United States Department of Agriculture

Proposed Revised Land

Management Plan 

for Colville National Forest

Draft Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement

Volume II. Chapter 3 (Wildlife through Tribal 

Resources),Chapter 4, Literature Cited, Glossary,

Appendices, and Index

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.
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 .................................................................................................................................517

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparers and Contributors....................................................................................................................685

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

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

Colville National Forest

x

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

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

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 771

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

Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 781

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 809

References ............................................................................................................................................ 818

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

Existing Forest Plan, as Amended........................................................................................................ 823

Past Policy Decisions............................................................................................................................ 823

Reasonably Foreseeable Policy or Programmatic Decisions................................................................ 829

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

Hierarchy of management direction for national forests...................................................................... 833

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

Volume II. List of Tables

Table 150. Current percentage of core areas within grizzly bear management units in the Selkirk 

Recovery Area .................................................................................................................................. 378

Table 151. Current and historical viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species assessed on the 

Colville National Forest.................................................................................................................... 380

Table 152. Relationship between Region 6 Sensitive Species1 and Region 6 Surrogate Species2 used in the 

Colville National Forest Wildlife Evaluation Report........................................................................ 381

Table 155. Climate change vulnerability ratings for wildlife species assessed in the Colville National 

Forest plan revision........................................................................................................................... 384

Table 156. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for wildlife.................................................................. 387

Table 157. Summary of the relative contribution of each alternative to the recovery of federally listed 

wildlife species, viability of surrogate wildlife species, or sustainability of species of management 

interest............................................................................................................................................... 389

Table 158. Market segments of national forest visitors (2009) ................................................................ 492

Table 159. Recreation, wildlife, and fish economic impacts.................................................................... 493

Table 160. Average authorized livestock grazing data for 2012 through 2014 ........................................ 493

Table 161. Livestock grazing economic impacts and their socio-economic impact zones....................... 494

Table 162. Timber harvest volume three-year average............................................................................. 494

Table 163. Area where timber harvest is processed.................................................................................. 495

Table 164. Colville National Forest timber harvest economic impacts.................................................... 495

Table 165. Average annual national forest expenditures for 2009 through 2011 ..................................... 496

Table 166. The economic impacts of national forest budgets................................................................... 496

Table 167. Total Forest Service SRS and PILT payments to socio-economic impact zone..................... 497

Table 168. Reconstructed Forest Service 25-percent payments to counties............................................. 497

Table 169. Economic impacts of Forest Service payments to counties.................................................... 497

Table 170. Current contribution of the Colville National Forest to its socio-economic impact zone....... 498

Table 171. Estimated annual timber harvest (PWSQ) by alternative and by product type in CCF.......... 501

Table 172. Estimated jobs and income supported by timber harvest........................................................ 501

Table 173. Estimated jobs and income supported by recreation expenditures ......................................... 502

Table 174. Estimated cattle and sheep permitted animal unit months (AUM) by alternative .................. 502

Table 175. Estimated jobs and income supported by grazing................................................................... 503

Table 176. Estimated jobs and income supported by budget expenditures .............................................. 503

Table 177. Estimated 25-percent payments.............................................................................................. 504
Contents - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

xi

Table 178. Total jobs and income supported by Colville National Forest activities and programs by 

alternative for the Colville socio-economic impact zone ..................................................................505

Table 179. Colville National Forest capable rangelands...........................................................................526

Table 180. Suitability of livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest .............................................527

Table 181. Colville National Forest suitable rangelands by alternative....................................................527

Table 182. Colville National Forest restricted access management areas, percentage by alternative.......528

Table 183. Upper limit of desired road density by alternative ..................................................................529

Table 184. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for mineral resources..................................................545

Table185. Percentage of total forest acres in backcountry non-motorized management area...................552

Table 186. Upper limit of desired road density or road miles...................................................................553

Table 187. Percentage of total forest acres in recommended wilderness..................................................553

Table 188. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for recreation resources...............................................556

Table 189. Percent participation in activities and primary activities of Colville National Forest recreation 

visitors based on 2009 NVUM Reports.............................................................................................560

Table 191. Eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Colville National Forest..............................................574

Table 192. Total acres open to over-snow vehicles by alternative............................................................579

Table 193. Comparison of summer motorized and non-motorized trail miles by alternative ...................580

Table 194. Acres* managed for summer backcountry motorized and backcountry non-motorized trail 

opportunities and total forest acres, by alternative ............................................................................581

Table 195. Backcountry acres open to mountain bike trails and miles of existing trail that would be open 

to mountain bikes by alternative........................................................................................................583

Table 196. Acres* and percentage of the Forest in each ROS class by alternative...................................585

Table 197. Acres of recommended wilderness by alternative...................................................................587

Table 198. Scenic integrity objectives.......................................................................................................615

Table 199. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for scenic resources ....................................................622

Table 200. Effects on scenic resources from vegetation management......................................................625

Table 201. Effects on scenic resources from motorized recreation...........................................................628

Table 202. Effects on scenic resources from access..................................................................................629

Table 203. Effects on scenic resources from recommended wilderness...................................................630

Table 204. Effects on scenic resources from wildlife ...............................................................................631

Table 205. Effects on scenic resources from riparian and aquatic resource management ........................631

Table 206. List of designated communication sites ..................................................................................636

Table 207. List of Forest Service repeater locations.................................................................................637

Table 208. Current population and growth trends.....................................................................................643

Table 209. Population density ...................................................................................................................644

Table 210. Median age ..............................................................................................................................644

Table 211. Educational attainment, percentage of persons age 25 and over.............................................645

Table 212. Per capita income and mean earnings .....................................................................................646

Table 213. Contribution of labor and non-labor income to total personal income....................................646

Table 214. Poverty rates............................................................................................................................648

Table 215. Poverty by race and ethnicity ..................................................................................................649

Table 216. Economic diversity index........................................................................................................651

Table 217. Location diversity rating .........................................................................................................652

Table 218. Composite community resilience measures ............................................................................653

Table 219. Forested lands..........................................................................................................................653

Table 220. Forestry and commercial logging employment and income, percentage of total....................654

Table 221. Activity participation on the Colville National Forest ............................................................655

Table 222. Cut and sold firewood, volume and value, FY2012................................................................655

Table 223. Percentage of households with wood as primary heating fuel ................................................656

Table 224. Homes in wildland-urban interface and wildfire risk..............................................................657

Table A- 1. Listing of Key Tribal Meetings and Discussions...................................................................774
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

xii

Table A- 2. Listing of Collaboration and Public Involvement Meetings and Discussions....................... 774

Table B- 1. Planning and Land Use Policies of State, Local, Tribal Governments and other Federal 

Agencies in the Greater Landscape, Considered in the Plan Revision ............................................. 781

Table B- 2. Land Use Goals and Potential Impacts to Forest Management, and their relationship to the 

Proposed Plan.................................................................................................................................... 810

Table B- 3. Activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management ......................................... 817

Volume II. List of Figures

Figure 11. Unemployment rate ................................................................................................................. 647
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

377

12498 Wildlife

12499 This section considers federally listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species, and 

12500 surrogate wildlife species from the wildlife specialist report (Gaines 2015), with special emphasis on the 

12501 issues of old forest management and timber production, motorized recreation trails, access, and wildlife.

12502 Affected Environment

12503 The Colville National Forest provides a wide-array of habitats for a diversity of wildlife species. The 

12504 species addressed in forest planning include federally listed species, surrogate species (including 

12505 Management Indicator Species and R6 Sensitive Species), endemic species, and other species of 

12506 management interest.

12507 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

12508 Since the completion of the current forest plan, new wildlife species have been listed (Canada lynx) and 

12509 others delisted (peregrine falcon, bald eagle, gray wolf). And, new science is available concerning those 

12510 species that were included in the current forest plan. 

12511 Woodland Caribou

12512 The woodland caribou was federally listed as an endangered species in 1984. The population was 

12513 estimated between 27 and 46 animals during annual counts occurring from 2002 to 2012 (WDFW 2012). 

12514 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and comprised of lands managed by the Colville 

12515 National Forest, Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. 

12516 About 47 percent of the recovery area is in the United States, and 53 percent in British Columbia. The 

12517 caribou recovery area is divided into 17 caribou management units, 4 of which occur on the Colville 

12518 National Forest. 

12519 In the mid-1990s, an interagency effort was started to augment caribou populations in the Selkirk 

12520 Mountains of Washington in order to advance recovery efforts (Almack 1998). A caribou management 

12521 area identified in the existing Forest Plan (completed in 1988) has been used to guide management. 

12522 However, new science has identified winter recreational activities as an important issue to address in 

12523 relation to caribou recovery (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007); this was not addressed in the existing land 

12524 management plan. In 2001, the USFWS issued a new Biological Opinion on the 1988 forest plan with 

12525 terms and conditions that required a winter recreation strategy be completed that balanced the needs of 

12526 secure winter habitat for caribou with access for winter recreation activities (USFWS 2001). Thus, a 

12527 recreation strategy was developed in 2003 (USFS 2003). In 2012, the USFWS designated 30,000 acres of 

12528 national forest lands at or above 5,000 feet as critical habitat for woodland caribou (USFWS 2012). 

12529 Early winter caribou habitat consists of low- to mid-elevation, cedar / hemlock forest stands and stands on 

12530 the ecotone with subalpine fir / spruce habitats (Rominger and Oldemeyer 1989). Mature and old stand 

12531 conditions and good canopy closure (70 percent+) are important habitat components (Rominger 1995). 

12532 There is less risk of caribou being disturbed by winter recreation activities on early-winter range. On the 

12533 Sullivan Lake Ranger District, most off-road travel in these areas is precluded by the heavily wooded 

12534 nature of the preferred forest stand types. The potential for disturbance to caribou exists mainly where 

12535 roads bisect these stands.

12536 Subalpine and alpine ridges provide late winter habitat for woodland caribou (Rominger et al. 1996). 

12537 Snowmobile riders are attracted to these areas for the challenging slopes and the views that they often 

12538 provide. Simpson and Terry (2000) characterized snowmobile riding as posing moderate to high risks to 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

378

12539 caribou in the South Selkirk Mountains Ecosystem. A primary concern related to this activity is animals 

12540 being displaced from preferred late-winter habitat (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007). 

12541 Grizzly Bear

12542 The Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area is located in northeastern Washington and includes parts of 

12543 Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. The Selkirk Recovery Area was included in the original overall 

12544 grizzly bear recovery plan for the United States. One of the key aspects of grizzly bear recovery is human 

12545 access management. Access management remains one of the most influential tools used to contribute 

12546 toward the recovery of grizzly bear populations (IGBC 1998). Measures of the degree of human influence 

12547 on grizzly bear habitat are based on methods developed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 

12548 Access Management Task Force (IGBC 1998). Based on this approach, areas with relatively limited 

12549 human access are referred to as core areas and are tracked in grizzly bear management units (GBMUs) 

12550 that have been identified throughout the recovery area. Table 150 shows the current amount of core area 

12551 in the GBMUs within the Forest Plan Revision area. 

12552 The Selkirk Recovery Area has been stratified into management situation 1, 2, and 3 areas that are used to 

12553 determine where management direction is applied. Areas outside of the recovery area but still on the 

12554 Colville National Forest are managed as management situation 5.

12555 Table 150. Current percentage of core areas within grizzly bear management units in the Selkirk Recovery 

12556 Area

Grizzly Bear Management Unit (GBMU) Current Core Percentage

Le Clerc >27%

Salmo-Priest >64%

Sullivan-Hughes >61%

12557 Canada Lynx

12558 Lynx are considered a species of greatest conservation need in the state of Washington. Lynx occurrence, 

12559 currently and historically, has been documented in the northeastern corner of the state (McKelvey et al. 

12560 2000). Stinson (2001) stated that the highest lynx harvest in Washington was from Ferry County (Kettle12561 Wedge Core Area) at 35 percent. Lynx were present and reproducing in the Kettle Mountains through the 

12562 1970s (Stinson 2001), but subsequently were likely over-trapped. Currently, only occasional tracks are 

12563 observed with no evidence of reproduction in northeastern Washington (Koehler et al. 2008, WDFW and 

12564 USFS 2011, report on file with Colville National Forest).

12565 The Canada lynx is associated with moderate and high-elevation forests composed mostly of subalpine-fir 

12566 forest associations (Ruediger et al. 2000, Stinson 2001, ILBT 2013). 

12567 In 2000, the Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species, and in 2005 core, secondary, and periphery 

12568 areas were identified to emphasize their importance for the recovery of lynx (USFWS 2005). To date, no 

12569 recovery plan for Canada lynx has been completed. Current management direction is provided through 

12570 the Canada Lynx Interagency Agreement that relies on the science summarized in the Canada Lynx 

12571 Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013). This agreement was intended to remain until it is 

12572 replaced by management direction given in revised forest plans. There is a need to revise the forest plan 

12573 to incorporate the emphasis areas identified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2005) and to 

12574 replace the interim policy given in the interagency agreement. On the Colville National Forest, the Kettle12575 Wedge area is identified as a Core Area for lynx, the Selkirk Mountains as Secondary Area, and the 

12576 Okanogan Highlands (west of the Kettle Mountains) as Peripheral Area (USFWS 2005, ILBT 2013). No 

12577 critical habitat was identified for Canada lynx on the Colville National Forest (USFWS 2009). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

379

12578 Surrogate Wildlife Species

12579 Considerable new science has developed since the current forest plan concerning the viability of a wide 

12580 array of wildlife species that are present within the planning area (Lehmkuhl et al. 1997, Wisdom et al. 

12581 2000, Raphael et al. 2001). In addition, methods for assessing species’ viability have evolved (Soule 

12582 1987, Marcot et al. 2001, Beissinger and McCullough 2002, Suring et al. 2011), and choosing which 

12583 species to assess that best represent other species has changed considerably. We used the surrogate species 

12584 approach to evaluate species and ecosystem viability following direction and guidance provided by 

12585 Region 6 Planning (USFS 2006). Surrogate species are intended to represent ecological conditions that 

12586 generate sustainable ecosystems, and it is not expected that the population dynamics of a surrogate 

12587 species would necessarily represent the population dynamics of another species (Lambeck 1997). The 

12588 concept of surrogate species differs from management indicator species (MIS) described in the 

12589 regulations written to implement the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (36 CFR 219.19). The 

12590 use of management indicator species (MIS) was considered a means of evaluating the effects of 

12591 management actions on a suite of species whose population trends were assumed to reflect changes in 

12592 habitat amount and quality due to the effects of the management actions (Suring et al. 2011). This 

12593 assumption and the MIS concept have been called into question in the past two decades since its inception 

12594 (Landres et al. 1988, Andelman et al. 2001). As a result, the MIS concept evolved to the more robust 

12595 concept of surrogate species, including surrogate species, in the late 1990s (Lambeck 1997). Surrogate 

12596 species are now considered a more appropriate approach in addressing species and ecosystem viability 

12597 (Wiens et al. 2008, Suring et al. 2011). 

12598 The approach used to evaluate the ecological conditions capable of sustaining viable populations of 

12599 wildlife species within the Forest planning area is described in detail in Suring et al. (2011) and Gaines et 

12600 al. (2015). In summary, an eight-step process was used to assess the ecological conditions capable of 

12601 sustaining viable populations of terrestrial wildlife species. The process included: (1) identification of 

12602 species of conservation concern, (2) description of source habitats, and other important ecological factors, 

12603 (3) organizing species into groups, (4) selection of surrogate species for each group, (5) development of 

12604 surrogate species assessment models, (6) application of the surrogate species assessment models to 

12605 evaluate current and historical conditions, (7) development of conservation strategies, and (8) designing

12606 monitoring and adaptive management. Following the application of species screening criteria, 209 species 

12607 were identified as species of conservation concern within the planning area. The 209 species of 

12608 conservation concern were aggregated into 10 families (these are not phylogenetic families) and 28 

12609 groups based primarily on their habitat associations. Next, 26 surrogate species (77 percent birds, 

12610 15 percent mammals, 8 percent amphibians) were selected for use on the Colville National Forest, based 

12611 on risk factors and ecological characteristics (Gaines et al. 2015, Suring et al. 2011). 

12612 Evaluation of the current conditions within the assessment area documented reductions in the viability 

12613 outcomes for all surrogate species compared to historical conditions (Gaines et al. 2015). The species for 

12614 which current viability outcomes are most similar to historical viability outcomes include the golden 

12615 eagle, Harlequin duck, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, and Wilson’s snipe (table 151). Species for 

12616 which current viability outcomes have departed the most from historical viability outcomes and are of 

12617 greatest conservation concern included the eared grebe, fox sparrow, western bluebird, and white-headed 

12618 woodpecker. Some of these species occur on only a small portion of the forest or within watersheds with 

12619 only a minor amount of national forest land. Because our process was based on an all-lands approach, the 

12620 viability of these species was assessed. However, conservation measures identified to improve their 

12621 viability outcomes were not applicable to the forest planning process.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

380

12622 Table 151. Current and historical viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species assessed on the Colville 

12623 National Forest 

Surrogate Wildlife Species Current Viability Outcome Historical Viability Outcome

American marten B/C A/B

Bald eagle C A

Bighorn sheep B/C A/B

Black-backed woodpecker C A

Canada lynx B A

Cassin’s finch D A

Columbia spotted frog C A

Eared grebe1 E C/D

Fox sparrow E A

Golden eagle A/B A

Harlequin duck A/B A

Lark sparrow1 C/D A

Lewis’s woodpecker C/D A

MacGillivray’s warbler C A

Marsh wren C A/B

Northern goshawk A/B A

Northern harrier1 C A

Peregrine falcon1 A/B A

Pileated woodpecker C A

Sage thrasher1 D/E A

Tiger salamander1 C A

Western bluebird D A

White-headed woodpecker D/E A

Wilson’s snipe1 B A/B

Wolverine B A

Wood duck1 C A

12624 1/ Surrogate species whose source habitats either do not occur or less than 25 percent occur on the Colville National Forest.

12625 There is a need to address the viability concerns for surrogate species identified in the assessment of the 

12626 current conditions (Gaines et al. 2015). By addressing the habitat needs and risk factors identified for 

12627 surrogate species through the assessment, ecological conditions capable of supporting viable populations 

12628 of all native and non-native desirable wildlife species, including R6 Sensitive Species, would be 

12629 enhanced. Some key findings of the assessment that should be addressed in the revised Forest Plan 

12630 include:

12631 a. Riparian habitats are important for a wide variety of the surrogate species assessed. A strategy that 

12632 protects and restores riparian habitat, including addressing the negative effects of roads, is needed.

12633 b. Late-successional and old forest habitats are generally below their historical range of variability. In 

12634 some forest types, such as the dry and mesic forests, active restoration of old-forest habitat is 

12635 needed to restore important habitat structures (e.g., large trees) and to reduce risk of habitat loss due 

12636 to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

381

12637 c. One of the primary reasons for species viability outcomes being reduced is the widespread 

12638 influence of roads. Restoring habitat effectiveness, by reducing the negative effects of roads, is 

12639 important for several surrogate wildlife species.

12640 d. Restoring the connectivity of wildlife habitats is an important strategy for addressing the effects of 

12641 climate change on wildlife populations. Restoring habitat connectivity, especially within riparian 

12642 habitats, is important and needs to address the negative effects of roads.

12643 e. The availability of large and old trees and large snag habitat is generally lacking in many forest 

12644 types because of past management practices and altered disturbance regimes. Restoration of these 

12645 key habitat components is important for several surrogate wildlife species.

Table 152. Relationship between Region 6 Sensitive Species1 and Region 6 Surrogate Species2 12646 used in the 

12647 Colville National Forest Wildlife Evaluation Report

Sensitive Species Status on 

Forest3 Habitat Group Surrogate Species

Northern Goshawk D Medium-large trees/all forest communities Northern Goshawk

Peregrine Falcon D Habitat generalist/Cliff Peregrine Falcon

Common Loon D Wetland/Marsh/Open water Eared Grebe

Sandhill Crane D Wetland/Marsh/Wet Meadow Wilson’s Snipe

Bald Eagle D Riparian/large tree Bald Eagle

Harlequin Duck D Riparian/large tree Harlequin Duck

Lewis’s Woodpecker S Open forest/post-fire Lewis’s Woodpecker, Threetoed Woodpecker

Whiteheaded 

Woodpecker D Medium-large trees/dry forest Whiteheaded Woodpecker

Great Gray Owl D Forest Mosaic/all Forest Communities Northern Goshawk

Northern Leopard 

Frog S Riparian/Pond/Small Lake/Backwater Columbia Spotted Frog

Gray Wolf D Habitat Generalist Wolverine, Grizzly Bear

Wolverine D Habitat Generalist Wolverine, Grizzly Bear

Townsend’s 

Bigeared Bat D Chambers/caves Townsend’s Bigeared Bat

Little Brown Myotis D Open Forest/Woodland/Grass/Shrub/Caves Fringed Myotis, Pallid Bat, 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat

Bighorn Sheep D Woodland/Grass/Shrub Bighorn Sheep

Pacific Fisher D Medium-large trees/cool-moist forest or all 

forest communities

Pileated Woodpecker, 

American Marten, Northern 

Goshawk, Woodland 

Caribou

Pygmy Shrew D Boreal Forest Canada Lynx, Northern Bog 

Lemming

12648 1/ R6 Sensitive Species List as of 15 July 2015 (USFS 2015)

12649 2/ R6 Surrogate Species (formerly Focal Species) for Species Viability Assessments (USFS 2010)

12650 3/ D=documented, S=suspected to occur on Forest
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

382

12651 Other Species of Management Interest

12652 Deer and Elk Population Status and Herds

12653 The Selkirk Elk Herd occurs on the Colville National Forest and adjacent areas. This herd contributes 

12654 significantly to local economies through wildlife viewing and recreational hunting opportunities. The 

12655 Selkirk herd is currently about 1,200 animals (WDFW 2001). The Selkirk herd plan identified the desired 

12656 condition for the herd as follows: increase the Pend Oreille subherd from 800 to 1,000 animals; stabilize 

12657 and maintain the Hangman subherd; and reduce vehicle collisions.

12658 Both white-tailed deer and mule deer occur on the Colville National Forest. The white-tailed deer 

12659 management plan (WDFW 2010) identified two management units that include portions of the Forest: 

12660 Okanogan Highlands and Selkirk. The Okanogan Highlands is 31 percent public land, 19 percent private, 

12661 and 50 percent Colville tribal lands. The management objective for white-tailed deer in this area is to 

12662 maintain the current population level. The Selkirk management unit is 37 percent public land, 6 percent 

12663 Colville tribal lands, and 57 percent private lands. The objective in the unit is to reduce the effects of the 

12664 antlerless harvest and increase the population. Currently, the mule deer population in northeastern 

12665 Washington is below historical levels (WDFW 2008). A mule deer management plan for this area has not 

12666 been completed.

12667 Since the 1988 forest plan was completed, considerable research has been conducted on habitat 

12668 relationships and the effects of human activities on deer and elk. For example, research has indicated that 

12669 the availability of quality forage during non-winter periods is very important to the winter survival and 

12670 productivity of elk herds (Cook 2002, Cook et al. 2004), more important than thermal cover (Cook 1998, 

12671 Lenz 1997). Existing forest plans emphasized the availability of thermal cover on winter ranges, and in 

12672 some cases, at levels difficult to ecologically sustain in dry forest environments. Additional science has 

12673 underscored the importance of the effects of roads and other linear recreation routes on the effectiveness 

12674 of habitat for deer and elk (Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005). The current forest plan relies on the 

12675 use of road density as an index of habitat effectiveness for deer and elk; however, recent research suggests 

12676 that using the zone of influence is a better indicator (Gaines et al. 2003, Rowland et al. 2005). Forest Plan 

12677 management direction for deer and elk needs to be revised to reflect the best available science.

12678 Currently, the level of human influence on elk winter ranges is moderate (table 153). On deer winter 

12679 ranges, 38 percent have a high level of human influence, 38 percent have a moderate level of human 

12680 influence, and 24 percent have a low level of human influence.

12681 Table 153. Influence of roads and trails on elk winter range habitat effectiveness

Elk Herd Acres of Winter Range 

outside of zone of influence

Total Acres of 

Winter Range

Habitat 

Effectiveness Index

Current Level of 

Human Influence

Kettle 46,227 70,852 0.65 Moderate

Selkirk 31,300 55,459 0.56 Moderate

12682
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

383

12683 Table 154. Influence of roads and trails on deer winter range habitat effectiveness

Ranger District/watershed (HUC10)

Acres of winter 

range outside of 

zone of influence 

Total acres 

of winter 

range

Habitat 

effectiveness 

index

Current level 

of human 

influence

NEWPORT

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 2,300 3,434 0.67 Mod

Tacoma Creek-Pend Oreille River 5,227 10,990 0.48 High

Upper Little Spokane River 273 273 1.00 Low

REPUBLIC

Rock Creek-Kettle River 966 966 1.00 Low

Curlew Creek 2,262 4,400 0.51 Mod

Toroda Creek 704 704 1.00 Low

Upper Sanpoil River 11,683 16,616 0.70 Low

Vulcan Mountain-Kettle River 9,294 15,466 0.60 Mod

West Fork Sanpoil River 3,313 3,791 0.87 Low

SULLIVAN LAKE

Le Clerc Creek-Pend Oreille River 6,168 10,020 0.62 Mod

Sullivan Creek-Pend Oreille River 4,889 9,969 0.49 High

THREE RIVERS

Boulder Creek-Kettle River 8,975 16,011 0.56 Mod

Chewelah Creek-Colville River 6,482 10,780 0.60 Mod

Deep Creek 1,925 4,073 0.47 High

Mill Creek 1,072 2,229 0.48 High

Onion Creek-Roosevelt Lake 2,522 3,264 0.77 Low

12684 Climate Change and Wildlife

12685 The anticipated climatic changes to eastern Washington environments are likely to result in a variety of 

12686 effects to wildlife populations and their habitats (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et al. 2014). A striking 

12687 conclusion reached from several climate change studies is the degree of change to wildlife habitats and 

12688 populations that has already occurred (Lawler and Mathias 2007, Root et al. 2003). There are a variety of 

12689 responses of wildlife to changing climatic conditions that have occurred or are anticipated to occur 

12690 including: changes in species distributions, changes in the timing of breeding and other activities, changes 

12691 in pathogens and invasive species distributions, changes in survival and extinction risks, and changes in 

12692 the interactions among species. To aid in the assessment of the effects of climate change and forest 

12693 management activities on surrogate wildlife species the Climate Change Sensitivity Database (CCSD 

12694 2013) was used to determine the vulnerability of each species and the particular effects that climate 

12695 change might have given their life history. Of the species that were assessed in the database, nine 

12696 (36 percent) have a high rating, six (24 percent) have a medium rating, five (20 percent) have a low 

12697 vulnerability rating, and five (20 percent) were not rated (see following table).

12698
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

384

12699 Table 155. Climate change vulnerability ratings for wildlife species assessed in the Colville National Forest 

12700 plan revision

Wildlife Species Vulnerability Rating Specific Climate Impacts

Threatened and Endangered 

Woodland Caribou High

Climate change will alter the distribution and 

abundance of caribou habitat, and may change 

predator/prey dynamics. Population is small and 

highly vulnerable.

Grizzly bear Low Changes in snowpack will change hibernation 

exposing bears to humans for longer time.

Canada lynx High Changes to the distribution of key habitats and prey 

species

Surrogate Wildlife

Northern Goshawk High Changes to food supply and suitable habitat

Pileated Woodpecker Medium Loss of habitat due to altered disturbance regimes

American Marten High Changes to habitat distribution and amount

White-headed Woodpecker Medium Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes

Black-backed Woodpecker Medium Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes

Lewis’s Woodpecker Medium Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes

Wolverine High Changes in persistence of spring snow used for 

denning

MacGillivray’s Warbler Not Available

Golden Eagle Medium Changes to prey and habitat from altered 

disturbance regimes

Bald Eagle Low Changes to fish populations

Columbia Spotted Frog High Changes to wetland and riparian habitats

Marsh Wren Not Available

Wilson’s Snipe Not Available

Western Bluebird High

Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes. Changes from competition with other 

cavity nesters

Peregrine Falcon Low Generalist with high mobility

Cassin’s Finch High Changes to extreme temperatures and dry air

Fox Sparrow Not Available

Water Vole Not Available

Species of Management Interest

Deer Low Habitat generalist with high mobility

Elk Low Habitat generalist with high mobility

12701
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

385

12702 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives–Wildlife

12703 Assumptions

12704 In addition to the common assumptions listed in the Environmental Analysis and Overall Assumptions, 

12705 the Wildlife analyses included the following.

12706 • The use of the Surrogate Species approach (Lambeck 1997) is a credible and scientifically rigorous 

12707 method to assess ecosystem conditions that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

12708 The baseline conditions for Surrogate Wildlife Species in the Colville National Forest planning area

12709 are presented in Gaines et al. (2015) and give reasonable approximations of conditions at the scale of 

12710 a watershed (10th Code HUC) that are influencing surrogate species habitats and populations.

12711 • A key assumption of the landscape restoration approach that is represented in two of the alternatives 

12712 (proposed action and P) is that by strategically locating restoration treatments, landscape fire 

12713 movement can be altered, and the risk to adjacent late-successional and old forest habitat is reduced. 

12714 A considerable and growing body of science is available to support this assumption (Finney 2001, 

12715 Finney et al. 2006, Kennedy et al. 2008, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007).

12716 • Modeling future habitat trends for a select group of surrogate wildlife species required several 

12717 assumptions, most importantly, that habitat associations for each species were adequately represented 

12718 by the identified model states, and that the effects of forest management treatments were adequately 

12719 reflected in effects on habitat conditions.

12720 Methods of Analysis

12721 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

12722 For wildlife species that are federally protected by the Endangered Species Act, recovery plans and 

12723 critical habitat designations (for those species that it has been designated) were used to identify factors 

12724 that threaten species recovery. These factors were used to assess how well the no-action alternative and 

12725 each of the action alternatives addressed the threats and contributed to the recovery of the species.

12726 Surrogate Wildlife Species

12727 The Region 6 surrogate species assessment process (USFS 2006) was used to evaluate the no- action and 

12728 action alternatives. This approach is described in detail in Suring et al. (2011) and Gaines et al. (2015). 

12729 The surrogate species assessment process was completed for the planning area in order to determine the 

12730 baseline conditions for each of the surrogate species (see Affected Environment) and to identify risk 

12731 factors that influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species. These risk factors were addressed to 

12732 varying degrees in each of the alternatives and used to evaluate how well each alternative contributes to 

12733 the viability of surrogate wildlife species.

12734 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

12735 The spatial context for the analyses of the effects of management alternatives varied according to the 

12736 species or group of species being assessed. For the woodland caribou and grizzly bear, the portion of the 

12737 respective recovery areas located on the Forest was used to address direct and indirect effects, while the 

12738 entire recovery area was used to evaluate cumulative effects. For Canada lynx, the direct and indirect 

12739 effects were evaluated for the core and secondary areas identified in the recovery outline (USFWS 2005). 

12740 Cumulative effects for Canada lynx were evaluated by considering the adjacent areas where lynx would 

12741 most likely disperse from which included the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Washington 

12742 Department of Natural Resources lands to the west and the Idaho-Panhandle National Forest to the east. 

12743 The respective management plans were reviewed to consider the cumulative effects.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

386

12744 For wildlife species selected as Surrogate species, broad-scale viability assessments were done across the 

12745 species’ range that occurred in northeastern Washington assessment area (Suring et al. 2011, Gaines et al. 

12746 2015). This process included two spatial scales of assessment. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

12747 were assessed for each individual species using the watershed (10th Code HUC) as an evaluation unit, 

12748 considering all land ownerships within the watershed. Individual watershed results were then used to 

12749 determine the current and historical (prior to European settlement) viability outcomes that were evaluated 

12750 at the individual planning unit (in this case the Colville National Forest) level.

12751 Future habitat trends were modeled for the following surrogate species: American marten, white-headed 

12752 woodpecker, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s 

12753 woodpecker. These trends were modeled to assess habitat conditions at 20, 50 and 100 years in order to 

12754 estimate how different management alternatives would contribute to the viability of surrogate species. 

12755 Other risk factors that influence the viability of surrogate species were assessed in the short term (less 

12756 than 20 years) using the Objectives and the long term (less than 50 years) using the desired conditions to 

12757 estimate how alternatives might contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species.

12758 For species of management interest, which included deer and elk, direct and indirect effects were 

12759 considered within the portions of the herd ranges that occurred on the Forest, while cumulative effects 

12760 were considered across the entire herd range. Herd ranges were identified by the Washington Department 

12761 of Fish and Wildlife in herd management plans (WDFW 2001, 2010).

12762 Key Indicators

12763 The indicators shown in table 156 were used to evaluate the contribution of each alternative to the 

12764 recovery of federally listed wildlife species, the viability of surrogate wildlife species, and the 

12765 sustainability of species of management interest.

12766
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

387

12767 Table 156. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for wildlife

Issue Evaluation Criteria Key Indicator

The recovery and 

viability of wildlife 

species associated 

with late and old forest 

structures. 

Wildlife species associated with late and old 

forest structures

• Moist Forests

Listed species – woodland caribou

Surrogate species – northern goshawk, 

pileated woodpecker, American marten

• Dry and Mesic Forests

Surrogate species – pileated 

woodpecker, northern goshawk, whiteheaded woodpecker

The amount, location and spatial 

configuration of old-forest habitats

The influence of roads and trails on 

old-forest habitat effectiveness

The influence of 

motorized access on 

the recovery and 

viability of wildlife 

species sensitive to 

human disturbances

Wildlife species that are sensitive to human 

disturbances that result from motorized 

access

• Non-Winter

Listed species – grizzly bear

Surrogate species – wolverine

• Winter

Listed species – Canada lynx, 

woodland caribou

Surrogate species – wolverine

Other species – deer, elk

The influence of linear recreation 

routes and roads on wildlife species 

will be evaluated using road density 

as an indicator of habitat 

effectiveness for wolverine, Canada 

lynx; and the zone of influence as an 

indicator of habitat effectiveness for 

grizzly bear, deer, and elk (Gaines et 

al. 2003)

The influence of 

livestock grazing of the 

viability or 

sustainability of wildlife 

species

Surrogate wildlife species and species of 

management interest affected by grazing

• Surrogate species – MacGillivray’s 

warbler, golden eagle, western bluebird, 

Cassin’s finch 

• Other species – deer and elk 

Effects of grazing on the viability and 

habitat of surrogate and other wildlife 

species

The location and intensity of cattle 

grazing on allotments

Degree of overlap between grazing 

allotments and source habitats for 

surrogate wildlife species and winter 

and summer ranges for deer and elk

The influence of forest 

management activities 

on habitat connectivity 

for surrogate wildlife 

species

The influence of forest 

management activities 

on the viability of 

surrogate wildlife 

species dependent on 

snag habitats

Surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate 

habitat connectivity

• Surrogate species – American marten, 

Canada lynx, wolverine 

Surrogate wildlife species dependent on snag 

habitats

• Surrogate species – pileated 

woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, 

black-backed woodpecker, Lewis’s 

woodpecker, Western bluebird 

Wildlife habitat connectivity

The dispersal habitat suitability 

(Singleton et al. 2002) for surrogate 

species based on anticipated 

changes to habitat, road density, and 

linear recreation routes

Availability of snag habitat

The proposed vegetation 

management activities within source 

habitats for each surrogate species

The road density within source 

habitats for each surrogate species 

The influence of forest 

management on the 

viability of surrogate 

wildlife species 

associated with 

riparian habitats

Surrogate wildlife species associated with 

riparian habitats

Surrogate species – water vole, bald eagle, 

MacGillivray’s warbler, Columbia spotted 

frog, Wilson’s snipe, eared grebe, marsh 

wren

Widths of riparian management 

areas

Vegetation management within 

riparian management areas

Road density and zone of influence 

on riparian habitat effectiveness
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

388

12768 Summary of EffectsWildlife 

12769 Several factors were considered in the evaluation of how alternatives influenced the evaluation 

12770 criteria and indicators, and how well each alternative contributes to the recovery of federally listed 

12771 wildlife species, the viability of surrogate wildlife species, or the sustainability of species of 

12772 management interest. These factors included: (1) How well the alternative addresses new science, 

12773 especially the interactions between disturbance processes, habitat sustainability, and wildlife 

12774 populations; (2) How well the alternative addresses new recovery plans, critical habitat, conservation 

12775 strategies, or management plans (e.g., ILBT 2013, USFWS 2009); (3) How the alternative addresses 

12776 the impacts of roads on wildlife habitats (e.g., Gaines et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2000); (4) How the 

12777 alternative addresses the effects of domestic grazing on wildlife habitats; and (5) How the alternative 

12778 addresses anticipated effects of climate change, and specifically, does the alternative restore 

12779 landscape resistance and resiliency (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et al. 2014).

12780 In general, the alternatives that emphasize restoration of disturbance regimes and habitats, including 

12781 reducing road effects, contributed the most to the recovery, viability, and sustainability of wildlife 

12782 habitats and populations (table 157). These alternatives include the proposed action and alternative P. 

12783 Alternative R, which includes a substantial reserve system, would generate moderate to high 

12784 contributions to wildlife habitats and populations, especially for wildlife species associated with late12785 successional and old forest habitat structures. The alternatives that emphasize single resource 

12786 management (e.g., timber production) and do not address road effects tended to give the lowest 

12787 contributions to wildlife habitats and populations.

12788
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

389

12789 Table 157. Summary of the relative contribution of each alternative to the recovery of federally listed 

12790 wildlife species, viability of surrogate wildlife species, or sustainability of species of management 

12791 interest

Issue/ Species No Action Proposed 

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

Old Forest

Contribution to recovery 

(Caribou) Low1/ High2/ High3/ High Moderate Moderate

Contribution to viability Low Moderate High High Low Low

Motorized Recreation and 

Road Access

Contribution to viability Low Moderate High High Low Low

Livestock Grazing

Contribution to viability Low Moderate High High Low Moderate

Habitat Connectivity

Contribution to viability Low Moderate Moderate High Low Low

Snag Habitat

Contribution to viability Low Moderate High High Low Low

Riparian and Aquatic

Contribution to viability Low Moderate High High Low Low

Other Listed Species (Lynx)

Contribution to recovery Low High Moderate High Low Low

Species of Management 

Interest

Contribution to sustainability Low Moderate Moderate High Low Low

12792 1/ Low = a low contribution by the alternative to the recovery/viability/sustainability of the species or group of species. 

12793 2/ Moderate = a moderate contribution by the alternative to the recovery/viability/sustainability of the species or group of 

12794 species. 

12795 3/ High = a high contribution by the alternative to the recovery/viability/sustainability of the species or group of species.

12796 No-action Alternative

12797 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

12798 Grizzly Bear

12799 Direct and Indirect Effects

12800 Forest activities that influence the recovery of the grizzly bear include: human access that can 

12801 displace bears from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of bear-human interactions, 

12802 disposal of livestock carcasses within range allotments to avoid attracting bears to a potential food 

12803 source, and the storage of food and garbage at recreation sites to reduce the potential for bears to 

12804 associate humans with food resources. 

12805 Management of grizzly bears does not vary between alternatives. Existing management direction 

12806 provides standards for human access, disposal of livestock carcasses, and food and garbage storage 

12807 within the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (IGBC 1998, USDA 1988, USFWS 1993, USDI 

12808 2001). Existing standards have largely been met and would continue to be followed.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

390

12809 Climate Change

12810 Grizzly bears have been identified as having a low sensitivity to climate change because they are 

12811 opportunistic, eat a diverse array of food resources, and are highly adaptable (Servheen and Cross 

12812 2010, CCSD 2013). Anticipated impacts may include changes in the timing of denning due to longer 

12813 snow-free periods and reduced snowpack (Lawler et al. 2014) and changes in the availability of food 

12814 sources (Servheen and Cross 2010). These changes may put bears at risk of negative human 

12815 interactions for a longer period of time each year (Servheen and Cross 2010). This would make 

12816 education, proper food and garbage storage, carcass disposal measures, and human access 

12817 management that much more important.

12818 Cumulative Effects

12819 The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in the recovery zone is past persecution 

12820 and human-caused mortality of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

12821 Information/education programs, sanitation measures, and access management have and would 

12822 continue to be used to aid in the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Area.

12823 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect grizzly bears include timber 

12824 harvest and associated road construction, recreational activities that can cause disturbance to bears 

12825 and create potential for human-bear conflicts, and human development that fragment grizzly bear 

12826 habitat. Cumulative effects are evaluated across the Recovery Area by tracking activities within 

12827 grizzly bear management units (GBMUs). Other land managers have adopted and are following 

12828 similar management direction (IPNF 2015) and overall recovery is coordinated by the Selkirk 

12829 Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee. GBMUs that occur on the Colville National Forest include 

12830 the LeClerc, Salmo-Priest, and Sullivan-Hughes. The contribution made on Federal lands to grizzly 

12831 bear recovery would help to mitigate potential cumulative effects from off-forest activities.

12832 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

12833 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

12834 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

12835 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

12836 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

12837 by fire exclusion.

12838 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

12839 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance (e.g., 

12840 core areas) to become more important to wildlife such as grizzly bears.

12841 Black bear hunting on both sides of the international border within the Selkirk Recovery Area has the 

12842 potential to add cumulatively to the mortality of grizzly bears. Hunters that encounter grizzly bears 

12843 may mistakenly identify the bear, kill the bear in self-defense, or opportunistically poach the bear. 

12844 Human access management within the recovery area is key to reducing the risk of mortality to 

12845 grizzly bears from black bear hunting.

12846 On private lands, the presence of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or other attractants may lure bears 

12847 into conflict situations. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may lead to the bear being killed.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

391

12848 Summary

12849 This alternative would make a high contribution to the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk 

12850 Recovery Area and would result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination. This 

12851 is based on the existing management direction, followed in all alternatives, that addresses:

12852 1) Human access management,

12853 2) Disposal of carcasses in range allotments that occur in the recovery area, and 

12854 3) Proper storage of food, garbage, and other attractants that may lead to human-bear 

12855 interactions. 

12856 Canada Lynx

12857 Direct and Indirect Effects

12858 Forest management activities that influence the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx include: 

12859 vegetation management that affect lynx habitat components, winter recreation that influences habitat 

12860 connectivity and lynx habitat use, forest roads that can become sources of lynx mortality at high 

12861 traffic volumes and speeds, and grazing effects to riparian areas that provide habitat for snowshoe 

12862 hares, a primary food resource for lynx (ILBT 2013). The Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT 

12863 2013) developed conservation measures for core and secondary areas (USFWS 2005) to address each 

12864 of these forest management activities, and for planners to consult when revising forest plans. These 

12865 were used to evaluate the potential contribution of forest management alternatives to the recovery of 

12866 Canada lynx.

12867 When the USFWS reviewed existing regulatory mechanisms to determine if listing Canada lynx as a 

12868 federally protected species was warranted, they determined that existing forest plans gave inadequate 

12869 protections (USFWS 2003). Several national forests within the range of the Canada lynx 

12870 subsequently amended their forest plans using the original Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

12871 Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) as a basis for current science. However, forest plans in Region 6 were 

12872 not amended, thus existing management plans do not address recent science and conservation 

12873 recommendations (ILBT 2013), recovery objectives (USFWS 2005), or critical habitat (USFWS 

12874 2009). No critical habitat for the Canada lynx was designated on the Colville National Forest 

12875 (USFWS 2009), however, both core and secondary area were identified (USFWS 2005, ILBT 2013).

12876 Vegetation management activities affect the distribution of lynx habitat components, can fragment 

12877 habitats, and create sources of disturbance (ILBT 2013). As a result, risk factors were identified and 

12878 conservation measure developed to address the risk factors (ILBT 2013). The conservation measures 

12879 for vegetation management apply to lynx core areas and include use of the natural range of 

12880 variability to mimic pattern and scale of natural disturbances and connectivity across the landscape, 

12881 while considering the future climate change (ILBT 2013). A conservation measure focused on the 

12882 restoration of disturbance regimes in dry forests that occur in close proximity to lynx habitat to 

12883 reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe and frequent fires reaching lynx habitat. No 

12884 management direction occurs in the existing forest plan that addresses these conservation measures.

12885 Winter recreation can influence how lynx use habitats (ILBT 2013). To minimize the potential of 

12886 negative effects from winter recreation, the ILBT (2013) developed conservation measures to reduce 

12887 effects. Conservation measures for winter recreation in lynx core areas included reducing effects on 

12888 habitat connectivity and discouraging expansion of over-the-snow routes that may influence lynx 

12889 habitat use (ILBT 2013). Existing management plans do not address effects of over-the-snow 

12890 recreation on lynx habitat.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

392

12891 The conservation measures for forest roads in lynx core areas include avoiding road reconstruction 

12892 or upgrades that occur in lynx habitat and would result in increased traffic speeds or volumes (ILBT 

12893 2013). These measures were developed to reduce the potential for mortality to lynx from vehicles. 

12894 There is no management direction in existing plans to address this conservation measure.

12895 The conservation measures for grazing in lynx core areas include management of riparian areas to 

12896 assure adequate habitat for snowshoe hares, the primary prey species for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013). 

12897 The existing forest management plan includes management direction for grazing in riparian areas to 

12898 mitigate effects to habitat for listed fish species, but does not include anything specific to Canada 

12899 lynx or snowshoe hares.

12900 The no-action alternative would provide limited management direction to address the direct and 

12901 indirect effects of forest management activities on the recovery of Canada lynx. The no-action 

12902 alternative would give less protection for Canada lynx than the R and P alternatives, and protection 

12903 that is similar to the B and O alternatives.

12904 Climate Change

12905 The potential effects of climate change on Canada lynx identified by the Interagency Lynx Biology 

12906 Team (2013) included: (1) an upward shift in elevation or latitudinal distribution of lynx and prey, 

12907 (2) a decrease in the amount of habitat and population size from reduced snow persistence and 

12908 increased disturbance events (e.g., fires), (3) changes in demographic rates, such as survival and 

12909 reproduction, and (4) changes in predator-prey relationships.

12910 Climate change adaptations to address these effects include restoration of landscape-scale 

12911 disturbance regimes to better mimic natural patterns and processes (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 

12912 2012, Lawler et al. 2014), and maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity to allow Canada lynx to 

12913 adjust their ranges to changing conditions (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, ILBT 2013, Squires et al. 

12914 2013). There is limited management direction in the existing management plans to address these 

12915 climate change adaptations. 

12916 Cumulative Effects

12917 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect lynx habitat include timber harvest and 

12918 fuels reduction, recreation, human development, and grazing on private and public lands. In addition, 

12919 legal trapping of lynx, timber harvest, oil and gas development, mining and human access in British 

12920 Columbia have and would continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. 

12921 Past vegetation management and large-scale fires on the Forest within lynx habitat has resulted in a 

12922 distribution and amount of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. This 

12923 alternative does not emphasize landscape restoration that would restore lynx habitats toward the 

12924 HRV, providing conditions more similar to those under which lynx evolved. Thus, activities on the 

12925 Forest would not mitigate for off-forest vegetation management as would occur with the action 

12926 alternatives.

12927 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

12928 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

12929 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

12930 Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on off-forest lands potentially impacting 

12931 deciduous or riparian habitats for lynx prey species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

393

12932 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

12933 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

12934 by fire exclusion.

12935 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

12936 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

12937 become more important to wildlife.

12938 All Federal lands adjacent to the Forest within Canada lynx core and secondary areas would use the 

12939 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (ILBT 2013) as current science to guide 

12940 project-level consultation and land management planning. The North Cascades National Park 

12941 Complex recently revised their management plan to include the LCAS (NPS 2012). The Idaho 

12942 Panhandle National Forest land management plan was recently revised to address the conservation 

12943 measures identified in the LCAS (IPNF 2015). The conservation of lynx on WDNR lands is guided 

12944 by the Department of Natural Resources Lynx Habitat Management Plan (WDNR 1996, updated in 

12945 2002). The management plan for the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge provides conservation 

12946 measures to contribute to the recovery and viability of Canada lynx (USFWS 2000). Collectively, 

12947 these management plans have addressed many of the conservation measures identified for Canada 

12948 lynx (ILBT 2013) and would help mitigate potential cumulative effects that may occur from off12949 forest activities. In addition, no critical habitat was identified on the Colville National Forest or on 

12950 adjacent lands (USFWS 2009).

12951 In Canada, timber harvesting, oil and gas development, coal mining, and the proliferation of human 

12952 access associated with these industries, have and would continue to affect lynx habitat. Legal 

12953 trapping occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could reduce the potential for lynx to disperse into 

12954 the lynx habitat on the Forest. Trapping is not legal in Idaho, Montana, or Washington.

12955 Summary

12956 The no-action alternative would make a low contribution to the recovery of the Canada lynx in the 

12957 short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) term, and result in a May Effect, Likely to 

12958 Adversely Affect determination. This is because of the following: 

12959 1) Existing management plans do not address the best available science and conservation measures 

12960 identified in the recent version of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013), 

12961 and the USFWS Recovery Outline (USFWS 2005); 

12962 2) Existing management plans do not address recommended climate change adaptations; and 

12963 3) Existing management plans were found to give inadequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent 

12964 listing lynx as a federally threatened species (USFWS 2003). 

12965 Late-successional and Old Forest Habitats (Federally Listed Wildlife Species)

12966 Woodland Caribou

12967 Direct and Indirect Effects

12968 The forest management activities that can influence the recovery and viability of woodland caribou 

12969 include: (1) Vegetation management and natural disturbances affect the amount and connectivity of 

12970 old growth forests of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western redcedar/western hemlock. 

12971 (2) Human access that can increase the potential for poaching and cause disturbance to caribou 

12972 during the critical winter period. These effects were used to evaluate the potential contribution of 

12973 each alternative to the recovery of woodland caribou.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

394

12974 This alternative would not implement new science, recommendations from the Biological Opinion 

12975 issued in 2001 (USFWS 2001) on the 1988 forest plan (USFS 1988), or address the critical habitat 

12976 designation (USFWS 2012). Vegetation management is currently guided by the management 

12977 direction given in the land management allocation for caribou. The existing Forest Plan attempted to 

12978 strike a balance between retaining old growth and providing for timber production. Timber harvest 

12979 has been cited as one of the primary factors that has reduced and fragmented old growth habitats for 

12980 woodland caribou (USFWS 1994, USFWS 2012).

12981 A term and condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion was that the Forest develop a winter recreation 

12982 strategy that protects important winter habitats for caribou while providing some level of winter 

12983 recreation access. This strategy was developed (USFS 2003) but would not be formally adopted until 

12984 the forest plan is revised. This alternative does not emphasize reducing the negative effects of forest 

12985 roads on wildlife habitat (such as the proposed action, R, and P alternatives).

12986 Climate Change

12987 Climate change would likely alter the distribution and abundance of suitable caribou habitat, and 

12988 would change snow depths and persistence, which affect seasonal movements of mountain caribou 

12989 (WDFW 2012). The potential effects of climate change depend on the interaction of seasonal 

12990 temperatures and snowfall patterns, and occurrence of wildfires, outbreaks of forest insects, and 

12991 diseases (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005). Management adaptations to address the effects of 

12992 climate change include a focus on forest restoration and reducing non-climatic factors that affect 

12993 wildlife populations (e.g., restoring habitat effectiveness). This alternative would not implement 

12994 these adaptations.

12995 Cumulative Effects

12996 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and includes the Colville National Forest, 

12997 Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. About 

12998 47 percent of the recovery area is in the United States, and 53 percent in British Columbia. The Idaho 

12999 Panhandle National Forest recently revised their Forest Plan to address habitat and risk factors 

13000 identified in the caribou recovery plan and critical habitat (USFS 2015). The caribou recovery team 

13001 works cooperatively to address cumulative effects on woodland caribou.

13002 Past activities on the Forest have impacted caribou habitat. Over-the-snow motorized use may have 

13003 caused disturbance to caribou. 

13004 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

13005 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) within caribou habitat that are outside the HRV. 

13006 Presently, more of the landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats 

13007 compared to HRV. This alternative would not manage habitats toward HRV, and would not be as 

13008 effective at mitigating for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

13009 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13010 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13011 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13012 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

13013 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

13014 by fire exclusion.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

395

13015 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13016 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13017 become more important to wildlife such as caribou.

13018 Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters may 

13019 result in caribou mortality as a result of mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

13020 Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken it is difficult to evaluate 

13021 the influence of this on the caribou population. Fatal collisions with vehicles occur on open roads in 

13022 caribou habitat and are likely to continue. Predation by mountain lions, wolves and other predators 

13023 would continue, with the effect on the caribou population dependent on big game populations, 

13024 predator populations and a variety of other factors. 

13025 One important factor is how the Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In the British 

13026 Columbia portion of the recovery area, human activities that would continue to impact caribou 

13027 habitat include gas, powerline, and international border corridors, recreation activities, timber 

13028 harvest, and highways.

13029 Summary

13030 The implementation of this alternative would have a May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

13031 determination for woodland caribou. It would make a low contribution to the recovery of woodland 

13032 caribou. The reasons for this determination are: 

13033 1) This alternative would not address new science and risk factors identified in the recovery plan 

13034 and critical habitat. 

13035 2) This alternative would not formally adopt the winter recreation strategy for caribou habitat that 

13036 was a Term and Condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion. 

13037 3) This alternative does not focus on the protection and restoration of habitat, that would better 

13038 address expected climate change effects, cumulative effects, and enhance landscape resiliency.

13039 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13040 Direct and Indirect Effects

13041 Forest activities that directly influence the viability of late-successional and old forest (LSOF) 

13042 dependent surrogate species include: the loss of LSOF habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008, Davis et 

13043 al. 2011), vegetation treatments (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest 

13044 structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, downed wood) (Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom and Bate 2008, 

13045 Davis et al. 2011), management of roads that influence habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and 

13046 protection of riparian areas which are an important element of LSOF habitats for some species (e.g., 

13047 bald eagles).

13048 The existing management direction for LSOF species is based on a system of small management 

13049 areas that retains LSOF habitat for specific management indicator species (e.g., American marten, 

13050 barred owl, pileated woodpecker). These areas range in size from 75 to 300 acres, are relatively 

13051 equally distributed, but have no way to provide for habitat connectivity between or among the small 

13052 islands of habitat. These small islands of habitat are also highly susceptible to disturbances such as 

13053 fire, insects, and tree diseases, with no redundancy or replacement habitat in the event they are lost. 

13054 This system was based on minimizing the effects of protection of LSOF habitat on the timber harvest 

13055 level. This system was deemed inadequate to provide for the viability of LSOF species and thus 

13056 Forest Plans were amended with the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995). The intent was for the Eastside 

13057 Screens to provide interim direction until the Forest Plan was revised.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

396

13058 The area in-between the small islands of LSOF habitat is managed primarily through even-aged 

13059 timber production, with some protections for elements of LSOF habitat, such as snags and downed 

13060 wood. However, the combination of roads and timber harvest generally results in these areas having 

13061 snag habitat below levels that would maintain viable populations of snag-dependent wildlife species. 

13062 Again, the management direction in the original Forest Plan was deemed inadequate, thus additional 

13063 direction was adopted through the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995), with the intent that this would 

13064 serve as interim direction until Forest Plan was revised. The Eastside Screens restrict the cutting of 

13065 trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

13066 This alternative would not provide management direction that will reduce the negative effects of 

13067 roads on wildlife habitats. Currently, there are about 4,000 miles of road, resulting in an overall road 

13068 density on the roaded portion of the Forest of about 3 miles per square mile, which is considered a 

13069 low level of habitat effectiveness for many surrogate species (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gaines et al. 

13070 2003).

13071 Overall, the no-action alternative would provide management direction for LSOF habitat that is 

13072 similar to the B and O alternatives, but would provide less habitat than the R and P alternatives. This 

13073 alternative would not improve the viability outcomes in the short (less than 20 years) or long (less 

13074 than 50 years) time periods (appendix B of the specialist report) for surrogate wildlife species that 

13075 are dependent on LSOF habitats.

13076 Climate Change

13077 The sensitivity of LSOF associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change were 

13078 identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American marten 

13079 (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is the loss of LSOF habitats due to altered 

13080 disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013). 

13081 Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

13082 increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel moisture driven by 

13083 increased temperature and lower snowpack. Increases in fire risk and severity have been also been 

13084 driven, in part, by increased fuel loads because of fire suppression practices used over the last 

13085 century (McKenzie et al. 2004). Predicted increases in spring and summer temperature identified in 

13086 many climate change models would exacerbate the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as 

13087 fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton and Flannigan 1993) and defoliation caused by forest insects 

13088 (Littell et al. 2009). In the interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned 

13089 is likely to double or even triple by 2050. Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the 

13090 dominant driver of changes to forests and LSOF habitats in the western United States over the next 

13091 century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

13092 A landscape restoration approach is not emphasized in this alternative. Landscape-scale restoration 

13093 has been identified as an adaptive strategy to create landscapes more resilient to climate change 

13094 (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 2012) and to maintain late-successional and old forest habitat 

13095 structure (Lawler et al. 2014). The emphasis on restoration of resiliency would result in landscapes, 

13096 including disturbance regimes, which are more resilient to climate change through the application of 

13097 strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, 

13098 Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and Johnson 2012). By strategically locating restoration treatments, 

13099 landscape-scale fire behavior may be altered to be more similar to native disturbance regimes and the 

13100 risk of loss of LSOF habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires may be reduced (Finney 2001, Finney 

13101 et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

397

13102 Cumulative Effects

13103 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

13104 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13105 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

13106 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats, and protect and 

13107 restore LSOF habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

13108 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

13109 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and LSOF habitat protections in the original Forest 

13110 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended by the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995).

13111 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

13112 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

13113 landscape is in mid-successional and less in late-successional, especially late-open, habitats 

13114 compared to HRV. This alternative would manage habitats toward HRV, resulting in a distribution 

13115 and amount of successional stages that better mimic conditions under which surrogate wildlife 

13116 species evolved, and better mitigate for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

13117 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

13118 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

13119 by fire exclusion.

13120 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13121 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13122 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13123 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13124 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13125 become more important to wildlife.

13126 Summary

13127 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of LSOF 

13128 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

13129 1) The LSOF habitat provided by this alternative may not maintain viable populations of LSOF 

13130 surrogate wildlife species 

13131 2) This alternative does not emphasize restoration of landscape resiliency to reduce the loss of 

13132 LSOF habitats to uncharacteristically severe wildfires 

13133 3) The protection and conservation of key elements of LSOF habitat such as old trees, snags, and 

13134 riparian areas is less than other alternatives and dated 

13135 4) The alternative would not result in the restoration of habitat effectiveness by reducing the 

13136 negative effects of roads on LSOF habitats

13137 Motorized Recreation and Road Access

13138 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13139 Direct and Indirect Effects

13140 Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

13141 These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during critical periods, 

13142 and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and Gaines et al. 

13143 2003 for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence wildlife). The effects of 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

398

13144 motorized recreation and roads can occur during the non-winter period or during the winter period 

13145 when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

13146 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

13147 roads on surrogate species habitats. The current management direction for roads is limited, scattered 

13148 through numerous document and amendments, and was largely intended to address big-game species 

13149 (e.g., road density is limited to 0.4 to less than 1.5 miles of open road/square mile on winter ranges). 

13150 This alternative would not change the current level of winter or summer motorized trail use, thus 

13151 would not change the impacts to surrogate species habitat effectiveness. Overall, this alternative 

13152 would provide a level of habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife that is similar to alternative O, 

13153 and less than the proposed action, B, R, and P alternatives. The viability outcomes for surrogate 

13154 wildlife species would not be improved and would remain below the historical capability. 

13155 Climate Change

13156 The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species used to assess the effects of roads and motorized 

13157 recreation is rated as moderate for bighorn sheep, and high for Harlequin duck, Canada lynx, and 

13158 wolverine (CCSD 2013). An important climate change adaptation that has been recommended for 

13159 wildlife is to reduce the negative effects of roads and motorized recreation on habitat (Gaines et al.

13160 2012, Lawler et al. 2014). By reducing the negative effects of roads and motorized recreation, 

13161 habitats (especially riparian and wetland habitats) can become more resilient to the effects of climate 

13162 change, and habitat connectivity can be restored allowing wildlife to adjust their ranges as conditions 

13163 change. The management direction for roads provided in the no-action alternative would make very 

13164 limited improvement to habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species.

13165 Cumulative Effects

13166 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

13167 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13168 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

13169 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and restore habitat 

13170 effectiveness (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the 

13171 process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

13172 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, mostly focused on big-game species.

13173 The limited management direction in the existing Forest Plan to reduce the negative effects of roads 

13174 on wildlife and continued development of private lands (located mostly in north-south valley 

13175 bottoms that bisect the Forest) means that management of roads and motorized trails on Federal 

13176 lands is even more important to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

13177 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13178 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13179 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13180 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13181 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13182 become more important to wildlife.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

399

13183 Summary

13184 The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of 

13185 surrogate wildlife species whose habitats are influenced by motorized access. This would occur 

13186 because: 

13187 1) The alternative includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on habitat 

13188 effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species, 

13189 2) This alternative does not alter the current effects that summer and winter motorized trails have 

13190 on habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species, 

13191 3) This alternative does little to address the cumulative effects of human access and development 

13192 on wildlife habitats.

13193 Livestock Grazing

13194 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13195 Direct and Indirect Effects

13196 Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements (e.g., 

13197 dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats, altering 

13198 disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (e.g., frequent fires in dry forests and grasslands 

13199 keep open canopy for western bluebird), and influence the availability of important prey items (e.g., 

13200 squirrels for golden eagles). To address the potential effects on surrogate wildlife species, the 

13201 management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland habitats for each alternative 

13202 was assessed.

13203 This alternative would continue with the existing interim direction (INFISH) for riparian habitats. 

13204 Presently, some riparian habitats are in poor condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. 

13205 The plan direction for this alternative would have little effect on altering the distribution of livestock 

13206 that would allow riparian habitats to recover.

13207 This alternative does not include ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats 

13208 (e.g., rangeland and alpine habitats) or standards to protect unique habitats. This alternative would 

13209 not alter the number of livestock, the intensity of grazing, or the amount of area grazed. Presently, 

13210 73 percent of the Forest is in a livestock allotment and animal unit months (AUMs) average about 

13211 25,000 per year. The viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species would not be improved and 

13212 would remain below the historical capability.

13213 Climate Change

13214 Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

13215 (including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make these 

13216 habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors (e.g., roads, 

13217 intense grazing, etc.) (Lawler et al. 2014). This alternative has limited management direction that 

13218 would restore the resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change.

13219 Cumulative Effects

13220 Grazing occurs on nearby private, state, tribal, and Federal lands. Where grazing is allowed on the 

13221 adjacent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest, it is managed 

13222 to accommodate other public land uses, such as contributing to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

13223 species. On the adjacent Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, livestock grazing was reduced over 

13224 time to allow restoration of riparian habitats and is currently only used to achieve specific wildlife 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

400

13225 habitat objectives (USFWS 2000). Grazing on non-Federal lands increases the need to provide for 

13226 wildlife habitats on Federal lands that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

13227 This alternative does not include management direction for some key habitats that would better 

13228 account for the cumulative effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.

13229 Summary

13230 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to viability for surrogate 

13231 wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This determination is based on: 

13232 1) This alternative has limited management direction for riparian habitat to reduce the negative 

13233 effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition, and 

13234 2) This alternative would not change the number, grazing intensity or distribution of livestock.

13235 Habitat Connectivity

13236 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13237 Direct and Indirect Effects

13238 A number of forest management activities influence habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife 

13239 species. These include the amount, patch sizes, and arrangement of suitable habitats; location; and 

13240 density of motorized travel routes, especially in relation to riparian and LSOF habitats. These are 

13241 addressed in the evaluation of how forest management alternatives would affect habitat connectivity 

13242 for surrogate wildlife species.

13243 Current management direction focuses on providing habitat connectivity for LSOF species through 

13244 the identification of connectivity corridors during project planning (as per Eastside Screens, USFS 

13245 1995). Additional provisions for low to moderate mobility LSOF species are provided in Riparian 

13246 Management Zones. No management direction addresses habitat connectivity for wildlife species 

13247 that are not associated with LSOF habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores, Singleton et al. 2002).

13248 The implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects 

13249 of roads on habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife species because current management direction 

13250 for roads is limited, scattered through numerous documents and amendments, and was largely 

13251 intended to address big-game species only. This alternative would not change the current level of 

13252 winter or summer motorized trail use, thus would not change the effects to surrogate species habitat 

13253 effectiveness. The viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species would not be improved and 

13254 would remain below the historical capability.

13255 Climate Change

13256 Maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity is the most oft-cited climate adaptation strategy 

13257 for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opham and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

13258 Spies et al. 2010) and has been identified as an important adaptation strategy for wildlife in 

13259 northeastern Washington (Gaines et al. 2012). This is because species’ range shifts have been the 

13260 primary biological response to past episodes of climatic change, yet widespread anthropogenic 

13261 barriers to movement would now challenge species’ ability to respond (Price 2002, Thomas and 

13262 Lennon 1999, Wormworth and Mallon 2006).

13263 Current management plans provide direction to address habitat connectivity for some highly mobile 

13264 LSOF wildlife species. However, there is no management direction that addresses habitat 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

401

13265 connectivity for wildlife species not associated with LSOF habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores), 

13266 nor do existing management plans address the effects of forest roads on habitat connectivity. Much 

13267 has been learned about the effects of climate change on wildlife since the 1988 forest plan was 

13268 developed and amended, and the existing plan does not adequately address recommended climate 

13269 adaptations to maintain or restore habitat connectivity for a wide array of wildlife species.

13270 Cumulative Effects

13271 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human developments and transportation infrastructure, 

13272 along with land ownership patterns, create cumulative impacts that limit options to conserve or 

13273 restore regional habitat connectivity. Regional habitat connectivity has been evaluated for a variety 

13274 of wildlife species, including the surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate connectivity in this 

13275 planning area (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010, Proctor et al. 2015). These assessments have 

13276 shown the importance of the Colville National Forest in providing stepping-stone habitats between 

13277 the Cascade Range and Selkirk Mountains (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Connectivity 

13278 from the Cascade Range to the Kettle Range and the Selkirk Mountains is interrupted by 

13279 transportation corridors and human developments that are associated with the Okanogan, Upper 

13280 Columbia, and Pend Oreille river valleys (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Additionally, 

13281 connectivity planning in southern British Columbia identified linkage areas that could greatly 

13282 enhance wildlife movements between the Selkirk Mountains and Purcell Mountains (Apps et al. 

13283 2007, Proctor et al. 2015). 

13284 Reducing the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife habitats would contribute to the 

13285 maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity, including cumulative effects, but is not well 

13286 addressed in the current management plan. Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to 

13287 cause disturbance through use of roads or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact 

13288 extent or amount of the impact over the life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors 

13289 could influence Border Patrol activities. Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to 

13290 increasing demands. This would increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have 

13291 relatively low human disturbance to become more important to wildlife.

13292 Summary

13293 The existing management plans have limited direction that addresses habitat connectivity, and most 

13294 is relevant to wildlife species associated with LSOF habitats. Thus, the implementation of the no13295 action alternative would provide a relatively low contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

13296 species used to assess habitat connectivity. The primary reasons for this conclusion include: 

13297 1) No management direction to address wildlife species that are not associated with LSOF habitats 

13298 (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores) 

13299 2) Limited management direction that addresses the effects of roads and road network on habitat 

13300 connectivity, despite this being a primary factor that influences wildlife movements 

13301 Snag Habitat

13302 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13303 Direct and Indirect Effects

13304 Some forest activities directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

13305 species. These include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), hazard tree 

13306 reduction that causes the loss of snag habitat along roads and at recreation sites (Bate et al. 2007, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

402

13307 Hollenbeck et al. 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety

13308 reasons (Wisdom et al. 2008). 

13309 The existing Forest Plan management direction for snag habitat to address the potential loss of 

13310 habitat in timber sale operations was based on snag densities that more recent science has shown 

13311 would not provide for viable populations of snag dependent species. Thus, interim policy was 

13312 adopted to revise these numbers (Eastside Screens, USFS 1995). This alternative does not include a 

13313 diameter limit on the size of snags cut for firewood as in other alternatives. 

13314 Existing management plans provide limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of roads on 

13315 surrogate species habitats, such as the loss of snag habitat, because current management direction for 

13316 roads is limited, scattered through numerous documents and amendments (e.g., Roadless Rule, USFS 

13317 2000), and was largely intended to address big-game species only. 

13318 Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protections for snag-dependent wildlife that are 

13319 similar to alternatives B and O, but less than the proposed action and alternatives R and P. The 

13320 viability outcomes for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife species would not be improved and remain 

13321 below the historical capability.

13322 Climate Change

13323 Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, white13324 headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker. These species have a 

13325 medium sensitivity rating to climate change, and the western bluebird as high sensitivity (CCSD 

13326 2013). The primary effect anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered 

13327 disturbance regimes. Because this alternative does not focus on landscape-scale restoration, the 

13328 restoration of disturbance regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for snag-dependent 

13329 surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated 

13330 with climate change, loss of snag habitat from relatively intense timber harvest, and loss associated 

13331 with roads as snags are cut for firewood and to reduce hazard trees. The increase in fire associated 

13332 with climate change could create a short-term gain in snag habitat followed by a long-term reduction 

13333 (80 to 100 years, Harrod et al. 1998) as snags attrition occurs.

13334 Cumulative Effects

13335 Past and current management on public and private lands have generally resulted in a reduction in 

13336 large (greater than 20 inches d.b.h.) snag habitat below HRV (Hessburg et al. 1999). The adjacent 

13337 Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, the Idaho 

13338 Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13339 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

13340 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and more rigorous 

13341 snag requirements to contribute to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife (USFWS 2000, USFS 

13342 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan. The 

13343 current plan provides limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitats 

13344 and current required snag densities make limited contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

13345 species. The limited management direction for snag habitat on non-Federal lands adjacent to the 

13346 planning area places additional emphasis on providing for viability populations of snag-dependent 

13347 wildlife species on Federal lands. Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in 

13348 particular where they are near residences. These can be done is such a way that they restore wildlife 

13349 habitat that has been affected by fire exclusion, but treatments can lead to the loss of snag habitat for 

13350 safety reasons. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

403

13351 Summary

13352 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of snag13353 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on: 

13354 1) The negative effects of roads on the loss of snag habitat would not be addressed 

13355 2) The snag densities that are required to be left following timber harvest do not address recent 

13356 science showing these number to be too low to maintain viable populations of snag-dependent 

13357 species 

13358 3) There is no diameter limit on the size of snags that are cut for firewood 

13359 Riparian Habitats

13360 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13361 Direct and Indirect Effects

13362 Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian-dependent 

13363 surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, and vegetation treatments that occur 

13364 within riparian habitats. 

13365 In the no-action alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is not 

13366 consolidated into one consistent set of plan components (e.g., direction is in both the existing forest 

13367 plan and in the INFISH amendment). Standards and guidelines would limit management activities 

13368 allowed to occur within riparian habitats. This alternative includes smaller (compared to other 

13369 alternatives except B) riparian management area widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds 

13370 in the areas covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).

13371 Implementation of this alternative would not reduce the effects of roads on riparian habitats. Overall, 

13372 this alternative would provide habitat protection for riparian associated wildlife that is similar to the 

13373 alternative B, but less than the proposed action, O, R, and P alternatives.

13374 Conditions that contribute to the viability of surrogate species would be maintained at levels below 

13375 the historical capability and viability outcomes would not be considerably improved.

13376 Climate Change

13377 Some of the riparian associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

13378 (CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

13379 change (Lawler et al. 2014). The primary effect anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat 

13380 and reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic regimes and disturbances 

13381 (fire) regimes (Lawler et al. 2014).

13382 The emphasis of this alternative is on timber management. Because this alternative does not focus on 

13383 landscape-scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, 

13384 habitat for riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to 

13385 increased disturbances associated with climate change and some loss of riparian habitat from timber 

13386 harvest. In addition, an important adaptation for climate change for riparian habitats is to restore their 

13387 resiliency by reducing the negative effects of roads (Lawler et al. 2014). However, this alternative 

13388 has limited management direction to reduce road effects on riparian habitats and does not emphasize 

13389 watershed restoration.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

404

13390 Cumulative Effects

13391 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

13392 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13393 southeast. Management plans for the Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National 

13394 Wildlife Refuge reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats, and protect and restore 

13395 riparian habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the 

13396 process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

13397 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat protections in the original Forest 

13398 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended (INFISH, PACFISH-USFS 1995; ACS-USFS 

13399 1994).

13400 On private lands, Washington State Forestry Practices Act provides some limited protections for 

13401 riparian habitats. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to 

13402 enhance coordination across landowners and may enhance conditions for riparian associated wildlife 

13403 species. However, habitat protections for riparian habitats on Federal lands would help to mitigate 

13404 for the limited protections and cumulative that occur on private lands.

13405 Summary

13406 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of 

13407 riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

13408 1) This alternative lacks effective and clear management direction to reduce the negative effects 

13409 of roads on riparian habitat for surrogate wildlife species

13410 2) More rigorous riparian management direction including standards, included in other 

13411 alternatives (e.g., R), which better protects riparian habitats and would better address 

13412 potential effects of climate change and cumulative effects

13413 3) The viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species dependent on riparian habitats would 

13414 not be improved

13415 Species of Management Interest

13416 Deer and Elk

13417 Direct and Indirect Effects

13418 Forest management activities can influence deer and elk populations and habitat use. Vegetation 

13419 management activities may affect the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Adequate 

13420 forage is particularly important during the summer and fall before the following birthing season 

13421 when this can have a positive effect on the condition of pregnant females (Lenz 1997, Cook 1998, 

13422 Cook 2002, Cook et al. 2004, Cook et al. 2005). The management of forest roads and trails can 

13423 influence how deer and elk use habitats, and influence the interactions between deer and elk 

13424 (Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a,b). Additionally, deer and elk can compete with domestic 

13425 livestock for both food resources (Findholt et al. 2005) and space (Coe et al. 2001, Coe et al. 2005). 

13426 Thus, the potential effects that vegetation management, road and trail management, and grazing 

13427 management can have on deer and elk habitats and population are evaluated for each of the 

13428 alternatives.

13429 Under the no-action alternative, cover and forage for deer and elk on winter ranges emphasizes the 

13430 retention of winter thermal cover. Considerable research has shown that the management of deer and 

13431 elk winter habitat should be less focused on the retention of thermal cover and more focused on the 

13432 availability of forage on summer and fall habitats (see Cook et al. 2005 for a review). This 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

405

13433 alternative, like alternatives B and O, would not incorporate the current science about the role of 

13434 winter thermal cover and summer forage in contributing to the sustainability of deer and elk 

13435 populations.

13436 This alternative would not alter the current habitat effectiveness for deer and winter ranges through 

13437 road management. The Selkirk Elk Herd has a moderate level of habitat effectiveness (moderate 

13438 level of human influence) on their winter ranges (see Gaines et al. 2003 for calculation of habitat 

13439 effectiveness). Currently, in 38 percent of the watersheds, winter habitat for deer has a high habitat 

13440 effectiveness index (low level of human influence), 38 percent of the winter habitat has a moderate 

13441 level of habitat effectiveness (moderate level of human influence), and 24 percent has a low level of 

13442 habitat effectiveness (high level of human influence). Current management direct for winter ranges is 

13443 based on road density standards. Rowland et al. (2005) found road density to be a poor indicator of 

13444 habitat use by deer and elk and recommended the use of the zone of influence instead. This is 

13445 incorporated into the proposed action and alternatives R and P.

13446 Under this alternative, no changes would occur to current grazing practices on national forest 

13447 allotments. Degraded range conditions would be maintained or slowly be improved, likely having 

13448 negative effects to deer and elk habitat use and populations (Coe et al. 2001, 2005; Findholt et al. 

13449 2005). More robust range management direction (e.g., ecologically based desired conditions in the 

13450 other alternatives) would not be adopted.

13451 Climate Change

13452 Deer and elk have a low level of sensitivity to the effects of climate change due to their ability to 

13453 tolerate a relatively wide range of climatic conditions, their high mobility, and as habitat generalists 

13454 (CCSD 2013). However, alternatives that restore landscape pattern and functions while reducing the 

13455 effects of roads on deer and elk summer and winter habitats would provide more resilience deer and 

13456 elk populations. This alternative does not emphasize landscape-scale restoration and nor does it 

13457 provide consistent and effective management direction for roads that would restore habitat 

13458 effectiveness for deer and elk.

13459 Cumulative Effects

13460 The historical cattle and sheep grazing that occurred on portions of the Forest degraded range 

13461 conditions (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). These conditions, combined with current 

13462 domestic (cattle) and wild ungulate grazing (primarily elk and deer), have resulted in the 

13463 maintenance or slow recovery of poor range conditions in some areas (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting 

13464 et al. 2002). In turn, these poor range conditions have had negative effects on some important unique 

13465 habitats such as riparian areas and meadows. This alternative would not result in more rigorous 

13466 grazing management direction that would help to address this situation.

13467 Winter ranges for the deer and elk occur on Federal lands, adjacent wildlife management areas 

13468 managed by the State, and private lands. Elk herd management plans (WDFW 2001) provide 

13469 guidance for elk management on state lands and make recommendations for elk management on 

13470 Forestlands. Management plans for deer include the White-tailed Deer Management Plan that 

13471 provides direction to manage hunting to maintain deer populations (WDFW 2010). A statewide 

13472 general management plan for mule deer has been developed, but does not provide herd-specific 

13473 management objectives (WDFW 2008). Mule deer are widely distributed across the Forest. A 

13474 considerable amount of historical winter range for deer and elk is now in private land ownership or 

13475 under the waters of Lake Roosevelt (created by the Grand Coulee dam). The cumulative effects of 

13476 the existing management plans (State and Federal lands) would provide for the conditions that 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

406

13477 contribute to sustainable populations of deer and elk, while considering the effects of private land 

13478 development.

13479 Summary

13480 Implementation of the no-action alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the 

13481 conditions that support sustainable populations of deer and elk. This is based on the following: 

13482 1) This alternative would not address new science that recommends de-emphasizing the 

13483 importance of winter thermal cover and increasing the emphasis on summer and fall forage 

13484 quality and quantity. 

13485 2) This alternative does not provide consistent and effective direction on the management of 

13486 roads to restore habitat effectiveness on deer and elk summer and winter ranges. 

13487 3) This alternative would not include more rigorous management direction to improve the 

13488 conditions of key habitats, such as riparian areas and meadows that are in poor condition due 

13489 to the cumulative effects of past grazing practices, and current domestic and wild ungulate 

13490 grazing.

13491 Proposed Action

13492 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

13493 Grizzly Bear

13494 Direct and Indirect Effects

13495 Forest activities that influence the recovery of the grizzly bear include: human access that can 

13496 displace bears from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of bear-human interactions, 

13497 disposal of livestock carcasses within range allotments to avoid attracting bears to a potential food 

13498 source, and the storage of food and garbage at recreation sites to reduce the potential for bears to 

13499 associate humans with food sources. 

13500 Management of grizzly bears does not vary between alternatives. Existing management direction 

13501 provides standards for human access, disposal of livestock carcasses, and food and garbage storage 

13502 within the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (IGBC 1998, USDA 1988, USFWS 1993, USDI 

13503 2001). Existing standards have largely been met and would continue to be followed.

13504 Climate Change

13505 Grizzly bears have been identified as having a low sensitivity to climate change because they are 

13506 opportunistic, eat a diverse array of food resources, and are highly adaptable (Servheen and Cross 

13507 2010, CCSD 2013). Anticipated impacts may include changes in the timing of denning due to longer 

13508 snow-free periods and reduced snowpack (Lawler et al. 2014) and changes in the availability of food 

13509 sources (Servheen and Cross 2010). These changes may put bears at risk of negative human 

13510 interactions for a longer period each year (Servheen and Cross 2010). This would make education, 

13511 proper food and garbage storage, carcass disposal measures, and human access management that 

13512 much more important.

13513 Cumulative Effects

13514 The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in the recovery zone is past persecution 

13515 and human-caused mortality of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

13516 Information and education programs, sanitation measures, and access management have and would 

13517 continue to be used to aid in the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

407

13518 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect grizzly bears include timber 

13519 harvest and associated road construction, recreational activities that can cause disturbance to bears 

13520 and create potential for human-bear conflicts, and human development that fragment grizzly bear 

13521 habitat. Cumulative effects are evaluated across the recovery area by tracking activities within 

13522 grizzly bear management units (GBMUs). Other land managers have adopted and are following 

13523 similar management direction (IPNF 2015) and overall recovery is coordinated by the Selkirk 

13524 Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee. GBMUs that occur on the Colville National Forest include 

13525 the LeClerc, Salmo-Priest, and Sullivan-Hughes. The contribution made on Federal lands to grizzly 

13526 bear recovery would help to mitigate potential cumulative effects from off-forest activities.

13527 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13528 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13529 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13530 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

13531 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

13532 by fire exclusion.

13533 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13534 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance (e.g., 

13535 core areas) becoming more important to wildlife such as grizzly bears.

13536 Black bear hunting on both sides of the international border within the Selkirk Recovery Area has the 

13537 potential to add cumulatively to the mortality of grizzly bears. Hunters that encounter grizzly bears 

13538 may mistakenly identify the bear, kill the bear in self-defense, or opportunistically poach the bear. 

13539 Human access management within the recovery area is key to reducing the risk of mortality to 

13540 grizzly bears from black bear hunting.

13541 On private lands, the presence of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or other attractants may lure bears 

13542 into conflict situations. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may lead to the bear being killed. 

13543 Summary

13544 This alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of grizzly bears in the

13545 Selkirk Recovery Area and would result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

13546 determination. This is based on the existing management direction, followed in all alternatives, that 

13547 addresses:

13548 1) Human access management,

13549 2) Disposal of carcasses in range allotments that occur in the recovery area, and 

13550 3) Proper storage of food, garbage, and other attractants that may lead to human-bear interactions. 

13551 Canada Lynx

13552 Direct and Indirect Effects

13553 The forest management activities that influence the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx 

13554 include: vegetation management that affects lynx habitat components, winter recreation that 

13555 influences habitat connectivity and lynx habitat use, forest roads that can become sources of lynx 

13556 mortality at high traffic volumes and speeds, and grazing effects to riparian areas that provide habitat 

13557 for snowshoe hares, a primary food resource for lynx (ILBT 2013). The Interagency Lynx Biology 

13558 Team (ILBT 2013) developed conservation measures for core and secondary areas (USFWS 2005) to 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

408

13559 address each of these forest management activities, and for planners to consult when revising forest 

13560 plans. These were used to evaluate the potential contribution of forest management alternatives to the 

13561 recovery of Canada lynx.

13562 Vegetation management activities affect the distribution of lynx habitat components, can fragment 

13563 habitats, and create sources of disturbance (ILBT 2013). As a result, risk factors were identified and 

13564 conservation measure developed to address the risk factors (ILBT 2013). The conservation measures 

13565 for vegetation management apply to lynx core areas and include the use of the natural range of 

13566 variation to mimic the pattern and scale of natural disturbances and connectivity across the 

13567 landscape, while considering future climate change (ILBT 2013). A conservation measure focused on 

13568 the restoration of disturbance regimes in dry forests that occur in close proximity to lynx habitat to 

13569 reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe and frequent fires reaching lynx habitat. Finally, 

13570 conservation measures also limit the amount of vegetation management and the rate of habitat 

13571 change (e.g., acres treated per decade) within lynx analysis units. The implementation of this 

13572 alternative includes management direction to manage habitat for Canada lynx toward desired 

13573 conditions that are based on the natural range of variability. This means that habitats would be 

13574 managed so that the amount of habitat, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement would mimic conditions 

13575 under which lynx evolved (Hessburg et al. 1999, Agee 2000).

13576 Winter recreation can influence how lynx use habitats (ILBT 2013). To minimize the potential of 

13577 negative effects from winter recreation, the ILBT (2013) developed conservation measures to reduce 

13578 effects. Conservation measures for winter recreation in lynx core areas included reducing effects on 

13579 habitat connectivity and discouraging expansion of over-the-snow routes that may influence lynx 

13580 habitat use (ILBT 2013). Management direction in this alternative is for no expansion of over-the13581 snow winter recreational activities in lynx habitat.

13582 The conservation measures for forest roads in lynx core areas include avoiding road reconstruction 

13583 or upgrades that occur in lynx habitat and would result in increased traffic speeds or volumes (ILBT 

13584 2013). These measures would reduce the potential for vehicular traffic to result in a source of 

13585 mortality to lynx. This alternative includes management direction to limit road reconstruction and 

13586 upgrades in lynx habitat that would increase traffic volume or speed.

13587 The conservation measures for grazing in lynx core areas include management of riparian areas to 

13588 assure adequate habitat for snowshoe hares, the primary prey species for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013). 

13589 The proposed action would provide management direction to address the direct and indirect effects 

13590 of forest management activities on the recovery of Canada lynx. The proposed action alternative 

13591 would provide more protections for Canada lynx than the no-action, B, and O alternatives, and 

13592 similar to the R and P alternatives.

13593 Climate Change

13594 The potential effects of climate change on Canada lynx identified by the Interagency Lynx Biology 

13595 Team (2013) included: (1) An upward shift in elevation or latitudinal distribution of lynx and prey, 

13596 (2) A decrease in the amount of habitat and population size from reduced snow persistence and 

13597 increased disturbance events (e.g., fires), (3) Changes in demographic rates, such as survival and 

13598 reproduction, and (4) Changes in predator-prey relationships.

13599 Climate change adaptations to address these effects include restoration of landscape-scale 

13600 disturbance regimes to better mimic natural patterns and processes (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 

13601 2012, Lawler et al. 2014), and maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity to allow Canada lynx to 

13602 adjust their ranges to changing conditions (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, ILBT 2013, Squires et al. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

409

13603 2013). There is management direction in this alternative to implement climate change adaptations 

13604 through the focus on whole-landscape restoration, and the restoration of conditions that would 

13605 enhance connectivity of habitats (see Habitat Connectivity sections).

13606 Cumulative Effects

13607 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect lynx habitat include timber harvest and 

13608 fuels reduction, recreation, human development, and grazing on private and public lands. In addition, 

13609 legal trapping of lynx, timber harvest, oil and gas development, mining and human access in British 

13610 Columbia have and would continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. 

13611 Past vegetation management and large-scale fires on the Forest within lynx habitat has resulted in a 

13612 distribution and amount of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. This 

13613 alternative would result in vegetation management activities that would restore lynx habitats toward 

13614 the HRV, providing conditions more similar to those under which lynx evolved. 

13615 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13616 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13617 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13618 Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on off-forest lands potentially impacting 

13619 deciduous or riparian habitats for lynx prey species.

13620 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

13621 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

13622 by fire exclusion.

13623 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13624 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13625 become more important to wildlife.

13626 All Federal lands within Canada lynx core and secondary areas would use the Lynx Conservation 

13627 Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (ILBT 2013) as current science to guide project level consultation 

13628 and land management planning. The North Cascades National Park Complex recently revised their 

13629 management plan to include the LCAS (NPS 2012). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest land 

13630 management plan was recently revised to address the conservation measures identified in the LCAS 

13631 (USFS 2015). The conservation of lynx on WDNR lands is guided by the Department of Natural 

13632 Resources Lynx Habitat Management Plan (WDNR 1996, updated in 2002). The management plan 

13633 for the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge provides conservation measures to contribute to the 

13634 recovery and viability of Canada lynx (USFWS 2000). Collectively, these management plans have 

13635 addressed many of the conservation measures identified for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013) and would

13636 help mitigate potential cumulative effects that may occur from off-forest activities. In addition, no 

13637 critical habitat was identified on the Colville National Forest or on adjacent lands (USFWS 2009).

13638 In Canada, timber harvesting, oil and gas development, coal mining, and the proliferation of human 

13639 access associated with these industries, have and would continue to affect lynx habitat. Legal 

13640 trapping occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could reduce the potential for lynx to disperse into 

13641 the lynx habitat on the Forest. Trapping is not legal in Idaho, Montana, or Washington.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

410

13642 Summary

13643 The proposed action alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of the 

13644 Canada lynx in both the short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) term, and result in a 

13645 May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination. This is because of the following: 

13646 1) This alternative incorporates the best available science and conservation measures identified 

13647 in the recent version of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013), and 

13648 USFWS Recovery Outline (USFWS 2005).

13649 2) This alternative would implement recommended climate change adaptations by focusing on 

13650 the restoration of forest disturbance regimes and resiliency, and reducing the impacts of 

13651 roads on habitat connectivity. 

13652 3) This alternative addresses previous findings that existing management plans provided 

13653 inadequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent the listing of lynx as a federally threatened 

13654 species (USFWS 2003).

13655 Late-successional and Old Forest Habitats (Federally Listed Wildlife Species)

13656 Woodland Caribou

13657 Direct and Indirect Effects

13658 The forest management activities that can influence the recovery and viability of woodland caribou 

13659 include: (1) Vegetation management and natural disturbances affect the amount and connectivity of 

13660 old growth forests of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western redcedar/western hemlock. 

13661 (2) Human access that can increase the potential for poaching and cause disturbance to caribou 

13662 during the critical winter period. These effects were used to evaluate the potential contribution of 

13663 each alternative to the recovery of woodland caribou.

13664 This alternative would implement new science, recommendations from the Biological Opinion 

13665 issued in 2001 (USFWS 2001) on the 1988 forest plan (USFS 1988), and address the critical habitat 

13666 designation (USFWS 2012). Vegetation management would be focused on the restoration late13667 successional and old forest habitats based the natural and future range of variability. The desired 

13668 conditions would be for the amount, spatial arrangement, and connectivity of caribou habitat to 

13669 mimic natural patterns and processes.

13670 A term and condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion was that the Forest develop a winter recreation 

13671 strategy that protects important winter habitats for caribou while providing some level of winter 

13672 recreation access. This strategy was developed (USFS 2003) and would be fully integrated into this 

13673 alternative. The strategy includes information and education about the effects of winter recreation on 

13674 wildlife, monitoring and enforcement of areas closed to over-the-snow activities, and limitations on 

13675 permitted over-the-snow activities. Collectively, these actions have reduced the impacts of winter 

13676 recreation to caribou habitat while providing recreation opportunities in areas and at the time of the 

13677 winter season when effects to caribou are minimal. In addition to winter recreation, this alternative 

13678 emphasizes reducing the negative effects of forest roads on wildlife habitat (though not to the degree 

13679 in the R and P alternatives).

13680 Climate Change

13681 Climate change would likely alter the distribution and abundance of suitable caribou habitat, and 

13682 would change snow depths and persistence, which affect seasonal movements of mountain caribou 

13683 (WDFW 2012). The potential effects of climate change depend on the interaction of seasonal 

13684 temperatures and snowfall patterns and occurrence of wildfires, outbreaks of forest insects, and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

411

13685 diseases (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005). Management adaptations to address the effects of 

13686 climate change include a focus on forest restoration and reducing non-climatic factors that affect 

13687 wildlife populations (e.g., reducing the negative impacts of roads and winter recreation). This 

13688 alternative would implement these adaptations.

13689 Cumulative Effects

13690 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and includes the Colville National Forest, 

13691 Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. About 

13692 47 percent of the recovery area is in the United States and 53 percent in British Columbia. The Idaho 

13693 Panhandle National Forest recently revised its forest plan to address habitat and risk factors 

13694 identified in the caribou recovery plan and critical habitat (USFS 2015). The caribou recovery team 

13695 works cooperatively to address cumulative effects on woodland caribou.

13696 Past activities on the Forest have impacted caribou habitat. Over-the-snow motorized use, prior to 

13697 the implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy (USFS 2003), may have caused disturbance to 

13698 caribou. The alternative would continue with implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy, 

13699 limiting the cumulative effects on caribou. 

13700 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

13701 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

13702 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

13703 alternative would manage habitats toward HRV resulting in a distribution and amount of 

13704 successional stages that better mimic conditions under which caribou evolved, and better mitigate for 

13705 the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

13706 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13707 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13708 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13709 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

13710 residences. These projects can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been 

13711 affected by fire exclusion.

13712 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13713 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13714 become more important to wildlife such as caribou.

13715 Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters may 

13716 result in caribou mortality as a result of mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

13717 Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken, it is difficult to evaluate 

13718 the influence of this on the caribou population. Fatal collisions with vehicles occur on open roads in 

13719 caribou habitat and are likely to continue. Predation by mountain lions, wolves and other predators 

13720 would continue, with the effect on the caribou population dependent on big game populations, 

13721 predator populations and a variety of other factors. 

13722 One important factor is how the Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In the British 

13723 Columbia portion of the recovery area, human activities that would continue to impact caribou 

13724 habitat include gas, powerline, and international border corridors, recreation activities, timber 

13725 harvest, and highways.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

412

13726 Summary

13727 Implementation of this alternative would have a May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect 

13728 determination for woodland caribou. It would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of 

13729 woodland caribou. The reasons for this determination are: 

13730 1) This alternative would address new science and risk factors identified in the recovery plan 

13731 and critical habitat. 

13732 2) This alternative would formally adopt the winter recreation strategy for caribou habitat that 

13733 was a Term and Condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion. 

13734 3) This alternative emphasizes the protection and restoration of caribou habitat, better 

13735 addressing expected climate change effects and enhancing habitat resiliency.

13736 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13737 Direct and Indirect Effects

13738 Forest activities that directly influence the viability of late-successional and old forest (LSOF) 

13739 dependent surrogate species include: the loss of LSOF habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008, Davis et 

13740 al. 2011), vegetation treatments (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest 

13741 structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, downed wood)(Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. 2008, Davis et 

13742 al. 2011), management of roads that influence habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and 

13743 protection of riparian areas which are an important element of LSOF habitats for some species (e.g., 

13744 bald eagles).

13745 The dynamic landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this alternative would result in 

13746 landscapes, including disturbance regimes, that are more resilient to climate change through the 

13747 application of strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies 

13748 et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 2010a, Franklin and Johnson 2012). By strategically locating restoration 

13749 treatments, landscape-scale fire behavior can be altered to be more similar to native disturbance 

13750 regimes and the risk of loss of LSOF habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires can be reduced 

13751 (Finney 2001, Finney et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). In addition, 

13752 implementation of this alternative would include greater use of managed fire to achieve desired 

13753 conditions for restoration and resiliency (Noss et al. 2006, Franklin and Johnson 2012).

13754 For some LSOF surrogate species, such as the white-headed woodpecker, conservation assessments 

13755 have recommended the use of stand-level treatments to restore habitat because current habitat levels 

13756 are well below historic levels (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines et al. 2015). The effects of 

13757 restoration treatments on birds has been studied and shown that treatments that retain large trees and 

13758 promote within-stand spatial variability can have positive effects on surrogate bird species, including 

13759 the white-headed woodpecker (Gaines et al. 2007, Gaines et al. 2010b). The implementation of this 

13760 alternative would result in approximately 5,000 acres per year of restorative treatments within dry 

13761 and mesic forests, creating potentially favorable conditions for white-headed woodpeckers.

13762 Implementation of this alternative includes plan components for several key elements of LSOF 

13763 habitat. For instance, desired conditions for snag habitat address the potential loss of snags in 

13764 vegetation management treatments. This alternative would also require that firewood cutting occur in 

13765 designated areas only, and not allow removal of downed wood and snags greater than 20 inches 

13766 d.b.h.. In addition, this alternative provides for the retention of large trees, which are currently below 

13767 historical levels in most forested landscapes (Hessburg et al. 1999).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

413

13768 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the negative effects of roads on LSOF habitats 

13769 within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives) because roads would 

13770 be closed (to meet other management objectives). In the longer term (less than 50 years based on 

13771 desired conditions), this alternative would result in road densities of equal to or less than 2 miles per 

13772 square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 3 miles per square mile on 

13773 48 percent of the Forest.

13774 Overall, this alternative would provide greater protection for LSOF habitats than the no-action, B, 

13775 and O alternatives; similar to alternative P; and less than alternative R. The viability outcome for 

13776 surrogate wildlife species associated with LSOF habitats would be improved in both the short (less 

13777 than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) time periods as desired conditions are achieved.

13778 Climate Change

13779 The sensitivity of LSOF associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change were 

13780 identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American marten 

13781 (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is the loss of LSOF habitats due to altered 

13782 disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013). 

13783 Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

13784 increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel moisture driven by 

13785 increased temperature and lower snowpack. Increases in fire risk and severity have been also been 

13786 driven, in part, by increased fuel loads because of fire suppression practices used over the last 

13787 century (McKenzie et al. 2004). Predicted increases in spring and summer temperature identified in 

13788 many climate change models would exacerbate the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as 

13789 fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton and Flannigan 1993) and defoliation caused by forest insects 

13790 (Littell et al. 2009). In the interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned 

13791 is likely to double or even triple by 2050. Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the 

13792 dominant driver of changes to forests and LSOF habitats in the western United States over the next 

13793 century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

13794 The dynamic landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this alternative represents the 

13795 implementation of an adaptive strategy to create landscapes more resilient to climate change (Spies 

13796 et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 2012). Landscape-scale restoration has been identified as an adaptive 

13797 strategy to maintain late-successional and old forest habitat structure (Lawler et al. 2014). The 

13798 emphasis on restoration of resiliency would result in landscapes, including disturbance regimes, 

13799 which are more resilient to climate change through the application of restoration treatments in 

13800 priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and Johnson 

13801 2012). By strategically locating restoration treatments, landscape-scale fire behavior can be altered to 

13802 be more similar to native disturbance regimes and the risk of loss of LSOF habitat to 

13803 uncharacteristically severe fires can be reduced (Finney 2001, Finney et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, 

13804 Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). In addition, implementation of this alternative would include greater use of 

13805 managed fire to achieve desired conditions for restoration and resiliency (Noss et al. 2006, Franklin 

13806 and Johnson 2012).

13807 Cumulative Effects

13808 Adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, the 

13809 Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13810 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

13811 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

13812 restore LSOF habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

414

13813 the process of revising their forest plan and the current plan provides limited management direction 

13814 to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and LSOF habitat protections in the original forest 

13815 plan were found to be inadequate and were amended by the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995).

13816 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

13817 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

13818 landscape is in mid-successional and less in late-successional, especially late-open, habitats 

13819 compared to HRV. This alternative would manage habitats toward HRV resulting in a distribution 

13820 and amount of successional stages that better mimic conditions under which surrogate wildlife 

13821 species evolved, and better mitigate for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

13822 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

13823 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

13824 by fire exclusion.

13825 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13826 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13827 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13828 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13829 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13830 become more important to wildlife.

13831 Summary

13832 The implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to the viability of LSOF 

13833 dependent surrogate wildlife species. The contribution would be due to the following components of 

13834 this alternative: 

13835 1) Emphasis on the dynamic landscape restoration to restore landscape resiliency and reduce 

13836 the loss of LSOF habitats to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. 

13837 2) The protection and conservation of key elements of LSOF habitat such as large trees, large 

13838 snags, and riparian habitats, 

13839 3) Emphasis on restoring habitat effectiveness by reducing the negative effects of roads on 

13840 LSOF habitats (though not to the same degree as R and P).

13841 Motorized Recreation and Road Access

13842 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13843 Direct and Indirect Effects

13844 Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species 

13845 (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gaines et al. 2003). These potential effects include displacement from key 

13846 habitats, disturbance during critical periods, and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with 

13847 vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and Gaines et al. 2003 for a complete list of road and trail 

13848 associated factors that influence wildlife). The effects of motorized recreation and roads can occur 

13849 during the non-winter period or during the winter period when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming 

13850 occurs.

13851 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the effects of roads on surrogate species habitat 

13852 effectiveness within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on Objectives). In the 

13853 longer term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

415

13854 densities of equal to or less than 2 miles per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or 

13855 less than 3 miles per square mile on 48 percent of the Forest. Habitat effectiveness for surrogate 

13856 wildlife species would be improved from a low level of habitat effectiveness to a moderate level of 

13857 habitat effectiveness in portions of 15 watersheds as desired conditions for road access are achieved.

13858 This alternative would not change the current level of winter or summer motorized trail use, thus 

13859 would not change the effects to surrogate species habitat effectiveness. Overall, this alternative 

13860 would provide greater habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species than the no-action, B, and 

13861 O alternatives, and less than the R and P alternatives. The implementation of this alternative would 

13862 result in some improvement in the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species used to assess the 

13863 effects of roads and trails on wildlife habitats. 

13864 Climate Change

13865 The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species used to assess the effects of roads and motorized 

13866 recreation is rated as moderate for bighorn sheep, and high for Canada lynx and wolverine (CCSD 

13867 2013). An important climate change adaptation that has been recommended for wildlife is to reduce 

13868 the negative effects of roads (and trails) on habitat (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et al. 2014). By 

13869 reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats (especially riparian and wetland habitats) can become 

13870 more resilient to the effects of climate change, and habitat connectivity can be restored allowing 

13871 wildlife to adjust their ranges as conditions change. The implementation of this alternative includes 

13872 management direction to make modest improvement to habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife by 

13873 reducing road impacts and densities.

13874 Cumulative Effects

13875 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

13876 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13877 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

13878 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and restore habitat 

13879 effectiveness (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the 

13880 process of revising their forest plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

13881 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, mostly focused on big-game species.

13882 The limited management direction in the existing Forest Plan to reduce the negative effects of roads 

13883 on wildlife and continued development of private lands (located mostly in north-south valley 

13884 bottoms that bisect the Forest) means that management of roads and motorized trails on Federal 

13885 lands is even more important to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

13886 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

13887 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

13888 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

13889 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

13890 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

13891 become more important to wildlife.

13892 Summary

13893 Implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to the viability of surrogate 

13894 wildlife species whose habitats are influenced by motorized access. This would occur because: 

13895 1) The alternative includes management direction to moderately reduce the effects of roads on 

13896 habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species, and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

416

13897 2) This alternative does not alter the current effects that summer and winter motorized trails 

13898 have of habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species.

13899 Livestock Grazing

13900 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13901 Direct and Indirect Effects

13902 Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements (e.g., 

13903 dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats; altering 

13904 disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (e.g., frequent fires in dry forests and grasslands 

13905 keep open canopy for western bluebird), and influence the availability of important prey species 

13906 (e.g., squirrels for golden eagles). To address the potential effects on surrogate wildlife species, the 

13907 management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland habitats for each alternative 

13908 was assessed.

13909 This alternative would include management direction for riparian habitats relying mostly on 

13910 guidelines (not standards as in R and P alternatives). Presently, many riparian habitats are in poor 

13911 condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan direction for this alternative would 

13912 make a modest improvement on altering the distribution of livestock that would allow riparian 

13913 habitats to recover.

13914 This alternative includes ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats (e.g., 

13915 rangeland and alpine habitats) and guidelines to protect unique habitats. This alternative would not 

13916 alter the number of livestock, the intensity of grazing, or the amount of area grazed. Presently, 

13917 73 percent of the Forest is in a livestock allotment and animal unit months (AUMs) average about 

13918 25,000 per year. However, management direction could result in some adjustments to the distribution 

13919 of cattle and the intensity of grazing within specific habitats, such as unique habitats. This alternative 

13920 would make modest improvements in the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species that were 

13921 used to assess grazing effects.

13922 Climate Change

13923 Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

13924 (including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make these 

13925 habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors (e.g., roads, 

13926 intense grazing, etc.) (Lawler et al. 2014). This alternative includes management direction (ARCS) 

13927 that would help to restore the resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change.

13928 Cumulative Effects

13929 Grazing occurs on nearby private, state, tribal, and Federal lands. Where grazing is allowed on the 

13930 adjacent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest, it is managed 

13931 to accommodate other public land uses, such as contributing to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

13932 species. On the adjacent Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, grazing was reduced over time to allow 

13933 restoration of riparian habitats and is currently only used to achieve specific wildlife habitat 

13934 objectives (USFWS 2000). Grazing on non-Federal lands increases the need to provide for wildlife 

13935 habitats on Federal lands that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. This alternative 

13936 includes management direction for some key habitats that would better account for the cumulative 

13937 effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

417

13938 Summary

13939 Implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to viability for surrogate 

13940 wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This determination is based on: 

13941 1) This alternative does include management direction (generally, guidelines and not standards 

13942 as in R and P alternatives) for riparian habitat that would reduce the negative effects of 

13943 grazing and improve riparian habitat condition. 

13944 2) This alternative would not change the number of AUMs or grazing intensity, but may alter 

13945 the distribution of livestock to protect some unique habitats. 

13946 3) This alternative would include management direction that could make habitats that are 

13947 sensitive to the effects of climate change more resilient.

13948 Snag Habitat

13949 Surrogate Wildlife Species

13950 Direct and Indirect Effects

13951 Forest activities that directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

13952 species include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), the loss of snag habitat 

13953 along roads and at recreation sites from hazard tree removal (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 

13954 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety reasons (Wisdom 

13955 et al. 2008). The implementation of this alternative includes management direction for snag habitat to 

13956 address the potential loss of habitat in timber sale operations, would require that firewood cutting 

13957 occur in designated areas only, and not allow removal of snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h.

13958 Implementation of this alternative would decrease the loss of snag habitat due to hazard tree removal 

13959 and firewood cutting along roads within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on 

13960 Objectives) because roads will be closed (to meet other management objectives). In the longer term 

13961 (less than 50 years based on desired conditions), this alternative will result in road densities of equal 

13962 to or less than 2 miles per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 3 miles 

13963 per square mile on 48 percent of the Forest. 

13964 Overall, this alternative will provide greater protection of snag habitat than the no-action, B, and O 

13965 alternatives, and less than the P and R alternatives. This alternative will enhance the viability 

13966 outcomes for surrogate wildlife species that are dependent on snag habitats.

13967 Climate Change

13968 Surrogate species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, white-headed 

13969 woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker and these species have a medium 

13970 sensitivity rating to climate change, and the western bluebird as high sensitivity (CCSD 2013). The 

13971 primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered disturbance 

13972 regimes. The whole landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this alternative will result 

13973 in landscapes, including disturbance regimes, that are more resilient to climate change through the 

13974 application of strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations, and greater use of 

13975 managed fire to achieve desired conditions for landscape restoration and resiliency. Because forest 

13976 disturbances such as fire, insects, and diseases directly influence the availability of snag habitat over 

13977 time, restoration of disturbance regimes to mimic natural processes would aid in restoring snag 

13978 habitat. In addition, this alternative would reduce non-climatic stressors by limiting the loss of large

13979 snags and reducing the impacts of roads.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

418

13980 Cumulative Effects

13981 Adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, the 

13982 Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

13983 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

13984 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and more rigorous 

13985 snag requirements to contribute to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife (USFWS 2000, USFS 

13986 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of revising their forest plan. The 

13987 current plan provides limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife 

13988 habitats, and current required snag densities make limited contribution to the viability of surrogate 

13989 wildlife species. The limited management direction for snag habitat on non-Federal lands adjacent to 

13990 the planning area, places additional emphasis on providing for viability populations of snag13991 dependent wildlife species on Federal lands. Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land 

13992 ownerships, in particular where they are near residences. These can be done in such a way that they 

13993 restore wildlife habitat that has been affected by fire exclusion, but treatments can lead to the loss of 

13994 snag habitat for safety reasons.

13995 Summary

13996 Implementation of this alternative will make a moderate contribution to the viability of snag13997 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

13998 1) This alternative will focus on restoring disturbance regimes that influence the availability 

13999 and condition of snag habitat. 

14000 2) This alternative will make modest reductions in the negative effects of roads on snag habitat. 

14001 3) This alternative provides management direction to protect snag habitat during vegetation 

14002 management activities and from being cut for firewood.

14003 Habitat Connectivity

14004 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14005 Direct and Indirect Effects

14006 A number of forest management activities influence habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife 

14007 species. These include: the amount, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement of suitable habitats; and the 

14008 location and density of motorized travel routes, especially in relation to riparian and LSOF habitats. 

14009 These are addressed in the evaluation of how forest management alternatives will affect habitat 

14010 connectivity for surrogate wildlife species.

14011 The implementation of this alternative includes management direction to manage wildlife habitats 

14012 for surrogate wildlife species toward desired conditions that are based on the natural and future range 

14013 of variability. This means that habitats for a wide-range of species will be managed so that the 

14014 amount of habitat, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement will mimic conditions under which those 

14015 species evolved (Hessburg et al. 1999).

14016 In this alternative, management direction for riparian habitats is consolidated into one consistent set 

14017 of plan components that applies to the Colville National Forest. Guidelines will limit management 

14018 activities that are allowed to occur within riparian habitats and influence habitat connectivity. This 

14019 alternative includes greater riparian management area widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and 

14020 ponds than in the areas previously covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

419

14021 The implementation of this alternative will reduce the negative effects of roads on habitat 

14022 connectivity for surrogate wildlife species within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years 

14023 based on objectives) because roads will be closed (to meet other management objectives). In the 

14024 longer term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions), this alternative will result in road 

14025 densities of equal to or less than 2 miles per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or 

14026 less than 3 miles per square mile on 48 percent of the Forest.

14027 Climate Change

14028 Maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity is the most oft-cited climate adaptation strategy 

14029 for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opham and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

14030 Spies et al. 2010) and has been identified as an important adaptation strategy for wildlife in 

14031 northeastern Washington (Gaines et al. 2012). This is because species’ range shifts have been the 

14032 primary biological response to past episodes of climatic change, yet widespread anthropogenic 

14033 barriers to movement will now challenge species’ ability to respond (Price 2002, Thomas and 

14034 Lennon 1999, Wormworth and Mallon 2006). The implementation of this alternative addresses 

14035 climate change adaptations that are recommended to maintain or restore habitat connectivity for 

14036 surrogate wildlife species. 

14037 Cumulative Effects

14038 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human developments and transportation infrastructure, 

14039 along with land ownership patterns create cumulative impacts that limit options to conserve and 

14040 restore regional connectivity. Regional habitat connectivity has been evaluated for a variety of 

14041 wildlife species, including the surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate connectivity in this 

14042 planning area (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010, Proctor et al. 2015). These assessments have 

14043 shown the importance of the Colville National Forest in providing stepping-stone habitats between 

14044 the Cascades and Selkirk Mountains (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Connectivity from 

14045 the Cascade Range to the Kettle Range and Selkirk Mountains is interrupted by transportation 

14046 corridors and human developments associated with the Okanogan, Upper Columbia, and Pend 

14047 Oreille river valleys (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Additionally, connectivity planning in 

14048 southern British Columbia identified linkage areas that could greatly enhance wildlife movements 

14049 between the Selkirk Mountains and Purcell Mountains (Apps et al. 2007, Proctor et al. 2015).

14050 Reducing the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife habitats will contribute to the 

14051 maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity, including cumulative effects. Border Patrol 

14052 activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or trails that are 

14053 normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the life of the plan 

14054 is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. Recreation is 

14055 likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would increase human 

14056 disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to become more 

14057 important to wildlife.

14058 Summary

14059 The implementation of this alternative will make a moderate contribution to providing habitat 

14060 connectivity that is important for the viability of surrogate wildlife species. This conclusion is based 

14061 on the following: 

14062 1) Habitat amounts, patch sizes, and connectivity will be managed toward desired conditions 

14063 based on the natural range of variability, providing condition similar to those under which 

14064 surrogate wildlife species evolved. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

420

14065 2) The negative effects of roads on habitat connectivity, including riparian and LSOF habitat 

14066 will be moderately reduced. 

14067 Riparian Habitats

14068 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14069 Direct and Indirect Effects

14070 Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian-dependent 

14071 surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, grazing, and vegetation treatments 

14072 that occur within riparian habitats. 

14073 In this alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is consolidated into 

14074 one consistent set of plan components that applies to the entire Colville National Forest. Guidelines 

14075 will limit management activities that are allowed to occur within riparian habitats. This alternative 

14076 includes greater riparian management area widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than 

14077 in the areas previously covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).

14078 The implementation of this alternative will reduce the effects of roads on riparian habitats within 10 

14079 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives) because roads will be closed (to 

14080 meet other management objectives). In the longer term (less than 50 years based on desired 

14081 conditions) this alternative will result in road densities of equal to or less than 2 miles per square 

14082 mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 3 miles per square mile on 48 percent of 

14083 the Forest. 

14084 This alternative will include management direction for riparian habitats relying mostly on Guidelines 

14085 (not Standards as in R and P alternatives). Presently, many riparian habitats are in poor condition due 

14086 to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan direction for this alternative will make a modest 

14087 improvement on altering the distribution of livestock that will allow riparian habitats to recover.

14088 Overall, this alternative will provide greater protection for riparian habitats than the no-action and 

14089 alternative B, similar to alternative O, and less than the P and R alternatives. The viability outcome 

14090 for surrogate wildlife species that are dependent upon riparian habitats will be improved.

14091 Climate Change

14092 Some of the riparian associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

14093 (CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

14094 change (Lawler et al. 2014). The primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of 

14095 habitat and reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic and disturbance (fire) 

14096 regimes (Lawler et al. 2014). 

14097 The whole landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this alternative will result in 

14098 landscapes, including disturbance regimes, that are more resilient to climate change through the 

14099 application of strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations. In addition, emphasis 

14100 of this alternative in reducing the negative effects of roads (though not to the same degree as the R or 

14101 P alternatives) on aquatic habitats will help to make them more resilient to disturbances.

14102 Cumulative Effects

14103 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

14104 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

421

14105 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

14106 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

14107 restore riparian habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

14108 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

14109 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat protections in the original Forest 

14110 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended (INFISH, PACFISH-USFS 1995, ACS-USFS 

14111 1994).

14112 On private lands, Washington State Forestry Practices Act provides some limited protections for 

14113 riparian habitats. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to 

14114 enhance coordination across landowners and may enhance conditions for riparian associated wildlife 

14115 species. However, habitat protections for riparian habitats on Federal lands will help to mitigate for 

14116 the limited protections and cumulative effects that occur on private lands.

14117 Summary

14118 The implementation of this alternative will make a moderate contribution to the viability of riparian14119 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

14120 1) This alternative will make modest reductions in the negative effects that roads have on 

14121 riparian habitats. 

14122 2) This alternative will consolidate and make more consistent management direction for 

14123 riparian habitats using Guidelines and providing larger management zones that existing 

14124 direction. 

14125 3) The landscape restoration emphasis of this alternative will restore disturbance regimes, 

14126 reducing the effects of uncharacteristically severe fires on riparian habitats. 

14127 Species of Management Interest

14128 Deer and Elk

14129 Direct and Indirect Effects

14130 Forest management activities can influence deer and elk populations and habitat use. Vegetation 

14131 management activities may affect the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Adequate 

14132 forage is particularly important during the summer and fall before the following birthing season 

14133 when this can have a positive effect on the condition pregnant females (Lenz 1997, Cook 1998, Cook 

14134 2002, Cook et al. 2004, Cook et al. 2005). The management of forest roads and trails can influence 

14135 how deer and elk use habitats, and influence the interactions between deer and elk (Rowland et al. 

14136 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a, and b). Additionally, deer and elk can compete with domestic livestock 

14137 for both food resources (Findholt et al. 2005) and space (Coe et al. 2001, Coe et al. 2005). Thus, the 

14138 potential effects that vegetation management, road and trail management, and grazing management 

14139 can have on deer and elk habitats and populations are evaluated for each of the alternatives.

14140 Under the proposed action, cover and forage for deer and elk on winter and summer ranges will be 

14141 managed commensurate with the natural range of variability. This will result in a sustainable level of 

14142 cover and more emphasis on enhancement of forage conditions. Considerable research has shown 

14143 that the management of deer and elk winter habitat should be less focused on the retention of thermal 

14144 cover, and more focused on the availability of forage on summer and fall habitats (see Cook et al. 

14145 2005 for a review). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

422

14146 This alternative will improve habitat effectiveness for deer and elk on summer and winter ranges by 

14147 reducing the impacts of roads. The Selkirk Elk Herd has a moderate level of habitat effectiveness 

14148 (low level of human influence) on their winter ranges. Overall, habitat effectiveness will be restored 

14149 on approximately 24,000 acres of habitat on elk range under this alternative. The desired conditions 

14150 for elk winter ranges will be to have a low level of human influence (less than 30 percent of the 

14151 winter range in the zone of influence of an open road, motorized route, or designated ski trail).

14152 For deer, this alternative will result in a high level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human 

14153 influence) on 31 percent of the winter ranges, a moderate level of habitat effectiveness on 62 percent 

14154 of the winter ranges, and a low level of habitat effectiveness on 6 percent. The desired conditions for 

14155 deer winter ranges will be to have a high level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human influence, 

14156 less than 30 percent of the winter range in the zone of influence of an open road, motorized route, or 

14157 designated ski trail).

14158 Current management direction for winter ranges is based on road density standards and will be 

14159 changed to use of the zone of influence (Rowland et al. 2005). This alternative includes more robust 

14160 range management direction to aid in the recovery of range conditions that are currently in poor 

14161 condition and have been slow to recover from past grazing practices.

14162 Climate Change

14163 Deer and elk have a low level of sensitivity to the effects of climate change due to their ability to 

14164 tolerate a relatively wide range of climatic conditions, their high mobility, and as habitat generalists 

14165 (CCSD 2013). However, alternatives that restore landscape pattern and functions while reducing the 

14166 effects of roads on deer and elk summer and winter habitats will provide more resilience deer and elk 

14167 populations. This alternative emphasizes landscape-scale restoration and provides consistent 

14168 management direction for roads that will make modest contributions to restore habitat effectiveness 

14169 for deer and elk.

14170 Cumulative Effects

14171 The historical cattle and sheep grazing that occurred on portions of the Forest degraded range 

14172 conditions (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). These conditions, combined with current 

14173 domestic (cattle) and wild ungulate grazing (primarily elk and deer), have resulted in the 

14174 maintenance or slow recovery of poor range conditions in some areas (Bunting et al. 2002). In turn, 

14175 these poor range conditions have had negative effects on some important unique habitats such as 

14176 riparian areas and meadows. This alternative will result in more rigorous grazing management 

14177 direction that will help to address this situation.

14178 Winter ranges for the deer and elk occur on Federal lands, adjacent Wildlife Management Areas 

14179 managed by the State, and private lands. Elk herd management plans (WDFW 2001) provide 

14180 guidance for elk management on state lands and make recommendations for elk management on 

14181 Forestland. Management plans for deer include the White-tailed Deer Management Plan that covers 

14182 the two management units on the Colville National Forest and provides direction to manage hunting 

14183 to either maintain or increase white-tailed deer populations (WDFW 2010). A statewide general 

14184 management plan for mule deer has been developed but does not provide herd-specific management 

14185 objectives (WDFW 2008). Mule deer are widely distributed across the Forest. A considerable amount 

14186 of historical winter range for deer and elk is now in private land ownership or under the waters of 

14187 Lake Roosevelt (created by the Grand Coulee dam). The cumulative effects of the existing 

14188 management plans (state and Federal lands) will provide for the conditions that contribute to 

14189 sustainable populations of deer and elk, while considering the impacts of private land development.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

423

14190 Summary

14191 The implementation of the proposed action will make a moderate contribution to the conditions that 

14192 support sustainable populations of deer and elk. This is based on the following: 

14193 1) This alternative will address new science that recommends de-emphasizing the importance 

14194 of winter thermal cover and increasing the emphasis on summer and fall forage quality and 

14195 quantity. 

14196 2) This alternative provides consistent and effective direction on the management of roads and 

14197 trails to restore habitat effectiveness on deer and elk summer and winter ranges. 

14198 3) This alternative will include more rigorous management direction to improve the conditions 

14199 of key habitats, such as riparian areas and meadows, which are in poor condition due to the 

14200 cumulative effects of past grazing practices, and current domestic and wild ungulate grazing.

14201 Alternative R

14202 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

14203 Grizzly Bear

14204 Direct and Indirect Effects

14205 Forest activities that influence the recovery of the grizzly bear include: human access that can 

14206 displace bears from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of bear-human interactions, 

14207 disposal of livestock carcasses within range allotments to avoid attracting bears to a potential food 

14208 source, and the storage of food and garbage at recreation sites to reduce the potential for bears to 

14209 associate humans with food sources. 

14210 Management of grizzly bears does not vary between alternatives. Existing management direction 

14211 provides standards for human access, disposal of livestock carcasses, and food and garbage storage 

14212 within the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (IGBC 1998, USDA 1988, USFWS 1993, USDI 

14213 2001). Existing standards have largely been met and will continue to be followed.

14214 Climate Change

14215 Grizzly bears have been identified as having a low sensitivity to climate change because they are 

14216 opportunistic, eat a diverse array of food resources, and are highly adaptable (Servheen and Cross 

14217 2010, CCSD 2013). Anticipated impacts may include changes in the timing of denning due to longer 

14218 snow-free periods and reduced snowpack (Lawler et al. 2014) and changes in the availability of food 

14219 sources (Servheen and Cross 2010). These changes may put bears at risk of negative human 

14220 interactions for a longer period of time each year (Servheen and Cross 2010). This will make 

14221 education, proper food and garbage storage, carcass disposal measures, and human access 

14222 management that much more important.

14223 Cumulative Effects

14224 The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in the recovery zone is past persecution 

14225 and human-caused mortality of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

14226 Information/education programs, sanitation measures, and access management have and will 

14227 continue to be used to aid in the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Area.

14228 Past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions that could affect grizzly bears include timber 

14229 harvest and associated road construction, recreational activities that can cause disturbance to bear 

14230 and create potential for human-bear conflicts, and human development that fragment grizzly bear 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

424

14231 habitat. Cumulative effects are evaluated across the Recovery Area by tracking activities within 

14232 Grizzly Bear Management Units (GBMUs). Other land managers have adopted and are following 

14233 similar management direction (IPNF 2015) and overall recovery is coordinated by the Selkirk 

14234 Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee. GBMUs that occur on the Colville National Forest include 

14235 the LeClerc, Salmo-Priest, and Sullivan-Hughes. The contribution made on Federal lands to grizzly 

14236 bear recovery would help to mitigate potential cumulative effects from off-forest activities. However, 

14237 because this alternative does not address reducing the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats 

14238 like in the proposed action and alternatives R and P, it does less to mitigate cumulative effects.

14239 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

14240 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

14241 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

14242 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

14243 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

14244 by fire exclusion.

14245 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

14246 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance (e.g., 

14247 core areas) to become more important to wildlife such as grizzly bears.

14248 Black bear hunting on both sides of the international border within the Selkirk Recovery Area has the 

14249 potential to add cumulatively to the mortality of grizzly bears. Hunters that encounter grizzly bears 

14250 may mistakenly identify the bear, kill the bear in self-defense, or opportunistically poach the bear. 

14251 Human access management within the recovery area is key to reducing the risk of mortality to 

14252 grizzly bears from black bear hunting.

14253 On private lands, the presence of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or other attractants may lure bears 

14254 into conflict situations. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may lead to the bear being killed. 

14255 Summary

14256 This alternative will make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of grizzly bears in the 

14257 Selkirk Recovery Area and will result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. This is based 

14258 on the existing management direction, followed in all alternatives, that addresses:

14259 1) Human access management,

14260 2) Disposal of carcasses in range allotments that occur in the recovery area, and 

14261 3) Proper storage of food, garbage and other attractants that may lead to human-bear 

14262 interactions. 

14263 Canada Lynx

14264 Direct and Indirect Effects

14265 The forest management activities that influence the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx 

14266 include: vegetation management that affect lynx habitat components, winter recreation that 

14267 influences habitat connectivity and lynx habitat use, forest roads that can become sources of lynx 

14268 mortality at high traffic volumes and speeds, and grazing effects to riparian areas that provide habitat 

14269 for snowshoe hares, a primary food resource for lynx (ILBT 2013). The Interagency Lynx Biology 

14270 Team (ILBT 2013) developed conservation measures for core and secondary areas (USFWS 2005) to 

14271 address each of these forest management activities, and for planners to consult when revising forest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

425

14272 plans. These were used to evaluate the potential contribution of forest management alternatives to the 

14273 recovery of Canada lynx.

14274 Vegetation management activities affect the distribution of lynx habitat components, can fragment 

14275 habitats, and create sources of disturbance (ILBT 2013). As a result, risk factors associated with 

14276 vegetation management have been identified and conservation measures recommended to address the 

14277 risk factors (ILBT 2013). The conservation measures for vegetation management apply to lynx core 

14278 areas and include mimicking the pattern and scale of natural disturbances and connectivity across the 

14279 landscape while considering the future range of variability (ILBT 2013). A The ILBT (2013) also 

14280 recommended a conservation measure focused on the restoration of disturbance regimes in dry 

14281 forests that occur in close proximity to lynx habitat to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe 

14282 and frequent fires reaching lynx habitat. Finally, there are conservation measures that limit the 

14283 amount of vegetation management and the rate of habitat change (e.g., acres treated/decade) within 

14284 lynx analysis units. Alternative R emphasizes an LSOF Reserve network covering about 48 percent 

14285 of the Forest. The remaining Matrix, covering about 25 percent of the Forest, will be managed 

14286 primarily for timber production. No management direction in this alternative guides land 

14287 management to mimic the pattern and scale of natural disturbances as recommended for the 

14288 vegetation conservation measures. 

14289 Conservation measures were identified to address the effects that highways have on habitat 

14290 connectivity for lynx in core areas (ILBT 2013). 

14291 Conservation measures for winter recreation in lynx core areas included reducing effects on habitat 

14292 connectivity and to discourage expansion of over-the-snow routes that may influence lynx habitat 

14293 use (ILBT 2013). The implementation of this alternative will include management direction that 

14294 addresses effects of over-the-snow recreation on lynx habitat.

14295 The conservation measures for forest roads in lynx core areas include avoiding road reconstruction 

14296 or upgrades that occur in lynx habitat and will result in increased traffic speeds or volumes (ILBT 

14297 2013). These measures would reduce the potential for vehicular traffic to result in a source of 

14298 mortality to lynx. There is management direction in this alternative to address this conservation 

14299 measure.

14300 The conservation measures for grazing in lynx core areas include management of riparian areas to 

14301 assure adequate habitat for snowshoe hares, the primary prey species for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013). 

14302 Alternative R will include management direction for grazing in riparian areas to provide for habitat 

14303 for listed fish species, and direction specific to Canada lynx or snowshoe hares.

14304 Alternative R will provide management direction to address most, but not all (see discussion above) 

14305 of the direct and indirect effects of forest management activities on the recovery of Canada lynx. 

14306 Alternative R will provide protection for Canada lynx that is greater than the no-action, B and O 

14307 alternatives but less than the proposed action and alternative P.

14308 Climate Change

14309 The potential effects of climate change on Canada lynx identified by the Interagency Lynx Biology 

14310 Team (2013) included: (1) an upward shift in elevation or latitudinal distribution of lynx and prey, 

14311 (2) a decrease in the amount of habitat and population size from reduced snow persistence and 

14312 increased disturbance events (e.g., fires), (3) changes in demographic rates, such as survival and 

14313 reproduction, and (4) changes in predator-prey relationships.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

426

14314 Climate change adaptations to address these effects include restoration of landscape-scale 

14315 disturbance regimes to better mimic natural patterns and processes (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 

14316 2012, Lawler et al. 2014), and maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity to allow Canada lynx to 

14317 adjust their ranges to changing conditions (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, ILBT 2013, Squires et al. 

14318 2013). There is limited management direction in alternative R to address these climate change 

14319 adaptations. 

14320 Cumulative Effects

14321 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect lynx habitat include timber harvest and 

14322 fuels reduction, recreation, human development, and grazing on private and public lands. In addition, 

14323 legal trapping of lynx, timber harvest, oil and gas development, mining and human access in British 

14324 Columbia have and will continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. 

14325 Past vegetation management and large-scale fires on the Forest within lynx habitat has resulted in a 

14326 distribution and amount of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. This 

14327 alternative would not emphasize vegetation management activities to restore lynx habitats toward the 

14328 HRV. 

14329 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

14330 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

14331 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

14332 Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on off-forest lands potentially impacting 

14333 deciduous or riparian habitats for lynx prey species.

14334 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

14335 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

14336 by fire exclusion.

14337 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

14338 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

14339 become more important to wildlife.

14340 All Federal lands within Canada lynx core and secondary areas will use the Lynx Conservation 

14341 Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (ILBT 2013) as current science to guide project level consultation 

14342 and land management planning. The North Cascades National Park Complex recently revised their 

14343 management plan to include the LCAS (NPS 2012). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest land 

14344 management plan was recently revised to address the conservation measures identified in the LCAS 

14345 (USFS 2015). The conservation of lynx on WDNR lands is guided by the Department of Natural 

14346 Resources Lynx Habitat Management Plan (WDNR 1996, updated in 2002). The management plan 

14347 for the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge provides conservation measures to contribute to the 

14348 recovery and viability of Canada lynx (USFWS 2000). Collectively, these management plans have 

14349 addressed many of the conservation measures identified for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013) and would 

14350 help mitigate potential cumulative effects that may occur from off-forest activities. In addition, no 

14351 critical habitat was identified on the Colville National Forest or on adjacent lands (USFWS 2009).

14352 In Canada, timber harvesting, oil and gas development, coal mining, and the proliferation of human 

14353 access associated with these industries, have and will continue to affect lynx habitat. Legal trapping 

14354 occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could reduce the potential for lynx to disperse into the lynx 

14355 habitat on the Forest. Trapping is not legal in Idaho, Montana, or Washington.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

427

14356 Summary

14357 Alternative R will make a moderate contribution to the recovery of the Canada lynx in both the short 

14358 (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) term, and result in a May Effect, Likely to 

14359 Adversely Affect determination. This is because of the following: 

14360 1) This alternative does not address the vegetation management conservation measures 

14361 identified in the recent version of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 

14362 2013) to mimic natural vegetation pattern and processes. 

14363 2) This alternative does address the conservation measures for roads, over-the-snow activities, 

14364 and grazing, and 

14365 3) This alternative will address some of the climate change adaptations but will not emphasize 

14366 landscape-scale restoration of landscape resiliency. 

14367 Late-successional and Old Forest Habitats (Federally Listed Species)

14368 Woodland Caribou

14369 Direct and Indirect Effects

14370 The forest management activities that can influence the recovery and viability of woodland caribou 

14371 include: (1) Vegetation management and natural disturbances affect the amount and connectivity of 

14372 old growth forests of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western redcedar/western hemlock. (2) 

14373 Human access that can increase the potential for poaching and cause disturbance to caribou during 

14374 the critical winter period. These effects were used to evaluate the potential contribution of each 

14375 alternative to the recovery of woodland caribou.

14376 This alternative will implement new science, recommendations from the Biological Opinion issued 

14377 in 2001 (USFWS 2001) on the 1988 forest plan (USFS 1988), and address the critical habitat 

14378 designation (USFWS 2012). Vegetation management will be focused on the protection of late14379 successional and old growth habitats based on a network of reserves. The desired conditions address 

14380 the amount, spatial arrangement, and connectivity of caribou habitat to mimic natural patterns and 

14381 processes.

14382 A term and condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion was that the Forest develop a winter recreation 

14383 strategy that protects important winter habitats for caribou while providing some level of winter 

14384 recreation access. This strategy was developed (USFS 2003) and will be fully integrated into this 

14385 alternative. The strategy includes information and education about the effects of winter recreation on 

14386 wildlife, monitoring and enforcement of areas closed to over-the-snow activities, and limitations on

14387 permitted over-the-snow activities. Collectively, these actions have reduced the impacts of winter 

14388 recreation to caribou habitat while providing recreation opportunities in areas and at the time of the 

14389 winter season when effects to caribou are minimal. In addition to winter recreation, this alternative 

14390 emphasizes substantially reducing the negative effects of forest roads on wildlife habitat.

14391 Climate Change

14392 Climate change will likely alter the distribution and abundance of suitable caribou habitat, and will 

14393 also change snow depths and persistence, which affect seasonal movements of mountain caribou 

14394 (WDFW 2012). The potential effects of climate change depend on the interaction, not only of 

14395 seasonal temperatures and snowfall patterns, but also occurrence of wildfires, outbreaks of forest 

14396 insects, and diseases (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005). Management adaptations to address 

14397 the effects of climate change include a focus on forest restoration and reducing non-climatic factors 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

428

14398 that affect wildlife populations (e.g., restoring habitat effectiveness). This alternative will implement 

14399 these adaptations.

14400 Cumulative Effects

14401 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and includes the Colville National Forest, 

14402 Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. About 

14403 47 percent of the recovery area is in the United States and 53 percent in British Columbia. The Idaho 

14404 Panhandle National Forest recently revised the forest plan to address habitat and risk factors 

14405 identified in the caribou recovery plan and critical habitat (USFS 2015). The caribou recovery team 

14406 works cooperatively to address cumulative effects on woodland caribou.

14407 Past activities on the Forest have impacted caribou habitat. Over-the-snow motorized use, prior to 

14408 the implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy (USFS 2003), may have caused disturbance to 

14409 caribou. The alternative would continue with implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy, 

14410 limiting the cumulative effects on caribou. 

14411 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

14412 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the

14413 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

14414 alternative would emphasize the protection and restoration of LSOF habitat within the caribou 

14415 recovery area, helping to mitigate for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

14416 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

14417 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

14418 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

14419 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

14420 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

14421 by fire exclusion.

14422 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

14423 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

14424 become more important to wildlife such as caribou. However, because this alternative does not 

14425 address the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitat, it provides less opportunity to mitigate the 

14426 cumulative effects of recreation.

14427 Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters may 

14428 result in caribou mortality as a result of mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

14429 Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken it is difficult to evaluate 

14430 the influence of this on the caribou population. Fatal collisions with vehicles occur on open roads in 

14431 caribou habitat and are likely to continue. Predation by mountain lions, wolves and other predators 

14432 will continue, with the effect on the caribou population dependent on big game populations, predator 

14433 populations and a variety of other factors. 

14434 One important factor is how the Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In the British 

14435 Columbia portion of the recovery area, human activities that will continue to impact caribou habitat 

14436 include gas, powerline, and international border corridors; recreation activities; timber harvest; and 

14437 highways.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

429

14438 Summary

14439 Implementation of this alternative would have a May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect 

14440 determination for woodland caribou. It would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of 

14441 woodland caribou. The reasons for this determination are: 

14442 1) This alternative would address new science and risk factors identified in the recovery plan and 

14443 critical habitat. 

14444 2) This alternative would formally adopt the winter recreation strategy for caribou habitat that was 

14445 a Term and Condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion. 

14446 3) This alternative emphasizes the protection and restoration of caribou habitat, better addressing 

14447 expected climate change effects and enhancing resiliency.

14448 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14449 Direct and Indirect Effects

14450 Forest activities that directly influence the viability of late-successional and old forest (LSOF) 

14451 dependent surrogate species include: the loss of LSOF habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008, Davis et 

14452 al. 2011), vegetation treatments (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest 

14453 structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, downed wood)(Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. 2008, Davis et 

14454 al. 2011), management of roads that influence habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and 

14455 protection of riparian areas which are an important element of LSOF habitats for some species (e.g., 

14456 bald eagles).

14457 This alternative provides for the viability of LSOF species through a system of LSOF emphasis areas 

14458 that encompass about 44 percent of the Forest. This alternative attempts to better accommodate 

14459 habitat loss from fires and other disturbances by creating a larger network of LSOF habitats with 

14460 increasing redundancy. This emphasizes short-term habitat protection for LSOF species instead of 

14461 landscape-scale restoration (as in the proposed action and alternative P).

14462 The implementation of this alternative includes plan components for several key elements of LSOF 

14463 habitat. For instance, desired conditions for snag habitat address the potential loss of habitat in 

14464 vegetation management treatments. This alternative would allow no firewood cutting in LSOF 

14465 emphasis areas and no removal of snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. (except for safety reasons). 

14466 This alternative includes a 21-inch diameter limit on the removal of trees.

14467 The implementation of this alternative would substantially decrease the negative effects of roads on 

14468 LSOF habitat within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives) because 

14469 roads would be closed to meet other management objectives. In the longer term (less than 50 years 

14470 based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of equal to or less than 

14471 1 mile per square mile on 44 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 2 miles per square mile 

14472 on 25 percent of the Forest, further reducing road associated effects to LSOF habitats and surrogate 

14473 species.

14474 Overall, this alternative would provide greater protection for LSOF habitats than the no-action, 

14475 proposed action, and B and O alternatives, and similar to alternative P. This alternative would 

14476 improve the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species that are dependent on LSOF habitats in 

14477 both the short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) time periods as desired conditions are 

14478 achieved.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

430

14479 Climate Change

14480 The sensitivity of LSOF associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change were 

14481 identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American marten 

14482 (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is the loss of LSOF habitats due to altered 

14483 disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013, Lawler et al. 2014). 

14484 Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

14485 increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel moisture driven by 

14486 increased temperature and lower snowpack. Increases in fire risk and severity have been also been 

14487 driven, in part, by increased fuel loads because of fire suppression practices used over the last 

14488 century (McKenzie et al. 2004). Predicted increases in spring and summer temperature identified in 

14489 many climate change models would exacerbate the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as 

14490 fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton and Flannigan 1993) and defoliation caused by forest insects 

14491 (Littell et al. 2009). In the interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned 

14492 is likely to double or even triple by 2050. Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the 

14493 dominant driver of changes to forests and LSOF habitats in the western United States over the next 

14494 century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

14495 The effectiveness of a system of reserves may be compromised under climate change as species’ 

14496 habitat shifts to nonreserved areas (Araujo et al. 2004, Carroll et al. 2009). The LSOF habitat 

14497 network proposed in this alternative would add additional area (compared to the no-action, B, and O 

14498 alternatives) to increase redundancy in the LSOF network. However, this alternative does not focus 

14499 on landscape-scale forest restoration that has been identified as an important climate change 

14500 adaptation to maintain LSOF habitats (Lawler et al. 2014).

14501 Cumulative Effects

14502 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

14503 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

14504 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

14505 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

14506 restore LSOF habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

14507 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

14508 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and LSOF habitat protections in the original Forest 

14509 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended by the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995).

14510 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

14511 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

14512 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

14513 alternative would emphasize the protection and restoration of LSOF habitat within management 

14514 areas that cover about 44 percent of the Forest under this alternative, helping to mitigate for the 

14515 cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

14516 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

14517 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

14518 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

14519 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

14520 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

14521 by fire exclusion.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

431

14522 Summary

14523 The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of 

14524 LSOF dependent surrogate wildlife species. The contribution would be due to the following 

14525 components of this alternative: 

14526 1) Emphasis on the protection of LSOF habitats. 

14527 2) The protection and conservation of key elements of LSOF habitat such as large trees, large 

14528 snags, and riparian areas, and

14529 3) The emphasis on restoring habitat effectiveness by substantially reducing the negative 

14530 effects of roads on LSOF habitats.

14531 Motorized Recreation and Road Access

14532 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14533 Direct and Indirect Effects

14534 Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

14535 These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during critical periods, 

14536 and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and Gaines et al. 

14537 2003 for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence wildlife). The effects of 

14538 motorized recreation and roads can occur during the non-winter period or during the winter period 

14539 when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

14540 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the negative effects of roads on surrogate species 

14541 habitats in 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives). In the longer 

14542 term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of 

14543 equal to or less than 1 mile per square mile on 44 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 

14544 2 miles per square mile on 25 percent of the Forest. Habitat effectiveness (as affected by roads) for 

14545 surrogate wildlife species would be improved from a current low level of habitat effectiveness in 32 

14546 watersheds to a moderate level of habitat effectiveness in 16 watersheds and a high level of habitat 

14547 effectiveness in 16 watersheds as desired conditions for road access are achieved.

14548 Implementation of this alternative would also reduce the impacts of summer-motorized trails on 

14549 habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species. Approximately 30 miles of summer-motorized 

14550 trails would be reduced or converted to non-motorized use within two watersheds. The 

14551 implementation of this alternative would result in the highest habitat effectiveness for surrogate 

14552 wildlife species as a result of reducing the impacts of roads and motorized trails.

14553 Climate Change

14554 The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species used to assess the effects of roads and motorized 

14555 recreation is rated as moderate for bighorn sheep, and high for Canada lynx and wolverine (CCSD 

14556 2013). An important climate change adaptation that has been recommended for wildlife is to reduce 

14557 the negative effects of roads (and trails) on habitat (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et al. 2014). By 

14558 reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats (especially riparian and wetland habitats) can become 

14559 more resilient to the effects of climate change, and habitat connectivity can be restored allowing 

14560 wildlife to adjust their ranges as conditions change. The implementation of this alternative includes 

14561 management direction to make substantial improvement to habitat effectiveness for surrogate 

14562 wildlife by reducing road and motorized trail impacts and densities.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

432

14563 Cumulative Effects

14564 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

14565 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

14566 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

14567 management plans that reduce the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats and restore habitat 

14568 effectiveness (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the 

14569 process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

14570 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, mostly focused on big-game species.

14571 The limited management direction in the existing Forest Plan to reduce the negative effects of roads 

14572 on wildlife and continued development of private lands (located mostly in north-south valley 

14573 bottoms that bisect the Forest) means that management of roads and motorized trails on Federal 

14574 lands is even more important to the viability of surrogate wildlife species.

14575 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

14576 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

14577 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

14578 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

14579 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

14580 become more important to wildlife. 

14581 Summary

14582 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of 

14583 surrogate wildlife species. This would occur because: 

14584 1) the alternative includes management direction to substantially reduce the impact of roads on 

14585 habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species, and 

14586 2) this alternative reduces the effects that summer motorized trails have of habitat effectiveness 

14587 for surrogate wildlife species.

14588 Livestock Grazing

14589 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14590 Direct and Indirect Effects

14591 Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements (e.g., 

14592 dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats; alter 

14593 disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (e.g., frequent fires in dry forests and grasslands 

14594 keep open canopy for western bluebird); and influence the availability of important prey items (e.g., 

14595 squirrels for golden eagles). To address the potential effects on surrogate wildlife species, the 

14596 management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland habitats for each alternative 

14597 was assessed.

14598 This alternative would include management direction for riparian habitats that includes additional 

14599 Standards (compared to the no-action, proposed action, B, and O alternatives). Presently, many 

14600 riparian habitats are in poor condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan 

14601 direction for this alternative would make a considerable improvement on altering the distribution of 

14602 livestock that would allow riparian habitats to recover.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

433

14603 This alternative includes ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats (e.g., 

14604 rangeland and alpine habitats) and standards to protect unique habitats. This alternative would not 

14605 alter the number of livestock, the intensity of grazing, or the amount of area grazed. Presently, 

14606 73 percent of the Forest is in a livestock allotment and animal unit months (AUMs) average about 

14607 25,000 per year. However, management direction would result in adjustments to the distribution of 

14608 cattle and the intensity of grazing within specific habitats, such as unique habitats. This alternative, 

14609 along with alternative P, has the greatest potential to improve viability outcomes for surrogate 

14610 wildlife species that are influenced by grazing.

14611 Climate Change

14612 Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

14613 (including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make these 

14614 habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors (e.g., roads, 

14615 intense grazing, etc.) (Lawler et al. 2014). This alternative includes management direction that would 

14616 help to restore the resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change.

14617 Cumulative Effects

14618 Grazing occurs on nearby private, state, tribal, and Federal lands. Where grazing is allowed on the 

14619 adjacent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest, it is managed 

14620 to accommodate other public land uses, such as contributing to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

14621 species. On the adjacent Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, livestock grazing was reduced over 

14622 time to allow restoration of riparian habitats and is currently only used to achieve specific wildlife 

14623 habitat objectives (USFWS 2000). Grazing on non-Federal lands increases the need to provide for 

14624 wildlife habitats on Federal lands that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

14625 This alternative includes management direction for some key habitats that would better account for 

14626 the cumulative effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.

14627 Summary

14628 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to viability for 

14629 surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This determination is based on: 

14630 1) This alternative includes management direction (including standards) for riparian habitat that 

14631 would reduce the negative effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition. 

14632 2) This alternative would not change the number or grazing intensity, but would alter the 

14633 distribution of livestock to protect some unique habitats. 

14634 3) This alternative would include management direction that could make habitats that are 

14635 sensitive to the effects of climate change more resilient.

14636 Habitat Connectivity

14637 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14638 Direct and Indirect Effects

14639 A number of forest management activities influence habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife 

14640 species. These include: the amount, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement of suitable habitats; location 

14641 and density of motorized travel routes, especially in relation to riparian and LSOF habitats. These are 

14642 addressed in the evaluation of how forest management alternatives would affect habitat connectivity 

14643 for surrogate wildlife species.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

434

14644 This alternative is focused on providing habitat connectivity for LSOF species through a network of 

14645 LSOF emphasis areas that encompass a considerably larger area than any other alternative. The 

14646 LSOF emphasis areas are positioned at distances from each other to allow highly mobile species to 

14647 move among them. Additional provisions for low to moderate mobility LSOF species are provided 

14648 through management direction for riparian management areas. There is limited direction for habitat 

14649 connectivity for species not associated with LSOF habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores, Singleton 

14650 et al. 2002).

14651 In this alternative, management direction for riparian habitats is consolidated into one consistent set 

14652 of plan components that applies to the entire Colville National Forest. Standards and guidelines 

14653 would limit management activities that are allowed to occur within riparian habitats and influence 

14654 habitat connectivity. This alternative includes greater riparian management area widths along 

14655 intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than in the areas previously covered by the INFISH forest plan 

14656 amendment (USFS 1995).

14657 Implementation of this alternative would decrease the negative effects of roads on habitat 

14658 connectivity for surrogate wildlife species within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years 

14659 based on objectives) because roads would be closed to meet other management objectives. In the 

14660 longer term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions), this alternative would result in road 

14661 densities of equal to or less than 1 mile per square mile on 44 percent of the Forest, and equal to or 

14662 less than 2 miles per square mile on 25 percent of the Forest, further reducing road associated effects 

14663 to habitat connectivity.

14664 Implementation of this alternative would also reduce the effects of summer-motorized trails on 

14665 habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife species. Approximately 30 miles of summer-motorized 

14666 trails would be reduced or converted to non-motorized use within two watersheds.

14667 Climate Change

14668 Maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity is the most oft-cited climate adaptation strategy 

14669 for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opham and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

14670 Spies et al. 2010) and has been identified as an important adaptation strategy for wildlife in 

14671 northeastern Washington (Gaines et al. 2012). This is because species’ range shifts have been the 

14672 primary biological response to past episodes of climatic change, yet widespread anthropogenic 

14673 barriers to movement will now challenge species’ ability to respond (Price 2002, Thomas and

14674 Lennon 1999, Wormworth and Mallon 2006). The implementation of this alternative addresses the 

14675 climate change adaptations that are recommended to maintain or restore habitat connectivity, but 

14676 emphasizes LSOF species. Other alternatives (e.g., proposed action and P) maintain or restore habitat 

14677 connectivity for a wider array of wildlife species.

14678 Cumulative Effects

14679 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human developments and transportation infrastructure, 

14680 along with land ownership patterns, create cumulative impacts that limit options to conserve and 

14681 restore regional connectivity. Regional habitat connectivity has been evaluated for a variety of 

14682 wildlife species, including the surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate connectivity in this 

14683 planning area (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010, Proctor et al. 2015). These assessments have 

14684 shown the importance of the Colville National Forest in providing stepping-stone habitats between 

14685 the Cascades and Selkirk Mountains (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Connectivity from 

14686 the Cascades to the Kettle Range to the Selkirk Mountains is interrupted by transportation corridors 

14687 and human developments associated with the Okanogan, Upper Columbia, and Pend Oreille river 

14688 valleys (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Additionally, connectivity planning in southern 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

435

14689 British Columbia identified linkage areas that could greatly enhance wildlife movements between the 

14690 Selkirk Mountains and Purcell Mountains (Apps et al. 2007, Proctor et al. 2015).

14691 This alternative emphasizes reducing the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife habitats, 

14692 contributing to the maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity, and reducing cumulative 

14693 effects. Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of 

14694 roads or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact 

14695 over the life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol 

14696 activities. Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This 

14697 would increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human 

14698 disturbance to become more important to wildlife.

14699 Summary

14700 Implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to providing habitat 

14701 connectivity that is important for the viability of surrogate wildlife species. This conclusion is based 

14702 on the following: 

14703 1) An extended network (compared to the existing network) of LSOF habitat areas would 

14704 provide additional habitat connectivity for LSOF species but limited management direction 

14705 for wildlife species not associated with LSOF habitats, 

14706 2) The negative effects of roads on habitat connectivity, including riparian and LSOF habitat 

14707 would be considerably reduced. 

14708 Snag Habitat

14709 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14710 Direct and Indirect Effects

14711 Forest activities that directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

14712 species include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), the loss of snag habitat 

14713 along roads and at recreation sites from hazard tree removal (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 

14714 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety reasons (Wisdom 

14715 et al. 2008). The implementation of this alternative includes management direction for snag habitat to 

14716 address the potential loss of habitat in timber sale operations, would not allow firewood cutting in 

14717 reserves (reserves in this alternative include considerably more land area than any other alternative), 

14718 and would not allow removal of snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h.. 

