Final Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Impact

Statement

Little Pend Oreille

National Wildlife Refuge

Volume 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
FINAL

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

AND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE

LITTLE PEND OREILLE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

April 2000

Prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1

Pacific Northwest Planning Team

16340 SW Beef Bend Road

Sherwood, OR 97140

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge

1310 Bear Creek Road

Colville, WA 99114

Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and alternative management

actions/programs has been assessed consistent with requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Proposed)

Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties, Washington

Type of Action: Administrative

Lead Agency: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: Anne Badgley, Regional Director

For Further Information: Lisa Langelier, Refuge Manager

Little Pend Oreille NWR

1310 Bear Creek Road

Colville, Washington 99114

(509) 684-8384

 

Abstract: A preferred alternative and four other alternatives are described and compared for the

40,198 acre Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. The five alternatives are:

Alternative A. This alternative is the no action alternative as required by the National

Environmental Policy regulations. Selection of this alternative would mean that there

would be no change from past management programs and emphasis. 

Alternative B. This alternative places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components

such as mature forests and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants

and animals. Existing uses and recreational activities will be continued but some may be

modified. 

Alternative C. This alternative places management emphasis on restoration of habitat. Only

priority wildlife-dependent uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge system Improvement Act) will be allowed.

Alternative D. This alternative places a stronger management emphasis on restoration of habitat

than Alternative C does. Only priority wildlife-dependent uses identified in the Refuge

System Improvement Act will be allowed. 

Alternative E. This alternative has been revised based on input received from the public on the

DEIS. It places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components along with a

mix of existing uses and priority recreation activities. Alternative E is the agency

preferred alternative.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes revisions to the Draft EIS (DEIS). The

DEIS was circulated for public review and comments from May through August 1999. Public

open house meetings were held on the DEIS in May1999. Changes noted in the Readers  Guide in

this FEIS indicate substantive revisions to the DEIS text. In addition, written comments received

on the DEIS, Service responses to these comments, and a list of FEIS recipients have been

incorporated into the FEIS.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Facts About the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge

Location: The Refuge is located in Northeastern Washington, southeast of Colville in Stevens County.

Purpose: Little Pend Oreille NWR was established in 1939 . . . as a refuge and breeding ground for

migratory birds and other wildlife . . .  (Executive Order 8014) and . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary,

or for any other ma nagement pu rpose, for migratory b irds.  (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

Acreage: Currently there are 40,198 acres, which equals 86% of the acquisition goal. Refuge inholdings

total 9437 acres and consist mainly of industrial timberlands owned by Stimson Lumber and Boise

Cascade. Total acreage within the approved boundary is 49,697 acres.

Habitat: Elevations range from 1,800 feet on the western boundary to 5 ,600 feet on the eastern b oundary. 

The Re fuge is bord ered on its so uthern and eastern side s by Natio nal Forests (Colville an d Kanik su) with

scattered industrial timberland, state lands, and privately-owned small farms, ranches, and subdivisions on

the north an d west.

Refuge mixed conifer habitats include lowland ponderosa pine, mid-elevation forest dominated by

Douglas-fir, western larch, and lodgepole pine, and upper elevation forests of true fir, spruce, hemlock, and

western red cedar. The Little Pend Oreille River flows through the northern portion of the Refuge. Eastern

and southern boundaries follow the river s watershed divide. Small streams and lakes, marshes, open

meadows, and former farm fields create diverse habitats on this forested refuge.

Wildlife: There are diverse montane for est and ripa rian wildlife communities. On e hundre d and eigh ty-six

bird specie s have bee n recorde d. Bald ea gles use the Little Pend Oreille Riv er during w inter mon ths. State

candidate or species of concern occurring on the Refuge include: golden eagle; northern goshawk;

flammulated owl; white-headed, pileated, Lewis  and black-backed woodpeckers; Vaux swift; pygmy

shrew; and Townsend s big-eared bat. Forest pass erine (perching) birds are p lentiful and include a mixture

of eastern and western species. Cavity-dependent birds, such as woodpeckers, nuthatches, and chickadees

are abund ant.

Lakes and marshes provide spring stopover points for migratory waterfowl. The Refuge provides breeding

habitat for ground nesting waterfowl such as Canada geese and mallards, as well as cavity-nesters,

including wood duck, common goldeneye, and common and hooded mergansers. Native fish include

cutthroat trout, red-sided shiner, and sculpin. Rainbow, brook, and German brown trout, and tench have

been introduced. White-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, moose, black bear, cougar, coyote, and bobcat are some

of the large m amma ls living on th e Refuge . The prese nce of fishe r, marten, w olverine, an d gray wolf is

unknown. The potential exists to manage for large species or species which require large tracts of forest

habitat. 

History: In 1939, most Refuge lands were acquired through the Resettlement Administration which retired

marginal farmland. Other lands were either purchased from willing sellers, or acquired through exchange

with Washington Department of Natural Resources.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife managed the Refuge through a cooperative agreement

from 1965 to 1994. Department management objectives emphasized game species and wildlife-oriented

recreation. Habitat management action included timber harvest, prescribed fire, livestock grazing, forage

planting, an d noxiou s weed co ntrol. The U .S. Fish an d Wildlife Service res umed o n-site man agement in

1994.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

R-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Readers  Guide

This guide discusses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning process and displays major

changes made to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact

Statement (CCP/EIS) that appear in this Final CCP/EIS. The changes are the result of comments

received from federal, state, and local agencies, interest groups and individual members of the

public. Also note that the CCP/EIS is divided into two volumes. Volume I contains the

Summary and Chapters, and Volume II contains the Appendices.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning process for all national wildlife refuges generally

involves three levels of planning: 1) the development of a broad Comprehensive Conservation

Plan (CCP); 2) the formulation of detailed step-down management plans; and 3) annual work

plans and site specific projects. Public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) compliance are continued through all appropriate levels in the process. This Final

Environmental Impact Statement provides NEPA compliance for planning documents from all

three levels of planning. The three documents include a CCP, a step-down Fire Management

Plan, and Forest Management Pilot Projects:

Level 1: Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Comprised of Chapters 1 and 2,

the selected alternative from Chapter 3, Appendix C, and Appendix F)

The CCP is a document that provides a conservation vision for a refuge. It describes the desired

future condition for fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats. The CCP provides direction to

refuge programs through long range management goals and objectives. It also determines

appropriate and compatible uses including recreational, commercial, and permitted uses. After

release of the Final EIS, the final CCP document for the Little Pend Oreille Refuge will be

separated from the EIS and will consist of Chapter 1 - Introduction, Chapter 2 - Affected

Environment, the preferred alternative from Chapter 3, Appendix C - Implementation, and

Appendix F - Compatibility Determinations.

Level 2: Fire Management Plan (Appendix G) - Public comments were received on

the Draft Fire Management Plan together with other comments when the Draft CCP/EIS was

circulated May-August 1999. No changes were made from the Draft to the Final Fire

Management Plan; therefore it has not been reprinted in this final CCP/EIS. The Final Fire

Management Plan is available from the Refuge upon Request.

Refuge step-down management plans are working documents that provide guidance and identify

specific actions for the major refuge programs to fulfill the goals and objectives outlined in the

CCP. The Fire Management Plan was written at the same time as the CCP.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Readers  Guide R-2 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Level 3: Forest Management Pilot Projects (Appendix E)

Annual work plans and site specific projects identify specific tasks for specific locations. Three

site specific forest management projects are included in Appendix E and received public review

and comment. It is anticipated that on-the-ground forest management actions could take place in

the winter months following the decision on the CCP/EIS if all compliance requirements are met.

Changes Made to Draft LPO CCP/EIS that Appear in Final 

Post Public Comment Analysis

This table shows the key changes that were made between the Draft CCP/EIS and this Final

CCP/EIS. The page references shown refer to the page numbers in the draft document. Nearly

all of these changes were made in response to public comment. Some additional editing changes

were made that are not detailed here. 

Where Change

Originated in

Draft Document

Issues Raised

During

Comment

Period 

Specific Changes Made From Draft to

Final

Fact Sheet;

Summary p. S-6

Chapter (Ch.) 2 (p. 2-

1) Ch. 3 (p. 3-5)

Editing Acre age paragraph cha nged to 40,198 acres total,

9,437 acres of inholdings and 49,697 within the

approved boundary.

Summary (p. S-14)

Ch. 3 (pp. 3-11, 3-23

and 24

Ch. 4 (p. 4-1)

App C (p. C-2) 

Forest Habitat

Management

These 6 pages have references to the forest

management objective. We clarified why we can

have a 15,000 acre dry forest management objective

with only 7943 acres of dry forest habitat on the

refuge. Total acres of dry, moist and cold forest were

made consistent throughout document. 

Summary (p. S-4 and

S- 5)

Ch. 3 (pp.3-3 to 3-5)

Snowmobiling Added snowmobiling on Olson Creek Road to

Alternative E.

Ch. 1 Purpose Statement Retained purpose language from Executive Order

8104.

Ch. 1 (p. 1-5)

Ch. 3

Goa ls Referenced provisions of Improvement Act to

inventory and monitor status and trends of fish,

wildlife, and plants; added to Section 1.5 and Ch 3 in

monitoring section. Goal 1 was rewritten to read

 Conserve, enhance..habitats and their associated

fish, wildlife and plants, ...native biological diversity... 
Where Change

Originated in 

Draft Document

Issues Raised

During

Comment

Period 

Specific Changes Made From Draft to

Final

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Readers  Guide R-3 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Ch. 1 (p. 1-2), Map 1 Map Correc ted the C olville Nationa l Forest b ounda ry to

the south of Refuge.

Ch. 1 (p. 1-3) Data Under section 1.4, Planning Process, added

des criptio n of re fuge spec ific stu dies cond ucte d in

the past 6 years.

Ch. 1 (p. 1-10) Grazing Elaborated on initial intent and purpose of Refuge,

especially how it relates to uses such as grazing .

Ch. 1 Air Force Revise d Issue summ ary state ment.

Ch. 2 (p. 2-31) Wildlife Clarified why particular indicator species were

chosen.

Ch. 2 (pp. 2-29 to 2-

30).

Wildlife 

Snowmobiling 

Lynx - added status of forage/cover ratios, Lynx

Mana geme nt Zone s, Lynx Analys is Units, tren ds, etc. 

Added references from Lynx Science Report that

points to fragmentation as plausible mechanism for

decline of lynx, including facilitating competition from

coyotes.

Ch. 2 (p. 2-24) Interior Co lumb ia

Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

(ICBEMP)

Expanded Kelly-Ringel s summary of fish habitat

assessment - presented both INFISH and ICBEMP

standa rds for stre am co nditions. 

Ch. 2 (p. 2-7) Historic Range of

Variability (HRV)

Added more background on HRV.

Ch. 2 (p. 2-49)

Ch. 3 (pp. 3-13 and 3-

39)

Roads Added State of Washington reference to the road

density s tandard s and Knudse n and N aef refere nce. 

Also changed road closure dates to Jan 1 - April 14

on p 3-1 3 and p.3 -39. 

Ch. 2 (pp. 2-73 to 2-

75) 

Ch. 4 (p. 4-31)

Snowmobiling Updated current economic condition.

Ch. 2 (pp. 2-52 and 2-

53)

Hunting Add ed ba ckgroun d on p reda tor hu nting that is

discus sed in C omm ent and R espon se App endix. 

Added current information from traffic counters

regarding estimates for hunters.
Where Change

Originated in 

Draft Document

Issues Raised

During

Comment

Period 

Specific Changes Made From Draft to

Final

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Readers  Guide R-4 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Ch. 2 (pp. 2-55 to 2-

56) Ch. 3 (p. 3-38)

App. F (p. F-24) 

Alts table - s eparate

snowmobiling row

from OHVs.

Recreation Changed off-road vehicles objective: deleted

sentence saying : Allow legal ATV use on

designated roads only.  Changed C h 2 as necessa ry

to clarify definitions of ORV, ATV, unlicenced etc,

and to present the CFR which prohibits off highway

vehicles . 

Ch. 2 Map 13 (p. 2-57) Map Changed map to include more detailed information,

including 1999 information, multi-year overlays.

Ch. 2 (Roads section,

pp. 2-42 to 2-50)

Snowmobiling Described snowmobile use of Olson Creek Road.

Ch. 2, Map 10 (p. 2-

45)

Editing Differentiated county roads: all are open. Changed 

map to have a different line sy mbol for th e coun ty

roads and changed the map s legend for open and

closed roads.

Ch. 2 Grazing Described the April 1999 Univ. of Idaho grazing

study. 

Ch. 2 Air Force Rewrote description of Air Force use, mapped AF

use from 1997-1999, and described landing sites.

Ch. 2 (p. 2-74) Recreation Revised Table 2-14 and moved it to Chapter 4 under

Recreation programs section.

Ch. 2 (pp. 2-29 and 2-

30)

Wildlife Added information on the recent verification of lynx

pres ence clos e to th e refu ge co nfirm ed by hair

trapping DNA analysis.

Ch. 2 Fisheries Fish habitat assessme nt and maps w ere tied more

closely with grazing text. We also added m ore

information on stream conditions from two studies

prepared in 1997 and 1998 and compared stream

conditions to several standards in place for stream

attributes.

Ch. 2 (p. 2-23) Streams Discussed 303(d) listing. Used information from

Comm ent/Response Section (Appendix J).

Ch.2 (pp. 2-13 &15) Editing Corrected acres table .

Ch 3. (pp. 3-39 and 3-

13)

Roads Added Starvation Lake access and changed

objective to note 9 access points open; changed map

for Alt. E. 
Where Change

Originated in 

Draft Document

Issues Raised

During

Comment

Period 

Specific Changes Made From Draft to

Final

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Readers  Guide R-5 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Ch. 3 (p. 3 -31); 

App. C (pp. C-8 and

C-9)

Snowmobiling Updated monitoring plan to add monitoring of winter

active mammals along Olson Creek Road and

elsewhere in Refuge.

Ch. 3 (p. 3-38) Snowmobiling Clarified off-road vehicle statement, separated

snowmobiling and added snowmobile use of Olson

Creek Road until an alterna te route is d evelope d. 

Ch. 3 ( pp. 3-12 and 3-

29)

Old Fields Added clarity to objective and added planting of 200

acres o f annual o r perenn ial crops a s wildlife forag e. 

Alt. Table & Objectives.

Ch. 3 (pp. 3-12 and 3-

29)

Noxious weeds and

goals and objectives

Revised weed objective and added six new

strategies for weed mana geme nt.

Ch. 3 (pp. 3-13, 3-35,

and 3-39)

Hunting Revised objective to clarify hunt seasons including

predator hunting. Added strategies; no hound hunting

for anything and no bear baiting.

Ch. 3 (p. 3-24) Forest Habitat

Management

Added explanation about w hy we are prioritizing dry

forest treatments.

Ch. 3 Map 15 (p.3-21) Snowmobiling Changed to show that snowmobiles are allowed on

Olso n Cre ek ro ad in A lt. E, an d that the s now park is

retained in A lt. E. 

Ch. 3 (monitoring)

Ch. 4,Appendix C 

Air Force Provided information on ground impacts (camping;

trails, etc.).

Ch. 3 (p. 3-14)

Ch. 3 (p. 3-38)

App. C (p. C-19)

Horsecamp Dele ted re feren ces to horseb ack over night s only

being allowed in Horse Camp.

Ch. 3 (pp. 3-31 to 32) 

App. C (pp. C-8 & C9)

Goa ls Included more on monitoring fish and plants (monitor

stream fish, do rare plant surveys, etc.).

Ch. 3 Goa ls Added scientific references for vegetation and other

objectives.

Ch 3 Added law enforcement objective.

Ch. 3 (p.3-39,

Alternatives Tables)

Roads/Access Replaced April 15 or 16 open date to April 14.

Ch. 3 (pp. 3-34 and

35)

Fish objective Made changes to stocking, gasoline motors, impacts,

and gear.

Ch. 3 (p. 3-26) Streams Included strategies for monitoring water quality.
Where Change

Originated in 

Draft Document

Issues Raised

During

Comment

Period 

Specific Changes Made From Draft to

Final

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Readers  Guide R-6 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Ch. 3 (p. 3-39) Roads Open road density objective: specified density by

subwatershed, not averaged over whole refuge as

draft implied.

Ch. 4 Economics Recalculated economic effects with new information

gathered from additional literature, interviews,

snowmobile spending profiles and revised

(increased) use estimates.

Ch. 4 (p. 4-37) HRV Added more background information on the concept

of Historic Range of Variability and the Interior

Colum bia Bas in Ecos ystem Mana geme nt Projec t.

Changed cumulative effects writeup to delete clear

trends  part.

Ch 4. (p. 4-10) Snowmobiling and

Wildlife

Updated lynx analysis with information from the Lynx

Scientific Report, including coyote competition

information

Ch. 4 Air Force Expan ded disc ussion o f Air Force training effec ts. 

Ch. 4 Recreation Updated estimates of recreation visitor days

anticipated in future; revised recreation effects based

on new estimates.

Ch. 4 (p. 4-29) Grazing Expan ded disc ussion o f grazing e ffects. Dra ft

analysis used 4 permittees, this changed to reflect

current number, 3.

Ch. 5 Public Involvement Updated public involvement section.

Appendix B References Added additional references based on additional

wor k betwee n dra ft and final.

App. C (p. C-9) Streams Included a water quality monitoring plan to address

303 (d). 

Appendix C Fishing Added plan to monitor angler impact to wildlife.

App. C (p. C-10) Noxious weeds Added inventory and m apping s trategy. 

App. F 

(pp. F-2 to F-25)

Snowmobiling

Com patibility

Determination

Updated impacts analysis. Updated final

compatibility decision use of Olson Creek. Clarified

that decision could be changed during public use

management plan, based on information gathered

through monitorin g, status o f new sn owpa rk, etc. 
Where Change

Originated in 

Draft Document

Issues Raised

During

Comment

Period 

Specific Changes Made From Draft to

Final

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Readers  Guide R-7 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

App. F (p. F-13) Forest Habitat

Management, cut tree

marking

Changed paragraph sales shall be exclusively cut tree

marked  so that we are employing the best marking

technique available that fits the prescription.

Appendix F Air Force Added Air Force compatibility determination.

Appendix F Collecting Rewrote compatibility determination to allow personal

use.

Appendix F Com patibility Revised horseback compatibility determination.

Appendix I Mailing List Updated mailing list with names received during

public rev iew of dra ft.

App. J Public C omm ents Added this new appendix of Public Comments on the

Draft EIS/CCP and FWS responses to the

comments.

App. K Weeds Added Appendix of State-listed noxious weeds for

Stevens County.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

i Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Sheet

Refuge Facts

Readers  Guide ...................................................... R-1

Summary ........................................................... S-1

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction .............................................. 1-1

1.2 Proposed Action ........................................... 1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan .......... 1-1

1.4 Planning Process and Future Revisions ......................... 1-3

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidelines ................................. 1-5

1.6 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .............. 1-6

1.7 Columbia Basin Ecoregion Goals ............................. 1-7

1.8 Brief History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and 

Historical Management ..................................... 1-8

1.9 Refuge Purpose ........................................... 1-9

1.10 Refuge Vision Statement ................................... 1-11

1.11 Refuge Goals ............................................ 1-12

1.12 Planning Issues and Opportunities ............................ 1-13

Chapter 2: Affected Environment

2.1 Physical Environment ...................................... 2-1

2.2 Refuge Habitats ........................................... 2-6

2.3 Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants .............................. 2-32

2.4 Public Use Status and Trends ............................... 2-49

2.5 Other Refuge Uses ........................................ 2-63

2.6 Administrative Facilities ................................... 2-68

2.7 Cultural Resources ........................................ 2-68

2.8 Economic Setting ......................................... 2-74

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

3.1 Formulation of Alternatives .................................. 3-1

3.2 Alternatives Summary ...................................... 3-3

3.3 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, 

Objectives and Strategies ................................... 3-22

3.4 Comparison of Funding and Personnel Needs by Alternative ....... 3-47
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Table of Contents ii Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4.1 Effects to Habitats and Evaluation Species ...................... 4-1

4.2 Effects to Public Access and Recreation Opportunities ............ 4-23

4.3 Effects Related to Cattle Grazing ............................. 4-29

4.4 Effects Related to Air Force ................................. 4-31

4.5 Effects to Regional Economy ............................... 4-35

4.6 Environmental Justice ..................................... 4-43

4.7 Cumulative Effects ........................................ 4-44

4.8 Potential Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments ............. 4-45

4.9 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment 

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ................... 4-46

4.10 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ................... 4-46

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5.1 Public Involvement Summary ................................ 5-1

5.2 Consultation and Coordination ............................... 5-8

5.3 Acknowledgments ........................................ 5-12

Chapter 6: List of Preparers ......................................... 6-1

Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary

Appendix B References

Appendix C: Preferred Alternative: CCP Objectives, Projects, &

Implementation Strategies

Appendix D: Summary of Compliance

Appendix E: Detailed Description and Analysis of Forest Management Pilot Projects

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Appendix G: Fire Management Plan

Appendix H: Wildlife Species List

Appendix I: Mailing List

Appendix J: Comments on Draft CCP/EIS and Service Responses

Appendix K: Noxious Weed Species List

List of Figures

Map 1. Refuge Vicinity, Northeast Washington .................... 1-2

Map 2. Land Exchange with State of Washington (1967) ............ 1-10

Map 3. Refuge Features and Surrounding Ownership ................ 2-2

Map 4. Historic and Current Vegetation Structural Stages in the ....... 2-11

Colville Sub-basin

Map 5. Historic and Current Fire Regimes within the Colville Sub-basin . 2-13
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Table of Contents iii Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Map 6. Distribution of Forest Types and Selected Wildlife Habitats .... 2-16

Map 7. Aquatic Habitats and Subwatersheds ....................... 2-21

Map 8. Riparian Condition Survey .............................. 2-26

Map 9. Fish Habitat Assessment on River Reaches .................. 2-27

Map 10. Open and Closed Roads ................................. 2-50

Map 11. Open Road Density by Subwatershed ...................... 2-53

Map 12. Recreational Uses ...................................... 2-57

Map 13. Air Force Survival School Use ........................... 2-64

Map 14. Restoration Actions Alternatives A-E ...................... 3-16

Map 15. Recreational Uses Alternatives A-E ....................... 3-18

Map 16. Grazing and Fields Management Alternatives A-E ............ 3-20

Map E-1. Appendix E: Forest Management Pilot Projects ............... E-3

Figure 2.1 Major Habitat Types Cross-Section ........................ 2-17

Figure 2-2 Fish Distribution by Species in the Little Pend Oreille River .... 2-45

Figure 2-3 Fish Distribution by Species in the North Fork of Bear Creek ... 2-47

Figure 2-4 Fish Distribution by Species in Bear Creek ................. 2-47

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Changes in Vegetative Structure within the Colville Sub-basin. . . 2-10

Table 2-2 Changes in Fire Regimes throughout the Colville Sub-basin .... 2-12

Table 2-3 Acres and Percent of Habitat by Forest Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

Table 2-4 Number and Percent of Palustrine Wetlands by Water Regime . . 2-22

Table 2-5 Number and Percent of Palustrine Wetlands by Vegetation ..... 2-22

Table 2-6. Summary of Standards for Stream Conditions ............... 2-29

Table 2-7 Stream Conditions as Compared to Standards ............... 2-30

Table 2-8 Wildlife Species Predicted by Washington GAP ............. 2-33

Table 2-9 Species Used to Evaluate Effects of Proposed Alternatives ..... 2-37

Table 2-10 Birds Captured in Mistnets within Wooded Riparian ......... 2-40

Table 2-11 Miles of Roads by Ownership within the Refuge ............. 2-51

Table 2-12 Miles and Density of Roads by Subwatershed ............... 2-54

Table 2-13 Current Open Road Density in White-tailed Deer Winter Range 2-55

Table 2-14 Current Open Road Density in White-tailed Deer Summer Range 2-55

Table 2-15 Grazing Units ........................................ 2-66

Table 2-16 Cultural Resources Recorded on the Refuge ................ 2-70

Table 2-17 Distribution of Refuge Visitors by Region of Origin .......... 2-80

Table 2-18 Recreation Expenditures per Person per Day ................ 2-81

Table 3-1 Summary of Alternatives ................................ 3-11

Table 3-2 Comparison of Refuge Staffing under Alternatives ............ 3-47

Table 3-3 Estimated Annual Non-Salary Expenditures by Alternative ..... 3-48
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Table of Contents iv Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 4-1 Projected Visitors in Key Recreation Categories by Alternative . . 4-25

Table 4-2 Summary of Studies on Large Mammals

From Low Flying Aircraft ............................... 4-33

Table 4-3 Annual Refuge Salary and Nonsalary Expenditures 

by Alternative ......................................... 4-36

Table 4-4 Regional Economic Effects by Refuge Activities 

by Sector and Alterative ................................. 4-37

Table 4-5 Change in Regional Economic Effects from the 

 No-Action Alternative .................................. 4-42

Table C-1 Appendix C: Primary Entrances and Improvements Needed .... C-21

Table C-2 Public Access Roads and Improvements Needed .............. C-22

Table C-3 Seasonal Public Access Roads and Improvements Needed ...... C-24

Table C-4 Summary of Wildlife and Habitat Projects ................... C-28

Table C-5 Summary of Public Use Projects .......................... C-29

Table C-6 Summary of Maintenance and Administration ................ C-30

Table C-7 Total Project Costs Proposed for the Next 15 Years ........... C-30
Little Pend Oreille NWR 

S-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Summary

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is to develop and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge that best achieves the Refuge s purpose, vision, and

goals; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; addresses the significant

issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife

management.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located in northeast Washington. 

Established in 1939, Little Pend Oreille NWR is one of more than 500 refuges in the National

Wildlife Refuge System managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). In 1997, the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge System Improvement Act) (Public

Law 105-57) was passed. The Act requires each national wildlife refuge to have a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). This document for the Little Pend Oreille Refuge is a

combination of a Final CCP and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to develop a vision for the Refuge and

provide management guidance for maintenance, restoration, and use of Refuge resources during

the next 15 years. Specifically, the CCP will:

• set a long-term vision for the Refuge;

• establish management goals, objectives, and strategies;

• define compatible recreational uses of the Refuge;

• determine the future use of livestock grazing;

• determine future Air Force Survival School training use of the Refuge;

• outline habitat and public use projects that support the goals and objectives;

• identify public entry points into the Refuge;

• describe forest management prescriptions for three areas; and

• adopt a step-down fire management plan. 

Overall, there is a need to bring the Refuge in line with the National Wildlife Refuge System

mission, goals, objectives, and policies. A Comprehensive Conservation Plan is needed to

address significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish,

wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems. Specifically,

these problems at the Refuge include the need to: ensure the biological integrity, diversity and

environmental health of Refuge forests; restore degraded stream habitats; evaluate and manage

visitor use; and resolve conflicts between the U.S. Air Force use of the Refuge and the Refuges s

wildlife purpose. In addition, the Refuge System Improvement Act directs the Service to
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-2 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000 

provide, to the extent practicable, opportunities for people to experience compatible wildlifedependent recreation.

Other agencies involved in discussions related to this document include the U.S. Forest Service,

National Park Service, U.S. Air Force, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Department of Natural Resources.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan provides a framework for future Refuge management.

The analysis associated with implementation of the Plan is addressed at the programmatic level. 

Projects are not analyzed in detail. For example, additional planning, with consideration of sitespecific impacts, will be necessary before facilities are built. An exception to this is the detailed

analysis of forest management prescriptions for Starvation Flats, Minnie Flats, and Biarly Flats

(Appendix E). 

The Refuge System Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of National

Wildlife Refuge System lands and that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health of refuge lands shall be maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge

System mission and the specific purposes for which it was established. Additionally, the Act

identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As priority public

uses of the Refuge System, these uses will receive enhanced consideration over other uses in

planning and management. 

Lands within the national wildlife refuge system are different from other, multiple use public

lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge

use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in

the sound professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. 

Brief History and Purpose of the Refuge 

Beginning in 1879, the Refuge was homesteaded, farmed, grazed by livestock, logged and later

classified submarginal  for homesteading, although much of the Refuge was unaffected.

Executive Order 8104 (May 2, 1939) established the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge . . . as

a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . .  Lands added later to

the Refuge were acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16

U.S.C.715d) . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for

migratory birds . . . . 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-3 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000 

Refuge Vision Statement

Forest habitat management is vital to the future of wildlife conservation in northeastern

Washington. As the only mixed-conifer montane forest in the National Wildlife Refuge System,

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge has a unique role to play in forest habitat

management. Its forests, streams, and wetlands are used seasonally by bald eagles and numerous

migratory birds for nesting, foraging and migration. It provides critical winter range for deer and

habitat for several species of interest including the Canada lynx and flammulated owl. 

The Service envisions using this Plan to build on native wildlife habitat diversity as a theme with

emphasis on developing late successional forest and restoring riparian habitat - habitats that are

increasingly rare in the region. In the next 15 years, Refuge staff will focus management efforts

in over-stocked stands of dry forest using thinning and prescribed fire techniques that mimic

natural ecological processes, such as wildfire. Degraded streams will be restored to enhance and

maintain the natural diversity of the Refuge.

A healthy Refuge environment will provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife viewing,

hunting, and fishing in a natural setting. Interpreting wildlife and the Refuge s unique heritage,

as well as improving facilities will enhance the visitors  experience while protecting the cultural

integrity of the area. To meet these challenges, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue

to seek partnerships with other agencies, interest groups, landowners, and local communities. 

These efforts will result in greater protection of wildlife and fish resources throughout

northeastern Washington.

Refuge Goals

The following broad goals are proposed for the Little Pend Oreille NWR. They are consistent

with Refuge purposes, Refuge System goals, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997, Service policy, and international treaties.

Goal 1: Conserve, enhance, and restore native forest, riparian, in-stream, and wetland

habitats and their associated fish, wildlife, and plants, representative of the

native biological diversity of northeastern Washington.

Goal 2: Monitor, protect, and recover special status plants and animals and species of

management interest. 

Goal 3: Provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to

enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of Refuge wildlife,

fish, habitats, and cultural history.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-4 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000 

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives, developed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, provide ways to

address and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and opportunities identified

during the planning process. 

A number of issues were identified during the public scoping process. Alternatives then were

developed in response to identified issues. Habitat restoration is a common element in each

action alternative. The alternatives are intended to provide a range of uses and access, and

respond to the significant issues. Five alternatives are described and evaluated in the draft EIS:

• Alternative A: No Action-Status quo;

• Alternative B: Restoration of Wildlife Habitat with Management of Existing

Uses;

• Alternative C: Restoration of Wildlife Habitat emphasizing Priority Uses;

• Alternative D: Ecological Reserve Strategy; and 

• Alternative E: Agency Preferred Alternative (Modified form Draft).

The preferred alternative is the alternative that would best achieve the Refuge purpose, vision

and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues; and is

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The preferred alternative

(Alternative E) with associated objectives, strategies, and projects represents the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Little Pend Oreille NWR.

This section describes the five alternatives. Only Alternative E was revised as a result of public

comments on the draft.

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION STATUS QUO

This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and emphases. No changes

would be made to current uses, which include Air Force survival training, livestock grazing,

hunting, fishing, camping, snowmobiling, and horseback riding. In the past, management for

game species was very important and the forest management policy required that all wildfires

must be suppressed as quickly as possible.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-5 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000 

ALTERNATIVE B: RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND MANAGEMENT

OF EXISTING USES

Alternative B places new management emphasis on the restoration of habitat such as mature dry

forest ponderosa pine and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and

animals. Under Alternative B, existing uses and recreation activities will be modified but

continued. Recreation activities would include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, camping,

and horseback riding. The annual livestock grazing program would be continued but would have

limitations on numbers of animals, locations, and time of year. A major change would be to

move grazing out of riparian zones and high-elevation areas. This would require building

additional fences to control livestock use. The Air Force survival training program would be

continued, however, training intensity would be reduced and helicopter use eliminated except in

emergency situations. 

ALTERNATIVE C: HABITAT RESTORATION EMPHASIZING PRIORITY REFUGE

SYSTEM USES

This alternative would also place management emphasis on mature dry forest ponderosa pine and

riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and animals. Priority wildlifedependent uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

would be the only activities allowed. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and interpretation activities. Hunting opportunities

would be expanded and additional effort would be spent on environmental education activities

and interpretation. Other existing recreational activities such as camping, horseback riding, and

snowmobiling would be eliminated. No annual livestock grazing program would be included but

some limited livestock grazing may occur, in order to meet specific wildlife and habitat

objectives. The Air Force survival training program would be discontinued. 

ALTERNATIVE D: THE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE  ALTERNATIVE 

The focus of Alternative D is to manage the Refuge as an ecological reserve. To some, the

theme may evoke ideas of passive management  such as often occurs in wilderness areas. 

However, objectives encompassed in Alternative D are more complex than a sole strategy of

passive management allows. The key components of the alternative are to promote habitat

restoration, especially in the dry forest zone, to restore aquatic conditions to natural states, and to

effectively enlarge roadless areas in the eastern Refuge by reducing human intrusions. The

alternative would support the priority uses established under the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting of forest predators such as bear and cougar would be

eliminated, so as to diminish interference with the natural process of predation. Only no-trace

camping would be allowed. Other uses such as horseback riding, livestock grazing, and the Air

Force survival training would be eliminated from the Refuge. Four access points to the Refuge

would be maintained. Several roads on the eastern half of the Refuge would be blocked or gated

to create a large area within the eastern half of the Refuge that would remain essentially free of
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-6 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000 

human disturbances throughout the year. Inholder access would be managed through a

cooperative gating system. 

ALTERNATIVE E: AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MODIFIED FROM

DRAFT) 

Alternative E originated as a combination of the preliminary Alternatives B and C. The Agency

Preferred Alternative E places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components such

as mature dry forest and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and

animals. Under Alternative E, a mix of existing uses and priority recreation activities will be

managed. A wide range of recreational activities would be supported including hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, camping, horseback riding, photography, and interpretation. Additional

hunting seasons would be added. Interpretation, viewing, photography, and environmental

education would receive added emphasis. Some recreational uses, such as camping and

horseback riding would be restricted in some areas and during some seasons. Camping would be

allowed in designated campgrounds April 15 to December 31 and in additional designated sites

from October 1 to December 31. Selected campsites would be removed from environmentally

sensitive riparian zones. Snowmobiling would be prohibited from all areas of the Refuge except

Olson Creek Road. The snowpark would remain. The annual livestock grazing program will be

continued at its present level for five additional years. Subsequent livestock grazing may be

employed to meet wildlife habitat management objectives. The Air Force survival training

program would be phased out over five years.

Features Common to all Alternatives

All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length

and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions.

• Refuge Boundary and In-holdings

The Refuge boundary remains the same across all alternatives. There is continued

interest by the Fish and Wildlife Service to consolidate management of lands within the

existing Refuge boundary. This could be done through management, protection,

exchange or acquisition of the approximately 9400 acres of in-holdings within the

boundary. A significant portion of these in-holdings are industrial timber land including

Boise Cascade (approximately 1550 acres) and Stimson Lumber Company

(approximately 4530 acres).

• Other Refuge-Managed Parcels

The Little Pend Oreille NWR currently manages two fee properties outside of the

approved boundary of the Refuge: the Norris Tract (54.7 acres) near Springdale,

Washington and the Cusick track (298 acres) north of Cusick, Washington; and four 
 Summary of Alternatives Found in the Final CCP/EIS for the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlif

Program or

Issue

Alt. A

 (Status quo)

Alt. B

(Restoration of wildlife

habitat and management

of existing uses)

Alt. C 

(Restoration; emphasizing

Refuge System Priority

uses)

Alt. D

(Reserve strategy,

reduce human

disturbances)

HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAMS

Forest

management

Limited forest

management. Some

salvage activities and

precommercial thinning. 

Limited prescribed fire and

total fire suppression.

Restore natural forest

structure and composition. 

Aim for a mosaic of stands to

approximate the appropriate

Historical Range of

Variability (HRV) within

each forest group. For the

long-term, promote large tree

size and stand development

into mature and old stages

over approximately 50% of

the Refuge. Use

precommercial and

commercial thinning,

selective harvest techniques,

and prescribed fire. Suppress

all wildfires outside of

prescription.

Restore natural forest

structure and composition.

Aim for a mosaic of stands

to approximate the

appropriate HRV within

each forest group. For the

long-term, promote large

tree size and stand

development into mature

and old stages over

approximately 50% of the

Refuge. Use precommercial

and commercial thinning,

selective harvest techniques,

and prescribed fire. 

Suppress all wildfires

outside of prescription.

Restore natural forest

structure and composition

and role of fire, using

thinning and prescribed

fire. No commercial

thinning in unlogged

stands. For the long-term,

promote large tree size and

stand development into

mature and old stages over

approximately 50% of the

Refuge. Employ low

impact fire suppression

techniques as much as

possible. Promote

protection of wildlife

corridors and buffer zones

with neighboring land

owners and managers.

Riparian and

stream

management

No change; no plantings or

restoration.

Repair/improve roads that

limit fish passage or cause

excessive stream

sedimentation; plant and

stabilize streambanks. Enact

200-foot setback from water

bodies for dispersed

camping, commercial

thinning, and road

construction. 

Repair/improve roads that

limit fish passage or cause

excessive stream

sedimentation; plant and

stabilize streambanks. 

Instream flows take priority

over diversion flows. Enact

200-foot setback from water

bodies for timber removal

and road construction. 

Breach dams and diversions to restore natural

hydrology. Repair or

obliterate roads limiting

fish passage and/or causing

excessive sedimentation;

plant and stabilize

streambanks. Enact 200-

foot setback from water

bodies for dispersed

camping, commercial

thinning, and road

construction. 

Summary S-7
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Use of old fields

and farms

Continue grazing on

approximately 430 acres

(65%) of the old fields and

farms. Allow remaining

openings to reforest

naturally.

Plant up to 200 upland acres

with perennial crops and

exclude livestock grazing to

provide wildlife forage and

viewing opportunities. Allow

about 135 acres to revert to

native vegetation, using

prescribed fire and thinning

to enhance natural

succession. Maintain

remaining upland openings

(390 acres) with grazing,

mowing, prescribed fire, and

other mechanical methods. 

Same as Alt. B except that

upland meadows would be

maintained with prescribed

fire, mowing, or other

methods, with no annual

grazing. 

No human created

openings would be

maintained. Plant or thin

trees, shrubs, or native

vegetation to enhance

natural succession. 

Control weeds.

Noxious Weed

Management

Use integrated weed

management methods to

treat 34 miles of road-side

weeds plus 12 acres of

non-forest habitats.

Use integrated weed

management methods to

reduce seed production by

annually treating 50 linear

miles of road-side weeds plus

250 acres of non-forested

habitats and 250 acres of

forested habitats. Reduce

noxious weed cover on the

Refuge by half by the year

2015.

Use integrated weed

management methods to

reduce seed production by

annually treating 50 linear

miles of road-side weeds plus

250 acres of non-forested

habitats and 250 acres of

forested habitats. Reduce

noxious weed cover on the

Refuge by half by the year

2015.

Use integrated weed

management methods to

reduce seed production by

annually treating 50 linear

miles of road-side weeds

plus 350 acres of nonforested habitats and 350

acres of forested habitats. 

Reduce noxious weed

cover on the Refuge by

half by the year 2015.

Summary S8
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION

Entrances and

roads

No change (12 entrances,

201 miles of total roads, 91

miles of open roads). 

Open road density in 14

subwatersheds range from

0.2 mi/sq. mi. - 1.9 mi./sq.

mi. Close selected roads

during breakup.

Eight entrances. Close or

obliterate selected roads as

outlined in road manageme n t

criteria. Open road density

in 14 subwatersheds not to

exceed 1.5 mi./sq. mi. from

Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and "d 0.5

mi./sq. mi. from Jan.1 -

Apr.15. Close all but the

county-maintained roads

from Jan. 1 - Apr.15. 

Eight entrances. Close or

obliterate selected roads as

outlined in road management

criteria. Open road density in

14 subwatersheds not to

exceed 1.5 mi./sq. mi. from

Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and "d 0.5

mi./sq. mi. from Jan. 1 - Apr.

15. Close all but the countymaintained roads Jan. 1- Apr.

15.

Four entrances. Close or

obliterate numerous

selected roads. Protect and

enlarge effective roadless

areas by closing roads to

public entry, including 

Cedar Creek Rd. and

Blacktail Mountain Rd.

east of Blacktail Bridge. 

Manage inholder access

through cooperative

agreements. Open road

density in 14

subwatersheds not to

exceed 1.0 mi./sq. mi.

from Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and

"d 0.5 mi./sq. mi. from Jan.

1 - Apr. 15. Close all but

the county-maintained

roads Jan. 1- Apr. 15.

Hunting All state seasons 

Oct 1 - Dec 31. September

seasons northern portion of

Refuge only. 

All state seasons Oct 1 - Dec

31. September seasons

northern portion of Refuge

only.

Expand quality hunting

opportunities (spring turkey,

grouse, and deer/elk bow

hunts). Offer hunter education

programs.

Allow ungulate, gamebird,

and waterfowl hunting. 

Eliminate predator (bear,

cougar, coyote, and

bobcat) hunting. 

Wildlife

Observation, 

Interpretation,

Photography

Minimal programs as staff

time allows

Minimal programs as staff

time allows

Increase available viewing

information and opportunities;

offer programs, and events

(e.g., summer youth program).

Interpret natural and cultural

history.

Minimal programs as staff

time allows.

Summary S9
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Fishing Continue current

April - October fishing

opportunities. Lakes

stocked.

Continue current

April - October fishing

season. Increase

opportunities for natural

spawning in lakes. Continue

stocking program.

Continue current seasons and

increase catch and release

fishing on LPO River. 

Increase opportunities for

natural spawning at lakes. 

Delay fishing opener on lakes

until July 1 to minimize

disturbance to nesting birds. 

Continue stocking program.

No stocking. Breach

stream diversions and

dams to restore natural

hydrology. 

Camping Unregulated. Five

designated campgrounds &

many dispersed sites. 

Allowed in designated 

campgrounds and dispersed

sites only between Apr. 15

and Dec. 31. Eliminate

dispersed riparian camping.

Eliminated Primitive (no-trace)

camping allowed only. 

Close off all campgrounds

and camps accessible by

vehicle.

Horseback Riding Unregulated Develop equestrian plan,

specifically addressing

overnight use (Horse Camp

only), trails, feed, and

maintenance.

Eliminated Eliminated 

Off-Road Vehicles ATVs and dirt bikes are

not allowed but illegal use

occurs.

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Eliminate illegal use with law

enforcement patrols.

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Snowmobiling Snowmobiling allowed

only on Olson Creek Rd.

and Blacktail Mtn. Rd.

(from bridge east).

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Maintain snowpark, but

discontinue snowmobiling on

Refuge. 

Eliminate illegal use with law

enforcement patrols. Remove

snowpark and discontinue

snowmobiling on all Refuge

roads and lands. 

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Remove snowpark and

discontinue snowmobiling

on all Refuge roads and

lands. 

Summary S-10
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

OTHER PROGRAMS

Livestock grazing No change; up to 750

AUMs annually; based on

coordinated resource

management plan

developed by Soil

Conservation Service in

1978.

Modified annual grazing

program conducted outside

low-gradient alluvial riparian

areas and outside of high

elevation areas (e.g. not

above 3000'). Exclude

livestock from ecologically

sensitive areas including wet

meadows. Livestock grazing

would be concentrated in

areas where it may provide a

benefit to spring forage for

white-tailed deer.

Phase out annual program; use

grazing only as habitat

management tool to achieve

wildlife objectives.

Phase out annual program

in five years.

Air Force

Survival School

No change. Use

concentrated in late

summer with an average of

90 personnel/day. Ground

and helicopter use. 

Reduced training use,

allowing only activities not

disturbing to wildlife.

Eliminate use of helicopters

except in emergency

situations.

Phased out over five years Phased out over five years. 

Cultural

Resources

Program

Protect cultural resources

in accordance with law and

policy.

Protect cultural resources in

accordance with law and

policy. Implement a

proactive program to

inventory and evaluate

potential cultural resource

assets. 

Protect cultural resources in

accordance with law and

policy. Implement a proactive

program to inventory and

evaluate potential cultural

resource assets. 

Protect cultural resources

in accordance with law and

policy.

Summary S-11
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-12 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

conservation easements ranging in size from 10 to 65 acres in Stevens County. All of these properties

resulted from Farmer s Home Administration land disposal through loan defaults. Fee title lands are

transferred to the Service for management while conservation easements transfer only the rights of

easement management and serve to protect wetlands and converted wetlands through restrictions that are

perpetual. These tracts will be managed consistently with the management alternative selected for the

primary Refuge. In addition, a step-down management plan will be prepared for each of these units. The

Kalispel Tribe of Indians has expressed interest in cooperatively managing the Cusick unit which is

located close to tribal lands. Partnerships will be considered for the cooperative management of outlying

units.

• Land Protection Strategy Outside Approved Boundary

The Service has the ability to protect and acquire key wildlife habitats outside of the approved

Refuge boundary. Additional NEPA analysis will be necessary to evaluate the environmental

effects of protecting or acquiring lands before they can be added. Land protection methods may

include cooperative agreements, conservation easements, fee title acquisition, leases, donations,

transfers, and exchanges. Only willing participants would be considered for any of these

approaches. Priority for protection will be lands adjacent to the Refuge particularly riparian,

wetland, ponderosa pine and high elevation forest (above 4,000 foot elevation) habitats. Medium

priority for protection will be lands adjacent to other Service managed properties in Stevens and

Pend Oreille Counties and seasonally flooded agricultural lands within the Colville River

floodplain. 

• Protection of the Kaniksu Unit, A Separate but Related Action

The Service is currently in the process of evaluating the potential acquisition of 747 acres being

offered by one landowner northeast of Deer Lake, Washington. This property is referred to as the

Kaniksu Unit. Approximately 550 acres of this property are under a perpetual wetland easement

administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. A separate environmental assessment

will be completed if the preliminary project proposal is approved by the Washington Office. If

acquired and added to the Refuge, this area would be subject to many of the management

recommendations provided by the CCP. A unit plan would be prepared in the future to make

management of this area consistent with its purpose, with the CCP, and with other factors unique

to its acquisition.

• Protection of Existing Research Natural Areas (RNA)

Two Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Refuge will be maintained and protected for their

research values. In general passive or natural management will be practiced in the RNAs,

including hands-off management of wildfire unless external lands appear threatened. Baird

Basin RNA is a 160-acre tract in the North Fork of the Bear Creek watershed, representing three
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-13 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

forest cover types under the Society of American Forester s (SAF) classification system: LarchDouglas Fir (SAF 212), Ponderosa pine-Larch-Douglas fir (SAF 214) and Lodgepole Pine (SAF

218). Varline Grove RNA is an 80-acre tract representing the Lodgepole Pine cover type (SAF

212). 

• Protection of Roadless Area

A 5,520-acre roadless area exists in the southeast corner of the Refuge that may have potential for

wilderness designation. All of the alternatives considered in this draft CCP/EIS would be managed

in such a manner that the primitive roadless character of this area and associated values are not

impaired. The roadless area of the Refuge will be studied further in the step-down management

planning process (Habitat and Public Use) to determine if it is suitable as a Wilderness Study Area.

• Tribal Coordination

Common to all alternatives will be increased regular communication with American Indian Tribes

who have an interest in the Refuge. The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the

Colville Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians are three local tribes the Refuge will work

with regarding issues of shared interest. 

• Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships

 Volunteer opportunities and partnerships occur in all alternatives. These are recognized as key

components of the successful management of public lands and vital to implementation of Refuge

programs, plans and projects.

• Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment

Annual payments to Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties will continue at similar historic rates under

each alternative. Total payment made to Stevens County in 1997 was $231,804. If in-holding

lands are acquired and added to the Refuge then the county payment will increase accordingly.

• Salvage Harvest by Permit

Salvage harvest is allowed on the Refuge with a special use permit only, when wind or other

events add excessive, high-risk fuels. This use will continue under all alternatives, where

opportunities arise and where salvage could be used to further other forest habitat management

objectives.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-14 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

• Firewood Cutting by Permit

The firewood cutting permit system remains the same under all alternatives. Current Refuge

policy is to allow cutting between August 1 and November 1. Each permittee is allowed to cut up

to two cords of downed wood within 200 feet of a designated road. The number of permits issued,

cords allowed, and locations will vary from year to year based on conditions, demand, and need. 

• Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities

Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge administrative facilities will be necessary regardless

of the alternative selected. Facilities include the Refuge headquarters complex, one government

residence and one cabin. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility

and to support staff and management needs. Recently, the headquarters office was 

expanded/remodeled to add office space. Funding has been acquired to upgrade the storage

building. Funding needs have been identified to upgrade and enlarge the shop and to renovate the

Winslow cabin to provide volunteer housing.

• Protection and Management of Cultural Resources

The Service has legal responsibility to consider the effects its actions have on archeological and

historic properties. Under all alternatives, the Service will manage cultural resources in

accordance with public law and agency policy. To this end, small projects will require a Request

for Cultural Resource Compliance  form be completed in conformance with the Programmatic

Agreement among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1, the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, and the State of Washington Historic Preservation Officer. Additional consultation,

surveys, and clearance will be required when large projects are sponsored by the Refuge or when

activities affect properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (more than 50 years

old).

• Management of Minor Recreational Uses

Certain recreational activities are occasionally pursued on the Refuge. Under all alternatives, any

group activity involving more than 25 people will require a Special Use Permit. Dog sledding and

search and rescue training will also require Special Use Permits. Incidental collecting of antler,

mushrooms, and berries will be allowed. Other recreational activities not specifically addressed in

this document (cross country skiing, snowshoeing) will be allowed to continue on Refuge lands

unless they are found to conflict with wildlife or habitat objectives. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-15 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

• Wildlife Habitat

Important habitats for wildlife will be identified, protected, and enhanced including but not limited

to suitable snags, downed wood, movement corridors, late successional forest communities,

wetlands, and aspen groves. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Geographic and Ecological Setting

The Little Pend Oreille NWR is located in northeastern Washington, about 70 miles north of Spokane and

ranges from about 1,800 to 5,600 feet above sea level. 

Within the 1939 Executive Order boundaries of the Refuge are approximately 6500 acres of inholdings. 

Most of the inholding parcels are owned by Stimson Lumber Company or Boise Cascade, both

commercial timber companies. 

Two Research Natural Areas have been established within the Refuge. These areas protect natural

features and preserve natural processes for scientific purposes; the guiding principle is to prevent unnatural

encroachments and activities which directly or indirectly modify ecological processes. There is also a

5,520 acre block of unroaded and largely undisturbed forest in the southeastern corner of the Refuge.

On non-Fish and Wildlife Service managed land surrounding and within the Refuge boundary, there are

increasing trends towards road development, forest fragmentation, loss of older aged-forest, recreational

use, riparian habitat degradation, and rural residential development. 

The Refuge is a mixture of diverse habitats including: riparian, aquatic, fields, and forests types that

support stands of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, grand fir, cedar, hemlock, western larch, subalpine fir, and

aspen. Riparian areas provide some of the Refuges  most species rich-habitats. 

Landscape Perspective

In order to understand the role of Refuge lands within the ecosystems of this region, it is helpful to

consider some natural resources and processes within a larger landscape context. For the purposes of this

analysis, the Colville sub-basin, an area measuring some 650,000 acres, was chosen as the scale at which

to assess the surrounding ecosystem. The refuge is a 40,198 acre parcel of land which lies within the

Colville sub-basin.

Although forest cover types continue to be found over approximately the same total areas as in 1900,

dramatic changes in forest structure have occurred over large areas of the Colville River sub-basin. 

Specifically, old single-strata forest is gone from the watershed completely and old multi-strata forest
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-16 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

covers only about 10% of its former area in the watershed. Young forests, particularly the mid seral types

of young multi-strata forest and understory reinitiation forest, cover about 15-18 times their extent in

1900. These changes in forest structure on a sub-basin scale have significant repercussions for wildlife

habitat, especially for those species with narrower habitat requirements. At the scale of the entire Interior

Columbia Basin, at least eight terrestrial vertebrate species have experienced a loss of greater than 67% of

the habitat available to them historically, while an additional 47 terrestrial species have experienced a loss

of 33-67% of their historical habitat (Wisdom, et al. 1998). These species include the white-headed

woodpecker, the flammulated owl, western bluebird, hoary bat, and many others.

There has been a clear shift in fire regimes throughout the Colville River sub-basin from frequent to

infrequent fires. In general, fires regimes have also become more lethal. Specifically, non-lethal, frequent

and very frequent fires and mixed, frequent fires have declined, with a corresponding dramatic rise in

lethal and infrequent fires. The frequent, non-lethal fires of the past contributed to the maintenance of

large trees and open understories typical of single strata ponderosa pine. The loss of frequent and nonlethal fires have led to ever-increasing fuel loads, crowded and over-stocked forest stands and a greater

and greater risk of catastrophic (lethal) fire occurrence.

Fish and Wildlife and their Habitat

The Refuge supports a variety of wildlife and fish common to riparian, field, and forest habitats, including

approximately 196 species of birds, 58 species of mammals, and 14 reptiles and amphibians. The Refuge

also includes parts of all the major forest zones located in Northeast Washington, from the dry forest of

ponderosa pine through the moist, mixed conifers, to the cold forest of Engelmann spruce and subalpine

fir zone. Not only is the Refuge one of the largest refuges in the state, it is bordered by the Colville

National Forest on two sides, essentially magnifying the Refuge s value for wide ranging species of

wildlife. 

The only federally listed threatened or endangered species known to regularly occur on the Refuge is the

bald eagle. Bald eagles are frequently seen along the Little Pend Oreille River, primarily in winter. 

Habitat also exists for the Canada lynx, a species recently listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Lynx presence has been confirmed near the Refuge. Migratory birds are of particular

interest due to being mentioned in the Executive Order establishing the Refuge. White-tailed deer are a

species of local interest and have historically been a focus of management activities at the Refuge.

Many species of waterfowl have been observed on the Refuge. Duck species include mallard, ruddy,

redhead, common goldeneye, ringneck, and bufflehead. Wood ducks and green-wing, blue-wing and

cinnamon teal are all commonly observed, along with common and hooded mergansers. Canada geese

breed on several Refuge lakes and wetlands. Migratory and other birds of interest include the American

redstart, northern goshawk, flammulated owl and ruffed grouse.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-17 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The Little Pend Oreille River (approximately 10 miles) and the main fork and North Fork of Bear Creek 

(approximately 15 miles) provide most of the in-stream fish habitat managed on the Refuge. The four

trout species that are found are rainbow, cutthroat, brook, and brown trout. Native non-game species

observed are redside shiner and shorthead sculpin. Amphibian species known or suspected to occur on the

Refuge include tiger salamander, long-toed salamander, western toad, Pacific tree frog, and Columbia

spotted frog. 

While no Federally listed proposed, threatened or endangered plant species are known to inhabit the

Refuge, one Washington State threatened species, adder s-tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum), is known to

occur at one location. Most Refuge habitats harbor non-native plants. Some of these plants occur

incidentally but others, having a tendency to invade and displace native plants, are considered noxious

weeds. Weeds that occur on the Refuge include leafy spurge, plumeless thistle, and yellow hawkweed.

Approximately 200 miles of roads currently exist within the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge

administrative boundary. The majority of these roads are located on Refuge lands; others are situated

within inholdings. Approximately half of these roads are infrequently used and would need clearing for

vehicle access.

Refuge Recreation and Special Uses

The Refuge estimates use at over 50,000 visitor use days each year. The two most popular recreational

activities are fishing and hunting. Several species of big game, small game, predators, and migratory

waterfowl are hunted on the Refuge. There is also a growing interest in wildlife viewing. With the

exception of the early spring fishing season and the fall deer hunting season, most Refuge camping is not

directly associated with other Refuge uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation or photography. 

Horseback riding, including organized rides, also occurs on the Refuge. Other recreational activities

include snowmobiling, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, and dog sledding.

For the past 33 years, the Air Force Survival School has used the Refuge and adjacent lands for survival

and evasion training. The training occurs from January through September, with concentrated use in the

late summer. The Refuge area has a history of being homesteaded, logged, and farmed. A livestock

grazing program has been managed to some degree on the Refuge since its establishment. No prehistoric

sites have been located within the Refuge. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In the following discussion, the terms positive , negative , and neutral  are used frequently. A

 positive effect  means that the action would be favorable over the short or long term to the resources

under consideration. A negative effect  means that the action or set of actions would be detrimental over

the short or long term to the health or availability of the resource under consideration. A neutral effect

means either (a) that there would be no discernable effect, either positive, or negative, on the resources of
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-18 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

concern over the time period indicated; or (b) that positive and negative effects would both occur and in

summary cancel each other out. No change in management practices from the present (as in Alternative

A) does not imply neutral effects over time. See each resource for the comparison of effects under

different alternatives.

Effects to Forest Habitats 

Coniferous Forests

Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (dry site) forest habitats would be actively managed under Alternatives B,

C, D, and E using precommercial and commercial thinning, selective harvest, and prescribed fire. 

Approximately 1,000 acres per year would be treated, with an overall goal of treating approximately

15,000 acres over the 15-year span of this plan. The long-term intent of the treatments under these

alternatives is to restore the forest structure and composition to conditions more closely resembling the

conditions present in the mid 1880s, just prior to settlement by American pioneers, homesteaders, and

miners. Thinning and use of prescribed fire is also intended to promote conditions that would be favorable

to reintroduction of a more natural fire disturbance regime over the long-term, thus lessening the

likelihood of a catastrophic  fire that could wipe out huge areas. Treatments in Alternatives B,C, and E

would begin the process of promoting forest stand development into mature and old stages. These habitats

are increasingly scarce at a regional scale (especially the mature ponderosa pine stand types) and have

important values to native wildlife.

Alternative D would adopt a slightly more conservative approach than Alternatives B, C, or E. Under

Alternative D, forest areas that remain unroaded would not be commercially thinned or salvaged. Low

impact techniques for fire suppression would be used across the Refuge as much as possible. Benefits to

interior forest dwelling and disturbance sensitive wildlife would likely be higher, at least under the shortterm, than under Alternatives B, C, or E.

Alternative A takes a largely passive management approach, proposing a limited amount of activity,

mainly salvage and limited thinning and burning. Wildfires would also be actively suppressed. Under this

alternative, tree density would remain high and species conversions to shade tolerant types would

continue, augmenting problems associated with forest health. This would result in increased fuel loadings,

such that over the long-term, these conditions would probably make catastrophic wildfire inevitable,

despite fire suppression efforts.

Riparian and Deciduous Forests

Alternatives B, C, D, and E each propose active measures to plant trees and shrubs in devegetated or

degraded riparian areas. These alternatives also would eliminate livestock grazing completely (Alternative

D) or in riparian areas (Alternative B), or use grazing only as an occasional vegetative management tool

(Alternatives C and E). The elimination of annual livestock grazing from riparian areas can dramatically
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-19 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

speed the vegetative recovery of bare and degraded sites. Other active measures to restore aspen pockets

(both through use of fire and curtailing of grazing) would also occur under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all reintroduce periodic fire into the landscape which may have positive

benefits to aspen.

Some riparian areas on the Refuge are in poor condition due to recreational use. Alternative C, which

eliminates all Refuge camping, would go the furthest to aid recovery of riparian areas damaged by

camping. Dispersed riparian camping would be prohibited under Alternatives B and E, and Alternative D

would likely result in little to no riparian camping. Riparian areas would be protected from road

construction and timber harvest by a buffer measuring 200 feet or to the extent of the 100-year floodplain

under Alternatives B, C, D, and E.

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternatives C and D restore and develop riparian forests the most,

especially the deciduous riparian forests of the alluvial stream areas that have been strongly affected by

grazing. Alternative A would not adopt any additional measures to restore or protect riparian areas and

would keep grazing and camping at its present level. This alternative would have a continued negative

impact to existing and potential riparian forests.

