil productivity influences what plant communities can grow on the forest and how well they 

12000 grow. Maintaining soil productivity is an important consideration in determining the level of natural 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

363

12001 resource extraction, like timber harvest, the forest can sustain, as well as other forest values, such as 

12002 wildlife habitat and biodiversity. 

12003 Past Management Impacts on Soil Quality and Productivity

12004 Historically (pre-European settlement) and without anthropogenic (man-caused) disturbances, soil loss, 

12005 soil compaction and nutrient cycling would probably have been within functional limits to sustain soil 

12006 function and maintain soil productivity for most soils. The exception to this could be relatively short term 

12007 effects of wildfire during times of drought. Since there were no political boundaries historically, soil 

12008 condition would have been similar on similar soils throughout the range of the vegetation types.

12009 Much of the current soil condition on the Colville National Forest is related to past management. Soil 

12010 condition is affected by activities that occur or re-occur at the same place over time. Permanent loss of 

12011 soil productivity has and could affect the level of goods and beneficial use of the forests in the future. 

12012 Management activities that have affected soil condition include timber harvesting, site preparation, 

12013 mechanical fuels treatments, prescribed fires, wildfires, road construction and use, recreation facility 

12014 maintenance and use, grazing, and special uses. Some examples of impacts that have affected current soil 

12015 condition include:

12016 • Heavily compacted soils from forest vegetation treatments, grazing and recreation activities have 

12017 caused or may cause reduced productivity for decades (Burger and Kelting 1999).

12018 • Land-disturbing activities caused erosion of topsoil at rates greater than the soils natural ability to 

12019 replace it, referred to as soil loss tolerance rate. This has resulted in permanent loss of soil 

12020 productivity, as soils are considered a non-renewable resource.

12021 • During the 19th and 20th centuries, as more livestock numbers and acres were grazed over long 

12022 seasons, range condition (and soil condition) declined. The effects of this early, heavy livestock use 

12023 can still be seen on the ground. 

12024 • Road corridors that make up the forests’ road system resulted in loss of soil productivity.

12025 • Mineral extraction pits and mines resulted in permanent loss or reduction in soil productivity.

12026 • Uncharacteristic wildfire resulted in erosion rates well beyond tolerance erosion rates. 

12027 • Footprints of administration and recreation sites, such as developed campgrounds, have reduced 

12028 soil productivity.

12029 • Permanent special use sites, such as communication towers and buildings eliminated soil 

12030 productivity.

12031 There are activities that have improved soil condition, as well as removing risk to soil productivity such 

12032 as: 

12033 • Prescribed fire has removed fuels and undesirable plant material which impede vegetation growth 

12034 and condition 

12035 • Thinning dense forest, woodland and invaded grassland have increased light and reduced water 

12036 competition for desired understory grasses and shrubs. 

12037 • Channel restoration projects have restored bank and vertical streambed stability to and have re12038 established water table levels on floodplains and terraces that result in increased vegetation/soil 

12039 productivity.

12040 • Decommissioning of unneeded roads has returned old roadbeds back to producing vegetation. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

364

12041 • Implementation of INFISH, Washington State Forest Practice Rules, Washington State Surface 

12042 Mining Act, and USDA Forest Service Best Management Practices has resulted in decreased 

12043 erosion and sedimentation from roads and timber harvests. 

12044 Need for Change

12045 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

12046 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address 

12047 old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape scale. These are:

12048 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect and 

12049 disease activity that would likely continue into the future.

12050 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of restoring 

12051 landscape resiliency.

12052 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the increased 

12053 risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by climate change 

12054 impacts.

12055 Motorized Recreation Trails

12056 The current land management plans provide direction for summer and winter motorized uses, including 

12057 identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection of aquatic, 

12058 plant, and wildlife habitats.

12059 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high quality, 

12060 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the 

12061 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 

12062 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a broad 

12063 range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, rock climbing, boating, mushroom and 

12064 berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an environmentally sound 

12065 manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.

12066 Access

12067 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: 

12068 1. the Forest can no longer afford to properly maintain the road system at current operational 

12069 maintenance levels,

12070 2. the current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, and

12071 3. the existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

12072 throughout current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), 

12073 Forest Plan amendments (Eastside Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, 

12074 Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions), national-level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim 

12075 policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear No-Net-Loss, Lynx Agreement, the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy). 