14719 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the loss of snag habitat due to hazard tree removal 

14720 along roads in 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives). In the longer 

14721 term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of 

14722 equal to or less than 1 mile per square mile on 44 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 

14723 2 miles per square mile on 25 percent of the Forest. 

14724 Overall, this alternative would provide greater habitat for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife species 

14725 than any other alternative, and would improve the viability outcomes for snag-dependent surrogate 

14726 wildlife species.

14727 Climate Change

14728 Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, white14729 headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker, which are rated as medium 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

436

14730 sensitivity to climate change, and the western bluebird as high sensitivity (CCSD 2013). The primary 

14731 effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered disturbance regimes. 

14732 The emphasis of this alternative is on short-term habitat protection within an extended reserve 

14733 system and relatively intensive timber management within the matrix, outside of the reserves. 

14734 Because this alternative does not focus on landscape-scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances 

14735 regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be 

14736 lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated with climate change and loss of 

14737 snag habitat in the matrix from relatively intense timber harvest. The increase in fire associated with 

14738 climate change could create a short-term gain in snag habitat followed by a long-term (80 to 100

14739 years, Harrod et al. 1998) reduction as snags attrition occurs.

14740 Cumulative Effects

14741 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

14742 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

14743 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

14744 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and more rigorous 

14745 snag requirements to contribute to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife (USFWS 2000, USFS 

14746 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan and 

14747 current plan provides limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitats 

14748 and current required snag densities make limited contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

14749 species. The limited management direction for snag habitat on non-Federal lands adjacent to the 

14750 planning area, places additional emphasis on providing for viability populations of snag-dependent 

14751 wildlife species on Federal lands. Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in 

14752 particular where they are near residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife 

14753 habitat that has been affected by fire exclusion, but treatments can lead to the loss of snag habitat for 

14754 safety reasons. 

14755 Summary

14756 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of snag14757 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on: 

14758 1) This alternative would focus on providing protections for snag habitat. 

14759 2) This alternative would make substantial reductions in the negative effects of roads on snag 

14760 habitat. 

14761 3) This alternative provides management direction to protect snag habitat during vegetation 

14762 management activities and snags from being cut for firewood outside designated areas.

14763 Riparian Habitats

14764 Surrogate Wildlife Species

14765 Direct and Indirect Effects

14766 Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian-dependent 

14767 surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, grazing, and vegetation treatments 

14768 that occur within riparian habitats.

14769 In this alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is consolidated into 

14770 one consistent set of plan components that applies to the entire Colville National Forest. Standards 

14771 and guidelines would limit management activities that are allowed to occur within riparian habitats. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

437

14772 This alternative includes greater riparian management area widths along intermittent streams, lakes, 

14773 and ponds than in the areas previously covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).

14774 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the effects of roads on riparian habitat within 

14775 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives). In the longer term (less than 

14776 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of equal to or less 

14777 than 1 mile per square mile on 44 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 2 miles per square 

14778 mile on 25 percent of the Forest. 

14779 Overall, this alternative would provide greater habitat protection for riparian-dependent surrogate 

14780 wildlife species than the no-action, proposed action, O and B alternatives, and similar to alternative 

14781 P. The viability outcomes for riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species would be improved.

14782 Climate Change

14783 Some of the riparian-associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

14784 (CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

14785 change (Lawler et al. 2014). The primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of 

14786 habitat and reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic and disturbance (fire) 

14787 regimes (Lawler et al. 2014). 

14788 The emphasis of this alternative is on short-term habitat protection within a reserve system and 

14789 relatively intensive timber management within the matrix, outside of the reserves. Because this 

14790 alternative does not focus on landscape-scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances regimes 

14791 would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost 

14792 at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated with climate change and loss of 

14793 habitat in the matrix from relatively intense timber harvest. 

14794 Cumulative Effects

14795 Adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, the 

14796 Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

14797 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

14798 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

14799 restore riparian habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

14800 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

14801 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat protections in the original Forest 

14802 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended (PACFISH, INFISH-USFS 1995, ACS-USFS 

14803 1994).

14804 On private lands, Washington State Forestry Practices Act provides some limited protections for 

14805 riparian habitats. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to 

14806 enhance coordination across landowners and may enhance conditions for riparian associated wildlife 

14807 species. However, habitat protections for riparian habitats on Federal lands would help to mitigate 

14808 for the limited protections and cumulative effects that occur on private lands.

14809 Summary

14810 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of 

14811 riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

14812 1) This alternative would make substantial reductions in the negative effects that roads have on 

14813 riparian habitats. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

438

14814 2) This alternative would consolidate and make more consistent management direction for 

14815 riparian habitats using Standards and providing larger management zones that existing 

14816 direction. 

14817 Species of Management Interest

14818 Deer and Elk

14819 Direct and Indirect Effects

14820 Forest management activities can influence deer and elk populations and habitat use. Vegetation 

14821 management activities may affect the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Adequate 

14822 forage is particularly important during the summer and fall before the following birthing season 

14823 when this can have a positive effect on the condition pregnant females (Lenz 1997, Cook 1998, Cook 

14824 2002, Cook et al. 2004, Cook et al. 2005). The management of forest roads and trails can influence 

14825 how deer and elk use habitats, and influence the interactions between deer and elk (Rowland et al. 

14826 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a, and b). Additionally, deer and elk can compete with domestic livestock 

14827 for both food resources (Findholt et al. 2005) and space (Coe et al. 2001, Coe et al. 2005). Thus, the 

14828 potential effects that vegetation management, road and trail management, and grazing management 

14829 can have on deer and elk habitats and population are evaluated for each of the alternatives.

14830 Under alternative R, cover and forage for deer and elk on winter ranges emphasizes the retention of 

14831 winter thermal cover. Considerable research has shown that the management of deer and elk winter 

14832 habitat should be less focused on the retention of thermal cover, and more focused on the availability 

14833 of forage on summer and fall habitats (see Cook et al. 2005 for a review). This alternative would not 

14834 incorporate the current science about the role of winter thermal cover in providing for deer and elk 

14835 populations.

14836 Much of the summer range for deer and elk under this alternative is managed either within a 

14837 wilderness reserve or within a LSOF habitat reserve network. This limits the opportunities to restore 

14838 forage conditions that contribute to elk productivity.

14839 This alternative would improve habitat effectiveness for deer and elk on summer and winter ranges. 

14840 The Selkirk Elk Herd has a moderate level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human influence) on 

14841 their winter ranges. Under this alternative, habitat effectiveness would be improved to high (a low 

14842 level of human influence). Overall, habitat effectiveness would be restored on approximately 48,000 

14843 acres of habitat on elk range under this alternative. The desired conditions for elk winter ranges 

14844 would be to have a low level of human influence (less than 30 percent of the winter range in the zone 

14845 of influence of an open road, motorized route, or designated ski trail).

14846 For deer, this alternative would result in a high level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human 

14847 influence) on 81 percent of the deer winter ranges, a moderate level of habitat effectiveness on 

14848 13 percent, and a low level of habitat effectiveness on 6 percent. The desired conditions for deer 

14849 winter ranges would be to have a low level of human influence (less than 30 percent of the winter 

14850 range in the zone of influence of an open road, motorized route, or designated ski trail).

14851 Current management direction for winter ranges is based on road density standards and would be 

14852 changed to use of the zone of influence (Rowland et al. 2005). This alternative includes more robust 

14853 range management direction to aid in the recovery of range conditions that are poor and slow to 

14854 recover from past grazing practices.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

439

14855 Climate Change

14856 Deer and elk have a low level of sensitivity to the effects of climate change due to their ability to 

14857 tolerate a relatively wide range of climatic conditions, their high mobility, and as habitat generalists 

14858 (CCSD 2013). However, alternatives that restore landscape pattern and functions while reducing the 

14859 effects of roads on deer and elk summer and winter habitats would provide more resilience deer and 

14860 elk populations. This alternative provides consistent management direction for roads that would 

14861 make considerable contributions to restore habitat effectiveness for deer and elk. However, this 

14862 alternative does not emphasize landscape-scale forest restoration, considered an important climate 

14863 change adaptation to restore landscape resiliency to disturbances and create more sustainable habitat 

14864 conditions (Lawler et al. 2014).

14865 Cumulative Effects

14866 The historical cattle and sheep grazing that occurred on portions of the Forest severely degraded 

14867 range conditions (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). These conditions, combined with current 

14868 domestic (cattle) and wild ungulate grazing (primarily elk and deer), have resulted maintenance or 

14869 slow recovery of poor range conditions in some areas (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). In 

14870 turn, these poor range conditions have had negative effects on some important unique habitats such 

14871 as riparian areas and meadows. This alternative would result in more rigorous grazing management 

14872 direction that would help to address this situation.

14873 Winter ranges for the deer and elk occur on Federal lands, adjacent Wildlife Management Areas 

14874 managed by the State, and private lands. Elk herd management plans (WDFW 2001) provide 

14875 guidance for elk management on state lands and make recommendations for elk management on 

14876 Forestland. Management plans for deer include the White-tailed Deer Management Plan that covers 

14877 the two management units on the Colville National Forest and provides direction to manage hunting 

14878 to either maintain or increase white-tailed deer populations (WDFW 2010). A considerable amount 

14879 of historical winter range for deer and elk is now in private land ownership or under the waters of 

14880 Lake Roosevelt (created by the Grand Coulee dam). The cumulative effects of the existing 

14881 management plans (state and Federal lands) would provide for the conditions that contribute to 

14882 sustainable populations of deer and elk, while considering the effects of private land development.

14883 Summary

14884 The implementation of alternative R will make a moderate contribution to the conditions that support 

14885 sustainable populations of deer and elk. This is based on the following: 

14886 1) This alternative would not address new science that recommends de-emphasizing the 

14887 importance of winter thermal cover and increasing the emphasis on summer and fall forage 

14888 quality and quantity. It would also limit management activities that increase forage 

14889 productivity.

14890 2) This alternative does provide consistent and effective direction on the management of roads 

14891 and trails to restore habitat effectiveness on deer and elk summer and winter ranges. 

14892 3) This alternative would include more rigorous management direction to improve the 

14893 conditions of key habitats, such as riparian areas and meadows that are in poor condition due 

14894 to the cumulative effects of past grazing practices, and current domestic and wild ungulate 

14895 grazing.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

440

14896 Alternative P

14897 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

14898 Grizzly Bear

14899 Direct and Indirect Effects

14900 Forest activities that influence the recovery of the grizzly bear include: human access that can 

14901 displace bears from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of bear-human interactions, 

14902 disposal of livestock carcasses within range allotments to avoid attracting bears to a potential food 

14903 source, and the storage of food and garbage at recreation sites to reduce the potential for bears to 

14904 associate humans with food sources. 

14905 Management of grizzly bears does not vary between alternatives. Existing management direction 

14906 provides standards for human access, disposal of livestock carcasses, and food and garbage storage 

14907 within the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (IGBC 1998, USDA 1988, USFWS 1993, USDI 

14908 2001). Existing standards have largely been met and would continue to be followed.

14909 Climate Change

14910 Grizzly bears have been identified as having a low sensitivity to climate change because they are 

14911 opportunistic, eat a diverse array of food resources, and are highly adaptable (Servheen and Cross 

14912 2010, CCSD 2013). Anticipated impacts may include changes in the timing of denning due to longer 

14913 snow-free periods and reduced snowpack (Lawler et al. 2014) and changes in the availability of food 

14914 sources (Servheen and Cross 2010). These changes may put bears at risk of negative human

14915 interactions for a longer period of time each year (Servheen and Cross 2010). This would make 

14916 education, proper food and garbage storage, carcass disposal measures, and human access 

14917 management that much more important.

14918 Cumulative Effects

14919 The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in the recovery zone is past persecution 

14920 and human-caused mortality of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

14921 Information/education programs, sanitation measures, and access management have and would 

14922 continue to be used to aid in the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Area.

14923 Past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions that could affect grizzly bears include timber 

14924 harvest and associated road construction, recreational activities that can cause disturbance to bear 

14925 and create potential for human-bear conflicts, and human development that fragment grizzly bear 

14926 habitat. Cumulative effects are evaluated across the Recovery Area by tracking activities within 

14927 grizzly bear management units (GBMUs). Other land managers have adopted and are following 

14928 similar management direction (IPNF 2015) and overall recovery is coordinated by the Selkirk 

14929 Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee. GBMUs that occur on the Colville National Forest include 

14930 the LeClerc, Salmo-Priest, and Sullivan-Hughes. The contribution made on Federal lands to grizzly 

14931 bear recovery would help to mitigate potential cumulative effects from off-forest activities. However, 

14932 because this alternative does not address reducing the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats 

14933 like in the proposed action and alternatives R and P, it does less to mitigate cumulative effects.

14934 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

14935 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

14936 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

441

14937 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

14938 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat affected by fire 

14939 exclusion.

14940 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

14941 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance (e.g., 

14942 core areas) to become more important to wildlife such as grizzly bears.

14943 Black bear hunting on both sides of the international border within the Selkirk Recovery Area has the 

14944 potential to add cumulatively to the mortality of grizzly bears. Hunters that encounter grizzly bears 

14945 may mistakenly identify the bear, kill the bear in self-defense, or opportunistically poach the bear. 

14946 Human access management within the recovery area is key to reducing the risk of mortality to 

14947 grizzly bears from black bear hunting.

14948 On private lands, the presence of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or other attractants may lure bears 

14949 into conflict situations. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may lead to the bear being killed. 

14950 Summary

14951 This alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of grizzly bears in the 

14952 Selkirk Recovery Area and would result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

14953 determination. This is based on the existing management direction, followed in all alternatives, that 

14954 addresses:

14955 1) Human access management,

14956 2) Disposal of carcasses in range allotments that occur in the recovery area, and 

14957 3) Proper storage of food, garbage and other attractants that may lead to human-bear 

14958 interactions. 

14959 Canada Lynx

14960 Direct and Indirect Effects

14961 The forest management activities that influence the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx 

14962 include: vegetation management that affect lynx habitat components, winter recreation that 

14963 influences habitat connectivity and lynx habitat use, forest roads that can become sources of lynx 

14964 mortality at high traffic volumes and speeds, and grazing effects to riparian areas that provide habitat 

14965 for snowshoe hares, a primary food resource for lynx (ILBT 2013). The Interagency Lynx Biology 

14966 Team (ILBT 2013) developed conservation measures for core and secondary areas (USFWS 2005) to 

14967 address each of these forest management activities, and for planners to consult when revising forest 

14968 plans. These were used to evaluate the potential contribution of forest management alternatives to the 

14969 recovery of Canada lynx.

14970 Vegetation management activities (e.g., timber harvest, prescribed fire) affect the distribution of lynx 

14971 habitat components, can fragment habitats, and create sources of disturbance (ILBT 2013). As a 

14972 result, the ILBT (2013) identified risk factors associated with vegetation management and developed 

14973 conservation measures to address the risk factors. The conservation measures for vegetation 

14974 management apply to lynx core areas and include using the historic range of variability to mimic the 

14975 pattern and scale of natural disturbances and connectivity across the landscape, while considering the 

14976 future range climate change (ILBT 2013). A conservation measure focused on the restoration of 

14977 disturbance regimes in dry forests that occur in close proximity to lynx habitat to reduce the risk of 

14978 uncharacteristically severe and frequent fires reaching lynx habitat. Finally, conservation measures 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

442

14979 were recommended that limit the amount of vegetation management and the rate of habitat change 

14980 (e.g., acres treated/decade) within lynx analysis units. The implementation of this alternative includes 

14981 management direction to manage habitat for Canada lynx toward desired conditions that are based on 

14982 the historic range of variability (HRV). This means that habitats would be managed so that the 

14983 amount of habitat, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement would mimic conditions under which Canada 

14984 lynx evolved (Agee 2000).

14985 Winter recreation can influence how lynx use habitats (ILBT 2013). To minimize the potential of 

14986 negative effects from winter recreation, the ILBT (2013) developed conservation measures to reduce 

14987 effects. Conservation measures for winter recreation in lynx core areas included reducing effects on 

14988 habitat connectivity and discouraging expansion of over-the-snow routes that may influence lynx 

14989 habitat use (ILBT 2013). There is management direction in this alternative that limits over-the-snow 

14990 winter recreational activities in lynx habitat.

14991 The conservation measures for forest roads in lynx core areas include avoiding road reconstruction 

14992 or upgrades that occur in lynx habitat and would result in increased traffic speeds or volumes (ILBT 

14993 2013). These measures would reduce the potential for vehicular traffic to result in a source of 

14994 mortality to lynx. This alternative includes management direction to limit road reconstruction and 

14995 upgrades in lynx habitat that would increase traffic volume or speed.

14996 The conservation measures for grazing in lynx core areas include management of riparian areas to 

14997 assure adequate habitat for snowshoe hares, the primary prey species for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013). 

14998 This alternative includes management direction for grazing in riparian management areas specific to 

14999 providing habitat for snowshoe hares.

15000 Alternative P would provide management direction to address the direct and indirect effects of forest 

15001 management activities on the recovery of Canada lynx. Alternative P would provide more protections 

15002 for Canada lynx than any of the other alternatives, and would make a substantial contribution to the 

15003 recovery of Canada lynx.

15004 Climate Change

15005 The potential effects of climate change on Canada lynx identified by the Interagency Lynx Biology 

15006 Team (2013) included: (1) an upward shift in elevation or latitudinal distribution of lynx and prey, 

15007 (2) a decrease in the amount of habitat and population size from reduced snow persistence and 

15008 increased disturbance events (e.g., fires), (3) changes in demographic rates, such as survival and 

15009 reproduction, and (4) changes in predator-prey relationships.

15010 Climate change adaptations to address these effects include restoration of landscape-scale 

15011 disturbance regimes to better mimic natural patterns and processes (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 

15012 2012), and maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity to allow Canada lynx to adjust their ranges 

15013 to changing conditions (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, ILBT 2013, Squires et al. 2013). There is 

15014 management direction in this alternative to implement these climate change adaptations through the 

15015 emphasis on dynamic-landscape restoration, and the restoration of conditions that would enhance 

15016 connectivity of habitats (see Habitat Connectivity sections).

15017 Cumulative Effects

15018 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect lynx habitat include timber harvest and 

15019 fuels reduction, recreation, human development, and grazing on private and public lands. In addition, 

15020 legal trapping of lynx, timber harvest, oil and gas development, mining and human access in British 

15021 Columbia have and would continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

443

15022 Past vegetation management and large-scale fires on the Forest within lynx habitat has resulted in a 

15023 distribution and amount of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. This 

15024 alternative would result in vegetation management activities that would restore lynx habitats toward 

15025 the HRV, providing conditions more similar to those under which lynx evolved. 

15026 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15027 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15028 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15029 Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on off-forest lands potentially impacting 

15030 deciduous or riparian habitats for lynx prey species.

15031 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15032 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat affected by fire 

15033 exclusion.

15034 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15035 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

15036 become more important to wildlife.

15037 All Federal lands within Canada lynx core and secondary areas would use the Lynx Conservation 

15038 Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (ILBT 2013) as current science to guide project-level consultation 

15039 and land management planning. The North Cascades National Park Complex recently revised their 

15040 management plan to include the LCAS (NPS 2012). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest land 

15041 management plan was recently revised to address the conservation measures identified in the LCAS 

15042 (USFS 2015). The conservation of lynx on WDNR lands is guided by the Department of Natural 

15043 Resources Lynx Habitat Management Plan (WDNR 1996, updated in 2002). The management plan 

15044 for the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge provides conservation measures to contribute to the 

15045 recovery and viability of Canada lynx (USFWS 2000). Collectively, these management plans have 

15046 addressed many of the conservation measures identified for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013) and would 

15047 help mitigate potential cumulative effects that may occur from off-forest activities. In addition, no 

15048 critical habitat was identified on the Colville National Forest or on adjacent lands (USFWS 2009).

15049 In Canada, timber harvesting, oil and gas development, coal mining, and the proliferation of human 

15050 access associated with these industries, have and would continue to affect lynx habitat. Legal 

15051 trapping occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could reduce the potential for lynx to disperse into 

15052 the lynx habitat on the Forest. Trapping is not legal in Idaho, Montana, or Washington.

15053 Summary

15054 Alternative P would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of the Canada lynx in both 

15055 the short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) term, and result in a May Effect, Not 

15056 Likely to Adversely Affect determination. This is because of the following: 

15057 1) This alternative incorporates the best available science and conservation measures identified 

15058 in the recent version of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 2013), and 

15059 the USFWS Recovery Outline (USFWS 2005); 

15060 2) This alternative would implement recommended climate change adaptations by focusing on 

15061 the restoration of forest disturbance regimes and resiliency, and reducing the impacts of 

15062 roads on habitat connectivity; and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

444

15063 3) This alternative addresses previous findings that existing management plans provided 

15064 inadequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent the listing of lynx as a federally threatened 

15065 species (USFWS 2003).

15066 Late-successional and Old Forest Habitats (Federally Listed Species)

15067 Woodland Caribou

15068 Direct and Indirect Effects

15069 The forest management activities that can influence the recovery and viability of woodland caribou 

15070 include: (1) Vegetation management and natural disturbances affect the amount and connectivity of 

15071 old growth forests of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western redcedar/western hemlock. 

15072 (2) Human access that can increase the potential for poaching and cause disturbance to caribou 

15073 during the critical winter period. These effects were used to evaluate the potential contribution of 

15074 each alternative to the recovery of woodland caribou.

15075 This alternative would implement new science, recommendations from the Biological Opinion 

15076 issued in 2001 (USFWS 2001) on the 1988 forest plan (USFS 1988), and address the critical habitat 

15077 designation (USFWS 2012). Vegetation management would be focused on restoring late15078 successional and old forest habitats based the historic range of variability. The desired conditions 

15079 would be for the amount, spatial arrangement, and connectivity of caribou habitat to mimic natural 

15080 patterns and processes.

15081 A term and condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion was that the Forest develop a winter recreation 

15082 strategy that protects important winter habitats for caribou while providing some level of winter 

15083 recreation access. This strategy was developed (USFS 2003) and is fully integrated into this 

15084 alternative. This strategy includes information and education about the effects of winter recreation on 

15085 wildlife, monitoring and enforcement of areas closed to over-the-snow activities, and limitations on 

15086 permitted over-the-snow activities. Collectively, these actions have reduced the impacts of winter 

15087 recreation to caribou habitat while providing recreation opportunities in areas and at the time of the 

15088 winter season when effects to caribou are minimal. In addition to winter recreation, this alternative 

15089 emphasizes substantially reducing the negative effects of forest roads on wildlife habitat.

15090 Climate Change

15091 Climate change would likely alter the distribution and abundance of suitable caribou habitat, and 

15092 would also change snow depths and persistence, which affect seasonal movements of mountain 

15093 caribou (WDFW 2012). The potential effects of climate change depend on the interaction, not only 

15094 of seasonal temperatures and snowfall patterns, but also occurrence of wildfires, outbreaks of forest 

15095 insects, and diseases (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005). Management adaptations to address 

15096 the effects of climate change include a focus on forest restoration and reducing non-climatic factors 

15097 that affect wildlife populations (e.g., restoring habitat effectiveness). This alternative would 

15098 implement these adaptations.

15099 Cumulative Effects

15100 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and includes the Colville National Forest, 

15101 Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. About 47 

15102 percent of the recovery area is in the United States and 53 percent in British Columbia. The Idaho 

15103 Panhandle National Forest recently revised the forest plan to address habitat and risk factors 

15104 identified in the caribou recovery plan and critical habitat (USFS 2015). The caribou recovery team 

15105 works cooperatively to address cumulative effects on woodland caribou.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

445

15106 Past activities on the Forest have impacted caribou habitat. Over-the-snow motorized use, prior to 

15107 the implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy (USFS 2003), may have caused disturbance to 

15108 caribou. The alternative would continue with implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy, 

15109 limiting the cumulative effects on caribou. 

15110 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

15111 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

15112 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

15113 alternative would manage habitats toward HRV resulting in a distribution and amount of 

15114 successional stages that better mimic conditions under which caribou evolved, and better mitigate for 

15115 the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

15116 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15117 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15118 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15119 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15120 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

15121 by fire exclusion.

15122 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15123 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

15124 become more important to wildlife such as caribou.

15125 Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters may 

15126 result in caribou mortality as a result of mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

15127 Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken it is difficult to evaluate 

15128 the influence of this on the caribou population. Fatal collisions with vehicles occur on open roads in 

15129 caribou habitat and are likely to continue. Predation by mountain lions, wolves and other predators 

15130 would continue, with the effect on the caribou population dependent on big game populations, 

15131 predator populations, and a variety of other factors. 

15132 One important factor is how the Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In the British 

15133 Columbia portion of the recovery area, human activities that would continue to impact caribou 

15134 habitat include gas, powerline, and international border corridors, recreation activities, timber 

15135 harvest, and highways.

15136 Summary

15137 Implementation of this alternative would have a May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect 

15138 determination for woodland caribou. It would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of 

15139 woodland caribou. The reasons for this determination are: 

15140 1) This alternative would address new science and risk factors identified in the recovery plan 

15141 and critical habitat. 

15142 2) This alternative would formally adopt the winter recreation strategy for caribou habitat that 

15143 was a Term and Condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion. 

15144 3) This alternative emphasizes the protection and restoration of caribou habitat, better 

15145 addressing expected climate change effects and enhancing resiliency.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

446

15146 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15147 Direct and Indirect Effects

15148 Forest activities that directly influence the viability of late-successional and old forest (LSOF) 

15149 dependent surrogate species include: the loss of LSOF habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008, Davis et 

15150 al. 2011), vegetation treatments (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest 

15151 structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, downed wood)(Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. 2008, Davis et 

15152 al. 2011), management of roads that influence habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and 

15153 protection of riparian areas which are an important element of LSOF habitats for some species.

15154 The dynamic landscape restoration approach emphasized in this alternative would result in 

15155 landscapes, including disturbance regimes, that are more resilient to climate change through the 

15156 application of strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies 

15157 et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and Johnson 2012). By strategically locating restoration 

15158 treatments, landscape-scale fire behavior may be altered to be more similar to native disturbance 

15159 regimes and the risk of loss of LSOF habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires may be reduced 

15160 (Finney 2001, Finney et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). Landscape restoration 

15161 through the implementation of this alternative would include a network of dense, multi-layered 

15162 habitat patches tailored to specific conditions and surrogate species (Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and 

15163 Johnson 2012). The amount, patch size, and spatial arrangement of dense, multi-layered habitat 

15164 would be managed within or toward the historic range of variation for each landscape (e.g., 

15165 watershed) (Hessburg et al. 2013). In addition, implementation of this alternative would include 

15166 greater use of managed fire to achieve desired conditions for restoration and resiliency (Noss et al. 

15167 2006, Franklin and Johnson 2012).

15168 For some LSOF surrogate species, such as the white-headed woodpecker, conservation assessments 

15169 have recommended the use of stand-level treatments to restore habitat because current habitat levels 

15170 are well below historic levels (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines et al. 2015). The effects of 

15171 restoration treatments on birds has been studied and shown that treatments that retain large trees and 

15172 promote spatial variability can have positive effects on surrogate bird species, including the white15173 headed woodpecker (Gaines et al. 2007, Gaines et al. 2010b). The implementation of this alternative 

15174 would result in approximately 5,000 acres per year of restorative treatments within dry and mesic 

15175 forests, creating favorable conditions for white-headed woodpeckers.

15176 Implementation of this alternative includes plan components for several key elements of LSOF 

15177 habitat. For instance, desired conditions for snag habitat address the potential loss of snags in 

15178 vegetation management treatments. This alternative would also require that firewood cutting occur in 

15179 designated areas only, and not allow removal of snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. outside of 

15180 designated areas. In addition, this alternative provides for the retention and restoration of late15181 successional forest structure, which is currently lacking in most forested landscapes (Hessburg et al.

15182 1999).

15183 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the negative effects of roads on LSOF habitats 

15184 within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on Objectives) because roads would 

15185 be closed (to meet other management objectives). In the longer term (less than 50 years based on 

15186 desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of equal to or less than 1 mile per 

15187 square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 2 miles per square mile on 48 

15188 percent of the Forest, considerably reducing the negative effects of roads on LSOF habitats. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

447

15189 Overall, this alternative would provide greater protection for LSOF habitats than the no-action, 

15190 proposed action, B, O, and R alternatives. This alternative would improve the viability outcomes for 

15191 surrogate species that are dependent on LSOF habitats in both the short (less than 20 years) and long 

15192 (less than 50 years) time periods as desired conditions are achieved.

15193 Climate Change

15194 The sensitivity of LSOF associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change were 

15195 identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American marten 

15196 (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is the loss of LSOF habitats due to altered 

15197 disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013, Lawler et al. 2014). 

15198 Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

15199 increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel moisture driven by 

15200 increased temperature and lower snowpack. Increases in fire risk and severity have been also been 

15201 driven, in part, by increased fuel loads because of fire suppression practices used over the last 

15202 century (McKenzie et al. 2004). Predicted increases in spring and summer temperature identified in 

15203 many climate change models would exacerbate the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as 

15204 fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton and Flannigan 1993) and defoliation caused by forest insects 

15205 (Littell et al. 2009). In the interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned 

15206 is likely to double or even triple by 2050. Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the 

15207 dominant driver of changes to forests and LSOF habitats in the western United States over the next 

15208 century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

15209 The dynamic landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this alternative represents the 

15210 implementation of an adaptive strategy to create landscapes more resilient to climate change (Spies 

15211 et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 2012) and to maintain LSOF habitats (Lawler et al. 2014). The emphasis on 

15212 restoration of resiliency would result in landscapes, including disturbance regimes that are more 

15213 resilient to climate change through the application of strategically located restoration treatments in 

15214 priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and Johnson 

15215 2012). By strategically locating restoration treatments, landscape-scale fire behavior can be altered to 

15216 be more similar to native disturbance regimes and the risk of loss of LSOF habitat to 

15217 uncharacteristically severe fires can be reduced (Finney 2001, Finney et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, 

15218 Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). In addition, implementation of this alternative would include greater use of 

15219 managed fire to achieve desired conditions for restoration and resiliency (Noss et al. 2006, Franklin 

15220 and Johnson 2012).

15221 Cumulative Effects

15222 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

15223 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

15224 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

15225 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

15226 restore LSOF habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

15227 the process of revising their Forest Plan and the current plan provides limited management direction 

15228 to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and LSOF habitat protections in the original Forest 

15229 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended by the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995).

15230 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

15231 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

15232 landscape is in mid-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

15233 alternative would manage habitats toward HRV resulting in a distribution and amount of 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

448

15234 successional stages that better mimic conditions under which caribou evolved, and better mitigate for 

15235 the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

15236 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15237 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15238 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15239 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15240 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

15241 by fire exclusion.

15242 Summary

15243 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of LSOF 

15244 dependent surrogate wildlife species. The high contribution would be due to the following 

15245 components of this alternative: 

15246 1) Emphasis on landscape restoration to enhance landscape resiliency, 

15247 2) The conservation of LSOF habitat across whole landscape (not just in reserves), 

15248 3) The protection and restoration of key elements of LSOF habitat such as late-successional 

15249 structure and riparian areas, and 

15250 4) The emphasis on restoring habitat effectiveness by substantially reducing the negative 

15251 effects of roads on LSOF habitats.

15252 Motorized Recreation and Road Access

15253 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15254 Direct and Indirect Effects

15255 Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

15256 These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during critical time 

15257 periods, and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and 

15258 Gaines et al. 2003 for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence wildlife). The 

15259 effects of motorized recreation and roads can occur during the non-winter period or during the winter 

15260 period when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

15261 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the negative effects of roads on surrogate species 

15262 habitats in 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives). In the longer 

15263 term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of 

15264 equal to or less than 1 mile per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 

15265 2 miles per square mile on 48 percent of the Forest. The remainder of the Forest would remain 

15266 unroaded. Habitat effectiveness (as affected by roads) for surrogate wildlife species would be 

15267 improved from a current low to moderate level of habitat effectiveness in 26 watersheds to a 

15268 moderate level of habitat effectiveness in 17 watersheds and a high level of habitat effectiveness in 9

15269 watersheds as desired conditions for road access are achieved.

15270 Overall, this alternative would provide greater habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species 

15271 than the no-action, proposed action, B and O alternatives, and somewhat less than alternative R. This 

15272 alternative would improve the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species whose habitats are 

15273 influenced by roads and motorized trails.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

449

15274 Climate Change

15275 The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species used to assess the effects of roads and motorized 

15276 recreation is rated as high for Canada lynx and wolverine (CCSD 2013). An important climate 

15277 change adaptation that has been recommended for wildlife is to reduce the negative effects of non15278 climate related stressors such as the effects of roads (and trails) on habitat (Gaines et al. 2012, 

15279 Lawler et al. 2014). By reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats (especially riparian and 

15280 wetland habitats) can become more resilient to the effects of climate change, and habitat connectivity 

15281 can be restored allowing wildlife to adjust their ranges as conditions change. The implementation of 

15282 this alternative includes management direction to make substantial improvement to habitat 

15283 effectiveness for surrogate wildlife by reducing road impacts and densities.

15284 Cumulative Effects

15285 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

15286 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

15287 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

15288 management plans that reduce the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats and restore habitat

15289 effectiveness (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the 

15290 process of revising their Forest Plan and the current plan provides limited management direction to 

15291 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, mostly focused on big-game species. 

15292 The limited management direction in current Forest Plans to reduce the negative effects of roads on 

15293 wildlife and continued development of private lands (located mostly in north-south valley bottoms 

15294 that bisect the Forest) means that management of roads and motorized trails on Federal lands is even 

15295 more important to the viability of surrogate wildlife species.

15296 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15297 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15298 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15299 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15300 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

15301 become more important to wildlife. 

15302 Summary

15303 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of 

15304 surrogate wildlife species whose habitats are influenced by motorized access. This would occur 

15305 because: 

15306 1) This alternative includes management direction to substantially reduce the impact of roads 

15307 on habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species, and 

15308 2) This alternative does not alter the current impacts that summer and winter motorized trails 

15309 have on habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species.

15310 Livestock Grazing

15311 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15312 Direct and Indirect Effects

15313 Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements (e.g., 

15314 dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats; alter 

15315 disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (e.g., frequent fires in dry forests and grasslands 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

450

15316 keep open canopy for western bluebird); and influence the availability of important prey items (e.g., 

15317 squirrels for golden eagles). To address the potential effects on surrogate wildlife species, the 

15318 management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland habitats for each alternative 

15319 was assessed.

15320 This alternative would include standards as management direction for riparian habitats. Presently, 

15321 many riparian habitats are in poor condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan 

15322 direction for this alternative would make a considerable improvement to the grazing impacts of 

15323 livestock and allow riparian habitats to recover.

15324 This alternative includes ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats (e.g., 

15325 rangeland and alpine habitats) and standards to protect unique habitats. This alternative would not 

15326 alter the number of livestock, the intensity of grazing, or the amount of area grazed. Presently, 73 

15327 percent of the Forest is in a livestock allotment and animal unit months (AUMs) average about 

15328 25,000 per year. However, management direction would result in adjustments to the distribution of 

15329 cattle and the intensity of grazing within specific habitats, such as unique habitats. This alternative 

15330 has a high potential to improve the viability outcomes for surrogate species that are influenced by 

15331 grazing.

15332 Climate Change

15333 Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

15334 (including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make these 

15335 habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors (e.g., roads, 

15336 intense grazing, etc.) (Lawler et al. 2014). This alternative includes management direction that would 

15337 help to restore the resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change.

15338 Cumulative Effects

15339 Grazing occurs on nearby private, state, tribal, and Federal lands. Where grazing is allowed on the 

15340 adjacent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest, it is managed 

15341 to accommodate other public land uses, such as contributing to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

15342 species. On the adjacent Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, livestock grazing was reduced over 

15343 time to allow restoration of riparian habitats and is currently only used to achieve specific wildlife 

15344 habitat objectives (USFWS 2000). Grazing on non-Federal lands increases the need to provide for 

15345 wildlife habitats on Federal lands that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. This 

15346 alternative includes management direction for some key habitats that would better account for the 

15347 cumulative effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.

15348 Summary

15349 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to viability for 

15350 surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This determination is based on: 

15351 1) This alternative includes management direction (including standards) for riparian habitat that 

15352 would reduce the negative effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition. 

15353 2) This alternative would not change the number or grazing intensity, but would alter the 

15354 distribution of livestock to protect some unique habitats. 

15355 3) This alternative would include management direction that could make habitats that are 

15356 sensitive to the effects of climate change more resilient.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

451

15357 Habitat Connectivity

15358 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15359 Direct and Indirect Effects

15360 There are a number of forest management activities that influence habitat connectivity for surrogate 

15361 wildlife species. These include: the amount, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement of suitable habitats; 

15362 location and density of motorized travel routes, especially in relation to riparian and LSOF habitats. 

15363 These are addressed in the evaluation of how forest management alternatives would affect habitat 

15364 connectivity for surrogate wildlife species.

15365 The implementation of this alternative includes management direction to manage wildlife habitats 

15366 for surrogate wildlife species toward desired conditions that are based on the historic range of 

15367 variability. This means that habitats for a wide-range of species would be managed so that the 

15368 amount of habitat, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement would mimic conditions under which those 

15369 species evolved (Hessburg et al. 1999, Hessburg et al. 2013).

15370 In this alternative, management direction for riparian habitats is consolidated into one consistent set 

15371 of plan components that applies to the entire Colville National Forest, and would be consistent with 

15372 other national forests in Region 6. Standards and guidelines would limit management activities that 

15373 are allowed to occur within riparian habitats and influence habitat connectivity. This alternative 

15374 includes greater riparian management area widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than 

15375 in the areas previously covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).

15376 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the negative effects of roads on habitat connectivity 

15377 for surrogate wildlife species within 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on 

15378 objectives) because roads would be closed (to meet other management objectives). In the longer term 

15379 (less than 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of 

15380 equal to or less than 1 mile per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 2

15381 miles per square mile on 48 percent of the Forest, considerably reducing the negative effects of roads 

15382 on habitat connectivity. 

15383 Climate Change

15384 Maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity is the most oft-cited climate adaptation strategy 

15385 for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opham and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

15386 Spies et al. 2010) and has been identified as an important adaptation strategy for wildlife in 

15387 northeastern Washington (Gaines et al. 2012). This is because species’ range shifts have been the 

15388 primary biological response to past episodes of climatic change, yet widespread anthropogenic 

15389 barriers to movement would now challenge species’ ability to respond (Price 2002, Thomas and 

15390 Lennon 1999, Wormworth and Mallon 2006). The implementation of this alternative addresses 

15391 climate change adaptations that are recommended to maintain or restore habitat connectivity for 

15392 surrogate wildlife species. 

15393 Cumulative Effects

15394 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human developments and transportation infrastructure, 

15395 along with land ownership patterns, create cumulative impacts that limit options to conserve and 

15396 restore regional connectivity. Regional habitat connectivity has been evaluated for a variety of 

15397 wildlife species, including the surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate connectivity in this 

15398 planning area (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). These assessments have shown the 

15399 importance of the Colville National Forest in providing stepping-stone habitats between the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

452

15400 Cascades and Selkirk Mountains (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010, Proctor et al. 2015). 

15401 Connectivity from the Cascades to the Kettle Range to the Selkirk Mountains is interrupted by 

15402 transportation corridors and human developments associated with the Okanogan, Upper Columbia, 

15403 and Pend Oreille river valleys (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Additionally, connectivity 

15404 planning in southern British Columbia identified linkage area that could greatly enhance wildlife 

15405 movements between the Selkirk Mountains and the Purcell Mountains (Apps et al. 2007, Proctor et 

15406 al. 2015).

15407 Reducing the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife habitats would contribute to the 

15408 maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity, including cumulative effects. Border Patrol 

15409 activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or trails that are 

15410 normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the life of the plan

15411 is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. Recreation is 

15412 likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would increase human 

15413 disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to become more 

15414 important to wildlife. 

15415 Summary

15416 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to providing habitat 

15417 connectivity that is important for the viability of surrogate wildlife species. This conclusion is based 

15418 on the following: 

15419 1) Habitat amount, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement would be managed toward desired 

15420 conditions based on the historic range of variability, providing conditions similar to those 

15421 under which surrogate wildlife species evolved. 

15422 2) The negative effects of roads on habitat connectivity, including riparian and LSOF habitats, 

15423 would be considerably reduced. 

15424 Snag Habitat

15425 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15426 Direct and Indirect Effects

15427 Forest activities that directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

15428 species include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), the loss of snag habitat 

15429 along roads and at recreation sites from hazard tree reduction (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 

15430 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety reasons (Wisdom 

15431 et al. 2008). 

15432 Implementation of this alternative includes management direction for snag habitat to address the 

15433 potential loss of habitat in timber sale operations, would require that firewood cutting occur in 

15434 designated areas only, and would not allow removal of snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. outside of 

15435 designated areas. 

15436 Implementation of this alternative would decrease snag habitat loss due to hazard tree removal along 

15437 roads in 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on Objectives) due to reduced road 

15438 densities. In the longer term (less than 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would 

15439 result in road densities of equal to or less than 1 mile per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and 

15440 equal to or less than 2 miles per square mile on 48 percent of the Forest. Overall, this alternative 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

453

15441 would provide greater habitat for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife than the no-action, proposed 

15442 action, B and O alternatives, and somewhat less than alternative R.

15443 Climate Change

15444 Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitat included the pileated woodpecker, white15445 headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker, which are rated as medium 

15446 sensitivity to climate change, and the western bluebird as high sensitivity (CCSD 2013). The primary 

15447 effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered disturbance regimes. 

15448 The dynamic-landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this alternative would result in 

15449 landscapes, including disturbance regimes, that are more resilient to climate change through the 

15450 application of strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations, and greater use of 

15451 managed fire to achieve desired conditions for landscape restoration and resiliency. 

15452 Cumulative Effects

15453 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

15454 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

15455 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

15456 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and more rigorous 

15457 snag requirements to contribute to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife (USFWS 2000, USFS 

15458 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan and 

15459 current plan provides limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitats 

15460 and current required snag densities make limited contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

15461 species. The limited management direction for snag habitat on non-Federal lands adjacent to the 

15462 planning area, places additional emphasis on providing for viable populations of snag-dependent 

15463 wildlife species on Federal lands. Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in 

15464 particular where they are near residences. These can be done is such a way that they restore wildlife 

15465 habitat that has been affected by fire exclusion, but treatments can lead to the loss of snag habitat for 

15466 safety reasons. 

15467 Summary

15468 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of snag15469 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on: 

15470 1) This alternative would focus on landscape restoration of habitats and disturbance regimes 

15471 that directly influence the availability and condition of snag habitat. 

15472 2) This alternative would make substantial reductions in the negative effects of roads on snag 

15473 habitat. 

15474 3) This alternative provides management direction to protect snag habitat during vegetation 

15475 management activities and from being cut for firewood.

15476 Riparian Habitats

15477 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15478 Direct and Indirect Effects

15479 Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian-dependent 

15480 surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, and vegetation treatments that occur 

15481 within riparian habitats. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

454

15482 In this alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is consolidated into 

15483 one consistent set of plan components that applies to the entire Colville National Forest, and is 

15484 consistent with other national forests in Region 6. Standards and guidelines would limit management 

15485 activities that are allowed to occur within riparian habitats. This alternative includes greater riparian 

15486 management area widths along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds than in the areas previously 

15487 covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).

15488 Implementation of this alternative would reduce the effects of roads on riparian habitat within 

15489 10 watersheds in the short term (less than 20 years based on objectives). In the longer term (less than 

15490 50 years based on desired conditions) this alternative would result in road densities of equal to or less

15491 than 1 mile per square mile on 23 percent of the Forest, and equal to or less than 2 miles per square 

15492 mile on 48 percent of the Forest. 

15493 Overall, this alternative would provide greater habitat protections for riparian-dependent surrogate 

15494 wildlife than the no-action, proposed action, B and O alternatives, and similar to alternative R. The 

15495 viability outcomes for riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species would be improved.

15496 Climate Change

15497 Some of the riparian associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

15498 (CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

15499 change (Lawler et al. 2014). The primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of 

15500 habitat and reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic and disturbance (fire) 

15501 regimes (Lawler et al. 2014). The dynamic-landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in this 

15502 alternative would result in landscapes, including disturbance regimes, that are more resilient to 

15503 climate change through the application of strategically located restoration treatments in priority 

15504 locations. In addition, emphasis of this alternative in reducing the negative effects of roads on 

15505 riparian habitats would help to make them more resilient to disturbances.

15506 Cumulative Effects

15507 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

15508 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

15509 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

15510 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

15511 restore riparian habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

15512 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

15513 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat protections in the original Forest 

15514 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended (PACFISH, INFISH-USFS 1995, ACS-USFS 

15515 1994).

15516 On private lands, Washington State Forestry Practices Act provides some limited protections for 

15517 riparian habitats. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to 

15518 enhance coordination across landowners and may enhance conditions for riparian associated wildlife 

15519 species. However, habitat protections for riparian habitats on Federal lands would help to mitigate 

15520 for the limited protections and cumulative effects that occur on private lands.

15521 Summary

15522 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the viability of 

15523 riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

455

15524 1) This alternative would make substantial reductions in the negative effects that roads have on 

15525 riparian habitats. 

15526 2) This alternative would consolidate and make more consistent management direction for 

15527 riparian habitats using standards and providing larger management zones that existing 

15528 direction. 

15529 3) This alternative would emphasize landscape restoration that will reduce the potential effects 

15530 of uncharacteristically severe fires on riparian habitats.

15531 Species of Management Interest

15532 Deer and Elk

15533 Direct and Indirect Effects

15534 Forest management activities can influence deer and elk populations and habitat use. Vegetation 

15535 management activities may affect the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Adequate 

15536 forage is particularly important during the summer and fall before the following birthing season 

15537 when this can affect the condition pregnant females (Lenz 1997, Cook 1998, Cook 2002, Cook et al. 

15538 2004, Cook et al. 2005). The management of forest roads and trails can influence how deer and elk 

15539 use habitats, and influence the interactions between deer and elk (Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 

15540 2005a, and b). Additionally, deer and elk can compete with domestic livestock for both food 

15541 resources (Findholt et al. 2005) and space (Coe et al. 2001, Coe et al. 2005). Thus, the potential 

15542 effects that vegetation management, road and trail management, and grazing management can have 

15543 on deer and elk habitats and population are evaluated for each of the alternatives.

15544 Under alternative P, cover and forage for deer and elk on winter and summer ranges would be 

15545 managed commensurate with the historic range of variability. This would result in a sustainable level 

15546 of cover and more emphasis on enhancement of forage conditions. Considerable research has shown 

15547 that the management of deer and elk winter habitat should be less focused on the retention of thermal 

15548 cover, and more focused on the availability of forage on summer and fall habitats (see Cook et al. 

15549 2005 for a review). 

15550 This alternative would improve habitat effectiveness for deer and elk on summer and winter ranges. 

15551 The Selkirk Elk Herd has a moderate level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human influence) on 

15552 their winter ranges. Under this alternative, the habitat effectiveness would be improved to high (a 

15553 low level of human influence). Overall, habitat effectiveness would be restored on approximately 

15554 48,000 acres of habitat on elk range under this alternative. The desired conditions for elk winter 

15555 ranges would be to have a high level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human influence, less than 

15556 30 percent of the winter range in the zone of influence of an open road, motorized route, or 

15557 designated ski trail).

15558 For deer, this alternative would result in a high level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human 

15559 influence) on 81 percent on the winter ranges, a moderate level on 13 percent, and a low level of 

15560 habitat effectiveness on 6 percent. The desired conditions for deer winter ranges would be to have a 

15561 high level of habitat effectiveness (low level of human influence, less than 30 percent of the winter 

15562 range in the zone of influence of an open road, motorized route, or designated ski trail).

15563 Current management direction for winter ranges is based on road density standards and would be 

15564 changed to use of the zone of influence, based on new science (Rowland et al. 2005). This alternative 

15565 includes more robust range management direction to aid in the recovery of range conditions that are 

15566 poor and slow to recover from past grazing practices.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

456

15567 Climate Change

15568 Deer and elk have a low level of sensitivity to the effects of climate change due to their ability to 

15569 tolerate a relatively wide range of climatic conditions, their high mobility, and as habitat generalists 

15570 (CCSD 2013). However, alternatives that restore landscape pattern and functions while reducing the 

15571 effects of roads on deer and elk summer and winter habitats would provide more resilience deer and 

15572 elk populations. This alternative emphasizes landscape-scale restoration and provides consistent 

15573 management direction for roads that would make modest contributions to restore habitat 

15574 effectiveness for deer and elk.

15575 Cumulative Effects

15576 The historical cattle and sheep grazing that occurred on portions of the Forest degraded range 

15577 conditions (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). These conditions, combined with current 

15578 domestic (cattle) and wild ungulate grazing (primarily elk and deer), have resulted maintenance or 

15579 slow recovery of poor range conditions in some areas (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). In 

15580 turn, these poor range conditions have had negative effects on some important unique habitats such 

15581 as riparian areas and meadows (Beebe et al. 2002, Evans 2006, Lehmkuhl et al. 2013). This 

15582 alternative would result in more rigorous grazing management direction that will help to address this 

15583 situation.

15584 Winter ranges for the deer and elk occur on Federal lands, adjacent Wildlife Management Areas 

15585 managed by the State, and private lands. Elk herd management plans (WDFW 2001) provide 

15586 guidance for elk management on state lands and make recommendations for elk management on 

15587 Forestland. Management plans for deer include the White-tailed Deer Management Plan that covers 

15588 the two management units on the Colville National Forest and provides direction to manage hunting 

15589 to either maintain or increase white-tailed deer populations (WDFW 2010). A considerable amount 

15590 of historical winter range for deer and elk is now in private land ownership or under the waters of 

15591 Lake Roosevelt (created by the Grand Coulee dam). The cumulative effects of the existing 

15592 management plans (state and Federal lands) would provide for the conditions that contribute to 

15593 sustainable populations of deer and elk, while considering the effects of private land development.

15594 Summary

15595 Implementation of the P alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the conditions that 

15596 support sustainable populations of deer and elk. This is based on the following: 

15597 1) This alternative would address new science that recommends de-emphasizing the importance 

15598 of winter thermal cover and increasing the emphasis on summer and fall forage quality and 

15599 quantity. 

15600 2) This alternative provides consistent and effective direction on the management of roads and 

15601 trails to restore habitat effectiveness on deer and elk summer and winter ranges. 

15602 3) This alternative would include more rigorous management direction to improve the 

15603 conditions of key habitats, such as riparian areas and meadows that are in poor condition due 

15604 to the cumulative effects of past grazing practices, and current domestic and wild ungulate 

15605 grazing.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

457

15606 Alternative B

15607 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

15608 Grizzly Bear

15609 Direct and Indirect Effects

15610 Forest activities that influence the recovery of the grizzly bear include: human access that can 

15611 displace bears from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of bear-human interactions, 

15612 disposal of livestock carcasses within range allotments to avoid attracting bears to a potential food 

15613 source, and the storage of food and garbage at recreation sites to reduce the potential for bears to 

15614 associate humans with food sources. 

15615 Management of grizzly bears does not vary between alternatives. Existing management direction 

15616 provides standards for human access, disposal of livestock carcasses, and food and garbage storage 

15617 within the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (IGBC 1998, USDA 1988, USFWS 1993, USDI 

15618 2001). Existing standards have largely been met and would continue to be followed.

15619 Climate Change

15620 Grizzly bears have been identified as having a low sensitivity to climate change because they are 

15621 opportunistic, eat a diverse array of food resources, and are highly adaptable (Servheen and Cross 

15622 2010, CCSD 2013). Anticipated impacts may include changes in the timing of denning due to longer 

15623 snow-free periods and reduced snowpack (Lawler et al. 2014) and changes in the availability of food 

15624 sources (Servheen and Cross 2010). These changes may put bears at risk of negative human 

15625 interactions for a longer period of time each year (Servheen and Cross 2010). This would make 

15626 education, proper food and garbage storage, carcass disposal measures, and human access 

15627 management that much more important.

15628 Cumulative Effects

15629 The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in the recovery zone is past persecution 

15630 and human-caused mortality of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

15631 Information/education programs, sanitation measures, and access management have and would 

15632 continue to be used to aid in the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Area.

15633 Past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions that could affect grizzly bears include timber 

15634 harvest and associated road construction, recreational activities that can cause disturbance to bear 

15635 and create potential for human-bear conflicts, and human development that fragment grizzly bear 

15636 habitat. Cumulative effects are evaluated across the Recovery Area by tracking activities within 

15637 Grizzly Bear Management Units (GBMUs). Other land managers have adopted and are following 

15638 similar management direction (IPNF 2015) and overall recovery is coordinated by the Selkirk 

15639 Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee. GBMUs that occur on the Colville National Forest include 

15640 the LeClerc, Salmo-Priest, and Sullivan-Hughes. The contribution made on Federal lands to grizzly 

15641 bear recovery would help to mitigate potential cumulative effects from off-forest activities. However, 

15642 because this alternative does not address reducing the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats 

15643 like in the proposed action and alternatives R and P, it does less to mitigate cumulative effects.

15644 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15645 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15646 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

458

15647 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15648 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

15649 by fire exclusion.

15650 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15651 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance (e.g., 

15652 core areas) to become more important to wildlife such as grizzly bears.

15653 Black bear hunting on both sides of the international border within the Selkirk Recovery Area has the 

15654 potential to add cumulatively to the mortality of grizzly bears. Hunters that encounter grizzly bears 

15655 may mistakenly identify the bear, kill the bear in self-defense, or opportunistically poach the bear. 

15656 Human access management within the recovery area is key to reducing the risk of mortality to 

15657 grizzly bears from black bear hunting.

15658 On private lands, the presence of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or other attractants may lure bears 

15659 into conflict situations. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may lead to the bear being killed. 

15660 Summary

15661 This alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of grizzly bears in the 

15662 Selkirk Recovery Area and would result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

15663 determination. This is based on the existing management direction, followed in all alternatives, that 

15664 addresses:

15665 1) Human access management,

15666 2) Disposal of carcasses in range allotments that occur in the recovery area, and 

15667 3) Proper storage of food, garbage and other attractants that may lead to human-bear 

15668 interactions. 

15669 Canada Lynx

15670 Direct and Indirect Effects

15671 The forest management activities that influence the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx 

15672 include: vegetation management that affect lynx habitat components, winter recreation that 

15673 influences habitat connectivity and lynx habitat use, forest roads that can become sources of lynx 

15674 mortality at high traffic volumes and speeds, and grazing effects to riparian areas that provide habitat 

15675 for snowshoe hares, a primary food resource for lynx (ILBT 2013). The Interagency Lynx Biology 

15676 Team (ILBT 2013) developed conservation measures for core and secondary areas (USFWS 2005) to 

15677 address each of these forest management activities, and for planners to consult when revising forest 

15678 plans. These were used to evaluate the potential contribution of forest management alternatives to the 

15679 recovery of Canada lynx.

15680 When the USFWS reviewed existing regulatory mechanisms to determine if listing Canada lynx as a 

15681 federally protected species was warranted, they determined that existing forest plans provided 

15682 inadequate protections (USFWS 2003). Several national forests within the range of the Canada lynx 

15683 subsequently amended their forest plans using the original Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

15684 Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) as a basis for current science. However, forest plans in Region 6 were 

15685 not amended, thus existing management plans do not address recent science and conservation 

15686 recommendations (ILBT 2013), recovery objectives (USFWS 2005), or critical habitat (USFWS 

15687 2009). This alternative does not include updated management direction for Canada lynx.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

459

15688 Vegetation management activities affect the distribution of lynx habitat components, can fragment 

15689 habitats, and create sources of disturbance (ILBT 2013). As a result, risk factors associated with 

15690 vegetation management activities were identified and conservation measures were developed to 

15691 address the risk factors (ILBT 2013). The conservation measures for vegetation management apply 

15692 to lynx core areas and include use of the natural range of variability to mimic pattern and scale of 

15693 natural disturbances and connectivity across the landscape while considering the future climate 

15694 change (ILBT 2013). A conservation measure focused on the restoration of disturbance regimes in 

15695 dry forests that occur in close proximity to lynx habitat to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically 

15696 severe and frequent fires reaching lynx habitat. Finally, conservation measures were recommended to 

15697 address the amount of vegetation management and the rate of habitat change (e.g., acres treated per 

15698 decade) within lynx analysis units. There is no management direction in this alternative that would 

15699 address these conservation measures.

15700 Conservation measures were identified to address the effects that highways have on habitat 

15701 connectivity for lynx in core areas (ILBT 2013). The Kettle-Wedge is a Core Area on the Colville 

15702 National Forest. 

15703 Winter recreation can influence how lynx use habitats (ILBT 2013). To minimize the potential of 

15704 negative effects from winter recreation, the ILBT (2013) developed conservation measures to reduce 

15705 effects. Conservation measures for winter recreation in lynx core areas included reducing effects on 

15706 habitat connectivity and to discourage expansion of over-the-snow routes that may influence lynx 

15707 habitat use (ILBT 2013). This alternative does not address effects of over-the-snow recreation on 

15708 lynx habitat.

15709 The conservation measures for forest roads in lynx core areas include avoiding road reconstruction 

15710 or upgrades that occur in lynx habitat and would result in increased traffic speeds or volumes (ILBT 

15711 2013). These measures would reduce the potential for vehicular traffic to result in a source of 

15712 mortality to lynx. There is no management direction in this alternative to address this conservation 

15713 measure.

15714 The conservation measures for grazing in lynx core areas include management of riparian areas to 

15715 assure adequate habitat for snowshoe hares, the primary prey species for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013). 

15716 This alternative includes management direction for grazing in riparian areas to mitigate effects to 

15717 habitat for listed fish species, but does not include anything specific to Canada lynx or snowshoe 

15718 hares.

15719 Alternative B would provide limited management direction to address the direct and indirect effects 

15720 of forest management activities on the recovery of Canada lynx. Alternative B would provide less 

15721 protection for Canada lynx than the proposed action, R and P alternatives, and protection similar to 

15722 no action and alternative O.

15723 Climate Change

15724 The potential effects of climate change on Canada lynx identified by the Interagency Lynx Biology 

15725 Team (2013) included: (1) an upward shift in elevation or latitudinal distribution of lynx and prey, 

15726 (2) a decrease in the amount of habitat and population size from reduced snow persistence and 

15727 increased disturbance events (e.g., fires), (3) changes in demographic rates, such as survival and 

15728 reproduction, and (4) changes in predator-prey relationships.

15729 Climate change adaptations to address these effects include restoration of landscape-scale 

15730 disturbance regimes to better mimic natural patterns and processes (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 

15731 2012, Lawler et al. 2014), and maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity to allow Canada lynx to 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

460

15732 adjust their ranges to changing conditions (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, ILBT 2013, Squires et al. 

15733 2013). There is limited management direction in the existing management plans to address these 

15734 climate change adaptations. 

15735 Cumulative Effects

15736 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect lynx habitat include timber harvest and 

15737 fuels reduction, recreation, human development, and grazing on private and public lands. In addition, 

15738 legal trapping of lynx, timber harvest, oil and gas development, mining and human access in British 

15739 Columbia have and will continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. 

15740 Past vegetation management and large scale fires on the Forest within lynx habitat has resulted in a 

15741 distribution and amount of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. This 

15742 alternative would not emphasize vegetation management activities to restore lynx habitats toward the 

15743 HRV. 

15744 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15745 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15746 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15747 Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on off-forest lands potentially impacting 

15748 deciduous or riparian habitats for lynx prey species.

15749 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15750 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

15751 by fire exclusion.

15752 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15753 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

15754 become more important to wildlife.

15755 All Federal lands within Canada lynx core and secondary areas would use the Lynx Conservation 

15756 Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (ILBT 2013) as current science to guide project level consultation 

15757 and land management planning. The North Cascades National Park Complex recently revised their 

15758 management plan to include the LCAS (NPS 2012). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest land 

15759 management plan was recently revised to address the conservation measures identified in the LCAS 

15760 (USFS 2015). The conservation of lynx on WDNR lands is guided by the Department of Natural 

15761 Resources Lynx Habitat Management Plan (WDNR 1996, updated in 2002). The management plan 

15762 for the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge provides conservation measures to contribute to the 

15763 recovery and viability of Canada lynx (USFWS 2000). Collectively, these management plans have 

15764 addressed many of the conservation measures identified for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013) and would 

15765 help mitigate potential cumulative effects that may occur from off-forest activities. In addition, no 

15766 critical habitat was identified on the Colville National Forest or on adjacent lands (USFWS 2009).

15767 In Canada, timber harvesting, oil and gas development, coal mining, and the proliferation of human 

15768 access associated with these industries, have and would continue to affect lynx habitat. Legal 

15769 trapping occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could reduce the potential for lynx to disperse into 

15770 the lynx habitat on the Forest. Trapping is not legal in Idaho, Montana, or Washington.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

461

15771 Summary

15772 Alternative B would make a relatively low contribution to the recovery of the Canada lynx in both 

15773 the short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) term, and result in a May Effect, Likely to 

15774 Adversely Affect determination. This is because of the following: 

15775 1) This alternative does not address the best available science and conservation measures 

15776 identified in the recent version of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 

15777 2013), and USFWS Recovery Outline (USFWS 2005); 

15778 2) This alternative does not address recommended climate change adaptations, and 

15779 3) This alternative relies on direction in existing management plans, which were found to 

15780 provide inadequate regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the Canada lynx (USFWS 

15781 2003). 

15782 Late-successional and Old Forest Habitats (Federally Listed Wildlife Species)

15783 Woodland Caribou

15784 Direct and Indirect Effects

15785 The forest management activities that can influence the recovery and viability of woodland caribou 

15786 include: (1) Vegetation management and natural disturbances affect the amount and connectivity of 

15787 old growth forests of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western redcedar/western hemlock. (2) 

15788 Human access that can increase the potential for poaching and cause disturbance to caribou during 

15789 the critical winter period. These effects were used to evaluate the potential contribution of each 

15790 alternative to the recovery of woodland caribou.

15791 This alternative would implement new science, recommendations from the Biological Opinion 

15792 issued in 2001 (USFWS 2001) on the 1988 forest plan (USFS 1988), and address the critical habitat 

15793 designation (USFWS 2012). Vegetation management attempts to balance providing forest conditions 

15794 for suitable caribou habitat while providing for timber production. Timber harvest has been cited as 

15795 one of the primary factors that has reduced and fragmented old growth habitats for woodland caribou 

15796 (USFWS 1994, USFWS 2012).

15797 A term and condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion was that the Forest develop a winter recreation 

15798 strategy that protects important winter habitats for caribou while providing some level of winter 

15799 recreation access. This strategy was developed (USFS 2003) and would be fully integrated into this 

15800 alternative. The strategy includes information and education about the effects of winter recreation on 

15801 wildlife, monitoring and enforcement of areas closed to over-the-snow activities, and limitations on 

15802 permitted over-the-snow activities. Collectively, these actions have reduced the impacts of winter 

15803 recreation to caribou habitat while providing recreation opportunities in areas and at the time of the 

15804 winter season when effects to caribou are minimal. However, this alternative would not emphasize 

15805 reducing the negative effects of forest roads on wildlife habitat.

15806 Climate Change

15807 Climate change would likely alter the distribution and abundance of suitable caribou habitat, and 

15808 would also change snow depths and persistence, which affect seasonal movements of mountain 

15809 caribou (WDFW 2012). The potential effects of climate change depend on the interaction, not only 

15810 of seasonal temperatures and snowfall patterns, but also occurrence of wildfires, outbreaks of forest 

15811 insects, and diseases (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005). Management adaptations to address 

15812 the effects of climate change include a focus on forest restoration and reducing non-climatic factors 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

462

15813 that affect wildlife populations (e.g., reducing impacts of winter recreation on habitat effectiveness 

15814 for caribou). This alternative would not implement these adaptations.

15815 Cumulative Effects

15816 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and includes the Colville National Forest,

15817 Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. About 

15818 47 percent of the recovery area is in the United States and 53 percent in British Columbia. The Idaho 

15819 Panhandle National Forest recently revised the forest plan to address habitat and risk factors 

15820 identified in the caribou recovery plan and critical habitat (USFS 2015). The caribou recovery team 

15821 works cooperatively to address cumulative effects on woodland caribou.

15822 Past activities on the Forest have impacted caribou habitat. Over-the-snow motorized use, prior to 

15823 the implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy (USFS 2003), may have caused disturbance to 

15824 caribou. The alternative would continue with implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy, 

15825 limiting the cumulative effects on caribou. 

15826 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

15827 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

15828 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

15829 alternative would not manage habitats toward HRV, and would not be as effective as the proposed 

15830 action and alternative P at mitigating for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

15831 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15832 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15833 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15834 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15835 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

15836 by fire exclusion.

15837 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15838 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

15839 become more important to wildlife such as caribou. However, because this alternative does not 

15840 address the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitat, it provides less opportunity to mitigate the 

15841 cumulative effects of recreation.

15842 Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters may 

15843 result in caribou mortality as a result of mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

15844 Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken it is difficult to evaluate 

15845 the influence of this on the caribou population. Fatal collisions with vehicles occur on open roads in 

15846 caribou habitat and are likely to continue. Predation by mountain lions, wolves, and other predators 

15847 would continue, with the effect on the caribou population dependent on big game populations, 

15848 predator populations and a variety of other factors. 

15849 One important factor is how the Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In the British 

15850 Columbia portion of the recovery area, human activities that would continue to impact caribou 

15851 habitat include gas, powerline, and international border corridors, recreation activities, timber 

15852 harvest, and highways.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

463

15853 Summary

15854 Implementation of this alternative would have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

15855 determination for woodland caribou. It would make a moderate contribution to the recovery of 

15856 woodland caribou. The reasons for this determination are: 

15857 1) This alternative would address new science and risk factors identified in the recovery plan 

15858 and critical habitat, but does not emphasize forest restoration as in the proposed action and 

15859 alternative P. 

15860 2) This alternative would formally adopt the winter recreation strategy for caribou habitat that 

15861 was a Term and Condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion. 

15862 3) This alternative attempts to balance the protection of caribou habitat with timber production, 

15863 but does not address climate change adaptations that would enhance forest resiliency to the 

15864 degree that other alternatives do.

15865 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15866 Direct and Indirect Effects

15867 Forest activities that directly influence the viability of late-successional and old forest (LSOF) 

15868 dependent surrogate species include: the loss of LSOF habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008, Davis et 

15869 al. 2011), vegetation treatments (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest 

15870 structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, downed wood)(Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. 2008, Davis et 

15871 al. 2011), management of roads that influence habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and 

15872 protection of riparian areas which are an important element of LSOF habitats for some species (e.g., 

15873 Bald eagles).

15874 This alternative retains existing management direction for LSOF species that is based on a system of 

15875 small management areas that retains LSOF habitat for specific Management Indicator Species (e.g., 

15876 American marten, barred owl, pileated woodpecker). These areas range in size from 75 to 300 acres, 

15877 are relatively equally distributed, but have no way to provide for habitat connectivity between or 

15878 among the small islands of habitat. These small islands of habitat are also highly susceptible to 

15879 disturbances such as fire, insects, and tree diseases, with no redundancy or replacement habitat in the 

15880 event they are lost. This system was based on minimizing the effects of protection of LSOF habitat 

15881 on the timber harvest level. This system was deemed inadequate to provide for the viability of LSOF 

15882 species and thus Forest Plans were amended with the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995). The intent was 

15883 for the Eastside Screens to provide interim direction until the Forest Plan was revised.

15884 The area in-between the small islands of LSOF habitat is managed primarily through even-aged 

15885 timber production, with some protections for elements of LSOF habitat, such as snags and downed 

15886 wood. However, the combination of roads and timber harvest generally results in these areas having 

15887 snag habitat below levels that would maintain viable populations of snag-dependent wildlife species. 

15888 Again, the management direction in the original Forest Plan was deemed inadequate, thus additional 

15889 direction was adopted through the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995), with the intent that this would 

15890 serve as interim direction until the Forest Plan was revised. The Eastside Screens restrict the cutting 

15891 of trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

15892 This alternative would not provide management direction that will reduce the negative effects of 

15893 roads on wildlife habitats. Currently, there are about 4,000 miles of road, resulting in an overall road 

15894 density on the roaded portion of the Forest of about 3 miles per square mile, which is considered a 

15895 low level of habitat effectiveness for many surrogate species (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gaines et al. 

15896 2003).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

464

15897 Overall, alternative B would provide management direction for LSOF habitat that is similar to no 

15898 action and alternative O, but would provide less LSOF habitat than the R and P alternatives. This 

15899 alternative would not improve the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species that are 

15900 dependent on LSOF habitats in the short (less than 20 years) or long (less than 50 years) time 

15901 periods. 

15902 Climate Change

15903 The sensitivity of LSOF associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change were 

15904 identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American marten 

15905 (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is the loss of LSOF habitats due to altered 

15906 disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013). 

15907 Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

15908 increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel moisture driven by 

15909 increased temperature and lower snowpack. Increases in fire risk and severity have been also been 

15910 driven, in part, by increased fuel loads because of fire suppression practices used over the last 

15911 century (McKenzie et al. 2004). Predicted increases in spring and summer temperature identified in 

15912 many climate change models would exacerbate the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as 

15913 fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton and Flannigan 1993) and defoliation caused by forest insects 

15914 (Littell et al. 2009). In the interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned 

15915 is likely to double or even triple by 2050. Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the 

15916 dominant driver of changes to forests and LSOF habitats in the western United States over the next 

15917 century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

15918 A landscape restoration approach is not emphasized in this alternative. Landscape-scale restoration 

15919 has been identified as an adaptive strategy to create landscapes more resilient to climate change 

15920 (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 2012) and to maintain late-successional and old forest habitats 

15921 (Lawler et al. 2014). The emphasis on restoration of resiliency would result in landscapes, including 

15922 disturbance regimes that are more resilient to climate change through the application of strategically 

15923 located restoration treatments in priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 

15924 2010, Franklin and Johnson 2012). By strategically locating restoration treatments, landscape-scale 

15925 fire behavior may be altered to be more similar to native disturbance regimes and the risk of loss of 

15926 LSOF habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires may be reduced (Finney 2001, Finney et al. 2006, 

15927 Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). 

15928 Cumulative Effects

15929 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

15930 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

15931 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

15932 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

15933 restore LSOF habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

15934 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

15935 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and LSOF habitat protections in the original Forest 

15936 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended by the Eastside Screens USFS 1995).

15937 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

15938 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

15939 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

15940 alternative would not manage habitats toward HRV, and would not be as effective as the proposed 

15941 action and alternative P at mitigating for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

465

15942 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

15943 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

15944 by fire exclusion.

15945 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

15946 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

15947 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

15948 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

15949 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

15950 become more important to wildlife.

15951 Summary

15952 The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of 

15953 LSOF dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

15954 1) The LSOF habitat provided by this alternative would provide minimal contribution to the 

15955 viability of LSOF surrogate wildlife species. 

15956 2) This alternative does not emphasize restoration of landscape resiliency to reduce the loss of 

15957 LSOF habitats to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. 

15958 3) The protection and conservation of key elements of LSOF habitat such as large trees and 

15959 snags, and riparian areas is limited. 

15960 4) The alternative would not result in the restoration of habitat effectiveness by reducing the 

15961 negative effects of roads on LSOF habitats.

15962 Motorized Recreation and Road Access

15963 Surrogate Wildlife Species

15964 Direct and Indirect Effects

15965 Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

15966 These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during critical time 

15967 periods, and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and 

15968 Gaines et al. 2003 for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence wildlife). The 

15969 effects of motorized recreation and roads can occur during the non-winter period or during the winter 

15970 period when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

15971 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

15972 roads on surrogate species habitats because management direction for roads would be for no net loss 

15973 of road miles (approximately 4,000 miles) and emphasize big-game species. Currently, the average 

15974 road density (not counting the wilderness and recommended wilderness) is about 3.0 miles per 

15975 square mile, which is a low level of habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species (Wisdom et 

15976 al. 2000).

15977 This alternative would reduce summer-motorized trail use by 30 miles within two watersheds, thus 

15978 improving habitat effectiveness for surrogate species. Overall, this alternative would provide a level 

15979 of habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife that is similar to no action and alternative O, and less 

15980 than the proposed action, R, and P alternatives.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

466

15981 Climate Change

15982 The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species used to assess the effects of roads and motorized

15983 recreation is rated as moderate for bighorn sheep, and high for Harlequin duck, Canada lynx, and 

15984 wolverine (CCSD 2013). An important climate change adaptation that has been recommended for 

15985 wildlife is to reduce the negative effects of roads (and trails) on habitat (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et 

15986 al. 2014). By reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats (especially riparian and wetland 

15987 habitats) can become more resilient to the effects of climate change, and habitat connectivity can be 

15988 restored allowing wildlife to adjust their ranges as conditions change. The implementation of this 

15989 alternative includes management direction to make very limited improvement to habitat effectiveness 

15990 for surrogate wildlife by reducing road impacts and densities.

15991 Cumulative Effects

15992 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

15993 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

15994 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

15995 management plans that reduce the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats and restore habitat 

15996 effectiveness (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest plan provides 

15997 limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, mostly focused on 

15998 big-game species.

15999 The limited management direction in the existing Forest Plan to reduce the negative effects of roads 

16000 on wildlife and continued development of private lands (located mostly in north-south valley 

16001 bottoms that bisect the Forest) means that management of roads and motorized trails on Federal 

16002 lands is even more important to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

16003 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

16004 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

16005 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

16006 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

16007 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

16008 become more important to wildlife.

16009 Summary

16010 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of 

16011 surrogate wildlife species whose habitats are influenced by motorized access. This would occur 

16012 because: 

16013 1) The alternative includes limited management direction to reduce the impact of roads on 

16014 habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species, 

16015 2) This alternative does reduce the impacts summer-motorized trails have of habitat 

16016 effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species in two watersheds, and 

16017 3) This alternative does little to address the cumulative effects for human access and 

16018 development on wildlife habitats.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

467

16019 Livestock Grazing

16020 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16021 Direct and Indirect Effects

16022 Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements (e.g., 

16023 dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats; alter 

16024 disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (e.g., frequent fires in dry forests and grasslands 

16025 keep open canopy for western bluebird); and influence the availability of important prey items (e.g., 

16026 squirrels for golden eagles). To address the potential effects on surrogate wildlife species, the 

16027 management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland habitats for each alternative 

16028 was assessed.

16029 This alternative would continue with the existing direction for riparian habitats found in the existing 

16030 forest plan and amendment (PACFISH, USFS 1995). Presently, many riparian habitats are in poor 

16031 condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan direction for this alternative would 

16032 have little effect on altering the distribution of livestock that will allow riparian habitats to recover.

16033 This alternative does not include ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats 

16034 (e.g., rangeland and alpine habitats) or standards to protect unique habitats. This alternative would 

16035 not alter the number of livestock, the intensity of grazing, nor the amount of area grazed. Presently, 

16036 73 percent of the Forest is in a livestock allotment and animal unit months (AUMs) average about 

16037 25,000 per year. This alternative would make a limited contribution to the viability of surrogate 

16038 wildlife species that were used to assess the effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.

16039 Climate Change

16040 Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

16041 (including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make these 

16042 habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors (e.g., roads, 

16043 intense grazing, etc.) (Lawler et al. 2014). This alternative would not include management direction 

16044 that will restore the resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change.

16045 Cumulative Effects

16046 Grazing occurs on nearby private, State, tribal, and Federal lands. Where grazing is allowed on the 

16047 adjacent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest, it is managed 

16048 to accommodate other public land uses, such as contributing to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

16049 species. On the adjacent Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, livestock grazing was reduced over 

16050 time to allow restoration of riparian habitats and is currently only used to achieve specific wildlife 

16051 habitat objectives (USFWS 2000). Grazing on non-Federal lands increases the need to provide for 

16052 wildlife habitats on Federal lands that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

16053 This alternative does not include management direction for some key habitats that would better 

16054 account for the cumulative effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.

16055 Summary

16056 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to viability for surrogate 

16057 wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This determination is based on: 

16058 1) This alternative does not include management direction for key habitats that would reduce 

16059 the negative effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition, and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

468

16060 2) This alternative would not change the number, grazing intensity or distribution of livestock.

16061 Habitat Connectivity

16062 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16063 Direct and Indirect Effects

16064 There are a number of forest management activities that influence habitat connectivity for surrogate 

16065 wildlife species. These include: the amount, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement of suitable habitats; 

16066 location and density of motorized travel routes, especially in relation to riparian and LSOF habitats. 

16067 These are addressed in the evaluation of how forest management alternatives would affect habitat 

16068 connectivity for surrogate wildlife species.

16069 Current management direction is used in this alternative and is focused on providing habitat 

16070 connectivity for LSOF species through the identification of connectivity corridors during project 

16071 planning (as per Eastside Screens, USFS 1995). Additional provisions for low to moderate mobility 

16072 LSOF species are provided through Riparian Management Zones. There is no management direction 

16073 that addresses habitat connectivity for wildlife species that are not associated with LSOF habitats 

16074 (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores, Singleton et al. 2002).

16075 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

16076 roads on surrogate species habitats because management direction for roads would be for no net loss 

16077 of road miles (approximately 4,000 miles) and only address big-game species. Currently, the average 

16078 road density (not counting the wilderness and recommended wilderness) is about 3.0 miles per 

16079 square mile, which is a low level of habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species.

16080 This alternative would reduce summer-motorized trail use by 30 miles within two watersheds, thus 

16081 reducing impacts to surrogate species habitat effectiveness.

16082 Climate Change

16083 Maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity is the most oft-cited climate adaptation strategy 

16084 for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opham and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

16085 Spies et al. 2010) and has been identified as an important adaptation strategy for wildlife in 

16086 northeastern Washington (Gaines et al. 2012). This is because species’ range shifts have been the 

16087 primary biological response to past episodes of climatic change, yet widespread anthropogenic 

16088 barriers to movement would now challenge species’ ability to respond (Price 2002, Thomas and 

16089 Lennon 1999, Wormworth and Mallon 2006).

16090 This alternative does provide direction to address habitat connectivity for some highly mobile LSOF 

16091 wildlife species. However, there is no management direction that addresses habitat connectivity for 

16092 wildlife species not associated with LSOF habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores), nor does this 

16093 alternative address the effects of forest roads on habitat connectivity . Much has been learned about 

16094 the effects of climate change on wildlife since the Forest plans were developed and amended, and

16095 this alternative does not adequately address recommended climate adaptations to maintain or restore 

16096 habitat connectivity for a wide-array of wildlife species.

16097 Cumulative Effects

16098 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human developments and transportation infrastructure, 

16099 along with land ownership patterns create cumulative impacts that limit options to conserve and 

16100 restore regional connectivity. Regional habitat connectivity has been evaluated for a variety of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

469

16101 wildlife species, including the surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate connectivity in this 

16102 planning area (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). These assessments have shown the 

16103 importance of the Colville National Forest in providing stepping-stone habitats between the

16104 Cascades and Selkirk Mountains (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010, Proctor et al. 2015). 

16105 Connectivity from the Cascades to the Kettle Range to the Selkirk Mountains is interrupted by 

16106 transportation corridors and human developments associated with the Okanogan, Upper Columbia, 

16107 and Pend Oreille river valleys (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Additionally, connectivity 

16108 planning in southern British Columbia identified linkage areas that could greatly enhance wildlife 

16109 movements between the Selkirk Mountains and the Purcell Mountains (Apps et al. 2007, Proctor et 

16110 al. 2015). 

16111 Reducing the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife habitats would contribute to the 

16112 maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity, including cumulative effects, but is not 

16113 emphasized in this alternative. Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause 

16114 disturbance through use of roads or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent 

16115 or amount of the impact over the life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could 

16116 influence Border Patrol activities. Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to 

16117 increasing demands. This would increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have 

16118 relatively low human disturbance to become more important to wildlife.

16119 Summary

16120 Alternative B would provide limited direction that addresses habitat connectivity, and most is 

16121 relevant to wildlife species associated with LSOF habitats. Thus, the implementation of alternative B 

16122 would provide a relatively low contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife species used to 

16123 assess habitat connectivity. The primary reasons for this conclusion include: 

16124 1) No management direction to address wildlife species that are not associated with LSOF 

16125 habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores), 

16126 2) Limited management direction that addresses the effects of roads and road networks on 

16127 habitat connectivity, despite this being a primary factor that influences wildlife movements.

16128 Snag Habitat

16129 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16130 Direct and Indirect Effects

16131 Forest activities that directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

16132 species include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), the loss of snag habitat 

16133 along roads and at recreation sites from hazard tree reduction (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 

16134 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety reasons (Wisdom 

16135 et al. 2008). The Forest Plans includes management direction for snag habitat to address the potential 

16136 loss of habitat in timber sale operations. However, this alternative includes a 21-inch-diameter limit 

16137 on the size of snags that can be cut for firewood.

16138 This alternative includes 43 percent of the Forest that emphasizes even-aged timber harvest, resulting 

16139 in the potential loss of snag habitat for safety reasons. An additional 31 percent of the forest would 

16140 be actively managed for restoration. 

16141 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

16142 roads on surrogate species habitats because management direction for roads would be for no net loss 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

470

16143 of road miles (approximately 4,000 miles). Currently, the average road density (not counting the 

16144 wilderness and recommended wilderness) is about 3.0 miles per square mile, which would result in a 

16145 considerable loss of snag habitat for safety and hazard tree reduction (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et 

16146 al. 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008).

16147 Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protections for snag-dependent wildlife that are 

16148 similar to no action and alternative O, but less than the proposed action and alternatives R and P. The 

16149 viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species dependent on snag habitat would not be improved 

16150 and would remain below the historical capability.

16151 Climate Change

16152 Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, white16153 headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker, which are rated as medium 

16154 sensitivity to climate change, and the western bluebird as high sensitivity (CCSD 2013). The primary 

16155 effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered disturbance regimes. 

16156 Because this alternative does not focus on landscape-scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances 

16157 regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be 

16158 lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated with climate change, loss of snag 

16159 habitat from relatively intense timber harvest, and loss of snag habitat associated with hazard tree 

16160 removal along roads. The increase in fire associated with climate change could create a short-term 

16161 gain in snag habitat followed by a long-term (80-100 years, Harrod et al. 1998) reduction as snags 

16162 attrition occurs.

16163 Cumulative Effects

16164 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

16165 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

16166 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

16167 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and more rigorous 

16168 snag requirements to contribute to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife (USFWS 2000, USFS 

16169 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan and 

16170 current plan provides limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitats 

16171 and current required snag densities make limited contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

16172 species. The limited management direction for snag habitat on non-Federal lands adjacent to the 

16173 planning area, places additional emphasis on providing for viability populations of snag-dependent 

16174 wildlife species on Federal lands. Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in 

16175 particular where they are near residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife 

16176 habitat that has been affected by fire exclusion, but treatments can lead to the loss of snag habitat for 

16177 safety reasons. 

16178 Summary

16179 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of snag16180 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on: 

16181 1) This alternative would not focus on landscape restoration of habitats and disturbance 

16182 regimes that influence the availability and condition of snag habitat. 

16183 2) This alternative would make limited reductions in the negative effects of roads on snag 

16184 habitat. 

16185 3) Snag habitat would be reduced due to timber harvest and active management, and an 

16186 extensive road network would further reduce snag habitat for safety reasons. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

471

16187 Riparian Habitats

16188 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16189 Direct and Indirect Effects

16190 Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian-dependent 

16191 surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, grazing, and vegetation treatments 

16192 that occur within riparian habitats. 

16193 In this alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is not consolidated into 

16194 one consistent set of plan components (e.g., direction is in both the existing forest plan and in the 

16195 INFISH amendment). Standards and guidelines would limit management activities that are allowed 

16196 to occur within riparian habitats. This alternative includes smaller riparian management area widths 

16197 (compared to other alternatives except no action) along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds in the 

16198 areas covered by the INFISH forest plan amendment (USFS 1995).

16199 Implementation of this alternative would provide limited management direction to reduce the effects 

16200 of roads on riparian habitats. Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protection for riparian 

16201 associated wildlife that is similar to the no-action alternative, less than the proposed action and 

16202 alternative O, and much less than the R and P alternatives. The viability outcome for surrogate 

16203 wildlife species would not be improved and would remain below the historical capability. 

16204 Climate Change

16205 Some of the riparian-associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

16206 (CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

16207 change (Lawler et al. 2014). The primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of 

16208 habitat and reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic and disturbance (fire) 

16209 regimes (Lawler et al. 2014).

16210 The emphasis of this alternative is on timber management. Because this alternative does not focus on 

16211 landscape-scale restoration, the restoration of disturbance regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, 

16212 habitat for riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to 

16213 increased disturbances associated with climate change and some loss of riparian habitat from timber 

16214 harvest. In addition, an important adaptation for climate change for riparian habitats is to restore their 

16215 resiliency by reducing the negative effects of roads (Lawler et al. 2013). However, this alternative 

16216 has limited opportunity for managers to use to reduce road effects on riparian habitats and does not 

16217 emphasize watershed restoration.

16218 Cumulative Effects

16219 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

16220 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

16221 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

16222 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

16223 restore riparian habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

16224 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

16225 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat protections in the original Forest 

16226 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended (INFISH, PACFISH-USFS 1995, ACS-USFS 

16227 1994).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

472

16228 On private lands, Washington State Forestry Practices Act provides some limited protections for 

16229 riparian habitats. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to 

16230 enhance coordination across landowners and may enhance conditions for riparian associated wildlife 

16231 species. However, habitat protections for riparian habitats on Federal lands would help to mitigate 

16232 for the limited protections and cumulative effects that occur on private lands.

16233 Summary

16234 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of

16235 riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

16236 1) This alternative would not address the negative effects that roads have on riparian habitats. 

16237 2) This alternative would not consolidate and make more consistent management direction for 

16238 riparian habitats using standards and would have smaller riparian management areas. 

16239 3) This alternative would not emphasize landscape restoration that would reduce the potential 

16240 effects of uncharacteristically severe fires on riparian habitats.

16241 Species of Management Interest

16242 Deer and Elk

16243 Direct and Indirect Effects

16244 Forest management activities can influence deer and elk populations and habitat use. Vegetation 

16245 management activities may affect the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Adequate 

16246 forage is particularly important during the summer and fall before the following birthing season 

16247 when this can have a positive effect on the condition pregnant females (Lenz 1997, Cook 1998, Cook 

16248 2002, Cook et al. 2004, Cook et al. 2005). The management of forest roads and trails can influence 

16249 how deer and elk use habitats, and influence the interactions between deer and elk (Rowland et al. 

16250 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a, b). Additionally, deer and elk can compete with domestic livestock for 

16251 both food resources (Findholt et al. 2005) and space (Coe et al. 2001, Coe et al. 2005). Thus, the 

16252 potential effects that vegetation management, road and trail management, and grazing management 

16253 can have on deer and elk habitats and population are evaluated for each of the alternatives.

16254 Under this alternative, cover and forage for deer and elk on winter ranges emphasizes the retention of 

16255 winter thermal cover. Considerable research has shown that the management of deer and elk winter 

16256 habitat should be less focused on the retention of thermal cover, and more focused on the availability 

16257 of forage on summer and fall habitats (see Cook et al. 2005 for a review). This alternative would not 

16258 incorporate the current science about the role of providing adequate forage quality and quantity in 

16259 providing for deer and elk populations.

16260 This alternative would not alter the current habitat effectiveness for deer and winter ranges through 

16261 road management. The Selkirk Elk Herd has a moderate level of habitat effectiveness (moderate 

16262 level of human influence) on their winter ranges. Currently, in 38 percent of the watersheds, winter 

16263 habitat for deer has a high habitat effectiveness index (low level of human influence), 38 percent 

16264 habitat a moderate level of habitat effectiveness (moderate level of human influence), and 24 percent 

16265 habitat a low level of habitat effectiveness (high level of human influence). Management direction 

16266 for winter ranges is based on road density standards. Rowland et al. (2005) found road density to be 

16267 a poor indicator of habitat use by deer and elk and recommended the use of the zone of influence 

16268 instead. This is incorporated into the proposed action and alternative R and P.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

473

16269 Under this alternative, there would be no changes to current grazing practices that occur on national 

16270 forest allotments. Degraded range conditions would be maintained or slowly be improved, likely 

16271 having effects to deer and elk habitat use and populations (Coe et al. 2001, 2005; Findholt et al. 

16272 2005). More robust range management direction (as in the other alternatives) would not be adopted.

16273 Climate Change

16274 Deer and elk have a low level of sensitivity to the effects of climate change due to their ability to 

16275 tolerate a relatively wide range of climatic conditions, their high mobility, and as habitat generalists 

16276 (CCSD 2013). However, alternatives that restore landscape pattern and functions while reducing the 

16277 effects of roads on deer and elk summer and winter habitats would provide more resilience deer and 

16278 elk populations. This alternative does not emphasize landscape-scale restoration and nor does it 

16279 provide consistent and effective management direction for roads that would restore habitat 

16280 effectiveness for deer and elk.

16281 Cumulative Effects

16282 The historical cattle and sheep grazing that occurred on portions of the Forest severely degraded 

16283 range conditions (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). These conditions, combined with current 

16284 domestic (cattle) and wild ungulate grazing (primarily elk and deer), have resulted maintenance or 

16285 slow recovery of poor range conditions in some areas (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). In 

16286 turn, these poor range conditions have had negative effects on some important unique habitats such 

16287 as riparian areas and meadows (Beebe et al. 2002, Evans 2006, Lehmkuhl et al. 2013). This 

16288 alternative would not result in more rigorous grazing management direction that would help to 

16289 address this situation.

16290 Winter ranges for the deer and elk occur on Federal lands, adjacent Wildlife Management Areas 

16291 managed by the State, and private lands. Elk herd management plans (WDFW 2001) provide 

16292 guidance for elk management on state lands and make recommendations for elk management on 

16293 Forestlands. Management plans for deer include the White-tailed Deer Management Plan that 

16294 provides direction to manage hunting to either maintain deer populations (WDFW 2010) and a 

16295 general plan for mule deer (WDFW 2008), which are widely distributed across the Forest. A 

16296 considerable amount of historical winter range for deer and elk is now in private land ownership or 

16297 under the waters of Lake Roosevelt (created by the Grand Coulee dam). The cumulative effects of 

16298 existing management plans (State and Federal lands) would provide for the conditions that contribute 

16299 to sustainable populations of deer and elk, while considering the effects of private land development.

16300 Summary

16301 The implementation of alternative B would make a relatively low contribution to the conditions that 

16302 support sustainable populations of deer and elk. This is based on the following: 

16303 1) This alternative would not address new science that recommends de-emphasizing the 

16304 importance of winter thermal cover and increasing the emphasis on summer and fall forage 

16305 quality and quantity. 

16306 2) This alternative does not provide consistent and effective direction on the management of 

16307 roads and trails to restore habitat effectiveness on deer and elk summer and winter ranges. 

16308 3) This alternative would not include more rigorous management direction to improve the 

16309 conditions of key habitats, such as riparian areas and meadows that are in poor condition due 

16310 to the cumulative effects of past grazing practices, and current domestic and wild ungulate 

16311 grazing.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

474

16312 Alternative O

16313 Federally Listed Wildlife Species

16314 Grizzly Bear

16315 Direct and Indirect Effects

16316 Forest activities that influence the recovery of the grizzly bear include: human access that can 

16317 displace bears from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of bear-human interactions, 

16318 disposal of livestock carcasses within range allotments to avoid attracting bears to a potential food 

16319 source, and the storage of food and garbage at recreation sites to reduce the potential for bears to 

16320 associate humans with food sources. 

16321 Management of grizzly bears does not vary between alternatives. Existing management direction 

16322 provides standards for human access, disposal of livestock carcasses, and food and garbage storage 

16323 within the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (IGBC 1998, USDA 1988, USFWS 1993, USDI 

16324 2001). Existing standards have largely been met and would continue to be followed.

16325 Climate Change

16326 Grizzly bears have been identified as having a low sensitivity to climate change because they are 

16327 opportunistic, eat a diverse array of food resources, and are highly adaptable (Servheen and Cross 

16328 2010, CCSD 2013). Anticipated impacts may include changes in the timing of denning due to longer 

16329 snow-free periods and reduced snowpack (Lawler et al. 2014) and changes in the availability of food 

16330 sources (Servheen and Cross 2010). These changes may put bears at risk of negative human 

16331 interactions for a longer period of time each year (Servheen and Cross 2010). This would make 

16332 education, proper food and garbage storage, carcass disposal measures, and human access 

16333 management that much more important.

16334 Cumulative Effects

16335 The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in the recovery zone is past persecution 

16336 and human-caused mortality of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

16337 Information and education programs, sanitation measures, and access management have and would 

16338 continue to be used to aid in the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Area.

16339 Past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions that could affect grizzly bears include timber 

16340 harvest and associated road construction, recreational activities that can cause disturbance to bear 

16341 and create potential for human-bear conflicts, and human development that fragment grizzly bear 

16342 habitat. Cumulative effects are evaluated across the Recovery Area by tracking activities within 

16343 Grizzly Bear Management Units (GBMUs). Other land managers have adopted and are following 

16344 similar management direction (IPNF 2015) and overall recovery is coordinated by the Selkirk 

16345 Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee. GBMUs that occur on the Colville National Forest include 

16346 the LeClerc, Salmo-Priest, and Sullivan-Hughes. The contribution made on Federal lands to grizzly 

16347 bear recovery would help to mitigate potential cumulative effects from off-forest activities. However, 

16348 because this alternative does not address reducing the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitats 

16349 like in the proposed action and alternatives R and P, it does less to mitigate cumulative effects.

16350 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

16351 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

16352 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

475

16353 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

16354 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

16355 by fire exclusion.

16356 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

16357 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance (e.g., 

16358 core areas) to become more important to wildlife such as grizzly bears.

16359 Black bear hunting on both sides of the international border within the Selkirk Recovery Area has the 

16360 potential to add cumulatively to the mortality of grizzly bears. Hunters that encounter grizzly bears 

16361 may mistakenly identify the bear, kill the bear in self-defense, or opportunistically poach the bear. 

16362 Human access management within the recovery area is key to reducing the risk of mortality to 

16363 grizzly bears from black bear hunting.

16364 On private lands, the presence of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or other attractants may lure bears 

16365 into conflict situations. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may lead to the bear being killed. 

16366 Summary

16367 This alternative would make a relatively high contribution to the recovery of grizzly bears in the 

16368 Selkirk Recovery Area and would result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

16369 determination. This is based on the existing management direction, followed in all alternatives, that 

16370 addresses:

16371 1) Human access management,

16372 2) Disposal of carcasses in range allotments that occur in the recovery area, and 

16373 3) Proper storage of food, garbage and other attractants that may lead to human-bear 

16374 interactions. 

16375 Canada Lynx

16376 Direct and Indirect Effects

16377 The forest management activities that influence the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx 

16378 include: vegetation management that affects lynx habitat components, winter recreation that 

16379 influences habitat connectivity and lynx habitat use, forest roads that can become sources of lynx 

16380 mortality at high traffic volumes and speeds, and grazing effects to riparian areas that provide habitat 

16381 for snowshoe hares, a primary food resource for lynx (ILBT 2013). The Interagency Lynx Biology 

16382 Team (ILBT 2013) developed conservation measures for core and secondary areas (USFWS 2005) to 

16383 address each of these forest management activities, and for planners to consult when revising forest 

16384 plans. These were used to evaluate the potential contribution of forest management alternatives to the 

16385 recovery of Canada lynx.

16386 When the USFWS reviewed existing regulatory mechanisms to determine if listing Canada lynx as a 

16387 federally protected species was warranted, they determined that existing forest plans provided 

16388 inadequate protections (USFWS 2003). Several national forests within the range of the Canada lynx 

16389 subsequently amended their forest plans using the original Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

16390 Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000) as a basis for current science. However, forest plans in 

16391 Region 6 were not amended, thus existing management plans do not address recent science and 

16392 conservation recommendations (ILBT 2013), recovery objectives (USFWS 2005), or critical habitat 

16393 (USFWS 2009). This alternative does not include management direction for Canada lynx.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

476

16394 Vegetation management activities affect the distribution of lynx habitat components, can fragment 

16395 habitats, and create sources of disturbance (ILBT 2013). The LCAS recommended conservation 

16396 measures for vegetation management apply to lynx core and secondary areas and include use of the 

16397 natural range of variability to mimic pattern and scale of natural disturbances and connectivity across 

16398 the landscape while considering the future climate change (ILBT 2013). A conservation measure 

16399 focused on the restoration of disturbance regimes in dry forests that occur in close proximity to lynx 

16400 habitat to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe and frequent fires reaching lynx habitat. A 

16401 final recommended in the LCAS is a conservation measure to limit the amount of vegetation 

16402 management and the rate of habitat change (e.g., acres treated/decade) within lynx analysis units. 

16403 There is no management direction in this alternative that addresses these conservation measures.

16404 Conservation measures were identified to address the effects that highways have on habitat 

16405 connectivity for lynx in core areas (ILBT 2013). The Kettle-Wedge is a Core Area on the Colville 

16406 National Forest.

16407 Winter recreation can influence how lynx use habitats (ILBT 2013). To minimize the potential 

16408 negative effects from winter recreation, the ILBT (2013) developed conservation measures for lynx 

16409 core areas that include reducing effects on habitat connectivity and discouraging expansion of over16410 the-snow routes that may influence lynx habitat use (ILBT 2013). This alternative does not address 

16411 effects of over-the-snow recreation on lynx habitat.

16412 The conservation measures for forest roads in lynx core areas include avoiding road reconstruction 

16413 or upgrades that occur in lynx habitat and would result in increased traffic speeds or volumes (ILBT 

16414 2013). These measures would reduce the potential for vehicular traffic to result in a source of 

16415 mortality to lynx. There is no management direction in this alternative to address this conservation 

16416 measure.

16417 The conservation measures for grazing in lynx core areas include management of riparian areas to 

16418 assure adequate habitat for snowshoe hares, the primary prey species for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013). 

16419 This alternative includes management direction for grazing in riparian areas to provide for habitat for 

16420 listed fish species, but does not include anything specific to Canada lynx or snowshoe hares.

16421 Alternative O would provide limited management direction to address the direct and indirect effects 

16422 of forest management activities on the recovery of Canada lynx. Alternative O would make limited 

16423 contributions to the recovery of Canada lynx, less than the proposed action, R and P alternatives, and 

16424 similar to no action and alternative B. 

16425 Climate Change

16426 The potential effects of climate change on Canada lynx identified by the Interagency Lynx Biology 

16427 Team (2013) included: (1) An upward shift in elevation or latitudinal distribution of lynx and prey, 

16428 (2) A decrease in the amount of habitat and population size from reduced snow persistence and 

16429 increased disturbance events (e.g., fires), (3) Changes in demographic rates, such as survival and 

16430 reproduction, and (4) Changes in predator-prey relationships.

16431 Climate change adaptations to address these effects include restoration of landscape-scale 

16432 disturbance regimes to better mimic natural patterns and processes (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 

16433 2012, Lawler et al. 2014), and maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity to allow Canada lynx to 

16434 adjust their ranges to changing conditions (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, ILBT 2013, Squires et al. 

16435 2013). There is limited management direction in this alternative to address these climate change 

16436 adaptations. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

477

16437 Cumulative Effects

16438 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect lynx habitat include timber harvest and 

16439 fuels reduction, recreation, human development, and grazing on private and public lands. In addition, 

16440 legal trapping of lynx, timber harvest, oil and gas development, mining and human access in British 

16441 Columbia have and would continue to affect Canada lynx habitat. 

16442 Past vegetation management and large scale fires on the Forest within lynx habitat has resulted in a 

16443 distribution and amount of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. This 

16444 alternative would not emphasize vegetation management activities to restore lynx habitats toward the 

16445 HRV. 

16446 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

16447 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

16448 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

16449 Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on off-forest lands potentially impacting 

16450 deciduous or riparian habitats for lynx prey species.

16451 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

16452 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

16453 by fire exclusion.

16454 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

16455 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

16456 become more important to wildlife.

16457 All Federal lands within Canada lynx core and secondary areas would use the Lynx Conservation 

16458 Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (ILBT 2013) as current science to guide project level consultation 

16459 and land management planning. The North Cascades National Park Complex recently revised their 

16460 management plan to include the LCAS (NPS 2012). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest land 

16461 management plan was recently revised to address the conservation measures identified in the LCAS 

16462 (USFS 2015). The conservation of lynx on WDNR lands is guided by the Department of Natural 

16463 Resources Lynx Habitat Management Plan (WDNR 1996, updated in 2002). The management plan 

16464 for the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge provides conservation measures to contribute to the 

16465 recovery and viability of Canada lynx (USFWS 2000). Collectively, these management plans have 

16466 addressed many of the conservation measures identified for Canada lynx (ILBT 2013) and would 

16467 help mitigate potential cumulative effects that may occur from off-forest activities. In addition, no 

16468 critical habitat was identified on the Colville National Forest or on adjacent lands (USFWS 2009).

16469 In Canada, timber harvesting, oil and gas development, coal mining, and the proliferation of human 

16470 access associated with these industries, have and would continue to affect lynx habitat. Legal 

16471 trapping occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could reduce the potential for lynx to disperse into 

16472 the lynx habitat on the Forest. Trapping is not legal in Idaho, Montana, or Washington.

16473 Summary

16474 Alternative O would make a relatively low contribution to the recovery of the Canada lynx in both 

16475 the short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) term, and result in a May Effect, Likely to 

16476 Adversely Affect determination. This is because of the following: 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

478

16477 1) This alternative does not address the best available science and conservation measures 

16478 identified in the recent version of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ILBT 

16479 2013), or USFWS Recovery Outline (USFWS 2005); 

16480 2) This alternative does not address recommended climate change adaptations; and 

16481 3) Existing regulatory mechanisms (management plans) were found to be inadequate to address 

16482 the threats to Canada lynx (USFWS 2003). 

16483 Late-successional and Old Forest Habitats (Federally Listed Wildlife Species)

16484 Woodland Caribou

16485 Direct and Indirect Effects

16486 The forest management activities that can influence the recovery and viability of woodland caribou 

16487 include: (1) Vegetation management and natural disturbances that affect the amount and connectivity 

16488 of late-successional and old forest habitats of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western 

16489 redcedar/western hemlock. (2) Human access can increase the potential for poaching and cause 

16490 disturbance to caribou during the critical winter period. These effects were used to evaluate the 

16491 potential contribution of each alternative to the recovery of woodland caribou.

16492 This alternative would implement new science, recommendations from the Biological Opinion 

16493 issued in 2001 (USFWS 2001) on the 1988 forest plan (USFS 1988), and address the critical habitat 

16494 designation (USFWS 2012). Vegetation management attempts to balance providing forest conditions 

16495 for suitable caribou habitat while providing for timber production. Timber harvest has been cited as 

16496 one of the primary factors that has reduced and fragmented old growth habitats for woodland caribou 

16497 (USFWS 1994, USFWS 2012).

16498 A term and condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion was that the Forest develop a winter recreation 

16499 strategy that protects important winter habitats for caribou while providing some level of winter 

16500 recreation access. The strategy includes information and education about the effects of winter 

16501 recreation on wildlife, monitoring and enforcement of areas closed to over-the-snow activities, and 

16502 limitations on permitted over-the-snow activities. Collectively, these actions have reduced the 

16503 impacts of winter recreation on caribou habitat while providing recreational opportunities in areas 

16504 and at the time of the winter season when effects to caribou are minimal. This strategy was 

16505 developed (USFS 2002) and would be fully integrated into this alternative. However, this alternative 

16506 would not emphasize reducing the negative effects of forest roads on wildlife habitat.

16507 Climate Change

16508 Climate change would likely alter the distribution and abundance of suitable caribou habitat, and 

16509 would change snow depths and persistence, which affect seasonal movements of mountain caribou 

16510 (WDFW 2012). The potential effects of climate change depend on the interaction of seasonal 

16511 temperatures and snowfall patterns and occurrence of wildfires, outbreaks of forest insects, and 

16512 diseases (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005). Management adaptations to address the effects of 

16513 climate change include a focus on forest restoration and reducing non-climatic factors that affect 

16514 wildlife populations (e.g., restoring habitat effectiveness impacted by roads). This alternative would 

16515 not implement these adaptations.

16516 Cumulative Effects

16517 The caribou recovery area is 1,477 square miles in size and includes the Colville National Forest, 

16518 Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Department of Lands, and British Columbia. About 

16519 47 percent of the recovery area is in the United States and 53 percent in British Columbia. The Idaho 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

479

16520 Panhandle National Forest recently revised the forest plan to address habitat and risk factors 

16521 identified in the caribou recovery plan and critical habitat (USFS 2015). The caribou recovery team 

16522 works cooperatively to address cumulative effects on woodland caribou.

16523 Past activities on the Forest have impacted caribou habitat. Over-the-snow motorized use, prior to 

16524 the implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy (USFS 2003), may have caused disturbance to 

16525 caribou. The alternative would continue with implementation of the Winter Recreation Strategy, 

16526 limiting the cumulative effects on caribou. 

16527 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

16528 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

16529 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

16530 alternative would not manage habitats toward HRV, and would not be as effective as the proposed 

16531 action and alternative P at mitigating for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

16532 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

16533 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

16534 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

16535 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

16536 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

16537 by fire exclusion.

16538 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

16539 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

16540 become more important to wildlife such as caribou. However, because this alternative does not 

16541 address the negative impacts of roads on wildlife habitat, it provides less opportunity to mitigate the 

16542 cumulative effects of recreation.

16543 Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters may 

16544 result in caribou mortality as a result of mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

16545 Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken it is difficult to evaluate 

16546 the influence of this on the caribou population. Fatal collisions with vehicles occur on open roads in 

16547 caribou habitat and are likely to continue. Predation by mountain lions, wolves, and other predators 

16548 would continue, with the effect on the caribou population dependent on big game populations, 

16549 predator populations and a variety of other factors. 

16550 One important factor is how the Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In the British 

16551 Columbia portion of the recovery area, human activities that have a would continue to impact 

16552 caribou habitat include gas, powerline, and international border corridors, recreation activities, 

16553 timber harvest, and highways.

16554 Summary

16555 The implementation of this alternative would have a May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

16556 determination for woodland caribou. It would make a moderate contribution to the recovery of 

16557 woodland caribou. The reasons for this determination are: 

16558 1) This alternative would address new science and risk factors identified in the recovery plan 

16559 and critical habitat, but does not emphasize forest restoration as in the proposed action and 

16560 alternative P. 

16561 2) This alternative would formally adopt the winter recreation strategy for caribou habitat that 

16562 was a Term and Condition of the 2001 Biological Opinion. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

480

16563 3) This alternative attempts to balance the protection of caribou habitat with timber production, 

16564 but does not address expected climate change effects that would enhance forest resiliency to 

16565 the degree that other alternatives do.

16566 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16567 Direct and Indirect Effects

16568 Forest activities that directly influence the viability of late-successional and old forest (LSOF) 

16569 dependent surrogate species include: the loss of LSOF habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008, Davis et 

16570 al. 2011), vegetation treatments (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest 

16571 structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, downed wood)(Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. 2008, Davis et 

16572 al. 2011), management of roads that influence habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and 

16573 protection of riparian areas which are an important element of LSOF habitats for some species (e.g., 

16574 Bald eagles).

16575 The management direction for LSOF species is similar to no action, and is based on a system of 

16576 small management areas that retains LSOF habitat for specific Management Indicator Species (e.g., 

16577 American marten, barred owl, pileated woodpecker). These areas range in size from 75 to 300 acres, 

16578 are relatively equally distributed, but have no way to provide for habitat connectivity between or 

16579 among the small islands of habitat. These small islands of habitat are also highly susceptible to 

16580 disturbances such as fire, insects, and tree diseases, with no redundancy or replacement habitat in the 

16581 event they are lost. This system was based on minimizing the effects of protection of LSOF habitat 

16582 on the timber harvest level. This system was deemed inadequate to provide for the viability of LSOF 

16583 species and thus Forest Plans were amended with the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995). The intent was 

16584 for the Eastside Screens to provide interim direction until the Forest Plan was revised.

16585 The area in-between the small islands of LSOF habitat is managed primarily through even-aged 

16586 timber production, with some protections for elements of LSOF habitat, such as snags and downed 

16587 wood. However, the combination of roads and timber harvest generally results in these areas having 

16588 snag habitat below levels that would maintain viable populations of snag-dependent wildlife species. 

16589 Again, the management direction in the original Forest Plan, and used in this alternative, was 

16590 deemed inadequate, thus additional direction was adopted through the Eastside Screens (USFS 

16591 1995). The intent of the Eastside Screens was to serve as interim direction until the Forest Plan was 

16592 revised. The Eastside Screens restrict the cutting of trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

16593 This alternative would not provide management direction that would reduce the negative effects of 

16594 roads on wildlife habitats. Currently, there are about 4,000 miles of road, resulting in an overall road 

16595 density on the roaded portion of the Forest of about 3 miles per square mile, which is considered a 

16596 low level of habitat effectiveness for many surrogate species (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gaines et al. 

16597 2003).

16598 Overall, alternative O would provide management direction for LSOF habitat that is similar to no 

16599 action and alternative B, but would provide less habitat than alternatives R and P. This alternative 

16600 would not improve the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species that are dependent on LSOF 

16601 habitats in the short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 50 years) time periods.

16602 Climate Change

16603 The sensitivity of LSOF associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change were 

16604 identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American marten 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

481

16605 (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is the loss of LSOF habitats due to altered 

16606 disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013). 

16607 Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

16608 increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel moisture driven by 

16609 increased temperature and lower snowpack. Increases in fire risk and severity have been also been 

16610 driven, in part, by increased fuel loads because of fire suppression practices used over the last 

16611 century (McKenzie et al. 2004). Predicted increases in spring and summer temperature identified in 

16612 many climate change models would exacerbate the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as 

16613 fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, Wotton and Flannigan 1993) and defoliation caused by forest insects 

16614 (Littell et al. 2009). In the interior Columbia Basin, Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned 

16615 is likely to double or even triple by 2050. Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the 

16616 dominant driver of changes to forests and LSOF habitats in the western United States over the next 

16617 century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

16618 A landscape restoration approach is not emphasized in this alternative. Landscape-scale restoration 

16619 has been identified as an adaptive strategy to create landscapes more resilient to climate change 

16620 (Spies et al. 2010, Gaines et al. 2012) and to maintain late-successional and old forest habitat 

16621 structures (Lawler et al. 2014). The emphasis on restoration of resiliency would result in landscapes, 

16622 including disturbance regimes that are more resilient to climate change through the application of 

16623 strategically located restoration treatments in priority locations (Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, 

16624 Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and Johnson 2012). By strategically locating restoration treatments, 

16625 landscape-scale fire behavior may be altered to be more similar to native disturbance regimes and the 

16626 risk of loss of LSOF habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires may be reduced (Finney 2001, Finney 

16627 et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). 

16628 Cumulative Effects

16629 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

16630 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

16631 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

16632 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

16633 restore LSOF habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

16634 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

16635 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and LSOF habitat protections in the original Forest 

16636 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended by the Eastside Screens USFS 1995).

16637 Past vegetation management and disturbances on the Forest have resulted in the distribution and 

16638 arrangement of successional stages (early, mid, late) that are outside the HRV. Presently, more of the 

16639 landscape is in med-successional and less in late-successional habitats compared to HRV. This 

16640 alternative would not manage habitats toward HRV, and would not be as effective as the proposed 

16641 action and alternative P at mitigating for the cumulative effects of off-forest timber harvest.

16642 Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

16643 residences. These can be done in such a way that they restore wildlife habitat that has been affected 

16644 by fire exclusion.

16645 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

16646 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

16647 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

16648 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

482

16649 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

16650 become more important to wildlife.

16651 Summary

16652 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of LSOF 

16653 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 

16654 1) The LSOF habitat provided by this alternative would not maintain viable populations of 

16655 LSOF surrogate wildlife species. 

16656 2) This alternative does not emphasize restoration of landscape resiliency to reduce the loss of 

16657 LSOF habitats to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. 

16658 3) The protection and conservation of key elements of LSOF habitat such as large trees and 

16659 snags, and riparian areas is minimal. 

16660 4) The alternative would not result in the restoration of habitat effectiveness by reducing the 

16661 negative effects of roads on LSOF habitats.

16662 Motorized Recreation and Road Access

16663 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16664 Direct and Indirect Effects

16665 Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

16666 These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during critical periods, 

16667 and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and Gaines et al. 

16668 2003 for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence wildlife). The effects of 

16669 motorized recreation and roads can occur during the non-winter period or during the winter period 

16670 when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

16671 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

16672 roads on surrogate species habitats because management direction for roads would be for no net loss 

16673 of road miles (approximately 4,000 miles) and only address big-game species. Currently, the average 

16674 road density (not counting the wilderness and recommended wilderness) is about 3.0 miles per 

16675 square mile, which is a low level of habitat effectiveness (Wisdom et al. 2000) for surrogate wildlife 

16676 species.

16677 This alternative would not reduce the impacts of winter or summer-motorized trail use on surrogate 

16678 species habitat effectiveness. Overall, this alternative would provide a level of habitat effectiveness 

16679 for surrogate wildlife that is similar to no action and alternative B, and less than the proposed action, 

16680 R, and P alternatives. This alternative would not improve the viability outcome for surrogate species 

16681 used to assess the effects of road and motorized trails.

16682 Climate Change

16683 The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species used to assess the effects of roads and motorized 

16684 recreation is rated as moderate for bighorn sheep, and high for Harlequin duck, Canada lynx, and 

16685 wolverine (CCSD 2013). An important climate change adaptation that has been recommended for 

16686 wildlife is to reduce the negative effects of roads (and trails) on habitat (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et 

16687 al. 2014). By reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats (especially riparian and wetland 

16688 habitats) can become more resilient to the effects of climate change, and habitat connectivity can be 

16689 restored allowing wildlife to adjust their ranges as conditions change. The implementation of this 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

483

16690 alternative includes management direction to make very limited improvement to habitat effectiveness 

16691 for surrogate wildlife by reducing road impacts and densities.

16692 Cumulative Effects

16693 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

16694 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

16695 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

16696 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and restore habitat 

16697 effectiveness (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the 

16698 process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

16699 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, mostly focused on big-game species.

16700 The limited emphasis of this alternative on reducing the negative effects of roads on wildlife and 

16701 continued development of private lands (located mostly in east-west valley bottoms that bisect the 

16702 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest) means that management of roads and motorized trails on 

16703 Federal lands is even more important to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. 

16704 Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads or 

16705 trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over the 

16706 life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence Border Patrol activities. 

16707 Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to increasing demands. This would 

16708 increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have relatively low human disturbance to 

16709 become more important to wildlife.

16710 Summary

16711 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of 

16712 surrogate wildlife species whose habitats are influenced by motorized access. This would occur 

16713 because: 

16714 1) The alternative includes limited management direction to reduce the impact of roads on 

16715 habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species.

16716 2) This alternative does not reduce the impacts summer or winter-motorized trails have of 

16717 habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species in two watersheds.

16718 3) This alternative does little to address the cumulative effects for human access and 

16719 development on wildlife habitats.

16720 Livestock Grazing

16721 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16722 Direct and Indirect Effects

16723 Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements (e.g., 

16724 dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats. It can also 

16725 alter disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (e.g., frequent fires in dry forests and 

16726 grasslands keep open canopy for western bluebird), and influence the availability of important prey 

16727 items (e.g., squirrels for golden eagles). To address the potential effects on surrogate wildlife species, 

16728 the management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland habitats for each 

16729 alternative was assessed.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

484

16730 This alternative would include management direction for riparian habitats relying mostly on 

16731 guidelines (not Standards as in R and P alternatives). Presently, some riparian habitats are in poor 

16732 condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan direction for this alternative would 

16733 make a modest improvement on altering the distribution of livestock that would allow riparian 

16734 habitats to recover.

16735 This alternative includes ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats (e.g., 

16736 rangeland and alpine habitats) and guidelines to protect unique habitats. This alternative would not 

16737 alter the number of livestock, the intensity of grazing, or the amount of area grazed. Presently, 

16738 73 percent of the Forest is in a livestock allotment and animal unit months (AUMs) average about 

16739 25,000 per year. However, management direction could result in some adjustments to the distribution 

16740 of cattle and the intensity of grazing within specific habitats, such as unique habitats. This alternative 

16741 would make modest improvement to the viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species used to 

16742 assess the effects of grazing.

16743 Climate Change

16744 Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

16745 (including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make these 

16746 habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors (e.g., roads, 

16747 intense grazing, etc.) (Lawler et al. 2014). This alternative includes management direction that would 

16748 help to restore the resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change.

16749 Cumulative Effects

16750 Grazing occurs on nearby private, State, tribal, and Federal lands. Where grazing is allowed on the 

16751 adjacent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest, it is managed 

16752 to accommodate other public land uses, such as contributing to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

16753 species. On the adjacent Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge, livestock grazing was reduced over 

16754 time to allow restoration of riparian habitats, and is currently only used to achieve specific wildlife 

16755 habitat objectives (USFWS 2000). Grazing on non-Federal lands increases the need to provide for 

16756 wildlife habitats on Federal lands that contribute to the viability of surrogate wildlife species. This 

16757 alternative includes management direction for some key habitats that would better account for the 

16758 cumulative effects of grazing on wildlife habitats.

16759 Summary

16760 Implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to viability for surrogate 

16761 wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This determination is based on: 

16762 1) This alternative does include management direction for riparian habitat that would reduce 

16763 the negative effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition. 

16764 2) This alternative would not change the number or grazing intensity, but may alter the 

16765 distribution of livestock to protect some unique habitats. 

16766 3) This alternative would include management direction that could make habitats that are 

16767 sensitive to the effects of climate change more resilient.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

485

16768 Habitat Connectivity

16769 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16770 Direct and Indirect Effects

16771 A number of forest management activities influence habitat connectivity for surrogate wildlife 

16772 species. These include the amount, patch sizes, and spatial arrangement of suitable habitats; location 

16773 and density of motorized travel routes, especially in relation to riparian and LSOF habitats. These are 

16774 addressed in the evaluation of how forest management alternatives would affect habitat connectivity 

16775 for surrogate wildlife species.

16776 This alternative emphasizes providing habitat connectivity for LSOF species through the 

16777 identification of connectivity corridors during project planning (as per Eastside Screens, USFS 

16778 1995). Additional provisions for low to moderate mobility LSOF species are provided through 

16779 Riparian Management Zones. No management direction addresses habitat connectivity for wildlife 

16780 species that are not associated with LSOF habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores, Singleton et al. 

16781 2002).

16782 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

16783 roads on surrogate species habitats because management direction for roads would be for no net loss 

16784 of road miles (approximately 4,000 miles) and emphasizes mostly big-game species. Currently, the 

16785 average road density (not counting the wilderness and recommended wilderness) is about 3.0 miles 

16786 per square mile, which is a low level of habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species (Wisdom 

16787 et al. 2000). 

16788 Climate Change

16789 Maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity is the most oft-cited climate adaptation strategy 

16790 for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Opham and Wascher 2004, Parmesan 2006, 

16791 Spies et al. 2010) and has been identified as an important adaptation strategy for wildlife in northeast 

16792 Washington (Gaines et al. 2012). This is because species’ range shifts have been the primary 

16793 biological response to past episodes of climatic change, yet widespread anthropogenic barriers to 

16794 movement would now challenge species’ ability to respond (Price 2002, Thomas and Lennon 1999, 

16795 Wormworth and Mallon 2006).

16796 This alternative does provide direction to address habitat connectivity for some highly mobile LSOF 

16797 wildlife species. However, there is no management direction that addresses habitat connectivity for 

16798 wildlife species not associated with LSOF habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores), nor does this 

16799 alternative address the effects of forest roads on habitat connectivity. 

16800 Cumulative Effects

16801 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human developments and transportation infrastructure, 

16802 along with land ownership patterns create cumulative impacts that limit options to conserve and 

16803 restore regional connectivity. Regional habitat connectivity has been evaluated for a variety of 

16804 wildlife species, including the surrogate wildlife species used to evaluate connectivity in this 

16805 planning area (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010, Proctor et al. 2015). These assessments have 

16806 shown the importance of the Colville National Forest in providing stepping-stone habitats between 

16807 the Cascades and Selkirk Mountains (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Connectivity from 

16808 the Cascades to the Kettle Range to the Selkirk Mountains is interrupted by transportation corridors 

16809 and human developments associated with the Okanogan, Upper Columbia, and Pend Oreille river 

16810 valleys (Singleton et al. 2002, WWHCWG 2010). Additionally, connectivity planning in southern 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

486

16811 British Columbia identified linkage areas that could greatly enhance wildlife movements between the 

16812 Selkirk Mountains and Purcell Mountains (Apps et al. 2007, Proctor et al. 2015). 

16813 Reducing the direct and indirect effects of roads on wildlife habitats would contribute to the 

16814 maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity, including cumulative effects, but is not well 

16815 addressed in this alternative. Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause 

16816 disturbance through use of roads or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent 

16817 or amount of the impact over the life of the plan is difficult to predict because many factors could 

16818 influence Border Patrol activities. Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownerships due to 

16819 increasing demands. This would increase human disturbance and result in NFS lands that have 

16820 relatively low human disturbance to become more important to wildlife.

16821 Summary

16822 The O alternative would provide limited direction that addresses habitat connectivity, and most is 

16823 relevant to wildlife species associated with LSOF habitats. Thus, the implementation of the O 

16824 alternative would provide a low contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife species used to 

16825 assess habitat connectivity. The primary reasons for this conclusion include: 

16826 1) No management direction to address wildlife species that are not associated with LSOF 

16827 habitats (e.g., wide-ranging carnivores), 

16828 2) Limited management direction that addresses the effects of roads and road networks on 

16829 habitat connectivity, despite this being a primary factor that influences wildlife movements. 

16830 Snag Habitat

16831 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16832 Direct and Indirect Effects

16833 Forest activities that directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

16834 species include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), the loss of snag habitat 

16835 along roads and at recreation sites from hazard tree reduction (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 

16836 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety reasons (Wisdom 

16837 et al. 2008). The Forest Plans includes management direction for snag habitat to address the potential 

16838 loss of habitat in timber sale operations. However, this alternative includes a 21-inch diameter limit 

16839 on the size of snags that can be cut for firewood.

16840 This alternative includes 39 percent of the Forest that would be managed for even-aged timber 

16841 harvest, resulting in the potential loss of snag habitat for safety reasons. An additional 33 percent of 

16842 the forest would be actively managed for restoration. 

16843 Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of 

16844 roads on surrogate species habitats because management direction for roads would be for no net loss 

16845 of road miles (approximately 4,000 miles). Currently, the average road density (not counting the 

16846 wilderness and recommended wilderness) is about 3.0 miles per square mile, which would result in a 

16847 considerable loss of snag habitat for safety and hazard tree reduction (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et 

16848 al. 2013, Wisdom et al. 2008).

16849 Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protections for snag-dependent wildlife that are 

16850 similar to no action and alternative B, but less than the proposed action, R, and P alternatives. This 

16851 alternative would not improve the viability outcomes for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife species. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

487

16852 Climate Change

16853 Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, white16854 headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker and these species are rated 

16855 as medium sensitivity to climate change, and the western bluebird as high sensitivity (CCSD 2013). 

16856 The primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered 

16857 disturbance regimes. Because this alternative does not focus on landscape-scale restoration, the 

16858 restoration of disturbances regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for snag-dependent 

16859 surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated 

16860 with climate change and loss of snag habitat in the Responsible Management area from relatively 

16861 intense timber harvest. The increase in fire associated with climate change could create a short-term 

16862 gain in snag habitat followed by a long-term (80 to 100 years, Harrod et al. 1998) reduction as snags 

16863 attrition occurs.

16864 Cumulative Effects

16865 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

16866 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

16867 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

16868 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and more rigorous 

16869 snag requirements to contribute to the viability of snag-dependent wildlife (USFWS 2000, USFS 

16870 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan and 

16871 current plan provides limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitats 

16872 and current required snag densities make limited contribution to the viability of surrogate wildlife 

16873 species. The limited management direction for snag habitat on non-Federal lands adjacent to the 

16874 planning area, places additional emphasis on providing for viable populations of snag-dependent 

16875 wildlife species on Federal lands. Fuels reduction projects are possible on all land ownerships, in 

16876 particular where they are near residences. These can be designed in such a way that they restore 

16877 wildlife habitat that has been affected by fire exclusion, but treatments can lead to the loss of snag 

16878 habitat for safety reasons. 

16879 Summary

16880 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of snag16881 dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on: 

16882 1) This alternative would not emphasize landscape restoration of habitats and disturbance 

16883 regimes that directly influence the availability and condition of snag habitat. 

16884 2) This alternative would make no reductions in the negative effects of roads on snag habitat. 

16885 3) Snag habitat would be reduced due to extensive timber harvest and active management, and 

16886 an extensive road network would further reduce snag habitat for safety reasons.

16887 Riparian Habitats

16888 Surrogate Wildlife Species

16889 Direct and Indirect Effects

16890 Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian-dependent 

16891 surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, and vegetation treatments that occur 

16892 within riparian habitats. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

488

16893 In this alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is not consolidated into 

16894 one consistent set of plan components (e.g., direction is in both the existing forest plan and in the 

16895 INFISH amendment). Standards and guidelines would limit management activities that are allowed 

16896 to occur within riparian habitats. This alternative includes smaller riparian management area widths 

16897 along intermittent streams, lakes, and ponds in the areas covered by the INFISH forest plan 

16898 amendment (USFS 1995).

16899 Implementation of this alternative would provide limited management direction to reduce the effects 

16900 of roads on riparian habitats. Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protection for riparian 

16901 associated wildlife that is more than no action and alternative B, similar to the proposed action, and 

16902 much less than the R and P alternatives. This alternative would result in modest improvement to the 

16903 viability outcomes for riparian-dependent surrogate species.

16904 Climate Change

16905 Some of the riparian-associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

16906 (CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

16907 change (Lawler et al. 2014). The primary effect that is anticipated from climate change is the loss of 

16908 habitat and reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic and disturbance (fire) 

16909 regimes (Lawler et al. 2014).

16910 The emphasis of this alternative is on relatively intensive timber management. Because this 

16911 alternative does not focus on landscape-scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances regimes 

16912 would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost 

16913 at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated with climate change and some loss of 

16914 riparian habitat from relatively intense timber harvest. In addition, a climate change adaptation for 

16915 riparian habitats is to restore their resiliency by reducing the negative effects of roads (Lawler et al. 

16916 2013). However, this alternative has limited opportunity for managers to reduce road effects on 

16917 riparian habitats.

16918 Cumulative Effects

16919 The adjacent Federal land managers include the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west, 

16920 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east, and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge to the 

16921 southeast. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest and the Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge have 

16922 management plans that reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitats and to protect and 

16923 restore riparian habitats (USFWS 2000, USFS 2015). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is in 

16924 the process of revising their Forest Plan and current plan provides limited management direction to 

16925 reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat protections in the original Forest 

16926 Plan were found to be inadequate and were amended (INFISH, PACFISH-USFS 1995; ACS-USFS 

16927 1994).

16928 On private lands, Washington State Forestry Practices Act provides some limited protections for 

16929 riparian habitats. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to 

16930 enhance coordination across landowners and may enhance conditions for riparian associated wildlife 

16931 species. However, habitat protections for riparian habitats on Federal lands would help to mitigate 

16932 for the limited protections that occur on private lands.

16933 Summary

16934 Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of 

16935 riparian-dependent surrogate wildlife species. This determination is based on the following: 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

489

16936 1) This alternative would not address the negative effects that roads have on riparian habitats. 

16937 2) This alternative would not consolidate and make more consistent management direction for 

16938 riparian habitats using standards (as in alternatives R and P) and would have smaller riparian 

16939 management areas. 

16940 3) This alternative would not emphasize landscape restoration that would reduce the potential 

16941 effects of uncharacteristically severe fires on riparian habitats.

16942 Species of Management Interest

16943 Deer and Elk

16944 Direct and Indirect Effects

16945 Forest management activities can influence deer and elk populations and habitat use. Vegetation 

16946 management activities may affect the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Adequate 

16947 forage is particularly important during the summer and fall before the following birthing season 

16948 when this can have a positive effect on the condition pregnant females (Lenz 1997, Cook 1998, Cook 

16949 2002, Cook et al. 2004, Cook et al. 2005). The management of forest roads and trails can influence 

16950 how deer and elk use habitats, and influence the interactions between deer and elk (Rowland et al. 

16951 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a, and b). Additionally, deer and elk can compete with domestic livestock 

16952 for both food resources (Findholt et al. 2005) and space (Coe et al. 2001, Coe et al. 2005). Thus, the 

16953 potential effects that vegetation management, road and trail management, and grazing management 

16954 can have on deer and elk habitats and population are evaluated for each of the alternatives.

16955 Under this alternative, cover and forage for deer and elk on winter ranges emphasizes the retention of 

16956 winter thermal cover. Considerable research has shown that the management of deer and elk winter 

16957 habitat should be less focused on the retention of thermal cover, and more focused on the availability 

16958 of forage on summer and fall habitats (see Cook et al. 2005 for a review). This alternative would not 

16959 incorporate the current science about the role of winter thermal cover in providing for deer and elk 

16960 populations.

16961 This alternative would not alter the current habitat effectiveness for deer and elk on summer and 

16962 winter ranges through road management. The Selkirk Elk Herd has a moderate level of habitat 

16963 effectiveness (moderate level of human influence) on their winter ranges. Currently, in 38 percent of 

16964 the watersheds, winter habitat for deer has a high habitat effectiveness index (low level of human 

16965 influence), 38 percent habitat a moderate level of habitat effectiveness (moderate level of human 

16966 influence), and 24 percent habitat a low level of habitat effectiveness (high level of human 

16967 influence). Current management direct for winter ranges is based on road density standards. Rowland 

16968 et al. (2005) found road density to be a poor indicator of habitat use by deer and elk and 

16969 recommended the use of the zone of influence instead. This is incorporated into the proposed action, 

16970 R and P alternatives but not alternative O.

16971 Under this alternative, there would be not changes to current grazing practices that occur on national 

16972 forest allotments. Degraded range conditions would be maintained or slowly be improved, likely 

16973 having effects on deer and elk habitat use and populations (Coe et al. 2001, 2005; Findholt et al. 

16974 2005). Somewhat more robust range management direction would be adopted.

16975 Climate Change

16976 Deer and elk have a low level of sensitivity to the effects of climate change due to their ability to 

16977 tolerate a relatively wide range of climatic conditions, their high mobility, and as habitat generalists 

16978 (CCSD 2013). However, alternatives that restore landscape pattern and functions while reducing the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

490

16979 effects of roads on deer and elk summer and winter habitats would provide more resilient deer and 

16980 elk populations. This alternative does not emphasize landscape-scale restoration and nor does it 

16981 provide consistent and effective management direction for roads that would restore habitat 

16982 effectiveness for deer and elk.

16983 Cumulative Effects

16984 The historical cattle and sheep grazing that occurred on portions of the Forest degraded range 

16985 conditions (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). These conditions, combined with current 

16986 domestic (cattle) and wild ungulate grazing (primarily elk and deer), have resulted maintenance or 

16987 slow recovery of poor range conditions in some areas (Wissmar et al. 1994, Bunting et al. 2002). 

16988 These poor range conditions can have had negative effects on some important unique habitats such 

16989 as riparian areas and meadows. This alternative would result in more rigorous grazing management 

16990 direction that would help to address this situation.

16991 Winter ranges for the deer and elk occur on Federal lands, adjacent Wildlife Management Areas 

16992 managed by the State, and private lands. Elk herd management plans (WDFW 2001) provide 

16993 guidance for elk management on state lands and make recommendations for elk management on 

16994 Forestlands. Management plans for deer include the White-tailed Deer Management Plan that 

16995 provides direction to manage hunting to either maintain deer populations (WDFW 2010) and a 

16996 general plan for mule deer (WDFW 2008), which are widely distributed across the Forest. A 

16997 considerable amount of historical winter range for deer and elk is now in private land ownership or 

16998 under the waters of Lake Roosevelt (created by the Grand Coulee dam). The cumulative effects of 

16999 the existing management plans (state and Federal lands) would provide for the conditions that 

17000 contribute to sustainable populations of deer and elk, while considering the effects of private land 

17001 development.

17002 Summary

17003 Implementation of alternative O would make a relatively low contribution to the conditions that 

17004 support sustainable populations of deer and elk. This is based on the following: 

17005 1) This alternative would not address new science that recommends de-emphasizing the 

17006 importance of winter thermal cover and increasing the emphasis on summer and fall forage 

17007 quality and quantity. 

17008 2) This alternative does not provide consistent and effective direction on the management of 

17009 roads and trails to restore habitat effectiveness on deer and elk summer and winter ranges. 

17010 3) This alternative would include somewhat more rigorous management direction to improve 

17011 the conditions of key habitats, such as riparian areas and meadows that are in poor condition 

17012 due to the cumulative effects of past grazing practices, and current domestic and wild 

17013 ungulate grazing.

17014
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

491

17015 Social and Economic Conditions

17016 Economic Resources

17017 The Colville National Forest contributes to the local economy through the supply of products, 

17018 services and uses, as well as directly hiring employees and spending budgetary dollars. These 

17019 activities support direct, indirect, and induced jobs. Industry level employment and income data are 

17020 derived using IMPLAN 2010 model software and data at the county scale (MIG 2012). For this 

17021 analysis, impacts are limited to the three-county socio-economic impact zone comprising Ferry 

17022 County, Pend Oreille County, and Stevens County.

17023 The following sections summarize the economic impacts related to recreation, range and timber uses, 

17024 Forest Service expenditures, and revenue sharing and payments to counties from the specialist report 

17025 (Philips and Jaworski 2015). Not covered are minerals and non-timber forest products uses. National 

17026 forest plan revision decisions minimally affect mineral production. Non-timber forest products use 

17027 and production data are limited and are not in a format useful for economic impact analysis in forest 

17028 planning. 

17029 Affected Environment 

17030 National forest management affects traditions, lifestyles, and the economic livelihood of residents 

17031 and communities. Those who depend on the national forests for their livelihoods and recreational 

17032 pursuits are concerned that their relationship with the national forests may be compromised by other 

17033 uses and restrictions. Forest Service managers depend on their relationships with local communities, 

17034 people, and their institutions to help manage the national forests. Communities provide a skilled 

17035 workforce, labor, manufacturing infrastructure, business support, and other services. All of these 

17036 relationships are important to sustaining and restoring the ecological integrity of the national forests 

17037 as well as the social and economic wellbeing of the communities.

17038 Current Conditions

17039 The Colville National Forest contributes to the local economy and social conditions in a variety of 

17040 ways. These contributions include the supply of products, services and uses, as well as directly hiring 

17041 employees and spending budgetary dollars. These activities support jobs and income in each of the 

17042 Forest’s socio-economic impact zones. Not all resource outputs and purchases result in local 

17043 economic activity. For example, logs harvested from one national forest may be sent to processing 

17044 mills outside of its socio-economic impact zone. Similarly, a national forest may purchase goods and 

17045 services from businesses located outside its socio-economic impact zone. For example, we do not 

17046 include restoration work contracted with non-local businesses or helicopter logging services by non17047 local firms as direct jobs in the local economy. 

17048 The following sections discuss the economic impacts related to recreation, range, and timber uses; 

17049 Forest Service expenditures; and revenue sharing and payments to counties. This analysis does not 

17050 address minerals and non-timber forest products uses. The plan revision decisions are expected to 

17051 minimally affect mineral production. Non-timber forest products use and production data are limited 

17052 and are not in a format useful for economic impact analysis in forest planning. All dollar amounts are 

17053 presented in 2012 dollars unless otherwise noted.

17054 Recreation

17055 Visitors to national forests have the opportunity to participate in a variety of activities in developed 

17056 and dispersed settings. These activities include hiking, camping, and driving for pleasure as well as 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

492

17057 wildlife and fish use, such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. In addition to economic 

17058 benefits, recreation activities contribute to social and economic well-being in the socio-economic 

17059 impact zones since recreation opportunities within the national forests enhance the quality of life for 

17060 nearby residents.

17061 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) system collects and analyzes data about Forest Service 

17062 recreation use. The first survey collected data between 2000 and 2003. The second round of NVUM 

17063 collected data for the Colville in 2009 (USDA FS 2010). The scientists managing the NVUM survey 

17064 state that comparisons of the first and second round results are not appropriate due to changes in the 

17065 study protocols. Round 2 results estimated a total of 335,706 visits annually. 

17066 Recreation economic effects are based on expenditures for goods and services including shopping at 

17067 convenience stores or purchasing gasoline, food, lodging, outfitter guides, and sporting goods within 

17068 50 miles of the national forest. Expenditures are based on the procedures identified in “Estimation of 

17069 national forest visitor spending averages from national visitor use monitoring: round 2” (White et al. 

17070 2012). Six primary market segments and two segments for downhill skiing are used to identify key 

17071 differences in spending patterns of visitors (table 158). There are two key differences in the market 

17072 segments. The first identifies local and non-local visitors to identify dollars (new money) brought 

17073 into the socio-economic impact zones. The second difference identifies overnight stays either within 

17074 the national forest or overnight stays outside the national forest. The classifications are important 

17075 because recreation expenditures and their effects on local economies are different. Trip expenditures 

17076 by local day visitors are much less than expenditures by non-local visitors staying overnight. Day use 

17077 visitors do not require lodging and typically spend less on other goods and services.

17078 Table 158. Market segments of national forest visitors (2009)

Market Segment Annual Visits 

Non-local day 48,949

Non-local overnight within the national forest 18,034

Non-local overnight outside of the national forest 12,881

Local day 152,000

Local overnight within the national forest 20,610

Local overnight outside of the national forest 5,153

Downhill skiing day 71,052

Downhill skiing overnight 7,027

Total 335,706

17079 The Forest Service crosswalked the recreational expenditures to IMPLAN model sectors to estimate 

17080 the economic effects of recreational uses. Each of the six market segments has a unique expenditure 

17081 profile. The expenditure profile is combined with the amount of recreation use for each market 

17082 segment to estimate the direct, indirect and induced employment and income effects (table 159).

17083
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

493

17084 Table 159. Recreation, wildlife, and fish economic impacts

Use/Impact Average Annual Amount

Non-local recreation use

Jobs 115

Income $1,986,000

Non-local wildlife recreation use

Jobs 5

Income $112,000

Local recreation use

Jobs 71

Income $1,368,000

Local wildlife recreation use

Jobs 4

Income $90,000

17085 Rangeland and Grazing

17086 Livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest is an important use to the local ranching industry. 

17087 Grazing on public lands contributes directly to livestock forage needs, but the total contribution is 

17088 greater because it affords ranchers the opportunity to grow forage on other ranch lands for feeding 

17089 livestock during winter months. 

17090 The economic analysis of grazing uses data on animal unit months (AUMs). One AUM is the 

17091 amount of forage a 1,000 pound mature cow and a calf consume in a 30-day period, which is about 

17092 780 pounds of dry weight. Permitted AUMs are measures of planned capacity and are the number of 

17093 AUMs specified by the grazing permit for the duration of the permit (USDA FS, n.d., section 

17094 2230.5). The permit is usually valid for 10 years (USDA FS, n.d., section 2231.03). Authorized 

17095 AUMs is the amount of forage permittees pay for to use in a given year. Authorized AUMs indicate 

17096 how much of the planned capacity is used. It is the authorized use amount which contributes to jobs 

17097 and income. 

17098 The amount of livestock forage consumed by animals authorized to graze on Forest Service 

17099 allotments is the basis of the economic activity associated with Forest Service livestock grazing. 

17100 Table 160 shows the average grazing data for 2012 through 2014 for the Colville National Forest. 

17101 We use this data with the direct effects of 1,000 AUMs based on the revised BLM grazing impacts 

17102 methodology (USDI 2012, page 201). We then combine these data with IMPLAN model multipliers 

17103 to identify the indirect and induced effects for employment and income contributed by the Colville 

17104 National Forest. We use the BLM methodology because it is based on the type livestock typically 

17105 grazed on public lands and includes unpaid and family labor.

17106 Table 160. Average authorized livestock grazing data for 2012 through 2014

Livestock Animal unit months

Cattle 27,428

Sheep and Goats 0

17107 Table 161 displays the average annual jobs and income associated with current national forest 

17108 livestock grazing. We estimated the effects based on the average authorized grazing as displayed in 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

494

17109 Table 160 and the IMPLAN 2012 model data year. The data are totals for direct, indirect, and 

17110 induced effects.

17111 Table 161. Livestock grazing economic impacts and their socio-economic impact zones

Impact Amount

Jobs 98

Income $1,515,000

17112 Forest Products

17113 The Colville National Forest has a long history of providing timber and other forest products in 

17114 support of local community and national needs. Communities throughout the socio-economic impact 

17115 zones had strong economic components related to the wood products industry. However, increased 

17116 environmental protection, a focus on sustaining and restoring a broader range of resources, and 

17117 changing mill technology have resulted in significant declines in the timber industry and in the 

17118 businesses that support the timber industry.

17119 Annual timber volume harvested from the Colville, excluding fuelwood, has declined dramatically, 

17120 from a high of almost 135 million board feet per year during the late 1980s to about 44 million board 

17121 feet. Harvest on all other ownerships has also declined during the same period. Table 162 displays 

17122 the 2012 through 2014 average timber harvest by product type. Non-sawtimber includes pulpwood 

17123 and green biomass, such as clean chips. Fuelwood includes both personal and commercial use.

17124 Table 162. Timber harvest volume three-year average

Timber Product Colville

(Average 2012-14), CCF

Sawtimber 47,237

Non-sawtimber 13,577

Poles 17

Fuelwood 7,325

Totals 68,157

17125 CCF = hundred cubic feet

17126 Source: USDA FS 2014a

17127 From the late 1990s through 2007, sawmill and plywood-veneer processing capacity in eastern 

17128 Washington decreased by about 50 percent (Ehinger 2008). A recent inventory of wood products 

17129 mills in the area shows little change (Loewen 2014). Processing capacity is important for several 

17130 reasons. It generates value added jobs and income in addition to those jobs associated with logging. 

17131 Local processing capacity increases the net value of stumpage since it costs more to ship logs to 

17132 distant mills. A higher stumpage value means timber harvest projects are more likely to be 

17133 economically viable.

17134 The economic activity associated with timber harvest is based on the flows of logs through logging 

17135 companies including transportation; primary processors, such as sawmills, veneer and plywood 

17136 mills; and pulp and paper manufactures. The direct economic effect of the timber program is derived 

17137 using mill survey data (Alward et al. 2010). The direct job effect of timber harvest was determined 

17138 by dividing the total employment in an industry, such as sawmills, by the timber volume processed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

495

17139 or handled by that industry. The calculation provides a direct response coefficient for jobs per unit of 

17140 wood volume. We then integrated the response coefficient with the IMPLAN models for each socio17141 economic impact zone to calculate the indirect and induced employment and income effects for the 

17142 timber industries and supporting businesses that exist in the socio-economic impact zone. 

17143 Table 163 shows the amount of timber harvest from the Colville processed locally. Most of the 

17144 sawtimber and all of the nonsawtimber from the Colville is currently processed within the Colville 

17145 socio-economic impact zones analyzed. It is noteworthy that 20 percent of the volume harvested 

17146 from the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is also processed within the Colville socio-economic 

17147 impact zone.

17148 Table 163. Area where timber harvest is processed

Colville Sawtimber Nonsawtimber Posts, Poles, Fuelwood

Process area: Colville 96% 100% 100%

Not processed locally 4% 0% 0%

17149 Source: Rinke 2012

17150 Table 164 shows the economic contributions associated with the timber harvested from the Colville 

17151 in its socio-economic impact zone.

17152 Table 164. Colville National Forest timber harvest economic impacts

Impact Amount

Jobs 273

Income $15,969,000

17153 The sawtimber and nonsawtimber volume from the Okanogan-Wenatchee processed in the Colville 

17154 socio-economic zone generates an additional 62 jobs and $3,099,000 income.

17155 National Forest Expenditures

17156 Forest Service employees, budgets, buildings, and other infrastructure contribute to social and 

17157 economic well-being in the communities making up the Colville National Forest socio-economic 

17158 impact zone. Forest management requires a budget that is spent on employees, contractors, goods 

17159 and services, and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. In addition to the day-to-day 

17160 scheduled management activities, the Forest Service sometimes spends money for unplanned 

17161 activities, such as wildfire suppression. Table 165 shows the expenditures divided into salary and 

17162 non-salary components and including and excluding wildfire suppression costs. The data are 

17163 presented as the 2009 to 2011 average, the latest years for which the data are formatted for use with 

17164 IMPLAN.

17165
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

496

17166 Table 165. Average annual national forest expenditures for 2009 through 2011

Expenditure Amount

Salary excluding fire suppression $11,325,410

Non-salary excluding fire suppression $6,937,960

Salary including fire suppression $12,175,070

Non-salary including fire suppression $7,744,050

17167 Table 166 shows the economic effects of salary and non-salary expenditures. Forest Service 

17168 employees account for 225 or about 80 percent of all jobs. Non-salary expenditures and indirect and 

17169 induced effects of Forest Service salary and non-salary expenditures generate the other 53 jobs. The 

17170 economic impacts are estimated using the disposable income spent by Forest Service employees and 

17171 the agency’s expenditures spent on materials, contracts, and services. The economic impacts are 

17172 calculated using budgets excluding fire suppression costs. The reason for not identifying the 

17173 economic effects associated with fire suppression expenditures is because suppression activities are 

17174 not predictable, and most of the fire suppression dollars are spent on resources from outside of the 

17175 national forest’s socio-economic impact zone. The portion spent locally is unknown.

17176 Table 166. The economic impacts of national forest budgets

Impact Amount

Jobs 278

Income $13,314,000

17177 Excludes fire suppression activities

17178 Revenue Sharing and Payments to Counties

17179 Counties receive Federal payments based on revenue sharing under the Payments to States Act, also 

17180 known as 25-percent receipts. They also receive money under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 

17181 program based on the percentage of federally administered land. Due to declining revenues from 

17182 timber receipts, the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act (SRS) was 

17183 enacted to supplement the Payments to States Act. SRS money is divided into three separate parts 

17184 identified as Title 1, Title 2 and Title 3. Title 1 money, about 80 percent of the total, is spent on local 

17185 roads and schools based on a 50-50 split. The remaining money is spent on ecosystem management 

17186 projects on NFS lands and local government projects enhancing environmental education, public 

17187 safety, and other projects. PILT money can be spent on any local government purpose.

17188 The last payment under the original SRS was planned for 2006. An extension of the SRS payments 

17189 was signed into law in 2007, and the next year, the Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed 

17190 into law authorizing the SRS payments through 2011. The SRS payment was extended again for 

17191 2012 and again for 2013. Congress has reauthorized SRS payments through 2016. Because SRS 

17192 payments subject to congressional approval, we provide an analysis of potential revenue sharing 

17193 without the SRS adjustment. 

17194 Table 167 displays the average amounts of SRS and PILT money paid from 2012 to 2014 to the 

17195 counties in the socio-economic impact zone. The PILT payment amount is based on the total Forest 

17196 Service acres in each county identified in the PILT data base. The SRS payment is the total payment 

17197 to each county in the socio-economic impact zone. SRS payments are calculated on proclaimed 

17198 national forest acres rather than acres administered by a national forest. For example, the Colville 

17199 administers portions of the Kaniksu National Forest in Pend Oreille and Stevens counties.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

497

17200 Table 167. Total Forest Service SRS and PILT payments to socio-economic impact zone

Payment Type Average Payment, 2012-2014

SRS $1,719,580

PILT $1,313,300

Totals $3,032,880

17201 Source: USDA FS 2014c and USDI 2014

17202 Since it is unknown whether the SRS payments would continue into the future, we provide an 

17203 estimate of payments to states based on the pre-SRS mechanism of 25-percent of the average timber 

17204 receipts. The estimated payment shows a drop of about 80 percent from the Colville SRS payment.

17205 Table 168. Reconstructed Forest Service 25-percent payments to counties

Payment Type Amount

25-percent (reconstructed) $352,230

17206 Based on 2007–2013 average data 

17207 Source: USDA FS 2014c

17208 SRS and PILT payments to counties are a component of local government expenditures. In order to 

17209 calculate the economic contribution of the payments, the money is applied to several economic 

17210 sectors using the IMPLAN model. All of the PILT payment is applied to the non-schools local 

17211 government sector. We split the SRS payment four ways applying about 40 percent to highway 

17212 construction and maintenance to capture the county roads portion, and 40 percent is applied to the 

17213 schools sector of local government for Title 1; 10 percent is applied to ecosystem management 

17214 projects on NFS lands for Title 2; and 10 percent is applied to the local government sector for Title 3. 