Effects to Other Plants 

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds, which mainly inhabit roadsides and open fields at the Refuge, would be controlled using

integrated weed management under all alternatives. The action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) incorporate

direct measures to treat both roadsides and fields. The action alternatives would also attempt to curb the

spread of noxious weeds indirectly through controls on grazing and horse use. All of the action

alternatives strive to reduce weed infestation beyond Alternative A, which sets no objective for weed

elimination. Overall, Alternative D would enact the most aggressive programs against noxious weeds. 

Rare Plants

Under Alternatives B, C, and E, all known locations inhabited by rare plants would be monitored on a

regular basis. Alternatives A and D include provisions for monitoring Ophioglossum pusillum only.

 

Inventories to find new locations of rare plants are planned under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. These

alternatives would better protect Refuge populations of rare plants than Alternative A, because a resource

cannot be protected with certainty if its existence is unknown. Protection of known rare plant locations

would occur under all alternatives.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-20 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Effects to Water Quality and Aquatic Habitats 

Water Quality

All alternatives would minimize the construction of new roads. In addition, Alternatives B, C, D, and E

each would involve repair of roads that limit fish passage and/or cause sedimentation to aquatic habitats,

and the planting and stabilizing of devegetated or unstable streambanks. These measures would result in a

reduction of direct sediment input to streams. Alternative A proposes no active measures to limit stream

sedimentation except by minimizing new road construction.

Alternative B would eliminate grazing within the riparian zones. Riparian grazing would also effectively

be discontinued under Alternatives C and E. Alternative D eliminates grazing altogether. These

restrictions would help to diminish soil compaction, streambank erosion, and fecal contamination of

Refuge streams. Alternative A would not have these beneficial effects. Ohmart (1996) demonstrated that

riparian recovery may be two to four times faster in ungrazed riparian areas than in riparian areas

subjected to managed grazing.

 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E each also propose forest management activities that would possibly involve

some soil displacement stemming from yarding, fuels reduction, or road construction. Forest harvest is

also known to increase the magnitude and frequency of peak flows, especially in areas subject to rain-onsnow events. These effects are proportional to the number of acres harvested and the percent of canopy

removed. Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the Refuge would adopt 200-foot buffers along streams

where timber harvest and road construction would generally not occur. This rule would help to keep

displaced soil from entering Refuge water systems. Some short-term increases in peak flows with

resultant potential effects to channel morphology are possible. In sum, Alternatives B, C, D and E would

be likely to have a small negative short-term effect on water quality stemming from forest management

activities. Over the long-term, water quality should be enhanced as a larger percentage of the Refuge

develops into mature structural stages.

Over the short-term, Alternative A would not result in dramatic degradation or improvement of water

quality. However, under this alternative, the Refuge has a slightly higher likelihood of experiencing

catastrophic wildfire. Wildfire could cause severe loss of vegetation cover and can increase soil surface

water repellency for a short period.

No dispersed riparian camping would be allowed under Alternatives B, C, and E. Although this rule could

be difficult to enforce in all parts of the Refuge, overall there would likely be an immediate reduction in

pollutants and, over time, visible riparian recovery in these former campsites. 

Aquatic Habitats
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-21 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Stream sedimentation, high road densities, loss of in-stream large wood, and loss of pool habitat have been

cited as key factors involved in fish species declines in the inland northwest. Alternatives B, C, D, and E

would be expected to have positive long-term benefit to aquatic habitats, owing to passive and active

measures taken in these alternatives to repair or obliterate eroding roads, replace culverts that block fish

passage, restore streambank stability, and increase in-stream structural complexity. 

Hydrologic changes at the Refuge would occur under Alternatives C, D, and E. Alternatives C and E

would ensure that flows in the original channels of diverted streams take priority over diversion flows. In

a low water year, this could result in positive benefits to stream conditions at the expense of the lake

habitats. Alternative D goes farther, proposing to restore the natural hydrology altogether on the Refuge

by breaching the dams and diversions that were built to establish Bayley and McDowell Lakes and Potter's

Pond. The lake beds would likely revert to shallow wetland areas. Eliminating the diversions would

mean that more water would remain in the main streams, especially during high water runoff seasons (late

spring).

Aquatic habitats would realize an additional positive benefit under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, because

grazing would be eliminated or conducted outside riparian areas.

Effects to Air Quality 

Known and predictable air quality impacts would result primarily from smoke generated by forestry

activities undertaken under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Temporary impacts to air quality (mainly from

particulates) can be expected from the prescribed burning and slash disposal that would occur on up to

1000 acres/year under these alternatives.

The Refuge will follow the smoke mitigation recommendations in the step-down Fire Management Plan. 

Hence, the impacts from the proposed prescribed fire management program should be of relatively short

duration and will mainly affect unpopulated areas of the Colville National Forest, east of the Refuge.

Large volumes of smoke could be released at any time (normally late summer) if a catastrophic wildfire

were to occur, exceeding EPA standards for particulates. Wildfire could occur under any of the

alternatives, but is more likely under Alternative A. This alternative would allow fuel loading to continue

and increase unchecked, whereas the other alternatives include plans to thin and underburn approximately

8,000 acres of dry forest over the life of this plan. Stands receiving this treatment are less likely to ignite

or contribute to the spread of large wildfires.

Effects to Selected Fish and Wildlife Evaluation Species

Rather than try to predict the effects to every species or rely on guild  analysis, certain fish and wildlife

species were selected, based on a variety of criteria, for more detailed analysis. A summary is provided

below.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-22 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Bald Eagle: It is not known if any of the Refuge lakes are large enough to attract eagles for nesting. As a

highly visible species found mainly in association with aquatic habitats, the eagle is more vulnerable than

many other species to human disturbance, especially at nest areas (Anthony, et al. 1992). 

The level of recreational use that would be expected to continue near the lakes under Alternatives A, B,

and E during the nesting season would probably preclude the possibility of eagles establishing a nest on

the Refuge. Foraging habitat for bald eagles could improve slightly under Alternatives B, C, and E,

primarily due to improved aquatic habitats resulting in healthier fish populations. The delay of the fishing

opener at the lakes until July 1 under Alternative C, coupled with the elimination of camping, could

improve the chance of nest site establishment at McDowell or Bayley Lake. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all eliminate low-level helicopter overflights on the Refuge. This

policy would benefit the eagle. Under Alternative D, the eagle could suffer a negative impact due to the

loss of the lake habitat, yet since most of their use of the Refuge occurs during winter and along the river,

this impact is expected to be small. 

Alternative A would be expected to result in a negative impact to bald eagles, due to the continuing

degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats, loss of streamside vegetation, absence of active management

to promote the development of large nest or roost trees, and the continuation of helicopter overflights by

the Air Force within proximity of potential or occupied roost trees.

Canada lynx: This feline predator should benefit primarily from actions that would reduce or eliminate

human disturbance and access into its habitats, especially during winter, and from actions that would

promote or maintain the specific habitat needs necessary for this species to den and find adequate food

(Koehler and Aubrey 1994). 

Current disturbance impacts to lynx and their habitat stem primarily from snowmobile use of high

elevation areas of the Refuge, including Olson Creek Road, during winter months. Alternative A would

continue snowmobiling as it currently exists on the Refuge. Alternative E would allow snowmobilers to

pass through the Refuge on Olson Creek Road only.

Impacts of snowmobiles to lynx are mainly indirect, resulting from 1) effects impacting their main food

source (snowshoe hares) and from 2) effects benefitting a key competitor (coyotes). These phenomena are

explained in the next several paragraphs. 

According to Neumann and Merriam (1972) snowmobile use affected snowshoe hare and red fox mobility

and distribution in Ontario, mainly within 76 meters of snowmobile trails. Snowshoe hares avoid

snowmobile trails while red foxes use them. Snowshoe hares are the primary food of lynx, therefore loss

of snowshoe hare habitat areas affects lynx by reducing their food source.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-23 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The authors of The Lynx Science Report (Ruggiero et al. 1999) feel that the coyote is a potentially

formidable  competitor with lynx, citing the coyote s wide habitat niche, heavy predation on snowshoe

hares, high reproductive rate, great behavioral plasticity, and high tolerance of humans. Coyote

population numbers have increased dramatically in many places over the last few decades, (including a 44

times increase in Washington state between 1960-1984), using coyote harvests as an indicator. With

several citations, The Lynx Science Report substantiates the claim that coyotes access high elevation areas

by moving along paths, roads, and even snowshoe hare trails. 

The habitat issues highlighted by The Lynx Science Report authors and others (openings, snowmobiles,

higher road densities, etc.) all exist in the local area and may be combining to pose a problem for lynx. 

These problems would worsen under Alternative A. Under Alternative E, the Refuge would seek to

delineate another snowmobile route, ultimately resulting in no snowmobiling impact on the Refuge. In the

interim, snowmobile use would continue Olson Creek Road and the potential negative effects of this

activity on lynx will be the same as those of Alternative A. Alternatives B, C, and D would all eliminate

snowmobile use on the Refuge and on Olson Creek Road. Although this strategy would require increase

law enforcement patrols, it would clearly benefit lynx. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would also provide

benefit by implementing road closures on all but the county maintained roads between January 1 and April

14, a critical time for lynx.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E each include forest management actions to promote the development of late

successional characteristics on forest lands. To the extent that these actions occur in high elevation lynx

habitat, these actions would benefit the lynx, which relies on late successional forests with large downed

woody debris to provide denning sites with security and thermal cover for kittens. Under Alternative A,

conditions for the lynx would be expected to continue to deteriorate. 

Overall, Alternative D would be expected to have the most benefit to lynx, since this alternative limits

human access to the Refuge to the greatest extent, avoids roading and harvest in unlogged stands,

implements proactive measures to restore forest structures, eliminates Air Force training use, and reduces

camping significantly. 

Columbia Spotted Frog: Alternatives B, C, D, and E, which include measures to eliminate grazing in

riparian areas and measures to restore streamside vegetation, would result in positive benefits for the

spotted frog. Alternative D would be likely to have the most positive benefit of the alternatives because it

also eliminates fish stocking and restores the natural hydrology of the lakes. Under Alternative A, habitat

conditions for the spotted frog would possibly deteriorate and would not improve. 

Northern Goshawk: Forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire) would occur within

potential goshawk habitat under alternatives B, C, D, and E. Forest management has the potential to cause

short-term deleterious effects to goshawks through removal of canopy closure. Depending upon the

prescription, thinning and/or prescribed fire may temporarily reduce canopy closures below levels that

support goshawk territories (USFWS 1998). To mitigate disturbance and habitat impacts to goshawks, a
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-24 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

combination of distance buffers and seasonal restrictions would be applied where forest management

activities are undertaken near known nest sites under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all be expected to have (over the long-term) a positive effect on

goshawks, since the forest treatments identified in these alternatives would provide for a greater

abundance of large trees (and in some areas, multi-storied canopies may develop as a result of thinning

and underburning). Over the short-term, there could be some negative impacts to goshawks as forests are

thinned. 

Alternative A would be expected to have a neutral effect on the goshawk. No proactive measures would

be taken to improve nesting opportunities on the Refuge, but foraging habitat would continue to be

available. 

Ruffed Grouse: Implementing Alternative A includes allow livestock grazing at approximately the current

stocking level. Livestock would continue to browse the aspen, retarding both the expansion and

development of more desirable multi-aged stands. Alternative A would continue to allow unregulated

camping. The majority of these camping sites are in riparian habitats, reducing or eliminating their value

as high quality grouse habitat. Under this alternative, grouse populations would be expected to remain

stable or gradually decrease.

Alternative B would eliminate grazing in low-gradient alluvial riparian areas. Removing livestock

browsing pressure in this area of high aspen density would have a substantial positive effect on the

quantity and quality of existing and future grouse habitat. Alternative B would eliminate dispersed

camping and restore riparian areas, having a positive affect on the amount and quality of ruffed grouse

habitat available.

Alternative D would have effects very similar to Alternatives C and E. All three eliminate livestock

grazing and riparian camping, restore natural forest structure through thinning and prescribed fire, and

plant and stabilize stream banks. Theses actions would have positive impacts on grouse habitat.

MacGillivray s warbler: The MacGillivray 

s warbler represents passerine migrants that utilize woodland

riparian and aspen habitats. Planting trees and shrubs in riparian areas as proposed in Alternatives B, C,

D, and E should have a positive effect by increasing the amount of woody shrub habitat available. Many

of these riparian sites are vegetatively degraded due to many years of annual livestock grazing. The

elimination of livestock grazing Refuge-wide (Alternative D), or in riparian areas (Alternative B), or only

using grazing an occasional vegetation management tool (Alternatives C and E), should have a significant

positive impact on habitat quality for MacGillivray s warbler and other wildlife species using riparian sites

by speeding the recovery of these degraded areas. The potential decrease in the number of cowbirds

infesting the Refuge expected with the decrease or total elimination of cattle grazing proposed under

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would likely have little effect on nesting success of MacGillivray s warbler. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-25 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Traditional camping sites next to streams have resulted in the loss of riparian vegetation. The total

elimination of camping on the Refuge (Alternative C), or the elimination of dispersed recreational

camping in riparian areas (Alternatives B and E) should result in the recovery of vegetation in these

camping sites. Implementation of Alternative D would likely result in little to no riparian camping, with a

similar positive result. 

Measures to restore and encourage aspen reproduction, such as prescribed fire, tree planting, and curtailing

grazing, would occur under all action alternatives. These actions should also result in positive benefits for

this species. 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, riparian areas would be protected from road construction and timber

harvest by either a 200 foot buffer (or greater, depending on the width of the 100 year flood plain). 

Adoption of this standard should protect these areas from the pre-commercial and commercial thinning of

nearby upland sites proposed under all the action alternatives. This thinning, when combined with the

prescribed fire also proposed in the alternatives, should encourage shrub growth, further enhancing habitat

quality for this warbler. 

Alternative A would not adopt any additional measures to restore or protect riparian areas, nor include the

increased use of prescribed fire, while maintaining livestock grazing and camping at present levels. 

Therefore, this alternative would have a continued negative impact on MacGillivray s warbler. 

Common Goldeneye: Alternative D would eliminate much of the lacustrine habitat on the Refuge, by

breeching dams and diversions. Under this alternative, goldeneye habitat would be reduced by about 115

acres.

The curtailment or elimination of riparian camping under Alternatives B, C, D, and E would benefit the

goldeneye. Camping and other human uses disproportionately impact riparian areas on the Refuge and

likely disturb or disrupt nesting or foraging goldeneyes and other species of waterfowl. 

Overall, Alternative C would be likely to result in the most positive benefit to the common goldeneye,

partly due to camping restrictions and partly because the delay in the fishing opener reduces disturbance to

nesting waterfowl. Alternatives A, B, and E are expected to have a negative effect on goldeneye since

human disturbances at Refuge lakes would remain at mostly similar levels to those existing currently.

Flammulated owl: An associate of low to mid elevation mature ponderosa pine forests, this insectivorous

owl benefits from actions that promote the development of large diameter ponderosa pines (for nesting)

and a multilayered and relatively open canopy (for foraging) interspersed with dense thickets (for

roosting). Because of the forest restoration efforts planned in low elevation forests under Alternatives B,

C, D, and E, these alternatives would have the most positive effect on this species. Alternative A, which

does not adopt forest restoration measures, would be expected to have a slightly negative effect on the

owl. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-26 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Hoary Bat: This species is a foliage-roosting bat closely associated with late successional forests for

roosting. As a user of contrasting habitats, the hoary bat represents those species that rely on the

simultaneous maintenance of several components of Refuge habitat. This species may realize more

benefits from the fields that have been maintained on the Little Pend Oreille than most other native

species; yet it would also likely benefit from actions to improve the distribution of riparian forests and

actions to promote mature and late successional forests. Alternatives B, C, and E would be expected to

positively benefit the species, primarily due to actions promoting late successional characteristics in

forested habitats (considered best for roosting), the actions to restore riparian habitats, and the

maintenance of some fields as openings. 

Alternative D would be expected to have a neutral effect on this species because it enhances roosting

habitat and some foraging habitat in riparian areas, but all fields would also be allowed to revert back to

forest. Alternative A would also likely have a neutral effect because it maintains fields as foraging

habitats but does nothing to promote roosting habitat. 

White-tailed Deer: Alternatives B, C, D, and E each propose the reintroduction of low intensity fire in dry

forest habitats. Underburning under the right conditions can stimulate sprouting and regeneration of

browse species such as ceanothus, thus benefitting the winter range habitats of the white-tailed deer. 

Fields remaining from historic patterns of human settlement currently provide rich sources of late

winter/early spring forage for deer, with the smallest fields providing forage in close proximity to secure

cover. Alternatives B, C, and E each propose maintaining up to 500 acres of this habitat, with grasses

maintained through cattle grazing, mowing, or fire (Alternative B) or mowing or prescribed fire

(Alternatives C and E). Within the 500 acres, Alternatives B, C, and E would maintain 200 acres with

annual or perennial crops that would benefit wintering white-tailed deer. 

Alternative A would allow grazing where it occurs presently (65% of the Refuge s open habitats are

grazed). Under Alternative A, a greater number of acres would be available in grass forage, but

competition between cattle and deer would slightly diminish the quantity and quality of forage available to

the deer, and little would be done to slow the spread of noxious weeds. Aggressive integrated

interventions to suppress noxious weeds in the fields would be undertaken in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Alternative B, C, and E all apply management in old fields that would improve deer habitat more than

Alternative A. Thirty-five miles of interior fencing, an impediment to wildlife passage that occasionally

causes deer mortality, would be removed under Alternatives C, D, and E.

The cumulative effect of practices under Alternative A is a moderate to high level of disturbance. Because

of these negative impacts under current management, Alternative A is considered to be poor for deer. 

Additional deer hunting opportunities could potentially be offered at the Refuge under Alternatives C and

E. Though these hunts may increase hunting disturbance somewhat over current levels. The cumulative

level of disturbance will be considered when designing seasons.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-27 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Alternatives C, D, and E would eliminate all disturbances associated with the Air Force and Alternative B

would reduce the level of Air Force disturbance by eliminating wintertime use, limiting the number of Air

Force personnel, and curtailing helicopter and off-road vehicle use. Alternatives B, C, E, and especially

D, would ensure road density levels remain at or below the standard recommended by Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Enacting these closures would significantly reduce disturbance to deer,

especially in the winter, when only the three county maintained roads would be open between January and

April. This action could also reduce incidental poaching. 

Although all of the action alternatives would benefit deer, overall, deer would be best served under

Alternatives C and E. 

Pileated woodpecker: Alternatives B, C, D, and E would be expected to benefit the pileated woodpecker

over the long-term because the forest restoration efforts that are included in these alternatives would be

expected to produce a higher density of large trees and snags that these woodpeckers use for feeding,

roosting, and nesting. Alternative A would likely have a neutral effect.

Rainbow Trout: Changes in the livestock grazing program proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D would

all be expected to have an immediate positive effect on this species. Alternative E would begin to have a

positive effect after five years. 

Stocking only occurs in the lakes, but a small potential occurs for stocked fish to spill over into streams

during high water (Shuhda, pers. comm.). Although it is highly unlikely ceasing stocking would cause the

river fish to revert back to the pure  and distinct native strains, ceasing stocking would at least have the

benefit of not further polluting the gene pool. Strategies under Alternatives B, C, and E would include

ceasing stocking of the eastern brook trout, but stocking of coastal rainbow would continue. 

The riparian and stream restoration efforts undertaken under Alternatives B, C, and D would also aid the

trout. Alternative A would be expected to result in a negative effect on rainbow trout since stream

degradation from grazing, camping, and roads would continue. Effects of continued livestock grazing

under Alternative E would result in a negative effect on rainbow trout similar to that associated with

alternative A. A positive effect should begin in 2005 when livestock grazing is discontinued under

alternative E. 

Effects to Cultural Resources

Under all alternatives, the cultural resource values of the Little Pend Oreille NWR would be treated

according to the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

Alternative B would have a neutral to positive effect on cultural resources. Changes in programs that

would have a positive effect on cultural resources include maintaining 200 acres of openings, closing off a

few entrances and roads, and eliminating off-road vehicles. Changes that could have a negative effect on
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-28 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

cultural resources include forest management techniques that include harvest and thinning and control of

wildfires, and revegetating old farm fields. This alternative also includes provisions to enact a proactive

cultural resources program, which would be very positive for cultural resources. 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except for some modifications that make this alternative generally

more positive toward cultural resources. Positive changes in programs include the elimination of the Air

Force survival school, camping, horseback riding, and off-road vehicles, and closing off roads and

entrances. Maintaining 200 acres of openings, developing wildlife viewing in some fields, and developing

an interpretive program that includes natural and cultural history are very positive aspects of this

alternative. This alternative also includes provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources program,

which would be very positive for cultural resources. 

Generally, Alternative D has a positive affect on preserving cultural resource values. Limiting access to 4

entrances and closing roads would lessen the opportunity for vandalism of archaeological sites. 

Elimination of the Air Force survival school, grazing, and horseback riding would lessen the threats to

historic sites posed by these activities. 

Alternative E includes both positive and negative affects to cultural resources. Phasing out the Air Force

Survival School, closing selected roads, and modifying or eliminating the grazing program would be

positive steps toward resource protection. Developing interpretive programs would be very beneficial for

cultural resources, especially for interpreting the homestead landscape. This alternative also includes

provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources program, which would be very positive for cultural

resources. 

Activities that have a neutral affect on cultural resources are the current fishing strategies, noxious weed

management, and camping in designated campgrounds. Repairing roads for fish passage would require

compliance with Section 106, but no known sites would be affected. 

Effects to Public Access and Recreation Opportunities

Public Access

The Refuge would have more controlled access under all alternatives except Alternative A. Alternatives B

and C would maintain an intermediate level of public access with 8 maintained entrances; Alternative D

would close all but four entrances. Alternative E would maintain 9 entrances. Seasonal road closures to

reduce wintertime disturbance to wildlife would also be implemented under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

The reduced access under Alternatives B, C, and E may have a slight effect on public use, but this effect is

expected to be negligible because most Refuge users utilize the eight or nine entrances that would be

maintained. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-29 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Recreation Opportunities 

General: Outdoor recreational use of public lands is on the increase nationwide, and, with the population

growth in Stevens County and Spokane, the Little Pend Oreille NWR can probably expect increased

visitation in the next ten years, even if an alternative is chosen that limits traditional uses of the Refuge

such as camping. Even without any management initiatives, (Alternative A) visitor use at the Refuge

would change over the next fifteen years, reflecting national and regional demographic and recreational

preference trends. We used historical trends as a basis for predicting future visitor levels under

Alternative A. 

To a large extent the alternatives are designed to differentially channel human activities on the Refuge;

each alternative strikes a different balance between the goal of meeting public demand for wildlifedependent recreational opportunities and the goal of maintaining and restoring wildlife populations and

habitats. Under all action alternatives, many recreational activities would be reigned in or regulated in one

form or another. 

Hunting: Alternatives C and E could expand Refuge hunting opportunities, specifically offering the state

seasons for spring turkey, grouse, and deer and elk bow hunts. Alternative D would restrict Refuge

hunting, specifically banning bear, cougar, coyote, and bobcat hunts. 

Hunting seasons would remain the same as at present under Alternatives A and B; some restrictions on

camping would occur under Alternative B but these would probably negligibly affect hunting

opportunities. Game and waterfowl would likely become increasingly difficult to find under Alternative

A, due to the combined effects of disturbance from roads, unregulated camping, Air Force use, and lack of

habitat management. National and state trends for hunting predict declines over the next fifteen years. 

The alternatives would be affected by these larger trends, however, total hunting visits on the Refuge

would be influenced by the seasons offered and area available for hunting and camping as well. 

Alternatives C and E could expand Refuge hunting opportunities, specifically offering the state seasons for

spring turkey and grouse, and fall deer and elk bow hunts. By eliminating Air Force use of the Refuge

under Alternatives C, D, and E, a larger area could also be made available for hunting during fall seasons. 

Even with these expanded opportunities, total hunting on the Refuge would likely decline slightly under

Alternative E. Under Alternative C, camping restrictions would make hunting a day use only opportunity. 

Fishing: Overall, the elimination and strong restrictions on camping under Alternatives C and D would

probably result in far fewer visitors fishing at the Refuge under these alternatives. This could increase the

quality of fishing, with larger fish in streams. Lake fishing would also decline severely under Alternative

D, since the dams maintaining Bayley and McDowell Lakes would be breached, and these areas would

revert to seasonally moist wetlands. In addition, stocking would cease. The overall result would be a loss

of fishing opportunities.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-30 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Alternatives C and E would promote catch and release fishing on the Little Pend Oreille River. 

Alternatives B, C, and E all seek to increase opportunities for natural spawning at the lakes and streams. 

Alternatives A, B, and E continue the fishing seasons as they presently exist on the Refuge, while

Alternative C would delay the fishing opener on Refuge lakes to favor waterfowl nesting. 

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, Environmental Education, and Photography: Wildlife observation and

photography are two of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activities, both statewide and nationwide. 

Even without active programs to encourage this activity, all alternatives would see a marked increase in

visitation for wildlife observation and photography. It is not known to what extent visitors combine

wildlife observation and photography with other activities at the Refuge such as camping, fishing, and

hunting. However, people who exclusively come to the Refuge to view and photograph wildlife may be

deterred to some extent by hunting, snowmobiling, Air Force overflights, and other noisy, disturbing

activities. The Refuge has received comments from visitors to that effect over the years. The

opportunities for these non-consumptive activities would therefore increase as these human disturbances

decrease. 

Overall, Alternative D would probably result in the least disturbance on the Refuge, followed by

Alternative C. On the other hand, wintertime road closures under all of the action alternatives would limit

vehicular access and thus increase potential viewing opportunities for certain publics. For those willing to

walk, snowshoe, or ski, viewing opportunities could be greatly enhanced during this season under

Alternatives B, C, E, and especially Alternative D. Alternatives C and E would emphasize visitor

education and create both viewing areas and programs. 

Snowmobiling: Snowmobile use would not be allowed to continue on the Refuge under Alternatives B,

C, and D. In addition, snowmobile traffic on Olson Creek Road, which largely accesses Calispell Peak,

would be eliminated under Alternatives B, C, and D, and the snowpark off Highway 20 at Olson (Tacoma)

Creek Road would be eliminated under Alternatives C and D. Under Alternative E, snowmobile use

would also be prohibited, except that traditional snowmobile ingress and egress (together with associated

grooming) along the four miles of Olson Creek Road that cross the Refuge would be permitted at the

current level of use. No off-road snowmobile excursions would be allowed. The Refuge would also

initiate work with adjacent land managers and recreationists to seek a new snowpark and alternate winter

access to Calispell Peak. 

Camping: Camping opportunities would be curtailed under Alternatives C, D, and E, and, to some extent,

B. Under Alternative C, camping would no longer be allowed. Alternative D would allow primitive (notrace) camping in areas that vehicles cannot access; all vehicle accessible camps and campgrounds would

be closed and restored to a natural condition. Dispersed riparian camping would be stopped under

Alternatives B and E; these two alternatives would also permit camping only in certain designated

campgrounds and dispersed sites during specific times of year. Alternative A would allow camping to

continue in a largely unregulated fashion.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-31 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Other recreational activities: Horseback riding would be eliminated under Alternatives C and D. 

Alternatives B and E could maintain or even increase horseback riding, but it would occur under the

auspices of an equestrian plan that would deal with such issues as overnight use, trails, and horse feed. 

Most other recreational activities (including dog sledding, cross-country skiing, snow sledding, mountain

biking, and others) would be allowed to continue as at present under all alternatives until and unless these

uses become incompatible with Refuge goals and purposes. 

Dirt bikes and unlicensed all-terrain vehicles would be prohibited from operating on the Refuge under all

alternatives. Only licenced motorized vehicles would be allowed on designated roads.

Effects Related to Livestock Grazing

Continuation of cattle grazing as currently practiced under Alternative A and for the first five years

Alternative E would result in continued negative effects to riparian and deciduous forest, water quality,

aquatic habitats, and evaluation species including bald eagles, Columbia spotted frogs, MacGillivray's

warbler, deer, rainbow trout, ruffed grouse. In addition, continuation of cattle grazing would be likely to

negatively affect the protection of cultural resources, and riverine fishing.

Based on an in-Service 1996 grazing review (USFWS 1997), fisheries habitat surveys of the Little Pend

Oreille River and Bear Creek in 1996 and 1997 (Kelly Ringel 1997; Kelly Ringel 1998), and a riparian

condition evaluation on 32 valley units of five Refuge streams in 1996 and 1997 (Pyle 1997), the annual

cattle grazing program is contributing to a poor condition for Refuge fish and wildlife riparian and stream

habitats. Cattle grazing poses risks to wildlife, fish and plants in upland areas as well as riparian areas,

through a number of mechanisms. Livestock can compete with wildlife for a common food source,

displace wildlife through their presence, facilitate the invasion of pest species, and alter the structure of

habitat.

All of the action alternatives would improve the situation for native fish and wildlife at Little Pend Oreille,

by reducing or eliminating livestock grazing. Managed, rotational grazing designed to reduce impacts on

riparian habitats would occur under Alternative B, and would diminish effects of grazing on Refuge

habitats compared to Alternative A. This alternative would require modification of existing allotments

and the construction of additional fencing to keep cattle out of alluvial riparian areas. Non-alluvial

riparian areas would continue to be available. Recovery of grazed areas currently showing impacts would

be faster under Alternatives C and D and those locations in Alternative B where cattle are excluded

completely (according to Ohmart 1995, riparian healing occurs two to four times more rapidly under

exclusion than when subjected to rotational grazing.) Under Alternative E, recovery of these grazed areas

will be delayed five years.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-32 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Effects Related to Air Force Survival School

The continuation of the Air Force Survival School training program under Alternative A would result in

negative effects to bald eagle, lynx, deer, cultural resources, hunting opportunities, wildlife viewing,

photography, interpretation, and environmental education opportunities.

The most significant potential impacts to wildlife are associated with helicopter support of training which

involves low-level flights, hovering and landing; use of certain pyrotechnics and simulated weapons, and

effects of disturbance from approximately 80 people scattered over one-third of the Refuge. 

Air Support of Training

Effects to wildlife: Since no on-site empirical studies have been completed, we relied on several literature

reviews undertaken by others to explore the effects of aircraft noise and proximity on wildlife. Bryant

(1993) completed an annotated bibliography of the effects of disturbances due to aircraft on fish and

wildlife. Bryant s review is the most comprehensive and the most recent and was used as the basis for the

analysis presented here. 

Of the fifty-three sources Bryant reviewed, thirty-four constituted scientific studies. Of these, about 12

were considered of superior value because they were conducted with large sample sizes and/or were

experimental manipulations with controls. 

Raptor studies: Both raptor studies showed effects from military training activities and/or low flying

aircraft. 

Large mammal studies: Eight of the 10 studies considered most reliable in Bryant (1993) showed that

large mammals exhibit a variety of stress reactions in response to low level overflights. 

Effect of distance and sound level: Distance seems to be a better predictor of response to helicopter

overflights than sound level. An inverse relationship existed between the distance from the helicopter to

the subject and the rate of response (Watson 1993; Grubb and Bowerman 1997; Delaney et al. 1997).

Stockwell et al. (1990), described height of helicopters flying above the ground as a threshold for

mountain sheep.

Type of aircraft and proximity: Of the three types of aircraft evaluated for their effect on nesting raptors

(low level jets, light fixed wing aircraft, and helicopters), helicopters appear to cause the greatest

disturbance (Grubb et al. 1992; Watson 1993; Grubb and Bowerman 1997). 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-33 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Habituation: Evidence exists that raptors may become habituated to aircraft disturbance. Indications of

this phenomenon were reported in red-tailed hawks (Andersen et al. 1989) and Mexican spotted owls

(Delaney et al. 1997). The extent and frequency of this effect are not yet understood. 

Effects to people: Aircraft noise also disturbs Refuge visitors who seek quiet and the potential for a

wildlife encounter. Campers, bird watchers, horseback riders and hunters have complained about Air

Force low-level helicopter flights. Refuge neighbors have also complained about helicopter activity,

particularly night flights.

Summary: All the information available describing the effects of helicopter and other aircraft on wildlife

pertains to overflights and other in air  activities. The relatively longer duration of noise associated with

the take-offs, approaches, and landings being conducted in forest openings and fields on the LPO NWR

may impose a substantially greater level of disturbance to wildlife using specific landing zones. In

summary, Alternatives C, D, and E, which eliminate Air Force Survival School Training at the Refuge,

would completely eliminate the risk this activity poses. Alternative B, which eliminates helicopter and

explosive use, but maintains most other aspects of the program, would also benefit wildlife.

Ground-based Training Activity

The effect of the ground-based activity is likely similar to other ground-based public use activities,

particularly camping, use of off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, and hiking. The Air Force Survival School

creates an additive impact to public activities like camping. There are approximately 50 Air Force camps

scattered throughout the Refuge. At any one time, the Training School is represented by about 80 plus

people, split into two groups, using about twenty-two square miles of the Refuge, but with the majority of

use in the core of the Refuge.

USAF Survival School ground activity may be more disturbing to some wildlife than the helicopters. All

studies of disturbance to raptors that included an analysis of ground activity disturbance found it to have a

greater effect on birds of prey than did aircraft.

The reduction of ground-based disturbances can only benefit Refuge wildlife and habitats. Alternatives C,

D, and E, which eliminate Air Force training at the Refuge, would have the most positive benefit to

wildlife. Alternative B would continue some negative impact, though it would be less than Alternative A. 

Effects to Regional Economy (Stevens County)

Refuge Management Economics

Refuge management would directly generate more jobs and income under Alternatives B, C, and E than

under Alternative A. Fewer jobs and income would be generated under Alternative D than under
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-34 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Alternative A. The same comparative results apply to the total (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced)

employment and income effects.

Forest Products Economics

Under Alternative A, 50-250 thousand board feet (MBF) would be harvested annually on the Little Pend

Oreille NWR, consistent with recent harvesting levels and patterns. Under Alternatives B, C, and E, 100-

1,000 MBF would be harvested annually, mostly through commercial thinnings designed to remove

excess small trees from the forest understory. Under Alternative D, 250-500 MBF would be harvested

annually.

Employment and income effects under the action alternatives would increase relative to Alternative A in

proportion to the annual harvest level. Assuming that an average of 150 MBF is harvested annually under

Alternative A, it is estimated that Refuge timber sales would account for a total of 0.3 jobs and $20,000 in

personal income in the regional forest products industry. Total effects of Alternative A on employment

and personal income are estimated at 0.6 jobs and $33,000 per year, respectively. Calculations were based

on the assumption that an average of 375 MBF would be harvested annually under Alternative D, and that

an average of 550 MBF would be harvested annually under Alternatives B, C, and E. Under the action

alternatives, the direct and total economic effects of Refuge timber harvesting would increase in

proportion to the harvest level.

Livestock Production Economics

Under Alternative A, forage to support approximately 750 AUMs would continue to be sold to local

permittees (there are currently 3 permittees), and it was assumed that this level of forage sales would

support the annual sale of 180 calves, for a total sales weight of 108,000 pounds (1,080 hundred weight).

Alternative E would continue the annual grazing program a t current stocking levels for five years, with

grazing discontinued beginning in 2005.

Under Alternative B, grazing would be restricted to upland forest areas, which provide approximately 300

AUMs during the grazing season. Under Alternatives C and D, livestock grazing would be phased out

over the next 5 years, except for incidental grazing (under Alternatives C only) to achieve wildlife

objectives. For this analysis, it was assumed that no forage would be sold to permittees under Alternatives

C and D.

Under Alternative A, Refuge forage supply would account for an estimated 1.9 jobs and $62,000 in

personal income in the range-fed cattle industry, and a total of 3.0 jobs and $96,000 in personal income

throughout the regional economy. Under the other alternatives, direct and total employment and income

effects of grazing would decline in proportion to the amount of forage sold on the Refuge.

Eliminating Refuge grazing would increase production costs for the affected permittees, and could result

in herd reductions for one or more permittees. For example, if no alternative forage sources were
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Summary S-35 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

available, permittees could be forced to reduce their herd sizes by the number of head grazed on the

Refuge. Under a worst-case scenario, such herd reductions could reduce the size of the permittee s overall

operation below the minimum size needed for a cow-calf operation to be viable. In this case, phasing-out

of Refuge grazing could result in the closure of one or more local cattle operations, and could lead to a

reduction in regional calf sales by more than the approximately 180 head annually produced on the

Refuge. 

Recreation Economics

Consistent with historical trends, total recreation use on the Refuge is projected to increase over time

under the No-Action Alternative, although participation in hunting and horseback riding is projected to

decline slightly. Under Alternative B, participation rates would parallel those under Alternative A, except

for camping, which would decrease, and snowmobiling, which would be eliminated. Under Alternative C,

wildlife observation and organized nature study would increase faster than under Alternative A; hunting

and fishing would decline; and camping, snowmobiling, and horseback riding would be eliminated. 

Under Alternative D, hunting, fishing, and camping would decline, and snowmobiling and horseback

riding would be eliminated. Under Alternative E, recreation use would generally increase slightly faster

than under Alternative A, except for snowmobiling, which would grow relatively slowly, and camping,

which would decline.

Economic effects of recreation were analyzed based on projected Refuge use levels in 2014. Under

Alternative A, Refuge recreation use in 2014 would account for an estimated 19.1 jobs and $315,000 in

personal income in the directly affected industries (i.e., food stores, service stations, restaurants,

miscellaneous retail, and lodging places). Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, recreation use

would account for 29.9 jobs and $646,000 in personal income. Recreation-related spending would be

lower under all of the action alternatives, along with affected jobs and income. These adverse economic

effects would be relatively small under Alternative E, somewhat larger under Alternative B, and larger still

under Alternatives C and D.

In addition to employment and personal income, Refuge recreation use results in net economic value to

users reflecting the amount they would be willing to pay to visit in excess of the amount they would

actually pay. Based on the per-day net economic values discussed in Chapter 2 under Recreation

Economics , Refuge use in 2014 would generate $2.6 million in consumer s surplus under Alternative A,

approximately $2.4 million under Alternative E, approximately $2.1 million under Alternative B, and

approximately $1.0 million under Alternatives C and D. 

Air Force Training Economics

Under Alternatives B and E, use of the Refuge by the Air Force Survival School would be reduced. Under

Alternatives C and D, it would be phased out over the next 5 years. Because of the small level of regional

expenditures related to Air Force training on the Refuge, however, the regional economic impacts of

reducing or phasing out this program would be negligible. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR 

1-1 Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

for the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge combines two documents required by federal

laws: a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) required by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) (Refuge System Improvement Act) and

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan portion of the document will be used as a tool by the

refuge staff and other partners in Refuge management and restoration. The Plan will guide

management decisions over the next fifteen years and identify strategies for achieving Refuge

goals and objectives. The FEIS portion of the document describes a range of alternatives,

including the preferred alternative, for managing the refuge. The integrated document is divided

into 6 chapters including: Chapter 1) Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action; Chapter 2)

Affected Environment; Chapter 3) Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies; Chapter 4)

Environmental Consequences; Chapter 5) Consultation and Coordination; and Chapter 6) List of

Preparers. Appendices provide supporting information for the final EIS, as well as a step-down

fire management plan and project level plans. Appendix C provides project proposals and cost

information for the preferred alternative. 

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is to develop and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge that best achieves the unit s purpose, vision and

goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues and relevant

mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (Map 1), located in northeastern Washington, was

established in 1939. It is one of more than 500 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Overall, there is a need to bring the

Refuge in line with the new National Wildlife Refuge System mission, goals and policies, as

described in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. A Comprehensive

Conservation Plan, required by the Refuge System Improvement Act, is needed to address . . .

significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife and

plants and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems.  Specifically, these

problems at the Refuge include: ensuring the biological integrity, diversity and environmental
1-2
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-3

health of Refuge forests; the need to restore degraded stream habitats; the need to evaluate and

manage visitor use; and the need to resolve conflicts between Air Force use of the Refuge and 

the Refuges s wildlife purpose. In addition, the Refuge System Improvement Act requires the

Service to consider increasing opportunities for people to experience wildlife-dependent

recreation. The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to develop a vision for the

Refuge and provide management guidance through maintenance, restoration, and use of Refuge

resources during the next 15 years. Specifically, the Plan will:

• set a long term vision for the Refuge

• establish management goals, objectives, and strategies

• define compatible recreational uses of the Refuge

• determine appropriate level of use of livestock grazing 

• determine Air Force Survival School training use of the Refuge

• outline habitat and public use projects that support the goals and objectives

• identify public entry points into the Refuge

• describe highest priorities for forest habitat management

• adopt a step-down fire management plan

• adopt three step-down forest habitat management project plans

The purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is to describe alternative plans

for managing the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. The FEIS shows a range of

alternatives considered during the planning process and evaluates the possible environmental

effects of the various alternatives on the natural, social, cultural, and economic environment. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan provides a framework for future Refuge management. 

The environmental analysis of this plan is addressed at the conceptual planning level and is not a

detailed site plan and does not have exact locations for facilities or precise descriptions of

programs. An exception to this is the forest habitat management prescriptions for three areas in

the dry forest zone: 1) Starvation Flats; 2) Minnie Flats; and 3) Biarly Flats, for which the

associated potential environmental impacts are analyzed in more detail.

1.4 PLANNING PROCESS AND FUTURE REVISIONS

The process followed for development of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan was guided by

the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife Manual (Part 602 FW2.1, November 1996)

and evolving policy related to the Refuge System Improvement Act. Key steps included: 1)

preplanning; 2) identifying issues and developing vision; 3) gathering information; 4) analyzing

resource relationships; 5) developing alternatives and assessing environmental effects; 6)

identifying a preferred alternative; 7) publishing the draft plan; 8) documenting public comments

on the draft plan; and 9) preparing the final plan. The next step is: 10) securing approval of the

Regional Director; and finally, 11) carrying out the plan. While the life-span of the plan is 15

years, periodically the Service will review the plan. The Plan may be amended as necessary at

any time under an adaptive management strategy.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-4

Since resuming on-site management in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated the

following studies of habitats, wildlife, and cultural resources on LPONWR:

• Evaluation of native habitat conditions (Delong, 1996).

• Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival in a Refuge riparian area along the Little

Pend Oreille River to provide long-term demographic data on landbirds, particularly

neotropical migrants (Blevins and Cliff, 1999).

• Fish habitat assessment of the Little Pend Oreille River, Bear Creek, and North Fork of

Bear Creek to characterize stream and riparian habitats; determine fish species presence,

distribution, and size structure and community composition; and examine relationships

between fish populations and habitat characteristics (Kelly-Ringel, 1997 and 1999).

• Evaluation of riparian areas to evaluate physical and vegetative features or riparian areas -

existing and potential dominant vegetation, community composition, and distribution and

age structure of plant communities; and determine riparian resource condition and

functional condition (Pyle, 1997).

• Land cover map using the land cover map created by Washington State Gap Analysis

Project as a baseline (Cassidy, 1998).

• Hair snag surveys for carnivores in the northeastern portion of Refuge.

• Bird point counts on Starvation Flat.

• Grazing program evaluation to ensure consistency in program management and determine

if existing program was meeting draft habitat and wildlife objectives.

• Cultural resources overview to synthesize prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical themes

based on archival research (Miss and Renk, 1998).

• Effects of grazing on the structure and composition of riparian vegetation to determine

short-term response of riparian pastures to removal of livestock grazing; and compared

vegetative condition in grazed and ungrazed riparian pastures (Nielson and Lohman,

1999).

Public involvement was sought throughout the planning process, using meetings, open houses,

newsletters, surveys, and other communication tools. Other agencies involved in discussions

related to this document included the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Air Force,

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and

Washington Department of Natural Resources. Details of scoping and public involvement are

provided in Chapter 5.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan is one of several plans necessary for Refuge

management. The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for

several refuge program areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation.

Step-down management plans will be developed for individual programs areas within
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-5

approximately five years after CCP completion. All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA

compliance. Other step-down plans and their priority order for Little Pend Oreille NWR include: 

Step Down Management Plan Status

• Occupational Safety and Health Plan Available

• Fire Management Plan Available

• Public Use Management Plan (PUMP) By 2006

- hunting

- fishing

- visitor services and outreach

- law enforcement

- interpretation and environmental education

- other recreational activities

• Wilderness and Special Areas Management Plan With PUMP

• Habitat Management Plan (HMP) By 2006

- wetland, water, riparian

- forest management

- integrated pest/weed management

• Fish and Wildlife Population Management With HMP

- inventory and monitoring

Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of these

step-down plans. 

1.5 LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE

Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS),

the designated purpose of the Refuge unit as described in establishing legislation or executive

orders, Service laws and policy, and international treaties. Key concepts and guidance of the

System are covered in the NWRS Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of

1962, Title 50 of the Codes of Federal Regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, and,

most recently, through the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

The Refuge System Improvement Act amends the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by

including a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible

uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a Comprehensive

Conservation Plan. The Refuge System Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-6

priority of NWRS lands and that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the biological

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge must

be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission and the specific purposes for which it was

established. The Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and

plants in each refuge. Additionally, the Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education

and interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, these uses will receive

enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and management.

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are different from other, multiple-use public

lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge

use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in

the sound professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. 

Sound professional judgement is further defined as a decision that is consistent with principles of

fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence

with law.

The Refuge System Improvement Act requires that a Comprehensive Conservation Plan be in

place for each refuge by the year 2012 and that the public have an opportunity for active

involvement in plan development and revision. It is Service policy that CCPs are developed in

an open public process and that the agency is committed to securing public input throughout the

process.

1.6 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION AND GOALS

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is:

 To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans.  (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997.)

Starting with the first refuge, Florida s Pelican Island, established in 1903 by President Theodore

Roosevelt, the NWRS has grown to more than 92 million acres in size. It includes more than

500 refuges, at least one in every state, and over 3,000 Waterfowl Production Areas. The needs

of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public lands managed for

multiple uses.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-7

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Fish and Wildlife Manual Part 602 FW 1.4M

from June 1995) are:

Goal 1: To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems all species of

animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;

Goal 2: To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;

Goal 3: To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands;

and

Goal 4: To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and

man s role in his environment and provide visitors with high quality, safe,

wholesome, and enjoyable recreation experiences oriented toward wildlife to the

extent these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was

established.

1.7 COLUMBIA BASIN ECOREGION GOALS

The Little Pend Oreille is located within the Service administrative boundary of the Columbia

Basin Ecoregion and is expected to fulfill ecoregion goals, which are:

Goal 1: Conservation of Ecosystems

Prevent species decline, expedite recovery of candidate, threatened and

endangered species, and preclude future species listings by conserving and

restoring a diversity of native fish, wildlife and plant species and their habitats in

the Columbia River Basin.

Goal 2: Internal Efficiencies and Development

Develop a motivated, well-trained and diverse work force that responds to the

ecosystem s demands for interdisciplinary talents and expertise.

Goal 3: Public Involvement

Develop an educated and informed constituency that is proactive in protecting and

restoring the ecosystem.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-8

1.8 BRIEF HISTORY OF REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, AND

 HISTORICAL MANAGEMENT

Beginning in 1879 and continuing until 1931, 188 homestead claims were patented within the

Refuge boundaries. For some claims, homesteaders  may have been working for logging

companies, staking claims, and then turning over the land to the company. Many settlers sold

timber off their claims and kept title to the land after they harvested the timber. They established

orchards, gardens, and pastures on many cleared claims. When the Depression hit in the 1930s,

many homesteaders had already given up and moved from the area. The short growing season,

harsh winters, and overgrazed conditions were factors that led to the Resettlement

Administration classifying the land as submarginal.  In 1935, most of the homesteads were

acquired through the Soil Conservation Service as public lands for rehabilitation purposes. The

program purchased land outright or traded for parcels in more productive areas. 

In 1938 the Biological Survey, which later became the Fish and Wildlife Service, showed interest

in establishing a wildlife refuge on 40,000 acres of the resettlement lands. Local cattlemen

objected to establishment of a refuge, protesting deer being given precedence over cattle. 

Cattlemen and Biological Survey officials worked out their differences in a meeting in Colville

in 1939. The specifics of their agreement are not available, but newspaper accounts (Colville

Examiner, February 11, 1939) report that while cattle would not be excluded, grazing would be

limited to the carrying capacity of the land. 

Executive Order 8104 (May 2, 1939) established the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge . . . as

a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . .  Lands added later to

the refuge were acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16

U.S.C.715d) . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for

migratory birds.  On July 27, 1940, Proclamation No. 2416 changed the name to Little Pend

Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. 

From 1939 until the middle of 1965, the U.S. Fish and Service managed the Refuge. Early

management focused on restoring degraded habitat conditions to improve habitat for deer, fur

bearing animals, upland game birds, waterfowl, and fish. Considerable effort went into planting

a variety of shrubs and grasses to benefit wildlife, managing horse and cattle grazing, and

planting crops to feed deer and game birds. Management ignited fires and selectively cut forests

to improve deer winter range.

In 1965, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (known then as the Washington

Department of Game) assumed management responsibility through a cooperative agreement with

the Service. Although the Service provided a budget to manage the Refuge, the State had

considerable latitude to manage the area primarily for game species and recreation. The State

scheduled most of the Refuge for selective timber harvest on a continual rotation basis to provide

the most benefits to wildlife,  which included deer, forest grouse, snowshoe hare, bear and

game farm pheasants. Most farming ceased in the mid-1980s. From 1986 until 1994, no timber

sales were undertaken. Public use increased under state management and the area became known
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-9

locally as the Game Range. The state also promoted snowmobiling, camping, and horseback

riding.

A land exchange with the Washington Department of Natural Resources in 1967 (Map 2),

consolidated state and Refuge ownership. Federal lands on the northeastern part of the Refuge

were exchanged for state inholdings on the remainder of the Little Pend Oreille, establishing the

present Refuge boundary. The exchange modified the approved Refuge boundary and changed

management jurisdiction, however, the original executive order boundary still exists. 

Prompted by an internal audit by the General Accounting Office, the Service decided to resume

on-site management at several refuges throughout the country. This led the Service to resume

management of the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge in 1994. 

1.9 REFUGE PURPOSE

National Wildlife Refuge System lands are acquired under a variety of legislative acts and

administrative orders. According to the Refuge System Improvement Act, The terms purposes

of the refuge  and purposes of each refuge  mean the purposes specified in or derived from the

law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or

refuge subunit.  The Service defines the purposes of national wildlife refuges when a refuge is

established or when new land is added to an existing refuge. Service realty files document

purposes used to acquire lands or to receive transferred lands. 

The two methods used in establishing Little Pend Oreille NWR were executive withdrawal from

the public domain (executive order) and acquisition funded through the Migratory Bird Act. 

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge was established . . . as a refuge and breeding

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . .  (Executive Order 8104) and . . . for use as

an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.  (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). These purposes

form the foundation upon which management decisions are made and goals, objectives, and

strategies are developed. 

At times, purpose statements define specific uses, including recreation or livestock grazing. 

Neither recreation nor grazing are included in the purpose statements for this Refuge. Purpose

statements often identify the wildlife species or groups of species that receive management

emphasis. Since its early history, white-tailed deer and other game species received management

emphasis on Little Pend Oreille NWR and thus became the other wildlife  referred to in the

purposes. Rehabilitation of degraded wildlife habitats and protection of deer winter range were

primary goals during early refuge years. While white-tailed deer winter range and ultimately

deer populations may benefit from future management approaches, they are only one of many

fish and wildlife species now considered important to protect on the Refuge. 

Curtain (1993) in his review of the history of the National Wildlife Refuge System, indicates that

the original intent of the term inviolate sanctuary  is found in the Migratory Bird Conservation 
1-10
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-11

Act (first passed in 1918 as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and amended in 1934 and 1938). This

Act originally required that all refuges be inviolate sanctuaries and deemed that refuges  primary

purposes were as breeding ground and habitat for migratory birds. Migratory bird hunting was

prohibited on migratory waterfowl areas by the Act but most other human uses were not

addressed. The 1938 amendment to the Act gave refuge managers authority to decide if, when,

and how bird hunting would be allowed. After World War II, public demand for opening refuges

to recreation increased. The 1949 Duck Stamp Act allowed waterfowl hunting on all refuges, but

restricted the percentage of each refuge open to hunting. 

A Department of Interior solicitor s opinion memorandum, dated May 19, 1964, describes

criteria for determining whether a wildlife refuge is an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. 

 All land areas acquired as wildlife refuges for migratory birds with Duck Stamp Funds

(Migratory Bird Conservation Funds), are inviolate sanctuaries.  . . . only 40% of the area

purchased with Migratory Bird dollars may be opened at one time for hunting of migratory game

birds or resident species of birds.  On Little Pend Oreille NWR, 2,251 acres were purchased

with these funds and fall within the inviolate sanctuary  provision. These areas include lands

and waters surrounding Dailey Lake, McDowell Lake, Bayley Lake and portions of the Little

Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek (Little Pend Oreille Wilderness Study Report 1973). To

comply with the Migratory Bird Act and its inviolate sanctuary provision, all Refuge streams are

closed to duck and dove (migratory game bird) hunting. 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 further defined how recreational uses on refuges would be

evaluated and firmly established the concept of compatibility. The 1966 Refuge System

Administration permitted the use of any area within the system for any purposes, including but

not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations,  as long as such uses are

compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established.  Typically, a refuge

is closed to a particular use until it is opened administratively through the Federal Register. 

Refuge managers must determine compatibility of all public, economic, and military uses

proposed or occurring on a refuge. The 1997 Refuge System Improvement Act amended the

Refuge Administration Act and further defined priority uses to be the following six wildlifedependent uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental

education and interpretation. Existing compatibility policy is described in the Refuge Manual (5

RM 20). New compatibility policy has been drafted to support provisions of the Refuge System

Improvement Act but will not be finalized in regulations until later in 2000. Compatibility

determinations for existing and proposed uses for Little Pend Oreille are in Appendix F. 

1.10 REFUGE VISION STATEMENT

Forest habitat management is vital to the future of wildlife conservation in northeastern

Washington. Little Pend Oreille is unique in its representation of 5 distinct forest zones. Also,

as the only mixed-conifer montane forest in the National Wildlife Refuge System, Little Pend

Oreille National Wildlife Refuge has an important role to play in forest habitat management. 

The Refuge s 40,260 acres of forests, streams, and wetlands are used seasonally by bald eagles
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-12

and numerous nesting and foraging migratory birds. It provides critical winter range for deer and

habitat for several species of interest.

The Refuge envisions using its Comprehensive Conservation Plan to build on native wildlife

habitat diversity as a theme with emphasis on developing late successional forest and restoring

riparian habitat - habitats that are increasingly rare in the region. In the next 15 years, Refuge

staff will focus management efforts in over-stocked stands of dry forest using thinning and

prescribed fire techniques that mimic natural ecological processes such as wildfire. Degraded

streams will be restored to enhance and maintain the natural diversity of the Refuge.

A healthy Refuge environment will provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife viewing,

hunting, and fishing in a natural setting. Interpreting wildlife and the Refuge s unique heritage,

as well as improving facilities will enhance the visitors  experience while protecting the cultural

integrity of the area. To meet these challenges, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will seek

partnerships with other agencies, interest groups, landowners, and local communities. Refuge

staff will work with adjacent forest managers to protect local watersheds and wildlife corridors. 

These efforts will result in greater protection of wildlife and fish resources throughout

northeastern Washington.

1.11 REFUGE GOALS

Three broad goals are proposed for the Little Pend Oreille NWR. They are consistent with the

Refuge purpose, Ecoregion goals, NWRS goals, the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,

Service policy, and international treaties.

For each goal, the Refuge developed management principles and guidelines. These statements of

assumptions or principles were used to further support the Refuge goals. These principles and

guidelines were helpful in developing objectives and strategies, especially for the preferred

alternative. They are presented below, following the goals to which they apply.

Goal 1: Conserve, enhance and restore native forest, riparian, in-stream, and wetland

habitats and their associated fish, wildlife and plants, representative of the

native biological diversity of northeastern Washington.

• Healthy, high quality habitats are key to healthy fish and wildlife

populations.

• Native conditions that existed during the mid-1800's provide a reference

point for comparison with existing conditions. The assumption is that at

this point in time ecological processes were operating at a natural

frequency and intensity and were not influenced as much by human

disturbances (land clearing, fire suppression, etc.) as they are today. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-13

• Restoration of native conditions is a desired direction for management but

may not always be achieved in the short term because soils or other

environmental factors may be altered so they no longer support native

species.

• Active and passive management approaches will be used to restore and

maintain native conditions.

• Forest habitat management goals and objectives will take longer than the

life of this plan (15 years) to achieve.

• Native assemblages of fish and wildlife are best maintained and restored

by aiming to provide native habitat diversity typical of the ecoregion prior

to European settlement.

Goal 2: Monitor, protect, and recover special status plants and animals and species of

management interest. 

• Wildlife populations will be managed primarily through habitat

management.

• The needs of fish and wildlife have priority over public uses of the Refuge.

Goal 3: Provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to

enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of Refuge wildlife,

fish, habitats, and cultural history.

• Wildlife-dependent recreational activities, as identified in the Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997, will be given enhanced consideration

over other uses. These activities are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

• Some existing artificial habitats (e.g., ponds and lakes) are desirable

because they provide benefits to native wildlife, help offset overall

wetland losses, and offer increased wildlife-dependent recreational

opportunities.

1.12 PLANNING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

In considering the key issues facing the Refuge under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan,

staff solicited comments from the public, a plan working group consisting of primary

stakeholders, other federal and state agencies, and other Fish and Wildlife Service employees. A

mailing list of approximately 900 persons and organizations is maintained at the Refuge and was

used to distribute planning updates and public meeting announcements. A summary of public
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-14

involvement efforts is presented in Chapter 5. Under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), federal agencies may identify numerous issues. However, only those that are

considered significant  are allowed to drive the formulation of alternatives. Based on the

scoping efforts undertaken, the following significant issues were identified for the Little Pend

Oreille NWR: 

Issue 1. Protection and restoration of habitat values for native wildlife, fish, and plants

Little Pend Oreille is one of the largest National Wildlife Refuge in Washington state and is also

the only one with a mixed conifer forest. The Refuge extends from low alluvial bottomlands

once covered in rich riparian forest to peaks 5,600 feet in height. With this elevational diversity,

the Little Pend Oreille contains a complete set of Northeast Washington s diverse forest

vegetation zones. 

Protected under the conservation mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System, these

habitats are highly valuable to native species. Prior to establishment of the Refuge, old growth

ponderosa pine was logged and, in some places, forests were converted completely to fields,

particularly in riparian areas. Wetlands were flooded and streams diverted. Natural fire was

suppressed and exotic species became established. Focus on game management resulted in nonnative species introductions while the needs of native non-game wildlife were accorded low

priority. People made use of the Refuge for a variety of non-wildlife-dependent activities.

Rising public concern over dwindling fish stocks and diminished habitats available for native

wildlife have spurred recent federal commitments to practice "ecosystem management". 

National wildlife refuges are enjoined to protect and restore habitat for wildlife. The Refuge

System Improvement Act states that wildlife-dependent uses take precedence over other nonwildlife-dependent uses. 

Issue Summary: In light of the laws and the current state of the resources, what kinds of

management actions should be undertaken to protect and restore native habitats? Should the

Refuge practice active management to benefit wildlife, including forest thinning, prescribed

fire, stream restoration, weed control, and road closures?

Issue 2. Providing compatible public recreation opportunities 

National and local interest in outdoor recreation has been steadily increasing. Longtime users of

the Refuge include people who hunt, fish, camp, and horseback ride. Others come to ride

mountain bikes, snowmobile, or watch wildlife. Sometimes, different recreational uses can be in

conflict with each other, as well as compromising the Refuge s primary goal of wildlife

conservation. Yet the recently enacted Refuge System Improvement Act for the nation s wildlife

refuges emphasized that six wildlife-dependent recreational uses should be maintained or

encouraged, if they do not threaten wildlife conservation goals. These six priority public uses are

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and

interpretation. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-15

Issue Summary: What recreational activities are appropriate at Little Pend Oreille Refuge? 