12076 Recommended Wilderness Areas

12077 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 

12078 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for additional 

12079 wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the National 

12080 Wilderness Preservation System. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

365

12081 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

12082 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible areas 

12083 showed some are available to fill this need. 

12084 Wildlife

12085 The current Forest Plan provides limited protection for habitat connectivity, providing wildlife and 

12086 aquatic crossing structures, and managing activities adjacent to the structures so they are used by wildlife.

12087 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

12088 The current Forest Plan includes riparian management direction from the Inland Native Fish Strategy. 

12089 This approach appears to have either maintained or improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at 

12090 the watershed and larger scales. 

12091 Objectives for riparian management areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the riparian 

12092 and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to riparian12093 dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the 

12094 transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water quality and flows, and 

12095 contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and upland species. 

12096 Desired conditions for riparian management areas within any given watershed are to have compositions of 

12097 native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions commensurate 

12098 with natural processes

12099 Environmental Consequences

12100 Methodology

12101 Old Forest Management 

12102 Plant water availability is the resource most limiting productivity within different plant associations 

12103 groups on the Forest. Information about the soil resource combined with climate can be used to identify 

12104 different soil drought stress levels and their ability to support dense old forest vegetation structure into the 

12105 future.

12106 Assumptions

12107 Plant water availability is the resource most limiting productivity within different plant associations 

12108 groups on the Forest. Information about the soil resource combined with climate can be used to identify 

12109 different soil drought stress levels and their ability to support dense old forest vegetation structure into the 

12110 future.

12111 Methods of Analysis 

12112 Four classes of suitability for old growth management areas (not suited, low, medium, and high 

12113 suitability) was developed to assist in analyzing placement of old growth management areas.

12114 • Step 1: For each alternative, the analysis unit was identified. For example, no action is the fixed old 

12115 growth management areas while the proposed action is all actively managed portions of the forest = 

12116 management areas 3A, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

12117 • Step 2: The droughty soils layer was overlaid to provide an estimate of potential productivity and 

12118 the percentage of each management area in each productivity class was determined based on the 

12119 droughty soil index map.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

366

12120 Table 144. Area extent of site productivity ratings for Old Forest Management areas by alternative (acres)

Alternative Management Areas

Acres/ 

% 

Area

High Moderate Low Unsuited Total

No Action Focused and 

General Restoration

Acres

Area

5,735

19%

15,533

51%

4,165

14%

4,717

16%

30,150

--

Proposed 

Action

Focused and 

General Restoration

Acres

Area

189,998

25%

390,736

53%

77,417

10%

90,602

12%

748,753

--

Alternative R

Focused and 

General Restoration 

Late Forest

Acres

Area

191,708

25%

397,065

52%

80,121

11%

94,909

12%

763,803

--

Alternative P Focused and 

General Restoration

Acres

Area

189,998

25%

390,736

53%

77,417

10%

90,602

12%

748,753

--

Alternative B Restoration area 

Active Management

Acres

Area

193,154

25%

399,338

52%

80,446

11%

95,105

12%

768,043

--

Alternative O

Restoration area 

Responsible 

Management

Acres

Area

190,759

25%

394,059

52%

78,872

11%

93,692

12%

757,382

--

12121 Timber Production

12122 Assumptions

12123 • Timber suitability and rangeland capability

12124 o Lands suitable for timber production are the land base used to calculate timber production 

12125 harvest levels. Lands are removed from the timber production base for six reasons.

12126  Statute, executive order, or regulation has withdrawn the land from timber 

12127 production.

12128  The Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief has withdrawn the land from timber 

12129 production.

12130  Timber production would not be compatible with the achievement of the desires 

12131 conditions and objectives established by the plan for those lands.

12132  The technology is not currently available for conducting timber harvest without 

12133 causing irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions.

12134  There is no reasonable assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked 

12135 within 5 years after final regeneration harvest.

12136  The land is not forest land.

12137 Methods of Analysis 

12138 • Timber suitability and rangeland capability

12139 o Areas on the Colville that are considered unsuitable for timber production from a soils 

12140 perspective fall into these three groupings:
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

367

12141  Areas that are generally not forested because the site is too hot and dry 

12142 (Mollisols). This condition is more common on the western part of the forest and 

12143 generally corresponds to low elevation sites on south and west facing slopes.