17215 The following table identifies the jobs and income impacts.

17216 Table 169. Economic impacts of Forest Service payments to counties

Impact Amount

Jobs 36

Income $1,368,000

17217 For year 2011

17218 If the SRS payments are not extended and payments are instead based on 25-percent revenue 

17219 sharing, the jobs and income contributions would be reduced. PILT and 25-percent payments would 

17220 support approximately 20 jobs and $751,000 in labor income annually.

17221 Economic Contributions Summary

17222 Table 170 shows the economic effects of recreation, range, timber, agency expenditures, and 

17223 payments to counties combined for Colville National Forest and its socio-economic impact zone. 

17224 The data for jobs and income contributed by the Forest Service are compared to the total jobs and 

17225 income by industry sector in the zone to identify the relative importance of the national forest to that 

17226 sector and to the socio-economic impact zone overall. 

17227 The economic relationship of the Colville National Forest to its socio-economic impact zone shows 

17228 moderate economic ties. The Colville shows about a 5 percent overall contribution to total 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

498

17229 employment and about a 6 percent contribution to labor income. Seven industrial sectors show 

17230 5 percent or more Colville National Forest-related job contributions. Highest of these is agriculture, 

17231 which includes logging and grazing-related employment. Other important sectors are manufacturing 

17232 including wood processing employment and recreation-related sectors. The jobs and income 

17233 supported through Forest Service management activities are important components of the socio17234 economic impact zone’s well-being.

17235 Table 170. Current contribution of the Colville National Forest to its socio-economic impact zone

Employment (jobs) Labor Income ($1000s)

Industry

Impact 

Area 

Totals

National 

Forest 

Related

National 

Forest 

Percent of 

Total

Impact 

Area 

Totals

National 

Forest 

Related

National 

Forest 

Percent of 

Total

Agriculture 2,108 191 9.06% $44,391 $6,346 14.30%

Mining 195 3 1.71% $17,089 $60 0.35%

Utilities 92 1 1.61% $12,022 $187 1.56%

Construction 1,572 11 0.69% $38,806 $261 0.67%

Manufacturing 1,472 107 7.26% $92,582 $7,767 8.39%

Wholesale trade 293 13 4.45% $14,515 $713 4.91%

Transportation and 

warehousing 583 14 2.34% $16,675 $487 2.92%

Retail trade 2,079 46 2.20% $57,689 $1,382 2.39%

Information 198 4 2.07% $6,295 $144 2.29%

Finance and insurance 515 7 1.42% $14,930 $327 2.19%

Real estate and rental and 

leasing 314 8 2.55% $4,244 $173 4.08%

Professional, scientific, and 

technical services 641 11 1.75% $23,445 $455 1.94%

Management of companies 13 1 5.53% $829 $55 6.61%

Administrative, waste 

management, and 

removal services

393 10 2.60% $10,411 $215 2.06%

Educational services 223 2 0.99% $1,990 $29 1.48%

Health care and social 

assistance 1,975 24 1.23% $88,788 $1,168 1.31%

Arts, entertainment, and 

recreation 755 58 7.75% $3,480 $264 7.58%

Accommodation and 

food services 1,182 90 7.60% $17,427 $1,273 7.30%

Other services 1,334 21 1.61% $35,312 $726 2.05%

Government 5,098 259 5.08% $302,024 $13,801 4.57%

Totals 21,035 883 4.20% $802,942 $35,833 4.46%

17236 Excludes fire suppression dollars
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

499

17237 Methods

17238 Socio-economic Impact Zones

17239 We defined three county-level socio-economic impact zones to characterize the economic conditions 

17240 and impacts of national forest management: Ferry County, Pend Oreille County, and Stevens 

17241 County. We primarily considered three criteria to develop the impact zones: (1) the number of Forest 

17242 Service-administered acres in each county, which relates to county payments; (2) trade flows of 

17243 national forest products and by-products moving to and between local processing facilities; and 

17244 (3) interconnected county economies. More information about the county selection process is 

17245 available from the project record (Phillips 2010).

17246 Data Sources and Methods

17247 Management approaches to addressing the significant issues have socio-economic consequences. 

17248 Public comment identified concerns about the potential effects including those on local economies 

17249 and social conditions. Economic impacts were the result of potential changes in vegetative outputs 

17250 (such as firewood and commercial timber), recreation use, and grazing. These concerns, along with 

17251 differences in recreation access, species viability, risk of wildfire, and climate change also result in 

17252 social impacts. 

17253 This section describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management of the 

17254 Colville National Forest on economic well-being. The analysis focuses on how changes in 

17255 management activities by alternative affect goods and services, and how those changes affect the 

17256 economic contribution of the Forest on the local economies in its socio-economic impact zone. The 

17257 outputs used for this analysis include estimated timber harvest volume, grazing use, and recreation 

17258 use. Based on these outputs, we assess the resulting employment and income contributions. We also 

17259 measure employment and income contributions from Forest Service budgets, and revenue sharing 

17260 and payments to counties to provide a broader picture of the economic relationship of the Forest to 

17261 its surrounding communities.

17262 Industry-level employment and income data are derived using IMPLAN 2012 model software and 

17263 data at the county scale (MIG 2012). The IMPLAN data and analysis system provides a level of 

17264 specificity for employment and income at a finer industry scale than data reported by the Bureau of 

17265 Economic Analysis. The IMPLAN data and analysis system is also a useful tool to estimate the 

17266 impacts of alternative management strategies on local economies. We provide additional information 

17267 about data sources and methods as we discuss them in the following sections. 

17268 Counties are large, and using data at this level often masks social and economic conditions and 

17269 trends occurring at the sub-county or individual community level. We do not address these potential 

17270 sub-county changes because they are generally not quantifiable given the broad scale of forest plan 

17271 decisions. We address the social and economic effects related to a national forest’s management 

17272 activities within its socio-economic zone and normally do not address the potential economic 

17273 relationships that exist in other areas. However, since large portions of the sawlog timber harvested 

17274 on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest are processed within the Colville National Forest 

17275 socio-economic impact zone, we identify these effects. 

17276 Assumptions

17277 • The Forest’s budget continues at current levels for all alternatives. 

17278 • Recreation uses displaced in one part of the national forest are accommodated elsewhere on 

17279 the forest.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

500

17280 Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

17281 The levels of supply and demand for national forest goods, services and uses are difficult to predict 

17282 and they vary over time. Future market conditions are also uncertain. In order to address estimation 

17283 error and variability, we include the job and income impacts associated with a small increment of a 

17284 good, service or use in the discussion of alternative effects. This information provides the reader an 

17285 indication of how sensitive the economic impacts are to predictions of goods, services and uses, and 

17286 to address potential “what if” scenarios. We also discussed additional cautions about information 

17287 completeness and availability in the affected environment section.

17288 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

17289 The spatial context for the economic impacts analysis includes Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens 

17290 counties. Due to the programmatic nature of forest planning, we do not estimate site-specific 

17291 consequences. The economic impacts are identified at the broader three-county level. 

17292 The temporal context for the economic impact analysis is the life of a forest plan, which is expected 

17293 to be 15 years.

17294 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative 

17295 Effects Analysis 

17296 Economic impact cumulative effects are primarily associated with the management activities of 

17297 adjoining land managers and community infrastructure. The supply of goods, services, and uses 

17298 similar to those supplied by the Colville are components of the overall economic picture. The major 

17299 land ownerships that we consider in the cumulative effects analysis are the Okanogan-Wenatchee 

17300 and Idaho Panhandle National Forests, the Spokane District of the BLM, tribal lands including the 

17301 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Kalispel Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe of 

17302 Indians, and privately held forest lands. 

17303 Community infrastructure is important to support national forest management activities and to 

17304 process goods and services. Having local capacity for wood products processing increases the value 

17305 of national forest wood fiber. Having knowledgeable local operators and equipment lowers the cost 

17306 of ecosystem restoration activities. Changes in the local infrastructure affect the amount of job and 

17307 income impacts that occur in the economic impact area.

17308 Environmental Consequences

17309 The amount of goods, services, and uses produced under each alternative drive the level of economic 

17310 impacts. However, aside from timber harvests, there is little variation in the amount of the jobs and 

17311 income impacts by alternative. Even though the economic impacts for many resources do not vary by 

17312 alternative, there are other qualitative and quantitative differences. We address these effects in the 

17313 social and other resource sections. 

17314 We have combined the alternative impacts of separate issue categories for this economic impact 

17315 analysis. For example, direction to address the recommended wilderness issue may affect levels of 

17316 timber harvest. However, the primary issue category affecting timber harvest is Old Forest 

17317 Management. Likewise, Livestock Grazing and Road Density affect recreation; however, Motorized 

17318 Recreation is the primary issue category impacting recreational opportunities. Table 178, at the end 

17319 of this section on economics, displays the economic contribution of each alternative by program 

17320 area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

501

17321 Forest Products

17322 We use the projected wood sale quantity (PWSQ) to estimate the amount of economic activity for 

17323 each alternative. PWSQ includes timber harvest for any purpose from all lands in the plan area. 

17324 PWSQ is based on consistency with the plan components as well as the planning unit’s fiscal and 

17325 organizational capacity. The key components of timber harvest includes sawtimber used primarily in 

17326 sawmills and in plywood and veneer manufacturing; nonsawtimber such as pulpwood and biomass 

17327 used in processing pulp and paper as well as composite board; fuelwood which includes both 

17328 commercial and personal use; and small amounts of posts and poles.

17329 Table 171. Estimated annual timber harvest (PWSQ) by alternative and by product type in CCF

Product Type No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Sawtimber 56,466 99,574 19,310 99,087 49,551 50,775

Nonsawtimber 17,365 17,365 6,308 17,365 17,365 17,365

Fuelwood 8,914 8,914 53,231 8,914 8,914 8,914

Posts and Poles 13 13 0 13 13 13

Total 82,758 125,866 28,849 125,379 75,843 77,067

17330 CCF = hundreds of cubic feet

17331 The harvest level by product type displayed in table 171 is one part of determining the employment 

17332 and income by alternative. The other part is the proportion of the harvest processed by wood 

17333 products manufacturing sectors within the socio-economic impact zone. The distribution of forest 

17334 harvest is shown in table 163 in the affected environment section. Table 172 displays the estimated 

17335 timber-related economic effects.

17336 Table 172. Estimated jobs and income supported by timber harvest

Alternative Timber-related Employment Annual Timber-related Income

No action 330 $19,335,000

Proposed action 539 $31,224,000

R 114 $6,692,000

P 537 $31,089,000

B 297 $17,428,000

O 303 $17,765,000

17337 The no-action, B, and O alternatives would support local employment and income in the timber 

17338 sector at levels similar to current conditions. These alternatives are unlikely to affect the economic 

17339 well-being of individuals employed in timber harvesting and processing firms relative to existing 

17340 conditions. The proposed action and alternative P would increase timber-related employment and 

17341 labor income in the local economy. These alternatives may improve the economic well-being of 

17342 unemployed individuals with the skills to work in forest products sectors. The R alternative would 

17343 measurably decrease annual timber harvested from the Colville National Forest. The proposed action 

17344 would support nearly five times more timber-related employment and income than the R alternative. 

17345 Households that rely on earnings from the timber industry may experience a shock to their economic 

17346 well-being under the R alternative. 

17347 Congress determines Forest Service budgets annually. At times, there are budget increases to produce 

17348 more products and services from national forests or there are reductions to produce less. To address 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

502

17349 this variability, we provide the following data useful to analyze an incremental change. A budget 

17350 amount of $40,000 for timber harvest produces about 1,000 CCF (0.5 MMBF) of sawtimber and 

17351 nonsawtimber harvest. This supports about five jobs and $273,000 in wage income. These effects are 

17352 based on the current distribution between sawtimber and nonsawtimber, and where the harvested 

17353 wood is processed.

17354 Recreation Management

17355 Although recreational opportunities vary by alternative, we do not expect current recreation uses 

17356 totaling 335,700 visits, including wildlife-related and local visits to the Colville National Forest, to 

17357 vary across alternatives. The forestwide supply of recreational opportunities would generally meet or 

17358 exceed demand during the life of the forest plan. With no changes in use, there is no estimated 

17359 change to the overall level of recreation-related expenditures, and no differences in the jobs and 

17360 income supported by the expenditures (table 173). However, differences in economic effects at 

17361 smaller spatial scales are possible. 

17362 Use patterns and access would change on the Colville by alternative. For example, reductions in 

17363 mountain bike access under the B alternative may cause distributional effects and mountain bikers 

17364 relocate to other areas on and off the forest. However, the total amount of recreation-related spending 

17365 attributable to activities on the forest is not expected to change. This forestwide economic evaluation 

17366 only addresses total effects across the entire socio-economic impact area. Additional recreation 

17367 related impacts are addressed in the recreation and social specialist reports.

17368 Table 173. Estimated jobs and income supported by recreation expenditures

Alternative Employment Annual Wage Income 

All alternatives 195 $3,556,000

17369 Projections of recreational supply and demand are not precise. We, therefore, provide an estimate of 

17370 the economic impacts associated with and increment of 10,000 visits, about 3 percent of current use. 

17371 This number of visits supports about 5 jobs and $100,000 in labor income. For this assessment, we 

17372 used the current proportions of local, non-local, recreation, and fish and wildlife-related recreation 

17373 uses to distribute the 10,000 visit change.

17374 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Vegetation Management 

17375 Projections of cattle grazing are the same across all alternatives. However, the management of 

17376 potential impacts of livestock grazing on riparian-based recreation settings and nationally designated 

17377 trail systems may increase costs to grazing permittees. Likewise recommended wilderness, non17378 motorized recreation, and reduce road density management may also increase the cost of range 

17379 management. Forage potentially available for domestic sheep could vary especially under the B and 

17380 O alternatives. These alternatives use no risk protection measures for bighorn sheep, which may 

17381 modify or eliminate domestic sheep grazing. However, modification of sheep grazing numbers is 

17382 made at the project planning scale rather than at the forest plan scale. In addition, the Colville 

17383 currently has no active sheep grazing so changes in domestic sheep grazing are not projected. The 

17384 following table displays the projected amounts of authorized cattle and sheep grazing.

17385 Table 174. Estimated cattle and sheep permitted animal unit months (AUM) by alternative

Alternative Estimated Cattle authorized AUMs Estimated Sheep authorized AUMs Total

All alternatives 27,580 0 27,580
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

503

17386 We estimate the economic effects of the alternatives based on authorized cattle and sheep grazing 

17387 use. Table 175 displays the total jobs and wage income supported by cattle and sheep grazing for the 

17388 alternatives. These totals are the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts including estimates 

17389 for unpaid or family labor contributions. Since there is no variation in AUMs by alternative, the job 

17390 and income economic impacts are also the same across the alternatives.

17391 Table 175. Estimated jobs and income supported by grazing

Alternative Grazing Related Employment Grazing Related Wage Income 

All alternatives 98 $1,524,000

17392 Environmental conditions and management needs may affect grazing use. Actual use numbers may 

17393 be more or less than the projected use in any year. We, therefore, provide data to estimate the impacts 

17394 of a 1,000 AUM change in cattle use, which is about 3 percent of current use. The amount supports 

17395 about 4 full and part-time jobs and $53,000 in wage-related income.

17396 National Forest Expenditures 

17397 Salary and non-salary expenditures comprise national forest budgets. Non-salary expenditures are 

17398 the purchases of goods and services, including contracting for restoration activities, and they are for 

17399 acquiring and maintaining facilities and other infrastructure. We do not project salary and non-salary 

17400 expenditures to vary by alternative. The current annual budget level of $18.3 million would continue 

17401 during the plan period. This budget amount does not include expenditures for fire suppression which 

17402 averaged about $1.7 million during the years 2009 through 2011. These dollars are not included 

17403 because they are not predictable, and often spent on resources from outside of the Colville National 

17404 Forest socio-economic area. Table 176 displays the job and income effects of the total budget 

17405 without fire suppression.

17406 Table 176. Estimated jobs and income supported by budget expenditures

Economic Impact All Alternatives

Employment (full and part time jobs) 278

Wage Income $13,314,000

17407 Forest Service employees account for 225 or about 80 percent of all jobs. Non-salary expenditures 

17408 and indirect and induced effects of Forest Service salary and non-salary expenditures generate the 

17409 other 53 jobs.

17410 Revenue Sharing and Payments to Counties

17411 Even though there may be future variations in payments based on PILT and SRS formula 

17412 requirements, these are not linked to the forest plan. We therefore do not project differences in the 

17413 SRS and PILT payments.

17414 It is unknown whether the SRS payment would continue into the future. To address this issue, we 

17415 provide an estimate of the revenue sharing amount under the Payments to States Act (25-percent 

17416 receipts). The reconstructed 25-percent receipts payment is $352,228 estimated from average 

17417 receipts for fiscal years 2007 through 2013. This payment would be approximately 80 percent lower 

17418 than recent SRS payments.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

504

17419 Table 177. Estimated 25-percent payments

County Average Receipts, 2007−2013 Estimated County Share of 25-percent 

Payments

Ferry County $446,331 $111,583

Pend Oreille County $744,877 $186,219

Stevens County $217,705 $54,426

Three-County Total $1,408,913 $352,228

17420 Source: USDA FS (2014c)

17421 The 25-percent receipts based payments could vary by alternative and support different levels of jobs 

17422 and income. Alternatives producing more revenue generating outputs and uses would in turn provide 

17423 larger payments to counties. The commercial wood products are the largest generator of receipts and 

17424 are greatest cause of differences in payments. Therefore, the R alternative, which would support the 

17425 lowest levels of commercial timber harvest, could decrease Forest Service payments to counties. 

17426 Since a reversion to 25-percent payments is unforeseeable, this analysis does not estimate 

17427 employment and income variation between alternatives associated with payments to states and 

17428 counties.

17429 Cumulative Economic Effects

17430 The jobs and income supported through national forest management activities are important 

17431 components of the Colville area socio-economic well-being. The Forest Service currently contributes 

17432 about 5 percent of employment and 6 percent of labor income in the impact zone. National forest 

17433 timber harvest, expenditures, and recreation uses make up the majority of these jobs and the 

17434 associated income (table 178). 

17435 Current trends in timber harvests from non-Forest Service ownerships do not indicate a reversal from 

17436 the significant decline between 2002 and 2003 and the additional declines since the recession of 

17437 2007. Recent revisions of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest plan and the potential revision to the 

17438 Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest Plan are not expected to change local timber supplies either. Eastern 

17439 Washington timber supply would remain near current levels. 

17440 The Colville National Forest budget would also remain at current levels, and recreation use and 

17441 related expenditure would not differ. The Colville’s current economic role would be the same in 

17442 importance across all of the alternatives during the life of the forest plan.

17443
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

505

17444 Table 178. Total jobs and income supported by Colville National Forest activities and programs by 

17445 alternative for the Colville socio-economic impact zone

Activity No 

Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Estimated Employment Contribution 

(direct, indirect, and induced)

Recreation 195 195 195 195 195 195

Range 98 98 98 98 98 98

Timber 330 539 114 537 297 303

Expenditures 278 278 278 278 278 278

County 

payments 36 36 36 36 36 36

Totals 937 1,146 721 1,144 904 910

Estimated Wage Income Contribution ($1,000s) 

(direct, indirect, and induced)

Recreation $3,556 $3,556 $3,556 $3,556 $3,556 $3,556

Range $1,524 $1,524 $1,524 $1,524 $1,524 $1,524

Timber $19,335 $31,224 $6,692 $31,089 $17,428 $17,765

Expenditures $13,383 $13,383 $13,383 $13,383 $13,383 $13,383

County 

payments $1,368 $1,368 $1,368 $1,368 $1,368 $1,368

Totals $39,166 $51,055 $26,523 $50,920 $37,259 $37,596

17446 Heritage Resources

17447 Cultural resources represent the tangible and intangible evidence of human behavior and past human 

17448 occupation. Cultural resources may consist of archaeological sites, historic-age buildings and 

17449 structures, and traditional use areas and cultural places that are important to a group’s traditional 

17450 beliefs, religion or cultural practices. These types of resources are finite and nonrenewable with few 

17451 exceptions. 

17452 Cultural resources may be affected by the issues addressed in the revision topics: Old Forest 

17453 Management, Motorized Recreation Trails, Road Access, Recommended Wilderness, Livestock 

17454 Grazing, Wildlife Concerns, and Riparian and Aquatic Resources. The National Historic 

17455 Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on 

17456 cultural resources. The 1982 planning rule states that the “examination shall consider impacts of the 

17457 management of cultural resources on other uses and activities and impacts of other uses and activities 

17458 on cultural resource management.”

17459 Affected Environment

17460 The lands of the Colville National Forest contain a long and diverse cultural record that began 

17461 approximately 6,000 years ago. Remnants of past and current human activities and events that reflect 

17462 continuous use by native peoples and the exploration, settlement, and management by Euro17463 American cultures can be found throughout the Forest. Based on current inventory surveys, it is 

17464 estimated that over 2,500 cultural resource sites are located on the forest. At present, over 

17465 1,500 archaeological sites are recorded (Colville National Forest inventory and site files). Many of 

17466 these sites have not been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

17467 The Heritage Program of the Colville National Forest is responsible for the management of cultural 

17468 resources for the benefit of the public through preservation, public use, and research. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

506

17469 Cultural Setting

17470 Prehistoric

17471 Archaeological research has uncovered evidence for human activity in the region dating to the 

17472 middle-Archaic period. The evidence for this activity is found predominantly in the form of lithic 

17473 artifacts. Archaeological excavations have recovered artifacts, but subsequent research and analysis 

17474 have not produced a chronology or a generalized local sequence. In general, a three-period 

17475 chronology system (Thoms 1987) is utilized; this system is an adaptation of a Northwestern Plains 

17476 sequence proposed by Mulloy (1958). 

17477 The Forest is located within a culture known as the Plateau. The Plateau is set apart from its 

17478 neighboring cultural areas by topography (mountainous barriers) and aboriginal cultural adaptations. 

17479 The cultural adaptions were strongly influenced by available resources and the inland maritime 

17480 environment (Chatters and Pokotylo 1998). Most Plateau cultural adaptations have emphasized the 

17481 mass harvest and long-term storage of three resource groups: fish (salmonids), edible roots (camas), 

17482 and large ungulates. Settlements within the Plateau area were also similar and characterized by

17483 winter settlement in the lowlands and dispersed resource procurement encampments in the summer. 

17484 Population densities were tied to resource abundance (particularly fish). The Plateau culture area is 

17485 sub-divided into the Northern (Canadian) Plateau, the Southern (Columbia) Plateau, and the Eastern 

17486 Plateau. The Forest is influenced predominately by the Northern and Eastern Plateau cultural areas; 

17487 with Pend Oreille County located entirely within the Eastern Plateau sphere of influence.

17488 The Eastern Plateau region is characterized by great physiographic diversity. This diversity has 

17489 influenced the aboriginal cultural adaptations that arose in the area. The diverse terrain presented 

17490 obstacles and opportunities for native peoples. In general, the presence or absence of fish migration 

17491 (salmon and steelhead) impacted cultural development more than any other factor (Chatters and 

17492 Pokotylo 1998). 

17493 Ethnographic investigation has permitted certain generalities about the region. During the past 

17494 6,000 years, the region has been utilized by diverse groups of people for a variety of activities. The 

17495 project area lies within the traditional use area of the Colville Confederated Tribe. Ethnographic 

17496 investigation has permitted certain generalities about the region. During the past 6,000 years, the 

17497 region has been utilized by diverse groups of people for a variety of activities. The project area lies 

17498 within the traditional use area of the Colville. The Colville is a sub-group of the Salishan speaking 

17499 groups that include the following cultural traditions: Wenatchee, Columbia, Chelan, Methow, 

17500 Okanogan, Nespelem, Sanpoil, Spokane, Coeur D’Alene, Lakes, and Kalispel. Ethnographic 

17501 accounts indicate that the Colville practiced wintertime deer drives and maintained resident fisheries 

17502 along the Columbia, Kettle, and San Poil Rivers. In addition to hunting deer and fishing, the Colville 

17503 harvested camas and other root crops (Camassia species) (Holstine 1987). 

17504 A presidential executive order established the Colville Indian Reservation in 1872 (Colville 

17505 Confederated Tribe 2004). The reservation originally extended across the entirety of Ferry County. 

17506 Much of the reservation land was distributed in 80-acre allotments to members of the tribe. In 1896, 

17507 the northern half of Colville Indian Reservation was opened for mineral entry. A few years later, in 

17508 1900, the north half was opened to Euro-American homesteaders (Walter and Fleury 1985).

17509 Since 1855, the Kalispel opposed any attempts at government removal from their traditional lands. 

17510 The governments tried to move the Kalispel to one of three reservations (Colville, Coeur D’Alene, or 

17511 Flathead); some eventually moved to the Flathead Reservation, but a small group would not leave 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

507

17512 the river valley (Lahren 1998b). On March 23, 1914, President Wilson, by executive order, formally 

17513 set aside and reserved the territory described for the use and occupancy of the Kalispel Indians.

17514 Traditionally, the Spokane occupied approximately 3 million acres in northeastern Washington. On 

17515 January 18, 1881, President Hayes, by executive order, formally set aside and reserved (154,602

17516 acres) the territory described in the Agreement of August 1877, for the use and occupancy of the 

17517 Spokane Indians (Lahren 1998b).

17518 Historic

17519 Fur-trading

17520 Beginning in 1821, the Hudson Bay Trading Company had great influence in the Colville and Pend 

17521 Oreille Valley regions; this influence lasted through to the late 1800s. The Hudson Bay Trading 

17522 Company was the largest trade outpost in the region serving parts of Washington, Idaho, Montana, 

17523 and Canada. The company also maintained a cadre of trappers as well as purchasing furs from 

17524 freelance trappers. Under the auspices of the Hudson Bay Trading Company, many trails were 

17525 created to facilitate trade within the region. The presence of the Hudson Bay Trading Company 

17526 induced cultural changes in both Euro-American and First Nation Communities alike (Chance 1973). 

17527 In 1809, David Thompson of the North West Company was the first trader to make contact with the 

17528 Kalispel (Thoms and Schalk 1984). In 1809, Thompson attempted to descend the Pend Oreille River 

17529 and made it as far as the present day community of Tiger.

17530 Mining

17531 Hundreds of miners began to filter into the Pend Oreille River Valley primarily looking for gold. 

17532 Some gold was found, but it was the larger deposits of zinc and lead that continued to fuel the 

17533 mining industry. The earliest gold discovery was in 1859, on Sullivan Creek (Holstine 1987). The 

17534 earliest mining efforts were for placer deposits. In its simplest form, all that was required to placer 

17535 mine was a gold pan and running water, fueled by determination. In its most complex form, several 

17536 men would work rockers, sluice boxes, pressure hoses, and floating dredges. Most of the placer 

17537 mines played themselves out by the 1870s. Placer mining eventually gave way to hard rock mining; 

17538 requiring heavier equipment and capital investment. The most notable hardrock mine in Pend Oreille 

17539 County was the Oriole mine, which produced silver, copper, and gold ore. George H. Linton located 

17540 the Oriole mine, situated west of Metaline Falls.

17541 Homesteading

17542 While the miners had gained entry into the Pend Oreille Valley by the 1850s, the majority of the 

17543 northern part of the county remained isolated and inaccessible. Riverboat traffic stopped at Box 

17544 Canyon until 1906, when the Federal Government widened the channel. Even so, riverboat landings 

17545 were scarce and it was not until the Great Northern Railroad’s transcontinental line arrived in 1892 

17546 that homesteading expansion grew in earnest (Holstine 1987). Much of the lands adjacent to the river 

17547 had been claimed, forcing new arrivals to claim parcels on higher ground. These lands were marginal 

17548 and suited to timber and grazing. Eventually, most settlers abandoned their lands or sold them to 

17549 timber companies or the Federal Government via the Resettlement Administration. Most of the 

17550 homesteads date from the 1890s through to the 1920s; homesteading left an indelible mark on the 

17551 Forest. 

17552 Logging

17553 Settlers in the late 1880s introduced the timber industry into the area. With the timber industry and 

17554 the passage of the Forest Homestead Act in 1906, homesteaders moved into the area (Bamonte and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

508

17555 Bamonte 1996). The Forest Homestead Act allowed for 160-acre homesteads on reserved forest 

17556 lands. Under the Act, the land parcels were supposed to have agricultural potential, but much of the 

17557 land was rocky and unsuitable for farming. Settlers in the area found that timber harvest was much 

17558 more profitable than farming (Bamonte and Bamonte 1996).

17559 The timber industry became the primary industry and contributed greatly to the settlement and 

17560 economic development of Pend Oreille County (Fandrich 2002). In 1902, the Dalton and Kennedy 

17561 sawmill was built in Dalkena; the mill contributed to much of the local prosperity in that section of 

17562 the Pend Oreille Valley. The Panhandle Lumber Company, located in Ione, was also a major 

17563 influence on the area and was considered to be one of the best equipped sawmills in northeastern 

17564 Washington. By 1914, the timber industry was paying 55 percent of all wages in the State of 

17565 Washington. 

17566 The mining and timber industries with the coincidental influx of settlers had a negative impact on 

17567 Native American tribes living in the region. The industry and the people were at odds with the Native 

17568 Americans residing in lands withdrawn from public entry in 1872. Newcomers wanted the land and 

17569 resources and were willing to lobby Congress to acquire lands inhabited by tribal members and 

17570 communities. The “North Half” of the Colville Reservation contained resources the mining industry 

17571 desired and in 1890s, the public petitioned Congress to open the North Half to mineral entry. In 

17572 1891, the North Half was ceded to the Federal Government, in return, the tribes were to receive 

17573 $1.5 million and 80-acre tracts for those tribal members who wished to remain in the North Half 

17574 (Holstine 1987, Lahren 1998a). The bill was ratified in 1892, but Congress neglected to provide the 

17575 promised payment. In 1896, the North Half was open for mineral entry. 

17576 “New Deal” Era 

17577 During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a series of economic relief 

17578 programs to the American public. These programs were designed to put the many unemployed 

17579 Americans back to work and provide an income with which they could support their families. One 

17580 such program was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). 

17581 Northeastern Washington had fallen into economic depression well before the stock market crash of 

17582 1929. Many of the industries that supported northeastern Washington fell on hard times after World 

17583 War I when farm prices dropped and mining needs diminished (Holstine 1987). The Colville 

17584 National Forest and other public lands benefitted from the New Deal Era programs; arguably, the 

17585 greatest contribution to the forest and the community as a whole was made by the CCC.

17586 Approximately 11,200 men were employed by the CCC in the State of Washington at the time of its 

17587 inception (Holstine 1987), with approximately 200 men located at each camp. There were 16 CCC 

17588 camps located within or adjacent to what is now the Colville National Forest; eight of these camps 

17589 were located in Pend Oreille County. The camp duties included but were not limited to the following: 

17590 fighting local fires, building and maintaining roads and trails, improving campgrounds, and planting 

17591 trees. 

17592 Inventory (Identification), Evaluation, and the National Register 

17593 One of the steps to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA is identifying historic properties and 

17594 evaluating the significance of those historic properties for the National Register of Historic Places 

17595 (NRHP). In addition to Section 106 compliance requirements, Federal land agencies are directed to 

17596 inventory cultural resources and nominate eligible properties to NRHP per E.O. 11593 Protection 

17597 and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, Section 110 of the NHPA, and Archeological 

17598 Resource Protection Act (ARPA) Section 14. Section 110 establishes inventory, nomination, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

509

17599 protection and preservation responsibilities for federally owned historic properties. ARPA section 14 

17600 directs agencies to develop a schedule for inventory surveys of lands likely to contain the most 

17601 scientifically valuable archaeological resources. To meet the Forest Service’s responsibilities under 

17602 E.O. 11593, Section 110 of the NHPA and ARPA the Heritage program conducts and/or facilitates 

17603 non-project specific inventory surveys for cultural resources within the Forest and nominates 

17604 federally owned properties that meet the criteria to the NRHP. Most of the inventories and evaluation 

17605 of cultural resources were conducted to meet Section 106 compliance requirements.

17606 Approximately 297 cultural resource surveys have been conducted for land management activities, 

17607 primarily for timber and fuel wood sales, hazard fuels reduction projects, and several large data 

17608 recovery projects for land exchanges, highways, and infrastructure and energy corridors (Colville 

17609 National Forest inventory records). 

17610 Approximately 51,250 acres have been intensively surveyed for cultural resources (Colville National 

17611 Forest heritage GIS data base).

17612 Areas Requiring More Intensive Survey 

17613 Most of the lands on the Forest have not been surveyed for cultural resources. Approximately 

17614 51,250 acres (current Federal lands) have been intensively surveyed for cultural resources resulting 

17615 in the identification of over 1,200 sites (Colville National Forest heritage GIS data base, INFRA 

17616 database).

17617 National Register Status of Cultural Resources 

17618 The NRHP is the official list of historic properties recognized by the Federal Government as 

17619 especially worthy of preservation for their national, state, or local significance. At present, over 

17620 1,200 archaeological sites are recorded (Colville National Forest inventory and site files). Of those, 

17621 the majority of these sites have not been evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP. According to the R6 

17622 programmatic agreement and Forest Service policy, all sites that are unevaluated are treated as 

17623 eligible until they are formally determined eligible or not eligible for the NRHP. 

17624 Priority Heritage Assets

17625 Currently, there are 16 historic properties considered priority heritage assets that are eligible or 

17626 potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Historically, the priority heritage assets on the 

17627 Colville National Forest have been subjects of several Passport in Time volunteer opportunities. The 

17628 Passport in Time projects are focused preservation efforts. Each priority heritage asset has an 

17629 associated management plan. 

17630 Traditional Cultural Properties

17631 Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties 

17632 associated “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

17633 community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

17634 community.” TCPs might include structures, mountains and other landforms, plant gathering 

17635 locations, or other types of properties important to communities. These areas are considered 

17636 properties that may be eligible to list on the NRHP. With regard to the forest, the identified TCPs on 

17637 the Colville are often associated with American Indian cultures. 

17638 Fourteen American Indian tribes represented by three tribal governments are known to have ancestral 

17639 ties and/or traditional use areas on the Colville National Forest based on current and past 

17640 consultation: Okanagan, Methow, Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchee, Moses-Columbia, Nespelem, San Poil, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

510

17641 Lakes, Colville, Palus, Chief Joseph Nez Perce, Spokane, and Kalispel. Forest Service consultations 

17642 with appropriate members of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and present day uses of the 

17643 forest. 

17644 The lands, resources, and archaeological sites within the forest are considered traditionally 

17645 significant to all affiliated tribes and, in some cases, certain resources or areas are considered sacred 

17646 to a specific tribe or tribes. Each group has its own history, traditions, and relationship to the land 

17647 and to the other groups. Traditional use of the forest and its resources by the tribes dates back several 

17648 generations, and for some groups many centuries. 

17649 Known traditional use areas and cultural places located within the forest include but are not limited 

17650 to spruce forests, mountains, cinder cones, springs, caves, trails and shrines. TCPs and sacred sites 

17651 known to have been used and/or continue to be used for traditional cultural purposes have been 

17652 identified and locational information is not available for public disclosure. In some cases, there are 

17653 multiple areas used for collection of resources or religious ceremonies found on or within the vicinity 

17654 of a prominent topographic feature. Many other areas located on the forest are used for traditional 

17655 cultural purposes but have not been specifically identified. Additional areas may be identified 

17656 through project or permit specific tribal consultation. Therefore, the inventory of known TCPs and 

17657 areas used for traditional cultural purposes is subject to change.

17658 Public Outreach, Interpretation and Education 

17659 One of the objectives of the heritage program is to promote and invest in public education and 

17660 outreach to meet the intent NHPA Section 110, E.O. 13287 Preserve America, and ARPA section 

17661 10(c). ARPA states “Each federal land manager shall establish a program to increase public 

17662 awareness of the significance of the archaeological resources located on public lands and Indian 

17663 lands and the need to protect those lands.” The forest’s heritage program has been active in providing 

17664 opportunities to the public to promote cultural resource stewardship and conservation through 

17665 volunteer programs, recreation opportunities, and presentations. Examples of public outreach and 

17666 education that have been conducted in the past or are available on the forest include the following: 

17667 School and public presentations (e.g., K-12 class presentations, Washington archaeological month 

17668 events, Children’s Forest GeoCache Activities). 

17669 Numerous Passports in Time projects involved historic building restoration, surveys, site recording, 

17670 and excavations. Some of the projects include the Growden Changing House Restoration, Gypsy 

17671 Copper Powderhouse Restoration, and Lake Thomas Survey and Testing.

17672 Current Condition of Archaeological Sites 

17673 Past practices, including Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement, 

17674 recreation use and natural processes have impacted cultural resources. Multiple uses and activities on 

17675 the forest that have resulted in the most impacts to cultural resources include: infrastructure, 

17676 livestock grazing, fire, timber and vegetation management, recreation activities, looting and 

17677 vandalism, and land adjustments.

17678 Infrastructure 

17679 During the 20th century, a large network of roads was created to access, harvest and transport timber. 

17680 Road construction, use, and maintenance have been a major source of human impacts to sites. Roads 

17681 have partially damaged or completely destroyed site features and cultural materials by the excavation 

17682 or grading away of soils, changing the pattern of erosion causing increased flows of water across 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

511

17683 sites, compaction of soils, and rutting from vehicle use during wet conditions. While the construction 

17684 and use of roads (both official and unauthorized) in and near sites can directly impact sites, the 

17685 presence of roads in and near sites can also indirectly affect site condition as well. The most 

17686 important of these indirect impacts is intentional vandalism (see Looting and Vandalism). Many of 

17687 the facilities and infrastructure are eligible for consideration as historic properties on their own 

17688 merits.

17689 Construction and management of facilities and structures has adversely impacted cultural resources. 

17690 Facilities that had the most impact on cultural resources include power transmission and distribution 

17691 lines, fire lookout towers, communication towers, dams, wastewater treatment plants and pipelines, 

17692 and highways. The impact caused from constructing and maintaining facilities on areas with sites 

17693 usually involves the destruction of cultural material and features.

17694 Livestock grazing 

17695 Grazing activity has occurred on the forest since the 1880s. Ranchers built homesteads and range 

17696 improvements such as fences and water catchments. The lands selected for homesteads and 

17697 construction of water catchments were often located in the same areas utilized prehistorically. Direct 

17698 and indirect impacts from livestock have occurred to sites on the forest. Forest permits dating to the 

17699 early 1900s reveal that large numbers of sheep, cattle, and horses grazed and crossed NFS lands. 

17700 Livestock grazing can negatively impact sites directly by trampling, artifact breakage, soil 

17701 compaction, soil removal, and other types of damage to features as livestock walk through a site. 

17702 Grazing can indirectly impact sites through loss of ground cover, which in turn leads to erosion. 

17703 Fire 

17704 Most of the lands within the forest are located in a fire-adapted ecosystem. Evidence that prehistoric 

17705 sites and TCPs have been repeatedly burned (prior to active fire suppression), is demonstrated by 

17706 fire-scarred trees and thermally (fire) altered artifacts. 

17707 Generally, low intensity fires have not adversely impacted prehistoric sites that are not fire sensitive 

17708 or composed of combustible material. Conversely, most historic sites are either combustible or 

17709 include combustible cultural material. These sites are very vulnerable to adverse impacts from fire. 

17710 The aggressive fire suppression management practices prior to 1970, and livestock grazing resulted 

17711 in changes to the forest structure. Over time, dead and down materials increasingly grew thicker on 

17712 forest floors and the forest became dense with stands of regenerated young trees. These unnatural 

17713 conditions have created more frequent high-intensity wildfires with permanent adverse impacts to 

17714 archaeological sites. These impacts include but are not limited to, historic sites completely burned 

17715 down, and the accelerated erosion of site features caused by hydrophobic soils, denuding of the 

17716 ground surface exposing cultural materials.

17717 Timber and Vegetation Management 

17718 Logging on the forest can directly impact sites by temporary road construction, landings, movement 

17719 of heavy equipment across the ground surface, skidding of trees and indirect impacts from over17720 harvesting, which can lead to erosion. Commercial timber and fuel wood harvesting has occurred 

17721 across the forest since the late 1870s. During the 1920s, an extensive network of logging railroads 

17722 were constructed on the Colville National Forest. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

512

17723 Recreation Activities 

17724 Areas popular with campers are often near water, scenic vistas, or flat areas that were also commonly 

17725 used prehistorically. Camping has impacted sites and can lead to looting and unintentional vandalism 

17726 of sites. Sites that are near camping areas can be damaged by campers exploiting rock materials from 

17727 structures and features for fire pits and for other camping activities, digging holes for latrines or 

17728 trenches for discharging gray water; illegal collecting surface artifacts and rearrangement of artifacts 

17729 into piles, using pieces of collapsed wooden historic structures as firewood, and clearing of space for 

17730 tents and other equipment. Indirect impacts from camping include damage from erosion resulting 

17731 from changes in soil compaction and denuding of vegetation. 

17732 Non-motorized trails, once established, generally do not themselves pose a large threat to sites; but 

17733 like roads, easy access to sites facilities vandalism, digging of holes within the site to dispose of 

17734 waste, illegal collection of surface artifacts and looting. Established motorized and non-motorized 

17735 trails through or near sites have caused direct and indirect impacts by increasing visitation resulting 

17736 in vandalism. Some of the motorized and non-motorized trails were converted from forest system or 

17737 temporary roads and the sites were impacted by the original construction of the roads.

17738 Looting and Vandalism 

17739 Intentional looting and vandalism of sites on public lands is a problem throughout Washington. Some 

17740 of these activities are conducted for illegal recreation and others for illegal gain. When a site is 

17741 looted significant contextual information and parts of our history are stolen and destroyed. As 

17742 transportation technology has advanced (i.e., 4-wheel drive) a greater number of roads have provided 

17743 access to remote areas. The increasing number of roads and trails provides access to remote sites and 

17744 provides looters a convenient method to easily transport heavy, awkward historical artifacts or 

17745 delicate archaeological items and/or larger quantities of those items that previously would have been 

17746 difficult to remove from the backcountry. Carved, inked, or painted graffiti on historic structures 

17747 creates permanent damage, and at archaeological and historical sites, degrades their setting. 

17748 Environmental Consequences

17749 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but 

17750 does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

17751 not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities [not limited to ground-disturbing 

17752 actions (i.e., extensive modification of view-sheds or vegetation adjacent to historic structures, TCPs 

17753 or sacred may be adverse)] there can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications, or 

17754 longer term environmental consequences, of managing the forest under this programmatic 

17755 framework. 

17756 Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 

17757 §470), adverse effects to cultural resources include a variety of criteria affecting the potential 

17758 eligibility of cultural resources for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 

17759 §800.9b). Specifically, effects may be deemed adverse according to the following (36 CFR 

17760 §800.5[1]): 

17761 An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the 

17762 characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in 

17763 a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, 

17764 workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of 

17765 a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original 

17766 evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

513

17767 reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther 

17768 removed in distance or be cumulative. 

17769 Cultural resource surveys for specific actions (e.g., timber sales, vegetation treatments) would be 

17770 conducted prior to approving site-specific projects in compliance with Federal law and Forest 

17771 Service policy. Prior to the forest making a decision on a site-specific action that is subject to NHPA, 

17772 the forest would complete archeological surveys to locate, evaluate sites for the NRHP, and analyze 

17773 the effects of the proposed use or activity in compliance with the R6 programmatic agreement. 

17774 Following the identification and recording of cultural resources, mitigation measures appropriate to 

17775 the proposed undertaking would be implemented. For example, such measures could include 

17776 avoidance of cultural resources by redesigning the project boundaries, modifying construction plans, 

17777 or excluding site areas from treatments. In cases where specific activities would constitute an adverse 

17778 effect and avoidance could not be accomplished, the adverse effects would be resolved in accordance 

17779 with 36 CFR 800. 

17780 Methodology and Analysis Process 

17781 The primary legislation governing cultural resource management is the National Historic 

17782 Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992). Section 106 of NHPA 

17783 requires that Federal agencies take into consideration the effects of their undertakings on historic 

17784 properties, which are defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l) as any district, site, building, structure, or object 

17785 that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 

17786 “Section 106 review process,” entails five steps: (1) determining whether the proposed action is an 

17787 undertaking that has the potential to affect historic properties); (2) identifying historic properties; 

17788 (3) evaluating the significance of historic properties; (4) assessing effects; and (5) consulting with 

17789 interested parties (including Native People), the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the 

17790 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 110 (Federal Agencies’ Responsibility 

17791 to Preserve and Use Historic Properties) of the NHPA provides direction to Federal agencies to 

17792 establish programs and activities to identify and nominate historic properties to the NRHP and to 

17793 consult with tribes. The Pacific Northwest Region has a programmatic agreement with the ACHP and 

17794 Washington SHPO that stipulates the Forest Service’s responsibilities for complying with NHPA. 

17795 Under the regulations, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or 

17796 indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in 

17797 the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, 

17798 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

17799 Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those 

17800 that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for 

17801 the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the 

17802 undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. Specific 

17803 examples of adverse effects cited in statute include (36 CFR 800.5): 

17804 • Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property. 

17805 • Removal of the property from its historic location. 

17806 • Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s 

17807 setting that contribute to its historic significance. 

17808 • Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

17809 property’s significant historic features. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

514

17810 The analysis includes a review of the alternatives and an assessment of the potential impacts each 

17811 alternative could have to cultural resources on the forest. The criteria used for establishing the area of 

17812 potential effect for cultural resources was based on the possible acres treated within each potential 

17813 natural vegetation type (PNVT) and the boundary of each management area. The existing condition 

17814 was determined by reviewing the NRHP, a review of forest’s archaeological site and inventory files, 

17815 cultural resource management overviews, heritage Geographic Information System (GIS) database, 

17816 and other natural resource and fire history databases. 

17817 Assumptions 

17818 In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made: 

17819 • The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific 

17820 actions. 

17821 • The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, 

17822 suitability, monitoring) would be followed when planning or implementing site-specific 

17823 projects and activities. 

17824 • Analysis and impacts to cultural resources from site-specific actions would be addressed at 

17825 the time site-specific decisions are made. 

17826 • Law, policy, and regulations would be followed when planning or implementing site-specific 

17827 projects and activities. 

17828 • The agency has the capacity (e.g., funding, personnel, other resources) to accomplish the 

17829 minimum planned objectives. 

17830 • There is no cross-country motorized use where prohibited. 

17831 • Burning could occur across all NFS lands. 

17832 • Unplanned ignitions are analyzed at the time of the fire’s start and documented in the 

17833 Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). Management response to a wildfire is 

17834 based on objectives appropriate to conditions of the fire, fuels, weather, and topography to 

17835 accomplish specific objectives for the area where the fire is burning. Effects to cultural 

17836 resources are considered when determining the objectives and management response to a 

17837 wildfire 

17838 • The kinds of resource management activities allowed under the prescriptions are reasonably 

17839 foreseeable future actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the forest plan. The specific 

17840 location, design, and the extent of such activities are generally not known. The effects 

17841 analysis is intended to be useful for comparing and evaluating alternatives on a forestwide 

17842 basis. It is not intended to be applied directly to specific locations on the forest. 

17843 • Prior to making a project-level decision that is subject to NHPA, the forest would complete 

17844 cultural resource surveys to locate and evaluate sites for the NRHP and analyze the effects of 

17845 the proposed use or activity in compliance with the Programmatic Agreement Among the 

17846 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 

17847 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic 

17848 Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the 

17849 State of Washington (R6 programmatic agreement) (USDA FS 1997). Following the 

17850 identification and recording of cultural resources, mitigation measures appropriate to the 

17851 proposed undertaking would be implemented. For example, such measures could include 

17852 avoidance of cultural resources by redesigning the project boundaries, modifying 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

515

17853 construction plans, or excluding site areas from treatments. In cases where specific activities 

17854 would constitute an adverse effect and avoidance could not be accomplished, the adverse 

17855 effects would be resolved in accordance with 36 CFR 800.

17856 • Programmatic Agreement among the NF in WA State and WA SHPO, ACHP regarding 

17857 Recreation Residence, Recreation Residence Tract and Organizational Camp/Club 

17858 Management (2006) provides guidance on best preservation practices for recreational 

17859 residences located on National Forest System lands.

17860 Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

17861 Traditional cultural areas used for collecting forest and mineral resources could be affected by the 

17862 temporary closure of areas from wildland fires and treatments. Many of the traditionally used plants 

17863 respond to fire by increasing productivity. All alternatives propose to treat a similar number of acres 

17864 with fire and would potentially increase the long-term productivity of traditionally used forest 

17865 resources and availability of those resources across the landscape. Access to visiting cultural 

17866 resources (archaeological sites and TCPs) could be affected in the short term during implementation 

17867 of prescribed burn treatments. 

17868 Conducting prescribed burns has the potential to restore the natural and cultural landscape, and the 

17869 natural fire regime, reducing the potential for permanent adverse effects from high-intensity, high17870 severity fires. Mechanized treatments have the similar benefits to cultural resources as fire treatments 

17871 because they would reduce the potential for permanent adverse effects from fire, but these treatments 

17872 have the highest potential for long-term indirect effects from erosion caused from intensive ground 

17873 disturbance near sites. In addition, slash from mechanized treatments is often piled and burned, 

17874 resulting in more locations with hydrophobic soils, increasing erosion to sites if the burn piles were 

17875 located near sites.

17876 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

17877 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but 

17878 does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Before any proposed actions (not 

17879 limited to ground-disturbing actions) take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent site17880 specific environmental analysis. Therefore, none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse 

17881 impacts. Mechanisms are in place to monitor and use adaptive management principles to help 

17882 alleviate any unanticipated impacts that need to be addressed singularly or cumulatively. 

17883 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

17884 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions, but 

17885 does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

17886 not authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity (not limited to ground-disturbing 

17887 actions), none of the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

17888 Adaptive Management

17889 All alternatives assume the use of adaptive management principles. Forest Service decisions are 

17890 made as part of an ongoing process, including planning, implementing projects, and monitoring and 

17891 evaluation. The land management plan identifies a monitoring program. Monitoring the results of 

17892 actions would provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course of action 

17893 or the land management plan. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need 

17894 to adapt resource management to new information.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

516

17895 Effects of Alternatives 

17896 Cultural resources, depending on their nature and composition, are subject to different types of 

17897 impacts from vegetation management, fire, livestock grazing, infrastructure, recreation, looting and 

17898 vandalism, and land adjustments 

17899 All the alternatives propose treatments that result in restoring ecosystem health. This has the 

17900 potential to reduce the potential adverse effects to cultural resources from uncharacteristic high17901 intensity and high-severity fires. These treatments would also lead to the restoration of natural 

17902 processes and the landscape, which in turn, has the potential to restore the historic setting and 

17903 cultural landscapes of the forest. 

17904 Ground-disturbing activities (including mechanical activities) are the dominant cause of potential 

17905 impacts to cultural resources in all alternatives. The potential types of affects to cultural resources 

17906 from the proposed treatments in the alternatives are the same. Differences, however, may be found 

17907 among the alternatives regarding the number of cultural resources that would be potentially impacted 

17908 by the treatments.

17909 Heritage Program Management

17910 National Register Sites and TCPs 

17911 The 1988 forest plan (alternative A) has not been amended to reflect the 1992 requirements and 

17912 amendments to the NHPA. The 1992 amendments clarified Section 110, language terms, and 

17913 required each Federal agency to establish a historic preservation program. The program must provide 

17914 for the identification and protection of the agency's historic properties; ensure that such properties 

17915 are maintained and managed with due consideration for preservation of their historic values; and 

17916 contain procedures to implement Section 106, which must be consistent with the ACHP regulations. 

17917 Alternative A also does not address requirements of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act of 

17918 1990 (NAGPRA), E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites, E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with 

17919 Indian Tribal Governments, and E.O. 13287 Preserve America. The focus of management and 

17920 guidelines for forest resources within the 1988 plan were developed prior to the passage or issuance 

17921 of these statutes which lead to more impacts to historic properties. Emphasis is on use of timber and 

17922 multiple use activities that incorporate the location of archaeological sites and TCPs that may not be 

17923 compatible with those uses. The action alternatives have incorporated the passage of these statues 

17924 and issuance of executive orders providing for increased consideration and management to preserve 

17925 historic properties for their historic and cultural values. 

17926 Under all alternatives, the Forest would continue to fulfill its responsibilities to conduct non-project 

17927 related inventory surveys and nominate sites that are eligible to the NRHP to protect and preserve 

17928 cultural resources per Section 110 of NHPA, E.O. 11593, and Section 14 of ARPA. Internal and 

17929 outside funding sources, researchers, partners and volunteers would be sought to assist in research 

17930 and preservation projects. Public outreach and interpretation would continue to be provided through 

17931 heritage programs, projects, and interpretive materials. The identification, evaluations, and analysis 

17932 of the effects from proposed actions to cultural resources that are eligible, nominated, or listed on the 

17933 NRHP would be completed to meet the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA. 

17934 Most of the discussion regarding impacts focuses on effects to archeological sites because they are 

17935 discreet locations that are more easily identified. Traditional use areas accessed for the collection of 

17936 traditional materials may also be impacted. The Forest consults with three different tribal 

17937 governments that have a cultural affiliation to the area. At present, tribes have not identified concerns 

17938 or issues that the alternatives would result in adverse impacts to known and unidentified TCPs. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

517

17939 Government-to-government consultation would continue between the Forest and the tribes. If tribal 

17940 consultation results in identification of additional, currently unidentified, traditional uses and 

17941 traditional cultural properties, impacts to those areas would be considered during site-specific 

17942 environmental assessments. 

17943 Public Outreach and Education 

17944 In all alternatives, the Forest would continue to fulfill its responsibilities to promote and invest in 

17945 public education and outreach to meet the intent NHPA Section 110, E.O.13287 Preserve America, 

17946 and ARPA section 10(c). The forest’s heritage program would continue to provide opportunities to 

17947 the public to promote cultural resource stewardship and conservation through volunteer programs, 

17948 recreation opportunities, interpretation, and presentations. These programs are intended to increase 

17949 public awareness of the significance of the archaeological resources located on public lands and the 

17950 need to protect those resources. This awareness may result in reducing the number incidents and 

17951 severity of damage caused by looting, vandalism, and unintentional vandalism from recreational 

17952 activities.

17953 Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

17954 Traditional cultural areas used for collecting forest and mineral resources could be affected by the 

17955 temporary closure of areas from wildland fires and treatments. Many of the traditionally used plants 

17956 respond to fire by increasing productivity. All alternatives propose to treat a similar number of acres 

17957 with fire and would potentially increase the long-term productivity of traditionally used forest 

17958 resources and availability of those resources across the landscape. Access to visiting cultural 

17959 resources (archaeological sites and TCPs) could be affected in the short term during implementation 

17960 of prescribed burn treatments. 

17961 Conducting prescribed burns has the potential to restore the natural and cultural landscape, and the 

17962 natural fire regime, reducing the potential for permanent adverse effects from high-intensity, high17963 severity fires. Mechanized treatments have the similar benefits to cultural resources as fire treatments 

17964 because they would reduce the potential for permanent adverse effects from fire, but these treatments 

17965 have the highest potential for long-term indirect effects from erosion caused from intensive ground 

17966 disturbance near sites. Also, slash from mechanized treatments is often piled and burned, resulting in 

17967 more locations with hydrophobic soils, increasing erosion to sites if the burn piles were located near 

17968 sites.

17969 Cumulative Effects

17970 The cumulative effects on cultural resources should take into account all surface-altering actions that 

17971 have occurred or are likely to occur within the forest, as well as those actions that modify view-sheds 

17972 and vegetative material in and adjacent to historic properties to include TCPs and Sacred Sites. Some 

17973 of the recorded sites on the forest are at least statewide significant, and a few are nationally 

17974 significant. This statewide or national importance of some sites within the forest reinforces the need 

17975 for protecting significant local cultural resources that may be affected from cumulative impacts of 

17976 management activities within the forest and state. Federal, tribal and state lands adjacent to the 

17977 Forest comprised the analysis area for cumulative effects.

17978 Livestock Grazing

17979 This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the range resource 

17980 that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines, in detail, six 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

518

17981 different alternatives for revising the 1988 Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management 

17982 Plan. 

17983 Affected Environment

17984 Background: The rangelands of the planning area and many of the major perennial grasses (such as 

17985 bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue) did not evolve with substantial ungulate grazing 

17986 (Daubenmire 1970). Year-long open-range grazing in the late 1800s and into the early 1900s was of 

17987 such magnitude and had such devastating legacy results, that grazing laws were developed for public 

17988 lands by 1910. In the planning area, season-long sheep and cattle grazing without rotation or rest was 

17989 prevalent in the first half of the 20th century and caused degraded conditions in many grasslands and 

17990 meadows (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, Alverson and Arnett 1986). The effects of past management 

17991 are apparent in the high amount of non-native grasses like Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), reed 

17992 canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and redtop (Agrostis alba) in low elevation meadows 

17993 (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer 2004). Disturbed steppe and shrub-steppe communities that were once 

17994 characterized by perennial bunchgrasses now have a strong forb component or are dominated by 

17995 introduced species (Clausnitzer et al. 2006). Overgrazing of green fescue (Festuca viridula), an 

17996 important dominant bunchgrass of montane and subalpine herbaceous vegetation types, has caused 

17997 soil erosion and increases in unpalatable forb and dwarf-shrub species in some areas that have 

17998 persisted into presence (Clausnitzer et al. 2006, Shiflet ed. 1974). The recovery rates of bunchgrass 

17999 communities are slow and may never reach their former status after severe overgrazing (Franklin and 

18000 Dyrness 1988). 

18001 Potential Natural Vegetation: Grazing allotments on the Colville National Forest cover about 

18002 745,000 acres (68 percent) of administered forest lands. At the landscape scale, the potential natural 

18003 vegetation within grazing allotments consists predominantly of forested communities. Douglas-fir 

18004 forests are the potential natural vegetation for 50 percent of the landscape within range allotments, 

18005 28 percent of the allotments are characterized by western hemlock communities, and 20 percent are 

18006 occupied by subalpine forest communities. The remaining area within the allotments are mapped as 

18007 dry ponderosa pine forests (1 percent) and grass- and shrublands (1 percent). At a finer scale, the 

18008 predominantly forested landscape includes many montane and subalpine meadows, wetlands, and 

18009 riparian communities as described by Clausnitzer et al. (2006). Many of these non-forest and 

18010 deciduous forest communities are small-sized or linear features along lake margins and riparian 

18011 communities, therefore, they are treated as inclusions in the landscape-scale potential natural 

18012 vegetation model for the Colville National Forest. 

18013 Current condition: Much of the forested landscape consists of dense conifer stands with canopy 

18014 covers greater than 60 percent. Gradient Nearest Neighbor analysis (Ohmann and Gregory 2002) 

18015 shows that 57 percent of the allotment area has canopy covers greater than 60 percent, 25 percent has 

18016 canopy covers of 40 to 60 percent, and only 19 percent has canopy covers less than 40 percent. Sites 

18017 with canopy covers greater than 60 percent would likely provide little to no forage, sites with canopy 

18018 covers of 40 to 60 percent would provide some forage, and sites with canopy cover less than 40 

18019 percent would provide the most forage. Western hemlock forests do not tend to produce significant 

18020 livestock forage even at early seral stages and are, therefore, not considered suitable rangelands. 

18021 Other forest communities should be considered transitory range, but are currently highly stocked 

18022 with limited forage production. Future desired conditions for dry conifer communities would favor 

18023 open canopies, compared to current conditions, and potentially improve forage availability in these 

18024 stands. 

18025 During the homestead era from the 1890s to the 1930s, approximately 4,000 acres of “homestead 

18026 meadows” were created across the Colville National Forest. These areas are primarily upland sites 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

519

18027 that were historically cleared of timber and cultivated to grow crops. Today, these meadows are 

18028 considered forest system lands managed by the Forest Service. They are dominated by non-native 

18029 vegetation that provides valuable forage for livestock and wild ungulates. These areas are considered 

18030 highly departed from their site potential with species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), 

18031 orchard grass (Dactylus glomerata), and common timothy (Phleum pratense) as dominant vegetation 

18032 mixed with native forbs. These sites are susceptible to invasive plant establishment and spread and 

18033 require treatments to control invasive species.

18034 Few condition and trend monitoring data are available for the Colville National Forest. Fifteen 

18035 historic rangeland condition and trend plots, established in the early 1960s and late 1970s, were 

18036 relocated and inventoried in 2002 and 2005. Vegetation at inventoried sites consists of seeded redtop 

18037 clearings or meadows (4), Idaho fescue grasslands (2), Sandberg bluegrass grassland (1), subalpine 

18038 grasslands with green fescue (3), snowberry shrubland (1), forested communities with ponderosa 

18039 pine (2) or Douglas-fir (1), and a lodgepole pine site with spotted knapweed (1). The 2002/2005 

18040 forage condition ratings from the Parker-3-Step inventory was good for 7 sites, fair for 4 sites and 

18041 poor for the remaining 4 sites. The trend after 30 to 50 years is up for two sites, down for four sites, 

18042 and static for the remainder.

18043 Livestock grazing on lands of the Colville National Forest has changed dramatically over the past 

18044 century. Prior to the Forest’s establishment, grazing was largely unregulated with mostly cattle and 

18045 sheep grazing the rangelands. The Colville National Forest was created as a National Forest Reserve 

18046 in 1907, and records indicate that the first grazing permit was issued in 1911. Relatively large 

18047 numbers of sheep and cattle grazed the Colville National Forest during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s 

18048 with cattle utilizing the lower elevations and sheep grazing the higher elevations, especially in the 

18049 Kettle Crest mountain range. During the 1950s, the majority of sheep grazing ceased on the Forest, 

18050 and today almost all permitted grazing is for cattle with only one sheep allotment (currently vacant) 

18051 remaining. 

18052 Livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest is an important use to the local ranching industry 

18053 and local communities. Grazing on public lands contributes directly to livestock forage needs. The 

18054 total contribution of national forest land grazing is understated. Forest Service allotments are 

18055 valuable grazing areas that not only provide foraging opportunities within permitted seasons, but 

18056 they also afford permit holders the opportunity to grow forage on other private ranch lands that are 

18057 needed to sustain livestock during periods when they are not on the national forest. Permitted 

18058 livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest helps to maintain the social customs and traditions 

18059 of ranching and agriculture, and provides social and economic contributions at a local, regional, and 

18060 national level. 

18061 Ecological conditions and trends in forage areas have been evaluated annually (utilization and actual 

18062 use) and extensively (long-term monitoring sites) during the allotment NEPA process for each 

18063 allotment. The majority of long-term monitoring sites show an improvement in condition and trend. 

18064 The exception to this is where tree density has increased, which has resulted in a reduction in forage 

18065 production.

18066 Livestock are attracted to areas with high amounts of forage and water. Wetlands, springs, and 

18067 streams on the Forest can be negatively affected by this use. Recent range NEPA analyses have 

18068 addressed issues in these areas, and the Forest would continue to evaluate livestock effects in these 

18069 areas. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

520

18070 Range Allotments and Permitted Livestock

18071 Livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest is an important use to the local ranching industry 

18072 and local communities. Grazing on public lands contributes directly to livestock forage needs. The 

18073 total contribution of national forest land grazing is understated. Forest Service allotments are 

18074 valuable grazing areas that not only provide foraging opportunities within permitted seasons, but 

18075 they also afford permit holders the opportunity to grow forage on other private ranch lands that are 

18076 needed to sustain livestock during periods when they are not on the National Forest. Permitted 

18077 livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest helps to maintain the social customs and traditions 

18078 of ranching and agriculture and also provides social and economic contributions at a local, regional 

18079 and national level.

18080 Relatively large numbers of sheep and cattle grazed the Colville National Forest during the 1920s, 

18081 1930s and 1940s with cattle utilizing the lower elevations and sheep grazing the higher elevations, 

18082 especially in the Kettle Crest mountain range. During the 1950s, the majority of sheep grazing 

18083 creased on the Forest. Today almost all permitted grazing is for cattle with only one sheep allotment, 

18084 which is currently vacant, remaining.

18085 Over the life of the existing 1988 forest plan, permitted Animal Unit Months (AUMs) have declined 

18086 from a 1988 Average of 35,000 per year to a current average of approximately 29,500 per year. 

18087 Today, there are a total of 58 grazing allotments where 42 currently have permitted use and 16 are in 

18088 a vacant status. Most vacant allotments cannot be permitted at this time due to there being no current 

18089 NEPA document which assesses the effects of grazing and no current allotment management plan 

18090 (AMP). Vacant allotments would be assessed at the project level to determine the appropriateness of 

18091 future grazing use. 

18092 Thirty-eight of the total 58 active and vacant grazing allotments have been assessed under regional 

18093 protocols for resource conditions, and environmentally analyzed under the provisions of the National 

18094 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Rescission Act of 1995. This process still needs 

18095 to occur for the remaining allotments. An adaptive management strategy analyzed through the NEPA 

18096 process is commonly used to provide livestock management flexibility to allow for changing 

18097 resource conditions. Implementation of an adaptive management framework is dependent upon 

18098 appropriate NEPA analysis of potential management strategies and/or practices that may be 

18099 implemented due to changing resource conditions as well as regulatory or policy changes. 

18100 Monitoring is also a key component in successfully implementing an adaptive management 

18101 framework. 

18102 Livestock grazing is authorized through the NEPA planning process that allocates forage for grazing, 

18103 and a permit system administers the authorized grazing within individual allotments. Allotment 

18104 management plans (AMPs), also developed from the NEPA planning process, provide site-specific 

18105 details for management of the resource and identify mitigation measures needed to reduce identified 

18106 potential grazing impacts in order to meet or move toward management objectives, as well as any 

18107 required monitoring. A variety of range and livestock management tools such as herding, rotational 

18108 grazing, off-site water development and fencing can be implemented on grazing allotments in order 

18109 to facilitate improved allotment management, livestock management and natural resource protection.

18110 Riparian Areas

18111 Livestock are attracted to areas with water and available forage. Cattle, if not actively managed, tend 

18112 to stay in and graze gentle-gradient riparian areas to an extent that can interfere with attaining the 

18113 desired vegetation and soil resource conditions for these areas. Adaptive management practices 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

521

18114 commonly utilized on the Colville National Forest to reduce impacts from grazing on riparian areas 

18115 include; 

18116 • Creation of pastures and development of grazing strategies that provide for deferment, rest 

18117 and/or vegetative recovery

18118 • Off-stream/off-site water development and trough placement

18119 • Salting livestock in upland areas

18120 • Fencing and/or brush barriers

18121 • Armored stream crossings

18122 Current allotment management focuses on strategies to move livestock enough to distribute their use 

18123 and impacts throughout pastures and prevent concentration in the riparian areas. Monitoring and 

18124 identifying appropriate “thresholds and trigger points” is a key component in successfully 

18125 implementing an adaptive management practice.

18126 Rangeland Resources

18127 Rangelands provide for a wide variety of tangible products which include forage for grazing and 

18128 browsing animals, wildlife habitat, water, minerals, recreation, and wood products. Rangelands also 

18129 produce intangible products such as natural beauty and scenery. The ability of these lands to support 

18130 the needs of grazing and browsing animals is a result of their capacity to produce rangeland 

18131 vegetation and forage.

18132 As a result of development and sub-division of private property, which has reduced the amount of 

18133 private grazing lands, demand for public land grazing on the Colville National Forest is experienced 

18134 to be constant or increasing. Currently, the demand for Forest Service permitted grazing is higher 

18135 than our ability to supply suitable areas.

18136 Climate Change

18137 Climate change may have the potential to affect grazing capacity in both the short term and long 

18138 term. Changes in forage production may result from predicted shifts in precipitation patterns and 

18139 increased temperatures.

18140 “Uncertainty about climate projections are much greater at the local and regional scales important to 

18141 land managers because uncertainties amplify as data and model outputs are downscaled. Ecological 

18142 response to climate related changes is highly likely to be more difficult than climate to model 

18143 accurately at local scales. Though there is uncertainty based on modeling, it does not imply a 

18144 complete lack of understanding regarding climate change and grazing lands. Managing in the face of 

18145 uncertainty would best involve a suite of approaches, including planning analyses that incorporate 

18146 modeling with uncertainty, and short-term and long-term strategies that focus on enhancing 

18147 ecosystem resistance and resilience, as well as actions taken that help ecosystems and resources 

18148 move in synchrony with the ongoing changes that result as climates and environments vary. 

18149 Flexibility to address the inherent uncertainty about local effects of climate change could be achieved 

18150 through enhancing the resiliency of forests. Efforts to address existing stressors would address 

18151 current management needs, and potentially reduce the future interactions of these stressors with 

18152 climate change.” (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008)

18153 Although we know an ecosystem’s sensitivity to grazing pressure and threshold for degradation 

18154 changes with bioclimatic setting, resulting in lower sustainability in very dry and very humid 

18155 ecosystems (Asner et al. 2004), the future bioclimatic setting within the project area is highly 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

522

18156 uncertain. It is very likely that as future average temperatures increase, snow pack would be reduced 

18157 and snowmelt, run-off and peak flows would occur earlier in the year (USDA 2008). In addition, 

18158 with increased atmospheric carbon, primary production is expected to increase particularly on semi18159 arid rangelands (Derner et al. 2005). It has been hypothesized that grazed areas resulting in a lower 

18160 soil water holding capacity and lower temperature sensitivity of soil respiration might release less 

18161 CO2 to the atmosphere through soil respiration under future precipitation and temperature scenarios.

18162 Need for Change

18163 Desired Conditions for Livestock Grazing for Alternatives 

18164 • There are opportunities to engage in ranching activities and graze livestock on NFS lands. 

18165 These activities contribute to the stability and social, economic, and cultural aspects of rural 

18166 communities.

18167 • The desired structure and diversity of native herbaceous plant communities (including highly 

18168 palatable forage species) are maintained or enhanced through proper livestock management 

18169 principles. Rangelands consisting of native plant communities such as open conifer forests, 

18170 low elevation grasslands, shrub-steppe plant communities and meadows have few to no 

18171 invasive plant species, have stable or improving ecological conditions, and are resilient to 

18172 disturbance events. Rangelands with significant non-native plant components (seeded 

18173 meadows or historically overgrazed sites) have stable or improving soil stability. 

18174 • Rangelands and forestlands provide forage for use by both livestock and wildlife. Grazing 

18175 continues to be a viable use of vegetation on the Forest. Availability of lands identified as 

18176 suited for this use contributes to providing animal products, economic diversity, open space, 

18177 and promotes cultural values and a traditional local life style. Allotments are generally 

18178 grazed on an annual basis. 

18179 • Consistent with sustaining other resource desired conditions, a viable level of forage is 

18180 available for use under a grazing permit system where use generally occurs on an annual 

18181 basis generally between June and October. Riparian and upland areas within allotments 

18182 reflect ecological conditions supporting the desired conditions, including those described in 

18183 the Wildlife, Aquatic and Riparian, Soil, and Vegetation Desired Conditions.

18184 Guidelines for Livestock Grazing for Alternatives 

18185 • Current livestock management practices should be compatible for the maintenance and, 

18186 where necessary, improvement of native plant communities.

18187 • New construction and reconstruction of fences and water developments would follow Forest 

18188 Service specifications.

18189 • Annual operating instructions for livestock grazing permittees should ensure livestock 

18190 numbers are balanced with capacity and address any relevant resource concerns (e.g., forage 

18191 production, wildlife, weeds, soils, etc.). 

18192 • Post-fire grazing should not be authorized until Forest Service range staff confirms range 

18193 readiness. 

18194 • Livestock use in and around wetlands should be evaluated on an allotment specific basis. 

18195 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18196 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we 

18197 address old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape 

18198 scale. These are:
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

523

18199 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect 

18200 and disease activity that would likely continue into the future.

18201 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of 

18202 restoring landscape resiliency. 

18203 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the 

18204 increased risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by 

18205 climate change impacts. 

18206 Motorized Recreation Trails

18207 The current land management plans provide direction for summer and winter motorized uses, 

18208 including identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection 

18209 of aquatic, plant, and wildlife habitats.

18210 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high quality, 

18211 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the 

18212 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 

18213 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a 

18214 broad range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, rock climbing, boating, 

18215 mushroom and berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an 

18216 environmentally sound manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.

18217 Access

18218 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: 

18219 1. The Forest can no longer afford to properly maintain the road system at current operational 

18220 maintenance levels, 

18221 2. The current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management 

18222 objectives, and 

18223 3. The existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is 

18224 scattered throughout the current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource 

18225 Management Plan), Forest Plan amendments (Eastside Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish 

18226 Strategy for the Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFISH, USDA 

18227 Forest Service 1994 and 1995]), national-level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim 

18228 policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear No-Net-Loss, Lynx Agreement, the Interior Columbia Basin 

18229 Strategy). 

18230 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18231 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 

18232 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for 

18233 additional wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the 

18234 National Wilderness Preservation System. 

18235 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

18236 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible 

18237 areas showed some are available to fill this need. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

524

18238 Wildlife

18239 The current Forest Plan provides limited protection for habitat connectivity, providing wildlife and 

18240 aquatic crossing structures, and managing activities adjacent to the structures so they are used by 

18241 wildlife.

18242 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18243 The current Forest Plan includes riparian management direction from the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

18244 (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994 and 1995). This approach appears to have either maintained or 

18245 improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. 

18246 Objectives for riparian management areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the 

18247 riparian and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to 

18248 riparian-dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are 

18249 dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water 

18250 quality and flows, and contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and 

18251 upland species. 

18252 Desired conditions for riparian management areas within any given watershed are to have 

18253 compositions of native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological 

18254 conditions commensurate with natural processes

18255 Environmental Consequences

18256 Methodology

18257 Assumptions

18258 • This programmatic analysis does not analyze changes that may occur to livestock 

18259 management at an allotment level. Instead, project level analysis would be completed 

18260 independent of this planning effort at the allotment level to determine the appropriate 

18261 intensity, timing and duration of livestock use. 

18262 • The proposed plan allows for site-specific determinations relating to allotment management, 

18263 such as the proper grazing systems and range improvements needed to meet desired 

18264 conditions. 

18265 • The proposed plan sets objectives for vegetation treatment and manipulation practices that 

18266 contribute to the amount and condition of rangeland vegetation. (1982 Rule Sec. 219.20 (a)). 

18267 • Conflict or beneficial interactions among livestock and wild animal populations are managed 

18268 at the allotment level through adaptive management and appropriate mitigation measures

18269 (1982 Rule Sec. 219.20 (b)). 

18270 • The proposed plan, through desired conditions and objectives for each management area, 

18271 provides direction to move rangelands in unsatisfactory condition toward desired conditions. 

18272 Implementation occurs at the allotment level (1982 Rule Sec. 219.20 (b)). 

18273 • Under all alternatives, project level analysis, including season of use, permitted livestock 

18274 numbers, and forage use levels occur at the allotment level. Livestock grazing under all 

18275 alternatives would be managed with adaptive management to match livestock numbers with 

18276 annual forage production and resource needs based upon assessment and monitoring data. 

18277 • Climate change may affect forage conditions on the forests. Under all alternatives, adaptive 

18278 management used in allotment management planning allows for adjustments in the number 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

525

18279 of livestock and season of pasture use so that livestock use matches forage production for 

18280 every grazing season. 

18281 • Rangeland capability does not change across alternatives.

18282 Methods of analysis

18283 Constraints to livestock grazing were identified and include availability of forage, impacts to 

18284 rangeland vegetation, access for administration of grazing allotments, and modification of allotment 

18285 management resulting from wildlife and riparian management concerns. Level of risk is assessed 

18286 using percent of forest allocated to a management area that is associated with the risk, either 

18287 increasing or decreasing the risk; or risks are assessed by looking at changes in plan components by 

18288 alternative.

18289 This section describes the capability and suitability of National Forest System (NFS) lands for 

18290 producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for wildlife. It also describes the 

18291 potential environmental consequences of vegetation treatments (mechanical and fire) on the 

18292 rangeland resource. 

18293 An Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the amount of dry forage consumed by one animal unit over 30 

18294 days. An Animal Unit is one 1000-pound cow with or without a calf under six months, or five sheep 

18295 The methods for determining acres of land capable and suitable for livestock grazing are described in 

18296 detail in Appendix A and Appendix B of the specialist report. The boundary for the suitability 

18297 analysis contains all Forest System Lands within the boundaries of the Colville National Forest. 

18298 Incomplete and Unavailable Information

18299 There is no incomplete or unavailable information regarding this analysis.

18300 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

18301 The spatial affected environment for direct and indirect effects is the lands administered by the 

18302 Colville National Forest. Effects are analyzed over the life of the forest plan, which is 15 to 20 years.

18303 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative 

18304 Effects Analysis

18305 • Sub-division of private lands and development.

18306 • Grazing on adjacent Federal, state and private lands.

18307 • Wildfire.

18308 Summary of Effects 

18309 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but 

18310 does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

18311 not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities there can be no direct effects. 

18312 However, there may be implications, or longer-term environmental consequences, of managing the 

18313 forest under this programmatic framework. 

18314 All alternatives provide similar guidance for managing livestock grazing. The management focus is 

18315 to balance livestock grazing with available forage and other resource needs. This would be 

18316 accomplished at the allotment level. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

526

18317 Lands Capable and Suitable for Livestock Grazing

18318 A rangeland capability and suitability analysis has been completed for this Forest Plan Revision 

18319 effort. Capability was assessed for cattle and sheep grazing separately. Total capable rangeland acres 

18320 on the Colville National Forest are seen in table 179. 

18321 Provisions of the 1982 planning rule require that the capability and suitability for producing forage 

18322 for grazing animals on NFS lands be determined. Capability refers to the potential of an area of land 

18323 to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of 

18324 management practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current 

18325 resource conditions and site conditions, such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well 

18326 as the application of management practices. 

18327 Table 179. Colville National Forest capable rangelands

Description Acreage

Forest Service Administered Lands 1,103,000

Capable for Cattle Grazing 690,311

Capable for Sheep Grazing 881,287

18328 Rangeland capability does not vary by alternative and is, therefore, only determined once through the 

18329 land management planning process.

18330 This current assessment improves on the prior assessment done during the development of the 1988 

18331 Land and Resource Management Plan because it accounts for changes in suitability that have 

18332 occurred since the original decisions were issued, and because it employs current GIS mapping 

18333 technologies that were unavailable during previous planning efforts.

18334 Suitability refers to the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

18335 particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

18336 consequences and the alternative uses forgone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

18337 individual or combined management practices.

18338 The criteria for suitability for livestock grazing are the same in the action alternatives. This is very 

18339 similar to the existing direction under the no-action alternative. 

18340
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

527

18341 Table 180. Suitability of livestock grazing on the Colville National Forest

Management Area Livestock 

Grazing Suitable

Livestock 

Grazing Not 

Suitable

Wood/Forage X

Scenic Timber X

Old Growth Dependent Species Habitat/Late Forest Structure X

Caribou Habitat X

Winter Range X

Scenic/Winter Range X

Focused Restoration X

General Restoration X

Active Management/Responsible Management Areas X

Restoration Zone X

Backcountry X

Backcountry Motorized X

Wilderness – Designated X

Salmo-Priest Wilderness X

Wilderness – Recommended X

Research Natural Areas X X

Scenic Byway Corridor X

Kettle Crest Special Interest Area X

18342 Range Suitability Determination

18343 Table 181. Colville National Forest suitable rangelands by alternative

Alternative Acres of Suitable Rangeland

No Action Cattle – 363,845

Sheep – 448,160

Proposed Action Cattle – 363,217

Sheep – 447,532

Alternative R Cattle – 363,217

Sheep – 447,532

Alternative P Cattle – 363,217

Sheep – 447,532

Alternative B Cattle – 363,217

Sheep – 447,532

Alternative O Cattle – 363,217

Sheep – 447,532

18344 Even though the amount of land suitable for livestock grazing varies slightly by alternative, there 

18345 would be no anticipated impact on permitted animal unit months (AUMs) in all alternatives based on 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

528

18346 their suitability alone. The alternatives would continue to provide some level of forage for domestic 

18347 livestock and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired conditions.

18348 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18349 Addressing forest health issues through vegetation management and fuels reduction would likely 

18350 produce positive outcomes in the amount and abundance of understory vegetation which permitted 

18351 livestock and wildlife use as forage. Griffis et al. found that the abundance of native grass production 

18352 increased significantly with treatment intensity through thinned timber stands which also had 

18353 prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels (Griffis et al. 2001). Additional research has revealed that as 

18354 stand density index decreases, forage production has been shown to increase (Moore and Deiter 

18355 1992). 

18356 Permitted grazing would benefit from timber production through increased forage abundance. This 

18357 increased forage production may not result in changes to permitted stocking levels since it would 

18358 need to be determined at the project level if there would be a net increase in forage production and 

18359 how other resources may be affected by potential changes.

18360 Access

18361 Access is assessed for the various alternatives in this section by looking at the combined total of the 

18362 percentages found for “Backcountry” and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas combined 

18363 with proposed road density limits. The greater the total number for these two management areas 

18364 equates to more acres where future access, relative to roads or motorized trails, would be reduced. 

18365 Table 182. Colville National Forest restricted access management areas, percentage by alternative

Management Area No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Backcountry 8 8 2 11 0 16

Recommended 

Wilderness 0 9 19 6 20 1

Total 8 17 21 17 20 17

18366 A constraint to livestock grazing from all motorized access is mainly limited to the grazing permit 

18367 holder’s ability to access the allotment. Motorized access (including off-highway vehicles) into non18368 motorized management areas within allotments can be authorized by line officers on a case-by-case 

18369 basis for allotment administration. Motorized access needs include transportation of fence and/or 

18370 water development materials, control of invasive plants, maintaining range improvement projects, 

18371 checking livestock, locating livestock and distributing salt. Permit holders for allotments with less 

18372 motorized access may take more time and labor to observe stock, check fences and water 

18373 developments, and distribute salt than allotments with motorized off-highway vehicle access. 

18374 To assess the total effects of changes in access, proposed road density limits also need to be 

18375 considered. Table 183 displays the road density limits for each of the alternatives analyzed in the 

18376 Forest Plan Revision.

18377
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

529

18378 Table 183. Upper limit of desired road density by alternative

No Action Proposed 

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

80% of the 

Forest is 

suitable for 

roads. About 

4,000 miles of 

roads on the 

Forest. Upper 

limits vary from 

0.4 to no limit.

2 miles per 

square mile in 

Focused 

Restoration 

MAs and 3 

miles per 

square mile in 

General 

Restoration 

MAs. 

1 mile per 

square mile in 

Focused 

Restoration 

MAs and 2 

miles per 

square mile in 

General 

Restoration 

MAs.

1 mile per 

square mile in 

Focused 

Restoration 

MAs and 2 

miles per 

square mile in 

General 

Restoration 

MAs.

Cap USFS road 

miles at current 

level. Applicable 

forestwide.

Cap USFS road 

miles at current 

level. Applicable 

forestwide.

18379 Climate Change

18380 Climate change scenarios predict more, larger uncharacteristic wildfires. Wildfires can burn fences 

18381 and water developments within allotments. Pastures may have to rest from grazing until recovery 

18382 objectives are met following a wildfire. These short-term effects of wildfire are minor compared to 

18383 the long-term effects of increased forage from large wildfires (over 100 acres burned) which can last 

18384 for decades. Over the last 15 years total acres burned by wildfire on the Forest has exceeded 

18385 1,000 acres in three years1994, 2001, and 2003. The trend in size and number of larger wildfires is 

18386 expected to increase over the life of the plan, resulting in an increase in forage. 

18387 “Grazing lands are estimated to contain 10 to 30 percent of the world’s soil organic carbon” 

18388 (Schuman, Janzen and Herrick 2002). While some studies have found limited to large reductions in 

18389 soil carbon and increases in CO2 flux associated with grazing (Haferkamp and MacNeil 2004) 

18390 (Welker et al. 2004), studies involving modeling and remotely sensed data indicate that proper 

18391 grazing can improve ecosystem production as measured by soil carbon storage (Li, Liu and Tan 

18392 2007) (Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007) (Reeder et al. 2004) (Schuman, Janzen and Herrick 2002). 

18393 Additional studies similarly conclude that certain levels of grazing may even increase carbon 

18394 sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007) (Derner, Boutton and Briske 2006) (Derner et al. 2005) (LeCain 

18395 et al. 2001) (Ganjegunte et al. 2005) (Manley et al. 1995) (Reeder et al. 2004) (Schuman, Janzen and 

18396 Herrick 2002). Complementing these findings, several studies indicate that light to moderate levels 

18397 of grazing have no overall effect on total carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007) (Ingram et al. 

18398 2008) (Derner, Boutton and Briske 2006) (Stavi et al. 2008) (Owensby, Ham and Auen 2006) 

18399 (Shrestha and Stahl 2008) (Ingram et al. 2008). In fact, intensive rotational grazing appears to be a 

18400 viable option for greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration credits (Bosch, Stephenson, 

18401 Groover and Hutchins 2008; Steiguer, Brown and Thorpe 2008; NRCS 2006; Li, Liu and Tan 2007; 

18402 Ingram et al. 2008; Conant and Paustian 2000; Steiguer, Brown and Thorpe 2008; Streater 2009; and 

18403 Sharrow 2008). 

18404 It can safely be asserted that there is tremendous variability in carbon storage and its response to 

18405 grazing across different land types (Derner, Boutton and Briske 2006; Henderson, Ellert and Naeth 

18406 2004). The Northern Great Plains appears to have small potential as a carbon sink (Haferkamp and 

18407 MacNeil 2004). Alternately, local research indicates that ungrazed sagebrush steppe sites were CO2

18408 sinks during the period they were measured (Svejcar et al.2008). Management practices that maintain 

18409 or move plant associations to “good” condition appear to be consistent with maintaining the soil 

18410 organic pool (Henderson, Ellert and Naeth 2004; Brown and Thorpe 2008; Sharrow 2008). 

18411 Grazing results in redistribution of carbon on the landscape (Stavi et al. 2008). It has been noted that 

18412 livestock waste management represents a potential long-term soil carbon gain (Fellman et al. 2008). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

530

18413 Free-ranging livestock deposit manure across the landscape, resulting in aerobic decomposition. 

18414 Aerobic decomposition of manure generates considerably less methane than does decomposition 

18415 associated with stockpiling strategies used in more concentrated livestock production strategies 

18416 (Alberta Agriculture and Food Ag-Info Center) (EPA 2005). This “in-effect” land application of 

18417 manure also results in a buildup of soil carbon that decomposes much more slowly than occurs when 

18418 composting (NRCS 2007).

18419 All alternatives would use adaptive management to address climate change. Climate change is 

18420 expected to affect forage conditions on the Forest. The adaptive management used in allotment 

18421 management planning, which is outside of this planning effort related to the Forest Plan Revision, 

18422 allows for adjustments in the number of livestock and season of pasture use so that livestock use

18423 matches forage production for every grazing season.

18424 Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness

18425 Wilderness designation by congressional action does not affect allotment boundaries or suitability for 

18426 grazing. The existing wilderness area, Salmo-Priest, does not have any range allotments within its 

18427 boundary, therefore, permitted livestock grazing would not occur in the future. There should be no 

18428 effects to livestock grazing from designated wilderness management; though new requirements 

18429 concerning the types of materials that could be utilized for range improvement projects may be a 

18430 future constraint should any recommended wilderness be designated as wilderness in the future. 

18431 The amount of recommended wilderness existing within grazing allotments has the potential to 

18432 constrain a grazing permittee’s motorized access into the various potential wilderness areas where 

18433 motorized trails exist. 

18434 Should recommended wilderness become designated wilderness, the potential for livestock grazing 

18435 would likely cease on the portions of vacant allotments within wilderness area boundaries. Grazing 

18436 of allotments with active permits could continue with the designation of wilderness.

18437 No-action Alternative

18438 Access for allotment management by motorized trail or roads is likely to remain unchanged from that 

18439 experienced under the 1988 forest plan. 

18440 Any new sheep grazing permits would be managed to reduce risks of disease transmission to bighorn 

18441 sheep herds. Effects from domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep would be analyzed at the 

18442 allotment level and a “Risk of Contact” analysis would be completed.

18443 Impacts to permittee’s time, labor and costs would continue to be affected by riparian area direction. 

18444 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18445 Timber harvest can have a favorable effect on forage production by creating areas of forage through 

18446 removing overstory. The quality of the forage created depends on the vegetation type and individual 

18447 site characteristics. The expected timber harvest acreage would continue, so there is no increase in 

18448 forage from increased acres of timber harvest. 

18449 Prescribed fire can also create areas of forage depending on the vegetation types burned. Under this 

18450 alternative, the amount of prescribed fire is unlikely to markedly increase in the short term. Forage 

18451 created by prescribed fire would not increase.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

531

18452 Motorized Recreation Trails

18453 Total miles of motorized trails on the forest are expected to remain the same in the short term. 

18454 Motorized trail access for permittees would remain the same in the short term. 

18455 Access

18456 Today, there are about 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads, and about 80 percent of the 

18457 forest is suitable for road construction. The current forest plan includes standards and guidelines that 

18458 limit road densities to between 0.4 to 2 miles per square mile in deer and elk winter range; grizzly 

18459 bear habitat areas; and lynx habitat. Outside of these habitats, the forest plan does not set an upper 

18460 limit on road density. Today, the average National Forest System road densities in 12th field 

18461 watersheds range from a low of 0.33 to a high of 4.45 miles per square mile on National Forest 

18462 System lands. The total miles of National Forest System roads are expected to remain the same or 

18463 decrease slightly over the next 10 years.

18464 Current forest plan constraints on access may result in increased time, labor, and capital investments 

18465 for the permit holder. Permit holders of allotments with less road access may take more time and 

18466 labor to observe stock, check fences and water developments, and distribute salt than allotments with 

18467 higher road densities. 

18468 Low maintenance native surface roads serve as routes for easily moving livestock on, off of and 

18469 around pastures, and some routes may be lost as roads are decommissioned. Cut and fill slopes along 

18470 with the native surface of low maintenance roads is a location providing foraging areas for livestock, 

18471 therefore lower road densities may have a small effect on availability of forage. 

18472 A positive effect of lower road density and miles is that cattle and range improvements would 

18473 generally receive less disturbance and vandalism. Public use of roads in allotments with intensive 

18474 grazing systems disturbs livestock, increases the risk of gates being left open, and tends to disrupt the 

18475 proper use of forage by moving livestock along roadways. 

18476 Road densities and total miles of road on the forest are expected to remain the same in the short term 

18477 and likely to decrease in the long term due to budget trends. Motorized vehicle access for permittees 

18478 would remain the same in the short term and may decline slightly in the long term.

18479 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18480 Currently there are no recommended wilderness areas on the Forest. 

18481 Wildlife

18482 Sheep

18483 The Forest currently supports two bighorn sheep herds and has no active sheep allotments. It is 

18484 unknown if or when a sheep allotment may become active. Risk of contact concerning disease 

18485 transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep exists which can be fatal for bighorn sheep. The 

18486 current forest plan is silent on disease transmission risks. It is assumed that any permit for sheep 

18487 grazing would take steps to reduce or eliminate the risk of contact. The Forest Service would 

18488 continue to address risks through allotment management planning, which may reduce future 

18489 permitting of domestic sheep in allotments proximate to bighorn sheep herds. A risk of contact 

18490 analysis would be conducted at the allotment level before domestic sheep are considered for 

18491 authorized back onto the forest. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

532

18492 Wildlife management

18493 The eastern portion of the Forest is within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

18494 Zone that extends east into Idaho and Montana. The current forest plan is silent on grizzly bear 

18495 depredation, other than to state that grizzly bear habitat is managed in accordance with the 

18496 Interagency Bear Guidelines, Colville National Forest Guidelines for Management in Occupied 

18497 Grizzly Bear Habitat (Appendix H, FEIS), national policy, and the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. 

18498 Following direction to avoid depredation may result in changes in timing or location of livestock 

18499 movement within an allotment. If this occurs, the permittee may need to spend more time and labor 

18500 to implement these changes. 

18501 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18502 Forest plan direction that protects riparian areas have an effect on grazing operations through the 

18503 need for the permit holder to spend time, labor, and make capital investments to limit potential 

18504 livestock grazing effects to riparian areas. Currently there are riparian management areas which are 

18505 called riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) established by the INFISH and Eastside Screens 

18506 amendments, and management direction from the INFISH amendment that address livestock grazing 

18507 in riparian management areas. This direction would continue and permittee’s time, labor and capital 

18508 investments would continue at the same levels, assuming allotment management is in compliance 

18509 with the allotment management plan.

18510 Proposed Action

18511 Old Forest Management: The proposed action is likely to increase forage for livestock and wildlife 

18512 by creating large openings. Due to climate change, the trend in size and number of larger wildfires is 

18513 expected to increase over the life of the plan, also resulting in an increase in forage. 

18514 Access: The total effect to access comes from looking at percentage of Forest acres in 

18515 “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” combined and proposed road density limits. 

18516 Compared to the no-action alternative, access opportunities could be slightly reduced through an 

18517 increase in the “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” acres, but a reduction in access is 

18518 not likely to be related to road density limits. Limited access could equate to additional time and 

18519 labor costs for permittees.

18520 Riparian and Aquatic Resources: Riparian area widths would increase compared to the no-action 

18521 alternative and that experienced under the 1988 forest plan. The “guidelines” directing management 

18522 for grazing practices in the Aquatic Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) are unlikely to have a 

18523 substantial effect on allotment management. The ARCS “standard” requiring new livestock handling, 

18524 management or watering facilities to be located outside of riparian management areas could act to 

18525 constrain future options while seeking to improve riparian areas and water quality.

18526 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18527 Timber harvest can have a favorable effect on forage production by creating transitory rangelands 

18528 that exist for a period following treatment. The expected timber harvest remains the same across all 

18529 alternatives due to budget trends, so there is likely to be no increase in forage from increased acres of 

18530 timber harvest. However, the proposed action and alternative P include desired conditions for 

18531 creating gaps and patches of vegetation ranging up to 40 acres. More and larger gaps in vegetation 

18532 would create more foraging areas, so the proposed action and alternative P are likely to increase 

18533 forage for livestock and wildlife. Timber harvest and follow up fuels treatments result in increased 

18534 forage standing crop due to the relationship between forage production and overstory being 

18535 curvilinear with forage production being negatively related to density of overstory vegetation 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

533

18536 (Masters et al. 1993). More forage would reduce forage competition with big game and may improve 

18537 livestock distribution over the allotments. 

18538 Prescribed fire can also create desirable foraging areas depending on the vegetation types burned. 

18539 Due to budget trends, the amount of prescribed fire is likely to remain the same across all 

18540 alternatives and is unlikely to markedly increase in the short term. 

18541 The proposed action and alternative P are expected to result in forests that are more resilient and 

18542 have fewer large and uncharacteristic wildfires in the long term. The trend in size and number of 

18543 larger wildfires is expected to increase over the life of the plan as a result of anticipated climate 

18544 change, resulting in an increase in forage in the short term, while in the long term, wildfire created 

18545 forage would decrease. 

18546 Motorized Recreation Trails

18547 The combined total for management areas that would restrict motorized access would total 

18548 17.2 percent of the Forest under the proposed action. This means that there would be 9.4 percent 

18549 fewer acres under the proposed action where motorized access would be allowed compared to the 

18550 1988 forest plan. Limited access could equate to an increase in time and labor costs for permittees. 

18551 The analysis assumes that permit holders may not have motorized off-highway vehicle access to 

18552 parts of their allotment within a backcountry non-motorized management area. 

18553 Access 

18554 The proposed action’s recommended road density limits of 2 miles per square mile for Focused 

18555 Restoration Management Areas and 3 miles per square mile for General Restoration Management 

18556 Areas are unlikely to result in a noticeable change in grazing permittee’s ability to access their 

18557 allotments. Some watersheds would see reductions in the amount of roads present, but this is 

18558 unlikely to have an impact on allotment management because of a lack in infrastructure, grazable 

18559 areas and/or allotments within the affected watersheds.

18560 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18561 Concerning recommended wilderness, the proposed action, alternative P and alternative O would 

18562 allow existing motorized uses to continue until Congress makes a decision on the Forest Service’s 

18563 recommendation. None of the recommended wilderness areas currently have National Forest System 

18564 roads, or motorized trails. Alternatives with a high percentage of allotment acres in recommended 

18565 wilderness would have the highest effect to permit holders’ use of mechanized equipment in these 

18566 areas. This would result in the permit holder having to spend more time and labor to manage the 

18567 allotment.

18568 Wildlife

18569 There is nothing specifically in the proposed action for wildlife that would affect livestock or 

18570 allotment management.

18571 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18572 The guidelines directing management for grazing practices in the Aquatic Riparian Conservation 

18573 Strategy (ARCS) are unlikely to have a substantial effect on allotment management. The ARCS 

18574 standard requiring new livestock handling, management or watering facilities to be located outside of 

18575 riparian management areas could act to limit future management options, such as water development 

18576 and re-development, while seeking to improve riparian areas and water quality. Additional standards 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

534

18577 or changing a guideline to a standard is an added constraint that may challenge grazing permittees to 

18578 comply with their allotment management plan(s).

18579 Riparian management area widths vary by alternative. Riparian area widths for the proposed action 

18580 would increase compared to the no-action alternative and that experienced under the 1988 forest 

18581 plan. This alternative increases riparian management area widths for lakes and natural ponds from 

18582 150 feet to 300 feet, which could potentially further constrain a permittee’s ability to fully utilize 

18583 management options within these areas. 

18584 Alternative R

18585 Access: The total effect to access comes from looking at the percentage of Forest acres in 

18586 “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” combined and proposed road density limits. 

18587 Compared to the no-action alternative, access opportunities would be reduced through an increase in 

18588 the “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” acres and the identified road densities for 

18589 Focused and General Restoration Management Areas. Alternative R is the most restrictive of the 

18590 alternatives in regards to restricting access through the amount of land contained within Focused 

18591 Restoration, Backcountry and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas. Limited access would 

18592 equate to an increase in time and labor costs for permittees.

18593 Riparian and Aquatic Resources: Riparian area widths would increase compared to the no-action 

18594 alternative, and that experienced under the 1988 forest plan. The guidelines” and “standards directing 

18595 management for grazing practices in the Aquatic Riparian Conservation Strategy Modified (ARCS18596 mod) is likely to have an effect on allotment management and could act to limit future options and 

18597 reduce the length of permitted grazing seasons. Grazing permittees could realize additional 

18598 constraints based on minimum stubble height requirements of ARCS-mod. The ARCS-mod 

18599 “standards” could act to limit future options while seeking to improve riparian areas and water 

18600 quality. 

18601 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18602 Timber harvest can have a favorable effect on forage production by creating transitory rangelands 

18603 that exist for a period of time following treatment. The expected timber harvest remains the same 

18604 across all alternatives due to budget trends, so there is no increase in forage from increased acres of 

18605 timber harvest. 

18606 Prescribed fire can also create desirable foraging areas depending on the vegetation types burned. 

18607 Due to budget trends, the amount of prescribed fire is likely to remain the same across all 

18608 alternatives and is unlikely to markedly increase in the short term. 

18609 Motorized Recreation Trails

18610 The combined total for management areas that would restrict motorized access would total 

18611 21 percent of the Forest under alternative R. This means that there would be 13.2 percent fewer acres 

18612 under alternative R where motorized access would be allowed compared to the 1988 forest plan. 

18613 Limited access would increase time and labor costs for permittees. 

18614 The analysis assumes that permit holders may not have motorized off-highway vehicle access to 

18615 parts of their allotment within a backcountry non-motorized management area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

535

18616 Access

18617 Alternative R’s recommended road density limits of 1 mile per square mile for Focused Restoration 

18618 Management Areas and 2 miles per square mile for General Restoration Management Areas, 

18619 combined with this alternative having the largest percentage of Forest acres being in a Focused 

18620 Restoration Management Area are likely to result in a noticeable change in a grazing permittee’s 

18621 ability to access their allotments. Many watersheds would likely see reductions in the amount of 

18622 roads present, and this reduction in access could result in grazing permit holders having to spend 

18623 more time and labor to manage the allotment.

18624 Low maintenance native surface roads serve as routes for easily moving livestock on, off of and 

18625 around pastures, and some routes may be lost as roads are decommissioned. Cut and fill slopes and 

18626 the native surface of low maintenance roads is another source of forage, so lower road densities may 

18627 have an effect on availability of forage for livestock grazing. 

18628 A positive effect of lower road density and miles is that cattle and range improvements would 

18629 generally receive less disturbance and vandalism. Public use of roads in allotments with intensive 

18630 grazing systems disturbs livestock, increases the risk of gates being left open, and tends to disrupt the 

18631 proper utilization of forage by moving livestock along roadways. Alternative R would have the most 

18632 allotment acreage in the management area “Focused Restoration” with the lowest road density. 

18633 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18634 In the short term, the effect of recommended wilderness to livestock grazing is to limit motorized 

18635 trail access for the permit holder in the R and B alternatives, where a standard doesn’t allow 

18636 motorized uses within recommended wilderness. 

18637 Alternatives R and B would recommend the largest amount of recommended wilderness to Congress 

18638 for potential designation and these alternatives would have the most substantial effect on range 

18639 management through limiting access, restricting tools, and increasing the time required to complete 

18640 management activities. None of the recommended wilderness areas currently have National Forest 

18641 System roads, but the Owl Mountain, Jackknife, Twin Sisters and South Huckleberry PWAs all have 

18642 motorized trails that are used for livestock and allotment management. Since all of these PWAs 

18643 become recommended wilderness in alternative R, a permittee’s ability to complete allotment and 

18644 livestock management activities would be further constrained. In the long term, if Congress decides 

18645 to designate the recommended wilderness areas as wilderness, motorized and mechanized activities 

18646 may not be authorized. This would result in the permit holder having to spend more time and labor to 

18647 manage the allotment.

18648 Wildlife

18649 There is nothing specifically in alternative R for wildlife that would affect livestock or allotment 

18650 management.

18651 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18652 Forest plan direction contained within alternative R to protect riparian areas would constrain grazing 

18653 and would likely require the permit holder to spend additional time, labor, and make capital 

18654 investments to limit potential livestock grazing effects on riparian areas. Alternatives R and P have 

18655 the most constrained plan components for riparian areas that would affect permitted livestock 

18656 grazing. For example, alternatives R and P have an added standard to restrict livestock access to fish 

18657 redds of federally listed threatened and endangered fish. Additional standards or changing a 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

536

18658 guideline to a standard may put the permittee at a higher risk of being in non-compliance with the 

18659 allotment management plan. 

18660 Riparian Management Area widths for alternative R would increase compared to current direction in 

18661 the 1988 Plan and INFISH. Alternatives with wider riparian area widths are the proposed action, R, 

18662 P, and O. These alternatives increase riparian area widths, and therefore, protections for lakes and 

18663 natural ponds from 150 feet to 300 feet. 

18664 Alternatives R and P have additional standards, and standards that in other alternatives are 

18665 guidelines, addressing livestock grazing and rangeland infrastructure in riparian areas. More 

18666 constraining plan standards, and increased riparian area widths may increase time, labor and capital 

18667 expenditures by the permittee to manage allotments. 

18668 Standard 21 of ARCS-mod, which pertains to livestock handling, management and water facilities, 

18669 could limit the implementation of future management options to improve riparian areas and water 

18670 quality. Specifically, given the constraining RMA widths and the terrain and types of stream channels 

18671 experienced on the Colville, it would be extremely difficult to re-locate new water troughs outside 

18672 the RMA. In fact, of the many hundred water developments currently on the Colville National 

18673 Forest, none are located outside of the RMA and they have been shown to provide off-site watering 

18674 opportunities for livestock that in turn result in improved water quality and riparian conditions. 

18675 Requiring water troughs to be placed at least 300 feet from fish-bearing streams would likely require 

18676 at least 2,000 feet of pipe to convey water to the trough and return the overflow back to the stream. 

18677 These long pipelines, which are low-gradient, low-pressure, gravity-fed systems, have been found to 

18678 be extremely temperamental and inconsistent in delivering water to their intended location. When 

18679 livestock troughs do not consistently have water in them, livestock would revert to drinking from 

18680 streams, and therefore, impede riparian recovery and could result in exceeding identified guidelines 

18681 for forage and browse utilization and bank alteration.

18682 Guideline 22 of ARCS-mod pertaining to green-line vegetation areas is more restrictive in regard to 

18683 minimum stubble height amounts and would potentially double the amount of required residual 

18684 stubble height left in riparian areas compared to the existing condition. It is recognized that riparian 

18685 and stream conditions are improving on the Colville National Forest with current management which 

18686 requires a minimum of 4 inches of herbaceous stubble in riparian zones. This ARCS-mod guideline, 

18687 which would require a minimum of 6 to 8 inches of herbaceous stubble in riparian zones, could 

18688 constrain permitted grazing and could result in shortened grazing seasons for permittees. Science 

18689 suggests that 4 inches (10 cm) of residual stubble height is recommended as a starting point for 

18690 improved riparian management as this amount is near optimal when considering riparian issues such 

18691 as maintaining forage vigor, entrapping and stabilizing sediment under inundated flow, trampling of 

18692 streambanks and diversion of willow browsing (Clary and Leininger 2000). In some situations, 

18693 2.75 inches (7cm) may provide for adequate riparian ecosystem function while others may require 

18694 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) (Clary and Leininger 2000). Having conservative/restrictive guidelines 

18695 identified in ARCS-mod, such as a minimum stubble height requirement of 6 to 8 inches, is likely to 

18696 ensure riparian health, but presents additional constraints for livestock operators who could 

18697 experience shorter grazing seasons in order to comply with an 6 to 8 inch minimum stubble height 

18698 requirement. Based upon vegetation monitoring in upland and riparian areas and a knowledge of the

18699 permitted grazing occurring on the Colville National Forest, it is estimated that maintaining at least 

18700 6 to 8 inches of residual stubble height could equate to a 10 to 50 percent reduction in AUMs as a 

18701 result of shortened grazing seasons that would be required to attain the specified minimum stubble 

18702 height values in the ARCS-mod guideline 22. This estimation is at the forestwide scale and the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

537

18703 reality experienced on a given allotment could vary depending on the condition of and setting along 

18704 streams and riparian areas.

18705 Standard 23 of ARCS-mod pertaining to allotment management planning and livestock handling 

18706 facilities could result in difficulty gathering and removing livestock from the allotment at the end of 

18707 the permitted use season. Livestock handling facilities are strategically placed within allotments in 

18708 order to maximize their effectiveness and function. These facilities need to be strategically placed in 

18709 order to be effective and are usually near water, but away from the source and associated riparian

18710 vegetation on a relatively flat landscape. Should these facilities be required to be moved farther away 

18711 from water because of the arbitrary 300-foot distance from the stream, it could compromise a 

18712 permittee’s ability to successfully gather livestock from the allotment and potentially result in 

18713 extended livestock use in the riparian areas, thereby reducing the recovery period for vegetation and 

18714 increasing impacts to streams and streambanks.

18715 Standard 24 of ARCS-mod pertaining to fish redds would require that livestock would not be able to 

18716 access federally listed threatened or endangered fish redds. Depending on the method to accomplish 

18717 this, allotment management could be complicated, which could result in increased time, effort, and 

18718 cost to grazing permittees. Riparian exclosure fencing is one way to accomplish this standard and 

18719 this method could make pasture moves more difficult if trailing routes are compromised as a result of 

18720 additional fencing.

18721 Implementation of ARCS-mod guidelines and standards do not account for the variability that occurs 

18722 over the 1.1 million acres of the Colville National Forest. Therefore, these constraints applied across 

18723 the entire Forest could dampen economic contributions to local economies if standards or guidelines 

18724 are at risk of being exceeded and livestock have to be removed sooner than authorized.

18725 Alternative P

18726 Old Forest Management: Alternative P is likely to increase forage for livestock and wildlife by 

18727 creating large openings. Due to climate change, the trend in size and number of larger wildfires is 

18728 expected to increase over the life of the plan, also resulting in an increase in forage. 

18729 Access: The total effect to access comes from looking at percentage of Forest acres in 

18730 “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” combined and proposed road density limits. 

18731 Compared to the no-action alternative, access opportunities would be reduced through an increase in 

18732 the “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” acres and the identified road densities for 

18733 Focused and General Restoration Management Areas. Limited access could equate to an increase in 

18734 time and labor costs for permittees.

18735 Riparian and Aquatic Resources: Riparian area widths would increase compared to the no-action 

18736 alternative and that experienced under the 1988 forest plan. The guidelines” and “standards directing 

18737 management for grazing practices in the ARCS-mod is likely to have an effect on allotment 

18738 management and could act to limit future options and reduce the length of permitted grazing seasons. 

18739 Grazing permittees could realize additional constraints based on minimum stubble height 

18740 requirements of ARCS-mod. These guidelines and standards would also constrain grazing beyond 

18741 what has been identified as optimal to protect stream and riparian values in most areas (Clary and 

18742 Leininger 2000).

18743 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18744 Timber harvest can have a favorable effect on forage production by creating transitory rangelands 

18745 that exist for a period of time following treatment. The expected timber harvest remains the same 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

538

18746 across all alternatives due to budget trends, so there is no increase in forage from increased acres of 

18747 timber harvest. However, the proposed action and alternative P include desired conditions for 

18748 creating gaps and patches of vegetation ranging up to 40 acres. More and larger gaps in vegetation 

18749 would create more foraging areas, so the proposed action and alternative P are likely to increase 

18750 forage for livestock and wildlife. Timber harvest and follow up fuels treatments result in increased 

18751 forage standing crop due to the relationship between forage production and overstory being 

18752 curvilinear with forage production being negatively related to density of overstory vegetation 

18753 (Masters et al. 1993). Additional forage would reduce forage competition with big game and may 

18754 improve livestock distribution over the allotments. 

18755 Prescribed fire can also create desirable foraging areas depending on the vegetation types burned. 

18756 Due to budget trends, the amount of prescribed fire is likely to remain the same across all

18757 alternatives and is unlikely to markedly increase in the short term. 

18758 The proposed action and alternative P are expected to result in forests that are more resilient and 

18759 have fewer large and uncharacteristic wildfires in the long term. The trend in size and number of 

18760 larger wildfires is expected to increase over the life of the plan due to anticipated climate change, 

18761 resulting in an increase in forage in the short term, while in the long term, wildfire-created forage 

18762 would decrease. However, the proposed action and alternative P would continue to provide increased 

18763 forage because of the desired condition for large size gaps and patches. 

18764 Motorized Recreation Trails

18765 The combined total for Management Areas that would restrict motorized access would total 

18766 17 percent of the Forest under the alternative P. This means that there would be 9.2 percent fewer 

18767 acres under alternative P where motorized access would be allowed compared to the 1988 forest 

18768 plan. Limited access could equate to an increase in time and labor costs for permittees. 

18769 The analysis assumes that permit holders may not have motorized off-highway vehicle access to 

18770 parts of their allotment within a backcountry non-motorized management area. 

18771 Access

18772 Alternative P’s recommended road density limits of 1 mile per square mile for Focused Restoration 

18773 Management Areas and 2 miles per square mile for General Restoration Management Areas is likely 

18774 to result in a noticeable change in a grazing permittee’s ability to access their allotments. Many 

18775 watersheds would likely see reductions in the amount of roads present, and this reduction in access 

18776 would result in grazing permit holders having to spend more time and labor to manage the allotment.

18777 Low maintenance native surface roads serve as routes for easily moving livestock on, off of and 

18778 around pastures, and some routes may be lost as roads are decommissioned. Cut and fill slopes and 

18779 the native surface of low maintenance roads is another source of forage, so lower road densities may 

18780 have an effect on availability of forage for livestock grazing. 

18781 A positive effect of lower road density and miles is that cattle and range improvements would 

18782 generally receive less disturbance and vandalism. Public use of roads in allotments with intensive 

18783 grazing systems disturbs livestock, increases the risk of gates being left open, and tends to disrupt the 

18784 proper utilization of forage by moving livestock along roadways. 

18785 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18786 Concerning recommended wilderness, the proposed action, alternative P, and alternative O would 

18787 allow existing motorized uses to continue until Congress makes a decision on the Forest Service’s 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

539

18788 recommendation. None of the recommended wilderness areas currently have National Forest System 

18789 roads, or motorized trails. Alternatives with a high percentage of allotment acres in recommended 

18790 wilderness would have the highest effect to permit holder’s use of mechanized equipment in these 

18791 areas. This would result in the permit holder having to spend more time and labor to manage the 

18792 allotment.

18793 Wildlife

18794 There is nothing specifically in alternative P for wildlife that would affect livestock or allotment 

18795 management.

18796 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18797 Forest plan direction contained within alternative P to protect riparian areas would constrain grazing 

18798 and would likely require the permit holder to spend additional time, labor, and make capital 

18799 investments to limit potential livestock grazing effects on riparian areas. Alternatives R and P have 

18800 the most constrained plan components for riparian areas that would affect permitted livestock 

18801 grazing. For example, alternatives R and P have an added standard to restrict livestock access to fish 

18802 redds of federally listed threatened and endangered fish. Additional standards or changing a 

18803 guideline to a standard may put the permittee at a higher risk of being in non-compliance with the 

18804 allotment management plan. 

18805 Riparian Management Area widths for alternative P would increase compared to current direction in 

18806 the 1988 Plan and INFISH. Alternatives with wider riparian area widths are the proposed action, R, 

18807 P, and O. These alternatives increase riparian area widths, and therefore protections, for lakes and 

18808 natural ponds from 150 feet to 300 feet. 

18809 Alternatives R, P, and O have additional standards, and standards that in other alternatives are 

18810 guidelines, addressing livestock grazing and rangeland infrastructure in riparian areas. More 

18811 constraining plan standards, and increased riparian area widths may increase time, labor and capital 

18812 expenditures by the permittee to manage allotments. 

18813 Standard 21 of ARCS-mod, which pertains to livestock handling, management and water facilities 

18814 could limit the implementation of future management options to improve riparian areas and water 

18815 quality. , Specifically, given the constraining RMA widths and the terrain and types of stream 

18816 channels experienced on the Colville, it would be extremely difficult to re-locate new water troughs 

18817 outside the RMA. In fact, of the many hundred water developments currently in existence on the 

18818 Colville National Forest, none are located outside of the RMA and they have been shown to provide 

18819 off-site watering opportunities for livestock that in turn result in improved water quality and riparian 

18820 conditions. Requiring water troughs to be placed at least 300 feet from fish-bearing streams would 

18821 likely require at least 2,000 feet of pipe to convey water to the trough and return the overflow back to 

18822 the stream. These long pipelines, which are low-gradient, low-pressure, gravity-fed systems, have 

18823 been found to be extremely temperamental and inconsistent in delivering water to its intended 

18824 location. When livestock troughs do not consistently have water in them, livestock would revert to 

18825 drinking from streams, and therefore, impede riparian recovery and could result in exceeding 

18826 identified guidelines for forage and browse utilization and bank alteration.

18827 Guideline 22 of ARCS-mod pertaining to green-line vegetation areas is more restrictive in regard to 

18828 minimum stubble height amounts and would potentially double the amount of required residual 

18829 stubble height left in riparian areas compared to the existing condition. It is recognized that riparian 

18830 and stream conditions are improving on the Colville National Forest with current management, 

18831 which requires a minimum of 4 inches of herbaceous stubble in riparian zones. This ARCS-mod 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

540

18832 guideline, which would require a minimum of 6 to 8 inches of herbaceous stubble in riparian zones, 

18833 could constrain permitted grazing and could result in shortened grazing seasons for permittees. 

18834 Science suggests that 4 inches (10 cm) of residual stubble height is recommended as a starting point 

18835 for improved riparian management as this amount is near optimal when considering riparian issues 

18836 such as maintaining forage vigor, entrapping and stabilizing sediment under inundated flow, 

18837 trampling of streambanks and diversion of willow browsing (Clary and Leininger 2000). In some 

18838 situations, 2.75 inches (7 cm) may provide for adequate riparian ecosystem function while others 

18839 may require 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) (Clary and Leininger 2000). Having conservative/restrictive 

18840 guidelines identified in ARCS-mod, such as a minimum stubble height requirement of 6 to 8 inches, 

18841 is likely to ensure riparian health, but presents additional constraints for livestock operators who 

18842 could experience shorter grazing seasons in order to comply with an 6- to 8-inch minimum stubble 

18843 height requirement. Based upon vegetation monitoring in upland and riparian areas and a knowledge 

18844 of the permitted grazing occurring on the Colville National Forest, it is estimated that maintaining at 

18845 least 6 to 8 inches of residual stubble height could equate to a 10 to 50 percent reduction in AUMs as 

18846 a result of shortened grazing seasons that would be required to attain the specified minimum stubble 

18847 height values in the ARCS-mod guideline 22. This estimation is at the forestwide scale and the 

18848 reality experienced on a given allotment could vary depending on the condition of and setting along 

18849 streams and riparian areas.

18850 Standard 23 of ARCS-mod pertaining to allotment management planning and livestock handling 

18851 facilities could result in difficulty gathering and removing livestock from the allotment at the end of 

18852 the permitted use season. Livestock handling facilities are strategically placed within allotments in 

18853 order to maximize their effectiveness and function. These facilities need to be strategically placed in 

18854 order to be effective and are usually near water, but away from the source and associated riparian 

18855 vegetation on a relatively flat landscape. Should these facilities be required to be moved further away 

18856 from water because of the arbitrary 300-foot distance from the stream, it could compromise a 

18857 permittee’s ability to successfully gather livestock off of the allotment and could potentially result in 

18858 extended livestock use in the riparian areas thereby reducing the recovery period for vegetation and 

18859 increasing impacts to streams and streambanks.

18860 Standard 24 of ARCS-mod pertaining to fish redds would require that livestock would not be able to 

18861 access federally listed threatened or endangered fish redds. Depending on the method to accomplish 

18862 this, allotment management could be complicated which could result in increased time, effort and 

18863 cost to grazing permittees. Riparian exclosure fencing is one way to accomplish this standard and 

18864 this method could make pasture moves more difficult if trailing routes are compromised as a result of 

18865 additional fencing.

18866 Implementation of ARCS-mod guidelines and standards do not account for the variability that occurs 

18867 over the 1.1 million acres of the Colville National Forest. Therefore, these constraints applied across 

18868 the entire Forest could dampen economic contributions to local economies if standards or guidelines 

18869 are at risk of being exceeded and livestock have to be removed sooner than authorized.

18870 Kettle Crest Special Interest Area

18871 Alternatives P and O propose the creation of a special interest area in the Kettle Crest range to 

18872 account for the special characteristics seen in and unique values recognized for this area. The 

18873 proposed Kettle Crest SIA is suitable for livestock grazing and no effects are anticipated from its 

18874 existence.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

541

18875 Alternative B

18876 Access: The total effect to motorized trail access comes from looking at percentage of allotment 

18877 acres in “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” combined. The highest percentage of 

18878 allotment acres in Recommended Wilderness and Backcountry are in R and B, which would limit 

18879 motorized trail access and increase time and labor for permittees the most among the alternatives. 

18880 Riparian and Aquatic Resources: Of the action alternatives, riparian area widths are the smallest in 

18881 the B alternative, which would have the least effect on the permittee’s management of the allotment. 

18882 Alternative B recommends riparian and aquatic resources be guided by requirements of INFISH, 

18883 which is the same as is followed in the 1988 Plan.

18884 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18885 Timber harvest can have a favorable effect on forage production by creating forage areas through 

18886 removing overstory. The expected timber harvest remains the same across all alternatives due to 

18887 budget trends, so there is no increase in forage from increased acres of timber harvest. Alternatives B 

18888 and O limit gap size to three acres. More and larger gaps in vegetation would create more forage 

18889 areas, so alternative B is not likely to increase forage for livestock and wildlife very much.

18890 Prescribed fire can also create desirable foraging areas depending on the vegetation types burned. 

18891 Due to budget trends the amount of prescribed fire would remain the same across all alternatives and 

18892 is unlikely to markedly increase in the short term. 

18893 Motorized Recreation Trails

18894 The combined total for Management Areas that would restrict motorized access would total 

18895 20.1 percent of the Forest under alternative B. This means that there would be 12.3 percent fewer 

18896 acres under alternative B where motorized access would be allowed compared to the 1988 forest 

18897 plan. Limited access could equate to an increase in time and labor costs for permittees. 

18898 The analysis assumes that permit holders may not have motorized off-highway vehicle access to 

18899 parts of their allotment within a backcountry non-motorized management area. 

18900 Access

18901 Today, there are about 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads, and about 80 percent of the 

18902 forest is suitable for road construction. Alternative B would cap the number of road miles at the 

18903 current level so that should any new road be proposed, an equal amount of road would have to be 

18904 decommissioned.

18905 Road densities and total miles of road on the forest are expected to remain the same in the short term 

18906 and likely to decrease in the long term due to budget trends. Motorized vehicle access for permittees 

18907 would remain the same in the short term and may decline slightly in the long term.

18908 Low maintenance native surface roads serve as routes for easily moving livestock on, off of and 

18909 around pastures, and some routes may be lost as roads are decommissioned. Cut and fill slopes along 

18910 with the native surface of low maintenance roads is a location providing foraging areas for livestock, 

18911 therefore lower road densities may have a small effect on availability of forage for livestock grazing. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

542

18912 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18913 In the short term, the effects of recommended wilderness to livestock grazing is to limit motorized 

18914 trail access for the permit holder in the R and B alternatives, where a standard allows no motorized 

18915 uses within recommended wilderness. 

18916 Alternatives R and B would recommend the largest amount of recommended wilderness to Congress 

18917 for potential designation and these alternatives would have the most substantial effect on range 

18918 management through limiting access, restricting tools and increasing the time required to complete 

18919 management activities. None of the recommended wilderness areas currently have National Forest 

18920 System roads, but the Owl Mountain, Jackknife, Twin Sisters and South Huckleberry PWAs all have 

18921 motorized trails that are used for livestock and allotment management. Since all of these PWAs 

18922 become recommended wilderness in alternative B, a permittee’s ability to complete allotment and 

18923 livestock management activities would be constrained. In the long term, if Congress decides to 

18924 designate the recommended wilderness areas as wilderness, motorized and mechanized activities 

18925 may not be authorized. This would result in the permit holder having to spend more time and labor to 

18926 manage the allotment.

18927 Wildlife

18928 There is nothing specifically in alternative B for wildlife that would affect livestock or allotment 

18929 management.

18930 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18931 Existing Forest Plan direction concerning riparian and aquatic resource management would be 

18932 continued in alternative B. Forest plan direction that protects riparian areas have an effect on grazing 

18933 operations through the need for the permit holder to spend time, labor, and make capital investments 

18934 to limit livestock grazing effects to riparian areas. Currently there are riparian management areas 

18935 which are called riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) established by the INFISH and 

18936 Eastside Screens amendments, and management direction from the INFISH amendment that address 

18937 livestock grazing in riparian management areas. This direction would continue and permittee’s time, 

18938 labor and capital investments would continue at the same levels, assuming allotment management is 

18939 in compliance with the allotment management plan.

18940 Alternative O

18941 Access: The total effect to access comes from looking at percentage of Forest acres in 

18942 “Backcountry” and “Recommended Wilderness” combined and proposed road density limits. 

18943 Compared to the no-action alternative, access opportunities could be slightly reduced through an 

18944 increase in the “Backcountry” acres, but a reduction in access is not likely to be related to road 

18945 density limits. Limited access could equate to an increase in time and labor costs for permittees.

18946 Riparian and Aquatic Resources: Riparian area widths would increase compared to the no-action 

18947 alternative and that experienced under the 1988 forest plan. The “guidelines” directing management 

18948 for grazing practices in the Aquatic Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) are unlikely to have a 

18949 substantial effect on allotment management. The ARCS “standard” requiring new livestock handling, 

18950 management or watering facilities to be located outside of riparian management areas (RMAs) could 

18951 further constrain future management options in developing livestock management activities that may 

18952 improve riparian vegetation and water quality.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

543

18953 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

18954 Timber harvest can have a favorable effect on forage production by creating forage areas through 

18955 removing overstory. The expected timber harvest remains the same across all alternatives due to 

18956 budget trends, so there is no increase in forage from increased acres of timber harvest. Alternatives B 

18957 and O limit gap size to 3 acres. More and larger gaps in vegetation would create more forage areas, 

18958 so alternative O is not likely to increase forage for livestock and wildlife very much.

18959 Prescribed fire can also create desirable foraging areas depending on the vegetation types burned. 

18960 Due to budget trends the amount of prescribed fire would remain the same across all alternatives and 

18961 is unlikely to markedly increase in the short term. 

18962 Motorized Recreation Trails

18963 The combined total for management areas that would restrict motorized access would total 

18964 17.5 percent of the Forest under alternative O. This means that there would be 9.7 percent fewer 

18965 acres under alternative O where motorized access would be allowed compared to the 1988 forest 

18966 plan. Limited access could equate to an increase in time and labor costs for permittees. 

18967 The analysis assumes that permit holders may not have motorized off-highway vehicle access to 

18968 parts of their allotment within a backcountry non-motorized management area. 

18969 Access

18970 Today, there are about 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads, and about 80 percent of the 

18971 forest is suitable for road construction. Alternative O would cap the number of road miles at the 

18972 current level so that should any new road be proposed, an equal amount of road would have to be 

18973 decommissioned.

18974 Road densities and total miles of road on the forest are expected to remain the same in the short term 

18975 and likely to decrease in the long term due to budget trends. Motorized vehicle access for permittees 

18976 would remain the same in the short term and may decline slightly in the long term.

18977 Low maintenance native surface roads serve as routes for easily moving livestock on, off of and 

18978 around pastures, and some routes may be lost as roads are decommissioned. Cut and fill slopes along 

18979 with the native surface of low maintenance roads is a location providing foraging areas for livestock, 

18980 therefore lower road densities may have a small effect on availability of forage for livestock grazing. 

18981 Recommended Wilderness Areas

18982 Concerning recommended wilderness, the proposed action, alternative P, and alternative O would 

18983 allow existing motorized uses to continue until Congress makes a decision on the Forest Service’s 

18984 recommendation. None of the recommended wilderness areas recommended in alternative O 

18985 currently have National Forest System roads, or motorized trails. 

18986 The only PWA recommended as recommended wilderness in alternative O is the Salmo-Priest 

18987 Adjacent of which is not contained within a grazing allotment. No permitted grazing exists in this 

18988 PWA, and therefore, there would be no effect to grazing by this recommendation.

18989 Wildlife

18990 There is nothing specifically in alternative O for wildlife that would affect livestock or allotment 

18991 management.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

544

18992 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

18993 The “guidelines” directing management for grazing practices in the Aquatic Riparian Conservation 

18994 Strategy (ARCS) are unlikely to have a substantial effect on allotment management. The ARCS 

18995 “standard” requiring new livestock handling, management or watering facilities to be located outside 

18996 of riparian management areas (RMAs) could further constrain future management options in 

18997 developing livestock management activities that may improve riparian vegetation and water quality. 

18998 Additional standards or changing a guideline to a standard may put permittees at a higher risk of 

18999 being in non-compliance with the allotment management plan.

19000 Riparian Management Area widths vary by alternative. Riparian area widths for alternative O would 

19001 increase compared to the no-action alternative and that experienced under the 1988 forest plan. This 

19002 alternative increases riparian area widths for lakes and natural ponds from 150 feet to 300 feet.

19003 Cumulative Effects (Common to all Alternatives)

19004 The cumulative environmental consequences for a programmatic Forest Plan also considers lands 

19005 managed by other entities in the area and describes the relative contribution of the Forest Plan 

19006 decision when considering surrounding landscape with other similarly scaled planning efforts and 

19007 opportunities

19008 The area for this cumulative effects analysis includes adjacent national forests, Bureau of Land 

19009 Management, State, tribal, and private land. 

19010 Vegetative treatments are expected to occur on these adjacent lands at a similar level and intensity. 

19011 These types of treatments would increase forage for livestock and improve rangeland condition.

19012 Cattle grazing effects on Forest allotments and other allotments and/or pastures within these 

19013 watershed areas affect vegetation by reducing plant height, canopy cover, and ground cover. The 

19014 time frame for these combined effects is 30 years, 15 years in the past, and 15 years in the future 

19015 because changes in condition and trend in the vegetation depend on the presence of favorable 

19016 growing conditions after cattle leave the pasture. If growing conditions were favorable, plant height 

19017 and canopy cover would completely recover within one year. If growing conditions were not 

19018 favorable, plant recovery would occur more slowly (up to 2 to 3 years). Vegetation recovery from the 

19019 other activities and natural events may take this long depending on climate. 

19020 The cumulative effect of adjacent Federal lands management would not change any of the direct and 

19021 indirect effects. Grazing, where allowed on adjacent Federal lands, is intensively managed to 

19022 accommodate other public land uses and to protect resource values. The effects to permit holders on 

19023 other Federal lands are much the same as Forest Service permit holders on the Colville National 

19024 Forest. There have been no significant changes in the management plans for adjacent Federal lands 

19025 relative to grazing that would be considered a cumulative effect.

19026 Livestock production costs would likely increase due to increase input costs and the availability of 

19027 grazing lands decrease due to residential and agricultural development of private lands. 

19028 An effect associated with mechanical treatments and livestock grazing is the potential to spread 

19029 invasive species from adjacent lands. New weed populations could occur from vehicle-transported 

19030 seeds, disturbed soils and increased light availability following mechanical treatments or creation of 

19031 seedbeds by livestock use. Livestock and wildlife can spread weed seeds, but livestock and wildlife 

19032 use results in fewer new weed populations than those established along roads and trails by seeds 

19033 spread from vehicle tires, equipment tracks, and/or attached soil (Tyser and Worley 1992; Tyser and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

545

19034 Key 1988; Gelbard and Harrison 2003). This circumstance is attributed to the higher amount of 

19035 biotic and below-ground biotic resistance experienced in areas other than roads and trails (Gelbard 

19036 and Harrison 2003). All alternatives would contribute similarly to the control, treatment, and 

19037 eradication of invasive plant species introduced from outside the forests. 

19038 Fires from adjacent lands can escape and spread onto the Colville National Forest. If they do, it could 

19039 lead to temporary grazing exclusions and impact ranching operations by requiring the permittee to 

19040 find new forage or sell all or part of the livestock. 

19041 Monitoring Recommendations

19042 There are no monitoring recommendations related to range management at the Forest Plan level and 

19043 all monitoring would be identified and implemented at the allotment or project level.

19044 Minerals and Geologic Resources

19045 This section summarizes effects related to minerals and geologic resources from the specialist report, 

19046 with special emphasis on the publicly identified issues of “motorized recreation trails” “access,” and 

19047 “recommended wilderness” (Graham and Nooney 2015).

19048 The indicators shown in table 184 are used to evaluate effects on mineral resources of each 

19049 alternative. They are appropriate because they address risks to mineral resources from motorized 

19050 recreation trails, road access, and recommended wilderness. Geologic resources are protected as 

19051 described in the assumptions and were not a part of the significant issues, so are not addressed in the 

19052 effects analysis. The other significant issues are also addressed; however, they have little impact to 

19053 mineral resources, so effects indicators are not identified (see Nooney 2015).

19054 Table 184. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for mineral resources

Issue Evaluation Criteria Key Indicator

Motorized 

Recreation Trails

Evaluate the access for 

possible mineral operations

Percent of total forest acreage allocated to Backcountry 

Non-motorized management area by alternative 

Road Access Evaluate the access for 

possible mineral operations

Desired road density or cap on road miles for each 

alternative

Recommended 

Wilderness

Evaluate the access for 

possible mineral operations

Percent of total forest acreage in recommended 

wilderness management areas 

Qualitative description of low, moderate, and high mineral 

potential that intersects with recommended wilderness

19055 Affected Environment

19056 United States mining laws classify mineral commodities into three distinct groups: locatable, 

19057 leasable, and salable. Forest Service control or discretion over the disposal of various mineral 

19058 commodities ranges from a minimum with locatable minerals to a maximum with salable minerals. 

19059 Locatable minerals include most metals and many non-metals (e.g., barite, fluorite, and gypsum). 

19060 Most Federal lands not withdrawn from mineral entry are available for the exploration and 

19061 development of locatable minerals by any U.S. citizen under provisions of the 1872 Mining Law, as 

19062 amended. Mineral operators are entitled to reasonable access to these lands including, where 

19063 reasonable and necessary, roaded entry. Forest Service control of such activities is limited to 

19064 minimizing surface impacts and is accomplished via an environmental analysis of individual 

19065 proposals (36 CFR 228 Subpart A). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

546

19066 Leasable minerals are specific mineral resources identified by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

19067 amended, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of August 7, 1947, the Geothermal Steam Act 

19068 of December 24, 1970, as amended, and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of August 4, 

19069 1976. Leasable minerals include oil and gas, coal, oil shale, and geothermal resources, as well as 

19070 sodium, potassium, phosphate, and a few others. On acquired lands these minerals, as well as those 

19071 that are normally locatable, are leased under the Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, August 7, 1947. 

19072 Forest Service regulations for oil and gas resources are found at 36 CFR 228 Subpart E.

19073 Salable minerals, also known as common variety minerals or mineral materials, include sand, gravel, 

19074 stone, and some other widely available mineral materials, as described in the Materials Act of 

19075 July 31, 1947. Forest Service regulations for these minerals are found at 36 CFR 228 Subpart C.

19076 It is Forest Service policy for minerals resource management to foster and encourage private 

19077 enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and 

19078 economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and 

19079 environmental needs. 

19080 The Colville National Forest has a geological environment favorable to the occurrence of mineral 

19081 deposits. Minerals occurring in most Colville National Forest System lands are federally owned 

19082 however, there are many outstanding or reserved mineral rights. Private parties acting on their rights 

19083 to outstanding mineral interests can potentially limit or impair the Forest Service from managing the 

19084 surface of the land for the purposes for which they were acquired. Three percent of the total forest is 

19085 withdrawn from mineral entry because it is wilderness. Other areas of the Forest such as 

19086 administrative sites, research natural areas, seed orchards, or recreation areas may also be withdrawn 

19087 from mineral entry.

19088 Locatable Minerals

19089 Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the 

19090 General Mining Law of 1872 and its amendments. Commonly, these minerals are referred to as 

19091 hardrock minerals. The Forest Service and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) cooperate in 

19092 managing this resource; the Forest Service manages the surface resources that may be impacted by 

19093 mining activities, and the BLM manages the minerals. Potential for lead and zinc, limestone, and 

19094 silica predominates in the Metaline and Northport mining districts, while copper, silver, dolomite, 

19095 and silica are more common in the Chewelah, Loon Lake, and Newport areas. Limestone, dolomite, 

19096 and silica may be subject to disposal as locatable or salable minerals depending on the nature, 

19097 chemical composition, and use of the material. Precious metals are most important in mining districts 

19098 near Republic and Orient, especially gold. Gold exploration mining in the Republic area has 

19099 increased since the 1990s. The western Okanogan Highlands region has produced more than 

19100 3 million ounces of gold and almost 15 million ounces of silver from predominately the Republic 

19101 Mining District. (USDI 2011) Uranium potential is greatest in the Kettle Range and in the Selkirk 

19102 Mountains east of Colville and Chewelah. Small-scale minerals activities (panning, sluicing, 

19103 dredging, and rock/mineral collecting) are usually for non-commercial purposes. 

19104 The Colville has approximately 744 mining claims covering 14,980 acres. The vast majority of those 

19105 claims are lode claims with only a few placer claims. In general, mineral activity on the Forest is 

19106 relatively minor in scope given the size and scale of the national forest. Current locatable mineral 

19107 activities on the Forest primarily include prospecting, exploration, claim staking, and limited mining 

19108 for select commodities. This level of activity is expected to continue. Locatable mineral activities 

19109 have included both metallic and nonmetallic minerals. Because of the relatively low potential for 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

547

19110 leasable minerals, development of important energy minerals is unlikely. One exception may be 

19111 uranium (which is locatable, not leasable). 

19112 There would be continued interest in commercial and small-scale minerals activities, especially if the 

19113 prices of gold, silver, and other precious metals or base metals increase. Projecting long-term 

19114 demand for any specific mineral commodity is difficult because domestic demand is influenced by 

19115 many factors such as economic and geopolitical trends, some of which are national and international 

19116 in scale.

19117 Leasable Minerals

19118 Federally owned, leasable minerals include fossil fuels and geothermal resources. These minerals are 

19119 subject to exploration and development under leases, permits, or licenses granted by the Secretary of 

19120 Interior with Forest Service consent. Only one portion of the Forest, running north and south of the 

19121 town of Republic along the Sanpoil, Curlew, and Kettle river valleys is identified as having a 

19122 moderate potential for oil and gas (USDI 2011) There is no or very low potential on the forest for 

19123 the occurrence of geothermal and coal resources (USDI 2011). Currently, there are no active mineral 

19124 leases or pending lease applications on the Forest. 

19125 Demand, like locatable minerals, is influenced by economic and geopolitical factors. While the 

19126 United States has increased domestic production, most of the development has been in other parts of 

19127 the country, where there is greater mineral potential and permitting, development and production 

19128 costs are lower or there is less risk on investment return. This is likely to continue. As there is no or 

19129 very low potential for geothermal and coal resources on the Forest, demand would be filled 

19130 elsewhere. 

19131 Salable Minerals

19132 Saleable mineral materials, or common varieties, are generally deposits of sand, clay, gravel, and 

19133 stone that are used for road surfacing and building materials. Disposal of these materials is by 

19134 mineral material permit or contract, and is at the discretion of the Forest Service. Saleable minerals 

19135 production and use is mainly for public works and Forest roads maintenance and construction. 

19136 However, private parties may also purchase saleable minerals from the Forest. Salable mineral 

19137 materials, particularly sand, gravel and stone, are widely available throughout the Forest. Demand 

19138 for saleable minerals is expected to grow with increased land development.

19139 Geologic Resources 

19140 There are paleontological or fossil resources on the Forest that are managed in accordance with the 

19141 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009; implementing regulations are found at Title 36 

19142 Code of Federal Regulations 291 (36 CFR 291). Paleontological resources are protected from loss 

19143 due to threat, vandalism, or the natural elements through responsible planning, management, 

19144 partnerships with qualified museums and other institutions, and collaboration with Forest Service 

19145 law enforcement.

19146 Groundwater is the Nation’s principal reserve of fresh water. Groundwater on National Forest 

19147 System (NFS) lands is a major contributor to flow in many streams and rivers, provides clean 

19148 drinking water to local communities, and supports groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The Forest 

19149 recognizes the importance of managing groundwater resources in a wise and sustainable manner in 

19150 accordance with the Forest Service national groundwater policy outlined in Forest Service Manual 

19151 2880. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

548

19152 Geologic hazards include events such as flooding, mass wasting, seismicity, ground subsidence, 

19153 reactive soils, volcanic eruptions, toxicity associated with mineralization, acid mine drainage, and 

19154 naturally occurring hazardous minerals and gases (e.g., asbestos, uranium, radon). Geologic hazards 

19155 on NFS lands are managed to ensure protection of public safety, health, property, and the 

19156 environment by using qualified geologists for the recognition, inventory, analysis, and interpretation 

19157 of those hazards, and the integration of that information into forest and project planning, design, 

19158 construction, maintenance, and monitoring activities, reviews of proposals, permits, approvals, 

19159 concurrences, and recommendations for uses of NFS lands. 

19160 Caves and cave ecosystems are protected and maintained in accordance with Federal law. Caves of 

19161 importance can be nominated for Significant Cave eligibility in accordance with the Federal Cave 

19162 Resource Protection Act of 1988 and 36 CFR 290 due to things like unique geologic/hydrologic 

19163 conditions or important sensitive biota that inhabits the cave. No caves on the Colville National 

19164 Forest have been nominated for Significant Cave status. 

19165 The geologic resources and hazards outlined above are inventoried, evaluated, and managed on both 

19166 a landscape level and as part of project specific design and analysis. Project design includes 

19167 avoidance, mitigation or monitoring procedures necessary to protect geologic resources or address 

19168 geologic hazards. 

19169 Environmental ConsequencesMinerals

19170 The major influence of other resource management direction on minerals is their effect on access. 

19171 This varies from no access in areas withdrawn from mineral entry, to high accessibility in general 

19172 forest areas. Generally, prospecting and early exploration activities have little effect on other 

19173 resources because of greater flexibility of access and equipment use at that stage. Actual mineral 

19174 extraction may have minimal to great interaction with other resources, depending upon the location, 

19175 the mineral being removed, and the process and type of equipment used. For example, a small 

19176 underground mine, shipping ore directly to an existing offsite mill or smelter without processing and 

19177 located in a general forest area, would have few effects. On the other hand, a large open pit mine and 

19178 milling operation, located in wildlife habitat could potentially have a much greater effect on other 

19179 resources.

19180 Assumptions

19181 • Regardless of the alternative, mineral operations have to comply with Federal and state laws 

19182 and regulations. These include but are not limited to laws such as Clean Water Act, or 

19183 Endangered Species Act. Locatable minerals can be developed per the direction in the 1872 

19184 Mining Law, Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 228A, and other pertinent laws and 

19185 regulation on all areas of the Colville National Forest not withdrawn from locatable mineral 

19186 entry.

19187 • Geologic resources would be managed in accordance with the Paleontological Resources 

19188 Protection Act of 2009 and Forest Service implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 291. 

19189 Groundwater is managed in accordance with the Forest Service national groundwater policy 

19190 outlined in Forest Service Manual 2880. Caves and cave ecosystems are protected and 

19191 maintained in accordance with Federal law (Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

19192 and 36 CFR 290.) The Forest’s geologic resources are inventoried, evaluated, and managed 

19193 on both a landscape level and as part of projects to protect geologic resources regardless of 

19194 the alternatives. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

549

19195 Methods of Analysis

19196 Risks to mineral resource operations are identified. The major influence of other resource 

19197 management direction on minerals is their effect on access. The level of risk is assessed by 

19198 alternative using percent of the Forest allocated to a management area that is associated with the risk, 

19199 either increasing or decreasing effects.

19200 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

19201 The spatial affected environment for direct and indirect effects is the lands administered by the 

19202 Colville National Forest. Effects are analyzed over the life of the forest plan, which is expected to be 

19203 15 years.

19204 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

19205 The affected environment for cumulative effects includes the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

19206 Reservation lands, Kalispel Tribe Reservation lands, lands administered by the Idaho Panhandle 

19207 National Forests; other Federal and State lands; and lands of other ownership adjacent to the Colville 

19208 National Forest boundaries.

19209 No-action Alternative

19210 Access is the main factor affecting minerals operations. The current forest plan limits minerals 

19211 operations in old forest management areas and riparian habitat conservation areas. It also excludes 

19212 saleable mineral operations from non-motorized management areas, research natural areas (RNA), 

19213 ski areas, the recreation/wildlife management area 3B, and old growth management areas (MA-1). In 

19214 addition, the current forest plan recommends mineral withdrawal for RNAs. The Salmo-Priest 

19215 wilderness area is withdrawn from mineral entry, which accounts for three percent of the total forest 

19216 area. Wildlife, riparian, and old forest management requirements may add time and costs to mineral 

19217 operations.

19218 Effects on Minerals from Old Forest Management

19219 Currently the forest plan includes management areas that emphasize managing for old forest habitats. 

19220 Saleable mineral activities are not allowed in these areas. Mineral resource exploration and 

19221 development would include reasonable requirements to protect old growth wildlife habitat. Old 

19222 forest management emphasis can increase the time and costs of mineral operations, by imposing 

19223 limits on mineral operation to protect and maintain old forests. The effect of these management 

19224 restrictions on mineral activities is minimal as they apply to three percent of the total forest area.

19225 Effects on Minerals from Motorized Recreation

19226 The major influence of other resource management direction on minerals is their effect on access. 

19227 About 12 percent of the forest is in a backcountry non-motorized type of management area. Due to 

19228 budget trends, the motorized trail system is likely to see small additions in the future so current 

19229 access would continue but not meaningfully increase. For saleable minerals, a non-motorized 

19230 designation essentially eliminates the opportunity to exploit mineral materials as the current forest 

19231 plan excludes these areas from saleable minerals disposal. For locatable and leasable minerals, 

19232 motorized access on existing, open forest system roads/trails, road/trail reconstruction, or new 

19233 road/trail construction can still be permitted in designated non-motorized areas through the 

19234 applicable regulatory processes. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

550

19235 Effects on Minerals from Road Density

19236 The major influence of other resource management direction on minerals is their effect on access. 

19237 Current road density direction would continue. Today, there are about 4,000 miles of National Forest 

19238 System roads, and about 80 percent of the forest is suitable for road construction. The current forest 

19239 plan includes standards and guidelines that limit road densities to between 0.4 to 2 miles per square 

19240 mile in deer and elk winter range; grizzly bear habitat areas; and lynx habitat. Outside of these 

19241 habitats, the forest plan doesn’t set an upper limit on road density. Today the average National Forest 

19242 System road densities in 12th field watersheds range from a low of 0.33 to a high of 4.45 miles per 

19243 square mile on National Forest System lands. Due to budget trends, the total miles of National Forest 

19244 System roads are expected to remain the same or decrease slightly over the next 10 years. 

19245 Access for saleable mineral materials would continue at current levels or be slightly less. For 

19246 locatable and leasable minerals, road decommissioning to achieve road density standards may limit 

19247 motorized access on existing, open forest system roads during initial prospecting and exploration 

19248 activities in places. However, alternative means of access are possible and road reconstruction or 

19249 new construction can always be proposed and approved in accordance with applicable regulations. 

19250 Proposed road reconstruction or new road construction in management areas with road densities at or 

19251 above standards would require amendments to the Forest Plan which can increase permitting 

19252 timelines and costs.

19253 Effects on Minerals from Recommended Wilderness

19254 Under the current Forest Plan there is no recommended wilderness on the Forest. Currently, 

19255 3 percent of the Forest is allocated to wilderness and withdrawn from mineral entry. Research natural 

19256 areas, also to be withdrawn, account for 0.4 percent of the total forest area. The current forest plan 

19257 has a minerals standard that directs the Forest to minimize the acres withdrawn for mineral entry to 

19258 that necessary for protecting dedicated areas such as developed recreation sites, wilderness, research 

19259 natural areas, and administrative sites. (FEIS 4-57)

19260 Effects on Minerals from Wildlife

19261 Wildlife direction can result in timing restrictions and avoidance of specific sites for wildlife 

19262 protection, for minerals activities. Measures can vary by the type of mineral operation and location. 

19263 The effect can be to increase time to permit and approve plans of operation and cost of mineral 

19264 operations, but would not be known until projects are developed. Protection of wildlife and 

19265 compliance with ESA is required of all mineral operations. This would continue. 

19266 Effects on Minerals from Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

19267 Direction limiting location of facilities or types of operations can have the effect to increase time to 

19268 permit, approve plan of operations, and cost of mineral operations. The extent of effects can vary by 

19269 the type of mineral operation and location, which is unknowable until site-specific projects are 

19270 developed. Protection of water quality and compliance with the Clean Water Act is required of 

19271 mineral operations. The current forest plan does address mineral operations in relation to riparian and 

19272 aquatic resources. Minerals operations in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) directs 

19273 operators to take all practicable measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate fish and wildlife 

19274 habitat that may be affected by the operations. Surface occupancy for leasable minerals and saleable 

19275 mineral operations are limited to those operations that meet riparian objectives and alternative 

19276 locations are not available. This would continue
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

551

19277 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

19278 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

19279 The effects of vegetation management are the same for all alternatives. It is not expected that any of 

19280 the vegetation direction would adversely or positively affect minerals to any degree.

19281 Wildlife

19282 Wildlife direction in all alternatives could result in timing restrictions and avoidance of specific sites 

19283 for wildlife protection, for minerals activities. Measures can vary by the type of mineral operation 

19284 and location. The effect can be to increase time to permit and cost of mineral operations, but will not 

19285 be known until projects are developed. Protection of wildlife and compliance with ESA is required of 

19286 mineral operations under any alternative.

19287 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

19288 Direction limiting location of facilities or types of operations can have the effect to increase time to 

19289 permitting, plan of operation approval, and cost of mineral operations. Effects can vary by the type 

19290 of mineral operation and location. The extent and duration of effects is unknowable until site-specific 

19291 projects are developed. All of the action alternatives have riparian management areas with plan 

19292 direction that addresses mineral operations. The proposed action and alternative R include a 

19293 guideline that limits locating mine wastes in RMAs, that is not included in other action alternatives. 

19294 This would have a minimal effect on mineral operations. Since protection of water quality and 

19295 compliance with the Clean Water Act is required of mineral operations in all alternatives, the 

19296 difference in effects from riparian and aquatic resource management across alternatives is minimal.

19297 Access

19298 Access by motorized recreation trails and roads are a factor for saleable minerals exploration and 

19299 exploitation. When considered along with the amount of land allocated to recommended wilderness, 

19300 the B and R put the largest total amount of the forest into allocations (BCNM and RW) that don’t 

19301 allow roads or motorized trails. Alternatives B and R would have the highest effect on access for 

19302 saleable minerals.

19303 For locatable and leasable minerals, lower road densities or lack of motorized trails can increase time 

19304 and costs during initial prospecting and exploration activities. Motorized access on existing roads 

19305 and trails or proposed road/trail reconstruction/construction could still be approved in non-motorized 

19306 areas for leasable operations, so long as the management area does not have a No Surface Occupancy 

19307 or Controlled Surface Use suitability determination, and for all locatable operations on lands open to 

19308 mineral entry. 