If appropriate, what guidelines are needed to assure that these activities are compatible with

restoration and maintenance of Refuge biological integrity and diversity?

Issue 3. Cattle grazing on riparian and upland allotments

Sixteen allotments for cattle grazing, held by three permittees, are designated across the Refuge. 

The allotments currently support up to 750 Animal Unit Months (one AUMs is equivalent to one

cow/calf pair), although in the past, permits granted grazing privileges for up to 1,100 AUMs. 

The designated allotments cover the entire Refuge but in practice, most cattle grazing occurs in

the alluvial riparian zone, meadows, former farm fields, and low-elevation forest. While grazing

provides some benefits to deer by encouraging early spring growth and improving the

palatability of grasses and other plants, there are some significant negative effects. Aquatic and

riparian concerns include stream bank erosion, fecal contamination of Refuge aquatic habitats,

and browse-induced inhibition of tree and shrub growth in riparian zones. Other problems

associated with grazing include soil compaction, competition with native ungulates for desirable

forage and cover areas, suppression of aspen, and conflicts with recreational uses. Degraded

areas need time to recover. If existing uses are modified, there could be negative economic

repercussions to current permittees.

Issue Summary: What methods and intensity of livestock grazing is compatible with the

Refuge purpose and goals?

Issue 4. Air Force Survival School Training

The U.S. Air Force uses the Refuge annually for survival training. Use is concentrated in late

summer, when an average of about 82 Air Force personnel may be on the Refuge at any given

time. They use the central portion of the Refuge; the same areas where other Refuge uses are

focused. These training activities provide survival skill instruction. The air crews and survival

instructor trainees learn how to get food from the land, build shelters and fires, orient, and evade

capture. Students direct helicopters to navigation points to assist in rescue exercises. To assure

greater safety for their personnel, the Air Force requested and received a public hunting closure

from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife when the State managed Refuge lands. 

The closure, which remained in place after the Service resumed management, runs from January

through August on all the Refuge and until September on the south part of the Refuge. 

The program presents several concerns with regard to the Refuge purpose and goals. Foremost

among these is the possible disturbance to wildlife, especially from helicopters, simulated

explosives, numerous people on the ground, and all-terrain vehicles. Other concerns include

habitat impacts at camps, the disturbance to other visitors, and the loss of public hunting

opportunity due to a closure enacted for troop safety. If the Air Force s use of the Refuge is

discontinued, the program would likely be moved to another area. In the meantime, there could

be disruption of activities that contribute to the national defense. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Internal Final CCP/EIS - March 2000

Chapter 1: Intro/Purpose

 and Need for Action 1-16

Issue Summary: What level of use by the Air Force Survival School is compatible with

Refuge purposes and goals?

Issue 5. Role of Little Pend Oreille NWR in the Regional Economy

In July 1998, the Refuge held a public open house in Colville to present preliminary alternatives

to the public. At that meeting, local community members expressed concern about how Refuge

management changes would affect the economy. Refuge programs currently create some

economic benefit, directly as expenditures and/or payments, and indirectly as support to local

industries (for example the recreation and livestock industries). Till now, no analysis had been

available to estimate the economic benefit that the Refuge currently provides, and there was only

a vague idea of how management proposals under any of the alternatives would change the

economic outputs and benefits to local industries. Average per capita income in Stevens County

is nearly the lowest of all counties in the state. The community members requested that a more

detailed economic analysis be completed before adoption of the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan. 

Issue Summary: What is the current economic benefit provided by the Refuge and what

would be the economic effect of programmatic changes under the CCP?
Little Pend Oreille NWR

2-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 2: Affected Environment

2.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Geographic and Topographic Setting

Little Pend Oreille NWR is located in northeastern Washington, about 70 miles north of

Spokane, the state s second largest city. Colville, the Stevens County seat, is about 10 miles

northwest, while the town of Chewelah is about 15 miles south. 

The Refuge lies within the Okanogan Highlands Physiographic Province (Franklin and Dyrness

1973) of northeastern Washington, and is within the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem (which

includes those lands inside the United States east of the Cascade Crest in Washington and

Oregon). The Okanogan Highlands Province extends from the Okanogan River to the Idaho

border.

The Refuge landscape was shaped by events occurring during the Pleistocene epoch (two million

-11,000 years) when continental ice sheets from Canada excavated and molded valleys and

glaciers scoured lakes and shaped mountains. The Refuge lies on the western edge of the Selkirk

Mountains, whose topography influences the climate and plant communities of the area. Refuge

elevations  range from 1,800' on the west to 5,600' at Olson Peak on the eastern boundary. Most

of the Refuge is underlain by sandy loam soils which are derived from deep glacial drift. 

Westerly winds prevail, bringing warm air from the Pacific Ocean which moderates year-round

temperatures. Some weather patterns are influenced by inland continental air masses from the

south and north. The Refuge receives between 15-25" of precipitation per year in the valleys

with up to 40" at higher altitudes. Temperatures range from the upper 40s to middle 80s F in

summer and between 10 and 32 F in winter. 

Regional Land Setting, Land Use Trends

Within the 1939 Executive Order (E.O. 8104) boundaries of the Refuge are approximately 9,400

acres of inholdings.  Most of the inholding parcels surrounded by Refuge lands are owned by

Stimson Lumber Company (4,500 acres) or Boise Cascade (1,600 acres), both commercial

timber companies. Map 3 shows Refuge features and surrounding land ownership. The Refuge

surrounds two other privately owned tracts, totaling 120 acres. The City of Colville owns

approximately 250 acres within the north-central Executive Order boundaries. Most of the other

inholdings border the Executive Order boundary and are owned by diverse owners, most with

less than 200 acres. 
2-2
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-3 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Within the Refuge boundaries, most of the commercially-owned timber lands were clear cut

within the last 20 years, before the Washington State Forest Practices Act of 1988. Large blocks

of land, sometimes whole sections (640 acres), were clear cut. Timber prices have been at record

high levels in the recent past, encouraging many adjacent private landowners to log their

property.

On the southern and eastern boundaries, the land is primarily managed or owned by the Colville

and Kaniksu National Forests, and Boise Cascade and Stimson Lumber Company. The

Washington Department of Natural Resources manages two large blocks of land north of the

Refuge, the Narcisse and Little Pend Oreille blocks. They manage these State-owned lands

primarily for the long-term economic benefit of the local schools (i.e., revenue from timber

production and livestock forage). Secondarily, when not in conflict with this primary purpose,

state lands may be managed for watershed, wildlife habitat, open space, and recreation. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources manages two public campgrounds on the northern

edge of the Refuge - Starvation Lake and Flodelle Creek campgrounds, and oversees a

recreational trail system used primarily by off-road vehicles. More than 75 miles of recreational

trails located east of the Refuge were jointly planned by Washington Department of Natural

Resources and the National Forest. The area northeast of the Refuge is also part of a lynx

management unit. 

National forest lands are managed for multiple resources and uses including recreation, wildlife

and fish, range, timber, watershed, forage, minerals, and wilderness. In 1996, the Colville

National Forest Supervisor decided to implement the Addy-Chewelah Project, which includes

harvest of 54 million board feet of timber on 13,550 acres within the 47,158 acre area which is

bordered by the Refuge on the north. This action also involves construction of approximately 62

miles of new roads, 2,590 acres of noncommercial thinning, and 8,842 acres of prescribed fire. 

Most of the Forest Service land bordering the Refuge on the east and south is managed for timber

and forage production objectives, with fewer bordering acres managed for scenic values, winter

range, recreation, and old growth.

Regardless of ownership, there is an increasing trend in road development, forest fragmentation,

loss of older-aged forests, recreational use, riparian habitat degradation, and rural residential

development on lands surrounding the Refuge. Growth within Stevens County is affecting

privately owned land near the western and northern Refuge boundaries. Within the last three

years, new homes and subdivisions next to the Refuge boundary have been added near five

Refuge access points (Narcisse Creek Road, Buffalo Wilson Road, Miller Road, Bear Creek

Road, and Slide Creek Road). New short and long plat developments have also been planned

along Highway 20 on the northern Refuge border. Rural residential developments increase the

potential for habitat fragmentation, wildlife/people conflicts, pest management problems, risk

associated with using prescribed fire, and needs for law enforcement. Development close to

Refuge lands may increase market pressure on smaller private landowners to sell their lands for

more development. Real estate market values are usually higher for property adjacent to public

land.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-4 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Air and Water Quality 

The Refuge and surrounding lands currently meet federal air quality standards for the six

 criteria pollutants : particulates; nitrogen oxides; sulfur dioxides; lead; ozone; and carbon

monoxide. The closest nonattainment area is located in and around the city of Spokane. The

only Class I area (areas where air quality standards are stricter because of outstanding visual

resources) in eastern Washington State is in the wilderness area of the Okanagan National

Forest. Hundreds of other airborne chemicals may be toxic or hazardous, but are not subject to

ambient standards under state or federal law. 

Current and potential air quality concerns at the Refuge revolve primarily around wood smoke

generated from prescribed fire. Wood smoke contains gases and particulate matter that have

been demonstrated to be hazards to human health, including more than 130 known carcinogenic

substances such as formaldehyde, methane, carbon monoxide, and benzene. These pollutants

may be hazardous to local residents, especially those individuals with existing breathing

problems, and to firefighters, who may endure extreme exposure for weeks at a time. The

potential for air pollution problems is exacerbated by the extreme levels of fuel loading that have

accumulated in forests of the northwest from 60 years of fire exclusion policies. 

Water quality is measured by various factors including turbidity, fecal coliform counts, and

temperature, as well as physical parameters such as peak flows and channel characteristics. 

Water quality strategies are determined in part by the "designated uses" for main rivers. The

waters of the Little Pend Oreille NWR largely flow into the Colville River, which has designated

uses of aquatic life, fish consumption, and primary contact recreation-swimming (EPA website ). 

Much of the Colville River is considered water quality impaired by the Environmental Protection

Agency (Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997).

The Washington Department of Ecology is required under section 303(d) of the Federal Clean

Water Act to submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of water bodies that fall

short of state surface water standards and are not expected to improve within the next two years. 

The Little Pend Oreille River has been added to the most recent (1998) 303(d) list due to high

fecal coliform bacteria levels detected in 1994 near its confluence with the Colville River. This

bacteria is found in sewage and animal waste, and can enter streams through failing septic

systems and some agricultural practices. 

The LPO NWR manages lands along about 9.9 miles (29%) of the Little Pend Oreille River s 36

mile length. Since no data is available documenting the quality of the water as it enters and

leaves the refuge, it is currently impossible to quantify the amount refuge activities are

contributing to the fecal coliform load. Private residences and agricultural practices both

upstream and downstream of the Refuge may also contribute to the water quality problem. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-5 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Special Status Lands

Research Natural Areas

Two Research Natural Areas (RNAs) have been established within the Refuge. These areas

protect natural features and preserve natural processes for scientific purposes; the guiding

principle is to prevent unnatural encroachments and activities which directly or indirectly modify

ecological processes.

Baird Basin RNA was established in 1959, and exemplifies typical northeastern

Washington ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir forest stands along ridge tops and

north and south slopes. The 160-acre RNA is located in the northwest portion of section

10, T. 34 N., R. 41 E., Willamette meridian, at 48° 30' N. latitude, 117°40' W. longitude.

Varline Grove/Flodelle Creek RNA includes 80 acres of mature larch and Douglas-fir,

Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine located in the northwestern part of

SE SW 1/4 section 7, T35N, R42E, 48°32' N latitude, 117°34' W longitude.

Wilderness Suitability

The Wilderness Act of 1964 stimulated a great deal of interest in the possibility of designating a

portion of the Refuge under this initiative. In the early 1970s, a study was undertaken to

determine the suitability for the Refuge as wilderness. After lengthy research, public hearings,

letter campaigns, and much discussion, it was determined that the Refuge did not fit the

designation and was rejected in 1974. It was rejected because the State issued permits for

haying, grazing, timber sales, and other uses. Also, there were plans to cut trees in the roadless

areas. Subsequent cutting and road building did take place in portions of the 1974 roadless area. 

Despite this lack of technical classification, there remains a 5,520 acre block of roadless and

largely undisturbed forest in the southeastern corner of the Refuge. This area requires special

consideration in future step-down management plans. 

Other Refuge Managed Parcels

The Little Pend Oreille NWR administers two disjunct properties outside the administrative

boundary of the Refuge. Both parcels became federal property when the previous owners

defaulted on Farmer s Home Administration loans. Because both parcels contained valuable

wildlife habitats, management of these lands was transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and are administered by the Refuge. 

The first parcel is the 54.7 acre Norris Tract located about 1 mile west of Springdale,

Washington. The majority of this parcel is a shallow water wooded wetland composed of

emergent wetland plants including sedges, cattails, rushes and, canary grass, as well as shrubs

such as red osier dogwood alder, water birch, and willows. The remainder of the tract was
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-6 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

cleared and farmed. This area forms the headwater of Swamp Creek, which flows south from the

parcel. It is also ditched and partially drains to the north into Sheep Creek. The parcel is fenced

to exclude livestock. Wildlife observed here include white-tailed deer, song sparrow, common

snipe, and several species of waterfowl.

The 254-acre Cusick tract is located within the 100-year flood plain of the Pend Oreille River

about 3 miles north of Cusick, Washington. About 75% of the property was formerly farmed for

timothy hay production. The remaining property is forested with aspen, lodgepole pine,

dogwood, hawthorn, water birch and other shrubs. In addition to timothy grass, other herbaceous

species growing on the property include Oregon grape, yarrow, reed canary grass, hawkweed and

knapweed. The trees are currently unmerchantable. There are several small wetlands on the

property. 

Fingers of Trimble Creek extend onto the parcel and contain water year-round in most years. 

The south half of the parcel s lower elevation and clay soils allow it to hold water briefly after

rains and during spring runoff. However, this area has been ditched and drained in the past. The

northeast and east portions of the property are bounded by county maintained dikes designed to

keep the Pend Oreille River out of the flood prone Cusick Flats area. The parcel is fenced to

exclude livestock. Wildlife commonly observed on the area includes several species of ducks,

Canada geese, snipe, savannah sparrow, meadowlark, white-tailed deer and coyote

2.2 REFUGE HABITATS

The purpose of this section is to broadly describe the existing environment and known or

suspected trends.

This information will be used to:

• Show specific changes from historical to current times within the planning area;

• Establish a starting point for data collection that will be a major part of

operational responsibilities for Refuge staff after the plan is complete; and

• Lay the foundation for understanding and evaluating the alternatives discussed

later in this document.

Landscape Perspective

Background

Forests and streams similar in composition and condition to those found at the Refuge extend

over vast areas of eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, western Montana, and Idaho. In order to

understand the role of Refuge lands within the ecosystems of this region, it is helpful to consider
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-7 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

some natural resources and processes within a larger landscape context. The Little Pend Oreille

National Wildlife Refuge is not an island. Its waters drain into the Colville River, which

ultimately flows into the Columbia River. Its borders connect to other public forested lands

managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources,

as well as to forested lands owned privately. The habitats on Refuge owned lands continue to be 

influenced by processes which operate at a larger scale, such as fire, species migrations, and

climate. In addition, most species found on the Refuge range over much larger portions of the

Western states. It is a biological principle that the maintenance of viable populations (especially

of larger, wide-ranging animals) is positively correlated with the degree to which habitat areas

are large and well connected. A realistic assessment of Refuge resources incorporates an

analysis of the condition of the surrounding habitat. This is the function of this portion of the

CCP/EIS. With this knowledge in hand, the Refuge can better understand the kind of

contribution it can and should make to the larger ecosystem.

In this analysis, we rely on an approach of comparing current conditions over a large area with

historic or natural  conditions. This method incorporates the concept of natural variability, 

or more specifically, the Historic Range of Natural Variability.  The natural variability

approach relies on two intertwined premises: (1) that past conditions and processes provide

context and guidance for managing ecological systems today, and (2) that disturbance-driven

spatial and temporal variability is a vital attribute of Western forested ecological systems

(Landres et al. 1999). 

Referencing and managing for the Historic Range of Natural Variability  (HRV) has gained

increasing acceptance from resource scientists and managers over the last decade. Essentially,

the idea is based in the observation that conditions existing in America at the time of European

settlement are now dramatically altered and that this alteration has had significant repercussions

for species habitats and ecosystem health. The concept recognizes that, before European

settlement, any one part of the landscape was continually undergoing a process of dynamic

change. However, overall the landscape and its processes could be characterized as falling within

a certain set of natural ranges that generally were consistent over the 2000-year time period

proceeding European settlement (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). The HRV is useful as a

benchmark for assessing or monitoring the effects of land management relative to the departure

from historic conditions. 

 The concept of HRV does have some detractors, who feel that the model does not adequately

encompass dramatic continental changes such as the glacial period, or that the influence of native

Americans is not taken sufficiently into consideration. Moreover, there is little likelihood that

American society would gladly embrace the set of social changes that a true return to the HRV

across a regional landscape would require. However, numerous scientists and managers feel that

applying this concept on publicly owned lands with a mission of species conservation is wholly

appropriate and probably the best way to manage for the suite of species that inhabit these lands

over the long term. Current direction for National Forests in Oregon and Washington east of the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-8 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Cascades includes the direction to apply HRV analysis to watersheds before initiating timber

sales (USDA 1995). 

Analysis

Taking the Interior Columbia Basin (the portion of the western states draining into the Columbia

River east of the Cascade range) as a whole, it is known that significant changes have taken place

in forest ecosystems (Quigley and Haynes 1996; USDA and USDI 1997). The scientists who

authored the summary reports and Environmental Impact Statements for the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) found several key changes in forest

ecosystems, including:

• Interior ponderosa pine has decreased across its range with significant decreases

in old, single-story structure. The primary transitions were to an interior Douglasfir and grand fir/white fir association.

• There has been a loss of the large tree component (live and dead) within roaded

and harvested areas. This decrease affects terrestrial wildlife species that are

closely associated with these old forest structures.

• Generally, mid-seral forest structures have increased in dry and moist forest

groups, with a loss of large scattered and residual shade-intolerant trees and an

increase in the density of smaller shade-tolerant trees. 

• There has been an increase in fragmentation and a loss of connectivity within and

between blocks of late-seral stage, old forests, especially in lower elevation areas

and riparian areas. This has isolated some animal habitats and populations and

reduced the ability of populations to move across the landscape, resulting in a

long-term loss of genetic interchange.

• There has been an increase in access for humans which has decreased the

availability of areas with low human activities.

• At the scale of the entire Interior Columbia Basin, at least eight terrestrial

vertebrate species have experienced a loss of greater than 67% of the habitat

available to them historically, while an additional 47 terrestrial species have

experienced a loss of 33-67% of their historical habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

These species include the white-headed woodpecker, the flammulated owl,

Western bluebird, hoary bat, and many others.

It s instructive to look at yet another scale, the scale of the sub-basin, to see if the trends

identified for the Interior Columbia basin hold true in the more immediate vicinity of the refuge. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-9 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

This sort of analysis is consistent with the watershed analysis  approach that has been widely

used in the Northwest for the last seven-eight years. For the purposes of this analysis, the

Colville sub-basin, an area measuring some 650,000 acres, was chosen as the scale at which to

assess the surrounding ecosystem. 

The Refuge is a 40,198 acre parcel of land which lies within the Colville sub-basin. An analysis

of vegetation structures throughout the Colville sub-basin shows they generally follow the trend

identified above for the entire interior basin. Vegetation structures within this sub-basin have

been significantly altered since the late 1800s. Table 2-1 compares the current extent of different

vegetation structural stages with their historic extent (circa 1900), within the Colville sub-basin.

The analysis is based on current and historic vegetation data compiled for the ICBEMP effort

and publicly available with the spatial data sets on their web site (www.icbemp.gov). Vegetation

data was generalized to the square kilometer. Structural stages are defined within the glossary

(Appendix A). Note that these historical conditions at the end of the 1800s do not necessarily

represent a true depiction of HRV, which is more accurately a range of historic conditions. HRV 

for each potential vegetation type and structural type was simulated (in Quigley and Arbelbide,

1997) by developing a pre-European American settlement succession and disturbance model and

simulating change over a 100- or 400-year period from the historical vegetation map. The results

from that analysis (for the Northern Glaciated Mountains ERU; see specifically Vol. II, pages

602-610) are similar in trends and magnitude to the results presented here more specifically for

the Colville sub-basin. 

Table 2-1 shows that although forest cover types continue to be found over approximately the

same total areas as in 1900, dramatic changes in forest structure have occurred over large areas of

the sub-basin (See Map 4). Specifically, old single-strata forest is gone from the sub-basin

completely and old multi-strata forest covers only about 10% of its former area in the sub-basin. 

And young forests, particularly the mid seral types of young multi-strata forest and understory 

reinitiation forest cover about 15-18 times their extent in 1900. In addition, the sizes of forest

similar forest units was distinctly smaller in the past than it is now. This is revealed in the more

fragmented or checkerboard appearance of the historic vegetation map (Map 4). The greater

continuity of forest habitat types now is likely due to the transformation of the role of fire and the

kind of fire regimes that occur now as compared to historically. 

These changes in forest structure on a sub-basin scale have significant repercussions for wildlife

habitat, especially for those species with narrower habitat requirements. 

Two key processes that have contributed to the change in forest structure on this scale are

logging, which until recently focused primarily on removal of high-value large diameter trees,

and fire suppression. Table 2-2 demonstrates the modification of fire regimes throughout the

Colville sub-basin for the same time period.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-10 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-1. Changes in Vegetative Structure within the Colville sub-basin, circa 1900-

present

VEGETATION STAND

STRUCTURE Seral

Stage

Approx.

Current

Acres

(1991)

Current

Percent of

Sub-basin

(1991)

Approx.

Historic

Acres

(~1900)

Historic

Percent of

Sub-basin

(~1900)

Absolute

Percent

Change in

Landscape

(Current %

minus historic

%) 

Approximate

Ratio of

Current

Extent to

Historic 

Extent in

Landscape

(Current acres

divided by

historic acres)

Forest Habitat Types

Stand Initiation Forest early 24341 4% 68817 11% -7% 1:3

Stem Exclusion Closed 

Canopy Forest

mid 126158 20% 170011 26% -6% 3:4

Stem Exclusion Open Canopy

Forest

mid 40447 6% 19672 3% 3% 2:1

Young Multi-strata Forest mid 99104 15% 3459 1% 14% 29:1

Understory Reinitiation Forest mid 239454 37% 11003 2% 35% 22:1

Old Single-strata Forest late 0 0% 138643 21% -21% 1:139,000

Old Multi-strata Forest late 15283 2% 135868 21% -19% 1:9

Old Multi-strata Woodland 94 0% 0 0% 0% 94:1

Subtotal: Forest Habitat Types 84% 85% -1% 1:1

Non - Forested Habitat Types

Closed Herbland 37410 6% 13752 2% 4% 3:1

Open Herbland 247 0% 0 0% 0% 247:1

Agricultural 47947 7% 0 0% 7% 48,000:1

Open Low Shrub 12560 2% 17050 3% -1% 3:4

Closed Mid Shrub 494 0% 66256 10% -10% 1:100

Water 1483 0% 1483 0% 0% 1:1

Urban 988 0% 0 0% 0% 1000:1

Subtotal: Non-Forested

Habitat Types

15% 15% 0% 0

Total Area 646011 100% 646011 100
2-11
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-12 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-2. Changes in Fire Regimes throughout the Colville sub-basin, circa 1900 - present

FIRE REGIME Current Acres

(1991)

Current

Percent

Historic

Acres

(~1900)

Historic

Percent

Absolute

Change

Approximate 

Ratio of

Current to

Historic

Lethal / frequent 6905 1% 83512 13% -12% 1:13

Lethal / infrequent 299256 46% 2224 0% 46% 134:1

Lethal / very infrequent 99172 15% 29322 5% 11% 3:1

Mixed / frequent 247 0% 202524 31% -31% 1:82

Mixed / infrequent 71559 11% 1218 0% 11% 59:1

Non-lethal / very frequent 0 0% 253653 39% -39% 1:254,000

Non-lethal / frequent 0 0% 36346 6% -6% 1:36,000

Non-lethal / infrequent 166417 26% 35791 6% 20% 5:1

Rarely / n.a. 2455 0% 1423 0% 0% 2:1

Total 646011 100% 646011 100%

Map 5 and Table 2-2 demonstrate that there has been a clear shift in fire regimes throughout the

sub-basin from frequent to infrequent fires. In general, fires regimes have also become more

lethal. Specifically, non-lethal, frequent and very frequent fires and mixed, frequent fires have

declined, with a corresponding dramatic rise in lethal and infrequent fires. The frequent, nonlethal fires of the past contributed to the maintenance of large trees and open understories typical

of a vegetative habitat structures such as single strata ponderosa pine. The loss of frequent and

non-lethal fires have led to ever-increasing fuel loads, crowded and over-stocked forest stands

and a greater and greater risk of catastrophic (lethal) fire occurrence.

The ICBEMP Science Integration Team looked at the variety of processes and conditions

occurring across the landscape and resolved to integrate these into an overall measure, called

 ecological integrity . Ecological integrity was defined as encompassing: a) the maintenance of

evolutionary and ecological processes; b) the maintenance of functions and processes dependent 

on multiple ecological domains and evolutionary time frames; and c) the maintenance of viable

populations of native and desired non-native species. 

Overall, the Colville sub-basin was characterized as being of low forest, aquatic, hydrologic, and

composite ecological integrity (Quigley et al. 1996). The scientists identified the following

primary opportunities to address these risks to integrity: 

• Restoration of forest structures

• Maintenance of scattered aquatic strongholds that exist

• Reduction of the risk of fire, insect and disease. 
2-13
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-14 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Historical Condition of Refuge Upland Forest Habitats

Old photographs, survey notes and existing remnant stands indicate that much of the Refuge was

characterized by extensive stands of large, old growth ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa),

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western larch (Larix laricina) prior to settlement and

exploitation. Impressive stands of western red cedar , western hemlock and other mixed conifer

stands were also present. Records indicate that logging has occurred on the Refuge since its

inception with a primary objective of improving wildlife habitat, but also for sanitation and

salvage. Letters in the refuge files indicate that the cedar poles cut on the refuge were so

desirable that they were specifically requested by buyers from the mid-West.

Refuge Upland Forests - Current Condition

Overview

Currently, most of the forest land is in second and third growth mixed stands with a tendency

toward a higher numbers of stems per acre and a greater percentage of shade tolerant species than

naturally occurred here. This can be directly attributed to past timber harvest practices and

aggressive fire suppression. The southeastern corner of the Refuge contains an extensive

roadless area with an old growth timber component. 

The Refuge is well represented by a variety of forest types from low elevation ponderosa pine on

its western edge which gradually becomes higher elevation mixed stands of Douglas-fir, grand

fir, lodgepole, western white pine, western larch, western red-cedar, western hemlock,

Engelmann spruce and sub-alpine fir and as one progresses from the west to east. Also present

are hardwood species such as mountain alder, Sitka alder, willow, black cottonwood, Douglas

maple and white and water birch. 

The Refuge s forests can be grouped into the three broad potential vegetative groups described in

Quigley and Arbelbide (1997): dry, moist and cold forests. Each vegetative group consists of

several potential vegetation types. For example, those potential vegetative types making up the

dry forest potential vegetative group that occur on the Refuge are: dry Douglas-fir with

ponderosa pine, dry Douglas-fir without ponderosa pine, and interior ponderosa pine. Map 6

shows the distribution of forest types on the refuge, together with the approximate delineations of

selected wildlife habitats of importance. While these broad potential vegetative groups do not

always completely describe the forestland vegetation found on the Refuge, these potential

vegetation groups are useful in categorizing the forest types found on the Refuge. Some animals

are associated with only certain forest groups. For example, wintering deer use the dry and moist

forest types, while the Canada lynx lives primarily in the cold forest types. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-15 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-3. Acres and Percentage of Habitat by Forest Type on the Refuge 

HABITAT ZONE 

 DESCRIPTION ACRES PERCENT REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES

Moist Forest 29,687 74 Douglas-fir, Grand fir, Western hemlock

Dry Forest 7,943 20 Ponde rosa pine , Doug las-fir, Gran d fir

Cold Forest 2,095 5 Sub-alp ine fir, Eng lemann spruce, D ouglas-fir

Openings, outcrops, lakes 473 1 Various 

Total 40,198 100

Figure 2.1 shows a graphical cross-section of Refuge forest types. Specific forest groups are

discussed below. 

Dry Forest Vegetation Group

The dry forests, dominated by ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir growing on south or

southwest facing slopes, covers about 7,943 acres or 20% of the Refuge. These species can

survive the harsh, dry conditions and the frequent fire disturbance typical of low elevation, arid

areas. This zone is characterized by frequent (5-50 years), low intensity fire (Agee 1993). 

Deciduous trees and shrubs are primarily limited to understory plants and riparian species. A

typical or natural  dry forest landscape would be dominated by ponderosa pine stands. These

stands would be of mixed age, but individual stands would generally be uniform, with singleaged, widely-spaced trees. Grasses or woody shrubs would dominate the understory, depending

on the recent fire history. These stands can be quite long-lived and productive, once established,

but tend to regenerate slowly because of the short fire interval and dry conditions. Where factors

such as aspect, slope, soils and moisture allow, dry sites can be dominated by Douglas-fir and

grand fir. These species are more susceptible to fire until they become large and mature.

This description illustrates the importance of fire disturbance to this forest system. However,

human activities have affected both the disturbance cycle and the process of succession in these

dry sites. Patterns of plant species succession have been altered by harvesting selected, mature

trees, allowing cattle grazing on the grasses and shrubs, and suppressing fire. As a result, there

are more dense stands, less woody shrubs, and a gradual increase in shade-tolerant species such

as Douglas-fir and grand fir. The clumpy  nature of single story, mature stands that was

prevalent in the past is not as obvious now. These structural changes affect how well the area

supports wildlife. For example, available winter forage or browse  for deer may limit the size 

of the population. There are likely other effects on small mammals and forest birds that have not

been explained. 

The effects of past forest management, particularly fire exclusion, is a major issue discussed in

Quigley and Arbelbide (1997). In some cases, (see Table 2-2) fire may be less frequent now than 
2-16
 Moist ForestDouglas-fir, grand fir and manyother tree species are found in the“moist forests” which cover themid elevations at LPO. This zonereceives more precipitation andcan support denser forests.Under natural conditions, theseforests also burn, but generally at

 Cold ForestCovering the highest ridges atLPO are “cold forests”, representedmainly by subalpine fir andEngelmann spruce. Growth isslow in these zones and nutrientsmay be limiting. Standing deadand downed trees may persist fora long time because cool

ke

Black Tail Mt. Road

North ForkBear Creek

Olson Peak

longer intervals than the dryforests. These forests are alsomore vulnerable to lethal crownfires than the dry forests. Todayat LPO, these forests show theeffects of fire suppression andfragmentation by past logging.

temperatures slow decomposition.The fire cycle in this zone isvariable and difficult to predict.These forests at LPO arerelatively undisturbed.

s

tlands & Wet Meadows

of alder, willow and pondweed

 is frequented by bufflehead,

ldeneye, heron, osprey, hooded

 king fisher, bald eagle, rainbow

rout, amphibians, and beaver. Upland Deciduous Habitat

Pockets of aspen, alder, and willow areoccasionally found. This habitat supportsorange-crowned warbler, Wilson’s warbler,and other migratory birds.

High Elevation Conifer ForestsSubalpine fir, Engelmann spruce,lodgepole pine, and Douglas firdominate this habitat. Marten, elk,and moose may occur in this area.Historically a habitat for lynx.

Mixed Conifer Mid Elevation ForestsCommon trees are Douglas fir, grand fir,Western red cedar and larch. You may seebrown creeper, winter wren, pileatedwoodpecker, Williamson’s sap sucker, Vaux’sswift, black bear, pygmy shrew, and bats.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-18 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

it was historically, but the chance of a lethal or complete stand-replacement fire may be much

greater. Also, as mentioned above, there is a regional trend towards reduced range of shadeintolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and encroachment by tolerant species such as grand

fir. This trend is also evident in Refuge forest stands and sub-basins.

Moist Forest Vegetation Group

The moist forests of the Refuge are dominated by Douglas-fir, grand fir, western red cedar, and

western hemlock. Other tree species include lodgepole pine, western white pine, western larch,

and Engelmann spruce. The composition and structure within this vegetation group can vary

greatly, making it hard to summarize. At lower elevations, near the dry forest transition, the

forests may be dominated by Douglas-fir. Cedar and hemlock would be mostly limited to cooler,

wetter sites, such as riparian zones, or micro-sites strongly influenced by northern aspect and

flatter slopes. This forest group dominates the area with its estimated 29,687 acres comprising

about 74% of the Refuge s forest cover.

Low intensity, non-lethal ground fires occur on the averaged every 13 to 26 years. High intensity

crown fires, which are commonly stand-replacement or lethal fires, may have occurred every 20

to 150 years. Fires, where some areas burn very hot with severe effects and others burn cooler

with little effect, may have occurred every 20 to 300 years. Variations in moisture, climate, soil

productivity, and number of tree species, combined with a complex fire regime, result in a

diverse range of vegetative conditions. The successional pathway of any given site is therefore

difficult to predict. From a landscape perspective, a healthy, moist forest can be generally

described as primarily closed canopy, with a diversity of trees, herbs, and shrubs. The complex

fire regime would result in a variety of stand structures, including old growth single layer

canopies and multi-storied stands. A great degree of other structural features, such as large snags

and downed woody debris, would be prevalent.

Because of its longer fire interval, the effects of fire suppression and exclusion are not as obvious

in the moist forest zones of the Refuge as in the dry forest zone. However, overstocking and

conversion to more shade tolerant species is evident. Consequently, the risk of lethal fire at the

Little Pend Oreille NWR is presently greater than in the past. Logging in moist forest habitats

has also had a lasting effect similar to that in the dry forest areas. A high degree of

fragmentation is evident from aerial photos, which show the effects of clear cuts in Refuge

inholdings and associated management roads.

In general, the rich habitat diversity found in this zone supports a wide range of wildlife species. 

More information is needed to document wildlife use and the effects of past management.

Cold Forest Vegetation Group

The cold forest zone defines the upper elevational limit for tree survival. Rates of tree growth

are generally slow in comparison to the lower elevation moist forest. Nutrients are generally
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-19 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

limited and the maintenance of downed and dead wood is important to these sites. Disturbance

from fire is variable, ranging in intervals from 100 to 300 years, and the intensity and extent of

fires is highly dependent upon the landform, topography, fuel type, and weather conditions. 

Because of the extreme conditions at high elevations, blowdowns are also an important natural

disturbance process (DeLong 1996).

At the Little Pend Oreille NWR, the cold forest zone has been nominally set at greater than

4500'. This habitat zone comprises only about 5% (2,095 acres) of the forest habitat found on the

Refuge, occurring primarily on the extreme southern and eastern borders of the Refuge. Like the

moist forest zone, the effects of fire suppression are evident, but not as marked as in dry sites. In

the absence of disturbance, these forests are dominated by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. 

Other species that are relatively common in seral communities are western larch, Douglas-fir,

western hemlock, lodgepole pine, western white pine, and grand fir.

Except for inholdings and scattered homestead activities, most high elevation areas on the

Refuge are relatively undisturbed. Some areas have been roaded, grazed, and selectively logged

but not to the degree found in the other forest zones.

Quaking aspen occurs in the more hydric sites across all three of the forest vegetation groups. 

Many aspen stands on the Refuge tend to be mature and even-aged, with regeneration

conspicuously retarded or absent. Vegetative reproduction via suckering is the primary way

these stands are enlarged and perpetuated. For vigorous sucker reproduction to occur, strong

light and heat must reach the forest floor; shading from competing conifers reduces this needed

sunlight. This may be a significant factor on the Refuge, especially in the dry forest zone where

fire suppression has allowed conifers to encroach into sites previously dominated by the more

fire-adapted aspen. In addition to fire suppression, annual browsing of aspen suckers by wildlife

and domestic livestock suppresses the parent tree s efforts to clone, ultimately resulting in the

development of decadent, non-sustaining stands. 

Riparian Habitats

Named for the Little Pend Oreille River which flows through its northern expanse, the Refuge

also contains the entire Bear Creek sub-watershed, as well as most of the Cedar Creek and Olson

Creek sub-watersheds within its boundaries. Most of the southern and eastern Refuge boundaries

are formed by the watershed divide. All Refuge tributaries flow into the Little Pend Oreille

River and hence into the Colville River, except Slide Creek and Moran Creek which flow

directly into the Colville River. The Colville River ultimately flows into the Columbia River

near Kettle Falls. Riparian areas are lands adjacent to perennial or intermittent bodies of water

such as streams, springs, or lakes where vegetation is strongly influenced by the presence of

water. Riparian areas also are usually the transition zone between aquatic and upland sites. 

Riparian areas are the Refuge s most dynamic areas from an ecological perspective, but create

many challenges for land managers. Riparian zones are of great interest due to their intrinsic
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-20 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

value as wildlife habitat. Because much of the western U.S. is arid, riparian zones provide the

moisture and nutrients to support a greater variety of vegetation than upland areas, in turn

supporting a greater diversity of wildlife. The riparian areas, especially in the dry forest

vegetation zone, provide some of the Refuge s most species-rich habitats. For example, many

neotropical migratory bird species (NTMB) use riparian zones exclusively for nesting and

foraging. From a regional standpoint, Quigley and Arbelbide (1997) found that riparian

vegetation is used by more neotropical migratory birds (64% of all 132 NTMB species) than any

other habitat. Riparian areas are also disproportionately important for a number of other wildlife

species, including frogs, snakes, bats, voles, grouse, and deer. 

Aquatic Habitats, including Rivers, Streams, Wetlands, Lakes, and Ponds

Wetlands and deepwater habitats on the Refuge include artificial lakes, natural wetlands, ponds, 

springs, and both perennial and intermittent streams. Map 7 displays Refuge aquatic habitat. 

Wetlands are defined as areas soaked by surface or groundwater frequently enough to support

vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Deepwater

habitats are defined as permanently water covered lands where the water is often deep, such as

streams and lakes.

Occurrence and classification of wetlands and deep water habitats, including ponds, marshes,

streams and lakes, on the Little Pend Oreille NWR was determined using the U.S. Department of

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps. These documents were

prepared primarily by stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photographs. Wetlands and

deepwater habitats were identified in the photographs based on vegetation, visible hydrology,

and geography using a system described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats

of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). This analysis was accomplished using aerial photos

taken in August 1983, and reflect the conditions during that specific year and season. An

inherent margin of error always exists with the use of aerial photographs. Additionally, small

wetlands and those obscured by dense forest cover may not have been identified on these maps. 

Wetlands and deepwater habitats occurring on the Refuge fall into 3 broad system definitions: 

palustrine (ponds, marshes, bogs, swamps and fens), lacustrine (both deep and shallow lakes),

and riverine (rivers, streams, and creeks). 

Palustrine Systems

One hundred ninety five palustrine wetlands were identified on the Little Pend Oreille Refuge by

the National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands occurring on private lands within the administrative

boundary of the Refuge were not included. Palustrine wetlands were classified by either their

water regime or by the vegetation they support. The following tables summarize the number of

wetlands based on each of these two methods of classification. 
2-21
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-22 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2 -4. Number and percent of palustrine wetlands as classified by water regime

occurring on the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge.

Wetlands Water Regime Number of palustrine wetlands Percent of total

Seasonally flooded 138 71

Permanently flooded 21 11

Saturated Soils 16 8

Semi-permanently flooded 14 7

Temporarily flooded 6 3

TOTAL 195 100

Table 2 -5. Number and percent of palustrine wetlands as classified by dominant

vegetation occurring on the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge.

Dominant Vegetation Type Number of palustrine wetlands Percent of total

Persistent emergent 65 33

Deciduous scrub-shrub 62 32

Deciduous forested 44 23

Open water, no vegetation 17 9

Aquatic rooted 2 1

Miscellaneous 5 2

Total 195 100

Eight wetlands (4%) were identified as being modified to some degree by beavers. One appeared

to have been ditched. Dailey, Pierce, Winslow and Long Lakes are all classified as palustrine

wetlands. None of these lakes supports a recreational fishery.

Potter s Pond is the largest palustrine wetland on the Refuge and the only one with a recreational

fishery. It is a man-made pond with an earthen fill dike completed in 1959 as waterfowl nesting

habitat. The pond averages 15 acres but can range from 1.5 to 24 surface acres. It is fed by the

same diversion that feeds Bayley Lake and is connected to the lake by an artificial channel. The

Pond s maximum depth is about 9 feet. Broods of Canada geese, mallards, ruddy ducks, ringnecked ducks, mergansers, and goldeneyes are commonly seen on the pond as well as pied-billed
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-23 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

grebes, American coots, great blue heron and osprey. Shoreline shrubs provide nesting and

foraging habitat for several song bird species. The pond is currently stocked with rainbow trout.

Lacustrine Wetlands

Bailey and McDowell Lakes are the only lacustrine wetlands on the Refuge. Both lakes consist

of permanently flooded main basins of open water, with shallower portions containing a mix of

floating vegetation dominated by pondweed.

Prior to 1973, McDowell Lake was a 33-acre beaver pond during high water years. Located on

an intermittent tributary to the Little Pend Oreille River, it would nearly dry up in some years. In

1972 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (then known as the Washington Department

of Game) built an earthen fill dam on the lake outlet, raising the water level about 10 feet,

increasing the surface area to about 48 acres and creating a maximum depth of 20 feet. Water

was diverted from the North Fork of Bear Creek to fill the lake using a stop log weir. To

maintain the lake and comply with water rights provisions, Washington Department of Game

recommended a flow of 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) be diverted to feed the lake and 3 cfs be

maintained below the diversion in the stream. Pond mills were installed to provide winter

circulation and prevent winter-kill. Trapping has been used in the past to control tench, an

undesirable exotic fish intentionally or accidently introduced into the lake. The lake is currently

stocked most years by the Department with rainbow trout. Some brown trout remain from

previous stockings. 

Tench were either intentionally or accidently introduced to McDowell Lake. As the populations

of these fish increase, they degrade the habitat for the more desirable trout. The State has tried

different methods to remove or control the tench population, including rehabilitating  the lake

by draining it, poisoning all the remaining fish and restocking the lake with trout. These

attempts have met with limited success with the tench population persisting. Current

management consists of a joint effort between the State and the Refuge to trap and remove tench

from the lake on an annual or biennial basis. This method, while not a permanent solution, does

show promise.

Bayley Lake, formerly known as Cliff Lake, was enlarged by a rock and cement dam at its

southern end in the 1920s. A private fish hatchery was built at the southeastern end of the lake

by Mr. Bayley. Water was diverted from Bear Creek for the hatchery water supply and to fill the

lake. A sink-hole near the dam resulted in a leak in the lake, causing problems at the hatchery. 

To fix this leak, clay was piled on the ice near the sink hole, filling the hole in the spring when

the ice melted. Bayley sold his property to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1940. The lake

continues to leak, presenting the challenge of maintaining lake water levels. Bayley Lake surface

acres vary from 18 to 72 acres. Despite unstable water levels, or perhaps because of them, the

lake is rich in aquatic invertebrates which supply a hearty diet to stocked rainbow trout which

have been known to reach the seven pound class. The lake also contains eastern brook and

brown trout.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-24 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Riverine Wetlands

The river and streams found on the Refuge can be divided into two main classifications:

perennial and intermittent. Perennial streams are those that flow year around. Included in this

classification is the Little Pend Oreille River, of which about 9.9 miles flow through Refuge

lands. Bear Creek and the North Fork Bear Creek account for about 14.6 miles of perennial

stream while other smaller perennial streams such as Cedar, Norman, and Olson Creeks, as well

as several smaller unnamed tributaries, account for another 25.9 miles. Perennial streams are

very likely under counted by the National Wetlands Inventory. Pyle (pers. comm.) estimated that

as many as 50% of the streams classified as intermittent may in fact be perennial.

Both the Little Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek display two distinct stream forms within the

Refuge. Approximately 3 miles of the Little Pend Oreille River and 5 miles of Bear Creek flow

through wide, flat valleys with well developed alluvial flood plains. The water moves

considerably more slowly in these reaches than in the higher gradient reaches of the stream, and

the stream bottom is mostly gravel or sand with occasional patches of rocks or cobbles. 

The remaining portions of these streams are higher gradient, meaning the water flows faster 

through narrower channels with little flood plain development. The stream bottom in these

reaches is mostly rock, cobbles, or gravel with occasional patches of sand.

The second main class of riverine systems on the Refuge are the intermittent streams; creeks that

flow only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or

surface water may be absent. Intermittent streams are defined as having surface water present for

brief periods during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil

surface for most of the season. There are about 33 miles of intermittent streams on the Refuge.

Riparian and Stream Conditions

Riparian areas are also important to humans. Some riparian areas on the Refuge have been

cleared to create open fields for agriculture. They are important areas for livestock grazing

because of productive soils and abundant water. Water has been diverted from streams for many

purposes, including irrigation and lake development. Many Refuge roads were built in river

bottoms or parallel to streams. Camping is concentrated near Refuge creeks and the Little Pend

Oreille River. All these activities have had negative effects on the function of riparian systems

within the Refuge.

In conjunction with the planning process, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted assessments

of riparian and in-stream fish habitat conditions. A riparian condition survey was conducted on

the Service-owned portions of the Little Pend Oreille River, Bear Creek and North Fork of Bear

Creek using survey and classification procedures described by the USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management (Pyle 1997). Valley units were delineated

and visited. Riparian resource condition and functional condition were determined based on a
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-25 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

thorough examination of site characteristics and classified as being in either in proper

functioning condition or functioning at risk. 

Approximately 5 of the 8.5 miles of Bear Creek surveyed were classified as being in

unsatisfactory condition. Of the approximately 7.5 miles of the Little Pend Oreille River

surveyed, about 2 miles were classified as being in unsatisfactory condition. These

unsatisfactory areas were mostly in the alluvial, low gradient troughs that comprise more than

50% of the total riparian habitat occurring on the Refuge. This type of riparian habitat also

receives the majority of the livestock grazing activity occurring on the Refuge. Attributes of

these riparian areas in unsatisfactory condition included excessive stream bank erosion, increased

channel entrenchment, lowered water tables, reduced extent of active flood plain, and a

diminished composition of the hydric riparian species expected to occur in a fully functional

riparian system (Pyle 1997). Map 8 illustrates the results of that survey, areas of alluvial riparian

habitat and the boundaries of the livestock grazing units (not all units are currently grazed). 

Fish habitat assessments of the Little Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek were conducted in 1996

and 1997, respectively (Kelly Ringel 1998; Kelly Ringel 1999). The rivers were divided into

reaches (a relatively homogeneous section of stream that contains attributes of common

character) based on landform characteristics such as valley form, valley floor width, side slope

angles, estimated stream length, and other watershed characteristics. The Little Pend Oreille

project involved a survey of six reaches along about 9.5 miles of the river starting at the Refuge s

western boundary and culminating below Crystal Falls. Reaches 2 and 7 were further subdivided

when measuring fine sediment. The Bear Creek survey was completed with five reaches

designated along 5.2 miles of the creek, from the confluence with the Little Pend Oreille River

upstream to the confluence with the North Fork of Bear Creek. Two reaches along the North

Fork of Bear Creek (reach 1 and 2) were also comprehensively surveyed. These reaches are

illustrated on Map 9. 

Data for the fish habitat assessments were gathered following a modified Hankin-Reeves (1988)

stream survey method (USDA 1996). This method was chosen because it identifies and

measures key stream characteristics that have been identified as the most critical for defining

existing watershed conditions (USDA 1996). These characteristics include: pool frequency,

quality, and proportion; amount of woody debris; proportion of fine sediment; bank erosion;

entrenchment; sinuosity; width/depth ratio; riparian vegetation species, seral stage, and amount

of stream shading; and water temperature. The method meets assumptions for standard statistical

analysis, and results are comparable to repeated surveys and surveys of other streams where the

same method has been employed. 
2-26
2-27
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-28 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The inventory information can also be used to answer many common management questions

such as how the stream condition compares to criteria and guidelines that define quality habitat. 

As part of these studies, stream conditions were compared to criteria and guidelines from the

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), which is current direction for Forest Service and BLM

lands located east of the Cascade Crest (USDA 1995), and the ICBEMP standards that were

established in the original preferred alternative for the Eastside EIS released in May 1997

(USDA and USDI, 1997). (The Eastside EIS alternatives are currently under revision and this

standard is presented here only for informational purposes.) Kelly-Ringel also compared stream

conditions to standards in the Bull Trout Matrix (USDI, 1998), which was developed to assist in

conferencing when the bull trout was proposed for listing. However, since bull trout are thought

not to ever have inhabited the Refuge, those standards are not included in the summaries

presented here. Stream condition standards are shown in Table 2-6, and the actual inventoried

values on Refuge streams presented with a comparison to the standards in Table 2-7. 

The results of the fish habitat surveys (Table 2-7) highlight certain trends indicating the general

condition of Refuge aquatic habitats. Water temperatures measured during the survey are not

directly comparable to the standards since they were not taken continuously over at least 7 days. 

However, 4 of 6 reaches on the LPO River exceeded the maximum recommend temperature of

<59°F for adult fish holding habitat. All reaches of the surveyed streams exceeded the maximum

temperature (<49° F) for spawning and rearing habitat. Water temperatures are influenced by

local climate, snow runoff, and the amount of solar warming of the stream. Lack of overhead

cover increases water temperature by solar warming. Alteration of riparian vegetation has

occurred in the past through logging and channelization, and continues in the present mainly

through herbivory by both native and domestic animals. These measurements indicate a need to

more closely monitor temperatures in all reaches to determine if suggested standards are being

exceeded. 

The low percentage of stable banks along reach 2 of the LPO River appeared to be associated

with cattle grazing. Cows were present along the stream and there were many areas where their

hooves had sheared off the banks. Because of the erosion, banks have down-cut, increasing the

entrenchment of the stream and increasing width/depth ratio. Nonnative reed canary grass was

present throughout this reach. This plant is not as deeply rooted as some native grasses, alders,

and willows, thus not as good at stabilizing banks. Reed canary grass tends to establish where

native vegetation is disturbed. 

Sediment was high in reach 2 and 6 of the LPO River, and in all but reach 2 of the North Fork of

Bear Creek. The large percentage of fine substrate is in part a reflection of both local soils,

which contain a high percentage of granitic sands, and low stream gradients. There are numerous

roads in the watershed. Roads contribute more sediment to steams than any other land

management activity (Lee et al. 1997). Other sources of sediment input include livestock

grazing, timber harvest and fire. These activities can cause loss of native vegetation, changes in

hydrology, and bank instability; all which contribute to sediment input. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-29 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-6. Summary of Standards for Stream Conditions 

Water Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit, measured as 7-day moving average of daily maximum

temperature)

INFISH: < 59 ° F within adult holding habitat

< 48 ° F within spawning and rearing habitats

ICBEMP: <64 ° F 

Pools per Mile (varies by wetted width)

INFISH: 47 per mile for streams 25-49 feet wide (LPO River)

96 per mile for streams 10-19 feet wide (Bear & N.Fk. Bear

Creek)

ICBEMP same as INFISH

Bank Stability (percent linear bank non-eroding)

INFISH: > 80%

ICBEMP N/A

Sediment (percent fine particles in stream bed)

INFISH: N/A

ICBEMP <20% fines < 6.4 mm in spawning areas or <30% cobble

embeddedness in rearing habitat

Large Woody Debris

INFISH: > 20 pieces per mile. Each piece must be at >12 inches diameter

and > 35 foot length to be counted.

ICBEMP Same as INFISH

Notes: ICBEMP standards presented here refer to the standards presented in the draft Eastside Assessment

(Alternativ e 4; USD A and U SDI, 1997). They were current as o f the time of the survey but are p resently

underg oing revision. They are referenced here for info rmational purposes only. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-30 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-7. Stream Conditions in the Little Pend Oreille River, Bear Creek and North Fork

of Bear Creek As Compared to Standards

Little Pend Oreille River Bear Creek North

Fork of

Bear

Creek

Habitat Parameter Reach Number (See Map 9)

2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 4 5 1 2 

Water Temperature * 68 65 66 57 54 62 57 55 55 59 54 56

met INFISH adult holding

habitat?

No No No ✔ ✔ No ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

met INFISH spawning/rearing? No No No No No No No No No No Np No

met ICBEMP? No No No ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Pools per mile 35 23 25 33 24 28 36 59 11 23 26 45

met INFISH / ICBEMP? No No No No No No No No No No No No

Bank Stability 66 93 89 85 98 99 99 95 99 100 100 100

met INFISH? No ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Sediment in Riffles(percent

sand, silt, and clay < 2 mm) 

2a:

45

2b:

26

8 8 19 31 7a:

11

7b:

22

23 25 79 37 57 14

Met ICBEMP? No ✔ ✔ ✔ No ✔

7a 

No No No No No ✔

Large Woody Debris 1 14 32 9 192 33 71 7 32 128 29 131

Met INFISH / ICBEMP? No No ✔ No ✔ ✔ ✔ No ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

'

indicates tha t the reach m et the specified standard. 

* Water Temperature measurements were not performed all summer, nor were 7 day moving averages completed

on all reach es. The numbers presented were m easured in July and may represent only a one day hig h temperature. 

 

Reaches 2, 3 and 5 along the LPO River, and reach 2 on Bear Creek did not meet the suggested

standard for large wood debris. Wood is important for the formation of pools, retention of

sediment and particulate matter, hiding cover for fish, dissipation of stream energy which

reduces bank erosion, and carbon and nutrient source for stream insects (Maser and Sedell 1994). 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-31 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

There is evidence in some reaches that large trees had been removed from the riparian areas in

the past. Replacement of these large trees will take time. 

None of the reaches met the suggested standard for pools per mile. However, the percentage of

the stream area consisting of pools was high in several reaches. This relatively low pool

frequency is probably not a concern but merely a reflection of the stream morphology. 

The dominant seral stage within 100 feet of the stream was also noted along each reach. While

not included in the INFISH and ICBEMP standards, this parameter is an indication of past land

uses as well as the reach s potential to improve parameters such as amount of large woody debris

in the stream in the future. With the exception of reach 7 of the Little Pend Oreille River, the

dominant seral stages found along both that river and both forks of Bear Creek were shrubseedling (1.0 - 4.6 d.b.h.) and small trees (9.0 - 20.9 d.b.h.). Activities such as land clearing and

grazing has prevented trees from growing to more advanced seral stages. There was also

evidence in some reaches that large trees have been harvested in riparian areas, decreasing the

number of trees now present 

Both of Kelly-Ringel s reports (1997, 1998) and Pyle s report (1997) indicated that portions of

the Little Pend Oreille River, Bear Creek and North Fork Bear Creek, particularly the lower

gradient flood plain or alluvial  areas, have been compromised or degraded from past use and

management. These alluvial valleys are among the most important habitats within the Refuge. 

Frequent floods of various extent have, over time, formed diverse habitat in these valleys

featuring sandbars, off-channel sloughs and wetlands, and a wide range of plant species, all of

which are important to wildlife. However, these initial studies indicate that in some sections in

the alluvial valley, streams are widening, becoming more shallow, the banks are unstable, there is

a lowering of the water table, and there is insufficient stream-side vegetation to provide shading. 

Stream-side vegetation is also an important source of nutrients, providing downed wood to the

stream and helping stabilize the stream bank. Because of the wildlife implications, the

degradation and restoration of these lower valleys is an important issue for the Refuge.

Old Fields

When the Fish and Wildlife Service began managing the Refuge in 1939, it included 

approximately 500 acres that homesteaders and former land owners had actively farmed and

another 500 acres that produced grass hay or were used as livestock pastures. The Refuge

continued a farming program in many of these fields or allowed permittees to graze cattle and

horses in them. These farmed fields ranged in size from 1 to 92 acres and were scattered through

the west side of the Refuge. Most crops were wildlife food oriented such as sweet clover, winter

wheat, rye, oats, barley, alfalfa, and vetch targeted for deer and other species. Former Refuge

staff felt these food plots helped reduce heavy use of browse by deer. Most cultivated fields

were replanted every five years. Other fields were maintained in perennial grasses, mainly

timothy, orchard grass, red top, blue bunch wheat grass, Kentucky bluegrass and crested wheat
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-32 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

grass. Sharecroppers removed much of the hay grown on the refuge, but a portion was stored or

left in the field for supplemental deer feeding. 

Of the 443 acres of agricultural land on the refuge in 1965, when the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) began managing the refuge, 313 acres were still tillable. Forest

succession was reclaiming the remaining 130 acres with pine and Douglas-fir. WDFW records

show an average of 100 acres per year being farmed in the 1970s. Many of these fields, which

ranged in size from 10 to 92 acres, were maintained in crops until 1989, when the State decided

to phase out their annual cropping of tillable land for budgetary reasons. By 1988, 494 acres of

perennial grass fields remained. These consisted of 9 parcels, each ranging from 4 to 62 acres. 

WDFW recommended converting these grassland acres to crested wheat grass. WDFW reports

maintain that irrigation was necessary to make these fields productive and that they would need

new expensive equipment to maintain the farm program. They began planting many of these

fields to small burnet, a perennial evergreen forb, and in 1988, had almost 100 acres in this

plant. Currently most of these old fields and pastures have been invaded by undesirable weeds

like St. John s wort and knapweed. Small burnet, a very desirable plant for big game and birds,

has become increasingly rare. 

A recent analysis of Refuge aerial photos revealed 58 openings or meadows greater than 1 acre in

size that can be classified as old fields. Totaling 631 acres, they ranging in size from 1 acre to

greater than 60 acres, with an average size of 11 acres. They include large bottomland alluvial

meadows along the Little Pend Oreille River as well as the small remnants of old homestead

fields surrounded by forest. Many of these old fields or meadows are shrinking as trees invade

along their edges. Several also contain the remnants of fruit orchards planted by homesteaders. 

Several of these meadows are either moist or wet soil types, especially, but not limited to, the

ones along the low gradient portions of Bear Creek and the Little Pend Oreille River. Other,

more upland fields, contain well drained soils.

Vegetation on these fields range from thick stands of redtop, timothy, or orchard grass to dense 

infestations of exotic weeds including St. John s wort and knapweed. Most of these meadows

are included in livestock grazing allotments. Two small fields near the southwestern corner of

the refuge, totaling about 30 acres, are under a special-use permit to a neighboring land owner. 

These fields are planted to alfalfa, and the permittee is allowed one cutting of hay each year. No

other agricultural cultivation has occurred on the refuge since 1989. 

2.3 WILDLIFE, FISH, AND RARE PLANTS

The Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge encompasses habitat for the vast majority of

wildlife species inhabiting northeastern Washington. The Refuge includes parts of all the major

forest zones in northeastern Wasington, from the dry forest of the ponderosa pines through the

moist, mixed conifers, to the cold forest of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir zone. Not only is

the LPO NWR one of the largest refuges in the state, it s bordered by the Colville National

Forest on two sides, effectively magnifying its value for wide ranging wildlife species. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-33 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The Refuge is home to a wide variety of terrestrial vertebrates. The Washington State Gap

Analysis Program (WAGAP) is part of a national program that identifies conservation priorities

and gaps in the protection of biological diversity at a landscape scale by mapping land cover,

modeling vertebrate distributions, and overlaying land cover and vertebrate distributions with

land management type. In 1998, this procedure was applied to all 22 national wildlife refuges in

Washington. The results of that analysis for the Little Pend Oreille NWR are shown in the

following table.

 

Table 2-8. Wildlife species predicted by Washington GAP project to be present on Little

Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge.