12144  Areas that are generally not forested and areas that are generally forested but 

12145 would be difficult to regenerate artificially because the soil is extremely shallow 

12146 and/or rocky. 

12147  Areas where the water table is at or near the surface either permanently or 

12148 seasonally. These conditions typically occur near streams and many of these 

12149 mapping units would probably be excluded in RHCAs.

12150 Motorized Recreation Trails

12151 Assumptions

12152 Motorized access in areas of sensitive soils has the potential to effect soil erosion and soil productivity 

12153 potentials. Some soil types have low bearing strength when wet and would not support motorized access 

12154 during periods of high soil moisture. Thin ash-cap soils are easily displaced by motorized equipment 

12155 negatively affecting the functioning of these soils. The hydrologic functioning of soils that store large 

12156 quantities of water within the landscape can be disrupted by trails that cause excessive drainage of water 

12157 in these areas.

12158 Methods of Analysis 

12159 Each alternative, which varies in where it allows motorized access, has a different potential to negatively 

12160 affect key soil functions.

12161 • Step 1: The analysis unit for each alternative was determined based on areas of allowable motorized 

12162 recreation trails.

12163 • Step 2: Was repeated three times, once for each bullet below:

12164 o Soils having ash-caps with silt and silt loam soil textures and those in the medial soil 

12165 taxonomic particle size classes are considered to have low bearing strength when moist.

12166 o Soil taxonomy was used to identify different soil sensitivities to displacement. Andic and 

12167 vitrandic subgroups are sensitive due to their thin (less than 13 inches depth) ash-caps, 

12168 Andisols soil orders with thicker ash-caps were identified as moderately sensitive and soil 

12169 with no ash-cap were considered not sensitive.

12170 o Soil that store large quantities of water include soils having a hydric soil rating, soils 

12171 having aquic soil moisture regimes, and flooded/occasionally flooded, poorly and 

12172 somewhat poorly drained soils.

12173 • Step 3: The percentage of each Back County Management allocation that has sensitive soils was 

12174 then determined (i.e., low bearing strength, sensitive ash-caps, or water storing soils).

12175 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

12176 Assumptions

12177 Soil drought index can be used to identify riparian and aquatic resource management areas that may be 

12178 overstocked and a higher priority for restoration treatments. Areas of high water storage capacity on the 

12179 landscape can hold large quantities of water to moderate peak flows and supply water for stream flows 

12180 later in the summer months.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

368

12181 Methods of Analysis 

12182 Identifying high priority areas for restoration treatments based on soil drought stress.

12183 • Step 1: Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management areas were identified.

12184 • Step 2: These polygons were overlaid with the soil drought index map.

12185 • Step 3: The percentages of five soil drought stress classes (Low, Low to Moderate, Moderate, 

12186 Moderate to High, and High) were identified. 

12187 Identifying where areas of high water storage capacity are on the landscape.

12188 • Step 1: Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management areas were identified.

12189 • Step 2: These polygons were overlaid with the water storage and transmission layer map.

12190 • Step 3: The percentage area of soils having high water storage capacity were identified.

12191 Summary of Effects 

12192 Timber suitability and rangeland capability

12193 Lands suitable for timber harvest includes lands suitable for timber production as well as lands where 

12194 timber harvest can be used as a tool for reasons other than timber production, such as wildlife habitat 

12195 improvement or thinning to reduce wildfire risk. Areas of the Colville National Forest that have been 

12196 identified as suitable for timber harvest but not timber production from a soils perspective are soils 

12197 classified as Mollisols and mollic subgrades. These soils were developed in a grassland or savannah type 

12198 ecosystem and would provide opportunity to restore these ecosystems with the use of timber harvest.

12199 An assessment of range capability has been completed for the forest as well. As defined in 36 CFR 219.3, 

12200 capability refers to the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

12201 allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management 

12202 intensity. Capability depends upon current resource conditions and site conditions, such as climate, slope, 

12203 landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or 

12204 protection from fire, insects, and disease. Capable range on the Colville National Forest does not include 

12205 lands considered rock outcrops, very wet and rubble-land. This category includes lands classified as rock 

12206 outcrop, rubble-land, lithic, serpentinitic, river-wash, very wet or badlands in the soil resource coverages 

12207 for the National Forest. Lands classified as shallow soils were removed from capable range as well 

12208 because of inherent productivity limitations. Because slope limits the accessibility of livestock to potential 

12209 forage, steep slopes need to be withdrawn from the capable land base. A 40 percent slope was determined 

12210 to be a reasonable threshold for cattle and a 70 percent slope threshold was considered appropriate for 

12211 sheep on the Forest. Lands steeper than these thresholds were removed from the land base.