19309 Recommended Wilderness

19310 Wilderness recommendation alone removes lands from consideration for leasing and saleable 

19311 mineral materials use. Mining claims and active locatable operations in recommended wilderness 

19312 would not be affected until the area is designated as wilderness by Congress. Alternatives B and R 

19313 allocate the highest amount of the forest to recommended wilderness, which would withdraw the 

19314 most land from mineral entry.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

552

19315 Indirect Effects of Action Alternatives 

19316 Motorized Recreation Trails

19317 For saleable minerals, a non-motorized designation essentially eliminates the opportunity to exploit 

19318 mineral materials. Areas allocated to Backcountry Non-motorized (BCNM) management areas vary 

19319 across the alternatives as shown in table 185. Alternative O allocates the highest amount of land to a 

19320 BCNM allocation. However, when considered along with the amount of land allocated to 

19321 recommended wilderness, the B and R alternatives put the largest total amount of the forest into 

19322 allocations (BCNM and RW) that do not allow roads or motorized trails. Alternatives B and R would 

19323 have the highest effect on access for saleable minerals. 

19324 For locatable and leasable minerals, an increase in non-motorized management area acreage can 

19325 limit motorized access on existing, open forest system roads and trails for initial prospecting and 

19326 exploration activities that may not otherwise require Forest Service regulatory approvals. Motorized 

19327 access on existing roads and trails or proposed road/trail reconstruction/construction could still be 

19328 approved in non-motorized areas for leasable operations, so long as the management area does not 

19329 have a No Surface Occupancy or Controlled Surface Use suitability determination, and for all 

19330 locatable operations on lands open to mineral entry.

19331 Table 185. Percentage of total forest acres in backcountry non-motorized management area

Proposed Action Alternative R Alternative P Alternative B Alternative O

8 2 14 Less than 1% 16

19332 Road Density

19333 The major influence of other resource management direction on minerals is their effect on access. 

19334 For saleable minerals, a lower road density can adversely affects opportunity to exploit mineral 

19335 materials due to less open roads on the landscape. Alternatives R and P have the lowest road 

19336 densities and would limit access the most.

19337 For locatable and leasable minerals, lower road densities or road decommissioning to achieve lower 

19338 road density standards can decrease existing motorized access on open forest system roads during 

19339 initial prospecting and exploration activities that may not otherwise require Forest Service regulatory 

19340 approvals. However, alternative means of reasonable access are possible and use of existing but 

19341 closed roads and road reconstruction/construction can be proposed and approved for mineral 

19342 operations in accordance with applicable regulations. Proposed road reconstruction or new road 

19343 construction in management areas with road densities at or above standards would require 

19344 amendments to the forest plan, which can increase permitting timelines and costs for mineral 

19345 operations.

19346
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

553

19347 Table 186. Upper limit of desired road density or road miles

Proposed Action Alternative R Alternative P Alternative B Alternative O

2-3 miles per square 

mile. Applicable in 

Focused 

Restoration (Active 

Restoration B) and 

General Restoration 

(Active Restoration 

C) 

1-2 miles per 

square mile. 

Applicable in 

Focused and 

General Restoration 

1-2 miles per 

square mile. 

Applicable in 

Focused and 

General Restoration 

Cap USFS road 

miles at current 

level. 

Applicable 

forestwide.

Cap USFS road 

miles at current 

level. 

Applicable 

forestwide. 

19348 Recommended Wilderness

19349 Currently, 3 percent of the Forest is in designated wilderness. Until Congress decides to designate the 

19350 recommended wilderness areas as wilderness, they remain open to mineral entry under the U.S. 

19351 Mining and Mineral Leasing Laws. Persons prospecting, locating and developing mineral resources 

19352 in NFS lands under the 1872 Mining law have a right of access for those purposes. Requests for 

19353 access to mining claims located in recommended wilderness would be processed according to 

19354 existing authorities, regulations and policy. The claimants access (road or trail, motorized or non19355 motorized) would be specified in a Plan of Operations submitted to the District Ranger. The Forest 

19356 Service is not obligated to approve or issue a permit regulating access if the proposed means or 

19357 modes of transport are not reasonably necessary for the work to be performed for prospecting, 

19358 location, or mineral development. Access is not authorized until the District Ranger signs the 

19359 Operating Plan. 

19360 If the recommended wilderness areas become congressionally designated wilderness, those areas 

19361 would be withdrawn and closed to mineral entry under the U.S. Mining and Mineral Leasing Laws, 

19362 subject to valid existing rights. Any known or currently undiscovered mineral deposits in 

19363 congressionally designated wilderness areas will be foregone and not available for exploitation to 

19364 support domestic or global demand unless another act of Congress makes them available. Mining 

19365 claims with valid existing rights in designated wilderness could continue to operate in a logical, 

19366 sequential development scenario, including mining. 

19367 After formal wilderness designation, the Forest Service would conduct valid existing rights 

19368 determinations before approving most proposed locatable activities in wilderness. Alternatives B and 

19369 R allocate the highest amount of the forest to recommended wilderness which, if selected and later 

19370 designated by Congress, would withdraw the most land from mineral entry.

19371 Research natural areas and the wild segment of wild and scenic rivers are to be withdrawn from 

19372 mineral entry also. The proposed action includes a recommendation for a segment of a wild river, so 

19373 the effects of additional mineral withdrawals come from possible wilderness and wild river 

19374 designations by Congress. 

19375 Wilderness recommendation alone removes lands from consideration for leasing and saleable 

19376 mineral materials use.

19377 Table 187. Percentage of total forest acres in recommended wilderness

Proposed Action Alternative R Alternative P Alternative B Alternative O

9 19 5 20 1
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

554

19378 Environmental Consequences – Geologic Resources

19379 Effects of the No-action Alternative

19380 Paleontological Resources

19381 Paleontological or fossil resources on the Forest are managed in accordance with the Paleontological 

19382 Resources Preservation Act of 2009 and implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 291. Bedrock or 

19383 sediments ranging in age from late Precambrian age to Pleistocene have the potential to contain 

19384 paleontological resources, and surface disturbing activities in these areas may negatively impact 

19385 paleontological resources. The areas of the Forest containing Precambrian and Pleistocene deposits 

19386 have been mapped during a Pacific Northwest Region – Forest Service effort several years ago. 

19387 Groundwater

19388 Groundwater is the Nation’s principal reserve of fresh water. Groundwater on National Forest 

19389 System (NFS) lands is a major contributor to flow in many streams and rivers, provides clean 

19390 drinking water to local communities, and supports groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The Forest 

19391 recognizes the importance of managing groundwater resources in a wise and sustainable manner in 

19392 accordance with the Forest Service national groundwater policy outlined in Forest Service Manual 

19393 2880. See the forest Hydrology report for additional information on the Forest’s management of 

19394 groundwater.

19395 Geologic Hazards

19396 Geologic hazards include events such as flooding, mass wasting, seismicity, ground subsidence, 

19397 reactive soils, volcanic eruptions, toxicity associated with mineralization, acid mine drainage, and 

19398 naturally occurring hazardous minerals and gases (e.g., asbestos, uranium, radon). Geologic hazards 

19399 on NFS lands are managed to ensure protection of public safety, health, property, and the 

19400 environment. Qualified Forest Service geologists are consulted for the recognition, inventory, 

19401 analysis, and interpretation of geologic hazards, and that information is integrated into forest and 

19402 project planning, design, construction, maintenance, and monitoring activities, reviews of proposals, 

19403 permits, approvals, concurrences, and recommendations for uses of NFS lands. 

19404 Caves and Cave Ecosystems

19405 Caves and cave ecosystems are protected and maintained in accordance with Federal law. Caves of 

19406 importance can be nominated for Significant Cave eligibility in accordance with the Federal Cave 

19407 Resource Protection Act of 1988 and 36 CFR 290 due to things like unique geologic/hydrologic 

19408 conditions or important sensitive biota that inhabits the cave. There is one known cave on the 

19409 Colville National Forest (Pocahontas Cave), and a few suspected but unverified caves. No caves on 

19410 the Colville National Forest have been nominated for Significant Cave status. 

19411 The geologic resources and hazards outlined above are inventoried, evaluated, and managed on both 

19412 a landscape level and as part of project specific design and analysis. Project design includes 

19413 avoidance, mitigation or monitoring procedures necessary to protect geologic resources or address 

19414 geologic hazards.

19415 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

19416 The proposed action and alternatives O, B, R, and P would result in the following common 

19417 conditions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

555

19418 It is not expected that any of the action alternatives would adversely or positively affect geologic 

19419 resources to any degree. Management of these resources would continue in accordance with 

19420 applicable law, policy, and direction.

19421 The adoption of any action alternative would not change the management of geologic resources and 

19422 hazards. The geologic resources and hazards would continue to be inventoried, evaluated, and 

19423 managed on both a landscape level and as part of project-specific design and analysis. Project design 

19424 includes avoidance, mitigation, or monitoring procedures necessary to protect geologic resources, 

19425 address geologic hazards, and provide for public safety.

19426 Cumulative Effects

19427 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

19428 The area for considering cumulative effects includes the lands within the Colville National Forest 

19429 administrative boundary. In consideration of all past, present, and foreseeable actions, no cumulative 

19430 effects to minerals or geologic resources are anticipated.

19431 Mineral development on privately owned lands is discretionary with the landowners. Lands managed 

19432 by Washington State agencies and the USDI, Bureau of Land Management have minerals generally 

19433 available by lease or location. National Parks are withdrawn from mineral entry, so they have no 

19434 mineral activities. Adjacent national forests have the same management direction as Colville 

19435 National Forest for minerals activities. Leasable, locatable, and saleable activities would continue on 

19436 adjacent Federal and State lands. The level of mineral activities would depend on market prices and 

19437 mineral potential, same as the national forest. Leasable mineral exploration for oil and gas on lands 

19438 outside the Forest and within the Columbia Basin was active in the early 2000s, and has since 

19439 tapered off. There are no current geothermal leases on the other national forests, Confederated Tribes 

19440 of the Colville reservation lands, or BLM high potential lands. Locatable mineral claims are filed 

19441 Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties. There has been no marked increase in activity over the last 

19442 10 years, even with increased prices of precious and base metals. 

19443 Adjacent lands have not recently made or intend to make major changes in management of 

19444 motorized recreation, road density, and recommended wilderness. There are no past, present, or 

19445 reasonably foreseeable actions that would add to the direct and indirect effects described.

19446 Recreation

19447 The 1982 Planning Rule, Sec. 219.21 Recreation Resource, requires that a broad spectrum of forest19448 and rangeland-related outdoor recreation opportunities are provided for in each alternative developed 

19449 during the forest plan revision process. It further states that the planning process identify: (1) the 

19450 physical and biological characteristics that make land suitable for recreation opportunities, (2) the 

19451 recreation preferences of user groups and the settings needed to provide quality recreation 

19452 opportunities, and (3) recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands. 

19453 Recreation opportunities on the forest are identified and managed through the Recreation 

19454 Opportunity System (ROS). A recreation opportunity is defined as “the availability of a real choice 

19455 for a user to participate in a preferred activity in a preferred setting, in order to realize desired 

19456 experiences” (U.S. Forest Service 1982). The ROS is a method used to categorize, evaluate, and 

19457 monitor settings and opportunities based on the natural, managerial, and social environments. Six 

19458 ROS classes currently apply to NFS lands: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi19459 Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban (U.S. Forest Service 1982). In addition, the 

19460 Colville National Forest used a sub-class of Roaded Natural, called Roaded Modified, during the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

556

19461 development of its 1988 forest plan. ROS current condition inventory information is not available for 

19462 the Colville National Forest. Instead, the existing 1988 forest plan ROS Classifications would be 

19463 used as the baseline for comparison of impacts to ROS settings by alternative throughout this 

19464 section.

19465 In addition to the requirement to identify lands suitable for recreation use, three issues were 

19466 identified through public comments where the recreation preferences of user groups varied: 

19467 recommended wilderness, motorized recreation trails, and road access. Indicators related to these 

19468 issues are described in table 188.

19469 Table 188. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for recreation resources

Issue Evaluation Criteria Key Indicator(s)

Identification of Lands 

Suitable for Recreation 

Use

Evaluate the distribution of areas open to 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities and the corresponding 

recreation management setting

Recreation – acres of allocations for 

motorized/non-motorized use

ROS – acres in each of the ROS 

Classes

Motorized Recreation 

Trails

The distribution of motorized and nonmotorized recreation trails and areas to 

assess contribution to motorized / nonmotorized recreation opportunities. 

The contribution of motorized recreation on 

the national forest to the local county 

economy.

Recreation – location, trail miles and 

acres of allocation for motorized and 

non-motorized use

Evaluation of access to motorized 

and non-motorized trails

Access Evaluate the effects of road density limits on 

roaded access for recreation use, wildfire 

suppression, and vegetation management 

activities, specifically commercial timber 

harvest

Location and amount of allocations 

suitable for roads

Social impact related to recreation 

opportunities

Recommended 

Wilderness

Whether recommended wilderness areas 

contribute to the need for wilderness.

The availability tradeoffs, especially summer 

and winter motorized uses. 

The market and non-market costs and 

benefits associated with wilderness.

Location and amount of 

recommended wilderness

Miles of trail available for 

mechanized or motorized use

19470 Introduction 

19471 The Colville National Forest offers a variety of recreation opportunities that are consistent with the 

19472 rolling to steep mountainous terrain typical of the Okanogan Highlands landform province and the 

19473 Selkirk Mountains. Winter or summer, the forest offers easy road and trail access to a full suite of 

19474 motorized and non-motorized recreational pursuitsfrom resort-based downhill and cross-country 

19475 skiing to snowmobiling and backcountry skiing; from developed campgrounds to quaint dispersed 

19476 campsites tucked along one of the forest’s many creeks; from a variety of OHV trail systems to 

19477 remarkable backcountry and wilderness settings rich with stock, mountain bike, and hiking trails that 

19478 highlight many of the tallest peaks in northeast Washington. As a Forest with a limited amount of 

19479 designated wilderness, but rich in undeveloped backcountry, the Colville experiences pressure from 

19480 non-motorized and motorized recreation interest groups whose use of those backcountry areas 

19481 overlaps. As a result, the distribution of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities on the 

19482 Forest is of great interest to many of the visitors to the Colville National Forest, 89 percent of which 

19483 travel 100 miles or less to visit the Forest. (NVUM 2012b) Backcountry and motorized recreation 

19484 opportunities, as well as the many other recreation opportunities provided for on the Colville 

19485 National Forest, contribute significantly to the local, county, and State economies and are a key 

19486 component of the lifestyle and family customs of many northeastern Washington residents.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

557

19487 Affected Environment

19488 In 2005, the Colville National Forest completed a Recreation Site Facility Master Plan (RSFMP) 

19489 process to identify the Forest’s recreation niche and identify actions that would move the Forest 

19490 toward providing a quality, sustainable developed recreation site program. The RSFMP served as a 

19491 framework from which the Forest prioritized investments and pursued changes in the operation and 

19492 maintenance of developed recreation sites. Under the RSFMP, the Colville National Forests 

19493 Recreation Niche was: Rustic Recreation – A Dispersed Recreation Playground for Our 

19494 Communities supported by rustic facilities scattered throughout the forest and connected by a 

19495 network of scenic routes. (U.S. Forest Service 2005)

19496 By 2012, the Forest identified that the RSFMP Niche was becoming dated in its focus on developed

19497 recreation site infrastructure and that stakeholders through collaborative meetings associated with 

19498 Proof of Concept (a unique budget model the Forest piloted from 2008 to 2012) and NEWSTART (a 

19499 local recreation collaborative started in 2009 that focuses on sustainable recreation strategies) were 

19500 asking the Forest to provide more through its recreation program than the RSFMP Niche could 

19501 support. 

19502 In response, the Colville National Forest developed a sustainable recreation strategy to help guide its 

19503 efforts and investments. The strategy addresses increasing recreation demands through integrating 

19504 the recreation program with other resource areas to balance social, ecological and financial needs. 

19505 The overarching goal is to focus on mission-driven priorities, connect recreation benefits to 

19506 communities, provide for changing urban populations, and most importantly, provide balanced 

19507 quality recreation opportunities while maintaining a functioning environment. The vision statement 

19508 for the Forest’s sustainable recreation strategy is: The Colville National Forest is known for its 

19509 pathways to discovery through a series of linked byways and trails which lead to high quality 

19510 recreation opportunities, destinations and beyond. 

19511 Goals were developed to describe the specific focus areas that would be implemented under the 

19512 sustainable recreation strategy. These goals include: 

19513 1. Focused high quality: We strive to maintain and strategically enhance recreation 

19514 opportunities and settings that are associated with key pathways instead of attempting to 

19515 provide every opportunity everywhere. 

19516 2. Youth and Conservation through recreation: Conservation education emphasizing youth is 

19517 focused on fun, creativity and a sense of wonder and excitement through discovery. 

19518 3. Innovative options: Recreation program capacity is enhanced by our culture of innovation 

19519 and non-traditional approaches. (U.S. Forest Service 2012a)

19520 The Forest’s sustainable recreation strategy brings forward the RSFMPs idea of connecting to 

19521 recreation through a network of scenic routes and takes it a step further to include all recreation 

19522 opportunities. Since the sustainable recreation strategy is designed to balance social, ecological and 

19523 financial needs and conditions, as any of these change (such as available funding) the strategy would 

19524 evolve. 

19525 Analysis Area

19526 The analysis area includes all lands administered by the Colville National Forest. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

558

Survey, Trend, and Use Information1 19527

19528 Demand for access to the Colville National Forest for recreation purposes has increased steadily over 

19529 the past 26 years since the last forest plan was developed. During that same time, the growth in 

19530 recreation in the Nation has been extraordinary. For example, participation in camping increased 

19531 from about 47 million people in 1982 to 1983 to almost 89 million people in 2005 to 2009 (Cordell 

19532 et al. 2009). Between 2000 and 2007, the total number of recreation activity days increased 

19533 approximately 25 percent (Cordell et al. 2008). The activities of viewing and photographing birds, 

19534 day hiking, backpacking, off-highway motor vehicle (OHV) driving, walking outdoors, and 

19535 canoeing/kayaking have seen the greatest growth in the last two decades (Cordell et al. 2009). 

19536 Trend analysis in the 2013 Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

19537 indicates similar findings to the studies by Cordell and points to a dramatic increase in participation 

19538 in many nature-based activities. The 2013 SCORP report indicates the most intensive users of public 

19539 facilities and lands participate in hiking, beachcombing, picnicking/barbecuing/cooking out, wildlife 

19540 viewing, and swimming in pools or natural waters. The report goes on to state that a third of 

19541 Washington state residents participate in the following activities at a level lower than they would 

19542 like: hiking, camping, fishing, walking, bicycling, off-road driving, and hunting. In addition, some 

19543 activities have had a marked increase in ranking since the previous SCORP, including visiting a 

19544 nature interpretive center, climbing or mountaineering, firearms use (hunting or shooting), inner 

19545 tubing or floating, and camping in a primitive location. Finally, the SCORP’s assessment of the 

19546 supply of outdoor recreation facilities and opportunities in Washington suggests that the supply of 

19547 recreation is not completely meeting public demand, and meeting that demand is further challenged 

19548 by the pressure of population growth and urbanization in Washington and that a major focus of 

19549 recreation planning over the next 5 years should be in providing those nature-based activities for 

19550 Washington residents while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystems upon which those 

19551 recreational activities depend. (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office 2013)

19552 Because of the rising demand for recreation opportunities on public land and the increasing 

19553 economic dependency of communities on that use, several studies have been conducted in the past 

19554 decade to assess use and trends. Although studies vary in their results, there are several trends that 

19555 are common in every study: 

19556 • The national population is growing and the amount of people recreating in the outdoors is 

19557 increasing along with the growing population. 

19558 • Users are more diverse and more women are participating in outdoor recreation. 

 1 Trend data for this section was considered from the following sources: Hall, Likely Trends in National Forest Recreation 

in Region Six (Draft), University of Idaho, 2005; Hall et al, Understanding Recreation Trends in the Pacific Northwest: 

State of Knowledge and Manager’s Needs, Draft 2004; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, Washington, Revised March 2003 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-wa.pdf; Office of the Interagency Committee [IAC], 2002. 

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation: An assessment of outdoor recreation on Washington state—a State 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Document [SCORP] 2002-2007. The Office of Interagency Committee, PO 

Box 40917, Olympia, WA. 98504-0917; Outdoor Industry Foundation, Outdoor Recreation Participation Study, Seventh 

Edition, for year 2004, 2005; Cordell, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Recreation Statistics Update 

Report Numbers 1-3, 2004; Cordell et al, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Off-Highway Vehicle 

Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National report from the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment (NSRE), 2005; Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter, J.; Butler, Brett J.; Bergstrom, John C. 2008. Trends in ForestBased Recreation: Reports for the 2010 Montreal Process Indicators for the U.S.; Cordell, H. Ken; Green, Gary T.; Betz, 

Carter J. 2009. Long-term National Trends in Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation---1980 to Now; Washington State 

Recreation and Conservation Office. 2013. Outdoor Recreation in Washington, The 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan. Olympia, Washington.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

559

19559 • The average age of people recreating is increasing.

19560 • Interest in new recreation activities has grown significantly, although the most popular 

19561 historical recreation activities (camping and hiking) have held steady and are still the most 

19562 popular activities today.

19563 • People are using national forests for shorter durations. They prefer more weekend 

19564 experiences rather than multi-week ventures.

19565 According to Roper surveys in 2000, activities that are more strenuous start dropping off after age 

19566 65. However, more Americans are remaining active into their older years, and those who reach age 

19567 65 in the next 10 to 15 years would likely seek out more vigorous activities (Hall 2005). This 

19568 prediction implies that with a generation of health-minded, active baby boomers retiring and having 

19569 more leisure time, the demand for challenging experiences may remain steady.

19570 Statewide, the population is expected to grow 16.5 percent between 2012 and 2027 (State of 

19571 Washington Office of Financial Management 2011). The Hispanic population is expected to increase 

19572 substantially in Washington State and the Asian/Pacific Islander population is expected to increase 

19573 almost as much, from about 425,000 in 2005 to 700,000 in 2025 (Hall 2005). Surveys have shown 

19574 that many Hispanic people prefer camping in a group atmosphere and enjoy activities that involve 

19575 the whole family. There is very little known at this time about preferred outdoor activities for the 

19576 Asian/Pacific Islander population. However, monitoring for satisfaction would continue, and future 

19577 surveys may start to show trends in Asian/Pacific Islander activities. 

19578 To gain a better understanding of the recreation use, importance of, and satisfaction associated with 

19579 national forest recreation opportunities, the Forest Service embarked on the national visitor use 

19580 monitoring project (NVUM) in the late 1990s. The Colville National Forest has conducted three 

19581 rounds of surveys in fiscal years 2004, 2009, and 2014. Each survey is conducted over the course of 

19582 one year (October 1 to September 30) and includes questions regarding visitor use (activities), 

19583 expenditures on recreation activities, and user satisfaction associated with the activities, settings, and 

19584 infrastructure used while visiting the Forest.

19585 Without several years of survey data to consider, it is difficult to predict use trends from the Forest’s 

19586 NVUM data. However, the Forest can use the data most recently collected to help determine existing 

19587 use. Table 189 shows the most popular visitor activities according to the 2009 Colville National 

19588 Forest NVUM report (the 2014 report has not been completed). This table shows both the main 

19589 activity visitors engaged in and the participation percentage for all activities. For example, 

19590 18.5 percent of the visitors interviewed in 2009 were camping in developed campgrounds, but only 

19591 8.5 percent of them listed it as their main activity.

19592
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

560

19593 Table 189. Percent participation in activities and primary activities of Colville National Forest recreation 

visitors based on 2009 NVUM Reports2 19594

Activity Percent 

Participation

Percent Main 

Activity

Average Hours doing 

Main Activity

Viewing Natural Features 30.7 12.0 3.9

Hiking / Walking 29.0 7.8 4.5

Relaxing 28.3 5.7 30.3

Downhill Skiing 24.0 23.3 4.8

Driving for Pleasure 21.9 2.0 2.9

Viewing Wildlife 20.9 0.4 2.4

Developed Camping 18.5 8.5 52.2

Gathering Forest Products 13.8 8.6 5.0

Fishing 13.6 5.5 6.5

Picnicking 13.3 0.4 13.2

Other Non-motorized 9.1 2.5 1.7

Motorized Trail Activity 8.3 4.3 3.5

Snowmobiling 7.7 7.2 4.4

OHV Use 6.6 1.4 3.1

Primitive Camping 6.0 1.7 64.7

Motorized Water Activities 6.0 2.2 4.3

Bicycling 5.1 1.0 7.6

Nature Study 4.9 0.7 1.1

Non-motorized Water 4.2 1.1 6.5

Hunting 3.6 1.6 12.2

Visiting Historic Sites 3.2 0.0 0.0

Nature Center Activities 3.1 0.0 1.0

Cross-country Skiing 2.6 1.6 3.7

Backpacking 2.5 0.4 15.9

Resort Use 2.0 0.0 12.8

Some Other Activity 1.3 0.4 3.3

Other Motorized Activity 0.8 0.7 1.0

Horseback Riding 0.7 0.1 10.3

19595 In general, results from the 2009 NVUM survey indicate that most visitors to the Colville National 

19596 Forest are satisfied, if not very satisfied, with the recreation experience they had while visiting the 

19597 Forest (there were very few somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied experiences noted). In 

19598 addition, most visitors did not feel overcrowded during their visit. There are, however, a few site19599 specific contradictions to this information connected with specific recreation areas and days (i.e., 

19600 Memorial Day and July 4th weekends, opening day of hunting season, etc.). Overall, recreation 

19601 managers on the Forest are still able to provide satisfying recreation experiences to the majority of 

19602 Forest visitors in a relatively uncrowded setting.

 2 U.S. Forest Service. 2012. 2009 Visitor Use Report, Colville National Forest, National Visitor Use Monitoring Data 

Collected FY 2009.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

561

19603 Historically, people have enjoyed relatively easy access to a variety of recreation opportunities on 

19604 Federal public lands. Recreation management on National Forest System lands consists of providing 

19605 a wide range of environmentally sustainable recreation opportunities in natural settings that meet the 

19606 current and future needs and desires of Forest visitors at a level consistent with national budget 

19607 trends. Forest recreation managers are charged with providing this wide range of outdoor recreation 

19608 opportunities within the parameters of national direction, local resource conditions, and available 

19609 budgets. Since the end of World War II, demand for outdoor recreation on public lands has grown 

19610 immensely and is the fastest growing use on national forest system lands. 

19611 The Colville National Forest provides the majority of the nature-based mountain recreation 

19612 opportunities in northeastern Washington. Key attractions include viewing natural features, 

19613 hiking/walking, relaxing, downhill skiing, driving for pleasure, viewing wildlife, and developed 

19614 camping (NVUM 2012b). While some level of recreation activity occurs almost everywhere on the 

19615 forest, the majority of summer use is concentrated near water (lakes, streams, and rivers), around 

19616 campgrounds and day-use developed sites or along Forest System trails and roads. In the winter, 

19617 many roads are managed as snowmobile trails and some roads are managed as cross-country ski 

19618 trails. Ski areas, both downhill and cross-country, provide key winter destinations, where large 

19619 seasonal concentrations of recreation use occur. While recreation visits are fewer in spring, there is 

19620 no off-season here. Use is year-round, with visitor numbers peaking on holidays, weekends and 

19621 during the first weeks of hunting and fishing seasons.

19622 National forests provide a variety of opportunities for recreating, working, and practicing cultural 

19623 and spiritual traditions. In turn, communities provide infrastructure and skills to support forest 

19624 management. Sustainable social and economic opportunities are dependent on well-functioning and 

19625 resilient ecological systems. Over the past 20 years, demographic and economic changes have altered

19626 how people use and access the national forests. There is a need for the Forests to contribute to 

19627 predictable and sustained flows of economic and social benefits (e.g., ecosystem services) within the 

19628 capability of the ecosystem. Social changes include an increasing demand, largely due to population 

19629 growth, for a variety of recreation opportunities on public lands. New activities and modes of travel 

19630 continue to appear; for example, mountain bicycles with over-snow tires and snowmobiles that 

19631 resemble motorcycles. In addition, demand for recreation opportunities in ‘front country’ areas is 

19632 greater than for backcountry areas. 

19633 Recreation in northeast Washington is rooted in local traditions, yet is constantly changing and 

19634 posing new and increased challenges for agency managers. Forest Service identity is strong in the 

19635 local communities. People who live in the area are concerned about forest management, have place 

19636 attachments to the landscape, and are interested in management changes that could affect their 

19637 lifestyle or livelihoods. Local lifestyles and economics are firmly linked to public land, with the 

19638 majority of people who visit, influence, or are directly influenced by the Colville National Forest 

19639 living within two-hours driving time of these lands (NVUM 2012b). Recreation facilities, areas, and 

19640 programs on Colville National Forest lands influence local economies by prompting business in the 

19641 tourism and retail sectors. Regional and national tourism, along with local Forest recreation use, are 

19642 factors in the viability of many small businesses in the area.

19643 Need for Change

19644 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

19645 National Forest System lands are generally suitable for a variety of uses, including recreation. The 

19646 Responsible Official, as appropriate, shall utilize existing laws, regulation, and policy, as well as 

19647 social, economic, and ecological considerations to identify suitability of areas within a National 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

562

19648 Forest System unit. Land use specifically excluded by law, regulation or policy; or use that would 

19649 result in substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; or use that is 

19650 incompatible with the desired conditions for the relevant portion of the analysis area would not be 

19651 authorized. 

19652 The identification of an area as suitable for various uses is guidance for project and activity decision 

19653 making, and is not a resource commitment or final decision approving projects and activities. Final 

19654 decisions on resource commitments are made at the project level. 

19655 • Areas suitable for a particular use – the particular use on these lands is compatible with 

19656 the desired condition in the forest plan. This does not mean that the use would occur over the 

19657 entire area. 

19658 • Areas not suitable for a particular use – the particular use on these areas is not compatible 

19659 with the desired conditions of the forest plan. This does not mean that the use would not 

19660 occur in specific areas. 

19661 Lands suitable for recreation use are those lands not restricted from recreation use by Presidential, 

19662 Congressional or administrative constraints. The compatibility of these lands with Forest Plan 

19663 desired conditions, objectives, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes provide the basis for 

19664 determining whether a use is suitable for a particular area. The starting point for the identification of 

19665 lands as suitable is the existing suitability determination carried forward from current Forest Plan. 

19666 Recreation suitability in the 1982 planning rule is based on the idea that uses are generally suitable 

19667 unless determined otherwise. This is consistent with the basic philosophy that these are the people’s 

19668 lands, and therefore it is appropriate to have a presumption that lands are suitable for a variety of 

19669 uses. 

19670 The following table reflects whether the management areas associated with each action alternative is 

19671 suitable for summer or winter motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities.

19672
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

563

19673 Table 190. Management areas suitable for summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

19674 opportunities by action alternative

Management Area – revised LMP Summer 

Motorized

Summer NonMotorizedWinter 

Motorized

Winter NonMotorized

Backcountry – Alternatives R,P,B,O, 

Proposed Action and No Action3

Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

Backcountry Motorized – Alternatives 

R,P,B,O, Proposed Action and No 

Action4

Suitable Suitable Suitable –

Limited by 

wildlife habitat 

restrictions 

Suitable

Focused Restoration – Alternatives P and 

Proposed Action 

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

General Restoration – Alternatives R, P 

and Proposed Action

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Late Forest Structure – Alternative R Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Administrative and Recreation Sites –

Alternatives R,P,B,O, Proposed Action 

and No Action

Suitable –

site-specific 

decision

Suitable Suitable –

site-specific 

decision

Suitable

Riparian –

Alternatives R,P,B,O, Proposed Action 

and No Action

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

National Scenic Trails – Alternatives 

R,P,B,O, Proposed Action and No Action

Not Suitable Suitable Not suitable Suitable 

National Recreation Trails –

Alternatives R,P,B,O, Proposed Action 

and No Action

Suitable – if 

consistent 

with the 

purpose of the 

trail

Suitable Suitable – if 

consistent

with the 

purpose of the 

trail 

Suitable

Research Natural Areas –

Alternatives R,P,B,O, Proposed Action 

and No Action

Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

Scenic Byways – Alternatives R,P,B,O 

and Proposed Action

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Special Interest Area – Alternatives P,O Suitable - if 

Consistent 

with the 

emphasis Of 

The SIA

Suitable Suitable - if 

consistent 

with the 

emphasis of 

the SIA 

Suitable

Wild & Scenic Rivers – Alternatives 

R,P,B,O, Proposed Action and No Action

Not Suitable -

Wild Segment

Suitable Not Suitable -

wild segment

Suitable 

Wilderness –

Alternatives R,P,B,O, Proposed Action 

and No Action

Not Suitable Suitable Not suitable Suitable

Recommended Wilderness – Alternatives 

R,P,B,O and Proposed Action

Suitable – if 

motorized use 

occurred prior 

to 

identification 

as 

recommended 

wilderness

Suitable Suitable - if 

motorized use 

occurred prior 

to 

identification 

as 

recommended 

wilderness 

Suitable

 3 The Backcountry MA aligns with the no-action alternative’s Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation MA. 4 The Backcountry Motorized MA aligns with the no-action alternative’s Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation MA.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

564

Management Area – revised LMP Summer 

Motorized

Summer NonMotorizedWinter 

Motorized

Winter NonMotorized

Old Growth Dependent Species Habitat –

no-action alternative

Suitable – if 

habitat 

integrity is 

maintained

Suitable Suitable – if 

habitat 

integrity is 

maintained

Suitable

Caribou Habitat –

no-action alternative

Suitable – if 

habitat 

integrity is 

maintained

Suitable Suitable – if 

habitat 

integrity is 

maintained

Suitable

Recreation –

no-action alternative

Suitable in 

MA 3A and 

3C; Not 

suitable in MA 

3B

Suitable Suitable in MA 

3A and 3C; 

Not suitable in 

MA 3B

Suitable

Scenic/Timber –

no-action alternative

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Scenic/Winter Range –

no-action alternative

Suitable –

seasonal 

closures may 

be 

implemented

Suitable Suitable –

seasonal 

closures may 

be 

implemented

Suitable

Wood/Forage –

no-action alternative

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Winter Range –

no-action alternative

Suitable –

seasonal 

closures may 

be 

implemented

Suitable Suitable –

seasonal 

closures may 

be 

implemented

Suitable

19675 Motorized Recreation Trails 

19676 The Colville National Forest offers a mixture of summer and winter motorized trail opportunities in a 

19677 variety of recreation settings. Motorized uses associated with both seasons are bound by direction in 

19678 the current Forest Plan, the 2005 Travel Management Rule, and wilderness regulations that prohibit 

19679 all motorized use in designated wilderness areas. Current Forest Plan language identifies where 

19680 motorized recreation use may not be authorized or may be limited for the protection of aquatic, plant 

19681 and wildlife habitats. In addition, summer motorized recreation use is also restricted to those routes 

19682 (roads and trails) identified on the Forest’s current-year Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) which 

19683 was developed in response to Subpart B of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. An over-snow 

19684 vehicle use map, pursuant to Subpart C of the 2005 Travel Management Rule has not been 

19685 completed on the Forest. At this time, no motorized cross-country travel is allowed on the Colville 

19686 National Forest except for over-snow vehicle travel, which is open to all areas not closed for 

19687 resource protection or for the protection of wilderness settings. 

19688 Existing routes on the Colville’s MVUM were identified through numerous collaborative public 

19689 meetings that included pro-motorized, neutral, and non-motorized interests. Many routes identified 

19690 by motorized users during the public meeting process were not opened to motorized use with the 

19691 publishing of the first MVUM in 2008, since many non-motorized users felt the routes would lead to 

19692 additional noise and resource damage and were opposed to their inclusion on the map. As a result, 

19693 the system of roads identified in 2008 for use by OHVs on the Forest was disjointed, provided few 

19694 loop riding opportunities, very few connections between the Forest and tourism-dependent 

19695 communities, and included numerous short out-and-back rides that have been seldom used. To date, 

19696 the system of OHV routes identified in 2008 remains unchanged across much of the forest except in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

565

19697 the South End planning area (includes national forest lands between U.S. Highway 395 and State 

19698 Highway 20, generally south of the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge and north of the forest’s 

19699 southern border) where a recent decision has improved opportunities for OHV loop rides and 

19700 connecting OHV users with communities and camping opportunities. Many community members 

19701 and county commissioners believe that a more cohesive OHV route system on the Forest would 

19702 bolster local economies through tourism income associated with motorized recreation. The split 

19703 between motorized and non-motorized interest groups is present not only in discussions involving 

19704 the National Forest, but also in discussions surrounding community trail systems. 

19705 The Forest currently offers 181 miles of summer motorized trails. Approximately 97 percent 

19706 (177 miles) of those motorized trail miles are located on the Newport and Three Rivers Ranger 

19707 Districts; 1.4 miles are located on the Republic District and approximately three miles are located on 

19708 the Sullivan Lake District. Summer motorized trails make up 36 percent of the total summer trail 

19709 miles on the Forest, with motorcycle trails accounting for 66 percent of all motorized trail miles. 

19710 OHV use is allowed on designated routes (mixed-use roads and trails) across approximately 

19711 82 percent of the Forest. Mixed-use roads open to OHV use includes 684 miles (31 percent) out of 

19712 the 2,206 miles of road that are open to highway legal vehicles across the forest. OHV use on trails 

19713 located in a motorized backcountry setting is allowed on approximately 5 percent of the Forest, 

19714 which equals 22 percent of the Forest’s total (including motorized and non-motorized) backcountry 

19715 acres. No cross-country OHV use is allowed on the Forest. Three motorized mixed-use roads 

19716 connect with the Little Pend Oreille OHV trail system which provides some additional loop riding 

19717 opportunities. No motorized mixed-use roads connect with the Owl Mountain, Thompson Ridge, 

19718 Mack King, Twin Sisters, US Mountain, Batey-Bould, Middle Fork Calispell, or South Huckleberry 

19719 OHV trail systems.

19720 Trails designed specifically for motorcycle use are centered on the Little Pend Oreille and Batey19721 Bould ORV areas. Both of these systems are popular with intermediate to advanced riders and offer 

19722 limited terrain for beginners. The Forest supports two small ATV trail systems that do not meet the 

19723 desired riding distance and loop requirements of most ATV users. These trails are typically used by 

19724 nearby campers and local residents looking for short beginner rides. In addition, the Forest has seven 

19725 jeep trails located in the eastern foothills of the Kettle Crest that are open to all vehicles. These trails 

19726 are popular with intermediate to advanced drivers. However, their use is limited because they are not 

19727 part of a legal loop riding opportunity for non-highway legal vehicles. These trails do not connect 

19728 with motorized mixed-use roads, so trail users are required to go out and back or return to their 

19729 starting points illegally on roads open to highway legal vehicles only. Unlike the majority of the 

19730 motorcycle and ATV trails which meander through the working front-country terrain of the Forest, 

19731 these jeep trails traverse through the higher elevation ridgelines of four of the Forest’s potential 

19732 wilderness areas. As a result, these jeep trails provide motorized access into some of the best 

19733 unaltered and roadless landscapes the Colville National Forest has to offer and their presence in these 

19734 potential wilderness areas has resulted in conflict between motorized users and wilderness 

19735 proponents. 

19736 The Forest offers a groomed winter over-snow vehicle trail system that can be used by riders of all 

19737 skill levels. This system of groomed trails has been scaled back over the past ten to fifteen years as a 

19738 result of decreased funding at both the Forest and State levels. Snowmobile trails can be found on 

19739 every District of the Forest and are located almost exclusively on existing Forest System roads. 

19740 These trails are maintained and groomed through partnerships with local grooming councils which 

19741 include representatives from the local Counties, snowmobile clubs, and contracted groomer 

19742 operators. Funding for grooming is provided through State grants. Winter trails are also limited to 

19743 those routes and areas that are not closed for the protection of aquatic, plant, and wildlife habitats or 

19744 for the protection of wilderness settings. Cross-country over-snow vehicle use is currently allowed 

19745 across the forest except in wilderness, semi-primitive non-motorized management areas, research 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

566

19746 natural areas, and designated winter range. In a few key areas, such as the power line corridor over 

19747 Sherman Pass, increased use by backcountry skiers and snowmobilers has resulted in some conflict 

19748 between the two groups of users. 

19749 Non-motorized Trails 

19750 According to the Forest’s 2009 NVUM survey data, non-motorized trail use is still one of the most 

19751 popular recreational activities on the Forest with survey respondents indicating that just over 

19752 37 percent participated in hiking/walking, bicycling, backpacking, horseback riding or a combination 

19753 of these activities. These activities are listed in order of popularity on the Forest. In addition, data 

19754 reflected in the 2002 Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning report shows 

19755 that walking and hiking are the most popular recreation activities in the state and that over 50 percent 

19756 of the people who responded prefer mountain-forest trails over city sidewalks.

19757 Non-motorized trails (approximately 319 miles) make up 64 percent of summer trail miles on the 

19758 Forest and accommodate uses such as hiking, mountain biking, and stock use. Most of the Forest’s 

19759 non-motorized trail miles can be found along the Kettle Crest and within the Salmo-Priest 

19760 Wilderness Area. The remaining trails are scattered around various recreational lakes and in 

19761 backcountry settings located across the Forest. Most of these trails are located in mid to high 

19762 elevation terrain, which generally limits their use to the summer and fall months. However, there are 

19763 a couple of lower elevation trail systems located just outside of Newport and Republic that are 

19764 popular in the spring and late fall due to their easy access and limited snow cover. 

19765 Trail use on the Forest is dominated by day-hikers. Those overnight hikers the Forest does receive 

19766 tend to use the trail systems along the Kettle Crest and those within the Salmo-Priest Wilderness. 

19767 There are few non-motorized loop trails on the Forest. As a result, those trails that do create a loop 

19768 tend to receive much higher use than those trails that are simple out-and-backs or require a shuttle 

19769 vehicle. This can lead to the perception of crowding on some trails during summer weekends. 

19770 Most non-motorized trails on the Forest (81 percent) were designed for pack and saddle stock use 

19771 and continue to be maintained for that use. Only 3 percent of the trail system is designed and 

19772 managed for mountain bikes with the remaining 16 percent designed and managed for hikers. Most 

19773 of the Forest’s summer non-motorized trails are open to all types of users which has led to some 

19774 conflict between mountain bikers and equestrian users, but generally, the two groups tend to get

19775 along and have partnered in trail maintenance projects in the past. However, for safety reasons, 

19776 interpretive trails, trails entering or leaving developed campgrounds, and some lakeshore trails are 

19777 only open to hikers. 

19778 Winter non-motorized trail use is concentrated around the five cross-country ski trail systems that are 

19779 located across every District on the Forest except for Sullivan Lake. The five trail systems receive 

19780 regular grooming through either a private contractor or Forest Service personnel. Funding for 

19781 grooming is provided primarily through State grants. The permit holder for the 49 Degrees North 

19782 Mountain Resort is responsible for grooming their Nordic ski trail system. Winter trails are limited 

19783 on the Colville National Forest due to lynx habitat in the higher elevations (no additional groomed 

19784 routes are allowed in designated lynx habitat) and inconsistent snow conditions in the lower foothills 

19785 and valleys. The Forest’s five cross-country ski areas are located in a variety of settings including 

19786 high elevation ridgelines, lake basins, and rolling forested foothills. These areas experience moderate 

19787 use when snow conditions are good. Due to the availability of cross-country ski areas closer to 

19788 Spokane, the Forest’s trail system is primarily used by local residents, which keeps crowding to a 

19789 minimum given the limited amount of trail miles (40) the Forest has to offer.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

567

19790 Access

19791 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: (1) the Forest is no longer able to 

19792 afford to properly maintain its road system at current operational maintenance levels, (2) the current 

19793 road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, and (3) the 

19794 existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

19795 throughout the current Forest plan, forest plan amendments (Regional Forester’s Forest Plan 

19796 Amendment #2 [Eastside Screens], Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, 

19797 Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995], national 

19798 level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear No-Net-Loss, Lynx 

19799 Conservation Assessment and Strategy, The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy). 

19800 The Forest’s open road network is critical to the recreational use of National Forest System lands. 

19801 Regardless of the type of recreation activity being sought, nearly all forest users access that activity 

19802 with a vehicle. Therefore, each time a road is closed or decommissioned due to a lack of funding or 

19803 for the benefit of other resource areas (i.e., fisheries or water quality); there is a potential loss of 

19804 motorized access to a variety of recreation opportunities and settings. Likewise, most roads heavily 

19805 used for recreation on the Forest are also located along some of the more sensitive riparian areas 

19806 within the Forest which can lead to complicated decisions with tradeoffs between social needs and 

19807 resource needs. 

19808 In order to provide the public with a spectrum of high quality, nature-based recreational settings and 

19809 opportunities that access the various biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential 

19810 resources of the Forest, the Forest must first provide a safe and appropriate level of motorized access 

19811 to those opportunities and settings. As part of the process in determining what an appropriate road 

19812 system might look like on the Colville National Forest, the Forest developed a Travel Analysis 

19813 Report pursuant to Subpart A of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. This process required Forest 

19814 recreation managers to rank each authorized road on the Forest according to its value to the 

19815 recreation program. Likewise, other resource specialists (such as wildfire suppression, range 

19816 management, fisheries, wildlife, soil, plant, and hydrology) also provided a ranking on each road. 

19817 The Forest’s Travel Analysis would be utilized to help inform decision makers of potential trade-offs 

19818 associated with all future road planning decisions on the Forest. The Travel Analysis Report does not 

19819 consider unauthorized roads or user created routes. These routes are currently closed to use through 

19820 the MVUM and can be decommissioned as funding allows.

19821 The Colville National Forest’s existing road system currently provides adequate access to the Forests 

19822 numerous recreational opportunities. With the new Forest plan, there is a need to ensure that the 

19823 Forest continues to have an access system of authorized roads that is safe, affordable, and 

19824 environmentally sound, that meets obligations to private cooperators, is efficient to manage, and 

19825 provides adequate access to recreation settings and opportunities.

19826 Dispersed Recreation 

19827 Dispersed recreation includes a variety of activities that occur in almost every type of setting 

19828 available on the Forest. Primary activities include camping at undeveloped campsites, berry and 

19829 mushroom picking, hunting, fishing, boating, wildlife viewing and sightseeing. Generally, these 

19830 activities require little in the form of management other than quality signing, physical barriers where 

19831 needed to limit motorized use, and a system of roads (see previous discussion) that provides 

19832 adequate access into and through the forest. One exception is the need for fishing and boat docks 

19833 where lake terrain makes access to a quality opportunity difficult. In recent years, the Forest has 

19834 invested in several new boat and fishing docks to improve the access to and use of several lakes 

19835 across the Forest.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

568

19836 Most dispersed camping on the Forest occurs in riparian areas along lakeshores, streams and rivers. 

19837 Many of the most popular dispersed campsites have been used for generations and are important to 

19838 the families that have camped there for years; the campsite, activities, and setting are part of their 

19839 custom and history. However, many of these sites are showing signs of resource degradation due to 

19840 overuse. The Forest needs to continue to provide dispersed camping opportunities in their traditional 

19841 settings while correcting existing resource damage and protecting these sites into the future. 

19842 Recommended Wilderness

19843 When a forest plan is revised, the 1984 Washington State Wilderness Act requires the Forest Service 

19844 to review, evaluate and determine whether inventoried roadless areas should be submitted to 

19845 Congress for consideration as recommended wilderness. 

19846 In the summer of 2005, the forest plan revision team for the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee 

19847 National Forests began the process of evaluating inventoried roadless areas with the help of 

19848 interested members of the public. Although inventoried roadless areas are evaluated for potential 

19849 wilderness, it does not necessarily mean that the inventoried roadless area would automatically 

19850 become (or not become) a new wilderness area. It is an evaluation process, not a final decision on 

19851 designation. Only Congress can designate additional wilderness. 

19852 The forest plan revision team for the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests used 

19853 inventory criteria from the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70) to evaluate roadless 

19854 areas for potential wilderness. In order to qualify for placement on the potential wilderness 

19855 inventory, an inventoried roadless area has to meet either criteria 1 and 3, or criteria 2 and 3 below:

19856 1. Areas contain 5,000 acres or more. 

19857 2. Areas contain less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria:

19858 a. Areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.

19859 b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively 

19860 managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

19861 c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration19862 endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless 

19863 of their size.

19864 3. Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads.

19865 The first step the forest plan revision team took in the evaluation process was to use the inventory 

19866 criteria to validate the boundaries of the 2001 Roadless Rule inventory of roadless areas. Beginning 

19867 in the summer of 2005, the forest plan revision team asked the public to participate in the review of 

19868 inventoried roadless area boundaries through a series of public meetings, web site postings, and 

19869 electronic and hard copy mailings/newsletters. The public provided the forest plan revision team 

19870 with input, which the Forest Service validated. Then the forest plan team made adjustments to the 

19871 inventoried roadless area boundaries based on a given area’s current condition.

19872 After the 2001 Roadless Rule inventory of roadless areas was validated, the forest plan revision team 

19873 worked to identify if any additional roadless areas existed on the Forest that were not part of the 

19874 2001 Roadless Rule inventory. In 2008, the forest plan revision team asked the public to participate 

19875 in a series of public meetings to help identify additional roadless areas. The public once again 

19876 provided the forest plan revision team with input that resulted in seven areas being identified that 

19877 met the criteria in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70 for placement on the potential wilderness inventory. The 

19878 forest plan revision team continues to collect input from the public on potential boundary additions 

19879 and deletions to the Forest’s PWAs. Prior to the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

19880 for the Colville Forest Plan, the boundaries for the PWAs that would be taken forward as 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

569

19881 recommended wilderness in the Preferred Alternative would be ground verified and adjusted in the 

19882 Forest’s Geographic Information System.

19883 The second step the forest plan revision team took in the evaluation process was to carefully evaluate 

19884 each validated roadless area as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. An area 

19885 recommended as suitable for wilderness must meet the tests of capability, availability, and need. In 

19886 addition to the inherent wilderness quality it possesses, an area must provide opportunities and 

19887 experiences that are dependent upon or enhanced by a wilderness environment and the Forest 

19888 Service should have the ability to manage the area as wilderness. 

19889 The result of this two-step process was an individual wilderness evaluation report for all 21 PWAs 

19890 located on the Forest detailing each PWAs contribution to the evaluation factors of capability, 

19891 availability, and need. All of the PWAs were determined capable of meeting the handbook definition 

19892 of wilderness, though on a sliding scale. Wilderness capability was impacted by existing 

19893 developments, vague boundaries, geographic shape, and impacts from sights and sounds of human 

19894 activities. Availability as wilderness was influenced by existing recreational activities that would be 

19895 displaced, existing mineral interests, the wildland urban interface, and the need for ecosystem 

19896 maintenance. Analysis determined the greater Spokane metropolitan area is under-served for 

19897 wilderness recreation due to not having any wilderness within a 1- to 2-hour drive and that several 

19898 PWAs on the Forest offer high contributions to the wilderness system based on the Need factors 

19899 (recreation, refugia, and preserving landform and underrepresented ecosystems) given in the 

19900 handbook.(U.S. Forest Service 2010)

19901 The project file for the Colville National Forest plan revision contains the wilderness evaluation 

19902 reports for each potential wilderness area identified on the Forest.

19903 Any potential wilderness area recommended to Congress is managed to preserve those wilderness 

19904 characteristics that made it a candidate for wilderness until Congress chooses to take action. 

19905 Currently, there is no existing recommended wilderness on the Forest. The evaluation for possible 

19906 wilderness recommendation identified 21 potential wilderness areas (PWAs) on the Colville National 

19907 Forest that covers an additional 21 percent of the Forest’s land base. Several of these PWAs contain 

19908 low-standard roads and signs of past timber harvest. In addition, the Profanity PWA contains an 

19909 historic fire lookout, while the Bald-Snow PWA contains a recreation rental cabin (Wilderness 

19910 Evaluations 2009b). 

19911 The evaluation process for identifying PWAs indicated that designated wilderness was under19912 represented in the Okanogan Highlands ecoregion on National Forest System lands in Region 6. The 

19913 Okanogan Highlands ecoregion is a landform province characterized by moderate slopes with broad 

19914 rounded summits resulting from repeated continental glaciation and the broader valley bottoms are 

19915 characterized by outwashed terraces. (Wilderness Evaluations 2009b) All of the PWAs on the Forest 

19916 are located in the Okanogan Highlands ecoregion. The wilderness evaluation process also identified 

19917 that trade-offs exist between the recreation need for additional wilderness and the public’s desire to 

19918 maintain existing backcountry motorized and mechanized recreation opportunities and the use of an 

19919 existing backcountry rental cabin and an historic fire lookout.

19920 Developed Recreation

19921 Developed recreation areas on the Colville National Forest include a suite of opportunities and 

19922 locations such as: interpretive and historic sites, scenic overlooks, information centers, trailheads, 

19923 improved dispersed camping areas, rental cabins and lookouts, sno-parks, boat launches, picnic 

19924 areas, campgrounds, and designated swim areas. In general, a developed recreation site is any place 

19925 on the forest where funds have been spent to improve the site for the visitor’s convenience and to 

19926 protect the natural resources associated with the site. The Colville National Forest offers all of the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

570

19927 above types of recreation sites, with many of them located along primary Scenic Byways or 

19928 recreation lakes. 

19929 Many of the Forest’s developed recreation sites have been upgraded (new toilets, tables, grills, and 

19930 signs) over the past 10 to 15 years. However, the majority of sites are not fully accessible for those 

19931 visitors with mobility impairments and only about half can easily accommodate modern recreational 

19932 vehicles due to limited road widths and turning radii or restricted parking area widths and lengths. 

19933 Some existing sites are past their predicted life expectancy and are in need of rehabilitation and in 

19934 some cases, reconstruction. In addition, the only developed group camping opportunities on the 

19935 Forest are located the furthest (Sullivan Lake and Republic) from northeast Washington’s primary 

19936 population center of Spokane. Regardless of these shortcomings, most visitors to the Forest use one 

19937 or multiple developed recreation sites during their stay. While some sites (campgrounds and day-use 

19938 areas) can be full on certain summer weekends, typically, use is adequately being met across the 

19939 Forest with the current number of existing developed recreation sites. Based on changing 

19940 demographics, there may be a need to develop additional group use sites, day-use areas, and 

19941 trailheads closer to Spokane over the next 10 to 20 years.

19942 Recreation Special Use Permits

19943 The Colville National Forest administers a variety of permits for recreation special uses including 

19944 recreation residences, ski areas, recreation events, outfitter/guides and campground concessionaires. 

19945 Permit activities are located across the Forest and occur throughout the year.

19946 The Forest’s recreation residence program is centered around four tracts of homes located on 

19947 Sullivan Lake. An isolated single cabin is also located on Bead Lake. These cabins are privately 

19948 owned and are situated on leased lots located on National Forest System Lands. Appraisals and 

19949 consistency reviews were completed on these permits in the mid to late 2000 era along with the 

19950 requirements contained in the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000. As a result, new 20-year permits 

19951 have been recently issued to the owners of these cabins which should extend well into the next Forest 

19952 Plan implementation cycle.

19953 The Forest administers one ski resort permit. This permit includes groomed downhill as well as 

19954 cross-country skiing and a limited amount of summer uses such as mountain biking, huckleberry 

19955 picking and other special events. The resort has recently opened a new lift and summit and is in the 

19956 process of implementing its current master development plan. A new master development plan may 

19957 need to be developed for the resort during the next 5 to 10 years to keep up with changing trends in 

19958 summer and winter use.

19959 Recreation event permits are issued to private organizations that choose to utilize the national forest 

19960 for one-time or recurring activities. On the Colville National Forest, these activities frequently 

19961 include trail rides, both motorized and non-motorized as well as summer and winter, but have also 

19962 been associated with foot races and triathlons. These types of special uses are expected to continue 

19963 into the future with slight fluctuations in the number and type of events from year to year.

19964 The Colville National Forest has only recently begun to administer outfitter/guide (O/G) special use 

19965 permits. The first temporary special use permit for outfitting and guiding was signed in 2009. The 

19966 Forest currently has six O/G permits that provide services including archery and rifle hunting, 

19967 kayaking, snow shoeing/cross-country skiing, and horse riding on backcountry trails. The Forest has 

19968 recently completed the environmental analysis to add motorized and overnight uses to the list of 

19969 services provided by our outfitter/guides. It is anticipated, based on requests by our current outfitters, 

19970 that snowmobiling, OHV riding, and overnight stock camps would all become authorized uses in the 

19971 near future. Additional requests for unknown and unique outfitter or guide opportunities may also be 

19972 received in response to changing public recreational interests in the future. In general, the Forest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

571

19973 expects to see growth in the number of authorized O/G permits as well as the number and complexity 

19974 of activities authorized by those permits over the next 10 to 20 years.

19975 One campground concessionaire permit is administered on the Forest that includes fee campgrounds 

19976 on the Newport and Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts as well as the four campgrounds located on the 

19977 Little Pend Oreille Chain of Lakes on the Three Rivers Ranger District. This permit allows a private 

19978 company to operate and maintain fee-based recreation sites on the Forest in exchange for retaining 

19979 all fees collected at those sites. The current 5-year permit was issued in 2013, and is renewable for an 

19980 additional 5-year term in 2018 if the operation and maintenance standards required by the permit are 

19981 met and fees to the government are paid in a timely manner by the management company. 

19982 Administration of campground concessionaire permits is unlikely to change over the next 5 to 

19983 10 years and the Forest does not expect to add sites to the existing concessionaire permit. 

19984 Wilderness

19985 Wilderness areas are managed according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 which protects their 

19986 wilderness values. Wilderness areas provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

19987 unconfined type of recreation. They also provide wildlife habitat and a variety of natural resource 

19988 and social values. Motorized and mechanical equipment use is prohibited in wilderness. Livestock 

19989 grazing is allowed in wilderness areas, unless specifically excluded by the law designating the area. 

19990 The 43,348 acre Salmo-Priest Wilderness (31,400 acres of which is located on the Colville National 

19991 Forest) was designated by Congress in 1984 as part of Public Law 98-339, The Washington State 

19992 Wilderness Act of 1984. The Salmo-Priest is the only designated wilderness area located in the State 

19993 of Washington east of the Cascade Mountains and is located entirely in Washington State. However, 

19994 only 72 percent of the wilderness is managed by the Colville National Forest; the remaining 28 

19995 percent (the far eastern sidepart of the Kaniksu National Forest) is administered by the Idaho 

19996 Panhandle National Forest. The Salmo-Priest Wilderness also contains the Salmo and Roundtop 

19997 Research Natural Areas. Grazing is not allowed in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness because no 

19998 authorized grazing was permitted in the area at the time it was designated.

19999 The Salmo-Priest Wilderness is a narrow (generally 2 to 3 miles wide) U-shaped body of land that 

20000 borders Idaho and British Columbia, Canada. The area receives considerable precipitation (50+ 

20001 inches annually) which helps support the largest growth of virgin forest left in eastern Washington 

20002 including western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir, grand fir and larch. In addition, the 

20003 Salmo-Priest Wilderness supports a variety of wildlife, including the threatened and endangered 

20004 woodland caribou, grizzly bear and gray wolves. 

20005 The Salmo-Priest is easily accessed by roads that lead to eight trailheads located on land 

20006 administered by the Colville National Forest. Feeder trails access the two predominant ridge trails 

20007 that traverse through the wilderness along both the west and east ridgelines. Visitor use in the Salmo20008 Priest is generally light, with peak use occurring on weekends between mid-July and Labor Day 

20009 weekend. 

20010 Nationally Designated Roads and Trails

20011 The Colville National Forest is accessed by three Scenic Byways including the Sherman Pass Scenic 

20012 Byway, the North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway, and the International Selkirk Loop. Access deeper into 

20013 the Forest can be accomplished through the congressionally designated Pacific Northwest National 

20014 Scenic Trail and four National Recreation Trails including the Kettle Crest, Lakeshore, Pass Creek20015 Grassy Top, and Shedroof Divide National Recreation Trails. These designations help draw a 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

572

20016 national and international audience to the Forest. In many cases, these designated roads and trails 

20017 receive some of the heaviest recreation use on the forest.

20018 The Sherman Pass Scenic Byway was designated as a Washington State Scenic Byway in 1967, 

20019 and as a National Forest Scenic Byway in 1990. Between 2002 and 2009, over $2 million was 

20020 invested in new and existing recreation facilities along the Byway, including a Regional Information 

20021 Center located in Kettle Falls. All of the byway amenities are managed by the Forest Service except 

20022 for the West (City of Republic) and East (Sherman Creek Wildlife Recreation Area) Gateways and 

20023 the Kettle Falls Regional Information Center.

20024 The North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway was designated as a Washington State Scenic Byway in 

20025 1993. The byway corridor is managed by the Washington State Department of Transportation and 

20026 provides excellent access to Colville National Forest recreation opportunities located along the Pend 

20027 Oreille River, Sullivan Lake, and within the Selkirk Mountains including numerous backcountry trail 

20028 and wildlife viewing opportunities.

20029 The International Selkirk Loop was designated as an All-American Road in 2005, making it one of 

20030 only 31 national scenic byways in the United States (as of 2010) to receive that designation. This 

20031 280-mile loop (including state highways in Idaho and Washington and provincial highways in British 

20032 Columbia, Canada) around the Selkirk Mountains provides easy access to the numerous national 

20033 forest recreation opportunities on the Newport and Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts. Several side 

20034 loops off the main Selkirk Loop provides additional opportunities to explore less traveled portions of 

20035 the Forest. This byway provides visitors with excellent opportunities for year-round recreation access 

20036 to the Forest. 

20037 The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNT) was designated by Congress in the 2009 

20038 Omnibus Public Land Management Act and extends 1,200 miles from Glacier National Park in 

20039 Montana to the Pacific Ocean. Approximately 197 miles of the PNT runs through the Colville 

20040 National Forest and private lands from the Washington/Idaho border west to the Forest’s boundary 

20041 with the Okanogan/Wenatchee National Forest. Several sections of the PNT use existing trails on the 

20042 Forest, such as the Kettle Crest National Recreation Trail, the Abercrombie Mountain Trail, and the 

20043 Shedroof Divide National Recreation Trail. In some areas, the Congressionally designated location 

20044 for this non-motorized trail overlays State, County and Forest System roads, undeveloped areas 

20045 where no current trail exists, as well as areas where minor route refinements may be necessary due to 

20046 other considerations (such as the crossing of the Pend Oreille River at Boundary Dam.) 

20047 The Forest Service is the lead agency for administration of the PNT and is currently in the process of 

20048 assembling a planning team comprised of agency personnel and an advisory council made up of 

20049 interested members of the public that would work together collaboratively to develop the 

20050 Comprehensive Plan for the PNT. The final location of the PNT would be determined when its 

20051 legislatively mandated Comprehensive Plan is finalized (estimated completion date of 2018). 

20052 Therefore, sections of the PNT (as shown on the alternative maps) are likely to change upon 

20053 completion of the PNT’s Comprehensive Plan. Forest Plan direction for the National Scenic Trail 

20054 Corridor management area would apply to the most current location of the trail as determined by the 

20055 Comprehensive Plan and published in the Federal Register. 

20056 Once the Comprehensive Plan for the trail is complete, work would start to identify trail routes 

20057 where none exist and to move the trail off its existing road alignments. The trail is open to non20058 motorized uses. However, mountain bikes are not allowed on sections of the trail where their use is 

20059 otherwise prohibited, such as in designated wilderness. In addition, motorized uses are allowed on 

20060 the sections of trail currently located on open national forest system roads
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

573

20061 The Kettle Crest National Recreation Trail is a 44-mile trail located along the top of the Kettle 

20062 River Range Mountains and traverses through the Bald-Snow and Profanity Potential Wilderness

20063 Areas. This non-motorized trail was designated in 1979, and provides access to outstanding regional 

20064 views, an historic fire lookout, a backcountry cabin, and excellent winter cross-country touring 

20065 opportunities. Primary users include hikers, stock, mountain bikers, and skiers.

20066 The Lakeshore National Recreation Trail extends 4.3 miles along the shoreline of Sullivan Lake 

20067 between two popular campgrounds. The trail was designated in 1978, and provides excellent views 

20068 of the lake and opportunities for wildlife observation, including resident bighorn sheep from April 

20069 through mid-June. The trail is open to all non-motorized uses.

20070 The Pass Creek-Grassy Top National Recreation Trail extends just under eight miles along the 

20071 hydrologic divide between the Colville National Forest and the Kaniksu National Forest, which is 

20072 administered by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The trail was designated in 1981, and passes 

20073 through numerous alpine meadows on the way up to the top of Grassy Top Mountain, which 

20074 provides excellent views into north Idaho and eastern Washington. The trail is open to all non20075 motorized uses.

20076 The Shedroof Divide National Recreation Trail extends over 29 miles (22 miles on the Forest) 

20077 through the heart of the Salmo-Priest Wilderness. The trail was designated in 1981, and offers 

20078 spectacular views of the wilderness and Selkirk Crest. The trail is well-suited to overnight trips and 

20079 is open to non-motorized and non-mechanized modes of travel.

20080 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

20081 Eligible rivers were identified during the planning effort associated with the 1988 Colville National 

20082 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The existing Colville Forest Plan initially identified 

20083 one eligible riverthe Kettle River. An appeal of the 1988 Plan by American Rivers, Inc. was filed 

20084 based on the Forest’s failure to document the process that was used to evaluate rivers for Wild and 

20085 Scenic River eligibility during the development of the 1988 forest plan. In order to meet the legal 

20086 requirements and terms of the Forest’s agreement with American Rivers, the Colville National 

20087 Forest assembled an interdisciplinary team in 1990 to reexamine all rivers on the Forest and clearly 

20088 document the process it used for screening and evaluating Wild and Scenic River eligibility. 

20089 Direction for the assessment process came from the Forest Service Land and Resource Management 

20090 Planning Handbook Section 8.2 (dated July 1987) and a draft Preliminary River Value Identification 

20091 Process Paper date November 22, 1989. All documentation on the process can be found in the project 

20092 file located in the Colville National Forest’s Supervisor’s Office located in Colville, Washington.

20093 The following process was used to identify rivers that would be assessed for wild and scenic river 

20094 eligibility:

20095 1. It was first determined that the entire forest was located within the “Columbia River and 

20096 Tributaries” region which includes all of eastern Washington and a southern portion of 

20097 western Washington. The watersheds within the forest were then divided according to their 

20098 water resource council hydrologic unit codes.

20099 2. In each watershed, all class 1 and 2 streams and a few of the larger class 3 streams were 

20100 selected for further evaluation. Most class 3 and all class 4 streams were not included due to 

20101 factors such as low flows, intermittent flow and short length.

20102 3. All stream segments left the forest boundary as named streams. For instance, if a north and 

20103 south fork of a stream joined within the forest, they could be evaluated together. If two forks 

20104 entered the forest separately, they were evaluated separately. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

574

20105 After the initial screening process was completed, the remaining rivers were assessed by a core team 

20106 of resource specialists that included a wildlife biologist, silviculturist, hydrologist, archaeologist, 

20107 landscape architect, soil scientist, recreation planner, ecologist, planning team leader, resource 

20108 forester, district ranger, resource assistant, and forestry technician. The team was comprised of Forest 

20109 specialists and at least one representative from each ranger district. The recreation planner met with 

20110 each resource specialist individually to gather information on the value of each river resource 

20111 specifically identified for assessment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act including: scenic, 

20112 recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, pre-historic and other similar values (botanic, 

20113 ecological and hydrologic). Once the river resource values were identified, the team met several 

20114 times over a 4-month period to assess the ratings, reach consensus on the ratings, and document the 

20115 basis for which each specific river was dropped from consideration. Additional input was solicited 

20116 from the Kalispel, Colville, Spokane, and Kootenai Tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, 

20117 Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Washington Department of Wildlife. 

20118 The result of this secondary assessment was that a 5-mile stretch of the South Fork Salmo River was 

20119 determined to be eligible for classification as a wild river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. No 

20120 changes have occurred to the free-flowing nature or outstandingly remarkable values associated with 

20121 the Kettle and South Fork Salmo Rivers since being identified as eligible wild and scenic rivers in 

20122 1988 and 1990, respectively. 

20123 Suitability studies have not been undertaken on either of the two rivers eligible for possible inclusion 

20124 in the National Wild and Scenic River System.

20125 Table 191. Eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Colville National Forest

River Name Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Recommended 

Classification

Length in 

Miles

Eligible or 

Suitable Status

South Fork 

Salmo River

Fishery

Ecological

Wild 5 Eligible

Kettle River Recreation

Scenery

Recreational 3 Eligible

20126 Environmental Consequences

20127 Methodology

20128 Assumptions

20129 • Assume that recreation budget levels would continue along current trend lines, excluding 

20130 fiscal years (FY) 2008 to 2013 when the Forest’s recreation budget was increased under the 

20131 Proof of Concept budget model (FY13 was increased by the RO as part of a 3-year phase-in 

20132 of the SBO budget model) by 21 percent over the average of fiscal years 2005 to 2006, and 

20133 by 44 percent over the average of fiscal years 2007 and 2014. Future budget levels may vary 

20134 by 20 percent plus or minus in addition to the 21 to 44 percent reduction which has already 

20135 occurred as a result of switching from the Proof of Concept budget model to the Region’s 

20136 Strategic Budget Objectives budget model. 

20137 • The effects for recommended wilderness are based on the assumption that the recommended 

20138 wilderness areas would be designated as wilderness by Congress. 

20139 • Assume that trails leading directly into recommended wilderness would not be open to 

20140 motorized or mechanized uses if the recommended wilderness was designated as wilderness.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

575

20141 • Assume that motorized trails located in recommended wilderness areas would be converted 

20142 to non-motorized trails.

20143 • Assume that based on predicted budget levels, trail and recreation site construction and 

20144 reconstruction could be limited over the life of this plan.

20145 • Roads open to various forms of motorized recreation (motorized mixed-use) under the 

20146 current year Motor Vehicle Use Map would continue to be open to those uses. For purposes 

20147 of analysis, these routes were not considered to be part of the Forest’s motorized trail system. 

20148 Only the trails listed in the INFRA database were considered when completing the analysis 

20149 for effect to motorized trails.

20150 • Motorized trail use would not be allowed in backcountry management areas, research natural 

20151 areas, or designated wilderness areas. Motorized trail use would only be allowed in 

20152 recommended wilderness management areas (Jackknife, Lost Creek, Owl Mountain, South 

20153 Huckleberry, and Twin Sisters) where motorized trail use currently exists under the 1988

20154 Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

20155 • Most dispersed camping occurs within close proximity of forest system roads, lakes, and 

20156 streams.

20157 • In spite of the large expanse of undeveloped area available for dispersed recreation use (both 

20158 motorized and non-motorized), not every acre is suitable for every use.

20159 • All acreage figures are approximate. They were calculated using the most current data 

20160 available in the Colville National Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database.

20161 • The acres shown as suitable for future consideration of motorized use areas and motorized 

20162 trail development do not reflect site-specific resource concerns such as slope, soils, heritage 

20163 resources, etc. that would be addressed in project-level analyses.

20164 • The acres shown as suitable for future consideration of mechanized and non-motorized 

20165 travel do not reflect site-specific resource concerns such as slope, soils, heritage resources, 

20166 etc. that would be addressed in project-level analyses. 

20167 Visitors to the forest have different preferences for their recreation setting and the activities in 

20168 which they want to participate. These differences and preferences range from highly intensive 

20169 uses that have lasting effects on resources to benign uses that are barely discernible on the 

20170 ground. Recognizing the differences in user preferences, the primary goal of managing outdoor 

20171 recreation is to provide an environment or opportunity in which visitors can have a satisfying 

20172 experience, while protecting the natural and cultural resources integral to that experience. 

20173 Because user preferences are so diverse, it is assumed that not all user preferences can be 

20174 accommodated on every acre of the Colville National Forest. 

20175 • Recreation demand on the Colville National Forest is tied to population changes in the 

20176 communities and larger metropolitan areas of northeast Washington, northern Idaho, and 

20177 southern British Columbia, Canada. 

20178 • Wilderness, backcountry (semi-primitive non-motorized), research natural areas, big-game 

20179 winter range, recommended wilderness, National Scenic Trail, and special interest area 

20180 (except for the Kettle Crest SIA) management areas were used to identify those acres under 

20181 each alternative that were closed or could be closed to over-snow vehicle use. For winter 

20182 range, the entire management area was considered to be closed to over-snow vehicle use 

20183 regardless of the percentage of the area that was closed to use by gates or Forest closure 

20184 orders. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

576

20185 Methods of Analysis

20186 Analysis was completed utilizing information contained in the Forest’s GIS and INFRA databases, 

20187 current field data and literature.

20188 Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

20189 No incomplete or unavailable information was identified relating to recreation resources.

20190 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

20191 The affected environment for effects includes the lands administered by the Colville National Forest. 

20192 This analysis covers the life of the forest plan, which is 10 to 15 years.

20193 Summary of Effects 

20194 Winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities on groomed and non-groomed designated routes 

20195 would remain the same across all alternatives. Designated groomed and non-groomed over-snow 

20196 vehicle trail opportunities would not change as a result of the number of acres associated with 

20197 recommended wilderness, backcountry, or backcountry motorized management areas since the 

20198 Forest’s existing over-snow vehicle designated groomed and non-groomed trail system is located 

20199 almost entirely on National Forest System roads, outside of these management area boundaries. 

20200 Where management activities, specifically vegetation treatments, must occur during the winter 

20201 months, short to intermediate closures of designated trails may occur to allow for winter haul. This 

20202 would result in localized displacement of over-snow vehicle users to other trails located on the forest 

20203 or to trails located on neighboring forests. However, thinned areas may attract additional over-snow 

20204 vehicle users when treatments are complete because the stand openness could result in better off trail 

20205 riding opportunities.

20206 Although the proposed riparian and aquatic resource management direction differs between the six 

20207 alternatives, the effect to the recreation resource would be very similar across all alternatives. 

20208 Whether the alternative implements INFISH, ARCS, or ARCS-mod as described in the aquatic 

20209 resource section, the following management direction (objectives and guidelines) would generally 

20210 apply to recreation resources with some differences in terminology between the alternatives:

20211 • New facilities and infrastructure should not be placed within long-term channel migration 

20212 zones. If facilities must be located within the riparian management area (i.e., boat launches), 

20213 locate them to minimize impacts on riparian conditions.

20214 • Consider relocating existing facilities that are causing unacceptable impacts within the 

20215 riparian area. 

20216 • Adjust trail management, dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent 

20217 attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or disrupt natural hydrologic processes using 

20218 practices such as education, use limitations, traffic control devices, facility relocation, and 

20219 site-specific closures.

20220 • Hazard trees may be felled and generally retained on-site to enhance aquatic and riparian 

20221 resources.

20222 In all six alternatives, the above riparian and aquatic resource objectives and guidelines would 

20223 require corrective actions be taken on recreation resources that are impairing proper hydrologic 

20224 function or causing unacceptable impacts within the riparian management area (RMA). The 

20225 recreation management tools available to implement changes within the RMA would be the same 

20226 across all alternatives.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

577

20227 Under all alternatives, recreation management direction specific to developed and dispersed 

20228 recreation would remain the same. Management activities, specifically vegetation treatments (both 

20229 mechanical and prescribed fire), may result in short or intermediate length closures of developed and 

20230 dispersed recreation sites for public safety which would result in the displacement of users to other 

20231 recreation sites across the Forest or onto neighboring Forests. Longer-term displacements could 

20232 occur if the recreation site character is altered beyond what is acceptable to the user. For example, 

20233 thinning trees in a camping area (developed or dispersed) may reduce vegetative screening between 

20234 campsites and the road, which may affect the sense of privacy and result in increased noise and dust. 

20235 The length of displacement would vary by treatment type, the amount of slash and debris piles, the 

20236 time required to regrow vegetation, and the overall scenic quality of the area that exists after 

20237 management action are complete. 

20238 Management direction for Nationally Designated Trails and Roads would remain the same across all 

20239 alternatives. No new scenic byways, or national recreation trails are proposed under any alternative. 

20240 These special designation areas would continue to be managed to protect the values for which they 

20241 were designated. Direction specific to the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNT) developed 

20242 through the PNT’s trail Comprehensive Plan would be incorporated into the new forest plan when 

20243 completed in 2018 to 2019.

20244 Wild and Scenic River and Wilderness management direction would remain the same under all 

20245 alternatives. Both eligible wild and scenic river segments (Kettle and South Fork Salmo Rivers) on 

20246 the Forest would be managed to ensure their future eligibility by protecting the values for which they 

20247 were found eligible based on national direction and law. No new eligible wild and scenic river 

20248 segments are proposed under any of the alternatives. Additional proposed wilderness is discussed 

20249 under each alternative. 

20250 Management of Recreation Special Uses would remain the same under all alternatives and be based 

20251 on national direction and law. All existing recreation special uses would continue to occur on the 

20252 forest. However, it is possible that the land base used by a permittee could change based on the 

20253 alternative. For example, backcountry areas selected as recommended wilderness could result in 

20254 changes to where a mountain bike or OHV outfitter could operate, resulting in changes to the 

20255 authorized trails and areas permitted for use by each operator. At this time, no changes to permits are 

20256 expected based on the types of uses currently authorized by permit on the forest.

20257 Management of motor vehicle use of roads (off-highway and highway legal vehicles) would remain 

20258 the same under all alternatives and be managed per the Forest’s current-year motor vehicle use map, 

20259 pursuant to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Changes in the management of motor vehicle use of 

20260 roads would continue to be made on a project-by-project basis based on the desired conditions, 

20261 objectives, standards, and guidelines contained in the new forest plan.

20262 No-action Alternative 

20263 The following summarizes the effects to recreation resources associated with the implementation of 

20264 the no-action alternative. Issues analyzed include the identification of lands suitable for recreation 

20265 use, motorized recreation trails, access, and recommended wilderness.

20266 Under the no-action alternative, the recreation suitability determinations and the Recreation 

20267 Opportunity Spectrum mapping completed as part of the 1988 Colville National Forest Land and 

20268 Resource Management Plan for summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

20269 opportunities would be retained. The number of summer motorized recreation trail miles and the 

20270 acres of backcountry motorized recreation would remain unchanged from the existing condition. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

578

20271 This alternative would provide the greatest number of summer motorized trail miles (along with 

20272 alternatives P, O, and the proposed action) and the third fewest (of the six alternatives) acres 

20273 managed for backcountry motorized recreation. Access for recreation would continue to be affected 

20274 through project specific decisions based on improving resource and habitat conditions. Road 

20275 decommissioning would be expected to continue at a rate similar to recent years across the Forest 

20276 and should result in little or no change in the public’s ability to participate in a variety of summer and 

20277 winter dispersed and developed recreation opportunities across the Forest. The existing number of 

20278 Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) management area 

20279 acres would be retained at a level that ranks third lowest amongst the alternatives. No recommended 

20280 wilderness is proposed under this alternative. All backcountry recreation opportunities would 

20281 continue across the Forest. The miles of trail open to mountain biking would not change from the 

20282 existing condition. The no-action alternative provides the greatest number of trail miles open to 

20283 mountain biking of all the alternatives. Motorized equipment for trail maintenance and 

20284 reconstruction would be allowed on all trails except for those in designated wilderness. Opportunities 

20285 for over-snow vehicle recreation would be retained across the Forest with no change in the number 

20286 of acres open to this form of recreation when compared to the existing condition. The no-action 

20287 alternative supports the largest number of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities 

20288 of the six alternatives.

20289 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

20290 The no-action alternative retains the recreation suitability determinations made in the 1988 Colville 

20291 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) for summer and winter 

20292 motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. All of the recreation activities and 

20293 opportunities provided for in the 1988 Plan would continue to be available under the no-action 

20294 alternative and there would be no effect to the lands identified as suitable for recreation under the 

20295 1988 Colville Forest Plan. For a comparison between alternatives of management areas suitable for 

20296 summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities, see table 190. 

20297 Under the no-action alternative, no changes to the Forest’s existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

20298 (ROS) mapping would occur. Recreation opportunities would still be available in a variety of ROS 

20299 classes including semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded 

20300 modified and rural, representing a broad array of natural settings, managerial, and social 

20301 environments in which users could participate in their preferred activities. 

20302 Implementation of the no-action alternative would provide the greatest number of total Forest acres 

20303 open to both winter and summer motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the action 

20304 alternatives. Total Forest acres open to non-motorized recreation opportunities remains fairly 

20305 consistent (within 3,000 acres) among all the alternatives. Table 192 compares the number of acres 

20306 open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative. For a comparison of the number of 

20307 acres open to summer motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 

20308 194.

20309
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

579

20310 Table 192. Total acres open to over-snow vehicles by alternative

No Action Proposed 

Action 

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

Active Management Area 0 0 0 0 132,526 0

Backcountry 0 90,846 19,035 123,100 4,835 174,311

Backcountry Motorized 0 9,522 755 4,835 755 4,832

Focused Restoration 0 51,367 0 57,478 0 0

General Restoration 0 121,813 62,450 120,422 0 0

Late Forest Structure 0 0 117,522 0 0 0

Recommended Wilderness 0 101,390 207,800 68,300 220,330 15,950

Research Natural Area 4,707 5,694 5,694 5,690 5,692 5,701

Responsible Management Area 0 0 0 0 0 116,935

Restoration Area 0 0 0 0 46,760 61,074

Scenic Byways 0 5,999 5,652 5,656 5,644 5,654

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 86,880 0 0 0 0 0

Special Interest Areas (Does 

not include the Kettle Crest SIA)

0 1,165 0 0 0 0

Scenic/Winter Range 76,128 0 0 0 0 0

Winter Range 126,207 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness** 31,400 31,400 31,400 31,400 31,400 31,400

Total Acres by Alternative 1,103,237 1,103,668 1,101,717 1,101,891 1,101,880 1,101,372

Total Acres Closed to Oversnow Vehicle Recreation 

Opportunities

325,372 419,221 450,393 416,951 447,934 415,885

Total Acres Open to Over-snow 

Vehicle Recreation 

Opportunities

777,865 684,447 651,324 684,940 653,946 685,487

20311 *Acres vary by alternative due to the GIS methodology used to count boundary areas. 

20312 **The congressionally designated acreage for the Salmo-Priest Wilderness does not change by alternative. 

20313 Motorized Recreation Trails

20314 Implementation of the no-action alternative would maintain the existing number of motorized and 

20315 non-motorized trail opportunities currently available across the Forest. Under this alternative, 

20316 approximately 181 miles of summer trail would be managed for summer motorized recreation 

20317 opportunities and 342 miles of summer trail would be managed for summer non-motorized 

20318 recreation opportunities. For a comparison of summer motorized and non-motorized recreation trail 

20319 miles between alternatives, see table 193. Trails managed for summer motorized recreation would 

20320 continue to provide opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and four wheel drives greater than 

20321 50 inches wide (jeep trails). Trails managed for summer non-motorized recreation would continue to 

20322 provide opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, and pack and saddle stock use. Under the no20323 action alternative, there would be no change in the number of miles or the types of managed summer 

20324 motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities on the Forest. 

20325
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

580

20326 Table 193. Comparison of summer motorized and non-motorized trail miles by alternative

No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Miles of Summer Motorized Trail 181 181 142 181 142 181

Miles of Summer Non-motorized Trail 342 342 382 342 382 342

20327 The no-action alternative would maintain the spatial distribution of existing summer motorized trail 

20328 opportunities across the Forest and would continue to provide the existing mix of motorized and non20329 motorized trail systems within each of the three counties in which the Colville National Forest is 

20330 located. Likewise, this alternative would maintain the number of backcountry acres managed for 

20331 summer motorized recreation trail use at 13,571 acres (1 percent of the Forest) as designated in the 

20332 1988 Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as semi-primitive motorized 

20333 recreation management areas. The number of semi-primitive motorized acres available in the no20334 action alternative represents the third fewest acres available for backcountry motorized recreation 

20335 trails of all the alternatives. Overall, summer motorized recreation trail opportunities would be 

20336 allowed on 904,560 acres (82 percent of the Forest) across the Forest. Summer non-motorized 

20337 recreation trail opportunities would be allowed on nearly 100 percent of the Forest’s land base 

20338 (except for research natural areas), of which 118,330 acres (11 percent) would provide for summer 

20339 non-motorized recreation trail opportunities in a non-motorized setting (includes semi-primitive non20340 motorized recreation and wilderness management areas). For a comparison of management area 

20341 acres open to motorized and non-motorized use, see table 194.

20342 Under the no-action alternative, there would be a greater opportunity to access summer non20343 motorized recreation trails than summer motorized recreation trails for several reasons. First, the 

20344 number of non-motorized trail miles would outnumber motorized trail miles by nearly two to one. 

20345 Second, the acres available for summer backcountry non-motorized trail opportunities would 

20346 outnumber the acres available for summer backcountry motorized trail opportunities by 

20347 104,759 acres. Third, additional non-motorized trails could be constructed anywhere on the Forest 

20348 (except research natural areas) under the proposed action, while summer motorized recreation trails 

20349 could only be located outside of old growth dependent species habitat, caribou habitat, 

20350 recreation/wildlife, research natural area, wilderness management, and semi-primitive non-motorized 

20351 recreation management areas, which reduces the potential Forest acreage available for new summer 

20352 motorized trail opportunities by 18 percent as compared to new non-motorized trail opportunities. 

20353 Fourth, the summer motorized trail opportunities in the no-action alternative are geographically 

20354 limited to remote areas of eastern Ferry County and the border between Stevens and Pend Oreille 

20355 Counties while summer non-motorized trail opportunities are located evenly across the Forest, with 

20356 many of them easily accessible by passenger vehicle from communities adjacent to the Forest.

20357
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

581

20358 Table 194. Acres* managed for summer backcountry motorized and backcountry non-motorized trail 

20359 opportunities and total forest acres, by alternative

No Action Proposed 

Action 

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

Acres Managed for 

Backcountry Motorized Trail 

Opportunities

13,571 61,725 6,698 54,577 6,606 53,734

Acres Managed for 

Backcountry Non-motorized 

Trail Opportunities, 

excluding Wilderness

86,880 90,846 20,230 123,100 4,835 174,311

Forest Acres Managed for 

Backcountry Non-motorized 

Trail Opportunities, 

Including Wilderness and 

Recommended Wilderness

118,330 223,668 259,529 222,870 256,602 221,702

Total Forest Acres Open to 

Motorized Trail 

Opportunities

904,561 872,338 836,483 873,330 839,565 873,957

Total Forest Acres Open to 

Non-motorized Trail 

Opportunities

1,098,530 1,097,965 1,096,013 1,096,184 1,096,167 1,095,660

Total Forest Acres 1,103,237 1,103,668 1,101,717 1,101,891 1,101,880 1,101,372

20360 *Acres vary by alternative due to the GIS methodology used to count boundary areas.

20361 Access

20362 Under the no-action alternative, desired conditions for road density are based on the specific habitat 

20363 needs of various wildlife species such as caribou and grizzly bear. Road management decisions 

20364 would be based on the need for public access, safety, forest management and resource needs. 

20365 Decisions on road decommissioning would be made at the project level based on information 

20366 provided by resource specialists and recommendations contained in the Forest’s most recent Travel 

20367 Analysis Report pursuant to subpart A of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. During these project 

20368 level discussions, reductions in road density could be proposed to meet resource needs that would 

20369 reduce roaded access for recreation uses. The level of effect associated with reducing road density 

20370 would be dependent on the length of open system roads that would be proposed for decommissioning 

20371 – the greater the length, the greater the potential reduction in roaded recreation access. However, if 

20372 Maintenance Level 1 roadsthose roads already closed to vehicle use by the publicare selected 

20373 for decommissioning instead of open system roads, then there would be a corresponding reduction in 

20374 the potential loss of open road access for recreation use. Similarly, roads decommissioned in riparian 

20375 areas would have a greater impact on roaded access for recreation use than those located in upland 

20376 areas since most recreation use on the Forest occurs in riparian areas associated with lakeshores, 

20377 rivers, and streams. A reduction in open road density would reduce access to dispersed recreation 

20378 opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping, driving for pleasure, and gathering of forest 

20379 products. However, since most dispersed recreation activities can be enjoyed throughout the Forest, 

20380 localized road decommissioning would likely result in users shifting their dispersed recreation access 

20381 needs to nearby roads in order to participate in the same dispersed recreation activities resulting in 

20382 little to no reduction in the public’s participation in or access to dispersed recreation opportunities on 

20383 the Forest. 

20384 Under the no-action alternative, a reduction in roaded access for trail and developed site recreation 

20385 opportunities would not be anticipated since these opportunities are generally located along major 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

582

20386 travel routes. These major travel routes would typically be improved or rerouted (instead of 

20387 decommissioned) to correct resource concerns in order to ensure continued access to the Forest’s 

20388 developed recreation infrastructure. 

20389 Implementation of the no-action alternative would likely result in fewer impacts to roaded access for 

20390 recreation than alternatives R and P which have a desired condition for road density of 1 to 2 miles 

20391 per square mile and could result in a greater reduction in system roads, especially in key watersheds 

20392 and watersheds where the existing road densities are above the desired condition. The no-action 

20393 alternative would have similar effects on roaded access for recreation as the proposed action that has 

20394 a desired condition for road density of 2 to 3 miles per square mile, which is close to the existing 

20395 condition (at the Forest scale) for most watersheds. The no-action alternative would have a similar 

20396 effect on roaded access for recreation as alternatives B and O, which do not have a desired condition 

20397 for road density and would cap the road miles across the forest at the level of the existing condition. 

20398 Recommended Wilderness

20399 The no-action alternative contains no recommended wilderness and would not contribute to the need 

20400 to adequately represent underrepresented ecosystems (identified during the wilderness evaluation 

20401 process) by providing additional wilderness in the Okanogan Highlands ecoregion. Management of 

20402 backcountry areas would continue to be covered under direction contained in the 1988 Colville 

20403 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for semi-primitive, motorized recreation 

20404 (SPM) and semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation (SPNM). 

20405 This alternative maintains the existing condition for SPM and SPNM recreation opportunities and 

20406 does not provide an option to increase wilderness based recreation opportunities on the Forest. The 

20407 no-action alternative retains 13,571 (1 percent of the Forest) SPM acres for backcountry motorized 

20408 recreation opportunities and an additional 86,880 (8 percent of the Forest) SPNM acres of 

20409 backcountry for non-motorized recreation opportunities. A comparison of SPM (Backcountry 

20410 Motorized in the Action alternatives) and SPNM (Backcountry in the Action alternatives) 

20411 management area acres by alternative can be found in table 194.

20412 Under this alternative, the Forest’s only backcountry recreation rental cabin would continue to be 

20413 located in a SPNM management area. Therefore, the cabin would remain available to the public for 

20414 recreational lodging and access to the cabin would continue through non-motorized modes of 

20415 transportation. 

20416 Existing motorized trail systems located in SPM management areas, including Owl Mountain, 

20417 Jackknife, Twin Sisters, and South Huckleberry would continue to be managed for motorized use. As 

20418 a result, there would be no change in existing summer backcountry motorized recreation 

20419 opportunities if the no-action alternative is implemented. 

20420 Likewise, there would be no change in the number of mountain bike trail miles that are located in 

20421 SPM and SPNM management areas. All trails currently open to mountain bikes would continue to be 

20422 open to that use under the no-action alternative.

20423
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

583

20424 Table 195. Backcountry acres open to mountain bike trails and miles of existing trail that would be open 

20425 to mountain bikes by alternative

No 

Action 

Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Backcountry Acres Open to 

Mountain Bike Trails

100,451 152,572 26,929 177,680 11,441 228,045

Miles of Non-motorized 

Trail Open to Mountain 

Bike Use 

301 151 88 223 80 272

20426 The number of trail miles that are open to motorized trail maintenance and reconstruction equipment 

20427 across the Forest would remain the same. Therefore, the average number of hours and people needed 

20428 to complete annual maintenance tasks should not change. As a result, trail maintenance and 

20429 reconstruction costs would not be expected to change as a result of implementing the no-action 

20430 alternative. 

20431 Over-snow vehicle opportunities on the Forest would continue to be available at a level consistent 

20432 with the existing condition. Existing SPNM, RNA, Winter Range, and wilderness management areas 

20433 would continue to be closed to over-snow vehicle use. Implementation of the no-action alternative 

20434 would result in no change in legal over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities across the Forest.

20435 Proposed Action

20436 The proposed action provides for a balanced mix of wilderness, motorized and non-motorized 

20437 recreation opportunities to address the increases in visitor uses due to population growth, and 

20438 changing demographics. It offers a range of recreation settings by designating and distributing 

20439 management areas in both the front and backcountry to accommodate how people use and access the 

20440 Forest. It allows for the existing level of authorized road access with approximately 74 percent of the 

20441 Forest in a roaded recreation setting (same as the current plan).

20442 The following summarizes the effects to recreation resources associated with the implementation of 

20443 the proposed action. Issues analyzed include the identification of lands suitable for recreation use, 

20444 motorized recreation trails, access, and recommended wilderness.

20445 The proposed action retains the recreation suitability determinations completed as part of the 1988 

20446 Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for summer and winter motorized and 

20447 non-motorized recreation opportunities. Changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation 

20448 Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) map to accurately reflect increases in Semi-Primitive Motorized and 

20449 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with 

20450 recommended wilderness, Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized Management Areas) and to 

20451 reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural ROS class that resulted from the absorption of the ROS 

20452 sub-class of Roaded Modified in the 1988 forest plan into the Roaded Natural ROS classification in 

20453 the Revised Forest Plan. The number of summer motorized recreation trail miles would remain the 

20454 same and the acres of backcountry motorized recreation management areas would increase by nearly 

20455 50,000 acres when compared to the existing condition. This alternative would provide the greatest 

20456 number of summer motorized trail miles (along with alternatives P, O, and no action) and the most 

20457 acres managed for backcountry motorized recreation. Road access to dispersed recreation 

20458 opportunities, especially those in riparian areas, could be reduced slightly over the life of the plan as 

20459 projects are implemented to move the Forest toward a desired condition for road density of 2 to 

20460 3 miles per square mile. Expected levels of road decommissioning should result in little or no change 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

584

20461 in the public’s ability to participate in a variety of summer and winter dispersed and developed 

20462 recreation opportunities across the Forest. 

20463 The proposed action includes the third highest number of recommended wilderness acres, the third 

20464 highest number of backcountry management area acres, and the highest number of backcountry 

20465 motorized management area acres of the six alternatives. Non-conforming wilderness uses would be 

20466 allowed to continue in recommended wilderness until the areas are designated as wilderness by 

20467 Congress. Most backcountry recreation opportunities would continue across the Forest. However, the 

20468 miles of trail open to mountain biking would be reduced (a result of adding additional recommended 

20469 wilderness areas), resulting in the third lowest number of miles open to mountain biking when 

20470 compared to the other alternatives. 

20471 Once the recommended wilderness areas are designated as wilderness by Congress, motorized 

20472 equipment for trail maintenance and reconstruction would no longer be permitted on approximately 

20473 125 miles of trail accessing the recommended wilderness, resulting in a potential increase in trail 

20474 maintenance and reconstruction costs across the Forest. Opportunities for over-snow vehicle 

20475 recreation would be reduced as a result of an increase in acres associated with backcountry (semi20476 primitive non-motorized), research natural area, and recommended wilderness management areas as 

20477 well as increases in designated winter range. The proposed action offers the third lowest number of 

20478 acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. 

20479 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

20480 The proposed action retains the recreation suitability determinations made in the 1988 Colville 

20481 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) for summer and winter 

20482 motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. All of the types of recreation activities and 

20483 opportunities provided for in the 1988 Plan would continue to be available under the proposed 

20484 action, but may not be available in all of the same locations as under the no-action alternative. For a 

20485 comparison between alternatives of management areas suitable for summer and winter motorized 

20486 and non-motorized recreation opportunities, see table 190. 

20487 Under the proposed action, changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

20488 (ROS) map to accurately reflect increases in the Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non20489 Motorized ROS classes as a result of increased acreages associated with recommended wilderness, 

20490 Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized Management Areas. In addition, the ROS map would be 

20491 updated to reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural ROS class as a result of the absorption of the 

20492 1988 forest plan’s ROS sub-class of Roaded Modified into the Roaded Natural classification in the 

20493 Revised Forest Plan. Recreation opportunities would still be available across the Forest in a variety 

20494 of ROS classes including semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, 

20495 and rural, representing a broad array of natural settings, managerial, and social environments in 

20496 which users could participate in their preferred activities. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

20497 (ROS) class acreages for each alternative are summarized in table 196.

20498
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

585

20499 Table 196. Acres* and percentage of the Forest in each ROS class by alternative

ROS Class No Action

Acres 

(percent)

Proposed 

Action 

Acres 

(percent)

Alt. R

Acres 

(percent)

Alt. P

Acres 

(percent)

Alt. B

Acres 

(percent)

Alt. O

Acres 

(percent)

Urban (U) 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

Rural (R) –

49 Degrees North Ski Area

2,032

(0.002%)

2,083

(0.002%)

2,083

(0.002%)

2,083

(0.002%)

2,083

(0.002%)

2,083

(0.002%)

Roaded Modified (RM) 549,357

(50%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

Roaded Natural (RN) 294,972

(27%)

810,028

(74%)

817,353

(74%)

817,353

(74%)

817,353

(74%)

817,353

(74%)

Semi-Primitive Motorized 

(SPM)

107,418

(10%)

62,116

(6%)

6,617

(0.6%)

54,790

(5%)

6,617

(0.6%)

54,790

(5%)

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM)114,537

(10%)

196,180

(18%)

244,353

(22%)

196,180

(18%)

244,353

(22%)

196,180

(18%)

Primitive (P) 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

Wilderness** 31,400

(3%)

31,400

(3%)

31,400

(3%)

31,400

(3%)

31,400

(3%)

31,400

(3%)

TOTAL ACRES 1,102,787 1,101,840 1,101,840 1,101,840 1,101,840 1,101,840

20500 *Acres vary by alternative due to the GIS methodology used to count boundary areas. 

20501 **The congressionally designated acreage for the Salmo-Priest Wilderness does not actually change by alternative.

20502 Implementation of the proposed action would provide the 4th highest number of total Forest acres 

20503 open to winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities and the 4th highest number of total Forest 

20504 acres open to summer motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. 

20505 Total Forest acres open to non-motorized recreation opportunities remains fairly consistent (within 

20506 3,000 acres) amongst all the alternatives. For a comparison of the number of acres open to winter 

20507 over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192. For a comparison of the 

20508 number of acres open to summer motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by 

20509 alternative, see table 194.

20510 Motorized Recreation Trails

20511 The proposed action would maintain the same number of summer motorized and non-motorized trail 

20512 miles across the Forest as the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, approximately 181 miles 

20513 of summer trail would be managed for motorized recreation opportunities and 342 miles of summer 

20514 trail would be managed for non-motorized recreation opportunities. For a comparison of summer 

20515 trail miles managed for motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative, see 

20516 table 193. Trails managed for motorized recreation would continue to provide opportunities for 

20517 ATVs, motorcycles, and four wheel drives greater than 50 inches wide (jeep trails). Trails managed 

20518 for summer non-motorized recreation would continue to provide opportunities for hiking, mountain 

20519 biking, and pack and saddle use. There would be no change in the number of motorized trail miles or 

20520 the types of managed motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities on the Forest. 

20521 The proposed action would maintain the spatial distribution of existing summer motorized trail 

20522 opportunities and the existing availability of summer motorized recreation trail opportunities located 

20523 in backcountry settings. The proposed action would continue to provide the existing mix of 

20524 motorized and non-motorized trail systems within each of the three counties in which the Colville 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

586

20525 National Forest is located. Under the proposed action, 61,725 acres (6 percent of the Forest) would 

20526 be designated as backcountry motorized management areas. The proposed action offers the most 

20527 backcountry motorized management area acres of the six alternatives. In total, summer motorized 

20528 recreation trail use would be allowed on 872,338 acres (79 percent) across the Forest. Summer non20529 motorized recreation trail opportunities would be allowed on nearly 100 percent of the Forest’s land 

20530 base (except for research natural areas), of which 223,668 acres (20 percent) would provide for 

20531 summer non-motorized recreation trail opportunities in a non-motorized setting (includes 

20532 backcountry, wilderness, and recommended wilderness management areas). For a comparison of 

20533 management area acres open to motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities, see table 

20534 194. 

20535 Under the proposed action, there would be a greater opportunity to access summer non-motorized 

20536 recreation trails than summer motorized recreation trails for several reasons. First, the number of 

20537 non-motorized trail miles would outnumber motorized trail miles by nearly 2 to 1. Second, the acres 

20538 available for summer backcountry non-motorized trail opportunities would outnumber the acres 

20539 available for summer backcountry motorized trail opportunities by 162,000 acres. Third, additional 

20540 non-motorized trails could be constructed anywhere on the Forest (except research natural areas -

20541 RNAs) under the proposed action, while summer motorized recreation trails could only be located 

20542 outside of wilderness, recommended wilderness, RNAs, and backcountry management areas, which 

20543 reduces the potential Forest acreage available for new summer motorized trail opportunities by 

20544 21 percent as compared to new non-motorized trail opportunities. Fourth, the summer motorized trail 

20545 opportunities in the proposed action are geographically limited to remote areas of eastern Ferry 

20546 County and the border between Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties while the proposed action’s 

20547 summer non-motorized trail opportunities are located fairly evenly across the Forest, with many of 

20548 them easily accessible by passenger vehicle from communities adjacent to the Forest. 

20549 Access

20550 Under the proposed action, the desired condition for road density on the Colville National Forest 

20551 would be 2 to 3 miles per square mile, which is close to the existing forestwide road density. In those 

20552 watersheds already meeting the desired condition, there would be no need to decommission roads to 

20553 show movement toward the road density desired condition. If no roads are decommissioned, there 

20554 would be no effect to roaded access for recreation use in those watersheds. However, it is still likely 

20555 that some road decommissioning would occur in those watersheds meeting the desired condition for 

20556 road density in order to improve resource and habitat conditions on a project-by-project basis. 

20557 Effects of this type of road decommissioning would be the same as those described under the no20558 action alternative.

20559 In the remaining watersheds that would require reductions in road density to meet the desired 

20560 condition, there would be a corresponding reduction in roaded access for recreation use depending 

20561 on the specific roads selected to be decommissioned. The level of effect associated with reducing 

20562 road density in these watersheds would be dependent on the length of open system roads that would 

20563 be proposed for decommissioningthe greater the length, the greater the potential reduction in 

20564 recreation access. However, if Maintenance Level 1 roadsthose roads already closed to vehicle use 

20565 by the publicare selected for decommissioning instead of open system roads, then there would be a 

20566 corresponding reduction in the potential loss of open road access for recreation use. Similarly, roads 

20567 decommissioned in riparian areas would have a greater impact on access for recreation use than 

20568 those located in upland areas since most recreation use on the Forest occurs in riparian areas 

20569 associated with lakeshores, rivers, and streams. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

587

20570 Under the proposed action, a reduction in roaded access for trail and developed site recreation 

20571 opportunities would not be anticipated since these opportunities are generally located along major 

20572 travel routes. These major travel routes would typically be improved or rerouted (instead of 

20573 decommissioned) to correct resource concerns and ensure continued access to the Forest’s recreation 

20574 infrastructure. A reduction in open road density would reduce access to dispersed recreation 

20575 opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping, driving for pleasure, and gathering of forest 

20576 products. However, since most dispersed recreation activities can be enjoyed throughout the Forest, 

20577 localized road decommissioning would likely result in users shifting their access needs to nearby 

20578 roads in order to participate in the same dispersed recreation activities. As a result, a minor loss of 

20579 road access would result in little to no reduction in the public’s participation in or access to 

20580 recreation opportunities on the Forest. 

20581 Implementation of the proposed action would likely result in fewer impacts to roaded access for 

20582 recreation than alternatives R and P which have a desired condition for road density of 1 to 2 miles 

20583 per square mile and could result in a greater reduction in system roads, especially in key watersheds 

20584 and watersheds where the existing road densities are above the desired condition. The proposed 

20585 action would likely result in similar effects to roaded access for recreation as the no-action 

20586 alternative and alternatives B and O, all of which do not have a desired condition for road density 

20587 and would implement road decommissioning projects based on resource and habitat needs identified 

20588 during project level analysis. 

20589 Recommended Wilderness

20590 The proposed action recommends 9 percent (101,390 acres) of the Forest be recommended as 

20591 additional wilderness, including the following inventoried potential wilderness areas (PWAs): 

20592 Salmo-Priest Adjacent, Abercrombie-Hooknose, Hoodoo, Profanity, and Bald-Snow. For a 

20593 comparison of recommended wilderness acreage by alternative, see table 197. Each of the PWAs in 

20594 this alternative were evaluated by the forest plan revision team according to the process identified in 

20595 FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70 and determined to contribute to the capability, availability, and need for 

20596 additional wilderness in the Okanogan Highlands ecoregion. The southern end of the Profanity PWA 

20597 and the northern end of the Bald-Snow PWA were not brought forward as recommended wilderness 

20598 in the proposed action to allow for established recreation uses to continue including mountain biking, 

20599 maintenance of an historic fire lookout, and use of a backcountry recreation rental cabin. These 

20600 recreation opportunities were identified during the 2009 wilderness evaluation process and the Forest 

20601 Supervisor at the time the proposed action was selected supported the public benefits associated with 

20602 these recreation opportunities over the recreational need for the affected acres to be recommended as 

20603 additional wilderness in the Okanogan Highlands ecoregion. At least one PWA under this alternative 

20604 would be recommended as potential wilderness in each of the three counties located within the 

20605 Forest’s boundary.

20606 Table 197. Acres of recommended wilderness by alternative

No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

0 101,390 207,800 68,300 220,330 15,950

20607 Under this alternative, non-conforming recreation opportunities and motorized trail maintenance and 

20608 reconstruction activities would be allowed to continue until Congress designates the recommended 

20609 wilderness areas as wilderness. No new non-conforming uses would be allowed. Even with the 

20610 continuation of non-conforming uses, the wilderness qualities associated with the recommended 

20611 wilderness areas listed in the proposed action are not expected to be altered prior to designation as 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

588

20612 wilderness by Congress. This determination is based on the fact that the existing non-conforming 

20613 uses were identified during the 2009 PWA evaluation process and their presence did not preclude the 

20614 roadless areas from meeting the evaluation criteria (capability, availability, and need) for inclusion 

20615 on the inventory of potential wilderness areas. Therefore, allowing these non-conforming uses to 

20616 continue at use rates similar to when the wilderness evaluations were completed should not detract 

20617 from the inherent wilderness qualities associated with the five PWAs.

20618 This alternative strives to balance the public’s desire for additional wilderness with existing 

20619 backcountry recreation opportunities such as mountain biking and OHV riding. As a result, not all of 

20620 the PWAs that have wilderness qualities were recommended as wilderness. Instead, this alternative 

20621 retains 61,725 acres (6 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for motorized recreation opportunities 

20622 and an additional 90,846 acres (8 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for non-motorized recreation 

20623 opportunities that do not conform with wilderness management direction such as mountain biking 

20624 and the use of game carts. See table 194 for a comparison of backcountry and backcountry motorized 

20625 management acres by alternative. 

20626 Eleven PWAs (Bodie Mountain, Clackamas Mountain, Cougar Mountain, Deer Creek, Grassy Top, 

20627 Hall Mountain, Harvey Creek, Jackson Creek, Quartzite, South Fork Mountain, and Thirteenmile) 

20628 are designated as backcountry management areas under the proposed action. In addition, the southern 

20629 end of the Profanity PWA and the northern end of the Bald-Snow PWA were also retained as 

20630 backcountry. Combined, these PWAs would provide approximately 75 miles of trail for backcountry 

20631 mountain bike recreation opportunities. Managing these PWAs as backcountry would allow the 

20632 Forest to continue to manage its only backcountry rental cabin and to maintain an historic fire 

20633 lookout. 

20634 The PWAs designated as backcountry motorized management areas in this alternative include the 

20635 Owl Mountain, Jackknife, Twin Sisters, South Huckleberry and Lost Creek. Combined, these PWAs 

20636 provide access to all of the Forest’s existing backcountry motorized trail systems. As a result, there 

20637 would be no change in the existing summer motorized vehicle recreation opportunities if this 

20638 alternative was implemented. 

20639 If the recommended wilderness areas listed in this alternative become designated wilderness, 

20640 mountain bike trail opportunities would no longer be available on an additional 101,390 acres across 

20641 the Forest. This equates to a 150-mile (50 percent) reduction in the number of available mountain 

20642 bike trail opportunities that are associated with the Forest’s existing summer non-motorized trail 

20643 system. For a comparison between alternatives of backcountry management acres open to mountain 

20644 biking and the number of trail miles open to mountain biking, see table 195.

20645 If the recommended wilderness areas listed under the proposed action are designated as wilderness 

20646 by Congress, trail maintenance and reconstruction costs would increase on the 150 miles of trail that 

20647 access the 101,390 acres of recommended wilderness. This cost increase is based on the required 

20648 change from using motorized (chainsaws, power toters, trail dozers, etc.) trail maintenance and 

20649 reconstruction equipment to non-motorized equipment (cross-cut saws, pack mules, pulaskis, etc.) 

20650 which would likely result in annual tasks, such as spring logout, and reconstruction efforts taking 

20651 more time to complete, additional people, or both. 

20652 Implementation of the proposed action would prohibit over-snow vehicle use on 93,849 acres 

20653 currently open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities in the no-action alternative as a result of 

20654 an increase in acres associated with backcountry (semi-primitive non-motorized), research natural 

20655 area, and recommended wilderness management areas as well as changes in designated winter range. 

20656 However, the majority of the additional acres that would be closed to over-snow vehicle use under 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

589

20657 the proposed action consist of heavily vegetated slopes and terrain that is difficult to access and 

20658 currently supports only limited over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities. Therefore, 

20659 implementation of the proposed action would result in little to no reduction in the amount of over20660 snow vehicle recreation opportunities available on the Forest when compared to the no-action 

20661 alternative. For a comparison of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by 

20662 alternative, see table 192.

20663 Alternative R 

20664 Alternative R responds to public comments that support old forest reserve land allocations where old 

20665 forest habitat is the management emphasis and those who want to continue to use a 21-inch diameter 

20666 limit on cutting old trees to maintain old forest habitats. It also responds to those who advocate for 

20667 increased wilderness across the Forest. 

20668 Public issues concerning potential impacts that road access and summer and winter motorized trail 

20669 use may have on aquatic, riparian, and wildlife habitats, including grizzly core areas and habitat 

20670 connectivity, are addressed through low road densities, a low amount of backcountry motorized 

20671 areas, and the high proportion of recommended wilderness areas. 

20672 This alternative is based on an alternative developed by a coalition of conservation groups.

20673 The following summarizes the effects to recreation resources associated with the implementation of 

20674 alternative R. Issues analyzed include the identification of lands suitable for recreation, motorized 

20675 recreation trails, access, and recommended wilderness.

20676 Alternative R retains the recreation suitability determinations completed as part of the 1988 Colville 

20677 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for summer and winter motorized and non20678 motorized recreation opportunities. Changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity 

20679 Spectrum (ROS) map to accurately reflect decreases in the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class and 

20680 increases in the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated 

20681 with recommended wilderness) and to reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural ROS class that 

20682 resulted from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded Modified in the 1988 forest plan into 

20683 the Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest Plan. The number of summer 

20684 motorized recreation trail miles would be reduced by 22 percent (along with alternative B, this 

20685 represents the largest reduction in motorized trail miles of all the action alternatives) and the acres of 

20686 backcountry motorized recreation management areas would be reduced by 51 percent (2nd largest 

20687 reduction in acres of the action alternatives) when compared to the existing condition. Alternative R 

20688 also reduces the Forest’s existing backcountry jeep trail system from 39 miles of trail to zero. 

20689 Road access to dispersed recreation opportunities, especially those in riparian areas associated with 

20690 key watersheds would be reduced over the life of the plan as projects are implemented to move the 

20691 Forest toward a desired condition for road density of 1 to 2 miles per square mile. Expected levels of 

20692 road decommissioning are expected to result in a gradual decrease in the public’s ability to 

20693 participate in a variety of summer and winter dispersed recreation opportunities across the Forest. 

20694 Alternative R includes the second highest number of recommended wilderness acres, the second 

20695 lowest number of backcountry management area acres, and the second lowest number of 

20696 backcountry motorized management area acres of the six alternatives. Non-conforming wilderness 

20697 uses would not be allowed to continue in recommended wilderness prior to designation as wilderness 

20698 by Congress. Some existing backcountry recreation opportunities would no longer be available on 

20699 the Forest (rental cabin, jeep trails). The miles of trail open to mountain biking would be reduced (a 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

590

20700 direct result of additional recommended wilderness areas), resulting in the second lowest number of 

20701 miles open to mountain biking when compared to the other alternatives. 

20702 Motorized equipment for trail maintenance and reconstruction would no longer be permitted on 

20703 approximately 213 miles of trail accessing recommended wilderness, resulting in a potential increase 

20704 in trail maintenance and reconstruction costs across the Forest. Opportunities for over-snow vehicle 

20705 recreation would be reduced when compared to the no-action alternative as a result of the large 

20706 increase in acres associated with recommended wilderness and additional acreage associated with 

20707 RNAs and designated Winter Range. Alternative R provides the lowest number of acres open to 

20708 over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives.

20709 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

20710 Alternative R retains the recreation suitability determinations made in the 1988 Colville National 

20711 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) for summer and winter motorized and 

20712 non-motorized recreation opportunities. All of the recreation activities and opportunities provided for 

20713 in the 1988 Plan would continue to be available under alternative R, but may not be available in all 

20714 of the same locations as under the no-action alternative. For a comparison between alternatives of 

20715 management areas suitable for summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

20716 opportunities, see table 190. 

20717 Under alternative R, changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

20718 map to accurately reflect decreases in the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class and increases in the 

20719 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with 

20720 recommended wilderness) and to reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural ROS class that resulted 

20721 from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded Modified in the 1988 forest plan into the 

20722 Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest Plan. Recreation opportunities would still 

20723 be available in a variety of ROS classes across the Forest including semi-primitive non-motorized, 

20724 semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural, representing a broad array of natural settings, 

20725 managerial, and social environments in which users could participate in their preferred activities. The 

20726 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class acreages for each alternative are summarized in table 

20727 196.

20728 Alternative R would provide both the lowest number of total Forest acres open to winter over-snow 

20729 vehicle recreation opportunities and the lowest number of total Forest acres open to summer 

20730 motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. Total Forest acres open 

20731 to non-motorized recreation opportunities remains fairly consistent (within 3,000 acres) amongst all 

20732 the alternatives. For a comparison of the number of acres open to winter over-snow vehicle 

20733 recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192. For a comparison of the number of acres open 

20734 to summer motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 194.

20735 Motorized Recreation Trails

20736 Compared to the no-action alternative, alternative R decreases the miles of summer motorized 

20737 recreation trails and increases the miles of summer non-motorized recreation trails available on the 

20738 Forest. Under this alternative, approximately 142 miles of summer trail would be managed for 

20739 motorized recreation opportunities and 382 miles of summer trail would be managed for non20740 motorized recreation opportunities. Converting 39 miles of motorized trail to a non-motorized 

20741 classification results in a 22 percent decrease in the existing number of summer motorized recreation 

20742 trail miles and an increase of 10 percent in the existing number of summer non-motorized recreation 

20743 trail miles. For a comparison of summer trail miles managed for motorized and non-motorized 

20744 recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 193. Implementation of alternative R would provide 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

591

20745 a reduced number of managed ATV and motorcycle trail opportunities across the Forest and would 

20746 eliminate all of the Forest’s existing trail opportunities (39 miles) associated with four wheel drives 

20747 greater than 50 inches wide (jeep trails). Implementation of alternative R would increase the number 

20748 of summer non-motorized recreation trail opportunities including hiking and pack and saddle stock 

20749 use as compared to the number of non-motorized recreation trail opportunities in the no-action

20750 alternative. 

20751 Implementation of alternative R would decrease the spatial distribution of summer motorized 

20752 recreation trail opportunities across the Forest as well as the availability of backcountry summer 

20753 motorized trail opportunities. Unlike the no-action alternative which provides a mix of summer 

20754 motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities throughout all three counties, alternative R would 

20755 only provide a mix of summer motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities in Stevens and Pend 

20756 Oreille Counties. In Ferry County, 39 miles of motorized trail would be converted to non-motorized 

20757 trail, leaving only 1.4 miles (less than one percent of the total trail miles in the County) of motorized 

20758 trail available within the County. Likewise, the number of backcountry acres open to motorized 

20759 recreation trail opportunities would be reduced from 13,571 acres in the no-action alternative to 

20760 6,698 acres (the second fewest number of backcountry motorized management acres provided by any 

20761 of the alternatives). This equates to a 51 percent reduction in backcountry areas open to motorized 

20762 recreation trails. 

20763 Similarly, acres open to motorized recreation trail opportunities across the Forest would be reduced 

20764 from 904,561 acres in the no-action alternative to 836,483 acres in alternative R, a direct result of 

20765 additional wilderness recommendations. This represents a 7.5 percent reduction in the number of 

20766 acres available for motorized recreation trail opportunities across the Forest. Non-motorized 

20767 recreation trail opportunities would be allowed on nearly 100 percent of the Forest’s land base 

20768 (except for RNAs) and the opportunity for trails to exist in a non-motorized setting (includes 

20769 backcountry, wilderness, and recommended wilderness management areas) would increase from 

20770 118,330 acres in the no-action alternative to 259,529 acres in alternative R, an increase of 219 

20771 percent. For a comparison of management area acres open to motorized and non-motorized 

20772 recreation trail opportunities, see table 194. 

20773 Across the Forest, there is currently a greater opportunity to access summer non-motorized 

20774 recreation trails than summer motorized recreation trails. See discussion under the no-action and 

20775 proposed action alternatives that supports this statement. Implementation of alternative R would 

20776 further shift the opportunity for summer trail access toward non-motorized trail activities since it 

20777 would increase the number of non-motorized trail miles and acres of backcountry open to non20778 motorized trail use while reducing the number of motorized recreation trail opportunities and 

20779 motorized backcountry management areas. This is especially true in Ferry County where motorized 

20780 recreation trail opportunities would be reduced to a single 1.4-mile segment of trail. 

20781 Access

20782 Under alternative R, the desired condition for road density on the Colville National Forest would be 

20783 1 to 2 miles per square mile, which is generally one third to one half lower than the existing 

20784 condition for the Forest depending on the specific watershed. As a result, reductions in road density 

20785 would be expected in the majority of watersheds across the Forest to meet the desired condition. 

20786 These reductions would likely be focused initially on the Forest’s key watersheds, where the 

20787 restoration of failing road infrastructure would be a priority over the life of the revised Forest Plan. 

20788 Given that projected Forest funding would allow for approximately 20 miles of decommissioning 

20789 each year, the magnitude of potential road decommissioning over the 20-year life span of the Forest 

20790 Plan would be approximately 400 miles, or 10 percent of the Forest’s existing road system.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

592

20791 Reducing road density would likely result in a corresponding reduction in roaded access for 

20792 recreation use depending on the specific roads selected to be decommissioned. The level of effect 

20793 associated with reducing road density across all watersheds would be dependent on the length of 

20794 open system roads that would be proposed for decommissioningthe greater the length, the greater 

20795 the potential effect on recreation access. However, if some Maintenance Level 1 roadsthose roads 

20796 already closed to vehicle use by the publicare selected for decommissioning instead of open 

20797 system roads, then there would be a corresponding reduction in the potential loss of open road access 

20798 for recreation use. Similarly, roads decommissioned in riparian areas would have a greater impact on 

20799 access for recreation use than those located in upland areas since most recreation use on the Forest 

20800 occurs in riparian areas associated with lakeshores, rivers, and streams. Under this alternative, 

20801 decommissioning of roads located in riparian areas in order to move toward the desired condition for 

20802 road density would be anticipated in key watersheds. 

20803 The proposed reduction in road density associated with alternative R would not be expected to result 

20804 in a reduction in roaded access for trail and developed site recreation opportunities since these 

20805 opportunities are generally located along major travel routes. These major travel routes would 

20806 typically be improved or rerouted (instead of decommissioned) to correct resource concerns in order 

20807 to ensure continued access to the Forest’s recreation infrastructure. The proposed reduction in road 

20808 density would likely reduce access to dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

20809 camping, driving for pleasure, and gathering forest products. Since most dispersed recreation 

20810 activities can be enjoyed throughout the Forest, localized road closures would likely result in users 

20811 shifting their access needs to nearby roads. However, in key watersheds, where road 

20812 decommissioning would be emphasized, road closures could reduce roaded access for dispersed 

20813 recreation use to a level that would displace recreationists to other parts of the Forest in order to 

20814 participate in the same dispersed recreation activities. 

20815 At the Forest scale, the effect of decommissioning approximately 400 miles of road over a 20-year 

20816 period would be a gradual decrease in roaded access for recreation use. The impact of this decrease 

20817 in roaded access for recreation use would be focused on dispersed recreation opportunities and 

20818 would be expected to be more obvious in riparian areas associated with key watersheds. 

20819 Implementation of alternative R would likely result in greater impacts to roaded access for recreation 

20820 than the no-action alternative and alternatives B and O. Alternative R would have similar affects to 

20821 roaded access as alternative P, which also has a desired condition for road density of 1 to 2 miles per 

20822 square mile.

20823 Recommended Wilderness

20824 Alternative R recommends 19 percent (207,800 acres) of the Forest be recommended as additional 

20825 wilderness including all inventoried potential wilderness areas (PWAs) (Abercrombie-Hooknose, 

20826 Bald Snow, Cougar Mountain, Deer Creek, Hall Mountain, Harvey Creek, Hoodoo, Jackknife, Owl 

20827 Mountain, Profanity, Quartzite, Salmo-Priest Adjacent, South Huckleberry, Thirteenmile, and Twin 

20828 Sisters) on the Colville National Forest except for Lost Creek and those portions of Bodie Mountain, 

20829 Clackamas Mountain, Jackson Creek, Grassy Top, and South Fork Mountain PWAs that are located 

20830 primarily on adjacent Forests and would not meet the acreage requirements necessary to be 

20831 recommended as wilderness on the Colville National Forest without a corresponding 

20832 recommendation from the Idaho Panhandle and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests for the 

20833 contiguous acres located on those units. For a comparison of recommended wilderness acreage by 

20834 alternative, see table 197. Each of the PWAs in this alternative were evaluated by the forest plan 

20835 revision team according to the process identified in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70 and determined to 

20836 contribute to the capability, availability, and need for additional wilderness in the Okanogan 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

593

20837 Highlands ecoregion. Under alternative R, at least two PWAs would be recommended as wilderness 

20838 in each of the counties in which the Forest is located. 

20839 This alternative recommends a large increase in wilderness and provides few opportunities for other 

20840 motorized and mechanized backcountry recreation opportunities on the Forest. Several PWAs that 

20841 contain well-established non-conforming uses (i.e., motorized trails, rental cabin, and mountain bike 

20842 use) that may detract from the wilderness qualities associated with the various PWAs are 

20843 recommended as wilderness in alternative R. This alternative designates 6,698 acres (less than 

20844 1 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for motorized recreation opportunities and an additional 

20845 20,230 acres (1.8 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for recreation opportunities that do not 

20846 conform with wilderness management direction, such as mountain biking. See table 194 for a 

20847 comparison of backcountry and backcountry motorized management acres by alternative. 

20848 Under this alternative, recreation opportunities that would not conform to wilderness management 

20849 direction (mountain biking, motorized trail use, motorized trail maintenance and reconstruction, 

20850 historic structure maintenance, and rental cabin management) would not be allowed to continue prior 

20851 to designation of the recommended wilderness areas as wilderness by Congress. As a result, the 

20852 Forest’s only backcountry cabin rental would be closed to the public and, over time, removed from 

20853 the landscape. Likewise, a recently renovated historic fire lookout would be managed to a standard 

20854 compatible with wilderness designation and may be allowed to slowly deteriorate over time. Since 

20855 existing recreation opportunities that would not conform to wilderness management direction would 

20856 not be allowed to continue prior to wilderness designation, there would be little chance that the 

20857 wilderness qualities associated with the identified recommended wilderness areas would be altered 

20858 prior to their designation as wilderness by Congress.

20859 Under alternative R, the Lost Creek PWA would be designated as a backcountry motorized 

20860 management area. The three existing trails in this PWA are currently open to motorcycles only. The 

20861 result of implementing alternative R would be a 39-mile (100 percent) reduction in backcountry 

20862 motorized trail miles that are currently open to ATVs and four wheel drives greater than 50 inches 

20863 wide and approximately a 70 percent decrease in the number of existing backcountry motorized 

20864 recreation trail miles on the Forest. 

20865 Under this alternative, only those inventoried roadless areas included in the 2001 Roadless Rule 

20866 inventory and the PWAs located primarily on adjacent forests that would not meet the minimum 

20867 acreage requirements to be recommended as wilderness would be designated as backcountry 

20868 management areas. As a result, backcountry mountain bike trail opportunities would be eliminated 

20869 on 207,800 acres across the Forest. This equates to a 213 mile (71 percent) reduction in the number 

20870 of available mountain bike trail miles associated with the Forest’s summer non-motorized trail 

20871 system. For a comparison between alternatives of backcountry management acres open to mountain 

20872 biking and the number of trail miles open to mountain biking, see table 195.

20873 Under alternative R, once the Forest Plan is approved and implemented, trail maintenance and 

20874 reconstruction costs could increase on the 213 miles of trail that access the 207,800 acres of 

20875 recommended wilderness. This cost increase is based on the required change from using motorized 

20876 (chainsaws, power toters, trail dozers, etc.) trail maintenance equipment to non-motorized equipment 

20877 (cross-cut saws, pack mules, pulaskis, etc.) which would likely result in annual tasks, such as spring 

20878 logout, and reconstruction efforts taking more time to complete, additional people, or both. 

20879 Implementation of alternative R would prohibit over-snow vehicle use on 125,021 acres currently 

20880 open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities in the no-action alternative as a result of the 

20881 increase in acres associated with recommended wilderness, RNAs, and winter range. Approximately 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

594

20882 55,000 acres of backcountry associated with the Twin Sisters, Jackknife, Owl Mountain and South 

20883 Huckleberry PWAs are open to over-snow vehicles in the no-action alternative and offer 39 miles of 

20884 jeep trails (these trails are neither designated nor groomed for over-snow vehicle use) that are 

20885 currently available for over-snow vehicle use. Implementation of alternative R would prohibit this 

20886 use. As a result, implementation of alternative R would result in a high reduction in over-snow 

20887 vehicle recreation opportunities across the Forest when compared to the no-action alternative. For a 

20888 comparison of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192.

20889 Alternative P 

20890 Alternative P proposes the second highest amount of non-motorized backcountry of all alternatives 

20891 and a lower amount of recommended wilderness (RW) than the proposed action to address public 

20892 concerns that wilderness designation may result in lower revenue to local economies due to reduced 

20893 recreational opportunities. The backcountry motorized (BCM) management areas are similar to those 

20894 in the proposed action. Participants in the Colville Collaborative group that worked on forest plan 

20895 issues around wilderness and vegetation management agreed that the Kettle Crest was a special area 

20896 for semi-primitive recreation opportunities, but did not agree that the area should be wilderness 

20897 because of the impacts to recreation opportunities such as mountain biking and OHV riding as well 

20898 as motorized trail maintenance. The proposed Kettle Crest Recreation Special Interest Area (SIA) 

20899 was added as a component of this alternative to address public disagreement about recommending 

20900 this area for wilderness. The backcountry and backcountry motorized management areas within the 

20901 SIA would be managed to maintain their existing wilderness qualities while allowing recreation 

20902 activities that do not conform with wilderness designation to continue, such as mountain biking, 

20903 OHV riding, and the use of a recreation rental cabin. 

20904 Public issues concerning potential impacts that desired road densities and motorized trails in the 

20905 proposed action may have on aquatic, riparian, and wildlife habitats, including grizzly core areas and 

20906 habitat connectivity, are addressed through lower road densities in the focused and general 

20907 restoration management areas and the higher number of combined recommended wilderness and 

20908 backcountry non-motorized management acres. 

20909 This alternative also responds to public comments that asked for additional protections for riparian 

20910 areas and addresses public concerns that the proposed action may not provide adequate protection 

20911 that is as effective as the current forest plan amendments in managing activities within the riparian 

20912 areas. 

20913 The following summarizes the effects to recreation resources associated with the implementation of 

20914 alternative P. Issues analyzed include the identification of lands suitable for recreation, motorized 

20915 recreation trails, access, and recommended wilderness.

20916 Alternative P retains the recreation suitability determinations completed as part of the 1988 Colville 

20917 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for summer and winter motorized and non20918 motorized recreation opportunities. Changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity 

20919 Spectrum (ROS) map to accurately reflect increases in Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi20920 Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with recommended 

20921 wilderness, Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized Management Areas) and to reflect the increase 

20922 in the Roaded Natural ROS class that resulted from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded 

20923 Modified in the 1988 forest plan into the Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest 

20924 Plan. The number of summer motorized recreation trail miles would remain the same and the acres 

20925 of backcountry motorized recreation management areas would increase when compared to the 

20926 existing condition. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

595

20927 This alternative would provide the greatest number of summer motorized trail miles (along with 

20928 alternative O, the proposed action, and no action) and the second most acres managed for 

20929 backcountry motorized recreation. Road access to dispersed recreation opportunities, especially 

20930 those in riparian areas associated with key watersheds would be reduced over the life of the plan as 

20931 projects are implemented to move the Forest toward a desired condition for road density of 1 to 

20932 2 miles per square mile. Anticipated levels of road decommissioning are expected to result in a 

20933 gradual decrease in the public’s ability to participate in a variety of summer and winter dispersed 

20934 recreation opportunities across the Forest. Alternative P includes the fourth highest number of 

20935 recommended wilderness acres, the second highest number of backcountry management area acres, 

20936 and the second highest number of backcountry motorized management area acres of the six 

20937 alternatives. In addition, this alternative includes approximately 82,800 acres of primarily 

20938 backcountry and backcountry motorized management areas that would be designated as a Recreation 

20939 Special Interest Area along the Kettle Crest. Non-conforming wilderness uses would be allowed to 

20940 continue in recommended wilderness until the areas are designated as wilderness by Congress. All 

20941 backcountry recreation opportunities would continue across the Forest. However, the miles of trail 

20942 open to mountain biking would be reduced by 78 miles (a direct result of additional recommended 

20943 wilderness areas), resulting in the third highest number of miles open to mountain biking when 

20944 compared to the other alternatives. 

20945 Once the recommended wilderness areas are designated as wilderness by Congress, motorized 

20946 equipment for trail maintenance and reconstruction would no longer be permitted on approximately 

20947 78 miles of trail accessing the recommended wilderness, resulting in a potential increase in trail 

20948 maintenance and reconstruction costs across the Forest. Opportunities for over-snow vehicle 

20949 recreation would be reduced as a result of an increase in acres associated with backcountry (semi20950 primitive non-motorized), research natural area, and recommended wilderness management areas as 

20951 well as increases in designated winter range. Alternative P offers the third highest number of acres 

20952 open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. 

20953 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

20954 Alternative P retains the recreation suitability determinations made in the 1988 Colville National 

20955 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) for summer and winter motorized and 

20956 non-motorized recreation opportunities. All of the recreation activities and opportunities provided for 

20957 in the 1988 Plan would continue to be available under alternative P, but may not be available in all of 

20958 the same locations as under the no-action alternative. For a comparison between alternatives of 

20959 management areas suitable for summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

20960 opportunities, see table 190. 

20961 Under alternative P, changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

20962 map to accurately reflect increases in Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

20963 ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with recommended wilderness, Backcountry 

20964 and Backcountry Motorized Management Areas) and to reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural 

20965 ROS class that resulted from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded Modified in the 1988 

20966 forest plan into the Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest Plan. Recreation 

20967 opportunities would still be available in a variety of ROS classes across the Forest including semi20968 primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural, representing a broad 

20969 array of natural settings, managerial, and social environments in which users could participate in 

20970 their preferred activities. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class acreages for each 

20971 alternative are summarized in table 196. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

596

20972 Implementation of alternative P would provide the third highest number of total Forest acres open to 

20973 winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities and the third highest number of total Forest acres 

20974 open to summer motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. Total 

20975 Forest acres open to non-motorized recreation opportunities remains fairly consistent (within 3,000 

20976 acres) amongst all the alternatives. For a comparison of the number of acres open to winter over20977 snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192. For a comparison of the number 

20978 of acres open to summer motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative, see 

20979 table 194.

20980 Motorized Recreation Trails 

20981 Alternative P would maintain the same number of summer motorized and non-motorized recreation 

20982 trail opportunities across the Forest as the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, 

20983 approximately 181 miles of summer trail would be managed for motorized uses and 342 miles of 

20984 summer trail would be managed for non-motorized uses. For a comparison of summer trail miles 

20985 managed for motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 193. 

20986 Trails managed for motorized use would continue to provide opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, 

20987 and four wheel drives greater than 50 inches wide (jeep trails). Trails managed for summer non20988 motorized use would continue to provide opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, and pack and 

20989 saddle use. There would be no change in the number of miles or the types of managed motorized and 

20990 non-motorized recreation trail opportunities on the Forest. 

20991 Alternative P would also maintain the spatial distribution of existing summer motorized recreation 

20992 trail opportunities across the Forest and would continue to provide the existing mix of summer 

20993 motorized and non-motorized trail systems within each of the three counties in which the Colville 

20994 National Forest is located. Implementation of alternative P would increase the number of 

20995 backcountry acres managed for summer motorized recreation trail opportunities from 13,571 acres in 

20996 the no-action alternative to 54,577 acres. This equates to a 400 percent increase in backcountry 

20997 motorized (BCM) management area acres. These BCM areas would include all of the existing 

20998 motorized backcountry trail opportunities on the Forest. Overall, summer motorized recreation trail 

20999 opportunities would be allowed on 873,330 acres (79 percent of the Forest) across the Forest. Non21000 motorized recreation trail opportunities would be allowed on nearly 100 percent of the Forest’s land 

21001 base (excluding RNAs) and the opportunity for trails to exist in a non-motorized setting (including 

21002 backcountry, wilderness, and recommended wilderness management areas) would equal 

21003 222,870 acres, equaling 20 percent of the Forest’s land base. For a comparison of management area 

21004 acres open to motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities, see table 194. 

21005 Under alternative P, there would be a greater opportunity to access summer non-motorized recreation 

21006 trails than summer motorized recreation trails for several reasons. First, the number of non-motorized 

21007 trail miles would outnumber motorized trail miles by nearly 2 to 1. Second, the acres available for 

21008 summer backcountry non-motorized trail opportunities would outnumber the acres available for 

21009 summer backcountry motorized trail opportunities by 168,290 acres. Third, additional non-motorized 

21010 trails could be constructed anywhere on the Forest (except research natural areas - RNAs) under 

21011 alternative P, while summer motorized recreation trails could only be located outside of wilderness, 

21012 recommended wilderness, RNAs, and backcountry management areas, which reduces the potential 

21013 Forest acreage available for new summer motorized trail opportunities by 20 percent as compared to 

21014 new non-motorized trail opportunities. Fourth, the summer motorized trail opportunities in 

21015 alternative P are geographically limited to remote areas of eastern Ferry County and the border 

21016 between Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties while alternative P’s summer non-motorized trail 

21017 opportunities are located fairly evenly across the Forest, with many of them easily accessible by 

21018 passenger vehicle from communities adjacent to the Forest.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

597

21019 Access

21020 Under alternative P, the desired condition for road density on the Colville National Forest would be 1 

21021 to 2 miles per square mile, which is approximately one third to one half lower than the existing 

21022 condition for the Forest depending on the specific watershed. As a result, reductions in road density 

21023 would be expected in the majority of watersheds across the Forest to meet the desired condition. 

21024 These reductions would likely be focused initially on the Forest’s key watersheds, where the 

21025 restoration of failing road infrastructure would be a priority over the life of the Forest Plan. Given 

21026 that projected Forest funding would allow for approximately 20 miles of decommissioning each year, 

21027 the magnitude of potential road decommissioning over the 20-year life span of the Forest Plan would 

21028 be approximately 400 miles, or ten percent of the Forest’s existing road system.

21029 Reducing road density would likely result in a corresponding reduction in roaded access for 

21030 recreation use depending on the specific roads selected to be decommissioned. The level of effect 

21031 associated with reducing road density across all watersheds would be dependent on the length of 

21032 open system roads that would be proposed for decommissioningthe greater the length, the greater 

21033 the potential effect on recreation access. However, if some Maintenance Level 1 roadsthose roads 

21034 already closed to vehicle use by the publicare selected for decommissioning instead of open 

21035 system roads, then there would be a corresponding reduction in the potential loss of open road access 

21036 for recreation use. Similarly, roads decommissioned in riparian areas would have a greater impact on 

21037 access for recreation use than those located in upland areas since most recreation use on the Forest 

21038 occurs in riparian areas associated with lakeshores, rivers, and streams. 

21039 The proposed reduction in road density associated with alternative P would not be expected to result 

21040 in a reduction in roaded access for developed recreation site and trail access since these opportunities 

21041 are generally located along major travel routes. These major travel routes would typically be 

21042 improved or rerouted (instead of decommissioned) to correct resource concerns in order to ensure 

21043 continued access to the Forest’s recreation infrastructure. However, the proposed reduction in road 

21044 density would likely reduce access to dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

21045 camping, driving for pleasure, and gathering forest products. Since most dispersed recreation 

21046 activities can be enjoyed throughout the Forest, localized road closures would likely result in users 

21047 shifting their access needs to nearby roads. However, in key watersheds, where road 

21048 decommissioning would be emphasized, road closures could reduce roaded access for dispersed 

21049 recreation use to a level that would displace recreationists to other parts of the Forest in order to 

21050 participate in the same dispersed recreation activities. 

21051 At the Forest scale, the effect of decommissioning approximately 400 miles of road over a 20-year 

21052 period would be a gradual decrease in roaded access for recreation use. The impact of this decrease 

21053 in roaded access for recreation use would be focused on dispersed recreation opportunities and 

21054 would be expected to be more obvious in riparian areas associated with key watersheds. 

21055 Implementation of alternative P would likely result in greater impacts to roaded access for recreation 

21056 than the no-action alternative and alternatives B and O. Alternative P would have similar affects to 

21057 roaded access as alternative R.

21058 Recommended Wilderness

21059 Alternative P recommends 6 percent (68,300 acres) of the Forest as additional wilderness, including 

21060 the following inventoried potential wilderness areas (PWAs): Salmo-Priest Adjacent, Abercrombie21061 Hooknose, and the portion of the Bald Snow PWA located south of Snow Peak Cabin, which 

21062 corresponds with tributaries to South Fork O’Brien Creek and South Fork Sherman Creek. For a 

21063 comparison of potential wilderness area acreage by alternative, see table 197. Each of the PWAs in 

21064 this alternative were evaluated by the forest plan revision team according to the process identified in 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

598

21065 FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70 and determined to contribute to the capability, availability, and need for 

21066 additional wilderness in the Okanogan Highlands ecoregion. At least one PWA under this alternative 

21067 would be recommended as potential wilderness in each of the three counties located within the 

21068 Forest’s boundary. 

21069 This alternative attempts to balance the public’s desire for additional wilderness with existing 

21070 backcountry recreation opportunities such as mountain biking and OHV riding. As a result, not all of 

21071 the Forest’s PWAs that have wilderness qualities were recommended as wilderness in this 

21072 alternative. Instead, alternative P retains 54,577 acres (5 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for 

21073 motorized recreation opportunities, and 123,100 acres (11 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for 

21074 recreation opportunities that do not conform with wilderness management direction such as 

21075 mountain biking, rental cabins and historic structure maintenance. See table 194 for a comparison of 

21076 backcountry and backcountry motorized management acres by alternative. 

21077 In addition, this alternative recommends approximately 82,800 acres be included in a recreation 

21078 special interest area along the Kettle Crest in Ferry County that would include the Profanity, northern 

21079 part of the Bald-Snow, Hoodoo, and Twin Sisters PWAs. This SIA would provide for the existing 

21080 outstanding motorized and non-motorized recreation values associated with the Kettle Crest region 

21081 while also maintaining many of the existing wilderness qualities that make these PWAs popular with 

21082 both motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Within the SIA, PWAs would be managed as either 

21083 backcountry (Profanity, Bald-Snow, and Hoodoo) or backcountry motorized (Twin Sisters) and all 

21084 existing recreation opportunities would be retained. Acres attributable to the SIA are included in the 

21085 backcountry and backcountry motorized acres listed in this paragraph.

21086 Under this alternative, non-conforming recreation opportunities and motorized trail maintenance and 

21087 reconstruction activities would be allowed to continue until Congress designates the recommended 

21088 wilderness areas as wilderness. No new non-conforming uses would be allowed. Even with the 

21089 continuation of non-conforming uses, the wilderness qualities associated with the recommended 

21090 wilderness areas listed in alternative P are not expected to be altered prior to designation as 

21091 wilderness by Congress. This determination is based on the fact that the existing non-conforming 

21092 uses were identified during the 2009 PWA evaluation process and their presence did not preclude the 

21093 roadless areas from meeting the evaluation criteria (capability, availability, and need) for inclusion 

21094 on the inventory of potential wilderness areas. Therefore, allowing these non-conforming uses to 

21095 continue at use rates similar to when the wilderness evaluations were completed should not detract 

21096 from the inherent wilderness qualities associated with the three PWAs. 

21097 The PWAs that would be designated as backcountry motorized management areas in this alternative 

21098 include Owl Mountain, Jackknife, Twin Sisters, South Huckleberry and Lost Creek. Combined, these 

21099 PWAs would provide access to all of the Forest’s existing backcountry motorized trail systems. As a 

21100 result, there would be no loss of existing summer motorized recreation use if this alternative was 

21101 implemented. 

21102 Implementation of alternative P would designate thirteen PWAs as backcountry management areas 

21103 including: northern part of Bald-Snow, Bodie Mountain, Clackamas Mountain, Cougar Mountain, 

21104 Deer Creek, Grassy Top, Hall Mountain, Harvey Creek, Hoodoo, Jackson Creek, Quartzite, South 

21105 Fork Mountain and Thirteenmile. Combined, these PWAs contain approximately 53 miles of 

21106 backcountry mountain bike trail opportunities. However, if the recommended wilderness areas listed 

21107 in this alternative become wilderness, mountain bike trail opportunities would no longer be available 

21108 on 68,300 acres across the Forest. This equates to approximately a 90-mile (30 percent) reduction in 

21109 the number of available mountain bike trail opportunities that are associated with the Forest’s 

21110 existing summer non-motorized trail system. As a result, alternative P provides the third highest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

599

21111 number of mountain bike trail miles of all the alternatives. For a comparison between alternatives of 

21112 backcountry management acres open to mountain biking and the number of trail miles open to 

21113 mountain biking, see table 195. Managing these PWAs as backcountry would also allow the Forest to 

21114 continue to manage its only backcountry recreation rental cabin and to maintain a popular historic 

21115 fire lookout. 

21116 If the recommended wilderness areas listed under alternative P are designated as wilderness by 

21117 Congress, trail maintenance and reconstruction costs could increase on the 90 miles of trail that 

21118 access the 68,300 acres of recommended wilderness. This cost increase is based on the required 

21119 change from using motorized (chainsaws, power toters, trail dozers, etc.) trail maintenance 

21120 equipment to non-motorized equipment (cross-cut saws, pack mules, pulaskis, etc.) which would 

21121 likely result in annual tasks, such as spring logout, and reconstruction efforts taking more time to 

21122 complete, additional people, or both. 

21123 Implementation of alternative P would prohibit over-snow vehicle use on 91,579 acres currently 

21124 open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities in the no-action alternative as a result of an 

21125 increase in acres associated with backcountry (semi-primitive non-motorized), research natural area, 

21126 and recommended wilderness management areas as well as changes in designated winter range. 

21127 However, the majority of the additional acres that would be closed to over-snow vehicle use under

21128 alternative P consist of heavily vegetated slopes and terrain that is difficult to access and currently 

21129 supports only limited over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities. Therefore, implementation of 

21130 alternative P would result in little to no reduction in the amount of over-snow vehicle recreation 

21131 opportunities available on the Forest when compared to the no-action alternative. For a comparison 

21132 of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192.

21133 Alternative B 

21134 Alternative B emphasizes two management areas (MA) that focus on forest vegetation; the 

21135 Restoration MA, which emphasizes old forests, and the Active MA, which emphasizes timber 

21136 production. These are generally the Focused Restoration and General Restoration Management Areas 

21137 in the proposed action and other alternatives. The Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2

21138 (Eastside Screens) from the existing forest plan provides direction for managing vegetation. 

21139 This alternative also responds to those advocating for increased wilderness and to public concerns 

21140 that the amount and location of summer and winter motorized use may impact aquatic, riparian and 

21141 wildlife habitats. Alternative B provides for the highest acreage of recommended wilderness across 

21142 all alternatives and the least amount of summer motorized and non-motorized backcountry recreation 

21143 opportunities. 

21144 Input from the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition’s alternative on vegetation, road, aquatic 

21145 management and wilderness recommendations are included in this alternative. Proposed 

21146 management not provided in the coalition’s alternative comes from the proposed action.

21147 The following summarizes the effects to recreation resources associated with the implementation of 

21148 alternative B. Issues analyzed include the identification of lands suitable for recreation, motorized 

21149 recreation trails, access, and recommended wilderness.

21150 Alternative B retains the recreation suitability determinations completed as part of the 1988 Colville 

21151 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for summer and winter motorized and non21152 motorized recreation opportunities. Changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity 

21153 Spectrum (ROS) map to accurately reflect decreases in the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

600

21154 increases in the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated 

21155 with recommended wilderness) and to reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural ROS class that 

21156 resulted from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded Modified in the 1988 forest plan into 

21157 the Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest Plan. The number of summer 

21158 motorized recreation trail miles would be reduced by 22 percent (along with alternative R, this 

21159 represents the largest reduction in motorized trail miles of all the action alternatives) and the acres of 

21160 backcountry motorized recreation management areas would be reduced by 51 percent (the largest 

21161 reduction in acres of the action alternatives) when compared to the existing condition. 

21162 Alternative B also reduces the Forest’s existing backcountry jeep trail system from 39 miles of trail 

21163 to zero. Access for recreation would continue to be affected through project specific decisions based 

21164 on improving resource and habitat conditions. Road decommissioning would be expected to continue 

21165 at a rate similar to recent years across the Forest and should result in little or no change in the 

21166 public’s ability to participate in a variety of summer and winter dispersed and developed recreation 

21167 opportunities across the Forest. Alternative B includes the highest number of recommended 

21168 wilderness acres, the lowest number of backcountry management area acres, and the lowest number 

21169 of backcountry motorized management area acres of the six alternatives. Non-conforming wilderness 

21170 uses would not be allowed to continue in recommended wilderness prior to designation as wilderness 

21171 by Congress. Some existing backcountry recreation opportunities would no longer be available on 

21172 the Forest (rental cabin, jeep trails). The miles of trail open to mountain biking would be reduced (a 

21173 direct result of additional recommended wilderness areas), resulting in the lowest number of miles 

21174 open to mountain biking when compared to the other alternatives. Motorized equipment for trail 

21175 maintenance and reconstruction would no longer be permitted on approximately 221 miles of trail 

21176 accessing recommended wilderness, resulting in a potential increase in trail maintenance and 

21177 reconstruction costs across the Forest. Opportunities for over-snow vehicle recreation would be 

21178 reduced when compared to the no-action alternative as a result of the large increase in acres 

21179 associated with recommended wilderness. As a result, alternative B provides the second lowest 

21180 number of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities when compared to the other 

21181 alternatives. 

21182 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

21183 Alternative B retains the recreation suitability determinations made in the 1988 Colville National 

21184 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) for summer and winter motorized and 

21185 non-motorized recreation opportunities. All of the recreation activities and opportunities provided for 

21186 in the 1988 Plan would continue to be available under alternative B, but may not be available in all 

21187 of the same locations as under the no-action alternative. For a comparison between alternatives of 

21188 management areas suitable for summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

21189 opportunities, see table 190. 

21190 Under alternative B, changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

21191 map to accurately reflect decreases in the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class and increases in the 

21192 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with 

21193 recommended wilderness) and to reflect the increase in the Roaded Natural ROS class that resulted 

21194 from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded Modified in the 1988 forest plan into the 

21195 Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest Plan. Recreation opportunities would still 

21196 be available in a variety of ROS classes across the Forest including semi-primitive non-motorized, 

21197 semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural, representing a broad array of natural settings, 

21198 managerial, and social environments in which users could participate in their preferred activities. The 

21199 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class acreages for each alternative are summarized in table 

21200 196.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

601

21201 Implementation of alternative B would provide both the second lowest number of total Forest acres 

21202 open to winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities and the second lowest number of total 

21203 Forest acres open to summer motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the other 

21204 alternatives. Total Forest acres open to non-motorized recreation opportunities remains fairly 

21205 consistent (within 3,000 acres) amongst all the alternatives. For a comparison of the number of acres 

21206 open to winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192. For a 

21207 comparison of the number of acres open to summer motorized and non-motorized recreation 

21208 opportunities by alternative, see table 194.