Taxonomic Group

Number of species

found in

Washington

Number of species

predicted for LPO NWR

Percent of WA species

predicted for LPO NWR 

Amphibians 24 6 25

Reptiles 21 8 38

Mammals 111 58 52

Birds 240 196 82

Given the wide diversity of species found on the Refuge, a discussion of all endemic species

would be impractical. However, some important wildlife-habitat relationships will be discussed

because of their apparent significance for management or because of the attention they have

received during the planning process. Migratory birds are of particular interest due to being

mentioned in the Executive Order establishing the Refuge. Proposed, threatened and endangered

species, Comprehensive Conservation Plan evaluation species and other selected wildlife and

fish species will be highlighted. More complete treatments of wildlife-habitat interactions will

be detailed in subsequent habitat management plans after completion of the Plan. A complete

list of wildlife species known or predicted to inhabit at the Refuge is included in Appendix H.

Rare or Declining Species

Federally Proposed, Threatened or Endangered Species

The only federally listed threatened and/or endangered species known to regularly occur on the

LPO is the bald eagle. Bald eagles are frequently seen along the Little Pend Oreille River in

winter time. These overwintering birds are foraging in the open water along the river as well as 

scavenging winter-killed deer on the nearby deer winter range.

Both adult and sub-adults were observed on several occasions during the spring and summer of

1998 perching and flying around Bayley Lake. There are no known nesting sites on or near the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-34 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

LPO NWR. These eagles are likely birds that have not established breeding territories and are

utilizing the lakes as foraging habitat. 

Peregrine falcons historically nested in this portion of Washington, and a peregrine falcon was

reported near the cliffs along Bayley Lake as late as 1995. However, no known falcon eyries are

currently active on the refuge, and sightings are very rare.

 Although the Little Pend Oreille NWR is within the historic range of both gray wolf and grizzly

bear, the refuge is outside of the designated recovery areas for these species. A grizzly was

illegally killed approximately 12 miles north of the refuge in 1997. Another confirmed grizzly

sighting occurred near the town of Deer Park, about 40 miles south of the Refuge , in 1996

(Wisneiski 1998). Possible gray wolf sightings have been reported at Bayley Lake as recently as

November, 1998. Obviously it s possible that individuals of these species may occasionally pass

through portions of the refuge. 

Ute ladies  tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) is a perennial orchid currently listed as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act. It occurs in relatively low elevation riparian, spring and

lakeside wetland meadows. First described as a species in 1984, it has been found in Colorado,

Utah, Nevada, Wyoming and Montana. The discovery of this species in Okanogan County in

1997 opens the door to its possible existence in other parts of eastern Washington. A vascular

plant inventory conducted on the Refuge in 1995 and 1996 failed to detect the plant (Wood

1997). No surveys focusing on this species have since been conducted on the refuge. This plant

seems to require alkaline or high pH soils. While there are several areas such as wet meadows

and seeps with moisture conditions suitable for the plant, recent soil analyses indicate the Refuge

soils tend to be acidic. Therefore, the potential for Ute ladies  tresses to exist on the Refuge is

likely quite low.

Canada lynx has recently been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened under

the Endangered Species Act. Several old records indicate lynx were present on the refuge earlier

in this century, including a specimen stored in the Smithsonian that was collected by a

government trapper near the eastern end of the refuge in 1940. Tracks have been reported in the

same general area within the last 2 years. DNA analysis of hair collected about 1.5 miles north

of the Refuge s northeastern boundary confirmed the presence of lynx in that area in September,

1998. 

 The high elevations found along the eastern portion of the refuge provide some potential habitat

for Canada lynx populations. Sightings are rare in the region probably due to the lynx s elusive

nature and because it frequents the region only sporadically. The areas surrounding the Refuge

contain a mix of habitat patches that are favored by the lynx, including late successional

coniferous forest providing denning habitat and young, dense stands of lodgepole pine that

support their primary prey species, snowshoe hare. Habitat for lynx on the refuge proper is

probably limited due to the relative lack of dense stands of young lodge pole, and a limited

amount of area above 4500 feet elevation. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-35 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The eastern portion of the Refuge falls within one of six Lynx Management Zones delineated by

the DNR. Known as the Pend Oreille Lynx Management Zone, this LMZ extends from the

Canadian border to a few miles south of the refuge, and includes the site of the 1998 lynx

detection. According to WADNR (1996), the southern half of this narrow and constricted LMZ

has been subject to much habitat alteration. Only the northern portion is now thought to be

contiguous enough to support lynx. The estimated lynx population in this zone is 10-15

animals.  The state further delineated smaller Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) within each LMZ. 

LAUs average 32 square miles in size and are considered generally large enough to encompass

the median home range reported for lynx in north central Washington. On its eastern border, the

Refuge incorporates a portion of LAU 18. 

Forage cover ratios are thought to be important for lynx population maintenance because of the

lynx s extreme dependence on snowshoe hares as prey. The hares themselves are highly linked

with early-mid successional stages, which provide an abundance of small diameter woody

browse at or near ground level. The WA DNR report placed a high significance on forage

habitat availability and built their conservation plan largely around this concept. The Pend

Oreille LMZ overall has 5% forage and the state recommends a minimum of 20% per LAU or

LMZ. The LAU that the Refuge incorporates (LAU 18) has the highest forage ratio (8%) of the

six LAUS in this LMZ. 

The DNR report goes on to say that this LMZ probably currently lacks the forage habitat needed

to sustain a population of lynx, but that the situation should be improving relatively soon since

about 16% of the LMZ is in young forest that will soon develop into foraging habitat. Moreover,

if vegetation management proceeds on DNR land in the way described in a model included with

the DNR plan, forage will rapidly increase in the second decade; meet or exceed the 20% level

recommendation for the majority of the next eight decades; and will reach levels as high as 28%

during that time frame. 

Factors impacting lynx besides the quantity of foraging habitat were noted by the state in the

1996 DNR report. The report acknowledged that the total land base available for lynx in the

state is shrinking and fragmenting due to human development and resource extraction activities. 

The report also recognized that disturbance by snowmobiles may reduce the quality of habitat

available for lynx, which may therefore be reflected in the area s potential to support lynx. High

quality denning habitat is limited. Finally, the state acknowledges that LAU 18 (that partially

intersects the Refuge) is highly accessible by road and recommends future road closures.

(WADNR 1996).

The authors of the Lynx Science Report (Ruggiero et al. 1999) feel that the coyote is a

 potentially formidable  competitor with lynx, citing the coyote s wide habitat niche, heavy

predation on snowshoe hares, high reproductive rate, great behavioral plasticity, and high

tolerance of humans. Coyote population numbers have increased dramatically in many places

over the last few decades, (including a 44X multiplication in Washington state between 1960-

1984), using coyote harvests as an indicator (Novak, et al. 1987)
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-36 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Other species of special interest, including state endangered, threatened, and candidate species,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species of special concern and U.S. Forest Service designated

sensitive species, are listed in Appendix H.

USFWS Nongame Bird Species of Management Concern

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1980, requires that the Service identify all migratory

nongame birds that, without additional conservation action, are likely to become candidates for

listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Additionally, the Act further underscores the

need to develop actions to assure the conservation of these species with the underlying

philosophy that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Species of Management

Concern (SMC) known to regularly occur on the Refuge include the: Rufous hummingbird,

olive-sided flycatcher, hermit warbler, and Vaux s swift. 

Partners in Flight Landbirds Program Conservation Priorities

The interagency Partners in Flight Conservation Program recently completed an assessment of

the status and conservation needs of birds inhabiting all types of upland habitats. This

assessment included consideration of population trends, habitat trends, and threats on breeding

and wintering grounds. National, regional, and more local conservation priorities were

determined. These species represent conservation priorities for the Service, and other PIF

partners including the Washington State Department of Wildlife, the USFS, and other

governmental and private partners. Multi-agency PIF conservation strategies are currently under

development which will guide management activities at the local and regional scale. In addition

to the SMC species listed above, other species of high PIF conservation priority which occur on

the Refuge include the: willow flycatcher, MacGillivray s s warbler, white-headed woodpecker,

flammulated owl, and pygmy nuthatch. Appendix H lists all birds which occur on the Refuge

and identifies those ranked as high conservation priorities by PIF at the local and regional scale. 

Rare Plants 

During the summers of 1995 and 1996, a vascular plant survey was conducted on the western

portions of the Colville National Forest, including the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife

Refuge. While no Federally listed proposed, threatened or endangered plant species were found,

a Washington State threatened species, adder s-tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum), was found on

the Refuge (Wood 1997). Previously unknown from the eastern portion of Washington, a

healthy population of several hundred plants was discovered in a wet meadow. 

Management of this colony currently consists of excluding both livestock grazing and vehicular

traffic from this meadow. The population is monitored annually to detect any changes in the

colony s size or shape.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-37 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Evaluation Species 

Twelve vertebrate species were chosen to represent several important habitat types found on the

Little Pend Oreille NWR. While not necessarily representing the complete spectrum of

biodiversity inhabiting the Refuge, these evaluation species provide insight into how the various

alternatives will affect the major habitats found here.

Several criteria were used in species selection. First, they needed to represent species using the

major habitat types occurring on the refuge, including lakes, streams, forests and open fields. 

Forest types were further defined as dry, moist or cold with emphasis placed on the mature ages. 

Unique forest habitats that would be impacted by the alternatives, such as aspen stands, low

elevation ungulate winter range and riparian areas, were also a focus. When possible, special

status species, species of management interest or species identified by Wisdom et al. (2000) as

having experienced severe losses in habitat were selected. Finally, an effort was made to include

a variety of taxon in the list.

These evaluation species were used only to assess the broad impacts of this comprehensive

conservation plan. They are not management indicator species since they will not be used to

monitor and evaluate the success of any future management programs. After the Comprehensive

Conservation Plan is finalized and adopted, a site-specific habitat management plan will be

developed. That step-down plan will include specific methods for evaluating the success of the

planned projects and programs. 

Birds

Information on Refuge bird life comes from several different sources. Early Refuge narratives

provide some survey records as well as anecdotal information about birds observed by Refuge

workers. Records kept by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from 1965 through

1994, also contain some useful information. Most information has been collected since 1994,

through breeding bird surveys, point counts, waterfowl breeding pair and brood surveys, mist

netting for an avian productivity and survival monitoring project, and by incidental observations

by Refuge staff. 

Based on WAGAP analysis projections, the Little Pend Oreille NWR supports at least 123 

native breeding bird species. Bird observations by Refuge staff indicate this is likely an

underestimate. The high number of breeding birds found on the Refuge is due primarily to the

Little Pend Oreille s encompassing five of the forest zones found in northeast Washington.. 

Additionally, the Refuge provides habitat for several breeding species more typical of the eastern

North American or boreal forest north of the state that only enter into Washington in the

northeastern portion of the state (e.g., the northern water thrush and American redstart). The

Refuge also supplies a major part of the protected range in Washington for red-necked grebe,

black tern, bank swallow, and gray catbird.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-38 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-9. Species used to evaluate the effects of the proposed alternatives on important

wildlife habitats.

Species Habitat Special Status Taxa Cavity

Users

(Y=yes)

Bald eagle lakes, streams, and

forests bordering

aquatic zone

FT, ST Bird

Northern Goshawk mature moist forest FC, SC, SMC,

ICBEMP

Bird

MacGillivray s

warbler

riparian woodland /

shrubs

PIF Bird

Common Goldeneye lakes, bordering

riparian forest

--- Bird Y

Flammulated Owl mature dry forest SC, PIF, ICBEMP Bird Y

Pileated Woodpecker mature moist forest SC, ICBEMP Bird Y

Ruffed Grouse aspen forest ---- Bird

Hoary Bat open areas, mature

forest, riparian areas

ICBEMP Mammal Y

Canada lynx cold forest FP, ST Mammal

White-tailed Deer all areas (low

elevation forest for

winter range)

----- Mammal

Columbia Spotted

Frog

slow moving streams,

wetlands

FC, SC Amphibian

Rainbow Trout lakes, streams ---- Fish

Notes: Special Status codes are defined as follows: FT - Federally listed threatened species; FP - Species proposed for federal

listing; ST - State listed threatened species; SC - State listed candidate species; SMC - Species of management concern; 

ICBEMP - Species that have lost 67% or more of their historic habitat area in ERU 7, within which Little Pend Oreille

Refuge is situated; PIF - Bird species identified by the Partners in Flight program as being of extremely or moderately high

conservation concern. 

 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-39 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Waterfowl/Water Associated Birds

Many species of waterfowl and water associated birds have been observed on Refuge lakes and

wetlands during waterfowl breeding pair and waterfowl brood surveys. Duck species commonly

seen include: mallard; ruddy duck; redhead; common goldeneye; ring-neck duck; bufflehead;

wood ducks; green-wing, blue-wing and cinnamon teal; and common and hooded mergansers. 

Canada geese also breed on several Refuge lakes and wetlands as do red-necked grebes. 

Harlequin ducks have been observed along portions of the Little Pend Oreille River within the

Refuge boundaries but no nest activity has been detected. American dippers are also sighted

along this river. American coots are quite common on all Refuge wetlands, along with passerine

species such as red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds. A small great blue heron rookery

existed on the Refuge until 1996 when it was destroyed by a windstorm. Although herons are

commonly seen on the Refuge, no new nesting colony has been found. A pair of ospreys are

commonly observed foraging in Bayley and McDowell Lakes as well as other areas of the

Refuge. These birds probably represent a breeding pair, however a nest has not been located. 

Bald eagles are commonly seen in the winter along the Little Pend Oreille River.

The creation of Bayley and McDowell Lakes and Potter s Pond converted portions of these

shallow wetlands into permanent deep water habitats. This conversion reduced the amount of

shallow water wetland available on the Refuge, but produced much more deep water habitat than

was naturally available on the area. These three lakes all continue to have a shallow water

component, albeit drastically reduced from what was available before they were impounded. 

This increase in deepwater habitat complements the existing shallow water habitat remaining on

these sites as well as that found on other Refuge wetlands such as Dailey and Long Lakes. 

The potential major threat to Refuge waterfowl and other wetland bird productivity is on these

deeper lakes. The disturbance caused by the high number of anglers using these lakes during

spring and early summer may be reducing breeding success or displacing nesting pairs. Whether

this use is having a significant negative impact on wetland bird production has not yet been

determined.

Riparian Birds

Mist netting in wooded riparian habitat along the Little Pend Oreille River has yielded a list of

species breeding in those areas of the Refuge. Species captured in these nets include those

identified in Table 2-10.

The primary threats on the Refuge to riparian breeding species stems from habitat degradation

caused by past and present livestock grazing, agricultural practices, and recreational use.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-40 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-10. Birds captured in mistnets within wooded riparian habitat at the Refuge.

American redstart Townsend s warbler winter wren

northern waterthrush common yellowthroat dark-eyed junco

Swainson s thrush Hammond s flycatcher western tanager

warbling vireo dusky flycatcher pine siskin

solitary vireo willow flycatcher red crossbill

American robin least flycatcher golden-crowned kinglet

orange-crowned warbler song sparrow black-capped chickadee

yellow warbler chipping sparrow brown creeper

MacGillivray s warbler cedar waxwing ruffed grouse

Wilson s warbler red-nap sapsucker common snipe

Audubon s warbler hairy woodpecker Townsend s solitaire

red-breasted nuthatch

Dry Forest Birds

The low elevation ponderosa pine dominated dry forest provides habitat for several species of

birds, some found nowhere else on the Refuge. Birds use all structural forms of dry forest, from

young stands and brushy openings, to old forests, including dead trees and downed logs. The

presence of riparian vegetation along permanent and seasonal waterways within the dry forest

brings in several additional bird species. Many species of woodpeckers use dead trees in this

forest type for nesting. Their excavations also provide nesting cavities for several bird and

mammal species that cannot excavate their own. Large raptors, including owls, hawks and

eagles, hunt for food in openings or the open stands of trees found in the dry forest type. This is

also the portion of the Refuge that supports the majority of the introduced wild turkey

population.

Much of our information comes from point counts done in preparation for vegetational

treatments in these areas, and through casual observations by Refuge personnel. Species

commonly observed during the point counts on these areas include chipping sparrow, dark-eyed

junco, hairy woodpecker, white-breasted and red-breasted nuthatch, spotted towhee, Hammond s

flycatcher, mountain and black-capped chickadee and yellow-rumped warbler. Many of these

species are not limited to dry forest habitats and are found in several habitats and elevations
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-41 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

throughout the Refuge. However, white-headed woodpeckers do prefer these dry ponderosa pine

sites and are often observed foraging in these areas. 

Another species expected to be occupying this area in preference to other Refuge habitat is the

flammulated owl. A juvenile flammulated owl was sighted in this area of the Refuge in 1997,

indicating the species is nesting in the vicinity. However, until nocturnal owl surveys are

performed, the relative density and species composition of owls in this area cannot be accurately

determined.

Human activities, such as timber harvest and fire suppression, have greatly altered the vegetative

structure of this forest type. Removal of large trees has reduced the number of sites available to

snag dependant species. Fire suppression has also reduced the number of trees available to

become snags, as well as causing overstocking of stands by young conifers, and reducing the

density and diversity of shrubs. These factors are the main threats to bird habitat in the dry forest

type. 

Moist Forest Birds

Very little specific information exists about specific bird populations and species diversity of the

moist forest type on the Refuge since little survey work has been conducted there. Based

primarily on information contained in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP) Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 1997)

the multiple canopy layers found in moist forests are expected to provide a wide variety of bird

habitat. Species typical of the moist forest type that are found on the Refuge include northern

goshawk and pileated woodpecker. 

Small and scattered aspen stands also provide diversity in moist forests. These are very important

nesting and feeding habitat for several species of birds such as the red-naped sapsucker, western

tanager and Swainson s thrush. 

On the Little Pend Oreille, past timber harvest has resulted in a shortage of large, mature to old

growth trees needed for the single layer canopy they provide, as well as a source of large snags

and downed logs. Fire suppression has drastically reduced the occurrence of young stands that

result from this and other forms of disturbance. Finally, lack of disturbance, coupled with

livestock browsing on the limited number of aspen spouts, has hampered aspen regeneration,

threatening some of these aspen stands to die out. 

Cold Forest Birds

Very little data is available describing bird species composition or populations on the cold forest

portions of the Little Pend Oreille. No systematic bird survey has been done on this part of the

Refuge to date; what information exists comes from incidental observations by Refuge

personnel. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-42 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Although many bird species use both moist and cold forest types, fewer birds use cold forests. 

This is due to lower diversity in tree species, fewer insects and a shorter growing season. Redtailed hawks and great-horned owls forage on the voles and squirrels that inhabit these areas. 

Although still rare, boreal and great grey owls have moved down from Canada into cold forests. 

Snags are important for hairy, black-backed, and three-toed woodpeckers. 

The cold forest areas are the only places where spruce grouse have been documented on the

Refuge. Blue and ruffed grouse also inhabit these areas, with blue grouse using them specifically

for wintering habitat. 

Ruffed grouse is a common game bird on the Refuge. It inhabits a wide variety of habitats

including ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and riparian areas. Aspen is a very important

component of grouse habitat used for both feeding and breeding (Thomas 1979, Cade and Sousa

1985).

Deciduous woody stems are very important component of hiding cover for grouse, allowing

grouse to see approaching predators. Throughout their range grouse prefer drumming display

sites that are surrounded by moderately dense woody stems (Cade and Sousa 1985). Mid-seral

aspen stands provide optimum vertical cover from fall through spring and suitable snow

conditions for snow-burrow roosting during winter (Gullion and Svoboda 1972 in Cade and

Sousa 1984). Conifers can also provide necessary cover, however, densities of ruffed grouse in

conifer dominated covers tend to be lower than in aspen dominated habitats. 

Burning can improve grouse habitat by maintaining an interspersion of young through mature

successional stages of forest (Sharp 1970 in Cade and Sousa 1984). Grazing by livestock can

adversely affect brood habitat (Robertson 1976; Stauffer 1983 in Cade and Sousa 1984).

Most aspen stands on the Refuge are decadent, with little evidence of active regeneration. 

Overshading by conifers resulting from suppression of fire and other disturbances have inhibited

the sprouting and subsequent expansion of the existing aspen copses. In addition, browsing by

domestic livestock on the limited aspen suckers has also impaired the development of multi-aged 

and structurally diverse aspen stands. While the existing mature aspen trees do provide some

winter food for grouse, the lack of sprouts and saplings needed for fall to spring cover, as well as

a source of recruitment for mature trees, limits the potential value of these stands as ruffed grouse

habitat. Fire suppression has also allowed large numbers of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine

seedlings to become established in stands historically dominated by mature ponderosa pine. This

degrades these areas as grouse habitat by increasing the bird s susceptibility to predation, as well

as discouraging the establishment of the more desirable aspens and deciduous woody shrubs. 

Declining populations have been documented in some species that use cold forests such as

northern goshawk, Vaux s swift, pileated woodpecker, and Hammond s flycatcher; and in

species using riparian habitat in cold forests such as MacGillivray s warbler and the song

sparrow .
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-43 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The loss of old stands and large trees and snags, whether through natural or human caused

disturbance, is probably the greatest threat to the cold forest areas found on this Refuge.

Mammals

Due to its undeveloped setting and the large number of vegetation zones it covers, the Little Pend

Oreille NWR is predicted to have 52 native mammal species (Cassidy et al. 1998). 

The Refuge is well known in the state and the region as an important wintering area for whitetailed deer herds. Deer migrate down the Little Pend Oreille River valley and from surrounding

higher elevation habitat to winter on the Refuge to take advantage of the milder microclimate

found on the lower elevation, ponderosa pine dominated areas. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has very limited information on the population, age structure, and

harvest rate for white-tailed deer. Refuge staff have recently instituted several seasonal deer

counts to monitoring the area s deer population. Information is now being collected on the age

and sex of harvested deer. Until better information can be gathered and analyzed, best estimates

have the winter deer population on the Refuge being 3 to 4 times higher than the summer

population. Officials from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife maintain that

winter habitat is an important limiting factor on the deer population in northeastern Washington,

making the Refuge critical to the overall population of white-tailed deer in this area. Residential

development of private lands adjacent to the Refuge s western boundary is increasing, reducing

the amount and value of this land as deer winter range. The continuing loss of critical seasonal

habitat increases the importance of the remaining winter range protected within the boundaries of

the Refuge.

In 1941, the Service began planting bitterbrush, serviceberry, chokecherry, rose, and dogwood

throughout the portion of the Refuge used by white-tailed deer for winter range. The 1951 Fish

and Wildlife Service Annual Narrative reported that hay and salt were placed on the higher range

to slow deer migration and minimize use of these rehabilitated areas and reduce crop

depredations on neighboring farms. 

Other ungulates using the Refuge are mule deer, elk, and moose. Mule deer are native to the

area, and exist in relatively low numbers in the higher elevations of the Refuge. Suitable habitat,

such as higher elevation natural meadows, is relatively limited on the Refuge. The resident

population seems to be following the downward trend observed in this species throughout

northeastern Washington. Their relative scarcity makes estimating the Refuge population very

difficult. There were no reports of mule deer harvested from the Refuge during the 1997

hunting season

Moose began to appear in the Selkirk Mountains in the early 1950s, having expanded their range

southward from British Columbia. Their population has increased rapidly with moose now

found throughout northeastern Washington (Zender pers.comm.). Moose are seen occasionally

on the Refuge throughout the year; no population estimate is available at this time. Since the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-44 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

population continues to increase in this region, moose are expected to become more common on

the Refuge in the future.

 Elk are probably not native to this portion of Washington. Several releases were attempted

earlier in the century, but it was not until the elk were transplanted in the Pend Oreille Valley in

the late 1960s that success was realized (Zender pers. comm.). These elk expanded their range

westward into other areas of suitable habitat adjacent to the Refuge. While occasional sightings,

tracks, and other sign are reported on the Refuge, elk are not using the Refuge on a regular basis. 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are concerned that elk using the traditional

white-tailed deer winter range may consume a significant amount of forage, reducing the quality

of the area as deer range. Elk have not increased their use of the Refuge over the last several

years. However, an improvement in habitat quality or other management action, combined with

an increase in the elk population, may result in more elk inhabiting the Refuge. 

Black bears, cougars, coyotes, and bobcats all inhabit the Refuge. Estimating the population size

of any these large predators is very difficult, and no dependable estimates currently exist for this

area. However, the number of sightings by local residents seems to be increasing. Populations of

these species on the Refuge are probably stable.

Other wide ranging forest carnivores, such as the wolverine, marten, and fisher, could potentially

use the Refuge. A dead fisher, originally released in Montana, was found about 2 miles east of

the Refuge boundary in 1994. Survey work conducted by the Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife in 1996, on areas directly adjoining the Refuge, failed to detect any fishers (Zender

pers. comm.). While some suitable habitat may be available on the Refuge for this species, it is

unlikely that any fishers currently inhabit the area. 

Wolverine inhabit northeastern Washington, with occasional sightings reported to the State s

Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are no records of wolverines on the Refuge, but since

these animals have been recorded using home ranges between 38 and 350 square miles, it is

always possible a wolverine may spend some time on the Refuge. 

Historically, American marten were common throughout northeastern Washington. Due to

habitat loss and harvest pressure, marten are now uncommon in this area (Zender pers. comm.). 

A reintroduction effort was attempted by the State in 1989, releasing 12 marten in the Olson

Creek area along the eastern side of the Refuge. None of these animals were observed again and

their fate is unknown. Subsequent track surveys and photographic surveillance sites have found

a few marten using the Little Pend Oreille Lakes area about 6 miles north of the Refuge

boundary. No marten have been recorded on the Refuge. Several areas of the Refuge contain

probable habitat for marten, and surveys to detect this species are planned. 

The Refuge supports some small mammals that occur only in the northeastern part of the state,

such as the pygmy shrew and the red-tailed chipmunk. Small mammal trapping in the dry forest

area of the Refuge resulted in the capture of yellow pine chipmunk, red squirrel, northern flying

squirrel, long-tailed vole, and deer mouse.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-45 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Columbian ground squirrels and pocket gophers still inhabit the Refuge, although records

indicate they were much more common at one time. According to Refuge records, as many as

5,000 acres were poisoned in the 1940s and 1950s to control these rodents. 

Aquatic species - Fish

The Little Pend Oreille River (9.9 miles) and the main fork and North Fork of Bear Creek (14.6

miles) provide most of the in-stream fish habitat managed on the Refuge. A fish habitat

assessment was conducted in 1996, on the portions of the Little Pend Oreille River that are

managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Kelly Ringel 1998). The assessment found four trout

species present: rainbow; cutthroat; brook; and brown. Rainbow and cutthroat trout are native

species, though the genetics of both species have been significantly modified by interbreeding

with stocked fish. Brook trout were introduced from the eastern United States and brown trout

are native to Europe. Native non-game species observed were redside shiner and shorthead

sculpin. There may be other species of sculpin present that were not detected. Yellow perch, a

non-native species, was detected above Crystal Falls. Although not found during this study, a

largemouth bass was caught by an angler near the Refuge headquarters in 1997 (Cline pers.

com.). Figure 2-2 displays the fish distribution patterns found by Kelly Ringel s study for the

Little Pend Oreille River. Stream reaches are illustrated on Map 9.

Figure 2-2 Fish Distribution by Species in the Little Pend Oreille River.

234567

Reach

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent Composition

Brook

Cutthroat

Brown

Rainbow
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-46 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The assessment found that brown trout were the most prevalent species in the lower reaches of

the river where the water was warmer, the flow slower, and more pools existed. They were

present in small numbers in the middle reaches and absent from the upper reaches. Densities of

brook trout were lowest in the lower reaches, more abundant in the middle reaches, and the only

trout species found in the upper most reach on the Refuge. Rainbow trout were at their lowest

density in the lowest reach, and were at relatively high densities in all the other reaches except

the upper most reaches where they were absent. Cutthroat trout were widespread but in low

densities. Their densities did increase in the higher gradient portions of the river. 

Interior redband rainbow trout and westslope cutthroat trout are the strains native to this region. 

Coastal rainbow trout are the non-native (to this region) strain used for stocking in area streams

and lakes. Most cutthroat trout stocked into this drainage are from westslope populations (Vail 

pers. comm.). However, non-native coastal rainbow trout have been used extensively for

stocking in this portion of the state, with records of stocking in the Little Pend Oreille River and

Bear Creek going back to the 1940's. The last record of fish stocking in Bear Creek dates from

1953, while the last record of fish stocking in the Little Pend Oreille River dates from 1950. Yet

the repercussions of stocking can be seen today. Genetic analysis of 25 trout collected from the

Little Pend Oreille River showed that the population are introgressed coastal rainbow trout,

interior redband rainbow trout and cutthroat trout - which essentially means that there are no

native fish left (Proebstel 1998). The majority of fish display characteristics of all three to

varying degrees. About 75-80% resemble rainbows with most tending toward the coastal

rainbow appearance versus the interior rainbow look. Only about 20-25% resemble westslope

cutthroat. None of the specimens were found to be pure cutthroat trout. 

Stocking is technically barred by Service policy, but continues on many refuges today. Fish

stocking does continue at the Refuge presently, but only in the three man-made lakes. These

lakes would not be expected to allow passage of fish into Refuge streams except during high

water. 

Figures 2-3 and 2-4 illustrates how the distribution of fish species in the North Fork and main

stem of Bear Creek was dominated by eastern brook trout, with rainbow a distant second and

only a few brown and cutthroat trout identified (Kelly Ringel 1997). The introgession of interior

redband rainbow, coastal rainbow and westslope cutthroat found in the Little Pend Oreille River

would be expected to also occur in these fish. While no redfin shiners or sculpins were observed

they are likely to be present.

The non-native trout present were all the result of deliberate plantings. However, the yellow

perch and largemouth bass were likely the result of unauthorized introductions in the Little Pend

Oreille Lakes chain, the headwaters for the Little Pend Oreille River. 

The size distribution throughout Refuge streams is skewed towards small fish, with

approximately 75 percent of the fish less than 6 inches in length, and nearly half of those less

than 3 inches in length. Less than 1% of the fish sampled were >15 inches. The size distribution 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-47 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

 Figure 2-3. Fish Distribution by Species in the North Fork of Bear Creek.

 Figure 2-4. Fish Distribution by Species in Bear Creek. 

 

1 2

Reach

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent Composition

Brook Rainbow

1245

Reach

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent Composition

Brook Rainbow
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-48 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

of fish is typical for a small, cold water stream such as the Little Pend Oreille River that is

managed under general regulations for recreational fishing (Vail pers. comm.). 

The Refuge is within the historical range of the bull trout. Fisheries biologists within the Service

Ecological Services division believe that bull trout never inhabited the Little Pend Oreille River

or any of its tributaries. There are no historical records of the species within this drainage and

the reason appears to be due to the physical barrier at Meyers Falls (located downstream on the

Colville River).

Amphibians and Reptiles

Limited inventory work has been conducted on Refuge for amphibians and reptiles. Amphibian

distribution is tied to water or moist habitat conditions, necessary for egg laying. Amphibian

species known or suspected of occurring on the Refuge include tiger salamander, long-toed

salamander, western toad, Pacific tree frog, and Columbia spotted frog. 

Climate and terrain influence reptile distribution, and most are limited to open areas and lowland

habitats. Reptile species known or suspected of being present on the Refuge include painted

turtle, northern alligator lizard, western skink, rubber boa, racer, gopher snake, western terrestrial

garter snake, common garter snake, and western rattlesnake.

Invertebrates

Despite their enormous importance, in terms of biomass and key ecological functions, little

information exists for Refuge invertebrates. Endemic forest insects such as various woodborers

and bark beetles are known to be present. However, specific information on insect species

composition, density and distribution is lacking.

Undesirable Plants

Most Refuge habitats harbor non-native plants. Some of these plants occur incidentally but

others having a tendency to invade and displace native plants are considered noxious weeds. 

Noxious weeds are defined by state law as any plant which, when established, is highly

destructive, competitive, or difficult to control by chemical or cultural practices. These weeds

are one of the most serious threats to wildlife habitats in the western United States. 

The federal, state and county agencies maintain weed lists specifying the control requirements

for several classes of weeds. Early detection, prevention, and eradication of newly invading

noxious weeds is the goal of weed control efforts. Appendix K lists the state designated noxious

weeds occurring in Stevens County. At this time there are no known occurrences of Class A

weeds on the Refuge. Several Class B, Class B Designates and Class C weeds inhabit the

Refuge, including orange hawkweed, yellow hawkweed, diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed

and leafy spurge. There are no known federally listed noxious weeds on the Refuge.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-49 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The Refuge strives to meet State law requirements to control all Class B-designate and many

Class B and C weeds. Most existing Refuge weed control occurs along major roadways and in

areas of concentrated public use. Chemical, biological, and mechanical methods are used, with

most reliance on non-chemical methods because the Fish and Wildlife Service restricts the use of

chemicals and encourages mechanical and biological control methods. 

2.4 PUBLIC USE STATUS AND TRENDS 

Refuge Access

Approximately 200 miles of roads currently exist within the LPO administrative boundary. The

majority of roads (130 miles) are located on refuge lands. However, due to the large amount of

private land within the refuge s administrative boundary, about 70 miles of roads within the

refuge are not managed by the FWS. All roads were classified into five different categories

based on maintenance responsibilities and uses:

State Highway State maintained, paved highway. The only road in this category is State

Highway 20.

County Roads County maintained gravel surface roads. Three exist on the refuge: Bear

Creek Road (county maintenance terminates at refuge headquarters),

Narcisse Creek Road, and Buffalo-Wilson Road.

Primary Roads Main refuge arterials, surfaces with a combination of gravel and native

materials, maintained by the Refuge or the land owner. These roads

provide the majority of public access to the refuge and its main

recreational sites. Blacktail Mountain road is an example.

Secondary Roads Open, single land roads with mostly a native surface road bed maintained

by the land owner or the Refuge. These roads access the more remote

portions of the refuge, and are open to vehicular traffic. An example is

Cedar Creek Road.

Management Access Closed to all motorized vehicular access except for administrative 

Roads purposes, and are seldom maintained. The Schumaker Meadow Road is an

example of a management access road. This category also includes roads

that are not maintained and are impassable to vehicles. 

Map 10 displays all Refuge roads, showing those that are generally open to public access,

weather permitting, and those that are closed to public access year round. Vehicles operating on

Refuge roads must be street legal  and have mufflers, license plates, registration, and be in

proper operating condition. Vehicles must remain on established roads. 
2-50
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-51 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The following table displays the mileage of each class of road that occurs on the Refuge by

landowner. 

Table 2-11. Miles of roads by ownership within the Refuge.

Owner Road Class Miles

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

State Highway 0.4

County Roads 4.7

Primary Roads 26.0

Secondary Roads 33.9

Management Access Roads 65.6

All 130.6

Wa. Dept. Natural

Resources

County Roads 0.15

Management Access Roads 0.75

All 0.9

Boise Cascade Primary Roads 0.8

Secondary Roads 1.9

Management Access Roads 13.1

All 15.8

Stimson Lumber Primary Roads 5.7

Secondary Roads 16.9

Management Access Roads 16.7

All 39.3

Other Inholdings County Roads 1.3

Management Access Roads 13.6

All 14.9

Total within refuge

boundary

201.5
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-52 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Through an agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Game

Commission, and Stimson Lumber Company (originally Burlington Northern), that company has

a perpetual use agreement allowing them to use Blacktail Mountain Road and Olson Creek Road

to access and manage their company timber lands, as well as to use these roads to access land

outside the Refuge boundary. Boise Cascade Corporation does not have a similar agreement, and

negotiates use of refuge roads for their management activities on a case-by-case basis. 

The density of roads, measured in miles of road per square mile of land area, affects many other

refuge resources. For example, roads and their associated drainage systems alter water flow. 

This can result in increased stream sediment which may adversely impact riparian and aquatic

habitats (Knutson and Naef 1997). For this reason, the density of roads within the refuge, both

those directly managed by the FWS and those on private inholdings, can have a significant

impact on refuge resources. Map 11 displays the average open road densities found within the

official Refuge Boundary, by subwatershed.

Road density was analyzed by major subwatersheds found on the refuge. There are several

advantages to using this method of analysis. A road density value calculated across the entire

refuge may be skewed due to a greater number of road miles in a small concentrated area,

outweighing the low road density in another portion of the refuge. Hydrologic units also provide

a more realistic basis for analyzing the effects of a road system on stream and riparian habitats,

and also better fits the natural pattern of wildlife movements. 

Table 2-12 contains an analysis of the current road density within the approved administrative

boundary of the refuge including private and Washington DNR lands (All Owners) as well as 

those lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For this analysis only,

roads classified as State Highways were not analyzed, because the only such road, Highway 20,

does not traverse the refuge.

Roads also have a direct influence on wildlife both because they remove habitat in proportion to

the area they occupy (Perry and Overly 1977), and because roads provide human access to areas. 

This can result in increased disturbance and potential poaching of wildlife. Some wildlife, such

as wintering deer, are negatively affected by the increased stress resulting from disturbance

during this critical periods (Knutson and Naef 1997). Several species avoid roads and roadside

areas, thereby reducing available habitat. This impact, depending on the type of road, its location

and level of use, can negative influence use of adjoining habitat up to 0.5 mile away (Thomas

1979). Finally, roads act as a barrier to the movement of some animals (e.g. small mammals,

amphibians, black bear) because of their sensitivity to disturbed areas, limited mobility, or

because of an increased susceptibility to predation, road kill, or poaching while crossing open

roads (Knutson and Naef 1997).
2-53
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-54 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-12. Current mileage and density of all roads by subwatershed on the Little Pend

Oreille National Wildlife Refuge.

Subwatershed

Area

FWS

(mi2)

Roads

FWS

(mi)

Road

Density

(mi/mi2)

Area

All Owners

(mi2)

Roads

All Owners

(mi)

Road

Density

(mi/mi2)

Norman Creek 6.2 8.7 1.4 7.2 10.8 1.5

Durlan Springs 1.1 2.6 2.4 1.2 2.6 2.2

Starvation Lake 3.9 11.5 2.9 5.5 15.5 2.8

McDowell Lake 6.2 13.5 2.2 6.1 13.5 2.2

Squaw Creek 0.3 1.4 4.7 0.9 4.0 4.4

Cedar Creek 8.6 9.3 1.1 11.0 20.2 1.8

Olson Creek 4.2 11.1 2.6 6.3 20.4 3.2

Lower Bear Cr. 7.9 28.8 3.6 8.3 30.5 3.7

Upper Bear Cr. 7.8 15.0 1.9 10.2 29.2 2.9

N. Fk. Bear Cr. 10.7 15.7 1.5 14.4 39.6 2.7

Moran Creek 3.9 10.0 2.6 4.2 11.3 2.7

Bayley Lake 0.5 0.6 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.2

While roads impact big game habitat quality all year around, this effect is most acute on big

game winter range. The whole refuge should be considered summer range for big game.

However, several of the subwatersheds, primarily those below approximately 3000 feet

elevation, also provide important white-tailed deer winter range. Tables 2-13 and 2-14 illustrate

the current open road density on both summer and winter range by subwatershed. For the

purposes of this analysis, all Management Access Roads were considered effectively closed to

vehicular traffic. 

Open road densities on summer and winter ranges are useful for evaluating the current value of

habitat for big game and other wildlife as well as indicate areas of the refuge that would benefit

from a reduction in the amount of open roads available to public vehicular use. The Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that open road density on elk summer range not

exceed 1.5 mi/mi2

. Since they do not specify an open road density on white-tailed deer summer

range, the refuge will adopt the elk summer range recommendation throughout the refuge. The

Department does recommend that road densities not exceed 0.5 mi/mi2

 on white-tailed deer

winter range (Rodrick and Milner 1991). This standard will be applied to the entire refuge in
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-55 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

winter to reduce disturbance to not only to white-tailed deer but to other wildlife that may be

susceptible to vehicular disturbance. 

Table 2-13. Current open road density by subwatershed on LPO NWR white-tailed deer

winter range.

Subwatershed

Area

FWS

(SqMi)

Road

FWS

(Mi)

Road

Density

(Mi/SqMi)

Area

All Owners 

(SqMi)

Road

All Owners

(Mi)

Road 

Density

(Mi/SqMi)

Norman Creek 6.0 6.9 1.1 6.5 7.7 1.2

Durlan Springs 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.4

Starvation Lake 3.9 7.4 1.9 5.5 7.8 1.4

McDowell Lake 6.2 6.3 1.0 6.2 6.3 1.0

Squaw Creek 0.3 0.5 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.6

Lower Bear Cr. 7.9 14.8 1.9 8.3 14.9 1.8

Moran Creek 3.9 4.2 1.1 4.2 4.2 1.0

Table 2-14. Current open road density by subwatershed on LPO NWR white-tailed deer

summer range.

Subwatershed Area

FWS

(SqMi)

Road

FWS

(Mi)

Road

Density

(Mi/SqMi)

Area

All Owners 

(SqMi)

Road

All Owners

(Mi)

Road 

Density

(Mi/SqMi)

Cedar Creek 8.6 0.8 0.1 11.0 3.4 0.3

Olson Creek 4.3 6.8 1.6 6.3 10.2 1.6

Upper Bear Cr. 7.8 6.5 0.8 10.2 9.0 0.9

N. Fk .Bear Cr. 10.7 7.7 0.7 14.4 23.8 1.7

Bayley Lake 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.6 1.3
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-56 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Recreation Program and Activities

Traffic counters were installed at several refuge entrances in 1999, yielding a visitation estimate

of approximately 51,000 visitor use days. The size of the Refuge, number of entrance points, and

diverse activities make estimating visitor use difficult. The two most popular recreational

activities are fishing and hunting. Fishing and hunting plans were written for the Little Pend

Oreille National Wildlife Refuge in 1989. Map 12 illustrates the main recreational activities on

the Little Pend Oreille Refuge.

Fishing

Currently, fishing in Potter s Pond, McDowell Lake, and Bayley Lake begins on the last

Saturday in April and continues through October. All Federal and State fishing regulations,

seasons, creel limits, and license requirements apply. 

Potter s Pond attracts bait anglers and is frequented by families and seniors. The Refuge built a

wheelchair accessible fishing dock in 1996 that provides a popular spot for anglers of all

abilities. Statewide rules and creel limits allowed a catch of five trout in 1998. Potter s Pond is

stocked by the State with catchable size rainbow trout. While it is a small lake, it is a very

productive, growing large fish. Bank fishing is the most popular method of fishing on Potter s

Pond but small motor boats are also used. A stream closed to all fishing connects Potter s Pond

to Bayley Lake. 

Bayley Lake is managed as a quality fishery, allowing only fly fishing with barbless hooks and

no motorized boats. A one-fish limit (14" minimum) is allowed from opening day through July

4. Between July 5 and the end of the season, fishing in Bayley is catch and release only. Bayley

is one of the most popular lakes with fly-fishing anglers. One author described Bayley as the

most productive lake in the state as it can grow fish up to seven pounds. Bayley Lake has many

devotees in the Spokane-area fly-fishing community. 

Bayley Lake is stocked annually by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife with

catchable size trout; usually rainbow trout with occasional brook trout stockings. The connecting

stream between Potter s Pond and Bayley Lake has been modified to enhance spawning habitat,

with limited brook and rainbow trout spawning occurring. 

McDowell Lake is managed as a catch and release fly-fishing only lake and is popular with many

of the same anglers who fish Bayley Lake. This lake is also typically stocked by the State. Use

of motors is prohibited and access to the lake is either through a 1/3 mile trail or down a steep

bank. Most McDowell Lake and Bayley Lake anglers use belly boats or catarafts, with some

canoes and rowboats. 
2-57
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-58 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

The Little Pend Oreille River, other Refuge streams, and beaver ponds are open to fishing from

June 1 through October 31. Statewide rules apply in all Refuge streams. Many anglers fly fish

along the Little Pend Oreille and may catch rainbow, cutthroat, brook, or brown trout. Fishing

near Cottonwood, Little Pend Oreille River, and Horse Camps is popular with Refuge campers 

Peak lake fishing periods are from opening weekend through the early part of June. All Refuge

lakes are fairly shallow and fish get sluggish during warmer weather. The small size of Refuge

lakes - between 15 and 75 acres - limits the numbers of anglers in any given period. Depending

on the year, there is often another smaller peak use period from late September through October

when lake water cools and fish are more active. River fishing activity is distributed throughout

the open season. The Refuge provided an estimated 8,325 fishing use-days during 1999.

Hunting

Several species of big game, small game, predators, and migratory waterfowl are hunted on the

Refuge. All Federal and State hunting regulations, seasons, bag limits, and license requirements

apply, with certain minor additional restrictions. The Refuge is closed to all hunting, pursuit, and

use of firearms from January 1 through August 31. Northern portions of the Refuge open for

hunting on September 1, while southern portions open on October 1. Both portions close to

hunting on December 31. These closures protect the Air Force Survival School participants

during their training. There are no-shooting zones within 1/4 mile of Refuge headquarters and

established campgrounds. Hunting of ducks and geese is prohibited along Refuge streams. In

1999, the Little Pend Oreille NWR provided an estimated 14,900 visitor use days for all types of

hunting. 

Northeastern Washington is known for its white-tailed deer hunting and the Refuge is a popular

deer hunting destination. There are hunting seasons for muzzle loaders, archery, and modern

firearms, which when combined with special permits and seasons provide numerous white-tailed

deer hunting opportunities on the Refuge from September 1 through September 30 and October

17 through December 15. Antlerless and other special permits are also available. 

The peak periods for white-tailed deer hunting on the Refuge are the last 10 days of the modern

firearm season. As many as 100 hunting camps may be occupied on the Refuge at this time, with

other visiting hunters staying in area motels. Following the high winter mortality of 1996 and

1997, estimated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists at approximately

40%, the 1997 white-tailed deer hunting seasons offered mixed results. Even with a forecast of

below average deer numbers, the Refuge was host to many hunters from central and western

Washington who were visiting the Refuge for the first time. 

Starting in 1997, Refuge personnel collected antler size data and incisor teeth from as many deer

harvested on the Refuge as possible. A combined total of 38 hunter harvested white-tailed deer

were sampled on the Refuge in 1997 and 1998. The average age of all deer harvested was 3.5

years. Twenty-eight were bucks with an average age of 2.5 years. The ten females sampled

average 4.5 years of age. Age for all deer sampled ranged from 1⁄2 to 9 1⁄2 years of age. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-59 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Forest grouse hunting is very popular on the Refuge. Beginning in 1997, hunters were asked to

deposit one wing from each harvested grouse into wing  barrels placed at each Refuge entrance.

The average number of wings collected on the Refuge over the last 3 hunting seasons has been

117 ruffed grouse, 5 blue grouse and 5 spruce grouse. 

The Refuge supports a healthy population of wild turkeys. The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife conducts a spring wild turkey season in this part of the state; however, turkey

hunting is currently not available on the Refuge due the firearms closure associated with the Air

Force survival school training program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists

feel the Refuge flock could support a spring hunting season (Zender pers. comm.).

Hunting pressure on elk, moose, and mule deer is relatively light due to the low numbers of these

species currently inhabiting the Refuge. 

For the purpose of the CCP we define predators to include carnivores such as mountain lions and

bobcats as well as more omnivorous animals like black bear and coyote. Mountain lions and

bears are defined by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as big game

animals requiring a species specific hunting license to harvest within designated hunting seasons. 

Bobcat and coyote are considered both small game and furbearers and therefore can be harvested

by both hunting and trapping. Bobcat has a restricted season, while coyotes can be harvested

year around on lands open to hunting and trapping. Other, smaller predators like weasels, mink

and marten are classified as furbearers and protected by the Refuge s restriction on trapping . 

There is no hunting or trapping season on Canada lynx in Washington.

The most recent population estimates for these species in eastern Washington is 1 bear/ 3.1

square miles (WDFW 1996). Using this ratio the black bear population on the Refuge is

estimated to be about 20 bears. Using WDFW s estimator of 1.5 - 2.5 cougars per 20 square

miles, the refuge would contain about 5 - 8 mountain lions (WDFW 1997). These estimates are

likely conservative for both species, and populations of both black bears and mountain lions are

increasing in the state. No estimates were made of coyote and bobcat, but bobcat are definitely

present, and based on casual sightings, coyotes are abundant. 

When hound hunting was legal up to 3 cougars and as many bears were harvested on the refuge

annually, as well as an occasional bobcat (Weatherman pers. comm.). Since this ban was enacted

in 1997, no cougars or bears have been reported taken from the Refuge. Currently, the state

hunting season on cougars runs from August 1 through March 15. Bear season in eastern

Washington was open August 1 through November 7 in 1999. However, these seasons are

curtailed on the Refuge due to its special closures. With the restrictions on hunting with hounds

or bait, most predator harvest is opportunistic, that is, a harvest opportunity arises for a properly

licensed hunter while pursuing other game. There is also a small number of hunters using

predator calling as a method to hunt these animals; most of this activity is targeted at coyotes
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-60 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Special permits are required for commercial guiding of hunters on the Refuge and to date, only

one request for a permit has been made. Currently there are no permitted guides or outfitters

operating on the Refuge.

Wildlife Viewing

There is a growing interest in wildlife viewing on the Refuge. This may be due to an increasing

trend in wildlife viewing nationally as well as the result of highway signs guiding visitors to the

Refuge. The Refuge is described in the Washington Wildlife Viewing Guide and several state

birding guides. Some interest is generated through the national wildlife Refuge web site. Many

birders contact the Refuge office for information about species and where to bird watch. The

number of people who visit the Refuge to view wildlife is unknown but many users who visit

primarily for other reasons (camping, fishing etc.) also enjoy seeing wildlife. 

Camping

Camping has a long history on the Refuge with at least three of the five campgrounds pre-dating

the official establishment of the Refuge. River Camp and Cottonwood Camp were logging

camps, known as Camp #1 and Camp # 2, respectively. Horse Camp was originally used during

the logging era by teamsters for their draft horses. Besides these designated camps, there are

many dispersed camps sites that have a tradition of use. With the exception of the early spring

fishing season and the fall deer hunting season, most Refuge camping is not directly associated

with other Refuge uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation or photography. Peak

holiday weekends include Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. Campers spent

approximately 15,000 visitor use days on the Refuge in 1999. Campgrounds are primitive, with

pit toilets and some fire rings. There is a seven-day camping limit on the Refuge. Special use

permits are required for any group over 25 people. 

During the 1997 deer hunting seasons, there were 47 dispersed camps on the Refuge. There are

at least 10 more dispersed sites used intermittently throughout the year. The unrestricted nature

of camping on the Refuge creates several management problems. Some dispersed camps are in

riparian areas and in or near other important fish and wildlife habitats. Refuge users are

gradually expanding two Refuge campgrounds. Camping with horses is growing in popularity

and creating camps conditions undesirable to other Refuge users. Campers are damaging many

live trees. Since camping within the Refuge is free, it is a popular camping destination during

busy, holiday weekends. While many Refuge campers also enjoy fishing and wildlife viewing,

some Refuge visitors use the campgrounds as sites for family gatherings and drinking parties . 

Also, some homeless campers try to move in  to these campgrounds for extended periods of

time.

Horseback riding

The first Washington Department of Game area manager created and maintained several miles of

horseback riding trails within the Refuge. There are several organized back country horsemen s
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-61 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

groups in the area as well as many local riders not affiliated with organized groups who ride

within the Refuge regularly. These riders continue to maintain some of these trails, but also ride

cross-country in flat, low-elevation areas. There has been a traditional ride within the Refuge

associated with the Arden Old Timers Rodeo in mid-May with approximately 135 riders as well

as several smaller organized group rides. Groups with over 15 horses require a special use

permit. An estimated 1,800 visitor use days were spent by horseback riders on the Refuge in

1999.

Riders use lower elevation areas beginning in April and continue to ride until snowfall.

The peak use is in May and June when higher country trails are still snowed in. While most

riders are conscientious, some cut fences, ride cross-country when the ground is too wet, and do

not clean up after their horses at trail heads and in Refuge campgrounds. The unrestricted nature

of this horse use has created some problems that the backcountry horse users are interested in

helping to solve through education. 

Within the last year, two parties have inquired about providing a concession for day-rides and

overnight rides within the Refuge. These requests will be considered during development of the

public use plan for the Refuge. 

Snowmobiling

Refuge snowmobile use expanded during state management, with an estimated 50 miles of roads

open to snowmobile use in 1974, and establishment of a Sno-park parking area on Refuge land

on Olson Creek Road adjacent to Highway 20. A map published by the Washington State Parks

and Recreation Commission in 1994 shows Olson Creek Road as a regularly groomed

snowmobile trail with a Sno-park. The most recent Colville National Forest Travel Map does

not indicate any designated snowmobile trails on the Refuge, including Olson Creek Road. 

However, this map designates that part of the Refuge north of Blacktail Mountain Road (which

includes Olson Creek Road) as permitting snowmobiles on existing open roads from December 1

though February 28, with the exception of Blacktail Mountain, Trilby Creek and Schumaker

Meadows roads being closed year-round. This travel map also indicates the portion of the

Refuge south of the Blacktail Mountain Road being closed to snowmobiling year-round. 

Since the USFWS resumed management, approximately 15 miles of refuge roads have remained

open to snowmobile use. The main use is on Olson Creek Road which provides access to

Calispell Peak, a popular snowmobile destination. The Colville National Forest grooms this

trail. A portion of Blacktail Mountain Road east of the bridge over the Little Pend Oreille River

is also open to snowmobiles. Snowmobile use is restricted along Blacktail Mountain Road west

of that bridge to protect wintering deer. Snowmobiling is currently prohibited on the remainder

of the Refuge. 

Until recently, monitoring snowmobile use has been difficult. Vehicle counters were installed in

1999/2000 and the new estimate is 7,000 snowmobiles using the Olson Creek Road trail in

1999/2000. The vehicle capacity of the snowpark is approximately 6-10 vehicles with trailers. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-62 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Other recreation

There is a demand for several other recreational activities on the Refuge including trapping,

mountain bike riding, cross country skiing, dog sledding, search and rescue training, hiking,

jogging, and scouting. These and other similar uses need to be evaluated to determine their

impacts and compatibility with the Refuge s priority uses. 

Mountain bikes may be used on maintained roads only. This is a use that is still minor but may

be growing in popularity. Peak months for this activity are June through September.

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing uses are dependent on the quality and quantity of Refuge

snows. Since snowmobilers use the higher country, their use limits skier and snowshoe use since

these activities conflict. Most skiing and snowshoeing occurs on the deer winter range, which

may present problems if this use grows. 

Within the last two years, dog sledders have discovered the Refuge. Refuge restrictions on

snowmobiling make it attractive since dogs and snowmobiles generally do not mix well. An

area musher who wanted to use a snowmobile to groom runs for sledding requested a special use

permit. While this use is relatively minor, new dog sledding clubs are forming in and around

Spokane. One Refuge neighbor has a dog team and uses the Refuge year-round to train sled

dogs.

These uses, along with other minor uses such as picnicking and jogging, account for about 650

visitor use days per year. Scouts and two search and rescue groups are active on the Refuge. 

These groups combined yield an estimated 500 visitor use days. 

Recreational trapping requires a special use permit and has been limited to one permit during the

past four years. Refuge records show only a few trappers setting traps on the Refuge in the last

20 years. Muskrat, beaver, mink, coyote, and bobcat were some of the species trapped during

previous years. The future of trapping will depend on evolving national Refuge policy and the

population status of trapped animals. Trapping has potential as a future population management

tool in certain situations.

Illegal public uses

There are several illegal uses that Refuge staff try to prevent. Having only a seasonal law

enforcement officer restricts effectiveness in eliminating illegal uses. Illegal uses, besides

fishing and hunting violations, include off-road vehicle use, illegal firewood cutting, and

underage drinking parties. . Special use permits are required for any group of more than 25

people or 15 horses.

Some information available to the public concerning motorized vehicle use on the Refuge other

than snowmobiles is inaccurate. The Colville National Forest Travel Map indicates motorized

wheeled vehicles including off-road vehicles are permitted to operate on existing open roads
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-63 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

throughout the Refuge. Exceptions are Blacktail Mountain, Bear Creek, Rymer Ridge and

Starvation Flat Roads where they are prohibited from February 1 through April 15, and a

segment of Rookery Road which is restricted from November 30 through July 15. 

However, vehicles operating on national wildlife refuges must comply with 50 CFR 27.31,

which described general provisions regarding vehicles. This regulation specifies that vehicles

must bear a valid state issued license plate. Since only vehicles designed and registered for onhighway use are issued license plates, the regulation prohibits vehicles designed exclusively for

off-road travel like 3-, 4-, and 6-wheel ATVs and some motorcycles from legally operating on

the Refuge. All vehicles must also remain on established roads. 

2.5 OTHER REFUGE USES

Air Force Training Activities

For the past 33 years, the Air Force Survival School has used the Refuge and adjacent national

forest lands for survival and evasion training. Since 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service has

authorized this activity through an annual special use permit. The training occurs from January

through September, with most use occurring in the late summer. During the training season,

between 60 and 115 Air Force personnel or an average of 82 personnel, may be on the Refuge at

any given time. In 1995, 779 Air Force personnel used the Refuge for a total of 81 days. In

more recent years they have reduced the number of days of training per year on the Refuge. In

1999, 734 personnel used the Refuge for 54 days. 

No public hunting or firearms discharge is allowed on any part of the Refuge from January

through August, with this ban continuing through September on the southern portion of the area. 

This hunting closure was secured through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

during the Cold War years to accommodate the Air Force use. The Air Force indicates that it

may be liberalized to allow a spring turkey hunt and other primitive weapon hunts.

Air Force trainees are dispersed throughout the central portion of the Refuge, over approximately

22 square miles. They use specific locations repeatedly throughout their training period. The

resources they use include trees for shelter, bedding and firewood, and wildlife such as small

mammals, mussels, fish, snakes, grouse, and deer when they are learning food procurement

techniques. Camps are established to support the program and helicopters are used extensively at

times during rescue training. Map 13 illustrates the areas of concentrated Air Force use between 

1997 and 1999. The helicopter landing sites shown on the map are existing forest openings. 

Additional description of this use is found in the compatibility determination in Appendix F.
2-64
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-65 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Livestock Grazing

Livestock have been grazed on the area that would eventually become the Little Pend Oreille

NWR since before the area was officially homesteaded beginning around the turn of the century. 

Most homesteaders cared for at least some livestock, including cattle , horses, mules, sheep,

goats and pigs. When the Refuge was being established in the late 1930's, many local cattlemen

voiced concerns about the new Refuge lands continuing to be available for livestock grazing. 

A livestock grazing program of some type has been managed to some degree on the Refuge since

its establishment. When the Washington Department of Game assumed management in 1965,

they continued to administer a grazing program. That program was maintained after the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service resumed management of the area and continues to today.

In 1978, the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife and Recreation Area (as it was then called) entered into

a Coordinated Resources Management Plan (CRMP) process with the Soil Conservation Service

(now the Natural Resources Conservation Service). An initial inventory of resources was begun

in 1981, and completed in 1983. The goal of this inventory was to provide an up-to-date forage

resource evaluation for the area manager to base forage management decisions. In 1985, a

Coordinated Resource Management Plan was adopted that determined the maximum number of

animal unit months (AUMs) for each grazing unit as they existed then based on the forage type

available and the accessibility of the unit to livestock. It should be noted that inventoried AUMs

represent the estimated total amount of forage available for all herbivores, both domestic

livestock and wildlife, while retaining adequate residual vegetation to maintain plant health. 

This original plan was slightly modified in 1990, to reflect the reorganization of some of the

grazing units. The following table illustrates the available AUMs as inventoried in 1985 and the

leased number of AUMs allocated to the 3 permittees. Grazing unit numbers correspond to areas

shown on Maps 8 and 9. 

From 1990 until 1996, the AUMs made available to or utilized by permittees gradually decreased

until approximately 750 - 800 AUMs were allotted to grazing permittees on the Refuge during a

grazing season running from June 1 through September 30. These herds were mostly cow/calf

pairs, with some bulls. Pastures included both upland coniferous forest and large portions of the

alluvial riparian flood plain along both Bear Creek and the Little Pend Oreille River. Several 

horses were allowed to graze in portions of the Little Pend Oreille River riparian zone from about

October through May from 1983 through 1994. In 1997, the number of AUMs allotted on the

Refuge was reduced to 350 AUMS when one permittee sold most of their herd. According to the

grazing plan, cattle are to be removed from units when the stubble height of grass is reduced to 6

inches. This treatment was selected because theoretically, such relatively light grazing should

not result in cattle browsing on shrubs that provide important forage for wintering deer. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-66 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-15. Little Pend Oreille NWR grazing units based on 1985 summary of unit size and

inventoried AUMs. Leased AUMs based on 1990 WDFW grazing plan adjustments based on 1985

CRMP.