12212 Motorized Recreation Trails

12213 The following table shows the percentage area identified for motorized recreation trails having silty ash12214 cap soils by alternative. When soil moistures are high these silty ash-cap soils would have low equipment 

12215 bearing strengths. Off road vehicle use in these areas under moist soil conditions are expected to result in 

12216 excessive rutting and soil puddling that can both reduce water infiltration into the soil and result in 

12217 channeled runoff and accelerated soil erosion.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

369

12218 Table 145. Area extent of silty ash-cap soils that are sensitive to motorized recreation trails due to bearing 

12219 strength under higher soil moisture conditions by alternative

Alternative Management Area Acres/

% Area

Silty Ash-cap soils 

(sensitive) Totals

No Action Semi-primitive Motorized Acres

Area

10,979

42%

26,399

--

Proposed Action Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

11,203

30%

37,802

--

Alternative R Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,891

31%

6,060

--

Alternative P Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

10,671

29%

36,308

--

Alternative B Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,873

31%

6,031

--

Alternative O Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

10,485

29%

35,553

--

12220 Table 146 shows the percentage of the area identified for motorized recreation trails having different 

12221 sensitivities to soil displacement of ash-caps by alternative. Displacement of these highly productive ash12222 cap soil layers would have negative effects to inherent site productivity.

12223 Table 146. Area extent of soils having different sensitivities to soil displacement by equipment operations 

12224 due to presence or absence of ash-cap and ash-cap depth by alternative

Alternative Management Area Acres/

% Area

No Ash-cap 

(low 

sensitivity)

Thick Ashcap 

(moderate 

sensitivity)

Thin Ash-cap 

(high 

sensitivity)

Totals

No Action Semi-primitive 

Motorized

Acres

Area

231

1%

8,510

32%

17,658

67%

26,399

--

Proposed Action Backcountry 

Motorized

Acres

Area

38

>1%

16,575

44%

21,189

56%

37,802

--

Alternative R Backcountry 

Motorized

Acres

Area

35

>1%

177

3%

5,848

97%

60,60

--

Alternative P Backcountry 

Motorized

Acres

Area

38

>1%

15,771

43%

20,499

57%

36,308

--

Alternative B Backcountry 

Motorized

Acres

Area

35

>1%

159

3%

5,837

97%

6,031

--

Alternative O Backcountry 

Motorized

Acres

Area

138

>1%

15,539

44%

19,876

56%

35,553

--

12225 Table 147 shows the percentage of the area identified for motorized recreation trails having water storing 

12226 soils by alternative. These soils are sensitive to motorized recreation trail use due to soil disturbances that 

12227 could negatively affect the soil hydrologic function, disrupting water flow in the soil and causing ground 

12228 water to become surface flow.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

370

12229 Table 147. Area extent of water-storing soils that are sensitive to motorized recreation trails due to soil 

12230 disturbances that could negatively affect the soil hydrologic function by alternative

Alternative Management Area Acres/ 

% Area Wet soils (sensitive) Totals

No Action Semi-primitive Motorized Acres

Area

3,525

13%

26,399

--

Proposed Action Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,343

4%

37,802

--

Alternative R Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,338

22%

6,060

--

Alternative P Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,343

4%

36,308

--

Alternative B Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,332

22%

6,031

--

Alternative O Backcountry Motorized Acres

Area

1,343

4%

35,553

--

12231 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

12232 Table 148 shows acres of riparian and aquatic resource management areas over the whole Forest and 

12233 discloses the number of acres or percentage of the riparian and aquatic resource management areas that 

12234 have different soil drought index ratings. Areas having a moderate or high drought index rating should be 

12235 a higher priority for vegetation management treatments that can help to preserve forest health and 

12236 promote shading potential in these droughty soil areas.