21209 Motorized Recreation Trails

21210 Compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B decreases the miles of summer motorized 

21211 recreation trails and increases the miles of summer non-motorized recreation trails available on the 

21212 Forest. Under this alternative, approximately 142 miles of summer trail would be managed for 

21213 motorized recreation opportunities and 382 miles of summer trail would be managed for non21214 motorized recreation opportunities. Converting 39 miles of motorized trail to a non-motorized 

21215 classification results in a 22 percent decrease in the existing number of summer motorized recreation 

21216 trail miles and an increase of 10 percent in the existing number of summer non-motorized recreation 

21217 trail miles. For a comparison of summer trail miles managed for motorized and non-motorized 

21218 recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 193. Implementation of alternative B would provide 

21219 a reduced number of managed ATV and motorcycle trail opportunities across the Forest and would 

21220 eliminate all of the Forest’s existing trail opportunities (39 miles) associated with four wheel drives 

21221 greater than 50 inches wide (jeep trails). Implementation of alternative B would increase the number 

21222 of summer non-motorized recreation trail opportunities including hiking and pack and saddle stock 

21223 use as compared to the number of non-motorized recreation trail opportunities in the no-action 

21224 alternative. 

21225 Alternative B also decreases the spatial distribution of motorized recreation trail opportunities across 

21226 the Forest as well as the availability of backcountry motorized trail opportunities. Unlike the no21227 action alternative which provides a mix of summer motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities 

21228 throughout all three counties, alternative B would only provide a mix of summer motorized and non21229 motorized trail opportunities in Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties. In Ferry County, 39 miles of 

21230 motorized trail would be converted to non-motorized trail, leaving only 1.4 miles (less than one 

21231 percent of the total trail miles in the County) of motorized trail available within the County. The 

21232 number of backcountry acres open to motorized use would be reduced from 13,571 acres in the no21233 action alternative to 6,606 acres in alternative B. This equates to a 51 percent reduction in 

21234 backcountry areas open to motorized recreation trails. Similarly, total acres open to summer 

21235 motorized recreation trail opportunities across the Forest would be reduced from 904,561 acres in the 

21236 no-action alternative to 839,565 acres in alternative B. This represents a 7.3 percent reduction in the 

21237 number of acres available for summer motorized recreation trail opportunities across the Forest. 

21238 Summer non-motorized recreation trail opportunities would be allowed on nearly 100 percent of the 

21239 Forest’s land base (excluding RNAs) and the opportunity for trails to exist in a non-motorized setting 

21240 (includes backcountry, wilderness, and recommended wilderness management areas) would increase 

21241 from 118,330 acres in the no-action alternative to 256,602 acres in alternative B, an increase of 

21242 217 percent. For a comparison of management area acres open to motorized and non-motorized 

21243 recreation trail opportunities, see table 194. 

21244 Across the Forest, there is currently a greater opportunity to access summer non-motorized 

21245 recreation trails than summer motorized recreation trails. See discussion under the no-action and 

21246 proposed action alternatives that supports this statement. Implementation of alternative B would 

21247 further shift the opportunity for summer trail access toward non-motorized trail activities since it 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

602

21248 would increase the number of non-motorized trail miles and acres of backcountry open to non21249 motorized trail use while reducing the number of motorized recreation trail opportunities and 

21250 motorized backcountry management areas. This is especially true in Ferry County where motorized 

21251 recreation trail opportunities would be reduced to a single 1.4-mile segment of trail. 

21252 Access

21253 Under alternative B, the Forest’s road system would be capped at approximately 4,000 miles for the 

21254 entire Forest. No roads would be allowed to be added to the Forest’s road system unless an equal 

21255 distance was decommissioned. Road management decisions would be based on the need for public 

21256 access, safety, forest management and resource needs. Decisions on road decommissioning would be 

21257 made at the project level based on information provided by resource specialists and 

21258 recommendations contained in the Forest’s most recent Travel Analysis Report pursuant to subpart A 

21259 of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. During these project level discussions, reductions in road 

21260 density could be proposed to meet resource needs that would reduce roaded access for recreation 

21261 uses. The level of effect associated with reducing road density would be dependent on the length of 

21262 open system roads that would be proposed for decommissioningthe greater the length, the greater 

21263 the potential reduction in roaded recreation access. However, if Maintenance Level 1 roadsthose 

21264 roads already closed to vehicle use by the publicare selected for decommissioning instead of open 

21265 system roads, then there would be a corresponding reduction in the potential loss of open road access 

21266 for recreation use. Similarly, roads decommissioned in riparian areas would have a greater impact on 

21267 roaded access for recreation use than those located in upland areas since most recreation use on the 

21268 Forest occurs in riparian areas associated with lakeshores, rivers, and streams. A reduction in open 

21269 road density would reduce access to dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

21270 camping, driving for pleasure, and gathering of forest products. However, since most dispersed 

21271 recreation activities can be enjoyed throughout the Forest, localized road decommissioning would 

21272 likely result in users shifting their dispersed recreation access needs to nearby roads in order to 

21273 participate in the same dispersed recreation activities resulting in little to no reduction in the public’s 

21274 participation in or access to dispersed recreation opportunities on the Forest. 

21275 Under alternative B, a reduction in roaded access for trail and developed site recreation opportunities 

21276 would not be anticipated since these opportunities are generally located along major travel routes. 

21277 These major travel routes would typically be improved or rerouted (instead of decommissioned) to 

21278 correct resource concerns in order to ensure continued access to the Forest’s developed recreation 

21279 infrastructure. 

21280 Implementation of alternative B would likely result in fewer impacts to roaded access for recreation 

21281 than alternatives R and P which have a desired condition for road density of 1 to 2 miles per square 

21282 mile and could result in a greater reduction in system roads, especially in key watersheds and 

21283 watersheds where the existing road densities are above the desired condition. Alternative B would 

21284 have similar effects on roaded access for recreation as the proposed action, which has a desired 

21285 condition for road density of 2 to 3 miles per square mile, which is close to the existing condition (at 

21286 the Forest scale) for most watersheds. Alternative B would have a similar effect on roaded access for 

21287 recreation as the no-action alternative and alternative O, which do not have a desired condition for 

21288 road density.

21289 Recommended Wilderness

21290 Alternative B recommends 20 percent (220,330 acres – the highest amount of all alternatives) of the 

21291 Forest be recommended as additional wilderness, including all the inventoried potential wilderness

21292 areas (PWAs) on the Forest except for Lost Creek. For a comparison of potential wilderness acreage 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

603

21293 by alternative, see table 197. Based on the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition’s wilderness 

21294 recommendations, this alternative also recommends as additional wilderness those portions of the 

21295 Bodie Mountain, Clackamas Mountain, Jackson Creek, Grassy Top, and South Fork Mountain PWAs 

21296 that are located primarily on adjacent Forests. By Forest Service policy, those PWAs located 

21297 primarily on adjacent forests that would not meet the minimum acreage requirements necessary to be 

21298 recommended as wilderness on the Colville National Forest alone would typically be evaluated for 

21299 wilderness recommendation through the Idaho Panhandle and Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

21300 Forests respective forest plan revision processes. The preferred alternative for the Idaho Panhandle 

21301 forest plan revision process did not support the South Fork Mountain or Grassy Top PWAs as 

21302 recommended wilderness and the Okanogan-Wenatchee forest plan process did not support the 

21303 Jackson Creek, Bodie Mountain, and Clackamas Mountain PWAs as recommended wilderness in its 

21304 proposed action for forest plan revision. Each of the PWAs in this alternative were evaluated by the 

21305 forest plan revision team according to the process identified in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70 and 

21306 determined to contribute to the capability, availability, and need for additional wilderness in the 

21307 Okanogan Highlands ecoregion. Under alternative B, at least two PWAs would be recommended as 

21308 wilderness in each of the counties in which the Forest is located. 

21309 This alternative recommends a large increase in wilderness and provides few opportunities for other 

21310 motorized and mechanized backcountry recreation opportunities on the Forest. Several PWAs that 

21311 contain well-established non-conforming uses (i.e., motorized trails, rental cabin, and mountain bike 

21312 use) that may detract from the wilderness qualities associated with the various PWAs are 

21313 recommended as wilderness in alternative B. This alternative designates 6,606 acres (0.6 percent of 

21314 the Forest) of backcountry for motorized recreation opportunities and an additional 4,835 acres 

21315 (0.4 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for recreation opportunities that do not conform with 

21316 wilderness management direction, such as mountain biking. See table 194 for a comparison of 

21317 backcountry and backcountry motorized management acres by alternative. Under alternative B, 

21318 recreation opportunities that would not conform to wilderness management direction (mountain 

21319 biking, motorized trail use, motorized trail maintenance and reconstruction, historic structure 

21320 maintenance and rental cabin management) would not be allowed to continue prior to congressional 

21321 designation of the recommended wilderness areas as wilderness. As a result, the Forest’s only 

21322 backcountry cabin rental would be closed to the public and, over time, removed from the landscape. 

21323 Likewise, a recently renovated historic fire lookout would be managed to a standard compatible with 

21324 wilderness designation and may be allowed to slowly deteriorate over time. Since existing recreation 

21325 opportunities that would not conform to wilderness management direction would not be allowed

21326 prior to wilderness designation, there would be little chance that the wilderness qualities associated 

21327 with these recommended wilderness areas would be altered by existing non-conforming recreation 

21328 uses prior to their designation as wilderness by Congress.

21329 Under alternative B, the Lost Creek PWA would be designated as the Forest’s only backcountry 

21330 motorized management area. The three existing trails in this PWA are currently open to motorcycles 

21331 only. The result of implementing alternative B would be a 39-mile (100 percent) reduction in 

21332 backcountry motorized trail miles that are currently open to ATVs and 4-wheel drives greater than 

21333 50 inches wide. Overall, this alternative would result in approximately a 70 percent decrease in the 

21334 number of existing backcountry summer motorized recreation trail miles on the Forest. 

21335 Under this alternative, only those inventoried roadless areas included in the 2001 Roadless Rule 

21336 inventory (Bangs, Dry Canyon Breaks) that would not meet the minimum acreage requirements to be 

21337 recommended as wilderness would be designated as backcountry management areas. As a result, 

21338 backcountry mountain bike trail opportunities would be eliminated on 220,330 acres across the 

21339 Forest. This equates to a 221 mile (73 percent) reduction in the number of available mountain bike 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

604

21340 trail miles associated with the Forest’s summer non-motorized trail system. For a comparison 

21341 between alternatives of backcountry management acres open to mountain biking and the number of 

21342 trail miles open to mountain biking, see table 195. 

21343 Under alternative B, once the Forest Plan is approved and implemented, trail maintenance and 

21344 reconstruction costs could increase on the 221 miles of trail that access the 220,330 acres of 

21345 recommended wilderness. This cost increase is based on the required change away from using 

21346 motorized (chainsaws, power toters, trail dozers, etc.) trail maintenance equipment to non-motorized 

21347 equipment (cross-cut saws, pack mules, pulaskis, etc.) which would likely result in annual tasks, 

21348 such as spring logout, and reconstruction efforts taking more time to complete, additional people, or 

21349 both. 

21350 Implementation of alternative B would prohibit over-snow vehicle use on 122,652 acres currently 

21351 open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities in the no-action alternative as a result of the 

21352 increase in acres associated with recommended wilderness, RNAs, and winter range. Approximately 

21353 55,000 acres of backcountry associated with the Twin Sisters, Jackknife, Owl Mountain, and South 

21354 Huckleberry PWAs are open to over-snow vehicles in the no-action alternative and offer 39 miles of 

21355 jeep trails (these trails are neither designated nor groomed for over-snow vehicle use) that are 

21356 currently available for over-snow vehicle use. Implementation of alternative B would prohibit this 

21357 use. As a result, implementation of alternative B would result in a high reduction in over-snow 

21358 vehicle recreation opportunities across the Forest when compared to the no-action alternative. For a 

21359 comparison of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see Table 

21360 192.

21361 Alternative O 

21362 Alternative O emphasizes summer and winter motorized and non-motorized opportunities in an 

21363 unroaded backcountry setting and minimizes recommended wilderness. In addition, the Kettle Crest 

21364 Recreation Special Interest Area (SIA) is proposed to address public disagreement about 

21365 recommending this area for wilderness. Participants in the Colville Collaborative group that worked 

21366 on forest plan issues around wilderness and vegetation management agreed that the Kettle Crest was 

21367 a special area for semi-primitive recreation opportunities, but did not agree that the area should be 

21368 wilderness because of the impacts to recreation opportunities such as mountain biking and OHV

21369 riding as well as motorized trail maintenance. The proposed Kettle Crest Recreation Special Interest 

21370 Area (SIA) was added as a component of this alternative to address public disagreement about 

21371 recommending this area for wilderness. The backcountry and backcountry motorized management 

21372 areas within the SIA would be managed to maintain their existing wilderness qualities while 

21373 allowing for non-wilderness recreation activities to continue, such as mountain biking, OHV riding, 

21374 and use of a rental cabin, in a semi-primitive setting. 

21375 This alternative proposes two management areas to address vegetation management: the Restoration 

21376 MA to restore the historic range of variation, and the Responsible MA that emphasizes timber 

21377 production. The total percentage of the Forest allocated to vegetation management—72 percent—is 

21378 similar to the B alternative’s 73 percent, though the O alternative has a greater percentage in the 

21379 Restoration MA than the B alternative. 

21380 This alternative comes from a series of public, collaborative meetings run by the Forest Service that 

21381 focused on motorized recreation, wilderness recommendations, and vegetation management and 

21382 reflects areas of general agreement among participants in those meetings. The Forest Service fully 

21383 developed this alternative using the proposed action to fill in the gaps not addressed in the 

21384 collaborative process.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

605

21385 The following summarizes the effects to recreation resources associated with the implementation of 

21386 alternative O. Issues analyzed include the identification of lands suitable for recreation, motorized 

21387 recreation trails, access, and recommended wilderness.

21388 Alternative O retains the recreation suitability determinations completed as part of the 1988 Colville 

21389 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for summer and winter motorized and non21390 motorized recreation opportunities. Changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity 

21391 Spectrum (ROS) map to accurately reflect increases in Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi21392 Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with recommended 

21393 wilderness, Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized Management Areas) and to reflect the increase 

21394 in the Roaded Natural ROS class that resulted from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded 

21395 Modified in the 1988 forest plan into the Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest 

21396 Plan. The number of summer motorized recreation trail miles would remain the same and the acres 

21397 of backcountry motorized recreation management areas would increase when compared to the 

21398 existing condition. This alternative would provide the greatest number of summer motorized trail 

21399 miles (along with alternative P, the proposed action, and no action) and the third most acres managed 

21400 for backcountry motorized recreation. Access for recreation would continue to be affected through 

21401 project specific decisions based on improving resource and habitat conditions. Road 

21402 decommissioning would be expected to continue at a rate similar to recent years across the Forest 

21403 and should result in little or no change in the public’s ability to participate in a variety of summer and 

21404 winter dispersed and developed recreation opportunities across the Forest. Alternative O includes the 

21405 second lowest number of recommended wilderness acres, the highest number of backcountry 

21406 management area acres, and the third highest number of backcountry motorized management area 

21407 acres of the six alternatives. In addition, this alternative includes approximately 99,000 acres of 

21408 primarily backcountry and backcountry motorized management areas that would be designated as a 

21409 Recreation Special Interest area along the Kettle Crest. Non-conforming wilderness uses would be 

21410 allowed to continue in recommended wilderness until the areas are designated as wilderness by 

21411 Congress. All backcountry recreation opportunities would continue across the Forest. However, the 

21412 miles of trail open to mountain biking would be reduced minimally (a direct result of additional 

21413 recommended wilderness areas), resulting in the second highest number of miles open to mountain 

21414 biking when compared to the other alternatives. Once the recommended wilderness areas are 

21415 designated as wilderness by Congress, motorized equipment for trail maintenance and reconstruction 

21416 would no longer be permitted on approximately 29 miles of trail. Opportunities for over-snow 

21417 vehicle recreation would be reduced as a result of an increase in acres associated with backcountry 

21418 (semi-primitive non-motorized), research natural area, and recommended wilderness management 

21419 areas as well as increases in designated winter range. Alternative O offers the second highest number 

21420 of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. 

21421 Identification of Lands Suitable for Recreation Use

21422 Alternative O retains the recreation suitability determinations made in the 1988 Colville National 

21423 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) for summer and winter motorized and 

21424 non-motorized recreation opportunities. All of the recreation activities and opportunities provided for 

21425 in the 1988 Plan would continue to be available under alternative O, but may not be available in all 

21426 of the same locations as under the no-action alternative. For a comparison between alternatives of 

21427 management areas suitable for summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 

21428 opportunities, see table 190. 

21429 Under alternative O, changes would be made to the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

21430 (ROS) map to accurately reflect increases in Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non21431 Motorized ROS classes (a result of increases in acres associated with recommended wilderness, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

606

21432 Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized Management Areas) and to reflect the increase in the 

21433 Roaded Natural ROS class that resulted from the absorption of the ROS sub-class of Roaded 

21434 Modified in the 1988 forest plan into the Roaded Natural ROS classification in the Revised Forest 

21435 Plan. Recreation opportunities would still be available in a variety of ROS classes across the Forest 

21436 including semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural, 

21437 representing a broad array of natural settings, managerial, and social environments in which users 

21438 could participate in their preferred activities. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class 

21439 acreages for each alternative are summarized in table 196. 

21440 Implementation of alternative O would provide both the second highest number of total Forest acres 

21441 open to winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities and the second highest number of total 

21442 Forest acres open to summer motorized recreation opportunities when compared to the other 

21443 alternatives. Total Forest acres open to non-motorized recreation opportunities remains fairly 

21444 consistent (within 3,000 acres) amongst all the alternatives. For a comparison of the number of acres 

21445 open to winter over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192. For a 

21446 comparison of the number of acres open to summer motorized and non-motorized recreation 

21447 opportunities by alternative, see table 194.

21448 Motorized Recreation Trails

21449 Alternative O would maintain the same number of motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities 

21450 across the Forest as the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, approximately 181 miles of 

21451 summer trail would be managed for motorized uses and 342 miles of summer trail would be 

21452 managed for non-motorized uses. For a comparison of summer trail miles managed for motorized 

21453 and non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 193. Trails managed for 

21454 motorized use would continue to provide opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and 4-wheel drives 

21455 greater than 50 inches wide (jeep trails). Trails managed for summer non-motorized use would 

21456 continue to provide opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, and pack and saddle use. 

21457 Implementation of alternative O would result in no change in the number of miles or the types of 

21458 managed motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities on the Forest as compared to 

21459 the no-action alternative. 

21460 Alternative O would also maintain the spatial distribution of existing summer motorized trail 

21461 opportunities across the Forest and would continue to provide the existing mix of summer motorized 

21462 and non-motorized trail systems within each of the three counties in which the Colville National 

21463 Forest is located. Alternative O would increase the number of backcountry acres managed for 

21464 summer motorized trail use from 13,571 acres in the no-action alternative to 53,734 acres. This 

21465 equates to almost a 400 percent increase in backcountry acres that would be managed for summer 

21466 motorized trail use. The additional backcountry motorized management acres would include all of 

21467 the existing summer motorized backcountry trail opportunities on the Forest. Overall, summer 

21468 motorized trail recreation opportunities would be allowed on 873,957 acres (80 percent) across the 

21469 Forest. Summer non-motorized recreation trail opportunities would be allowed on nearly 100 percent 

21470 of the Forest’s land base (excluding RNAs) and the opportunity for trails to exist in a non-motorized 

21471 setting (including backcountry, wilderness, and recommended wilderness management areas) would 

21472 equal 221,702 acres, equaling 20 percent of the Forest’s land base. For a comparison of management 

21473 area acres open to motorized and non-motorized recreation trail opportunities, see table 194. 

21474 Under alternative O, there would be a greater opportunity to access summer non-motorized 

21475 recreation trails than summer motorized recreation trails for several reasons. First, the number of 

21476 non-motorized trail miles would outnumber motorized trail miles by nearly 2 to 1. Second, the acres 

21477 available for summer backcountry non-motorized trail opportunities would outnumber the acres 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

607

21478 available for summer backcountry motorized trail opportunities by 167,968 acres. Third, additional 

21479 non-motorized trails could be constructed anywhere on the Forest (except research natural areas -

21480 RNAs) under alternative O, while summer motorized recreation trails could only be located outside 

21481 of wilderness, recommended wilderness, RNAs, and backcountry management areas, which reduces 

21482 the potential Forest acreage available for new summer motorized trail opportunities by 20 percent as 

21483 compared to new non-motorized trail opportunities. Fourth, the summer motorized trail opportunities 

21484 in alternative O are geographically limited to remote areas of eastern Ferry County and the border 

21485 between Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties while this alternative’s summer non-motorized trail 

21486 opportunities are located fairly evenly across the Forest, with many of them easily accessible by 

21487 passenger vehicle from communities adjacent to the Forest.

21488 Access

21489 Under alternative O, the Forest’s road system would be capped at approximately 4,000 miles for the 

21490 entire Forest. No roads would be allowed to be added to the Forest’s road system unless an equal 

21491 distance was decommissioned. Road management decisions would be based on the need for public 

21492 access, safety, forest management and resource needs. Decisions on road decommissioning would be 

21493 made at the project level based on information provided by resource specialists and 

21494 recommendations contained in the Forest’s most recent Travel Analysis Report pursuant to subpart A 

21495 of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. During these project level discussions, reductions in road 

21496 density could be proposed to meet resource needs that would reduce roaded access for recreation 

21497 uses. The level of effect associated with reducing road density would be dependent on the length of 

21498 open system roads that would be proposed for decommissioningthe greater the length, the greater 

21499 the potential reduction in roaded recreation access. However, if Maintenance Level 1 roadsthose 

21500 roads already closed to vehicle use by the publicare selected for decommissioning instead of open 

21501 system roads, then there would be a corresponding reduction in the potential loss of open road access 

21502 for recreation use. Similarly, roads decommissioned in riparian areas would have a greater impact on 

21503 roaded access for recreation use than those located in upland areas since most recreation use on the 

21504 Forest occurs in riparian areas associated with lakeshores, rivers, and streams. A reduction in open 

21505 road density would reduce access to dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

21506 camping, driving for pleasure, and gathering of forest products. However, since most dispersed 

21507 recreation activities can be enjoyed throughout the Forest, localized road decommissioning would 

21508 likely result in users shifting their dispersed recreation access needs to nearby roads in order to 

21509 participate in the same dispersed recreation activities resulting in little to no reduction in the public’s 

21510 participation in or access to dispersed recreation opportunities on the Forest. 

21511 Under alternative O, a reduction in roaded access for trail and developed site recreation opportunities 

21512 would not be anticipated since these opportunities are generally located along major travel routes. 

21513 These major travel routes would typically be improved or rerouted (instead of decommissioned) to 

21514 correct resource concerns to ensure continued access to the Forest’s developed recreation 

21515 infrastructure. 

21516 Implementation of alternative O would likely result in fewer impacts to roaded access for recreation 

21517 than alternatives R and P which have a desired condition for road density of 1 to 2 miles per square 

21518 mile and could result in a greater reduction in system roads, especially in key watersheds and 

21519 watersheds where the existing road densities are above the desired condition. Alternative O would 

21520 have similar effects on roaded access for recreation as the proposed action, which has a desired 

21521 condition for road density of 2 to 3 miles per square mile, which is close to the existing condition (at 

21522 the Forest scale) for most watersheds. Alternative O would have a similar effect on roaded access for 

21523 recreation as no action and alternative B, which do not have a desired condition for road density. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

608

21524 Recommended Wilderness

21525 Alternative O recommends 1.5 percent (15,950 acresthe second lowest amount of the alternatives) 

21526 of the Forest as additional wilderness including the Salmo-Priest Adjacent PWA. For a comparison of 

21527 potential wilderness acreage by alternative, see table 197. This PWA was evaluated by the forest plan 

21528 revision team according to the process identified in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70, and it was determined 

21529 that it contributed to the capability, availability, and need for additional wilderness in the Okanogan 

21530 Highlands ecoregion. This alternative recommends additional wilderness in Pend Oreille County 

21531 only. No PWAs would be recommended as wilderness in Ferry or Stevens Counties. If the 

21532 recommended wilderness area becomes wilderness, this alternative would concentrate the Forest’s 

21533 wilderness recreation opportunities into the extreme northeastern corner of the Forest. 

21534 This alternative strives to maintain all of the existing motorized, mechanized (mountain bike), and 

21535 non-motorized recreation opportunities on the Forest while providing for a limited amount of 

21536 additional wilderness area. As a result, the majority of PWAs on the Forest that have wilderness 

21537 qualities were not recommended as wilderness in this alternative. Instead, alternative O would 

21538 designate 53,734 acres (5 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for motorized recreation 

21539 opportunities and an additional 174,311 acres (16 percent of the Forest) of backcountry for non21540 motorized recreation opportunities that do not conform with wilderness management direction such 

21541 as mountain biking, use of recreation rental cabins and maintenance of historic structures. See table 

21542 194 for a comparison of backcountry and backcountry motorized management acres by alternative. 

21543 In addition, this alternative recommends approximately 99,000 acres be included in a recreation 

21544 special interest area along the Kettle Crest in Ferry County that would include the Profanity, Bald21545 Snow, Hoodoo, and Twin Sisters PWAs. This SIA would provide for the existing outstanding 

21546 motorized and non-motorized recreation values associated with the Kettle Crest region while also 

21547 maintaining many of the existing wilderness qualities that make these PWAs popular with both 

21548 motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Within the SIA, PWAs would be managed as either 

21549 backcountry (Profanity, Bald-Snow, and Hoodoo) or backcountry motorized (Twin Sisters) and all 

21550 existing recreation opportunities would be retained. Acres attributable to the SIA are included in the 

21551 backcountry and backcountry motorized acres listed in this paragraph.

21552 Under this alternative, recreation opportunities that do not conform with wilderness management 

21553 direction, as well as motorized trail maintenance and reconstruction, would be allowed to continue in 

21554 the Salmo-Priest Adjacent recommended wilderness area until Congress designates the 

21555 recommended wilderness area as wilderness. No new non-conforming uses would be allowed. Even 

21556 with the continuation of non-conforming uses, the wilderness qualities associated with the 

21557 recommended wilderness areas listed in alternative O are not expected to be altered prior to 

21558 designation as wilderness by Congress. This determination is based on the fact that the existing non21559 conforming uses were identified during the 2009 PWA evaluation process and their presence did not 

21560 preclude the roadless areas from meeting the evaluation criteria (capability, availability, and need) 

21561 for inclusion on the inventory of potential wilderness areas. Therefore, allowing these non21562 conforming uses to continue at use rates similar to when the wilderness evaluations were completed 

21563 should not detract from the inherent wilderness qualities associated with the PWA. 

21564 The PWAs that would be designated as backcountry motorized management areas in this alternative 

21565 include Owl Mountain, Jackknife, Twin Sisters, South Huckleberry and Lost Creek. Combined, these 

21566 PWAs would provide access to all of the Forest’s existing backcountry motorized trail systems. As a 

21567 result, implementation of alternative O would result in no change in the amount of summer 

21568 motorized recreation trail opportunities when compared to the no-action alternative. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

609

21569 Under this alternative, fifteen PWAs would be designated as backcountry management areas 

21570 including: Abercrombie-Hooknose, Bald Snow, Bodie Mountain, Clackamas Mountain, Cougar 

21571 Mountain, Deer Creek, Grassy Top, Hall Mountain, Harvey Creek, Hoodoo, Jackson Creek, 

21572 Profanity, Quartzite, South Fork Mountain, and Thirteenmile. Combined, these PWAs contain the 

21573 majority of backcountry mountain bike trail opportunities on the Forest. However, if the Salmo21574 Priest Adjacent recommended wilderness area listed in this alternative becomes wilderness, 

21575 mountain bike trail opportunities would be eliminated from 15,950 acres across the Forest. This 

21576 equates to approximately a 29 mile (10 percent) reduction in the number of available mountain bike 

21577 trail opportunities that are associated with the Forest’s existing summer non-motorized trail system. 

21578 As a result, this alternative would provide the second highest amount of mountain bike trail miles of 

21579 all the alternatives. For a comparison between alternatives of backcountry management acres open to 

21580 mountain biking and the number of trail miles open to mountain biking, see table 195. Managing 

21581 these PWAs as backcountry, instead of wilderness, would also allow the Forest to continue to 

21582 manage its only backcountry rental cabin and to maintain a popular historic fire lookout. 

21583 If the recommended wilderness areas listed under alternative O are designated as wilderness by 

21584 Congress, trail maintenance and reconstruction costs could increase on the 29 miles (the lowest 

21585 mileage increase of all the alternatives) of trail that access the 15,950 acres of recommended 

21586 wilderness. This cost increase is based on the required change from using motorized (chainsaws, 

21587 power toters, trail dozers, etc.) trail maintenance and reconstruction equipment to non-motorized 

21588 equipment (cross-cut saws, pack mules, pulaskis, etc.) which would likely result in annual tasks, 

21589 such as spring logout, and reconstruction efforts taking more time to complete, additional people, or 

21590 both. 

21591 Implementation of alternative O would prohibit over-snow vehicle use on 90,513 acres currently 

21592 open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities in the no-action alternative as a result of an 

21593 increase in acres associated with backcountry (semi-primitive non-motorized), research natural area, 

21594 and recommended wilderness management areas as well as changes in designated winter range. 

21595 However, the majority of the additional acres that would be closed to over-snow vehicle use under 

21596 Alternative O consist of heavily vegetated slopes and terrain that is difficult to access and currently 

21597 supports only limited over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities. Therefore, implementation of 

21598 alternative O would result in little to no reduction in the amount of over-snow vehicle recreation 

21599 opportunities available on the Forest when compared to the no-action alternative. For a comparison 

21600 of acres open to over-snow vehicle recreation opportunities by alternative, see table 192.

21601 Cumulative Effects (Common to All Alternatives)

21602 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 

21603 No major changes in recreation management on lands adjacent to the Colville National Forest were 

21604 identified that would contribute to cumulative effects.

21605 The affected environment for cumulative effects includes those lands covered by the management 

21606 plans for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Kalispel Indian Reservation 

21607 lands, lands administered by the Okanogan-Wenatchee and Idaho Panhandle National Forests, other 

21608 Federal and State lands, and lands of other ownerships both within and adjacent to the Colville 

21609 National Forest boundary. Recreation management of adjacent forests and other lands adjacent to the 

21610 Colville National Forest is expected to continue unchanged from current management practices. As a 

21611 result, there are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable major changes in recreation management 

21612 on lands adjacent to the Colville National Forest that would contribute to cumulative effects.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

610

21613 Scenery

21614 This scenery analysis provides an overview of the scenic resources of concern, and focuses on the 

21615 issues likely to affect the scenic resources including Old Forest Management and Timber Production, 

21616 Motorized Recreation Trails, Access, Recommended Wilderness, Wildlife, and Riparian and Aquatic 

21617 Resource Management.

21618 Affected Environment

21619 Scenic Resources

21620 Scenic quality is an important amenity in our lives. People’s interests and expectations regarding 

21621 ecosystems help establish desired aesthetic conditions for the varied landscapes. Scenery provides 

21622 the setting for all activities experienced by forest visitors. Forest scenery is an integral part of the 

21623 larger landscape and way of life in northeast Washington. Forestlands provide a scenic backdrop for 

21624 travel, work, play, and daily life. Forest scenery contributes to casual and inexpensive recreation 

21625 experiences near home, and contributes to a general sense of well-being, security, and constancy. 

21626 Many people point to their tie to the landscape, regardless of administration or ownership, as a major 

21627 reason for living in northeast Washington.

21628 Beyond the local level, the scenery of northeast Washington is a factor in drawing new and return 

21629 tourists to the area, as well as contributing to people’s decisions to move to northeastern Washington. 

21630 In addition to influencing choices in where people visit and settle, scenic conditions can influence 

21631 how people perceive the health of ecosystems and can be an indicator of whether or not management 

21632 practices are successful.

21633 Scenic landscapes are an important forest resource valued by many people. National Forest System 

21634 lands are places where many people go to escape urban environments and immerse themselves in 

21635 natural-appearing environments. People’s definition of the national forest is largely based on 

21636 landscape images from their own experiences in the forest or images conveyed to them by the media. 

21637 They have expectations regarding the content and form of forest landscapes; therefore, it is important 

21638 to realize that the designation of scenic landscapes is based on cultural values and perceptions of 

21639 nature. Landscapes that are culturally perceived as having high scenic quality are generally 

21640 associated with sustainable ecosystems; however, not all sustainable ecosystems are perceived as 

21641 landscapes with high scenic quality. Some high quality landscapes are a result of past human activity. 

21642 Regardless of whether a scenic landscape is a result of natural processes or past human activity, it is 

21643 a resource whose aesthetic qualities should be maintained and/or enhanced. To ensure that 

21644 landscapes are both highly scenic and ecologically sustainable, scenic integrity objectives and scenic 

21645 resource management objectives related to landscape character, sense of place, scenic integrity and 

21646 scenic stability (sustainability) as outlined in the Scenery Management System (SMS), would be 

21647 compatible with other forest resource management objectives.

21648 The SMS is a systematic approach to inventory, analyze, and monitor the scenic resources. The 

21649 system is used in the context of ecosystem management to determine the relative value and 

21650 importance of scenery, assist in establishing overall resource objectives, and ensure high-quality 

21651 scenery for future generations. The Colville National Forest uses Landscape Aesthetics - A 

21652 Handbook for Scenery Management (Dept. of Agriculture Handbook #701) to inventory scenic 

21653 resources for the forest plan revision. Landscape Character, Scenic Integrity and Scenic 

21654 Sustainability (Stability) are the three basic building blocks of SMS. Understanding the valued 

21655 attributes of the landscape and their condition from a social and ecologic perspective is the 

21656 framework to all SMS application.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

611

21657 Some important concepts relative to scenery include: 

21658 SMS recognizes natural disturbance processes such as fire, insects, and disease, to be part of the 

21659 natural landscape and play an important role in maintaining healthy, sustainable, and scenic 

21660 landscapes. These disturbance regimes are evaluated as part of an evolving landscape and can create 

21661 positive changes to the scenery integrity of a landscape. A more diverse mosaic of vegetation, 

21662 increased species diversity, and diversity of age classes are all potential results of natural disturbance 

21663 processes that would be compared with positive attributes defined in desired landscape character 

21664 descriptions. SMS planning also recognizes that without these disturbance processes, the likelihood 

21665 of catastrophic events is increased and the resulting landscape would likely not meet established 

21666 desired conditions for vegetation, scenery, or other natural resources. 

21667 SMS recognizes ecological processes and the resulting landscapes as a dynamic ecosystem. Instead 

21668 of basing objectives for scenery on one landscape condition at one point in time, the objectives are 

21669 linked to a range of conditions that link to the historic range of variability. Long-term results as 

21670 opposed to immediate results are considered when analyzing the effects to scenic resources. For 

21671 instance, immediately after a fire, there are short-term effects such as red needles, burned trunks, 

21672 snags, and possibly little or no understory vegetation. Depending on the intensity of the fires, these 

21673 effects are often short-term (one or two years). As the landscape recovers, the short-term effects 

21674 diminish and long-term changes such as: mosaic of vegetation patterns, snags punctuating the new 

21675 growth canopies, and variety in colors and textures begin to appear. These changes add interest and 

21676 diversity to the landscape and the effects to the scenic resources are considered positive by most 

21677 people. 

21678 SMS recognizes that some man-made components of a landscape contribute to the landscape’s 

21679 valued character and are considered as positive attributes to the overall scenic quality. This premise 

21680 is different from the Visual Management System (VMS) where most human-made features were 

21681 considered a negative impact to the natural environment. SMS recognizes that some human-made 

21682 features add to the aesthetics of certain landscapes and are identified as positive attributes of those 

21683 landscapes. Examples of human-made features that may be identified as valued, positive cultural 

21684 attributes include: reservoirs, old barns, historic log cabins, split rail fencing, agricultural or rural 

21685 settings, ghost towns, etc.

21686 The following describes the existing condition for the Colville National Forest landscape character 

21687 and sense of place, scenic integrity and scenic stability (sustainability).

21688 Landscape Character and Sense of Place

21689 The Colville National Forest contains a complex and diverse range of landscapes. The landscape 

21690 character in highly unique across the entire forest with a variety of landscape patterns consisting of 

21691 large scale patterns of vegetation and sense of place zones, landform of geologic features such as 

21692 rocky peaks and outcrops, canyons, steep cliffs and talus slopes, and water form features of marshes, 

21693 streams, rivers, potholes, ponds, lakes, and waterfalls unique to a specific landscape character type. 

21694 At the regional scale, the Forest is characterized as Okanogan Highlands landscape character type. 

21695 The Okanogan Highlands character type is generally rolling terrain of moderate slopes with broad 

21696 rounded summits. Scattered peaks rise well above the general terrain dividing the area into several 

21697 upland areas separated by a series of broad north-south river valleys. The western edge has a series 

21698 of large flats and plateaus.

21699 Sense of place is addressed to display how the area is perceived by the public, and to display the 

21700 physical setting in which the project area lies. The sense of place definition is “The identity of a 

21701 place created by people’s social meanings and attachments, including valued scenery and recreation 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

612

21702 settings, cultural and spiritual values, economic, social and biophysical characteristics.” Managers 

21703 using the concept of sense of place must define a specific framework for the definition and use of 

21704 sense of place. Place based planning recognizes that people are part of the natural environment, and 

21705 integrates peoples’ values into environmental planning. The sense of place zones document how 

21706 people value the forest landscape and are displayed in a map at the beginning of desired landscape 

21707 character descriptions included in Appendix A of the specialist report. District meetings were 

21708 conducted across the Forest going through a sense of place process to develop a geographic spatial 

21709 map. The Forest specialists interviewed various Forest staff and involved the public at 12 meetings to 

21710 further refine the sense of place values. Sense of place varies in scale; the entire forest would fall into 

21711 a regional scale while the watershed scale is more of the community scale. Given the large size of the 

21712 Forest, over 1 million acres, the forest was separated into five sense of place areas in order to 

21713 comprehensively/adequately describe the scenic resources. Since scenery is intrinsically linked to 

21714 biological and hydrological processes, the sense of place zones are divided according to watershed 

21715 boundaries. The five zones are Okanogan Highlands, Salmo Priest Remote Dispersed, East of Kettle 

21716 Crest, West of Kettle Crest and Front Country Dispersed.

21717 The landscape character types experienced at the community scale that are more relevant to the 

21718 Colville National Forest user and sense of place ranges from the Okanogan Highlands and Salmo 

21719 Priest Remote Dispersed landscape area at north eastern corner near the Canadian border and Idaho 

21720 border, to the middle zone landscape areas of East of Kettle Crest, West of Kettle Crest, Front 

21721 Country Dispersed and the Okanogan Highlands at the western edge of the Forest. Sense of place 

21722 based planning recognizes that people are part of the natural environment, and integrates peoples’ 

21723 values into defining landscape character based on how people use the landscape and are tied to the 

21724 land. The Salmo-Priest Wilderness area contributes to world-class scenery and has its own sense of 

21725 place and as presented in the Wilderness narrative.

21726 In addition to the physical environment, Forest Service facilities evoke a strong sense of identity 

21727 across all sense of place zones. The Rocky Mountain Province style contributes to the historic and 

21728 cultural landscape character and defines sense of place and rustic style. “Rustic Style: In the first half 

21729 of this century, the National Park Service and the Forest Service adapted the rustic style, which had 

21730 been developed from models such as Swiss chalets and 19th century Adirondack lodges. Influential 

21731 examples include the Old Faithful Inn at Yellowstone (1904 and the Timberline Lodge on Mt. Hood 

21732 (1937). Rustic-style buildings, often built by the CCC, are highly crafted structures featuring native 

21733 stone and unhewn logs. The scale of details can be massive, even in the cases of kiosks or cabins. 

21734 The rustic style was popularized in the 1900-to-1940 era by resort developers like Averill Harriman, 

21735 who called Sun Valley, Idaho, the St. Moritz of America. In the Rocky Mountain Province, the public 

21736 associates images of rustic style lodges with recreation” (BEIG. Pg. 4-6). Remnants of Civilian 

21737 Conservation Corps “CCC” era facilities such as ranger stations, guard stations, work stations, and 

21738 fire lookouts are highly valued with destination areas such as Log Flume and White Mountain, 

21739 Growden CCC Historic Site, Columbia Mountain Lookout and Mill Pond being important. All 

21740 “CCC” era developed recreation facilities of picnic shelters/stoves/rock barrier walls, etc. at 

21741 numerous campgrounds located across the Forest contribute to the landscape character. In addition, 

21742 Native American usage has occurred throughout the landscape for over 7,000 years providing a 

21743 social and cultural connection to the vegetation and landform through time especially related to 

21744 salmon fishing, hunting and plant gathering in traditional areas. Mineral exploration and production 

21745 has been substantial in areas as well as logging, cattle grazing, and human settlement patterns that 

21746 contribute to the cultural and social valued landscape character. In particular, homesteading has left 

21747 behind visual evidence of settlement patterns and remains of cabins in remote areas are fairly 

21748 common to see.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

613

21749 The sense of place tied to the scenic landscape setting for the Colville National Forest is tied to year 

21750 round recreational experiences; accessing developed recreation sites of campgrounds, day use sites, 

21751 boat launch facilities, trails and trailheads offering motorized and non-motorized opportunities. The 

21752 Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail is a regional draw and traverses east to west along the 

21753 northern end of the Forest. A large portion of the sense of place for the Forest is tied to the “big 

21754 backyard” experience people seek with a variety of year round seasonal recreation activities that 

21755 occur with dispersed camping, hunting, sight-seeing, driving for pleasure, huckleberry picking, 

21756 mountain biking, equestrian riding, snowmobile riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, wildlife 

21757 viewing, fall color viewing, and other dispersed use.

21758 Scenic Classes

21759 Scenic attractiveness is the primary indicator of the intrinsic scenic beauty of a landscape and of the 

21760 positive response it evokes in people. Based on commonly held perceptions of the beauty of 

21761 landform, vegetation pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns and 

21762 cultural features, the scenery is rated on a three-point scale: 

21763 • Class A – Distinctive, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural 

21764 features combine to provide unusual, unique or outstanding scenic quality.

21765 • Class B – Typical, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural 

21766 features combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality.

21767 • Class C – Indistinctive, where the landscape does not have characteristics that add to the 

21768 variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony or uniqueness of the scenery.

21769 The scenic attractiveness rating is applied to the process of evaluating the value of the area’s scenery 

21770 resource. Inherent scenic attractiveness within the landscape character and sense of place zones were 

21771 validated from the inventory done for the Colville Forest Plan in 1988 and carried forward to this 

21772 current plan revision. The existing Variety Class map was developed through the Visual Management 

21773 System and is available in hard copy inventory. This inventory was used to identify concern levels 

21774 for landscape travel corridors on the Colville National Forest. This inventory was supplemented with 

21775 new information gained through constituent assessment to express scenic integrity concerns and 

21776 general biophysical impressions by scientists to express ecological integrity concerns. The existing 

21777 visual concern level 1 and 2 roads and trails were reviewed on a map in an interdisciplinary team 

21778 setting to determine the need for change. Specialists updated visual sensitivity level corridors to meet 

21779 current need and desired condition in order to depict new concern level travel corridors. In addition 

21780 to using the original sensitivity level maps, the updated ROS layer, the new Sense of Place layer, the 

21781 updated IRA layer and the updated recreation sites, wild and scenic river, and scenic byway layers 

21782 were used to determine scenic values. New areas identified of scenic concern were sent through IRM 

21783 to map Seen Areas. An example of a new travel route with a high level of concern is Flowery Trail 

21784 which was assigned a concern level 1. Several GIS maps were adjusted over the process to determine 

21785 the concern levels for roads. These draft map exercises are available as project background support 

21786 dated June 13, 2007, July 16, 2007; August 7, 2007; November 6, 2007; November 14, 2007; and 

21787 November 19, 2007. A decision was made by the Forest Revision Team Leader to assign concern 

21788 levels to only nationally designated recreation or scenic trails for the mapping. The remaining trails 

21789 would assume the SIO for the proposed management areas where they go through and to address the 

21790 foreground of all trails to be managed for a High SIO in a narrative format for standards, guidelines 

21791 and objectives. 

21792 Across the forest there are areas rated as Scenic Attractiveness Class A – Distinctive, where 

21793 landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural features combine to provide unusual, 

21794 unique or outstanding scenic quality. Class A landscape types include all Wilderness, Recommended 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

614

21795 Wilderness, Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, Scenic Byways, Backcountry Areas, Research Natural 

21796 Areas and Special Interest Areas. Some outstanding landform features include Hoodoo Canyon, 

21797 Bodie Mountain and the Kettle Crest Range. Examples of Class A and Class B water forms include 

21798 Sullivan Lake, Peewee Falls, the Wedge and Little Pend Oreille Lakes and numerous small lakes in 

21799 the upper elevations. All Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers such as the Kettle River and Salmo River 

21800 add distinct variety and are rated Class A. Most of the big backyard areas are representative of 

21801 Scenic Attractiveness Class B – Typical, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics 

21802 and cultural features combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality. There are areas 

21803 characterized as Scenic Attractiveness Class C – Indistinctive, where the landscape does not have 

21804 characteristics that add to the variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony or 

21805 uniqueness of the scenery. Class C areas would be found in the lower elevation foothills outside of 

21806 the forested environment where the terrain has little topographic relief and no apparent variation in 

21807 areas of similar vegetation, waterforms are often not visually apparent.

21808 Vegetation within the Colville National Forest reflects a diverse, resilient, and dynamic landscape 

21809 that has been shaped by both natural and human disturbances. Natural disturbances, from insects and 

21810 diseases, fires, winds, floods, or landslides, all contribute to an ever-changing patchwork of structure 

21811 and species composition at various scales on the landscape. Human disturbances result from land use 

21812 choices that include cattle grazing, timber harvest, road construction, water diversions or dams, or 

21813 species introductions that also influence the ever-changing patchwork of structure and species across 

21814 the landscape. Combined natural disturbances and human disturbances influence the dynamic line, 

21815 form, color, and texture features of the landscape. Vegetation on the forest scale is highly variable 

21816 with a wide number of species. Five categories have been identified to help in understanding the 

21817 relationships within and between vegetation communities and how these interactions create scenic 

21818 landscapes. Each of these vegetation groups contributes to distinct scenic values that support a 

21819 variety of human uses. The five categories are Douglas-fir Dry, Northern Rocky Mountain Mixed 

21820 Conifer, Spruce/Subalpine fir, Subalpine Fir/Lodgepole pine, Western redcedar/Western hemlock. In 

21821 addition, several understory/ground cover habitat types contribute to unique landscape character that 

21822 include Alpine and Subalpine Vegetation, Montane Herbaceous, Montane Shrubland, Riparian Shrub 

21823 and Deciduous Forest and Wetland/Riparian Herbaceous. The vegetation character is furthered 

21824 described in the Desired Landscape Character Descriptions in appendix A of the specialist report.

21825 Scenic Integrity

21826 Scenic integrity is the amount of human-caused deviation in form, line, color, and texture of a 

21827 landscape. Scenic integrity serves as a frame of reference for measuring scenic integrity levels based 

21828 on the valued attributes of the existing landscape character being viewed. The degrees of integrity 

21829 vary from VERY HIGH to VERY LOW. Scenic integrity was measured on the Colville National 

21830 Forest through Visual Quality Objective levels defined by the USFS Visual Management System’s 

21831 Chapter 1 USDA Handbook # 462.

21832 The Existing Scenic Integrity (Condition) identifies temporary deviations (-) from the landscape 

21833 character of a particular place and is a general indicator or impression of ecological conditions and/or 

21834 trends that puts valued landscape character attributes at risk. (Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very 

21835 Low).The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes where the valued landscape 

21836 attributes appear complete and little or no visible deviations are evident. Scenic Integrity is used to 

21837 describe both existing (Existing Scenic Integrity) and desired (Scenic Integrity Objective) conditions. 

21838 (Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, USDA, FS HB 701, page 2-1).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

615

21839 The following table displays the six scenic integrity objectives and conditions associated with each 

21840 level (how people perceive them).Table 198. Scenic Integrity and Condition. (USDA FS, 1995, 

21841 Landscape Aesthetics, p A-1)

21842 Table 198. Scenic integrity objectives

Scenic Integrity Objective

(SIO)

Definition

Very High Landscape is intact with only minor changes from the valued landscape 

character associated with significant scenic landscapes. This SIO is typically 

(but not exclusively) associated with specially designated areas such as 

wilderness or other designations that imply the landscape is natural appearing 

and only ecological changes occur.

High Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape character appears

unaltered.

Moderate Management activities are noticeable but are subordinate to the landscape 

character. The landscape appears Slightly altered

Low Management activities are evident and sometimes dominate the landscape 

character but are designed to blend with surroundings by repeating line, form, 

color, texture of landscape character attributes. The landscape appears altered. 

Very Low Management activities create a “heavily altered landscape.” Changes may

strongly dominate the landscape. 

Unacceptably Low (Not a 

management objective, used 

for inventory only)

Management activities create an extremely altered landscape. Deviations are 

extremely dominant and borrow little if any form, line, color, texture, pattern or 

scale from the landscape character. Landscapes at this level of integrity need 

rehabilitation.

21843 The Colville National Forest has a full range of scenic integrity levels from Very High, to High, 

21844 Moderate, Low and Very Low; Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness is Very High.

21845 Scenic Stability (Sustainability)

21846 Scenic stability/sustainability is the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and 

21847 functions, biological diversity and productivity over time. The general health of the forest contributes 

21848 to scenic resources, where uncharacteristic wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks can alter the 

21849 natural appearance in areas where the ecosystem is out of the historical range of variability.

21850 The Landscape Aesthetics Handbook 701 speaks to achieving landscape character goals by designing 

21851 a transition strategy that moves the existing landscape character to the desired landscape character. 

21852 During this Forest Planning process the mapping of where the desired landscape character is not 

21853 represented on the ground is not necessary to the development of suitability layers primarily from 

21854 vegetation and fire resources. The development of a map that depicts where the existing landscape 

21855 character deviates from the desired landscape character simply documents the information for later 

21856 use at the project level. While the time line necessary for reaching that goal “should exclude 

21857 excessive increments of change” (SMS pg.5-9), the needed changes can be identified and tracked 

21858 through the use of a mapping layer. This layer is a “working layer” that would be utilized at the 

21859 project level, it would not be a fixed or static layer in time and can be revised as the landscape 

21860 character changes through either project implementation of management activities (i.e., vegetation 

21861 thinning, prescribed burning, closing and restoring roads) or natural occurring events (i.e., wildfire, 

21862 flooding, landslides). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

616

21863 In landscape areas where an ecosystem is out of the historical range of variability the forest setting 

21864 may exist at a lower scenic integrity during treatment activity and recovery in order to restore and 

21865 sustain the landscape character to the assigned Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). An example of an 

21866 area that is identified on the enhancement layer are the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Most 

21867 of these areas are now allocated to the Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO), and would likely 

21868 have a High Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) in the Forest Plan. Because the identified WUI areas 

21869 may not be sustainable due to past fire suppression causing fuel buildups and now under fire risk to 

21870 communities, developed recreation facilities, and concentrated use areas, treatments need to occur 

21871 not only to make them safer, but to also sustain the landscape character and scenic integrity in the 

21872 future. This area would then be one that would be allowed to exist in a lower scenic integrity state in 

21873 the short term while treatments were occurring in order to bring it to a sustainable state that can be 

21874 maintained in the long term. During the transition period, there would be variations of high, 

21875 moderate, to low scenic integrity levels across the WUI landscape while treatments were occurring, 

21876 as to not have the whole landscape existing in a low scenic integrity level. The landscape character to 

21877 be perpetuated would be a mosaic character, the areas of moderate to high landscape character would 

21878 be coordinated and compatible with meeting other natural resource goals of leaving wildlife or 

21879 riparian corridors and retaining landscape patches of varying scales. The Landscape Architect would 

21880 be assisting Silviculturists, Fire and Fuels planners and the interdisciplinary team in developing 

21881 prescriptions to come up with acceptable methods and treatments that would accomplish all goals.

21882 A new scenery indicator has been developed for use within the USFS Scenery Management System 

21883 (applied in this analysis according to procedures described in the August 30, 2007 Appendix J of the 

21884 SMS Handbook #701). Scenic stability is the degree to which the desired scenic character can be 

21885 sustained through time and ecological progression. The existing scenic stability analysis focuses on 

21886 the single major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions identified by 

21887 field observation and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 7 coarse-scale data on vegetation and 

21888 fire history data. Ecosystem changes to other minor scenery attributes such as landform, rock 

21889 outcrops, and winter snowfall are not as critical to the Colville Forest area’s scenic character as its 

21890 vegetation, since these changes are relatively stable over time regardless of fire behavior and human 

21891 activities. 

21892 Evaluating scenic stability is done by considering conditions necessary to sustain desired scenic 

21893 character of stands within the natural and historic range of the landscape. Appropriate stand density, 

21894 species composition, and fuel loads are necessary for stands to maintain the inherent characteristics 

21895 through their lifecycle. When trends such as increasing stand density, encroachment of less resilient 

21896 species, increasing fuel loads, and high levels of mortality exist, the expected consequences are 

21897 change in the scenic character that are beyond the historic scale. Examples of these consequences are 

21898 large canopy openings from intense wildfires, large stands of dead and dying timber, and loss of 

21899 distinctive characteristic such as open, large tree character pine stands and multi-layered mixed 

21900 species stands. Gradual trends over time have altered the species composition, stand structure, and 

21901 age classes of the forest vegetation. Stands of large mature ponderosa pine that provide an open 

21902 forest are diminished due to encroaching mixed conifer species, and past harvest practices that 

21903 removed pine to release shade tolerant species. 

21904 The analysis to determine scenic stability would need to be done at the project level since the 

21905 landscape is dynamic and conditions change. Tree density needs to be determined at the project level 

21906 to integrate range of natural or historic variability.

21907 Scenic stability levels are defined as follows:
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

617

21908 Very High Stability—All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued scenic character 

21909 are present and are likely to be sustained.

21910 High Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and 

21911 are likely to be sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem 

21912 stressors that present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery attributes.

21913 Moderate Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are 

21914 present and are likely to be sustained. A few may have been lost or are in serious decline.

21915 Low Stability—Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and 

21916 are likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may 

21917 seriously threaten or have already eliminated the others.

21918 Very Low Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are 

21919 seriously threatened or absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not likely 

21920 to be sustained. The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be sustained.

21921 No Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are absent or 

21922 seriously threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be sustained, 

21923 except relatively permanent attributes such as landforms.

21924 The greatest hazard to scenery resources are large stand replacement fires that would burn much 

21925 more intensely due to the stocking levels, species compositions, ladder fuels and canopy closure that 

21926 have developed over time, and large epidemics of insect or disease. The fire regime condition classes

21927 rate these factors and give an indication of the potential for fire intensity.

21928 Condition Class: Condition class is a description of how far “current conditions” have deviated 

21929 from historical conditions. Three condition classes have been developed to categorize the current 

21930 condition with respect to each of the five historic fire regime groups. Current conditions are a 

21931 function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes resulting from alterations of key 

21932 ecosystem components such as; species composition, vegetation structural stage, stand age, and 

21933 canopy closure. The higher the condition class number the higher the relative risk of fire, insect, or 

21934 disease caused losses to natural resources and other key ecosystem components. A higher condition 

21935 class rating or percent from departure shows a higher risk of loss to key ecosystem components 

21936 landscape wide.

21937 The three condition classes are:

21938 • Condition Class 1: Fire regimes are within or near historical ranges, and the risk of losing 

21939 key ecosystem components is low.

21940 • Condition Class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. 

21941 The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate.

21942 • Condition Class 3: Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. 

21943 The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

21944 Existing Scenic Stability Summary

21945 The considerations to the stability of scenery resources are to be determined at the project level 

21946 where project stand conditions related to departure from historical fire regimes and tree density 

21947 levels are determine overstocked conditions. The following ratings apply to scenic stability levels of 

21948 very high, high, moderate, low, very low and no stability:
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

618

21949 The FRCC 1 (Low) corresponds to the definitions for “High” and “Very High” Scenic Stability 

21950 levels described above. Both classifications have scenery attribute conditions that are within the 

21951 range of natural or historic variability. 

21952 FRCC 2 (Moderate) corresponds to the definitions for “Moderate and Low” scenic stability. Both 

21953 classifications include conditions outside the range of natural or historic variability. 

21954 FRCC 3 (High) corresponds to the definitions for “Very Low” and “No” Scenic Stability. They are 

21955 far beyond the range of natural or historic variability.

21956 Need for Change

21957 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

21958 In the revision of the forest plan, three broad scale concerns drove the need to consider how we 

21959 address old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape 

21960 scale. These are:

21961 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect 

21962 and disease activity that would likely continue into the future.

21963 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of 

21964 restoring landscape resiliency.

21965 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the 

21966 increased risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by

21967 climate change impacts. 

21968 The proposed action describes management of old forest vegetation by providing desired structural 

21969 stage distribution for multi and single strata old forest across the landscape. To meet the large tree 

21970 desired conditions, old trees and enough of the younger larger trees would be retained. Retention of 

21971 large, younger trees that are in the best condition and are not limiting growth of nearby old trees 

21972 through resource competition would be prioritized. Desired conditions for old forest habitats would 

21973 be at, or toward, the high end of the range of variability (considering historical and future variability) 

21974 within areas that are capable of providing old forest habitat structures. Desired conditions would be 

21975 described by conifer dominated vegetation group. Habitat capable areas would include the following 

21976 forest series: Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, and Pacific silver fir. If habitat amounts were 

21977 not currently available, areas would be identified for future old forest habitat. The proposed action 

21978 does not zone the Forest into reserves and matrix or general forest.

21979 The proposed action also describes details for providing old forest habitat for specific surrogate 

21980 wildlife species (e.g., American marten, northern goshawk, and northern spotted owls). 

21981 Motorized Recreation Trails

21982 The current forest plan provides direction for summer and winter motorized uses, including 

21983 identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection of 

21984 aquatic, plant, and wildlife habitats.

21985 The proposed action would continue to provide recreational access on National Forest System lands 

21986 and a wide range of recreational opportunities while limiting or prohibiting winter and summer 

21987 motorized activities in certain areas in order to provide quality aquatic, plant, and wildlife habitat. 

21988 Other areas, such as wilderness, are closed to motorized use to provide a range of recreational 

21989 experience. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

619

21990 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high quality, 

21991 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the 

21992 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 

21993 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a 

21994 broad range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, boating, mushroom and 

21995 berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an environmentally sound 

21996 manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.

21997 It should be noted that the proposed action makes broad, strategic decisions that apply at the 

21998 landscape scale. The 2005 Travel Management Rule prescribed a process for making site-specific 

21999 decisions to designate roads, trails and areas for motorized travel thereby closing undesignated roads, 

22000 trails and areas to motorized use. Over the past few years, travel management planning has occurred 

22001 on the Forest in a separate planning process with the objective of providing a Motor Vehicle Use 

22002 Map showing roads, trails and areas designated for summer motorized use and resulting in the 

22003 closure undesignated roads, trails and areas for summer motorized use.

22004 Access

22005 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: (1) the Forest is no longer able to 

22006 afford to properly maintain road system at current operational maintenance levels, (2) the current 

22007 road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, and (3) the 

22008 existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

22009 throughout current Colville Forest plan, forest plan amendments, national level decisions (the 

22010 Roadless Rule), and interim policy. The current forest plan includes much direction about managing 

22011 the road system.

22012 The proposed action provides a strategic vision to guide the location and overall density of roads in 

22013 the future. It includes management areas that delineate where there is a need to manage for specific 

22014 road densities. These are the Active Restoration Management Areas B and C. These areas have 

22015 aquatic and wildlife habitats that would benefit from reducing the negative impacts of roads by 

22016 managing toward road densities of 2 miles or 3 miles per square mile. A wide spectrum of travelway 

22017 types would be present in Active Restoration B and C, ranging from maintenance level 1 through 5 

22018 roads, or primitive roads to highways. Road densities would include all maintenance levels and be 

22019 measured within each management area within a 5th field watershed. 

22020 The proposed action states that the goal is for the Forest to continue to have an access system of 

22021 authorized roads that is safe, affordable, and environmentally sound, that meets obligations to public 

22022 and private cooperators, and is efficient to manage. However, any National Forest System road that 

22023 is not needed to meet resource or social and economic objectives, and/or user-created roads, would 

22024 be decommissioned and the landscape restored. 

22025 Recommended Wilderness

22026 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 

22027 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for 

22028 additional wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the 

22029 national wilderness system. 

22030 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

22031 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible 

22032 areas showed some are available to fill this need. The proposed action considered recommending 

22033 around 101,000 acres of additional wilderness. About 13,500 acres would be recommended for 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

620

22034 addition to the existing Salmo-Priest Wilderness and the remaining 87,500 acres would include 

22035 recommending portions of the Abercrombie-Hooknose, Bald Snow, Profanity, and Hoodoo potential 

22036 wilderness areas. All parcels would be managed as recommended wilderness, where existing uses 

22037 would continue until Congress took action on the recommendation. 

22038 The proposed action shares information on the national approach to managing any recommended 

22039 wilderness, which is that, prior to congressional designation, uses continue that do not compromise 

22040 wilderness eligibility. When congressional designation is complete, these areas are managed 

22041 according to the desired conditions for designated wilderness in the forest plan. The proposed action 

22042 clarifies that the following selected activities could continue to be authorized in recommended 

22043 wilderness areas: 

22044 • Summer off-highway vehicle use and winter motorized use (existing use could continue, but 

22045 no additional use is allowed). 

22046 • Mechanized uses (existing use could continue, but no additional use is allowed). 

22047 • Vegetation management activities would not be authorized in recommended wilderness 

22048 areas.

22049 Wildlife

22050 The proposed action responds to a recovery plan for grizzly bears in the North Cascades Grizzly 

22051 Bear Recovery Area that was completed in 1997, and outlines the steps needed to recover grizzly 

22052 bears to a viable population level. Two of the recovery steps addressed in the proposed action are: 

22053 • Designation of management situation areas. 

22054 • Development of an access management strategy that would replace the interim policy that 

22055 has been in place since 1997. 

22056 The access management strategy for the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Area follows the 

22057 access management guidance provided by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). These 

22058 changes pertain only to the portion of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest that lies within the 

22059 North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. Core area numbers are included in the proposed action. 

22060 The proposed action emphasizes providing habitat connectivity, the need to provide wildlife and 

22061 aquatic crossing structures, and managing activities adjacent to the structures so they are utilized by 

22062 wildlife.

22063 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

22064 The current forest plan includes riparian management direction from the Interim Strategies for 

22065 Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and 

22066 portions of California (PACFISH, USDA and USDI 1995), and the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

22067 (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995). These approaches appear to have either 

22068 maintained or improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. 

22069 The changes presented in the proposed action combined the three separate pieces of direction into 

22070 one place, the revised forest plan, and fulfills the intent of replacing the interim direction (PACFISH 

22071 and INFISH) with longer-term management direction 

22072 Riparian management areas are designated in the current forest plan. The proposed action carries 

22073 forward this approach with some changes in widths and more information on desired conditions for 

22074 riparian areas. Generally, the area widths would increase on those lands within the INFISH 

22075 amendment area, for lakes and ponds greater than 1 acre and intermittent streams. Riparian 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

621

22076 management areas would remain the same for those areas of the forest within the PACFISH 

22077 amendment area.

22078 Riparian management areas would include portions of watersheds where aquatic and riparian22079 dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special management direction applies. 

22080 Riparian management areas would be designated for all permanently flowing streams, lakes, 

22081 wetlands, seeps, springs and intermittent streams, and unstable sites that may influence these areas. 

22082 Objectives for riparian management areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the 

22083 riparian and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to 

22084 riparian-dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are 

22085 dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water 

22086 quality and flows, and contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and 

22087 upland species. 

22088 Desired conditions for riparian management areas within any given watershed are to have 

22089 compositions of native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological 

22090 conditions commensurate with natural processes.

22091 Environmental Consequences

22092 Methodology

22093 Risks to scenic resources were identified. Level of risk is assessed using acres or percent of forest 

22094 allocated to a management area that is associated with the risk, either increasing or decreasing the 

22095 risk. 

22096 Assumptions

22097 • Assume the budget levels would continue along current trend lines, with the possibility of 

22098 the amount varying by 20 percent plus or minus. 

22099 • The expected amount of acres treated (prescribed fire or timber harvest) is the same across 

22100 all alternatives. 

22101 • Use the PNW-GTR-862 prepared by Gaines to guide consideration of climate change. 

22102 • Under all action alternatives, scenic integrity objectives for management areas and scenery 

22103 plan direction remains the same. 

22104 Issue Indicators

22105 Generally, effects to scenic resources are from visible management changes that can be detected by 

22106 the casual forest visitor. Types of activities that create changes are ground-disturbing activities such 

22107 as road building, mining, construction of facilities, and vegetation management activities, including 

22108 timber harvest. These activities can adversely affect the scenic stability. In addition, the general 

22109 health of the forest contributes to scenic resources, where uncharacteristic wildfire and insect and 

22110 disease outbreaks can alter the natural appearance. Changes in appearance of the landscape character 

22111 can adversely affect a forest visitor’s sense of place, or the value of the setting to the visitor. The 

22112 indicators listed in table 199 were used to evaluate each management issue and to develop the 

22113 variations between the alternatives.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

622

22114 Table 199. Evaluation criteria and key indicators for scenic resources

Issue Evaluation Criteria Key Indicator(s)

Old Forest Management 

and Timber Production

Evaluate where old forest management 

would be emphasized on the landscape 

and the trend of likelihood of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, and insect and 

disease outbreaks, and the affect to 

landscape character and scenic 

stability.

Proposed vegetation management 

direction for vegetation in each 

alternative.

Motorized Recreation 

Trails

Evaluate change in motorized recreation 

trails locations and the effect to 

landscape character, sense of place 

and scenic stability.

Proposed motorized trail opportunities 

for each alternative.

Access Evaluate change in road miles or 

average road density and the effect to 

landscape character and scenic 

stability.

Desired road density or road miles for 

each alternative.

Recommended 

Wilderness

Evaluate the change in areas in very 

high scenic integrity objective and the 

affect to landscape character, sense of 

place and scenic stability.

Percent of total forest acreage in 

recommended wilderness management 

areas. 

Wildlife Evaluate the change in areas managed 

for wildlife and the affect to landscape 

character and scenic stability.

Proposed vegetation management 

direction for wildlife in each alternative.

Riparian and Aquatic 

Resource Management

Evaluate the change in areas managed 

for riparian and aquatic resource 

management and the affect to 

landscape character and scenic stability

Proposed riparian and aquatic resource 

management direction for vegetation in 

each alternative.

22115 The three indicators used to measure the effects to scenery resources are landscape character, scenic 

22116 integrity, and scenic stability. These three indicators evaluate the intensity and duration of effects as 

22117 well as the degree to which the alternatives would affect the stability of scenery attributes over the 

22118 long term.

22119 • Landscape Character is the naturally established landscape pattern in a geographic area that 

22120 that makes each landscape identifiable or unique. It includes both the visual and cultural 

22121 values and consists of the combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that are 

22122 valued by constituents. (SMS Handbook)

22123 • Scenic Integrity is the degree to which the scenery is free from visible disturbances that 

22124 detract from the natural and socially valued appearance, including disturbances due to 

22125 human activities or extreme natural events inconsistent with the historic range of variability. 

22126 (SMS Handbook)

22127 • Scenic Stability is the degree to which the Desired Scenic Character can be sustained 

22128 through time and ecological progression. (SMS Handbook, Appendix J)

22129 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

22130 The affected environment for direct and indirect effects is the lands administered by the Colville 

22131 National Forest. The analysis addresses effects over the life of the plan, which is 10 to 15 years. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

623

22132 No-action Alternative

22133 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

22134 Risks of uncharacteristic wildfire to scenic resources would continue. The potential for 

22135 uncharacteristically large and severe wildfire disturbance events would continue at present levels and 

22136 is predicted to increase due to climate change. There is likely to be a downward trend ecological 

22137 resilience, especially in the face of climate change scenarios that predict increased occurrence of 

22138 insect and disease outbreaks; and more, larger areas burned by uncharacteristic wildfires. The extent 

22139 and intensity of wildfire is likely to continue or increase over the long-term, which increases risks to 

22140 scenic stability and landscape character. 

22141 Motorized Recreation Trails

22142 About 6 percent of the forest is in management areas that don’t allow motorized trails in a 

22143 backcountry setting (an area without roads.) Due to budget trends, the amount of motorized trail 

22144 access is unlikely to increase significantly in the future, so the changes to scenic resources from 

22145 introducing new trails into areas that currently are not accessible by motorized trail is negligible.

22146 Access

22147 Currently, there are about 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads, and about 80 percent of the 

22148 forest is suitable for road construction. The current forest plan includes standards and guidelines that 

22149 limit road densities to between 0.4 to 2 miles per square mile in deer and elk winter range; grizzly 

22150 bear habitat areas; and lynx habitat Budget trends and need to provide quality wildlife and aquatic 

22151 habitat would likely result in maintaining or reducing the total miles of National Forest System 

22152 roads. Any reduction in roads would reduce risks to scenic stability. Risks to landscape character and 

22153 scenic integrity would remain the same or be slightly reduced over the next 10 years. 

22154 Recommended Wilderness Areas

22155 There is no recommended wilderness on the forest. The forest has one wilderness areaSalmo22156 Priestwhich covers about 3 percent of the total forest area. Landscape character and scenic 

22157 integrity would remain the same.

22158 Wildlife

22159 The wildlife habitat would be managed as it currently exists, landscape character and scenic stability 

22160 would remain the same.

22161 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

22162 The riparian and aquatic resource habitat would be managed as it currently exists, landscape 

22163 character and scenic stability would remain the same or be slightly reduced in areas where negative 

22164 scenic deviations exist.

22165 Summary of Effects - All Action Alternatives

22166 Scenic integrity objectives are established for management areas that do not change by alternatives, 

22167 except for where recommended wilderness areas are located. SIO zones overlay the management 

22168 areas. The direction for scenery management applies regardless of the management area boundary. 

22169 Applicability of plan direction is guided by the principle that where there is an overlap of scenery 

22170 management direction with other plan components, the most restrictive plan direction applies 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

624

22171 depending on site-specific conditions and the activity or use. The proposed action and alternatives R, 

22172 P, B, and O would result in the following effects. 

22173 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

22174 The proposed action and alternative P emphasize use of a landscape approach to vegetation 

22175 management expected to result, in the long term, in a Forest more resilient to uncharacteristic 

22176 wildfire, and disease and insect outbreaks. In general, the vegetation management would be spread 

22177 out more on the landscape scale with variable density thinning practices. There is likely to be 

22178 improvement in ecological resilience. Risks of uncharacteristic wildfire to scenic resources would 

22179 decrease. There should be fewer occurrences of uncharacteristic insect and disease outbreaks. The 

22180 risks to scenic stability and landscape character would decrease. In the long term, scenic 

22181 sustainability and resiliency would be improved by managing for the vegetative historical range of 

22182 variability spread over the landscape. 

22183 Alternatives R, B, and O emphasize old forest management in fixed reserves and emphasize timber 

22184 production outside those areas. In general, vegetation management would be contained to a smaller 

22185 landscape area with boundaries with a heavier shelterwood type of prescription. This approach is less 

22186 likely to improve ecological resilience in the face of predicted climate change scenarios. Risks of 

22187 uncharacteristic wildfire, and insect and disease outbreaks would likely continue. These alternatives, 

22188 R, B, and O would increase risks to scenic stability and landscape character. In the long term, scenic 

22189 sustainability and resiliency would be reduced by focusing vegetation management in specific areas 

22190 and not on a dynamic landscape scale.

22191 Both wildfires and prescribed fires generate smoke and particulates that can temporarily degrade 

22192 visibility and scenic resources. Effects to air quality from vegetation management, such as prescribed 

22193 burning, are likely to result in short-term impacts to visibility. Each prescribed burn would have 

22194 unique characteristics, and the smoke impacts can be mitigated by following sound smoke 

22195 management practices. Due to budget trends the amount of prescribed burning activity on the forest 

22196 is likely to remain the same. In addition, the amount remains the same for all alternatives. Impacts 

22197 from prescribed burning to scenic stability and landscape character are expected to be small, short22198 term and the same for all alternatives. Also, see discussion in the cumulative effects section.

22199
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

625

22200 Table 200. Effects on scenic resources from vegetation management

No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Vegetation 

Managementlandscape 

approach or 

fixed 

reserves 

Percent of 

total forest 

acres for late 

forest 

structures

Trend for 

landscape 

character and 

scenic 

stability

Old forest 

management 

areas (Fixed 

reserves) MA-1 

and Eastside 

Screens standard 

to maintain all late 

and old seral 

and/or structural 

live trees ≥ 21 

inches d.b.h..

MA-1 + Eastside 

Screens 

incorporate about 

3% of the Forest

Scenic 

sustainability and 

resiliency reduced 

by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

Landscape 

approach for late 

forest structures

Late forest 

structures are 

actively managed 

for restoration 

purposes on 71% of 

the Forest.

23% of forest in 

Focused 

Restoration areas 

and 48% in 

General 

Restoration areas

Scenic sustainability 

and resiliency 

improved by 

managing for the 

vegetation HRV 

spread over the 

landscape

Fixed reserves for 

late forest structure 

on 22 % of 

landscape.

22% in General 

Restoration areas

Scenic sustainability 

and resiliency 

reduced by focusing

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

Landscape 

approach for late 

forest structure

Late forest 

structures are 

actively managed 

for restoration 

purposes on 67% of 

the Forest.

28% of forest in 

Focused 

Restoration areas 

and 45% in 

General 

Restoration areas 

Scenic sustainability 

and resiliency 

improved by 

managing for the 

vegetation HRV 

spread over the 

landscape

Fixed reserves for 

late reserve 

structure on 43% 

of landscape, 

limited to dry plant 

associations only. 

25% of each forest 

stand would 

remain un-thinned 

in all treatment 

units. Eastside 

Screens standard 

to maintain all late 

and old seral 

and/or structural 

live trees ≥ 21 

inches d.b.h..

Scenic 

sustainability and 

resiliency reduced 

by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

Fixed reserves for 

late forest 

structure on 39% 

of landscape, 

limited to dry plant 

association only. 

25% of each forest 

stand would 

remain un-thinned 

in all treatment 

units. Eastside 

Screens standard

to maintain all late 

and old seral 

and/or structural 

live trees ≥ 21 

inches d.b.h..

Scenic 

sustainability and 

resiliency reduced 

by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

626

No Action Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Timber 

Production –

percent of 

total forest 

acres. 

Trend for 

landscape 

character and 

scenic 

stability

Timber 

management 

allowed in MA-3A 

(Recreation), MA5 (Scenic/Timber), 

MA-6 (Scenic/ 

Winter Range), 

MA-7 (Wood/ 

Forage), and MA-8 

(Winter Range). 

These 

management 

areas incorporate 

80.7% of the 

Forest. 

TSPQ 26.9mmbf

Scenic 

sustainability and 

resiliency reduced 

by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

Timber production 

allowed in Focused 

and General 

Restoration areas 

which include 71% 

of the Forest. 

TSPQ 48.4mmbf

Scenic sustainability 

and resiliency 

improved by 

managing for the 

vegetation HRV 

spread over the 

landscape

Timber production 

allowed in General 

Restoration areas. 

These areas include 

22% of the Forest. 

Timber production 

would not be

allowed in late forest 

structure 

management areas.

TSPQ 9.3 mmbf

Scenic sustainability 

and resiliency 

reduced by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

Timber production 

allowed in Focused 

and General 

Restoration areas 

which include 71% 

of the Forest.

TSPQ 48.1 mmbf

Scenic sustainability 

and resiliency 

improved by 

managing for the 

vegetation HRV 

spread over the 

landscape

The Active 

Management Area 

emphasizes evenaged management 

for timber 

production on 43% 

of the Forest. 

Additional 

standards limit 

timber harvest 

prescriptions.

TSPQ 23.7 mmbf

Scenic 

sustainability and 

resiliency reduced 

by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

The Responsible 

Management Area 

emphasizes evenaged management 

for timber 

production on 39% 

of the Forest. 

Additional 

standards limit 

harvest 

prescriptions.

TSPQ 23.8 mmbf

Scenic 

sustainability and 

resiliency reduced 

by focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

627

22201 Motorized Recreation Trails

22202 Motorized recreation trails can have affects to scenic conditions, especially where changes in 

22203 recreation activities can improve or adversely affect landscape character, sense of place and 

22204 scenic integrity for the forest visitor. The proposed action, P and O alternatives would continue 

22205 with current management areas where backcountry motorized or backcountry non-motorized uses 

22206 are allowed. There would be no change to the landscape character, sense of place and scenic 

22207 integrity for the forest visitor under those alternatives. However, in the R and B alternatives all 

22208 but 1 percent of the backcountry motorized area would be allocated to recommended wilderness. 

22209 If congress designates these areas as wilderness, motorized and mechanized uses are not allowed. 

22210 These alternatives R and B, would change the landscape character on 20 percent of the Forest for 

22211 the forest visitor. This would be an adverse impact to the motorized recreationist by changing the 

22212 sense of place from destination backcountry motorized landscape character to a non-motorized 

22213 landscape character. Scenic integrity would improve in areas where negative deviations exist 

22214 where motorized impacts occur. Conversely, an improved landscape setting for the non-motorized 

22215 recreationist user would occur by changing the landscape character and adding new sense of place 

22216 from motorized to a more quite non-motorized experience
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

628

22217 Table 201. Effects on scenic resources from motorized recreation

No Action Proposed 

Action 

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

Backcountry Nonmotorized 

Management Area 

– percent of total 

forest acres.

Change to 

landscape 

character, sense 

of place and 

scenic integrity for 

motorized users 

Currently 8% 

No change to 

the landscape 

character, 

sense of place 

and scenic 

integrity for the 

forest visitor

8%

No change to 

the landscape 

character, 

sense of place 

and scenic 

integrity for the 

forest visitor

2%

The sense of place would 

change for motorized 

users from a destination 

backcountry motorized 

landscape character to a 

non-motorized landscape 

character. Scenic integrity 

would improve in areas 

where negative deviations 

exist where motorized 

impacts occur.

Conversely, an improved 

landscape setting for the 

non-motorized 

recreationist user would 

occur by changing the 

landscape character and 

adding new sense of 

place from motorized to a 

more quite non-motorized 

experience. 

8%

No change to the 

landscape 

character, sense of 

place and scenic 

integrity for the 

forest visitor

Less than 1 %

The sense of place would 

change for motorized 

users from a destination 

backcountry motorized 

landscape character to a 

non-motorized landscape 

character. Scenic integrity 

would improve in areas 

where negative deviations 

exist where motorized 

impacts occur.

Conversely, an improved 

landscape setting for the 

non-motorized 

recreationist user would 

occur by changing the 

landscape character and 

adding new sense of 

place from motorized to a 

more quite non-motorized 

experience. 

16%

No change to the 

landscape character, 

sense of place and 

scenic integrity for the 

forest visitor
Chapter 4 − Consultation and Coordination

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

629

22218 Access

22219 Forest roads are typically unpaved and used recreationally and for resource management purposes. Roads 

22220 create horizontal form, line and color contrasts with the adjacent landscape and can detract from scenic 

22221 integrity and landscape character, especially when the road density is higher than 1 to 2 miles per square 

22222 mile. Alternatives with lower road densities would have fewer roads. Alternatives R and P have lower 

22223 road densities, which would provide the most improvement in landscape character and scenic integrity. 

22224 The proposed action has a higher road density but would reduce road density in areas where it is higher 

22225 than 3 miles per square mile. The trend would improve landscape character and scenic integrity. B and O 

22226 both cap road miles at existing levels which has a range of miles per square mile, either above or below 

22227 1 to 2 miles per square mile. In all alternatives, the number of miles of road would trend downward. 

22228 Alternatives R and P are likely to have the least miles of road in the long term. A reduction in road miles 

22229 is likely to improve scenic stability and landscape character, so alternatives R and P are likely to improve 

22230 scenic resources the most among the alternatives

22231 Table 202. Effects on scenic resources from access

Proposed 

Action

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

Desired road 

density range.

Effect to 

landscape 

character and 

scenic stability.

2-3 miles per 

square mile. 

Applicable in 

Active 

Restoration 

Mgmt. Areas 

which cover 71% 

of forest.

Road density 

would be 

reduced in areas 

where it is higher 

than 3 miles per 

square mile. The 

trend would 

improve 

landscape 

character and 

scenic integrity. 

1-2 miles per 

square mile. 

Applicable in 

Active 

Restoration 

Mgmt. Areas 

which cover 73% 

of forest.

Most 

improvement in 

landscape 

character and 

scenic integrity 

on landscape 

scale.

1-2 miles per 

square mile. 

Applicable in 

Active 

Restoration 

Mgmt. Areas 

which cover 71% 

of forest.

Most 

improvement in 

landscape 

character and 

scenic integrity 

on landscape 

scale

Cap USFS road 

miles at current 

level. Applicable 

to about 74% of 

the total Forest 

Service.

Least 

improvement in 

landscape 

character and 

scenic integrity 

on landscape 

scale.

Cap USFS road 

miles at current 

level. Applicable 

to about 74% of 

the total Forest 

Service.

Least 

improvement in 

landscape 

character and 

scenic integrity 

on landscape 

scale.

22232 Recommended Wilderness Areas

22233 Areas recommended for wilderness would move from a high scenic integrity objective to very high scenic 

22234 integrity objective where only ecological changes occur. Ground-disturbing activities would be very 

22235 limited. If congress designates these areas as wilderness, the scenic integrity objective would be very high 

22236 and ground-disturbing activities even more limited. R and B recommend the highest amount of 

22237 Wilderness and largest increase in the amount of very high scenic integrity area on the Forest. In 

22238 recommended wilderness areas, the experience for visitor uses would be limited to non-motorized uses, 

22239 but mechanical use (mountain bikes) could continue to occur, changing the sense of place and landscape 

22240 character for those users similar to the motorized recreation trails management issue. If the recommended 

22241 wilderness becomes wilderness, the sense of place would change for mountain bike users by eliminating 

22242 the opportunity and backcountry experience for mechanized use.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

630

22243 Table 203. Effects on scenic resources from recommended wilderness

Proposed 

Action

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

Recommended 

Wilderness –

percent of total 

forest acres.

Effect to 

landscape 

character, 

sense of place 

and scenic 

stability

9%

Slight 

change to 

the 

landscape 

character, 

sense of 

place and 

scenic 

integrity for 

the forest 

visitor.

19%

The sense of place 

would change in areas 

for 

motorized/mechanized 

users from a 

destination 

backcountry motorized 

landscape character 

to a non-motorized 

wilderness landscape 

character. Scenic 

integrity would 

improve in areas 

where negative 

deviations exist where 

motorized impacts 

occur.

6%

Slight change 

to the 

landscape 

character, 

sense of 

place and 

scenic 

integrity for 

the forest 

visitor.

20%

The sense of place 

would change in areas 

for 

motorized/mechanized 

users from a 

destination 

backcountry motorized 

landscape character 

to a non-motorized 

wilderness landscape 

character. Scenic 

integrity would 

improve in areas 

where negative 

deviations exist where 

motorized impacts 

occur.

1%

Least change 

to the 

landscape 

character, 

sense of 

place and 

scenic 

integrity for 

the forest 

visitor.

22244 Wildlife

22245 Differences in management for wildlife habitat between alternatives are similar to the old forest 

22246 management and timber production issue, driven by how vegetation is managed. Generally, wildlife 

22247 management objectives are compatible with landscape character goals and scenic integrity objectives. The 

22248 proposed action and P alternatives emphasize use of a landscape approach to vegetation management 

22249 expected to result, in the long term, in a Forest more resilient to uncharacteristic wildfire, and disease and 

22250 insect outbreaks. In general, the vegetation management would be spread out more on the landscape scale 

22251 with variable density thinning practices. There is likely to be improvement in ecological resilience. Risks 

22252 of uncharacteristic wildfire to scenic resources would decrease. There should be fewer occurrences of 

22253 uncharacteristic insect and disease outbreaks. The risks to scenic stability and landscape character would 

22254 decrease. In the long term, scenic sustainability and resiliency would be improved by managing for the 

22255 vegetative historical range of variability spread over the landscape. 

22256 Alternatives R, B, and O emphasize old forest management in fixed reserves and emphasize timber 

22257 production outside those areas. In general, vegetation management would be contained to a smaller 

22258 landscape area with boundaries with a heavier shelterwood type of prescription. This approach is less 

22259 likely to improve ecological resilience in the face of predicted climate change scenarios. Risks of 

22260 uncharacteristic wildfire, and insect and disease outbreaks would likely continue. These alternatives, R, B, 

22261 and O would increase risks to scenic stability and landscape character. In the long term, scenic 

22262 sustainability and resiliency would be reduced by focusing vegetation management in specific areas and 

22263 not on a dynamic landscape scale.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

631

22264 Table 204. Effects on scenic resources from wildlife

Proposed 

Action

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

Proposed 

vegetation 

management for 

wildlife- percent 

of total forest 

acres

Effect to 

landscape 

character and 

scenic stability

9%

Scenic 

sustainability 

and resiliency 

improved by 

managing for 

the vegetation 

HRV spread 

over the 

dynamic 

landscape.

19%

Scenic 

sustainability 

and resiliency 

reduced by 

focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas 

(reserves) and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

5%

Scenic 

sustainability 

and resiliency 

improved by 

managing for the 

vegetation HRV 

spread over the 

dynamic 

landscape.

20%

Scenic 

sustainability 

and resiliency

reduced by 

focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas 

(reserves) and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

1%

Scenic 

sustainability 

and resiliency 

reduced by 

focusing 

vegetation 

management in 

specific areas 

(reserves) and 

not on a dynamic 

landscape scale.

22265 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

22266 Differences in management for aquatic resources between alternatives are not expected to produce 

22267 noticeably different effects to scenic resources, however scenic integrity would improve in the long term 

22268 as riparian and aquatic habitats become more natural appearing. Generally, riparian and aquatic 

22269 management objectives are compatible with landscape character goals and scenic integrity objectives. The 

22270 sense of place may be disruptive in places where recreation occurs in riparian/aquatic areas, especially 

22271 near lakes or streams if use is displaced.

22272 Table 205. Effects on scenic resources from riparian and aquatic resource management

Proposed Action Alt. R Alt. P Alt. B Alt. O

Proposed riparian 

and aquatic 

management for 

vegetation -

percent of total 

forest acres

Effect to 

landscape 

character and 

scenic stability 

Acres of 

RHCA/RMA

179,236 RHCA 

acres

16% Colville 

National Forest 

(CNF) ownership

Key and priority 

watersheds

371,943 acres in 

key watersheds;

34% CNF 

ownership

Measureable 

objectives for key 

watersheds

Scenic integrity 

and landscape 

character would 

improve in the long 

term as riparian 

and aquatic 

habitats become 

more natural 

appearing

Acres of 

RHCA/RMA

Same the proposed 

action and 

alternatives P and 

O

Key and priority 

watersheds

451,525 acres in 

key watersheds;

41% CNF 

ownership

Measurable 

objectives for key 

watersheds

Scenic integrity and 

landscape 

character would 

improve in the long 

term as riparian 

and aquatic 

habitats become 

more natural 

appearing

Acres of 

RHCA/RMA

Same as the 

proposed 

action and 

alternatives R 

and O

Key and 

priority 

watersheds

Same as 

alternatives R 

and B

Scenic integrity 

and landscape 

character 

would improve 

in the long 

term as 

riparian and 

aquatic 

habitats 

become more 

natural 

appearing

Acres of 

RHCA/RMA

Same as the 

proposed 

action 

Key and 

priority 

watersheds

Same as the 

no-action 

alternative 

Scenic 

integrity and 

landscape 

character 

would 

improve in 

the long term 

as riparian 

and aquatic 

habitats 

become 

more natural 

appearing

Acres of 

RHCA/RMA

Same as the 

proposed action 

and alternatives 

P and R

Key and priority 

watersheds

Same as 

alternatives R 

and P

Scenic integrity 

and landscape 

character would 

improve in the 

long term as 

riparian and 

aquatic habitats 

become more 

natural 

appearing
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

632

22273 Monitoring Recommendations

22274 Monitoring and evaluation efforts provide information to:

22275 • detect magnitude and duration of changes in conditions including scenic integrity and landscape 

22276 character.

22277 • formulate and test hypotheses as to cause of the changes.

22278 • help better understand these causes and predict impacts.

22279 Monitoring Types

22280 There are three types of monitoring: implementation, effectiveness, and validation.

22281 • Implementation monitoring determines whether the standards and guidelines were followed. 

22282 Some agencies call it “compliance” monitoring or said another way “Did we do what we said we 

22283 would do?”

22284 • Effectiveness monitoring determines if the application of the management plan achieved or is 

22285 headed in the right direction to achieve the desired future condition (DFC), in other words did the 

22286 management practice or activity do what was intended. Did the standards and guides function as 

22287 intended or were they not effective?

22288 • Validation monitoring determines if new information exists which alters the validity of the 

22289 assumptions upon which the plan was based. Such considerations might include changes in 

22290 resource conditions, changes in constituent values and expectations or changes in legal 

22291 requirements.

22292 Monitoring Landscape Character

22293 The objective of Landscape character implementation and effectiveness monitoring is to determine if the 

22294 landscape character goal is being met or is moving toward the desired character over time. For example, 

22295 the goal may be to maintain open, park-like stands of large ponderosa pine with yellow-plated bark with 

22296 20 percent in seeding/saplings, 40 percent in a black bark stage, and 20 percent in small saw timber.

22297 Objective: To determine if the landscape character is moving in the direction of the landscape 

22298 character goal.

22299 Method: Identify through field review the percentage of vegetation (or other elements in the 

22300 landscape character) that is moving toward the landscape character goal.

22301 Unit of Measure: Percent of acres.

22302 Landscape character validation is addressed through a continual constituent analysis process determining 

22303 such things as the landscape character preferred by people.

22304 Monitoring Scenic Integrity

22305 Implementation monitoring is usually done through spot checking the scenic integrity level of activities 

22306 one year after completion to see if they are in compliance with the Forest Plan.

22307 Objective: To determine if the scenic integrity levels for projects adopted in the Forest Plan by 

22308 Management Area are being achieved.

22309 Method: Identify through field review a stratified sample of projects in high, moderate and low 

22310 integrity levels. Sampling intensity should increase with the level of scenic integrity objective.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

633

22311 Unit of Measure: Identify total projects within each viewshed or geographic area, including how 

22312 many and what percent were monitored. Of those monitored, how many and what percent met the 

22313 scenic integrity standard for the area.

22314 Effectiveness can be checked by summarizing the existing scenic integrity levels for each viewshed or 

22315 geographic area.

22316 Objective: Are the cumulative effects of all resource activities within a viewshed meeting the 

22317 integrity level standards.

22318 Method: Determine the percentages of each integrity level being met within each viewshed. 

22319 Determine if the percentages are consistent with the Forest Plan.

22320 Unit of Measure: Total acres in each viewshed that are consistent with Forest Plan standards.

22321 Validation is addressed through a continual constituent analysis process, determining such things as the 

22322 lowest level of scenic quality acceptable to people.

22323 Cumulative Effects (Common to all Alternatives)

22324 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

22325 The affected environment for cumulative effects includes the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

22326 Reservation, lands administered by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest and other Federal agencies; and 

22327 lands of other ownerships both within and adjacent to the Colville National Forest boundaries. Smoke 

22328 from wildland and prescribed fires can adversely affect scenic resources in the short term. The National 

22329 Park Service, State of Washington, and Indian tribes manage large tracts of lands in surrounding areas. 

22330 Smoke from prescribed burning operations on these lands could individually, or in combination with other 

22331 fires, affect scenic resources on the forest and in surrounding communities. Coordination and approvals of 

22332 prescribed fires through Washington State would help prevent the cumulative impacts of these burns from 

22333 creating unacceptable impacts to scenic resources. Under all alternatives, wildfires would continue to 

22334 periodically cause temporary deterioration of scenic resources. 

22335 For all alternatives, cumulative impacts on scenic resources from forest management on private lands, 

22336 where scenic integrity is not an objective, would be to have a heavily altered landscape on private lands. 

22337 Where the view is comprised of adjacent Federal lands, which manage for scenic resources, the 

22338 cumulative effect is likely to be a natural-appearing landscape with high scenic integrity.

22339 Special Uses

22340 This Lands Special Use analysis focused on the issues likely to affect land special uses including access, 

22341 recommended wilderness, and riparian and aquatic resource management. Recreation Special Uses are 

22342 addressed in the Recreation section of this document.

22343 The Lands program area includes several different activities: special uses and land ownership/realty 

22344 actions. The affected environment description is divided into two broad areas. Special use authorizations 

22345 include permits, term permits, leases or easements which allow occupancy, use, rights or privileges of 

22346 NFS lands. Land ownership includes boundary management, land exchanges, purchases, and other 

22347 activities that are primarily real estate type activities.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

634

22348 Affected Environment

22349 The Colville National Forest lies within the northeast corner of Washington State. The Forest 

22350 encompasses 1.1 million acres and occupies nearly one-third of the total area of Ferry, Pend Oreille, and 

22351 Stevens Counties. To the north, the Forest is bordered by British Columbia; to the west by the Okanogan 

22352 National Forest; to the east by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest; and to the south by a portion of the 

22353 Colville Confederated Tribes Indian Reservation, state and private lands.

22354 Many lands within the boundary of what would become the Colville National Forest were severed from 

22355 the public domain becoming private through a variety of land disposal authorities including 

22356 homesteading, mineral patents, statehood and Railroad land grants. The majority of the valley floors were 

22357 patented, and to a large extent, the remaining forested lands in the higher elevations became National 

22358 Forest Reserves, and later National Forest System (NFS) lands. Railroad grants in Pend Oreille County in 

22359 1908 left a checkerboard pattern of private, state and National Forest lands which continues to the present. 

22360 Many former railroad grant lands are now owned and managed by a number of private forest resource 

22361 companies.

22362 Today, the forest, streams, lakes, mountains, and valleys of the Colville National Forest are literally the 

22363 backyard of many residents in Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille County. According to the State of 

22364 Washington’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) Forecasting Division, between the years 2004 and 

22365 2014 the populations of Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties were expected to increase 4.93 percent, 

22366 7.86 percent and 11.1 percent respectively. Under Washington State RCW 43.62.035, which codifies the 

22367 Growth Management Act (GMA), the OFM shall determine the percentage increase in population for 

22368 each county over the preceding ten-year period as of each April 1st for growth management planning. 

22369 Projections are statements about the future based on a particular set of assumptions. The GMA projections 

22370 present high, medium, and low growth expectations for each county in the state. The medium series is 

22371 considered the most likely expectation because it is based on assumptions that have been validated with 

22372 past and current information. By the year 2040, using medium growth expectations, the populations of 

22373 Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties are expected to increase 2 percent, 17 percent and 9 percent 

22374 respectively. (State of Washington, Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division 2012). 

22375 These population trends present opportunities and challenges for both the Forest and its neighbors. 

22376 Individuals; Federal, state and local agencies; private industry; and other entities benefit from the goods 

22377 and services the National Forest provides. Increases in county populations are expected to inflate the 

22378 demand for access, goods and services. At the same time, the Forest must actively manage access, 

22379 vegetation, recreation, property boundaries, and other issues to protect the interests of the public as a 

22380 whole. Increased housing density in areas adjoining NFS lands adds to the potential for encroachment, 

22381 trespass, and unauthorized use and occupation of NFS lands. Balancing the need for goods and services 

22382 while protecting the interests of the public would be a challenge into the future for the Lands Special Use 

22383 program because of a downward trend in Forest Service budget allocations and personnel.

22384 Special Uses

22385 Occupancy and use of NFS lands for public and private purposes through the issuance of special use 

22386 authorizations and easements, continues to be allowed where the use is consistent with natural resource 

22387 management goals. Authorized occupancy encumbers NFS lands which in turn affects management 

22388 decisions and actions. Special use authorizations are used to authorize occupancy and use of NFS lands 

22389 by Federal, State, and local agencies; private industry; and individuals. Many different public laws 

22390 regulate activities under special use authorizations. 

22391 Special uses are those that cannot be reasonably accommodated off-Forest, or, in some cases are Forest 

22392 dependent, and include both Land and Recreation uses. This section addresses Land-type special uses 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

635

22393 which include, but are not limited to, access to private property, communication sites, utility transmission 

22394 right-of-ways, research studies, community and water uses. Recreation special uses are addressed in the 

22395 recreation section. Some special uses are temporary in length, however; some occupancy, especially 

22396 utility transmission right-of-ways and communication sites are long-term commitments of NFS lands and 

22397 typically have authorization terms of 20 or more years. 

22398 As of November 2014, there are 303 Land special use authorizations issued for uses on the Colville 

22399 National Forest. The Forest anticipates the number of Land special uses would increase during the life of 

22400 the revised Colville National Forest Land Management Plan (Plan). As the communities around the Forest 

22401 expand, State agencies, counties, cities and towns, public utilities, and private citizens request new 

22402 authorizations or amendments to existing authorizations. 

22403 Road Authorizations

22404 Road authorizations comprise 64 percent of the Land special uses issued on the Forest. Permits and 

22405 easements granted by the Forest Service provide access across the Forest to non-NFS land where 

22406 appropriate. These authorizations ensure the protection of NFS lands and resources. Authorization holders 

22407 contribute to road maintenance commensurate with use. 

22408 Over 130 Forest Road and Trail Act (FRTA) Easements are granted to forest product companies, county 

22409 and state public road departments, and to state resource management agencies. The majority of FRTA 

22410 easements have been granted in Cost Share areas, where forest product companies and/or the state have 

22411 granted reciprocal easements to the United States over their lands to facilitate the construction and 

22412 maintenance of a mutually beneficial road system. The remaining FRTA easements have been granted to 

22413 Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties and are maintained as part of their county road system. 

22414 Over 60 Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA) Easements and Permits have been granted or 

22415 issued to private property owners and/or associations for access to their property. These roads are 

22416 generally not part of the forest road transportation system, and authorization holders are responsible for 

22417 maintenance of these roads. The number of applications submitted by landowners requesting access to 

22418 private property has increased appreciatively in the past several years, and that trend is expected to 

22419 continue. 

22420 Requests for private access roads across NFS lands are increasing as residential development occurs on 

22421 adjacent private lands, and as people retire to live on property that was formerly used on a seasonal basis. 

22422 As of the year 2000, 20 to 30 percent of housing in Pend Oreille County was considered seasonal and/or 

22423 recreational housing, with a high likelihood of many housing units transitioning to retirement properties 

22424 (State of Washington, Office of Financial Management; Decennial Census 2010). 

22425 Communication Sites

22426 The Forest has nine designated communication sites (Sites) where Federal, state and local agencies have 

22427 located their internal communication equipment, and commercial telecommunication companies are 

22428 authorized to transmit and receive communications. Each of these Sites has an approved Communication 

22429 Site Plan that defines the maximum power permissible at the site; protects NFS resources including soil, 

22430 vegetation and scenery; and guides the operation, maintenance and development of the Site. No additional 

22431 sites are proposed for development at this time, and new proposed sites would be analyzed on a case-by22432 case basis. 

22433 These Sites are located on the tops of mountains, have a limited capacity for expansion, and where snow 

22434 accumulation limits access during the winter. Occupancy is authorized under a Communication Site Lease 

22435 or Communication Site Permit for Federal agencies. Three Leases are issued to facility owners who rent 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

636

22436 space to other users including state and county governments and wireless service providers. Some single 

22437 use Sites are authorized to wireless service providers, state agencies, and the Department of Homeland 

22438 Security, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. All Sites on the Forest are designated for low power uses. 

22439 Infrastructure associated with these sites includes roads, powerlines, propane tanks, and telephone service. 

22440 For the past several years wireless service providers (Verizon, AT&T Mobility/Cingular Wireless) have 

22441 expanded their data delivery capabilities (4G/LTE) which in turn have required infrastructure replacement 

22442 and/or the addition of back-up generators at several Sites. Tower standards have recently changed, and 

22443 existing tower load capacity is challenged with the addition of new antennas and microwave dishes. 

22444 Communication towers installed at several Sites are reaching the ends of their useable lifespan and need 

22445 replacement. Requests for Site improvements and replacements are expected to continue into the future, 

22446 and challenge the Forest’s ability to respond with limited available budget and personnel.

22447 Table 206. List of designated communication sites

Communication Site Name/Lease Holders County Location

Bisbee Mountain

• Verizon

• Washington State Dept. of Transportation

Ferry Latitude 48 38’ 02.54” North

Longitude 118 09’ 25.75” West

Bodie Mountain

• Washington State Department of Natural Resources

• Forest Service

Ferry Latitude 48 49’ 38.58” North

Longitude 118 49’ 58.024” West

Chewelah Peak

• SBA Structures

Stevens Latitude 48 17’ 01.21” North

Longitude 117 34’ 22.79” West

Deer Mountain

• Pend Oreille PUD #1

Pend Oreille Latitude 48 47’ 57.39” North

Longitude 117 26’ 37.45” West

Flagstaff Mountain

• SBA Structures

• Verizon

• Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs 

and Border Patrol

• Forest Service

Stevens Latitude 48 54’ 31.38” North

Longitude 117 52’ 09.41” West

Flume Creek

• Pend Oreille County Emergency Management

• Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration

Pend Oreille Latitude 48 55’ 08.53” North

Longitude 117 24’ 57.71” West

Owl Mountain*

• Orient-Laurier TV Club

Ferry Latitude 48 58’ 32.377” North

Longitude 118 14’ 6.851” West

Ruby Mountain

• Pend Oreille Telephone Company

Pend Oreille Latitude 48 30’ 08” North

Longitude 117 19’ 32” West

Sand Ridge

• Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs 

and Border Patrol

Pend Oreille Latitude 48 49’ 05.79” North

Longitude 117 19’ 05.42” West

22448 *The Orient Laurier TV Club is removing their facilities the summer of 2015
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

637

22449 Forest Service Administrative Repeater Sites

22450 There are 13 radio repeater sites used for Forest Service administrative communications, including two at 

22451 designated communication sites listed above. Most of the Forest Service communication facilities are 

22452 located on NFS lands; one on tribal lands, and two on state owned lands. The Forest Service leases space 

22453 at those sites for our occupancy. The Forest’s administrative communication sites currently do not have 

22454 Communication Site Plans. Administrative Communication Site Plans should be developed that describe 

22455 the extent of each Sites development potential, with the intent of protecting the integrity of critical Forest 

22456 Service communications and equipment. 

22457 Table 207. List of Forest Service repeater locations

22458 Water Uses

22459 There are 34 special use authorizations issued on the Forest for water-related uses including irrigation 

22460 ditches and pipelines, domestic water developments, and municipal water systems that include dams and 

22461 weirs. Holders of those authorizations have demonstrated they hold a state water right for the diversion of 

22462 water for a beneficial use. Forest Service authorizations do not confer a water right, but allow the 

22463 occupancy for the storage and transmission of water, and for water system infrastructure. The U.S. 

22464 Geologic Survey and the Pend Oreille Public Utility District #1 hold permits for stream gaging stations to 

22465 monitor temperature and flow rates of streams and rivers.

22466 Utilities

22467 Utilities include power lines, gas lines, telephone and fiber optic lines. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

22468 directed the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate energy 

22469 transport corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution 

22470 facilities on Federal lands in portions of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

22471 Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. There are no Energy Policy Act designated energy 

22472 corridors on the Colville National Forest.

22473 There are 19 special use authorizations issued on the Forest for low and high energy power lines. Public 

22474 Utility Districts in Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille County deliver low voltage (12Kv and less) to their 

22475 customers in their respective counties. These power lines are frequently located along road corridors on 

Forest Service Repeater Site Name County Land Ownership

Bodie Mountain Ferry Forest Service

Calispell Peak Stevens Forest Service

Flagstaff Mountain Stevens Forest Service

Grizzley Ferry Colville Confederated Tribal Lands

Jackknife Ferry Forest Service

Monumental Stevens State of Washington

Mt. Leona Ferry Forest Service

North Baldy Pend Oreille Forest Service

Red Top* Stevens *Forest Service (To be constructed in 2015)

Stensgar** Pend Oreille **State of Washington (To be removed in 2015)

Sullivan Pend Oreille Forest Service

Salmo Pend Oreille Forest Service

Togo Mountain Ferry Forest Service

Quartz Mountain Ferry Forest Service
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

638

22476 NFS lands. The Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration (BPA ) operates and maintains 5 

22477 high voltage power lines in large right-of-ways that bisect the Forest, delivering power generated from the 

22478 Pend Oreille Public Utility District #1 (PUD) Box Canyon Dam, and Seattle City Light’s (SCL) Boundary 

22479 Dam to the western power grid. In addition to the power lines, access roads and trails are also authorized 

22480 to BPA to facilitate operations and maintenance of their improvements. Power line pole replacements, 

22481 road maintenance, hazard tree removal and other vegetation treatment activities are performed regularly 

22482 by these utilities. Additional utilities and/or upgrades to existing utilities should be concentrated within 

22483 existing permit corridors before new permit areas are authorized. 

22484 There is one gas line authorized under permit on the Forest. The gas line provides service to the Republic 

22485 Ranger District compound in the town of Republic, Washington in Ferry County.

22486 Telephone and fiber optic lines provide a backbone of communication for businesses and the citizens of 

22487 Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille County. The majority of telephone lines are overhead lines, with service 

22488 connections buried when conditions allow. Fiber optic lines are usually buried underground to protect the 

22489 lines and conduit. All new telephone service connections and fiber optic lines should be buried whenever 

22490 and wherever possible. 

22491 There are no solar or wind generation farms authorized under permit on the Forest, and low potential for 

22492 those renewable energy sources to be developed.

22493 Military Training Survival School

22494 The U.S. Air Force AETC, 336th Combat Crew Training Group, located at Fairchild Air Force Base, 

22495 Spokane, Washington, operates a SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) School on the 

22496 Colville National Forest. The Survival School has been permitted on the Colville National Forest since 

22497 1966. This school is operated under a long term Special Use Permit that expires December 31, 2030. The 

22498 school provides training to all Air Force crewmembers, future survival instructors, combat rescue officers, 

22499 and specialized training to all branches of the military. The Survival School consists of both classroom 

22500 and outdoor training. Most of the outdoor training occurs on the Colville National Forest. The training 

22501 requires small groups of students live on the Forest under primitive conditions and practice techniques for 

22502 personal sustenance, overland travel, shelter and recovery. The Survival School is supported by two 

22503 command posts located on the Newport Ranger District. 

22504 Other Authorized Uses

22505 The remainder of the Forest Land special use authorizations include agricultural uses, public service 

22506 infrastructure (stockpile sites, warehouses), an airstrip operated by the Washington State Department of 

22507 Transportation, research and site surveys, and education uses. These uses are expected to continue on the 

22508 Forest. Persons who have personal property that is in trespass, are issued short-term permits to remove 

22509 their property from NFS lands.

22510 Hydropower

22511 The abundant water resources in northeastern Washington support hydroelectric projects on the Forest, 

22512 which are authorized under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Licenses. The FERC license 

22513 is the authorizing instrument that contains the conditions under which the licensee operates and maintains 

22514 the hydroelectric project and lands within the license boundary. The Forest Service is a cooperating 

22515 agency to the FERC regarding the management of NFS lands and resources within the license boundary. 

22516 Seattle City Light operates Boundary Dam (FERC Project #2144) on the Pend Oreille River in northern 

22517 Pend Oreille County. The FERC issued SCL a new 42-year License on March 20, 2013. Conditions were 

22518 incorporated into the license that requires Seattle City Light to perform mitigation measures on NFS lands 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

639

22519 outside of the licensed area. Some of those mitigation measures would require the issue of temporary or 

22520 longer term permits for the occupancy of NFS lands. On March 20, 2013, the FERC issued an Order 

22521 “Accepting the Surrender of License and Authorizing Disposition of Project Facilities” to the PUD for the 

22522 Sullivan Creek Project (FERC Project #2225) located on Sullivan Creek, a tributary to the Pend Oreille 

22523 River in northern Pend Oreille County. The Surrender of the License is expected to be effective by the 

22524 year 2021, following completion of all surrender conditions including the removal of Mill Pond dam and 

22525 the restoration of the former impoundment. The Sullivan Lake dam and impoundment would be retained 

22526 by the PUD and authorized under special use permit. The PUD also operates the Box Canyon 

22527 Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project # 2042) on the Pend Oreille River.

22528 The PUD also operates the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project # 2042) on the Pend Oreille 

22529 River. One-hundred-ninety acres of NFS lands are directly affected by the Project operation. The PUD, 

22530 Forest, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, state agencies and others are working to implement 4e and 10a License 

22531 Conditions on NFS lands, including, but not limited to, recreation administration and maintenance, and 

22532 off-site mitigations to improve fish habitat.

22533 Boundary Management

22534 The Forest protects its property boundaries through a boundary management program. The program also 

22535 provides support for all resource areas including vegetation management; trespass and encroachment 

22536 identification/resolution; as well as land and easement grant, purchase, or exchange. Work is performed 

22537 by State-licensed Forest Service land surveyors or State-licensed land surveyors contracted by the Forest 

22538 Service. Trespasses or encroachments onto NFS lands are identified and resolved as soon as practicable 

22539 by coordination between the District Ranger and landowner. 

22540 Each year a portion of the Forest’s 1,500 miles of boundary line are surveyed or maintained to the Forest 

22541 Service’s standards. Currently, the boundary management program surveys or maintains 15 to 30 miles of 

22542 the total 1,500 miles of Forest boundary line annually. The known lifespan of a marked boundary is 

22543 30 years, with decay of this valuable infrastructure beginning at 15 years. 

22544 The occupancy and use of land adjacent to the Forest has been on the rise, and is expected to further 

22545 increase in the years ahead. Instances of trespass and encroachment are also expected to increase. Because 

22546 of this, boundary line maintenance would become more and more critical to the successful protection of 

22547 NFS lands. The expected increase in road authorizations over time would require an increase in boundary 

22548 management support for road/easement mapping purposes as well. 

22549 Land Ownership: Exchange, Acquisitions, and Access

22550 The Forest acquires and disposes of lands through land exchange, purchase, donation, transfers or sale 

22551 consistent with national policy, regional priorities, and budget. The acquisition of private timberlands in 

22552 the Sheep Creek drainage in northern Stevens County is ongoing and should be completed by the end of 

22553 2015.

22554 The Forest acquires access rights-of-way across non-NFS lands as needed to meet resource management 

22555 objectives and public access needs. Rights-of-way are acquired from landowners using easements, term 

22556 easements, limited easements, or permits for roads crossing private lands. Temporary or limited rights-of22557 way may be acquired when landowners are unwilling or unable to grant full public access, or when 

22558 permanent access is not in the public interest or necessary to address long-term resource management 

22559 objectives.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

640

22560 Need for Change

22561 Comments submitted on the proposed action were reviewed to determine how they would be considered 

22562 in the analysis. Old forest management, motorized recreation trails, road access, recommended 

22563 wilderness, wildlife habitat, and riparian and aquatic resource management were identified as significant 

22564 issues used to formulate alternatives. No lands issues drove the creation of an alternative.

22565 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

22566 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address 

22567 old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape scale. These are:

22568 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect and 

22569 disease activity that would likely continue into the future.

22570 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of restoring 

22571 landscape resiliency. 

22572 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the increased 

22573 risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by climate change 

22574 impacts. 

22575 Motorized Recreation Trails

22576 The current land management plans provide direction for summer and winter motorized uses, including 

22577 identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection of aquatic, 

22578 plant, and wildlife habitats.

22579 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high quality, 

22580 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the 

22581 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 

22582 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a broad 

22583 range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, rock climbing, boating, mushroom and 

22584 berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an environmentally sound 

22585 manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.

22586 Access

22587 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density: 

22588 • The Forest can no longer afford to properly maintain the road system at current operational 

22589 maintenance levels, 

22590 • The current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, 

22591 and 

22592 • The existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 

22593 throughout current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), 

22594 Forest Plan amendments (Eastside Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the 

22595 Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c 

22596 and 1995]), national-level decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim policy (e.g., Lynx 

22597 Agreement, the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

641

22598 Recommended Wilderness Areas

22599 By law, all roadless National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness 

22600 recommendation during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need 

22601 exists for additional wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of 

22602 the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

22603 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 

22604 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible areas 

22605 showed some are available to fill this need. 

22606 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

22607 The current Forest Plan includes riparian management direction from the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

22608 (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995). This approach appears to have either maintained or 

22609 improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. 

22610 Objectives for riparian management areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the riparian 

22611 and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to riparian22612 dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the 

22613 transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water quality and flows, and 

22614 contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and upland species. 

22615 Desired conditions for riparian management areas within any given watershed are to have compositions of 

22616 native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions commensurate 

22617 with natural processes.

22618 Environmental Consequences

22619 Methodology 

22620 This section describes the methodology and analysis processes used to determine the environmental 

22621 consequences on lands and special uses from implementing the alternatives. Environmental consequences 

22622 are not site-specific at the broad forest planning level and are described with qualitative descriptions 

22623 supported by past trends, records, special use authorizations, and changes in land ownership. 

22624 Assumptions

22625 • Regardless of the alternative, land special uses would continue to occupy certain portions of the 

22626 Forest where those uses are compatible with management area direction.

22627 • New uses would be proposed, and existing holders of instruments would request changes or 

22628 alterations to their existing permitted uses.

22629 • Existing permit holders may be required to implement best management practices and/or resource 

22630 protection measures to comply with new Forest standards and guides.

22631 • Requests for access to private lands within the Forest boundary would continue as population 

22632 increases, land parcels are subdivided, and conversions of recreation property to full-time 

22633 residential property continue.

22634 • Land special uses have to comply with Federal and state laws and regulations. These include but 

22635 are not limited to laws such as Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. 

22636 • Special use permits would be issued in accordance with Forest Service Manual 2700, Forest 

22637 Service Handbook 2709.11, and regulations found in 36 CFR 251 Subpart A.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

642

22638 Methods of Analysis 

22639 Methodology and analysis process included query of the Natural Resource Manager (NRM) Special Uses 

22640 Database (SUDS), Land Status Atlas, Forest Service records and case files, and census data to review 

22641 population trends. 

22642 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

22643 This analysis is completed for all lands within the administrative boundaries of the Colville National 

22644 Forest. It is assumed that the effective life of the plan would be 15 years and this analysis discusses the 

22645 effects to lands and special uses over this time period.

22646 Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

22647 Special use proposals and applications are submitted by Federal, state and local agencies, commercial 

22648 interests, and private individuals throughout the year. On average, approximately 35 new proposals and 

22649 applications are submitted annually. This trend is expected to continue.

22650 Summary of Effects 

22651 In all alternatives, the issuance and administration of Land special use authorizations would continue to 

22652 the level allowed by staffing; and directed by law, regulations, policy and direction. Special use proposals 

22653 shall be evaluated in part on the suitability of the proposed use within the land allocation, and the first and 

22654 second level screening process defined in 36 CFR 251.54 . The Forest Service would continue to 

22655 cooperate with the FERC and Licensees on implementation of License conditions and settlement 

22656 agreements. Special Use authorizations would be issued on NFS lands outside the License boundaries to 

22657 support License condition implementation. Boundary line survey and maintenance would continue to 

22658 support Forest program areas and defend Forest boundaries, as allowed by funding and staffing. Land 

22659 realty actions would continue to support national and regional policy and objectives. The Forest would 

22660 continue to aggressively pursue the acquisition of permanent and temporary access across non-NFS lands 

22661 to meet resource management objectives and public access needs.

22662 Cumulative Effects

22663 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

22664 The area for considering cumulative effects includes the lands within the Colville National Forest 

22665 administrative boundary. In consideration of all past, present, and foreseeable actions, no cumulative 

22666 effects to special uses are anticipated.

22667 Social Resources

22668 The Colville National Forest is in northeastern Washington, extending to Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens 

22669 counties. Towns near the Forest include Republic, Marcus, Kettle Falls, Colville, Northport, Metaline, 

22670 Metaline Falls, Ione, Chewelah, Cusick, Springdale, and Newport. 

22671 The following analysis considers existing socioeconomic conditions, trends, and resource uses in the 

22672 three-county area. In some cases, community-level data are available to document within-county 

22673 conditions and trends. However, data availability and reliability decrease as the units of analysis become 

22674 smaller. Therefore, most of the socioeconomic data are presented at the county-level. National and State22675 level socioeconomic data are presented for context.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

643

22676 Affected Environment

22677 Population Growth

22678 In 2010, the population of the three-county planning area was approximately 64,000. As table 208 reveals, 

22679 county populations within the planning area vary considerably, with nearly six people in Stevens County 

22680 for every one person in Ferry County. Population variation between counties highlights the importance of 

22681 presenting disaggregated county-level data alongside the planning area-wide assessment. Trends in 

22682 Stevens County may mask changes in smaller counties in data aggregations.

22683 Table 208. Current population and growth trends

Location 1990 Population 2000 Population % Change, 

1990-2000

2010 Population % Change, 

2000-2010

Ferry County 6,295 7,260 15.3% 7,551 4.0%

Pend Oreille County 8,915 11,732 31.6% 13,001 10.8%

Stevens County 30,948 40,066 29.5% 43,531 8.6%

3-County Aggregate 46,158 59,058 27.9% 64,083 8.5%

Washington State 4,866,692 5,894,121 21.1% 6,724,540 14.1%

United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2% 308,745,538 9.7%

22684 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010

22685 As table 208 shows, the three-county region grew dramatically between 1990 and 2000surpassing both 

22686 the state and national growth rates. However, the past decade has seen much more muted growth rates. 

22687 Overall, the three-county area grew at a slower pace between 2000 and 2010 than either the State or 

22688 Nation. 

22689 The largest communities in the planning area (populations exceeding 1,000) are Colville (4,673), 

22690 Chewelah (2,607), Newport (2,126), Kettle Falls (1,595), and Republic (1,073) (U.S. Census Bureau 

22691 2010). 

22692 Slower growth may indicate limited economic opportunities, aging populations, or a shift in location 

22693 preferences. However, population growth rates do not tell a complete story. Neither high nor low growth 

22694 rates can be used alone to demonstrate positive or negative changes in a county. As Grinspoon and 

22695 Phillips (2007) explain, high population growth rates may lead to economic growth and diversity. 

22696 However, they may also strain community capacity (e.g., physical and civic infrastructure) and lead to 

22697 conflict between long-time residents and newcomers. The remaining analysis would seek to add context 

22698 and clarity to trends and potential issues in these counties and the planning area as a whole.

22699 Population Density

22700 Population density can serve as an indicator for a number of socioeconomic factors of 

22701 interesturbanization, availability of open space, socioeconomic diversity, and civic infrastructure 

22702 (Grinspoon and Phillips 2007; Horne and Haynes 1999). More densely populated areas are generally 

22703 more urban, diverse, and offer better access to infrastructure. In contrast, less densely populated areas 

22704 provide more open space, which may offer amenity values to residents and visitors. 

22705 Table 209 gives population densities in the study area. All three counties are much less densely populated 

22706 than either the state or nation. In general, Washington is a densely populated stateit is more densely 

22707 populated than the nation as a whole. However, several counties in western Washington are primarily 

22708 responsible for the state’s high density. King and Kitsap counties in the Seattle metropolitan area and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

644

22709 Clark County in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area have more than 500 people per square mile (U.S. 

22710 Census Bureau 2010).

22711 Table 209. Population density

Location People per Square Mile

Ferry County 3.4

Pend Oreille County 9.3

Stevens County 17.6

Washington State 94.3

United States 87.2

22712 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010

22713 Ferry and Pend Oreille counties have particularly low population densities, with fewer than 10 people per 

22714 square mile. These are among the least dense counties in the state. These counties are clustered in the far 

22715 northeastern area of Washington, which suggests that these counties may be particularly isolated. 

22716 Residents in isolated counties generally have limited access to services, fewer economic opportunities, 

22717 and face higher transportation costs. 

22718 Although population density may suggest urban or rural status in a county, it cannot indicate the 

22719 concentration of urban and rural areas within a county. Wide disparities between urban and rural areas 

22720 remain in terms of economic conditions, access to infrastructure and services, opportunities for 

22721 socioeconomic mobility, and control over natural resources (Grinspoon and Phillips 2007). Disparities are 

22722 caused by natural differences, political decisions, and social factors

22723 The Economic Research Service classifies all counties on a rural-urban continuum using nine codes (1 is 

22724 the most urban; 9 is the most rural). Pend Oreille and Stevens counties are in the Spokane metropolitan 

22725 area, and are, therefore, classified as urban counties. However, Ferry County is classified as entirely rural 

22726 (ERS 2015). These data reaffirm the findings discussed under population density.

22727 Median Age

22728 Median age can reveal information relevant to land management decisions. Areas with a large proportion 

22729 of retirees may have different needs and preferences than communities populated primarily with working 

22730 age families. The following table provides the median age by county as well as the state and national 

22731 averages. 

22732 Table 210. Median age

Location Median Age

Ferry County 47.3

Pend Oreille County 47.8

Stevens County 45.0

Washington State 37.3

United States 37.2

22733 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, Table DP-1

22734 Median age in the planning area is substantially older than the State and the Nation. People living in the 

22735 three counties are, on average, approximately 10 years older than the State and Nation. This suggests that 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

645

22736 these counties have relatively high proportions of retirees and comparatively few young adults and 

22737 families with children at home. (Note: this prediction is borne out in the labor versus non-labor income 

22738 data presented below. All three counties have large shares of non-labor income.) Of the communities 

22739 within 10 miles of the Colville National Forest, only Kettle Falls, Springdale, and Newport have median 

22740 ages that approximate the state and national medians (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The remaining 

22741 communities have median ages that are substantially higher than the state and national medians. These 

22742 data suggest that forest access for older individuals may be linked to community and household well22743 being. 

22744 Educational Attainment

22745 Educational attainment, the measure of people with at least a high school diploma or bachelor’s degree, is 

22746 an important indicator of an area’s social and economic opportunities and its ability to adapt to change. 

22747 The following table lists the percentage of the adult population with a high school diploma and a 

22748 bachelor’s degree.

22749 Table 211. Educational attainment, percentage of persons age 25 and over

Location High School Graduate or Higher (%) Bachelor’s Degree or Higher (%)

Ferry County 88.6 16.7

Pend Oreille County 87.7 17.9

Stevens County 90.2 19.2

Washington 89.6 31.0

United States 85.0 27.9

22750 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, Table DP-02

22751 The percentage of adults with at least a high school diploma in the planning area is similar to the state and 

22752 national averages. The population with at least a bachelor’s degree in the planning area, however, is low 

22753 compared to the State and Nation. The adult population with at least a bachelor’s degree in the planning 

22754 area is approximately ten percentage points lower than the national average. These data may indicate that 

22755 the planning area counties provide few opportunities for highly educated workers. The presence of highly 

22756 educated adults may be self-reinforcing: a highly educated population is a signal that an area provides 

22757 economic and cultural opportunities, which attracts additional college educated adults to the area. This 

22758 process leads to further economic development and job creation. In contrast, areas with low levels of 

22759 educational attainment have lower levels of human capital, which reduces an area’s ability to capitalize on 

22760 economic change (Florida 2002). 

22761 Income and Earnings

22762 Income data are key indicators of the economic well-being of a county. High per capita income and mean 

22763 earnings may signal greater job opportunities, highly skilled residents, economic resilience, and well22764 developed infrastructure. Per capita income measures both labor income (i.e., wage and salary payments) 

22765 and non-labor income (i.e., dividends, rents, and transfer payments) divided by the total number of people 

22766 in a county. Mean earnings data consider only wage and salary payments to the working population in a 

22767 county.

22768
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

646

22769 Table 212. Per capita income and mean earnings

Per Capita Income Mean Earnings

Ferry County $19,320 $48,305

Pend Oreille County $22,647 $55,017

Stevens County $21,928 $53,101

Washington $30,661 $77,586

United States $28,051 $74,373

22770 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012b

22771 Across all three planning area counties, both per capita income and mean earnings are considerably below 

22772 the state and national figures. These data suggest that the planning area provides limited economic 

22773 opportunities. 

22774 Table 213 displays the contribution of labor (i.e., wage and salary) and non-labor (i.e., rents, dividends, 

22775 and transfer payments) sources of income to total personal income in the planning area counties. All three 

22776 study area counties derive the majority of personal income from non-labor sources, which indicates that a 

22777 large number of retirees reside in the area. In contrast, nearly two-thirds of personal income in both the 

22778 State and Nation come from labor earnings. These data are consistent with the finding that planning area 

22779 residents are, on average, older than residents of the State and Nation.

22780 Table 213. Contribution of labor and non-labor income to total personal income

Labor % Non-labor %

Ferry County 41.0 59.0

Pend Oreille County 45.2 54.8

Stevens County 46.5 53.5

Washington 64.7 35.3

United States 64.6 35.4

22781 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012

22782 Non-labor income can provide economic stability in an area, as it is not directly tied to employment. 

22783 However, reliance on non-labor income also has drawbacks: first, as the latest recession illustrated, asset 

22784 markets can be high risk. Dramatic changes in the value of homes and investment portfolios may 

22785 significantly decrease non-labor income. Second, some forms of non-labor income, particularly transfer 

22786 payments (e.g., Social Security), are contingent on government policy. Changes in policy would affect 

22787 this type of income. Third, the types of goods and services bought with non-labor income would affect the 

22788 economic impact. For instance, a county that has a high rate of amenity retiree part-year residents is likely 

22789 to experience growth in related industries, such as tourism and recreation. Jobs in these industries are 

22790 often low wage and seasonal, which may increase employment, but decrease mean earnings.

22791 Economic Diversity

22792 Economic diversity generally promotes stability and offers greater employment opportunities. Highly 

22793 specialized economies (i.e., those that depend on very few industries for the bulk of employment and 

22794 income) are more prone to cyclical fluctuations and offer more limited job opportunities. Determining the 

22795 degree of specialization in an economy is important for decision-makers, particularly when the dominant 

22796 industry can be significantly affected by changes in policy. For Forest Service decision-makers, this is 

22797 likely to be the case where the forest products industry or the tourism and recreation industries, for 

22798 instance, are reliant on the local national forest.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

647

22799 Government is the dominant employer, accounting for more than one-quarter of planning area 

22800 employment. Nationally, approximately 14 percent of employment is with the government (all levels). 

22801 The planning area is also specialized in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, which accounts for 

22802 9 percent of employment in the three-county area. For context, this sector is responsible for less than 

22803 2 percent of national employment (IMPLAN 2010). 

22804 Economists, borrowing from ecologists, use a diversity index (variously called the Shannon Index, 

22805 Shannon-Weiner Index, and Shannon-Weaver Index) to assess the degree of economic specialization. The 

22806 index ranges from zero (most specialized) to one (most diverse). The planning area scores 0.67 on this 

22807 index. In contrast, Washington scores 0.74 and the U.S. scores 0.76 (IMPLAN 2010). A low economic 

22808 diversity rating may indicate lower economic resilience. 

22809 Unemployment

22810 The unemployment rate provides insight into the correspondence between residents’ skills and 

22811 employment opportunities. The “natural” rate of unemployment has been posited to be around 5 percent. 

22812 This is the so-called natural rate because this is a level that allows for movement between jobs and 

22813 industries, but does not signal broad economic distress. The national unemployment rate has stayed 

22814 substantially above this rate since 2009. Figure 11 shows the unemployment trends for the Nation, State, 

22815 and three-county planning area since 2000. 

22816

22817 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013

22818 Figure 11. Unemployment rate

22819
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

648

22820 Since the middle of the decade, Washington’s unemployment rate has converged with the national rate. In 

22821 contrast, the unemployment rate in the three-county area has consistently exceeded the national and state 

22822 unemployment rates since 2000. These data suggest that the planning area may be less able to adapt to 

22823 economic changes.

22824 Environmental Justice

22825 In 1994, President Clinton issued E.O. 12898 (Office of the President 1994). This order mandates that all 

22826 Federal agencies analyze the potential for their actions to disproportionately affect minority and low22827 income populations. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued supplemental guidance to 

22828 assist agencies’ compliance (CEQ 1997). The CEQ suggests the following criteria for identifying 

22829 potential environmental justice populations:

22830 “Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the 

22831 minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 

22832 percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

22833 percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis...”

22834 “Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be 

22835 identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' 

22836 Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low22837 income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals 

22838 living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant 

22839 workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common 

22840 conditions of environmental exposure or effect.”

22841 According to the Census data from 2010, Native American populations meet the environmental justice 

22842 criterion as a minority population meaningfully greater than the general population. Therefore, decision 

22843 makers in planning area should give particular consideration to the potential impacts of management 

22844 actions on Native American populations.

22845 More than 15 percent of Ferry County’s population identifies as Native American or Alaska Native, 

22846 indicating that effects on tribal uses and values should be thoroughly analyzed. Pend Oreille and Stevens 

22847 counties also have large Native American/Alaska Native populations relative to Washington and the 

22848 United States. Compared to the state and nation, the planning area has fewer individuals who identify as 

22849 Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, or Asian.

22850 The following table shows the share of individuals living in poverty in 2010. All three counties have 

22851 poverty rates that exceed the state and national rates. The relatively high poverty rates across the planning 

22852 area highlight the importance of considering potential environmental justice impacts in the decision22853 making process.

22854 Table 214. Poverty rates

Location % People Living in Poverty

Ferry County 20.8

Pend Oreille County 18.3

Stevens County 15.1

Washington State 12.1

United States 13.8

22855 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012a
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

649

22856 All three counties have poverty rates that exceed the state and national rates. The relatively high poverty 

22857 rates across the planning area highlight the importance of considering potential environmental justice 

22858 impacts in the decision-making process. Ferry County has the highest poverty rate, with approximately 

22859 one-fifth of residents living in poverty. Ferry County also has the highest percentage of minority residents 

22860 in the planning area, suggesting overlap between race and poverty. Tribal land uses in Ferry County (e.g., 

22861 subsistence gathering on the Forest) would be analyzed in the context of high poverty rates. 

22862 Table 215 displays the poverty rate by race and ethnicity for each of the three counties, Washington, and 

22863 the United States. As the table reveals, the poverty rate often varies substantially across races and 

22864 ethnicities. In all considered geographies, non-Hispanic white residents experience the lowest levels of 

22865 poverty. Overall, the table indicates a strong correlation between minority status and poverty in the 

22866 planning area. 

22867 Native American/Alaska Native individuals experience the highest rates of poverty in the planning area, 

22868 with approximately one-quarter of these individuals living below the poverty line. Each instance of the 

22869 poverty rate exceeding 25 percent is highlighted gray.

22870 Table 215. Poverty by race and ethnicity

Location White, Not 

Hispanic

Black, 

African 

American

Native 

American, 

Alaska Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian, 

Pacific 

Islander

Latino, 

Hispanic

Ferry County 17.2% N/A 24.1% N/A N/A N/A

Pend Oreille County 17.5% N/A 29.0% N/A N/A 18.7%

Stevens County 14.7% 14.7% 25.5% 18.5% N/A 26.5%

Washington State 8.2% 18.6% 21.1% 12.2% 13.3% 24.2%

United States 7.9% 23.4% 22.3% 12.3% 15.7% 22.1%

22871 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

22872 Note: N/A indicates that this data was not available from the Census Bureau. To protect the identity of respondents, the Census 

22873 Bureau does not report data where fewer than 100 individuals compose the sample.

22874 A low prevalence of minority residents, poverty, or both, should not be construed as evidence that 

22875 environmental justice issues would not arise as a result of forest planning decisions. All decisions would 

22876 be scrutinized for any potential adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, wherever they reside in the 

22877 planning area.

22878 Three federally recognized tribes are engaged in the plan revision process at varied levels: the Colville 

22879 Confederated Tribes, the Spokane Tribe, and the Kalispel Tribe.

22880 Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes

22881 Values are “relatively general, yet enduring, conceptions of what is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable 

22882 or undesirable.”

22883 Beliefs are “judgments about what is true or falsejudgments about what attributes are linked to a given 

22884 object. Beliefs can also link actions to effects.”

22885 Attitudes are “tendencies to react favorably or unfavorably to a situation, individual, object, or concept. 

22886 They arise in part from a person’s values and beliefs regarding the attitude object” (Allen et al. 2009). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

650

22887 The James Kent Associates report, “Community Field Reports in Support of the Upcoming Land Use 

22888 Planning for the Spokane District Office of the Bureau of Land Management,” (JKA 2010) outlines 

22889 values, beliefs, and attitudes expressed by eastern Washington residents toward public lands management. 

22890 Although this report focuses on BLM management, much of the information is also relevant for Forest 

22891 Service decision makers in northeastern Washington. The report divides area into “human resource units”. 

22892 The relevant unit for the planning area is the Colville human resource unit. 

22893 A common theme across northeastern Washington residents was an appreciation for public lands because 

22894 of outdoor recreation activities, such as hiking, skiing, and OHV use. However, the local economy in the 

22895 Colville human resource unit remains reliant on public land resources. Timber, agriculture, and mining are 

22896 socially and economically important sectors. The varied uses of public lands have the potential to give 

22897 rise to conflict between residents. The Colville human resource unit is traditionally based on cattle 

22898 grazing, timber production, and mining. Despite the growth in recreation participation in the area, some 

22899 residents believe recreation to be less important to the local economy due to the perception that it “does 

22900 not add directly to local government revenue the way that traditional economic sectors do” (JKA 2010, 

22901 pg. 132).

22902 Changes in outdoor recreation habits have led to conflict between users with different recreation values. 

22903 Motorized and non-motorized users often express different recreation values, which can lead to conflict 

22904 on the trails. Some respondents expressed a belief that all areas should be open to OHV use, which has 

22905 been curtailed in many areas as a result of travel management planning. In contrast, non-motorized users 

22906 expressed concern that motorized users jeopardized the safety of other users and the ecological values of 

22907 the land. 

22908 A dominant trend across human resource unit s in the JKA report is the social and economic changes 

22909 occurring across the planning area. While many of these changes benefit local residents through outdoor 

22910 recreation opportunities and economic growth, many residents feel that these changes are compromising 

22911 traditional values in the community. Residents who rely on public lands for a living are witnessing a shift 

22912 in attitudes in their communities about how public lands should be used. Whereas commodity uses such 

22913 as grazing and timber were once dominant, the growth in outdoor recreation can come into conflict with 

22914 commodity values. 

22915 In addition to the JKA report, a sample of public comments related to social and economic conditions was 

22916 reviewed. Sixteen interest areas were identified and used to code the comments. These include: fire and 

22917 fuels management, citizen involvement, mineral extraction, economic development, wilderness 

22918 designation, ecosystem services, access, livestock grazing, motorized recreation, non-motorized 

22919 recreation, road and trail maintenance, multiple use management, hunting and fishing, timber and forestry, 

22920 forest health, and roadless areas. These interest areas are closely aligned with the values expressed in the 

22921 comments. Promotion of forest health, protection and expansion of diverse recreation opportunities, 

22922 economic development, preservation of public access to NFS lands, and public involvement in agency 

22923 decision-making are values that were present in one or more of the comments in the sample.

22924 A number of public comments expressed a belief that closures and restrictions are antithetical to public 

22925 lands. For these forest users, continued access for recreation and grazingvia motorized and non22926 motorized meansis the paramount concern. One member of the public commented, “We already don’t 

22927 have enough riding areas to enjoy with our families and now there is more ‘take away’? When will it 

22928 end?” This sentiment was common among forest users who believe that wilderness recommendations 

22929 would limit access to their favorite places. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

651

22930 Some individuals argued that because they contribute to trail maintenance, they have a right to forest 

22931 access. These users believe that they act as stewards of the forest, and efforts to limit their access do not 

22932 recognize the contributions they make. 

22933 Others comments prioritized forest health over public access. These individuals expressed a belief that 

22934 wilderness designation protects forests and ecosystem services for future generations. One comment 

22935 claimed that there is an imbalance in the quality of the recreation experience for motorized and non22936 motorized users - those who value “solitude, quiet, and fresh clean air,” have fewer opportunities.

22937 Community Resilience

22938 Defining Community Resilience

22939 Community (or socioeconomic) resilience relates to humans’ ability to adapt to social and economic 

22940 changes. Quigley et al. (1996) define community resilience as: “the capacity of humans to change their 

22941 behavior, redefine economic relationships, and alter social institutions so that economic viability is 

22942 maintained and social stresses are minimized”. Numerous studies have attempted to measure community 

22943 resilience in the Pacific Northwest. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP) 

22944 assessed the community resilience of all 100 counties in its planning area. Community resilience is a 

22945 particularly salient topic for Forest Service managers in this region, where many local communities rely 

22946 on forests for income, employment, and leisure. Forest-dependent communities are more likely to 

22947 experience social and economic consequences due to changes in forest management.

22948 Community Resilience Indicators

22949 Unfortunately, the definition of community resilience does not offer tools for its measurement. Therefore, 

22950 indicators are needed to serve as proxies for resilience. Ecologists have found that ecological diversity 

22951 contributes to ecosystem resilience. This finding can translate to the social sciencesmore diverse 

22952 communities generally adapt to and integrate change more rapidly and successfully than their less diverse 

22953 counterparts. Using this assumption as a starting point, social scientists have developed numerous 

22954 measurable indicators to assess community resilience. 

22955 Horne and Haynes (1999) use three indicators to measure community resilience for the ICBEMP: 

22956 economic resilience, lifestyle diversity, and civic infrastructure. An economic diversity index is used as a 

22957 proxy for economic resilience. Scores on this index range from zero (no diversity) to one (perfect 

22958 diversity). Table 216 presents the economic diversity index for counties in the planning area. Economic 

22959 diversity ratings for planning area counties are determined relative to the state’s diversity index. 

22960 Washington scores 0.740 on the economic diversity index. “High” ratings are assigned to counties with 

22961 indices at least 95 percent of the state’s index (0.703 or higher). “Medium” ratings are given to counties 

22962 with indices between 85 percent and 95 percent of the state (0.629 to 0.702). “Low” ratings are assigned 

22963 to counties that are less than 85 percent as diverse as the state (below 0.629).

22964 Table 216. Economic diversity index

Location Diversity Index Rating

Ferry County 0.596 Low

Pend Oreille County 0.594 Low

Stevens County 0.674 Medium

22965 Source: IMPLAN 2010
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

652

22966 No planning area counties have high levels of economic diversity. Nevertheless, there is variation 

22967 between planning area counties. Stevens County is significantly more economically diverse than Ferry 

22968 and Pend Oreille counties, which have low levels of economic diversity. These findings are consistent 

22969 with the population data presented at the beginning of this section, which found that Ferry and Pend 

22970 Oreille counties have low population densities. As described earlier, rural areas typically offer fewer 

22971 economic opportunities. 

22972 Lifestyle diversity presents a greater measurement challenge. Horne and Haynes (1999) used the PRIZM 

22973 market segmentation database. More recently, a Forest Service study was conducted to measure the 

22974 socioeconomic resilience of Washington counties (Daniels 2004). Rather than relying on a single 

22975 database, Daniels creates a composite measure of lifestyle diversity. Mobility, ethnicity, degree of 

22976 urbanness, race, income, and education are used as proxies for lifestyle diversity. Daniels’ findings are 

22977 copied in table 217, for the planning area counties.

22978 Table 217. Location diversity rating

Location Diversity Rating

Ferry County Low

Pend Oreille County Low

Stevens County Low

22979 Source: Daniels 2004, pg. 15

22980 Lifestyle diversity ratings in all planning area counties are categorized as “low.” These findings are 

22981 consistent with the population density, educational attainment, and race and ethnicity data discussed 

22982 earlier. 

22983 Civic infrastructure includes community leadership and preparedness for change. Given the difficultly of 

22984 directly measuring civic infrastructure, Horne and Haynes (1999) use population density as a proxy for 

22985 civic infrastructure. Daniels (2004) explains the intuition for this proxy: “the relative isolation of [low 

22986 population density] counties results in a lower propensity to establish elements of civic infrastructure” 

22987 (pg. 18). Density data were previously presented (in the Population Density section). All planning area 

22988 counties are much less densely populated than the state. These data suggests that the planning area has 

22989 low levels of civic infrastructure.

22990 Following Daniels’ (2004) method, counties with fewer than 10 people per square mile are given “lowest” 

22991 ratings, which confer a zero score in the composite calculations. Two planning area countiesFerry and 

22992 Pend Oreille countiesfall in this category. Counties with population densities between 10 and 30 are 

22993 given “low” ratings. Stevens County is in this category. No counties in the Colville National Forest 

22994 planning area are in the “medium” or “high” categories. 

22995 Composite Community Resilience Measures

22996 The three community resilience indicatorseconomic resilience, lifestyle diversity, and civic 

22997 infrastructurere-averaged to calculate composite community resilience ratings. Counties are scored on a 

22998 zero to three scale (zero is the least resilient). The following table presents the community resilience 

22999 ratings for planning area counties.

23000
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

653

23001 Table 218. Composite community resilience measures

Location Economic Diversity Lifestyle Diversity Civic Infrastructure Composite Score

Ferry County Low Low Lowest 0.67

Pend Oreille County Low Low Lowest 0.67

Stevens County Medium Low Low 1.33

23002 Source: Daniels 2004; Horne and Haynes 1999

23003 In analyzing the community resilience information, it is important to keep in mind that low resilience 

23004 ratings are not synonymous with “bad,” just as high resilience ratings do not confer superior status. Some 

23005 residents of low resilience counties may value elements of their counties that are not captured in resilience 

23006 analysis. For instance, “traditional” social and economic lifestyles may be compromised as a community 

23007 moves from low to high resilience. This trend was discussed in the Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes section. 

23008 Community resilience information is relevant for Forest Service managers in considering the 

23009 consequences of social and economic change. Management actions that alter social or economic activities 

23010 in low resilience counties are more likely to have pronounced impacts. 

23011 Ferry and Pend Oreille counties have the lowest community resilience ratings, both scoring 0.67. This 

23012 indicates that these counties would be least able to successfully adapt to social and economic changes. 

23013 Stevens County has a somewhat higher, though still low, community resilience rating. These findings 

23014 suggest that Forest Service management actions on the Colville National Forest that affect social and 

23015 economic conditions in the surrounding communities may be difficult to assimilate. The ability of the 

23016 communities to adapt to, and benefit from, social and economic change is expected to be low.

23017 Forest Dependence

23018 Community resilience data, without further context, may not be particularly useful for estimating the 

23019 social and economic consequences of Forest Service management actions. Assessing the degree to which 

23020 planning area counties benefit from forest land is essential to understand the resilience of local 

23021 communities to Forest Service actions. Counties derive income and employment from the forest products 

23022 and tourism industries. Additionally, local residents use forests for recreation, spiritual and cultural 

23023 activities. Frequently, forests also anchor sense of place, which contributes to social well-being. The 

23024 following table provides the percentage of land in each county that is forested (note: this includes all 

23025 forest land, not just National Forest System lands).

23026 Table 219. Forested lands

Location Forest Land Area, Percent of Total Land

Ferry County 86.78%

Pend Oreille County 75.76%

Stevens County 75.69%

23027 Source: Daniels 2004, pg. 24

23028 Counties of particular concern are those with low resilience ratings and high forest dependence. Ferry, 

23029 Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties have very high percentages of forest land, which accounts for at least 

23030 three-quarters of the land base in each county. Ferry and Pend Oreille counties also have the lowest 

23031 community resilience ratings. The combination of these factors suggests that Colville National Forest 

23032 managers should pay particular attention to how management actions would affect the social and 

23033 economic conditions in these counties. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

654

23034 The percentage of forest land is not a complete measure of dependence on forest resources. The 

23035 importance of forest-related economic sectors also provides insight into the role of forest lands in the 

23036 planning area counties. Table 220 shows the contribution of the forestry and commercial logging sectors 

23037 to employment and income, by county. These findings are consistent with the percentages of forest land 

23038 by county. Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties are all comparatively more reliant on timber-related 

23039 employment than the state. Furthermore, the forestry and commercial logging industry is more dominant 

23040 in Washington than it is in the nation as a whole (IMPLAN 2010).

23041 Table 220. Forestry and commercial logging employment and income, percentage of total

Location Forestry and Commercial Logging 

Employment, % of Total

Forestry and Commercial Logging 

Employee Compensation, % of Total

Ferry County 2.2% 2.6%

Pend Oreille County 4.3% 10.3%

Stevens County 5.8% 9.9%

Washington State 0.7% 0.9%

23042 Source: IMPLAN 2010

23043 However, timber is not the sole forest resource that contributes to the local economy. Recreation and 

23044 wildlife-related visits are major contributors to local employment and income. Activities on the Forest, 

23045 both consumptive (e.g., logging) and non-consumptive (e.g., wildlife viewing), support the local 

23046 economy. Many of the communities adjacent to the Colville National Forest are reliant on employment in 

23047 the natural resources sectors (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining). More than one-third 

23048 of employment in Ione is in natural resources; approximately 10 percent of Kettle Falls, Republic, 

23049 Metaline Falls, and Newport residents are employed in natural resource sectors (U.S. Census Bureau 

23050 2012). The economic specialist report contains an assessment of the economic contribution of Forest 

23051 Service activities to the local economy.

23052 Access and Use

23053 Visitor Use Data

23054 Table 221 presents a breakdown of visitor activities on the Colville National Forest. Activity participation 

23055 is reported according to the percentage of visitors who engaged in that activity (either alone or in 

23056 combination with other activities) and the percentage of visitors who reported the activity as their main 

23057 use of the Forest during their visit. The most commonly reported activities are not necessarily the most 

23058 frequently reported main activities. For instance, one-fifth (20.9 percent) of Forest visitors reported that 

23059 they viewed wildlife during their visit. However, only approximately one-half of one percent (0.4 percent) 

23060 of visitors indicated that wildlife viewing was their primary trip purpose. 

23061 The most common activities (by main activity) are downhill skiing and viewing natural features, which 

23062 were each reported as the main activity by more than 10 percent of visitors. Hiking/walking, relaxing, 

23063 developed camping, gathering forest products, fishing, and snowmobiling were each the main activities 

23064 for more than 5 percent of visitors. 

23065 The activity participation breakdown indicates that forest users engage in a diverse range of activities. 

23066 Both motorized (e.g., snowmobiling) and non-motorized activities (e.g., hiking/walking) are common. 

23067 Furthermore, forest resources provide diverse types of value. Consumptive uses (e.g., fishing and 

23068 gathering forest products) exist alongside non-consumptive uses (e.g., viewing natural features). This 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

655

23069 diversity makes it difficult to generalize about forest uses. The available data suggest that multiple-use 

23070 management of the forests is consistent with existing use patterns.

23071 Table 221. Activity participation on the Colville National Forest

Activity % Participation % Main Activity

Viewing Natural Features 30.7 12.0

Hiking/Walking 29.0 7.8

Relaxing 28.3 5.7

Downhill Skiing 24.0 23.3

Driving for Pleasure 21.9 2.0

Viewing Wildlife 20.9 0.4

Developed Camping 18.5 8.5

Gathering Forest Products 13.8 8.6

Fishing 13.6 5.5

Picnicking 13.3 0.4

Other Non-motorized 9.1 2.5

Motorized Trail Activity 8.3 4.3

Snowmobiling 7.7 7.2

OHV Use 6.6 1.4

Primitive Camping 6.0 1.7

Motorized Water Activities 6.0 2.2

Bicycling 5.1 1.0

Nature Study 4.9 0.7

Non-motorized Water 4.2 1.1

Hunting 3.6 1.6

Visiting Historic Sites 3.2 0.0

Nature Center Activities 3.1 0.0

Cross-country Skiing 2.6 1.6

Backpacking 2.5 0.4

Resort Use 2.0 0.0

Some Other Activity 1.3 0.4

Other Motorized Activity 0.8 0.7

Horseback Riding 0.7 0.1

No Activity Reported 0.3 0.3

23072 Source: USFS 2012a

23073 Firewood

23074 The Colville National Forest provides firewood permits for personal and (limited) commercial use. The 

23075 following table displays the volume and value of firewood cut and sold on the Forest in fiscal year 2012.

23076 Table 222. Cut and sold firewood, volume and value, FY2012

Forest Sold Volume (CCF) Sold Value Cut Volume (CCF) Cut Value

Colville National Forest 10,242.50 $60,250.00 10,400.60 $61,240.00

23077 Source: USFS 2012b
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

656

23078 For households in the planning area, firewood from the forest may provide an affordable source of 

23079 heating. Table 223 lists the percentage of households in each county that report using wood as their 

23080 primary heating source. The three Colville National Forest countiesFerry, Pend Oreille, and 

23081 Stevenshave a substantially higher reliance on firewood compared to the state as a whole. Indeed, more 

23082 than half of households in Ferry County use firewood as their primary heat source. These data suggest 

23083 that changes to firewood availability on the Colville National Forest would have the potential to affect the 

23084 well-being of households in the planning area.