Grazing Unit Approx. Acres Inventoried. 

AUMs

Leased

AUMS

Grazing History

1 440 88 50 Rotational grazing1

2 5,060 1,170 0 Not grazed since before 1950.

3 587 101 0 Not grazed since 1990.

4 28 9 5 Combined with 5 and 6. Rotational grazing.2

5 97 37 21 

6 1,477 219 123 

7w 2,914 87 49 Rotational grazing.

7e 5,828 99 0 On-off permit with Wa. DNR permittee.

8 8,742 186 105 Rotational grazing.

9a 32 19 11 Rotational grazing.

9b 5,226 178 100 Mixed ownership with Boise Cascade. Rotational grazing. 

10 1,720 112 52 Mixed ownership with Boise Cascade. Rotational grazing

11e 173 87 41 Rotational grazing.

11w 172 169 79 Rotational grazing.

12 50 35 17 Rotational grazing.

13 a 173 70 39 Rotational grazing.

13b,c 206 293 0 Not grazed since 1995.

13d 33 15 8 Not grazed since 1997.

13e 18 -- -- Holding and sorting area.

14e 33 22 19 Rotational grazing.

14w 1,460 55 48 Rotational grazing.

15e 680 15 8 Rotational grazing.

15w 4,480 145 126 Rotational grazing.

16e 240 75 65 Rotational grazing.

16w 1,440 102 89 Rotational grazing.

16s 280 20 17 Rotational grazing.

Total 3408 1072

1 Refers to grazing a unit only part of the grazing season, then rotating livestock to another grazing unit.

2 Previously separate units, fences separating units 4, 5 and 6 were removed by 1990.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-67 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

For the purposes of discussing grazing systems on the Refuge, the landscape can be divided into

two broad but distinct habitat types; alluvial riparian valleys and the forested uplands.

About 6 miles of Bear Creek and about 2 miles of the Little Pend Oreille River occurring on the

Refuge are low gradient streams flowing through relatively broad alluvial valleys formed from

the material deposited by the streams. Seven grazing units include portions of each of these

valleys, totaling about 338 acres of alluvial valley that are now grazed or have been grazed units

1996. These valleys have been radically modified by logging, farming, grazing, and fire

suppression. Presently Kentucky bluegrass and reed canary grass are the most conspicuous grass

species. Alder is the dominant woody species along the edges of the streams. Most stands of

alder appears to be even age with little regeneration observed. Willow species are scarce. There

are some scattered mature cottonwoods and aspen, but very little sprouting is evident. Although

these alluvial riparian pastures only constitute <1% of the Refuge s total land base, they provide

the highest quality forage available to livestock and therefore are used by cattle far out of

proportion to their availability. 

With the exception of the Starvation Flat area, the remainder of the upland portion of the Refuge

is divided into grazing units. However, due to a lack of forage, steep terrain and other factors,

livestock tend to concentrate on the lower elevation areas. Trespass  grazing currently occurs

on majority of the private inholdings owned by Boise Cascade and Stimson Lumber Company

since very few fences excluding cattle from these areas have been built. In contrast to the

alluvial riparian pastures, upland allotments are very large with most encompassing at least

several square miles. Grazed forested areas range in elevation from 2,000 to 5,200 feet with the

predominant tree species being ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, larch, lodge pole pine, western red

cedar and western hemlock. Most of the upland grazing occurs in overstocked ponderosa pine

and Douglas-fir stands with suppressed understory vegetation. Aspen inclusions and deciduous

browse such as evergreen ceanothus, serviceberry, and snowberry are generally depressed. Most

existing browse is decadent and the more palatable species often over-browsed. The existing

densely treed forest appears to be a consequence of fire suppression, selective logging, and

livestock grazing.

In addition to the Little Pend Oreille River, these upland areas are dissected by numerous other

small perennial streams. Due to their gradient, the riparian zone associated with them is quite

narrow. Unlike the lower elevation, low gradient alluvial riparian areas, livestock impacts to

these riparian zones does not appear to be significantly greater than that observed on the

surrounding upland areas.

In 1996 a grazing review was performed on the LPO NWR, one of several conducted on refuges

throughout the USFWS Pacific Northwest Region (USFWS 1997). Its purpose was to determine

if the annual livestock grazing program was supporting Refuge purposes and wildlife habitat

objectives. Reviewers evaluated the effects of the existing grazing program in a variety of refuge

habitats including riparian, forest openings, low elevation ponderosa pine forest, and middle

elevation mixed conifer. The review included resource management professionals from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-68 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Several negative impacts to wildlife habitat

attributable to livestock grazing were noted. At the conclusion of the review, the team was

unable to identify any significant positive benefit for habitat or wildlife associated with the

grazing program. 

In 1998 a study was conducted by the University of Idaho examining the effects of livestock

grazing on the structure and composition of riparian vegetation within selected pastures on the

Refuge. (Nielson and Lohman 1999). The objective was to document the early effects (1-2

years) of livestock exclusion on the structure and composition of streamside vegetation. They

did this by comparing plant communities in grazed and ungrazed pastures at both the beginning

and end of the grazing season. Overall, the investigators found little difference in the pastures

grazed that season versus pastures rested for 1-2 years. This was not unexpected since

significant changes in structure and composition of riparian vegetation following removal of

grazing for periods less than 4 years have yet to be reported. They stated it may require several

more years for clear, easily interpreted patterns to develop. The quantitative data collected will

provide valuable baseline information useful for comparing changes in riparian vegetation

resulting from various future management regimes. 

2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES

The Little Pend Oreille NWR maintains two administrative sites within the Refuge. The main

headquarters compound is located on Bear Creek Road. This complex contains the Refuge

office, one government quarters residence, a maintenance garage and vehicle storage shed, a

storage barn, and a fuels storage building. The second administrative site is Winslow Cabin,

located off Blacktail Mountain Road. This building dates tot he early part of the twentieth

century and is currently being updated. 

2.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Prehistoric and Historic Use

Use of the area within the boundaries of the Little Pend Oreille NWR by Native American

Indians is not well documented. In fact, no prehistoric sites have been located within the Refuge

itself. This may seem unusual because of the dense population centers located on the Columbia

and Pend Oreille Rivers. Evidence from ethnographic and archaeological sources suggest that

native groups congregated along the major rivers to harvest salmon and trade. 

Based on information gathered in the nineteenth century, the Kalispel Indians lived along the

eastern boundaries of the Pend Oreille range, around Lake Pend Oreille, Calispell Lake, and

along the Pend Oreille River. A population center for the Kalispel was also in the Chewelah

area, south of the Refuge. The Colville Indians inhabited the area from Kettle Falls on the

Columbia River, south to the Colville Valley, but did not penetrate the mountainous region east

of Colville (Ray 1936). The Spokane Indians were centered around the falls at Spokane.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-69 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Fur traders noticed the abundant fur bearing resources of northeastern Washington in the 1820s.

David Thompson built Spokane House and the Hudson s Bay Company established Fort

Colville, in 1825, to attract the steady trade of the Natives. Fort Colville was located

approximately 25 miles west of the Refuge. A trail from this fort connected the Pend Oreille

River valley with the Colville River valley. The trail was along the Little Pend Oreille River that

borders the Refuge. A path used by the Kalispel reportedly traversed the Tacoma Creek and

Olson Creek drainages  (Ellis and Lindeman 1982:35). 

Settlement along the Columbia and Colville Rivers began in the 1850s. The influx of settlers

required the U. S. Army to establish a new Fort Colville in 1859, and it became the hub of a

community that by 1880 was re-named Colville.

By the late-1870s and early 1880s, people were beginning to move into the interior valleys,

searching for property to homestead, ahead of the General Land Office surveyors. These

squatters cleared land, built cabins, and established roads and trails through the thickly forested

terrain of the Little Pend Oreille River valley. A homesteading boom ensued at the turn of the

century, and 83 claims were patented between 1901 and 1910. By 1930, more than 180 claims

had been patented within the boundaries of the Refuge (Bureau Of Land Management Records). 

Settlement by homesteaders led to a second economic boom in the area-- logging. In some

instances, the homesteaders  may have been actually working for the lumber companies,

staking claims, then turning over the land to the logging company. For other settlers, selling the

timber off of the claim provided much need cash and cleared space for orchards, gardens, and

pasture. 

Rail lines established into northeastern Washington in the 1890s created a ready market for

timber. The Winslow Logging Company built a standard gauge spur line from their mill in Orin

up the Little Pend Oreille River. The Winslow company built many miles of track, established

several camps, and logged the ponderosa pine stands until a fire in 1938 destroyed their mill and

business. The railroad line required several engineering feats to overcome rugged terrain and

steep river canyons. The Winslow Bridge, a 125 ft suspension bridge, was moved from Spokane

in 1917, to provide a sturdy crossing for a deep chasm on the Little Pend Oreille River. 

Although now collapsed, the bridge is unique in its design and is listed on the National Register

of Historic Places. Other bridges or trestles constructed by Winslow Logging Company are more

typically log crib design. Remnants of the log crib trestles are still found on the Refuge.

When the Depression of the 1930s hit the Colville area, many homesteaders gave up and moved

from the area. The land was fertile, but the seasons were too short and the winters too harsh to

maintain productive gardens. In the mid-1930s the Federal Government began a program to

purchase tracts from homesteaders who were located in submarginal lands.  The program

purchased land claims outright or traded parcels for land in a more productive area. After the

land returned to Federal ownership it was divided among the federal agencies now known as the

Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The Little Pend

Oreille National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1939 by Executive Order. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-70 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Cultural resources identified on the Refuge are related to the historical developments. With more

than 180 individual homesteads patented, the cleared fields, cabin remnants, orchard trees, and

place names such as Pierce Lake, Lenhart Meadows, and McDowell Lake are associated with

homesteaders. Logging has also been an important activity within the Refuge boundary. The

Winslow Logging Company railroad line, bridges, and camps are reminders of this short-lived

boom period in the Little Pend Oreille forest.

Status of Cultural Resource Inventories

Beginning in 1982, cultural resources surveys have been conducted on the Refuge in order to

fulfill the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Approximately 3,100

acres, or less than 10 percent of the entire 40,198 acre Refuge have been surveyed. The surveys

have been conducted for timber sales, a land exchange, Potter s pond, and a stratified sample to

gather information for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Several special studies have also

been conducted including a historic bridge survey and a mine contamination study. 

Additional surveys are required when new projects are sponsored by the Refuge such as road

construction, prescribed fire, timber harvest or thinning, facilities remodeling, new construction,

and any other activity that has the potential to affect historic properties. For instance, the

management of the open homestead meadows and orchards will require coordination with the

NHPA, because the meadows are the remnant landscape features of an important historical event

in the Little Pend Oreille area, homesteading.

Presented in Table 2-16 are the sites inventoried to date, the name of the project and report

reference, a brief description of the resource, and its level of significance based on the National

Register of Historic Places criteria.

Table 2-16. Cultural Resources Recorded on the Little Pend Oreille NWR.

Site

Number

Project/Author Cultural Resource Type National Register of Historic

Places

LPO513 

Addy Mtn. T.S.

(McComb:1984)

Features associated Y.P. Bouma

home stead. 

Not eligib le

LPO-PS

#1 

  Roadsid e dump, recent. Not determined

LPO- 514  A.E. Baughman Homestead, 1901-1920 Not eligib le

A-2 Eastern Wash. Survey

(Morgan:1991)

Can dump, 200+, hole-in-top and

sanitary cans

Not eligib le

A-1  Wooden sled --used for logging Not eligib le

Starvation Flat TS,

(Burnside: 1996)

Can dump Not eligib le
Site

Number

Project/Author Cultural Resource Type National Register of Historic

Places

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-71 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

  Can dump Not eligib le

RR-1  Winslow RR grade Not determined

RR-2  Winslow RR grade Not determined

1401-2

45-ST237H

Timber Sale (J.D.

Jones:1979)

Louis E. Nofs Mine, 1920s-1930s Not determined

1 Burlington-Northern

Land E xchan ge (Ellis

& Lindeman:1982)

Alma Jacobson Homestead. Not eligib le

2  B.J. Carney/Louis Strauss Lumber Camp. Not eligib le

3  Alphonse Snook Cabin.

Moved to Colville, Stevens Historical Society

Museum

Not eligib le

4  Callaghan Barn Not eligib le

5  Historic Roadside dump Not eligib le

45-ST321H

Transportation Survey 

(Soderberg: 1980)

Winslow Railroad Bridge 

The Winslow Bridge is an example of a

timber deck Howe truss bridge, moved from

Spokane to site on Little Pend Oreille River in

1917 by Winslow Lumber Company. 

Eligible, listed 1982, collapsed

1991.

1401-11 Bayley Lake Cabin

(Osborn:1983)

Bayley Lake Cabin, 19 37-19 83. Not eligib le

Stratified Sample

Survey (Speulda &

Kaehler:1997)

Varline H omeste ad Log Cabin Not determined

  T. Hard Homestead site/ Winslow Camp/

LPO Quarters

Not determined

  Christianson Ranch Eligible

  Furst Cab in Not eligib le

  Carlson Homestead Ba rn Not determined

  LPO Office Not eligib le
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-72 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Cultural Resources Potential Conflicts

The lack of identified prehistoric archaeological sites in the Refuge area may be more the result

of heavy vegetation and the limited acres actually surveyed. After all, people have been

documented in the northwest for at least 10,000 years, and several very early sites are located

along the Columbia River. It is likely that during the very long period of occupation along the

Columbia River, people also traveled throughout the interior drainages. Travel routes usually

conform to natural corridors, such as major ridges or rivers. Resources exploited by the Native

Americans included upland game animals, plants, fish, birds, and lithic raw material sources. 

The Little Pend Oreille River Valley and the Bear Creek drainage may have been a connecting

route between two high population areas and served as a secondary resource extraction area

during times of crisis. 

As observed by Renk and Miss (1998) Sites on the Refuge could be expected to reflect the

regional trends of increasing population using land use strategies that shift through time from

forager to collector and then are modified by Euroamerican introduction of the horse and

catastrophic disease. These changes are indicated in the archaeological record not only by

frequency and age of sites, but by site characteristics which reflect the size, mobility, and

purpose of the group which created them. 

The potential for conflicts between cultural resources and the objectives implemented on the

Refuge may intensify as new discoveries re-define our understanding of Native American use of

the Bear Creek watershed. An obviously sensitive topic is the legacy of homesteaders on the

Little Pend Oreille NWR. More than 180 homestead tracts were patented on the Refuge between

1891 and 1931. Each of these parcels are potentially archaeological sites and many still contain

landscape features such as cleared meadows, orchards, fences, and even cabins. Developing a

systematic method for assessing the research potential, testing the model, and retrieving

information would be an important first step to interpreting this important period.

 

Elements of the twentieth century industrial development surrounding the Refuge includes 

agriculture, logging, railroading, and mining. Only a handful of mines have been recorded on the

Refuge, and none of them have been assessed for their significance to the National Register of

Historic Places. Evidence of logging is primarily associated with the railroad lines, trestles,

bridges, camps, and large stumps that remain on the landscape. The Winslow Logging Company

was very influential in the area and the railroad line and camp may be useful for interpreting this

economic activity to the public. Research, mapping the lines, and identifying logging-related

features, camps, and sites should be considered for future projects.

When predicting potential conflicts and forming management decisions, it is important to 

understanding that there is the potential for new discoveries of Native American use, and that the

homestead parcels and railroad features are important pieces of the twentieth century history of

the Refuge. What follows is an abbreviated list of a few of the sources of potential conflict.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-73 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

• Recreational use of campgrounds, trails, boat docks, river and stream-side fishing, and

picnicking can affect cultural resources. Areas currently being used for Refuge sponsored

recreational activities, which have not been surveyed, should be considered a high

priority for completing the identification, evaluation, and protection according to the

NHPA. 

• Timber harvest or commercial thinning, along with any road improvements, log landings,

skid trails, new roads, or increased access to an area, is considered an undertaking that

must follow Section 106 regulations of the NHPA.

• Timber Harvest by Private Corporations: Inholdings that are harvested by private

corporations that require a special use permit for using Refuge roads to haul logs is

considered an undertaking. 

• Fire management and prescribed burns are usually performed on large blocks of acreage. 

Conducting a cultural resources survey that implements a stratified sample would be an

excellent method of meeting the Section 106 compliance issues for this type of

undertaking, while gathering important information about cultural resources.

• Restoration projects including stream side improvements, ditches, dikes, water control

structures, re-vegetation, and recontouring projects require review by the Cultural

Resources Team in order to define how compliance with Section 106 will be handled.

• Air Force Training s special use permit needs to be monitored. Training exercises that

include activities such as detonating explosive devices, or other ground disturbing

activities are consider undertakings. Areas that receive intense use require a cultural

resources survey prior to issuing the permit.

• Grazing is an issue that is difficult to ascertain as to whether cultural resources are

affected. However, in the case of the Christianson Ranch, cattle entry into the buildings

is causing harm to the structures. This situations requires immediate attention.

• Facilities maintenance and new construction projects should be reviewed by the Cultural

Resources Team, so that compliance with Section 110 and 106 are assured and any

conflicts with cultural resources identified. For example, buildings that are 50 years old

need to be considered for their historic potential. Protection, maintenance, and re-use of

historic buildings is strongly advocated by the NHPA. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-74 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

2.8 ECONOMIC SETTING

Economic Region

More than 99% of Little Pend Oreille NWR s 40,198 acres is in central-eastern Stevens County,

Washington; approximately 21 acres are in adjacent Pend Oreille County. A recent study (Reyna

1998) compiled socioeconomic data on 543 communities in the Interior Columbia Basin,

including six communities in Stevens County. These communities are Chewelah, Colville,

Kettle Falls, Marcus, Northport, and Springdale. This study classified communities as isolated 

if they were located at least 50 miles from the nearest city with a population exceeding 20,000,

and at least 35 miles from the nearest city with a population of 9,000-20,000. Five of the six

Stevens County communities analyzed in the study were classified as isolated because of their

distance from cities; Springdale is associated with the Spokane metropolitan area. Two of the

communities (Colville and Chewelah) are within 15 miles of the Refuge.

Industrial diversity, commuting patterns, and spending patterns are commonly used by

economists to delineate economic regions. Stevens County has a relatively diverse economy,

including business establishments in 43 different two-digit standard industrial classifications

(U.S. Dept. Of Commerce 1998). While highly rural, Stevens County has the fifth highest

concentrations of employment and income in the manufacturing sector among the state s 39

counties (McGinnis et al. 1997).

Although the number of Stevens County residents who commute to jobs in other counties

(primarily in Spokane County) is increasing, a large majority of workers who reside in the county

also work there. For example, income earned outside of Stevens County by county residents

increased by 30% between 1987 and 1996, but such income accounted for only 17% of total

earnings by Stevens County residents in 1996 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998). 

Conversely, few nonresidents commute to Stevens County. Although most Stevens County

residents sometimes travel to metropolitan areas to purchase durable goods (e.g., cars and major

appliances) or specialty items not available in the county, most staples are purchased in the

county. Based on the county s industrial diversity and its relative self-containment with regard

to commuting and purchasing, Stevens County was assumed to comprise the economic region for

this EIS.

Tourism is a small but important component of the Stevens County economy. Because tourism

is not a recognized Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category, data on tourism-related

employment and income are limited. Two SIC sectors closely tied to tourism, however, are

 hotels and other lodging places  and amusement and recreation services . According to

Washington State Employment Security Department data, these two categories accounted for

3.8% of the total Stevens County employment among workers covered by workers compensation

insurance in 1998. This proportion exceeds the statewide share of covered employment

accounted for by these two sectors (2.8%), which indicates that tourism is relatively at least as

important to Stevens County as it is to the statewide economy. However, lumber and wood
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-75 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

products manufacturing, which accounts for 10.4% of total covered employment, remains the

county s most important source of employment and income.

The most popular forms of recreation that attract tourists to Stevens County are dispersed

activities including hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, and snowmobiling, which take place

primarily on federal lands including the Colville National Forest and the Little Pend Oreille

NWR. In addition to the county s many campgrounds and picnic areas, its developed recreation

sites include a new downhill ski area. The number of tourists visiting the county appears to be

increasing, consistent with statewide trends.

Modeling of Economic Effects

The economic effects of the management alternatives for Little Pend Oreille NWR were

estimated for this DEIS using IMPLAN, a regional input-output modeling system developed by

the USDA Forest Service (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1994).

Population, Employment, and Income

Population

The population of Stevens County was 38,567 in 1996. It declined over the 1950s and 1960s,

grew relatively rapidly during the 1970s, grew very slowly during the 1980s, and has again

grown rapidly in the 1990s (McGinnis et al. 1997). Between 1987 and 1996, the county s

population grew by 27% (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998), substantially faster than that

of the state as a whole, with most of the growth occurring in the southern portion of the county. 

Much of the growth is accounted for by relocations of retirees and households with workers who

commute to Spokane. Local communities are small, safe, and clean and have good schools,

high-quality health care, and an affordable cost of living. The relatively pristine environment

and a strong sense of place make the county attractive to growing families and retirees.

In 1996, 75% of the population lived in the unincorporated portion of the county (Washington

State Employment Security Department 1997); in 1990, 60% of the population was classified as

rural (McGinnis et al. 1997). The population is sparsely distributed over the land. Population

density in the county is only 18% of the national average. The county seat and largest town in the

county is Colville, with a 1992 population of 4,440. Only two other towns (Chewelah and Kettle

Falls) have population exceeding 1,000. The population is 93% white, with nearly all the

remaining population Native American. (McGinnis et al. 1997.)

Employment

The Stevens County economy is dependent on the timber industry, agriculture, manufacturing,

mining, trade, and services. Its largest industries are logging, wood and paper products

manufacturing, mining, and metal refining.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-76 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

In 1990, the Stevens County work force included approximately 12,800 people (U.S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis 1998). Of these, occupation was determined for 11,583 people (McGinnis et

al. 1997). Among workers covered by unemployment insurance, the principal employment

sectors in 1996 were government (2,408 workers), services (2,302 workers), manufacturing

(1,937 workers), and retail trade (1,563 workers); these sectors accounted for 87% of all covered

employment in the county (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998). Half the workers in the

manufacturing sector are employed in the lumber and wood products subsector, which includes

logging contractors and sawmill employees. An estimated 9.2% of the work force (more than

1,000 workers) was employed in the farming, forestry, and fishing sector in 1990 (McGinnis et

al. 1997). Forestry employment consists mainly of private-sector foresters and forest

technicians. Fishing accounts for virtually no employment in Stevens County. Most of the

workers in farming are excluded from covered-employment statistics because they are self- or

family-employed; many of them also are employed part time or seasonally (Walsh pers. comm.).

Between 1987 and 1996, the Stevens County unemployment rate averaged 9.8%. Although this

rate exceeded the statewide and national unemployment rates, it was substantially lower than in

adjacent Ferry and Pend Oreille Counties (Washington State Employment Security Department

1997). 

Income

Average per-capita income in Stevens County was $16,062 in 1996, which was lower than the

per-capita income in all but two of Washington s 39 counties. (All values are expressed in 1997

dollars in this analysis.) The key components of personal income in Stevens County in 1996

were nonfarm earnings (50.0%); transfer payments (25.8%); dividends, interest, and rent

(17.1%); and farm income (1.1%) (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998). In 1993, transfer

payments consisted primarily of retirement payments (47.3%), medical payments (28.1%),

income maintenance (10.1%), and unemployment compensation (8.9%) (McGinnis et al. 1997). 

As a share of total personal income, transfer payments are substantially higher for Stevens

County than for Washington as a whole, while nonfarm earnings are substantially lower for the

county than for the state (McGinnis et al. 1997).

Among the industrial sectors, mining provided the highest average annual earnings per worker

($36,435) in 1996. Mining was followed by manufacturing ($33,227), transportation and public

utilities ($29,478), government ($25,025), and construction ($24,406). In all other sectors,

average annual earnings were less than $19,000 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998.)

Refuge Management Economics 

The existing Refuge staff consists of eight permanent and seven to nine seasonal employees, who

account for an annual payroll (including salaries and benefits) of $361,250.

In addition to providing salaries and benefits, the Refuge purchased goods and services totaling

$548,482 in 1998, approximately 11% of which was spent in Stevens County. Some of these
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-77 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

expenditures (e.g., for flood damage restoration and maintenance management system projects)

were one-time costs not expected to be repeated. The baseline nonsalary costs of Refuge

management were estimated at $160,482 per year. Approximately 85% of these purchases would

involve wildlife- and habitat-related projects, with the remaining 15% involving public userelated projects.

Because of the way industries interact in an economy, a change in the activity of one industry

affects activity levels in several other industries. For example, if the Refuge s budget increases, 

additional revenue will flow to Refuge employees and to the businesses in the region from which

the Refuge purchases goods and services. The effects of a change in the Refuge budget on

employment and personal income in the federal government sector are referred to as the direct 

economic effects. Changes in employment and income related to the resulting increased

spending by other businesses in the region are referred to as indirect  effects. Changes in

employment and income related to the resulting increased spending by households in the region

are referred to as induced  effects. The total economic effect of a change in activity in one

industry is the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced effects.

Each million dollars in nonmilitary government spending in the county results in an estimated

total of 31.7 jobs and $1.3 million in personal income in the region, including direct, indirect,

and induced effects (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1994).

National wildlife refuges contribute funds to local counties through two revenue sharing

programs, one that applies to Refuge lands reserved from the public domain, and one that applies

to lands purchased in fee title. Nearly all Little Pend Oreille NWR lands were acquired in fee

title. For fee lands, the federal government typically pays the counties up to 0.75% of the

appraised value of the land each year out of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund. In 1996, for

example, the federal government paid Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties a total of $253,944,

which represented 72% of the maximum amount authorized. Because the amount of money paid

to these counties is based on the appraised value of the Refuge lands, it would not vary among

the planning alternatives.

Forest Products Economics 

Approximately 71% of Stevens County s land base (or 1.2 million acres) is timberland. Of this

timberland, 505,000 acres is in nonindustrial private ownership, with ownership of the remaining

timberland divided among the federal government (250,000 acres), the forest industry (206,000

acres), state government (162,000 acres), and Native American tribes (94,000 acres) (McGinnis

et al. 1997).

Between 1984 and 1994, the county s annual timber harvest increased from roughly 100 million

board feet to more than 200 million board feet, with nearly all of the increase coming from

private forests (McGinnis et al. 1997). The volume of timber harvested annually on the Refuge

has ranged from 100 thousand board feet (MBF) to 250 MBF over the past 30 years, with an

average harvest level of approximately 175 MBF.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-78 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

For this analysis, the value of timber sold on the Refuge was estimated based on historical

stumpage prices for all species of trees sold on national forests in eastern Washington (Warren

1998). Between 1991 and 1997, the annual average stumpage price in eastern Washington

national forests ranged from $78 to $249 per MBF, with an average price for the 7-year period of

$127 per MBF.

In addition to stumpage revenues, value is added at the logging and sawmilling stages of

production, and this adds value to the regional economy. Logging contractors and sawmills

accounted for 10% of the employment and 14% of the earned income in the county in 1996 (U.S.

Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998). Nearly all timber harvested on the Refuge is harvested by

local logging contractors, who then haul the logs to sawmills for processing into lumber. Three

sawmills are located within 25 miles of Little Pend Oreille NWR. These mills purchase most of

the timber harvested on the Refuge. Nearly all economic activity resulting from harvesting,

hauling, and primary processing of Refuge timber contributes to the regional economy. Each

million dollars in regional timber sales results in an estimated total of 17.1 jobs and $589,000 in

personal income in the region, including direct, indirect, and induced effects (Minnesota

IMPLAN Group 1994). 

The all-grades weighted-average price of ponderosa pine and hemlock-fir lumber sold by

sawmills in the Inland Region (including eastern Washington and Oregon, Idaho, and Montana)

during 1991-1997 ranged from $451 to $638 per MBF, with an average of $543 per MBF 

(Warren 1998). Based on an average stumpage price of $127 per MBF, the combined value

added at the logging and sawmilling stages was estimated at $416 per MBF.

Livestock Production Economics

Livestock production accounted for $16.3 million in sales (56% of all farm product sales) in

Stevens County in 1992. Private pasture and rangeland accounted for 107,715 acres in the

county. Of the 1,054 farms and ranches in the county, only 22 held public grazing permits, down

from 36 in 1987. (McGinnis et al. 1997.) Pastures on Little Pend Oreille NWR are currently

leased for cattle grazing to three local ranching families. Until 1997, 750-800 animal unit

months (AUMs) on the Refuge were allotted to 4 grazing permittees; in 1997, the number of

allotted AUMs was reduced to 350, when one permittee sold most of her herd. (An AUM is the

average amount of forage consumed by one cow/calf pair in a month.) A 1985 Coordinated

Resource Management Plan prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service shows grazing units

throughout most (36,640 acres) of the Refuge. In reality, most grazing normally occurs on

approximately 6,000 acres of the Refuge, including forested uplands and the alluvial plains of the

Little Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek, from June 1 through September 30.

The price of forage on national wildlife refuges is set by a formula specified by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Manual. Between 1993 and 1997, the average price of forage on the Refuge

was $7.03 per AUM (in 1997 dollars). This price is substantially higher than the $1.35 per AUM

currently charged by the Colville National Forest (Ridlington pers. comm.). National forest

grazing fees are set by a different formula specified by Congress.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-79 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Private rangeland forage is typically more expensive than federal rangeland forage; such forage

has sold locally in the $10-$12 range in recent years (Kroiss pers. comm.). Nonrangeland forage

sources (e.g., improved pastures or imported hay) are usually even more expensive per AUM

than private rangeland forage.

Most cattle production in the Colville area consists of cow-calf operations, in which a full

breeding herd is maintained year round, with calves produced and sold annually. Refuge

permittees usually sell their calves at auction in Spokane (Cada and Larson pers. comms.). The

average market price for calves sold in Washington over the 1988-1997 period was $97 per

hundred pounds (Hammel pers. comm.).

Subsequent value added to these livestock (e.g., through feedlot fattening, finishing, and

slaughtering) occurs outside the Stevens County economy. Nonetheless, Refuge permittees

purchase locally much of the supplies, equipment, and services used in their operations. Each

million dollars in range-fed cattle sales results in an estimated total of 29.4 jobs and $961,000 in

personal income in the county, including direct, indirect, and induced effects (Minnesota

IMPLAN Group 1994). Based on these rates, baseline livestock grazing at Little Pend Oreille

NWR results in a total of 3.1 jobs and $98,000 in annual personal income in the county. 

Recreation Economics 

Estimated total recreation use of Little Pend Oreille NWR ranged from 17,000 to 25,000 visitor

days during 1994-1997. In 1999, the Refuge installed a traffic counter device and use in 1999

was more accurately estimated at approximately 51,000 visitor days (see Table 4-1). 

Participation in big-game hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation accounted for the largest

shares of the total use. For this analysis, Refuge visitors who reside in Stevens County or

Spokane County were considered to be residents because these visitors are unlikely to purchase

lodging in Stevens County. Other visitors were considered to be nonresidents. Refuge use was

divided between residents and nonresidents based on the judgment of the Refuge manager. 

As shown in Table 2-17, a large majority of Refuge visitors are residents, regardless of the main

activities they pursue. Big-game hunting (primarily for white-tailed deer) attracts a relatively

large proportion of visitors from other regions (primarily central and western Washington), and

fishing (primarily fly fishing) attracts a large share of visitors from Spokane County. Unlike

visits at some wildlife Refuges located along major highways, few visits to Little Pend Oreille

NWR are brief stops made en route to other destinations; nearly all visitors use the Refuge as the

primary destination for their day s recreation activities. Refuge visitors spend an average of at

least 6 hours per visit.

Unlike forest products and livestock production, there is no single industry that includes most

recreation activity. A recent analysis of recreation on national wildlife Refuges (Laughland and

Caudill 1997) allocated recreation spending to four general categories (lodging, food/drink,

transportation, and other), which in turn represented 18 separate industrial sectors. Estimated

daily recreation expenditures by visitors to national wildlife Refuges in Washington are shown in

Table 2-18. Refuge visitation accounted for an estimated $1.36 million in recreation-related
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-80 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

expenditures in Stevens County in 1999. Based on an allocation of recreation spending among

industries similar to that used by Laughland and Caudill (1997), each million dollars spent on

Refuge recreation in Stevens County is currently estimated to result in a total of approximately

22 jobs and $476,000 in personal income in the county, including direct, indirect, and induced

effects (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1994). 

Surveys indicate that recreationists often are willing to spend more for recreation opportunities

than they actually pay (Laughland and Caudill 1997). This difference is called consumer s

surplus and represents a net economic value for recreation consumers. Essentially, it means that

the surplus money stays in people s pockets, for them to spend as they like, rather than being

spent on the recreational activity. The recreational activity is enjoyed, but at a cost less than what

people are willing to pay. Average net economic value per person per day was estimated at $75

for big-game hunting, $36 for fishing, and $34 for wildlife viewing in Washington (Waddington

et al. 1994). Based on these rates, recreation use at Little Pend Oreille NWR was estimated to

generate approximately $2.4 million in net economic value in 1999.

Table 2-17. Distribution of Refuge Visitor by Region of Origin

 Resident

Recreation Activity 

 

Stevens County Spokane County Nonresident

Big-game hunting 34 33 33

Upland game hunting 80 15 5

Fishing 30 55 15

Snowmobiling 65125 10

Other 55 32 13

Source: Refuge manager

1

Includes some day users from Pend Oreille County
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Chapter 2: Affected Environment 2-81 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Table 2-18. Recreation Expenditures per Person per Day (Expressed in 1997 $)

Sector Big-Game Upland Game Fishing Snowmobiling Other

 Hunting Hunting

Resident Nonresident

Resident Nonresident

Resident Nonresident

Resident Nonresident

Resident Nonresident

Lodging 0 2.27 0 2.50 0 9.89 0 35.83 0 10.87

Food/

Drink

11.19 27.30 9.50 28.00 10.38 28.69 11.20 30.60 9.58 18.50

Transportation11.42 22.78 9.87 16.16 7.52 27.03 17.08 6.40 8.11 23.50

Other 0.10 0.38 1.53 0 1.40 2.14 0 12.53 0.23 2.17

Total 22.71 52.73 20.90 46.66 19.30 67.75 28.28 85.36 17.92 55.04

Sources: Laughland and Caudill 1977, Sylvester and Nesary 1994

Air Force Training Economics

The U.S. Air Force uses the Refuge to conduct survival training. Nearly all expenditures related

to this training occur outside Stevens County. Exceptions include occasional truck refueling and

restaurant meals for instructors. Such purchases total an estimated $1,500 per year (Steele pers.

comm.).
Little Pend Oreille NWR

3-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

3.1 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES

In this FEIS, an alternative is one of several options for managing the Little Pend Oreille NWR

over the next 15 years. Each alternative is a combination of wildlife and public use management

prescriptions applied in specific amounts and locations in order to achieve the Refuge Purpose,

goals, and vision. Alternatives, developed to comply with NEPA, provide different ways to

address and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and opportunities identified

during the planning process.

Major issues, activities, and management concerns were evaluated and addressed for each

alternative. A technique was used which identified a potential range of options from maximum

to minimum for each major issue such as grazing, Air Force use, and recreational activities.

Evaluation of the compatibility of activities and activity levels was integrated into the

alternatives process. A theme approach was then applied to consolidate similar options and

prescriptions into preliminary alternatives.

Preliminary Alternatives

Five preliminary alternatives were designed and presented to the public in a Planning Update

(Issue 4) and in two public open house meetings, one in Colville on July 29, 1998, and the other

in Spokane on July 30, 1998. The five preliminary alternatives included:

• No change from past management (Preliminary Alternative A);

 

• Restoration of wildlife habitat and management of existing uses 

(Preliminary Alternative B);

• Restoration while emphasizing priority uses. This theme maximized the

consistency between the Little Pend Oreille and the Refuge System Improvement

Act, promoting the six priority recreation activities and eliminating or restricting

most other recreational uses (Preliminary Alternative C);

• A conservation reserve strategy maximizing wildlife needs and further 

reducing human impacts/disturbance to wildlife and habitats (Preliminary

Alternative D); and 

• A caretaker approach minimizing active management programs and activities

 (Preliminary Alternative E).

Comments received from the open houses, mailed responses, and internal agency review were

used to refine the range of alternatives. The Caretaker Alternative (Preliminary Alternative E),
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-2

was eliminated from further analysis and the new Alternative E combined the elements of

Alternatives B and C. 

Public reviewers of the preliminary alternatives also requested a more in-depth analysis of each

alternative in the areas of economics and roads. An economist was hired to assist with the

identification of costs and economic comparison of the alternatives. In addition, a more detailed

road analysis was completed based on subwatershed units for the Refuge.

The Service released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the CCP to the public on

May 5, 1999. Public open house meetings were held on May 12, 1999 in Colville and on May

13, 1999 in Spokane (See Chapter 5 for further details). The comment period was extended

twice and closed August 31, 1999. Over 300 comments were received and evaluated (See

Appendix J). Alternative E, the preferred alternative, has been revised as a result of public input.

The preferred alternative is the alternative that would best achieve the Refuge purpose, vision

and goals; contributes to the Refuge system mission; addresses the significant issues; and is

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. Revised Alternative E (see

description below) is the Service s preferred alternative. The preferred alternative with

associated objectives, strategies and projects, found in Appendix C, is the final CCP for the Little

Pend Oreille NWR. No sooner than 30 days after this Final EIS is released to the public, the

Service will issue a Record of Decision and repackage the Preferred Alternative into a standalone CCP document.

Compatibility

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that no refuge use may be

allowed unless it is first determined to be compatible. A compatible use is defined as one which,

in the sound professional judgement of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract

from the fulfilment of the mission of the system or the purposes of the Refuge. Sound

professional judgement is further defined as a decision that is consistent with principles of fish

and wildlife management and administration; available science and resources; and adherence

with law.

Final compatibility evaluations are included in Appendix F for the key activities and uses

identified in Alternative E. The compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible

uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. The preferred

alternative incorporates the stipulations to insure compatibility for each use. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-3

3.2 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Description of Alternatives

This section describes five alternatives:

Alternative A: No Action-Status quo, 

Alternative B: Restoration of Wildlife Habitat with Management of Existing Uses;

Alternative C: Restoration of Wildlife Habitat emphasizing Priority Uses;

Alternative D: Ecological Reserve Strategy; and 

Alternative E: Agency Preferred Alternative

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION  STATUS QUO

This Alternative assumes no change from past management programs and is considered the base

from which to compare the other alternatives. No changes would be made to the major current

uses, which include Air Force survival training, livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, camping,

snowmobiling, and horseback riding. In the past, management for game species has been very

important and the Service fire management policy requires that all wildfires must be suppressed

as quickly as possible. A detailed description of the existing programs and uses contained in this

Alternative is found in the Affected Environment Chapter 2.

ALTERNATIVE B: RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND

MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING USES

Alternative B places new management emphasis on the restoration of habitat such as mature dry

forest and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and animals. Under

Alternative B, existing uses and recreation activities would be modified but continued. 

Recreation activities would include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, camping, and

horseback riding. The annual livestock grazing program would be continued but would have

strict limitations on numbers of animals, locations, and time of year. A major change would be

to move grazing out of riparian zones and high-elevation areas. This would require the building

of additional fences to control livestock use. The Air Force survival training program would be

continued, however, training intensity would be reduced and helicopter use eliminated except in

emergency situations. 

ALTERNATIVE C: HABITAT RESTORATION EMPHASIZING PRIORITY USES

This Alternative would also place management emphasis on mature dry forest and riparian

habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and animals. Priority wildlifedependent uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

would be emphasized and in some cases expanded. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation activities. Hunting

opportunities would be expanded and additional effort would be spent on environmental
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-4

education activities and interpretation. Other existing recreational activities such as camping,

horseback riding, and snowmobiling would be eliminated. No annual livestock grazing program

would be included but some limited livestock grazing may occur, in order to meet specific

wildlife and habitat objectives. The Air Force survival training program would be discontinued. 

ALTERNATIVE D: THE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE  ALTERNATIVE 

The focus of Alternative D is to manage the Refuge as an ecological reserve, following some of

the ideas of Noss and Cooperrider (1994). To some, the theme may evoke ideas of passive

management  such as often occurs in wilderness areas. However, objectives encompassed in

Alternative D are more complex than a sole strategy of passive management allows. The key

components of the Alternative are to promote habitat restoration, especially in the dry forest

zone, to restore aquatic conditions to natural states, and to effectively enlarge roadless areas in

the eastern Refuge by reducing human intrusions.

Like Alternatives C, D, and E, this Alternative promotes restoration of forest habitats, especially

within the dry forest type, using thinning and burning techniques. However, commercial

thinning would be specifically excluded from areas that have never been logged, and low impact

fire suppression techniques would be chosen whenever possible. Low impact techniques would

include containment with hand lines as opposed to bulldozed lines, etc. Restoration of other

natural systems and features would also occur, including the removal of artificial dikes, drainage

features, fences, and several roads. Partnerships would be developed with surrounding land

managers and landowners to create wildlife corridors and buffer zones for the Refuge core

reserve  and to promote habitat unfragmented by artificial openings and roads at the landscape

scale.

The Alternative would support the priority uses established under the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting and stream fishing would become the primary

recreational activities. Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and

interpretation activities would be allowed. Hunting of forest predators such as bear, cougar, and

bobcat would be eliminated, so as to diminish interference with the natural process of predation. 

Only no-trace camping would be allowed. Other uses such as horseback riding, livestock grazing

and the Air Force survival training would be eliminated from the Refuge.

The Alternative emphasizes reducing vehicular based human disturbances to wildlife and habitat,

centered around the roadless areas in the eastern half of the Refuge. Only four public access

points to the Refuge would be maintained; others that are now available would be blocked or

gated. Blacktail Mountain road would be gated on the eastern end of the Refuge as well as at the

Blacktail Bridge throughout the year. Cedar Creek Road would also be closed to public entry. 

These closures would create a large area within the eastern half of the Refuge (the core

reserve ) that would remain essentially free of human disturbances throughout the year. 

Inholders access would be managed through a cooperative gating system. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-5

ALTERNATIVE E: AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MODIFIED FROM

DRAFT) 

Alternative E originated as a combination of the preliminary Alternatives B and C. The Agency

Preferred Alternative E places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components such

as mature dry forest and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and

animals. Under Alternative E, a mix of existing uses and priority recreation activities will be

managed. A wide range of recreational activities would be supported including hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, camping, horseback riding, photography, and interpretation. Additional

hunting seasons would be added. Interpretation, viewing, photography, and environmental

education would receive added emphasis. Some recreational uses, such as camping and

horseback riding would be restricted in some areas and during some seasons. Camping would be

allowed in designated campgrounds April 15 to December 31 and in additional designated sites

from October 1 to December 31. Selected campsites would be removed from environmentally

sensitive riparian zones. Snowmobiling would be prohibited from all areas of the Refuge except

Olson Creek Road. The annual livestock grazing program would be continued at its present level

for five years, or through the 2004 grazing season; beginning 2005, use grazing only to achieve

wildlife habitat objective. The Air Force survival training program would be phased out over

five years.

Features Common to all Alternatives

All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length

and redundancy of the individual Alternative descriptions.

• Refuge Boundary and In-holdings

The Refuge boundary remains the same across all alternatives. There is continued

interest by the Fish and Wildlife Service to consolidate management of lands within the

existing Refuge boundary. This could be done through management, protection,

easements, exchange or acquisition of the approximately 9400 acres of in-holdings within

the boundary. A significant portion of these in-holdings are industrial timber land

including Boise Cascade (approximately 1550 acres) and Stimson Lumber Company

(approximately 4530 acres).

• Other Refuge-Managed Parcels

The Little Pend Oreille NWR currently manages two fee properties outside of the

approved boundary of the Refuge: the Norris Tract (54.7 acres) near Springdale,

Washington and the Cusick track (298 acres) north of Cusick, Washington; and four

conservation easements ranging in size from 10 to 65 acres in Stevens County. All of

these properties resulted from Farmer s Home Administration land disposal through loan

defaults. Fee title lands are transferred to the Service for management while conservation
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-6

easements transfer only the rights of easement management and serve to protect wetlands

and converted wetlands through restrictions that are perpetual. These tracts will be

managed consistently with the management alternative selected for the primary Refuge. 

In addition, a step-down management plan will be prepared for each of these units. The

Kalispel Tribe of Indians has expressed interest in cooperatively managing the Cusick

unit which is located close to Tribal lands. Partnerships will be considered for the

cooperative management of outlying units.

• Land Protection Strategy Outside Approved Boundary

The Service has the ability to protect and acquire key wildlife habitats outside of the

approved Refuge boundary. Additional NEPA analysis will be necessary to evaluate the

environmental effects of protecting or acquiring lands before they can be added. Land

protection methods may include cooperative agreements, conservation easements, fee

title acquisition, leases, donations, transfers, and exchanges. Only willing participants

would be considered for any of these approaches. Priority for protection will be lands

adjacent to the Refuge, particularly riparian, wetland, ponderosa pine, and high elevation

forest (above 4,000 foot elevation) habitats. Medium priority for protection will be lands

adjacent to other Service managed properties in Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties and

seasonally flooded agricultural lands within the Colville River floodplain. 

• Protection of the Kaniksu Unit, A Separate but Related Action

The Service is currently in the process of evaluating the potential acquisition of 747 acres

being offered by one landowner northeast of Deer Lake, Washington. This property is

referred to as the Kaniksu Unit. Approximately 550 acres of this property are under a

perpetual wetland easement administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

A separate environmental assessment will be completed if the preliminary project

proposal is approved by the Washington Office. If acquired and added to the Refuge, this

area would be subject to many of the management recommendations provided by the

CCP. A unit plan would be prepared in the future to make management of this area

consistent with its purpose, with the CCP, and with other factors unique to its acquisition.

• Protection of Existing Research Natural Areas (RNA)

Two Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Refuge will be maintained and protected for

their research values. In general passive or natural management will be practiced in the

RNAs, including hands-off management of wildfire unless external lands appear

threatened. Baird Basin RNA is a 160-acre tract in the North Fork of the Bear Creek

watershed, representing three forest cover types under the Society of American Forester s

classification system: Larch-Douglas Fir (SAF 212), Ponderosa pine-Larch-Douglas fir

(SAF 214) and Lodgepole Pine (SAF 218). Varline Grove RNA is an 80-acre tract

representing the Lodgepole Pine cover type (SAF 212). 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-7

• Protection of Roadless Area

A 5,520-acre roadless area exists in the southeast corner of the Refuge that may have

potential for wilderness designation. All of the alternatives considered in this final

CCP/EIS would be managed in such a manner that the primitive roadless character of this

area and associated values are not impaired. The roadless area of the Refuge will be

studied further concurrent with development of the step-down Habitat Management Plan

and the Public Use Management Plan to determine if it is suitable as a Wilderness Study

Area.

• Tribal Coordination

Common to all alternatives will be increased regular communication with American

Indian Tribes who have an interest in the Refuge. The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians are

three local tribes the Refuge will work with regarding issues of shared interest. 

• Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships

 Volunteer opportunities and partnerships occur in all alternatives. These are recognized

as key components of the successful management of public lands and vital to

implementation of Refuge programs, plans, and projects.

• Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment

Annual payments to Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties will continue at similar historic

rates under each alternative. Total payment made to Stevens County in 1997 was

$231,804. If in-holding lands are acquired and added to the Refuge, then the county

payment will increase accordingly.

• Salvage Harvest by Permit

Salvage harvest is allowed on the Refuge with a special use permit only, when wind or

other events add excessive, high-risk fuels. This use will continue under all alternatives,

where opportunities arise and where salvage could be used to further other forest habitat

management objectives.

• Firewood Cutting by Permit

The firewood cutting permit system remains the same under all alternatives. Current

Refuge policy is to allow cutting between August 1 and November 1. Each permittee is

allowed to cut up to two cords of downed wood within 200 feet of a designated road. The
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-8

number of permits issued, cords allowed, and locations will vary from year to year based

on conditions, demand, and need. 

• Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities

Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge administrative facilities will be necessary

regardless of the alternative selected. Facilities include the Refuge headquarters complex,

one government residence, and one cabin. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for

safety and accessibility and to support staff and management needs. Currently, the

headquarters office is being expanded/remodeled to add office space. Funding has been

acquired to upgrade the storage building. Funding needs have been identified to upgrade

and enlarge the shop and to renovate the Winslow cabin to provide volunteer housing.

• Protection and Management of Cultural Resources

The Service has legal responsibility to consider the effects its actions have on

archeological and historic properties. Under all alternatives, the Service will manage

cultural resources in accordance with public law and agency policy. To this end, small

projects will require a Request for Cultural Resource Compliance form be completed in

conformance with the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Region 1, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the State of

Washington Historic Preservation Officer. Additional consultation, surveys, and

clearance will be required when large projects are sponsored by the Refuge or when

activities will affect properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (more

than 50 years old).

• Management of Minor Recreational Uses

Certain recreational activities are occasionally pursued on the Refuge. Under all

alternatives, any group activity involving more than 25 people will require a Special Use

Permit. Dog sledding and search and rescue will also require Special Use Permits or

Memorandums of Understanding. Other recreational activities not specifically addressed

in this document (cross country skiing, snowshoeing) will be allowed to continue on

Refuge lands unless they are found to conflict with wildlife or habitat objectives. 

• Wildlife Habitat

Important habitats for wildlife will be identified, protected, and enhanced, including but

not limited to suitable snags, downed wood, movement corridors, late successional forest

communities, wetlands, and aspen groves.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-9

Alternatives Considered But not Developed in Detail

Caretaker Strategy

Under the caretaker strategy, Refuge management would be minimized, public use opportunities

reduced and staffing would be kept to a minimum. With custodial management, only those

actions mandated by policy or regulation, such as fire suppression and noxious weed control

would be undertaken. This preliminary alternative was presented to the public in the July 1998

Planning Update. Very little public response or interest was expressed. The caretaker alternative

would not resolve resource issues or accomplish Refuge goals and objectives. Forest health

would continue to decline with increasing risk for catastrophic loss of forest habitats from

wildfire, insects, and disease.

Non-Commercial Harvest/Thinning 

Under this alternative only non-commercial methods would be used to conduct the forest

management practices in the Refuge. Non-commercial methods would include firewood permit

sales to individuals and pre-commercial thinning and non-commercial thinning by staff or by

contracts. This option was rejected for the following reasons:

The non-commercial techniques would take place over an extended period of time. It is unlikely

that thinning treatments on the approximate 250 acre units could be accomplished within one

"season". A short time frame is necessary so areas can be burned as a unit. A unit must be

uniform in terms of its fuel loading, arrangement, size and relative moisture content. This can

best be achieved if the slash cures uniformly after the stems are removed. 

The demand for green ponderosa pine trees as firewood is relatively low and it is unlikely that

enough interest would be generated in this type of scheme to accomplish the desired habitat

outcome in a reasonable time frame. Past experience with this type of thinning has yielded poor

results.

Overall wildlife disturbance would be extended under this alternative since the methods

employed to manipulate the habitat would be far less efficient then harvesting commercially.

Soil erosion, compaction and drainage impacts would also be magnified under this alternative. 

Numerous firewood permittees and thinning contractors would entail the use of vehicles intended

for maintained roads rather then specialized for timber harvest. In general, vehicles not designed

for use in the forest do much more damage then low ground pressure logging equipment properly

used. Winter harvest, a desired season, would be nearly precluded under this alternative since

average snow depths in the area would make the area inaccessible to vehicles.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-10

Grazing Alternative Submitted by Permittees and NRCS

Local individuals interested in grazing on the Refuge submitted a grazing alternative for the

CCP. This alternative was not included and evaluated in the EIS, however their alternative did

provide elements that were incorporated into the grazing option contained in Alternative B. The

most significant difference between their alternative and Alternative B is grazing in the alluvial

riparian valleys. The permittees  alternative proposed grazing to enhance wildlife habitat and

improve conditions along Refuge streams. Based upon the current assessment of riparian and

stream habitats, restoration is a critical need for up to 7 miles of alluvial riparian habitat. 

Alternative B allows grazing that enhances wildlife habitat but specifically excludes grazing

from the alluvial riparian zones. 
 Table 3-1 Summary of Alternatives

Program or

Issue

Alt. A

 (Status quo)

Alt. B

(Restoration of wildlife

habitat and management

of existing uses)

Alt. C 

(Restoration; emphasizing

Refuge System Priority

uses)

Alt. D

(Reserve strategy,

reduce human

disturbances)

HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAMS

Forest

management

Limited forest

management. Some

salvage activities and

precommercial thinning. 

Limited prescribed fire and

total fire suppression.

Restore natural forest

structure and composition. 

Aim for a mosaic of stands to

approximate the appropriate

Historical Range of

Variability (HRV) within

each forest group. For the

long-term, promote large tree

size and stand development

into mature and old stages

over approximately 50% of

the Refuge. Use

precommercial and

commercial thinning,

selective harvest techniques,

and prescribed fire. Suppress

all wildfires outside of

prescription.

Restore natural forest

structure and composition.

Aim for a mosaic of stands

to approximate the

appropriate HRV within

each forest group. For the

long-term, promote large

tree size and stand

development into mature

and old stages over

approximately 50% of the

Refuge. Use precommercial

and commercial thinning,

selective harvest techniques,

and prescribed fire. 

Suppress all wildfires

outside of prescription.

Restore natural forest

structure and composition

and role of fire, using

thinning and prescribed

fire. No commercial

thinning in unlogged

stands. For the long-term,

promote large tree size and

stand development into

mature and old stages over

approximately 50% of the

Refuge. Employ low

impact fire suppression

techniques as much as

possible. Promote

protection of wildlife

corridors and buffer zones

with neighboring land

owners and managers.

Riparian and

stream

management

No change; no plantings or

restoration.

Repair/improve roads that

limit fish passage or cause

excessive stream

sedimentation; plant and

stabilize streambanks. Enact

200-foot setback from water

bodies for dispersed

camping, commercial

thinning, and road

construction. 

Repair/improve roads that

limit fish passage or cause

excessive stream

sedimentation; plant and

stabilize streambanks. 

Instream flows take priority

over diversion flows. Enact

200-foot setback from water

bodies for timber removal

and road construction. 

Breach dams and diversions to restore natural

hydrology. Repair or

obliterate roads limiting

fish passage and/or causing

excessive sedimentation;

plant and stabilize

streambanks. Enact 200-

foot setback from water

bodies for dispersed

camping, commercial

thinning, and road

construction. 

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-11
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Use of old fields

and farms

Continue grazing on

approximately 430 acres

(65%) of the old fields and

farms. Allow remaining

openings to reforest

naturally.

Plant up to 200 upland acres

with perennial crops and

exclude livestock grazing to

provide wildlife forage and

viewing opportunities. Allow

about 135 acres to revert to

native vegetation, using

prescribed fire and thinning

to enhance natural

succession. Maintain

remaining upland openings

(390 acres) with grazing,

mowing, prescribed fire, and

other mechanical methods. 

Same as Alt. B except that

upland meadows would be

maintained with prescribed

fire, mowing, or other

methods, with no annual

grazing. 

No human created

openings would be

maintained. Plant or thin

trees, shrubs, or native

vegetation to enhance

natural succession. 

Control weeds.

Noxious Weed

Management

Use integrated weed

management methods to

treat 34 miles of road-side

weeds plus 12 acres of

non-forest habitats.

Use integrated weed

management methods to

reduce seed production by

annually treating 50 linear

miles of road-side weeds plus

250 acres of non-forested

habitats and 250 acres of

forested habitats. Reduce

noxious weed cover on the

Refuge by half by the year

2015.

Use integrated weed

management methods to

reduce seed production by

annually treating 50 linear

miles of road-side weeds plus

250 acres of non-forested

habitats and 250 acres of

forested habitats. Reduce

noxious weed cover on the

Refuge by half by the year

2015.

Use integrated weed

management methods to

reduce seed production by

annually treating 50 linear

miles of road-side weeds

plus 350 acres of nonforested habitats and 350

acres of forested habitats. 

Reduce noxious weed

cover on the Refuge by

half by the year 2015.

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-1

2
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION

Entrances and

roads

No change (12 entrances,

201 miles of total roads, 91

miles of open roads). 

Open road density in 14

subwatersheds range from

0.2 mi/sq. mi. - 1.9 mi./sq.

mi. Close selected roads

during breakup.

Eight entrances. Close or

obliterate selected roads as

outlined in road management

criteria. Open road density

in 14 subwatersheds not to

exceed 1.5 mi./sq. mi. from

Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and "d 0.5

mi./sq. mi. from Jan.1 -

Apr.15. Close all but the

county-maintained roads

from Jan. 1 - Apr.15. 

Eight entrances. Close or

obliterate selected roads as

outlined in road management

criteria. Open road density in

14 subwatersheds not to

exceed 1.5 mi./sq. mi. from

Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and "d 0.5

mi./sq. mi. from Jan. 1 - Apr.

15. Close all but the countymaintained roads Jan. 1- Apr.

15.

Four entrances. Close or

obliterate numerous

selected roads. Protect and

enlarge effective roadless

areas by closing roads to

public entry, including 

Cedar Creek Rd. and

Blacktail Mountain Rd.

east of Blacktail Bridge. 

Manage inholder access

through cooperative

agreements. Open road

density in 14

subwatersheds not to

exceed 1.0 mi./sq. mi.

from Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and

"d 0.5 mi./sq. mi. from Jan.

1 - Apr. 15. Close all but

the county-maintained

roads Jan. 1- Apr. 15.

Hunting All state seasons 

Oct 1 - Dec 31. September

seasons northern portion of

Refuge only. 

All state seasons Oct 1 - Dec

31. September seasons

northern portion of Refuge

only.

Expand quality hunting

opportunities (spring turkey,

grouse, and deer/elk bow

hunts). Offer hunter education

programs.

Allow ungulate, gamebird,

and waterfowl hunting. 

Eliminate predator (bear,

cougar, coyote, and

bobcat) hunting. 

Wildlife

Observation, 

Interpretation,

Photography

Minimal programs as staff

time allows

Minimal programs as staff

time allows

Increase available viewing

information and opportunities;

offer programs, and events

(e.g., summer youth program).

Interpret natural and cultural

history.

Minimal programs as staff

time allows.

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-1

3
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Fishing Continue current

April - October fishing

opportunities. Lakes

stocked.

Continue current

April - October fishing

season. Increase

opportunities for natural

spawning in lakes. Continue

stocking program.

Continue current seasons and

increase catch and release

fishing on LPO River. 

Increase opportunities for

natural spawning at lakes. 

Delay fishing opener on lakes

until July 1 to minimize

disturbance to nesting birds. 

Continue stocking program.

No stocking. Breach

stream diversions and

dams to restore natural

hydrology. 

Camping Unregulated. Five

designated campgrounds &

many dispersed sites. 

Allowed in designated 

campgrounds and dispersed

sites only between Apr. 15

and Dec. 31. Eliminate

dispersed riparian camping.

Eliminated Primitive (no-trace)

camping allowed only. 

Close off all campgrounds

and camps accessible by

vehicle.

Horseback Riding Unregulated Develop equestrian plan,

specifically addressing

overnight use (Horse Camp

only), trails, feed, and

maintenance.

Eliminated Eliminated 

Off-Road Vehicles ATVs and dirt bikes are

not allowed but illegal use

occurs.

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Eliminate illegal use with law

enforcement patrols.

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Snowmobiling Snowmobiling allowed

only on Olson Creek Rd.

and Blacktail Mtn. Rd.

(from bridge east).

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Maintain snowpark, but

discontinue snowmobiling on

Refuge. 