12237 Table 148. Area extent of soils having different levels of drought stress within riparian and aquatic resource 

12238 management areas

Drought Index

Management Area Acres/

% Area Low Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate to High High Total

Riparian and 

Aquatic Resource 

Management Areas

Acres

% Area

1,664

1%

67,415

42%

74,709

47%

12,716

8%

2,787

2%

159,291

--

12239 Table 149 indicates acres of riparian and aquatic resource management areas over the whole Forest and 

12240 discloses the number of acres or percentage of the riparian and aquatic resource management areas that 

12241 have water storing soils. Recognition of these important water storing areas can help managers highlight 

12242 and prioritize restoration opportunities in degraded areas. Management opportunities include managing 

12243 these areas to increase water tables to historic levels, restoration of riparian vegetation in disturbed areas, 

12244 and identifying mitigation measures and project design criteria to help assure soil disturbances are not 

12245 affecting soil hydrology.

12246 Table 149. Area extent of water-storing soils within riparian and aquatic resource management areas

Management Area Acres/ % Area Water Storage Areas Total

Riparian and Aquatic Resource 

Management Areas

Acres

% Area

89,984

56%

159,291

--
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

371

12247 No-action Alternative

12248 Old Forest Management

12249 • The current forest plan identifies fixed old growth reserves on about three percent of the total Forest 

12250 land base and the Eastside Screens provide management direction for their management.

12251 • Approximately 16 percent of the current Old Forest Management areas are unsuited for timber 

12252 production and another 14 percent of these areas have a low site productivity that is likely marginal 

12253 for supporting Old Forest Management.

12254 Motorized Recreation Trails

12255 • Off road vehicle use is allowed in designated areas and trails in Management Areas 3A 

12256 (Recreation), 3C (Downhill Skiing), 5 (Scenic/Timber), 7 (Wood/Forage), and 10 (Semi-Primitive 

12257 Motorized Recreation). These Management areas cover 26,399 acres within the Colville National 

12258 Forest. 

12259 • Approximately 42 percent of the motorized off road vehicle use areas have silty ash-cap soils that 

12260 are expected to have low equipment bearing strength under higher soil moisture conditions. 

12261 Approximately 67 percent of this area has highly sensitive thin ash-cap soils that are easily 

12262 displaced by motorized equipment operations. In addition, approximately 13 percent of this area has 

12263 water-storing soils on which soil disturbance could result in negative effects to soil hydrology.

12264 Proposed Action

12265 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

12266 • The proposed action uses a “whole landscape” approach for providing late forest structure, allowing 

12267 late structure forests to shift location in response to ecological process. These types of management 

12268 enables closer approximation of natural disturbance regimes by allowing closer approximation of 

12269 natural disturbance regimes that can move around the landscape with disturbance.

12270 • While under the proposed action restoring late forest structure can occur within all management 

12271 areas across the Forest. This analysis was limited to management areas that allow active 

12272 management.

12273 • Within managed land allocations approximately 78 percent of the land base consists of high or 

12274 moderate site productivity, thus allowing a substantial land base for restoring and maintaining Old 

12275 Forest Management.

12276 Motorized Recreation Trails

12277 • The proposed action has two Backcountry management areas, motorized and non-motorized. 

12278 Backcountry (BC) Management Areas (MAs) emphasize non-motorized recreation opportunities 

12279 while Backcountry Motorized (BCM) management areas support motorized backcountry recreation 

12280 opportunities. In the proposed Action, approximately 6 percent (37,802 acres) of the Forest is 

12281 allocated to Backcountry Motorized management and approximately 8 percent is allocated to 

12282 Backcountry non-motorized.

12283 • Approximately 30 percent of the BCM management areas have silty ash-cap soils that are expected 

12284 to have low equipment bearing strength under higher soil moisture conditions. Approximately 

12285 56 percent of this area has highly sensitive thin ash-cap soils that are easily displaced by motorized 

12286 equipment operations. In addition, approximately 4 percent of this area has water-storing soils on 

12287 which soil disturbance could result in negative effects to soil hydrology.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

372

12288 Alternative R 

12289 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

12290 • Alternative R uses a fixed reserve management approach to maintain late forest structure habitats 

12291 which covers about 44 percent of the Forest. These reserves are called “late forest structure 

12292 emphasis areas” and overlay other management areas. Although similar to the proposed action, the 

12293 key difference between the proposed action and alternative R for late forest structure is that late 

12294 forest structure areas in the proposed action are managed dynamically at the landscape scale 

12295 whereas alternative R proposes management of static reserves for late forest structure areas.