23085 Table 223. Percentage of households with wood as primary heating fuel

Location % Households with Wood as Primary Heating Source

Ferry County 52.7%

Pend Oreille County 29.2%

Stevens County 32.2%

Washington State 4.5%

23086 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012a

23087 Several of the communities adjacent to the Colville National Forest are particularly reliant on wood as the 

23088 primary home heating source. Approximately 60 percent of households in Springdale and Marcus use 

23089 wood as the primary heating source. Nearly half of households in Republic and Northport rely on wood 

23090 heating (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Changes to firewood availability on the Colville National Forest 

23091 could affect household well-being in these communities by affecting the cost of home heating.

23092 Forest Access

23093 NFS lands provide commercial, cultural, and leisure opportunities. Access to these lands is often a chief 

23094 concern voiced by the public. Approximately 41 percent of the public comments reviewed (7 of 17 unique 

23095 comments) expressed a primary interest in forest access. Most of these comments addressed the desire for 

23096 continued access to favorite recreation areas. Both motorized and non-motorized recreation participants 

23097 expressed concerns related to forest access. 

23098 A number of access-related comments argued against recommending additional wilderness areas. One 

23099 comment claimed that wilderness designation blocks use and enjoyment of the forest by the majority of 

23100 people. Inventoried roadless areas and travel management planning limit the ability of motorized users to 

23101 recreate on public lands without restrictions, and some motorized users commented that they feel their 

23102 recreation opportunities on the forests are being eroded. However, another comment stressed the 

23103 importance of regulating access so that those who desire quiet and solitude do not need to compete with 

23104 motorized and mechanized recreation users. Other comments addressed the trade-off between 

23105 unencumbered access and forest health.

23106 Wildfire and the Wildland-urban Interface

23107 Annually, millions of dollars are spent suppressing wildfires in the United States. In 2007, there were 

23108 27 large fires in the U.S. that cost $547 million to suppress (WFLC 2010). Between 2000 and 2008, the 

23109 percentage of the Forest Service budget spent on extinguishing wildfires expanded from 25 to 44 percent 

23110 (WFLC 2010). Furthermore, suppression costs account for only a fraction of the total cost of wildfires. 

23111 The Western Forestry Leadership Coalition estimates that total wildfire-related expenses range from two 

23112 to thirty times the reported suppression costs (2010). 

23113 A principal reason for the increasing cost is the growing number of homes located in the wildland-urban 

23114 interface (WUI). Suppression activities are frequently undertaken when wildfire threatens private 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

657

23115 property. A century of fire suppression has led to increased frequency of high-intensity wildfire. The 

23116 spread of the WUI has increased the probability that wildfires would occur near private residences. These 

23117 two factorsthe growth of the WUI and the use of suppression tacticsincrease the cost of wildfire. The 

23118 following table presents the extent of the wildland-urban interface and wildfire risk in the planning area 

23119 counties.

23120 Table 224. Homes in wildland-urban interface and wildfire risk

Location WUI Homes as % of Total 

Homes

West-wide Rank by 

Existing Risk (of 413 

counties)

West-wide Rank by 

Potential Risk (of 413 

counties)

Ferry County 21.2% 115 46

Pend Oreille County 34.8% 81 58

Stevens County 18.6% 41 10

Washington State 8.1% -- --

23121 Source: Gude et al. 2008

23122 WUI development is a major land use in Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties. Wildfire and fire 

23123 management activities, therefore, are likely to affect private property and quality of life in communities 

23124 near the Colville National Forest. While the WUI is correlated with wildfire risk, Forest Service activities, 

23125 such as fuel reduction projects and old growth management, may also influence the risk and hazard of 

23126 wildfire.

23127 Need for Change

23128 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

23129 Some members of the public are concerned that the proposed action does not protect old forests and 

23130 wildlife habitat as well as the current forest plan. Other members of the public are concerned that the 

23131 proposed action does not allow enough timber production, which hurts the economy. Some are also 

23132 concerned that the proposed action limits the Forest Service’s ability to defend forests from insects, 

23133 disease, and fire. 

23134 Motorized Recreation Trails

23135 Public comments reflected opposing desires regarding motorized recreation opportunities, particularly the 

23136 distribution and quantity of motorized trails. Some members of the public expressed concerns that the 

23137 distribution and quantity of motorized trails negatively affects tourism and the local economy, while other 

stakeholders5 23138 said that they want fewer miles of motorized trails and that they do not like the resource 

23139 damage, noise, and conflict associated with them. 

23140 Access

23141 Some stakeholders expressed concern that the proposed action does not provide enough roads for 

23142 recreation, grazing, fire suppression, timber harvest, and firewood collection. They commented that lack 

23143 of access would have a negative impact on economic well-being. Other stakeholders expressed concern 

23144 that the Forest Service does not have the capacity to maintain the current road network and that 

23145 unmaintained roads damage wildlife, water, and fish.

 5 Stakeholders are 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

658

23146 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23147 While forest plans may make a preliminary recommendation for additional wilderness, only Congress can 

23148 designate wilderness. Some stakeholders are concerned that the proposed action recommends too much 

23149 additional wilderness. They commented that more wilderness areas hurt the economy by limiting timber 

23150 harvest, grazing, mountain biking, and motorized recreation. Members of the public also raised concerns 

23151 about the increased cost of managing additional wilderness.

23152 Other stakeholders said that the proposed action does not include enough additional wilderness areas; they 

23153 want more. They said that they want to make sure that wilderness provides habitat connections for 

23154 wildlife. Additionally, some members of the public are concerned about protecting the uniqueness of these 

23155 areas, and they said that additional wilderness improves the local economy.

23156 Wildlife

23157 The public is concerned that the proposed action does not adequately protect wildlife. They said that they 

23158 want more protection for federally listed species such as grizzly bear, lynx, caribou, and other wildlife 

23159 species of concern such as wolverine and northern goshawk. To protect these species, stakeholders said 

23160 they want connected habitats, habitats that are not disturbed by roads and trails, as well as more large 

23161 trees and snags. 

23162 Other stakeholders are concerned that increasing wildlife protection decreases opportunities for 

23163 recreation, timber production, and livelihoods.

23164 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management

23165 Some members of the public expressed concern that the proposed action does not adequately protect 

23166 riparian areas such as those adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands, and rivers. They said that they want the 

23167 Forest Service to limit the negative effects of roads, grazing, and off-highway vehicles in these areas. 

23168 Other members of the public are concerned that the protection of these aquatic resources limits timber 

23169 production, grazing, and recreation.

23170 Public comments raised concerns that the proposed action does not provide watershed and aquatic 

23171 resource protections that are as effective as current forest plan direction. Concerns centered on managing 

23172 possible detrimental impacts of uses such as roads, livestock grazing, and motorized trails in riparian 

23173 areas

23174 Environmental Consequences

23175 Methodology 

23176 Assumptions

23177 • Assume the budget levels would continue along current trend lines, with the possibility of the 

23178 amount varying by 20 percent plus or minus. 

23179 • The identification of social values relies on the James Kent Associates report (JKA 2010), public 

23180 scoping comments, and discussions with Forest staff.

23181 • The effects of recommended wilderness areas are based on the assumption that these areas would 

23182 be designated as wilderness by Congress. 

23183 • Higher road density improves forest access for both commercial and recreational forest users. 

23184 • Economic and leisure opportunities on the forest are utilized at levels similar to existing 

23185 conditions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

659

23186 Methods of analysis 

23187 The social analysis combines Forest Service data on resource use (recreation, grazing, forest products, 

23188 and minerals) with information on social values to estimate how changes in forest management would 

23189 affect human well-being. 

23190 The Forest Service resource data was obtained from:

23191 • National visitor use monitoring program (recreation)

23192 • Cut and sold reports (forest products)

23193 • Natural Resources Manager (minerals and grazing)

23194 Information on social values, as described in the affected environment section, is based on public 

23195 comments and the report on the attitudes of eastern Washington residents toward public lands (JKA 

23196 2010). 

23197 The evaluation criteria and indicators used in this analysis are described at the beginning of this section. 

23198 Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

23199 Uncertainty about future demographic change, social values and norms, and market conditions constrain 

23200 the reliability of projections of the social environment in fifteen years.

23201 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

23202 The spatial context for the social effects analysis includes Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties. Due 

23203 to the programmatic nature of forest planning, site-specific consequences cannot typically be estimated. 

23204 Therefore, the social analysis estimates effects at the regional (3-county) level. 

23205 The temporal context for the analysis extends fifteen years, which is the expected life of a forest plan.

23206 No-action Alternative 

23207 The no-action alternative is less likely to protect old forests and their associated social values than the 

23208 proposed action. As a result, the flow of ecosystem services to adjacent communities may decrease while 

23209 the risk of wildfire to private property and human health would increase. Access, recreational 

23210 opportunities, and other forest uses that support quality of life and community resilience would not 

23211 change relative to current conditions. Lower forest resilience may decrease the production of culturally23212 important foods, which may affect tribal interests and well-being. 

23213 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

23214 The no-action alternative would not alter old forest management on the Colville National Forest. Old 

23215 growth management areas and the Eastside Screens would continue to regulate forest activities to protect 

23216 old forest habitat. The old forest reserves would continue to account for approximately three percent of 

23217 the Colville National Forest. However, old forests are expected to decline due to disturbances such as fire 

23218 and insects, competition for water and nutrients, and age. Wildfire risk to adjacent communities would 

23219 continue, which may affect private property and human health. Climate change is expected to exacerbate 

23220 tree mortality and threats to human health and property (Gaines et al. 2012). Under the no-action 

23221 alternative, only 23 percent of the Colville National Forest would be within the historic range. This 

23222 alternative has the highest risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to communities adjacent to the forest. 

23223 The no-action alternative would do less to protect old forests than the proposed action. Forest visitors and 

23224 interest groups value old forest for wildlife viewing, spiritual opportunities, and non-use values (e.g., 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

660

23225 knowing that old forests exist and may be seen by future generations). The no-action alternative would 

23226 also be less likely to sustain a flow of ecosystem services related to old forestsincluding wildlife habitat 

23227 and spiritual valuesthan the proposed action. Therefore, communities that rely on the Colville National 

23228 Forest for ecosystem services may have their quality of life decline compared to management under the 

23229 proposed action alternative. 

23230 The no-action alternative would lead to the harvest of approximately 41 million board feet annually. 

23231 Wood products harvested from the Colville National Forest supports employment and income in the local 

23232 economy, as described in the economics specialist report. The no-action alternative would not affect 

23233 firewood harvesting. Firewood would continue to be removed from the forest, in quantities similar to 

23234 current conditions. As described in the affected environment section, firewood is an important home 

23235 heating source in the planning area. The no-action alternative would not change the availability of 

23236 firewood in nearby communities. Therefore, no changes to quality of life or household expenditures 

23237 related to home heating and firewood are expected as a result of this alternative. 

23238 Motorized Recreation Trails

23239 Currently, 11 percent of the Colville National Forest is designated as backcountry non-motorized areas. 

23240 This designation, together with the three percent of the forest in designated wilderness, does not allow 

23241 roads or motorized trails. The no-action alternative would maintain the existing levels of these 

23242 designations, making 15 percent of the forest off-limits to motorized recreation. Non-motorized 

23243 designations may positively affect social values related to ecological health and opportunities for solitude. 

23244 Such designation may adversely affect the quality of life for motorized recreation users and those with 

23245 commercial interests in the forests, whose access may be inhibited by non-motorized designations. The 

23246 no-action alternative would not change non-motorized designations from existing levels; therefore, no 

23247 change in human well-being related to motorized recreation is expected as a result of this alternative. 

23248 However, this alternative would limit the potential for future expansion of motorized backcountry 

23249 recreation relative to the proposed action, which would inhibit the forest’s ability to respond to changes in 

23250 recreation demand and may reduce quality of life for visitors who value those opportunities. 

23251 Recreation activities that rely on motorized roads and trails - driving for pleasure, motorized trail activity, 

23252 snowmobiling, OHV use, other motorized activityaccount for 15.6 percent of individuals’ main purpose 

23253 for visiting the Colville National Forest. The overall participation in these activities is approximately 45 

23254 percent (USFS 2012a). The participation rate in motorized activities and the quality of the visit are not 

23255 expected to change based on management actions under the no-action alternative. 

23256 Access

23257 The no-action alternative would continue to follow current plan direction and policy related to road 

23258 density, including limits on building roads in deer and elk winter range and the 2001 Roadless Area 

23259 Conservation Rule, which prohibits building roads in inventoried roadless areas. Management actions 

23260 related to road density under the no-action alternative are not expected to meaningfully affect individuals’ 

23261 ability to access and enjoy the Colville National Forest. Therefore, no changes to quality of life or 

23262 community resilience are expected to occur. 

23263 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23264 The no-action alternative would maintain current designated wilderness at 31,400 acres, which is 

23265 approximately 3 percent of the Colville National Forest. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

23266 estimates that less than one percent of visits to the forest are to a designated wilderness area (USFS 

23267 2012a). None of the survey respondents reported overcrowding in designated wilderness during their 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

661

23268 visit. These findings suggest that current designated wilderness is adequate to satisfy recreational demand 

23269 for wilderness.

23270 The social value of designated wilderness is not limited to recreation. Wilderness designation may 

23271 provide amenity values to nearby residents and landowners, support ecosystem service provision (e.g., 

23272 clean water and carbon sequestration), and offer opportunities for research and environmental education. 

23273 Designated wilderness may protect “non-use” values. Non-use values arise not from the consumption of 

23274 goods or services provided by wilderness areas, but from the value of knowing it exists or preserving the 

23275 option to visit in the future. Among all the considered alternatives, the no-action alternative would do the 

23276 least to support social values related to designated wilderness. 

23277 Environmental Justice

23278 The largest minority group in all three counties of the Colville National Forest planning area is Native 

23279 Americans. The Tribal and Treaty Resources report describes potential consequences to Native American 

23280 populations in the vicinity of the Colville National Forest. In particular, the no-action alternative would be 

23281 less likely to provide culturally significant foods, due to lower forest resilience to disease and insects. 

23282 Communities in proximity to the Colville National Forest have higher rates of poverty than the state and 

23283 the nation. Therefore, actions that adversely affect employment, income, or the cost of participating in 

23284 activities on the forest may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. The no-action alternative is 

23285 not expected to change employment, income, or the cost of participating in activities on the forest relative 

23286 to current conditions. Therefore, the no-action alternative would not adversely and disproportionately 

23287 affect low-income individuals. 

23288 Cumulative Effects

23289 Lower forest resilience may interact with residential development on private lands adjacent to the Colville 

23290 National Forest to increase risks to private property and human health from wildfire. 

23291 Disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may exacerbate threats to the 

23292 provision of ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods. The cumulative effect of 

23293 disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community resilience and well-being, as the availability of 

23294 substitute opportunities diminishes. 

23295 Monitoring Recommendations 

23296 The Forest Service may contribute to community resilience and well-being. Monitoring of human 

23297 communities should evaluate whether management actions contributing to social and economic 

23298 sustainability. This may be measured along the following dimensions:

23299 • Resource use patterns

23300 o Visitor use and distribution

23301 o Firewood collection

23302 o Timber harvest

23303 o AUMs

23304 • Population characteristics and change

23305 o Population growth

23306 o Income changes

23307 o Educational attainment
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

662

23308 • Employment and income from resource uses

23309 • Revenue to states and counties

23310 o PILT

23311 o Revenue sharing

23312 • Wildfire risk to adjacent communities

23313 o Total acres burned

23314 o Acres burned near wildland-urban interface.

23315 Proposed Action 

23316 "Because of the lack of active management of timber harvest, our forest has insect infestations, disease and 

23317 stand replacing wildfires..."

23318 The proposed action would improve old forest resilience. As a result, the flow of ecosystem services to 

23319 adjacent communities would be sustained and the risk of wildfire to private property and human health 

23320 would decrease. The proposed action would moderately affect access and motorized recreation 

23321 opportunities, although the effect to quality of life and visitor satisfaction is expected to be low. Increased 

23322 forest resilience may support the production of culturally-important foods, which may affect tribal 

23323 interests and well-being. 

23324 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 

23325 The proposed action would manage 23 percent of the forest for focused restoration and 48 percent of the 

23326 forest for general restoration. Both focused and general restoration management would aim to restore 

23327 ecological integrity and improve ecosystem function. Focused restoration emphasizes the protection of 

23328 important fish and wildlife habitats. Restoration may improve resilience to fire, insects, and disease. 

23329 Increased forest resilience to climate change and other stressors may reduce wildfire risk in adjacent 

23330 communities (Gaines et al. 2012). Under the proposed action, 27 percent of the Colville National Forest 

23331 would be within the historic range. This would lower the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to affect 

23332 communities adjacent to the forest compared to the no-action alternative. Reduced wildfire risk promotes 

23333 social values related to health and safety, the protection of private property, and preservation of aesthetic 

23334 quality. 

23335 Restoration would also provide commercially valuable forest products. The proposed action alternative 

23336 would lead to the harvest of approximately 62 million board feet annually. This is an increase in harvest 

23337 volume compared to the no-action alternative. The local economic consequences of wood product 

23338 harvesting are described in the economics specialist report. In addition to supporting economic activity, 

23339 the landscape-level approach to old forest management would protect the flow of ecosystem services 

23340 related to old forests. As discussed above, old forests provide numerous values such as recreation, 

23341 spiritual fulfillment, and species viability. 

23342 The proposed action alternative does not retain the Eastside Screens, which may concern individuals and 

23343 groups who value the protection of large-diameter trees. However, the proposed action alternative would 

23344 protect late forest structure at a landscape level. The desired conditions for late forest structure under the 

23345 proposed action would ameliorate social concerns related to loss of large-diameter trees. 

23346 Under the proposed action, the quantity of firewood harvested from the Colville National Forest annually 

23347 would be similar to current conditions. Firewood would continue to be an important source of home 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

663

23348 heating in the planning area. No changes to quality of life or household expenditures related to home 

23349 heating and firewood are expected as a result of this alternative. 

23350 Motorized Recreation Trails

23351 The proposed action would expand backcountry motorized opportunities from one percent of the forest to 

23352 six percent. This increase in backcountry motorized opportunities may improve quality of life for 

23353 motorized recreation users who value undeveloped sites. Overall, the proposed action would reduce total 

23354 forest acres open to summer and winter motorized recreation relative to the no-action alternative. 

23355 Approximately 684,400 acres would be open to winter motorized recreation and 872,300 acres would be 

23356 open to summer motorized recreation. These acreages reflect reductions of approximately 30,000 and 

23357 90,000 acres, respectively. The increase in recommended wilderness would place limits on future 

23358 development of motorized activities relative to the no-action alternative. On balance, the proposed action 

23359 alternative is not expected to measurably change motorized use or visitor satisfaction relative to existing 

23360 conditions. 

23361 Access

23362 The desired road density under the proposed action is between two and three miles of roads per square 

23363 mile. This density is somewhat lower than current conditions; therefore, management actions related to 

23364 road density under the proposed action may affect some individuals’ ability to access and enjoy the 

23365 Colville National Forest. Reduced access may adversely affect quality of life and community resilience, 

23366 due to increased costs (time and fuel) of participating in activities, such as recreation and firewood 

23367 collection, on the forest.

23368 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23369 The proposed action would recommend an additional 101,390 acres of wilderness, which represents 

23370 approximately 9 percent of the Colville National Forest. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

23371 estimates that less than 1 percent of visits to the forest are to a designated wilderness area (USFS 2012a). 

23372 None of the survey respondents reported overcrowding in designated wilderness during their visit. These 

23373 findings suggest that current designated wilderness is adequate to satisfy recreational demand for 

23374 wilderness.

23375 The social value of designated wilderness is not limited to recreation. Wilderness designation may 

23376 provide amenity values to nearby residents and landowners, support ecosystem service provision (e.g., 

23377 clean water and carbon sequestration), and offer opportunities for research and environmental education. 

23378 Designated wilderness may protect “non-use” values. Non-use values arise not from the consumption of 

23379 goods or services provided by wilderness areas, but from the value of knowing it exists or preserving the 

23380 option to visit in the future. The proposed action would do more to support social values related to 

23381 designated wilderness than the no-action, P, and O alternatives. 

23382 Environmental Justice

23383 The largest minority group in all three counties of the Colville National Forest planning area is Native 

23384 Americans. The Tribal and Treaty Resources report describes potential consequences to Native American 

23385 populations in the vicinity of the Colville National Forest. Unlike the no-action alternative, the proposed 

23386 action would be more likely to provide culturally significant foods, due to improved forest resilience to 

23387 disease and insects. However, the proposed action would decrease road density and forest access relative 

23388 to current conditions, which may particularly affect the ability of elders to access cultural sites, hunting 

23389 and fishing grounds, and gathering areas.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

664

23390 Communities in proximity to the Colville National Forest have higher rates of poverty than the state and 

23391 the nation. Therefore, actions that adversely affect employment, income, or the cost of participating in 

23392 activities on the forest may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. The proposed action is not 

23393 expected to change employment or income relative to current conditions. However, the increase in 

23394 recommended wilderness and reduced road density may increase the cost of accessing the forest, which 

23395 may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. 

23396 The increased areas open to the harvesting of firewood could benefit low-income individuals, as they may 

23397 need to spend fewer resources traveling to an area on the forest where they can harvest firewood for home 

23398 heating. 

23399 Cumulative Effects 

23400 Residential development on private lands adjacent to the Colville National Forest may inhibit the use of 

23401 prescribed fire as a forest restoration tool, due to social concerns about smoke emissions. Therefore, 

23402 private land development could make it more difficult and costly to increase forest resilience. 

23403 Disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may affect the health of the Colville 

23404 National Forest. For example, invasive vegetation on adjacent lands may spread to the Colville National 

23405 Forest. However, other Federal actions to improve forest resilience would support the provision of 

23406 ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods on both the Colville National Forest and 

23407 adjacent Federal lands. The cumulative effect of disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community 

23408 resilience and well-being, as the availability of substitute opportunities changes. 

23409 Monitoring Recommendations 

23410 The monitoring recommendations are consistent with those identified for the no-action alternative.

23411 Alternative R

23412 Many species rely on mature or old-growth forests to survive, so these types of forests must be protected 

23413 and actively managed.

23414 Alternative R responds to public comments that support old forest protection through static late forest 

23415 structure reserve land allocations and a 21-inch upper diameter limit on cutting trees. It also addresses 

23416 comments advocating for increased wilderness, fewer miles of motorized trail, and additional protections 

23417 for wildlife. This alternative is based on a management option developed by a coalition of conservation 

23418 groups.

23419 The R alternative would increase the acres dedicated to late forest structure, which would support social 

23420 well-being related to wildlife habitat and existence values. However, the R alternative would do less than 

23421 the proposed action to improve forest resilience, which may affect the flow of ecosystem services and the 

23422 threat of uncharacteristic wildfire in adjacent communities. The R alternative would be the least 

23423 supportive of commodity and other consumptive uses of the forest among all considered alternatives, due 

23424 to decreased access and motorized recreation opportunities, the expansion of recommended wilderness, 

23425 and limitations on the collection of firewood. The R alternative would appeal to individuals who value 

23426 limited human interference in the forest. 

23427 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

23428 The R alternative would maintain the current reserve management approach to maintaining late forest 

23429 structure. The R alternative would increase the late forest structure areas to approximately 44 percent of 

23430 the forest. This management would promote species viability and related social values, such as recreation 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

665

23431 and spiritual fulfillment. However, high stand density in the old forest reserves may increase the potential 

23432 for uncharacteristic insect outbreaks, fire, and tree mortality. Fires adjacent to communities may adversely 

23433 affect private property and human health. Climate change would exacerbate these threats and reduce well23434 being in communities near the forest (Gaines et al. 2012). 

23435 Outside the late forest structure areas, general restoration would be used to provide a resilient forest. The 

23436 R alternative would manage 25 percent of the forest for general restoration, which may improve resilience 

23437 to fire, insects, and disease. Increased forest resilience may reduce wildfire risk in adjacent communities. 

23438 Reduced wildfire risk promotes social values related to health and safety, the protection of private 

23439 property, and preservation of aesthetic quality. Under the R alternative, 27 percent of the Colville National 

23440 Forest would be within the historic range. This is consistent with the proposed action.

23441 Restoration would also provide commercially valuable forest products. The R alternative would lead to 

23442 the harvest of approximately 14 million board feet annually. This is the lowest average annual harvest 

23443 volume among all alternatives. The local economic consequences of wood product harvesting on the 

23444 Colville National Forest are described in the economics specialist report. The R alternative would impose 

23445 more restrictions on harvesting of firewood than the proposed action. Approximately 3,200 ccf (hundred 

23446 cubic feet) of firewood would be harvested annually under the R alternative, compared to 8,900 ccf under 

23447 all other alternatives. These restrictions may increase the difficulty of accessing and harvesting firewood 

23448 for personal use. These restrictions may increase the cost (e.g., time) of harvesting firewood from the 

23449 Colville National Forest. These restrictions may adversely affect household well-being in communities 

23450 adjacent to the forest. 

23451 Motorized Recreation Trails

23452 The R alternative would reduce the share of the forest open to motorized recreation. Fewer motorized 

23453 recreation opportunities may reduce visitor satisfaction and quality of life for motorized recreation users. 

23454 The reduction in motorized opportunities may increase the pressure on available motorized roads and 

23455 trails. Crowding may reduce visitor satisfaction and may result in resource damage along trails. However,

23456 non-motorized recreation users may benefit from decreased potential for interaction with motorized users, 

23457 which may promote social values related to safety, solitude, and resource protection in the backcountry.

23458 Summer and winter motorized use would be more limited under the R alternative compared to no action 

23459 and the proposed action. Acres open to summer and winter motorized use would be similar to the acres 

23460 open under the B alternative. Approximately 836,500 acres would be open for summer motorized use and 

23461 651,300 acres would be open for winter motorized use. Individuals and groups who value motorized 

23462 recreation on the Colville National Forest may experience reductions in quality of life under this 

23463 alternative. 

23464 Access

23465 The desired road density under the R alternative is between one and two miles per square mile, which is a 

23466 reduction in density relative to current conditions. Lower road density may affect forest access, which is 

23467 valuable to many individuals who recreate or engage in economic activities (e.g., firewood collection) on 

23468 the forest. Lower road density may negatively affect quality of life for individuals who value the forest for 

23469 motorized recreation and livelihood activities. However, reduced road density may positively affect social 

23470 values related to ecological integrity and ecosystem services. Fewer roads may decrease sedimentation, 

23471 habitat fragmentation, and disturbance to non-motorized forest visitors. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

666

23472 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23473 The R alternative would recommend an additional 207,800 acres of wilderness, which represents 

23474 approximately 19 percent of the Colville National Forest. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

23475 estimates that less than one percent of visits to the forest are to a designated wilderness area (USFS 

23476 2012a). None of the survey respondents reported overcrowding in designated wilderness during their 

23477 visit. These findings suggest that current designated wilderness is adequate to satisfy recreational demand 

23478 for wilderness.

23479 The social value of designated wilderness is not limited to recreation. Wilderness designation may 

23480 provide amenity values to nearby residents and landowners, support ecosystem service provision (e.g., 

23481 clean water and carbon sequestration), and offer opportunities for research and environmental education. 

23482 Designated wilderness may protect “non-use” values. Non-use values arise not from the consumption of 

23483 goods or services provided by wilderness areas, but from the value of knowing it exists or preserving the 

23484 option to visit in the future. The R alternative would do the second most (after B) to support social values 

23485 related to designated wilderness. 

23486 Environmental Justice

23487 The largest minority group in all three counties of the Colville National Forest planning area is Native 

23488 Americans. The Tribal and Treaty Resources report describes potential consequences to Native American 

23489 populations in the vicinity of the Colville National Forest. Similar to the no-action alternative, the R 

23490 alternative would be less likely to provide culturally significant foods, due to lower forest resilience to 

23491 disease and insects. Furthermore, the R alternative would decrease road density and forest access relative 

23492 to current conditions, which may particularly affect the ability of elders to access cultural sites, hunting 

23493 and fishing grounds, and gathering areas.

23494 Communities in proximity to the Colville National Forest have higher rates of poverty than the state and 

23495 the nation. Therefore, actions that adversely affect employment, income, or the cost of participating in 

23496 activities on the forest may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. The R alternative is not 

23497 expected to change employment or income relative to current conditions. However, the increase in 

23498 recommended wilderness and reduced road density may increase the cost of accessing the forest, which 

23499 may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. 

23500 The expected reductions in firewood harvest could disproportionately low-income individuals in 

23501 communities adjacent to the Colville National Forest, as it may be more costly to access and cut firewood 

23502 for home heating. 

23503 Cumulative Effects

23504 Lower forest resilience may interact with residential development on private lands adjacent to the Colville 

23505 National Forest to increase risks to private property and human health from wildfire. Additionally, 

23506 disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may exacerbate threats to the 

23507 provision of ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods. The cumulative effect of 

23508 disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community resilience and well-being, as the availability of 

23509 substitute opportunities diminishes. 

23510 The expansion of resource protections under the R alternativeparticularly reduced road density and 

23511 increased recommended wilderness acreagemay offset social concerns about the loss of forest lands 

23512 elsewhere in the three-county area, particularly related to the conversion of private forest land for 

23513 residential development. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

667

23514 Monitoring Recommendations

23515 The monitoring recommendations are consistent with those identified for the no-action alternative.

23516 Alternative P

23517 "[M]y perception so far is that wilderness eliminates mountain bikes, mechanical trail maintenance, forest 

23518 management, fire response ability, any form of motorized shared use, and doesn't seem to play well with 

23519 the cattle grazers or other land users."

23520 Many public comments expressed concern that wilderness designation may result in lower revenue to 

23521 local economies due to reduced recreational opportunities. This alternative utilizes many plan components 

23522 from the proposed action while also addressing economic concerns associated with wilderness.

23523 The P alternative would improve old forests resilience. As a result, the flow of ecosystem services to 

23524 adjacent communities would be sustained and the risk of wildfire to private property and human health 

23525 would decrease. The P alternative would decrease road density, which may affect access, community 

23526 resilience, and quality of life for individuals who rely on the forests for economic and leisure 

23527 opportunities. Increased forest resilience may support the production of culturally important foods, which 

23528 may affect tribal interests and well-being. 

23529 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

23530 The P alternative would manage 28 percent of the forest for focused restoration and 45 percent of the 

23531 forest for general restoration. This distribution is similar to the proposed action alternative and the effects 

23532 would be the same as described under for the proposed action alternative.

23533 Restoration may improve resilience to fire, insects, and disease. Increased forest resilience may reduce 

23534 wildfire risk in adjacent communities. Reduced wildfire risk promotes social values related to health and 

23535 safety, the protection of private property, and preservation of aesthetic quality. Under the P alternative, 

23536 27 percent of the Colville National Forest would be within the historic range. This is consistent with the 

23537 proposed action and alternative R.

23538 Focused restoration would also provide commercially valuable forest products. The P alternative would 

23539 lead to the harvest of approximately 62 million board feet of wood products annually. This is similar to 

23540 the proposed action alternative. The economics specialist report describes the local economic 

23541 consequences of wood product harvest from the Colville National Forest. In addition to supporting 

23542 economic activity, the landscape-level approach to old forest management would protect the flow of 

23543 ecosystem services related to old forests. As discussed above, old forests provide numerous values such as 

23544 recreation, spiritual fulfillment, and species viability. 

23545 The P alternative does not retain the Eastside Screens, which may concern individuals and groups who 

23546 value the protection of large-diameter trees. However, the P alternative would protect late forest structure 

23547 at a landscape level. The desired conditions for late forest structure under the P would ameliorate social 

23548 concerns related to loss of large-diameter trees. 

23549 Under the P alternative, the quantity of firewood harvested from the Colville National Forest annually 

23550 would be similar to current conditions. Firewood would continue to be an important source of home 

23551 heating in the planning area. No changes to quality of life or household expenditures related to home 

23552 heating and firewood are expected as a result of this alternative. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

668

23553 Motorized Recreation Trails

23554 The P alternative would increase backcountry motorized opportunities from approximately 1 percent of 

23555 the forest to 5 percent of the forest. The effects would be the same as described for the proposed action 

23556 alternative. 

23557 The P alternative would keep the largest share of the forest open to summer and winter motorized 

23558 recreation among action alternatives. 684,900 acres would be open to winter motorized recreation and 

23559 873,300 acres would be open to summer motorized recreation. Only the no-action alternative would have 

23560 the potential for more motorized recreation opportunities. The P alternative would provide a variety of 

23561 motorized opportunities on the forest and would support quality of life for motorized recreation users. The 

23562 P alternative would do less to address concerns of individuals and group who oppose motorized recreation 

23563 than the R alternative. 

23564 However, the increase in recommended wilderness would place limits on future development of 

23565 motorized activities relative to the no-action alternative. On balance, the P alternative is not expected to 

23566 change motorized use or visitor satisfaction relative to existing conditions. Therefore, the effects would be 

23567 similar to those described under the no-action alternative.

23568 Access

23569 The desired road density under the P alternative is between one and two miles per square mile, which is a 

23570 reduction in density relative to current conditions. Lower road density may affect forest access, which is 

23571 valuable to many individuals who recreate or engage in economic activities on the forest. Lower road 

23572 density may negatively affect quality of life for individuals who value the forest for motorized recreation 

23573 and livelihood activities. However, reduced road density may positively affect social values related to 

23574 ecological integrity and ecosystem services. Fewer roads may decrease sedimentation, habitat 

23575 fragmentation, and disturbance to non-motorized forest visitors. 

23576 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23577 The P alternative would recommend an additional 68,300 acres of wilderness, which represents 

23578 approximately 6 percent of the Colville National Forest. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

23579 estimates that less than one percent of visits to the forest are to a designated wilderness area (USFS 

23580 2012a). None of the survey respondents reported overcrowding in designated wilderness during their 

23581 visit. These findings suggest that current designated wilderness is adequate to satisfy recreational demand 

23582 for wilderness.

23583 The social value of designated wilderness is not limited to recreation. Wilderness designation may 

23584 provide amenity values to nearby residents and landowners, support ecosystem service provision (e.g., 

23585 clean water and carbon sequestration), and offer opportunities for research and environmental education. 

23586 Designated wilderness may protect “non-use” values. Non-use values arise not from the consumption of 

23587 goods or services provided by wilderness areas, but from the value of knowing it exists or preserving the 

23588 option to visit in the future. Among all the considered alternatives, the P alternative would do less to 

23589 support social values related to designated wilderness than all considered alternatives except the O 

23590 alternative. 

23591 Environmental Justice

23592 The largest minority group in all three counties of the Colville National Forest planning area is Native 

23593 Americans. The Tribal and Treaty Resources report describes potential consequences to Native American 

23594 populations in the vicinity of the Colville National Forest. Unlike the no-action alternative, the P 

23595 alternative would be more likely to provide culturally significant foods, due to improved forest resilience 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

669

23596 to disease and insects. However, the P alternative would decrease road density and forest access relative 

23597 to current conditions, which may particularly affect the ability of elders to access cultural sites, hunting 

23598 and fishing grounds, and gathering areas.

23599 Communities near Colville National Forest have higher rates of poverty than the State and the Nation. 

23600 Therefore, actions that adversely affect employment, income, or the cost of participating in activities on 

23601 the forest may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. The P alternative is not expected to 

23602 change employment or income relative to current conditions. However, the increase in recommended 

23603 wilderness and reduced road density may increase the cost of accessing the forest, which may 

23604 disproportionately affect low-income individuals. 

23605 The increased areas open to the harvesting of firewood could benefit low-income individuals, as they may 

23606 need to spend fewer resources traveling to an area on the forest where they can harvest firewood for home 

23607 heating. 

23608 Cumulative Effects

23609 Residential development on private lands adjacent to the Colville National Forest may inhibit the use of 

23610 prescribed fire as a forest restoration tool, due to social concerns about smoke emissions. Therefore, 

23611 private land development could make it more difficult and costly to increase forest resilience. 

23612 Disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may affect the health of the Colville 

23613 National Forest. For example, invasive vegetation on adjacent lands may spread to the Colville National 

23614 Forest. However, other Federal actions to improve forest resilience would support the provision of 

23615 ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods on both the Colville National Forest and 

23616 adjacent Federal lands. The cumulative effect of disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community 

23617 resilience and well-being, as the availability of substitute opportunities changes. 

23618 The expansion of resource protections under the P alternativeparticularly reduced road densitymay 

23619 offset social concerns about the loss of forest lands elsewhere in the three-county area, particularly related 

23620 to the conversion of private forest land for residential development. 

23621 Monitoring Recommendations

23622 The monitoring recommendations are consistent with those identified for the no-action alternative.

23623 Alternative B

23624 This alternative combines feedback from diverse interest groups and incorporates management strategies 

23625 supported by the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. Alternative B addresses the concerns of 

23626 multiple constituencies in one alternative by designating restoration and timber management zones, 

23627 recommending the highest level of wilderness designation and the least amount of area for backcountry 

23628 management and backcountry motorized use. 

23629 The B alternative is less likely to protect old forests and their associated social values than the proposed 

23630 action. As a result, the flow of ecosystem services to adjacent communities may decrease while the risk of 

23631 wildfire to private property and human health would increase. Lower forest resilience may decrease the 

23632 production of culturally important foods, which may affect tribal interests and well-being. Access and 

23633 roaded motorized recreation opportunities would not measurably change relative to current conditions, 

23634 which would support social values related to commodity use and more developed recreation 

23635 opportunities. However, backcountry motorized opportunities are the lowest among all considered 

23636 alternatives, which would reduce the quality of life for visitors who value backcountry motorized 

23637 opportunities. The B alternative would have the highest acreage in recommended wilderness among all 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

670

23638 considered alternatives. The B alternative would support social values related to wilderness, such as 

23639 research and education, solitude, and scenic views. 

23640 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

23641 The B alternative would manage 31 percent of the forest as a restoration zone. Management actions in this 

23642 area would promote social values related to ecological health and the provision of ecosystem services, 

23643 such as clean water and wildlife habitat. However, increased stand density may contribute to the spread of 

23644 insects, fire, and tree mortality, which may compromise some of the social values related to old forests. 

23645 Fire adjacent to communities may adversely affect private property and human health. Under the B 

23646 alternative, 38 percent of the Colville National Forest would be within the historic range. This alternative 

23647 has the lowest risk of uncharacteristic wildfire among the considered alternatives. Reduced wildfire risk 

23648 promotes social values related to health and safety, the protection of private property, and preservation of 

23649 aesthetic quality. 

23650 Forty-three percent of the forest would be managed to provide a stable flow of timber and to improve the 

23651 forest’s resilience to insects, disease, and uncharacteristic fire. Management actions in this area would 

23652 promote social values related to human safety and the protection of private property from wildfire and 

23653 economic stability in the forest products sector. The B alternative would lead to the harvest of 

23654 approximately 37 million board feet of wood products annually. This is approximately 60 percent of the 

23655 volume that is expected to be harvested under the proposed action. The economic contribution of the B 

23656 alternative to employment and income in the forest products sector is described in the economics 

23657 specialist report. 

23658 The B alternative would maintain the Eastside Screen direction, which prevents the harvest of large23659 diameter trees. This direction would protect old growth-dependent species habitat and promote both use 

23660 (e.g., recreation and wildlife viewing) and non-use (e.g., knowing that it exists) values associated with the 

23661 forest. However, the Eastside Screens reduce the ability to maintain or enhance late forest structure on the 

23662 Colville National Forest if it is not present within the reserve. In contrast, the proposed action alternative 

23663 adopts a landscape approach to protect late forest structure. Some individuals and groups prefer the 

23664 Eastside Screen direction due to a desire to prevent the harvesting of large-diameter trees. The values of 

23665 these individuals and groups are reflected in the B alternative.

23666 Under the B alternative, the quantity of firewood harvested from the Colville National Forest annually 

23667 would be similar to current conditions. Firewood would continue to be an important source of home 

23668 heating in the planning area. No changes to quality of life or household expenditures related to home 

23669 heating and firewood are expected as a result of this alternative. 

23670 Motorized Recreation Trails

23671 The B alternative would provide the fewest summer and winter motorized recreation opportunities in the 

23672 backcountry. As a result, individuals who value less developed recreation opportunities would be less 

23673 satisfied with their visit and experience a lower quality of life. 

23674 Summer and winter motorized use would be more limited under the B alternative compared to no action 

23675 and proposed action. Acres open to summer and winter motorized use would be similar to the acres open 

23676 under the R alternative. Approximately 840,000 acres would be open for summer motorized use and 

23677 653,900 acres would be open for winter motorized use. Individuals and groups who value motorized 

23678 recreation on the Colville National Forest may experience reductions in quality of life under this 

23679 alternative. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

671

23680 Access

23681 The B alternative would cap existing levels of total miles of Forest Service System roads at the current 

23682 level. Therefore, this alternative would require that existing roads be decommissioned if new roads are 

23683 added. This action is not expected to reduce forest access relative to existing conditions. Therefore, no 

23684 measurable effects to quality of life and community resilience would occur due to roads management 

23685 under the B alternative. 

23686 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23687 The B alternative would recommend an additional 220,330 acres of wilderness, which represents 

23688 approximately 20 percent of the Colville National Forest. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

23689 estimates that less than one percent of visits to the forest are to a designated wilderness area (USFS 

23690 2012a). None of the survey respondents reported overcrowding in designated wilderness during their 

23691 visit. These findings suggest that current designated wilderness is adequate to satisfy recreational demand 

23692 for wilderness.

23693 The social value of designated wilderness is not limited to recreation. Wilderness designation may 

23694 provide amenity values to nearby residents and landowners, support ecosystem service provision (e.g., 

23695 clean water and carbon sequestration), and offer opportunities for research and environmental education. 

23696 Designated wilderness may protect “non-use” values. Non-use values arise not from the consumption of 

23697 goods or services provided by wilderness areas, but from the value of knowing it exists or preserving the 

23698 option to visit in the future. Among all the considered alternatives, the B alternative would do the most to 

23699 support social values related to designated wilderness among all considered alternatives. 

23700 Environmental Justice

23701 The largest minority group in all three counties of the Colville National Forest planning area is Native 

23702 Americans. The Tribal and Treaty Resources report describes potential consequences to Native American 

23703 populations in the vicinity of the Colville National Forest. Similar to the no-action alternative, the B 

23704 alternative would be less likely to provide culturally significant foods, due to reduced forest resilience to 

23705 disease and insects. In addition, the B alternative would decrease motorized access relative to current 

23706 conditions due to increased recommended wilderness, which may particularly affect the ability of elders 

23707 to access cultural sites, hunting and fishing grounds, and gathering areas.

23708 Communities in proximity to the Colville National Forest have higher rates of poverty than the State and 

23709 the Nation. Therefore, actions that adversely affect employment, income, or the cost of participating in 

23710 activities on the forest may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. The B alternative is not 

23711 expected to change employment or income relative to current conditions. However, the increase in 

23712 recommended wilderness may increase the cost of accessing the forest, which may disproportionately 

23713 affect low-income individuals. 

23714 Cumulative Effects

23715 Lower forest resilience may interact with residential development on private lands adjacent to the Colville 

23716 National Forest to increase risks to private property and human health from wildfire. Additionally, 

23717 disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may exacerbate threats to the 

23718 provision of ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods. The cumulative effect of 

23719 disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community resilience and well-being, as the availability of 

23720 substitute opportunities diminishes. 

23721 The expansion of resource protections under the B alternativeparticularly reduced backcountry 

23722 motorized recreation opportunities and increased recommended wilderness acreagemay offset social 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

672

23723 concerns about the loss of forest lands elsewhere in the three-county area, particularly related to the 

23724 conversion of private forest land for residential development. 

23725 Monitoring Recommendations

23726 The monitoring recommendations are consistent with those identified for the no-action alternative.

23727 Alternative O

23728 "This alternative comes from a series of public, collaborative meetings run by the Forest Service that 

23729 focused on motorized recreation, wilderness recommendations, and vegetation management and reflects 

23730 areas of general agreement among participants in those meetings. The Forest Service fully developed this 

23731 alternative using the proposed action to fill in the gaps not addressed in the collaborative process. The O 

23732 alternative emphasizes summer and winter motorized and non-motorized opportunities in a backcountry, 

23733 unroaded setting and minimizes recommended wilderness. 

23734 The O alternative is less likely to protect old forests and their associated social values than the proposed 

23735 action. As a result, the flow of ecosystem services to adjacent communities may decrease while the risk of 

23736 wildfire to private property and human health would increase. Lower forest resilience may decrease the 

23737 production of culturally important foods, which may affect tribal interests and well-being. Access, 

23738 motorized recreation opportunities, and recommended wilderness would not meaningfully change relative 

23739 to current conditions. Therefore, social values related to these resources and uses would not be affected. 

23740 Old Forest Management and Timber Production

23741 The O alternative would place 34 percent of the forest in a Restoration Zone, which would focus on 

23742 protecting old forest and enhancing ecological integrity. Management actions in this area would promote 

23743 social values related to ecological health and the provision of ecosystem services, such as clean water and 

23744 wildlife habitat. However, increased stand density may contribute to the spread of insects, fire, and tree 

23745 mortality, which may compromise some of the social values related to old forests. Fire adjacent to 

23746 communities may adversely affect private property and human health. Under the O alternative, 35 percent 

23747 of the Colville National Forest would be within the historic range. This alternative lowers the risk of 

23748 uncharacteristic wildfire compared to the no-action, proposed action, P, and R alternatives. Reduced 

23749 wildfire risk promotes social values related to health and safety, the protection of private property, and 

23750 preservation of aesthetic quality. 

23751 Thirty-nine percent of the forest would be in a Responsible Management Area, which would emphasis a 

23752 stable flow of timber to support community employment in the forest products industry. The O alternative 

23753 would lead to the harvest of approximately 37 million board feet of timber annually. This is similar to the 

23754 B alternative. The economic contribution of timber production from the Colville National Forest is 

23755 described in the economics specialist report. 

23756 The O alternative would maintain the Eastside Screen direction, which prevents the harvest of large 

23757 diameter trees. This direction would protect old growth-dependent species habitat and promote both use 

23758 (e.g., recreation and wildlife viewing) and non-use (e.g., knowing that it exists) values associated with the 

23759 forest. However, the Eastside Screens reduce the ability to maintain or enhance late forest structure on the 

23760 Colville National Forest if it is not present within the reserve. In contrast, the proposed action alternative 

23761 adopts a landscape approach to protect late forest structure. Some individuals and groups prefer the 

23762 Eastside Screen direction due to a desire to prevent the harvesting of large diameter trees. The values of 

23763 these individuals and groups are reflected in the O alternative. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

673

23764 Under the O alternative, the quantity of firewood harvested from the Colville National Forest annually 

23765 would be similar to current conditions. Firewood would continue to be an important source of home 

23766 heating in the planning area. No changes to quality of life or household expenditures related to home 

23767 heating and firewood are expected as a result of this alternative. 

23768 Motorized Recreation Trails

23769 The O alternative would increase backcountry motorized opportunities from approximately 1 percent of 

23770 the forest to 5 percent of the forest. The effects would be the same as described for the proposed action 

23771 and P alternatives. 

23772 Across the forest, the O alternative would keep open the most acres to winter motorized recreation among 

23773 the action alternatives (approximately 685,500 acres). However, fewer acres would be open to winter 

23774 motorized use compared to the no-action alternative. Similarly, the O alternative would also keep open 

23775 the most acres to summer motorized recreation among the action alternatives (approximately 

23776 874,000 acres). This is a decrease compared to the no-action alternative. 

23777 The O alternative would only slightly increase recommended wilderness, which would maintain the 

23778 potential for future motorized access. On balance, the O alternative would maintain quality of life for 

23779 motorized recreation users at existing conditions. Among the action alternatives the O alternative is likely 

23780 to be favored by motorized recreation users. 

23781 Access

23782 The O alternative would cap existing levels of total miles of Forest Service System roads at the current 

23783 level. Therefore, this alternative would require that existing roads be decommissioned if new roads are 

23784 added. This action is not expected to reduce forest access relative to existing conditions. Therefore, no 

23785 measurable effects to quality of life and community resilience would occur due to roads management 

23786 under the O alternative. 

23787 Recommended Wilderness Areas

23788 The O alternative would recommend an additional 15,950 acres of wilderness, which represents 

23789 approximately 1 percent of the Colville National Forest. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey 

23790 estimates that less than one percent of visits to the forest are to a designated wilderness area (USFS 

23791 2012a). None of the survey respondents reported overcrowding in designated wilderness during their 

23792 visit. These findings suggest that current designated wilderness is adequate to satisfy recreational demand 

23793 for wilderness.

23794 The social value of designated wilderness is not limited to recreation. Wilderness designation may 

23795 provide amenity values to nearby residents and landowners, support ecosystem service provision (e.g., 

23796 clean water and carbon sequestration), and offer opportunities for research and environmental education. 

23797 Designated wilderness may protect “non-use” values. Non-use values arise not from the consumption of 

23798 goods or services provided by wilderness areas, but from the value of knowing it exists or preserving the 

23799 option to visit in the future. Among the action alternatives, the O alternative would do the least to support 

23800 social values related to designated wilderness. 

23801 Environmental Justice

23802 The largest minority group in all three counties of the Colville National Forest planning area is Native 

23803 Americans. The Tribal and Treaty Resources report describes potential consequences to Native American 

23804 populations in the vicinity of the Colville National Forest. Similar to the no-action alternative, the O 

23805 alternative would be less likely to provide culturally significant foods, due to reduced forest resilience to 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

674

23806 disease and insects. The O alternative would not meaningfully affect motorized access relative to current 

23807 conditions, which is important for elders to access cultural sites, hunting and fishing grounds, and 

23808 gathering areas.

23809 Communities in proximity to the Colville National Forest have higher rates of poverty than the state and 

23810 the nation. Therefore, actions that adversely affect employment, income, or the cost of participating in 

23811 activities on the forest may disproportionately affect low-income individuals. The O alternative is not 

23812 expected to change employment, income, or the cost of accessing the forest relative to current conditions. 

23813 Cumulative Effects

23814 Lower forest resilience may interact with residential development on private lands adjacent to the Colville 

23815 National Forest to increase risks to private property and human health from wildfire. Additionally, 

23816 disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may exacerbate threats to the 

23817 provision of ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods. The cumulative effect of 

23818 disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community resilience and well-being, as the availability of 

23819 substitute opportunities diminishes. 

23820 Disturbances on adjacent Federal lands, such as disease and insects, may affect the health of the Colville 

23821 National Forest. For example, invasive vegetation on adjacent lands may spread to the Colville National 

23822 Forest. However, other Federal actions to improve forest resilience would support the provision of 

23823 ecosystem services, including culturally significant foods on both the Colville National Forest and 

23824 adjacent Federal lands. The cumulative effect of disturbances across jurisdictions may affect community 

23825 resilience and well-being, as the availability of substitute opportunities changes. 

23826 Monitoring Recommendations

23827 The monitoring recommendations are consistent with those identified for the no-action alternative.

23828 Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

23829 The Colville National Forest is used for both personal and commercial benefit. Individuals recreate, 

23830 collect firewood, and engage in traditional cultural practices on the forest. Firms use the forest for 

23831 commercial timber harvesting, rights-of-way, grazing, and mineral extraction. Short-term management 

23832 actions, particularly forest treatments, may temporarily limit access for the use and enjoyment of these 

23833 forest resources. Conducting prescribed burns and mechanical treatments have the potential to restore the 

23834 landscape and reduce the potential for permanent adverse effects from high intensity, high severity fires. 

23835 In the long-term, forest resilience would secure opportunities for enjoyment of the multiple uses of the 

23836 Colville National Forest that contribute to social well-being. 

23837 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

23838 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

23839 not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Before any proposed actions (not limited to 

23840 ground-disturbing actions) take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent site-specific environmental 

23841 analysis. Therefore, none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse impacts. Mechanisms are in place 

23842 to monitor and use adaptive management principles in order to help alleviate any unanticipated impacts 

23843 that need to be addressed singularly or cumulatively. 

23844 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

23845 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

23846 not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management plan does not 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

675

23847 authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity (not limited to ground-disturbing actions), none 

23848 of the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources

23849 Cumulative Effects

23850 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

23851 The cumulative effects analysis considers actions on the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 

23852 Kalispel Tribe Reservation lands, lands administered by the Okanogan-Wenatchee and Idaho Panhandle 

23853 National Forests; other Federal and state land; and lands of other ownerships both within and adjacent to 

23854 the Colville National Forest boundaries. 

23855 Management of adjacent Federal lands may affect social values, including diverse recreation 

23856 opportunities, community economic stability, public land access, provision of ecosystem services, and fire 

23857 risk in the wildland-urban interface. 

23858 Increased opportunities to use and enjoy adjacent Federal landse.g., through the development of 

23859 recreation opportunities or increased opportunities to engage in commodity developmentmay substitute 

23860 for such activities on the Colville National Forest. In contrast, fewer opportunities to use and enjoy 

23861 adjacent Federal lands could increase the public’s desire for these opportunities on the Colville National 

23862 Forest. 

23863 Private and municipal decisions may affect the development and use of adjacent private lands. Private 

23864 decisions related to development in the wildland-urban interface may increase the likelihood that wildfire 

23865 would adversely affect private property and human health. Private development near the forest may also 

23866 affect the social acceptability of smoke emissions resulting from prescribed fire. Decreased acceptance of 

23867 prescribed fire would increase the difficulty and cost of restoring the forest to desired conditions. 

23868 Population growth in communities adjacent to the forest may affect both demand for and supply of 

23869 ecosystem services. For example, the conversion of private land from forest to residential development 

23870 may affect the provision of water to downstream communities while population growth increases the 

23871 demand for water and other ecosystem services. Forest management actions are unlikely to measurably 

23872 affect demographic change, but the consequences of management actions would be influenced by 

23873 demographic change.

23874 Summary

23875 In consideration of all past, present, and foreseeable actions, no social cumulative effects are anticipated.

23876
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

676

23877 Tribal Resources

23878 The United States and federally recognized American Indian tribes have a special and unique 

23879 government-to-government relationship of one sovereign nation to another. The Federal Government has 

23880 a trust responsibility (duty) to each tribal government based on the U.S. Constitution, treaties and statutes. 

23881 The Federal trust duty imposes fiduciary standards on the conduct of executive agencies. Therefore, the 

23882 Forest Service has certain legal responsibilities to American Indian tribes. These legal responsibilities are 

23883 clarified in statutes, executive orders, and case law enacted and interpreted for the protection and benefit 

23884 of federally recognized American Indian tribes. In meeting these responsibilities, the Forest Service must 

23885 administer their programs in a manner that does not interfere with tribal rights and resources. When 

23886 American Indian tribes ceded lands to the United States Government, rights and privileges to off23887 reservation lands (including the lands of the Colville National Forest) were reserved for their tribal 

23888 members.

23889 Forest managers are required to consult tribes when proposed policies or management actions may affect 

23890 their interests. The following American Indian tribes and communities are known to have cultural ties 

23891 with the lands of the Colville National Forest based on current and past consultation: Colville 

23892 Confederated Tribe, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Each tribe has their own 

23893 history, traditions, and relationship to the land and other groups. The Forest shares a common boundary of 

23894 29 miles with the Colville Confederated Tribe and 14.7 miles with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians. The 

23895 lands and resources of the Forest have been used and continue to be used by many of the tribes for a 

23896 variety of traditional cultural and religious activities. Consultations with each tribe can identify the tribe’s 

23897 historic and present day traditional use areas and sacred sites. This section summarizes effects to tribes 

23898 from the related specialist report (Beat 2015).

23899 Affected Environment

23900 Fourteen American Indian tribes represented by three tribal governments have cultural ties to lands within 

23901 the Forest. Forest Service consultations with appropriate members of each tribe can identify the Tribe’s 

23902 historic and present day traditional uses and sacred sites of the area. The lands, resources, and the 

23903 archaeological sites within the Forests are considered traditionally significant to all affiliated tribes and in 

23904 some cases certain resources or areas are considered sacred to one or more. These traditional cultural 

23905 properties may be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places because of their association with 

23906 cultural practices and beliefs rooted in history and their importance in maintaining the cultural identity of 

23907 ongoing American Indian communities. Consultations about these uses and sites are governed and/or 

23908 mandated by the NHPA, as amended in 1992, (U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the American Indian Religious 

23909 Freedom Act 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

23910 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), E.O. 13007, E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

23911 Governments. 

23912 Colville Confederated Tribes

23913 During the past 6,000 years, the region has been utilized by diverse groups of people for a variety of

23914 activities. The project area lies within the traditional use area of the Colville Confederated Tribe. The 

23915 Colville is a sub-group of the Salishan speaking groups that include the following cultural traditions: 

23916 Wenatchee, Columbia, Chelan, Methow, Okanogan, Nespelem, Sanpoil, Spokane, Coeur D’Alene, Lakes 

23917 and Kalispel. Ethnographic accounts indicate that the Colville practiced wintertime deer drives and 

23918 maintained resident fisheries along the Columbia, Kettle, and San Poil Rivers. In addition to hunting deer 

23919 and fishing, the Colville harvested camas and other root crops (Camassia species) (Holstine 1987). 

23920 A presidential executive order established the Colville Indian Reservation in 1872 (Colville Confederated 

23921 Tribe 2004). The reservation originally extended across the entirety of present day Ferry County. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

677

23922 Colville Reservation, as established in July 1872, comprised about 2,900,000 acres. Except for certain 80 

23923 acre allotments to individual Indian’s, the so-called “North Half” of the Reservation was ceded to the 

23924 United States by an Agreement which was made with the Indians of the Reservation on May 9, 1891. The 

23925 United States agreed to pay $1,500,000 for the Lands of the North Half. The Agreement provided that it 

23926 was to go into effect after its ratification by Congress. However, by the Act of July 1, 1892 (27 Stat.b2), 

23927 Congress opened the North Half to settlement without ratifying the Agreement and without providing for 

23928 the payment of the $1,500,000. Subsequently, by the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 525, 377-378), for the 

23929 purpose of carrying into effect the 1891 Agreement, Congress directed that $1,500,000 be set aside in the 

23930 Treasury for the use and benefit of the Indians of the Colville Reservation in full payment for the ceded 

23931 North Half. Thereafter, pursuant to the Act of June 21, 1906, and by way of ratifying the 1891 Agreement, 

23932 Congress appropriated $1,500,000 in five successive installments of $300,000 each under each of five 

23933 Acts of Congress, namely Act of March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. 1015, 1050), Act of April 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 70, 

23934 96), Act of March 3, 1909 (39 Stat. 781, 8131), Act of April 4, 1910 (36 Stat. 269, 286), Act of March 3, 

23935 1911 (36 Stat. 1058, 1075).

23936 Kalispel Tribe of Indians

23937 The Lower Bands of Kalispel typically wintered in the Pend Oreille Basin and were an Interior Salish23938 speaking population bounded on the south by the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene people; on the north by the 

23939 Northern Okanogan, Lakes, Colville, and Kootenai; and on the east by the Flathead and Pend Oreille. 

23940 Many of the languages were mutually intelligible and the communities were conversant in more than one 

23941 language. The commonalities in language, the practice of marrying outside one's own community, the 

23942 right of mutual seasonal use of resources in neighboring watersheds, and a high degree of social mobility 

23943 to gather resources all contributed to creating a porous social matrix that de-emphasized rigid 

23944 territoriality. 

23945 Since 1855, the Lower Kalispels remained in their aboriginal territory and opposed any attempt to remove 

23946 them. Over the next 50 years the U.S. Government attempted to move them to other reservations; some of 

23947 the members did move the Flathead Reservation in Montana. However a small group remained and stayed 

23948 in the valley near Cusick and Usk (Lahren 1998). The Kalispel Indian Reservation was established by 

23949 President Woodrow Wilson by Executive Order No. 1904 on March 23, 1914. The executive order 

23950 reserved approximately 4,629 acres for the Kalispel Tribe. The Pend Oreille River forms the western 

23951 boundary of the reservation. 

23952 Spokane Tribe of Indians

23953 The Spokane Tribe was comprised of three bands: the Lower Spokane had a principal settlement near 

23954 Little Falls, the Middle Spokane settled near Hangman or Latah Creek, and the Upper Spokane settled 

23955 along the Little Spokane River up from the junction of Hangman Creek (Ross 1998). Each of the bands 

23956 had the potential to utilize the portion of the area now managed by the Colville National Forest. Generally 

23957 speaking the portion of the Forest that is near/surrounding Chewelah, across Flowery Trail, and South of 

23958 the Pend Oreille River were within the traditional use areas of the Spokane Tribe.

23959 In the past the Spokane occupied approximately 3 million acres in northeastern Washington. The Spokane 

23960 Reservation was created by executive order in January of 1881, by President Hayes. This order moved the 

23961 Spokane Tribe of Indians from their ancestral homelands to the Spokane Indian Reservation.

23962 Tribal Rights

23963 In addition to laws listed in the Regulatory Framework the following apply specifically to tribal resources. 

23964 The executive orders that established the three tribal reservations in the area are as follows:
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

678

23965 • Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: Executive Order of 1872; North-Half Agreement 

23966 of 1891 (27 Stat. 62) 

23967 • Kalispel Tribe: Executive Order Number 1904 (1914)

23968 • Spokane Tribe of Indians: Executive Order of 1881

23969 Environmental Consequences

23970 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does

23971 not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management plan does not 

23972 authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions) there 

23973 can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, 

23974 of managing the forests under this programmatic framework.

23975 Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 

23976 §470), adverse effects to cultural resources include a variety of criteria affecting the potential eligibility of 

23977 cultural resources for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR §800.9b). 

23978 Specifically, effects may be deemed adverse according to the following (36 CFR §800.5[1]):

23979 An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the 

23980 characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National 

23981 Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, 

23982 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all 

23983 qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified 

23984 subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. 

23985 Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that 

23986 may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

23987 Tribal consultation for specific actions would be conducted prior to approving site-specific projects in 

23988 compliance with Federal law and Forest Service policy. Prior to the forests making a decision on a site23989 specific action that is subject to NHPA, the forests would consult the tribes to identify TCPs and sacred 

23990 sites, evaluate TCPs for the NRHP and analyze the effects of the proposed use or activity in compliance 

23991 with the programmatic agreement and/or the Memorandum of Understanding with the Tribe/s. Following 

23992 the identification and recording of TCPs, mitigation measures appropriate to the proposed undertaking 

23993 would be implemented. Measures would be determined through consultation. For example, they might 

23994 include avoidance by redesigning the project boundaries, or changing the time/season of when the project 

23995 is implemented. In cases where specific activities would constitute an adverse effect and avoidance could 

23996 not be accomplished, the adverse effects would be resolved in accordance with 36 CFR 800.

23997 Some Sacred Sites may not meet the definition and criteria for a TCP and would not be subject to the 

23998 NHPA. Executive Order 13007 states that the Federal Government should avoid adversely affecting the 

23999 physical integrity of Sacred Sites. Tribal consultation for specific actions would be conducted prior to 

24000 approving site-specific projects. Consultation with the appropriate Tribe/s could determine if the proposed 

24001 action would affect the physical integrity of the Sacred Site. The physical integrity of a Sacred Site can be 

24002 adversely affected by non-ground-disturbing activities, such as but not limited to using treated sewage 

24003 water on the Sacred Site for making snow or irrigation; using the location for touch and go landings of 

24004 aircraft; pumping ground water from a different location that affects the flow and water quality of sacred 

24005 springs; mining or drilling underneath the Sacred Site; building facilities and/or permitting land use 

24006 activities that change the visual, vegetative, and sound qualities of an area which are attributes of the 

24007 Sacred Site. At times, the only mitigation measure to not adversely affect a Sacred Site is avoidance. 

24008 Other measures may be identified through consultation with the affected Tribe/s.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

679

24009 AIRFA provides for the protection and preservation of the inherent rights of American Indians’ freedom to 

24010 believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native 

24011 Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, and use, and the freedom to worship through 

24012 ceremonials and traditional rites. Some actions may not affect the access but may temporarily and/or 

24013 permanently alter or destroy the use of a site or religious ceremony by impacting the physical integrity of 

24014 the location, setting or resources, and/or defiling the primary attributes that make the location a holy 

24015 place. Certain resources or ceremonies may only be collected and/or conducted on a specific location by 

24016 specific individuals at a specific time. Activities that are approved that limit or change the use and access 

24017 of traditionally used resources or TCP/Sacred Sites may have permanent adverse effects by altering or 

24018 removing a specific traditionally used resource, or impacts the process and/or continuation of the 

24019 ceremonial rite.

24020 The Federal trust duty requires the Forest Service to administer their programs in a manner that does not 

24021 interfere with tribal rights and resources. Actions that may affect tribal rights and resources include but 

24022 are not limited to special use permits that allow pumping or diverting water resources, vegetation 

24023 management treatments that could potentially reduce the risk of wildfires crossing jurisdictions or 

24024 improve the quality of wildlife habitat along reservation boundaries, grazing and range improvements that 

24025 prevent trespass issues, and transportation management that provides necessary access and discourages 

24026 illegal access to reservation lands.

24027 Methodology and Analysis Process

24028 The analysis includes a review of the current conditions, alternatives and an assessment of the potential 

24029 impacts each alternative could have on Tribal access and use of the forest. The American Indian Rights 

24030 and Interests area of potential effect includes the lands and resources of the Forest and the potential effect 

24031 to Tribal resources and/or rights within lands adjacent to the forest. Limited information exists on 

24032 Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) and Sacred Sites on the Forest. An ethnographic overview of the 

24033 Forest has not been conducted. The existing condition was determined by reviewing the National Register 

24034 of Historic Places, a review of the forest’s heritage site and inventory files, cultural resource management 

24035 overviews, ethnographic inventory overviews, articles, books, and the heritage Geographic Information 

24036 System (GIS) database, and prior Tribal responses from consultation. 

24037 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act declares that the policies of the United States shall preserve 

24038 and protect the American Indian’s Freedom to practice their religion. This includes the right to have 

24039 access to religious sites, to use and retain sacred objects, and to conduct ceremonies and practice 

24040 traditional rites on the forests. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RIFRA) states that the 

24041 government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a 

24042 rule of general applicability, except when the government demonstrates that application of the burden to 

24043 the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. To determine how the alternatives 

24044 would affect the use and access to religious sites (1) an inventory of the known Traditional Cultural 

24045 Properties (TCPs), Sacred Sites were identified through known and accessible ethnographic reports, 

24046 archaeological reports, and tribal consultation responses; and (2) a review of the past and current 

24047 accommodations to tribes to access and use TCPs, Sacred Sites and resources for ceremonial purposes 

24048 was completed.

24049 Sacred sites are defined in E.O. 13007 as “any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal 

24050 land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately 

24051 authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious 

24052 significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriately 

24053 authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.” 

24054 The E.O. directs the Forest Service and other Federal land management agencies, to the extent 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

680

24055 practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions: to 

24056 accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners; to 

24057 avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites; and to maintain the confidentiality of 

24058 Sacred Sites where appropriate.

24059 Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) are defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties associated 

24060 “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, 

24061 and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community”: for example 

24062 TCPs might be structures, mountains and other landforms, plant gathering locations, communities or 

24063 other types of properties. These areas are considered historic properties that may be eligible to the 

24064 National Register of Historic Places. 

24065 Section 106 of NHPA requires that Federal agencies take into consideration the effects of their 

24066 undertakings on historic properties, which are defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l) as any district, site, building, 

24067 structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 

24068 (NRHP). The “Section 106 review process,” entails five steps: (1) determining whether the proposed 

24069 action is an undertaking that has the potential to affect historic properties); (2) identifying historic 

24070 properties; (3) evaluating the significance of historic properties; (4) assessing effects; and (5) consulting 

24071 with interested parties (including Native People), the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the 

24072 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 110 (Federal Agencies’ Responsibility to 

24073 Preserve and Use Historic Properties) of the NHPA provides direction to Federal agencies to establish 

24074 programs and activities to identify and nominate historic properties to the NRHP and to consult with 

24075 tribes. The Pacific Northwest Region has a programmatic agreement with the ACHP and Washington 

24076 SHPO that stipulates the Forest Service’s responsibilities for complying with NHPA.

24077 Under Section 106 regulations an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or 

24078 indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the 

24079 National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, 

24080 materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying 

24081 characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the 

24082 original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 

24083 reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed 

24084 in distance or be cumulative. Specific examples of adverse effects cited in statute include (36 CFR 800.5):

24085 • Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property.

24086 • Removal of the property from its historic location.

24087 • Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting 

24088 that contribute to its historic significance.

24089 • Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

24090 property’s significant historic features.

24091 A review of tribal rights (hunting, fishing and gathering rights) was conducted to determine how the 

24092 alternatives would potentially affect tribal rights. There are no known reserved hunting and gathering 

24093 rights stated in treaties that involve lands of the Forest; however executive order tribes may have won 

24094 certain rights and privileges under State law and regulation (Colville Confederated TribesAntoine v. 

24095 Washington, 420 U.S. 1994 [1975]). For members of the Kalispel Tribe “Waterfowl bag limits and 

24096 hunting seasons on the Kalispel Indian Reservation are determined annually to concur with limits and 

24097 seasons set forth through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Migratory Bird Program (Kalispel 

24098 Tribes of Indians Hunting and Fishing Regulations 2014).” The Kalispel tribe regulates and enforcement 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

681

24099 their hunting and fishing rights through their own tribal law and order code. The Kalispel Tribe also have 

24100 Memoranda of Understandings with the Washington Department of Wildlife concerning fisheries 

24101 resources (WDFW 1993; WDFW 1994). The Forest Service is not party to these understandings as they 

24102 effect only Kalispel reserved lands.

24103 Consultation letters were sent to the three Tribal Governments (Colville Confederated Tribes, Kalispel 

24104 Tribe of Indians, and Spokane Tribe of Indians) regarding the plan revision.

24105 Assumptions

24106 In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

24107 • The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific actions.

24108 • The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, suitability, 

24109 monitoring) would be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and 

24110 activities.

24111 • Analysis and impacts to American Indian Rights and Interests from site-specific actions would be 

24112 addressed at the time site-specific decisions are made.

24113 • Members of American Indian tribes would continue to access, use, and/or conduct religious 

24114 pilgrimages and ceremonies at known TCPs and sacred sites; and collect forest and botanical 

24115 resources.

24116 • Generally the lands and resources of the Colville National Forest used by American Indian tribes 

24117 for traditional cultural purposes and traditional use are for personal and community use.

24118 • Law, policy, and regulations would be followed when planning or implementing site-specific 

24119 projects and activities.

24120 • The agency has the capacity (e.g., funding, personnel, other resources) to accomplish the 

24121 minimum planned objectives.

24122 • Burning could occur across all NFS lands.

24123 • Unplanned ignitions are analyzed at the time of the fire’s start and documented in the Wildland 

24124 Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). Management response to a wildfire is based on 

24125 objectives appropriate to conditions of the fire, fuels, weather, and topography to accomplish 

24126 specific objectives for the area where the fire is burning. Affects to cultural resources are 

24127 considered when determining the objectives and management response to a wildfire

24128 • The kinds of resource management activities allowed under the prescriptions are reasonably 

24129 foreseeable future actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the forest plan. The specific 

24130 location, design and the extent of such activities are generally not known. The effects analysis is 

24131 intended to be useful for comparing and evaluating alternatives on a forestwide basis. It is not 

24132 intended to be applied directly to specific locations on the forests.

24133 • Prior to making a project-level decision that is subject to National Historic Preservation Act 

24134 (NHPA), the forests would consult tribes to identify TCPs and sacred sites, evaluate TCPs for the 

24135 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and analyze the effects of the proposed use or 

24136 activity in compliance with the Programmatic Agreement Among the United States Department of 

24137 Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on 

24138 Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding 

24139 Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Washington (Forest Service 

24140 1997), and/or memorandum of understandings with tribes. Following the identification and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

682

24141 recording of TCPs, mitigation measures appropriate to the proposed undertaking would be 

24142 implemented. Measures would be determined through consultation and might include avoidance 

24143 by redesigning the project boundaries and/or changing the time/season of when the project is 

24144 implemented. In cases where specific activities would constitute an adverse effect and avoidance 

24145 cannot be accomplished, the adverse effects would be resolved in accordance with 36 CFR 800.

24146 Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis

24147 American Indian Rights and Interests may be affected by the issues addressed in the revision topics: 

24148 maintenance and improvement of ecosystems and community forest interaction. This analysis would 

24149 address two issues identified by the tribes that are related to AIRFA, RIFRA, E.O 13007 and the Federal 

24150 trust responsibility.

24151 The three tribes affiliated with the Colville National Forest have identified three main issues regarding 

24152 forest land management in consultation and collaboration efforts conducted by the Forest (various Tribal 

24153 Communications 2014):

24154 • The effects of management practices on resources used in traditional activities

24155 Indicator: Qualitative discussion of potential effects to TCPs, Sacred Sites, and tribal rights from 

24156 ecosystem restoration treatments, recreation, and special uses (Meeting Notes from November 4, 

24157 2014 and November 12, 2014).

24158 • The accommodation of traditional use activities such as visiting offering places, medicinal plant 

24159 gathering, visitation of sites identified in oral histories, pilgrimages, and other such cultural 

24160 activities (Meeting Notes from November 4, 2014 and November 12, 2014)

24161 Indicator: Qualitative assessment of the potential effects on the access and use of those resources for 

24162 traditional and religious purposes.

24163 • The effects of vegetation management on fire behavior and its potential to effect tribal lands 

24164 adjacent to the forest (refer to the following: Colville Confederated Tribes Integrated Resource 

24165 Management Plan, June 3, 2014, Congressional Testimony of DeSautel April 10, 2014, Colville 

24166 Confederated Tribes Comment letter dated April 13, 2009, and Meeting Notes from January 23, 

24167 2004).

24168 Indicator: Assessment and monitoring of future ecosystem restoration treatments.

24169 Effects Common to All Alternatives

24170 The Forest consults with three different tribal governments that have a cultural affiliation to the area. At 

24171 present, tribes have not identified concerns or issues that the proposed plan and alternatives would result 

24172 in adverse impacts to known and unidentified TCPs and Sacred Sites or the use of those locations. The 

24173 tribes have expressed interest on the affects to wildlife (caribou and native fish species), the effects of 

24174 vegetation management (forest health and wildfire spread to adjacent tribal lands), and the need to prevent 

24175 additional adverse impacts from activities to TCPs and Sacred Sites. It should be noted that some tribes 

24176 may not reveal specific locations of traditional use or Sacred Sites to non-practitioners because of cultural 

24177 restrictions and/or religious beliefs unless that location is at risk of being adversely impacted by project 

24178 activities. Government to government consultation would continue between the Forest and the tribes. If 

24179 tribal consultation results in identification of additional, currently unidentified, traditional uses and 

24180 traditional cultural properties, impacts to those areas would be considered during project-specific 

24181 environmental assessments.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

683

24182 Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

24183 The 1988 forest plan (alternative A) has not been amended to reflect the 1992 requirements and 

24184 amendments to the NHPA. The 1992 amendment Section 101 (d)(6) states that properties of traditional 

24185 religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization may be determined 

24186 eligible for inclusion on the National Register. It also states a Federal agency shall consult with any Indian 

24187 tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to these properties. The forest plan also does not 

24188 address the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

24189 (NAGPRA), Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites and Executive Order 13175 Consultation and 

24190 Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The focus of management and guidelines for forest 

24191 resources within the 1988 plan were developed prior to the passage or issuance of these statutes which 

24192 lead to more impacts to TCPs. Emphasis was on use of timber and multiple use activities that incorporate 

24193 the location of TCPs and Sacred Sites that may not be compatible with those uses. In the action 

24194 alternatives the proposed plan would incorporate the passage of these statues and issuance of executive 

24195 orders providing for increased consideration and management to avoid or minimize the impacts to TCPs 

24196 and Sacred Sites, to allow access, and preserve their cultural value and use.

24197 Tribal Interests

24198 The Forest’s proposed treatments in all of the alternatives provide for sustainability and improvement of 

24199 wildlife habitat. The alternatives are not expected to reduce or limit the long-term availability and use of 

24200 traditionally used wildlife. The tribes have not identified any concerns that the proposed treatments would 

24201 affect their access and use of traditionally used forest products and minerals. Road access and access in 

24202 general are vitally important for tribal members, particularly elder tribal members, to continue to utilize 

24203 culturally significant resources, Traditional Cultural Properties, and Sacred Sites.

24204 Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

24205 Traditional cultural areas used for hunting wildlife and collecting forest resources could be affected by the 

24206 temporary closure of areas from wildland fires and treatments. Many of the traditionally used plants 

24207 respond to fire by increasing productivity. The alternatives allow approximately the same number of acres 

24208 to be treated by fire, and fuels treatments would potentially increase the long term productivity of 

24209 traditionally used forest resources and availability of those resources across the landscape. Access to 

24210 visiting TCPs and Sacred Sites could be affected in the short term during implementation of prescribe 

24211 burn treatments or during management of wild fires. Conducting prescribed burns have the potential to 

24212 restore the natural and cultural landscape, and the natural fire regime, reducing the potential for 

24213 permanent adverse effects from high intensity, high severity fires. Mechanized treatments have the similar 

24214 benefits to TCPs by reducing the potential for permanent adverse effects from fire, but these treatments 

24215 have the highest potential for long term indirect effects from erosion caused from intensive ground 

24216 disturbance near sites. Also, slash from mechanized treatments is often piled and burned resulting in more 

24217 locations with hydrophobic soils, thus increasing erosion to sites if the piles were located near TCPs.

24218 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

24219 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

24220 not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Before actions take place, they must be authorized 

24221 in a subsequent site-specific environmental analysis. Therefore none of the alternatives cause unavoidable 

24222 adverse impacts. Mechanisms are in place to monitor and use adaptive management principles in order to 

24223 help alleviate any unanticipated impacts that need to be addressed singularly or cumulatively.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

684

24224 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

24225 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

24226 not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management plan does not 

24227 authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity (including ground-disturbing actions), none of 

24228 the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

24229 Adaptive Management

24230 All alternatives assume the use of adaptive management principles. Forest Service decisions are made as 

24231 part of an on-going process, including planning, implementing projects, and monitoring and evaluation. 

24232 The land management plan identifies a monitoring program. Monitoring the results of actions would 

24233 provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course of action or the land 

24234 management plan. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to adapt 

24235 resource management to new information.

24236 Consistency with Law, Regulation, and Policy

24237 All alternatives are designed to guide Colville National Forests’ management activities in meeting Federal 

24238 law, regulations, and policy.

24239 Other Planning Efforts

24240 There are no conflicts between the alternatives and the adjacent Tribal land use plans.

24241 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

24242 American Indian rights and interests may be affected by the issues addressed in the revisions which 

24243 increase maintenance and improvement of ecosystems and community forest interaction. Current and 

24244 previous Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement and recreational use and 

24245 natural processes have impacted TCPs and Sacred Sites. The analysis area consists of lands that include 

24246 American Indian TCPs and Sacred Sites within the state of Washington associated with tribes culturally 

24247 affiliated with the lands of the Forest. Tribes view Sacred Sites and TCPs that are part of their traditions 

24248 as interconnected places/features of the religious and traditional landscape. Effects to these places or 

24249 features may directly or indirectly affect the access and use by the tribes to conduct ceremonial and/or 

24250 traditional practices of other Sacred Sites or TCPs that are part of their traditions. There are several 

24251 known activities, projects or planned projects and/or plans located on lands that have or would adversely 

24252 affect TCPs and Sacred Sites.
Chapter 4 − Consultation and Coordination

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

685

24253 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

24254 Preparers and Contributors

24255 The following individuals and Forest Service staff groups contributed to the development of this 

24256 environmental impact statement. This list of preparers is limited to those people who were members of 

24257 the interdisciplinary team working on these documents. Their preparation could not have been completed 

24258 without the support and assistance of employees of the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

24259 Forests and our colleagues in the regional office and Pacific Northwest Research Station. We also 

24260 recognize the forest leadership teams as providing guidance during this process.

24261 Responsible Official

24262 James Peña, Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region

24263 Official Responsible for Preparing the DEIS 

24264 Rodney Smoldon, Colville National Forest Supervisor

24265 Interdisciplinary Team Members

Name Contribution Education and Experience

Kathleen Ahlenslager Botany, Research 

Natural Areas

B.A. Geography; B.A. Environmental Studies, 

University of California, Santa Barbara; M.A. Botany, 

University of Montana. Botanist for 25 years with the 

Forest Service.

Alicia Beat Heritage, Tribal B.A. Sociology/Criminology (physical anthropology), 

University of Northern Colorado; M.A. Anthropology 

(sub-field Physical Anthropology), University of 

Oklahoma; 11 years of experience in Federal cultural 

resource management; 16 years of experience as a 

physical anthropologist specializing in Forensic 

Archaeology and Skeletal Biology.

Mary Jo Bendickson Geographical 

Information System 

Analyst

B.S. Horticulture, Washington State University; 25 

years with the Forest ServiceTree Improvement, 

Reforestation, and GIS

Terry L. Craigg Soils M.S. Soil Science, University of California Davis; M.F. 

(Forestry) Oregon State University; 28 years of 

experience with Federal Government (USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and Forest Service).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

686

Name Contribution Education and Experience

Ben Curtis Fire, Fuels 

Management

18 years’ experience with USDA Forest Service 

(includes 4 years as fuels AFMO and 3 years 

suppression AFMO).

Jonathan Day Silviculture, Timber 

Management

M.S. Physical Geography, University of Oregon; 

National Advanced Silviculture Program (Continuing 

Education). Forest Service certified silviculturist with 

12 years of experience with natural resource 

management in the public sector.

Kate Day Hydrology, Aquatics B.S. in Environmental Science, William Smith 

College, M.S. in Physical Geography, University of 

Oregon; 10 years of experience as a Forest Service 

hydrologist.

Amy Dillon Planner B.S. Forest Management, University of Missouri 

Columbia; 34 years natural resource management 

experience with USDA Forest Service.

Cara Farr Soil B.S. and M.S. Soil Science, West Virginia University;

11 years of experience with the Forest Service in soil 

and watershed resources.

Travis Fletcher Range, Invasive Plants B.S. Natural Resource Management (Wildlife, 

Range), Washington State University; 15 years of 

experience as professional rangeland management 

specialist with Bureau of Land Management and 

Forest Service.

William Gaines Wildlife Biology 

Ecologist 

PhD Wildlife Science, University of Washington; 27 

years of experience in wildlife research and 

management

Elisabeth Grinspoon Social analysis B.A. East Asian Studies, Middlebury College, M.F., 

Yale University, Ph.D., University of California, 

Berkeley.

Barbara L. Jackson Scenery B.S. Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon; 

25 years of experience as Landscape Architect and 

Scenery Specialist with the Forest Service.

Delilah R. Jaworski, Social Scientist M.S. in Environment and Development, The London 

School of Economics; 6 years of experience in social 

and economic analysis for natural resource 

management with Forest Service and BLM.
Chapter 4 − Consultation and Coordination

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

687

Name Contribution Education and Experience

Jason Jimenez Climate Change B.S. Environmental Science, University of California 

Davis; M.S. Soil Science, University of Idaho; 8 years 

of experience in soil science with the USDA Forest 

Service.

Deborah Kelly Public Affairs B.A. in Public Relations and Business 

Communications, Central Washington University; 24 

years with the Forest Service Public Affairs, 

information, education, collaboration and facilitation 

Kenneth MacDonald Aquatic/Fisheries B.S. degree in Fisheries Science and Forest 

Management, Oregon State University. Served 30+ 

years as a Forest Service fish biologist, including 15 

years as the Fisheries Program Manager on the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and supported

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

aquatic assessment.

Eric McQuay Recreation B.S. in Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, University of 

Idaho; 23 years of experience working for the Forest 

Service in recreation, wilderness, trail, and special 

uses management; over ten years as a District and 

Zone Recreation Program Manager

Karen Nooney Lands/Special Uses 

and Minerals

B.S. Wildland Recreation Management, Washington 

State University; 25 years of experience with the 

Forest Service in Wilderness Management and 

planning, Recreation and Lands Special Uses, and 

Minerals Administration. Colville Forest Special Uses 

and Minerals Program Manager.

24266
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

688

24267 Support to Interdisciplinary Team

Name Contribution Education and Experience

Rodrick Clausnitzer Botanist/Plant 

Ecologist, 

B.S. in Forest Management, M.S. in Forest and Range 

Ecology, Washington State University; 35 years of 

natural resource management experience in teaching, 

extension, research, forest and range ecology, botany, 

and silviculture. Plant ecologist and botanist for 25 

years with the Forest Service

Lisa Green Writer-Editor B.A. in English, Wayne State University; 16 years’ 

experience with the Forest Service in fire, fuels 

management, recreation, planning, and writing and 

editing National Environmental Policy documents.

Margaret Hartzell Planner B.S. in Forest Management, University of Washington; 

M.S. in Forest Planning, University of Washington; 32 

years of natural resource management experience in 

the public sector, with the Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Forest Service

Paul Hessburg, Sr. Research Landscape 

Ecologist-PNW 

Research 

B.S. Forestry, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 

Ecosystem Analysis and Silviculture, Ph.D. Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR, Botany and Plant 

Pathology, 36 years in research and natural resource 

management, specializing in ecological forestry, 

landscape and disturbance ecology, pathology, 

entomology, and fire ecology R&D

Karen Honeycutt Fisheries B.S. degree in Forestry and Wildlife with an emphasis 

in Fisheries Science. Fish Biologist for 26 years with 

the Forest Service.

Mark Loewen Silviculturist B.S., Forest Management, Oregon State University. 

Continuing Education in Forest Ecology and 

Silviculture: University of Montana, Univ. of Idaho, 

Washington State University. Forest Service Certified 

Silviculturist; 40 years’ experience in western forest, 

shrub, and woodland ecosystems

Chris Loggers Wildlife Biology B.S. Wildlife Biology, Life Science Education, 

University of Minnesota; M.S. Wildlife Biology, 

University of Montana; 31 years of experience in 

wildlife management and research. 
Chapter 4 − Consultation and Coordination

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

689

Name Contribution Education and Experience

Richard Phillips Economics B.S. Forest Management, Colorado State University, 

Graduate Studies; Colorado State University; 28 years 

of experience as an economist for the Forest Service 

providing direction and social and economic analysis in 

support of forest planning, projects and programs

Marcy Rumelhart Writer-Editor A.A. Forest Technology, Centralia College; 28 years’ 

experience with the Forest Service in fire, 

reforestation, planning, and writing and editing 

National Environmental Policy documents.

24268 Consultation and Coordination

24269 The Forest Service consulted the following tribes, Federal, State and local agencies, groups, and 

24270 individuals during the development of this environmental impact statement.

24271 Tribes

24272 The following three tribes were consulted: Kalispel Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

24273 Reservation and Spokane Tribe of Indians.

24274 Federal, State and Local Agencies

24275 Numerous Federal, State and local agencies were consulted in the development of the proposed plan and 

24276 this DEIS. Complete mailing lists for the scoping periods are available in the “Plan Set of Documents.” 

24277 Some of the agencies consulted include:

24278 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

24279 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

24280 Ferry County Board of Commissioners

24281 Pend Oreille County Board of Commissioners

24282 Stevens County Board of Commissioners

24283 Others

24284 Numerous groups and individuals participated in the process through written comments and by attending 

24285 public meetings. Complete mailing lists are available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

24286 List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS were sent

24287 Notice of the availability of this DEIS was mailed to the public, forest employees, tribal governments, 

24288 Federal and State agencies, and local governments. These mailing lists can be found in the planning 

24289 record.
Chapter 4 − Consultation and Coordination

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

690

This page intentionally left blank
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

691

24356 Literature Cited

24357 Adams, H.D., Luce, C.H., Breshears, D.D., Allen, C.D., Weiler, M., Hale, V.C., Smith, A.M.S., and T.E. 

24358 Huxman. 2012. Ecohydrological consequences of drought- and infestation-triggered tree die-off: 

24359 insights and hypotheses. Ecohydrology 5: 145-159.

24360 Agee, James K. 1993. Chapter 4. Methods of fire history, pgs. 75-112. In: Fire ecology of Pacific 

24361 Northwest forests. (Washington D.C.: Island Press). 493 p.

24362 Agee, J.K. 2000. Disturbance ecology of North American boreal forests and associated northern 

24363 mixed/subalpine forests. Pages 39-82 in Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Koehler, 

24364 G.M., Krebs, C.J., McKelvey, K.S., Squires, J.R. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United 

24365 States. University Press of Colorado, Denver, CO.

24366 Ager, A.A., Finney, M.A., Kerns, B.K., Maffei, H. 2007. Modeling wildfire risk to northern spotted owl 

24367 (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in central Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 

24368 246: 45-56.

24369 Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B. Roper, and E. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the status and trends of physical stream 

24370 habitat in headwater streams within the interior Columbia River and upper Missouri River basins 

24371 using an index approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1041–1059. 

24372 Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B Roper, E.K. Archer, and S. Miller. 2011. Quantifying the Extent of and Factors 

24373 Associated with the Temporal Variability of Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Streams in the 

24374 Interior Columbia River Basin', Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140: 2, 399 –

24375 414.

24376 Allen, Stewart D., Wickwar, Denise A., Clark, Fred P., Potts, Robert, & Snyder, Stephanie A. 2009. 

24377 Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Technical Guide for Forest Service Land and Resource 

24378 Management, Planning, and Decision making. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, 

24379 PNW-GTR-788.

24380 Almack, J.A. 1998. Mountain caribou recovery in the southern Selkirk Mountains of Washington, Idaho, 

24381 and British Columbia. Progress report, October 1995-September 1998. Washington Department 

24382 of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 45 p.

24383 Alverson, E., Arnett, J. 1986. From the steppe to the alpine: a botanical reconnaissance of the Lake 

24384 Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge Area, Washington. In: Plant life of the North Cascades. Douglasia 

24385 Occasional Papers, Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, WA 2:1-63.

24386 Alward, G., Hokans, R., Marshall, R., Niccolucci, M., Redmond, C., Smith, D., Winter, S. 2010. 

24387 Economic Impact Technical Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Fort Collins, 

24388 CO. 138 p.

24389 Amundson, R., Jenny, H., 1997. On a State Factor Model of Ecosystems. BioScience 47, 536–543. 

24390 doi:10.2307/1313122

24391 Andelman, S.J., Beissinger, S., Cochrane, J.F. [and others]. 2001. Scientific standards for conducting 

24392 viability assessments under the National Forest Management Act: report and recommendations of 

24393 the NCEAS Working Group. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University 

24394 of California, CA.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

692

24395 Angert, A., S. Biraud, C. Bonfils, C.C. Henning, W. Buermann, J. Pinzon, C.J. tucker, and I. Fung. 2005. 

24396 Drier summers cancel out the CO2 uptake enhancement induced by warmer springs. Proceedings 

24397 of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 10823-10827

24398 Aplet, G.H. and W.S. Keeton. 1999. Application of historic range of variability concepts to biodiversity 

24399 conservation. Pages 71-86 in: R. Baydack, H. Campa, and J. Haufler (eds.). Practical Approaches 

24400 to the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 313 p.

24401 Apps, C.D., J.L. Weaver, P.C. Paquet, B. Bateman, and B.N. McLellan. 2007. Carnivores in the southern 

24402 Canadian Rockies: core areas and connectivity across the Crowsnest Highway. Wildlife 

24403 Conservation Society Canada Conservation Report No. 3, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

24404 Araujo, M.B., Cabeza, M., Thuiller, W., Hannah, L., and Williams, P.H. 2004. Would climate change 

24405 drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve selection methods. Global 

24406 Change Biology 10: 1618-1626.

24407 Archer, E., R. Al-Chokhachy, J. Heitke, P. Ebertowski, R. Leary, T. Romano and B. B. Roper. 2009. 

24408 PACFISH INFISH biological opinion effectiveness monitoring program for streams and riparian 

24409 areas 2009 Annual Summary Report. Logan, Utah, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

24410 Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit: 48 p.

24411 Archer, E. 2014. Understanding the relationship between livestock disturbance, the protocols used to 

24412 measure that disturbance and stream conditions. Presentation by Eric Archer, PacFish/InFish 

24413 Biological opinion Monitoring Program (PIBI) to the Colville National Forest plan revision 

24414 interdisciplinary team. January 28, 2014. PowerPoint presentation available from the Colville 

24415 National Forest

24416 Archer, E.A. 2015. Habitat condition in the Colville National Forest. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest 

24417 Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fish and Aquatic Ecology. On file at: Colville 

24418 National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Colville, WA.

24419 Arienti, M.C., Cumming, S.G., Boutin, S. 2006. Empirical models of forest fire initial attack success 

24420 probabilities: the effects of fuels, anthropogenic linear features, fire weather, and management. 

24421 Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(12), 3155-3166.

24422 Asner, G., J. Elmore, L.Olander, R. Martin, and T. Harris. 2004. Grazing Systems, Ecosystem Responses, 

24423 and Global Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2004.29: 261-299.

24424 Astrup Felde, V., Kapfer, J., and J.A. Grytnes. 2012. Upward shift in elevational plant species ranges in 

24425 Sikkilsdalen, central Norway Ecography 35: 922–932.

24426 Aukema, Juliann E., Carey, Andrew B. 2008. Effects of variable-density thinning on understory diversity 

24427 and heterogeneity in young Douglas-fir forests. Research Paper PNW-RP-575. Portland, OR: 

24428 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 20 p.

24429 Baldwin, K 2005. Colville River watershed fecal coliform bacteria total maximum daily load (water 

24430 cleanup plan): Detailed implementation plan. Washington State Department of Ecology water 

24431 quality program. Available online at: 

24432 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0510045.pdf
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

693

24433 Baldwin, K. 2006. Colville National Forest temperature and bacteria total maximum daily load. Water 

24434 quality implementation plan. Water Quality Program. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

24435 Olympia, WA. Publication number 06-10-059. October 2006.

24436 Bamonte, T., Schaffer Bamonte, S. 1996. History of Pend Oreille County. Spokane, WA: Tornado Creek 

24437 Publications.

24438 Barrett, S., Havlina, D., Jones, J., Hann, W., Frame, C., Hamilton, D., Schon, K., Demeo, T., Hutter, L., 

24439 and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 

24440 [Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, US 

24441 Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. Available online at: 

24442 https://www.frames.gov/frcc

24443 Bate, L.J., Wisdom, M.J., and Wales, B.C. 2007. Snag densities in relation to human access and 

24444 associated management factors in forests of northeastern Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban 

24445 Planning 80: 278-291.

24446 Batjes, N.H. 1996. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47, 151–163.

24447 Beat, Alicia. 2015a. Heritage report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft Environmental 

24448 Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, 

24449 Washington.

24450 Beat, Alicia. 2015b. Tribal resources report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24451 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24452 Forest, Colville, Washington

24453 Beckley, Thomas, Parkins, John, and Stedman, Richard. 2002. Indicators of forest-dependent community 

24454 sustainability: the evolution of research. The Forestry Chronicle. 78(5): 626-636.

24455 Beebe, J., Everett, R., Scherer, G., and Davis, C. 2002. Effect of fertilization applications and grazing 

24456 exclusion on species composition and biomass in wet meadow restoration in eastern Washington. 

24457 USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-RP-542.

24458 Beedlow, P.A., Tingey, D.T., Phillips, D.L., Hogsett, W.E., and Olszyk D.M. 2004. Rising atmospheric 

24459 CO2 and carbon sequestration in forests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(6):315-322.

24460 Behnke, R. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press. New York, New York. 359 p.

24461 Beissinger, S.R., McCullough, D.R. 2002. Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, 

24462 Chicago, Ill.

24463 Benda, L., D. Miller, P. Bigelow, and K. Andras. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire on channel environments, 

24464 Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 105-119.

24465 Bengeyfield, P. 2006. Managing cows with streams in mind. Rangelands: February 2006. 28: 3-6.

24466 Benjamin, J.R. and C.V. Baxter. 2010. Do nonnative salmonines exhibit greater density and production 

24467 than the natives they replace? A comparison of nonnative brook trout with native cutthroat trout. 

24468 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:641-651.

24469 Bilby R.E., Sullivan, K., and Duncan, S.H. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface sediment in 

24470 forested watersheds in southwest Washington. Forest Science. 35(2): 453-468.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

694

24471 Binder, L.C.W., Barcelos, J.K., Booth, D.B. [et al.]. 2009. Preparing for climate change in Washington 

24472 State. In: Elsner, M.M., Littel, J., Binder, L.W., eds. The Washington Climate Change Impacts 

24473 Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the Earth System, University of Washington: 

24474 373–407.

24475 Birdsey, R., K. Pregitzer, and A. Lucier. 2007. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-

24476 2100. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 1461-1469.

24477 Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 In W.R. 

24478 Meehan, ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

24479 habitats, American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

24480 Blackford, Darren. 2004. Management Guide for Western Spruce Budworm. Forest Health Protection. 

24481 USDA Forest Service.

24482 Bockino, Nancy K, Tinker, Daniel B. 2012. Interactions of White Pine Blister Rust and Mountain Pine 

24483 Beetle in Whitebark Pine Ecosystems in the Southern Greater Yellowstone Area. Natural Areas 

24484 Journal, 32(1):31-40.

24485 Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running. 2006. Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity –

24486 evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Global Change Biology 12: 1-12.

24487 Bosch J.M. and J.L Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effects of 

24488 vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55: 3-23.

24489 Bosch, D., K. Stephenson, G. Groover, and B. Hutchins. 2008. Farm returns to carbon credit creation with 

24490 intensive rotational grazing. 11 October 2008. Available online at: 

24491 http://www.jswconline.org/content/63/2/91.

24492 Bradley, B. A., M. Oppenheimer, and D. S. Wilcove. 2009. Climate change and plant invasions: 

24493 restoration opportunities ahead? Global Change Biology 15: 1511-1521.

24494 Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place. 

24495 Conserv. Biol., 18 p.

24496 Brown A.E., Zhang, L., McMahon, T.A., Western, A.W., and R.A. Vertessy. 2005. A review of paired 

24497 catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. 

24498 Journal of Hydrology, 310(1-4): 28-61.

24499 Brown, J., and J. Thorpe. 2008. Climate Change and Rangelands: Responding Rationally to Uncertainty. 

24500 Rangelands June 2008, 3-6.

24501 Brown, T.C., and P. Froemke. 2009. Estimating mean annual contribution to water supply from units of 

24502 the National Forest System (NFS) of the U.S. Forest Service. In Water Supply from National 

24503 Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO: 5 p.

24504 Bunting, S.C., Kingery, J.L., Hemstrom, M.A., Schroeder, M.A., Gravenmier, R.A., Hann, W.J. 2002. 

24505 Altered rangeland ecosystems on the interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

24506 Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-553.

24507 Burger, J.A., and Kelting, D.L., 1999. Using soil quality indicators to assess forest stand management. 

24508 For. Ecol. Manag. 122, 155–166.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

695

24509 Burroughs E.R. Jr., and J.G. King. 1989. Reductions of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical 

24510 Report INT-264. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden Utah. 21 p.

24511 Burton, T.A. 1997. Effects of basin-scale timber harvest on water yield and peak streamflow. Journal of 

24512 the American Water Resources Association, 33(6): 1187-1196.

24513 Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Cowley. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator 

24514 monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. 

24515 BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737+REV. USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Operations 

24516 Center, Denver, CO. 155 p.

24517 Butler.E., Stockmann, K.. Anderson, N., Skog, K. Healey, S. Loeffler, D., Jones, J.G., Morrison, J., and 

24518 Young, J. 2014. Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest 

24519 Service Pacific Northwest Region 1909-2012. USDA Forest Service Publication.

24520 Camp, P., and J. Gamon. 2011. Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington, University of Washington 

24521 Press. 404 p.

24522 Canadell, J.G., D.E. Pataki, R. Gifford, R.A. Houghton, Y. Luo, M.R. Raupach, P.Smith, and W. Stefen. 

24523 2007. Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle. Pages 59-78 In: Terrestrial Ecosystems in a 

24524 Changing World (Canadell, J.G., D. Pataki, and L. Pitelka (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin 

24525 Heidelberg, Germany.

24526 Carroll, C., Dunk, J.R., Moilanens, A. 2009. Optimizing resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: 

24527 multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Global Change Biology 16: 

24528 891-904.

24529 Case, M., Halpern, C.B., Levin, S.A. 2013. Contributions of gopher mound and casting disturbances to 

24530 plant community structure in a Cascade Range meadow complex. Botany. 91: 555-561.

24531 Chamberlin, T.W., Harr R.D., and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvest, silviculture, and watershed 

24532 processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205.

24533 Chance, D.H. 1973. Influences of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Native Cultures of the Colville 

24534 District. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes Memoir. Vol. 7, No. 1, Part 2. Moscow, ID: 

24535 University of Idaho.

24536 Chapin III, F.S., G.M. Woodwell, J.T. Randerson, E.B. Rastetter, G.M. Lovett, D.D. Baldocchi, D.A. 

24537 Clark, M.E. Harmon, D.S. Schimel, R.Valentini, C. Wirth, J.D. Aber, J.J. Cole, M.L. Goulden, 

24538 J.W. Harden, M. Heimann, R.W. Howarth, P.A. Matson, A.D., McGuire, J.M. Melillo, H.A. 

24539 Mooney, J.C. Neff, R.A. Houghton, M.L. Pace, M.G. Ryan, S.W. Running, O.E. Sala, W.H. 

24540 Schlesinger, and E.D. Schulze. 2006. Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and 

24541 methods. Ecosystems 9: 1041-1050.

24542 Chatters, J.C., and Pokotylo, D.L. 1998. Prehistory: Introduction. In: Sturtevant, W.C. ed. Handbook of 

24543 North American Indians. Vol. 12. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute.

24544 Chen, S., G. Lin, J. Huang, and M. He. 2008. Responses to soil respiration to stimulated precipitation 

24545 pulses in semiarid steppe under different grazing regimes. Journal of Plant Ecology September 

24546 2008: 1-10.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

696

24547 Cissel, R., Black, T., Nelson, N., Luce, C.H., and B. Staab. 2014. Monitoring the hydrologic and 

24548 geomorphic effects of forest road decommissioning and road improvements. Poster presentation 

24549 at International Union of Forest Research Organizations conference.

24550 City of Seattle, WA, 142 FERC ¶ 62,231.

24551 Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. 

24552 USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-263. Intermountain research station, Ogden, 

24553 UT. 11p.

24554 Clary, Warren G. and Wayne Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. 

24555 Journal of Range Management. 53(6): 562-573.

24556 Clausnitzer, Rod, and Mark Skinner. 2015. Botany report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, 

24557 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville 

24558 National Forest, Colville, Washington.

24559 Climate Change Impacts Group. 2004. Overview of climate change impacts in the U.S. Pacific 

24560 Northwest. Seattle, WA: Western Governor’s Climate Change Initiative.

24561 Climate Change Sensitivity Database (CCSD). 2013. Climate change sensitivity database. University of 

24562 Washington.

24563 Climate Impacts Group. 2009. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, M. McGuire Elsner, 

24564 J. Little, and L. Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for 

24565 the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Available 

24566 online at: http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf (accessed7/29/2009)

24567 Coe, P.K., Johnson, B.K., Kern, J.W., Findholt, S.L., Kie, J.G., Wisdom, M.J. 2001. Responses of elk and 

24568 mule deer to cattle in summer. Journal of Range Management 54: A51-A76.

24569 Coe, P.K., Johnson, B.K., Stewart, K.M., Kie, J.G. 2005. Spatial and temporal interactions of elk, mule 

24570 deer, and cattle. Pages 150-158 in Wisdom, M.J. tech. ed. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of 

24571 long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North 

24572 American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Group Communications, 

24573 Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

24574 Conant, R., and Paustian, K. 2000. The Effects of Grazing Management on Soil Carbon (Carbon 

24575 Sequestration). Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.

24576 Cook, J.G. 2002. Chapter 5. Nutrition and Food. Pages 259-350 in North American Elk: Ecology and 

24577 Management. Toweill, D.E., Thomas, J.W. eds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

24578 Cook, J.G., Irwin, L.L., Bryant, L.D., Riggs, R.A., and Thomas, J.W. 1998. Relations of forest cover and 

24579 condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife 

24580 Monograph. 141. 61 p.

24581 Cook, J.G., Irwin, L.L., Bryant, L.D., Riggs, R.A., and Thomas, J.W. 2005. Thermal cover needs of large 

24582 ungulates: a review of hypothesis tests. Pages 185-196 in Wisdom, M.J. tech. ed. The Starkey 

24583 Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004

24584 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Group 

24585 Communications, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

697

24586 Cook, J.G., Johnson, B.J., Cook, R.A., Riggs, R.A., Bryant, L.D., Irwin, L.L. 2004. Effects of summer24587 autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monograph. 

24588 155. 61 p.

24589 Coots, R. 2002. Colville River fecal coliform total maximum daily load study. Washington State 

24590 Department of Ecology environmental assessment program. Available online at: 

24591 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/0203036.html

24592 Cordell. 2004. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Recreation Statistics Update Report 

24593 Numbers 1-3.

24594 Cordell et al. 2005. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in 

24595 the United States, Regions and States: A National report from the National Survey on Recreation 

24596 and the Environment (NSRE), 2005.

24597 Cordell, H. Ken, Betz, Carter, J., Butler, Brett J., and Bergstrom, John C. 2008. Trends in Forest-Based 

24598 Recreation: Reports for the 2010 Montreal Process Indicators for the U.S. 

24599 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec8rpt.pdf

24600 Cordell, H. Ken, Green, Gary T., and Betz, Carter J. 2009. Long-term National Trends in Outdoor 

24601 Recreation Activity Participation---1980 to Now. 

24602 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec12rpt.pdf

24603 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. “Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

24604 Environmental Policy Act.” Executive Office of the President.

24605 Cover, M., May, C.L., Resh, V.H., and W.E. Dietrich. 2006. Quantitative linkages between sediment 

24606 supply, streambed fine sediment, and benthic macroinvertebrates in streams of the Klamath 

24607 Mountains. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(1):135-149.

24608 Covington, W.W., Fule P.Z., Moore, M.A., Hart, S.C., Kolb C., Mast, J.M., Sackett, S.S., and M.R. 

24609 Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest. Journal of 

24610 Forestry 95(4): 23-29.

24611 Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien Invasion in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural Ecosystems. Island 

24612 Press.

24613 Croke J, Mockler S., Fogarty P., and I. Takken. 2005. Sediment concentration changes in runoff pathways 

24614 for a forest road network and the resultant spatial pattern of catchment connectivity. 

24615 Geomorphology 68 (3-4): 257-268.

24616 Curtis, Ben and Monique Wynecoop. 2015. Fire ecology report for the Colville National Forest Plan 

24617 Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, 

24618 Colville National Forest, Colville, Washington.

24619 Daniels, Jean M. 2004. Assessing socioeconomic resiliency in Washington counties. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

24620 PNW-GTR-607. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 p.

24621 Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Tech. Bull. 62. Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn., College 

24622 of Agriculture, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 131 p.

24623 Davidson, E.A., and Lefebvre, P.A. 1993. Estimating regional carbon stocks and spatially covarying 

24624 edaphic factors using soil maps at three scales. Biogeochemistry 22, 107–131.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

698

24625 Davis, C., Karrer, M., Kovalchik, B., Lillybridge, T., and C. Narsico. 2004. Landtype associations of 

24626 north central Washington: Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests. USDA Forest 

24627 Service, Wenatchee, WA. 118 p.

24628 Davis, R.J., Dugger, K.M., Mohoric, S., Evers, L., and Aney, W. 2011. Status and trends of northern 

24629 spotted owl populations and habitats. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

24630 PNW-GTR-850.

24631 Day, Jonathan. 2015. Forest vegetation report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24632 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24633 Forest, Colville, Washington.

24634 Day, Kate. 2015. Hydrology report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft Environmental 

24635 Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, 

24636 Washington.

24637 DeBano, L.F., D. G. Neary, and P. F. Folliatt. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons: 

24638 USA.

24639 Derner, J., G.Schuman, M. Jawson, S. Shafer, J. Morgan, H. Polley, G. Runion, S. Prior, H. Torbert, H. 

24640 Rogers, J. Bunce, L. Ziska, J. White, A. Franzleubbers, J.Reeder, R. Venterea, and L. Harper. 

24641 2005. USDA-ARS Global Change Research on Rangelands and Pasturelands. Rangelands 

24642 October 2005: 36-42.

24643 Derner, J., T. Boutton, and D. Briske. 2006. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in the North American 

24644 Great Plains. Plant and Soil Journal 280:77-90.

24645 DeRose, Robert J., and Long, James N. 2014. Resistance and resilience: A conceptual framework for 

24646 silviculture. Forest Science. Available online at: doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-507.

24647 Deser, C., A. Phillips, V. Bourdette, and H. Teng. 2012. Uncertainty in climate change projections: The 

24648 role of internal variability. Climate Dynamics, 38, 527-546.

24649 Devine, W., Aubry, C., Bower, A., Miller, J., and Maggiulli Ahr, N. 2012. Climate change and forest trees 

24650 in the Pacific Northwest: a vulnerability assessment and recommended actions for national 

24651 forests. Olympia, WA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 102 p.

24652 Dilling L., Doney, S.C., and Edmonds, J. 2003. The role of carbon cycle observations and knowledge in 

24653 carbon management. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 28:521-558.

24654 Dukes, J.S. and H.A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? 

24655 TREE 14(4): 135-139.

24656 Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman & Co., San 

24657 Francisco, CA. 818 p.

24658 EcoAdapt.org. 2015. Meadows, Riparian, and Fen Sensitivity Assessment. Available online at: 

24659 http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/Meadowsriparianandfen_packetforworkshopcopy.pdf

24660 (accessed 29 Sept., 2015)

24661 ECOMAP 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Unpublished administrative paper. 

24662 Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 20 p.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

699

24663 Egan, D., and Howell, E.A. 2001. The historical ecology handbook: a restorationist’s guide to reference 

24664 ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 457 p.

24665 Ehinger, Paul 2008. Data request for Eastern Oregon timber industry statistics. Eugene, OR. Paul F. 

24666 Ehinger and Associates.

24667 Elliot W.J. 2010. Effects of forest biomass use on watershed processes in the western United States. 

24668 Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25(1): 12-17.

24669 Elsner, M.M., Cuo, L., Vousin, N., Deem, J.S., Hamlet, A.F., Vano, J.A., Mickelson, K.E.B., Lee, S., and 

24670 Lettenmeir, D.P. 2009. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of 

24671 Washington State. In: Elsner, M.M., Littel, J., Binder, L.W., eds. The Washington Climate Change 

24672 Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the 

24673 Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington: 69–106.

24674 Evans, K. 2006. Plant community response to grazing in four Washington meadow exclosures. M.S. 

24675 Thesis, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA.

24676 Everest, F.H., and G.H. Reeves. 2007. Riparian and aquatic habitats of the Pacific Northwest and 

24677 southeast Alaska: Ecology, management history, and potential management strategies. USDA 

24678 Forest Service PNW-GTR-692. 130 p.

24679 Everett, Richard, Baumgartner, David, Ohlson, Peter, Schellhaas, Richard, and Harrod, Richy. 2007. 

24680 Development of current stand structure in dry fir-pine forests of eastern Washington. Journal of 

24681 the Torrey Botanical Society. Vol. 134, no. 2 (Apr.-June 2007): 199-214.

24682 Fandrich, B. 2002. Pend Oreille River: An Evaluation of 23 Historic Sites Located Between Albeni Falls 

24683 Dam and Box Canyon Dam. Bellevue, WA: EES Consulting Inc.

24684 Farr, Cara, Terry Craigg, and Karen Bennett. 2015. Soil resources report for the Colville National Forest 

24685 Plan Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest 

24686 Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, Washington.

24687 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2011. Final environmental impact statement for the relicensing 

24688 of the boundary hydroelectric project No 2144-038 and the surrender of the Sullivan Creek 

24689 project no. 2225-015 (FERC). September 9, 2011.

24690 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2014. FERC Licensing processes. Available online at: 

24691 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing.asp

24692 Federal Register. June 19, 2015. Proposed directive on groundwater resource management, FSM 2560.

24693 Fellman, J., E. Franz, C. Crenshaw, and D. Elston. 2008. Global estimates of soil carbon sequestration via 

24694 livestock waste: a STELLA simulation. Environmental Development and Sustainability DOI 

24695 10.1007/s10668-008-9157-0.

24696 FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

24697 ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management 

24698 Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-071. U.S. Government Printing 

24699 Office for the USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

24700 Management, and National Park Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

700

24701 Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Environmental 

24702 Protection Agency.

24703 Ferrell, George T. 1986. Fir Engraver. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 13. USDA Forest Service.

24704 FGDC. 2005. Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries. Federal Geographic Data 

24705 Committee. FGDC Proposal. Version 1.0. Available online at: 

24706 http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/hydro-unit-boundaries/

24707 Findholt, S.L., Johnson, B.K., Damiran, D., DelCurto, T., and Kie, J.G. 2005. Diet composition, dry 

24708 matter intake, and diet overlap of mule deer, elk, and cattle. Pages 159-169 in Wisdom, M.J. tech. 

24709 ed. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 

24710 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance 

24711 Group Communications, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

24712 Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and 

24713 behavior. Forest Science 47: 219-228.

24714 Finney, M.A., Seli, R.C., McHugh, C.W., Ager, A.A., Bahro, B., and Agee, J.K. 2006. Simulation of long24715 term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfire. International Journal of Wildland 

24716 Fire 16: 712-727.

24717 Fisher, R.F., and Binkley, D. 2000. Ecology and Management of Forest Soils, John Wiley & Sons. N. Y.

24718 Fletcher, Travis. 2015a. Invasive plants report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24719 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24720 Forest, Colville, Washington.

24721 Fletcher, Travis. 2015b. Range report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft Environmental 

24722 Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, 

24723 Washington.

24724 Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

24725 Franklin, J.F., and Dyrness, C.T. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State 

24726 University Press. Corvallis, OR. 452 p.

24727 Franklin, Jerry F., Mitchell, Robert J., and Palik, Brian J. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand 

24728 development principles for ecological forestry. General Technical Report NRS-GTR-19. USDA 

24729 Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 44 p.

24730 Franklin, J.F., Hemstrom, M.A., Van Pelt, R., Buchanan, J.B., and Hull, S. 2008. The case for active 

24731 management of dry forest types in eastern Washington: perpetuating and creating old forest 

24732 structures and functions. In: Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, 

24733 Washington. 105 p.

24734 Franklin, Jerry F., and Johnson, K. Norman. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the 

24735 Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 110, Is. 8 (2012) pgs. 429-439.

24736 Franzmeier, D.P., Lemme, G.D., and Miles, R.J., 1985. Organic carbon in soils of north central United 

24737 States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 702–708.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

701

24738 Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: Influence of 

24739 Forest and Rangeland management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. W. R. Meehan, ed. 

24740 Bethesda, Maryland. American Fisheries Society. Special Publication 19: 297-323.

24741 Furniss, M. J., T. S. Ledwith, M. A. Love, B. C. McFadin and S. A. Flanagan. 1998. Response of road24742 stream crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. San 

24743 Dimas, California, USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 14 p.

24744 Gaines, W.L., Singleton, P.H., and Ross, R.C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation 

24745 routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. USDA Forest 

24746 Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586.

24747 Gaines, W.L., Haggard, M., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Lyons, A.L., and Harrod, R.J. 2007. Short-term response of 

24748 land birds to ponderosa pine restoration. Restoration Ecology 15(4): 670-678.

24749 Gaines, W., Haggard, M., Begley, J., Lehmkuhl, J., and Lyons, A. 2010. Short-term effects of thinning and 

24750 burning restoration treatments on avian community composition, density, and nest survival in the 

24751 eastern Cascades dry forests, Washington. Forest Science 56(1): 88-99.

24752 Gaines, William L., Peterson, David W., Thomas, Cameron A., and Harrod, Richy J. 2012. Adaptations to 

24753 climate change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests. General Technical Report 

24754 PNW-GTR-862. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 34 p.

24755 Gaines, W.L., Wales, B.C., Suring, L.H., Begley, J.S., Mellen-McLean, K., and Mohoric, S. 2015. 

24756 Terrestrial species viability assessments for the National Forests in northeastern Washington. 

24757 USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-907.

24758 Gaines, Bill. 2015. Wildlife report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft Environmental 

24759 Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, 

24760 Washington.

24761 Ganjegunte, G., G. Vance, C. Preston. G. Schuman, L. Ingram, P. Stahl, and J. Welker. 2005. Soil Organic 

24762 Carbon Composition in a Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie: Effects of Grazing. Soil Science Society 

24763 of America 69:1746-1756.

24764 Gelbard, J. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless Habitats as refuges for Native Grasslands: Interactions with 

24765 Soil, Aspect and Grazing. Ecological Applications 13:2. pp. 404-415.

24766 Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package unpublished data. 2014. Road sediment delivery 

24767 output graph from roads in four watersheds in the Pacific Northwest (GRAIP).

24768 Gibson, Ken, Kegley, Sandy, and Bentz, Barbara. 2009. Mountain Pine Beetle. Forest Insect and Disease 

24769 Leaflet 2. USDA Forest Service.

24770 GNN – Gradient Nearest Neighbor. 2012. Available online at: 

24771 http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/structure-maps (accessed 11/14/2014).

24772 Goetz, S.J., A.G. Bunn, G.J. Fiske, and R.A. Houghton. 2005. Satellite observed photosynthetic trends 

24773 across boreal North America associated with climate and fire disturbance. Proceedings of the 

24774 National Academy of Sciences 102: 13521-13525.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

702

24775 Goodell, B.C. 1965. Watershed treatment effects on evapotranspiration. In International symposium of 

24776 Forest Hydrology. National Science Foundation Advanced Science Seminar Proceedings, Penn 

24777 State University, University Park, PA. Pergamon Press, N.Y. p. 477-482.

24778 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. Public Law 103-62.

24779 Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2010.

24780 Graham, Greg, and Karen Nooney. 2015. Mineral and geologic resources report for the Colville National 

24781 Forest Plan Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest 

24782 Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, Washington.

24783 Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, and J.R. Tonn. 1999. Effects of thinning and similar stand 

24784 treatments on fire behavior in western forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

24785 Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463.

24786 Graham, Russell T., Jain, Theresa B., and Sandquist, Jonathan. 2007. Free selection: a silvicultural option. 

24787 In: Powers, Robert F., tech. editor. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 

24788 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203, Albany, CA: USDA Forest 

24789 Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 121-156.

24790 Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., Swanson, F.J., Cissel, J.H., and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest practices 

24791 on peak flows and consequent channel response: A state-of-science report for western Oregon 

24792 and Washington. USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR-760. 84 p.

24793 Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of 

24794 riparian zones. Bioscience 41: 540-551.

24795 Griffis, Kathy L, Julie Crawford, Michael Wagner, and W.H. Moir. 2001. Understory response to 

24796 management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and 

24797 Management. 146:1 pp. 239-245.

24798 Grigal, D.F., and Vance, E.D. 2000. Influence of soil organic matter on forest productivity, in: New 

24799 Zealand Journal of Forestry Science. New Zealand Forest Research Institute. 169–205.

24800 Grinspoon, E. and Phillips, D. 2007. “Economic and Social Evaluation.” Pacific Northwest Region. June 

24801 12, 2007.

24802 Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, T. R. Karl, D. R. Easterling, B. Sun, and J. H. Lawrimore. 2004. 

24803 Contemporary changes of the hydrological cycle over the contiguous United States: Trends 

24804 derived from in situ observations. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5, 64-85.

24805 Gucinski, Hermann, Furniss, Michael J., Ziemer, Robert R., and Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest roads: a 

24806 synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: USDA Forest 

24807 Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

24808 Gude, P.H., Rasker, R., and van den Noort, J. 2008. Potential for Future Development on Fire-Prone 

24809 Lands. Journal of Forestry 106(4): 198-205. Available online at: 

24810 http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt (accessed June 4, 2012)

24811 Gurnell, A.M.1998. The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam building activity. Progress in 

24812 Physical Geography 22: 167-189.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

703

24813 Haak, A.L. and J.E. Williams. 2012. Spreading the risk; native trout management in a warmer and less24814 certain future. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:387-401.

24815 Haferkamp, M., and M. MacNeil. 2004. Grazing Effects on Carbon Dynamics in the Northern Mixed24816 Grass Prairie. Environmental Management 33(1):S462-474.

24817 Hall. 2005. Likely Trends in National Forest Recreation in Region Six (Draft), University of Idaho.

24818 Hall et al. 2004. Understanding Recreation Trends in the Pacific Northwest: State of Knowledge and 

24819 Manager’s Needs (Draft).

24820 Hamlet, A.F., Lettenmaier, D.P. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the 

24821 Columbia River basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35: 1597–1623.

24822 Hamlet, A.F., Mote, P.W., Clark, M.P., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Effects of temperature and 

24823 precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western U.S. Journal of Climate. 18: 4545–

24824 4561.

24825 Hamlet, A.F., Mote, P.W., Clark, M.P., Lettenmaier, D.P. 2007. Trends in runoff, evapotranspiration, and 

24826 soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of Climate. 20: 1468–1481.

24827 Hann, Wendel J, and Bunnel, David L. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation 

24828 across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2001, 10, 389–403.

24829 Hann, Wendel J., Shlisky, Ayn, Havlina, Doug, Schon, Kathy, Barrett, Stephen W., DeMeo, Thomas E., 

24830 Pohl, Kelly, Menakis, James P., Hamilton, D., Jones, J., Levesque, Marc, and Frame, Christine K. 

24831 2008. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) guidebook. Version 1.3.0. 119 p. 

24832 [Homepage of the Interagency and The Nature Conservancy Fire Regime Condition Class 

24833 website, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and 

24834 Systems for Environmental Management]. Available online at: www.frcc.gov.

24835 Hardy, Colin C., Schmidt, Kirsten M., Menakis, James P., and Sampson, R. Neil. 2001. Spatial data for 

24836 national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2001, 10, 

24837 353-372.

24838 Harr, R.D. 1979. Effects of streamflow in the rain-dominated portion of the Pacific Northwest. In 

24839 Proceedings of Workshop on Scheduling Timber Harvest for Hydrologic Concerns. USDA Forest 

24840 Service, PNW Forest and Range Experimental Station. 45 p.

24841 Harrod, R.J., W.L. Gaines, W.E. Hartl, and A. Camp. 1998. Estimating historical snag density in dry 

24842 forests east of the Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service, Gen.Tech.Rep. PNW-GTR-428.

24843 Hassett, J.E., and Zak, D.R. 2005. Aspen Harvest Intensity Decreases Microbial Biomass, Extracellular 

24844 Enzyme Activity, and Soil Nitrogen Cycling. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 227. 

24845 doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0227

24846 Haugo, R., Chris Zanger, Tom DeMeo, Chris Ringo, Ayn Shlisky, Kori Blankenship, Mike Simpson, Kim 

24847 Mellen-McLean, Jane Kertis, Mark Stern. 2015. A new approach to evaluate forest structure 

24848 restoration needs across Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 

24849 Volume 335.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

704

24850 Healey, S.P., Cohen, W.B., Spies, T.A., Moeur, M., Pflugmacher, D., Whitley, M.G., and Lefsky, M. 2008. 

24851 The relative impact of harvest and fire upon landscape-level dynamics of older forests: lessons 

24852 from the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecosystems 11: 1106-1119.

24853 Heitschmidt, R.K. and J.W. Stuth. 1991. Grazing management: An ecological perspective. Timber Press: 

24854 Portland, OR. 259 p.

24855 Hellamann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

24856 climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 534-543.

24857 Heller, D. and B. McCammon. 2004. Aquatic strategies in Region 6—are they working? Unpublished 

24858 report, on file with: USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, Natural Resources. 6 p.

24859 Heller, N.E., and Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 

24860 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14-32.

24861 Hellquist, C., E.W., Hamilton III, M. Thorne, and D. Frank. 2007. The influence of simulated grazing on 

24862 carbon exchange processes and microbial communities in Yellowstone National Park grasslands. 

24863 Poster presented as part of the Ecological Restoration Association / Society of Ecological 

24864 Restoration Joint Meeting, San Jose, California, 5-10 August 2007.

24865 Helvey, J.D. 1980. Effects of a north-central Washington wildfire on runoff and sediment production. 

24866 Water Resources Bulletin. 16(4): 627-634.

24867 Helvey, J.D., A.R. Tiedmann, and T.D. Anderson 1985. Plant nutrient losses by soil erosion and mass 

24868 movement after wildfire. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40(1): 168-173.

24869 Helvey, J.D., and W.B. Fowler. 1995. Effects of timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four small 

24870 watersheds: From the Umatilla National Forest watershed program.

24871 Henderson, D., B. Ellert, and A. Naeth. 2004. Grazing and soil carbon along a gradient of Alberta 

24872 rangelands. Journal of Range Management 57(4):402-410.

24873 Hessburg, P.F., Mitchell, R.G., Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in 

24874 eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-327. 

24875 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 72 p.

24876 Hessberg P.F., and B.G. Smith 1999a. Management implications of recent changes in spatial patterns of 

24877 interior northwest forests, USA. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 

24878 55-78.

24879 Hessburg, P.F., Smith, B.G., and Salter, R.B. 1999b. Using estimates of natural variation to detect 

24880 ecologically important change in forest spatial patterns: a case study, Cascade Range, eastern 

24881 Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Res. Paper PNW-RP24882 514.

24883 Hessburg, Paul F., Smith, Bradley G., Kreiter, Scott D., Miller, Craig A., Salter, R. Brion, McNicoll, 

24884 Cecilia H., and Hann, Wendel J. 1999c. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the 

24885 Interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basin. Part 1: Linking 

24886 vegetation patterns and landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. 

24887 General Technical Report PNW-GTR-459. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

24888 Station, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 357 p.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

705

24889 Hessburg, P.F., Salter, R.B., Richmond, M.B., and Smith, B.G. 2000. Ecological subregions in the Interior 

24890 Columbia Basin, USA. Applied Vegetation Science. Vol. 3 (2000) pgs. 163-180.

24891 Hessburg, P.F., Agee, J.K. 2003. An environmental narrative of Inland Northwest United States forests, 

24892 1800–2000. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 178, Issues 1–2, 3 June 2003, Pages 23-59.

24893 Hessburg, P.F, J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest 

24894 USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern era. For. Ecol. Manage. 

24895 211 p.

24896 Hessburg, P.F., Reynolds, K.M., Salter, R.B., Dickinson, J.D., Gaines, W.L., and Harrod, R.J. 2013. 

24897 Landscape evaluation for restoration planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 

24898 USA. Sustainability 5: 805-840.

24899 Heyerdahl, Emily K., McKenzie, Donald, Daniels, Lori D., Hessl, Amy E., Littell, Jeremy S., and 

24900 Mantua, Nathan J. 2008. Climate drivers of regionally synchronous fires in the inland northwest 

24901 (1651-1900). International Journal of Wildland Fire. 17: 40-49.

24902 Hibbert, A.R. 1967. Forest treatment effects on water yield. In Sopper W.E. and Lull, H.W. (Eds.), 

24903 International Symposium for Hydrology, Pergamon Osxford. 813 p.

24904 Hicke, J.A., G.P. Asner, J.T. Randerson, C. Tucker, S. Los, R. Birdsey, J.C. Jenkins, C. Field, and E. 

24905 Holland. 2002. Satellite-derived increases in net primary production across North America, 1982-

24906 1988. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 69-1 to 69-4.

24907 Hickenbottom, J.A.S, Shuhda, T., and N. Glines. 2009. LeClerc Creek watershed action plan. USDA 

24908 Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Sullivan Lake and Newport Ranger Districts, Newport, 

24909 WA.

24910 Hidalgo, H. G., T. Das, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, G. Bala, A. Mirin, A. W. 

24911 Wood, C. Bonfils, B. D. Santer, and T. Nozawa. 2009. Detection and attribution of streamflow 

24912 timing changes to climate change in the western United States. Journal of Climate, 22, 3838-

24913 3855.

24914 Hodkinson, D.J., and Thompson, K. 1997. Plant Dispersal: The Role of Man. Journal of Applied 

24915 Ecology. 34: p.1484-96.

24916 Hollenbeck, J.P., Bate, L.J., Saab, V.A., and Lehmkuhl, J.F. 2013. Snag distributions in relation to human 

24917 access in ponderosa pine forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2): 256-266.

24918 Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource 

24919 management. Conservation Biology. 10(2): 328-337.

24920 Holstine, C.E. 1987. Forgotten corner: A history of the Colville National Forest, Washington. Colville 

24921 Statesman Examiner. Colville, WA.

24922 Honeycutt, Karen. 2014. Viability Assessment for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24923 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24924 Forest, Colville, Washington.

24925 Horne, A., and Haynes R. 1999. “Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the Interior 

24926 Columbia Basin” USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-453. April 1999.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

706

24927 Hubbart, J.A. 2007. Measuring and modeling hydrologic responses to timber harvest in a 

24928 continental/maritime mountainous environment. PhD dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, 

24929 ID. 170 p.

24930 Huff D.D, Hargrove, B., Tharp, M.L., and R. Graham, 2000. Managing forests for water yield: The

24931 importance of scale. Journal of Forestry: 98(12): 15-19.

24932 Hurt, G.W., Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F. 1996. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States: A 

24933 guide for identifying and delineating hydric soils.

24934 Hurteau, M. Koch, G.W., and Hungate, B.A. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a 

24935 full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment. 6:127-136.

24936 Hurteau, M. and North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions 

24937 under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7:34-48.

24938 Hyvönen, R., Olsson, B.A., Lundkvist, H., Staaf, H. 2000. Decomposition and nutrient release from Picea 

24939 abies (L.) Karst. and Pinus sylvestris L. logging residues. For. Ecol. Manag. 126, 97–112.

24940 ILAP – Integrated Landscape Assessment Project. 2013. Available online at: 

24941 http://oregonstate.edu/inr/node/228 (accessed 11/14/2014).

24942 Ingalsbee, T. 2015. Ecological fire use for ecological fire management: Managing large wildfires by 

24943 design. In: Keane, Robert E., Jolly, Matt, Parsons, Russell, and Riley, Karin. Proceedings of the 

24944 large wildland fires conference; May 19-23, 2014; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-73. Fort 

24945 Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 120-127.

24946 Ingram, L., P. Stahl, G. Schuman, J. Buyer, G. Vance, G. Ganjegunte, J. Welker, and J. Derner. 2008. 

24947 Grazing Impacts on Soil Carbon and Microbial Communities in a Mixed-Grass Ecosystem. Soil 

24948 Science Society of America Journal 72(4):939-948.

24949 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. Missoula, 

24950 Montana. 100 p.

24951 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1998. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee access management 

24952 task force report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 6 p.

24953 Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT). 2013. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 3rd 

24954 Edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

24955 Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, 

24956 MT. 128 p. 

24957 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate 

24958 Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 

24959 Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

24960 on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. 

24961 Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. 

24962 MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

24963 United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 1-32.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

707

24964 Isaak, D.J., C.H. Luce, B.E. Rieman, D.E. Nagel, E.E. Peterson, D.L. Horan, S. Parkes, and G. Chandler. 

24965 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat 

24966 in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications 20:1350-1371.

24967 Isaak, D.J., S.J. Wenger, E.E. Peterson, J. M. Ver Hoef, S. Hostetler, C.H. Luce, J.B. Dunham, J.

24968 Kershner, B.B. Roper, D. Nagel, D. Horan, G. Chandler, S. Parkes, and S. Wollrab. 2011. 

24969 NorWeST: An interagency stream temperature database and model for the Northwest United 

24970 States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

24971 Grant. 

24972 ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia Basin fish 

24973 and wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report ISAB 2007-2 to for the Northwest Power and 

24974 Conservation Council. Portland, Oregon May 11, 2007. Available online at: 

24975 http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/31247/isab2007_2.pdf. (Accessed March 6, 2014).

24976 Jackson, Barbara. 2015. Scenic resources report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24977 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24978 Forest, Colville, Washington.

24979 Jain, Theresa B., and Graham, Russell T. 2005. Restoring dry and moist forests of the inland northwestern 

24980 U.S. [Chapter 30]. In: Stranhauf, John A., Madsen, Palle, eds. Restoration of boreal and temperate 

24981 forests. New York: CRC Press. p. 463-480.

24982 James Kent Associates (JKA). 2010. Community Field Reports in Support of the Upcoming Land Use 

24983 Planning for the Spokane District Office of the Bureau of Land Management. Ashland, OR: JKA 

24984 Group.

24985 Jaworski, Delilah. 2015. Social report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24986 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24987 Forest, Colville, Washington.

24988 Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantative Pedology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

24989 Jimenez, Jason. 2015. Climate change report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

24990 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

24991 Forest, Colville, Washington. 

24992 Johnson, D.W., and Curtis, P.S. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta24993 analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 140, 227–238. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00282-6.

24994 Johnson, K.L. 1992. Management of water quality on rangelands through best management practices: 

24995 The Idaho approach. Pages 415-441 In R.J. Naiman (ed) Watershed Management: Balancing 

24996 Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York.

24997 Jones, C.C., Halpern, C.B., and Niederer, J. 2008. Plant succession on gopher mounds in Western Cascade 

24998 meadows: consequences for species diversity and heterogeneity. American Midlands Naturalist. 

24999 159: 275-286.

25000 Jones, F., Embody, D., and Peterson, W. 1961. Landslides along the Columbia River Valley, Northeastern 

25001 Washington (US Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 367).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

708

25002 Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, 

25003 and D.L. Peterson. 2008. National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for 

25004 climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

25005 Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. 

25006 Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. 

25007 Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-

25008 127.

25009 Kalispel Tribe of Indians. 2014. Hunting and Fishing Regulations. Available online at: 

25010 http://kalispeltribe.com/kalispel-natural-resources-department/hunting-and-fishing (25 Nov 

25011 2014).

25012 Kapnick and Hall. 2012. Causes of recent changes in western North America snowpack. Climate 

25013 Dynamics, 38(9): 1885-1899.

25014 Karr, J.R. and L.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running rivers. Better biological monitoring. Island 

25015 Press. Washington, DC. 206 p.

25016 Kattelman, R.C., Berg, N.H., and J. Rector. 1987. Water yields from high elevation basins in California. 

25017 Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference, November 18-20, 1986, West 

25018 Sacramento, California.

25019 Kaufmann, M.R., Graham, R.T., Boyce, D.A. Jr., Moir, W.H., Lee P., Reynolds, R.T., Bassett, R.L., 

25020 Mehlhop, P., Edminster, C.B., Block, W.M., and P.S. Corn. 1994. An ecological basis for 

25021 ecosystem management. GTR RM-246. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

25022 Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 24 p.

25023 Keane, R. E., Hessburg, P. F., Landres, P. B., and Swanson, F. J. 2009. The use of historical range and 

25024 variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7), 1025-

25025 1037.

25026 Keddy P.A. 2010. Wetland Ecology: Principles and conservation. Cambridge University Press: New 

25027 York. 497 p.

25028 Kennedy, M.C., Ford, E.D., Singleton, P., Finney, M., and Agee, J.K. 2008. Informed multi-objective 

25029 decision-making on environmental management using pareto optimality. Journal of Applied 

25030 Ecology 45: 181-192.

25031 Keppeler, E.T., and R.R. Ziemer. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: Water yield and summer low 

25032 flows at Caspar Creek in northwestern California. Water Resources Research. 26(7): 1669-1697.

25033 Kern, J.S. 1994. Spatial patterns of soil organic carbon in the contiguous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 

25034 J. 58, 439–455.

25035 Kershner, J.L., E.K. Archer, M. Coles-Ritchie, E.R. Cowley, R.C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C.M. Quimby, 

25036 D.L. Turner, L.C. Ulmer and M.R. Vinson. 2004. Guide to effectiveness monitoring of aquatic 

25037 and riparian resources. Gen, Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest 

25038 Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p.

25039 Kershner, Jeffrey L., and Brett B. Roper. 2010. An Evaluation of Management Objectives Used to Assess 

25040 Stream Habitat Conditions on Federal Lands within the Interior Columbia Basin. Fisheries Vol 

25041 35, No 6. 9 p.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

709

25042 Keyser, Chad E, compiler. 2008. Northern Idaho/Inland Empire (NI/IE) variants overview: Forest 

25043 Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, 

25044 CO. (last revised 2011).

25045 Kim, J. 2005. A projection of effects of the climate change induced by increase CO2 on extreme 

25046 hydrologic events in the western U.S. Climatic Change. 68:153-168.

25047 King, A.Q., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. 

25048 Wilbanks. 2007. Executive Summary. Pages 1-14 In: The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report 

25049 (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A 

25050 Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

25051 Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman,, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, 

25052 A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

25053 Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA.

25054 Koehler, G.M., Maletzke, B.T., von Kienast, J.A., Aubry, K.B., Wielgus, R.B., and Naney, R.H. 2008. 

25055 Habitat fragmentation and persistence of lynx populations in Washington State. Journal of 

25056 Wildlife Management. 72: 1518-1524.

25057 Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment to livestock exclosure, White Mountains, 

25058 California. Restoration Ecology 1:226-230.

25059 Kovalchik, Bernard L. and Clausnitzer, Rodrick R. 2004. Classification and management of aquatic, 

25060 riparian, and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: series description. 

25061 General Technical Report PNW-GTR-593. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

25062 Station. 354 p. In cooperation with: Pacific Northwest Region, Colville, Okanogan, and 

25063 Wenatchee National Forests.

25064 Kramer, M. and Snook. 2014. Using historical snowpack change in the Pacific Northwest to understand 

25065 future vulnerability to climate change. Manuscript submitted to Regional Environmental Change.

25066 Kunkel, K. E., L. E. Stevens, S. E. Stevens, L. Sun, E. Janssen, D. Wuebbles, K. T. Redmond, and J. G. 

25067 Dobson. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment: 

25068 Part 6. Climate of the Northwest U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-6. 83 p. National 

25069 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

25070 Information Service, Washington, D.C.

25071 Lackey, R.T. 2001. Values, policy and ecosystem health. Bioscience 51: 437-443.

25072 Lahren, S. L. 1998. Reservations and Reserves. In: Sturtevant, W.C. ed. Handbook of North American 

25073 Indians. Vol. 12. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute.

25074 Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation 

25075 Biology. 11: 849-856.

25076 LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE National Vegetation Dynamics Models. (2007, January - last update). 

25077 [Homepage of the LANDFIRE Project, USDA Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior]. 

25078 Available online at: http://www.landfire.gov/index.php (2007, February 8).

25079 Landres, P.B., Verner, J., Thomas, J.W. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. 

25080 Conservation Biology. 2: 316-328.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

710

25081 Lanigan, Steven H., Gordon, Sean N., Eldred, Peter, Isley, Mark, Wilcox, Steve, Moyer, Chris, and 

25082 Andersen, Heidi. 2012. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 years (1994–2008): watershed 

25083 condition status and trend. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-856. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

25084 Pacific Northwest Research Station. 155 p.

25085 Lasmanis, R. 1991. The geology of Washington. Rocks and minerals, vol. 66(4): 262-277.

25086 Lawler, J.J., and Mathias, M. 2007. Climate change and the future of biodiversity in Washington. Report 

25087 prepared for the Washington Biodiversity Council. College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA: 

25088 University of Washington. 42 p.

25089 Lawler, J.J., Raymond, C.L., Ryan, M.E., Case, M.J., and Rochefort, R.M. 2014. Climate change, 

25090 wildlife, and wildlife habitat in the North Cascade Range. Pages 191-260 in Raymond, C.L., 

25091 Peterson, D.L., Rochefort, R.M. eds. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the North 

25092 Cascades Region, Washington. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-892.

25093 LeCain, D., J. Morgan, G. Schuman, J. Reeder, and R. Hart. 2001. Carbon exchange and species 

25094 composition of grazed pastures and exclosures in the shortgrass steppe of Colorado. Agriculture, 

25095 Ecosystems and Environment 93: 421-435.

25096 Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, J. E. Williams, D. Burns, J. Clayton, L. Decker, R. 

25097 Gresswell, R. House, P. Howell, K. M. Lee, K. MacDonald, J. McIntyre, S. McKinney, T. Noel, J. 

25098 E. O'Connor, C. K. Overton, D. Perkinson, K. Tu and P. Van Eimeren. 1997. Broadscale 

25099 assessment of aquatic species and habitats, Chapter 4. In: An assessment of ecosystem 

25100 components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. T. M. 

25101 Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, eds. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

25102 Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, Volume III: 1057-1496.

25103 Lehmkuhl, J.F., Raphael, M.G., Holthausen, R.S. [and others].1997. Historical and current status of 

25104 terrestrial species and the effects of proposed alternatives. In Quigley, T.M., Lee, K.M., and 

25105 Arbelbide, S.J. tech. eds. Evaluation of EIS alternatives by the Science Integration Team. USDA 

25106 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-406.

25107 Lehmkuhl, J.F., Kennedy, M., Ford, E.D., Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W.L., and Lind, R.L. 2007. Seeing the 

25108 forest for the fuels: integrating ecological values and fuel management. Forest Ecology and 

25109 Management 246: 73-80.

25110 Lehmkuhl, J.F., Lyons, A.L., Bracken, E., Leingang, J., Gaines, W.L., Dodson, E.K., and Singleton, P.H. 

25111 2013. Forage composition, productivity, and utilization in the eastern Washington Cascade Range. 

25112 Northwest Science 87(3): 207-231.

25113 Lenz, M. 1997. Winter habitat use by mule deer in Chelan County, WA. M.S. Thesis, University of 

25114 Washington, Seattle, WA.

25115 Leopold, L. 1994. A view of the river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 298 p.

25116 Li, Z., S. Liu, and Z. Tan. 2007. Spatially Explicit Modeling of Grazing Effects on Soil Organic Carbon 

25117 Change in the Green River Basin, Wyoming. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, 

25118 abstract #B23C-1508.

25119 Littell, J.S., McKenzie, D. [and others]. 2009. Climate, wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 

25120 1916-2003. Ecological Applications. 19: 1003-1021.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

711

25121 Littell, J. S., E. E. Oneil, D. McKenzie, J. A. Hicke, J. A. Lutz, R. A. Norheim and M. M. Elsner. 2010. 

25122 Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change 

25123 102(1-2) (Sept. 2010): 129-158.

25124 Loewen, Mark. 2014. Personal communication between Delilah Jaworski, Social Scientist, USDA Forest 

25125 Service R6 Regional Office and Mark Loewen, Silviculturist (retired). 2014.

25126 Luce, C. H., B. E. Rieman, J. B. Dunham, J. L. Clayton, J. G. King and T. A. Black. 2001. Incorporating 

25127 aquatic ecology into decisions on prioritization of road decommissioning. Water Resources 

25128 Impact 3(3): 8-14.

25129 Luce, C.H., and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment 

25130 production. In proceedings of the seventh federal interagency sedimentation conference, March 

25131 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV. V67-V74.

25132 Luce, C., Staab, B., and Kramer, M. 2014. Sensitivity of Summer Stream Temperatures to Climate 

25133 Variability in the Pacific Northwest. Water Resour. Res. 50(4): 3428-3443. DOI: DOI: 

25134 10.1002/2013WR014329.

25135 MacDonald, K. 2014. Personal communication between Eric Archer, Fisheries Biologist, and Ken 

25136 MacDonald, fisheries biologist consultant. March 20, 2014. 

25137 MacDonald, K. 2014. Personal communication (email) between Eric Archer, Fisheries Biologist, and Ken 

25138 MacDonald, fisheries biologist consultant (Preliminary Colville Results). March 21, 2014.

25139 MacDonald, K. 2014. Personal communication (email) between Eric Archer, Fisheries Biologist, and Ken 

25140 MacDonald, fisheries biologist consultant (Results). March 21, 2014.

25141 MacDonald, K. 2014. Personal communication (phone) between Eric Archer, Fisheries Biologist, and Ken 

25142 MacDonald, fisheries biologist consultant. March 25, 2014.

25143 MacDonald, K. 2014. Personal Communication between Kate Day, Hydrologist, Colville National Forest 

25144 and Ken MacDonald, fisheries biologist consultant. October 16, 2014.

25145 MacDonald, K. 2015. Personal communication (email) between Eric Archer, Fisheries Biologist, and Ken 

25146 MacDonald, fisheries biologist consultant. Revised report: Habitat Conditions in the Colville 

25147 National Forest. January 31, 2015.

25148 MacDonald, Ken, Kate Day, and Karen Honeycutt. 2015. Fisheries report for the Colville National Forest 

25149 Plan Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest 

25150 Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, Washington.

25151 MacDonald, L. H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: Process and constraint. 

25152 Environmental Management, 26(3): 299-315.

25153 Madej, M. A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. Earth Surface 

25154 Processes and Landforms 26(2): 175-190.

25155 Mälkönen, E. 1976. Effect of whole-tree harvesting on soil fertility.

25156 Manley, J. G. Schuman, J. Reeder, and R. Hart. 1995. Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen responses to 

25157 grazing. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation 50:294-297.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

712

25158 Mantua, N., Tohver, I., and Hamlet, A. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and 

25159 summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in 

25160 Washington State. Climatic Change. 102: 187–223.

25161 Marcot, B.G., Holthausen, R.S., Raphael, M.G., Rowland, M.M., and Wisdom, M.J. 2001. Using 

25162 Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land 

25163 management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology and 

25164 Management. 153: 29-42.

25165 Marston, R.A. 1994. River entrenchment in small mountain valleys of the western USA: Influence of 

25166 beaver, grazing, and clear-cut logging. Revue de Geographie de Lyon 69(1/94): 11-15.

25167 Masters, Ronald E., Robert L. Lochmiller and David M. Engle. 1993. Effects of Timber Harvest and 

25168 Prescribed Fire on White-tailed Deer Forage Production. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21:411-414.

25169 May, B. 2009. Westslope cutthroat trout status update summary 2009. Wild trout Enterprises, LLC. 

25170 Bozeman, MT. 33 p.

25171 May, B., B.J. Writer, and S. Albeke. 2012. Redband trout status update summary 2012. Wild Trout 

25172 Enterprises, LLC. Bozeman, MT. 36 p.

25173 McCaffery, M., T. A. Switalski and L. Eby. 2007. Effects of road decommissioning on stream habitat 

25174 characteristics in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

25175 Society 136(3): 553-561.

25176 McCashion J.D, and R.M. Rice 1983. Erosion on logging roads in northwestern California: How much is 

25177 avoidable. Journal of Forestry 81(1): 23-26.

25178 McCaughey, W. and P. Farnes. 2001. Snowpack comparison between an opening and a lodgepole stand. 

25179 69th Annual Meeting of the Western Snow Conference. Sun Valley, Idaho.

25180 McDowell, P.F. and F.J. Magilligan. 1997. Response of stream channels to removal of cattle grazing 

25181 disturbance: Overview of western US exclosure studies. Pages 469-475 in S.S. Wang, E.J. 

25182 Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (eds). Proceedings—Conference on Management of 

25183 Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. University of Mississippi Press, Oxford.

25184 McKelvey, K.S., Ortega, Y.K., Koehler, G.M. [and others]. 2000. Canada lynx habitat and topographic 

25185 use patterns in north central Washington: a reanalysis. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

25186 Research Station, RMRS-GTR-30WWW.

25187 McKenzie, D., Gedalof, Z.E., Peterson, D.L., and Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

25188 conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 890-902.

25189 McMahon, T.E., A.V. Zale, F.T. Barrows, J.H. Selong and R.J. Daney. 2007. Temperature and competition 

25190 between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. Transactions of the 

25191 American Fisheries Society 136: 1313-1326.

25192 McNab W. H., and P. E. Avers, comps. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: Section 

25193 descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 

25194 267 p.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

713

25195 McQuay, Eric. 2015. Recreation report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

25196 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

25197 Forest, Colville, Washington.

25198 Medina, A.L., and S.C. Martin. 1988. Stream channel and vegetation changes in section of McKnight 

25199 Creek, New Mexico. Great Basin Naturalist 48: 373-381.

25200 Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

25201 habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 1-15.

25202 Megahan W.F. 1983. Hydrologic effects of clearcutting and wildfire on steep granitic slopes in Idaho. 

25203 Water Resources Research, Vol 19(3): 811-819.

25204 Megahan, W.F., King, J.G., and K.A. Seyedbagheri. 1995. Hydrological and erosion responses of a 

25205 granitic watershed to helicopter logging and broadcast burning. Forestry Science, 41: 777-795.

25206 Mellen-McLean, K., Wales, B., and Bresson, B. 2013. A conservation assessment for the white-headed 

25207 woodpecker. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. 41 p.

25208 Meredith, C., E.K. Archer, R. Scully, A. Van Wagenen, J.V. Ojala, R. Lokteff and B. Roper. 2012. PIBO 

25209 effectiveness monitoring program for streams and riparian areas. USDA Forest Service 2012 

25210 Annual Summary report. Available online at: 

25211 http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/feu/pibo/2012_PIBOEM_AnnualReport9_12_2013u

25212 pdate.pdf (March 20, 2014).