Eliminate illegal use with law

enforcement patrols. Remove

snowpark and discontinue

snowmobiling on all Refuge

roads and lands. 

Eliminate illegal use with

law enforcement patrols. 

Remove snowpark and

discontinue snowmobiling

on all Refuge roads and

lands. 

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-1

4
Program or

Issue

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

OTHER PROGRAMS

Livestock grazing No change; up to 750

AUMs annually; based on

coordinated resource

management plan

developed by Soil

Conservation Service in

1978.

Modified annual grazing

program conducted outside

low-gradient alluvial riparian

areas and outside of high

elevation areas (e.g. not

above 3000'). Exclude

livestock from ecologically

sensitive areas including wet

meadows. Livestock grazing

would be concentrated in

areas where it may provide a

benefit to spring forage for

white-tailed deer.

Phase out annual program; use

grazing only as habitat

management tool to achieve

wildlife objectives.

Phase out annual program

in five years.

Air Force

Survival School

No change. Use

concentrated in late

summer with an average of

90 personnel/day. Ground

and helicopter use. 

Reduced training use,

allowing only activities not

disturbing to wildlife.

Eliminate use of helicopters

except in emergency

situations.

Phased out over five years Phased out over five years. 

Cultural

Resources

Program

Protect cultural resources

in accordance with law and

policy.

Protect cultural resources in

accordance with law and

policy. Implement a

proactive program to

inventory and evaluate

potential cultural resource

assets. 

Protect cultural resources in

accordance with law and

policy. Implement a proactive

program to inventory and

evaluate potential cultural

resource assets. 

Protect cultural resources

in accordance with law and

policy.

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-1

5
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies

Little Pend Oreille NWR

3-22 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

3.3 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND

 RELATIONSHIP TO GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

Central to the concept of the CCP is the development of Refuge goals. In addition, as part of the

CCP, each refuge is expected to set objectives and devise strategies that will work in concert to

help achieve the goals. Goals are broad statements of the desired future condition for refuge

resources. Objectives are, where possible, quantified statements of a standard to be achieved or

work to be accomplished. Strategies are specific actions, tools or techniques that contribute

toward accomplishment of the objective. Little Pend Oreille NWR goals, as presented in Chapter

1, are: 

Goal 1: Conserve, enhance, and restore native forest, riparian, instream, and wetland habitats and their associated fish,

wildlife, and plants, representative of the native biological

diversity of northeastern Washington.

Goal 2: Monitor, protect, and recover special status plants and animals

and species of management interest. 

Goal 3: Provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and

education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and

enjoyment of Refuge wildlife, fish, habitats, and cultural

history. 

Some of the current alternatives emphasize one goal over another, thus objectives and strategies

differ somewhat among alternatives. This section describes and compares the objectives and

strategies of each of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) under the main

programs operated by the Refuge. The main Refuge programs are:

• Habitat Management, including: 

- Forest Management, 

- Watershed Management, 

- Riparian and Stream Restoration, and

- Management of Forest Openings, Old Fields and Meadows; 

• Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Populations Management;

• Recreational Use and Access; and

• Other programs, including

- Cultural Resources Management,

- Grazing program, and 

- Air Force Survival School

Each of these programs is described by objectives (which may differ under each alternative).
Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies

Little Pend Oreille NWR

3-23 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Except where otherwise noted, all objectives would have a 15 year time frame for completion. It

should be pointed out that the desired future habitat condition (for instance, restoration of large

trees in dry forest stands) will not be fully achieved in 15 years. The Refuge will measure

success partly by the extent to which Refuge habitat conditions are moving towards the desired

state and/or including the desired natural processes.

Habitat Restoration Program: Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, Objectives, and

Strategies (contributes to Goals 1 and 2) 

The key objectives and strategies that would be associated with restoration actions under each

alternative are detailed below, by main subprograms.

Forest Habitat Management Objectives and Strategies:

Alternatives B, C, and D, and E

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, most of the active forest manipulation in the next 15 years

would be concentrated in the dry forest zone of the Refuge. A major management emphasis

would be restoration of ponderosa pine habitat and associated plant communities in the dry forest

zone as identified in the Map 3 of this final CCP/EIS. In order to achieve the Refuge s first goal

to conserve, enhance and restore native forest lands, management activities would focus on

enhancing and increasing mature, single story ponderosa pine habitat. 

Restoration actions would benefit a wide range of species (see Chapter 4) .

Dry Forest

Stand Structure

Objectives:

• Restore mature stand structure and fire ecosystem role in dry

forest stands on up to 1000 acres per year (or until 90% is under

regular fire management). Strive to create open stands

dominated by scattered mature pine and larch trees to provide

diverse natural habitat for wildlife and to reduce the risk of fire

and disease.

• Over the long term (100-200 years) aim for a mosaic of

stands of different age and structural classes at

approximately the same seral distributions as occurred

historically (HRV) within the dry forest zone: ~15 % early

seral, ~35 % mid seral, and ~50% old single or old multi-layer

(Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997, Vol. II, pp 602-610). 

 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-24

Understory

Shrub

Objective:

• Increase the percent shrub understory cover in mid and late

seral stands; increase shrub crown cover less than five feet in

height to 40% or more (applies to forests below 3500 feet).

Strategies undertaken to achieve these objectives would include conducting pre-commercial and

commercial thinning, as well as selective harvest on up to 15,000 acres in the dry forest zone to

prepare stands for the introduction of prescribed fire. Timber thinning would be conducted

"from below (taking the smaller and less vigorous trees) in order to favor the healthiest and

most vigorous dominants, primarily ponderosa pine, which have the greatest potential to reach

maturity. Many mature trees exhibiting defects would be left standing for wildlife use. Unless

they are safety hazards, all snags would be left standing and additional snags created where

needed. In areas where large woody debris is lacking on the forest floor, trees may be dropped

for wildlife cover. 

Specifically, projects would occur in the pilot project areas known as Starvation Flats, Minnie

Flats and Biarly Flats. (See Appendix E for detailed prescriptions for these three projects). 

Excess fuels would be removed or concentrated in stands where needed. Fire would be

reintroduced in a controlled manner by applying prescribed burns under the guidance of the Fire

Management Plan.

Construction of new roads would be minimized (some improvements to existing roads and trails

may be required). Where commercial thinning would occur, opening new areas for log landings

would be avoided, instead forwarding logs to openings along the existing network of roads and

fields. Using feller buncher type equipment where appropriate would avoid the need for an

elaborate road or yarding system. Harvest times would be scheduled during the fall through

early winter period to minimize ground disturbance.

Moist and Cold

Forest

Objectives:

• Protect, restore, and maintain the biological integrity and

connectivity of the higher elevation forest habitat zones. 

• Over the long term (100-200 years) aim for a mosaic of

stands of different age and structural classes at

approximately the same seral distributions as occurred

historically (HRV) within the moist and cold forest zones: ~25

% early seral, ~40 % mid seral, and ~35% old single or old

multi-layer (Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997, Vol. II, pp 602-

610). 

 .

The moist and cold forest zones of the Refuge would be lower priorities for active restoration. 

However, management actions, including thinning and burning could occur in the moist and cold
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-25

zones depending on identified needs, such as controlling disease, controlling noxious weeds, or

enhancing habitat for special status species such as the lynx. Forest distribution, composition

and seral status would also be mapped. 

Strategy Unique to Alternative D: This Alternative would specifically avoid commercial logging

in any previously unlogged stands.

Landscape Objectives and Strategies

Alternatives D and E

Landscape

Connectivity

Objective:

• Maintain or establish mature forest connectivity on a

landscape scale with adjoining agencies and landowners 

In keeping with this objective, the Refuge would seek to develop partnerships and cooperative

agreements to maintain buffers for the Refuge. Buffer zones would be designed to support

Refuge purposes and goals in forest management prescriptions and employ, where necessary,

alternative thinning techniques so as to require fewer roads and trails than the other alternatives. 

Aquatic Habitat Management Objectives and Strategies:

Aquatic habitat on the Refuge is affected by the watershed condition, riparian zone uses, and the

aquatic condition. All of the action alternatives emphasize improvement of aquatic habitat

conditions, and would employ a variety of strategies to achieve this goal. The three interrelated

components of aquatic habitat management include watershed management, riparian restoration,

and aquatic restoration (includes in-stream, lakes and wetlands actions). Objectives and

strategies for these three components would differ slightly across alternatives, primarily in the instream restoration component. 

1. Watershed Management

Fifteen subwatersheds encompass the Refuge and surrounding lands, all contributing runoff to

the Little Pend Oreille River, which then feeds into the Colville River downstream of Refuge

lands. Twelve of the Little Pend Oreille River subwatersheds are on lands controlled by the

Refuge. Maintaining and improving the habitat quality in the Little Pend Oreille River will

require management programs, on and off-Refuge, conducted in a cooperative spirit with other

agencies and landowners. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-26

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Watershed

Partne rship

Objective: 

• Restore and maintain the health of the Little Pend Oreille

River in partnership with the Stevens County Conservation

District and various landowners

Watershed

Health

Objective:

• Reduce the effect of roads upon water quality and bank

stability. 

To achieve these objectives, the Refuge would work to identify watershed and stream restoration

projects contributing to the objective. The Refuge would cooperate to locate funding sources to

support projects on private lands, and would work with fishery interest groups on fish habitat

improvement projects.

In order to reduce road impacts upon water quality, new road construction would be minimized

and roads causing significant stream erosion would be repaired or obliterated. The Refuge would

also seek to identify and replace stream culverts that block fish movement or do not have

adequate capacity for 100-year flood events.

The Refuge would implement a water quality monitoring program (associated with 303 (d)

listing) to assess the physical, chemical and biological quality of the Little Pend Oreille River

and its tributaries within the Refuge. The Refuge will participate with the Washington

Department of Ecology and Stevens County Conservation District in developing a Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or Water Cleanup Plan for the Colville River Watershed.

2. Riparian Restoration

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Alluvial

Riparian

Restoration

Objectives:

• Restore 7 miles of unsatisfactory alluvial riparian habitat

along Little Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek, by the year

2015. Re-establish native vegetation and strive to achieve the

following characteristics:

1. a minimum of 80% stable banks with deep-rooted

streambank vegetation (INFISH Standard);

2. a regular source of large woody debris within 25 feet of the

stream banks (available at least every 150 feet of stream

length);

3. a natural mixture of riparian vegetation seral stages

including a recruitment source for large trees;
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-27

4. productive (non-weedy) wildlife habitat/native

cover in artificial openings 

• Restore mixed-deciduous riparian forest to their natural

distribution within the Refuge and restore the native

composition of trees, shrubs, sedges, rushes, grasses, and forbs

within these plant communities.

The strategies to achieve these objectives would include a variety of methods. A significant

change would eliminate cattle grazing in riparian areas to allow for optimum growth of riparian

vegetation. A strong revegetation program would be undertaken, with plantings of native

deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs. All revegetated sites would be monitored. The

Refuge would also seek to determine the influence of deer on deciduous riparian shrubs and trees

by establishing 2-3 deer exclosures in the flood plain of the lower Little Pend Oreille River. 

Noxious weed problems affecting the riparian zone would be addressed with integrated weed

management techniques (see more under noxious weed objective). Sites for riparian restoration

would be prioritized, with areas of bank erosion or areas dominated by reed canarygrass

receiving high consideration.

Riparian

Protection

Objective:

• Protect and maintain riparian habitats from loss of

vegetation and soil integrity throughout Refuge. 

 Sediment input to aquatic habitats and water quality degradation on the Refuge would be curbed

by a new policy requiring 200 foot setbacks (or a buffer to the extent of the 100-year floodplain)

from the edges of all streams, lakes, and wetlands for camping, commercial thinning, road

construction, and any other practices causing detrimental changes in water quality, temperature,

sediment deposit, or vegetation removal. 

3. Aquatic Restoration 

Alternatives B, C, and E

Existing dams and diversions would be maintained under these alternatives. The key objectives

for aquatic restoration under Alternatives B, C, and E would be to :
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-28

Stream Habitat

Objectives:

• Improve stream habitat conditions for native fish and other

aquatic wildlife, specifically aiming to meet or exceed the

standards set for stream habitat components in the federal

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) including: pool

frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, bank

stability, lower bank angle, and width/depth ratio (USDA,

1995). Adopt newer standard when one is approved.

Flow objective:

(Alternatives C

and E only)

• Ensure that flows in the original channels of diverted steams

take priority over diversion flows.

Marsh

Maintenance 

Objective:

• Maintain or restore at least 100 acres of permanently flooded

emergent marsh habitat, to benefit certain wading birds,

ducks, and amphibians.

Instream restoration projects would include any projects to restore natural channel form or deal

with bank erosion issues that cannot simply be replanted. Site specific restoration plans would

be developed for each of these sites with input from restoration experts. These types of

restoration projects would emphasize natural hydrology, bioengineering techniques, and habitat

for native salmonid and riparian bird species. Major earth disturbing projects would be evaluated

for additional NEPA or other compliance requirements. Diking, water control structures, beaver

introductions and/or vegetation control would be considered as tools to increase or maintain

marsh habitat.

Alternative D

Alternative D includes the instream and wetlands restoration objectives described for

Alternatives B, C, and E, but includes a modified lakes objective. (This essentially makes the

flow objective moot for this Alternative).

Flow Objective: • Return all aquatic habitats to natural condition, flow levels,

and morphology.

Under Alternative D, the natural hydrology of the Refuge would be restored to the maximum

extent possible. This alternative differs from Alternatives B, C and E in that all aquatic habitats

would be returned to their natural condition including the three Refuge fishing lakes. Diversion

ditches and dams constructed to create the lakes or drain wetlands would be removed and the

lakes and streams, and wetlands would revert back to original historic levels and flows.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-29

Management of Forest Openings, Old Fields, and Meadows

As discussed in Chapter 2, the forest openings, old fields, and meadows present special problems

for the Refuge. Many are endowed with historical significance owing to their origin as

homesteads during the pioneer period. However, the openings tend to harbor persistent

populations of noxious weeds and natural succession back to forest is inhibited in many places

by cattle grazing. Yet the openings also provide grassy areas used by deer as well as presenting

an opportunity for wildlife viewing. 

Alternatives B and C 

 

Noxious Weed

Objective:

• Reduce weed seed production from noxious weeds. Treat 50

roadside miles, 250 acres of openings, and 250 acres of

forested habitat each year. Reduce the amount of noxious

weed cover on the Refuge by half by the year 2015. 

Fields

Management

Objectives:

• Maintain approximately 80% of the fields as openings to

provide a diversity of habitat structure, grass and herb forage

for herbivores, enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities, and to

maintain certain cultural resources. 

The Refuge would employ integrated weed management methods (see definition in Glossary,

Appendix A) to reduce noxious weed infestation under these alternatives. Treatment should

occur before seed production gets underway. Annual treatments as well as targeted monitoring

would be necessary to assure that the Refuge is making progress towards the objective of ridding

the Refuge of half of the extent of noxious weeds by the year 2015.

Future management of openings would emphasize maintenance of grass and herbaceous cover on

the majority of these openings. However, the strategies to achieve this would differ by

alternative. Alternative C would employ cultivation and prescribed fire as primary tools but

would exclude grazing except in certain circumstances. Alternative B would also employ

cultivation and prescribed fire but would include grazing in many areas (outside of ecologically

sensitive areas) as part of the grazing program. 

Strategies to protect the cultural resources within these fields would include an inventory and

evaluation of fields, orchards, and homesteads to identify those that are especially significant or

interpretable. In addition, the Refuge would develop a cadre of volunteers to collect information

and conduct interviews concerning the Refuge homesteads. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-30

Alternative D

Noxious Weed

Objective:

 " Reduce weed seed production from noxious weeds. Treat 50

roadside miles, 350 acres of openings, and 350 acres of

forested habitat each year. Reduce the amount of noxious

weed cover on the Refuge by half by the year 2015. 

Fields

Management

Objective:

 " Allow all created fields to return to native vegetation

condition.

The Refuge would employ integrated weed management methods (see definition in Glossary,

Appendix A) to reduce noxious weed infestation under this alternative. Openings would be

largely left alone to revert to native condition; for the most part forest rehabilitation would be

accomplished with passive methods. Trees will naturally establish themselves and will be

allowed to grow and thrive. Under certain circumstances, trees would be planted in the openings

and/or thinned to accelerate growth or succession. 

Noxious Weed

Objective:

 Alternative E

• Develop an Integrated Weed Management Plan that

addresses treatment methods, inventory and monitoring for

existing noxious weeds, and minimizes new weed

introductions and conditions that favor weed establishment and

spread. Until establishment of this Plan, treat any Class A and

B-designate weeds or new invaders with most effective

treatment and contain the spread of existing noxious weeds. 

Treat approximately 50 roadside miles, 250 acres of old field

openings, and 250 acres of forest openings annually.

Fields

Management

Objective:

• Maintain approximately 500 acres of fields as openings to

provide a diversity of habitat structure, grass and forage for

wildlife, for enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities, and to

maintain certain cultural resources. 

Future management of openings would emphasize maintenance of grass and herbaceous cover on

approximately 300 acres. Up to 200 acres would be planted with annual or perennial crops as

wildlife forage. Management strategies to achieve this objective include cultivation, prescribed

fire, and mowing as primary tools. Prescribed grazing could be used in certain circumstances.

Strategies to protect the cultural resources within these fields would include an inventory and

evaluation of fields, orchards, and homesteads to identify those that are especially significant or
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-31

interpretable. In addition, the Refuge would develop a cadre of volunteers to collect information

and conduct interviews concerning the Refuge homesteads. 

Strategies for the management of noxious weeds, as adapted from Draft Colville National Forest

Weed prevention guidelines, (1999), include: 

• Inventory and map noxious weed occurrence for Classes A, B-designates, B and C, as

specified by Washington State and Stevens County, by subwatershed. 

• Control weed seed production and spread of all Class A and B-designates, and some

Class B and C weeds along travel corridors (roads and trails), areas with high public use,

and along Refuge boundaries.

• Educate staff and Refuge visitors and neighbors about weed problems and prevention

methods.

• Incorporate weed prevention measures in all projects that include ground disturbance and

in administration of special use permits.

• Revegetate disturbed areas from natural and human-caused disturbance (prescribed and

wildland fire lines, road maintenance, skid trails, etc.). 

• Monitor treated, disturbed, and revegetated areas for effectiveness of treatments. Adjust

treatments accordingly.

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations Management Program: Alternatives and Relationship

to Goals, Objectives, and Strategies (contributes to Goal 2)

Alternatives B, C, D and E

 

In cooperation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Ecological Services

branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Refuge will emphasize conservation and

recovery of native species under all action alternatives. Populations will be primarily affected by

the habitat conditions available on the Refuge, thus the key methods to manage populations will

remain in the habitat management program. However, some more direct population management

tools, such as reintroductions of endangered species may be used where appropriate. 

Native Species

Conservation

Objective:

• Emphasize conservation and recovery of native

species, with emphasis on special status species and

species of management interest. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-32

Conservation and recovery of native bird communities within priority forest types and riparian

zones would be a priority. Conservation actions would focus on restoration and enhancement of

habitat conditions to support healthy populations of forest and riparian birds communities with

an emphasis on those species with Endangered Species Act status, Nongame Bird Species of

Management Concern, and Partners In Flight priority species in the habitats of interest. Key

locations (e.g. breeding areas) of special status plants and animals would be maintained and

protected under all alternatives by the best known available methods.

Management of traditional native game species will remain important, especially management of

white-tailed deer and trout. However, introduced species will be passively managed, with no

active measures undertaken to ensure their conservation. On the other hand, the Refuge will not

actively manage against them unless their populations are conflicting with native species. 

Non-native undesirable species such as noxious weeds and tench, a non-native introduced fish

species, will be controlled and eliminated if possible. Tench live in McDowell Lake and

associated wetlands and contributes to lake turbidity and algal blooms. The Refuge will work

cooperatively with the State and other interested groups in controlling these undesirable species

through trapping, use of rotenone, or using other methods. The most effective method having

minimal impact on native fish and wildlife will be favored. 

Only targeted control of predators or burrowing rodents would be practiced as necessary to

protect trust species, public health, or Refuge facilities, while meeting Refuge habitat, wildlife,

and public use objectives.

The Refuge would manage for wild trout in streams and evaluate the potential to stock native fish

and improve spawning potential in lakes. Other population management actions will center on

gathering population trend information, and to the extent possible, associated habitat condition

information. 

Wildlife and

Fish Monitoring

Objective:

• Build and maintain a professional wildlife inventory

and monitoring program. Conduct monitoring guided

by scientific and statistical principles to confidently

determine baseline populations, trends, and habitat

associations for key Refuge species.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the

status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. To achieve this, the Refuge would

initiate a species inventory (presence/absence) for plant, aquatic, and terrestrial vertebrate species

by the year 2000. 

Due to the need for extensive inventory and monitoring throughout the Refuge, a priority system

would be used to direct these efforts. Priorities would include pre- and post-treatment

monitoring, and monitoring for special status species and species of special management interest.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-33

Monitoring for winter-active mammals (Canada lynx and others) along Olson Creek Road and

elsewhere in the Refuge is an example of a monitoring priority for a special status species.

Because so much active management would occur under the action alternatives, a key strategy

would be to adopt methodology for pre and post-treatment wildlife monitoring and conduct this

kind of monitoring where habitat management actions would occur. This monitoring will

provide data to evaluate whether treatments are having desired effects. This monitoring will be

high priority and initially will include: Starvation Flat, pre-commercial thinning sites, alluvial

riparian habitats along Little Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek, Minnie Flats, and Biarly Flats. 

All field staff will be trained in identification of special status species and all sightings will be

recorded. Baseline inventory for these and selected species of management interest such as

American marten and other forest carnivores will be initiated immediately. In the year 2001,

additional surveys will commence, targeting amphibians and bats.

The Refuge would continue to gather baseline data on bird species, particularly those identified

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Species of Management Concern and Partners in Flight

priority species. In addition to continuing the monitoring avian production and survival (MAPS)

survey and the breeding bird survey (BBS), the Refuge will initiate specific assessments of forest

and riparian avian communities using a variety of techniques to assess songbird abundance, use

and diversity, as well as evaluate health of Refuge avian communities by assessing key

demographic variables. These variables will be related to characteristics of vegetation and

habitat conditions to assist in developing habitat management strategies for land bird

conservation. 

Annual evaluations will be made on harvested species including deer, grouse, and trout. 

Population counts such as grouse drumming surveys and deer buck:doe:fawn counts will be

conducted annually. Harvest assessments such as grouse wing barrel surveys, as well as angler

and deer hunter harvest reports will continue. Waterfowl pair and brood counts will be

continued, with special emphasis on understanding how recreational fishing may be affecting

bird use of lakes.

Recreational Use and Access: Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, Objectives, and

Strategies (contributes to Goal 3)

A. Recreational Uses

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 affirmed that wildlife

conservation is the primary mission of wildlife refuges and clarified that compatible wildlife

dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System. Wildlifedependent recreation is defined as a use involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and interpretation. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-34

More than in any of the other programs, the alternatives described for this final CCP/EIS differ

over the treatment of recreational uses. The alternatives interpret the six priority  uses in

slightly different ways. The six priority uses are included in all alternatives, but are emphasized

to a greater extent in Alternatives C and E. 

Other recreational uses that presently exist on the Refuge would be managed differently under

the alternatives. Alternative B seeks to maintain traditional recreational uses, with modifications

to reduce impacts on Refuge resources. Alternative D de-emphasizes recreation of a particularly

disturbing nature. Alternatives C and E emphasize the priority uses and eliminate or reduce

many others. 

Under all alternatives, the recreation character of the Refuge would continue to be semiprimitive. Minor improvements would be made to facilities but would be limited. 

By 2006, Refuge staff would complete a step-down Public Use Management Plan to expand on

and provide more detail for Refuge recreation. Game and fish components will be written in

cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

The alternatives were developed in light of the national standards adopted by the Service to

initiate, administer and evaluate all public uses on National Wildlife Refuges:

1) The activity will be compatible with the major purposes for which the Refuge was

established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

2) Funding will be available for the development, operation, and maintenance of the

activity.

3) The activity will not adversely influence the desired base populations or

communities of Refuge fish and wildlife.

4) All activities will be coordinated to minimize conflicts and wildlife-dependent

activities will receive enhanced consideration over other forms of recreation.

5) Current demands and opportunities for the activity in the vicinity of the Refuge

will be periodically evaluated.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-35

1. Refuge System Priority Uses

a) Fishing

Alternatives B, C, and E

 

Fishing

Opportunity

Objective:

• Provide a range of high quality lake and stream fishing

opportunities. Provide participants with reasonable harvest

opportunities, minimal conflicts with other users, and 

opportunities to use various angling techniques while

minimizing disturbances to migratory birds and other wildlife.

Natural

Spawning

Objective:

• "Improve conditions for natural spawning in lakes and

streams, particularly for native species.

The fishing program would strive to maintain fish population levels appropriate for habitats and

provide a quality recreational experience for anglers. Management of native fish species would

be emphasized where feasible. Overall, the fishing program would aim to provide a fishing

experience superior to that found on other private and public lands. 

Manage Potter s Pond as a family-oriented fishing site. Continue WDFW program of stocking 

coastal rainbow trout as part of a put-grow-take fishery program.. Maintain standard State

eastside fishing regulations. However, gasoline powered motors would be prohibited to reduce

impact to wildlife and other anglers. Limit bank fishing to the south side of Potter s pond and

relocate camping areas a suitable distance from the lake.

Continue fly fishing only regulations and the prohibition on motorized boats on Bayley and

McDowell Lakes. Continue catch and release only fishing on McDowell Lake. Maintain current

regulations on Bayley Lake, while exploring the potential to change to season-long catch and

release regulations.

Work with WDFW to discontinue stocking of eastern brook trout in Bayley Lake. Encourage

converting these lakes to native fish species through stocking of redband or other native trout

while maintaining a recreational fishery. Cooperate with WDFW to control the tench population

in McDowell Lake using the least obtrusive methods possible. 

Stream habitats would be managed primarily for wild trout with an emphasis on native species. 

No stocking would occur on Refuge streams for recreational fishing. However, reintroduction of

native species would be allowed. Encourage WDFW to implement selective gear and catch and

release fishing regulations on those portions on the Little Pend Oreille River within the Refuge

boundaries. An exception may be made allowing harvest of eastern brook trout to facilitate

management of that species. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-36

Investigate the impact recreational fishing may be having on breeding and nesting waterfowl and

other wildlife. 

Strategy unique to Alternative C: Delay fishing opener on lakes until July 1 to minimize

disturbance to nesting birds.

Alternative D

Fishing

Opportunity

Objective:

• Provide high quality stream fishing opportunities to

approximately 2000 visitors per year, providing participants

with reasonable harvest opportunities, uncrowded conditions,

minimal conflicts with other users, and an opportunity to use

various angling techniques.

This Alternative incorporates a greater emphasis would be placed on the conservation and

recovery of native fish stocks, together with restoration of the natural hydrological regimes at the

Refuge. In keeping with this emphasis, no stocking of non-native fish would occur at all. Dams

and diversions would also be breached, returning the lakes to their natural condition. Fishing

opportunities would still be encouraged, but would mainly be available on Refuge streams.

b) Hunting

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Hunting

Opportunity

Objective:

• Promote quality hunting experiences and expand hunting

opportunities by opening State seasons for spring turkey,

grouse, and deer and elk bow hunts. A quality hunt includes

providing participants with reasonable harvest opportunities,

uncrowded conditions, minimal conflicts with other users,

relatively undisturbed wildlife, and limited interference from

or dependence on mechanized aspects of the sport.

Strategies for Alternatives C and E: These alternatives focus on adding new seasons, specialized

hunter education opportunities and providing hunters access to parts of the Refuge previously

closed due to Air Force training. A Refuge-wide hunting closure would be retained from January

1 through August 31, with the exception of allowing hunting during the spring turkey season. 

Road closures may be adopted as a way to increase animal security, reduce road hunting, and

improve the quality of the hunt. The use of bait to hunt any wildlife on the Refuge, as well as

hound hunting for cougar, black bear, coyote, fox or bobcat, would be prohibited. 

Strategy for Alternative D: This Alternative eliminates predator hunting, but retains the current

seasons for other hunted species. This Alternative also includes road closures as a major

component.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-37

c) Viewing, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education

Alternatives B and D

Viewing,

Photography,

Env. Ed and

Interpretation

Objective:

• Accommodate wildlife viewing, photography, and 

interpretation. Conduct limited environmental education.

These alternatives would accommodate wildlife viewing and photography by maintaining Refuge

habitats in good condition for wildlife. Interpretation and environmental education activities

would be accorded a lower priority and would be implemented only as funding and staff time

become available.

Alternatives C and E

Viewing,

Photography,

Env. Ed and

Interpretation

Objective:

• Expand opportunities for wildlife viewing, photography, and 

interpretation. Explore opportunities for expanding an

environmental education program.

These alternatives would promote additional wildlife viewing and photography on the Refuge. 

Interpretation of natural features would be emphasized, with kiosk construction and brochure

development a priority. These alternatives would seek partnerships with citizens in developing a

Refuge-specific wildlife viewing leaflet. Funds would be sought to improve roads and provide

an auto tour route with interpretive signs relaying specific themes of Refuge habitats, wildlife,

and history. There would be an effort to stage annual events celebrating Refuge wildlife,

particularly around the International Migratory Bird Day in May and National Wildlife Refuge

Week. Refuge staff would explore opportunities to develop the old Winslow logging railroad

grade as an interpretive trail. Rails to Trails is one possible source of funds for such a project. 

These projects would rely on funds over and above annual operating dollars. 

A volunteer program would be necessary to support an on-site environmental education program. 

There has been little demand for this type of program but that could change in the future. In the

interim, Refuge staff will provide environmental education programs on an as-requested basis as

other priorities and time allow. Participation in environmental education activities off-site will

also be conducted. Teacher workshops could be one way to encourage use of the Refuge as a site

for learning about habitats and wildlife. 

2. Other recreational uses

Recreationists have long used Little Pend Oreille NWR for a variety of other recreational

activities, which are now considered non-priority under camping, horseback riding, and other
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-38

uses (described in further detail in Chapter 3). The alternatives have different objectives with

respect to the non-priority uses and thus are presented separately below.

a) Camping

Alternative B

 

Camping

Objective:

• Minimize impacts associated with Refuge camping,

especially along riparian areas and during the sensitive winter

period.

Camping would be managed under Alternative B to allow use to continue, but with decreased

impact to Refuge resources. Some dispersed camping sites would remain open but dispersed

riparian camps within 200 feet of water, or in sensitive floodplain areas would be closed. 

Camping with horses would only be allowed in Horse Camp. Law enforcement patrols of

Refuge camps will be made regularly throughout the camping season. 

Alternative C

No objective is adopted for camping under Alternative C. This activity would be eliminated

from the Refuge entirely under this Alternative. 

Alternative D

Camping

Objective:

• Minimize impacts associated with Refuge camping,

specifically reducing vehicular disturbance and compaction of

sensitive areas.

 

Camping would still be allowed under this Alternative, but no permanent campgrounds or

dispersed sites would be designated and maintained. Only no-trace camping would be allowed,

as appropriate with the reserve theme of Alternative D. 

Alternative E 

Camping

Objective:

• Create a Refuge camping program supportive of Refuge

System priority uses. Minimize impacts associated with

Refuge dispersed camping, especially along riparian areas

and during the sensitive winter and spring/summer periods.

Like Alternative B, this Alternative strives to accommodate some traditional uses but with limits

to ensure minimal impact to Refuge resources. Camping is most popular in the early part of the

fishing season and during the deer hunting season. The strategy to support the objective of

restructuring Refuge camping so that it supports the Refuge System priority uses would limit
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-39

dispersed camping to late fall. Some dispersed sites will remain open but dispersed riparian

camps within 200 feet of water, or in sensitive floodplain areas would be closed and naturalized. 

Campgrounds would remain open, but only April 15-October 15. Basic improvements would be

made to some Refuge campgrounds including new, wheelchair-accessible toilets, designated

sites, fire pits, and running water. There are a few sites within the campgrounds that are causing

severe riparian degradation; these few sites would be permanently closed. The Refuge would

Develop a site plan to reduce impact to wildlife from all recreational activity near Potter s Pond

and Bayley Lake. This could include eliminating camping at these lakes. 

Camping with horses would be allowed only in designated sites. Law enforcement patrols of

Refuge camps would be made regularly throughout the camping season. 

An education campaign addressing appropriate social behavior for Refuge camping will be

developed and implemented. Since camping is not dependent on wildlife and does not contribute

to the wildlife conservation purpose of the Refuge, its future is dependent, in part, upon its

proponents. Refuge staff would seek the cooperation of users and partnerships with interested

parties to insure compliance with compatibility stipulations and protection of Refuge resources. 

Without user compliance, these uses will be terminated. 

b) Horseback Riding

Alternatives B and E

Horseback

Riding

Objective:

• Produce an equestrian plan in cooperation with riders that 

minimizes impacts to Refuge resources. 

The Refuge would develop partnerships with organized riding groups to offset costs associated

with offering this use on the Refuge, including for example, staff and facilities. The Refuge

would develop a fee system or some kind of user-maintained effort to support this use. The

Refuge would designate and map roads and trails available for riding from April 15 through

October 15; develop parking areas for day use; and designate and improve one camp for horse

users. 

Specific restrictions to protect resources that the Refuge would incorporate into an equestrian

plan include: Eliminate cross-country riding; avoid trails through wet areas until they are dry; 

limit group size; require high lines or temporary corrals; and require weed-free hay or pelletized

food in horse camps area. The Refuge would recommend feeding these to horses one day prior

to riding on Refuge. 

The Refuge would seek to restore damaged areas and identify appropriate crossings and watering

areas. In concentrated use sites such as horse camps and trailheads, unused hay would be

removed and manure piles scattered. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-40

 Since horseback riding is not dependent on wildlife and does not contribute to the wildlife

conservation purpose of the Refuge, its future is dependent, in part, upon its proponents. Refuge

staff would seek the cooperation of users and partnerships with interested parties to insure

compliance with compatibility stipulations and protection of Refuge resources. Without user

compliance, these uses will be terminated. 

Alternatives C and D

There are no objectives associated with this program, since the horseback riding would be

eliminated under this Alternative.

c) Off-Road Vehicles

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Alternatives B, C, D, and E control disturbance to wildlife and damage to resources caused by

motorized and non-motorized off-road vehicles. Motorized vehicles not licensed by the State for

operation on public roads are prohibited from operating on the Refuge. (Code of Federal

Regulations 50, Part 27.31(f)). State licensed motorized vehicles, capable of operating off-road,

are restricted to existing open roads. Mountain bikes will be allowed, but are restricted to

existing open roads. Illegal uses will be controlled through public education including signing

and law enforcement patrols. The Refuge will coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service to insure

correct information is included on the Colville National Forest Travel Map. 

d) Snowmobiling

Alternative E

Under the preferred Alternative E, snowmobiling would be discontinued on the Refuge with the

exception of travel to and from Calispell Peak along Olson Creek Road. Snowmobiling through

the Refuge on four miles of Olson Creek Road would be allowed at the current level of use until

an alternate route can be developed. Refuge staff would work with adjacent land managers and

recreationists to seek a new snowpark and alternate winter access to Calispell Peak. 

Law enforcement patrols would be necessary, particularly on weekends. In areas of mixed

ownership, the Refuge would work with adjacent property owners to minimize the disturbing

effects of these uses, and establish informational and regulatory signs and gates. The Refuge

would monitor the level of snowmobile use and wildlife use of the road and nearby areas during

the winter.

Snowmobiling would be reevaluated during development of the public use management plan. 

Landscape scale management would be necessary to address future lynx conservation.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-41

Law enforcement patrols will be necessary, particularly on weekends. In areas of mixed

ownership, work with adjacent property owners to minimize the disturbing effects of these uses

using informational and regulatory signs and gates.

B. Law Enforcement 

Alternative E

Law

Enforcement

Objective:

• Establish and maintain an effective, professional and

courteous law enforcement presence to discourage

unauthorized uses.

The Refuge would seek funding for a permanent full-time law enforcement officer. Priority

areas for law enforcement would be controlling uses that are illegal or have been deemed

incompatible. The law enforcement officer would also serve to disseminate information or

policies to the public.

C. Access and Roads 

There are currently 12 entrances or informal access points to the Refuge, and at least an

additional 7 unauthorized access points to the Refuge. Many of these are unofficial entrances

that have been kept open for management and occasional public use. Several require access

through private land. 

Alternatives B and C 

Access Control

Objective:

• Designate 8 official entrances.

Open Road

Density

Objective:

• Close roads as needed to attain an open road density not

exceeding 0.5 miles/square mile during winter and 1.5

miles/square mile during summer.

The Refuge staff would achieve the low densities desired during the winter period by closing all

but the county-maintained roads from January 1 - April 15. Seasonal or periodic closure of

certain roads is a typical management practice that would continue to be used in managing public

use. Selected roads would be closed during critical times such as nesting season and winter use

by white-tailed deer. Other roads may be closed past April 15 because of snow depths or to

protect the roadbeds from erosion during snowmelt. Cooperative agreements with the managers

of inholdings would be pursued to achieve the lower road densities and access objectives. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-42

Alternative D

Access Control

Objective:

• Designate 4 official entrances.

Open Road

Density

Objective:

• Close roads as needed to attain an open road density not

exceeding 0.5 miles/square mile during winter and 1.0

miles/square mile during summer.

Roadless Area

Protection

Objective:

• Buffer or protect the integrity of currentroadless areas .

The Refuge staff would achieve the low densities desired during the winter period by closing all

but the county-maintained roads from January 1 - April 15. Seasonal or periodic closure of

certain roads is a typical management practice that would continue to be used in managing public

use. Selected roads would be closed during critical times such as nesting season and winter use

by white-tailed deer. Other roads may be closed past April 15 because of snow depths or to

protect the roadbeds from erosion during snowmelt. 

Alternative D incorporates an additional objective to effectively enlarge or buffer the roadless

areas located in the eastern half of the Refuge by closing adjoining roads to public traffic. 

Specifically, Blacktail Mountain Road would be gated east of Blacktail Bridge and where it

crosses the Refuge boundary at the eastern border. Cooperative agreements with the managers of

inholdings would be pursued to achieve the lower road densities and access objectives. 

 Alternative E

Access 

Objective:

• Designate 9 official entrances.

Open Road

Density

Objective:

• Close roads as needed to attain an open road density not

exceeding 0.5 miles/square mile per subwatershed during

winter and 1.5 miles/square mile per subwatershed during

summer (Rodrick and Milner 1991, section on White-tailed

deer).

Open road densities would be evaluated by subwatershed to determine if the objective is being

met. The Refuge staff would achieve the low densities desired during the winter period by

closing all but the county-maintained roads from January 1 - April 14. Seasonal or periodic

closure of certain roads is a typical management practice that would continue to be used in

managing public use. Selected roads would be closed during critical times such as nesting

season and winter use by white-tailed deer. Other roads may be closed past April 14 because of

snow depths or to protect the roadbeds from erosion during snowmelt. Cooperative agreements
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-43

with the managers of inholdings would be pursued to achieve the lower road densities and access

objectives. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

 

Road

Minimization

Objective:

• Ensure no net increase in the total miles of Refuge roads.

No new roads in RNAs or roadless areas. 

These alternatives would recommend no net increase in the total miles of roads on the Refuge

(regardless of whether the road would be closed or open). Construction of new roads would be

minimized through maximum reliance on existing roads. Any new roads required by

management would be offset by the closure of a corresponding length of old road. This will

allow management flexibility within a certain limit. If new road construction is required, roads

will be properly located and constructed to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Use of

signs would also be expanded. 

Public Access

Roads

Objective:

• Employ the following criteria to determine whether roads

shall be kept open and maintained for public uses. (Roads

not meeting these criteria may still be necessary in some cases

for management purposes; these shall continue to meet basic

safety standards.) 

1. Traffic has minimal disturbance on wildlife populations.

2. Road has minimal impact on wildlife and fish habitat. 

(Excessive runoff and sedimentation controlled through

proper design and maintenance).

3. Vehicle access is necessary to support primary wildlifedependent activities of the Refuge including: wildlife

observation, hunting, fishing, wildlife photography,

environmental education and interpretation.

4. Road is necessary to provide access to the five Refuge

campgrounds.

5. Roads meet basic safety standards for road type.

6. Funding is available to make periodic improvements and

repairs. 

7. Traffic does not adversely affect recreational experience of

primary activities.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-44

Refuge roads open to the public would be evaluated under the above criteria for need, and

environmental and wildlife impacts. 

A network of management roads would be maintained to allow for periodic Refuge management

practices such as habitat monitoring, selective timber harvest, fire management and control,

habitat restoration and law enforcement activities. Management roads will be gated and posted

with signs indicating Authorized Vehicles Only . Roads not necessary for management will be

abandoned and left to revert to a natural condition or obliterated.

Other Programs: Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

A. Cultural Resources Program

Alternatives B, C, and E

Cultural

Resource

Objective:

• Implement a proactive cultural resource management

program. 

In partnership with local Tribes, historical societies, Universities, the FWS Region 1 Cultural

Resource Team, and using the cultural resource overview by Renk and Miss (1998) as a point of

departure, Little Pend Oreille NWR will establish a cultural resource program using the

following strategies. Conduct a stratified sample survey to identify areas that contain evidence of

prehistoric occupation, such as stream terraces, ridge lines, and natural shorelines. Inventory and

evaluate fields, orchards, and homesteads to identify those that are especially significant or

interpretable. Survey the railroad features associated with the Winslow logging era and evaluate

the opportunities for an interpretive trail. Develop a cadre of volunteers to collect information

and make interviews concerning the Refuge homesteads. Evaluate the significance of Winslow

flat and its potential as an historic interpretive site. Stabilize and maintain structures and

landscape features eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Inventory and identify

cultural resources in need of protection or stabilization at a sample of facilities and areas

currently subject to high public use, cattle concentration, Air Force activity, and habitat

manipulation.

Alternative D

There is no objective for a cultural resources program under Alternative D, beyond basic

protection of cultural resources as outlined in section 3.2, Features Common to All Alternatives.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-45

B. Grazing Program

Alternative B

Grazing

Objective:

• Continue an annual Refuge grazing program where it does not

conflict with habitat objectives. Specifically, 

 1. Allow for optimum growth of riparian and upland vegetation (sedges, 

 shrubs, deciduous trees). 

 2. Reduce plant competition to woody species and encourage 

 reestablishment and regeneration of trees and shrubs.

 3. Do not exceed 50% use of grasses and forbs.

 4. Reduce browsing on woody vegetation.

 5. Minimize new fencing and reduce miles of fence on deer winter range. 

 Use electric fencing where feasible. Use fencing specifications that 

 maximize wildlife passage.

 6. Reduce stream bank impacts and fecal contamination by designating 

 water access points.

 7. Build in flexibility (rest, defer, etc.) to allow for other management tools 

 such as planting , harvest, or fire.

 8. Address inholdings either through non-use or compensation to owners.

 9. Keep cattle out of campgrounds and lakes.

Under Alternative B, the annual grazing program (by permit) would be continued but modified

from the existing program to reduce impacts on riparian and other habitats. Grazing of cattle in

this Alternative is considered a secondary use that would be allowed where it does not conflict

with other wildlife habitat objectives. The number of units and acreage grazed would be reduced

by eliminating grazing in alluvial riparian habitats. Grazing would also be concentrated in

locations where it may provide improved spring forage to white-tailed deer. This includes those

grazing units dominated by herbaceous cover or with grass understory below 3,000 ft. elevation. 

The assumption is that grazing conditions grasses for late winter and early spring use by deer. 

Intensive management (e.g., monitoring and herding) of livestock would be necessary and is

more critical than stocking rates (AUMs) or numbers of cows. Season of use would be based on

requirements of wildlife, soil, and vegetation. Rotation would be used to rest pastures during

regular intervals. Timing of intervals would depend on the vegetative species requirements in

each pasture. If necessary, the grazing season could also be shortened to reduce potential for

grazing of woody vegetation. Permittees would need to monitor stubble height and cattle
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-46

distribution to avoid concentration and overgrazing of small areas. Cattle would also need to be

removed from any specific pasture before they switched from grazing on grasses to browsing on

woody vegetation. Refuge staff would also need to devote more time to managing the grazing

program to ensure compliance, monitor livestock use, and assist the permittee in determining

when to move cattle through units. 

Permittees would be selected based on negotiation, competitive bidding, or lottery. Existing

permittees who comply with permit requirements may be given the opportunity to meet high bids

if competitive bidding is used. Permits would be issued for a one-year period initially. Once the

habitat management plan is complete, permits may be issued for a five-year period. 

Alternative C

 

No grazing objective would be adopted under this alternative. Annual livestock grazing will be

phased out beginning the grazing season after plan approval and will be completed within five

years. Following the phase out, grazing would be used only as a wildlife habitat management

tool and its use would fall under the umbrella of the benefitting habitat objective.

Alternative D

 

Under Alternative D, all grazing is phased out on the Refuge and grazing would not be an option

as a future management tool. Fences would be removed from the Refuge.

Alternative E

No grazing objectives would be adopted under this alternative. The annual livestock grazing will

continue at its present intensity for five additional years, after which it would be discontinued. 

Subsequent grazing would be used only as a wildlife habitat management tool and its use would

fall under the umbrella of the benefitting habitat objective.

C. Air Force Survival School

Alternative B

 

Air Force

Objective:

B. Continue to support an Air Force Survival School program

where it does not conflict with habitat objectives.

Alternative B is the only proposed action alternative that continues use of the Refuge by the Air

Force Survival Training program. The training program would be modified to reduce impacts on

Refuge wildlife and on the priority recreational activities. The Special Use permit would reduce

the time of year training could occur from a current nine month program (January through

September) to a two month program, (August and September). This would reduce impacts to

wildlife during critical seasons. Use of helicopters and explosives would also be eliminated from
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-47

the program to further reduce the disturbance these activities cause to wildlife and people. To

reduce soil disturbance, the training group size would be reduced to 25 or fewer people and offroad vehicles would be restricted to emergency use only. 

Alternatives C, D and E

 

Under Alternatives C, D, and E, no objective is adopted for the Air Force program, since the

program would be phased out within five years of CCP implementation. The five year phase out

would allow the program to relocate operations to other public lands that are more suitable with

multiple use objectives. These alternatives emphasize that the Air Force Training program is an

inappropriate use for a Wildlife Refuge as the Refuge s primary mission is to conserve, manage,

and restore fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats.

3.4 COMPARISON OF FUNDING AND PERSONNEL NEEDS BY ALTERNATIVE

Because all alternatives must be equally analyzed for implementation, funding considerations

must be addressed. The cost to implement each alternative is presented based on typical staff

and projects expected for each. Projections are based on normal and predicted budgets. The

management activities and projects outlined would be implemented as funds become available.

The level of funding required to implement the plan is considered reasonable  over the next 15

years. However, there may be periods when budgets are lower and it is difficult to obtain

funding for even high priority projects. Funding constraints may influence the priority of

implementation. 

Currently the Refuge staff included eight permanent full-time positions (see Appendix C). Five

other positions are permanent but not full-time. Temporary positions include an engine foreman

and firefighters as well as a seasonal four-person Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) crew and

crew leader.

Government staffing is usually expressed in units of full-time equivalents  (FTE). One

permanent, full time position represents one FTE. One seasonal position working six months out

of the year represents 0.5 FTE.

 Table 3-2. Comparison of Refuge Staffing under the Alternatives - in FTEs

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Permane nt FTEs 7.8 13.4 13.4 10.6 13.4

Temporary FTEs 4.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 4.0

Total FTEs 12.3 17.9 16.9 13.1 17.4

* volunteer positions not included in staff estimates
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-48

Additions to budgets or another funding source would be necessary to support all new forestry,

wildlife, maintenance, and portions of administrative positions. Fire management staff and

portions of administrative support staff salaries would be paid through fire suppression and

prescribed fire funds.

Project Summary

Several projects have been identified for implementation in the CCP (See Appendix C). Actual

funding that will be available for these projects is unknown. Funds vary greatly depending on

Congressional appropriations and the Refuge staff s ability to obtain specialty funds from

sources such as grants, fire control, flood repairs, mitigation, challenge grants, and road funds. 

Predicting the future nonsalary funding for each alternative is difficult. The economic

assessment associated with this document is conservative and estimates relatively low nonsalary

expenditures. In Alternative A, the $160,482 is based on what occurred in 1998, when the

Refuge received flood funds for road repair in addition to other maintenance management

dollars. It was a good year for funding. The other alternatives are based on a projection of

average budgets and project needs specific to each alternative.

Table 3-3. Estimated Annual Nonsalary Expenditures Used in the Economics Model.

Alt A. Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Annual

Nonsalary

Costs* 

(projects, see

Appendix C)

$160,482 $121,200 $119,267 $93,733 $124,267

* expressed in 1997 dollars

In Appendix C, the project lists represent an operational need associated with implementation of

the preferred Alternative E over the next fifteen years. The figures there (an average annual nonsalary expenditure of approximately $467,000) are substantially higher than what is projected for

Alternative E in the economic analysis (results presented in Chapter 4). There are two reasons

for the discrepancy. One, we wished the analysis to proceed based on a realistic expectation of

funding. Although the Refuge has demonstrated a need, under Alternative E, of $467,000 per

year for the next fifteen years in non-salary funds, funding sources are perpetually tight and the

Refuge must compete with other Refuges for available appropriated funds. It could be difficult

to secure these funds. Second, some of the projects in Appendix C are eligible for funding under

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA-21), a new pot outside of the

traditional FWS Refuge System allocation. The Refuge hopes to tap some of these funds, but

again, must compete with others to secure these monies. Not counting TEA-21 projects, the

Refuge has demonstrated a need under Alternative E for average annual non-salary funds of

approximately $279,000 (see Appendix C). 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, 

and Strategies 3-49

In summary, the economic analysis (results are presented in Chapter 4) was conducted using a

realistic assessment of non-salary funds that should be available to Little Pend Orielle, based on

the recent history of allocations.

All CCP projects identified in Appendix C will be included in the Refuge Operating Needs

System which is used nationally to budget for Refuge projects. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

4-1 Final CCP/EIS -April 2000

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the effects of each alternative presented in Chapter 3. Effects expected

from implementation of the alternatives are described as related to the issues identified in

Chapter 1. The evaluation species identified in Chapter 2 are used to represent expected

outcomes for wildlife and fish. Management actions expected and analyzed are derived from the

alternatives, including the strategies associated with each alternative. Both direct and indirect

effects likely to occur over the 15-year life span of the plan are discussed. Also discussed are

outcomes that could manifest beyond the plan s 15 years, but would be predicted under actions

taken under the CCP.

In the following discussion, the terms positive , negative , and neutral  are used frequently. 

A positive effect  means that the action would be favorable over the short or long term to the

resources under consideration. A negative effect  means that the action or set of actions would

be detrimental over the short or long term to the health or availability of the resource under

consideration. A neutral effect means either (a) that there would be no discernable effect, either

positive, or negative, on the resources of concern over the time period indicated; or (b) that

positive and negative effects would both occur and in summary cancel each other out. No

change in management practices from the present (as in Alternative A) does not imply neutral

effects over time. See each resource for the comparison of effects under different alternatives.

4.1 EFFECTS RELATED TO HABITATS AND EVALUATION SPECIES (Responds to

All Issues)

Effects to Coniferous Forests

Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (dry site) forest habitats would be actively managed under

Alternatives B, C, D, and E with the use of precommercial and commercial thinning, selective

harvest, and prescribed fire. Approximately 1,000 acres per year would be treated over the 15-

year span of this plan. The long term intent of the treatments under these alternatives is to

restore the forest structure and composition to conditions more closely resembling those present

in the mid 1880s (Historic Range of Variability) just prior to settlement by American pioneers,

homesteaders, and miners.

The forest treatments undertaken, particularly in the ponderosa pine stands, would have the

objective of increasing stand vigor, increasing the proportion of mature forest, maintaining or

enhancing the presence of mature forest components, and preparing the stands for the

reintroduction of low intensity ground fires. This would be accomplished by removing excess

trees, mostly from age classes less then 70 years. Cut-tree selection in these age classes would

be based upon those trees exhibiting poor form, vigor, or that face a significant risk of disease or

insect mortality. Trees aged 125 years or older would largely be left standing to continue to

develop. In some instances, older trees could be marked for removal where reduced competition

and better spacing would enhance the longevity and vigor of neighboring desirable trees. Since a
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS -April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-2

primary component of mature forests is the presence of defects including broken tops, flattened

tops, mistletoe brooms, heartrot, large coarse branches and decay, all of which are important to

wildlife, trees with these kinds of defect would be left standing in many cases.

The effect of these treatments would be to reduce the overall tree density, generally favoring the

larger, older trees with characteristics favorable to wildlife. Such treatments are considered to be

particularly effective at promoting the diameter and height growth of the remaining stand, thus

speeding the development of mature and old growth characteristics such as large boles, large

limbs and robust canopies (Oliver and Larson 1990). 

Thinning and use of prescribed fire is also intended to promote conditions that would be

favorable to reintroduction of a more natural fire disturbance regime over the long term, thus

lessening the likelihood of a catastrophic  or lethal fire that could wipe out huge areas. 

Scientists studying the ecosystems of the Interior Columbia Basin have repeatedly emphasized

the importance of restoring natural ecological processes such as regular fire disturbance in this

area (Quigley, et al. 1996). The suppression of natural fire is implicated in several problems

widespread across Interior Columbia Basin ecosystems, including severe insect outbreaks and

loss of native species diversity. 

Treatments in Alternatives B, C, D, and E would begin the process of promoting forest stand

development into mature and old stages. These habitats are increasingly scarce at a regional

scale (especially in the ponderosa pine stand types) and have important values to native wildlife

(Quigley and Cole 1997). Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge lies within the Northern

Glaciated Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU), one of six subsets of the Interior

Columbia Basin. In this ERU, late seral forest communities have declined by more than 90

percent (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). By contributing to the regional recovery of these

habitats, under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the Refuge would establish itself as a firm federal

partner in the restoration process. 

Specific areas proposed for forest management under Alternatives B, C, D, and E include

Starvation Flats, Biarly Flats, and Minnie Flats. Treatments proposed for these pilot projects are

presented and analyzed in greater detail in Appendix E. Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, other

areas, not yet selected, would also be managed with the same objective of promoting the

development of late successional characteristics. These other areas would be analyzed in greater

detail in the future. 

Alternative D would adopt a slightly more conservative approach than Alternatives B, C, or E. 

Under Alternative D, forest areas that were unlogged in the past would not be commercially

thinned or salvaged. The intent would be to allow nature to run its course in the areas that

remain the least disturbed on the Refuge. Low impact techniques for fire suppression would be

used across the Refuge as much as possible. Benefits to interior forest dwelling and disturbance

sensitive wildlife would likely be higher (at least over the short term) than under Alternatives B,

C, or E.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-3

Alternative A takes a largely passive management approach, proposing a limited amount of

activity, mainly salvage and limited thinning and burning. Wildfires would also be actively

suppressed. In this alternative, tree density would remain high and species conversion to shade

tolerant types would continue, augmenting problems associated with forest health. This would

result in increased fuel loadings, such that over the long term, these conditions would probably

make catastrophic wildfire inevitable, despite fire suppression efforts. Forest habitats could be

dramatically altered under this alternative, with large expanses converted to shade tolerant trees

which would eventually be subject to a lethal fire. Habitats for certain species that rely on

mature stands of large trees with open canopies would remain limiting. 

Effects to Riparian and Deciduous Forests

Alternatives B, C, and D would eliminate livestock grazing completely (Alternative D) or in

riparian areas (Alternative B), or use grazing only as an occasional vegetative management tool

(Alternatives C). The elimination of annual livestock grazing from riparian areas can

dramatically speed the vegetative recovery of bare and degraded sites (Clary and Medin 1990;

Ohmart 1995). Alternative E would eliminate livestock grazing after five more years of grazing

at the current stocking rates, then would use grazing only as an occasional vegetative

management tool. Vegetative recovery in riparian areas would begin in 2005.

The cattle grazed at the Refuge also preferentially use old homesteads and natural forest

openings that have the greatest potential for hardwood forests. Alternative D would exclude

cattle from these areas and allow the natural regeneration of deciduous forests in these areas.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all reintroduce periodic fire into the landscape, which may

have positive benefits to aspen. Other active measures to restore aspen pockets (planting and

curtailing of grazing) would also occur under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. These four action

alternatives would also each enact programs to plant trees and shrubs in devegetated or degraded

riparian areas. 

Riparian areas would be protected from road construction and timber harvest by a buffer

measuring 200 feet (or greater, depending on the width of the 100-year floodplain) under

Alternatives B, C, D, and E.

Some riparian areas on the Refuge are in poor condition due to recreational use. Traditional

camping spots adjacent to streams (some located in campgrounds, others dispersed) have caused

problems similar to or worse than those apparent with grazing, such as compaction from vehicles

and trampling, loss of live riparian vegetation, loss of standing and down dead wood, bank

erosion, and fecal contamination. Alternative C, which eliminates all Refuge camping, would go

the furthest to aid recovery of riparian areas damaged by camping. Dispersed riparian camping

would be prohibited under Alternatives B and E, although campgrounds located within the

riparian zone would remain. Minor amounts of riparian camping could persist under Alternative
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-4

D, which allows no-trace  camping only; areas accessible by vehicle would be closed. Since

most campers prefer to locate near water, adoption of any of the action alternatives would likely

cause an overall reduction in Refuge camping, with attendant benefits to the recovery of riparian

vegetation. Camping would continue to grow under Alternative A, with continued detrimental

effects to riparian forests.

Overall, Alternatives D and C would most promote the restoration and development of riparian

forests, especially the deciduous riparian forests of the alluvial stream areas that have been

strongly affected by grazing.

Alternative A would not adopt any additional measures to restore or protect riparian areas and

would keep grazing and camping as at present. This alternative would have a continued negative

impact to existing and potential riparian forests.

Effects to Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds, which inhabit roadsides, open fields, riparian corridors, trails, and anywhere soil

and plant disturbance has occurred at the Refuge, would be controlled with integrated weed

management under all alternatives. Integrated weed management is a technique to eliminate

unwanted organisms that uses non-chemical methods as well as chemical treatments. Specific

weed and invasive plants are targeted in this integrated approach while other plants are nottargeted. While some non-targets have the potential to be harmed in this approach, every effort

is made to limit the effect. In the case of sensitive species or endangered plant species, buffer

zones are established around the non-target plants to ensure no effect. Buffer zones are also used

around water which provide a special distance zone to prevent chemical impact to water and

associated organisms.

Although chemical treatments are often the most effective, they can be risky, leaving poisonous

residues in soil and water. All refuges are limited in what pesticides they can use. Mechanical

methods, such as pulling or mowing are labor intensive but safe. Biological control is the use of

undomesticated organisms, usually insects or plant pathogens to reduce the vigor, reproductive

capacity, or density of weeds (DeLoach, 1991). The Technical Advisory Group for the

Biological Control of Weeds (TAGBCW) reviews research concerning the proposed introduction

of natural enemies for biological control of weeds before such insects can be brought into the

U.S.; only after TAGBCW approval can such insects be moved to USDA-certified quarantine

laboratories where further work and testing is done with the insects before going through another

approval process and release permits are obtained with public input. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would treat 50 miles of roadside weeds annually. Weeds tend to

spread along roads so Alternatives B, C, D, and E would help to check the problem and begin the

process of gradually reducing weed coverage on the Refuge. In addition these alternatives would

treat openings and some forested areas. Alternatives B, C, and E would each treat 250 acres of

openings and 250 acres of forested areas. However, under these alternatives a number of
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-5

openings would also be in cultivation and noxious weeds would be prevented from growing in

these areas as well. Alternative D would treat more acres of each type: 350 acres of openings

and 350 acres of forested acres. Alternative A proposes to treat 34 miles of roadside weeds and

12 acres of openings and is clearly inferior to the other alternatives in controlling noxious weed

invasions on the Refuge.