12296 • Similar to the proposed action approximately 77 percent of the late forest structure emphasis areas 

12297 land base consists of high or moderate site productivity, thus allowing a substantial land base for 

12298 identifying Old Forest Management areas.

12299 • An important difference between alternative R and the proposed action is that once late forest 

12300 structure emphasis areas are identified they would be static and subject to changes in their 

12301 conditions as a result of management and or disturbance.

12302 Motorized Recreation Trails

12303 • Alternative R has two Backcountry management areas, motorized and non-motorized. Under 

12304 alternative R, the 6,060-acre Lost Creek Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) makes up the single 

12305 BCM management area for this alternative.

12306 • Approximately 31 percent of the Lost Creek Potential Wilderness Area, BCM management area, 

12307 has silty ash-cap soils that are expected to have low equipment bearing strength under higher soil 

12308 moisture conditions. Approximately 97 percent of this area has highly sensitive thin ash-cap soils 

12309 that are easily displaced by motorized equipment operations. And approximately 22 percent of this 

12310 area has water-storing soils on which soil disturbance could result in negative effects to soil 

12311 hydrology.

12312 Alternative P 

12313 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

12314 • Alternative P uses the same “whole landscape” approach as the proposed action for providing late 

12315 forest structure, allowing late structure forests to shift location in response to ecological process. 

12316 Thus, the effects of Old Forest Management would be the same as the proposed action.

12317 Motorized Recreation Trails

12318 • Alternative P has two Backcountry management areas, motorized and non-motorized. Under 

12319 alternative P, approximately 5 percent (36,308 acres) of the Forest is allocated to Backcountry 

12320 Motorized management and approximately 5 percent is allocated to Backcountry non-motorized. 

12321 • Approximately 29 percent of the BCM management areas have silty ash-cap soils that are expected 

12322 to have low equipment bearing strength under higher soil moisture conditions. Approximately 

12323 57 percent of this area has highly sensitive thin ash-cap soils that are easily displaced by motorized 

12324 equipment operations. In addition, approximately 4 percent of this area has water-storing soils on 

12325 which soil disturbance could result in negative effects to soil hydrology.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

373

12326 Alternative B 

12327 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

12328 • Alternative B uses a fixed reserve management approach to maintain late forest structure habitats 

12329 which covers about 31 percent of the Forest. These reserves are called “late forest structure 

12330 emphasis areas” and overlay other management areas.

12331 • Within managed land allocations approximately 77 percent of the land base consists of high or 

12332 moderate site productivity, thus allowing a substantial land base for restoring and maintaining Old 

12333 Forest Management.

12334 Motorized Recreation Trails

12335 • Alternative B has two Backcountry management areas, motorized and non-motorized. Under 

12336 alternative B, the 6,031-acre Lost Creek Potential Wilderness Area PWA makes up the single BCM 

12337 management area in this alternative.

12338 • Approximately 31 percent of the Lost Creek Potential Wilderness Area, BCM management area, 

12339 has silty ash-cap soils that are expected to have low equipment bearing strength under higher soil 

12340 moisture conditions. Approximately 97 percent of this area has highly sensitive thin ash-cap soils 

12341 that are easily displaced by motorized equipment operations. In addition, approximately 22 percent 

12342 of this area has water-storing soils on which soil disturbance could result in negative effects to soil 

12343 hydrology.

12344 Alternative O 

12345 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

12346 • Alternative O uses a fixed reserve management approach to maintain late forest structure habitats 

12347 which cover about 33 percent of the Forest. These reserves are called “late forest structure emphasis 

12348 areas” and overlay other management areas.

12349 • Within managed land allocations approximately 77 percent of the land base consists of high or 

12350 moderate site productivity, thus allowing a substantial land base for restoring and maintaining Old 

12351 Forest Management.

12352 Motorized Recreation Trails

12353 • Alternative O has two Backcountry management areas, motorized and non-motorized. Under 

12354 alternative O, approximately 5 percent (36,308 acres) of the Forest is allocated to Backcountry 

12355 Motorized management and approximately 16 percent is allocated to Backcountry non-motorized. 

12356 • Approximately 29 percent of the BCM management areas have silty ash-cap soils that are expected 

12357 to have low equipment-bearing strength under higher soil moisture conditions. Approximately 

12358 56 percent of this area has highly sensitive thin ash-cap soils that are easily displaced by motorized 

12359 equipment operations. In addition, approximately 4 percent of this area has water-storing soils on 

12360 which soil disturbance could result in negative effects to soil hydrology.