25213 Meredith, C., B, Roper and E. Archer. 2014. Reductions in instream wood in streams near roads in the 

25214 Interior Columbia River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:493-506.

25215 Miles, E.L., Snover, A.K., Hamlet, A.F., Callahan, B.M., Fluharty, D.L. 2000. Pacific Northwest regional 

25216 assessment: the impacts of climate variability and climate change on the water resources of the 

25217 Columbia River basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 36: 399–420.

25218 Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

25219 Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol. Appl. 17(8):2145–2151.

25220 Miller, C. and Urban D.L. 1999. Forest pattern, fire, and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. 

25221 Ecosystems. 2:76-87.

25222 Miller, J.D., Safford, H.D, Crimmins, M., and Thode, A.E. 2008. Quantitative evidence for increasing 

25223 forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, 

25224 USA. Ecosystems.

25225 Miller, N.L., Bashford, K.E., and Strem, E. 2003. Potential impacts of climate change on California 

25226 hydrology. Journal of American Water Resources Association. 39(4):771-784.

25227 Miller-Struttmann, N.E., Geib, J.C., et al. 2015. Functional mismatch in a bumble bee pollination 

25228 mutualism under climate change. Science 349: 1541-1544.

25229 Minnesota IMPLAN Group (IMPLAN). 2010. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0, 2010 Data.

25230 Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2012. Data and models for 2010. Hudson, WI. 

25231
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

714

25232 Mitchell, S., and Hamilton, D. 2007. Snowmobiling and Mountain caribou: a literature review of 

25233 stewardship practices. Version 4.0. Nanuq Consulting Ltd. Nelson, BC.

25234 Mitchell, S. R., M. E. Harmon and K. E. B. O'Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and 

25235 long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19(3): 

25236 643-655.

25237 Mitton, Jeffry B., Ferrenberg, and Scott M. 2012. Mountain pine beetle develops an unprecedented 

25238 summer generation in response to climate warming. The American Naturalist. Vol. 179, No. 5. 

25239 (2012) E163-E171.

25240 Moeur, Melinda, and Vandendriesche, Don. 2009. Calibration of state and transition models with FVS, 

25241 pgs. 275-288. IN: Jain, Theresa B., Graham, Russell T., and Sandquist, Jonathan, tech eds. 2009. 

25242 Integrated management of carbon sequestration and biomass utilization opportunities in a 

25243 changing climate: Proceedings of the 2009 National Silviculture Workshop; 2009 June 15-18; 

25244 Boise, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-61. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

25245 Fort Collins, CO. 351 p.

25246 Montgomery D.R., and J.M Buffington. 1997. Channel reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. 

25247 Geological Society of America Bulletin 109(5): 596-611.

25248 Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes, classification and response. Pages 13-

25249 42 in R.J. Naiman & R.E. Bilby (eds.) River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific 

25250 Coastal Ecoregion. Springer. New York, New York.

25251 Moore, M. M., and Deiter, D. A. 1992. Stand density index as a predictor of herbage production in 

25252 northern Arizona pine forests. Journal of Range Management, 45: 267-271.

25253 Mote, P. 2003a. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic causes. 

25254 Geophysical Research Letters. 30: 1601–1604.

25255 Mote, P. 2003b. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the twentieth 

25256 century. Northwest Science. 77: 271–282.

25257 Mote, P., 2006: Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North America. 

25258 Journal of Climate, 19, 6209-6220.

25259 Mote, P. W., Hamlet, A.F., Clark, M.P., and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in 

25260 western North America. American Meteorological Society: 39-49.

25261 Mote, P. W., A. Hamlet, and E. Salathé. 2008. Has spring snowpack declined in the Washington 

25262 Cascades? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 193-206.

25263 Mote, P. W., and E. P. Salathé. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change, 102, 29-

25264 50.

25265 Mountain Caribou Science Team. 2005. Mountain caribou in British Columbia: a situation analysis. 19

25266 May 2005.

25267 Muhlfield, C.C., T.E. McMahon, M.C. Boyer, and R.E. Gresswell. 2009. Local habitat, watershed, and 

25268 biotic factors influencing the spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and 

25269 introduced rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 1036-1051.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

715

25270 Mulloy, W. 1958. A Preliminary Historical Outline for the Northwestern Plains. Laramie, WY: University 

25271 of Wyoming Publications 22 (1).

25272 Munson, S.M, and A.A. Sher. 2015. Long-term shifts in the phenology of rare and endemic rocky 

25273 mountain plants. American Journal of Botany 102 (8): 1268 – 1276.

25274 Murray, D., and R. Coots. 2003. Colville River watershed bacteria total maximum daily load submittal 

25275 report (amended). Washington State Department of Ecology water quality program. Available 

25276 online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0310030.pdf

25277 Myneni, R.B., J. Dong, C.J. Tucker, R.K. Kaufmann, P.E. Kauppi, J. Liski, L. Zhou, V. Alexeyev, and 

25278 M.K. Hughes. 2001. A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of northern forests. Proceedings of 

25279 the National Academy of Sciences 98: 14784-14789.

25280 Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. O'Connor, P. 

25281 L. Olson and E. A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the 

25282 Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: Watershed Management, Balancing Sustainability and 

25283 Environmental Change. R. Naiman, ed. New York. McGraw-Hill: 127-188.

25284 Naiman, R.J., R.E., Bilby, and P.A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal 

25285 rain forest. BioScience 50, 996-1011.

25286 Narayanaraj, Ganapathy and Wimberly, Michael C. 2011. Influences of forest roads on the spatial pattern 

25287 of wildfire boundaries. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2011, 20, 792-803.

25288 National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center. 2004. Snow Data Assimilation System 

25289 (SNODAS) Data Products at NSIDC, [2003-2012]. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and 

25290 Ice Data Center. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5TB14TC

25291 NatureServe. 2006. http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm

25292 Neary, D. G., Ryan, K. C., and DeBano, L. F., eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

25293 effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: USDA 

25294 Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

25295 Nelson, N., Black, T., Luce, C., and R. Cissel. 2012. Legacy roads and trails monitoring project update 

25296 2012. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 5 p.

25297 Nemani, R., M. White, P. Thornton, K. Nishida, S. Reddy, J. Jenkins, and S. Running. 2002. Recent trends 

25298 in hydrologic balance have enhanced the terrestrial sink in the United States. Geophysical 

25299 Research Letters: 29: 106-1 to 106-4.

25300 Nemani, R.R., C.D. Keeling, H. Hashimoto, W.M. Jolly, S.C. Piper, C.J. Tucker, R.B. Myneni, and S.W. 

25301 Running. 2003. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 

25302 1999. Science 300: 1560-1563.

25303 Nooney, Karen. 2015. Land and special uses report for the Colville National Forest Plan Revision, Draft 

25304 Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

25305 Forest, Colville, Washington.

25306 North, M., Stine, P., O’Hara, K. Zielinski, W., and Stephens, S. 2009. An Ecosystem Management 

25307 Strategy for Sierran Mixed Conifer Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

25308 Station, Davis, CA. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

716

25309 Noss, R.F., Franklin, J.F., Baker, W.L., Schoennagel, T., and Moyle, P.B. 2006. Managing fire-prone 

25310 forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(9): 481-487.

25311 Office of the Interagency Committee (IAC). 2002. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation: An 

25312 assessment of outdoor recreation on Washington state—a State Comprehensive Outdoor 

25313 Recreation Planning Document [SCORP] 2002-2007.

25314 Office of Interagency Committee. 2005. PO Box 40917, Olympia, WA. 98504-0917; Outdoor Industry 

25315 Foundation, Outdoor Recreation Participation Study, Seventh Edition, for year 2004, 2005.

25316 Office of the President. 1994. “Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

25317 in Minority Population and Low-income Populations.” February 1994.

25318 Ohmann, J.L. and Gregory, M.J. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct 

25319 gradient analysis and nearest neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of 

25320 Forest Research 32:725-741.

25321 Opham, P., Wascher, D. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and 

25322 biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation 117: 285.

25323 Ouren, D.S., C. Hass, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and 

25324 Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land 

25325 Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and 

25326 internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1353.

25327 Owensby, C., J. Ham, and L. Auen. 2006. Fluxes of CO2 From Grazed and Ungrazed Tallgrass Prairie. 

25328 Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:111-127.

25329 Pacala, S., R.A. Birdsey, S.D. Bridgham, R.T. Conant, K. Davis, B. Hales, R.A. Houghton, J.C. Jenkins, 

25330 M. Johnston, G. Marland, and K. Paustian. 2007. The North American Carbon Budget Past and 

25331 Present. Pages 29-36 In: The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North 

25332 American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. 

25333 Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, 

25334 A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman,, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and 

25335 T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data 

25336 Center, Asheville, NC, USA.

25337 Page, Wesley G., Jenkins, Michael J., and Runyon, Justin B. 2012. Mountain pine beetle attack alters the 

25338 chemistry and flammability of lodgepole pine foliage. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Vol. 

25339 42, No. 8 (2012) pgs. 1631-1647.

25340 Page-Dumroese, D.S., Jurgensen, M.F., Tiarks, A.E., Ponder, J., Sanchez, F.G., Fleming, R.L., 

25341 Kranabetter, J.M., Powers, R.F., Stone, D.M., and Elioff, J.D., 2006. Soil physical property 

25342 changes at the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after 

25343 compaction. Can. J. For. Res. 36, 551–564.

25344 Parker, B., Miller, G., and Burrill, L.C. 1998. Scotch Broom. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication. 4

25345 p.

25346 Parks, Noreen. 2010. The future of spring bud burst: looking at the possibilities. Science Findings. Is. 128

25347 (Dec. 2010). Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

717

25348 Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of 

25349 Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637-669.

25350 Peck, Brian. 2014. Personal communication (email) between Ken MacDonald, fisheries biologist 

25351 consultant, and Brian Peck, fisheries biologist, Newport Ranger District, Colville National Forest. 

25352 Project Operations Compliance Report submitted in FERC P-2144-000 by Seattle City Light, et 

25353 al. March 21, 2014. Terms of Seattle City Light’s license are available online at: 

25354 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20140318-5216 (March 25, 2014)

25355 Pederson, Gregory T., Gray, Stephen T., Woodhouse, Connie A., Betancourt, Julio L., Fagre, Daniel B., 

25356 Littell, Jeremy S., Watson, Emma, Luckman, Brian H., and Graumlich, Lisa J. 2011. The unusual 

25357 nature of recent snowpack declines in the North American Cordillera. Science Vol. 33 No. 6040

25358 (2011) pgs. 332-335.

25359 Peterson, D. L., J. K. Agee, G. H. Aplet, D. P. Dykstra, R. T. Graham, J. F. Lehmkuhl, D. S. Pilliod, D. F. 

25360 Potts, R. F. Powers, and J. D. Stuart. 2009. Effects of timber harvest following wildfire in 

25361 western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

25362 Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

25363 Peterson, D.P., K.D. Fausch, and G.C. White. 2004. Population ecology of an invasion: effects of brook 

25364 trout on native cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications 14: 754-772.

25365 Peterson, David L, Millar, Connie I., Joyce, Linda A., Furniss, Michael J., Halofsky, Jessica E., Neilson, 

25366 Ronald P., and Morelli, Toni Lyn. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

25367 guidebook for developing adaptation options. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-855. USDA 

25368 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 109 p.

25369 Peterson, David W., Kerns, Becky K., and Dodson, Erich K. 2014. Climate change effects on vegetation 

25370 in the Pacific Northwest: a review and synthesis of the scientific literature and simulation model 

25371 projections. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-900. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

25372 Northwest Research Station. 183 p.

25373 Phillips E.L., and D.C. Durkee. 1972. Washington climate for these counties: Ferry, Pend Oreille, and 

25374 Stevens. Cooperative extension services, College of Agriculture, Washington State University, 

25375 Pullman, WA. 63 p.

25376 Phillips, R. 2010. Impact area definition. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Colville National 

25377 Forest. On file at: Colville National Forest Supervisors Office, Colville, WA. 

25378 Phillips, Richard, and Delilah Jaworski. 2015. Economic impacts report for the Colville National Forest 

25379 Plan Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. USDA Forest 

25380 Service, Colville National Forest, Colville, Washington.

25381 Piao, S., P. Ciais, P. Friedlingstein, P. Peylin, M. Reichstein, S. Luyssaert, H. Margolis, J. Fung, A. Barr, 

25382 A. Chen, A. Grelle, D.Y. Hollinger, T. Laurila, A. Lindroth, A.D. Richardson, and T. Vesala. 2007. 

25383 Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451: 

25384 49-52.

25385 Pierce, D. W., T. P. Barnett, H. G. Hidalgo, T. Das, C. Bonfils, B. D. Santer, G. Bala, M. D. Dettinger, D. 

25386 R. Cayan, A. Mirin, A. W. Wood, and T. Nozawa. 2008. Attribution of declining western US 

25387 snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate, 21, 6425-6444.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

718

25388 Platts, W.S., Gebhardt, K.A., and W.L. Jackson. 1985. The effects of large storm events on basin-range 

25389 riparian stream habitats. Pages 30-34 In Developing strategies for rangeland management: 

25390 Reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120. Rocky 

25391 Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

25392 Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Meehan, ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management 

25393 on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Soc., Bethesda, Maryland. 751 p. 

25394 Special Publication 19: 389-424.

25395 Pollock, M. M., & Kennard, P. M. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to 

25396 protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. 10,000 Years 

25397 Institute.

25398 Pollock, M.M. Heim, M., and D. Werner. 2003. Hydrologic and geomorphic effects of beaver dams and 

25399 their influence on fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 37: 1-21.

25400 Potter, C., S. Klooser, R. Myneni, V. Genovese, P-N. Tan, V. Kumar. 2003. Continental-scale comparisons 

25401 of terrestrial carbon sinks estimated from satellite data and ecosystem modeling 1982-1998. 

25402 Global and Planetary Change 39: 201-213.

25403 Potter, C., S. Klooster, A. Huete, and V. Genovese. 2007. Terrestrial carbon sinks for the United States 

25404 predicted from MODIS satellite data and ecosystem modeling. Earth Interactions 11 (Paper N. 

25405 13): 1-21.

25406 Potter, C.S., and Klooster S.A. 1999. Detecting a terrestrial biosphere sink for carbon dioxide: interannual 

25407 ecosystem modeling in the mid-1980s. Climatic Change. 42:489-503.

25408 Potter, C., P. Gross, S. Klooster, M. Fladeland, and V. Genovese. 2008. Storage of carbon on U.S. forests 

25409 predicted from satellite data, ecosystem modeling, and inventory summaries. Climatic Change 90: 

25410 269-282.

25411 Potyondy, J.P, and T.W. Geier. 2010. Forest Service watershed condition classification technical guide.

25412 Powers, R.F., Andrew Scott, D., Sanchez, F.G., Voldseth, R.A., Page-Dumroese, D., Elioff, J.D., Stone, 

25413 D.M., 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first 

25414 decade of research. For. Ecol. Manag. 220, 31–50. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.003.

25415 Pregitzer, K.S., and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns 

25416 related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077.

25417 Price, J.T. 2002. Global warming and songbirds: Washington. The birdwatcher’s guide to global warming. 

25418 Available online at: www.abcbirds.org (April 2008).

25419 Pritchett, W.L. 1979. Properties and management of forest soils. John Wiley & Sons.

25420 Proctor, M.F., S.E. Nielson, W.F. Kasworm, C. Servheen, T.G. Radandt, A.G. MacHutchon, and M.S. 

25421 Boyce. 2015. Grizzly bear connectivity mapping in the Canada-United States trans-border region. 

25422 Journal of Wildlife Management.

25423 Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, 112 FERC ¶ 61,055.

25424 Puettmann, Klaus J., Coates, K. David, and Messier, Christian. 2009. A critique of silviculture: managing 

25425 for complexity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 189 p.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

719

25426 Qualls, R.G., Haines, B.L., Swank, W.T. 1991. Fluxes of dissolved organic nutrients and humic 

25427 substances in a deciduous forest. Ecology 254–266.

25428 Quigley, Thomas M., Haynes, Richard W, Graham, Russell T. 1996a. Disturbance and Forest Health In 

25429 Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

25430 Pacific Northwest Research Station. 310 p.

25431 Quigley, T.M., R.W Haynes and R.T. Graham. 1996b. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem 

25432 Management in the Interior Colombia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. 

25433 USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR.

25434 Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 

25435 Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and great basins: volume III. Gen.Tech.Rep. 

25436 PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol.

25437 Raphael, M.G., Wisdom, M.J., Rowland, M.M. [and others]. 2001. Status and trends of habitats of 

25438 terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the interior Columbia River basin. Forest 

25439 Ecology and Management. 153: 63-87.

25440 Rasmussen, C. 2006. Distribution of soil organic and inorganic carbon pools by biome and soil taxa in 

25441 Arizona. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 71. 225-237.

25442 Reeder, J., G. Schuman, J. Morgan, D. LeCain, and R. Hart. 2004. Impact of grazing management 

25443 strategies on carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangeland, USA. Presented at the Proceedings of 

25444 the XIX International Grassland Congress, 2001.

25445 Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan: An assessment after 

25446 10 Years. In: R.W. Haynes, B. T. Bormann, D. C. Lee, J. R. Martin, tech. eds. 2006. Northwest 

25447 Forest Plan-the first 10 years (1994-2003): Synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen 

25448 Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR_651. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station. 292 p.

25449 Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem 

25450 approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionary significant units of 

25451 anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334-

25452 349.

25453 Reidy Lierman, C. A., Olden, J.D., Beechie T.J., Kennard, M. J. Skidmore, P.B., Konrad, C.P., and H. 

25454 Imaki. 2012. Hydrogeomorphic classification of Washington state rivers to support emerging 

25455 environmental flow management strategies. River Resource Applications 28: 1340-1358.

25456 Reiss, K. Yuki, K. Gallo, P.Dawson, D. Konnoff, and L. Croft. 2008. Process for evaluating the 

25457 contribution of national forest system lands to aquatic ecological sustainability. A regional pilot 

25458 process conducted on the Okanogan-Wenatchee and Colville National Forests. USDA Forest 

25459 Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Region 6. Portland, Oregon. August 2, 2008.

25460 Ried, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

25461 Research 20: 1753-1761.

25462 Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull 

25463 trout. General technical Report INT-302. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

25464 Research Station. 38 p.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

720

25465 Rieman, B., D. Lee, G. Chandler, and D. Myers. 1995. Does wildfire threaten extinction for salmonids? 

25466 Responses of redband trout and bull trout following recent large fires on the Boise National 

25467 Forest. Proceedings-Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitat Conference. Coeur 

25468 d’Alene, Idaho. November 13-16, 1995.

25469 Rieman, B., D. Lee, D. Burns, R. Gresswell, M. Young, R. Stowell, J. Rinne, and P. Howell. 2003. Status 

25470 of native fishes in the western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest 

25471 Ecology and Management 178: 197-211.

25472 Rieman, B. E., J. T. Peterson, and D. L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced 

25473 bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? 

25474 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:63–78.

25475 Rieman, B.E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate 

25476 warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the interior Columbia basin. 

25477 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1552-1565.

25478 Rinke, Susan. 2012. Personal communication between Dick Phillips, Economist (retired), Delilah 

25479 Jaworski, Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service R6 Regional Office and Susan Rinke, Forest 

25480 Contracting Officer, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. 2012.

25481 Robichaud P.R., Luce C.H., and R.E. Brown. 1993. Variation among different surface conditions in 

25482 timber harvest sites in the Southern Appalachians. In Proceedings from the Russia, U.S. and 

25483 Ukraine international workshop on quantitative assessment of soil erosion. Moscow, Russia, Sept. 

25484 20-24, 1993.

25485 Robichaud P. R., and R. D. Hungerford. 2000. Water repellency by laboratory burning of four northern 

25486 Rocky Mountain forest soils. Journal of Hydrology, 231-232: 207-219.

25487 Robinson, Donald C.E., and Beukema, Sara J. 2012. Through a glass, darkly—comparing VDDT and 

25488 FVS, p. 123. IN: Kerns, Becky K., Shlisky, Ayn J., and Daniel J., tech. eds. 2012. Proceedings of 

25489 the first landscape state-and-transition simulation modeling conference, June 14-16, 2011, 

25490 Portland, Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-869. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

25491 Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 215 p.

25492 Rodtka, M.C. and J.P. Volpe. 2007. Effects of water temperature on interspecific competition between 

25493 juvenile bull trout and brook trout in an artificial stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

25494 Society 136: 1714-1727.

25495 Rominger, E.M. 1995. Late winter foraging ecology of woodland caribou. Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington 

25496 State University, Pullman, WA. 68 p.

25497 Rominger, E.M., and Oldemeyer, J.L. 1989. Early-winter habitat of woodland caribou, Selkirk Mountains, 

25498 British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 238-243.

25499 Rominger, E.M., Robins, C.T., and Evans, M.A. 1996. Winter foraging ecology of woodland caribou in 

25500 northeastern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: 719-728.

25501 Roni, P. G. Pess, T. Beechie, and S. Morley. 2010. Estimating changes in coho salmon and steelhead 

25502 abundance from watershed restoration: how much restoration is needed to measurably increase 

25503 smolt production? North American Journal of fisheries Management 30:1469-1484.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

721

25504 Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., and Pounds, J.A. 2003. Fingerprints 

25505 of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 57-60.

25506 Rosenberger, Randall S., Bell, Lauren A., Champ, Patricia A., and Smith, Eric L. 2012. Nonmarket 

25507 economic values of forest insect pests: an updated literature review. General Technical Report 

25508 RMRS-GTR-275www. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, 

25509 CO. 46 p.

25510 Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. 390 p.

25511 Ross, J. A. 1998. Spokane. In: Sturtevant, W.C. ed. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 12. 

25512 Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute.

25513 Rothacher J. 1970. Increases in water yield following clear-cut logging in the Pacific Northwest. Water 

25514 Resources Research 6(2): 653-658.

25515 Rowland, M.M., Wisdom, M.J., Johnson, B.K., and Penninger, M.A. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: 

25516 Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M.J. tech. ed. The 

25517 Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 

25518 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Group 

25519 Communications, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

25520 Ruediger, B., Claar, J., Gniadek, S. [and others]. 2000 Canada lynx Conservation Assessment and 

25521 Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Forest Service Publication, R1-00-53. Missoula, MT. 142 p.

25522 Running, S.W., R.R. Nemani, F.A. Heinsch, M. Zhao, M. Reeves, and H. Hashimoto. 2004. A continuous 

25523 satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. BioScience 54: 547-560.

25524 Safeeq, M, Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., and C.L. Tague. 2013. Coupling snowpack and groundwater 

25525 dynamics to interpret historical streamflow trends in the western United States. Hydrological 

25526 Processes. 27: 655-668.

25527 Sanpoil Watershed Action Plan (SWAP). 2012. Upper Sanpoil River and West Fork Sanpoil River 

25528 Watershed Action Plan. USDA Forest Service, Colville National Forest, Republic Ranger District: 

25529 Republic, WA.

25530 Schlesinger, W.H., 1977. Carbon balance in terrestrial detritus. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 51–81.

25531 Schmidt, Kirsten M., Menakis, James P., Hardy, Colin C., Hann, Wendall J., and Bunnell, David L. 

25532 2002.Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. 

25533 Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

25534 Station.

25535 Schmidt, M.W., Torn, M.S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I.A., Kleber, M., Kögel25536 Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., and Manning, D.A. 2011. Persistence of soil organic matter as an 

25537 ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56.

25538 Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant Dispersal by motor cars. Vegetation 80: 147-52.

25539 Schmitz, Richard F., and Gibson, Kenneth E. 1996. Douglas-fir Beetle. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 

25540 5. USDA Forest Service.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

722

25541 Schuman, G., H. Janzen, and J. Herrick. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration 

25542 by rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116:391-396.

25543 Schwilk, D.W., J.E. Keeley, E.E. Knapp, J. McIver, J.D. Bailey, C. Fettig, C.E. Fiedler, R.J. Harrod, J.J. 

25544 Moghaddas, K.W. Outcalt, C.N. Skinner, S.L. Stephens, T.H. Waldrop, D.A. Yaussy, A. 

25545 Youngblood. 2009. The national fire and fire surrogate study: effects of alternative fuel reduction 

25546 methods on forest vegetation structure and fuels. Ecological Applications. 19: pp. 285–304. 

25547 Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/07-1747.1

25548 Seattle City Light. 2014(a). Boundary Dam facts. Available online at: 

25549 http://www.seattle.gov/light/generation/boundary/ 

25550 Seattle City Light. 2014(b). Mill pond dam removal. Available online at: 

25551 http://www.seattle.gov/light/generation/boundary/millponddam.asp

25552 Sedell, J., Maitland, S., Apple, D.D., Copenhagen, M, and M. Furniss. 2000. Water and the Forest Service 

25553 2000. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, FS-660. 26 p.

25554 Seeds J. and G. Foster. 2010. Sediment policy revisions to reduce nonpoint sources of toxic pollutants to 

25555 Oregon waters. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

25556 Servheen , C., and M. Cross. 2010. Climate change impacts on grizzly bears and wolverines in the 

25557 Northern U.S. and Transboundary Rockies: Strategies for conservation. Report on a workshop 

25558 held Sept. 13-15, 2010 in Fernie, British Columbia. 23 p.

25559 Sestrich, C.M., T.E. McMahon, and M.K. Young. 2011. Influence of fire on native and nonnative 

25560 salmonid populations and habitat in a Western Montana basin. Transactions of the American 

25561 Fisheries Society 140: 136-146.

25562 Sharma, R., and R. Hilborn. 2001. Empirical relationships between watershed characteristics and coho 

25563 salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolt abundance in 14 western Washington streams. Canadian 

25564 Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(7): 1453-1463.

25565 Sharrow, S. 2008. Trading Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Credits. Department of Rangeland Ecology 

25566 and Management. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. The Grazier, December 2008 2-7.

25567 Sheley, R.L., Mullin, B.H., and Fay, P.K. 1995. Managing Riparian Weeds. Rangelands 17(5):154-7.

25568 Shiflet, T.N., ed. 1974. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Misc. Pub. 1974-13. Society for 

25569 Range Management. Denver, CO. 152 p.

25570 Shrestha G., and P. Stahl. 2008. Carbon accumulation and storage in semi-arid sagebrush steppe: Effects

25571 of long-term grazing exclusion. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 125(2008): 173-181.

25572 Simpson, K., and Terry, E. 2000. Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on mountain caribou. 

25573 Management Concerns, Interim Management Guidelines and Research Needs. Wildlife Working 

25574 Report No. WR-99. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Wildlife 

25575 Branch. Victoria, BC. 11 p.

25576 Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W.L., and Lehmkuhl, J.F. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in 

25577 Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor 

25578 assessment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-549.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

723

25579 Skidmore, P., Hansen, K., and W. Quimby. 1994. Snow accumulation and ablation under fire-altered 

25580 lodgepole pine forest canopies. Annual Meeting of the Western Snow Conference.

25581 Skog, K.E. 2008. Sequestration of carbon in harvested wood products for the United States. Forest 

25582 Product Journal 58:56-72.

25583 Slayback, D.A., J.E. Pinzon, S.O. Los, and C. Tucker. 2003. Northern hemisphere photosynthetic trends 

25584 1982-1999. Global Change Biology 9: 1-15.

25585 Smith, J.E., and L. S. Heath. 2004. Carbon stocks and projections on public forestlands in the United 

25586 States, 1952-2040. Environmental Management 33: 433-442.

25587 Smith, J.E., Heath, L.S., Skog, K.E., and Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem 

25588 and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States.

25589 Snover, A.K., Hamlet, A.F., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2003. Climate-change scenarios for water planning 

25590 studies: pilot applications in the Pacific Northwest. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

25591 Society. 84: 1513–1518.

25592 Snover, A.K., Mauger, G.S., Whitely Binder, L.C., Krosby, M., and Tohver, I. 2013. Climate change 

25593 impacts and adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers. State of 

25594 Knowledge Report prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Climate Impacts 

25595 Group, University of Washington. Seattle.

25596 Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS) data products. Available online at: 

25597 http://nsidc.org/data/g02158.

25598 Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation 

25599 Service, Washington, DC.

25600 Soule, M.E. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

25601 Spence, B.C., Lomnicky, G.A., Hughes, R.M., and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to 

25602 Salmonid Conservation. Funded jointly by the U.S. EPA, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and 

25603 National Marine Fisheries Service. TR-4501-96-6057. Man Tech Environmental Research 

25604 Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.

25605 Spies, T.A., Hemstrom, M.A., Youngblood, A., and Hummel, S. 2006. Conserving old-growth forest 

25606 diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology 20(2): 351-362.

25607 Spies, T.A., Giesen, T.W., Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., Lach, D., and Johnson, K.N. 2010. Climate 

25608 change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, 

25609 and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology.

25610 Squires, J.R., DeCesare, N.J., Olson, L.E., Kolbe, J.A., Hebblewhite, M., and Parks, S.A. 2013. 

25611 Combining resource selection and movement behavior to predict corridors for Canada lynx at 

25612 their southern range periphery. Biological Conservation. 157: 187-195.

25613 Staab, B., M. Safeeq, G. Grant, D. Isaak, C. Luce, M. Kramer, D. Konnoff, J. Chatel, and J. Capurso. 

25614 2014. Climate change vulnerability assessment Resources for national forests and grasslands in 

25615 the Pacific Northwest -Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

25616 Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

724

25617 Stanley, B., and P.A. Arp. 2002. Effects of forest harvesting on basin-wide water yield in relation of 

25618 percent watershed cut: A review of literature. Fundy Model Forest Network, Natural Resources 

25619 Department of Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

25620 State of Washington, Office of Financial Management. 2010. Decennial Census, Census 2010 Data, 

25621 Percent Change in Population by County: 2000 to 2010. Available online at: 

25622 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map02.asp

25623 State of Washington Office of Financial Management. 2011. Forecast of the State Population. Available 

25624 online at: www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/stfc/stfc2011/stfc_2011.pdf

25625 State of Washington, Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division. 2012. 2012 Projections 

25626 County Growth Management Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2010-2040. Available 

25627 online at: 

25628 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/projections12/GMA_2012_county_pop_projections.pdf 

25629 December 18, 2014.

25630 Stavi, I., E. Ungar, H. Lavee, and P. Sarah. 2008. Grazing-induced spatial variability of soil bulk density 

25631 and content of moisture, organic carbon and calcium carbonate in semi-arid rangeland. Cantena 

25632 75(3):288-296.

25633 Stednick J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology, 

25634 176(1-4): 79-95.

25635 Steiguer, J., J. Brown, and J. Thorpe. 2008. Contributing to the Mitigation of Climate Change Using 

25636 Rangeland Management. Rangelands June 2008, 7-11.

25637 Steinfeld, H., and T. Wassenaar. 2007. The Role of Livestock Production in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles. 

25638 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 271-94.

25639 Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., and Dettinger, M.D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western 

25640 North America under a ‘business as usual’ climate change scenario. Climate Change. 62: 217–

25641 232.

25642 Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across 

25643 western North America. Journal of Climate, 18, 1136-1155.

25644 Stinson, D.W. 2001. Washington state recovery plan for the lynx. Washington State Department of Fish 

25645 and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 78 p.

25646 Stoelinga, Mark T., Albright, Mark D., and Mass, Clifford F. 2010. A new look at snowpack trends in the 

25647 Cascade Mountains. Journal of Climate Vol. 23, No. 10 (2010) 2473-2491.

25648 Streater, S. 2009. “Climate Change: Interest grows in use of ranchland in fight against warming” 

25649 Environment and Energy Daily, E&E Publishing LLC. 8 January 2009. 

25650 ST-Sim Software. Apex Resource Management Solutions, Ltd. 2014. Version 2.3.8. Available online at: 

25651 http://www.apexrms.com/ (accessed 11/20/2014).

25652 Suring, L.H., Gaines, W.L., Wales, B.C., Mellen-McLean, K., Begley, J.S., and Mohoric, S. 2011. 

25653 Maintaining populations of terrestrial wildlife through land management planning: A case study. 

25654 Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(4): 945-958.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

725

25655 Svejar, T., R. Angell, J.Bradford, W. Dugus, W. Emmerick, A. Frank, T. Gilmanov, M. Haferkamp, D. 

25656 Johnson, H. Mayeux, P. Meilnick, J. Morgan, N. Saliendra, G. Shuman, P. Sims, and K. Snyder. 

25657 2008. Carbon Fluxes on North American Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 

25658 62(5): 465-473.

25659 Swanson, Mark E., Franklin, Jerry F., Beschta, Robert L., Crisafulli, Charles M., DellaSala, Dominick A., 

25660 Hutto, Richard L., Lindenmayer, David B., and Swanson, Frederick J. 2010. The forgotten stage 

25661 of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and 

25662 Management 2010. Available online at: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/090157

25663 Tague, C., G. Grant, M.Farrell, J. Choate, and A. Jefferson. 2008. Deep groundwater mediates streamflow 

25664 response to climate warming in the Oregon Cascades. Climatic Change 86: 189-210.

25665 Thomas, C.D., and Lennon, J.J. 1999. Birds extend their ranges northward. Nature 399: 213.

25666 Thoms, A.V. 1987. Upland Land Use and the Initial Assessment of 45PO148: The Sullivan Lake 

25667 Archaeological Project, Northeastern Washington. Pullman, WA: Center of Northwest 

25668 Anthropology, Washington State University.

25669 Thoms, A.V., and Schalk, R.F. 1984. Prehistoric Land Use in the Middle Kootenai Valley. In: Cultural 

25670 Resources Investigations for Libby Reservoir, Northwestern Montana. Project Report vol. 1. 

25671 Environment, Archaeology and Land Use Patterns in the Middle Kootenai River Valley. Pullman, 

25672 WA: Washington State University Center for Northwestern Anthropology.

25673 Thuiller, W., D. M. Richardson, and G. F. Midgley. 2007. Will climate change promote alien plant 

25674 invasions? In: Ecological Studies, Vol. 193. W. Nentwig, ed. Berlin. Berlin. Springer-Verlag: 197-

25675 211.

25676 Trettin, C.C., Jurgensen, M.F., and Kimble, J.M. 2003. Carbon cycling in wetland forest soils. Lewis 

25677 Publishers, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington, DC.

25678 Troendle, C. A., and R. M. King. 1985. The effect of timber harvest on the Fool Creek watershed 30 years 

25679 later. Water Resources Research 21(12): 1915-1922.

25680 Troendle C.A., M.S. Wilcox, G.S. Bevenger, and L.S. Porth. 2001. The Coon Creek water yield 

25681 augmentation project: Implementation of timber harvesting technology to increase streamflow. 

25682 Forest Ecology and Management 143(1-3): 179-187.

25683 Trotter, P., B. McMillan, N. Gayeski, P. Spruell, and A. Whitely. 2001. Genetic and phenotypic catalog of 

25684 Native resident trout of the interior Columbia River Basin. Prepared for Northwest Power 

25685 Planning Council. Funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA report DOE/BP25686 00004575-1). Portland, OR. May 1, 2001.

25687 Tyser, R., and C. Key. 1988. Spotted Knapweed in Natural Area Fescue Grasslands: An Ecological 

25688 Assessment. Northwest Science 62:4. 151-160. 

25689 Tyser, R. and C. Worley. 1992. Alien Flora in Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors in Glacier 

25690 National Park, Montana (USA). Conservation Biology 6:2. 253-262. Available online at: 

25691 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386247

25692 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. Regional Economic Accounts, Local Area Personal Income. 

25693 Available online at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/ (Accessed January 15, 2014).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

726

25694 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Local Area Unemployment. Available online at: 

25695 http://www.bls.gov/lau (Accessed January 15, 2014).

25696 U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. Decennial Census. Accessed via American FactFinder. Available online at: 

25697 factfinder.census.gov (Accessed August 9, 2010).

25698 U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Decennial Census. Accessed via American FactFinder. Available online at: 

25699 factfinder.census.gov (Accessed August 9, 2010).

25700 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Decennial Census. Accessed via American FactFinder, version 2. Available 

25701 online at: factfinder2.census.gov (Accessed January 5, 2012).

25702 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates, 2007-2011. Accessed via 

25703 American FactFinder, version 2. Available online at: factfinder2.census.gov (Accessed January 

25704 24, 2012).

25705 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates, 2008-2012. Accessed via 

25706 American FactFinder, version 2. Available online at: factfinder2.census.gov (Accessed December 

25707 30, 2013).

25708 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 2008. Preliminary 

25709 Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, 

25710 Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4.

25711 USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). 2015. 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Available online 

25712 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx (Accessed May 12, 

25713 2015).

25714 USDA Forest Service. [No date]. Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. USDA Forest Service 

25715 Headquarters, Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/.

25716 USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management. The Visual Management System, 

25717 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

25718 USDA Forest Service. 1982a. 1982 Planning Rule, National Forest System Land and Resource 

25719 Management Planning, sections 219.26 and 219.27. Available online at: 

25720 http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html#scope and applicability

25721 USDA Forest Service. 1982b. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Users Guide. USDA Forest Service, 

25722 Washington, D.C. 40 p.

25723 USDA Forest Service. 1988a. Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA 

25724 Forest Service. 

25725 USDA Forest Service. 1988b. Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final 

25726 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest 

25727 Region.

25728 USDA Forest Service. 1988c. Colville National Forest Guidelines for Management in Occupied Grizzly 

25729 Bear Habitat.

25730 USDA Forest Service. 1988d. General water quality best management practices. Pacific Northwest 

25731 Region.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

727

25732 USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Inland native fish strategy environmental assessment decision notice and 

25733 finding of no significant impact: interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in 

25734 eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH). 

25735 USDA Forest Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. 39 p.

25736 USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Environmental Assessment for the continuation of interim management 

25737 guidelines directing the establishment of riparian, ecosystem and wildlife standards for timber 

25738 sales (Eastside Screens). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 23 p.

25739 USDA Forest Service. 1997. Programmatic Agreement Among the United States Department of 

25740 Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on 

25741 Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural 

25742 Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Washington (R6 programmatic 

25743 agreement).

25744 USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Colville National Forest Environmental Assessment, Integrated noxious 

25745 weed treatment. Unpublished. Colville National Forest. Colville, WA.

25746 USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Properly functioning condition, rapid assessment process.

25747 USDA Forest Service, 1998c. Region 6 Soil Quality Standard and Guidelines (No. FSM 2520), R-6

25748 Supplement 2500.98-1.

25749 USDA Forest Service. 1999a. Noxious Weed Prevention Guidelines for the Colville National Forest. 

25750 Unpublished guidelines. Colville National Forest. Colville, WA.

25751 USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Stemming the Invasive Tide: Forest Service Strategy for Noxious and 

25752 Nonnative Invasive Plant Management.

25753 USDA Forest Service. 2000. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific 

25754 assessment. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

25755 USDA Forest Service. 2001. Roadless area conservation rule. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

25756 USDA Forest Service. 2003. Colville National Forest winter recreation strategy for the Sullivan Lake 

25757 Ranger District. On file at: Colville National Forest, Sullivan Lake Ranger District, Metaline 

25758 Falls, WA.

25759 USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species 

25760 Management.

25761 USDA Forest Service, 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing 

25762 Invasive Plants and accompanying Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

25763 Region, Portland, OR. 

25764 USDA Forest Service. 2005, revised 2007. Pacific Northwest Region Aquatic Restoration Strategy 

25765 (ARS). Portland, OR. 

25766 USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Recreation Site Facility Master Plan: 5-year Proposed Program of Work 

25767 and Programmatic Effects of Implementation. Colville National Forest, Pacific Northwest 

25768 Region.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

728

25769 USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Species viability assessments in support of Forest Plan revision. USDA 

25770 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Or.

25771 USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Programmatic Agreement among the NF in WA State & WA SHPO, ACHP 

25772 regarding Recreation Residence, Recreation Residence Tract and Organizational Camp/Club 

25773 Management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

25774 USDA Forest Service. 2007. Technical guide to managing ground water resources. Minerals and Geology 

25775 Management, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants, and Engineering. FS-881.

25776 USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Aquatic and riparian conservation strategy (ARCS). USDA Forest Service, 

25777 Region 6. Portland, OR. August 13, 2008.

25778 USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Forest Service Strategic Framework For Responding to Climate Change 

25779 Version 1.0.

25780 USDA Forest Service. 2009. Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Forest Plan Revision 

25781 Team Wilderness Evaluations. Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests, Pacific 

25782 Northwest Region.

25783 USDA Forest Service. 2010a. R6 Surrogate Species (formerly Focal Species) for Species Viability 

25784 Assessments. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

25785 USDA Forest Service. 2010b. National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Results, multiple National 

25786 Forest reports. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum

25787 USDA Forest Service. 2011a. East Branch LeClerc Creek watershed restoration action plan. Colville 

25788 National Forest, Sullivan Ranger District, Metaline Falls, WA.

25789 USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Record of Decision, Nationwide Application of Fire Retardant on National 

25790 Forest System Land, December 13, 2011.

25791 USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Colville National Forest Recreation Strategy. Colville National Forest, 

25792 Pacific Northwest Region.

25793 USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Cut and Sold Reports. Available online at: 

25794 http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/cut-sold.shtml (Accessed 

25795 December 3, 2013).

25796 USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Level II Region 6 stream inventory protocol. Pacific Northwest Region.

25797 USDA Forest Service. 2012d. National best management practices for water quality management on 

25798 national forest system lands. Volume 1: National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. 165 p.

25799 USDA Forest Service. 2012e. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program: Colville NF Visitor Use Report. 

25800 Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum (Accessed December 3, 

25801 2013).

25802 USDA Forest Service. 2012f. Ninemile Creek watershed restoration action plan. Colville National Forest, 

25803 Republic Ranger District, Republic, WA.

25804 USDA Forest Service. 2012g. 2012 Planning Rule, National Forest System Land and Resource 

25805 Management Planning. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

729

25806 USDA Forest Service. 2012h. Visitor Use Report, Colville NF, National Visitor Use Monitoring Data 

25807 Collected FY 2009. 

25808 USDA Forest Service. 2012i. West Branch LeClerc Creek watershed restoration action plan. Colville 

25809 National Forest, Sullivan Lake Ranger District, Metaline Falls, WA.

25810 USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Colville National Forest fiscal year 2013 forest plan monitoring and 

25811 evaluation report. Colville National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Colville, WA.

25812 USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Natural Resource Management Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

25813 Plants application (NRM TESP) database.

25814 USDA Forest Service. 2013c. Water quality protection on national forests in the pacific southwest region: 

25815 Best management practices evaluation program, 2008-2010. 42 p. 

25816 USDA Forest Service. 2014a. 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington 

25817 D.C.

25818 USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Colville National Forest, Total maximum daily load-fecal coliform 2014

25819 report and request for category changes. On file at: Colville National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

25820 Colville, WA.

25821 USDA Forest Service. 2014c. Climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation: Resources for 

25822 national forests and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest, water resources and aquatic ecosystems. 

25823 Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Portland, OR.

25824 USDA Forest Service. 2014d. Cut and Sold Reports. Available online at: 

25825 http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/cut-sold.shtml (May 12, 2015).

25826 USDA Forest Service. 2014e. Interior Columbia Basin Strategy (2003; revised 2014). Interior Columbia 

25827 Basin Strategy: A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin 

25828 Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation.

25829 USDA Forest Service. 2014f. Payments to States and Counties. Available online at: 

25830 http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/securepayments/projectedpayments (May 12, 2015).

25831 USDA Forest Service. 2014g. Proposed direction for groundwater resource management fact sheet. 

25832 Available online at: 

25833 http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/groundwater%20handout%20v3%205%202.pdf

25834 USDA Forest Service. 2015. Technical report: Analysis of the management situation for the revision of 

25835 the Colville National Forest plan.

25836 USDA Forest Service. 2015. Baseline Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and Harvested Wood 

25837 Products for National Forest System Units; Pacific Northwest Region. 48 p. Whitepaper.

25838 http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/ PacificNorthwestRegionCarbonAssessment.pdf.

25839 USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Idaho Panhandle National Forests revised Land and Resource Management 

25840 Plan. Missoula, MT and Coeur d’Alene, ID.

25841 USDA Forest Service. 2015d. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and Transmittal of Strategic 

25842 Species List. Transmittal Memo and two enclosures. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

730

25843 Region, Portland, OR. July 21, 2015. Available online at: 

25844 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy

25845 USDA Forest Service. 2015e. Watershed Condition Framework. Available online at: 

25846 http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/

25847 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Record of decision for 

25848 amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents in the range 

25849 of the northern spotted owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late25850 successional and old growth forest related species (Northwest Forest Plan). (Place of publication 

25851 unknown). 74 p. (plus Attachment A: standards and guides)

25852 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final Supplemental Environmental 

25853 Impact Statement and Record of Decision On Management Of Habitat For Late-Successional And 

25854 Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within The Range Of The Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest 

25855 Forest Plan). Portland, Oregon.

25856 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision notice/decision record, 

25857 FONSI, environmental assessment, and appendices for the implementation of interim strategies 

25858 for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, 

25859 and portions of California (PACFISH). (Place of publication unknown). 305 p.

25860 USDA Forest Service and WADoE. 2000. Memorandum of agreement between the USDA Forest Service 

25861 region 6 and Washington State Department of Ecology for meeting responsibilities under federal 

25862 and state water quality laws

25863 USDA Global Change Program. 2008. U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990-

25864 2005. 14 January 2009. 

25865 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2006. Grazing and Grassland Management Can Improve 

25866 Air Quality Through Carbon Sequestration. NRCS Grazing and Carbon Sequestration Fact Sheet 

25867 1, NRCS Pennsylvania August 2006.

25868 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2007. Manure Chemistry – Nitrogen, Phosphorus, & 

25869 Carbon. Manure Management Technology Development Team East National Technology Support 

25870 Center. Manure Management Information Sheet, Number 7.

25871 U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2012. The Department of the Interior's Economic Contributions, 

25872 FY 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington DC. 225 p.

25873 U.S. Department of the Interior. 2014. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Available online at: 

25874 http://www.doi.gov/pilt/ (May 12, 2015).

25875 USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Analysis of the Management Situation: Eastern Washington 

25876 and San Juan Resource Management Plan. March 2011. USDI BLM Spokane District. 356 p. 

25877 Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp/maps.php

25878 USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Reclamation, 2011: Reclamation Managing Water in the West: 

25879 Climate and Hydrology Datasets for Use in the River Management Joint Operating Committee 

25880 (RMJOC) Agencies’ Longer Term Planning Studies: Part II Reservoir Operations Assessment for 

25881 Reclamation Tributary Basins. 201 p. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, 

25882 Boise, ID.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

731

25883 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2014. Grand Coulee Dam statistics and facts. Available online at: 

25884 http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/factsheet.pdf

25885

25886 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2014. Federal Columbia River power system biological opinion. Available 

25887 online at: http://www.usbr.gov/pn/fcrps/index.html (Accessed 25 April 2014)

25888 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. [No date]. Consultations – Overview. United States Department of 

25889 Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Available online at: 

25890 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/consultations-overview.html (Accessed August 

25891 2015).

25892 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT.

25893 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Recovery plan for woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains. 

25894 Portland, OR: Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, USDI Fish and Wildlife 

25895 Service, Region 1. 71 p.

25896 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of 

25897 threatened status for the Klamath River and Columbia River distinct population segments of bull 

25898 trout. Federal Register 63 FR 31647. (June 10, 1998)

25899 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. A framework to assist in making Endangered Species Act 

25900 determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation 

25901 watershed scale. Prepared by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (adapted from the National 

25902 Marine Fisheries Service). February 1998; Revised 6/11/99. (Place of publication unknown). 45

25903 p.

25904 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Amended Biological Opinion for continued implementation of the 

25905 Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: FWS Reference 1-9-00-F-4. 68 p.

25906 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 23, Northeast Washington Recovery Unit, Washington. 73 

25907 p. In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. 

25908 Portland, Oregon. Accessed March 6, 2014. Available online at: 

25909 http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/RP/Chapter_23%20Northeast%20Wash.pdf 

25910 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

25911 Associated Recreation, Washington. Revised March 2003. Available online at: 

25912 http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-wa.pdf 

25913 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous 

25914 United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. Fed. Reg. 68(28): 40076-4101.

25915 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery outline for the Canada lynx. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

25916 Service, Missoula, Montana.

25917 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5 year review: summary and 

25918 evaluation. Portland, OR: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 55 p. Accessed May 3, 2008. 

25919 Available online at: 

25920 http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/Bull%20Trout%205YR%20final%20signed%20042508.

25921 pdf
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

732

25922 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Revised final rule designating Critical Habitat for Canada lynx. 

25923 Federal Register, 74(36): 8616-8702. (February 25, 2009)

25924 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Designation of critical habitat for bull trout.

25925 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Rising to the urgent challenge; strategic plan for responding to 

25926 accelerating climate change. [Place of publication unknown].

25927 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month 

25928 Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical 

25929 Habitat. Federal Register. Volume 76, No. 138. 50 CFR Part17. 42631-42654. (July 19, 2011)

25930 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains 

25931 population of woodland caribou: final rule. Federal Register: 77(229): 71042-71082.

25932 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological 

25933 Opinion. Consultation for Boundary Hydroelectric Project Commission (No. 225-013) Pend 

25934 Oreille County, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reference number: 13410-2011-F25935 0199. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Washington Field Office. Spokane, WA.

25936 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Revised draft recovery plan for the coterminous United States 

25937 population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xiii + 151 p.

25938 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory descriptions. Available online at: 

25939 http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper-Wetlands-Legend.html

25940 USDI National Park Service. 2012. North Cascades National Park and Recreation Area Management 

25941 Plan. National Park Service, Sedro Woolley, WA.

25942 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005a. Approval of Colville National Forest temperature 

25943 and bacteria TMDL. Letter from M. Gearheard, Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, U.S. 

25944 EPA Region 10.

25945 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and 

25946 Agriculture. Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J) EPA 430-R-05-006.

25947 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

25948 1990-2006. EPA 430-R-08-005 April 2008. Washington, DC., USA.

25949 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Source water protection. Available online at: 

25950 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/sourcewater/protection/basicinformation.cfm 

25951 Wald A.R. 2009. High flows for fish and wildlife in Washington: Report of investigation in instream 

25952 flow. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington State Department of Printing: 

25953 Olympia, WA.

25954 Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and 

25955 transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. Available online at: 

25956 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

25957 Walter, Edward M. and Susan A. Fleury. 1985. Eureka Gulch: the Rush for Gold. Don’s Printery, Colville, 

25958 WA.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

733

25959 Walther G.R., Post, E., et al. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416: 389-95.

25960 Walther, G.R., A. Roques, P. E. Hulme, M. T. Sykes, P. Pyšek, I. Kühn, M. Zobel, S. Bacher, Z. Botta25961 Dukát, H. Bugmann, B. Czúcz, J. Dauber, T. Hickler, V. Jarošík, M. Kenis, S. Klotz, D. Minchin, 

25962 M. Moora, W. Nentwig, J. Ott, V. E. Panov, B. Reineking, C. Robinet, V. Semenchenko, W. 

25963 Solarz, W. Thuiller, M. Vilà, K. Vohland, and J.Settele. 2009. Alien species in a warmer world: 

25964 risks and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(12): 686-693.

25965 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1993. Memorandum of understanding: Kalispel 

25966 Tribe and Department of Wildlife.

25967 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. Memorandum of understanding regarding fishing 

25968 licensing and access permitting between the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and the Washington State 

25969 Department of Fish and Wildlife.

25970 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Deer management plan. Washington Department of 

25971 Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

25972 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004 (updated 2008). Instream flow study guidelines: 

25973 Technical and habitat suitability issues.

25974 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. 2009-2015 Game Management Plan. Washington 

25975 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

25976 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. White-tailed Deer Management Plan. Washington 

25977 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

25978 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012a. Annual Report: Woodland Caribou. Washington 

25979 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Pages 44-47.

25980 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Surveys 

25981 for Canada lynx on the Colville National Forest. Report on file, Colville National Forest 

25982 Supervisors Office, Colville, WA.

25983 Washington Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes 

25984 Project: a statewide assessment. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and 

25985 Transportation. Olympia, WA. 223 p.

25986 Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). 2000. Washington State and USDA Forest Service’s 

25987 forest management agreement. In: Focus. Number 00-10-048. November 2000. Olympia, WA.

25988 Washington Department of Ecology. 2006. Colville National Forest temperature and bacteria total 

25989 maximum daily load: water quality implementation plan. Publication no. 06-10-059. Olympia, 

25990 WA.

25991 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012a. Focus on water availability Colville watershed, WRIA 

25992 59. Publication Number 11-11-063. Available online at: 

25993 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1111063.pdf

25994 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012b. Focus on water availability Kettle watershed, WRIA 

25995 60. Publication Number 11-11-064. Available online at: 

25996 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1111064.pdf
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

734

25997 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012c. Focus on water availability Middle Lake Roosevelt 

25998 watershed, WRIA 58. Publication Number 11-11-062. Available online at: 

25999 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1111062.pdf

26000 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012d. Focus on water availability Pend Oreille watershed, 

26001 WRIA 62. Publication Number 11-11-066. Available online at: 

26002 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1111066.pdf

26003 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012e. Focus on water availability Sanpoil watershed, WRIA 

26004 52. Publication Number 11-11-056. Available online at: 

26005 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1111056.pdf

26006 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012f. Focus on water availability Upper Lake Roosevelt 

26007 watershed, WRIA 61. Publication Number 11-11-065. Available online at: 

26008 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1111065.pdf

26009 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2013a. Addendum to the Colville National Forest temperature 

26010 and bacteria total maximum daily load: Water quality implementation plan. Publication no. 13-

26011 10-040. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1310040.pdf

26012 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2013b. Instream flow glossary. Available online at:

26013 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf-glossary.html

26014 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2013c. Water rights in Washington. Publication 96-1804-

26015 S&WR. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/961804swr.pdf

26016 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014a. 2012 Washington state water quality assessment 303(d) 

26017 spatial data. Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/data.htm

26018 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014b. Differences between the recent 303(d) lists. Available 

26019 online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/History303d.html

26020 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014c. Washington water resource inventory area maps. 

26021 Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm

26022 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014d. Water Rights Adjudications. Available online at: 

26023 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/rights/adjhome.html

26024 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014e. Water quality assessment for Washington-303(d)/305(b) 

26025 integrated report viewer. Available online at: 

26026 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/ApprovedSearch.aspx

26027 Washington State Department of Health. 2005. Washington’s source water assessment program. Available 

26028 online at: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/331-148.pdf

26029 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1996 (updated 2002). Canada Lynx 

26030 Conservation and Management Plan for the Loomis State Forest. Washington Department of 

26031 Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

26032 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Geology of Washington - Okanogan 

26033 Highlands. Available online at: 

26034 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geologyofwashington/pages/okanogan.aspx
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

735

26035 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Health Program. 2014-1. Forest Health 

26036 Highlights in Washington – 2013. Available online at: 

26037 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3801872.pdf (accessed 11/4/2014).

26038 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Health Program. 2014-2. Eastern Washington 

26039 Forest Health: Hazards, Accomplishments and Restoration Strategy - A report to the Washington 

26040 State Legislature.

26041 Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. 2013. Outdoor Recreation in Washington, The 

26042 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Olympia, Washington.

26043 Wehner, M. F. 2013. Very extreme seasonal precipitation in the NARCCAP ensemble: Model 

26044 performance and projections. Climate Dynamics, 40, 59-80.

26045 Welker, J., J. Fahnestock, K. Povirk, C. Bilbrough, and R. Piper. 2004. Alpine Grassland CO2 Exchange 

26046 and Nitrogen Cycling: Grazing History Effects, Medicine Bow Range, Wyoming, USA. Arctic, 

26047 Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36(1):11-20.

26048 Weltzin, J. F., M. E. Loik, S. Schwinning, D. G. Williams, P. A. Fay, B. M. Haddad, J. Harte, T. E. 

26049 Huxman, A. K. Knapp, G. Lin, W. T. Pockman, M. R. Shaw, E. E. Small, M. D. Smith, S. D. 

26050 Smith, D. T. Tissue, and J. C. Zak. 2003. Assessing the response of terrestrial ecosystems to 

26051 potential changes in precipitation. BioScience 53(10): 941-952.

26052 Wemple, B.C., Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant, 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two 

26053 basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. 32: 1195-1207.

26054 Wemple, B.C., Swanson, F.J., and J.A. Jones, 2001. Forest roads and geomorphic process interactions, 

26055 Cascade range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: 191-204.

26056 Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. 

26057 Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia.

26058 Wenger, S. J., Luce, C. H., Hamlet, A. F., Isaak, D. J. and H.M Neville. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic 

26059 modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resources Research. 46: W09513. 

26060 Available online at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/36238

26061 Wenger, S.J., D. J. Isaak, J.B. Dunham, K.D. Fausch, C.H. Luce, H.M. Neville, B.E. Rieman, M.K. 

26062 Young, D.E. Nagel, D.L. Horan, and G.L. Chandler. 2011. Role of climate and invasive species in 

26063 structuring trout distributions in the interior Columbia River Basin, USA. Canadian Journal of 

26064 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 988-1008.

26065 Westerling, A. L., A. Gershunov, T. J. Brown, D. R. Cayan and M. D. Dettinger. 2003. Climate and 

26066 wildfire in the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84(5): 

26067 595-604.

26068 Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and Earlier Spring 

26069 Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science, 313: 940-943.

26070 Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (WFLC). 2010. Threats to Western Private Forests A Framework 

26071 for Conserving and Enhancing the Benefits from Private Working Forests in the Western U.S. 34

26072 p.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

736

26073 Whiley, A.J., and K. Baldwin. 2005. Colville National Forest temperature, bacteria, pH, and dissolved 

26074 oxygen total maximum daily load (water cleanup plan). Water Quality Program. Washington State 

26075 Department of Ecology, pub num 05-10-047.

26076 White, E.M., and Stynes, D.J. 2010. Spending profiles of national forest visitors, NVUM Round 2 

26077 Update. Unpublished report. 67 p. Special report to the USDA Forest Service Ecosystem 

26078 Management Staff, Washington DC Headquarters.

26079 White, E. M., Goodding, D.B., Stynes, D.J. 2012. Estimation of national forest visitor spending averages 

26080 from national visitor use monitoring: round 2. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/43869

26081 (January 12, 2015).

26082 Whitehead, R.L. 1994. Groundwater atlas of the United States: Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. USGS, 

26083 HA 730-H. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_h/index.html

26084 Wiens, J.A., Hayward, G.D., Holthausen, R.S., Wisdom, M.J. 2008. Using surrogate species and groups 

26085 for conservation planning and management. Bioscience. 58: 241-252.

26086 Williams, Clinton K., Kelley, Brian F., Smith, Bradley, G., and Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forested plant 

26087 associations of the Colville National Forest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-360. USDA 

26088 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 375 p. In cooperation with: 

26089 Pacific Northwest Region, Colville National Forest.

26090 Williams, David W., and Liebhold, Andrew M. 2002. Climate change and the outbreak ranges of two 

26091 North American bark beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. Vol 2, No. 2 (2002) 87-99.

26092 Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, and W.T. Colyer. 2009. Potential consequences of climate 

26093 change to persistence of cutthroat populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

26094 29: 533-548.

26095 Williams, J.E., C.A. Wood and M.P Dombeck, eds. 1997. Watershed restoration: Principles and practices. 

26096 American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

26097 Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep.RMRS-GTR26098 47. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p.

26099 Wisdom, M.J., Ager, A.A., Preisler, H.K., Cimon, N.J., and Johnson, B.K. 2005. Effects of off-road 

26100 recreation on mule deer and elk. Pages 67-80 in Wisdom, M.J. tech. ed. The Starkey Project: a 

26101 synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the 

26102 North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Group Communications, 

26103 Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

26104 Wisdom, M.J., and Bate, L.J. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and human 

26105 access. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2085-2093.

26106 Wisdom, M.J., Cimon, N.J., Johnson, B.K., Garton, E.O., and Thomas, J.W. 2005. Spatial partitioning by 

26107 mule deer and elk in relation to traffic. Pages 53-6680 in Wisdom, M.J. tech. ed. The Starkey 

26108 Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 

26109 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Group 

26110 Communications, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

737

26111 Wisdom, M.J., Holthausen, R.S., Wales, B.C. [and others]. 2000. Source habitat for terrestrial vertebrates 

26112 of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Vol. 2

26113 Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

26114 Research Station.

26115 Wissmar, R.C. 2004. Riparian corridors of eastern Oregon and Washington: Functions and sustainability 

26116 along lowland-arid to mountain gradients. Aquatic Sciences: 66, 373-387.

26117 Wissmar, R.C., Smith, J.E., McIntosh, B.A., Li, H.W., Reeves, G.H., and Sedell, J.R. 1994. A history of 

26118 resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s26119 1900s). Northwest Science 68: 1-35.

26120 Wondzell, S. M. 2001. The influence of forest health and protection treatments on erosion and stream 

26121 sedimentation in forested watersheds of eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 

26122 75(Special Issue): 128-140.

26123 Wondzell , S.M. and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Floods, channel change, and the hyporheic zone. Water 

26124 Resources Research 35(2): 555-567.

26125 Wondzell, S.M., and J. G. King. 2003. Post-fire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky 

26126 Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 75-87.

26127 Woods, L.G. 1966. Increasing water yield though soil management. Journal of Soil and Water 

26128 Conservation. 21: 95-97.

26129 Wormworth, J., and K. Mallon, K. 2006. Bird species and climate change. Sydney, Australia. World 

26130 Wildlife Fund. 12 p.

26131 Wotton, B.M., and M.D. Flannigan. 1993. Length of the fire season in a changing climate. Forestry 

26132 Chronicle 69: 187-192.

26133 XiuZhi, M., W. YanFen, W. ShiPing, W. JinZhi, and L.ChangSheng. 2005. Impacts of grazing on soil 

26134 carbon fractions in the grasslands of Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia. Acta Phytoecologica 

26135 Sinica 29(4): 569-576.

26136 Yount, J.D., and G.J. Niemi. 1990. Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance - a 

26137 native case study. Environmental Management 14: 547-570.

26138 Ziemer, R. R. 1987. Water yields from forests: an agnostic view. Proceedings of the California Watershed 

26139 Management Conference, Report No. 11. November 18-20, 1986, West Sacramento, California, 

26140 Wildland Resources Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Literature Cited

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

738

This page left blank intentionally
Acronyms

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

739

26141 Acronyms

26142 ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy

26143 AEC Aquatic Ecological Condition 

26144 AIS Aquatic Invasive Species 

26145 AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

26146 ARCS Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

26147 ARS Aquatic Restoration Strategy

26148 ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity

26149 ATV All-terrain Vehicle

26150 AUM Animal Unit Month

26151 BC Back Country Non-Motorized

26152 BCM Backcountry Motorized 

26153 BLM Bureau of Land Management

26154 BMP Best Management Practice

26155 BMU Bear Management Unit

26156 CCF Hundred Cubic Feet

26157 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

26158 CER Comprehensive Evaluation Report

26159 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

26160 CNF Colville National Forest

26161 CWA Clean Water Act

26162 CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan

26163 DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

26164 DSM Decision Support Model

26165 EIS Environmental Impact Statement

26166 EPA Environmental Protection Agency

26167 ESA Endangered Species Act

26168 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

26169 FR Federal Register

26170 FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

26171 FSH Forest Service Handbook

26172 FSM Forest Service Manual

26173 GDE Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

740

26174 GIS Geographic Information System

26175 HRV Historic Range of Variability

26176 HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

26177 ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

26178 IDT Interdisciplinary Team

26179 IGBC Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee

26180 INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

26181 IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

26182 LCAS Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy

26183 LMP Land Management Plan

26184 LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

26185 LSOF Late Structure Old Forest

26186 LTA Landtype Association 

26187 LTSYC Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity

26188 MA Management Area

26189 MIS Management Indicator Species

26190 MMBF Million Board Feet

26191 MOA Memorandum of Agreement

26192 MOU Memorandum of Understanding

26193 MUSYA Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

26194 MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map

26195 NAAQ National Ambient Air Quality Standard

26196 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

26197 NFMA National Forest Management Act

26198 NFS National Forest System

26199 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

26200 NOA Notice of Availability

26201 NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

26202 OHV Off-highway Vehicle

26203 PIBO PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion

26204 PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes

26205 PTSQ Projected Timber Sale Quantity

26206 PUD Public Utility District

26207 PWA Potential Wilderness Area
Acronyms

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

741

26208 PWSQ Predicted Wood Sale Quantity

26209 RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

26210 RMA Riparian Management Area

26211 RMO Riparian Management Objective

26212 RNA Research Natural Area

26213 ROD Record of Decision

26214 ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

26215 RW Recommended Wilderness

26216 SIA Special Interest Area

26217 SMS Scenery Management System

26218 SOC Species of Concern 

26219 SOI Species of Interest

26220 SPM Semi-primitive Motorized

26221 SPNM Semi-primitive Non-Motorized

26222 TE Threatened or Endangered (species)

26223 TES Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive (species)

26224 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

26225 U.S.C. United States Code

26226 USDA United States Department of Agriculture

26227 USDI United States Department of Interior

26228 USFS United States Forest Service

26229 USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service

26230 USGS United States Geologic Survey 

26231 WAC Washington Administrative Code

26232 WAP Watershed Action Plan 

26233 WCF Watershed Condition Framework 

26234 WDFW Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

26235 WDoE Washington Department of Ecology

26236 WQIP Water Quality Implementation Plan

26237 WRIA Water Resources Inventory Areas

26238 WSR Wild and Scenic River

26239 WUI Wildland Urban Interface
Acronyms

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

742

This page left blank intentionally
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

743

26240 Glossary

TERM DEFINITION

Active channel The portion of a stream channel commonly wetted during and above base 

flows, identified by a break in rooted vegetation or moss growth on rocks 

along stream margins (Taylor and Love 2003). The active channel is 

somewhat lower than bankfull and is sometimes called the ordinary high 

water mark.

Active floodplain The area bordering a stream that is inundated by flows at a surface elevation 

defined by two times the maximum bankfull depth measured at the thalweg. 

(Thalweg is a line drawn to join the lowest points along the entire length of a 

streambed in its downward slope, defining the deepest channel, thus making 

the natural direction or profile of a watercourse. The thalweg is almost 

always the line of fasted flow in any river).

Active restoration Deliberate activities to influence the processes needed to improve 

conditions. Investment of human actions of the ecosystem processes and 

functions. As an example, this might include seeding native grasses and 

planting native shrubs and trees, or thinning trees to restore fire regimes.

Activity A measure, course of action, or treatment that is undertaken to directly or 

indirectly produce, enhance, or maintain a desired condition or objective on a 

Forest, Grassland, Prairie, or other comparable administrative unit.

Animal unit month 

(AUM)

The amount of oven-dry forage required by 1 animal unit for a period of 30 

days. An animal unit is considered to be 1 mature cow, either dry or with calf 

up to 6 months in age. (Society for Range Management. 1998. (Society for 

Range Management 1998)

Aquatic ecological 

condition

The AEC is a model to evaluate the status of local populations of focal 

species and their habitat at the HUC12 or sub-watershed scale. The results 

are then aggregated to produce an ecological sustainability or viability 

outcome for each focal species at the subbasin (HUC 8) scale. It is 

described in the Process for Evaluating the Contribution of National Forest 

System Lands to Aquatic Ecological Sustainability (Reiss et al. 2008). 

Aquatic ecosystem Any body of water and its associated riparian area, and all organisms and 

non-living components within it functioning as a natural system. 

Assessment An analysis and interpretation of the social, economic, or ecological 

characteristics of an area using scientific principles to describe existing 

conditions as they affect sustainability.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

744

TERM DEFINITION

Biological legacy Organisms, organic matter and biologically created patterns that persist from 

the pre-disturbance ecosystem and influence recovery processes in the 

post-disturbance ecosystem.

Canopy closure The proportion of the sky hemisphere obscured by vegetation when viewed 

from a single point (Korhonen et al. 2006).

Canopy cover The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of tree 

crowns (Korhonen et al. 2006).

Capability The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and 

services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management 

practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends 

upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, 

soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such 

as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.

Characteristic fire When a fire occurs within the time, space, and severity parameters of the 

natural fire regime of the vegetation group (Hardy, 2005). Also, see 

uncharacteristic fire. 

Class I and II areas (air 

quality)

Class I areas defined under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 are 

afforded the highest level of protection from air pollutants in the nation. All 

other lands in the nation are designated as Class II areas.

Coarse filter/coarse 

filter management

Land management that addresses the needs of all associated species, 

communities, environments and ecological processes in a land area (see 

fine filter management). 

Coarse filter conservation focuses on assuring adequate representation of 

ecosystem diversity, and is generally accomplished by comparing the current 

condition of landscape structure and composition to a set of reference 

conditions. Management direction then addresses the landscape 

components that have departed from reference conditions to assure 

adequate representation across the plan area. A fine-filter approach may be 

needed if the coarse-filter does not adequately provide ecosystem conditions 

needed to maintain populations (Samson 2002) (see fine-filter).

Coarse woody debris Coarse woody debris consists of any woody material greater than three 

inches in diameter and is derived from tree limbs, boles, roots, and large 

(greater than 12 inches in diameter) wood fragments and fallen trees in 

various stages of decay. Provides living spaces for a host of organisms and 

serves as long-term storage sites for moisture, nutrients, and energy.

Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR)

The listing of various regulations pertaining to management and 

administration of the Colville National Forest. 
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

745

TERM DEFINITION

Community (ecological) A group of organisms living together; any group of interacting organisms.

Connectivity See habitat connectivity. 

Core area/ core habitat A core area represents the closest approximation of a biologically functioning 

unit consisting of habitat that could supply all the necessary elements for 

every life stage (e.g., spawning, rearing, migratory and adult) and include 

one or more groups of bull trout (USFWS 2014)

Corridor (utility) See Transportation and utility corridors. 

Corridor (wildlife) Avenues along which wide ranging animals can travel, plants can propagate, 

genetic interchange can occur, populations can move in response to 

environmental changes and natural disasters, and threatened species can 

be replenished from other areas.

Cover Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators, or to ameliorate 

conditions of weather, or in which to reproduce. 

Hiding cover – vegetation consisting primarily of trees, capable of hiding 90 

percent of a standing adult animal from the view of a human at a distance of 

200 feet or less. 

Thermal cover – cover used by animals to ameliorate chilling effects of 

weather, for elk, a stand of coniferous trees 40 feet or taller with an average 

crown closure of 70 percent or more.

Critical (key) habitat Specific areas 

• within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to 

conservation, and those features may require special management 

considerations or protection; and

• outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency 

determines that the area itself is essential for conservation

• http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm

Crossing (structure) That point in a linear feature (i.e., trail, road, stream) where the feature 

intersects and continues past another feature (i.e., a road crosses over or 

through a stream). Crossing structures are human-made structures that 

facilitate the ability of an animal to travel across a road and reduce the 

likelihood of a collision with a vehicle.

Cultural resources Such resources as archeological, historical, or architectural sites, structures, 

places, objects, ideas, and traditions that are identified by field inventory, 

historical documentation, or other evidence and that are important to 

specified social or heritage groups or scientific and management endeavors. 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

746

TERM DEFINITION

Cumulative effects The combined effects of two or more management activities. The effects 

may be related to the number of individual activities, or to the number of 

repeated activities on the same piece of ground. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time.

Decommission (roads) Activities that result in restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state 

through reestablishment of vegetation and restoration of ecological 

processes interrupted or adversely affected by the unneeded road (FSM 

7734).

Designated Monitoring 

Area (DMA)

A representative Designated Monitoring Area is a monitoring site in a 

riparian complex that is representative of a larger area. The DMA should be 

placed in the most sensitive complex responsive to management influences. 

(MIM Technical Reference 1737-23, 2011)

Designated route A National Forest System (NFS) road or an NFS trail on NFS lands that is 

designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.1 on a motor 

vehicle use map.

Desired conditions The social, economic, and ecological attributes toward which management 

of the land and resources of the plan area are to be directed. Desired 

conditions are aspirations and are not commitments or final decisions 

approving projects and activities, and may be achievable only over a long 

period (36 CFR 219.7).

Desired landscape 

character

Appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time, 

recognizing that a landscape is a dynamic and constantly changing 

community of plants and animals. Combination of landscape design 

attributes and opportunities, as well as biological opportunities and 

constraints. (Landscape Aesthetics-A Handbook for Scenery Management, 

Agriculture Handbook Number 701, December 1995, USDA Forest Service)

Developed recreation 

site

Distinctly defined area where facilities are provided for concentrated public 

use; e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas, boating sites, and ski areas.

Diameter at breast 

height (d.b.h.)

The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 6 inches from ground level.

Dispersed recreation Outdoor recreation that takes place outside developed recreation sites.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

747

TERM DEFINITION

District population 

segment (DPS)

• The term “DPS” is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

to refer to regional subgroups of bull trout and is the term used in the 

Endangered Species Act to describe subunits of species that are eligible 

for listing, or to describe subgroups of species that could be delisted 

separately by meeting specific recovery objectives identified in a Species 

Recovery Plan.

Disturbance A discrete event that changes existing plant and wildlife community 

composition or structure, and interrupts, changes, or resets the ongoing 

successional sequence.

Disturbance processes Stresses and agents that influence ecosystem dynamics and processes 

operating within known resilience parameters. Stresses and agents can 

include invasive species, fire, changes in climate, weather events (wind, ice), 

pollution, and timber harvest.

Disturbance regime Any recurrent disturbance that tends to occur in a forested area. It is often 

defined in terms of timing, frequency, predictability, and severity. (Puettmann 

et al. 2009)

Diversity The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities 

and species within an area. 

Ecological conditions Components of the biological and physical environment that can affect 

diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity of 

ecological systems. These components could include the abundance and 

distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, roads and other structural 

developments, human uses, and invasive, exotic species. (36 CFR 219.16) 

Ecological health

(ecosystem health)

The state of and ecosystem in which processes and functions are adequate 

to maintain diversity of biotic communities commensurate with those initially 

found there.

Ecological restoration The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of 

ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration 

focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological 

processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions. (FSM 

2000 Chapter 2020).

Ecosystem An interacting system of organisms considered together with their 

environment; for example, marsh, watershed, and lake ecosystems. 

Ecosystem diversity The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their 

composition, structure, and processes, within all or a part of an area of 

analysis. (36 CFR 219.16) 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

748

TERM DEFINITION

Ecosystem health

(ecological health)

A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained

over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such 

that goals for uses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met. 

(www.icbemp.gov )

Ecosystem services Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. For 

example, healthy ecosystems provide:

• The stuff of life – food, fresh water, timber, and fiber for clothing.

• Protection from extreme weather, floods, fire, and disease.

• Regulation of the Earth’s climate.

• Filtration of wastes and pollutants.

• Regeneration of clean air, water, and soil.

• Inspiration, recreation and spiritual sustenance, and support for a 

way of life. (Island Press 2007)

Edaphic Relating to, or determined by, conditions of the soil, especially as it relates to 

biological systems; soil characteristics, such as water content, pH, texture, 

and nutrient availability that influence the type and quantity of vegetation in 

an area. 

Effect (impact), 

economic

The change, positive or negative, in economic conditions, including the 

distribution and stability of employment and income in affected local, 

regional, and national economies that directly or indirectly results from an 

activity, project, or program.

Effect (impact), 

physical, biological

The change, positive or negative, in the physical or biological conditions that 

directly or indirectly results from an activity, project, or program.

Effect (impact), social The change, positive or negative, in social and cultural conditions that 

directly or indirectly results from an activity, project, or program.

Endangered species Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. An endangered species must be designated 

by the Secretary of Interior as endangered in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

749

TERM DEFINITION

Evaluation An appraisal and study of social, economic, and ecological conditions and 

trends relevant to a unit. The analysis of monitoring data that produces 

information needed to answer specific monitoring questions. Evaluation may 

include comparing monitoring results with a predetermined guideline or 

expected norm that may lead to recommendations for changes in 

management, a land management plan, or monitoring plan. Evaluations 

provide an updated compilation of information for use in environmental 

analysis of future project and activity decisions.

Even-aged management The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation of 

stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed 

even-aged forests are characterized by a distribution of stands of varying 

ages (and, therefore, tree sizes) throughout the forest area. An even-aged 

stand of trees is one in which there are only small differences in age among 

the individual trees. Regeneration in a particular stand is obtained during a 

short period at or near the time that a stand has reached the desired age or 

size for regeneration and is harvested. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree 

cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

Fine filter management Management that focuses on the welfare of a single or only a few species 

rather than the broader habitat or ecosystem (see coarse filter 

management). Coarse and fine-filter management approaches are generally 

complimentary to provide ecological conditions that support ecosystem and 

species diversity.

Fire intensity A general term relating to the heat energy released by a fire.

Fire management Activities required for the protection of burnable wildland values from fire and 

the use of prescribed fire to meet land management objectives.

Fire regime Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and 

sometimes vegetation and fire effects as well, in a given area or ecosystem. 

A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites. 

Fire regimes can often be described as cycles because some parts of the 

histories usually get repeated, and the repetitions can be counted and 

measured, such as fire return interval. (NWCG. 2008)

Fire severity The degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire. A product of 

fire intensity, fuel consumption, and residence time.

Floodplain Lowland and relatively flat area adjacent to rivers and streams, formed from 

river sediments that are subject to recurring flooding.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

750

TERM DEFINITION

Focal species Those species whose abundance, distribution, health, and trend over time 

and space are indicative of the functioning of the larger ecological system 

(Committee of Scientists. 1999. USDA Forest Service).

Focal species serve an umbrella function in terms of encompassing habitats 

needed for other species, are sensitive to the changes likely to occur in the 

area, or otherwise serve as an indicator of ecological sustainability. The 

long-term sustainability of the focal species is assumed to be representative 

of a group of species with similar ecological requirements and this group is 

assumed to respond in a similar manner to environmental change.

Forage All browse and non-woody plants available to livestock or wildlife for grazing 

or harvestable for feed.

Forb Any herb other than grass.

Forest health The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors 

as its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels 

of insects and disease, and resilience to disturbance. Perception and 

interpretation of forest health are influenced by individual and cultural 

viewpoints, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the 

relative health in stands that comprise the forest, and the appearance of the 

forest at a point in time.

Forest land Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly 

having had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. 

Lands developed for non-forest use include areas for crops, improved 

pasture, residential or administrative areas, improved roads of any width and 

adjoining road clearing, and power line clearings of any width. (36 CFR 

219.16)

Forest products, 

commercial use (nontimber harvest)

The sale of special forest products to commercial entities.

Forest products, 

firewood, commercial 

use

The sale of firewood, a type of special forest product, to commercial entities. 

Forest products, 

firewood, permitted 

personal use

The collection of firewood, a type of special forest product, for personal, noncommercial use.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

751

TERM DEFINITION

Forest road or trail A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the 

protection, administration, and utilization. (Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 212—Administration of the Forest Transportation System, 

section 212.1.)

Fuels Any material that will carry and sustain a forest fire, primarily natural 

materials, both live and dead.

Goods and services The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced from forest and 

rangeland resources.

Grazing allotment Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a 

prescribed period of time.

Grizzly bear core 

habitat

An area of secure habitat within a bear management unit that contains no 

motorized travel routes or high use non-motorized trails during the nondenning season and is more than 0.3 miles (500 meters) from a drivable 

road. Core areas do not include any gated roads but may contain roads that 

are impassible due to vegetation or constructed barriers. Core areas strive to 

contain the full range of seasonal habitats that are available in the bear 

management unit.

Grizzly bear 

management unit 

(GBMU)

Areas established for use in grizzly bear analysis. GBMUs generally (a) 

approximate female home range size; and (b) include representations of all 

seasonal habitat components.

A subunit of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. Each BMU is intended 

to approximate the size of a female grizzly bear home range, include some 

portion of all seasonal habitats, and not cross political boundaries of land 

management agencies. Boundary lines follow natural features such as 

rivers, streams, and watershed boundaries; and man-made features such as 

roads, ownership and Public Land Survey System (PLSS) section lines. A 

project analysis unit upon which direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

analyses are performed.

Groundwaterdependent system 

(ecosystem)

An area that requires access to groundwater to maintain its community of 

plants, animals, and processes. Examples include springs, seeps, fens, and 

wetlands. 

Guidelines Information and guidance for project and activity decision making to help 

achieve desired conditions and objectives in the plan area.

Habitat capability The estimated ability of an area, given existing or predicted habitat 

conditions, to support a wildlife, fish, or plant population. It is measured in 

terms of potential population numbers.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

752

TERM DEFINITION

Habitat connectivity A measure of the ability of organisms to move among separated patches of 

suitable habitat (Hilty et al. 2006), and is important for providing the longterm viability of populations (Hanski 2002), and for allowing species to 

respond to changing climate (Heller and Zavleta 2009). Landscape features 

influence how of if a species can move. These may include natural features 

such as topography or land cover, or human created features such as 

highways or roads.

Habitat effectiveness A measurement of the effect of human access on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

In this proposal habitat effectiveness is analyzed as an index of the amount 

of habitat that is impacted by human access for a given species. Generally, 

two types of indices (measures) are used to assess the impacts of roads and 

trails on wildlife habitats: (1) the density of travel routes (e.g., miles of 

route/square miles of habitat) or (2) the zone of influence. The zone of 

influence refers to the distance on each side of a road or trail within which 

habitat use by a species of interest is affected by the human use that occurs 

on the road or trail. Both density and zone of influence are determined by 

species-species research (see Gaines et al. 2003 for a review).

Heritage resources Archaeological and historic sites, structures, buildings, artifacts, sacred sites, 

and traditional cultural properties identified through research, field inventory, 

and historic documentation that are important to the American public and 

American Indian Tribes.

High quality habitat Habitat that completely satisfies a species life history (e.g., food, shelter, 

security) requirements. 

Historical range of 

variability

Refers to the dynamic behavior and functioning of ecosystems before 

dramatic changes occurred with European settlement, generally considered 

to be the mid-1800s for this area (Aplet and Keeton 1999). The historical 

range of variability provides a framework to determine changes to ecosystem 

attributes that have occurred between historical and current conditions and 

recognizes that ecosystems experience a range of conditions across which 

processes are resilient and self-sustaining

Horizontal cover That portion of a tree or shrub that grows horizontally (parallel to the ground) 

out from the main trunk/stem of the plant (i.e., a tree bough) and provides 

cover up to approximately 5 to 7 feet above the ground. Horizontal cover 

refers to the stems/boughs that are used by snowshoe hares and are 

subsequently considered foraging habitat for lynx.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

753

TERM DEFINITION

Hydrologic unit (HU) 

system

A nested-hierarchical classification of hydrologic units (watersheds) 

delineated national by the United States Geological Survey with six levels of 

classification of successively smaller hydrologic units. Individual hydrologic 

units are denoted numerically by a unique hydrologic unit code, with the 

number of digits within the code based on the level of classification, and both 

a general hydrologic unit name, and a specific name. The following table 

shows the classification, names, # of digits in the code, level of classification, 

average size, and an example of name and number of at each level of 

classification from the hydrologic hierarchy of the Ninemile subwatershed. 

Hydrologic 

Unit (HU) 

name 

# of digits 

in HUC 

HU Level Average 

Size (sq. 

miles) 

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

Subwaters

hed (SWS) 

12 6th 40 

(10,000-

40,000 

acres) 

Ninemile 

Subwatershed 

170200040107

Hydrologically 

connected road

A segment of road that is connected to the natural stream channel network 

via surface flow (Flanagan et al. 1998). Roads that are hydrologically 

connected deliver water, sediment, and chemicals generated on the road 

surface directly to the stream channel network. 

Indicator A measure or measurement of an aspect of a sustainability criterion. A 

quantitative or qualitative variable that can be measured or described and, 

when observed periodically, shows trends. Indicators are quantifiable 

performance measures of outcomes or objectives for attaining criteria 

designed to assess progress toward desired conditions. 

Inner gorge An area where a stream has incised into a hillslope or valley bottom where 

surface materials may be unstable or erodible. The top of the inner gorge 

occurs where the slope of the wall breaks to <50 percent.

Instream flow Water flowing in a stream channel. Instream flow is used to designate a 

specific stream flow measured in cubic feet per second (cfs) at a particular 

location for a defined time for protection and preservation of fish, wildlife, 

recreation, and other non-consumptive water uses in a waterway.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

754

TERM DEFINITION

Interdisciplinary team 

(ID Team)

A group of people that collectively represent several disciplines and whose 

duty is to coordinate and integrate the planning activities.

Invasive species Non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Non-native species are any 

species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material 

capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem 

(with respect to a particular ecosystem). (EO13112)

Inventoried roadless 

area

Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in the 

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any subsequent update or 

revision of those maps through the land management planning process. (36 

CFR 294.11)

Issue Issues may be considered as: (1) A potential factor for determining need for 

change for a plan; (2) Specific resource concerns about a proposed action 

under NEPA (FSM 1950); (3) Points of contention or disagreement; or (4) A 

subject or question of widespread public interest about management of the 

National Forest System. 

Key habitat (grizzly 

bear)

Vegetation components that are crucial for grizzly bear survival, such as 

Whitebark pine, riparian habitats, berry-producing shrub fields, natural 

meadows, and forest cover.

Key watershed Key watersheds are a network of watersheds designated at the 

subwatershed scale (6th field, HUC12), to serve as strongholds for important 

aquatic resources or having the potential to do so. They are areas crucial to 

threatened or endangered fish and aquatic species of concern and/or 

interest, and/or areas that provide high quality water important for 

maintenance of downstream populations. Management emphasizes 

minimizing risk and maximizing restoration or retention of ecological health. 

Landscape A heterogeneous land area composed of interacting ecosystems evaluated 

at a broad scale to facilitate understanding of process, composition, 

structure, and pattern. In most cases this will be at a scale of a 5th field HUC, 

at10’s of thousands of acres, to provide an understanding of coarse filter 

broad scale interplay and dynamics of soils, climate, fire, insects, hydrology, 

genetics, large home range wildlife, and vegetation. 

Landscape character Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image 

and make it identifiable and unique. (Agricultural Handbook Number 701)

Large woody debris Large pieces of relatively stable woody material located within the bankfull 

channel and appearing to influence bankfull flows.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

755

TERM DEFINITION

Life history 

requirements

Habitat and other environmental conditions need to support the series of 

living phenomena exhibited by an organism in the course of its development 

from inception to death. This includes seasonal behaviors and daily routines 

of juvenile and adults of the species.

Lynx analysis unit 

(LAU)

An area of at least the size used by an individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 

square miles. A project analysis unit upon which direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects analyses are performed.

Listed species (TE) Listed species (TE) are those listed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (FSH 1909.12, 43.22a).

Maintenance level 

(roads)

Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and maintenance 

required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with 

road management objectives and maintenance criteria. The objective 

maintenance level is the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date 

considering future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget 

constraints, and environmental concerns. The objective maintenance level 

may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the operational maintenance 

level. (FSH 7709.59)

Management area A specifically identified area on National Forest System lands to which 

specific plan components (desired conditions, objectives, identification of 

suitable and unsuitable land uses, or special designations) are applied. 

Management direction A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated 

management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them.

Management indicator 

species (MIS)

A species selected because its welfare is presumed to be an indicator of the 

welfare of other species using the same habitat. A species whose condition 

can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular 

area.

Management practice A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

Management 

prescription

Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for application 

on a specific area to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives.

Mechanized Wheeled forms of transportation (including non-motorized carts, 

wheelbarrows, bicycles and any other non-motorized, wheeled vehicle).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

756

TERM DEFINITION

Mechanical transport Any contrivance for moving people or material in and over land, water, or air, 

having moving parts that provides a mechanical advantage to the user and 

that is powered by a living or non-living power source. This includes, but is 

not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, 

carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary 

medical appliances. It also does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, 

sleds, travois, or similar primitive devices without moving parts. (FSM 

2320.3)

Minerals – leasable Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, Sulphur, and 

geothermal resources.

Minerals - locatable Those hardrock minerals that are mined and processed for the recovery of 

metals. They also may include certain nonmetallic minerals and uncommon 

varieties of mineral materials, such as valuable and distinctive deposits of 

limestone or silica.

Minimum impact 

suppression tactics 

(MIST) 

The concept of minimum impact suppression tactics is to use the minimum 

amount of forces necessary to effectively achieve fire management 

protection objectives. It implies a greater sensitivity to the impacts of 

suppression tactics and their long-term effects, when determining how to 

implement an appropriate suppression response. Fire managers and 

firefighters select tactics that have minimal impact to values at risk. These 

values are identified in approved Land or Resource Management Plans. 

Standards and guidelines are then tied to implementation practices which 

result from approved Fire Management Plans. Minimum impact suppression 

tactics is not intended to represent a separate or distinct classification of 

firefighting tactics but rather a mindset of how to suppress a wildfire while 

minimizing the long-term effects of the suppression action on other 

resources. The principle of fighting fire aggressively but providing for safety 

first will not be compromised in the process and when selecting an 

appropriate suppression response, firefighter safety must remain the highest 

concern.

Mitigation measures Modifications of actions taken to: (a) avoid impacts by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action; (b) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectify impacts by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reduce or 

eliminate impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; or, (e) compensate for impacts by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments.

Monitoring A systematic process of collecting information to evaluate changes in 

actions, conditions, and relationships over time and space or progress 

toward meeting desired conditions or plan objectives.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

757

TERM DEFINITION

Motor Vehicle Use Map A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit 

or a ranger district of the National Forest System (36 CFR 212.1).

National Forest System 

(NFS)

All national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the 

United States; all national forest lands acquired through purchase, 

exchange, donation, or other means; the national grasslands and land 

utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), the Midewin Tallgrass 

Prairie, and other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered 

by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest 

Service as a part of the system. (16 U.S.C. 1608) 

National visitor use 

monitoring program 

(NVUM)

To gain a better understanding of the recreation use, importance of, and 

satisfaction associated with national forest recreation opportunities, the 

Forest Service embarked on the national visitor use monitoring project 

(NVUM) in the late 1990s. Each survey is conducted over the course of one 

year (October 1 – September 30) and includes questions regarding visitor 

use (activities), expenditures on recreation activities, and user satisfaction 

associated with the activities, settings, and infrastructure used while visiting 

the Forest.

Objectives Concise projections of measurable, time-specific intended outcomes. The 

objectives for a plan are the means of measuring progress toward achieving 

or maintaining desired conditions. Like desired conditions, objectives are 

aspirations and are not commitments or final decisions approving projects 

and activities. (36 CFR 219.7) 

Occupied habitat An area that is currently being used by a species for one or more parts of its 

life history (such as nesting, foraging, roosting, denning). This area will 

receive repeat use and the animal is not simply travelling through to 

somewhere else.

Off-highway vehicle 

(OHV)

Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other 

natural terrain. (36 CFR 212.1)

Open motorized trail Trails that are passable by motorcycles or all-terrain vehicles and are not 

legally restricted.

Overstory That portion of the trees in a forest of more than one story, forming the upper 

or uppermost canopy layer.

Outstandingly 

remarkable value (wild 

and scenic rivers)

A river-related value that is a rare, unique, or exemplary feature that is 

significant at a comparative regional or national scale.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

758

TERM DEFINITION

Patch (patch size) A patch is a relatively uniform area of vegetation that differs from its 

surroundings (NCSSF 2005). Patch size is influenced by disturbance history, 

vegetation dynamics, topographic position, and soils.

For fisheries, a patch or patch size is the connected length of stream 

available to the focal species. Habitat patches within the subbasin are 

delineated by aggregating all connected stream kilometers of occupied 

habitat.

Plan area The National Forest System lands covered by a plan. (36 CFR 219.16)

Plan components Broad guidance in a plan that identifies desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.

Plan set of documents The complete set of documentation supporting the land management plan. It 

may include, but is not limited to, evaluation reports, documentation of public 

involvement, the plan including applicable maps, applicable plan 

improvement documents, applicable NEPA documents, and the monitoring 

program for the plan area.

Planned fire (planned 

ignition)

An intentionally ignited fire with the intent to achieve specific objectives. A 

planned fire is generally covered under a NEPA decision document 

specifying a specific location, burning conditions, operational and 

management objectives, and monitoring measures. Includes all prescribed 

fire including pile burning slash piles. Also, see unplanned fire.

Planning period The time interval within the planning horizon that is used to show 

incremental changes in yields, costs, effects, and benefits (generally 15 to 

20 years).

Population (ecological) Organisms of the same species that occur in a particular place at a given 

time.

Population viability The likelihood of continued existence of a well-distributed population or 

species for a specific period. For most scientific analyses, the period is 

100 years. For example, high viability is a high likelihood of continued 

existence of well-distributed populations for a century or longer.

Potential wilderness 

area

Inventoried lands within National Forest System lands that satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

(FSH 1909.12, chapter 70, 01/31/2007) 

Primitive recreation Those recreation activities that are non-motorized and do not involve 

mechanical transport. Examples include hiking, horseback riding, hunting, 

canoeing, and cross-country skiing.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

759

TERM DEFINITION

Project An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, activities, 

outputs, effects, times, and responsibilities for execution.

Project design The process of developing specific information necessary to describe the 

location, timing, activities, outputs, effects, accountability, and control of a 

project.

Proper functioning 

condition

Proper functioning condition is a concept used to assess natural habitat 

forming processes of riparian and wetland areas (Pritchard et al. 1998). 

Systems in a properly functioning condition are dynamic and resilient to 

disturbance to structure, composition and processes of their biological and 

physical components. Primary elements typically include hydrologic 

characteristics, physical structure/form, vegetative characteristics, water 

quality and quantity, and aquatic/riparian biological community 

characteristics. The general methodology to assess properly functioning 

condition provides an integrated measure of condition and can be used at a 

variety of scales from individual reaches to watersheds. 

Public access Usually refers to a road or trail route over which a public agency claims a 

right-of-way for public use.

Public involvement

(public participation)

A Forest Service process designed to broaden the information base upon 

which agency approvals and decisions are made by: (a) informing the public 

about Forest Service activities, plans, and decisions, and (b) encouraging 

public understanding about and participation in the planning processes that 

lead to final decision making.

Public issue A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to management 

of the National Forest System.

Public participation See public involvement. 

Range allotment A designated area containing land suitable and available for livestock 

grazing use upon which a specified number and kind of livestock are grazed 

under an approved allotment management plan. It is the basic management 

unit of the range resource on National Forest System lands administered by 

the Forest Service.

Rangeland Land on which the indigenous vegetation (climax or natural potential) is 

predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs, and is managed 

as a natural ecosystem. If plants are introduced, they are managed similarly. 

Rangeland includes natural grasslands, savannas, shrub lands, many 

deserts, tundras, alpine communities, marshes, and meadows.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

760

TERM DEFINITION

Reach A relatively homogenous section of stream having a repetitious sequence of 

habitat types and relatively uniform physical attributes such as channel 

slope, habitat width, habitat depth, streambed substrate and degree of 

interaction with its floodplain. (PNW Region 6 Stream Inventory Handbook 

[2010 version 2.1])

Record of decision 

(ROD)

A document separate from but associated with an environmental impact 

statement that states the decision; identifies all alternatives, specifying which 

were environmentally preferable; and states whether all practicable means to 

avoid environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if 

not, why not. (40 CFR 1505.2)

Recovery unit (bull 

trout)

Bull trout recovery units are the major units for managing recovery efforts; 

each recovery unit is described in a separate chapter in the recovery plan. 

Most recovery units consist of one or more major river basins. Several 

factors were considered in identifying recovery units, for example, biological 

and genetic factors, political boundaries, and ongoing conservation efforts. In 

some instances, recovery unit boundaries were modified to maximize 

efficiency of established watershed groups, encompass areas of common 

threats, or accommodate other logistic concerns. Recovery units may 

include portions of mainstem rivers (e.g., Columbia and Snake rivers) when 

biological evidence warrants inclusion. Biologically, bull trout recovery units 

are considered groupings of bull trout for which gene flow was historically or 

is currently possible. (USFWS 2013).

Recreation opportunity An opportunity for a user to participate in a preferred activity within a 

preferred setting, in order to realize those satisfying experiences which are 

desired. 

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum

A framework of land delineations that identifies a variety of recreation 

experience opportunities categorized into classes on a continuum. The 

spectrum’s continuum has been divided into six major classes for Forest 

Service use: Urban (U), Rural (R), Roaded Natural (RN), Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized (SPNM), Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM), and Primitive (P). 

(FSM 2311)

Recreation residence A privately owned dwelling within an established recreation residence tract 

or group on National Forest System land, authorized for maintenance and 

use under a special use permit. A vacation structure authorized for the 

purpose of facilitating the use and enjoyment of related National Forest land 

and recreation resources by holders, their families, and guests. A recreation 

residence is not intended for use as the primary or permanent residence of 

the owner. (FSM 2340.5)
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

761

TERM DEFINITION

Recreation sites Specific places in the Forest other than roads and trails that are used for 

recreational activities. These sites include a wide range of recreational 

activities and associated development. These sites include highly developed 

facilities like ski areas, resorts, and campgrounds. It also includes dispersed 

recreation sites that have few or no improvements but show the effects of 

repeated recreation use.

Reforestation The natural or artificial restocking of an area with forest trees; most 

commonly used in reference to artificial restocking.

Refugia Locations and habitats that support populations of organisms that are limited 

to small fragments of their previous geographic range (i.e., endemic 

populations). (FEMAT)

Regional Forester The official responsible for administering a single Forest Service region.

Regulated timber 

production

The technical (rather than legal or administrative) aspect of controlling forest 

stocking, periodic harvests, growth, and yields to meet management 

objectives including sustained yield. This control can be done either by area, 

volume of growing stock, or basal area measures. A regulated forest 

reaches sustained yield when the volume cut periodically equals the amount 

of net volume growth for that same period.

Rehabilitation A short-term management alternative used to return existing visual impacts 

in the natural landscape to a desired visual quality. 

Resilience The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while 

undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, 

structure, identity, and feedbacks. (FSM 2000, Chapter 2020)

Responsible official The official with the authority and responsibility to oversee the planning 

process and to approve plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions. (36 

CFR 219.16)

Restoration The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is an intentional activity that initiates or 

accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, 

and sustainability.

Reviewing officer The supervisor of the responsible official. The reviewing officer responds to 

objections made to a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision prior to 

approval. (36 CFR 219.16)
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

762

TERM DEFINITION

Riparian area Areas adjacent to rivers, streams, seeps, springs, and wetlands that are 

shaped and maintained by water table height, flooding, scour, and soil 

deposition. Riparian areas provide habitat for aquatic and upland plants and 

animals, and provide shade, bank stability, and runoff filtration 

Riparian-dependent 

resources

Resources that owe their existence to the riparian area

Riparian ecosystem An ecosystem whose components are directly or indirectly attributed to the 

influence of surface and groundwater (www.icbemp.gov), located adjacent to 

rivers, streams, and other hydrologic features. Riparian ecosystems 

encompass both the river and adjacent floodplain, and provide the transition 

between the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem.

Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area / 

Riparian management 

area

Lands along permanently flowing streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, seeps, 

springs, intermittent streams, and unstable sites that may influence these 

areas where management activities are designed to maintain, restore or 

enhance the ecological health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and 

dependent resources. 

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as 

a trail. 

Road construction FSM 7705 defines road construction or reconstruction together as the 

supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental 

to the construction or reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212.1).

Road decommissioning Activities that result in restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state 

see decommissioning. (FSM 7734)

Road maintenance Ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to maintain or restore the road in 

accordance with its road management objectives. (FSM 7714)

Roadless area See inventoried roadless area

Scenic integrity 

objective (SIO)

The scenic integrity objectives serve as the desired conditions for the scenic 

resources and represent the degree of intactness of positive landscape 

attributes. SIOs are categorized into 5 levels. The highest scenic integrity 

ratings are given to those landscapes where valued landscape attributes will 

appear complete with little or no visible deviations evident. Lower SIOs are 

given to those landscapes where modifications to the landscape will be more 

evident.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

763

TERM DEFINITION

Self-sustaining 

population

Populations that are sufficiently abundant, interacting, and well distributed in 

the plan area, within the bounds of their life history and distribution of the 

species and the capability of the landscape, to provide for their long-term 

persistence, resilience and adaptability over multiple generations. 

Sensitive species Those species of plants or animals that have appeared in the Federal 

Register as proposed for classification and are under consideration for 

official listing as endangered or threatened species, that are on an official 

state list, or that are recognized by the Regional Forester as needing special 

management to prevent their being placed on federal or state lists.

Seral stage A biotic community that is a developmental, transitory stage in an ecological 

succession.

Sidecast Placement of unconsolidated excavated material from road construction and 

maintenance over the downhill side of the road.

Silvicultural practices Activities that control the establishment, composition, structure, and function 

of forested ecosystems.

Slope distance A measure of distance along a slope. 

Snag A standing dead tree usually greater than 5 feet in height and 6 inches in 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).

Source water protection 

area habitat

Source water is untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes or underground 

aquifers that provides public drinking water. A source water protection area 

is the land area contributing to a public water system where potential 

contamination could affect drinking water supply. Those characteristics of 

macrovegetation that contribute to stationary or positive population growth. 

Distinguished from habitats associated with species occurrence: such 

habitats may or may not contribute to long-term population persistence 

(Wisdom et al. 2000).

Special areas Areas in the National Forest System designated for their unique or special 

characteristics. (36 CFR 219.7)

Special forest products Products collected from National Forest System lands that include, but are 

not limited to, bark, berries, boughs, bryophytes, bulbs, burls, Christmas 

trees, cones, ferns, firewood, forbs, fungi (including mushrooms), grasses, 

mosses, nuts, pine straw, roots, sedges, seeds, transplants, tree sap, 

wildflowers, fence material, mine props, posts and poles, shingle and shake 

bolts, and rails. Special forest products do not include sawtimber, pulpwood, 

non-sawlog material removed in log form, cull logs, small roundwood, house 

logs, telephone poles, derrick poles, minerals, animals, animal parts, insects, 

worms, rocks, water, and soil (36 CFR part 223 Subpart G).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

764

TERM DEFINITION

Special use 

authorization

A permit, term permit, lease, or easement that allows occupancy, use, rights, 

or privileges of National Forest System land.

Species-at-risk All ESA listed TES , SOC and SOI form a suite of species recognized as 

potentially sensitive to management actions from which focal species are 

chosen to serve as surrogates for assessing current conditions and potential 

effects of alternatives to other aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species, 

and other species-at-risk. The criteria, established in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 

43.22, determine how species–at-risk are sorted.

Species of concern 

(SOC)

Species of concern are species for which the responsible official determines 

if management actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the ESA. 

Identified species of concern may include entities such as distinct population 

segments or evolutionarily significant units that may be listed under the ESA.

Species of interest 

(SOI)

Species-of-interest (SOI) are species for which the responsible official 

determines that management actions may be necessary or desirable to 

achieve ecological or other multiple-use objectives (FSH 1909.12, 43.22c).

Species viability A viable population is one for which the number and distribution of 

reproductive individuals would “insure its continued existence”. (1982 

Planning rule)

Standards Constraints upon project and activity decision-making explicitly identified in a 

plan as ‘standards.’ Standards are established to help achieve the desired 

conditions and objectives of a plan and to comply with applicable laws, 

regulations, Executive orders, and agency directives (36 CFR 219.7(a)(3). A 

standard differs from a guideline in that a standard is a strict design criteria, 

allowing no variation, whereas a guideline allows variation if the result would 

be equally effective. (FSH 1909.12)

Stewardship Natural resource management emphasizing careful and conscientious use 

and conservation of resources and ecosystems in a sustainable manner. 

Structural Stage Tree structure is classified into five general groups based on diameter and 

canopy cover. The diameter is based on the quadratic mean diameter in 

inches of trees whose heights are in the top 25 percent of all tree heights in 

the stand. This generally means that the diameters of the larger co-dominant 

trees in a stand are used to define the structure class.

Structural Stage – Early Trees less than 10 inches d.b.h.

6 or canopy cover less than 10 percent

Structural Stage – Mid 

Open

Trees 10 to 20 inches d.b.h., canopy cover between10 and 40 percent

 6 d.b.h. = diameter at breast height.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

765

TERM DEFINITION

Structural Stage – Mid 

Closed

Trees 10 to 20 inches d.b.h., canopy cover 40 percent or greater

Structural Stage – Late 

Open

Trees 20 inches or greater d.b.h., canopy cover between 10 and 40 percent

Structural Stage – Late 

Closed

Trees 20 inches or greater d.b.h., canopy cover 40 percent or greater

Subbasin A watershed with a drainage area of approximately 800,000 to 

1,000,000 acres, equivalent to a 4th-field hydrologic unit code (HUC8). 

Hierarchically, subwatersheds are contained within a 5th-field watershed, 

which are contained within subbasins. (ICBEMP) See Hydrologic Unit 

System

Subwatershed A watershed with a drainage area of 10,000 to 40,000 acres, equivalent to a 

6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC12). Hierarchically, subwatersheds are 

contained within 5th-field watersheds, which are contained within subbasins. 

(ICBEMP) ) See Hydrologic Unit System

Succession The sequential replacement over time of one plant community by another, in 

the absence of major disturbance. The different stages of succession are 

often referred to as seral stages. Developmental stages are as follows: 

Early seral: Communities that occur early in the successional path and 

generally have less complex structural developmental than other 

successional communities. Seedling and sapling size classes are an 

example of early seral forests. 

Mid-seral: Communities that occur in the middle of the successional path. 

For forests, this usually corresponds to the pole or medium saw timber-size 

growth stages. 

Late-seral: Communities that occur in the later stage of the successional 

path with mature, generally larger individuals, such as mature forests.

Suitable habitat Habitat that currently has both the fixed and variable attributes for a given 

species habitat requirements. Variable attributes change over time and may 

include seral stage, cover type and overstory canopy cover.

Suitability The appropriateness of a particular area of land for applying certain resource 

management practices, as determined by an analysis of the existing 

resource condition and the social, economic, and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be 

suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices. 

Surrogate species Intended to represent ecological conditions that generate sustainable 

ecosystems
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

766

TERM DEFINITION

Sustainability Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of 

desirable social, economic, and ecological conditions or trends interacting at 

varying spatial and temporal scales embodying the principles of multiple-use 

and sustained-yield.

Thermal cover Cover used by animals to lessen the effects of weather; for elk, a stand of 

coniferous trees 12 meters (40 feet) or more tall with an average crown 

closure of 70 percent or more; for deer, cover may include saplings, shrubs, 

or trees at least 1.5 meters (5 feet) tall) with 75 percent crown closure. 

Threatened species Any species of animal or plant that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and which has been designated in the Federal Register by the 

Secretary of Interior as a threatened species. 

Timber harvest The removal of trees for wood-fiber use and other multiple-use purposes.

Timber harvest as a tool Areas where timber harvest is allowed to be used to reach multiple-use 

objectives, but regulated timber production is not a suitable use.

Timber harvest, 

scheduled production

Lands where regulated timber production is suitable.

Timber production The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated 

crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial 

or consumer use (36 CFR 219.16). In addition, managing land to provide 

commercial timber products on a regulated basis with planned, scheduled 

entries.

Transportation and 

utility corridor

A parcel of land, without fixed limits or boundaries, which is used as the 

location for one or more transportation or utility right-of-ways. (36 CPR 

219.3)

Transportation system The system of National Forest System roads, national forest trails and 

airfields on National Forest System lands. (36 CFR 212.1)

Travel management Travel management decisions include adding a route to or removing a route 

from the forest transportation system, constructing an National Forest 

System road or National Forest System trail, acquiring an National Forest 

System route through a land purchase or exchange, decommissioning a 

route, approving an area for motor vehicle use, or changing allowed motor 

vehicle classes or time of year for motor vehicle use. (FSM 7715)

Unauthorized roads or 

trails

A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and 

that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. (36 CFR 212.1)
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

767

TERM DEFINITION

Uncharacteristic fire Any fire that occurs outside the time, space, and severity parameters of the 

natural fire regime for the vegetation group.

RCW 76.06.020(16), “ecologically atypical for a forest or vegetation type or 

plant association and refers to fire, insect or disease events that are not 

within a natural range of variability.”

WDNR. 2012. Staff Report: Forest Health Technical Advisory Committee. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Understory reinitiation Establishment of tree regeneration as older trees occupy less than full 

growing space.

Uneven-aged 

management

The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation or 

maintenance of stands with several different ages of trees. Managed 

uneven-aged forests are characterized by a distribution of tree ages 

throughout the forest area. An uneven-aged stand of trees is one in which 

there are differences in age among the individual trees. Group selection, 

variable density thinning, and shelterwood with reserves are methods that 

produce uneven-aged stands (Helms 1998)

Unplanned fire Any unplanned non-structural fire. Any unplanned fire may be concurrently 

managed for one or more objectives and those objectives can change as the 

fire spreads across the landscape, encountering new fuels, weather, social 

conditions, and governmental jurisdictions. Current policy requires that all 

arson fires be suppressed.

Unroaded Unroaded areas are large and contiguous areas, usually over 5,000 acres, 

with no Forest Service System roads. They provide a recreational setting 

without Forest Service System roads. 

Utility and 

transportation corridors

See Transportation and utility corridors. 

Variable density 

thinning

A type of variable retention harvest system that retains structural elements 

and biological legacies (snags, logs, trees) from the harvested stand for 

incorporation into the new stand to achieve various ecological objectives 

(Helms 1998)
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

768

TERM DEFINITION

Vegetation 

management

Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation in 

order to achieve desired results. When vegetation is actively managed, it 

means that it is manipulated or changed on purpose by humans to produce 

desired results. Where active management of vegetation is required, 

techniques are based on the latest scientific research and mimic natural 

processes as closely as possible. Vegetation management is the practice of 

manipulating the species mix, age, fuel load, and/or distribution of wildland 

plant communities within a prescribed or designated management area in 

order to achieve desired results. It includes prescribed burning, grazing, 

chemical applications, biomass harvesting, and any other economically 

feasible methods of enhancing, retarding, modifying, transplanting, or 

removing the aboveground parts of plants.

Watershed The area of land where all contributing water drains to a single defined outlet 

point. (FEMAT, IX-39). Watersheds occur and are categorized at various 

scales, described in the Hydrologic Unit system definition. 

A watershed is also the 5th field hydrologic unit within the Hydrologic Unit 

system. Fifth-field watersheds classified by the Hydrologic Unit system are 

approximately 250,000 acres. Hierarchically, 5th-field watersheds, are 

contained within subbasins, and contain subwatersheds. 

Watershed condition 

class

Watershed condition is the state of physical and biological characteristics 

and processes within a watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil 

functions supporting aquatic ecosystems (Potyondy and Geier 2010). Three 

classes are used to describe watershed condition (FSM 2521.1):

• Class 1: Functioning properly--watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, 

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential 

condition;

• Class 2: Functioning at risk--watersheds exhibit moderate 

geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural 

potential condition;

• Class 3: Impaired function--watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, 

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential 

condition.

Change in watershed condition class through focused restoration activities is 

the nationally consistent measure to demonstrate improvement in watershed 

condition on NFS lands.
Glossary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

769

TERM DEFINITION

Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar 

areas. 

Wild and scenic rivers Those rivers or sections of rivers designated as such by congressional 

action under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as supplemented and 

amended, or those sections of rivers designated as wild, scenic, or 

recreational by an act of the Legislature of the State or States through which 

they flow. Wild and scenic rivers may be classified and administered under

one or more of the following categories: 

1. Wild River Areas-- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or 

shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent 

vestiges of primitive America. 

2. Scenic River Areas-- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely 

undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

3. Recreational River Areas-- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are 

readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development 

along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or 

diversion in the past.

Wilderness An area of National Forest System land designated by Congress and 

wilderness is defined in sec. 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-

1136). The term wilderness is applied to all National Forest System lands 

included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. (FSM 2320.5) 

Wilderness resource 

spectrum (WRS)

A spectrum of wilderness conditions including finer gradations of naturalness 

and solitude mapped as pristine, primitive, semi-primitive, and transition. 

WRS is a kind of zoning where different management prescriptions apply. 

Wildland-urban 

interface (WUI)

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) is defined as “the line, area, or zone where 

structures and other human development meet or intermingle with 

undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels” (NWCC 2012). 

In applying Title I of Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148), 

this term means: 

• An area within or adjacent to an at-risk community identified in 

recommendations to the Secretary in a Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan (CWPP), 

or, in the case of any area for which a CWPP is not in effect: 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

770

TERM DEFINITION

• An area extending 1⁄2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk 

community; an area within 1 1⁄2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk 

community including any land that has a sustained steep slope that 

creates the potential for wildland fire behavior endangering the atrisk community, has a geographic feature that aids in creating an 

effective firebreak, such as a road or ridgetop, or is in Condition 

Class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific 

environmental analysis; and an area that is adjacent to an 

evacuation route for an at-risk that the Secretary determines (in 

cooperation with the at-risk community) requires hazardous fuel 

reduction to provide safer evacuation. 

When not using Title I of the HFRA, use the definition of wildland-urban 

interface community from the Federal Register, January 4, 2001, pages 752 

to 753. 

Winter Range The area available to and used by wildlife (big game) during the winter 

season (Dec 1 to April 30). Generally, lands below 4,000 feet in elevation, on 

south and west aspects, that provides forage and cover.
Appendix A − Public Involvement Summary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

771

26241 Appendix A. Public Involvement Summary

26242 Introduction

26243 This appendix summarizes the collaboration and coordination efforts for the Colville National 

26244 Forest (NF) plan revision. It describes how the Colville NF engaged with the public, stakeholders, 

26245 tribes, and other agencies throughout this effort. The first section of the document, Collaboration 

26246 and Public Involvement Effort, provides information on meetings, workshops, and process used 

26247 for sharing information and obtaining input. Appendix B, Coordination with Other Public 

26248 Planning Effort, briefly displays the planning and land use policies on adjacent and overlapping 

26249 lands and how the Colville NF took that guidance into consideration.

26250 Collaboration and Public Involvement Effort

26251 Recognizing that our partners and publics have valuable ideas, knowledge, opinions, and needs 

26252 that can inform and improve management of the Colville NF, the planning team developed a 

26253 public involvement plan designed to provide opportunities for meaningful dialogue and 

26254 collaboration throughout the plan revision process. The following information is a synopsis of the 

26255 key collaborative processes.

26256 2004 Public Meetings

26257 A Notice of Intent to revise the Colville National Forest plan was published in the Federal 

26258 Register on March 9, 2004. Public involvement for the Colville NF plan revision began in 2004 

26259 with community workshops about the need to change the existing forest plan. Workshops were 

26260 held in communities throughout northeastern Washington. Meetings with representatives from 

26261 local counties began in 2004, and are being held on a continuing basis throughout the forest plan 

26262 revision process. Government-to-government consultation with tribal nations and staff-to-staff 

26263 consultation with their resource specialists began early in the process and continues. State 

26264 agencies are cooperating agencies. Additional meetings with interest groups, user groups, State 

26265 and Federal officials, tribal staff, and industry groups have been held.

26266 2004−2011 Agency Meetings

26267 Federal agencies the Forest Service works closely with are the Department of Homeland Security, 

26268 Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Highway 

26269 Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A 2007 Memorandum of Agreement with 

26270 the Washington State Association of Counties provides a framework for our work with the three 

26271 local counties. Three federally recognized tribes have engaged at varied levels: the Colville 

26272 Confederated Tribes, the Kalispel and Spokane Tribes. Cooperating agencies: State of 

26273 Washington and its agencies, the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and 

26274 Wildlife, and Department of Ecology. See Table A- 2 for a list of meetings.

26275 2006−2008 Collaboration Working Groups

26276 In March of 2006, a more involved public participation opportunity was initiated as revision of 

26277 forest plans for the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests continued. These 

26278 collaborative efforts have provided the Forest Service with an excellent opportunity to focus on 

26279 key planning issues, and listen to the public stakeholder dialogue around these issues as 

26280 participants sought to reach areas of common ground and understanding. In March 2006, the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

772

26281 Colville National Forest initiated its collaboration process separate from the Okanogan26282 Wenatchee.

26283 Separate meetings were held in each county to spread the word about the collaborative forest 

26284 planning process. In April 2006 the Forest held a three day Forest Summit at an educational 

26285 retreat center on the forest. Participants gathered mid-afternoon on Friday and left mid-afternoon 

26286 on Sunday. Working groups were provided four different in-depth sessions to both work together 

26287 and get to know each other. The working groups had six day-long meetings, held between late 

26288 April 2006 and January 2007, and continued the meeting structure begun at the summit, with time 

26289 for information/education, time for working groups to use that information to discuss and 

26290 formulate recommendations, time for cross-group communication and time for informal 

26291 conversation. 

26292 In the fall of 2008 the Colville National Forest hosted a series of public workshops to help the 

26293 agency evaluate Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) within the Forest for their potential 

26294 recommendation as wilderness. Informational kick-off meetings were held in Colville and 

26295 Spokane in September 2008, and collaboration workshops were held in September, October, and 

26296 November of 2008, in Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Ferry Counties respectively.

26297 2011 Scoping Period

26298 On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and revised 

26299 land management plan was published in the Federal Register. The Forest Service published a 

26300 combined notice announcing the proposed actions for the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee 

26301 National Forests were available for public review and comment. The 90-day comment period per 

26302 the 2011 notice drew 27,274 comment letters, of which 889 contained unique and substantially 

26303 different comments. 

26304 In addition, public open houses were held in Colville, Republic, Omak, Spokane, and Newport 

26305 consecutively in July 2011. Two informational webinars were held on August 9 and September 1. 

26306 News releases were sent to both Forest’s public affairs news media distribution lists from which 

26307 many local and regional news outlets published the story.

26308 2014 Colville Forest Plan

26309 Public meetings and outreach efforts continued through 2013, based on the information related to 

26310 both forests. After reviewing comments received during the scoping period, the regional forester 

26311 determined that the most effective process to reflect public input and resource needs at that time 

26312 was to separate the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests’ plan revision effort. In 

26313 August 2014, the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee forests opted to separate their planning 

26314 efforts and the Colville proceeded to revise its plan along a different timeline.

26315 2015 Public Coordination

26316 In preparation for the release of the draft environmental impact statement and revised Forest Plan, 

26317 the Forest released a summer newsletter and list of frequently asked questions in July, and a fall 

26318 newsletter in October. The Forest updated the mailing list and forest plan website, and held 

26319 informational meetings with USFWS, WDFW & counties.

26320 Coordination with State, Federal and Local Governments

26321 Coordination with State, Federal, and local governments occurred throughout the planning 

26322 process. A majority of the coordination that resulted in substantive plan language was around 
Appendix A − Public Involvement Summary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

773

26323 topics of mutual interests such as wildlife management, potential wilderness areas, and managing 

26324 across agency boundaries. More formal presentations and briefings were held with State, local 

26325 and Federal elected officials including the city of Colville, town of Republic, town of Ione, Pend 

26326 Oreille, Stevens, and Ferry County Board of Commissioners, and congressional representatives. 

26327 The briefings and presentations focused on issues and key topics such as continued economic 

26328 uses, access, and protections.

26329 Tribal Meetings

26330 Due to the level of use of the forest by tribal members and the unique interests of area tribes, the 

26331 Colville NF conducted extensive tribal consultation and scoping of tribal communities throughout 

26332 the forest plan revision process. This consultation process reflects a long-standing commitment 

26333 by the Colville NF to share the stewardship of public lands with area tribes. Throughout the plan 

26334 revision process, tribal consultation was conducted at the government-to-government level with 

26335 concerned tribes according to established memoranda of understanding and pertinent laws and 

26336 regulations. Additionally, the forest scoped tribal communities and individual tribal members that 

26337 use the forest. These efforts were made to assure that affected tribal publics were given the 

26338 opportunity to participate in the planning process as required by the National Environmental 

26339 Policy Act and other laws and regulations. At these meetings, a wide range of concerns were 

26340 raised related to almost every aspect of land management. The primary tribal concerns were: 

26341 • Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: 

26342 o No new wilderness proposed in a management area “buffer zone” where the 

26343 reservation borders the CNF, to allow for forest health treatments. Treatments 

26344 would reduce the threat of wildfire and insect and disease infestations to the 

26345 forests and communities on the reservation, and would continue to allow 

26346 activities to be conducted under the Tribal Forest Protection Act (concern 

26347 regarding impairment of the Tribe’s reserved rights); 

26348 o The Tribe does not support NEWFCs “blueprint.”

26349 • Kalispel Tribe: 

26350 o Timber volume targets are lower than shown to be feasible; 

26351 o Collaborative designations of active management areas and restoration areas 

26352 need to be verified and checked against known resources issues before accepted 

26353 or implemented; 

26354 o Emphasize enforcement efforts and funding for controlling illegal OHV uses in 

26355 the CNF; 

26356 o Maintain the wilderness characteristics of all designated roadless areas. Support 

26357 for the CNF proposed wilderness recommendations; 

26358 o CCA Creek is high interest area for the Tribe, concern that it is not included as 

26359 Key Watershed. Would like more effort put into CCA creek related to fish habitat 

26360 improvement activities.

26361 • Spokane Tribe: 

26362 o Concern for protecting archeological sites and areas of cultural significance.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

774

26363 Table A- 1. Listing of Key Tribal Meetings and Discussions

Date Meeting Location

10\21\2003 Meeting with Colville Confederated Tribes and Natural Resource 

Council Nespelem, WA

1\23\2004 Spokane Tribe meeting Wellpinit, WA

3\29\2005 Colville Confederated Tribes Natural Resources Director Phone discussion

3\31\2005 Colville Confederated Tribes Natural Resources Director Phone discussion

5\3\2005 Colville Confederated Tribes Natural Resources Committee meeting Nespelem, WA

5\19\2006 Meeting with Colville Confederated Tribes Okanogan, WA

8\27\2007 Letter from Colville Confederated Tribes Letter to Rick Brazell

9\11\2007 Letter to Colville Confederated Tribes Letter to Tribal Chair

6\10\2008 Colville Confederated Tribes meeting Okanogan, WA

8\27\2008 Colville Confederated Tribes meeting Okanogan, WA

9\30\2008 Colville Confederated Tribes Natural resources staff Phone discussion

7\8\2009 Colville Confederated Tribes meeting Nespelem, WA

7\9\2009 Kalispel Tribe Natural Resources Department meeting Usk, WA

11\20\2010 Colville Confederated Tribes-Natural Resources Committee meeting Nespelem, WA

8\29\2013 Spokane Tribe meeting Wellpinit, WA

11\4\2014 Spokane Tribe meeting Colville, WA

11\12\2014 Colville Confederated Tribes meeting Colville, WA

12\15\2014 Kalispel Tribe Natural Resources Department meeting Usk, WA

3\23\2015 Kalispel Tribe Natural Resources Department meeting Colville, WA

6\30\2015 Colville Confederated Tribes meeting Colville, WA

10\15\2015 Colville Confederated Tribes meeting Colville, WA

26364 Additionally, there were meetings and phone calls with various stakeholders upon request and as 

26365 needed to discuss and clarify comments received and to provide information.

26366 Table A- 2. Listing of Collaboration and Public Involvement Meetings and Discussions

Date Meeting Location

5\15\2003 Stevens Co. Public Lands Advisory Committee meeting Colville, WA

5\28\2003 USFWS Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge meeting Colville, WA

6\6\2003 Bureau of Land Management meeting unknown

10\27\2003 Public Meeting Metaline Falls, WA

10\28\2003 Public Meeting Newport, WA

10\29\2003 Public Meeting Spokane, WA

10\30\2003 Public Meeting Colville, WA

12\3\2003 Public Meeting Republic, WA

12\5\2003 Backcountry Horseman of Washington meeting Cle Elum, WA

1\17\2004 Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Association meeting Auburn, WA

1\17\2004 Washington State 4-Wheel Drive Association meeting Auburn, WA

2\11\2004 Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association Snoqualmie Pass Summit, WA

3\30\2004 Colville NF Range Permittee meeting Colville, WA
Appendix A − Public Involvement Summary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

775

Date Meeting Location

6\5\2004 Colville NF Recreation Residence Special Use 

Permittees meeting Metaline Falls, WA

6\22\2004 Inland Empire Chapter of Backcountry Horsemen Spokane, WA

11\29\2004 The Mountaineers and environmental groups meeting Seattle, WA

1\20\2005 Environmental groups meeting Wenatchee, WA

3\18\2005 Forest Industry meeting unknown

6\13\2005 Discussion of consultation process with members of

USFWS and NOAA Wenatchee, WA

7\2005 Public meeting Colville, WA

8\9\2005 Okanogan County Planning Department meeting Okanogan, WA

8\15\2005 Ferry Co. Commissioners Republic, WA

8\23\2005 Colville, Okanogan, Wenatchee Roadless Area Task 

Force Wenatchee, WA

9\12\2005 Pend Oreille Co. Commissioners Newport, WA

9\13\2005 Stevens Co. Commissioners Colville, WA

1\11\2006 Conservation Northwest meeting Kettle Falls, WA

2\6\2006 Regional Ecosystem Office Regional Interagency 

Executive Committee meeting Portland, OR

3\11\2006 Public Collaboration Information meeting Deer Park, WA

3\8-

17\2006 County Orientation meetings Colville, Newport, Republic, and Spokane, WA

3\22\2006 Washington Trails Association Wenatchee, WA

3\22\2006 Eastern Washington Cascades & Yakima Provincial 

Advisory Committee meeting Wenatchee, WA

3\30\2006 Okanogan Valley Backcountry Horsemen Okanogan, WA

3\31\2006-

4\2\2006 Forest Plan Summit Chewelah, WA

4\8\2006-

5\30\2006 Community Check-in meetings Ione, Newport, and Republic, WA

4\15\2006-

5\27\2006 Collaboration Working Group meetings Colville, Newport, and Republic, WA?

4\18\2006 Sierra Club and WOC environmental community task 

force meeting unknown

4\20\2006 Sierra Club and WOC environmental community task 

force meeting unknown

4\29\2006 Forest Health Working Group Public meeting Chewelah, WA

5\13\2006 Recreation Working Group Public meeting Chewelah, WA

5\17\2006 Meeting with Congresswoman McMorris-Rodgers staff Colville, WA

5\22\2006 Stevens Co. Commissioners meeting Colville, WA

5\31\2006 Forest Plan Collaboration Round-up meeting Colville, WA

6\27\2006 Okanogan Co. Commissioners Okanogan, WA

6\28\2006 Community Check-in meeting Republic, WA

7\7\2006 Environmental Coalition meeting unknown

9\30\2006 Collaboration Working Group Public meeting Chewelah, WA

10\21\2006 Collaboration Working Group Public meeting Colville, WA
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

776

Date Meeting Location

11\11\2006 Wilderness Collaboration Working Group Public 

meeting Chewelah, WA

1\20\2007 Collaboration Working Group Public meeting Chewelah, WA

3\1\2007 Forest Plan Collaboration Roundup meeting Colville, WA

5\1\2007 Okanogan Backcountry Horsemen Okanogan, WA

6\4\2007 Okanogan Co. Commissioners Okanogan, WA

3\29\2008 Tri-County (Ferry, Pend Oreille, Stevens) Forest Plan 

Revision Summit Colville, WA

6\16\2008 Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition meeting Colville, WA

8\21\2008 Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition meeting Colville, WA

9\6\2008 Collaboration kick-off meeting with Congresswoman 

McMorris-Rodgers staff Colville, WA

9\6\2008 Wilderness Collaboration Orientation meeting with 

public Colville, WA

9\12\2008 Wilderness Collaboration Information meeting Spokane, WA

9\20\2008 Wilderness Collaboration Workshop Cusick, WA

10\4\2008 Wilderness Collaboration Workshop Colville, WA

10\8\2008 U.S. Customs and Border Protection meeting Phone discussion

10\28\2008 Okanogan County Commissioners meeting Okanogan, WA

11\1\2008 Wilderness Collaboration Workshop Republic, WA

11\10\2008 WA State Dept. of Natural Resources meeting Phone discussion

11\15\2008 Wilderness Collaboration Integration meeting Colville, WA

12\5\2008 Meeting with Senator Cantwell and staff Portland, OR

12\15\2008 Okanogan County Commissioners meeting Okanogan, WA

1\23\2009 WA State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Phone call

1\27\2009 Meeting with Senator Cantwell’s staff Spokane, WA

1\29\2009 U.S. Customs and Border Protection meeting Colville, WA

3\9\2009 U.S. Customs and Border Protection meeting Colville, WA

4\16\2009 Eastern WA Resource Advisory Committee meeting Spokane, WA

5\1\2009 Nature Conservancy meeting Wenatchee, WA

7\2\2009 Tri-County Commissioners briefing on PWA evaluations Colville, WA

7\30\2009 Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Committee 

meeting Colville, WA

3\8\2010 U.S. Customs and Border Protection meeting Colville, WA

3\8\2010 Okanogan Backcountry Horsemen Association meeting Okanogan, WA

12\3\2010 Backcountry Horsemen of Washington Public Lands 

and Advocacy Committee meeting unknown

2\15\2011 Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Wenatchee, WA

5\2\2011 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

5\3\2011 Stevens County Commissioners meeting Colville, WA

5\3\2011 Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC) meeting Colville, WA

5\9\2011 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

6\7\2011 U.S. Customs and Border Protection meeting Colville, WA

6\20\2011 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Colville, WA
Appendix A − Public Involvement Summary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

777

Date Meeting Location

6\27\2011 Ferry County Commissioners Correspondence with Republic 

District Ranger

7\13\2011 State Agency meeting with WADNR, WADoE, WDFW, Wenatchee, WA

7\11\2011

Ferry, Pend Oreille & Stevens County Commissioners, 

and Congresswoman McMorris-Rodgers staff at Forest 

Plan Revision meeting

Colville, WA

7\18\2011 Ferry County Commissioners, Conservation NW, and 

The Lands Council at Forest Plan Revision meeting Colville, WA

7\25\2011 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

8\1\2011 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

8\29\2011 Ferry, Pend Oreille & Stevens County Commissioners 

meeting Phone conference

9\23\2011 WA State Dept. of Natural Resources meeting unknown

10\3\2011 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

10\10\2011 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

10\24\2011

Ferry County Commissioners, Congresswoman 

McMorris-Rodgers staff, Boise Cascade, and Vaagen 

Bros. Lumber, Inc. at Forest Plan Revision meeting 

Colville, WA

2\21\2012 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

4\2-3\2012 Public Lands Advisory Committee meeting Colville, WA

4\27\2012 Ferry & Stevens County Commissioners, Public Lands 

Advisory Committee, and public meeting Colville, WA

4\30\2012 Ferry County Commissioners at Forest Plan Revision 

meeting Colville, WA

5\14\2012 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

6\12\2012

Ferry & Stevens County Commissioners, Ferry Co. 

Planning Commission, Public Lands Advisory 

Committee, and Stevens Co. Land Services meeting 

Colville, WA

6\18\2012 Ferry County Commissioners at Forest Plan Revision 

meeting Colville, WA

8\8\2012

Ferry & Stevens County Commissioners, Ferry Co. 

Planning Commission, Public Lands Advisory 

Committee, Stevens Co. Land Services, and public 

meeting 

Colville, WA

8\13\2012 Ferry County Commissioners at Forest Plan Revision 

meeting Colville, WA

10\22\2012 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

11\5\2012 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

11\14\2012 US Fish and Wildlife Service consultation process 

meeting Wenatchee, WA

1\14\2013 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

1\22\2013 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

5\28\2013 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

6\10\2013 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

6\18\2013 Okanogan County Commissioners meeting Okanogan, WA

7\8\2013 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

778

Date Meeting Location

7\16\2013 Ferry, Pend Oreille, Stevens and Okanogan county 

meeting (Quad County) Colville, WA

7\19\2013 Ferry, Pend Oreille, Stevens and Okanogan county 

meeting (Quad County) Colville, WA

12\2\2013 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

2\25\2014 Public Lands Advisory Committee meeting Colville, WA

6\30\2014 Ferry County Commissioners at Forest Plan Revision 

meeting Colville, WA

1\20\2015 Ferry & Pend Oreille County Commissioners, and 

Public Lands Advisory Committee meeting Colville, WA

1\20\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

3\2\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

3\9\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

4\7\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

4\13\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

4\20\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

4\27\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

4\29\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

5\4\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

5\5\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

5\7\2015 Stevens County Commissioners meeting Colville, WA

6\13\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

6\15\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

6\16\2015 Ferry, Pend Oreille & Stevens County Commissioners 

meeting Phone conference

6\16\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

6\23\2015 Stevens County Commissioners meeting Colville, WA

6\23\2015

Ferry & Pend Oreille County Commissioners, and 

Congresswoman McMorris-Rodgers staff at Forest Plan 

Revision meeting

Colville, WA

6\29\2015 Stevens County Commissioners field meeting CNF

7\13\2015 Ferry County Commissioners meeting Republic, WA

7\14\2015 Stevens County Commissioners meeting Colville, WA

7\20\2015 Pend Oreille County Commissioners meeting Newport, WA

7\21\2015 Public meeting Colville, WA

7\28\2015 Ferry, Pend Oreille, Stevens and Okanogan counties Letter from county 

commissioners

8\4\2015 Spokane County Commissioners Email

9\10\2015 Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties Kettle Falls, WA

9\11\2015 Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties Kettle Falls, WA

9\17\2015 Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties Colville, WA

11\10\2015 Meeting with state agencies – WDNR, WDOE, and 

WDFW Conference call

26367
Appendix A − Public Involvement Summary

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

779

26368 Information Made Available to the Public on the Forest Plan 

26369 Revision Web Site

26370 A summary of comments and identified significant issues has been posted to the project website.

26371 To meet the requirements of the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions, an analysis of the management 

26372 situation was prepared. Availability of the analysis of the management situation and the initial 

26373 working draft plan was published in the Federal Register with a Notice of Availability February 

26374 2016.

26375 Following the Notice of Availability published to the Federal Register, the Draft Plan and DEIS 

26376 were posted to the Colville website. Additionally, information was posted about how to comment, 

26377 plan development, collaboration, and how we used the best available science and specialist 

26378 reports.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

780

This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

781

26379 Appendix B. Coordination with Other Public 

26380 Planning Efforts

26381 Overview

26382 Per the provisions of the 1982 planning regulations, the responsible official shall review the 

26383 planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

26384 American Indian tribes. In addition, the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, has called for 

26385 an “all-lands approach” to accomplish ecosystem restoration. This will involve landowners and 

26386 stakeholders working together across boundaries to decide on common goals for the landscapes 

26387 they share. In order to facilitate this all-lands approach, it is important to understand the goals and 

26388 anticipated activities of landowners adjacent to the national forest. 

26389 In preparing the Colville forest plan, the planning team reviewed the objectives expressed and 

26390 evaluated the interrelationships. For the most part, the proposed Colville forest plan complements 

26391 these other planning efforts. These plans, assessments, and strategies were considered in the 

26392 development of plan components to ensure as much alignment as was practicable. Management 

26393 approach sections of the plan articulate identified issues and opportunities for coordinating with 

26394 various partners across administrative boundaries, particularly State, local, tribal, and Federal 

26395 agencies. The primary concordances are in managing for safe and healthy vegetation conditions, 

26396 protection of air and water quality, providing for quality core wildlife habitats with connectivity, 

26397 and maintenance of high scenic values. Cross boundary issues include managing for wide ranging 

26398 species and wildfire across agency boundaries, and working together to improve efficiency. While 

26399 there were some differences related to the differing missions, no conflicts requiring alternative 

26400 development were identified.

26401 The following sections provide a summary of goals and activities of landowners adjacent to the 

26402 national forest. Table B- 1 lists the other public planning efforts that were considered in the plan 

26403 revision process.

26404 Table B- 1. Planning and Land Use Policies of State, Local, Tribal Governments and other Federal 

26405 Agencies in the Greater Landscape, Considered in the Plan Revision

Planning Document Agency Description

State

WDFW Strategic Plan 

(2015)

Washington State 

Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW)

The plan includes goals such as conserving and 

protecting native fish and wildlife, and providing 

sustainable fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-related 

recreational and commercial experiences. 

WDNR Strategic Plan 

(2010)

Washington State 

Dept. of Natural 

Resources 

(WDNR)

Goals stated in the plan include improving forest 

practices rules and strengthening implementation and 

compliance, preserving forest cover and protecting 

working forests and agriculture lands from conversion, 

developing renewable energy resources on state lands, 

and addressing the challenges of climate change.

Memorandum of 

Understanding (2013)

Washington State 

Dept. of 

Transportation 

(WSDOT)

The MOU between the USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, and the WSDOT documents the steps 

necessary to coordinate transportation activities involving 

highways on National Forest System land to ensure the 

public’s safe access over these highways.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

782

Planning Document Agency Description

Washington State 

Scenic and 

Recreational Highways 

Strategic Plan (2010-

2030)

Washington State 

Dept. of 

Transportation 

(WSDOT)

The plan establishes goals and performance measures 

consistent with the state’s transportation policy goals.

Strategic Plan (2014-

2019)

Washington State 

Parks and 

Recreation 

Commission

The plan states that the Commission has the broad 

responsibility to manage developed parks and recreation 

areas along with trails, ocean beach, marine parks, 

watercraft launches, and historic buildings and areas.

WDOE Strategic Plan 

(2013-2015)

Washington State 

Dept. of Ecology 

(WDOE)

The plan includes goals such as preventing and cleaning 

up pollution, and supporting sustainable communities 

and natural resources.

Water Quality 

Implementation Plan 

(2006), and addendum 

(2013)

Washington State 

Dept. of Ecology 

(WDOE)

A detailed plan developed by the CNF and Ecology to 

reduce pollution and measure progress toward meeting 

water quality standards for waterbodies on the forest that 

do not meet water quality standards. The plan identifies 

how much pollution needs to be reduced or eliminated to 

achieve water quality standards. 

County

Ferry County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2013)

Ferry County, 

Washington

The county land use plan describes local government 

goals and objectives for land management and provides 

opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service 

and the county.

Pend Oreille County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2013)

Pend Oreille 

County, 

Washington

The county land use plan describes local government 

goals and objectives for land management and provides 

opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service 

and the county.

Stevens County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2008)

Stevens County, 

Washington

The county land use plan describes local government 

goals and objectives for land management and provides 

opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service 

and the county.

Okanogan County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2014)

Okanogan County, 

Washington

The county land use plan describes local government 

goals and objectives for land management and provides 

opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service 

and the county.

Local

Ferry County 

Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan 

(CWPP) (2006)

Multiparty

The plan outlines goals for at-risk-communities within 

and around the Colville NF. The plan also delineates the 

wildland-urban interface where human development 

meets and intermingles with undeveloped wildland or

vegetative fuels.

Pend Oreille County 

Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan 

(CWPP) (2011)

Multiparty

The plan outlines goals for at-risk-communities within 

and around the Colville NF. The plan also delineates the 

wildland-urban interface where human development 

meets and intermingles with undeveloped wildland or 

vegetative fuels.

Stevens County 

Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan 

(CWPP) (2007)

Multiparty

The plan outlines goals for at-risk-communities within 

and around the Colville NF. The plan also delineates the 

wildland-urban interface where human development 

meets and intermingles with undeveloped wildland or 

vegetative fuels.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

783

Planning Document Agency Description

Okanogan County 

Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan 

(CWPP) (2013)

Multiparty

The plan outlines goals for at-risk-communities within 

and around the Colville NF. The plan also delineates the 

wildland-urban interface where human development 

meets and intermingles with undeveloped wildland or 

vegetative fuels.

Tribal

Draft Comprehensive 

Plan (2015)

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Colville

Reservation

The vision for the tribal comprehensive plan is based on 

goals for land use, transportation, housing, economic 

development, parks and recreation, shoreline 

management, and cultural resources.

Integrated Resource 

Management Plan 

(2000-2014), in revision

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Colville 

Reservation

The plan provides guidelines for the use and protection 

of all forest resources, and serves as a basis for 

decision-making.

Wetland Program Plan 

(2012)

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Colville 

Reservation

The plan includes a special program of management to 

maintain wetland productivity and health, and to prevent 

loss of wetlands from the landscape.

Kalispel Natural 

Resource Department 

Fish and Wildlife 

Management Plan 

(2002)

Kalispel Tribe

The Plan emphasizes managing sustainable native 

populations and habitats through watershed 

management principles.

Wetland Program Plan 

(2011-2017) Kalispel Tribe

The wetland program goal is to protect, enhance, and/or 

restore wetland/riparian habitats throughout Kalispel 

ceded lands as opportunities and funding allows. The 

focus is on two main program core elements which are 1) 

wetland monitoring and assessment and 2) voluntary 

wetland restoration/protection. 

Box Canyon Watershed 

Project (1997) Kalispel Tribe

This project was initiated by the Kalispel Natural 

Resource Department as one of a number of measures 

designed to restore populations of native fish and meet 

the biological objectives of the Kalispel Resident Fish 

Project and to further goals outlined in the Kalispel 

Natural Resource Department Fish and Wildlife 

Management Plan.

Sustainable Community 

Master Plan (2014) and 

Integrated Resource 

Management Plan 

(IRMP)

Spokane Tribe of 

Indians

The Master Plan is the official policy document of the 

Tribe and is intended to be used as a decision-making 

tool. The IRMP is the overall reservation land use and 

natural resource planning document.

Federal

Grizzly bear recovery 

plan (1993)

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Provides general guidance for activities in the grizzly 

bear recovery area which helps to maintain consistency 

with other agency planning efforts.

Woodland caribou 

recovery plan (1994)

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Provides general guidance for activities in the caribou 

recovery area which helps to maintain consistency with 

other agency planning efforts.

Bull trout recovery plan 

(2014)

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Provides general guidance for activities in bull trout 

habitat which helps to maintain consistency with other 

agency planning efforts.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

784

Planning Document Agency Description

Strategic Plan (2010) U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

The strategic plan was developed to react to climate 

change. It establishes a basic framework within which 

the Service will work as part of the larger conservation 

community to help ensure the sustainability of fish, 

wildlife, plants, and habitats in the face of accelerating 

climate change.

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(2000)

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service –

Little Pend Oreille 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

The plan describes the goals, objectives, and strategies 

for improving Refuge conditions including the types of 

habitat provided, partnership opportunities, and 

management actions needed to achieve desired 

conditions for the next 15 years.

Interagency 

Consultation 

Agreement (2013)

USFWS, USFS, 

and USDC NOAA

fisheries

The purpose of the Consultation Agreement is to 

establish a general framework for conducting efficient 

and effective ESA Section 7 consultation on the revision 

of the Colville, and Okanogan Wenatchee National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plans.

Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forests land 

management plan 

(Okanogan plan 1989, 

Wenatchee plan 1990)

USDA Forest 

Service

Forest planning efforts based upon the same regional 

vegetative desired conditions, standards, and guidelines, 

and similar objectives for restoration as the Colville NF. 

The cumulative restoration activities from the action 

alternatives from this plan could have a landscape level 

effect on modifying stand structure to reduce the risk of 

stand-replacing fire in similar vegetation types, while 

promoting resiliency with regard to climate change.

Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests land 

management plan 

(2015)

USDA Forest 

Service

Forest planning efforts based upon the same regional 

vegetative desired conditions, standards, and guidelines, 

and similar objectives for restoration as the Colville NF. 

The cumulative restoration activities from the action 

alternatives from this plan could have a landscape level 

effect on modifying stand structure to reduce the risk of 

stand-replacing fire in similar vegetation types, while 

promoting resiliency with regard to climate change.

National Best 

Management Practices 

for Water Quality 

Management on 

National Forest System 

Lands (2012)

USDA Forest 

Service

“This technical guide is the first volume of guidance for 

the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Best Management Practices (BMP) Program. 

The National BMP Program was developed to improve 

agency performance and accountability in managing 

water quality consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act 

(CWA) and State water quality programs. Current Forest 

Service policy directs compliance with required CWA 

permits and State regulations and requires the use of 

BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution to meet 

applicable water quality standards and other CWA 

requirements.”

Resource Management 

Plan (in revision)

USDI Bureau of 

Land Management

The BLM in Washington is in the process of revising land 

management plans on their Spokane District. Resource 

Management Plans form the basis for every action and 

approved use on their public lands.

Memorandum of 

Understanding

Department of 

Homeland Security

A memorandum of understanding between the USDA 

Forest Service and the Department of Homeland 

Security Federal Emergency Agency (MOU 42 U.S.C. 

5170a and 5170b) provides a general framework of 

cooperation in responding to, managing and 

coordinating, and financially accounting for major 

disasters and emergencies, and for resolving and 

differences or conflicts regarding this cooperation in an 

efficient and constructive manner.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

785

Planning Document Agency Description

Federal Columbia River 

Power System 

(FCRPS) Biological 

Opinion (2010, Final 

Supplemental BO 

2014)

Bureau of 

Reclamation

A comprehensive program to protect listed species of 

salmon and steelhead in the Columbia basin by adopting 

operations and configuration changes for the FCRPS 

dams that reduce adverse effects to the species 

migrating through the FCRPS while, at the same time, 

implementing habitat restoration actions in spawning and 

rearing habitat in upstream Columbia River tributaries 

and in migration and rearing habitat in the River’s estuary 

downstream.

26406 Counties

26407 The Colville National Forest (CNF) lies in three counties: Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens 

26408 Counties. Okanogan County borders the west side of the CNF.

26409 County comprehensive plans can be used as a source of information on the history of land use 

26410 within the region, the patterns of development, desired conditions, and current county land use 

26411 policies. County governments hold no legal authority over independent jurisdictions such as 

26412 Federal and state lands, incorporated cities and towns or American Indian tribal reservations.

26413 County land use within the planning area ranges from traditional uses such as farming and 

26414 ranching in rural areas to denser concentrations of residential, industrial, and commercial uses in 

26415 and around more urban areas (e.g., Colville, Kettle Falls, Chewelah, Republic, Metaline Falls, 

26416 Newport). One of the common themes is how, and whether, private owners and public land 

26417 managers can manage the competing priorities of resource conservation and economic 

26418 developmentin particular, how to cope with the growing demands for housing and recreation 

26419 while ensuring preservation of a shrinking natural resource base that contributes to Washington’s 

26420 highly valued “rural character.”

26421 Each of the county plans has been adopted as authorized and required by the Washington State 

26422 Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act was enacted by the State Legislature in 

26423 an effort to protect natural resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas from the adverse 

26424 effects of suburban sprawl by directing new growth and development to urban areas where 

26425 necessary public services exist or can reasonably be provided. Five of the fourteen goals in the 

26426 Act tied to the national forest are:

26427 1. Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, 

26428 including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the 

26429 conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage 

26430 incompatible uses.

26431 2. Open Space and Recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, 

26432 conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, 

26433 and develop parks and recreation facilities.

26434 3. Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, 

26435 including air and water quality, and the availability of water.

26436 4. Historic Preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and 

26437 structures that have historical or archaeological significance.

26438 5. Shoreline Master Plans. The shorelines of the State are among the most valuable and 

26439 fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the State relating 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

786

26440 to their utilization, protection ,restoration and preservation. It is policy to provide for the 

26441 management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable and 

26442 appropriate uses.

26443 Each county plan was reviewed in its entirety. The following are excerpts from the four county 

26444 plans Comprehensive Plan Elements that were relevant to the Forest Plan revision process. At the 

26445 end of each County Plan review is a summary including (1) Assessment of interrelated impacts, 

26446 (2) Determination of how to deal with impacts identified, and (3) Conflicts with Forest Service 

26447 planning and consideration of alternatives.

26448 Although review of the counties’ land use plans does not reveal any direct conflicts with the 

26449 revised forest plan (see pages 786−793), the Colville National Forest acknowledges county 

26450 representatives perceive issues regarding economic effects related to expected timber outputs, 

26451 motorized access, and recommended wilderness. There is disagreement as to whether the revised 

26452 plan strikes the correct balance between ecological protection and local economic need.

26453 Ferry County

26454 The county land use plan describes local government goals and objectives for land management 

26455 and provides opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service and the county. The 

26456 review is summarized below and describes how the proposed plan contributes to the county plan 

26457 goals and objectives.

26458 The over-arching theme of the comprehensive county plan’s (2013) vision statement is that 

26459 “Ferry County would like to preserve its character and identity.” Ferry County offers a rural 

26460 character of natural beauty and abundance. This includes values such as independence, privacy, 

26461 and personal freedom that attract many seeking both permanent residence and seasonal refuge. A 

26462 public opinion survey done by the Ferry County Planning Department in 1993 revealed that most 

26463 residents of the county would like to see a “focus on agriculture, forestry, and mining”; desire the 

26464 county to “look the way it did 20 years ago”; and have chosen to live in or own property in the 

26465 county “because it is beautiful and pristine”.

26466 Ferry County shares its northern border with Canada and its eastern boundary with the Columbia 

26467 River. The south half of the county falls within the boundaries of the Confederated Tribes of the 

26468 Colville Reservation and the north half is largely occupied by the Colville National Forest, 

26469 leaving approximately 16 percent of land within the county’s boundaries under private ownership. 

26470 Approximately 43 percent is covered by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and 

26471 approximately 38 percent is in public ownership. There are eight incorporated communities in the 

26472 county with Republic being the largest city and county seat. 

26473 The county goals tied to the national forest include:

26474 6.2.2 Land Use & Rural.

26475 Goal L2 - Preserve agricultural lands of long term commercial significance.

26476 Goal L3 - Preserve natural resources throughout the county and offer special protection to 

26477 areas designated as critical areas, or environmentally sensitive areas.