The action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) would also attempt to curb the spread of noxious weeds

indirectly, through controls on grazing and horse use. Domestic animals are thought to act as

direct vectors for the spread of some noxious weed seeds. Alternatives B and E would regulate

equestrian use under the auspices of an equestrian plan, which would require weed-free hay

among other stipulations. However, Alternatives C and D, which eliminate horseback riding,

would be more effective than the other alternatives in curbing weed introduction and spread. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would have the greatest immediate effect since grazing would be

reduced (B) or eliminated through phase out (C and D). Positive impacts from Alternative E

would begin in 2005. In some cases, prescribed grazing may be useful as a tool for noxious

weed management. 

All alternatives strive to reduce weed infestation beyond Alternative A, which sets no objective

for weed elimination. Overall, Alternatives D would enact the most aggressive programs against

noxious weeds.

Effects to Rare Plants

To date, limited surveys for rare plants have occurred on the Refuge. Under Alternatives B, C,

and E, all known locations inhabited by rare plants would be monitored on a regular basis. 

Alternatives A and D include provisions for monitoring Ophioglossum pusillum only.

 

Inventories to find new locations of rare plants are planned under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

These alternatives would better protect Refuge populations of rare plants than Alternative A,

because a resource cannot be protected with certainty if its existence is unknown. Protections of

known rare plant locations would occur under all alternatives.

Effects to Water Quality

Water quality improvement or deterioration within the Refuge would affect the water quality

downstream in the Colville River and ultimately (though insignificantly) the Columbia River. 

Water quality is influenced by activities near streams that expose soil or affect runoff, such as

road construction and maintenance, camping, or road maintenance. Water quality is also

influenced by activities taking place over the watershed as a whole, such as timber management

and prescribed or natural fire.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-6

All alternatives would minimize the construction of new roads. In addition, Alternatives B, C,

D, and E each would involve repair of roads that limit fish passage and/or cause sedimentation to

aquatic habitats, and the planting and stabilizing of devegetated or unstable streambanks. These

measures would result in a reduction of direct sediment input to streams. Alternative A proposes

no active measures to limit stream sedimentation except by minimizing new road construction.

Alternative B would eliminate grazing within the riparian zones. Riparian grazing would be

immediately discontinued under Alternative C, and in 2005 under Alternative E. Under these

latter alternatives, limited prescriptive grazing may be used occasionally as a vegetative

management tool. These restrictions would help to diminish vegetation loss and soil compaction

in riparian zones, streambank sloughing and erosion, and fecal contamination of Refuge streams. 

Alternative D eliminates grazing altogether. Ohmart (1996) demonstrated that riparian recovery

may be two to four times faster in ungrazed riparian areas than in riparian areas subjected to

managed grazing.

Camping within the riparian zone impacts water quality through compaction, destruction of

filtering and buffering riparian vegetation, and through pollutants entering the stream. Water

quality in streams, measured by total coliform bacteria counts adjacent to camps, was negatively

affected by weekend camp site use that revealed higher coliform counts (Christensen, et al.

1978). In this western Washington study, bacteria were rapidly transmitted to the river water,

even in dry periods. There are no toilets or outhouses to contain human waste at any of the

dispersed sites. No dispersed riparian camping would be allowed under Alternatives B, C, and E. 

Although this rule could be difficult to enforce in all the corners of the Refuge, overall there

would likely be an immediate reduction in pollutants and, over time, visible riparian recovery in

these former campsites. Compacted sites would have time to heal and would ultimately

contribute less sediment laden runoff to streams. Alternative D would accommodate only notrace camping. Since very little camping would probably continue if Alternative D was adopted,

this alternative would also have beneficial effects to water quality. Alternative A would not have

these beneficial effects.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E each also propose forest management activities that would possibly

involve some soil displacement. During timber harvest and subsequent fuel reduction activities,

soil disturbance could result from yarding systems, the fuels reduction methods, or road

construction. Forest harvest is also known to increase the magnitude and frequency of peak

flows, especially in areas subject to rain-on-snow events (Harr and Coffin 1992). These effects

are proportional to the number of acres harvested and the percent of canopy removed. Under

Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the Refuge would adopt 200-foot buffers along streams where

timber harvest and road construction would generally not occur. This rule would help to keep

displaced soil from entering Refuge water systems. However, some short term increases in peak

flows with resultant potential effects to channel morphology are possible. In sum, Alternatives

B, C, D and E may have a small negative short-term effect on water quality stemming from the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-7

upland forest management activities. Over the long term, water quality should be enhanced as a

larger percentage of the Refuge develops into mature structural stages.

Over the short term, Alternative A would not result in dramatic degradation or improvement of

water quality. However, under this alternative, the Refuge has a higher likelihood of

experiencing catastrophic wildfire. Wildfire could cause severe loss of vegetation cover and can

increase soil surface water repellency for a short period (Skaugset 1992). The possible effects of

severe wildfire on streams would include high sediment loading, elevated temperatures, and the

potential for highly increased peak flows for several years, as well as significant channel

morphology changes. 

Effects to Aquatic Habitats

Stream sedimentation, high road densities, loss of instream large wood, and loss of pool habitat

have been cited as key factors involved in fish species declines in the Interior Columbia Basin

(Quigley, et al. 1996). Based on the discussion above, Alternatives B, C, D, and E would be

expected to have positive long term benefit to aquatic habitats, owing to passive and active

measures taken in these alternatives to repair or obliterate eroding roads, replace culverts that

block fish passage, restore streambank stability, and increase instream structural complexity. 

Hydrologic changes at the Refuge would occur under Alternatives C, D, and E. Alternatives C

and E would ensure that flows in the original channels of diverted streams take priority over

diversion flows. In a low water year, this could result in positive benefits to stream conditions at

the expense of the lake habitats. Since stream and riverine conditions are of concern regionally,

and the Refuge is located in a sub-basin considered to have low aquatic and hydrologic integrity

(Quigley, et al. 1996), this is considered to be an overall benefit. Alternative D goes farther,

proposing to restore the natural hydrology altogether on the Refuge by breaching the dams and

diversions that were built to establish Bayley and McDowell Lakes and Potter's Pond. The lake

beds would likely revert to shallow wetland areas. Eliminating the diversions would mean that

more water would remain in the main streams, especially during high water runoff seasons (late

spring).

Aquatic habitats would realize an immediate positive benefit under Alternatives B, C, and D,

because grazing would be eliminated or conducted outside riparian areas under these alternatives. 

Under Alternative E, these positive benefits would be delayed until five years after the plan is

implemented. Cattle trampling and grazing often stunts or kills riparian vegetation, initiating a

cycle of root death, soil sloughing, soil compaction, channel widening and downcutting, and

stream temperature rise. None of these effects are positive for fish native to the area, so the

interruption of this cycle would ultimately benefit fish. 

Effects to Air Quality
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-8

Known and predictable air quality impacts would result primarily from smoke generated by

forestry activities undertaken under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Temporary impacts to air

quality (mainly from particulates) can be expected from the prescribed burning and slash

disposal that would occur on up to 1,000 acres each year. Fire effects on air quality fall into

three classifications: visibility, particulates, and pollutants. All three classes can affect human

health and safety. Both wildfire and prescribed fire can cause impairment of air quality in the

above mentioned categories, but prescribed fire can mitigate those impacts through regulations,

timing, and techniques of application. 

Holsapple and Snell (1996) and Snell (1996) modeled mid-scale modal wildfire and prescribed

fire scenarios for the Interior Columbia Basin. They concluded that the prescribed fire scenarios

did not cause particulate emissions [in size class < 10 microns] exceeding the EPA standards (40

CFR 50.6). Conversely, all wildfire scenarios exceeded the standard. Similar projections were

observed for the standard governing particulate matter < 2.5 microns in size. 

Research has demonstrated that by maintaining the flaming stage of combustion during

prescribed fires, particulate output is decreased by 50%. The flaming stage of combustion is

attained by developing prescriptions which utilize low fuel moistures in all size classes, and by

using firing techniques which have low rates of spread, allowing the flaming stage of combustion

to maintain itself for the longest period of time within a fuelbed. The best seasons for prescribed

fire at Little Pend Oreille NWR in relation to good smoke management conditions (low fuel

moistures) are during the late summer and fall. Unfortunately, burning during the dry season

also increases the risk of an escaped fire.

If the recommendations for smoke mitigation outlined in the Fire Management Plan are

followed, the impacts from the proposed prescribed fire program should be of relatively short

duration and would mainly affect unpopulated areas on the Colville National Forest, east of the

Refuge, under prevailing westerly winds.

Large volumes of smoke could be released at any time (normally late summer) if a catastrophic

wildfire were to occur, exceeding EPA standards for particulates. Wildfire could occur under

any of the alternatives, but is more likely under Alternative A. This alternative would allow fuel

loading to continue and increase unchecked, whereas the other alternatives include plans to thin

and underburn approximately 8,000 acres of dry forest over the life of this plan. Stands

receiving this treatment are less likely to ignite or contribute to the spread of large wildfires.

Wildfires have the capability to affect air quality not only in the vicinity of the fire, but hundreds

of miles downwind. Air quality deterioration during large wildfires can last for weeks or months.

These events affect visibility on roads and airports, often requiring closures.

Effects to Selected Species

To simplify and focus the discussion of plan alternative effects on plants and animals inhabiting

the Refuge, this analysis centers on the twelve selected evaluation species described in Chapter 2. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-9

As discussed in that chapter, these species were selected using an array of criteria and are meant

to serve as good representatives of what could happen to the broader set of species inhabiting the

Refuge. Because the different management alternatives would result in different habitat

conditions, human uses, and disturbance regimes on the Refuge, wildlife and fish and plants are

likely to respond accordingly. 

The analysis of effects to evaluation species shows that an action may cause a short term

deleterious effect while ultimately benefitting the species over the long term. Although the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan is intended to guide management only for the next 15 years,

identifying and distinguishing temporary from longer lived effects is important, and management

actions taken over the next 15 years can reserve or foreclose future management options. 

Bald Eagle: Most bald eagle use at the Refuge occurs during winter and along the Little Pend

Oreille River. No nesting areas are known to exist. In Oregon and Washington, most nests are

located within a half mile of a large water body or large river. It is not known if any of the

Refuge lakes are large enough to attract eagles for nesting. As a highly visible species found

mainly in association with aquatic habitats, the eagle is more vulnerable than many other species

to human disturbance, especially at nest areas (Anthony, et al. 1982). Bald eagles are particularly

intolerant of human disturbance during the breeding season. This sensitivity varies between

individuals, but generally adult eagles are more sensitive during courtship, egg-laying, and

incubation, with sensitivity decreasing as young develop (Fraser 1981). Recreational activity can

be a major disturbance. Research done on nesting bald eagles in Arizona found the strongest

response was caused by ground-based disturbances, particularly pedestrians. Within that

category, hiking activities were the most disturbing. In addition to pedestrian disturbance, the

other disturbances analyzed in decreasing order of severity were: aquatic (tubers, boat, canoes);

vehicles, noise (gunshots and sonic booms); and lastly aircraft (Grubb and King 1991). 

The level of recreational use that would be expected to continue near the lakes under Alternatives

A, B, and E during the nesting season would probably preclude the possibility of eagles

establishing a nest on the Refuge. The delay of the fishing opener at the lakes until July 1 under

Alternative C, coupled with the elimination of camping, could improve the chance of nest site

establishment at McDowell or Bayley Lake. 

Foraging habitat for bald eagles could improve slightly under Alternatives B, C, and E, primarily

because under these alternatives, improved aquatic habitats could result in healthier fish

populations. In addition, forest management actions in these alternatives could produce positive

effects on the deer population, which is likely a significant source of winter food. Over the long

term, these alternatives would produce a number of suitable nest and roost trees, which are in

short supply now. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all eliminate low-level helicopter overflights on the Refuge. 

This policy would benefit the eagle. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-10

Under Alternative D, the eagle could suffer a negative impact due to the loss of the lake habitat,

yet since most of their use of the Refuge occurs during winter and along the river, this impact is

expected to be small. An offsetting factor in Alternative D which would be expected to benefit

the eagle would be the forest management actions (which could accelerate the development of

nest trees) and the overall reduction in human disturbances. Overall Alternative D would have a

neutral effect. 

The combination of positive and negative effects to the eagle under Alternatives B, D, and E

result in overall neutral effects under these alternatives. 

Alternative A would be expected to result in a negative impact to bald eagles, due to the

continuing degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats, loss of streamside vegetation, absence of

active management to promote the development of large nest or roost trees, the continuation of

helicopter overflights by the Air Force within proximity of potential or occupied roost trees, and

unregulated recreational uses in areas of potential bald eagle habitat.

Overall, Alternative C would be expected to have an overall positive effect on bald eagles, while

the other action alternatives would have a neutral effect. 

Lynx: This feline predator should benefit primarily from actions that would reduce or eliminate

human disturbance and access into its habitats, especially during winter, and from actions that

would promote or maintain the specific habitat needs necessary for this species to den and find

adequate food (Koehler and Aubrey 1994). The cold forests that represent potential habitat for

the lynx (see Map 6) are currently the most fragmented areas on the Refuge. The current

checkerboard pattern of inholdings reduces the value of this habitat, both from the perspective of

the roads that permeate this habitat, and the limited ability of the Refuge to manage a contiguous

area consistently for the lynx. 

Lynx Disturbance Issues

Several documents pertinent to this topic have emerged since the May 1999, release of the draft

CCP/EIS. These include scientific findings on lynx and on winter recreation contained in the

Lynx Science Report (Ruggiero et al.1999) which was commissioned in response to the proposed

listing of the lynx by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in July, 1998. The Lynx Science Report

(more formally titled Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States) reviews, reanalyzes

(where warranted), and summarizes the scientific literature and data on lynx so as to document

the scientific basis for conservation of lynx. In addition to this report, we relied on a new report

issued by Yellowstone National Park, titled Effects of Winter Recreation on Wildlife of the

Greater Yellowstone Area: A Literature Review and Assessment (Oliff, et al. 1999). 

Current disturbance impacts to lynx and their habitat stem primarily from snowmobile use of

high elevation areas of the Refuge, including Olson Creek Road, during winter months. Other

wintertime activities such as dogsledding and cross country skiing are not pursued as frequently

as snowmobiling and would present minimal impact under any alternative. Alternative A would
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-11

continue snowmobiling as it currently exists on the Refuge. Alternative E would allow

snowmobilers to pass through the Refuge on Olson Creek Road only.

Impacts of snowmobiles to lynx are mainly indirect, resulting from 1) effects impacting their

main food source (snowshoe hares) and from 2) effects benefitting a key competitor (coyotes). 

These phenomena are explained in the next several paragraphs. 

According to Neumann and Merriam (1972) snowmobile use affected snowshoe hare and red fox

mobility and distribution in Ontario, mainly within 76 meters of snowmobile trails. Snowshoe

hares avoid snowmobile trails while red foxes use them. Snowshoe hares are the primary food of

lynx, therefore loss of snowshoe hare habitat areas affects lynx by reducing their food source.

The authors of the Lynx Science Report (Ruggiero et al. 1999) feel that the coyote is a

 potentially formidable  competitor with lynx, citing the coyote s wide habitat niche, heavy

predation on snowshoe hares, high reproductive rate, great behavioral plasticity, and high

tolerance of humans. Coyote population numbers have increased dramatically in many places

over the last few decades, (including a 44 times increase in Washington state between 1960-

1984), using coyote harvests as an indicator (Novak et al. 1987).

The Lynx Science Report authors also cite several studies showing that coyotes prey heavily on

snowshoe hares, especially during snowshoe population highs, and that coyote populations cycle

with snowshoe populations like lynx populations are known to do (data from both Montana and

Alberta). The authors also cited a study by O Donoghue (1997) which compared densities of

lynx, hares and coyotes in Alberta and the Yukon, and showed that in both places, lynx were

more abundant where coyotes were less dense, rather than where hares were more dense. 

With several citations, The Lynx Science Report substantiates the claim that coyotes access high

elevation areas by moving along paths, roads, and even snowshoe hare trails. In one Colorado

study involving track counts along approximately 725 miles of snow transects within snowshoe

hare habitat (7500 - 11,800 feet elevation), coyotes were the second most common carnivore

species encountered (after weasels). The authors also cite a study by Murray et al. (1994) finding

that coyotes were more selective of hard or shallow snow conditions than were lynx, and another

study showing that between November and March, coyote use of open habitats increased. This

shift was attributed to the greater compactness and load-bearing strength of snow in openings.

In conclusion, the authors of the Lynx Science report stated: 

Fragmentation of habitats occupied by lynx (including increased

openings, higher road densities, exurban residential development

and wider use of snowmobiles and devices that compact snow in

areas with deep, soft snow) is a plausible mechanism for the

questionable conservation status of the lynx in the contiguous

United States. (Ruggiero et al. 1999, Chapter 4 p. 13)
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-12

The habitat issues highlighted by the Lynx Science Report authors and others (openings,

snowmobiles, higher road densities, etc.) all exist in the local area and may be combining to pose

a problem for lynx. These problems would worsen under Alternative A. Under Alternative E,

the Refuge would seek to delineate another snowmobile route, ultimately resulting in no

snowmobiling impact on the Refuge. In the interim, snowmobile use would continue on Olson

Creek Road, and the positive effects of this activity on lynx would be the same as those of

Alternative A. Alternatives B, C, and D would all eliminate snowmobile use on the Refuge and

on Olson Creek Road. Although this strategy would require increase law enforcement patrols, it

would clearly benefit lynx. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would also provide benefit by

implementing road closures on all but the county maintained roads between January 1 and April

14, a critical time for lynx.

Lynx Habitat Issues

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would each adopt an objective to strive (over the long term) for

vegetative structural conditions approximating the Historic Range of Variability within cold

forests, as well as dry and moist forests. Historically, in this area, cold forests (which comprise

the greater part of lynx habitat on the Refuge) were characteristically mosaics comprised of

approximately 25% early seral forest stands, 43% mid seral stands and approximately 32-42%

late seral stands (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997. Vol II, Appendix 3N). Such a mosaic provided

lynx with an ideal access to both foraging habitat (early seral stands) and denning habitat (late

seral stands), along with plenty of travel habitat (mid seral stands). None of these alternatives

would make a great deal of progress towards achieving the HRV over the life of this plan, for

instance, there are no plans to produce early successional forests over the next 15 years, but there

would be plans to provide a range of successional forest habitats over the long term. 

Surrounding federal and private lands will likely provide sufficient quantities of early

successional forest over the next fifteen years (Washington DNR 1996). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E each include forest management actions to promote the development

of late successional characteristics on forest lands. To the extent that these actions occur in high

elevation lynx habitat, these actions would benefit the lynx, which relies on late successional

forests with large downed woody debris to provide denning sites with security and thermal cover

for kittens. These sites are typically located in lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, or Engelmann

spruce stands older than 200 years (Koehler 1990). 

Under Alternative A, conditions for the lynx would be expected to continue to deteriorate. More

visitors would arrive at the Refuge, road density and use would remain unregulated, human

disturbances from recreationists and the Air Force would remain moderate to high and little to no

forest management actions would be undertaken. Overall, adoption of Alternative A would

represent a negative impact to the lynx.

Overall, Alternative D would be expected to have the most benefit to lynx, since this alternative

limits human access to the Refuge to the greatest extent, avoids roading and harvest in unlogged
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-13

stands, implements proactive measures to restore forest structures, eliminates Air Force training

use, and reduces camping significantly. 

Columbia Spotted Frog: Although more tolerant of warm-water conditions than many other

Northwest aquatic species, the Columbia spotted frog appears vulnerable to disruption of water

levels (especially while eggs are developing), introduction of non-native aquatic species, loss of

riparian cover, and use of chemicals near aquatic zones (Nordstrom and Milner 1997). Based on

these factors, Alternatives B, C, and D, which include measures to eliminate grazing in riparian

areas and measures to restore streamside vegetation, would result in immediate positive benefits

for the spotted frog. Similar positive benefits to this specie would occur under Alternative E

beginning in 2005.

Alternative D would be likely to have the most positive benefit of the alternatives because it also

eliminates fish stocking and restores the natural hydrology of the lakes. The lake beds would

likely revert to shallow wetland areas, supporting more shallow water species such as wading

birds and amphibians, but fewer deep water aquatic species. Fish stocking (especially in

historically fishless montane lakes) and the spread of exotic predators such as bullfrog have been

implicated in the decline of numerous native amphibian species across the West (Hecnar and

M'Closkey 1997; Drost and Fellers 1996); native amphibians become prey for the stocked fish

and eventually are extirpated. It is not known to what degree historic stocking in the Little Pend

Oreille River and Bear Creek has affected populations of this species on the Refuge.

Under Alternative A, habitat conditions for the spotted frog would possibly deteriorate and

would not improve. Similar levels of grazing would mean that riparian conditions would

continue to degrade in certain areas. Fish stocking would continue. Overall, this alternative

would have a neutral to slightly negative effect on the frog.

Northern Goshawk: This species utilizes dense forests across its range, typically choosing stands

with the largest trees, on north-facing slopes near water for nesting (Reynolds 1982). 

Statistically, the proportion of the landscape surrounding the nest with mid to large sized trees

and high levels of crown closure is positively correlated with nest site location and success

(Desimone 1997; McGrath 1997). Forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire)

would occur within potential goshawk habitat under alternatives B, C, D, and E. Forest

management has the potential to cause short-term deleterious effects to goshawks through

removal of canopy closure. Depending upon the prescription, thinning and/or prescribed fire

may temporarily reduce canopy closures below levels that support goshawk territories. (USFWS

1998).

Disturbance impacts are not well understood. Goshawks are known to maintain high site fidelity

to their territories, not particular nest sites (USFWS 1998). A pair may maintain up to five

alternate nest sites in a single territory. Anecdotal evidence abounds that goshawks exhibit very

high tenacity to their nest sites once young have hatched. However, since very few nests are

located by surveyors during the courtship and incubation phase, it is not known whether human
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-14

disturbance of goshawks during the early part of the breeding season is more harmful than later

on, displacing birds unknown to biologists (Woodbridge, pers. comm.). 

To mitigate disturbance and habitat impacts to goshawks, a combination of distance buffers and

seasonal restrictions would be applied where forest management activities are undertaken near

known nest sites under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all be expected to have (over the long term) a positive effect

on goshawks, since the forest treatments identified in these alternatives would provide for a

greater abundance of large trees (and in some areas, multistoried canopies may develop as a

result of thinning and underburning). Over the short term, there could be some negative impacts

to goshawks as forests are thinned. 

Alternative A would be expected to have a neutral effect on the goshawk. No proactive measures

would be taken to improve nesting opportunities on the Refuge, but foraging habitat would

continue to be available. 

MacGillivray s warbler: The MacGillivray s warbler represents passerine migrants that use

woodland riparian and aspen habitats. The Little Pend Oreille NWR is in the center of the bird s

breeding range, where it inhabits dense thickets (especially riparian willow and alder stands), the

edges of mixed conifer woodlands, dry brushy hillsides near water, fire swept or cut-over areas,

and aspen stands (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Towry 1984; Thomas et al. 1979). They feed and

reproduce in stands ranging in age from shrub-sapling (0-10 years) through mature (<160 years)

(Thomas et al. 1979). This species is a common nester in moist shrubby stands where it builds

its nest one to six feet above the ground, usually between upright stems of saplings or shrubs

(Towry 1984, Thomas et al. 1979). Food consists of insects gleaned from foliage or off the

ground in these same habitats. It is an uncommon cowbird host (Ehrlich et al. 1988). 

Planting trees and shrubs in riparian areas as proposed in Alternatives B, C, and D should have a

positive effect by increasing the amount of woody shrub habitat available. Many of these

riparian sites are vegetatively degraded due to many years of annual livestock grazing. The

elimination of livestock grazing Refuge-wide (Alternative D), or in riparian areas (Alternative

B), or only using grazing an occasional vegetation management tool (Alternatives C), should

have a significant positive impact on habitat quality for MacGillivray s warbler and other

wildlife species using riparian sites by speeding the recovery of these degraded areas. 

Alternative E would eliminate livestock grazing after five more years of grazing at the current

stocking rates, then would use grazing only as an occasional vegetative management tool.

Vegetative recovery in riparian areas and an associated improvement in MacGillivray s warbler

habitat will be delayed until 2005. The potential decrease in the number of cowbirds infesting

the Refuge expected with the decrease or total elimination of cattle grazing proposed under

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would likely have little effect on nesting success of MacGillivray s

warbler since the warbler is an uncommon cowbird host. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-15

Traditional camping sites next to streams have resulted in the loss of riparian vegetation. The

total elimination of camping on the Refuge (Alternative C), or the elimination of dispersed

recreational camping in riparian areas (Alternatives B and E) should result in the recovery of

vegetation in these camping sites. Implementation of Alternative D would likely result in little to

no riparian camping, with a similar positive result. 

Measures to restore and encourage aspen reproduction, such as prescribed fire, tree planting, and

curtailing grazing, would occur under all action alternatives. These actions should also result in

positive benefits for this species. 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, riparian areas would be protected from road construction and

timber harvest by either a 200 foot buffer (or greater, depending on the width of the 100 year

flood plain). Adoption of this standard should protect these areas from the pre-commercial and

commercial thinning of nearby upland sites proposed under all the action alternatives. This

thinning, when combined with the prescribed fire also proposed in the alternatives, should

encourage shrub growth, further enhancing habitat quality for this warbler. 

Alternative A would not adopt any additional measures to restore or protect riparian areas, nor 

include the increased use of prescribed fire, while maintaining livestock grazing and camping at

present levels. Therefore, this alternative would have a continued negative impact on

MacGillivray s warbler. 

Common Goldeneye: This species represents waterfowl that use the Refuge lakes and streams.

Three Refuge lakes were created by humans, but provide some valuable deepwater habitat for

waterfowl. Nesting habitat is limited at Bayley Lake, but exists at Potter s Pond and McDowell

Lake and possibly at other Refuge lakes. 

Refuge waterfowl may be impacted by current levels of recreational activity, especially fishing

and camping. Camping and other human uses disproportionately impact riparian areas on the

Refuge and likely disturb or disrupt nesting or foraging goldeneyes and other species of

waterfowl (DeLong and Schmidt 1998). The curtailment or elimination of dispersed riparian

camping under Alternatives B, C, D, and E would benefit the goldeneye. However,

campgrounds adjacent to Refuge lakes would remain open under Alternatives A, B, and E. 

Alternative D would eliminate much of the lacustrine habitat on the Refuge, by breeching dams

and diversions. Under this alternative, about 115 acres of goldeneye habitat would be reduced. 

Overall, Alternative C would be likely to result in a positive benefit to the common goldeneye,

partly because camping restrictions may be most easily enforced under this alternative, but also

because this alternative delays the fishing season till after July 1 so as to reduce disturbances to

nesting waterfowl.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-16

Alternatives A, B, and E are expected to have a negative effect on goldeneye since human 

disturbances at Refuge lakes (with the exception of eliminating dispersed camping) would

remain at similar levels to those existing currently.

Flammulated owl: An associate of low to mid elevation mature ponderosa pine forests

(Marshall, et al. 1996), this insectivorous owl benefits from actions that promote the

development of large diameter ponderosa pines (for nesting) and a multilayered and relatively

open canopy (for foraging) interspersed with dense thickets (for roosting) (Hayward and Verner

1994). Goggans (1986) found these owls nesting in trees averaging 22 inches in diameter at

breast height (DBH), though trees as small as 17 inches DBH were also used. Bull et al. (1990)

found that nest trees averaged 28 inches DBH. This owl frequently nests in abandoned pileated

woodpecker cavities. Habitat for this species is quite limited over its historic range, and the

Refuge currently contains almost no suitable habitat for this species. Because of the forest

restoration efforts planned in low elevation forests under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, these

alternatives would have a long-term positive effect on this species. No negative short term

effects are expected since forest management actions are not planned in any habitats that are

currently suitable for this species. Alternative A, which does not adopt forest restoration

measures, would be expected to have a slightly negative effect on the owl. 

White-tailed Deer: Although deer are often considered generalist  species, their habitats can be

negatively affected by management practices that do not take their particular needs into account. 

As elevational migrants, they need access to security cover and accessible, nutritious forage

during the winter months. Healthy browse located under a snow-intercepting canopy is critical

during periods of heavy snow. Decades of fire suppression have taken their toll on woody

browse species. Cattle compete with deer for the browse resource, especially in late summer. 

During spring green-up and fawning, succulent forage (often located in moist meadows and

riparian zones) is often chosen, but once again, under current management, the supply is shared

with cattle. Under current grazing guidelines, there is little evidence that the cattle grazing

supports and enhances the production of forage for deer, rather than depleting it. Alternative D

eliminates grazing, and would eliminate the competition between these two groups for the forage

resource. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E each propose the reintroduction of low intensity fire in dry forest

habitats. Underburning under the right conditions can stimulate sprouting and regeneration of

browse species such as ceanothus, thus benefitting the winter range habitats of the white-tailed

deer. 

Fields remaining from historic patterns of human settlement currently provide rich sources of late

winter/early spring forage for deer, with the smallest fields providing forage in close proximity to

secure cover. Alternatives B, C, and E each propose maintaining up to 400 acres of this habitat,

with grasses maintained through cattle grazing, mowing, or fire (Alternative B) or mowing or

prescribed fire (Alternatives C and E). In addition, Alternatives B, C, and E would maintain 200

acres as openings that could benefit wintering white-tailed deer. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-17

Alternative A would allow grazing where it occurs presently (65% of the Refuge s open habitats

are grazed). Under Alternative A, a greater number of acres would be available in grass forage,

but competition between cattle and deer would slightly diminish the quantity and quality of

forage available to the deer, and little would be done to slow the spread of noxious weeds. 

Aggressive integrated interventions to suppress noxious weeds in the fields would be undertaken

in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Alternative B, C, and E all apply management in old fields that

would improve deer habitat more than Alternative A. Thirty-five miles of interior fencing, an

impediment to wildlife passage that occasionally causes deer mortality, would be removed under

Alternatives C, D, and E.

Deer are also impacted by human disturbance. The consequences of disturbance can range from

short-term increases in energy expenditures, to displacement from desirable feeding locations, to

direct or indirect mortality (Knight and Cole 1991). Noise and people presence is especially

troubling during winter, when fleeing from humans costs the deer energetically, especially during

deep snow conditions. If weakened during a time when metabolic expenditures are high, indirect

mortality could result. Disturbing agents in past winters have included Air Force personnel, who

tend to be widely dispersed throughout the central portion of the Refuge (overlapping winter

range). They may use snowmobiles or off-road vehicles during the course of their winter

training. Cross-country skiers, sledding and snowshoers also likely contribute to wintertime

disturbance to deer. 

During spring and summer, Air Force helicopters are another source of disturbance, especially

over openings and during low level flights and landings. Use of old fields for landing zones

occasionally displaces deer from these sites. Various studies have demonstrated that big game

exposed to low-level flights (up to 500 feet above ground level) exhibit a variety of stress

responses, including flight from the area (Calef et al. 1976; Krausman et al. 1983). The 1983

study showed that the percentage of animals taking flight was correlated with the aircraft height

above ground. Another study documented an increase in heart rate when mule deer were

exposed to low level flights (Krausman and Hervert 1993). This study (on captive mule deer)

also demonstrated that habituation, in response to repeated and predictable flights, did take place. 

Because observational studies tend to require open spaces, many of these studies took place in

habitats that tend to be open and unlike the Little Pend Oreille landscape. However, a radiotelemetry study of woodland caribou (Harrington and Veitch 1992) examined the impacts to

animals living in an environment similar to Little Pend Oreille. Interestingly, this study

demonstrated that calf survival was negatively correlated with the female s exposure to low-level

jet overflights during the calving and immediate post-calving period and again during the period

of insect harassment during summer. Air Force use of simulated explosives also likely disturbs

deer.

 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-18

Direct mortality occurs during the fall deer hunt. As an important wintering area, the Refuge

often does not harbor the majority of its wintering ungulate populations until December, after

rifle hunts close. Approximately 110 bucks and a small number of additional anterless deer are

killed each fall at the Refuge during the state seasons (USFWS 1989), and Air Force personnel

are also allowed to take 2 deer per year in order to practice survival skills. Deer populations at

the Refuge have remained relatively stable under this hunting pressure.

The cumulative effect of practices under Alternative A has produced a moderate to high level of

disturbance. Because of these negative impacts under current management, Alternative A is

considered to be poor for deer.

Additional deer hunting opportunities could potentially be offered at the Refuge under

Alternatives C and E. Though these hunts may increase hunting disturbance somewhat over

current levels. The cumulative level of disturbance will be considered when designing seasons.

Alternatives C, D, and E would eliminate all disturbances associated with the Air Force and

Alternative B would reduce the level of Air Force disturbance by eliminating wintertime use,

limiting the number of Air Force personnel, and curtailing helicopter and off-road vehicle use. 

Alternatives B, C, E, and especially D, would ensure road density levels remain at or below the

standard recommended for big game. Enacting these closures would significantly reduce

disturbance to deer, especially in the winter, when only the three county maintained roads would

be open between January and April. This action could also reduce incidental poaching. 

Although all of the action alternatives would benefit deer, overall, deer would be best served

under Alternatives C and E. 

Pileated woodpecker: The pileated woodpecker is associated with older, dense forests, but also

utilizes younger forests with dead or dying trees or mature/old-growth remnant trees and

occasionally can be seen in openings with woody residues. The species requires an abundance of

down logs and snags for foraging and prefers large diameter logs and trees for feeding due to

their higher insect abundance. In northeast Oregon, they are located primarily in stands with

greater than 60% crown closure and often with multilayered canopies (Bull and Holthausen

1993). These researchers recommended increasing the density of snags for nesting and foraging

and increasing the density of downed logs in foraging areas. They also recommended that

pileated woodpecker management areas on public lands be maintained with at least 60 percent

canopy closure. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would be expected to benefit the pileated woodpecker over the long

term because the forest restoration efforts that are included in these alternatives would be

expected to produce a higher density of large trees and snags that these woodpeckers use for

feeding, roosting and nesting. Over the short term, these alternatives could have a negative

impact, for the same reasons as described for the northern goshawk. Both species rely on mature
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-19

forests with scattered to numerous large trees and a high degree of canopy closure. The action

alternatives would result in some loss of this type of cover with the thinning that is planned. 

Alternative A would likely have a neutral effect. Without prescribed fire, the forest habitats

would continue to grow more crowded and there would likely be more snags developing in

forested areas over the short to mid term under this alternatives. However, the snags would

mainly represent feeding opportunities; few would be large enough to support nesting.

Rainbow Trout: The species present on the Refuge includes introgressed (interbred) forms of the

native redband rainbow and the stocked coastal rainbow in streams. Lakes contain only the

stocked coastal form. Although the introduced forms of coastal rainbow trout are considered

more adaptable to habitat disturbance and alterations than other salmonids (Quigley and

Arbelbide 1997, p 1238), current practices of livestock grazing in riparian areas potentially limit

their populations. Behnke and Raleigh (1978) found a three to four-fold decrease in the trout

biomass in grazed versus ungrazed areas. Fish population increases have been documented after

removal of livestock grazing by Hunter (1991), Amour, et al. (1991) and Platts (1991). Changes

in the livestock grazing program proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D would all be expected

to have a positive effect on this species. The riparian and stream restoration efforts undertaken

under Alternatives B, C, and D would also aid the trout. Positive impacts to rainbow trout

habitat under Alternative E will be similar to those associated with other action alternatives, but

effects will be delayed for five years, until 2005. 

Alternative D would potentially provide the largest benefit to the native redband rainbow, since

stocking of all fish would cease under this alternative. Stocking does only occur in the lakes, but

a small potential occurs for stocked fish to spill over into streams during high water (Shuhda,

pers. comm.). Although it is highly unlikely ceasing stocking would cause the river fish to revert

back to the pure  and distinct native strains, ceasing stocking would at least have the benefit of

not further polluting the gene pool. Strategies under Alternatives B, C, and E would include

ceasing stocking of the eastern brook trout, but stocking of coastal rainbow would continue. 

Alternatives B, C, and E continues coastal rainbow stocking in Potter s Pond, but the Refuge will

work with WDFW to stop stocking eastern brook trout in Bayley Lake. These alternatives

encourage stocking of natives, i.e., redband and cutthroat trout. They also leave the door open

for restocking natives in streams. Fishing regulations could be modified to reduce eastern brook

trout in streams. Alternative D is a passive alternative that increases natives through stopping the

practice of stocking non-natives. Alternatives B, C, and E, are active management through

ceasing non-native stocking, regulations to favor non-natives, and restocking native fish. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and E, the Refuge would attempt to promote natural spawning at the

lakes. Under Alternative D, the lakes would be eliminated. However at this time limited

spawning occurs at the lakes, so the lakes do not currently represent a habitat asset so much as a

fishing opportunity. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-20

Catch and release fishing on the Little Pend Oreille River would be implemented under

Alternatives C and E. This would probably result in a higher likelihood of natural spawning and

larger fish in the rivers.

Alternative A would be expected to result in a negative effect on rainbow trout since stream

degradation from grazing, camping, and roads would continue. Populations may remain stable, 

perhaps more due to stocking than to habitat improvement factors, but habitat conditions for wild

self-sustaining populations would remain limiting or deteriorate over time.

Ruffed Grouse: The Habitat Suitability Index model compiled for ruffed grouse (Cade and Sousa

1984), determined winter food and spring to fall cover as being the two limiting factors most

affecting the species. Therefore, the impact of the proposed alternatives on these two life

requisites will be evaluated to determine their effect on this species. 

Implementing Alternative A includes allow livestock grazing at approximately the current

stocking level. Livestock would continue to browse the aspen, retarding both the expansion and

development of more desirable multi-aged stands. The relatively limited amount of thinning

activity and prescribed fire treatment (when compared to the other alternatives) coupled with

total fire suppression, would also limit the disturbance stimuli needed by aspen to encourage

sprouting. Alternative A would continue to allow unregulated camping. The majority of these

camping sites are in riparian habitats, reducing or eliminating their value as high quality grouse

habitat. Finally, Alternative A would not restore riparian areas. Under this alternative, grouse

populations would be expected to remain stable or gradually decrease.

Alternative B would eliminate grazing in low-gradient alluvial riparian areas. Removing

livestock browsing pressure in this area of high aspen density would have a substantial positive

effect on the quantity and quality of existing and future grouse habitat. 

Natural forest structure and composition would be restored with this alternative. This would

include managing aspen stands. Thinning, as well as the increased use of prescribed fire, would

also stimulate aspen and improve its value as habitat, while removing some of the competing

conifers. Alternative B would eliminate dispersed camping and restore riparian areas, having a

positive affect on the amount and quality of ruffed grouse habitat available.

Implementing either Alternative C or D would have equal effects on ruffed grouse habitat and

populations as they both phase out livestock grazing on the Refuge within 5 years. Alternative B

would have a limited positive effects since it eliminates annual grazing in riparian areas but

retains it in upland areas. All three alternatives would also plant and stabilize streambanks,

further improving riparian habitats. Alternative E continued annual livestock grazing at its

current level for five more years before discontinuing that activity in 2005. Significant

streambank planting stabilization efforts would also be delayed. After this five year delay, ruffed

grouse habitat should improve in a manner similar to what is expected with Alternative C and D. 

The eliminations of riparian camping in Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Alternative C eliminates all
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-21

camping) will all increase habitat for ruffed grouse. The use of thinning and prescribed fire,

described for all action alternatives, will also benefit grouse habitat.

Hoary Bat: This species is a foliage-roosting bat closely associated with late successional forests

for roosting. The species is not very maneuverable during flight; they require tall trees with

foliage sufficiently high above the ground to enable them to drop far and rapidly, thus gaining

momentum to fly (USDA 1994). The species relies mainly on trees for roosts (caves and mines

may also be used occasionally) and shows differential roost heights for clusters of females and

young (high in the canopy) while males and non-breeding females roost in the lower canopy

(Christy and West 1993). Perkins and Cross (1988), working in western Oregon, found that the

species appears to prefer roost sites in low-mid elevation forest older than 200 years. This

species commonly feeds along forest edges, roads, or open areas within the forest, while flying

high over the water or ground surface (up to 50 meters; Christy and West 1993). Riparian areas,

which attract many more small flying insects than forested areas, are used heavily by bats for

foraging. Protecting this habitat value is important. Hayes et al. (1995) found that logged

riparian areas supported 4-7 times fewer bats than unlogged riparian areas. 

As a user of contrasting habitats, the hoary bat represents those species that rely on the

simultaneous maintenance of several components of Refuge habitat. This species may realize

more benefits from the fields that have been maintained on the Little Pend Oreille than most

other native species; yet it would also likely benefit from actions to improve the distribution of

riparian forests and actions to promote mature and late successional forests. Alternatives B, C,

and E would be expected to positively benefit the species, primarily due to actions promoting

late successional characteristics in forested habitats (considered best for roosting), the actions to

restore riparian habitats, and the maintenance of some fields as openings. 

Alternative D would be expected to have a neutral effect on this species because it enhances

roosting habitat and some foraging habitat in riparian areas, but all fields would also be allowed

to revert back to forest. Alternative A would also likely have a neutral effect because it

maintains fields as foraging habitats but does nothing to promote roosting habitat. 

Effects to Cultural Resources

Effects to cultural resources are discussed by alternative below. The variables within each of the

alternatives that are most positive for cultural resources are those that reduce or eliminate

activities and access on the Refuge. Many activities such as hunting, fishing, noxious weed

control, and recreation have virtually no potential to affect cultural resources and are perceived as

having a neutral  affect. Cultural resources are sensitive to ground disturbing types of

activities. Potentially negative impacts to cultural resources include logging, concentrated

grazing on historic farmsteads, construction of new trails or facilities, and in-filling the open

fields of the homestead landscape. Treatment of fire has both positive and negative

consequences. Suppressing fires can protect log buildings and archaeological sites, yet the

suppression techniques are sometimes more damaging than the fire itself. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-22

Under all alternatives, the cultural resource values of the Little Pend Oreille NWR would be

treated according to the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA). will. To provide data adequate to analyze any effects under this Act, survey, reporting,

and consultation would be required for each project that has the potential to affect historic

properties. Sometimes the historic values are not immediately apparent: for instance, the

landscape values of the homesteading era may be categorized as historic agricultural landscape

features .

Alternative B would have a neutral to positive effect on cultural resources. The riparian and

stream management, noxious weed management, livestock grazing, entrances and roads, Air

Force survival school, hunting, fishing, equestrian, and camping programs would all remain

essentially the same as the current program or would be only slightly modified. Therefore, the

net effect of these programs is neutral. Changes in programs that would have a positive effect on

cultural resources include maintaining 200 acres of openings, closing off a few entrances and

roads, and eliminating off-road vehicles. Changes that could have a negative effect on cultural

resources include forest management techniques that include harvest and thinning and control of

wildfires, and revegetating old farm fields. The lack of any interpretive program that might

promote the understanding of cultural resources is also viewed as a negative effect to cultural

resources. This alternative also includes provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources

program, which would be very positive for cultural resources. All projects that include a ground

disturbing element would be reviewed under Section 106 of the NHPA prior to implementation.

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except for some modifications that make this alternative

generally more positive toward cultural resources. The riparian and stream management,

noxious weed management, livestock grazing, roads and entrances, hunting, and fishing

programs are all essentially the same as the current program or are only slightly modified.

Therefore, the net effect of these programs is neutral. Positive changes in programs include the

elimination of the Air Force survival school, camping, horseback riding, and off-road vehicles,

and closing off roads and entrances. Maintaining 200 acres of openings, developing wildlife

viewing in some fields, and developing an interpretive program that includes natural and cultural

history are very positive aspects of this alternative. Timber harvest, fire suppression, and

revegetation of fields are viewed as potentially negative to cultural resources. This alternative

also includes provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources program, which would be very

positive for cultural resources. All projects that include a ground disturbing element would be

reviewed under Section 106 of the NHPA prior to implementation.

Generally, Alternative D has a positive affect on preserving cultural resource values. Limiting

access to 4 entrances and closing roads would lessen the opportunity for vandalism of

archaeological sites. Elimination of the Air Force survival school, grazing, and horseback riding

would lessen the threats to historic sites posed by these activities. Closing off camp grounds and

promoting no trace  camping would have a neutral affect on cultural resources. Hunting,

fishing, riparian management, noxious weed management, and recreation would have no affect

on cultural resources and are viewed as neutral.  Forest management (thinning) and
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-23

rehabilitation of farm fields have potential to disturb cultural resources. All projects that include

a ground disturbing element would be reviewed under Section 106 of the NHPA prior to

implementation.

Alternative E includes both positive and negative affects to cultural resources. Phasing out the

training school, closing selected roads, and modifying or eliminating the grazing program would

be positive steps toward resource protection. Developing interpretive programs would be very

beneficial for cultural resources, especially for interpreting the homestead landscape. This

alternative also includes provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources program, which would

be very positive for cultural resources. 

Activities that have a neutral affect on cultural resources are the current fishing strategies,

noxious weed management, and camping in designated campgrounds. Repairing roads for fish

passage would require compliance with Section 106, but no known sites would be affected. 

The management strategy for old fields is both positive and negative. Maintaining 200 acres as

openings that coincide with homestead parcels could enhance the recognition of this type of

cultural resource. But the revegetation of all other remaining open fields indicates a loss of this

landscape as well. Forest management practices including thinning and selective harvest would

require compliance with Section 106. Meeting the equestrian constituency needs might require

the construction of new trails, corrals, and overnight camping areas. Any new development

would need to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. Fire suppression can have both a positive

and negative affect on cultural resources. Fire suppression can be positive by protecting the

remains of the log homestead cabins on the Refuge. The process of fire suppression can have

negative results if new roads, firelines, and fire camps are constructed while combating the fire. 

Often the damage caused by a bulldozer while cutting a fire line is worse than the fire itself on an

archaeological site. Close coordination between the fire crew and a cultural resource specialist

familiar with the Little Pend Oreille NWR is necessary during fire suppression efforts.

4.2 EFFECTS RELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION 

 OPPORTUNITIES (Responds to Issue # 2)

Effects to Public Access

The Refuge would have more controlled access under all alternatives except Alternative A. 

Alternatives B and C would maintain an intermediate level of public access with eight

maintained entrances; Alternative E would maintain nine entrances; and Alternative D would

close all but four entrances. Seasonal road closures to reduce disturbance and harassment would

also be implemented under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Under Alternatives B, C, and E, road

density would be kept below 1.5 miles per square mile between April 15-December 30, and

below 0.5 miles per square mile between January 1 - April 14. Alternative D would adopt a

stricter road density standard of 1.0 miles per square mile during summer. In addition, under

Alternative D, portions of the eastern Refuge would no longer be publicly accessible by vehicle. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-24

Road closures or obliterations would be determined under a road management plan. Criteria

leading to closure would consider levels of public or management use and potential for resource

degradation. Criteria that would be used to select roads for closure are described in Chapter 3.

The reduced access under Alternatives B, C, and E may have a slight effect on public use, but

this effect is expected to be negligible because most Refuge users utilize the eight or nine

entrances that would be maintained. The largest effect to public use would probably occur

during winter, when seasonal closures would eliminate access to all but the county maintained

roads (Buffalo-Wilson Rd., Bear Creek Rd. to Headquarters and Narcisse Creek. Rd.) and Olson

Creek Rd. from January 1-April 15. The impact would be larger under Alternative D; reducing

public access and use is the tradeoff for providing larger disturbance-free areas for wildlife at the

Refuge. 

Users who prefer foot or non-motorized travel to vehicle travel (for instance some horseback

riders, photographers, hunters, and joggers) would doubtless find the road density policies under

the action alternative to increase their opportunities for solitude and recreation free from

vehicular disturbance. 

Effects to Recreation Opportunities 

General: Outdoor recreational use of public lands is on the increase nationwide, and, with the

population growth in Stevens County and Spokane, the Little Pend Oreille NWR could probably

expect increased visitation in the next ten years, if this plan were not to take effect. 

To a large extent the alternatives are designed to differentially channel human activities on the

Refuge; each alternative strikes a different balance between the goal of meeting public demand

for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and the goal of maintaining and restoring

wildlife populations and habitats. The following is a summary of the management actions

related to recreation under the different alternatives.

Alternative A maintains the status quo, but otherwise reflects national and regional trends in

public uses.

Alternative B continues hunting as at present, eliminates snowmobiling, endeavors to increase

spawning habitat, limits dispersed riparian and winter camping, and seeks to reduce

impacts associated with horseback riding activity. 

Alternative C eliminates camping, snowmobiling, and horseback riding; endeavors to increase

spawning habitat, promotes catch and release fishing at Bayley Lake and the Little Pend

Oreille River, and restricts the fishing season on the lakes; builds an environmental

education program, promotes wildlife viewing; expands quality hunting opportunities and

introduces new seasons for game birds and big game.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-25

Alternative D eliminates most forms of camping, eliminates snowmobiling and horseback riding

and restricts hunting of predators and would modify the fishing opportunities through

lake changes and elimination of fish stocking.

Alternative E limits dispersed camping and camping during winter, promotes catch and release

fishing; endeavors to expand natural fish spawning, builds an environmental education

program, promotes wildlife viewing; expands quality hunting opportunities, introduces

new seasons for game birds and big game; and seeks to reduce impacts associated with

snowmobiling and horseback riding activity.

However, human response to management actions is inherently complex. For example, hunting

and fishing activities are affected not only by the seasons offered, but also by changes in

camping regulations, management of fish and game populations, and the availability of similar

opportunities nearby. The analysis below attempts to better predict the ultimate effects to

recreation opportunities by looking at these intertwining factors. Table 4-1 shows the number of

visits to the Refuge that occur currently and the number of visits that would be expected under

each of the alternatives.

Table 4-1. Projected Visitors in Key Recreation Categories, under all alternatives, 

 Year 2014.

 Activity Current *

Alternative

A B C D E

 Wildlife Observation 3,200 6,700 6,700 8,200 6,700 8,200 

 Hunting 14,900 13,300 13,300 6,800 8,000 14,000 

 Fishing 8,325 8,800 8,800 6,000 3,000 8,800 

\ Camping 15,000 19,000 13,000 0 1,900 10,000 

 Snowmobiling 7,000 9,400 0 0 0 8,400 

 Horseback Riding 1,800 1,600 1,800 0 0 1,800 

 Organized Nature Study 200 300 300 1,000 300 1,000 

 Other 650 800 800 800 800 800

* Current visitor numbers are based on a 1999 estimate of Refuge visitation using vehicle traffic counters and other means.

Even without any management initiatives, (Alternative A) visitor use at the Refuge would change

over the next fifteen years, reflecting national and regional demographic and recreational

preference trends. To accurately project future visitor levels in Alternative A, we consulted two

studies: USFWS (1999). 1980-1995 Participation in Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Watching:

National and Regional Demographic Trends. Numerical indices for change between 1980 -

1995 for All (by Recreation Category) for the West region were used as a basis. In addition, we

consulted Cordell et al. (1997). Outdoor Recreation Trends and Market Opportunities in the

United States. From this study we utilized trend indices change between 1982/83  1994/94 by

recreation category. We used historical trends as a basis for predicting future visitor levels under

Alternative A. Where the studies differed, we averaged and then rounded the result.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-26

Visitation within each category under the other alternatives was estimated partly on the trends

foreseen for Alternative A, and partly on the particular management strategies adopted under that

alternative. Interacting factors were considered. For instance, changes in the camping program

and access were considered when estimating hunter visitation. 

These visitation numbers are utilized in the economic analysis discussed later in this chapter.

Under all action alternatives, many recreational activities would be reigned in or regulated in one

form or another. 

Hunting: National and state trends for hunting project declines over the next fifteen years. The

alternatives would be affected by these larger trends, however, total hunting visits on the Refuge

would be influenced by the seasons offered and area available for hunting and camping as well. 

Alternatives C and E could expand Refuge hunting opportunities, specifically offering the state

seasons for spring turkey and grouse, and deer and elk bow hunts. By eliminating Air Force use

of the Refuge under Alternatives C, D, and E, a larger area could also be made available for

hunting during fall seasons. Even with these expanded opportunities, total hunting on the Refuge

would likely decline slightly under Alternative E.

Under Alternative C, camping restrictions would make hunting a day use only opportunity. 

Combined with the social trends showing hunting to be less popular, this would be expected to

result in a significant decline in hunting visits to the Refuge over the period of fifteen years (see

Table 4-1). However, deer populations may be higher and more large bucks may be present due

to enhancement of winter range habitat and greater use of road closures, and therefore, hunters

may experience greater satisfaction and success, as well as having access to a wider array of

seasons and area of hunt. 

Alternative D would restrict Refuge hunting somewhat, specifically limiting bear, cougar,

coyote, and bobcat hunts, though these seasons involve a small minority of hunting visits

anyway. Additional road closures under Alternative D, and encouragement of no-trace camping

as opposed to vehicular based camping, would mean that quality big game hunts with greater

isolation may be most readily available under this alternative. As in Alternative C, habitat

enhancements may also increase deer populations. Waterfowl hunting would likely diminish, as

lake habitat would be reduced. Total hunting visits would be expected to be slightly higher than

under Alternative C, since camping would not be totally restricted.

Hunting seasons would remain the same as at present under Alternatives A and B; some

restrictions on camping would occur under Alternative B but these would probably negligibly

affect hunting opportunities. Game and waterfowl could become less prevalent under Alternative

A, due to the combined effects of disturbance from roads, unregulated camping, Air Force use,

and lack of habitat management. Quality hunting may not be as readily available; however total

hunting visits to the Refuge would decline slightly, due to the social and demographic trends

away from hunting.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-27

Fishing: Under Alternative C, lake fishing would be de-emphasized, since the season would be

delayed on lakes till July 1. Lake fishing would also decline severely under Alternative D, since

the dams maintaining Bayley and McDowell Lakes would be breached, and these areas would

revert to seasonally moist wetlands. In addition, stocking would cease. The elimination and

strong restrictions on camping under Alternatives C and D further discourage camping weekends

with fishing mixed in. However, Alternative C would promote catch and release fishing on the

Little Pend Oreille River, which, together with the riparian and aquatic restoration measures

included in these alternatives, may increase riverine fishing opportunities. Still, overall, under

Alternatives C and D, fishing opportunity would show an overall decline, with an accompanying

decline in fishing visits.

Alternative E would also promote catch and release fishing on the Little Pend Oreille River. 

However, the continuation of the annual livestock grazing program for five years will delay the

increase in river fishing opportunities due to limiting the opportunities for riparian and aquatic

restoration measures. Fishing visits would be expected to remain approximately the same over

the next 15 years under this alternative.

Alternatives B, C, and E all seek to increase opportunities for natural spawning at the lakes. If

effective, this strategy would decrease reliance on stocked fish, possibly resulting in an increase

in the average size of caught fish, and promote fish wariness, overall leading to a higher quality

fishing experience. 

Alternatives A, B, and E continue the fishing seasons as they presently exist on the Refuge. 

Overall, fishing opportunity at the Refuge may be greatest under Alternatives B and E.

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, Environmental Education, and Photography: Wildlife

observation and photography are two of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activities, both

statewide and nationwide. Even without active programs to encourage this activity, all

alternatives would see a marked increase in visitation for wildlife observation and photography.

It is not known to what extent visitors combine wildlife observation and photography with other

activities at the Refuge such as camping, fishing, and hunting. However, people who exclusively

come to the Refuge to view and photograph wildlife may be deterred to some extent by hunting,

snowmobiling, Air Force overflights, and other noisy, disturbing activities. The Refuge has

received comments from visitors to that effect over the years. The opportunities for these nonconsumptive activities would therefore increase as these human disturbances decrease. Overall,

Alternative D would probably result in the least disturbance on the Refuge. Likewise, delaying

the fishing opener under Alternative C could greatly enhance viewing and photography

opportunities at McDowell and Bayley Lakes and Potter's Pond, although too large an increase in

non-consumptive recreation could disturb waterfowl (with subsequent impacts to viewing

opportunity) (Klein 1993). In addition, wintertime closures of Refuge roads under all of the

action alternatives would limit vehicular access and thus increase potential viewing opportunities
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-28

for certain publics. For those willing to walk, snowshoe, or ski, viewing opportunities could be

greatly enhanced during winter under Alternatives B, C, E, and especially Alternative D.

Alternatives C and E would emphasize visitor education and create both viewing areas and

programs for environmental education. Visitor enjoyment may be increased by the additional

interpretive information and programs available.

Camping: Camping opportunities would be curtailed under Alternatives C, D, and E, and, to

some extent, B. Under Alternative C, camping would no longer be allowed. Alternative D

would allow primitive (no-trace) camping in areas that vehicles cannot access; i.e. tent

backpacking would be allowed. All vehicle accessible camps and campgrounds would be closed

and restored to a natural condition. Dispersed riparian camping would be stopped under

Alternatives B and E; these two alternatives would also permit camping only in certain

designated campgrounds and dispersed sites during specific times of year. Alternative A would

allow camping to continue in a largely unregulated fashion. Restrictions on camping may be

difficult to enforce without an active education and law enforcement effort. Alternative B would

allow some Air Force camping use to continue. 

Snowmobiling: Snowmobile use would not be allowed to continue on the Refuge under

Alternatives B, C, and D. In addition, snowmobile traffic on Olson Creek Road, which largely

accesses Calispell Peak, would be eliminated under Alternatives B, C, and D, and the snowpark

off Highway 20 at Olson (Tacoma) Creek Road would be eliminated under Alternatives C and D. 

Under Alternative E, snowmobile use would also be prohibited, except that traditional

snowmobile ingress and egress (together with associated grooming) along the four miles of

Olson Creek Road that cross the Refuge would be permitted at the current level of use. No offroad snowmobile excursions would be allowed. The Refuge would also initiate work with

adjacent land managers and recreationists to seek a new snowpark and alternate winter access to

Calispell Peak. Even with the prohibition on snowmobiling elsewhere in the Refuge, total

snowmobile traffic experienced on Refuge lands (including Olson Creek Road) would rise from

the present time. 

Other recreational activities: With the exception of horseback riding and all-terrain-vehicle use,

most other recreational activities (including dog sledding, cross-country skiing, snow sledding,

mountain biking, and others) would be allowed to continue as at present under all alternatives

until and unless these uses become incompatible with Refuge goals and purposes. Horseback

riding would be eliminated under Alternatives C and D. Alternatives B and E could maintain or

even increase horseback riding, but it would occur under the auspices of an equestrian plan that

would deal with such issues as overnight use, trails, and horse feed. 

Unlicenced off-road vehicles would be prohibited from operating on the Refuge under all 

alternatives. Only licenced motorized vehicles would be allowed on designated roads. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-29

4.3 EFFECTS RELATED TO CATTLE GRAZING (Responds to Issue 3)

As discussed above in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, continuation of cattle grazing as it currently stands

under Alternative A would result in negative effects to riparian and deciduous forest, water

quality, aquatic habitats, and evaluation species including bald eagles, Columbia spotted frogs,

MacGillivray's warbler, deer, rainbow trout, ruffed grouse. In addition, continuation of cattle

grazing would be likely to negatively affect the protection of cultural resources, and riverine

fishing.

This section takes a broad look at the effects of cattle grazing, beyond that for indicator species. 

The effects on the permittees of changing the program are largely economic and are examined in

section 4.4 together with the economic effects of other programmatic changes by alternative. 

Based on an in-Service 1996 grazing review (USFWS 1997), fisheries habitat surveys of the

Little Pend Oreille River and Bear Creek in 1996 and 1997 (Kelly Ringel 1997; Kelly Ringel

1998), and a riparian condition evaluation on 32 valley units of five Refuge streams in 1996 and

1997 (Pyle 1997), the annual cattle grazing program is contributing to a poor condition for

Refuge fish and wildlife riparian and stream habitats. See Chapter 2 for a summary of the

specific problems occurring in streams and riparian areas as related to grazing.