12361 Cumulative Effects (Common to All Alternatives)

12362 Bounding of the Cumulative Effects

12363 Area - Effects on soil productivity are site-specific and not spatially mobile over the analysis area. The 

12364 analysis area for cumulative effects to soils is the treatment unit or activity area. The activity area as 

12365 defined in Region 6 Soil Quality Standards as “The total area of ground impacting activity, and is a 

12366 feasible unit for sampling and evaluating.” The effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

374

12367 actions to soils typically involve the area of disturbance itself and does not move outside the area 

12368 disturbed. The development and movement of soils occurs on a geologic time scale and this area 

12369 bounding reflects cumulative effects to soils.

12370 Time - The time bounding for cumulative effects encompasses previous disturbances from prior wildfire, 

12371 timber harvest, and grazing as detailed in the existing condition. Disturbance to soil can last for decades 

12372 and even centuries (Amundson and Jenny 1997, Jenny 1941). For reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

12373 the bounding is five years in the future. 

12374 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 

12375 Past management activities and disturbance on Colville National Forest lands including timber harvest, 

12376 silvicultural activities, grazing, road building and wildland fire can have cumulative effects on the soil 

12377 resource. Limited mining and special uses have also occurred on the Colville National Forest. Impacts to 

12378 soil productivity and soil quality from past management include soil compaction, soil erosion and topsoil 

12379 loss, soil puddling, soil displacement, and detrimental soil burning (typically from high severity wildland 

12380 fires). Grazing, fire suppression, and other activities such as road building have cause detrimental effects 

12381 to soil moisture regimes including down cutting and dewatering of meadows and wetlands.

12382 There are no foreseeable activities that would vary from present activities. Present activities include 

12383 timber harvest, fuel reduction (prescribed fire and mechanical), road construction and maintenance, 

12384 silvicultural treatments, grazing (including llamas), special use permits, and providing recreational 

12385 opportunities. There is also the potential for wildland fires (suppression and for resource benefit). 

12386 Foreseeable and present actions also include stream, meadow, and wetland restoration as well as road 

12387 decommissioning and obliteration.

12388 All alternatives would maintain or improve soil function, soil productivity, and soil quality.

12389 No-action Alternative Cumulative Effects

12390 Within the projected 15- or 20-year life of the Forest Plan, areas of mechanical treatment are possible to 

12391 be returned to within that time frame, especially fuel break treatments. The no-action alternative includes 

12392 a 20-percent detrimental soil disturbance threshold to limit the cumulative effects to soils if multiple 

12393 treatments across multiple timeframes are placed on the landscape.

12394 Action Alternatives (Proposed Action, R, P, B, O) Cumulative Effects

12395 The action alternatives would continue to improve soil conditions on the landscape. Placed within all 

12396 these alternatives is the restoration of 50 acres of detrimental soil condition per year. This would decrease 

12397 detrimental soil condition and remediate some of the cumulative effects created from placing multiple 

12398 treatments across the same activity area. Additional desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and 

12399 guidelines in the action alternatives would improve and preserve soil function and soil quality.

12400 When analyzed with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, the action alternatives 

12401 would improve soil reliance and low risk to damage from high-severity wildfire and be responsive to 

12402 climate change. Due to the funding and staff forecast and the reality that timber harvest, silvicultural 

12403 treatments, and prescribed fire treatments would be the same extent across action alternatives

12404 Compliance with Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

12405 The proposed action and the alternatives would meet soil management goals, maintenance of soil quality, 

12406 and limit of detrimental soil condition. The proposed action and alternatives comply with the standards 

12407 and guidelines described in the Forest Service Manual and Handbook, Region 6 Soil Quality Standards 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

375

12408 and Guidelines (1999), and National Best Management Practice for Water Quality Management on 

12409 National Forest Systems Lands (2012).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

376

This page intentionally left blank