26478 6.2.3 Transportation

26479 GOAL T1 - Provide safe and convenient utilization of motorized and non-motorized 

26480 vehicles and equipment by the residents, industries, tourists, and recreationalists.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

787

26481 6.2.7 Heritage

26482 Goal HE1 - Promote protection of the heritage, customs and cultures of the people of 

26483 Ferry County.

26484 Goal HE2 - Support multiple use on public lands. Require federal and state agencies to 

26485 abide by existing laws which instruct them to conduct joint planning with the county for 

26486 proposals on federal and state lands within the county.

26487 Goal HE3 - To avoid the loss of archaeological and historic information.

26488 6.2.8 Economic Development

26489 Goal E1 - Increase job opportunities and broaden the economic base in Ferry County 

26490 through encouragement of industry that is compatible with other land uses.

26491 Goal E4 - Recreation and tourism are an integral part of the economy of Ferry County. 

26492 The goal for recreational land is to encourage and accommodate as many diverse 

26493 recreational activities and areas as possible that are compatible with other land uses. 

26494 The Ferry County Plan identifies the following considerations as part of the Land Use and Rural 

26495 Element:

26496 7.4 Critical Areas - The State of Washington has defined “critical areas” to include the following 

26497 areas and eco-systems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used 

26498 for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; 

26499 and (e) geologically hazardous areas. Include best available science in developing policies. 

26500 7.4.3 Wetlands - The County‘s goal is to protect wetlands with a no net loss of wetland 

26501 area or function; to ensure continuation of their natural functions; to encourage 

26502 conservation rather than replacement of wetlands in the best economic interest of 

26503 landowners and residents.

26504 7.4.15 Fish and Wildlife habitat conservation areas - Ferry County has a very 

26505 high proportion of federal, state and other publicly and tribally owned land. 

26506 These lands are generally managed for the conservation of fish and wildlife 

26507 habitat. Consequently, one of Ferry County’s approaches to protecting all fish 

26508 and wildlife habitat types is to depend on the management of these lands by the 

26509 responsible agency.

26510 7.4.29 Natural Resource goal - Maintain and enhance natural resource-based 

26511 industries in the county and provide for the stewardship and productive use of 

26512 agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands of long-term commercial 

26513 significance.

26514 7.4.35 Forest and Soils - Ferry County strives to preserve and protect Forest 

26515 Lands from activities that would adversely affect the primary use of forest land 

26516 for commercial forest management. Also, the County wants to minimize the loss 

26517 of Forest Land acreage, functions, and values through a combination of land use 

26518 and development regulation and non-regulatory means such as public education, 

26519 technical assistance to land owners and tax incentives. The County will 

26520 encourage and assist the restoration and enhancement of degraded forest lands.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

788

26521 Regarding Timber Land the plan states, “Because of the U.S. Forest Service reorganization, many 

26522 timber sales have been held up or appealed by environmental groups. The result of this has either 

26523 caused the price of lumber to increase, changed methods of forest practices, or caused operators 

26524 to focus on logging private timber lands in order to maintain a stable economy. Logging has 

26525 basically shifted from the 560,000 acres of public owned timber land to the remaining 140,000 

26526 acres of privately owned timber land. This increased activity will only last for a finite period. 

26527 Either the logging operator will be forced to shut down, or the timber economy will have to 

26528 change to meet the demands for lumber and new construction.”

26529 The Ferry County plan describes both the custom and culture of the county as being linked to 

26530 traditional land use practices such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, and hunting. 

26531 The county’s comprehensive plan (Proposed Plan in their Environmental Impact Statement) 

26532 establishes policies to preserve natural resources throughout the county and advocates for 

26533 providing forest-related jobs for the local economy. 

26534 Summary

26535 CNF Assessment of Interrelated Impacts

26536 Ferry County is one of three counties within the CNF. The inclusion of this county and its 

26537 Comprehensive Plan was selected because Ferry County includes National Forest System land 

26538 and has social and economic ties to the Forest. 

26539 Determination of how to deal with Impacts as Identified

26540 All elements of the above plan were considered while developing alternatives to the CNF Forest 

26541 Plan Revision. The DEIS discloses the social and economic impacts to the county in chapter 3 of 

26542 the DEIS pages489−503 and 640−673. 

26543 Conflicts with Forest Service Planning – Consideration of Alternatives

26544 Our review of the Ferry County Comprehensive Plan did not identify any conflicts with the 

26545 revised CNF Forest Plan. The revised CNF Plan aligns with many of the county’s goals including 

26546 support for preservation of natural resources; maintaining a mix of motorized and non-motorized 

26547 recreation opportunities; support for maintaining the county’s rural character, customs, and 

26548 culture of the area; contributes to economic input to the county; and provides protections for 

26549 wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation and soils.

26550 Pend Oreille County

26551 The county land use plan describes local government goals and objectives for land management 

26552 and provides opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service and the county. The 

26553 review is summarized below and describes how the proposed plan contributes to the county plan 

26554 goals and objectives.

26555 The comprehensive county plan’s (2013) vision for Pend Oreille County is based on a Statement 

26556 of Values: Why We Live Here, where natural resources are conserved and land is used efficiently, 

26557 ensuring that new development is compatible with the surrounding uses, sensitive to the 

26558 surrounding natural areas, and retains the rural character of the community.

26559 Forest Service land makes up approximately 58 percent of the county. Most of the land lies within 

26560 the Colville National Forest but a portion of the Forest Service land is administered by the Idaho 

26561 Panhandle National Forests. Incorporated cities/towns include: Newport, Cusick, Metaline Falls, 

26562 Metaline, and Ione. 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

789

26563 The county goals tied to the national forest include:

26564 2.3 Land Use Goals

26565 Land Use Goal # 2: Maintain the rural character of Pend Oreille County, including: forest 

26566 lands, agricultural lands, mining and natural resource based industries, home-based 

26567 businesses, and recreational properties.

26568 Land Use Goal # 3: Protect the traditional rural ways of making a living farming and 

26569 ranching, timber harvesting, and mining-from conflict with rural residential development.

26570 Land Use Goal #6: Support new development that is consistent with a realistic 

26571 assessment of the availability of water and that does not adversely affect the rights of 

26572 existing water users.

26573 Land Use Goal #8: Protect environmentally sensitive areas to reduce cumulative adverse 

26574 environmental impacts to water availability, water quality, wetlands, aquatic and wildlife 

26575 habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas.

26576 Land Use Goal #9: Protect groundwater recharge areas and prevent the contamination of 

26577 vulnerable groundwater resources to ensure water quality and quantity for public and 

26578 private uses and critical area function.

26579 3.3 Economic Development Goals

26580 Economic Development Goal #3: Encourage employment opportunities, the retention and 

26581 expansion of existing businesses, and new business development

26582 4.3 Transportation Goals

26583 Transportation Goal #1: Maintain an efficient, safe, and environmentally responsible road 

26584 system that supports the Statement of Values and the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

26585 Transportation Goal #3: Consider safety, cost effectiveness, and environmental impacts 

26586 when planning to build new roads.

26587 6.3 Parks and Recreation Goals

26588 Parks and Recreation Goal #5: Support the designation of the North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway 

26589 and the Selkirk Loop, and the development of the Sweet Creek Recreation Area.

26590 • Parks and Recreation Policy #11: Pend Oreille County should coordinate and 

26591 collaborate with the U.S. Forest Service and other public resource agencies and 

26592 managers to inventory recreational opportunities and promote the shared use and full 

26593 enjoyment of publicly owned land in the County.

26594 8.3 Essential Public Facilities Goals

26595 Essential Public Facility Goal #2: Provide necessary public facilities and services, in 

26596 places and at levels proportionate to planned development intensity and environmental 

26597 protection. (USFS Landing Strip (Sullivan Lake), Sullivan Lake Ranger Station and 

26598 Newport Ranger Station have been designated by Pend Oreille County as Essential Public 

26599 Facilities).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

790

26600 The Pend Oreille County Plan identifies the following as part of the Land Use Element:

26601 2.7 Critical Areas - critical areas in the County including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish 

26602 and wildlife habitat, conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous 

26603 areas.

26604 The Pend Oreille County plan describes both the custom and culture of the county as being linked 

26605 to traditional land use practices such as timber harvesting, ranching, farming, and mining. Natural 

26606 Resource products are a strong component of the economy, providing jobs, tax revenue, and 

26607 valuable products and materials for local use and export. Farmlands and forests also provide 

26608 aesthetic, recreational, and environmental benefits to the public while contributing to the diverse 

26609 character of the County. Mining lands provide materials for development and construction 

26610 purposes. The resource land designations are tailored to each of the resources and address the 

26611 guidelines provided by state law.

26612 Natural Resource Industries are a key component of economic development in the County. The 

26613 county’s comprehensive plan establishes policies to preserve natural resources throughout the 

26614 county and advocates for providing forest-related jobs for the local economy.

26615 Summary

26616 CNF Assessment of Interrelated Impacts

26617 Pend Oreille County is one of three counties within the CNF. The inclusion of this county and its 

26618 Comprehensive Plan was selected because Pend Oreille County includes National Forest System

26619 land and has social and economic ties to the Forest. 

26620 Determination of how to deal with Impacts as Identified

26621 All elements of the above plan were considered while developing alternatives to the CNF Forest 

26622 Plan Revision. The DEIS discloses the social and economic impacts to the county in chapter 3 of 

26623 the DEIS pages 491−504 and 642−675. 

26624 Conflicts with Forest Service Planning – Consideration of Alternatives

26625 Our review of the Pend Oreille County Comprehensive Plan did not identify any conflicts with 

26626 the revised CNF Forest Plan. The revised CNF Plan aligns with many of the county’s goals 

26627 including support for maintaining the county’s rural character; contributes to economic input to 

26628 the county; protection of sensitive aquatic and terrestrial habitats; considers safety, cost 

26629 effectiveness, and environmental impacts of the transportation system; and addresses recreation 

26630 opportunities.

26631 Stevens County

26632 The county land use plan describes local government goals and objectives for land management 

26633 and provides opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service and the county. The 

26634 review is summarized below and describes how the proposed plan contributes to the county plan 

26635 goals and objectives.

26636 The comprehensive county plan’s (2008) vision for Stevens County emphasizes healthy 

26637 landscapes where natural resources are conserved and land is used efficiently. Natural resources 

26638 are well managed, healthy, productive and provide a steady, sustainable stream of products for 

26639 economic viability while maintaining and enhancing opportunities for recreation.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

791

26640 About 40 percent of the total land area is owned by the federal government, state governments, or 

26641 the Spokane Tribe. Incorporated cities/towns include: Colville, Kettle Falls, Chewelah, Marcus, 

26642 Northport, and Springdale.

26643 The county goals tied to the national forest include:

26644 2.1 Economic Development Goal

26645 ED-7 Include economic development as one of the considerations in the process of land 

26646 use planning, transportation planning, infrastructure planning, and the determination of 

26647 urban growth areas.

26648 3.1 Land Use Goals

26649 Land Use Goal 1 - Urban and Rural Areas, and Resource Lands: Create distinct urban and 

26650 rural areas, and areas characterized by resource uses within Stevens County. Increase the 

26651 percentage of new growth that occurs at higher densities in designated urban areas, and 

26652 reduce sprawl and maintain the character of rural areas. Establish logical boundaries for 

26653 targeted infill.

26654 Land Use Goal 3 - Customs & Culture: Encourage development of a statement of custom 

26655 and culture so that federal and state agencies will be able to ensure that community and 

26656 economic stability are considered by those agencies when they develop and implement 

26657 plans, policies or regulations affecting the use of state and federal lands. Sustainable 

26658 management decisions for public lands shall consider the diversity of customary 

26659 practices, traditions, culture and ways of life found throughout the County and, to the 

26660 extent permitted by applicable law, complies with the County's planning goals and 

26661 policies and development regulations.

26662 Land Use Goal 5 - Master Planned Resorts: Allow development of master planned resorts 

26663 which meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act to take advantage of 

26664 Stevens County's natural beauty and enhance the public's access to areas already 

26665 characterized by some degree of recreational use.

26666 4.1 Natural Resources Goal

26667 Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries in the county, protect critical 

26668 areas including surface and groundwater resources, and provide for the stewardship and 

26669 productive use of forest, mineral, and agricultural lands.

26670 5.1 Rural Goal

26671 Protect and enhance the character and quality of rural areas in ways that promote 

26672 traditional rural lifestyles and industries, including timber, agriculture and mining, while 

26673 also allowing for a diversity of uses, densities, and innovative development.

26674 7.1 Parks and Recreation Goal

26675 Support the retention, enhancement, and development of recreation areas and activities, 

26676 and parks and open space within Stevens County.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

792

26677 8.1 Transportation Goal

26678 Provide an efficient, functional, and environmentally responsible transportation network 

26679 throughout Stevens County by utilizing and maintaining existing infrastructure, 

26680 integrating transportation planning with other elements of the comprehensive plan, and 

26681 coordinating with other federal, state, tribal and local agencies.

26682 The Stevens County plan states “the focus of the Comprehensive Plan is driven in part by the fact 

26683 that the state and federal government manage nearly 40 percent of the land mass of Stevens 

26684 County. Federal and state management of these extensive enclaves intertwines with, and impacts, 

26685 the abilities of private citizens in the county to pursue activities according to the traditional and 

26686 historic customs and culture.” The plan states “federal and state management infuses a never26687 ending stream of regulations, government employees, and out-of-county opinion into the daily 

26688 lives of Stevens County citizens.” This sentiment is found throughout the plan and emphasizes 

26689 close coordination on the development of federal and state land use policies that are responsive to 

26690 the public interest. 

26691 The Stevens County plan states “it is the intent of this plan to be a mechanism whereby the 

26692 general public and particularly federal and state managers can recognize, understand, and honor 

26693 the customs, culture, economic viability, social structure and quality of life of the citizens of 

26694 Stevens County. It is a goal of the planning process that federal and state management actions in 

26695 Stevens County would be more cooperative and less confrontational than in the past.” 

26696 The plan advocates for resource-based industries and activities such as timber production, 

26697 agriculture, and mining while providing forest-related jobs for the local economy.

26698 Summary

26699 CNF Assessment of Interrelated Impacts

26700 Stevens County is one of three counties within the CNF. The inclusion of this county and its 

26701 Comprehensive Plan was selected because Stevens County includes National Forest System land 

26702 and has social and economic ties to the Forest. 

26703 Determination of how to deal with Impacts as Identified

26704 All elements of the above plan were considered while developing alternatives to the CNF Forest 

26705 Plan Revision. The DEIS discloses the social and economic impacts to the county in chapter 3 of 

26706 the DEIS pages 485-499 and 633-668. 

26707 Conflicts with Forest Service Planning – Consideration of Alternatives

26708 Our review of the Stevens County Comprehensive Plan did not identify any conflicts with the 

26709 revised CNF Forest Plan. The revised CNF Plan aligns with many of the county’s goals including 

26710 providing economic input to the county; support for maintaining rural character, customs, and 

26711 culture of the area; addresses recreation opportunities; considers safety, cost-effectiveness, and 

26712 environmental impacts of the transportation system; and protection of aquatic and terrestrial 

26713 resources.

26714 Okanogan County

26715 The county land use plan describes local government goals and objectives for land management 

26716 and provides opportunities for coordination between the Forest Service and the county. The 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

793

26717 review is summarized below and describes how the proposed plan contributes to the county plan 

26718 goals and objectives.

26719 The west side of the Colville NF borders Okanogan County. The comprehensive county plan’s 

26720 (2014) vision for Okanogan County emphasizes independence, privacy, and personal freedom for 

26721 its citizens, works to strengthen the local economy, while also putting forth efforts to maintain a 

26722 clean and healthy environment. Okanogan County will provide for the health, safety, and welfare 

26723 of its citizens by promoting intelligent use of all available resources. Okanogan County is the 

26724 largest county in the state of Washington, however only 10 percent of the county is privately 

26725 owned. Approximately 20 percent is covered by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

26726 Reservation and National Forest System land (Okanogan-Wenatchee NF) makes up nearly 58

26727 percent of the county. The county has thirteen incorporated towns with Okanogan being the 

26728 second largest city and the county seat. 

26729 The county Comprehensive Plan is guided by a series of planning objectives. These objectives 

26730 identify key planning principles and result from a program of actively involving local residents, 

26731 business and property owners, the cities and towns, local service providers, and The Confederated 

26732 Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Land use guides directly tied to the national forest include:

26733 Rural Resource/Low Density – within this designated area the following uses are priority 

26734 uses in support of the County's forestry economy:

26735 Harvest and processing of forest products.

26736 Equipment yards, repair and maintenance operations.

26737 Manufacturing that requires proximity to forest products.

26738 Home occupations and home-based industries.

26739 Residential uses including vacation rental, single family, extended family, and farm 

26740 worker housing, with covenants to assure compatibility with resource activities.

26741 The plan advocates for resource-based industries and activities such as agriculture, forestry, 

26742 fishing, mining, and recreation while providing forest-related jobs for the local economy.

26743 Summary

26744 CNF Assessment of Interrelated Impacts

26745 Okanogan County borders the CNF. The inclusion of this county and its Comprehensive Plan was 

26746 selected because Okanogan County includes National Forest System land and has social and 

26747 economic ties to the Forest. 

26748 Determination of how to deal with Impacts as Identified

26749 All elements of the above plan were considered while developing alternatives to the CNF Forest 

26750 Plan Revision. 

26751 Conflicts with Forest Service Planning – Consideration of Alternatives

26752 Our review of the Okanogan County Comprehensive Plan did not identify any conflicts with the 

26753 revised CNF Forest Plan.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

794

26754 Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

26755 Four community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) outline goals for at-risk-communities within 

26756 and around the Colville NF. These plans are:

26757  “Ferry County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Ferry County CWPP Core Team 

26758 and Northwest Management, Inc., 2006)

26759  “Pend Oreille County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Pend Oreille County, South 

26760 Pend Oreille Fire & Rescue, Pend Oreille County Fire Districts 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, the town 

26761 of Cusick, town of Ione, town of Metaline, town of Metaline Falls, the city of Newport, 

26762 the Colville NF, and WA DNR, 2011)

26763  “Stevens County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Volume II” (Stevens County 

26764 CWPP Planning Committee and Northwest Management, Inc., 2007)

26765  “Okanogan County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Okanogan County CWPP 

26766 Committee, Okanogan County Dept. of Emergency Management, WA DNR, and 

26767 Northwest Management, Inc., 2013)

26768 The primary goal of the plans is for Federal land to return to Condition Class I where wildfire can 

26769 be incorporated into long-term management practices to sustain forest health. The plans also 

26770 delineate the wildland-urban interface where human development meets and intermingles with 

26771 undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The plans are used by Colville NF managers to help 

26772 prioritize areas for fuel reduction treatments.

26773 Communities, Towns, and Cities

26774 There are several communities, towns, and cities within or adjacent to the Colville NF. These 

26775 include Colville, Kettle Falls, Chewelah, Marcus, Northport, Springdale, Republic, Curlew, 

26776 Metaline Falls, Metaline, Ione, Cusick, Usk, and Newport.

26777 The communities surrounding the Colville NF have a history of involvement with and 

26778 dependence upon the national forests and natural resource topics in general. Washington has long 

26779 been dependent upon natural resources for commodity production, clean water, tourism, and 

26780 aesthetic enjoyment. As a result the public has frequently expressed interest in the use and 

26781 management of these resources. Some examples are:

26782  Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) – The purpose of the 

26783 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is to encourage the collaborative, 

26784 science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes. The plan calls for close 

26785 coordination with other landowners to encourage collaborative solutions through 

26786 landscape-scale operations.

26787  Development of The International Selkirk Scenic Loop - This designated All American 

26788 Road is one of 31 in the nation. It winds through northeast Washington, north Idaho, and 

26789 southeast British Columbia. The Loop was formed in 1999 as a non-profit corporation 

26790 designed to enhance the local economy through the promotion of tourism along its route 

26791 in Northern Idaho, Northeastern Washington and the East and West Kootenay region of 

26792 British Columbia. Since its inception, the Loop has drawn the attention of business 

26793 owners that now make up its membership, as well as travel guides and various 

26794 publications throughout the US and Canada.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

795

26795 One of the most common concerns of these communities is the risk associated with 

26796 uncharacteristic wildfire and hazardous fuel buildup. This issue has been articulated in the 

26797 community wildfire protection plans (see previous section).

26798 Tribes

26799 Federally recognized American Indian tribes occupy about 53.5 million acres (7 percent) of land 

26800 in the western states. Two tribal reservations border the Colville NF: The Kalispel Indian 

26801 Reservation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. The Spokane Indian 

26802 Reservation is south of the Colville NF but does not share a direct border with the Forest. These 

26803 tribes are legally considered to be sovereign nations, meaning the Forest Service has a 

26804 government-to-government relationship with the tribes. Tribes that enter into contracts with the 

26805 Federal government do so just as state governments or sovereign nations do.

26806 In addition, the Federal government also holds a special responsibility to consult with tribes over 

26807 management concerns that may affect them. This process is governed by a variety of Federal 

26808 regulations and policies, including the Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, the National 

26809 Environmental Policy Act, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, the Tribal 

26810 Forest Protection Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and several presidential 

26811 executive orders.

26812 Government-to-government consultation with the Colville, Kalispel, and Spokane tribal nations 

26813 and staff-to-staff consultation with their resource specialists began early in the forest plan revision 

26814 process and continues. The three tribes are cooperating agencies with the Colville National 

26815 Forest.

26816 Tribes’ use of Forest Service land includes free, non-permitted activities such as gathering 

26817 medicinal plants as well as the use of products such as sawtimber. In addition, the Colville NF 

26818 includes traditional cultural places, the locations of which are known only to the tribes.

26819 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

26820 The Colville Indian Reservation spans Okanogan and Ferry Counties with a checker board of 

26821 ownership in fee and trust, and shares its northeast border with the Colville NF. The Colville 

26822 Indian Reservation is a self-sufficient entity with their own business enterprises, tribal education 

26823 and health programs, and owns and operates three casinos. 

26824 The goals and policies contained within the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation draft 

26825 (2015) Comprehensive Plan are a combination of the goals and objectives taken from several 

26826 documents that include the land use and development plan, Community Economic Development 

26827 Strategy, Shoreline Management Plan, draft Transportation Improvement Plan and Integrated 

26828 Resource Management Plan. The vision for the tribal comprehensive plan is based on goals for 

26829 land use, transportation, housing, economic development, parks and recreation, shoreline 

26830 management, and cultural resources.

26831 Integrated Resource Management Plan

26832 The Forest has coordinated with the Colville Confederated Tribes on the design and location of 

26833 forest management projects adjacent to Tribal lands. The Integrated Resource Management Plan 

26834 (2000-2014) is currently being updated and provides guidelines for the use and protection of all 

26835 forest resources, and serves as a basis for decision-making. Guidelines include:

26836 • Promote the long-term productivity and health of the total forest ecosystem.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

796

26837 • Provide for the maintenance and enhancement of species diversity and thereby promote 

26838 long-term stability of the forest environment.

26839 • Offer protections of resources such as timber, fish, forage, wildlife, water and culture 

26840 sensitive areas while providing recreation and access to these areas.

26841 Forestry

26842 Approximately 48 percent of the Colville Indian Reservation is in the commercial forest land use 

26843 category. Although current conditions are at a low point in the cyclical timber market, historically, 

26844 timber harvesting has been a significant economic engine for the Tribe. Under most market 

26845 conditions, the Tribe has about 14 logging contractors plus the Colville Tribal Logging that 

26846 annually harvest approximately 78 million board feet. The contractors employed about 80 to 

26847 100 people and about 40 to 50 truckers transported the timber to the mills. With the closing of the 

26848 mills the annual harvest and number of jobs has dropped significantly, however, production is 

26849 expected to return to historic levels once the market returns.

26850 Recreation and Wildlife

26851 The Tribes’ Parks & Recreation Plan describes adequately planning for future recreational uses 

26852 within the Colville Reservation that will not have negative impact on the natural environment. 

26853 The Tribes are concerned with the protection of its portion of the 150 mile Lake Roosevelt 

26854 shoreline, adjoining uplands, and wildlife habitat, which lie behind the Grand Coulee Dam. 

26855 Increased tourism has created additional threats to Tribal resources with wildfire danger being the 

26856 primary threat. The Colville Tribal Parks and Recreation Program was able to coordinate efforts 

26857 with the Colville National Forest and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1990 for the renovation of 

26858 the 13-Mile Trailhead. 

26859 Shoreline Management Element

26860 The Colville Tribes have a primary interest in the protection, control, conservation, and utilization 

26861 of the shoreline resources of the Colville Indian Reservation. The Tribes have a strong shoreline 

26862 management program and permit process in place to help regulate and control development in 

26863 sensitive areas and protect resources such as archeological and cultural sites. The Tribes are 

26864 concerned with preserving the more remote areas of the reservation to eliminate over 

26865 development.

26866 Transportation Element

26867 The Colville Tribe’s transportation department mission is “To provide safe, efficient, and reliable 

26868 transportation and public road access to and within the Colville Indian Reservation and local 

26869 communities for tribal members, visitors, recreationalists, resource users and others while 

26870 contributing to community and economic development, self-determination, and tribal member 

26871 employment.”

26872 While there is a limited transit system on the Reservation, there is a need to expand these services 

26873 to meet the current and future need. Many of the BIA system roads are critical for transportation 

26874 of forest products. In a typical year, logging and forest management activities contribute 

26875 approximately 17,600 loads to both forest and system roads. There are two scenic Byways on the 

26876 Colville Reservation; the Grand Coulee Corridor and the Okanogan Trails Scenic Byway.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

797

26877 Summary

26878 Members of the planning IDT consulted tribal representatives during development of the revised 

26879 Forest Plan. The forest supervisor met with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

26880 and as a result, specific tribal comments were incorporated in this DEIS and draft Forest Plan.

26881 Kalispel Tribe of Indians

26882 The Kalispel Tribe is a self-sufficient entity with their own business enterprises, tribal education 

26883 and health programs, and strong alliances with those outside the tribe. The original Reservation 

26884 was approximately 7 square miles in size and located in Pend Oreille County on the east bank of 

26885 the Pend Oreille River, close to the towns of Usk, WA and Cusick, WA. Since that time almost 

26886 four square miles of Tribal Trust land has been added to the Reservation, including a half square 

26887 mile in the City of Airway Heights. The Tribe holds five and a half additional square miles of 

26888 property throughout northeast Washington and northern Idaho, almost entirely for the 

26889 preservation of forests and other natural resources with a small amount held for limited economic 

26890 development.

26891 The Kalispel Natural Resources Department (KNRD) is responsible for managing the historic 

26892 properties, fisheries, wildlife, water, and other natural resources of the Kalispel Tribe of Indian's 

26893 reservation in Usk, WA and other ceded lands in the lower Clark Fork/Pend Oreille. 

26894 The state of Washington recognizes KNRD as a co-manager for the Pend Oreille River watershed 

26895 area. KNRD currently manages the only warm water hatchery in the region. KNRD has a vast 

26896 range of responsibilities that are both regulatory and policy-making. The responsibilities of 

26897 KNRD's two divisions (Fisheries and Water Resources and Wildlife and Terrestrial Resources) are 

26898 interrelated, but each maintains its own unique focus.

26899 The Kalispel Tribe does not have a land management plan. However, the Colville NF recognizes 

26900 that the Kalispel Tribe has special interests and knowledge of traditional cultural uses, cultural 

26901 resources, and properties within the Colville NF. It is the Forest’s intent to continue working with 

26902 the Tribe to address those interests. The Forest Service is required to manage the lands under their 

26903 stewardship with full consideration of the Federal trust responsibility and tribal rights and 

26904 interests, particularly reserved rights where they exist. In meeting these responsibilities, the 

26905 agency consults with the tribe whenever proposed policies or management actions may affect 

26906 their interests. 

26907 In 1997, the Kalispel Natural Resources Department adopted a Fish and Wildlife Management 

26908 Plan. Following approval by the Kalispel Tribal Council, this document contains the guiding 

26909 principles for the department. In 2005, the Kalispel Tribal Council approved an updated version 

26910 of this plan. Some of the goals and objectives of the plan for fish, water quality, and wildlife 

26911 include:

26912 Fisheries

26913 • Goal 1: Protect, enhance, and restore native fish populations to maintain stable, viable 

26914 levels, to ensure long term, self-sustaining persistence, and to provide ecological, 

26915 cultural, subsistence, and sociological benefits.

26916 o Objective 1: Restore bull trout, westslope cutthroat, and mountain whitefish 

26917 populations in Kalispel ceded lands to a level where adult escapement is well 

26918 distributed and they support healthy spawning populations for cultural and 

26919 subsistence purposes.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

798

26920 o Objective 2: Reduce competition between brook trout and native fish (e.g. 

26921 westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout).

26922 o Objective 3: Reduce competition between lake trout and bull trout.

26923 o Objective 4: Preserve and protect native non-game species above minimum 

26924 viable population sizes that maintain adaptability and genetic diversity, while 

26925 minimizing the probability of extinction.

26926 • Goal 2: Where native habitats are not available, manage non-native fish species or non26927 native stocks to maximize available habitats to provide a subsistence and recreational 

26928 sport fishing resource. Non-native species are to be managed in a way that maximizes 

26929 available habitat conditions and minimizes negative impacts to native species.

26930 o Objective 1: Provide a sport and subsistence fishery for tribal and non-tribal 

26931 members.

26932 • Goal 3: Restore anadromous fish abundance and harvest to historical levels above Chief 

26933 Joseph and Grand Coulee dams.

26934 o Objective 1: Re-introduction of anadromous salmon and steelhead runs above 

26935 Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams to a level where adult escapement is well 

26936 distributed and they support healthy spawning populations for cultural and 

26937 subsistence purposes.

26938 • Goal 4: Enforce all management plans throughout ceded lands

26939 o Objective 1: Ensure that fish resources are protected by strictly enforcing 

26940 management regulations.

26941 Water Quality

26942 • Goal 1: Maintain or enhance water quality in rivers, streams, lakes and other waterbodies 

26943 throughout ceded lands.

26944 o Objective 1: Determine water quality impacts from hydroelectric dams 

26945 throughout ceded lands.

26946 o Objective 2: Use all available methods, including river, reservoir, watershed 

26947 management, modification of hydroelectric operations, and other measures to 

26948 offset hydroelectric impacts.

26949 o Objective 3: Adopt federally certified water quality standards for Reservation 

26950 waters.

26951 o Objective 4: Coordinate with other agencies, landowners, and tribes to implement 

26952 watershed/water quality management within the Pend Oreille/Clark Fork 

26953 drainage.

26954 o Objective 5: Establish water quality monitoring protocol, and information storage 

26955 and exchange system for ceded lands.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

799

26956 o Objective 6: Evaluate data for opportunities to implement water quality 

26957 improvements.

26958 o Objective 7: Implement water quality improvement opportunities identified by 

26959 monitoring, and opportunities identified by other means.

26960 Wildlife, Wetland, Riparian, and Botanical

26961 • Goal 1: Protect, restore, enhance, and sustain populations of wildlife for aesthetic, 

26962 cultural, ecological, and recreational values.

26963 o Objective 1: Increase the Selkirk woodland caribou herd to 75 animals or more 

26964 by 2010, with the intent to exceed ESA de-listing criteria by 2020.

26965 o Objective 2: Maintain bald eagle populations at or above present levels.

26966 o Objective 3: Restore a self-sustaining population of grizzly bears in the Selkirk 

26967 Recovery Zone that exceeds the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan goals.

26968 o Objective 4: Restore and maintain viable lynx populations in the subbasin.

26969 o Objective 5: Recover mule deer populations to at least 1980 levels in the Lower 

26970 Pend Oreille and Priest River subbasins.

26971 o Objective 6: Maintain and expand Great-blue Heron population levels within the 

26972 subbasin. Protect existing heronries and secure a minimum of two potential 

26973 alternative nesting sites near high use feeding locations such as Calispell Lake 

26974 and the Pend Oreille River by 2010.

26975 o Objective 7: Maintain Osprey populations at or above present levels in the Lower 

26976 Pend Oreille subbasin for the next 25 years. Maintain osprey nest sites on the 

26977 Pend Oreille River and encourage increased suitable riparian habitat by 2025.

26978 o Objective 8: Restore and sustain state and tribal species of special concern, 

26979 federal candidate species, BLM sensitive species, and USFS indicator and 

26980 sensitive species, including the following: wolverine, fisher, otter, northern flying 

26981 squirrel, northern bog lemming, pygmy shrew, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

26982 Common Loon, Pygmy Nuthatch, Goshawk, Flammulated Owl, Boreal Owl, 

26983 Black-backed Owl, Great Gray Owl, Northern Pygmy Owl, Three-toed 

26984 Woodpecker, Upland Sandpiper, northern alligator lizard, ring-necked snake, 

26985 rough-skinned newt, wood frog, and Coeur d’Alene salamander.

26986 o Objective 9: Protect, restore, enhance, and sustain populations of big game 

26987 species such as black bear, elk, mountain goat, moose, mountain lion, mule deer, 

26988 and white-tailed deer.

26989 o Objective 10: Protect, restore, enhance, and sustain populations of waterfowl, 

26990 upland birds, and furbearers under traditional levels of recreational and 

26991 subsistence use.

26992 o Objective 11: Maintain or enhance neo-tropical migrant bird populations at or 

26993 above current levels within present use areas and identify limiting factors for 

26994 these populations within the subbasin.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

800

26995 o Objective 12: Maintain or enhance amphibian and reptiles populations at or 

26996 above current levels within present use areas and identify limiting factors within 

26997 the subbasin.

26998 o Objective 13: Maintain or enhance invertebrate populations at current levels 

26999 within present use areas and identify limiting factors for these populations within 

27000 the subbasin.

27001 • Goal 2: Protect, enhance, and restore native wildlife habitat function and performance to 

27002 establish ecological security for native and important non-native wildlife populations.

27003 o Objective 1: Restore the diversity, block size, and spatial arrangement of habitat 

27004 types needed to sustain wildlife populations at ecologically sound levels.

27005 o Objective 2: Restore the connectivity of habitat types needed to sustain wildlife 

27006 populations at the landscape level.

27007 o Objective 3: Protect, mitigate, and enhance wildlife habitat losses associated with 

27008 the construction, inundation, and operation of hydropower and other dams within 

27009 the Kalispel Ceded Lands.

27010 o Objective 4: By 2050, fully mitigate wildlife habitat losses associated with the 

27011 construction and inundation of Albeni Falls Dam.

27012 o Objective 5: Protect and maintain lake and wetland habitats for wildlife at 

27013 Calispell Lake/Marsh.

27014  Sub-Objective 5.1: Purchase the lake and/or water management rights by 

27015 2010 (acquisition, easements, binding long term agreements).

27016 o Objective 6: Protect, restore, and enhance natural functions, habitats, and species 

27017 compositions to benefit the riparian and wetland habitats and associated wildlife 

27018 for the Pend Oreille River floodplain and Cusick Valley (Calispell, Tacoma, and 

27019 Trimble Drainages).

27020  Sub-Objective 6.1: By 2005, acquire lands and/or management rights 

27021 (tribal, USFWS refuge, Washington DNR, NRCS Wetland Reserve 

27022 Program easements) on 1,000 ha in order to add to current management 

27023 blocks.

27024 o Objective 7: Protect, restore, and enhance island habitats for wildlife at Everett 

27025 Island.

27026  Sub-Objective 7.1: By 2010, acquire management rights to the island 

27027 through fee-title acquisition, conservation easements, and/or long- term 

27028 agreements.

27029 o Objective 8: Protect and maintain important habitats for wildlife on federal, state, 

27030 and private lands.

27031  Sub-Objective 8.1: By 2010, ensure that all forest practices, including 

27032 road building and maintenance are being implemented by the USFS as 

27033 specified in the Colville National Forest Plan.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

801

27034  Sub-Objective 8.2: By 2010, ensure that all forest practices, including 

27035 road building and maintenance are being implemented as specified in the 

27036 Washington DNR Forest Practices Rule.

27037  Sub-Objective 8.3: By 2010, identify and pursue priority habitat areas for 

27038 acquisition.

27039 o Objective 9: Protect and enhance native botanical resources in Kalispel ceded 

27040 lands.

27041  Sub-Objective 9.1: Identify, restore, and enhance native botanical 

27042 resources deemed important to the Tribe.

27043 Summary

27044 Members of the planning IDT consulted tribal representatives during development of the revised 

27045 Forest Plan. The forest supervisor met with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and as a result, specific 

27046 tribal comments were incorporated in this DEIS and draft Forest Plan.

27047 Spokane Tribe of Indians

27048 The Spokane Indian Reservation occupies the southern portion of Stevens County, but does not 

27049 border the Colville NF. The Spokane Indian Reservation is a self-sufficient entity with their own 

27050 business enterprises, tribal education and health programs, and owns and operates one casino and 

27051 resort. The Spokane Tribe’s Sustainable Community Master Plan (2014) is the official policy 

27052 document of the Tribe and is intended to be used as a decision-making tool.

27053 Forest Management

27054 The Tribal Department of Natural Resources is a division of the Spokane Tribal Government. Its 

27055 programs include environmental protection, air quality, water and fish, fisheries, superfund, 

27056 wildlife, hatcheries, lab, realty, preservation, fire management, forest development, fuels 

27057 management, forestry administration, and timber sales. The Integrated Resource Management 

27058 Plan is the overall reservation land use and natural resource planning document. Land Use goals 

27059 include:

27060 • LU Goal 1: Implement the Integrated Resource Management Plan and seek alignment 

27061 with the Sustainable Community Master Plan land use goals.

27062 • LU Goal 2: Redesign developed areas for sustainable development that insures access to 

27063 one or a combination of the following 1) Healthy Foods; 2) Recreation; 3) Housing, 4) 

27064 Transportation; 5) Economic Development; 6) Cultural Uses, and 7) Utilities.

27065 • LU Goal 3: Acquire suitable land for sustainable development that insure access to one or 

27066 a combination of the following 1) Healthy Foods; 2) Recreation; 3) Housing, 4) 

27067 Transportation; 5) Economic Development; 6) Cultural Uses, and 7) Utilities.

27068 • LU Goal 4: Clean up polluted lands and water.

27069 Recreation and Wildlife

27070 Recreation opportunities include camping and water recreation. Areas on the reservation have few 

27071 youth activities that include playgrounds, basketball courts, and baseball fields. The reservation 

27072 has 21 shoreline campgrounds. The master plan goal for the reservation is to create a parks and 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

802

27073 recreation department to provide more activities for all age groups. The Integrated Resource 

27074 Management Plan specifies technical descriptions of permitted, conditional, and/or restricted uses 

27075 within these designations to allow for the seasonal natural development of vegetation and wildlife 

27076 habitat. 

27077 Transportation

27078 There are approximately 417 miles of roadways on the Spokane Indian Reservation. There are 

27079 also about 112 miles of State highways, including State Route 25 on the west side of the 

27080 reservation. State Route 231 follows the eastern border of the reservation and passes through the 

27081 community of Ford and on to Springdale. In 2010, the Spokane Tribe began operation of a public 

27082 transit program known as the Moccasin Express. Roads that serve tribal lands may be owned or 

27083 managed by the tribe, county, Bureau of Indian Affairs, or State. Funded by the BIA, the 

27084 Reservation Transportation Plans are updated on a regular basis. There is a need to expand the 

27085 current public transportation system to serve the reservation community and promote energy 

27086 efficient and environmentally friendly transportation choices.

27087 Summary

27088 Members of the planning IDT consulted tribal representatives during development of the revised 

27089 Forest Plan. The forest supervisor met with the Spokane Tribe of Indians and as a result, specific 

27090 tribal comments were incorporated in this DEIS and draft Forest Plan.

27091 Federal

27092 Other Federal agencies affect the management of the Colville NF, either because they have lands 

27093 that adjoin the forests (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, other national forests), they manage 

27094 features that occur on the national forest (e.g., Federal Highway Administration), or they have 

27095 oversight responsibilities (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

27096 Bureau of Land Management

27097 BLMs Resource Management Plans (RMPs) form the basis for every action and approved use on 

27098 their public lands. The BLM prepares RMPs for areas of public lands, called planning areas, 

27099 which tend to have similar resource characteristics. Planning emphasizes a collaborative 

27100 environment in which local, state, and tribal governments, the public, user groups, and industry 

27101 work with the agency to identify appropriate multiple uses of the public lands. Plans are 

27102 periodically revised as changing conditions and resource demands require.

27103 The BLM in Washington is in the process of revising land management plans on their Spokane 

27104 District. The agencies have exchanged information helpful to both efforts. Bureau of Land 

27105 Management land occurs in scattered parcels across the Colville NF.

27106 Bureau of Indian Affairs

27107 Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for the administration and management of 55 million 

27108 surface acres and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals estates held in trust by the United States 

27109 for American Indian, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. Adjacent to the planning area are three 

27110 reservations, the Colville, Kalispel, and Spokane Reservations. (See section on Tribes for 

27111 additional information). 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

803

27112 Bureau of Reclamation

27113 The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is comprised of a series of hydropower 

27114 projects in the Columbia Basin located on the mainstem Columbia River and in several of its 

27115 major tributaries that provide about one third of the electricity use in the Pacific Northwest. Three 

27116 “Action Agencies”, the Bureau of Reclamation, US Army Corps of Engineers, and Bonneville 

27117 Power Administration, manage 14 facilities in the Columbia Basin. These Action Agencies are 

27118 currently operating under the 2008/2010 FCRPS Biological Opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries 

27119 (NMFS 2008a) that recommended a “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative” (RPA) for the FCRPS, 

27120 which was then adopted for implementation. The biological opinion includes hydrosystem, 

27121 harvest, hatchery, predator control, tributary and estuary habitat, and research, monitoring, and 

27122 evaluation actions to avoid jeopardy and destruction of critical habitat by improving salmon and 

27123 steelhead survival (www.usbr.gov). In litigation challenging the 2008 Biological Opinion, NWF v. 

27124 NMFS, the Court ordered NOAA Fisheries to issue a new or supplemental biological opinion for 

27125 the FCRPS by 2014 (U.S. District Court 2011). ESA consultation was reinitiated to comply with 

27126 the court-ordered remand to address concerns raised with the 2008 Opinion. In addition, since the 

27127 2008 Biological Opinion was issued, NOAA Fisheries has listed an additional species, resulting 

27128 in the need to reinitiate consultation on the FCRPS RPA for the new listed species and designated 

27129 critical habitats.

27130 Department of Homeland Security

27131 The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to secure our country from terrorist 

27132 threats and enhance security; secure our borders; enforce our Nation's immigration laws; secure 

27133 cyberspace; and build resilience to disasters (www.dhs.gov). 

27134 The Colville National Forest’s northernmost boundaries are the international boundary with 

27135 Canada. A 60-foot wide reservation strip, the “Taft Reservation” of May 3, 1912, runs along the 

27136 border. Activities by the Forest and other federal agencies within the reservation strip are the 

27137 subject of numerous agreements and understandings between Federal agencies as well as treaties 

27138 between the United States and Canada. The USFS cooperates with the DHS in border protection 

27139 with the objectives of preventing illegal entry and illegal export and exit. 

27140 A memorandum of understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the Department of 

27141 Homeland Security Federal Emergency Agency (MOU 42 U.S.C. 5170a and 5170b) provides a 

27142 general framework of cooperation in responding to, managing and coordinating, and financially 

27143 accounting for major disasters and emergencies, and for resolving and differences or conflicts 

27144 regarding this cooperation in an efficient and constructive manner.

27145 Federal Highway Administration

27146 The role of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is to ensure that America’s roads and 

27147 highways are safe and technologically up-to-date. Although most highways are owned by State, 

27148 local, and tribal governments, FHWA provides financial and technical support (FHWA, 2011). 

27149 The Federal Lands Highways funding provides dollars for roads and highways within federally 

27150 owned lands, such as national forests. Division offices work with the State Department of 

27151 Transportation (see section on Washington State Department of Transportation). 

27152 U.S. Forest Service

27153 Two national forests border the Colville NF: the Okanogan-Wenatchee and the Idaho Panhandle 

27154 National Forests. Each of these forests’ management is guided by a land management plan. The 

27155 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is currently in the process of revising their plan and the 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

804

27156 Idaho Panhandle National Forests revised their plan in 2015. As forest management changes are 

27157 proposed, the forests coordinate and adjust their management strategies as appropriate.

27158 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

27159 The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is currently in the process of revising their forest plan. 

27160 The Colville plan revision effort included review of the existing forest plans and information 

27161 being developed toward completion of a revised plan.

27162 Idaho Panhandle National Forests

27163 The Idaho Panhandle NF (IPNF) is managed by their forest plan which was finalized in 2015. 

27164 The Colville National Forest coordinates with the IPNF in the management of one 

27165 congressionally designated wilderness area – the Salmo-Priest Wilderness. The Salmo-Priest 

27166 Wilderness totals 41,335 acres, of which approximately 75 percent is managed by the Colville NF 

27167 and 9,900 acres are on the Idaho Panhandle NFs, in the state of Washington. The IPNF and 

27168 Colville share a portion of the Selkirk grizzly bear recovery area and a portion of the Selkirk 

27169 woodland caribou recovery area (for the caribou recovery area, the Colville manages 102,907 

27170 acres or 10 percent of the recovery area and the IPNF manages 252,785 acres or 27 percent of the 

27171 recovery area. The remaining portion is in southern British Columbia, Idaho Department of 

27172 Lands, and private lands).

27173 The plan identifies several forestwide goals for topic areas including: vegetation, watershed, soils, 

27174 riparian, aquatic habitat, aquatic species, wildlife, access and recreation, inventoried roadless 

27175 areas, cultural resources, American Indian rights and interests, timber, and social and economic 

27176 systems.

27177 The management areas (MA) of the Idaho Panhandle NFs that border the eastern edge of the 

27178 Colville NF are:

27179 • Management Area 1a: Wilderness – management emphasis is on natural ecological 

27180 processes (e.g., plant succession) and disturbances (e.g., fire, insects, and disease) being 

27181 the primary forces affecting the composition, structure, and pattern of vegetation. Fire 

27182 plays an increased role as a natural disturbance agent.

27183 • Management Area 5: Backcountry - this MA is relatively large areas, generally without 

27184 roads, and provides a variety of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

27185 Trails are the primary improvements constructed and maintained for recreation users. In 

27186 some areas, lookouts, cabins, or other structures are present as well as some evidence of 

27187 management activities.

27188 • Management Area 6: General Forest - this MA consists of relatively large areas with 

27189 roads, trails, and structures, as well as sign of past and ongoing activities designed to 

27190 actively manage the forest vegetation. This MA provides a wide variety of recreation 

27191 opportunities, both motorized and non-motorized. Constructed improvements in this MA 

27192 generally consist of campgrounds, picnic or day use areas, trails, lookouts, and cabins.

27193 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

27194 The main role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) is to administer the Endangered 

27195 Species Act (ESA) (USFWS, 2011). Section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to aid in 

27196 conservation of listed species and section 7 (a)(2) requires that agencies, through consultation 

27197 with the USFWS, ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

805

27198 of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As projects and activities are 

27199 planned, forest managers consult with the USFWS.

27200 The USFWS also issues national polices to promote the conservation and recovery of listed 

27201 species, including species recovery plans. The USFWS developed a strategic plan to react to 

27202 climate change (USFWS 2010) which establishes a basic framework within which the Service 

27203 will work as part of the larger conservation community to help ensure the sustainability of fish, 

27204 wildlife, plants, and habitats in the face of accelerating climate change.

27205 The USFWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. One wildlife refuge borders the 

27206 Colville – the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. The Service plans to manage the 

27207 Refuge through plan components that address restoration, riparian and stream protection and 

27208 enhancement, protection of the primitive roadless character of the 5,520-acre roadless area in the 

27209 southeast corner of the refuge and determine its suitability as a Wilderness Study Area, 

27210 development of an integrated weed management plan, minimizing new weed introduction and 

27211 preventing their establishment and spread, and reducing road density.

27212 State

27213 Washington State Department of Ecology 

27214 The Department of Ecology (Ecology) is Washington’s principal environmental management 

27215 agency and was created in 1970 by the Washington State Legislature. The agency serves as the 

27216 state’s environmental regulatory agency in the areas of air quality, hazardous waste and toxics, 

27217 water quality, and soil protection, providing enforcement of state and federal environmental laws 

27218 and shorelands and environmental assistance.

27219 The mission of the department is to protect, preserve and enhance Washington’s environment, and 

27220 promote the wise management of the state’s air, land, and water for the benefit of current and 

27221 future generations. Goals outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology 2013-15 

27222 Strategic Plan are to prevent and clean up pollution and support sustainable communities and 

27223 natural resources.

27224 Ecology provides products and services that include environmental permitting, compliance 

27225 assistance, inspections and enforcement, contracts, loans, and grants, environmental monitoring 

27226 and analysis, policy, rule, and technical guidance, and education and outreach. 

27227 Objectives stated in the Strategic Plan include, among others, improving air quality, protecting 

27228 wetlands, shorelands and watershed health, improving water quality, monitoring and assessing 

27229 environmental conditions, and managing sustainability of water resources. To sustain limited 

27230 water sources, strategies include building on successful watershed partnerships. Watershed 

27231 restoration strategies include benchmarks and timeframes to restore water to critical basins or 

27232 sources, and to align local, state, and federal funding behind water supply projects with broad 

27233 support. 

27234 For climate change, the DOE strategy is to work with key agencies to integrate impacts of climate 

27235 change and adaptation strategies and actions into agency policies, programs, and funding 

27236 programs and to work with the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, the 

27237 Northwest Climate Science Center, and other federal and non-governmental organization to 

27238 ensure research priorities in considering Washington’s needs (DOE 2013b). 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

806

27239 Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 

27240 The Department of Ecology and other state natural resource agencies have divided the state into 

27241 Water Resource Inventory Areas to delineate the state’s major watersheds. There are 6 WRIAs 

27242 within the three counties of the Colville National Forest. The Department of Ecology began 

27243 working with the Forest Service on a water quality improvement project (also called a total 

27244 maximum daily load or TMDL) for the Colville National Forest in 2002. The TMDL is only for 

27245 waters in the national forest - not private lands within the boundary. EPA approved the Water 

27246 Quality Improvement Report on August 5, 2005. Ecology and the Forest Service finalized the 

27247 Water Quality Implementation Plan in Oct. 2006, with an addendum in 2013 to address several 

27248 sites that were found to consistently meet the state's fecal coliform standard and no longer need to 

27249 be monitored (DOE 2013a).

27250 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

27251 The WDFW’s mission is to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while 

27252 providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities through the 

27253 following goals: 

27254 Goal 1: Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife.

27255 Goal 2: Provide sustainable fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-related recreational and 

27256 commercial experiences.

27257 Goal 3: Promote a healthy economy, protect community character, maintain an overall 

27258 high quality of life, and deliver high-quality customer service.

27259 Goal 4: Build an effective and efficient organization by supporting our workforce, 

27260 improving business processes, and investing in technology (WDFW 2015).

27261 The WDFW manages for fish and wildlife on national forest lands. 

27262 The Eastern region (Region 1) of the WDFW contains wildlife units that lie adjacent to the 

27263 planning area. The Eastern Region provides habitat for endangered caribou and grizzly bears, elk, 

27264 and bighorn sheep. This is the only region in Washington with significant populations of whitetail 

27265 deer and moose. This region includes two national wildlife refuges and portions of the Colville 

27266 National Forest. 

27267 Within Region 1 are wildlife management areas. Each area is guided by a management plan that 

27268 addresses the status of wildlife species and their habitat, habitat restoration, public recreation, 

27269 weed management, and other activities to meet the department’s mission of preserving, 

27270 protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife and ecosystems. Plans are revised periodically to reflect 

27271 current conditions and the progress of past activities, and to identify new management priorities 

27272 and actions (http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/). Wildlife management 

27273 areas adjacent to the Colville National Forest include Le Clerc and Sherman Creek. 

27274 WDFW’s 2011-2017 Strategic Plan includes initiatives that are based on supporting healthy 

27275 ecosystems by using strategies that benefit whole ecosystems and critical habitats; maximizing 

27276 the impact of limited resources by implementing projects that support healthy ecosystems and 

27277 improve poor habitat conditions with the intent to “keep common species common”; considering 

27278 public values through increasing public involvement in decisions affecting the management and 

27279 stewardship of the state’s fish and wildlife resources; and anticipating uncertainty and responding 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

807

27280 to climate change by using adaptive management and making changes to its process for 

27281 correcting salmon-blocking culverts. 

27282 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

27283 The DNR manages forest, range, agricultural, aquatic, and commercial lands to provide fish and 

27284 wildlife habitat, water, and public access. It also manages natural area preserves, natural resource 

27285 conservation areas and state lands, many of which lie adjacent to the planning area. The DNR 

27286 works with the National Weather Service to provide fire weather forecasts and fire precaution 

27287 levels for the Forest Service and other agencies. The DNR regulates outdoor burning and 

27288 provides wildfire protection. 

27289 Goals stated in the strategic plan (DNR 2010) include improving forest practices rules and 

27290 strengthening implementation and compliance, preserving forest cover and protecting working 

27291 forests and agriculture lands from conversion, developing renewable energy resources on state 

27292 lands, and addressing the challenges of climate change. Of the 6 goals, the following align most 

27293 closely with those of the planning area. 

27294 Goal 1. Deliver on promise to manage state lands sustainably: this goal seeks to: 

27295 Goal 2. Improve Forest Practices Rules and Strengthen Implementation and Compliance: 

27296 Goal 3. Preserve forest cover and protect working forests and agriculture lands from 

27297 conversion. 

27298 Goal 5. Develop renewable energy resources on state lands, address the challenges of 

27299 climate change, and create renewable energy jobs. 

27300 The DNR implements an active forest health program to respond to forest health crises in eastern 

27301 Washington, with information, education, and assistance, and by forest health treatments on state27302 owned forest lands. 

27303 Natural Areas - The DNR manages Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation 

27304 Areas. These natural areas protect outstanding examples of natural, undisturbed ecosystems, often 

27305 protecting one-of-a-kind features which are unique to the region. They protect unique and 

27306 threatened native ecosystems, and offer educational and research opportunities. Natural Areas 

27307 program priorities are healthy ecosystems, biodiversity, valuing nature and fostering partnerships. 

27308 Washington State DNR 2010 Statewide Assessment and Strategy -The Washington State 

27309 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other state forestry agencies across the nation 

27310 administer an array of federal programs for landowner assistance, forest conservation and 

27311 management, and fire prevention and suppression. Collectively, many of these fall under the 

27312 federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (Title 16 U.S. Code, Chapter 41), and are sometimes 

27313 called U.S. Forest Service “State & Private Forestry” programs. Specifically, these include: 

27314 • Private Land Fuels Management & Community Protection (multiple programs) 

27315 • Cooperative Forest Health Program 

27316 • Forest Stewardship Program 

27317 • Urban & Community Forestry Program 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

808

27318 • Forest Legacy Program 

27319 • State Fire Assistance Program 

27320 • Volunteer Fire Assistance Program 

27321 The 2014 Farm Bill allowed the governor of each state to request one or more landscape-scale 

27322 areas, such as subwatersheds, in at least one national forest in each state that is experiencing an 

27323 insect and disease epidemic, to be designated as an insect and disease treatment area. With input 

27324 from individual National Forests in Washington, Governor Inslee requested several treatment 

27325 areas throughout Washington State, and on March 6, 2015, Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell 

27326 approved over 700,000 acres to be designated as insect and disease treatment areas under Section 

27327 602 of the Farm Bill. This designation included 426,513 acres on the Colville National Forest 

27328 (roughly 40% of the Forest). This designation allows the use of a categorical exclusion to 

27329 expedite analysis and reduce the insect and disease threat within these insect and disease 

27330 treatment areas. 

27331 Washington State Department of Transportation

27332 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/about/

27333 The WSDOT is responsible for planning, building, and operating a state highway system and 

27334 maintaining bridges with the goal of preserving environmental quality by providing stormwater 

27335 treatment, construction site erosion control, fish passage barrier removal, wetland replacement, 

27336 air pollution control, and adaptation to climate change. 

27337 A memorandum of understanding (Forest Service 2013) between the USDA Forest Service, 

27338 Pacific Northwest Region and the WSDOT documents the steps necessary to coordinate 

27339 transportation activities involving highways on National Forest System land to ensure the public’s 

27340 safe access over these highways. 

27341 Scenic Byways 

27342 The US Forest Service has been an active and ongoing partner at the national, state and 

27343 community levels, as well as through the management of its own National Forest Scenic Byway 

27344 program. In Washington, individual national forests connect with close to one-third of the 

27345 designated Scenic and Recreation Highways. Through the FHWA-funded Forest Highway 

27346 Program, the USFS has contributed about $1 million per year over the last decade to highway 

27347 enhancement projects in Washington, most connected with the scenic and recreation highways 

27348 (Washington State Scenic and Recreational Highways Strategic Plan 2010-2030). 

27349 The following are National Forest Scenic Byways designated by the Colville National Forest: 

27350 North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway, and Sherman Pass Scenic Byway. Each of these is managed 

27351 through their individual corridor management plan (Washington State Department of 

27352 Transportation) and through the Forest’s land and resource management plan. 

27353 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

27354 “The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates, enhances and 

27355 protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical and natural sites. The Commission 

27356 fosters outdoor recreation and education statewide to provide enjoyment and enrichment for all, 

27357 and a valued legacy to future generations” (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

27358 2009). 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

809

27359 The strategic plan states that the Commission has the broad responsibility to manage developed 

27360 parks and recreation areas along with trails, ocean beach, marine parks, watercraft launches, and 

27361 historic buildings and areas. The State Parks has worked with the Forest Service to complete trail 

27362 linkages, design and construct signs and kiosks for information and interpretation.

27363 Other Landowners

27364 The Colville NF border and surrounds other ownerships besides those listed above. There is no 

27365 known inventory of these landowner activities and potential impacts to the forests.

27366 Conclusion

27367 As identified above, other landowners and land policies have the potential to impact the Colville 

27368 NF and vice-versa. In the development of the land management plan, the goals and policies of 

27369 those other plans have been taken into account. The Interdisciplinary Team found the revised 

27370 forest plan and the management plans and policy goals of other Federal agencies, State and local 

27371 governments, and American Indian tribes to be in alignment in several areas. Most notably, we 

27372 appreciate the common objectives included in each plan that was reviewed to encourage 

27373 conservation of forest lands, protect natural resources, and offer special protection to areas 

27374 designated as critical or environmentally sensitive. Other plan goals well-aligned with the revised 

27375 forest plan include the intergovernmental coordination goals to:

27376 • Maintain the rural character of the area including forest and agricultural lands;

27377 • Protect fish and wildlife resources;

27378 • Manage, protect, enhance, and conserve water resources;

27379 • Protect and enhance the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources;

27380 • Protect and enhance wetlands and shorelines;

27381 • Provide a safe, efficient, functional, and environmentally responsible transportation 

27382 network, including motorized and non-motorized vehicles;

27383 • Promote protection of the heritage, customs, and cultures of the local area;

27384 • Support multiple uses on public lands; 

27385 • Encourage natural resource based industries that are compatible with other land uses, and 

27386 promote forest-related jobs for the local economy;

27387 • Encourage and accommodate as many diverse recreational activities and areas as possible 

27388 that are compatible with other land uses; and

27389 • Continued coordination with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies for conducting 

27390 joint planning efforts for proposals on federal and state lands. 

27391 Table B- 2 identifies some of the land use goals from other plans and how they align with the 

27392 CNF proposed plan. Also identified are some potential impacts and how the proposed plan deals 

27393 with those impacts. Table B- 3 identifies potential activities on adjacent lands that may impact 

27394 forest management. Impacts of actions on adjacent lands is analyzed in the cumulative 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

810

27395 environmental consequences section of chapter 3 in the DEIS. No major conflicts with Forest 

27396 Service planning have been identified at this time.

27397 Table B- 2. Land Use Goals and Potential Impacts to Forest Management, and their relationship to 

27398 the Proposed Plan

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

The land allocations (especially 

recommended wilderness) have 

the potential to impact economic 

opportunities within the three 

adjacent counties

The revised plan maintains opportunities for resource management 

(e.g., timber, grazing) and recreational use (mechanized and nonmechanized) which would continue economic input to local 

communities.

Retention of areas as Backcountry 

to allow mechanical use to 

continue

The draft plan includes proposals for both motorized and nonmotorized backcountry areas to accommodate a variety of 

recreational uses.

Preserve agricultural lands of longterm commercial significanceThe revised plan would not alter any uses on non-National Forest 

system lands.

Preserve natural resources and 

offer special protection to areas 

designated as critical areas, or 

environmentally sensitive areas

The Forest contains recovery area and proposed critical habitat for 

the last remaining herd of woodland caribou in the continental U.S. 

The Forest does not contain designated critical habitat for Canada 

lynx but follows current science direction for managing Canada lynx 

habitat. Portions of streams on the Forest have been designated as 

critical habitat for the recovery of bull trout. The Washington portion 

of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area is included within the 

northeastern part of the Colville National Forest. The Forest 

provides habitat for four fish species, 38 plant species, and 27 

wildlife species considered sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service. See 

appendix D of the DEIS.

Management for adequate browse and forage for deer and elk 

summer and winter ranges is incorporated as part of the analysis.

Special and unique habitats will be managed to support threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant species populations and contribute 

to high quality suitable habitat for these species. Degraded or 

diminished special and unique habitats would be restored within 

their natural range of variation.

The draft plan provides objectives, standards, and guidelines to 

protect habitat for federally listed species and species of interest to 

the public (such as big game).

Protect environmentally sensitive 

areas to reduce cumulative 

adverse environmental impacts to 

water availability, water quality, 

wetlands, aquatic and wildlife 

habitat conservation areas, 

frequently flooded areas, and 

geologically hazardous areas

Draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so 

National Forest System lands contribute to uninterrupted physical 

and biological processes within and between watersheds. 

Floodplains, groundwater-dependent systems, upslope areas, 

headwater tributaries, and intact habitat refugia provide vertical, 

horizontal, and drainage network connections. These network 

connections provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes 

to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic, 

riparian-dependent, and many terrestrial species of plants and 

animals.

Offer protections of resources such 

as timber, fish, forage, wildlife, 

water and culture sensitive areas 

while providing recreation and 

access to these areas

The draft plan provides a spectrum of high quality, nature-based 

outdoor recreational settings and opportunities varying from primitive 

to developed where visitors can experience the biological, 

geological, scenic, and cultural resources of the Forest, with an 

emphasis on the natural appearing character of the forest.

Management restrictions on recreational development occur for the 

purpose of resource protection and recreation management. 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

811

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Call for multiple-use of the forest The overall goal of managing National Forest System lands is to 

sustain the multiple uses of its resources in perpetuity while 

maintaining the long-term productivity of the land. The proposed 

plan carries out that goal.

Improve forest health and promote 

long-term productivity and 

restoration of ecosystems

The desired conditions describe a healthy, sustainable forest and 

the objectives identify actions that would help restore ecosystems.

Maintain a healthy, sustainable 

forest that provides raw materials

Desired conditions describe a variety of renewable forest products of 

social, spiritual, and economic value are reasonably available to the 

public. Special forest products and merchantable timber products 

are ecosystem services that contribute to economic sustainability, 

social desires, or cultural needs.

Provide an efficient, functional, and 

environmentally responsible 

transportation network by utilizing 

and maintaining existing 

infrastructure, integrating 

transportation planning with other 

elements of local plans, and 

coordinating with other federal, 

state, tribal and local agencies.

The draft plan provides for an access system of authorized roads, 

bridges, trails, and docks that are safe, affordable, and 

environmentally sound, responds to administrative and public needs 

to the extent practicable, meets obligations to public and private 

cooperators, and is efficient to manage.

Management restrictions on transportation system development 

occur for the purpose of resource protection.

Throughout the proposed plan, there is a management emphasis on 

collaboration and cooperation with tribes, state, federal, and local 

governments, other agencies, and stakeholders.

Provide safe and convenient 

utilization of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles and equipment 

by residents, industries, tourists, 

and recreationalists.

The draft plan continues to provide both motorized and nonmotorized areas to accommodate a variety of forest uses.

Consider local concerns; 

collaborate and conduct joint 

planning for proposals on federal 

and state lands

Throughout the proposed plan, there is a management emphasis on 

collaboration and cooperation with local governments and 

stakeholders.

Coordinate and collaborate with 

the U.S. Forest Service and other 

public resource agencies and 

managers to inventory recreational 

opportunities and promote the 

shared use and full enjoyment of 

publicly owned land

Throughout the proposed plan, there is a management emphasis on 

collaboration and cooperation with state and federal governments 

and other agencies.

The draft plan provides a spectrum of high quality, nature-based 

outdoor recreational settings and opportunities varying from primitive 

to developed where visitors can experience the biological, 

geological, scenic, and cultural resources of the Forest, with an 

emphasis on the natural appearing character of the forest.

Support and protection for 

heritage, local traditional customs 

and culture

The uses of livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, and 

hunting continue to be allowed in the proposed plan. The proposed 

plan recognizes that many local residents have traditional ties, such 

as forest product collection, hunting, holiday celebrations, and 

annual picnics. Loggers and ranchers continue to be an important 

part of the forests’ history and their traditional uses remain an 

important part of the cultural landscape.

Rangelands and forestlands provide forage for use by both livestock 

and wildlife. Grazing continues to be a viable use of vegetation on 

the Forest. Availability of lands identified as suited for this use 

contributes to providing animal products, economic diversity, and 

open space, and promotes cultural values, and a traditional life style.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

812

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Avoid the loss of archaeological 

and historic information

Desired conditions describe protection of heritage resources on the 

national forest, including known Native American sacred sites and 

traditional cultural properties. Sites are preserved, protected, and/or 

restored per applicable law, regulation, executive order, and 

directives. As appropriate, eligible and historically significant 

heritage properties are listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Forest’s priority heritage assets are protected and 

preserved per applicable law, regulation, executive order, and 

directives. Opportunities to connect people with the heritage of the 

land are provided.

Community growth demand The proposed plan identifies a management emphasis to work with 

local communities to understand their community expansion needs 

and retain access to NFS lands. 

Increase job opportunities through 

encouragement of industry that is 

compatible with other land uses

The draft plan provides a sustainable level of timber products for 

current and future generations. Production of timber from National 

Forest System lands contributes to an economically viable forest 

products industry.

Continued support for timber 

industry and forest-related jobs for 

the local economy

Desired conditions describe a variety of renewable forest products of 

social, spiritual and economic value that are reasonably available to 

the public. Special forest products and merchantable timber 

products are ecosystem services that contribute to economic 

sustainability, social desires, or cultural needs.

The draft plan provides a sustainable level of timber products for 

current and future generations. Production of timber from National 

Forest System lands contributes to an economically viable forest 

products industry.

Timber production and tree cutting continue and contribute to the 

local and regional economy. See the “Economic Conditions” section 

of the DEIS.

Maintain and enhance natural 

resource-based industries, and 

provide for the stewardship and 

productive use of forest, mineral, 

and agricultural lands

The draft plan provides a sustainable level of timber products for 

current and future generations. Production of timber from National 

Forest System lands contributes to an economically viable forest 

products industry.

The desired conditions describe a healthy, sustainable forest and 

the objectives identify actions that would help restore ecosystems.

Encourage development of a 

statement of custom and culture so 

that federal and state agencies will 

be able to ensure that community 

and economic stability are 

considered by those agencies 

when they develop and implement 

plans, policies or regulations 

affecting the use of state and 

federal lands

Desired conditions describe a variety of renewable forest products of 

social, spiritual and economic value that are reasonably available to 

the public. Special forest products and merchantable timber 

products are ecosystem services that contribute to economic 

sustainability, social desires, or cultural needs.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

813

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Minimize the loss of forest land 

acreage, functions, and values 

through a combination of land use 

and development regulation and 

non-regulatory means such as 

public education, technical 

assistance to land owners

The desired condition in the draft plan describes a broad range of 

people in rural, urban, and underserved populations understanding 

the complexities of managing natural resources for the full range of 

benefits associated with the multiple use mission of the Forest 

Service.

A multi-faceted outreach strategy aims to help the public 

understand: the natural and cultural history of the national forest; 

important themes of ecological processes, including fish, plant, and 

wildlife species habitat needs and the importance of disturbance 

processes; the human benefits of the national forest system, 

including recreational and commodity values; forest regulations and 

resource protection practices; safety practices; potential impacts of 

human activity on resources, and how to participate effectively in 

national forest decision-making activities.

Encourage and accommodate as 

many diverse recreational activities 

and areas as possible that are 

compatible with other land uses

The draft plan provides a spectrum of high quality, nature-based 

outdoor recreational settings and opportunities varying from primitive 

to developed where visitors can experience the biological, 

geological, scenic, and cultural resources of the Forest, with an 

emphasis on the natural appearing character of the forest.

Allow development of master 

planned resorts which meet the 

requirements of the Growth 

Management Act to take 

advantage of natural beauty and 

enhance the public's access to 

areas already characterized by 

some degree of recreational use.

Draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so

special use authorizations allow the private sector to develop, 

maintain, and operate highly developed winter recreation facilities 

where appropriate. Ski areas are able to provide parking, adequate 

room for skiers on the slopes, and facilities offering restrooms, 

warmth, and food.

Other outdoor recreation activities permitted by law and compatible 

in this national forest setting may be authorized to increase the 

recreational opportunities provided on the forest and contribute 

monetarily to local economies.

Ski areas generally have a mix of native vegetation and man-made 

grassy openings intermixed with forested or partially forested areas 

and rocky outcroppings. Forested areas may act as cover for wildlife 

species, or habitat for plant species, contributing to the composition, 

structure, and pattern typical of the vegetative systems, but are not 

required to be within their natural range of variability or to meet 

forest-wide habitat requirements

Continued support for recreation 

industry and opportunities for offhighway vehicles

The draft plan continues to allow these activities.

The draft plan will designate 45 miles of motorized mixed use roads 

across the Forest that would connect with existing motorized mixed 

use roads identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map to create loop 

riding opportunities, connect camping areas, or connect 

communities with the Forest, within 15 years of plan implementation.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

814

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Growing demand for recreation 

(e.g., hiking trails, designated OHV 

routes )

The draft plan offers a spectrum of recreation settings and 

opportunities varying from primitive to developed, with an emphasis 

on the natural-appearing character of the forest. A range of 

dispersed recreation activities such as camping, backcountry skiing, 

boating, mushroom and berry picking, hunting, and fishing are 

available. These opportunities are managed to minimize impacts to 

resources, are within budget limitations, and may provide economic 

benefits to nearby communities.

The access system of authorized roads, bridges, trails, and docks is 

safe, affordable, and environmentally sound, responds to 

administrative and public needs to the extent practicable, meets 

obligations to public and private cooperators, and is efficient to 

manage. The system provides public and administrative access 

where suitable and supports Forest management objectives. Road 

and trail rights-of-way to access National Forest System lands 

address public needs and facilitate planned resource activities. All 

Forest system roads and trails have legal access for crossing nonNational Forest System lands.

A variety of maintained system trails compliments local community 

trail systems while minimizing user conflicts. Trails provide a range 

of difficulty levels for the various user types, and are located in 

diverse ecological, geological, and scenic settings. Although the 

proposed plan does not identify specific new developments, it does 

allow for it, if needed. The proposed plan focuses on maintaining 

existing recreation opportunities and improving their quality.

Protect groundwater recharge 

areas and prevent the 

contamination of vulnerable 

groundwater resources to ensure 

water quality and quantity for 

public and private uses and critical 

area function

Draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so

National Forest System lands contribute to the timing, variability, 

and water table elevation in wetlands, seeps, springs, and other 

groundwater-dependent systems. These features are within or 

moving toward proper functioning condition.

National Forest system lands in ground and surface source water 

protection areas provide water that meets or exceeds state water 

quality standards for drinking water with appropriate treatment

Clean up polluted lands and water Draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so

National Forest System lands contribute to the physical integrity of 

the aquatic system and riparian habitat, including banks and 

floodplains.

Provide necessary public facilities 

and services, in places and at 

levels proportionate to planned 

development intensity and 

environmental protection

Draft plan standards & guidelines are designed so all occupancy 

and use of National Forest System lands is properly authorized. 

Facilities and improvements that are not owned, managed or 

maintained by the Forest Service are either removed or authorized 

through the appropriate special use authorization when they meet 

forest plan direction and are feasible within resource constraints 

(examples include roads, utility lines, or communication sites).

Utility corridors and communication sites provide for the movement 

and distribution of electricity, petroleum products, water, other lineal 

special uses, and communication signals across National Forest 

System lands.

Provide for the maintenance and 

enhancement of species diversity 

and thereby promote long-term 

stability of the forest environment

The draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so 

species diversity is enhanced by providing favorable habitat 

conditions (appropriate mix of cover types and structure stages) and 

reducing risk factors (primarily managing human activities).

Habitat conditions (amount, distribution, and connectivity of habitat) 

contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species.
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

815

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Conserve, preserve, enhance, and 

restore wildlife, fish, plants, and 

their habitats

The Forest contains recovery area and proposed critical habitat for 

the last remaining herd of woodland caribou in the continental U.S. 

The Forest does not contain designated critical habitat for Canada 

lynx but follows current science direction for managing Canada lynx 

habitat. Portions of streams on the Forest have been designated as 

critical habitat for the recovery of bull trout. The Washington portion 

of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Area is included within the 

northeastern part of the Colville National Forest. The Forest 

provides habitat for four fish species, 38 plant species, and 27 

wildlife species considered sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service. See 

appendix D of the DEIS.

Management for adequate browse and forage occurs for deer and 

elk summer and winter ranges is incorporated as part of the 

analysis.

Special and unique habitats will be managed to support threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant species populations and contribute 

to high quality suitable habitat for these species. Degraded or 

diminished special and unique habitats would be restored within 

their natural range of variation.

The draft plan provides objectives, standards and guidelines to 

protect habitat for federally listed species and species of interest to 

the public (such as big game).

National Forest System lands contribute to the recovery of federally 

threatened and endangered aquatic species and conservation of 

Regional Forester’s sensitive aquatic species. Aquatic habitat 

supports spawning, rearing, and other key life history requirements

Danger from fire for residents living 

in a wildland-urban interface

The draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so 

fuel treatments continue to reduce surface, ladder, and crown fuels 

that lower the potential for high-severity wildfires while providing for 

diversity within the stands. Vegetation has been modified 

(interrupted) to improve community protection and enhance public 

and firefighter safety.

Fuel treatments are emphasized in wildland urban interface and 

areas that exhibit the potential for high severity fire behavior that 

could impact private or other agency lands. A pattern of treatments 

are established and maintained that are effective in modifying fire 

behavior as identified in individual community wildfire protection 

plans.

A multi-faceted outreach strategy aims to help the public 

understand: the natural and cultural history of the national forest; 

important themes of ecological processes, including fish, plant, and 

wildlife species habitat needs and the importance of disturbance 

processes; the human benefits of the national forest system, 

including recreational and commodity values; forest regulations and 

resource protection practices; safety practices; potential impacts of 

human activity on resources, and how to participate effectively in 

national forest decision-making activities.

Protect private property rights The proposed plan honors the continuing validity of private, 

statutory, or pre-existing rights.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

816

Land Use Goals/Potential 

Impacts/Issues

How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Tribal use and traditional cultural 

properties

The draft plan recognizes that traditional and cultural use 

information, as provided by federally recognized tribes, is treated 

with respect and integrated into natural resource management 

planning efforts with appropriate sensitivity to the tribe’s views 

regarding information sharing. American Indian values are fully 

considered in planning proposed actions on the Forest. The Forest 

maintains sustainable products, uses, values, and services that 

contribute to the American Indians’ way of life and cultural integrity. 

Access to traditional resources and sacred places is considered in 

all planning efforts.

Tribes are consulted when management activities may impact treaty 

rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use, according to individual 

tribal communication plans, Consultation Protocols, or policies.

Minimize impacts from invasive 

species

Native species and native plant communities are the desired 

dominant vegetation.

Draft plan objectives, standards & guidelines are designed so forest 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are in an ecological condition that 

resists introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive plant 

species. Established invasive plant infestations are not increasing in 

number or size, occur at low densities, and are reduced or removed. 

Risk of invasive plant infestations is maintained at a low level due to 

the effectiveness of prevention actions and the success of 

restoration efforts.

Threats related to changes in 

climate

Appendix C of the proposed plan provides information and 

discussion about climate change and considerations for land 

management planning

27399
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

817

27400 Table B- 3. Activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management

Land exchanges (changes in ownership) Commercial harvesting and thinning; forest 

restoration and thinning; removal of overstory trees

Highway improvements Prescribed fires

Fire suppression Recreation improvements and new construction

Permitted recreation use (restrictions on types of 

uses)

Renewable energy development (e.g., wind farms, 

energy corridors)

Removal of nonnative fish species and restoration of 

native aquatic species

Continued livestock grazing

Noxious and invasive weed treatments

27401
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

818

27402 References

27403 Colville Confederated Tribes. 2000. Colville Indian Reservation Record of Decision and Plan for 

27404 Integrated Resource Management Plan 2000 – 2014. Final Environmental Impact 

27405 Statement, July 2001. Nespelem, Washington.

27406 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 2012. Wetland Program Plan. Nespelem, WA. 

27407 Available online at: 

27408 http://www.colvilletribes.com/search.php?keywords=wetland+program+plan (Accessed 

27409 September 2015).

27410 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 2015. Draft Comprehensive Plan. Nespelem, 

27411 WA. Available online at: http://www.colvilletribes.com/2015_comprehensive_plan.php

27412 Federal Highway Administration. 2011. About FHWA. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

27413 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/

27414 Ferry County. 2006. Ferry County Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) 

27415 Volume I, December 8, 2006. Ferry County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Core 

27416 Team in cooperation with Northwest Management, Inc., 233 E. Palouse River Dr., P.O. 

27417 Box 9748, Moscow, ID, 83843, Tel: 208-883-4488, www.Consulting-Foresters.com

27418 Ferry County. 2013. Ferry County Comprehensive Plan. Republic, WA. Available online at: 

27419 http://www.ferry-county.com/Planning/PDF_Files/Ordinances/2013-

27420 ComprehensivePlanUpdatedWithMaps-Final.pdf

27421 Kalispel Tribe of Indians. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Management Plan. Kalispel Natural Resource 

27422 Department. Usk, WA.

27423 Kalispel Tribe of Indians. http://www.kalispeltribe.com/ (accessed August 2015)

27424 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008a. Endangered Species Act -Section 7 Consultation 

27425 Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

27426 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: consultation on remand for operation of the Federal 

27427 Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia 

27428 Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program 

27429 (Revised and reissued pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE 

27430 (D. Oregon)). NMFS, Portland, Oregon, 5/5/2008.

27431 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008b. Supplemental comprehensive analysis of the Federal 

27432 Columbia River Power System and mainstem effects of the Upper Snake and other 

27433 tributary actions. NMFS, Portland, Oregon, 5/5/2008.

27434 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Supplemental Consultation on Remand for Operation of 

27435 the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects 

27436 in the Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish 

27437 Transportation Program, F/NWR/2010/02096, 5/20/2010.

27438 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Endangered Species Act -Section 7 Consultation 

27439 Supplemental Biological Opinion Consultation on Remand for operation of the Federal 

27440 Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the 

27441 Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation 
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

819

27442 Program (Revised and reissued pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Order issued 

27443 August 2, 2011). NMFS, Portland, Oregon, 1/17/2014.

27444 Okanogan County. 2013. Okanogan County Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

27445 (CWPP), October 2013. Okanogan County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

27446 Committee in cooperation with Okanogan County Department of Emergency 

27447 Management, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and Northwest 

27448 Management, Inc., 233 E. Palouse River Dr., P.O. Box 9748, Moscow, ID, 83843, Tel: 

27449 208-883-4488, www.Consulting-Foresters.com

27450 Okanogan County. 2014. Okanogan County Comprehensive Plan. Okanogan, WA. Available 

27451 online at: http://www.okanogancounty.org/planning/

27452 Pend Oreille County. 2011. Pend Oreille County Washington, Community Wildfire Protection 

27453 Plan (CWPP), November 21, 2005, updated March 2011. Pend Oreille County Interface 

27454 Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee in cooperation with Northwest Management, Inc., 

27455 233 E. Palouse River Dr., P.O. Box 9748, Moscow, ID, 83843, Tel: 208-883-4488, 

27456 www.Consulting-Foresters.com

27457 Pend Oreille County. 2013. Pend Oreille County Comprehensive Plan. Newport, WA. Available 

27458 online at: http://www.pendoreilleco.org/county/planning.asp

27459 Spokane Tribe of Indians. 2014. Sustainable Community Master Plan. Wellpinit, WA. Available 

27460 online at: http://www.spokanetribe.com/userfiles/FINAL_2015_SCMP.pdf

27461 Stevens County. 2007. Stevens County Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

27462 (CWPP), Volume II, October 25, 2007, updated May 30, 2008. Stevens County 

27463 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Planning committee in cooperation with Northwest 

27464 Management, Inc., 233 E. Palouse River Dr., P.O. Box 9748, Moscow, ID, 83843, Tel: 

27465 208-883-4488, www.Consulting-Foresters.com

27466 Stevens County. 2008. Stevens County Comprehensive Plan. Colville, WA. Available online at: 

27467 http://www.co.stevens.wa.us/landservices/ordinance_compplan.php

27468 The International Selkirk Loop. http://www.selkirkloop.org/ (accessed August 2015).

27469 U.S. Congress. 2003. Public Law 108-148, Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 108th 

27470 Congress. Washington DC.

27471 USDA Forest Service. 2009. Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, 

27472 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

27473 Forest Service. Washington D.C. Available online at: 

27474 http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/index.shtml (accessed August 2015).

27475 USDA Forest Service. 2012. National best management practices for water quality management 

27476 on national forest system lands. Volume 1: National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. 

27477 165 p.

27478 USDA Forest Service. 2013. Memorandum of understanding between the State of Washington 

27479 Department of Transportation WSDOT agreements No. GCA 1336 and the USDA, Forest 

27480 Service, Pacific Northwest Region. FS Agreement No. 13-RU-11060051-021. Pacific 

27481 Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

820

27482 USDA Forest Service. 2015. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Land Management Plan. 

27483 Available online at: 

27484 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ipnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5436518

27485 (accessed August 2015).

27486 USDA Forest Service. [No date]. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Land Management Plan, 

27487 currently under revision. Available online at: 

27488 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/okawen/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_053653

27489 (accessed August 2015).

27490 USDI Bureau of Land Management. [No date]. Spokane District Resource Management Plan and 

27491 Environmental Impact Statement, under revision. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau 

27492 of Land Management (BLM). Spokane, WA. Available online at: 

27493 http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp/index.php (accessed August 

27494 2015).

27495 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. [No date]. Consultations – Overview. United States Department 

27496 of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

27497 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/consultations-overview.html (accessed 

27498 August 2015).

27499 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge 

27500 Comprehensive Conservation Plan. [Place of publication unknown]. Available online at: 

27501 http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Little_Pend_Oreille/what_we_do/planning.html (Accessed 

27502 August 2015).

27503 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge; strategic plan for 

27504 responding to accelerating climate change. [Place of publication unknown].

27505 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. 2011-2017 Strategic Plan. Washington 

27506 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Available online at: 

27507 http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/strategic_plan/ (accessed August 2015).

27508 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. 2013-2015 Strategic Plan. Washington 

27509 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Available online at: 

27510 http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/strategic_plan/ (accessed August 2015).

27511 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. [No date]. Wildlife Area Management Plans. 

27512 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Available online at: 

27513 http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/ (accessed August 2015).

27514 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006. Colville National Forest temperature and 

27515 bacteria total maximum daily load: water quality implementation plan. Publication no. 

27516 06-10-059. Olympia, WA.

27517 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2013a. Addendum to the Colville National Forest 

27518 temperature and bacteria total maximum daily load: Water quality implementation plan. 

27519 Publication no. 13-10-040. Available: 

27520 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1310040.pdf. Olympia, WA. 

27521 (Accessed August 2015).
Appendix B – Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

821

27522 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2013b. Washington State Department of Ecology 

27523 2013-2015 Strategic Plan. Publication Number: 12-01-014. Olympia, WA.

27524 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Strategic plan 2010-2014; the 

27525 Goldmark agenda. Olympia, WA 

27526 Washington State Department of Transportation. 2010. Washington State Scenic and Recreational 

27527 Highways Strategic Plan 2010-2030

27528 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2009. Strategic Plan 2009-2015. [Place of 

27529 publication unknown]. Olympia, WA.

27530 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2013. 2010-2013 Progress Report. 

27531 Washington State Parks. Available online at: 

27532 http://www.parks.wa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/66. Olympia, WA. (accessed 

27533 August 2015).

27534 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2014. Strategic Plan 2014-2019. [Place of 

27535 publication unknown]. Available online at: 

27536 http://parks.state.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/67. Olympia, WA. (Accessed 

27537 September 2015).
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

822

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix C – Cumulative Effects

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

823

27538 Appendix C. Cumulative Effects

27539 Cumulative effects are those impacts on the environment that result from the incremental effects 

27540 of an action when it is added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

27541 regardless of which agency or person undertakes them (see 40 CFR 1508.7).

27542 Analysis and disclosure of cumulative effects alerts decision-makers and the public to possible 

27543 environmental implications of interactions among known and likely management programs and 

27544 activities. A programmatic FEIS, such as this one, considers large areas that encompass a wide 

27545 array of environmental interactions, not all of which occur on the national forests. Many of these 

27546 environmental interactions will be most accurately disclosed as cumulative effects in site-specific 

27547 environmental analyses; they can neither be confidently predicted nor credibly estimated for 

27548 inclusion in this document. In such cases, these cumulative impacts are discussed to the extent 

27549 data and information allow. Wherever possible, cumulative impacts of the alternatives have been 

27550 identified and estimated, even when the impacts are estimated with limited degrees of certainty.

27551 A program document, such as this one, needs to consider compatibility and conflicts with 

27552 programs plans and institutional arrangements at national, regional, and state levels that have 

27553 implications to environmental consequences and influence of successful implementation. The 

27554 following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable programmatic actions have affected or could 

27555 affect the various resources in the Colville National Forest (CNF). There is additional discussion 

27556 of cumulative effects within the various resource area sections of chapter 3 of the DEIS.

27557 Existing Forest Plan, as Amended

27558 The baseline of effects is from the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan. The effects of this 

27559 Plan have previously been determined and disclosed in appropriate National Environmental 

27560 Policy Act (NEPA) documents.

27561 Past Policy Decisions

27562 Forest Service NEPA Procedures

27563 On July 24, 2008, the Agency issued a procedural rule to guide its implementation of the NEPA 

27564 (36 CFR 220). While the new rule includes some changes, most of the Agency’s NEPA 

27565 procedures were moved to regulation unchanged. No cumulative effects are expected from these 

27566 actions because these are intended to be procedural requirements that do not cause effects on the 

27567 human environment.

27568 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294) 

27569 The revised Plan includes management direction for inventoried roadless areas identified in the 

27570 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. On October 21, 2011, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 

27571 reversed the Wyoming District Court and upheld the USDA's 2001 Roadless Rule in Wyoming v. 

27572 United States Department of Agriculture. The decision by the 10th Circuit resolves 10 years of 

27573 litigation. The ruling confirms that the agency has the authority to manage and protect roadless 

27574 lands within the National Forest System and that the department complied with all applicable 

27575 laws in adopting the 2001 Roadless Rule. Under the 2001 Roadless Rule, new road construction 

27576 and reconstruction are generally prohibited in inventoried roadless areas, and timber harvest is 

27577 only permitted under a few limited exceptions. It is outside the authority of the revised forest plan 

27578 to make any changes to boundaries of inventoried roadless areas.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

824

27579 The National Travel Management Final Rule

27580 In November 2005, the Forest Service published a new travel management rule governing motor 

27581 vehicle use on national forests and grasslands (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 (travel 

27582 management)). Under the final rule, each national forest or ranger district designated those roads, 

27583 trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. 

27584 Motor vehicle use off the designated system is prohibited. Designated routes and areas have been 

27585 identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Motor vehicle use outside of designated routes 

27586 and areas are provided for fire, military, emergency, and law enforcement purposes, and for use 

27587 under Forest Service permit. Valid existing rights are honored. The rule also maintains the status 

27588 quo for snowmobile use.

27589 The travel management rule has no effect on fire management, forest management, grazing, 

27590 transportation systems, mineral and energy development, winter recreation, or land acquisition 

27591 because it does not affect permits or valid existing rights.

27592 As shown in chapters 2 and 3 of the DEIS, alternative B would have the greatest impact on access 

27593 to NFS lands due to the amount of recommended wilderness proposed.

27594 The Roads Policy

27595 In January 2009, new directives (FSM 7700 and FSH 7709) regarding travel management were 

27596 put into effect to make them consistent with and to facilitate implementation of the agency’s final 

27597 travel management rule. This direction gives managers a scientific analysis process to inform 

27598 their decision-making. It directs the agency to maintain a safe, environmentally sound road 

27599 network that is responsive to public needs and affordable to manage but that calls for unneeded 

27600 roads to be considered for decommissioning or conversion to other uses, such as trails.

27601 These final directives consolidate direction for travel planning for both NFS roads and NFS trails 

27602 in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55. The final 

27603 directives rename roads analysis "travel analysis" and streamline some of its procedural 

27604 requirements. In addition, for purposes of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle 

27605 use, the final directives expand the scope of travel analysis to encompass trails and areas being 

27606 considered for designation.

27607 National Fire Plan

27608 The National Fire Plan (NFP) was developed in August 2000, following a landmark wildland fire 

27609 season, with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their impacts on 

27610 communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity and safety for the future. The NFP 

27611 addresses five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community 

27612 assistance, and accountability (USDA Forest Service and USDI 2000).

27613 The NFP established an intensive, long-term hazardous fuels reduction program in response to the 

27614 risks posed by heavy fuel loads; the result of decades of fire suppression activities; sustained 

27615 drought; and increasing insect, disease, and invasive plant infestations. Hazardous fuels 

27616 treatments are accomplished using a variety of tools, including prescribed fire, wildland fire use, 

27617 mechanical thinning, timber harvest, herbicides, grazing, or combinations of these and other 

27618 methods. Treatments are being increasingly focused in the expanding wildland urban interface 

27619 (WUI) areas.

27620 A discussion of cumulative effects can be found in the DEIS chapter 3.
Appendix C – Cumulative Effects

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

825

27621 Healthy Forests Initiative

27622 In August 2002, the President issued Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and 

27623 Stronger Communities. The intent of the initiative is to better protect people and natural resources 

27624 by lowering the procedural and process hurdles that impede the reduction of hazardous fuels on 

27625 public land. The initiative includes:

27626 • Improving procedures for developing and implementing fuels treatment and forest restoration 

27627 projects in priority forests and rangelands;

27628 • Reducing the number of overlapping environmental reviews by combining project analyses 

27629 and establishing a process for concurrent project clearance by federal agencies;

27630 • Developing guidance for weighing the short-term risk against the long-term benefits of fuel 

27631 treatment and restoration projects; and

27632 • Developing guidance to ensure consistent NEPA procedures for fuel treatment activities and 

27633 restoration activities.

27634 One outcome of the Healthy Forests Initiative was the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

27635 (HFRA).

27636 A discussion of cumulative effects can be found in the DEIS chapter 3.

27637 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148, HFRA)

27638 The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, approved by Congress in December 2003, applies to the 

27639 Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The act contains a variety of provisions 

27640 to expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific types of federal 

27641 land that are at risk of a wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The act helps rural 

27642 communities, States, Tribes, and landowners restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions, on 

27643 state, tribal, and private lands.

27644 Even though they do not specify outcomes, the direction set forth in these documents (the NFP 

27645 and HFRA) was considered in the effects analysis. The analysis evaluates the relative ability to 

27646 treat hazardous fuels primarily within the WUI and municipal watersheds. The prohibitions and 

27647 permissions for road construction/reconstruction and timber cutting, sale, or removal influence 

27648 the ability to treat hazardous fuels.

27649 Timber cutting and associated road-building projections portrayed in the DEIS reflect activities 

27650 anticipated to be implemented within each of the alternatives, in response to the NFP, Healthy 

27651 Forests Initiative, and HFRA. A discussion of cumulative effects can be found in the DEIS 

27652 chapter 3.

27653 Woody Biomass Utilization Strategy

27654 This 2008 strategy describes how Forest Service programs can better coordinate to improve the 

27655 use of woody biomass in tandem with forest management activities on both federal and private 

27656 lands. Although the focus is on the use of woody biomass, the primary broader objective is 

27657 sustaining healthy and resilient forests that will survive an environment of natural disturbances 

27658 and threats, including climate change. One of four goals of the strategy is facilitating a reliable 

27659 and predictable supply of biomass. The strategy does not prescribe any specific outcomes.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

826

27660 Each of the alternatives would result in a different level of biomass being available for use, 

27661 commensurate with the levels of tree harvest predicted in table 3-11, in chapter 3 of the DEIS (see 

27662 “Forest Vegetation” section of the DEIS).

27663 Energy Implementation Plan

27664 The 2001 Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan was written to implement elements of 

27665 Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy Related Projects, also called the National 

27666 Energy Plan (USDA Forest Service 2001). The National Energy Plan encourages agencies to 

27667 “...expedite their review of permits and/or take other actions necessary to accelerate the 

27668 completion of such projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental 

27669 protections...”

27670 No priority areas were identified in Washington. The Energy Implementation Plan does not 

27671 prescribe any specific outcome and is not a programmatic decision. It merely identifies actions 

27672 that should be taken to respond to the National Energy Plan.

27673 Energy Policy Act of 2005

27674 Recognizing the fundamental importance of the delivery of energy supplies to the Nation’s 

27675 economic well-being, Congress passed section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 

27676 certain federal agencies to designate energy corridors on federal lands in 11 western States, 

27677 including Washington, and to coordinate with each other to create a cooperative, efficient process 

27678 for applicants to apply for rights-of-way in such corridors. Congress stated in section 368 that the 

27679 agencies should incorporate the designated corridors into their respective land use or resource 

27680 management plans. Congress also directed the agencies to conduct environmental reviews that are 

27681 required to designate corridors and add the designated corridors to the plans.

27682 As directed by Congress in section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Forest Service 

27683 participated in preparing a programmatic EIS and issued a ROD (USDA Forest Service 2009) 

27684 designating energy corridors on land it administers for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and 

27685 electricity transmission and distribution facilities in 10 contiguous western States and 

27686 incorporated these designations into affected agency land use plans. Energy corridors not 

27687 addressed in the programmatic analysis would be subject to a separate environmental analysis.

27688 Forest Service Open Space Conservation Strategy

27689 The Forest Service announced its Open Space Conservation Strategy on December 6, 2007. This 

27690 strategy establishes goals and priority actions to conserve open space across private and public 

27691 land and underscores the importance of the conservation of open space to the mission of the 

27692 Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

27693 Each day 6,000 acres of open space are lost in the United States as more people choose to live at 

27694 the urban fringe and in scenic, rural areas. Between 1982 and 2001, approximately 34 million 

27695 acres of open space (an area the size of Illinois) were developed. Considering forestlands 

27696 specifically, more than 10 million acres were converted to houses, buildings, lawns, and 

27697 pavement between 1982 and 1997, and another 26 million acres of forests are projected to be 

27698 developed by 2030 (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

27699 Development of open space affects the Agency’s ability to manage national forests and

27700 grasslands, as well as the ability to help private landowners and communities manage their land to 

27701 maintain private and public benefits and ecosystem services. At stake is the ability of private and 
Appendix C – Cumulative Effects

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

827

27702 public forests and rangelands to provide clean water, scenic beauty, biodiversity, outdoor 

27703 recreation, and natural resource based jobs, forest products, and carbon sequestration.

27704 The Open Space Conservation Strategy establishes four priority actions for the Forest Service, 

27705 which can be broken down into 13 supporting actions:

27706 6. Convene partners to identify and protect priority open space.

27707 o Conduct a rapid science-based assessment of open space change to inform 

27708 priorities;

27709 o Convene partners and stakeholders to identify regional priority lands; and

27710 o Protect regional priority lands through partnerships and mechanisms such as land 

27711 acquisition and conservation easements.

27712 7. Promote national policies and markets to help private landowners conserve open space.

27713 o Identify where changes in tax and other federal policies could provide economic 

27714 incentives and remove barriers for open space conservation;

27715 o Support the development of emerging ecosystem service markets to encourage 

27716 private investments in open space conservation;

27717 o Encourage natural-resource-based industries to provide economic incentives for 

27718 landowners to retain working lands;

27719 o Support recreation and tourism uses to generate revenue for landowners and 

27720 communities from open space lands; and

27721 o Provide and encourage landowner assistance and incentives to help keep working 

27722 lands working.

27723 8. Provide resources and tools to help communities expand and connect open space.

27724 o Provide urban forestry assistance to communities to enhance and restore open 

27725 space within cities, suburbs, and towns; and

27726 o Develop tools to help communities strategically connect open spaces to build a 

27727 functioning green infrastructure.

27728 9. Participate in community growth planning to reduce ecological impacts and wildfire 

27729 risks.

27730 o Support and participate in local, regional, and transportation planning to conserve 

27731 open space and retain ecosystem benefits;

27732 o Work with communities to plan for and reduce wildfire risks.

27733 All six of the alternatives considered for the Plan revision are consistent with the actions 

27734 identified in the Open Space Conservation Strategy. The management approaches of the 

27735 alternatives include different combinations of active and passive land management.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

828

27736 Recreation Facility Analysis

27737 National forests use the Recreation Facility Analysis to provide the best recreation opportunities 

27738 in the right places. It is an analysis process (USDA Forest Service 2007b); used nationally, to 

27739 assist forests in creating a sustainable program that aligns their recreation sites with visitors' 

27740 desires and use. FSM ID 2310-2003-1 requires facility master plans be developed for all facilities.

27741 Recreation Facility Analysis identifies actions proposed for the short-term and sets the stage for 

27742 long-term recreation sites planning. The Recreation Facility Analysis goals are to:

27743 10. Improve customer satisfaction;

27744 11. Provide recreation opportunities consistent with the Forest recreation "niche;”

27745 12. Operate and maintain a financially sustainable recreation sites program to accepted 

27746 quality standards; and

27747 13. Eliminate deferred maintenance at recreation sites.

27748 Under each of the six alternatives, decisions on the use of recreation sites and resources would 

27749 still be made through other forest-level decision making processes. Since the Plan revision will 

27750 have no effect on the Recreation Facility Analysis, there is no interaction between the two sets of 

27751 regulations, and no cumulative effects to consider.

27752 Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species, 1999

27753 Ensures that Federal programs and activities to control and prevent invasive species are 

27754 coordinated, effective, and efficient. It defines invasive species as “...an alien (or nonnative) 

27755 whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

27756 health.” 

27757 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of 

27758 Decision. 

27759 In 2005, the regional forester amended forest plans with the record of decision for the Preventing 

27760 and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. This amendment added 

27761 invasive plant management direction to all Forest Plans in Region 6, including goals, objectives, 

27762 standards, and a monitoring framework, which guide the Forests in responding to invasive plant 

27763 management challenges. October 11, 2005.

27764 Executive Order 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, 

27765 Energy, and Economic Performance

27766 Executive Order 13514 directs each agency to not only develop a sustainability strategy and 

27767 reduce greenhouse gas emissions but to develop policies and practices to support the Federal 

27768 Adaptation Strategy. Executive Order 13514 challenges the federal government to set 

27769 sustainability goals for federal agencies. These goals include the ability to increase energy 

27770 efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect 

27771 activities; conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and storm-water 

27772 management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency acquisitions to 

27773 foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, 

27774 and services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance sustainable buildings in 

27775 sustainable locations; strengthen the vitality and livability of the communities in which federal 

27776 facilities are located; and inform federal employees about and involve them in the achievement of 
Appendix C – Cumulative Effects

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

829

27777 these goals. In July 2010, the Chief of the Forest Service announced the National Roadmap for 

27778 responding to climate change and the performance scorecard.

27779 Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and 

27780 Wildlife Conservation

27781 In part, Executive Order 13443 directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to facilitate 

27782 the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species 

27783 and their habitats by evaluating the effect of Agency actions on trends in hunting participation 

27784 and, where appropriate, to address declining trends and implement actions that expand and 

27785 enhance hunting opportunities for the public. The analysis evaluates the potential effect on 

27786 wildlife and hunting and shows that the alternatives would not affect the ability to expand or 

27787 enhance hunting opportunities on NFS lands in Washington.

27788 USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 2014-2018

27789 This Plan provides the strategic direction that guides the Forest Service in delivering its mission. 

27790 This Plan addresses the core principles by which the Forest Service works; major issues currently 

27791 important to natural resources management and to the strategic goals upon which the agency will 

27792 focus for fiscal years (FY) 2014 through 2018. Forest Service programs and budget are aligned 

27793 with the goals and objectives in this strategic plan and as well as with the focus areas of the 

27794 Agency. The Strategic Plan contains four outcome-based oriented goals for the Forest Service:

27795 1. Sustain our Nation’s Forests and Grasslands,

27796 2. Deliver Benefits to the Public,

27797 3. Apply Knowledge Globally, and

27798 4. Excel as a High-Performing Agency.

27799 The Strategic Plan is a framework strategy under which the revised Plan fits. There are no direct 

27800 cumulative effects in connection with the Strategic Plan and this DEIS since the Strategic Plan 

27801 does not lead to any direct action on the ground or compel any policy development or 

27802 implementation. The revised Plan EIS with its emphasis on old forest management and timber 

27803 production, motorized recreation trails, access, recommended wilderness, wildlife, and riparian 

27804 and aquatic resource management will complement the Strategic Plan.

27805 Reasonably Foreseeable Policy or Programmatic Decisions

27806 New Planning Rule

27807 In June 2011, the scoping of the proposed action was initiated with the Federal Register Notice of 

27808 Intent to Prepare an EIS and Revised Forest Plan. That scoping notice indicated the Forest would 

27809 be revising its Forest Plan under the provisions of the National Forest planning regulations in 

27810 effect prior to November 9, 2000, referred to as the 1982 Planning Rule. 

27811 On May 9, 2012, the agency established a new planning rule (the 2012 Planning Rule). The 2012 

27812 Rule also provides transition language at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), allowing the responsible official 

27813 to elect to use the provisions of the prior planning regulations to prepare plan amendments and 

27814 revisions. The responsible official has elected to continue to follow the provisions of the planning 

27815 regulations in effect prior to May 9, 2012 as indicated in the 2011 Notice of Intent. However, in 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

830

27816 consideration of transition time requirements, the Forest will develop the monitoring plan per 36

27817 CFR 219.12 of the 2012 Rule.

27818 There are no direct cumulative effects in connection with the 1982 or 2012 Rules and this DEIS 

27819 since the Planning Rules would not lead to any direct action on the ground. 

27820 Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement 

27821 (FLAME) Act of 2009

27822 The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009 requires the 

27823 Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior to submit to Congress a report that contains 

27824 a “cohesive wildfire management strategy.” The Wildland Fire Leadership Council, therefore, 

27825 directed the development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy 

27826 (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy utilizes a collaborative, “from-the-ground-up” 

27827 approach built through active involvement of all levels of government and non-governmental 

27828 organizations, as well as the public, to seek national, all-lands solutions to wildland fire 

27829 management issues.

27830 The Cohesive Strategy will address the nation’s wildfire problems by focusing on three key areas:

27831 1. Restore and Maintain Landscapes — Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to 

27832 disturbances in accordance with management objectives.

27833 2. Fire Adapted Communities — Human populations and infrastructure can survive a wildland 

27834 fire. Communities can assess the level of wildfire risk to their communities and share 

27835 responsibility for mitigating both the threat and the consequences.

27836 3. Response to Fire — All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing response 

27837 decisions.

27838 The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is an ongoing project that is being 

27839 planned in three phases. Thus far, only the first phase has been completed and it is too early in the 

27840 planning process of this national strategy to know with much detail or certainty how the strategy 

27841 may influence programs and activities that occur on the CNF. However, many of the elements 

27842 that emphasize items in the FLAME Act as well as the cohesive strategy report have already been 

27843 considered and incorporated into the Forest Plan components and are discussed in the action 

27844 alternatives and/or the effects analysis. For example, the three key wildfire problem areas that 

27845 were noted in the strategy report (i.e., Restore and Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted 

27846 Communities and Response to Fire), are very similar to a number of the Forest Plan revision 

27847 topics that were identified and used to revise forest plan direction. In addition, a number of other 

27848 elements in the FLAME Act (i.e., using a full range of management responses to wildfires, 

27849 allocating hazardous fuel reduction funds based on priorities, assessing impacts of climate change 

27850 on wildfires) were considered in the Forest Plan revision process. Thus, when the national 

27851 strategy is complete, it is likely that revised Forest Plan direction (which is contained in all the 

27852 action alternatives) will be consistent with the national strategy. No cumulative effects are 

27853 anticipated as a result of this national strategy.
Appendix C – Cumulative Effects

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

831

27854 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

27855 Cumulative Effects and Consideration on Other Lands

27856 Other lands (lands outside the NFS) include lands owned or managed by: (1) federal agencies 

27857 other than the Forest Service; (2) state, county, and other agencies; (3) individuals and 

27858 corporations; and (4) American Indian tribes. The Forest Service does not have authority to 

27859 regulate any activity or its timing on other lands. However, when an action takes place in national 

27860 forests, it may cause direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on other lands. Conversely, the actions 

27861 of others can influence both conditions on the national forests and the course of action taken by 

27862 the Forest Service in managing the national forests.

27863 The CNF contain portions of three counties in Washington State. All of the CNF is located in 

27864 Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties in Washington. Pend Oreille County contains the 

27865 highest acreage of national forest land, with 58 percent of the county administered by the CNF.

27866 Within the analysis area, Ferry and Pend Oreille counties have the largest percentage of land 

27867 under federal ownership at 80 and 58 percent respectively. Stevens County is approximately 

27868 40 percent federally owned. For all counties, most of the federal ownership is NFS lands. Ferry 

27869 County has the largest percentage under tribal ownership, at about 43 percent.

27870
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

832

This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

833

27871 Appendix D. Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, 

27872 and Agreements

27873 Direction for managing National Forest System land comes from a variety of levels. National and regional 

27874 direction includes laws, executive orders, regulations, and Forest Service policy. The figure below 

27875 illustrates this hierarchy of management direction beginning with national and regional direction at the 

27876 highest level and ending with site-specific, project-level direction when the land management plan (the 

27877 plan) is implemented.

27878

27879 Hierarchy of management direction for national forests

27880 Management direction includes applicable laws, regulations, and policies, although they generally are not 

27881 restated in this plan. During plan implementation, a project must be consistent with the direction found in 

27882 the plan, applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Service Manuals; applicable Forest Service Handbooks 

27883 provide guidance only and do not provide required direction.

27884 This appendix contains a listing of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and agreements applicable to 

27885 the Forest Service.

27886 Forest Service Directives

27887 http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/

27888 The following is a partial listing of national and regional Forest Service policies relevant to this plan. A 

27889 complete listing can be found in Forest Service Manuals and Forest Service Handbooks. Together, these 

27890 are known as the Forest Service Directives System.

27891 The directives system is the primary basis for the management and control of all internal programs and 

27892 serves as the primary source of administrative direction for Forest Service employees. The system sets 

27893 forth legal authorities, management objectives, policies, responsibilities, delegations, standards, 

27894 procedures, and other instructions.

27895 The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, goals, objectives, policies, responsibilities, 

27896 instruction, and the necessary guidance to plan and execute assigned programs and activities.

National and Regional Management Direction

Laws, Code of Federal Regulations, Forest Service Policy

⇩

Forestwide Management Direction – Land Management Plan

Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, Guidelines

⇩

Management Area Direction – Land Management Plan

Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, Guidelines

⇩

Project-level Management Direction

Project Decision Documents (Decision Memos,

Decision Notices, and Records of Decision)
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

834

27897 Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) are directives that provide instructions and guidance on how to proceed 

27898 with a specialized phase of a program or activity. Handbooks either are based on a part of the FSM or 

27899 they incorporate external directives.

27900 FSM 1000 Organization and Management

27901 FSM 1010 Laws, Regulations, and Orders

27902 FSM 1020 Forest Service Mission

27903 FSM 1400 Controls

27904 FSM 1410 Management Reviews

27905 FSM 1500 External Relations

27906 FSM 1560 State, Tribal, County, and Local Agencies, Public and Private Organizations

27907 Chapter 1563 American Indian and Alaska Native Relations

27908 FSM 1600 Information Resources

27909 FSM 1900 Planning

27910 FSM 1920 Land and Resource Management Planning

27911 FSM 1923 Wilderness Evaluation

27912 FSM 1950 Environmental Policy and Procedures

27913 FSM 2000 National Forest Resource Management

27914 FSM 2060 Ecosystem Classification, Interpretation, and Application

27915 FSM 2070 Vegetation Ecology

27916 FSM 2080 Noxious Weed Management

27917 FSM 2200 Range Management

27918 FSM 2300 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resources Management

27919 FSM 2320 Wilderness Management

27920 FSM 2330 Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities

27921 FSM 2332.11 Hazard Trees

27922 FSM 2350 Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities

27923 FSH 2309.18 Trails Management Handbook

27924 FSM 2360 Heritage Program Management

27925 FSM 2400 Timber Management
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

835

27926 FSM 2430 Commercial Timber Sales, Pacific Northwest Region, and Colville NF’s supplements, 

27927 Small Sales and Commercial/Personal Use Permits of Timber, Firewood, and other forest 

27928 products

27929 FSM 2470 Silvicultural Practices

27930 FSM 2500 Watershed and Air Management

27931 FSM 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management

27932 FSM 2670 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals

27933 FSM 2700 Special Uses Management

27934 FSH 2709.11 Special Uses Handbook

27935 FSM 2800 Minerals and Geology

27936 FSM 2900 Invasive Species Management

27937 FSM 3100 Cooperative Fire Protection

27938 FSM 3400 Forest Pest Management

27939 FSM 4000 Research

27940 FSM 4063 RNA Management Standards and Resource Protection Guidelines

27941 FSM 5100 Fire Management

27942 FSH 5109.17 Fire and Aviation

27943 FSM 5140 Hazardous Fuels Management and Prescribed Fire

27944 FSM 7300 Buildings and Other Structures

27945 FSH 7309.11 Buildings and Related Facilities Handbook

27946 FSM 7310 Buildings and Related Facilities

27947 FSM 7400 Public Health and Pollution Control Facilities

27948 FSM 7700 Transportation System

27949 Federal Statutes

27950 The following is a partial listing of relevant laws, which have been enacted by Congress. A Federal 

27951 statute, or law, is an act or bill, which has become part of the legal code through passage by Congress and 

27952 approved by the President (or via congressional override). 

27953 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 1996)

27954 Protects and preserves for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and 

27955 exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians including, 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

836

27956 but not limited to, access to sites, use, and possession of sacred objects and the freedom to worship 

27957 through ceremonial and traditional rites.

27958 Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act of October 11, 1949

27959 Provides for the reforestation and revegetation of National Forest System lands and other lands under the 

27960 administration or control of the Forest Service.

27961 Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433)

27962 Prevents the appropriation, excavation, injury, or destruction of any historic or prehistoric ruin or 

27963 monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the United States without 

27964 permission. Provides for permits, for misdemeanor-level penalties for unauthorized use, and authorizes 

27965 the President to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and 

27966 other objects of historic and scientific interest that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by the 

27967 United States to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land needed for the 

27968 proper care and management of the objects to be protected. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

27969 has replaced the Antiquities Act as the authority for special use permits if the resource involved is 100

27970 years old or greater.

27971 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) (16 U.S.C. 469)

27972 It is also known as the Archaeological Recovery Act. AHPA amended and expanded the Reservoir 

27973 Salvage Act of 1960 and was enacted to complement the Historic Site Act of 1935 by providing for the 

27974 preservation of significant scientific, historical, and archaeological data, which might be lost or destroyed 

27975 as the result of construction of a federally authorized dam or other construction activity. AHPA also 

27976 allows for any Federal agency responsible for a construction project to appropriate a portion of project 

27977 funds for archaeological survey, recovery, analysis, and publication of results.

27978 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470 

27979 aa et seq.)

27980 The act establishes permit requirements for removal or excavation of archaeological resources from 

27981 Federal and Indian lands. Provides criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, 

27982 damage, alteration, defacement, or the attempted unauthorized removal, damage, alteration, or 

27983 defacement of any archaeological resource, more than 100 years of age, found on Federal or Indian lands. 

27984 Prohibits the sale, purchase, exchange, transportation, receipt, or offering of any archaeological resource 

27985 obtained from public or Indian lands. The act further directs Federal land managers to survey land under 

27986 their control for archaeological resources and create public awareness programs concerning 

27987 archaeological resources.

27988 Architectural Barriers Act of 1968

27989 Ensures that standards for the design, construction, and alteration of buildings owned, leased, or funded 

27990 by the United States are prescribed to insure, wherever possible, that physically handicapped people have 

27991 ready access to and use of such buildings.

27992 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937

27993 Directed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in order to 

27994 correct maladjustments in land use and, thus, assist in such things as control of soil erosion, reforestation, 

27995 preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife.
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

837

27996 Civil Rights Act of 1964

27997 Provides for nondiscrimination in voting, public accommodations, public facilities, public education, 

27998 federally assisted programs, and equal employment opportunity. Title VI of the Act, Nondiscrimination in 

27999 Federally Assisted Programs, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d through 2000d-6) prohibits discrimination 

28000 based on race, color, or national origin.

28001 Clean Air Act of August 7, 1977, as amended (1977 and 1990)

28002 Enacted to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources; to initiate and accelerate a 

28003 national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution; to 

28004 provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with the 

28005 development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage and 

28006 assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs. 

28007 Clean Water Act (see Federal Water and Pollution Control Act)

28008 Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of July 1, 1978

28009 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assist in the establishment of a coordinated and cooperative 

28010 Federal, state, and local forest stewardship program for the management of non-Federal forest lands and 

28011 forest lands in foreign countries.

28012 Emergency Flood Prevention (Agricultural Credit Act) Act of August 4, 1978

28013 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake emergency measures for runoff retardation and soil 

28014 erosion prevention, in cooperation with landowners and users, as the secretary deems necessary to 

28015 safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on any watershed 

28016 whenever fire, flood, or other natural occurrence is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of that 

28017 watershed.

28018 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

28019 Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; prohibits unauthorized 

28020 taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; authorizes the assessment of civil and 

28021 criminal penalties for violating the act or regulations; and, authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone 

28022 furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violations of the act or any regulation 

28023 issued thereunder. Section 7 of the act requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out 

28024 programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and to insure that any action 

28025 authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

28026 species or modify their critical habitat.

28027 Energy Policy Act of 2005

28028 Requires the secretary of Agriculture to ensure timely action on oil and gas permits, improve collection 

28029 and retrieval of oil and gas information, and improve inspection and enforcement of permit terms (Section 

28030 362).

28031 Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of November 18, 1988

28032 Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on Federal 

28033 lands, including allowing land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the public, 

28034 requiring permits for removal or collecting activities in caves on Federal lands.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

838

28035 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of October 21, 1972

28036 Requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to prescribe standards for the 

28037 certification of individuals authorized to use or supervise the use of any pesticide that is classified for 

28038 restricted use; regulates the sale of restricted use pesticides; and provides penalties for the unauthorized 

28039 use or sale of restricted use pesticides.

28040 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976

28041 Requires that public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 

28042 historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, 

28043 where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will 

28044 provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. Also states that the United States shall 

28045 receive fair market value of the use of public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by 

28046 law.

28047 Federal Noxious Weed Act, 1974, as amended

28048 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to designate plants as noxious weeds by regulation; to prohibit the 

28049 movement of all such weeds in interstate or foreign commerce except under permit; to inspect, seize and 

28050 destroy products, and quarantine areas, if necessary, to prevent the spread of such weeds; and to cooperate 

28051 with other Federal, state, and local agencies, farmers associations, and private individuals in measures to 

28052 control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds.

28053 Federal State Cooperation for Soil Conservation Act of December 22, 1944

28054 Authorized the adoption of 11 watershed improvement programs in various states for the improvement of 

28055 water runoff, waterflow retardation, and soil erosion prevention.

28056 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act)

28057 Enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and ecological integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

28058 Provides for measures to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution; recognizes, preserves, and 

28059 protects the responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to plan the 

28060 development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources; 

28061 and provides for Federal support and aid of research relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination 

28062 of pollution, and Federal technical services and financial aid to state and interstate agencies and 

28063 municipalities for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.

28064 Established goals for the elimination of water pollution; required all municipal and industrial wastewater 

28065 to be treated before being discharged into waterways; increased Federal assistance for municipal 

28066 treatment plant construction; strengthened and streamlined enforcement policies; and expanded the 

28067 Federal role while retaining the responsibility of states for day-to-day implementation of the law.

28068 Federal Water Project Recreation Act of July 9, 1965

28069 Requires that recreation, fish, and wildlife enhancement opportunities be considered in the planning and 

28070 development of Federal water development.

28071 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974

28072 Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a renewable resource assessment every 10 years; to 

28073 transmit a recommended renewable resources program to the President every 5 years; to develop, 

28074 maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the national Forest 
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

839

28075 System; and to ensure that the development and administration of the resources of the National Forest 

28076 System are in full accord with the concepts of multiple us and sustained yield.

28077 Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950

28078 Authorizes the Forest Service to spread appropriated funds on buildings, lookout towers, and other 

28079 structures on lands owned by states, counties, municipalities, or other political subdivisions, corporations, 

28080 or individuals; to procure and operate aerial facilities and services for the protection of national forests; to 

28081 cooperate with and assist public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals in 

28082 performing work on nonforest land for the administration, protection, improvement, reforestation, and 

28083 other kinds of work as the Forest Service is authorized to do on Forest land; to deposit sums from timber 

28084 purchases to cover the costs of disposing of brush and debris; to permit the use of structures under its 

28085 control; to sell nursery stock; and other purposes.

28086 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904)

28087 Purposes are to reduce wildfire risk to communities and municipal water supplies through collaborative 

28088 hazardous fuels reduction projects; to assess and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease 

28089 infestation; to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health 

28090 (including wildfire) across the landscape; to protect, restore, and enhance ecosystem components such as 

28091 biological diversity, threatened/endangered species habitat, and forest productivity.

28092 Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461)

28093 Establishes a policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance 

28094 for the benefit of the people. Authorizes the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks 

28095 Program.

28096 Joint Surveys of Watershed Areas Act of September 5, 1962

28097 Authorizes and directs the Secretaries of the Army and Agriculture to make joint investigations and 

28098 surveys of watershed areas in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands, and to prepare joint 

28099 reports setting forth their recommendations for improvements needed for flood prevention, for the 

28100 conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for flood control.

28101 Knutson-Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930

28102 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish forest tree nurseries; to deposit monies from timber 

28103 sale purchasers to cover the costs of planting young trees, sowing seed, removing undesirable trees or 

28104 other growth, and protecting and improving the future productivity of the land; and to furnish seedlings 

28105 and/or young trees for the replanting of burned-over areas in any national park.

28106 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964

28107 Authorizes the appropriation of funds for Federal assistance to states in planning, acquisition, and 

28108 development of needed land and water areas and facilities and for the Federal acquisition and 

28109 development of certain lands and other areas for the purposes of preserving, developing, and assuring 

28110 accessibility to outdoor recreation resources.

28111 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

28112 Addresses concerns for migratory birds. In a subsequent MOU 2001, with the USFWS, the Forest Service 

28113 agreed to: (a) incorporate migratory bird habitat and population objectives and recommendations into the 

28114 agency planning process in cooperation with other governments, state, federal agencies, and non- federal 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

840

28115 partners; (b) strive to protect, restore, enhance, and manage habitat of migratory birds, and prevent the 

28116 further loss or degradation of remaining habitats on NFS lands.

28117 Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920

28118 Provides that the deposits of certain minerals on land owned by the United States shall be subject to lease 

28119 to citizens of the United States, provided royalties on such deposits are paid to the United States.

28120 Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands Act of August 7, 1947

28121 Extended the provisions of the “mineral leasing laws” to those lands previously acquired by the United 

28122 States for which they had not been extended, and lands thereafter acquired by the United States.

28123 Mining and Minerals Policy Act of December 31, 1970

28124 States that it is the policy of the Federal government to foster and encourage the development of 

28125 economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal, and mineral reclamation industries; the 

28126 orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals 

28127 and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs; mining, mineral, 

28128 and metallurgical research to promote the wise and efficient use of our natural and reclaimable mineral 

28129 resources; and the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral 

28130 waste products and the reclamation of mined land.

28131 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960

28132 States that it is the policy of Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered 

28133 for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, and authorizes and 

28134 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the 

28135 national forest for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services. 

28136 National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1971

28137 Directs all Federal agencies to consider and report the potential environmental impacts of proposed 

28138 Federal actions, and established the Council on Environmental Quality.

28139 National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976

28140 The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest and 

28141 Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable 

28142 resources on National Forest System lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the secretary of 

28143 Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield 

28144 principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is 

28145 the primary statute governing the administration of national forests. 

28146 National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964

28147 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of 

28148 forest development roads within and near the national forests through the use of appropriated funds, 

28149 deposits from timber sale purchasers, cooperative financing with other public agencies, or a combination 

28150 of these methods. The act also authorizes the secretary to grant rights-of-way and easement over National 

28151 Forest System lands.

28152 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470)

28153 Sets forth the Federal government’s policy to preserve and protect historical and cultural resources. This 

28154 act states that the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of 
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

841

28155 the Nation’s community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American 

28156 people. Directs all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (actions, 

28157 financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. 

28158 Establishes inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for federally owned 

28159 historic properties. As amended extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act to state and local historical 

28160 sites as well as those of national significance, expands the National Register of Historic Places, 

28161 establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officers, 

28162 and requires agencies to designate Federal preservation officers. Establishes criteria for designating tribal 

28163 historic preservation officers to assume the functions of a state historic preservation officer on tribal 

28164 lands.

28165 National Trails System Act of October 2, 1968

28166 Established a national system of recreation, scenic, and historic trails by designating the initial 

28167 components of the system and prescribing the methods and standards through which additional 

28168 components may be added.

28169 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 

28170 3001)

28171 Provides a process for Federal agencies to return Native American human remains, funerary objects, and 

28172 scared objects to the ancestors and appropriate Native American tribe. Includes provisions for the 

28173 intentional excavation and unanticipated discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and 

28174 tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. The act requires agencies to identify 

28175 holdings of such remains and objects and to work with appropriate Native American groups toward their 

28176 repatriation.

28177 North American Wetland Conservation Act of 1989

28178 Directs Federal agencies to cooperate with the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore, 

28179 protect, and enhance the wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds, fish and wildlife 

28180 within the lands and waters of each agency to the extent consistent with the mission of such agency and 

28181 existing statutory authorities.

28182 Occupancy Permits Act of March 4, 1915

28183 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to permit, under such regulations as he may prescribe, the use and 

28184 occupancy of suitable areas of land within the national forests for the purpose of constructing or 

28185 maintaining hotels, resorts, or other structures necessary or desirable for recreation, public convenience, 

28186 or safety; to permit the use and occupancy of suitable land for the purpose of constructing or maintaining 

28187 summer homes; to permit the use and occupancy of suitable land for the purpose of constructing or 

28188 maintaining buildings, structures, and facilities for industrial or commercial purposes when such use is 

28189 consistent with other uses of the national forest; and to permit any state or political subdivision thereof to 

28190 use or occupy suitable land for the purpose of constructing or maintaining buildings, structures, or 

28191 facilities necessary or desirable for education or for any other public use or in connection with any other 

28192 public activity.

28193 Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897

28194 Authorizes the President to modify or revoke any instrument creating a national forest; states that no 

28195 national forest may be established except to improve and protect the forest within its boundaries, for the 

28196 purpose of securing favorable conditions of waterflows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

842

28197 the use and necessities of citizens of the United States. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

28198 promulgate rules and regulations to regulate the use and occupancy of national forests.

28199 Plant Protection Act of 2000 as amended by the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication 

28200 Act of 2004

28201 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or 

28202 movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, 

28203 article, or means of conveyance, if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary 

28204 to prevent the introduction into the United States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed 

28205 within the United States. This act defines the term ”Noxious Weed”.

28206 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of October 25, 1978

28207 Establishes and reaffirms the national policy and commitment to inventory and identifying current public 

28208 rangeland conditions and trends; manage, maintain and improve the condition of public rangelands so that 

28209 they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland values in accordance with management objectives 

28210 and the land use planning process; and charge a fee for public grazing use which is equitable.

28211 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

28212 States that it is national policy that the Federal government plays a leadership role in promoting the 

28213 employment of individuals with disabilities, and in assisting states and providers of services in fulfilling 

28214 the aspirations of such individuals with disabilities for meaningful and gainful employment and 

28215 independent living.

28216 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RIFRA) (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb)

28217 Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a 

28218 rule of general applicability, except when the government demonstrates that application of the burden to

28219 the person is in a furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of 

28220 furthering that compelling governmental interest.

28221 Safe Drinking Water Amendments of November 18, 1977

28222 Amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize appropriations for research conducted by the 

28223 Environmental Protection Agency relating to safe drinking water; Federal grants to states for public water 

28224 system supervision programs and underground water source protection programs; and grants to assist 

28225 special studies relating to the provision of a safe supply of drinking water.

28226 Sikes Act of 1960, as amended October 18, 1974

28227 This act authorizes the Forest Service to cooperate with state wildlife agencies in conservation and 

28228 rehabilitation programs for fish, wildlife, and plants considered threatened or endangered.

28229 Small Tracts Act of January 22, 1983

28230 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell, exchange, or interchange by quitclaim deed all right, title 

28231 and interest, including the mineral estate, of the United States in and to certain lands within the national 

28232 forest when he determines it to be in the public interest.

28233 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of November 18, 1977

28234 Provides for a continuing appraisal of the United States’ soil, water and related resources, including fish 

28235 and wildlife habitats, and a soil and water conservation program to assist landowners and land users in 

28236 furthering soil and water conservation.
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

843

28237 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977

28238 Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with landowners, providing for land 

28239 stabilization, erosion, and sediment control, and reclamation through conservation treatment, including 

28240 measures for the conservation and development of soil, water, woodland, wildlife, and recreation 

28241 resources, and agricultural productivity of such lands.

28242 Tribal Forest Protection Act

28243 Authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to enter into an agreement or contract with 

28244 Indian tribes meeting certain criteria to carry out projects to protect Indian forest land.

28245 U.S. Mining Laws (Public Domain Lands) Act of May 10, 1872

28246 Provides that all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and 

28247 unsurveyed, are free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to 

28248 occupation and purchase by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to 

28249 become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners, 

28250 so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. There are a 

28251 number of acts which modify the mining laws as applied to local areas by prohibiting entry altogether or 

28252 by limiting or restricting the use which may be made of the surface and the right, title, or interest which 

28253 pass through patent.

28254 Water Quality Improvement Act of April 3, 1970

28255 Amends the prohibitions of oil discharges, authorizes the President to determine quantities of oil which 

28256 would be harmful to the public health or welfare of the United States, to publish a national contingency 

28257 plan to provide for coordinated action to minimize damage from oil discharges. Requires performance 

28258 standards for marine sanitation device and authorizes demonstration projects to control acid or other mine 

28259 pollution, and to control water pollution within the watersheds of the Great lakes. Requires that applicants 

28260 for Federal permits for activities involving discharges into navigable waters provide state certification that 

28261 they will not violate applicable water quality standards.

28262 Water Resources Planning Act of July 22, 1965

28263 Encourages the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the 

28264 United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal government, states, localities, and 

28265 private enterprises.

28266 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954

28267 Establishes policy that the Federal government should cooperate with states and their political 

28268 subdivisions, soil or water conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and other local 

28269 public agencies for the purposes of preventing erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the 

28270 watersheds of the rivers and streams of the United States; Furthering the conservation, development, 

28271 utilization, and disposal of water, and the conservation and utilization of land; and thereby preserving, 

28272 protecting, and improving the nation’s land and water resources and the quality of the environment.

28273 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968

28274 Instituted a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by designating the initial components of that system, 

28275 and by prescribing the methods by which and standards according to which additional components may 

28276 be added to the system from time to time.
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

844

28277 Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964

28278 Established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas 

28279 designated by Congress as “wilderness areas” and administered for the use and enjoyment of the 

28280 American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

28281 wilderness. Provides for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and 

28282 for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The 

28283 act states that no Federal lands shall be designated as “wilderness areas” except as provided for in the act 

28284 or by a subsequent act.

28285 Regulations

28286 Below is a partial listing of relevant regulations. Federal executive departments and administrative 

28287 agencies write regulations to implement laws. Regulations are secondary to law. However, both laws and 

28288 regulations are enforceable.

28289 33 CFR 323 Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill material into Waters of the United 

28290 States

28291 This regulation prescribes those special policies, practices, and procedures to be followed by the Corps of 

28292 Engineers in connection with the review of applications for permits to authorize the discharge of dredged 

28293 or fill material into waters of the United States.

28294 36 CFR 60 National Register of Historic Places

28295 Sets forth the procedural requirements for listing properties on the National Register.

28296 36 CFR 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation 

28297 Programs

28298 36 CFR 63 Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

28299 Places

28300 Developed to assist agencies in identifying and evaluating the eligibility of properties for inclusion in the 

28301 National Register, and to explain how to request determinations of eligibility.

28302 36 CFR 65 National Historic Landmarks Program

28303 Sets forth criteria for establishing national significance and the procedures used by the Department of the 

28304 Interior for conducting the National Historic landmarks Program.

28305 36 CFR 68 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Properties

28306 Sets forth standards for the treatment of historic properties containing standards for preservation, 

28307 rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. These standards apply to all proposed grant-in-aid 

28308 development projects assisted through the national Historic Preservation Fund.

28309 36 CFR 79 Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections

28310 36 CFR 212 Forest Development Transportation System

28311 Sets forth the requirements for the development and administration of the forest transportation system.

28312 36 CFR 219 Planning

28313 Sets forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource management plans.
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

845

28314 36 CFR 228 Minerals

28315 Sets forth the rules and procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands, in 

28316 connection with mining and mineral operations, shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse 

28317 environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources.

28318 36 CFR 241 Fish and Wildlife

28319 Sets forth the rules and procedures relating to management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

28320 wildlife resources on National Forest System lands.

28321 36 CFR 251 Land Uses

28322 Sets forth the rules and procedures relating to the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands.

28323 36 CFR 254 Landownership Adjustments

28324 Sets forth the rules and procedures relating to exchange and conveyance of National Forest System lands.

28325 36 CFR 261 Prohibitions

28326 Sets forth the general prohibitions relating to the use and occupancy of national Forest System lands. 

28327 36 CFR 291 Occupancy and Use of Developed Sites and Areas of Concentrated Public 

28328 Use

28329 Provides for fees charged for the occupancy and use of developed sites and areas of concentrated public 

28330 use

28331 36 CFR 293 Wilderness-Primitive Areas

28332 Sets forth requirements for the administration of wilderness and primitive areas.

28333 36 CFR 294 Special Areas

28334 Sets forth the requirements for designation of special recreation areas.

28335 36 CFR 296 Protection of Archaeological Resources

28336 Implements the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

28337 36 CFR 297 Wild and Scenic Rivers

28338 Sets forth the rules and procedures relating to Federal assistance in the construction of water resources 

28339 projects affecting wild and scenic rivers or study rivers on lands administered by the Secretary of 

28340 Agriculture.

28341 36 CFR 800 Protection of Historic Properties

28342 Sets forth the provisions for the administration of the National Historic Preservation Act.

28343 40 CFR 121-135 Water Programs

28344 Sets forth the provisions for the administration of water programs including: state certification of 

28345 activities requiring a Federal license or permit; EPA administered permit programs; state program 

28346 requirements; procedures for decision-making; criteria and standards for the National Pollutant Discharge 

28347 Elimination System; toxic pollutant effluent standards; water quality planning and management; water 

28348 quality standards; water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System; secondary treatment regulation; 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

846

28349 and, prior notice of citizen suits. See Title 40 (Protection of Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental 

28350 Protection Agency), subchapter D (Water Programs).

28351 40 CFR 1500 Council on Environmental Quality

28352 Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

28353 43 CFR 10 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulation

28354 Implements the provisions of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.

28355 Executive Memorandum (April 29, 1994) Government-to-Government Relations with 

28356 Native American Tribal Governments (59 Federal Regulation 22951)

28357 Directs executive departments and agencies that undertake activities affecting Native American Tribal 

28358 rights or trust resources, such activities should be implemented in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner 

28359 respectful of Tribal sovereignty. 

28360 Executive Orders

28361 Below is a partial listing of relevant executive orders. Executive orders are official documents by which 

28362 the President provides instructions to executive departments and agencies. It may adopt guidelines, rules 

28363 of conduct, or rules of procedure for government employees or units of government. It can also establish 

28364 an advisory body or task force.

28365 E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

28366 States that the Federal government shall provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the 

28367 historic and cultural environment of the nation, and that Federal agencies shall administer the cultural 

28368 properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations; initiate 

28369 measures necessary to direct their policies, plans, and programs in such a way that federally-owned sites, 

28370 structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological significance are preserved, restored, 

28371 and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the people; and, in consultation with the Advisory 

28372 Council on Historic Preservation, institute procedures to assure that Federal plans and programs 

28373 contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned sites, structures, and objects of 

28374 historical, architectural, or archaeological significance. 

28375 E.O. 11644 (amended by E.O. 11989) Use of Off-Road Vehicles, 1972, 1977

28376 Establishes policies and provides for procedures that ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public 

28377 lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

28378 all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.

28379 E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management, 1977

28380 Requires each Federal agency to provide leadership and to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

28381 minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural 

28382 and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for acquiring, managing, 

28383 and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted 

28384 construction and improvements; and conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use 

28385 including, but not limited to, water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing 

28386 activities. 
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

847

28387 E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands, 1977

28388 Requires each Federal agency to provide leadership and to take action to minimize the destruction, loss, 

28389 or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in 

28390 carrying out the agency’s responsibilities for acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and 

28391 facilities; providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and 

28392 conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use including, but not limited to, water and 

28393 related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.

28394 E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

28395 and Low-Income Populations, 1994

28396 Addresses environmental justice in minority and low-income populations and is designed to focus Federal 

28397 attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income 

28398 communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice. The order is also intended to promote 

28399 nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to 

28400 provide minority communities and low-income communities’ access to public information on, and an 

28401 opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or the environment.

28402 E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites, 1996

28403 Requires each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management 

28404 of Federal lands, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential 

28405 agency functions, to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

28406 practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such scared sites. Where 

28407 appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of scared sites.

28408 E.O. 13112 Invasive Species, 1999

28409 Ensures that Federal programs and activities to control and prevent invasive species are coordinated, 

28410 effective, and efficient. It defines invasive species as “...an alien (or nonnative) whose introduction does 

28411 or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.”

28412 E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 2000

28413 Promotes regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development 

28414 of Federal policies that have tribal implications, strengthens the United States government-to-government 

28415 relationships with Indian tribes, and reduces the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes.

28416 E.O. 13186 Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 2001

28417 Directs Federal agencies, as practicable, to support the conservation of migratory birds, restore and 

28418 enhance the habitat of migratory birds, prevent or abate pollution or detrimental alteration of the 

28419 environment for the benefit of migratory birds, ensure agency plans and actions promote programs and 

28420 recommendations of comprehensive migratory bird planning efforts such as Partners-in-Flight, ensure that 

28421 environmental analyses of Federal actions required by NEPA evaluate effect on migratory birds, and 

28422 promote research, education, and training related to conservation of migratory birds.

28423 E.O. 13287 Preserve America, 2003

28424 Advances the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the 

28425 Federal Government, and promotes intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation 

28426 of historic properties. Directs Federal agencies to increase their knowledge of historic resources in their 

28427 care and to enhance the management of these assets. Encourages agencies to seek partnerships with state, 

28428 tribal, and local governments and the private sector to make more efficient and informed use of their 
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

848

28429 resources for economic development and other recognized public benefits. Better combines historic 

28430 preservation and nature tourism by directing agencies to assist in the development of local and regional 

28431 nature tourism programs using the historic resources that area a significant feature of many state and local 

28432 economies.

28433 E.O. 13327 Federal Real Property Asset Management, 2004

28434 Establishes the Federal Real Property Council to develop guidance for, and facilitate the success of, each 

28435 agency’s asset management plan. The Council is to be composed exclusively of all agency Senior Real 

28436 Property Officers, the Controller of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of General 

28437 Services, and any other full-time or permanent part-time Federal officials or employees as deemed 

28438 necessary by the Chairman of the Council. The Senior Real Property Officer is required to develop and 

28439 implement an agency asset management planning process that meets the form, content, and other 

28440 requirements established by the Federal Real Property Council. In relation to cultural resources, the 

28441 Senior Property Officer shall incorporate planning and management requirements for historic property 

28442 under Executive Order 132.

28443 E.O. 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, 2007

28444 Directs Federal agencies with programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public 

28445 management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement 

28446 of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

28447 E.O. of 1872 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; North-Half Agreement of

28448 1891 (27 Stat. 62)

28449 At its inception by an executive order issued by President Grant on April 9, 1872, the Colville Indian 

28450 Reservation was in a different location from today’s reservation. A subsequent executive order was issued 

28451 on July 2, 1872 by President Grant, which moved the Colville Indian Reservation to its present location. 

28452 On April 19, 1879 and March 6, 1880, two tracts of land called the Moses Columbia Reservation were 

28453 designated where the present day city of Wenatchee lies. Twenty years after the Colville Indian 

28454 Reservation was moved to its present location, the north half of the reservation was ceded to the United 

28455 States by an act of Congress (27 Stat. 62).

28456 E.O. 1904 Kalispel Tribe (1914)

28457 On March 23, 1914, President Wilson, by executive order, formally set aside and reserved the territory 

28458 described for the use and occupancy of the Kalispel Indians.

28459 E.O. of 1881 Spokane Tribe of Indians

28460 On January 18, 1881, President Hayes, by executive order, formally set aside and reserved the territory 

28461 described in the agreement of August 1877, for the use and occupancy of the Spokane Indians.

28462 The USDA policy 

28463 For wildlife, fish, and plant habitat management in NFS lands is presented in Departmental Regulation 

28464 9500-4. This policy states that by means of the planning process habitat goals will be established for 

28465 plants and animals, including wildlife and fish species in demand for hunting, fishing, and trapping and 

28466 those with special habitat needs. This regulation also directs the Forest Service to: (a) manage habitats for 

28467 all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to maintain viable 

28468 populations of such species; (b) conduct activities and programs to assist in the identification and 

28469 recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species; and (c) avoid actions which may cause a 

28470 species to become threatened or endangered
Appendix D – Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Agreements

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

849

28471 State Regulations

28472 Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94) 

28473 PL 98-339 Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984

28474 Designates the Salmo-Priest Wilderness

28475 Programmatic Agreement

28476 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. 

28477 Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds

28478 Wyden Amendment

28479 Authorizes the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements to benefit resources within watersheds 

28480 on National Forest System lands. Agreements may be with willing Federal, State, Tribal, and local

28481 governments, private and non-government entities, and landowners to conduct activities on public or 

28482 private lands. Under this authority, the Forest Service may enter into agreements to support or conduct 

28483 invasive species management activities on aquatic and terrestrial areas owned by local and State 

28484 governments, Tribes, other Federal agencies, and private individuals or organizations, to benefit and 

28485 protect the National Forest System and other resources within a watershed at risk from invasive species.

28486
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

850

This page intentionally left blank
Index

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Colville National Forest

851

28492 Index

Adaptive management, 200, 301, 348, 515, 520, 524, 530, 

684, 811

Affected Environment, 65, 70, 71, 100, 127, 150, 162, 261, 

351, 634, 643, 676

Air quality, 32, 34, 149, 353, 624, 805

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ), 43, 79, 85, 86

Alternatives, vii

analyzed in detail, 30

comparison of, v, vii, 61, 306, 316, 328, 339, 340

development of, 29

eliminated from detailed study, 58

environmental consequences, 65, 79, 101, 123, 132, 

152, 195, 299, 365, 385, 500, 512, 524, 548, 554, 

574, 621, 641, 658, 678

Analysis of the Management Situation, iv, 5, 29

Appendix A. Public Involvement Summary, 775–83

Appendix B. Coordination with Other Public Planning 

Efforts, 785–825

Appendix C. Cumulative Effects, 823–31

Appendix D. Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Agreements, 833–49

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS), v, 48, 

200, 286, 307

Assumptions

climate change, 66

fiscal capability, 66

travel management, 66

Best available science, use of, 65, 117, 783

Best management practices, 288, 300

Botany, 100–115

Canopy cover, 72, 76, 275, 277, 518

Capability

rangeland, 368, 526

wilderness, 569

Clean Air Act of 1970, 69

Clean Air Act of 1977, 841

Clean Water Act of 1977, 69

Climate Change, 6, 26, 66, 81, 115–23, 200, 219, 232, 242, 

247, 251, 255, 259, 346, 348, 383, 390, 392, 394, 396, 

398, 399, 400, 402, 403, 405, 406, 408, 410, 413, 415, 

416, 417, 419, 420, 422, 423, 425, 427, 430, 431, 433, 

434, 435, 437, 439, 440, 442, 444, 447, 449, 450, 451, 

453, 454, 456, 457, 459, 461, 464, 466, 467, 468, 470, 

471, 473, 474, 476, 478, 480, 482, 484, 485, 487, 488, 

489, 521, 529

Collaboration, 775

Comments

agency, 15

public, iv, 2, 14, 15, 29, 52, 317, 556, 589, 594, 650, 

656, 659, 664, 667

Consultation, 68, 676, 678, 681, 689, 851

Cumulative Effects, 99, 102, 115, 148, 153, 160, 219, 232, 

242, 246, 250, 255, 257, 343, 349, 373, 390, 392, 394, 

397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 404, 405, 406, 409, 411, 413, 

415, 416, 418, 419, 420, 422, 423, 426, 428, 430, 432, 

433, 434, 436, 437, 439, 440, 442, 444, 447, 449, 450, 

451, 453, 454, 456, 457, 460, 462, 464, 466, 467, 468, 

470, 471, 473, 474, 477, 478, 481, 483, 484, 485, 487, 

488, 490, 517, 544, 555, 609, 633, 642, 661, 666, 669, 

671, 674, 675, 827–35

Economic Resources, 491–505

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 69, 841

Environmental Justice, 648, 661, 663, 666, 668, 671, 673, 

851

Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, 69

Federal laws, 69

Clean Air Act, 69, 841

Clean Water Act, 69

Endangered Species Act, 69, 841

Federal Land Policy Management Act, 69

Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 

69

Granger-Thye Act, 69

Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 69

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, 70

National Environmental Policy Act, 70

National Forest Management Act, 70

National Historic Preservation Act, 70

Wilderness Act, 70

Federally listed species

bull trout, 4, 7, 45, 169, 170–72, 176, 178, 187, 190, 

202, 208, 213, 217, 227, 235, 244, 248, 251, 255, 

258–61, 298

Canada lynx, 4, 35, 116, 378–81, 391–93, 407–10, 415, 

424–27, 441–43, 458–61, 475–78

grizzly bear, 3, 34, 116, 378, 389–91, 406–7, 423–24, 

440–41, 457–58, 474–75, 532

woodland caribou, 3, 35, 116, 377, 393–95, 410–12, 

427–29, 444–45, 461–63, 478–80, 803, 808

Fire ecology

fire regime condition class, 16, 129, 135, 184, 617

Fisheries, 162–261

focal species, 167–74, 179–81, 185–92, 188

management indicator species, 179–81, 185–92, 188

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

of 1974, 69

Forest monitoring plan, 834

Forest Vegetation

forest structure, 72, 75–76

Granger-Thye Act of 1950, 69

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, 69

Heritage Resources, 505–17

Historic range of variability (HRV), 33, 46, 72, 73, 79, 117, 

278, 305, 315, 326, 331, 334, 338, 441, 611

Hydrology, 261–350, 357
Proposed Revised Land Management Plan

Colville National Forest

852

INFISH (Inland Native Fish Strategy), 7, 45, 192, 200, 212, 

216

Invasive Plants, 34, 149–62, 832

Key indicators, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 61, 195, 197, 198

Key Watershed, 213, 222

Livestock Grazing, 35, 279, 399–400, 416–17, 432–33, 

449–50, 467–68, 483–84, 502, 518–45

Long-term sustained yield (LTSY), 79, 85

Management Areas, 36–42

Management Indicator Species, 36–42

Minerals and Geologic Resources, 545–55

Mitigation measures, 113, 258, 370, 513, 514, 520, 524, 

638, 639, 678, 681, 760

Monitoring, 8, 33, 104, 138, 142, 144, 146, 148, 162, 178, 

179, 192, 200, 201, 207, 233, 243, 247, 251, 283, 492, 

520, 545, 632, 661, 664, 666, 669, 672, 674, 684

Motor vehicle use map, 25, 44, 66, 577, 828

Motorized use

off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 26, 110, 112, 114, 257, 

564, 588, 604, 650, 660

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 70

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 70

National Forest Management Act of 1976, 70

National Historic Preservation Act, 70

Nationally Designated Trails, 577

Need for Change, 5–7, 78, 131, 151, 194, 298, 364, 522, 

561, 618, 640, 657

Potential natural vegetation type (PNVT), 514

Proposed Action, iii, 2, 46–49, 89–90, 138–40, 156, 220–

33, 307–17, 371, 406–23, 532–34, 583–89

Public Involvement, iv, 14–24, 775–83

Purpose and Need, iii, vii

Recreation, 491, 502, 512, 555–609

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 578, 583, 584, 

589, 594, 599, 605

Regulatory Framework

laws, regulations, and policies, 69, 70, 837

Research Natural Areas (RNAs), vii, 149, 614

Responsible Official, i, 561, 689

Restoration

focused, 7, 36, 48, 80, 156, 157, 217, 223, 237, 245, 

247, 252, 268, 282, 298, 308, 314, 317, 325, 329, 

333, 340, 594, 662, 667

forest, 66, 394, 411, 427, 430, 439, 444, 461, 463, 478, 

479, 664

general, 156, 157, 237, 247, 252, 309, 314, 323, 325, 

329, 331, 594, 662, 665, 667

of historic fire regimes, 103, 109, 111, 113

watershed, 201, 283, 303, 310, 319, 320, 345, 809

Riparian Areas, 271–72, 307, 521

Road density, 44, 220, 221, 224, 234, 281–82, 303, 306, 

312, 323, 329, 333, 337, 550, 552

Roadless Areas, 59, 105, 568, 598, 603, 650, 656, 660, 776, 

827

Safety, 60, 305, 402, 417, 429, 435, 436, 452, 453, 469, 

470, 486, 487, 496, 555, 566, 576, 581, 602, 607, 650, 

662, 665, 667, 670, 828, 845, 850

Scenery Management, 36, 610

Significant Issues, iv, 15–24, 43, 46, 50, 52, 55, 57

Social Resources, 642–75

community resilience, 651, 659, 661, 663, 664, 666, 

667, 669, 671, 673, 674

Soils, 34, 351–75

Special uses, 634

Species of management interest, 382, 384, 404–6, 421–23, 

438–39, 455–56, 472–73, 489–90, 489–90

Species viability, 499, 662, 664, 667

aquatic, 179–92, 223, 235, 244, 249, 253

plants, 115

wildlife, 381

Suitability, 526

livestock grazing, 527

timber, 8, 366, 368

Surrogate wildlife species, 379–81, 385, 395, 397, 399, 

400, 401, 403, 412, 414, 416, 417, 418, 420, 429, 431, 

432, 433, 435, 436, 446, 448, 449, 451, 452, 453, 463, 

465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, 23, 100, 

174, 377, 814, 841, 846

Traditional cultural properties (TCP), 509, 679–84

Travel Management Rule, 9, 25, 44, 69, 564, 567, 577, 581, 

602, 607, 619

Tribal Resources, 676–84

Watershed

condition framework, 7, 180, 268, 281, 285, 322

focus, 219, 267, 285, 286, 300

key, 48, 49, 51, 201, 227, 235, 267, 308–12, 318, 320, 

323, 329, 336

priority, 45, 217, 267, 286, 300, 301, 302, 303, 306, 323, 

335, 437, 454, 472, 488

Wild and Scenic Rivers, vii, 8, 24, 573–74, 614, 847, 849

Wilderness

congressionally designated, vii, 40, 135, 530, 571, 615

potential, 372, 373, 569, 573, 587, 592, 597, 602, 608, 

620

recommended, 19, 40, 44, 47, 50, 53, 55, 58, 132, 140, 

142, 144, 146, 148, 152, 195, 199, 222, 225, 234, 

237, 244, 246, 248, 250, 253, 254, 364, 523, 530, 

533, 535, 538, 542, 543, 550, 551, 553, 568, 582, 

587, 592, 597, 602, 608, 615, 619, 623, 629, 640, 

658, 660, 663, 665, 668, 671, 673

Wilderness Act of 1964, 70

Wildland-urban interface (WUI), 126, 135, 656

Wildlife, 5, 21–22, 44, 48, 50, 54, 56, 58, 152, 155, 156, 

157, 158, 159, 160, 195, 365, 377–490, 524, 531, 533, 

535, 539, 542, 543, 550, 551, 620, 623, 630, 658