Cattle grazing poses risks to wildlife, fish and plants in upland areas as well as riparian areas,

through a number of mechanisms. Livestock can compete with wildlife for a common food

source, displace wildlife through their presence, facilitate the invasion of pest species, and alter

the structure of habitat. The following are areas where livestock affect Refuge fish, wildlife, and

plant populations and habitat:

• Brown-headed cowbirds are found in the Little Pend Oreille NWR. These species are

parasites that do not build their own nests but instead lay their eggs in the nests of other passerine

birds. Brown-headed cowbirds will not travel more than 12 miles from agricultural areas and

their cattle herds (Saab, pers. comm.). Removing cattle from the Little Pend Oreille could reduce

this parasitism problem on the Refuge.

• Cattle trampling and grazing often stunts or kills riparian vegetation, and the shear force

of trampling hooves damages bank plants and soil stability. This initiates a cycle of root death,

soil sloughing, soil compaction, channel widening and downcutting, and stream temperature rise

(Kaufman et al. 1983) . These stream morphology changes harm habitats for native cold water

game fish. 

• There are two periods in each year when livestock and big game compete for the same

food resource. During early spring, mule deer consume grass more heavily than at other times of

the year (Peek and Krausman 1996). The diet for white-tailed deer should be similar. By about

mid-summer, grass forage becomes scarcer and cattle begin to switch their diet to increasing
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-30

amounts of browse. This brings them into direct competition with both white-tailed and mule

deer, and to lesser extent with elk.

• Saab et al. (1995) concluded, in a review of relevant studies, that livestock grazing in

the West has led to a decline in abundance of 46% of the 68 neotropical migrant landbirds that

utilize riparian habitat, an increase in 29% of the migrants, and no clear response in 25% of the

migrants. Ground-nesting birds as well as birds that forage in riparian areas with heavy shrub or

ground cover tended to decrease in abundance with grazing. 

• Ruffed grouse on this part of their range depend very heavily on the flower buds of

mature aspens for winter food. These aspen inclusions are also valuable habitat for deer,

woodpeckers, and many songbirds. Aspen groves on the Refuge show a very low rate of

reproduction. Almost all of the suckers present have been browsed heavily. While this may be

the result of wildlife and domestic livestock browsing as well as other influences, cattle are

contributing to the suppression of these stands.

• Researchers have detected a significant reduction in small mammal populations in

grazed areas when compared to ungrazed. (Fagerstone and Ramey 1996). This is thought to be

tied to a loss of cover from cattle foraging resulting in higher predation rates or emigration from

grazed areas to ungrazed. In either case, the overall carrying capacity of the area for small

mammals was reduced, which in turn reduces the amount of prey base available to predators such

as coyotes, great-horned owls, and red-tailed hawks, thereby reducing the areas carrying capacity

for these carnivores.

• Maintaining a grazing program on the Refuge has required the construction and

maintenance of between 65-70 miles of fences, most within the alluvial river bottoms. Many of

these fences are in poor condition and not designed for deer passage. This, coupled with the fact

that most occur in white-tailed deer winter range, increases their negative impact on deer.

• A recent comprehensive literature review (Belsky et al. 1999) compared the results from

approximately 140 peer reviewed empirical studies examining the effects of livestock grazing on

streams and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Of all the studies reviewed, there

were none that reported a positive impact of cattle on riparian areas when those areas were

compared to ungrazed controls. Some studies did report no statistical difference. Studies

conducted in the more humid areas of the west, resembling Little Pend Oreille to some extent

(Western Washington and Oregon) showed similar effects as those in arid zones from cattle

grazing, including consumption of streamside vegetation, soil disturbance, destabilization of

streambanks, manure and urine deposits along banks and churning up of channel sediments

(Armour et al. 1994; Trimble and Mendel 1995).

In summary, all of the action alternatives would improve the situation for native fish and wildlife

at Little Pend Oreille, by reducing or eliminating livestock grazing. Managed, rotational grazing

designed to reduce impacts on riparian habitats would occur under Alternative B, and would
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-31

diminish effects of grazing on Refuge habitats compared to Alternative A. This alternative

would require modification of existing allotments and the construction of additional fencing to

keep cattle out of alluvial riparian areas. Non-alluvial riparian areas would continue to be

available. Recovery of grazed areas currently showing impacts would be faster under

Alternatives C, and D and those locations in Alternative B where cattle are excluded completely

(according to Ohmart 1996, riparian healing occurs two to four times more rapidly under

exclusion than when subjected to rotational grazing.) Under Alternative E, impacts would

continue to be similar to those occurring under Alternative A because the annual grazing

program would be continued for five years. The elimination of grazing beginning in 2005 should

ultimately result in the recovery of grazed areas similar to the recovery in Alternative C and D.

4.4 EFFECTS RELATED TO AIR FORCE (Responds to Issue 4)

As discussed above, the continuation of the Air Force Survival School training program under

Alternative A would result in negative effects to bald eagle, lynx, deer, cultural resources,

hunting opportunities, wildlife viewing, photography, interpretation, and environmental

education opportunities.

A broader look at the effects of Air Force training, beyond that known for indicator species, is

provided here and in Appendix F (Compatibility Determinations).

The most significant potential impacts to wildlife are associated with helicopter support of

training which involves low-level flights, hovering and landing; use of certain pyrotechnics and

simulated weapons, and effects of disturbance from approximately 80 people scattered over onethird of the Refuge. 

Air Support of Training

Effects to wildlife: Many people familiar with Little Pend Oreille NWR have asserted that the Air

Force Survival program has no proven effect to wildlife. Since no on-site empirical studies have

been completed, we relied on several literature reviews undertaken by others to explore the

effects of aircraft noise and proximity on wildlife. Manci et al.(1988) compiled a literature

synthesis of the effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife. 

Andersen (1997 draft) has compiled a critical review of field studies examining the effects of

noise and related human activity on raptors. Bryant (1993) completed an annotated bibliography

of the effects of disturbances due to aircraft on fish and wildlife. Bryant s review is the most

comprehensive and the most recent and was used as the basis for the analysis presented here. 

Most of the studies reviewed by Bryant were conducted on raptors, big mammals or waterfowl. 

Since there is only a small amount of waterfowl habitat available at the Refuge, we concentrated

on the results obtained from raptor and large mammal studies. Of the fifty-three sources Bryant

reviewed, thirty-four constituted scientific studies. Of these, about 12 were considered of

superior value because they were conducted with large sample sizes and/or were experimental
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-32

manipulations with controls. Two of these studies focused on raptors. The remaining studies

focused on large mammals of varying species. These studies were the primary sources consulted

to determine effects of low level aircraft and noise on wildlife. 

Raptor studies: Both raptor studies showed effects from military training activities and/or low

flying aircraft. In one study, eighteen raptors were equipped with radio transmitters. When

military training activity (including increased ground vehicle traffic including trucks, tanks and

artillery; helicopter and fixed- wing overflights; simulated weapons fire; and extensive bivouacs

by large numbers of troops) was initiated in their area, behavioral changes, including shifts in

territory and movements, were observed in the raptors. Birds in areas not being actively used for

maneuvers did not show these reactions (Andersen et al. 1990). A second study (Andersen et al.

1989) examined the effects to raptors from low-level helicopter flights and documented that birds

living in areas exposed to low-level traffic since the 1950s did not flush as easily as birds living

in areas that had been previously non-existent. 

Large mammal studies: Seven of the ten studies considered most reliable in Bryant (1993)

showed that large mammals exhibit a variety of stress reactions in response to low level

overflights. These studies, as well as the three that did not document adverse effects, are

summarized in Table 4-2. 

Effect of distance and sound level: Reaction to helicopter overflights and similar disturbances

varies greatly among species as well as among individuals within a species. Grubb et al. (1997)

cites examples of helicopters approaching within 150 meters of bald eagles before eliciting a

flush response; while similar studies involving Mexican spotted owls, osprey and peregrine

falcons noted that they were all approached to distances of 100 m, 50 m, and 30 m respectively,

before flushing. Watson (1993) reports the distance at which individual bald eagles flushed

when disturbed by helicopters in northwestern Washington as ranging from <30 meters to >120

meters.

Distance seems to be a better predictor of response to helicopter overflights than sound level. An

inverse relationship existed between the distance from the helicopter to the subject and the rate of

response (Watson 1993, Grubb and Bowerman 1997, Delaney et al. 1997). Grubb and

Bowerman (1997) recommend that helicopters stay at least 150 meters from nesting bald eagles,

while Watson (1993) recommended >60 meters. Delaney et al. (1997) recommends >105 meters

from Mexican spotted owl nests.

Several other factors can influence raptor response to helicopter overflights. Watson (1993)

found that the flushing distance of eagles was greater when wind velocities were above 16 kph,

when eagles were without their young, and when they were perched farther from their nest. This

coincides with observations of bald eagles in Arizona showing eagles on nests being less easily

disturbed than foraging eagles. Grubb and King (1991) also found eagles more consistently

flushed from perches than from nests. Other factors that influenced flushing rates were duration
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-33

of disturbance and number of aircraft passes per episode. Increases in either of these factors

increased flushing rates (Watson 1993, Grubb and Bowerman 1997, Delaney et al. 1997).

Table 4-2. Summary of studies on large mammals from low flying aircraft (summarized

 in Bryant [1993]).

Effect noted Species Author/ Date Additional notes

Startle /alert reactions caribou Harrington and

Vietch, 1991

jets 30 m-300 m above ground; response

correlated to height

Heart Rate Increases desert mule

deer

Krausman et al. 1993 captive mule deer subjected to simulated

aircraft noise 92-112 db.

Flight barren ground

caribou

Calef et al. 1976 Panic reactions when helicopters < 60 m.

mountain sheep Krausman and

Hervert, 1983

All responses extreme, involving movements >

1 km from initial area when flights < 50 m.

Change of Home Range or

Territory

desert mountain

sheep

Bleich et al. 1990 Radio-collared animals showed 2.5X

movement on day following helicopter surveys

than on day preceding survey

coyotes Geese et al. 1989 Change in home ranges and abandonment of

home ranges occurred aft er military maneuvers

initiated. Responses related to amount of

cover, topography , and intensity of military

activity.

Reprod uctive Effec ts woodland

caribou

Harrington and

Vietch, 1992

Radio-collared females w/ calves subjected to

different levels of low level jet overflights, calf

survival found negatively correlated with

female s exposure during calving and

immediate post calving period and again

during period of insect harassment in summer. 

Overflight included all jets within 1 km of

caribou location.

Impact not apparent or not

significant

bison Fancy 1982 Flights from 61-150 m above ground had no

effect on behavior of bison

muskox Miller et al. 1988 Nursing bouts measured while helicopter

overflights conducted. Nursing frequency

could not be correlated with helicopter

exposure

desert mule

deer

Krausman et al. 1986 Deer subjected to overflights up to 150 m

above ground showed no change to a different

habitat type.

Stockwell et al. (1990), described height of helicopters flying above the ground as a threshold for

mountain sheep. No disturbance was noted when flights were greater than 100 meters above the

ground. Movement of 2 to 3 times greater than normal and increase in size and shape of home

ranges were noted following helicopter surveys of mountain sheep (Bleich et al. 1990). Sheep
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-34

foraging efficiency was also reduced. Deer and elk exhibited flight/fright behaviors at the

approach of helicopters (USFWS Aircraft Overflight Issues Report 1993). 

Type of aircraft and proximity: Of the three types of aircraft evaluated for their effect on nesting

raptors (low level jets, light fixed wing aircraft, and helicopters), helicopters appear to cause the

greatest disturbance (Grubb et al. 1992, Watson 1993, Grubb and Bowerman 1997). This may be

because helicopters fly slowly and at lower altitudes than other types of aircraft. Also, jet

engines produce more noise at higher pitch and magnitude than do piston aircraft engines. The

Air Force typically uses Bell UH-1 Iroquois helicopters ( Hueys ) for their training activities on

the Refuge. This aircraft uses a jet turbine engine.

Habituation: Evidence exists that raptors may become habituated to aircraft disturbance. 

Indications of this phenomenon were reported in red-tailed hawks (Andersen et al. 1989) and

Mexican spotted owls (Delaney et al. 1997). The extent and frequency of this effect are not yet

understood. 

Effects to people: Aircraft noise also disturbs Refuge visitors who seek quiet and the potential

for a wildlife encounter. Campers, bird watchers, horseback riders and hunters have complained

about Air Force low-level helicopter flights. Refuge neighbors have also complained about

helicopter activity, particularly night flights.

Summary: All the information available describing the effects of helicopter and other aircraft on

wildlife pertains to overflights and other in air  activities. The relatively longer duration of

noise associated with the take-offs, taxiing, approaches, and landings being conducted in forest

openings and fields on the LPO NWR may impose a substantially greater level of disturbance to

wildlife using specific landing zones. In summary, Alternatives C, D, and E, which eliminate

Air Force Survival School Training at the Refuge, would completely eliminate the risk this

activity poses. Alternative B, which eliminates helicopter and explosive use, but maintains most

other aspects of the program, would also benefit wildlife.

Ground-based Training Activity

The effect of the ground-based activity is likely similar to other ground-based public use

activities, particularly camping, use of off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, and hiking. The impacts

of these activities on Refuge values are discussed earlier in this chapter, but are also discussed in

much more detail in Appendix F. See that Appendix for more information. The Air Force

Survival School creates an additive impact to public activities like camping. There are

approximately 50 Air Force camps scattered throughout the Refuge. At any one time, the

Training School is represented by about 80 plus people, split into two groups, using about

twenty-two square miles of the Refuge, but with the majority of use in the core of the Refuge.

USAF Survival School ground activity may be more disturbing to some wildlife than the

helicopters. All studies of disturbance to raptors that included an analysis of ground activity
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-35

disturbance found it to have a greater effect on birds of prey than did aircraft. Research

conducted on the Army maneuver sites observed a displacement reaction by some wildlife to the

training activities. While the intensity of the training conducted on these areas is much greater

than that occurring on LPO, the many fold increase in the number of people in the areas, greater

vehicular traffic on the roads, operation of ATVs and helicopters, and the use of simulated

weapons are variables they have in common. 

Research done on nesting bald eagles in Arizona found the strongest response was caused by

ground-based disturbances, particularly pedestrians. Within that category, hiking activities were

the most disturbing. In addition to pedestrian disturbance, the other disturbances analyzed in

decreasing order of severity were: aquatic (tubers, boat, canoes); vehicles, noise (gunshots and

sonic booms); and lastly aircraft (Grubb and King 1991). Other researchers have also determined

that aircraft overflights were less disturbing than ground-based activities (Awbrey and Bowles

1990 in Delaney et al. 1997). Recent work examining the effect of helicopter overflights on

nesting Mexican spotted owls in Arizona also measured the owls  response to chain saw noise. 

Their results indicated this ground-based disturbance elicited a greater flush response than the

aerial disturbance caused by helicopters (Delaney et al. 1997). They speculated that spotted owls

perceived helicopters as less threatening than chain saws because of the aircraft s shorter

duration, gradual crescendo in sound levels, and minimal visibility or association with human

activity. They also believed owls would have responded more if individual exposure times to

helicopters were increased through slower maneuvers and increased hovering.

In summary, the reduction of ground-based disturbances can only benefit Refuge wildlife and

habitats. Alternatives C, D, and E, which eliminate Air Force training at the Refuge, would have

the most positive benefit to wildlife. Alternative B would continue some negative impact,

though it would be less than Alternative A. 

4.5 EFFECTS TO REGIONAL ECONOMY (Responds to Issue 5) 

All dollar figures below are expressed in terms of 1997 equivalent dollars.

Refuge Management Economics

Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A), annual Refuge salary expenditures (including

salaries and benefits) would be $428,800, and nonsalary expenditures would be $160,482 (Table

4-3). IMPLAN modeling results indicate that Refuge management would result in 9.9 jobs and

$460,000 in personal income in the nonmilitary federal government sector. These results differ

from the information obtained directly from the Refuge planning process, as reported in

Appendix C, Table 3-2, and Table 4-3, which indicates that Refuge staffing currently includes

eight full-time and nine seasonal jobs and $428,800 in salaries and benefits. Similar

discrepancies occurred in modeling the other alternatives. Discrepancies between the IMPLAN

modeling results and the information obtained directly from Refuge planning are primarily

attributable to the low average annual income of seasonal Refuge employees relative to the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-36

average income of nonmilitary federal employees in Stevens County. The effects shown in

Tables 4-4 and 4-5 are based on the IMPLAN modeling results rather than the employment and

payroll data obtained from Refuge planning. Including indirect, direct, and induced effects,

Refuge management under Alternative A would account for an estimated 18.7 jobs and $598,000

in annual personal income in the region (Table 4-4).

Refuge management would directly generate more jobs and income Alternatives B, C, and E than

under Alternative A (Table 4-4). Fewer jobs and income would be generated under Alternative

D than under Alternative A. The same comparative results apply to the total (i.e., direct, indirect,

and induced) employment and income effects.

Table 4-3. Annual Refuge Salary and Nonsalary Expenditures (in Dollars)

 by Planning Alternative

Expenditures by Alternative

A B C D E

Salary

 Permanent, full time 350,000 505,600 477,600 420,000 533,600

 Temporary 78,800 111,600 89,000 14,000 100,300

 Subtotal 428,800 617,200 566,600 434,000 633,900

Nonsalary 160,482 121,200 119,267 93,733 124,267

Total 589,282 738,400 685,867 527,733 758,167

Forest Products Economics

Under Alternative A, 50-250 thousand board feet (MBF) would be harvested annually on the

Little Pend Oreille NWR, consistent with recent harvesting levels and patterns. Under

Alternatives B, C, and E, 100-1,000 MBF would be harvested annually, mostly through

commercial thinnings designed to remove excess small trees from the forest understory. Under

Alternative D, 250-500 MBF would be harvested annually.

Employment and income effects under the action alternatives would increase relative to

Alternative A in proportion to the annual harvest level (Table 4-4). Assuming that an average of

150 MBF is harvested annually under Alternative A, it is estimated that Refuge timber sales

would account for a total of 0.3 jobs and $20,000 in personal income in the regional forest

products industry. Total effects of Alternative A on employment and personal income are

estimated at 0.6 jobs and $33,000 per year, respectively. Results shown in Table 4-4 are

calculated based on the assumption that an average of 375 MBF would be harvested annually

under Alternative D, and that an average of 550 MBF would be harvested annually under 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-37

Table 4-4. Regional Economic Effects of Refuge Activities by Sector and 

 Planning Alternative by Year 2014 

Sector and Type of Effect A B C D E

Refuge Management

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 9.9 12.4 11.5 8.8 12.7

 Personal income ($/year) 460,000 576,000 535,000 412,000 591,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 18.7 23.4 21.7 16.7 24.0

 Personal Income ($/year) 598,000 749,000 695,000 535,000 769,000

Forest Products

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.1

 Personal income ($/year) 20,000 73,000 73,000 50,000 73,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 0.6 2.4 2.4 1.6 2.4

 Personal income ($/year) 33,000 125,000 125,000 86,000 125,000

Livestock Production

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 1.9 0.8 0 0 0

 Personal income ($/year) 59,000 24,000 0 0 0

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 3.0 1.2 0 0 0

 Personal income ($/year) 96,000 38,000 0 0 0

Recreation

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 19.1 13.1 6.8 6.2 17.1

 Personal income ($/year) 315,000 225,000 116,000 105,000 282,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 29.9 20.6 10.6 9.6 26.8

 Personal income ($/year) 646,000 452,000 233,000 210,000 578,000

Aggregate effects

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 31.2 27.4 19.4 15.8 30.9

 Personal income ($/year) 854,000 898,000 724,000 567,000 946,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 52.2 47.6 34.7 27.9 53.2

 Personal income ($/year) 1,373,000 1,364,000 1,053,000 831,000 1,472,000

Net economic value ($/year) 2,600,00 2,082,00 1,066,00 1,038,00 2,394,000
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-38

Alternatives B, C, and E. Under the action alternatives, the direct and total effects of Refuge

timber harvesting would increase in proportion to the harvest level.

Refuge forest management activities other than commercial timber harvesting include

precommercial thinning, prescribed burning, and planting of trees in old fields. These activities

are usually conducted by Refuge staff, rather than by private contractors. Their economic

impacts are accounted for as part of Refuge management.

 Livestock Production Economics

This analysis was based on the assumptions that regional calf sales would change in proportion

to the change in Refuge forage supplied to the 3 livestock permittees, and that calves are sold

when they weigh an average of 600 pounds. Under Alternative A, forage to support

approximately 750 AUMs would continue to be sold to local permittees, and it was assumed that

this level of forage sales would support the annual sale of 180 calves, for a total sales weight of

108,000 pounds (1,080 hundred weight).

Under Alternative B, grazing would be restricted to low-elevation upland forest areas, which

provide approximately 300 AUMs during the grazing season. Under Alternatives C, and D,

livestock grazing would be phased out over the next 5 years, except for incidental grazing (under

Alternatives C) to achieve wildlife habitat objectives. For this analysis, it was assumed that no

forage would be sold to permittees under Alternatives C, and D. Under Alternative E, grazing

would be continued for five years and then eliminated from the Refuge, except to achieve

wildlife habitat objectives.

Employment and personal income effects of the Refuge grazing program under the planning

alternatives are shown in 4-4. Under Alternative A, Refuge forage supply would account for an

estimated 1.9 jobs and $62,000 in personal income in the range-fed cattle industry, and a total of

3.0 jobs and $96,000 in personal income throughout the regional economy. Under the other

alternatives, direct and total employment and income effects of grazing would decline in

proportion to the amount of forage sold on the Refuge.

Eliminating Refuge grazing would increase production costs for the affected permittees, and

could result in herd reductions for one or more permittees. For example, if no alternative forage

sources were available, permittees could be forced to reduce their herd sizes by the number of

head grazed on the Refuge. Under a worst-case scenario, such herd reductions could reduce the

size of the permittee s overall operation below the minimum size needed for a cow-calf operation

to be viable. In this case, phasing-out of Refuge grazing could result in the closure of one or

more local cattle operations, and could lead to a reduction in regional calf sales by more than the

approximately 180 head annually produced on the Refuge.

The availability of leasable private rangeland holdings large enough to accommodate a

permittee s herd has historically been limited because most local ranch owners allocate their

forage to their own cattle operations. Although private rangeland is available for leasing, most 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-39

holdings are too small to support herds as large as those grazed on the Refuge. The availability of

large holdings has declined in recent years as a result of ranch subdivisions for homesite

development associated with Stevens County s growing population (Gillaspy and Madson pers.

comms.). Although permittees could divide their herds among multiple private pastures, doing

so would substantially increase the hauling costs and labor requirements of their operations.

The number of livestock permitted by the Colville National Forest, the region s largest public

forage provider, is expected to decline gradually in response to resource protection measures

associated with the federal listing of the bull trout, and because of the loss of transitional pastures

resulting from declining levels of clear cutting (Ridlington pers. comm.). As a result,

competition for available forage is likely to increase.

Opportunities to obtain alternative forage supplies also depend on the overall profitability of

livestock operations. Cattle-production profit margins have narrowed in recent years as cattle

prices have declined by nearly 50% from their previous peak levels (Hammel pers. comm.). In

summary, few, if any, economically viable alternatives to Refuge grazing appear to be available

to the permittees.

Other Refuge activities related to cattle grazing include construction, maintenance, and removal

of fences. These activities are usually conducted by the grazing permittees, who are

compensated for major work by deducting their labor costs from grazing fees.

Recreation Economics

Consistent with historical trends, total recreation use on the Refuge is projected to increase over

time under the No-Action Alternative (Table 4-1), although participation in hunting and

horseback riding is projected to decline slightly. Under Alternative B, participation rates would

parallel those under Alternative A, except for camping, which would decrease, and

snowmobiling, which would be eliminated. Under Alternative C, wildlife observation and

organized nature study would increase faster than under Alternative A; hunting and fishing

would decline; and camping, snowmobiling, and horseback riding would be eliminated. Under

Alternative D, hunting, fishing, and camping would decline, and snowmobiling and horseback

riding would be eliminated. Under Alternative E, recreation use would generally increase

slightly faster than under Alternative A, except for snowmobiling, which would grow relatively

slowly, and camping, which would decline.

Economic effects of recreation were analyzed based on projected Refuge use levels in 2014 (see

Table 4-1). Under Alternative A, Refuge recreation use in 2014 would account for an estimated

19.1 jobs and $315,000 in personal income in the directly affected industries (i.e., food stores,

service stations, restaurants, miscellaneous retail, and lodging places) (Table 4-4). Including

direct, indirect, and induced effects, recreation use would account for 29.9 jobs and $646,000 in

personal income. Recreation-related spending would be lower under all of the action

alternatives, along with affected jobs and income. These adverse economic effects would be
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-40

relatively small under Alternative E, somewhat larger under Alternative B, and larger still under

Alternatives C and D (Table 4-4).

In addition to employment and personal income, Refuge recreation use results in net economic

value to users reflecting the amount they would be willing to pay to visit in excess of the amount

they would actually pay. Based on the per-day net economic values discussed in Chapter 2 under

 Recreation Economics , Refuge use in 2014 would generate $2.6 million in consumer s surplus

under Alternative A, approximately $2.4 million under Alternative E, approximately $2.1 million

under Alternative B, and approximately $1.0 million under Alternatives C and D (Table 4-4). 

Analysis of Snowmobile Recreation Use and its Economic Effects

To assess the recreation and economic effects of potential restrictions on the use of snowmobiles

in portions of the refuge, interviews were conducted with three individuals knowledgeable

regarding snowmobiling on and near the refuge; counts were made to estimate snowmobiling use

on the refuge; and information was compiled on the spending patterns of snowmobilers.

Information from the interviews indicated that closure of the Olson Creek Road to snowmobile

use could result in a substantial reduction in use of the Calispell Mountain loop trail, as well as

reduced winter patronage of Beaver Lodge (Hull and Inman pers. comms.). Calispell Mountain

is a popular destination for snowmobiling residents of Stevens and Spokane Counties. Beaver

Lodge is also a popular destination and rest stop for winter recreation, with nearly all users of the

Calispell Mountain trail patronizing the lodge and using it as a source of food, lodging, and

occasionally emergency services. Closure of Olson Creek Road would probably result in a

seasonal reduction in Beaver Lodge s sales of at least 2%-5% (Beech pers. comm.). Whether

this reduction in business would lead to seasonal or permanent closure of the lodge is unknown

(Beech pers. comm.).

Snowmobile use on the refuge in fiscal year 1999 was estimated at 7,000 visitor days based on

traffic counts obtained from an automatic counter on Olson Creek Road. Future snowmobiling

use was projected for each alternative in the final EIS based on recreational trends combined with

the restrictions that would be placed on refuge snowmobiling under Alternatives B, C, and D

(Table 4-1). 

The economic effects of changes in snowmobiling under the various alternatives were estimated

based on daily snowmobiler spending profiles obtained from a recent survey-based study of

snowmobiling in Montana (Sylvester and Nesary 1994), and on a economic model of the Stevens

County economy (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1994).

Air Force Training Economics

Under Alternatives B and E, use of the Refuge by the Air Force Survival School would be

reduced. Under Alternatives C and D, it would be phased out over the next 5 years. Because of
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-41

the small level of regional expenditures related to Air Force training on the Refuge, however, the

regional economic impacts of reducing or phasing out this program would be negligible. 

Economics Summary 

Employment

Under the No-Action Alternative, economic activity directly related to all Refuge operations

would generate an estimated 31.2 jobs. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all Refuge

activities would account for 52.2 jobs (Table 4-4). Fewer direct and total jobs related to Refuge

operations would be generated under Alternative B than Alternative A; Alternatives C and D

would result in more substantial job reductions (Table 4-5). The direct employment effect would

be slightly smaller under Alternative E than under Alternative A, but the total effect would be

slightly larger. Changes in recreation use are the most important source of the variations in

employment.

Personal Income

Under the No-Action Alternative, all Refuge operations would directly account for an estimated

annual personal income of $854,000, while the direct, indirect, and induced effects on personal

income would total $1.37 million in 2014 (Table 4-4). Refuge operations under Alternatives E

and B would directly generate more personal income than under Alternative A; under

Alternatives C and D less income would be directly generated than under Alternative A (Table 4-

5). Total income effects would generally parallel the direct income effects, except under

Alternative B, where all Refuge operations would generate less (by $9,000 annually) personal

income than Alternative A. As with employment, most of the income variations are attributable

to changes in recreation use.

Net Economic Value

Refuge recreation use would result in consumer s surplus reflecting the amount users are willing

to pay to participate above the amount actually spent to participate. Net economic value

resulting from recreation use would total an estimated annual $2.6 million under Alternative A,

but would decline in proportion to recreation use under the other alternatives.

Refuge management would probably result in additional consumer s surplus representing, for

example, the amount wildlife enthusiasts would be willing to pay to maintain or enhance habitat

above the amount actually spent for such activities. The net economic value of wildlife and fish

habitat enhancement resulting from the planning alternatives was not estimated for this analysis,

however.
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-42

Table 4-5. Change in Regional Economic Effects from the No-Action Alternative

Sector and Type of Effect B C D E

Refuge Management

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 2.5 1.6 (1.1) 2.8

 Personal income ($/year) 116,000 75,000 (48,000) 131,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 4.7 3.0 (2.0) 5.3

 Personal Income ($/year) 151,000 97,000 (63,000) 171,000

Forest Products

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8

 Personal income ($/year) 53,000 53,000 30,000 53,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.8

 Personal income ($/year) 92,000 92,000 53,000 92.000

Livestock Production

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) (0.9) (1.9) (1.9) (1.9)

 Personal income ($/year) (35,000) (59,000) (59,000) (59,000)

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) (1.8) (3.0) (3.0) (3.0)

 Personal income ($/year) (58,000) (96,000) (96,000) (96,000)

Recreation

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) (6.0) (12.3) (12.9) (2.0)

 Personal income ($/year) (90,000) (199,000) (210,000) (33,000)

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) (9.3) (19.3) (20.3) (3.1)

 Personal income ($/year) (194,000) (433,000) (436,000) (68,000)

Aggregate effects

Direct effects

 Employment (jobs) (3.6) (11.8) (15.4) (0.3)

 Personal income ($/year) 44,000 (130,000) (287,000) 92,000

Total effects

 Employment (jobs) (4.6) (17.5) (24.3) 1.0

 Personal income ($/year) (9,000) (320,000) (542,000) 99,000

Net economic value ($/year) (518,000) (1,534,000) (1,562,000) (206,000)
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-43

4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, federal agencies must identify and address

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The following

discussion addresses environmental justice as related to the land-use alternatives being

considered for the Little Pend Oreille NWR. The evaluations considered potential impacts

arising under each of the major impact categories evaluated in this EIS, including social and

economic, cultural, and physical and biological resources.

Social and Economic Analysis: According to 1990 statistics, the population of Stevens County,

where 99% of the Refuge is located, is composed of 93% white and 6% Native Americans. Less

than 1% of the population is African, or Asian or Pacific Islander American. People of Hispanic

origin of any race account for approximately 1.6% of the community. The population of the

County in 1996 was 38,567 and 60% of the population was classified as rural. 

 The Stevens County economy is dependent on the timber industry, agriculture, manufacturing,

mining, trade, and services. Its largest industries are logging, wood and paper products

manufacturing, mining, and metal refining. The economics of the area, including jobs and

income, may change but not significantly, and no significant change in taxes or revenue from the

Refuge is expected. Refer to the Economics sections, Chapters 3 and 4 of this document, for

more detailed information.

Considering social and economic impacts, current uses are not known to cause disproportionately

high and adverse human health impacts in any population and no such impacts would be

expected to occur as a result of the No-Action or any action alternative. Current uses are not

known to result in disproportionally high and adverse socioeconomic impact to low-income or

minority populations and no such impacts would be expected to occur as a result of the NoAction or any action alternative. 

Cultural Resources Analysis: As noted in the Cultural Resource section, use of the area within

the boundaries of the Little Pend Oreille NWR by Native Americans is not well documented. In

fact, no prehistoric sites have been located within the Refuge itself. There are no treaty reserved

Tribal hunting or fishing rights on the Refuge. The Refuge is also not known to provide Tribal

traditional uses, such as gathering of foods and medicines, hunting, and pasturing of horses and

cattle.

Based on information gathered in the nineteenth century, the Kalispel Indians lived along the

eastern boundaries of the Pend Oreille range, around Lake Pend Oreille, Calispell Lake, and

along the Pend Oreille River. A population center for the Kalispel was also in the Chewelah

area, south of the Refuge. The Colville Indians inhabited the area from Kettle Falls on the

Columbia River, south to the Colville Valley. The Spokane Indians were centered around the
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-44

falls at Spokane. Refer to the Cultural Resources sections, Chapters 3 and 4, for more detailed

information. 

Considering cultural resources, current uses are not known to cause disproportionately high and

adverse human health impacts in any population and no such impacts would be expected to occur

as a result of the No-Action or any action alternative. Current uses are not known to result in

disproportionally high and adverse impact to low-income or minority populations and no such

impacts would be expected to occur as a result of the No-Action or any action alternative. 

Physical and Biological Analysis: Potential effects to wildlife, fish, and plants, water quality,

public access and recreation, special use activities, and air quality are described earlier in this

chapter. In analyzing the alternatives potential effects, and considering the areas population, the

natural environment, Refuge use and possible health issues, such as herbicide use and smoke

management, current uses are not known to cause disproportionately high and adverse human

health impacts in any population and no such impacts would be expected to occur as a result of 

the No-Action or any action alternative. Current uses are also not known to result in

disproportionally high and adverse impact to low-income or minority populations and no such

impacts would be expected to occur as a result of the No-Action or any action alternative. 

In summary, this environmental justice analysis concludes that the socioeconomic, cultural, and

physical and biological effects of each alternative do not predict any outcomes that would cause

disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in any population, nor would they

result in disproportionally high or adverse impact to low-income or minority populations, nor

would any alternative create a greater burden on low-income households.

4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Potential cumulative effects for all of the alternatives are described below. Such an analysis is

intended to consider the interaction of activities at the Little Pend Oreille NWR with other

actions occurring over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference. In addition, the interrelated effects of separate actions under the alternatives are considered.

Cumulative effects resulting from forest management actions: The problem of overstocked

forests extends throughout forested areas on the public lands of Eastern Washington, Eastern

Oregon, and Idaho. There is a concern throughout federal land management agencies, including

the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management, about the problems posed

by these overstocked forests, including the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Projects now being

undertaken throughout Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon and Idaho include measures to

accelerate the development of large trees in forests across the region by thinning from below and

use of prescribed fire for the purposes of reducing high fuel loads. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-45

The combination of these region-wide actions (which would also occur at the Little Pend Oreille

NWR under action Alternatives B, C, D, and E) could result in three potential cumulative effects. 

First, existing air quality is thought to be far superior to that occurring prior to settlement; the

improvement is a direct result of the fire suppression. With the simultaneous impetus to subject

thousands or millions of acres to prescribed fire, there could be a significant short-term

deterioration of air quality caused by burns of excess fuels occurring more or less simultaneously

throughout the region. However, models show that regionally simultaneous prescribed burning

still may not cause degradation severe enough to exceed EPA limits (see Air Quality effects

analysis). In parallel, these simultaneous efforts to restore forest structures and restore the role of

fire in ecosystem processes lead us to conclude that a cumulative long-term positive effect for

plants and animals dependent on mature and late-successional forests may be anticipated. 

Also, regional timber markets may be flooded with small-diameter timber, depressing prices and

rendering many of the fuel reduction projects non-viable by commercial operators. This is an

example of negative feedback which could diminish or slow the combination of cumulative

effects mentioned above. A different cumulative effect could occur as a result of the No-action

Alternative. The combination of recreational and Air Force disturbances under Alternative A

could cause cumulative impacts to sensitive wildlife. 

Cumulative effects resulting from recreation changes: All proposals to reduce or restrict

recreational opportunities could cause increased pressure on other nearby public (or private)

lands, particularly the Colville National Forest and Washington State Department of Natural

Resources lands to the north, where numerous recreational opportunities exist. The extent of this

displacement is difficult to predict at this time, though it is likely that users would seek recreation

sites at similar distances from the major local population centers (Colville, Chewelah, Spokane)

and that offer similar experiences (primitive campsites, lake fishing, etc.).

4.8 POTENTIAL IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENTS

The dedication of certain areas to main arterial roads represents an irretrievable loss of natural

productivity by the Refuge under all alternatives. Likewise, maintaining campgrounds and

campsites (as under Alternatives A, B, D, and E) represents an irreversible diminishment of

productivity. Fields would be maintained in varying acres in all alternatives except Alternative

D. This would represent an irretrievable loss of native forested habitat value.

Under Alternative A, there would be no attempt to manage excess fuels. Fire suppression would

occur under all alternatives. Alternative A would thus result in an irretrievable loss of habitat

value for those species requiring an open understory and an overstory dominated by larger, more

scattered trees. 

Commercial thinning, which would occur under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, as well as salvage,

would result in an irretrievable loss of organic material to the soils on certain sites at Little Pend
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 4-46

Oreille NWR. Also, fish stocking, which is practiced now and would continue under

Alternatives A, B, C, and E, could represent an irretrievably altered species balance in Refuge

lakes and rivers.

4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT 

 AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

All of the action alternatives of this draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan are clearly aimed at

enhancing the long-term productivity of the Refuge; that is, enhancing the habitat quality and

quantity for native species. Existing uses that have been deemed incompatible (See Appendix F)

will be eliminated or modified under the preferred Alternative E. Alternative C, D, and E adopt

the most measures to enhance long-term productivity. Alternative B accommodates more

existing short term human uses (specifically grazing and the Air Force Survival school), but also

enacts sideboards to at least partially mitigate the effects of these uses on the long-term

productivity. In summary, all action alternatives improve the enhancement of long-term

productivity. The No-Action Alternative would allow long-term productivity to be compromised

and further degraded. 

4.10 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

The preferred alternative (Alternative E) is not expected to result in any unavoidable adverse

environmental effects. Habitat and species monitoring that will be undertaken as part of the

preferred alternative will enable Refuge staff to adapt management policies to any unforeseen

situations. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

5-1 Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination With Others

5.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY

The following summarizes public outreach including open houses, public meetings, plan work

group meetings, camping survey results, planning update mailings, Federal Register notices, and

some of the topics discussed or comments received. 

Open Houses, Public Meetings

Date and Location of Outreach: July 29, 1995, Open House, at Refuge Headquarters

Purpose: To begin pre-scoping for management planning and hear from visitors what

was special or important to them about the refuge.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 30

Audience: Public

Topics discussed: road closures, homesteading era, grazing, natural beauty, hunting,

fishing, trapping, OHVs, non-motorized recreation, horseback riding, limit Bayley to

catch and release only, quality fishing opportunities, search and rescue training, camping,

migratory bird sanctuary, phase out snowmobiling, grazing, and hunting

Date and Location of Outreach: October 17, 1995, Meeting, Colville High School,

Colville, Washington

Purpose: To initiate public scoping in the planning process.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 42

Audience: Public

Topics discussed: special and unique features of the Little Pend Oreille Refuge, draft

goals, encroachment of trees in meadows, partnering with public service groups, weeds,

hunting predators, cattle and bank erosion along streams, managing fences, natural

restoration, loud parties and litter, law enforcement, Air Force conflicts with wildlife and

recreationists, Air Force noise, entrances for non-motorized and foot traffic, educational

opportunities, gates for horses, monitoring of activities, maintaining diverse uses, safety,

horseback riding tradition, hunting closure during Air Force training, road closures, fees

for use, field management, fund generation, timber management, wildlife richness in past

and off refuge, refuge boundary signing, government intrusions on citizen freedoms, old

homestead sites and artifacts, vandalism, volunteers, motorcycle damage to trails,

noxious weeds, logging for white-tailed deer, free outdoor recreation, cattle in riparian

zones, access by Air Force, restoration and use of old fields, community support, road

closures, information signs, off-road vehicles, windfall cleanup, sanitary facilities near

water, grooming of trails, cattle corral, Air Force road maintenance work, dump station

for RVs, old fencing removal, spring repair, organic matter choking lakes, dispersed

camping in riparian areas, bank stability, fish stocking, fire control roads, primitive nature

of camping, horse hitching posts, and large groups 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement, 

Consultation, and Coordination With Others 5-2

Date and Location of Outreach: July 29, 1998, Open House at Colville High School,

Colville, Washington

Purpose: To present and discuss preliminary alternatives.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 22

Audience: Public

Topics discussed: camping traditions, campsites designation, congestion, hunting

restrictions, benefits of weed free hay, photographic documentation of old homesteads, 

Air Force disturbances to wildlife, grazing modifications, management of old fields,

aspen restoration, limits of economic benefits from thinning, weed control, road

construction, technologies for forest harvest without roads, map improvements, the return

of low-intensity fire, and inholding consolidation 

Date and Location of Outreach: July 30, 1998, Open House at Inland Northwest

Wildlife Council Headquarters, Spokane, Washington

Purpose: To present and discuss preliminary alternatives.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 17

Audience: Public

Topics discussed: road closures, earth science education, horse presence on trails,

camping in the riparian zone, predator trapping, Air Force road maintenance, primitive

state of refuge, public access, partnerships with user and friends groups, grazing impacts

and benefits, mast for deer and turkey, cropping for wildlife forage, Air Force impacts,

natural spawning, white tailed deer, and refuge revenue distribution 

Date and Location: August 4, 1998, Meeting, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council

Headquarters, Spokane, Washington

Purpose: To present and discuss issues and alternatives for CCP.

Number of non-FWS participants: 60

Audience: Inland Northwest Wildlife Council members

Topics discussed: Air Force hunting closure, camping and hunting, deer management,

ORV use

Date and Location: May 12, 1999, Meeting, Community College, Colville, Washington

Purpose: To present draft CCP/EIS, field questions, encourage written comments

Number of non-FWS participants: 53

Audience: public

Topics discussed during question and answer period: snowmobiling, collecting,

special use permit process, forest management, dog sledding, horseback riding, camping,

fees, Refuge Improvement Act

Date and Location: May 13, 1999, Meeting, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council

Headquarters, Spokane, Washington

Purpose: To present draft CCP/EIS, field questions, encourage written comments.

Number of non-FWS participants:50
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-3

Audience: public

Topics discussed during question and answer period: funding, IEB horsemen helping

with trails, visitor days, camping fees, snowmobiling, white-tailed deer herd status,

hunter camping, wild turkey populations, fly fishing, prescribed fire, and Air Force phase

out

Plan Working Group

In 1997, the Service convened a group of interested persons, a plan work group, representing

diverse interests and backgrounds and major stakeholders, to provide feedback to the planning

team during the comprehensive conservation planning process. 

Name(s) Representing

John Andrews Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dan and Evelyn Bell refuge neighbors, inholding owners, and Safari Club International 

Gary Bellinger horseback riding interests

John Blauser archery hunting interests

Connie and Gene Cada refuge grazing permittees and Stevens County Cattlemen s Assoc.

Timothy Coleman Kettle Range Conservation Group

Ken Elliot Inland Empire Backcountry Horsemen

Sara Folger Lands Council

Chuck Gades Stimson Lumber Company

Bob Gillaspy Natural Resource Conservation Service

Rick Hatcher Air Force Survival School

Larry Heming Inland Empire Backcountry Horsemen

Ron King Washington Department of Natural Resources

Greg Konkel Inland Northwest Wildlife Council

Tim Kunka Stevens County Cattlemen s Association

Dan Len Colville National Forest

Cena Lotze horseback rider

Beverly McLaughlin conservationist

George Potter Inland Empire Fly Fishing Club

Scott Price wildlife photographer

Dick Rivers Spokane Audubon Society and Lands Council

Dave Robinson Kettle Range Conservation Group

Shelly Short Congressman George Nethercutt s office

Tony Delgado Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Jim Kolthoff Colville National Forest/Air Force Survival School 

Russ Larsen Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Others attending these meetings included Kevin Morrissey, Lello Galassi, and Al Bobst from the

Air Force Survival School; Ed Shaw and Chris Loggers from the Colville National Forest; and

Steve Zender from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Others invited to participate in
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-4

this work group included: Duane Scott, Mayor of Colville, WA, Fred Lotze, Stevens County

Commissioner; Steve Rumsey; Publisher Open Spaces, Tricounty Recreation Guide; and Rod

Fogle, former Colville Chamber of Commerce President.

Date and Location of Outreach: June 30, 1997, meeting, Colville Community Center 

Purpose: First in a series of meetings of interested citizens and stakeholders in CCP

discussions

Number of non-FWS Participants: 17

Audience: Plan Working Group

Topics discussed: introductions, issues as seen by organizations/people in this group,

management of wildfires, logging and white-tailed deer management, grazing, trail and

road maintenance funds, equal consideration for all wildlife, historic vegetation

conditions, off-refuge wildlife values, Air Force training, effects of commercial uses on

wildlife, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ecosystem

management approach, road maintenance, primacy of wildlife, grazing allotment fencing,

quality fishing, wildlife diversity, dependence on natural processes, including fire, winter

range, risk of fire, budget and staff needed to implement plan, Air Force services to

refuge, Air Force conflicts with wildlife, road closures, logging methods and benefits,

logging influence on noxious weeds, human use as related to logging roads, water quality

and roads, grazing incompatibility with other uses, elk/cattle conflict, wildlife objectives

met by grazing, grazing riparian damage, hunting closure associated with Air Force,

helicopter use by Air Force, restorations, core areas for seclusion-dependent species, and

inclusion of other interests, others who should be invited to these meetings 

Date and Location of Outreach: August 11, 1997, Meeting, Stevens County

Purpose: Second in series of meetings of interested citizens and stakeholders in CCP

discussions; preliminary management objectives.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 14

Audience: Plan Working Group

Topics discussed: riparian issues, preliminary management objectives for riparian areas,

preliminary management objectives and strategies for public use, riparian survey

methodology, and proper functioning condition definition

Date and Location of Outreach: September 29,1997, Meeting, USDA/Stevens County

Conservation District Conference Room, Colville 

Purpose: Third in a series of meetings of interested citizens and stakeholders in CCP

discussions; roads and access, biological workshop summary, alternative development

Number of non-FWS Participants: 22

Audience: Plan Working Group

Topics discussed: passage of NWRS Improvement Act, roads and entrances, weeds,

draft vegetation maps, goal statement revisions, summary of September 16-17, 1997,

biological workshop, summary of potential management tools being considered,
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-5

measurable objectives, natural fire regime, timber management, retain management

flexibility

Date and Location of Outreach: July 28, 1998, Meeting at Colville National Forest

Supervisor s Office Conference Room; Colville, Washington.

Purpose: Fourth in a series of meetings of interested citizens and stakeholders in CCP

discussions; discuss preliminary alternatives. 

Number of non-FWS Participants: 13

Audience: Plan Working Group

Topics discussed: historic uses, deer depredations on adjacent agriculture lands, native

biodiversity, grazing AUMs, Air Force, natural disturbances, habitat restoration, road

closures, fur trapping, fire program, road rehabilitation, white-tailed deer population

fluctuations, stream restoration, weed control, diverse vegetation types on refuge, fish

stocking, refuge contributions to local economy, and camping fees

Date and Location of Outreach: May 11, 1999, Meeting at Community College

Classroom; Colville, Washington.

Purpose: Fifth in a series of meetings of interested citizens and stakeholders in CCP

discussions; discuss draft CPP/EIS 

Number of non-FWS Participants: 8

Audience: Plan Working Group

Topics discussed: grazing: other refuges use of grazing, grazing plan submitted by

permittees, science used, deer, 100-year flood, ICBEMP standards referenced in fish

habitat assessment; Air Force: hunting closure, compatibility determination,

Improvement Act and military preparedness; new compatibility policy; LPO uses in

Federal Register; credentials of regional director; trading LPO

Camping Survey

Date and Location of Outreach: May-June, 1997, written public use survey at

campgrounds at the Refuge

Purpose: To discover public reasons for using the Little Pend Oreille Refuge, and solicit

information on public concerns

Number of Responses: 20

Audience: Campers

The responses indicated: 60% of campers came from Spokane area, 15% from Stevens

County, and 25% from Western Washington, 35% came to the Refuge primarily to camp,

35% came primarily to fish, and 30% came to the Refuge primarily to view wildlife. 

Special qualities of the Little Pend Oreille that campers enjoy include: traditional

camping area, not many people, good horse country, and enjoy large trout, catch and

release fishing, away from logging
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-6

Planning Updates

Date of Outreach: February, 1996, Mailing of Planning Update # 1

Purpose: To share information gathered from open houses in July and October 1995,

present issues to be addressed in the plan, and present potential draft goals. 

Number of recipients: 300

Audience: Refuge mailing list

Date of Outreach: April, 1997, Mailing of Planning Update # 2

Purpose: To disseminate results of recent biological inventory findings, share draft

management principles and goals, and advise public of upcoming public meetings and

workshops

Number of recipients: 400

Audience: Refuge mailing list

Date of Outreach: September, 1997, Mailing of Planning Update # 3

Purpose: To summarize progress on CCP planning; disseminate results of recent

biological inventory findings; share draft management strategies for refuge management;

and advise public of upcoming public meetings and workshops. 

Number of recipients: 400

Audience: Refuge mailing list and refuge visitors 

Date of Outreach: July 10, 1998, Mailing of Planning Update # 4

Purpose: To present preliminary alternatives, advise public of upcoming open houses 

and invite comment on the preliminary alternatives.

Number of recipients: 500

Audience: Refuge mailing list and other interested parties

Comments were received indicating: By December 1, 1998, 141 written responses were

received. Comments are too varied and numerous to summarize here, but received

support for the preliminary alternatives as follows: 48 responses for Alternative A, 44

responses for Alternative B, 4 responses for Alternative C, 3 responses for Alternative D,

1 response for Alternative E, 1 response preferring Alternative A or Alternative B, 28

responses preferring either Alternative B or Alternative C with specific modifications,

and 5 responses preferring none of the preliminary alternatives

Date of Outreach: April 29, 1999, Mailing of Planning Update # 5

Purpose: To present alternatives, advise public of upcoming open houses and invite

comment on the draft CPP/EIS.

Number of recipients: 800

Audience: Refuge mailing list and other interested parties

Comments were received indicating: See Appendix J - Comments on Draft CCP/EIS

and Service Responses
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-7

Federal Register Notices

Date and Location of Outreach: December 13, 1996, listing in the Federal Register

Purpose: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan and NEPA

document

Audience: National

Notice included: Public notice of initiation of planning process for the Refuge, and

solicitation of written suggestions and information

Date and Location of Outreach: July 24, 1998, listing in the Federal Register

Purpose: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan and EIS

Audience: National

Notice included: Public notice of preliminary alternatives developed for the Little Pend

Oreille Comprehensive Conservation Plan, solicitation of written suggestions and

information on the alternatives, and announcement of public open house meetings

Date and Location of Outreach: May 5, 1999, listing in the Federal Register

Purpose: Notice of availability of Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

Audience: National

Notice included: Public notice announcing that a Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Refuge was available for public

review with comments due on June 30, 1999, and to announce public open house

meetings

Date and Location of Outreach: July 5, 1999, listing in the Federal Register

Purpose: Notice of extension of public comment period.

Audience: National

Notice included: Public notice announcing that the comment period for the CCP/EIS

drafts was extended to July 31, 1999

Date and Location of Outreach: August 25, 1999, listing in the Federal Register

Purpose: Notice of extension of public comment period.

Audience: National

Notice included: Public notice announcing that the comment period for the CCP/EIS

drafts was extended to August 31, 1999
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-8

5.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

Stevens County

Date and Location: March 7, 1995

Purpose: To brief Commissioners of upcoming planning process.

Number of non-FWS participants: 6

Audience: Stevens County Board of Commissioners

Topics discussed: weed management, grazing, involving Stevens County Federal Land 

Advisory Committee (FLAC) in plan development

Date and Location: March 16, 1995

Purpose: To inform FLAC members of refuge projects, upcoming planning, endangered

species. 

Number of non-FWS participants: Unknown

Audience: Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Topics discussed: planning status, refuge policy, FLAC members interested in

developing planning process and strategy, weed management

Date and Location: September 21, 1995

Purpose: To brief for FLAC on refuge projects, planning.

Number of non-FWS participants: 7

Audience: Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Topics discussed: Clearwater Land Exchange proposal, management plan, upcoming

public scoping meeting, forest management, fire management, commercial uses of refuge

Date and Location: January 16, 1997 

Purpose: To inform FLAC members of refuge projects, planning process.

Number of non-FWS participants: Unknown

Audience: Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Topics discussed: fishing dock, management plan update, overviews of fish habitat and

riparian surveys, upcoming grazing review

Date and Location: March 20, 1997

Purpose: To brief FLAC on refuge projects.

Number of non-FWS participants: 8

Audience: Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Topics discussed: bull trout listing, grazing, damage on refuge from winter storms,

planning update
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-9

Date and Location: July 16, 1997

Purpose: To brief FLAC on CCP.

Number of non-FWS participants: 6

Audience: Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Topics discussed: comments received on preliminary alternatives, grazing study, Air 

Force, whether our outreach efforts are reaching interested parties

Date and Location: May 18, 1999

Purpose: To brief commissioners on draft CCP/EIS. 

Number of non-FWS participants: 4

Audience: Stevens County Board of Commissioners

Date and Location: May 20, 1999

Purpose: To brief FLAC on draft CCP/EIS.

Number of non-FWS participants:

Audience: Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Committee

Topics discussed: plan implementation and human uses, NEPA process, snowmobiling,

wildland fire prevention, feeding deer, monitoring plan, weed control

FWS Orientation

Date and Location: May 23-25, 1995

Purpose: First step in planning process development and served as a field orientation to

Fish and Wildlife Service personnel who would be involved in LPO planning.

Number of non-FWS participants: 12

Audience: Participants were invited because either they would have some role in refuge

planning (FWS staff), they managed adjacent or other public lands, or have worked on

some aspect of LPO management.

Topics discussed: draft goals, field orientation discussion covered: old fields, noxious

weeds, historic vegetation and fire history, homesteading history, Bayley Lake, adjacent

forest management by FS, leafy spurge, recreational fishing, prescribed burning,

Washington GAP report, Air Force training, stream diversions, grazing program, bank

stability, fish habitat, logging history, forest management techniques, deer winter range,

forest diversity, old growth species, industrial timber inholdings management, forest

carnivores, snowmobiling, adjacent DNR management, forest fragmentation, riparian

habitat condition, desired future of refuge, priorities, and issues. The following sites were

visited: Christiansen place Cliff Ridge overlook, Potter s Pond, Bayley Lake, Lenhart

Meadows and adjacent unmanaged/unroaded forest, AF Rookery/cedar camp, McDowell

Lake overlook, Little Pend Oreille River downstream from Headquarters, Starvation Flat,

Lower Manz Field, Blacktail Mountain cedar hemlock, Plum Creek inholdings, Olson

Creek Road sno-park
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-10

Grazing Management

Date and Location: October 8, 1997 meeting at USDA/Stevens County Conservation

District Office Conference Room, Colville, Washington

Purpose: To discuss specific concerns about refuge grazing program with permittees and

potential role of grazing in meeting CCP goals and objectives. 

Audience: Refuge permittees and other grazing interests

Number of non-FWS participants: 10

Topics discussed: permittees concerns related to preliminary objectives presented in

planning updates and plan work group meetings, role of grazing in meeting objectives,

Service grazing policy, riparian restoration, grazing as a tool, intensive management,

overstocked forest, permittees preparing a grazing alternative for CCP, fences,

competition between cows and ungulates, fish habitat objectives

Date and Location: June 2, 1999 meeting at USDA/Stevens County Conservation

District Office Conference Room, Colville, Washington

Purpose: To discuss preferred alternative for grazing in draft CCP/EIS

Audience: Stevens County Cattlemen s Association

Number of non-FWS participants:

Topics discussed: grazing: 1938 concerns of cattlemen related to Biological Survey

management, promises made in 1930's, grazing as a refuge purpose, refuge definition,

effect on permittees and local economy, involving a range consultant, grazing under State

management, ICBEMP standards not accepted, permittees grazing alternative, Refuge

Improvement Act, deer and deer habitat, prescribed grazing - where, when, how many

cows

Air Force Survival School Training

Date and Location: July 7, 1997 meeting at Air Force Survival School Headquarters,

Fairchild, Washington.

Purpose: To discuss concerns regarding Air Force Survival School Training.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 14

Audience: Air Force Survival School 

Topics discussed: discussions about balancing divergent missions of refuge and survival

school 

Date and Location: April 22, 1998, meeting at Colville Community College, Colville,

Washington.

Purpose: To discuss CCP process and concerns regarding Air Force Survival School

Training

Number of non-FWS Participants: 5

Audience: Colville National Forest staff

Topics discussed: Air Force survival school training on both administrative units
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-11

Date and Location: July 8, 1998, meeting at Refuge Headquarters, Colville,

Washington.

Purpose: To discuss concerns regarding Air Force Survival School Training.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 5

Audience: Air Force Survival School 

Topics discussed: Air Force survival school training and stipulations to insure

compatibility, opening hunting season 

Date and Location: December 9, 1998, meeting at Air Force Survival School

Headquarters, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington.

Purpose: To discuss concerns regarding Air Force Survival School Training.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 4

Audience: Air Force Survival School 

Topics discussed: preferred alternative for Survival School training, alternate training

sites 

Other Outreach

Date and Location: April 28, 1999, at Refuge Headquarters; Colville, Washington.

Purpose: Program on draft CCP/EIS.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 15

Audience: Washington Department of Natural Resources staff 

Topics discussed: closing Starvation Lake access and effect on DNR campground users,

snowmobile route, fire and forest management.

Date and Location: May 11, 1999 at Cookie s Cafe; Colville, Washington.

Purpose: Program on draft CCP/EIS.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 50

Audience: Colville Chamber of Commerce 

Topics discussed: economic effects, Air Force phase out, deer management

Date and Location: June 9, 1999, at Woody s Restaurant; Colville, Washington.

Purpose: Program on draft CCP/EIS.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 42

Audience: Colville Rotary Club 

Topics discussed: access, grazing management, Air Force phase out, fishing, hunting,

Refuge Improvement Act

Date and Location: July 21, 1999, at Refuge Headquarters; Colville, Washington.

Purpose: Discuss draft CCP/EIS and snowmobile issue.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 12

Audience: snowmobilers 
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-12

Topics discussed: snowmobiling: impacts on snowmobilers, FWS concerns -

compatibility, not a priority use; groomer access, state trail since 1976, competition

between lynx, bobcat coyote, estimating use, economic effects to Beaver Lodge,

alternative routes, planning process 

Date and Location: July 27, 1999 at Colville Forest Supervisor s Office; Colville,

Washington.

Purpose: Briefing on draft CCP/EIS.

Number of non-FWS Participants: 20

Audience: Colville Forest Leadership Team 

Media

Information, in the form of press releases and fact sheets, was provided to the regional media -

newspapers, radio, television, prior to all meetings and open houses. Fliers were posted at key

locations in Colville for all public meetings and open houses.

5.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many people have been involved in meetings and discussions related to the future of Little Pend

Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. These meetings began in 1995, with an orientation to the

refuge for upper management. We thank all of the following individuals for their thoughtful

discussions and insight.

In 1997, we convened a group of interested persons, a plan work group, representing diverse

interests and backgrounds, to provide feedback to the planning team during the comprehensive

conservation planning process. We thank them for their honest feedback.

Plan Work Group

John Andrews (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife); Dan and Evelyn Bell (refuge

neighbors, inholders, and Safari Club International members); Gary Bellinger, (horseback rider);

John Blauser (refuge archery hunter); Connie and Gene Cada (refuge grazing permittees and

Stevens County Cattlemen s Association); Timothy Coleman, (Kettle Range Conservation

Group); Ken Elliot (Inland Empire Backcountry Horsemen); Sara Folger (Lands Council); Chuck

Gades (Stimson Lumber Company); Bob Gillaspy (Natural Resource Conservation Service);

Rick Hatcher (Air Force Survival School); Larry Heming (Inland Empire Backcountry

Horsemen); Ron King (Washington Department of Natural Resources); Greg Konkel (Inland

Northwest Wildlife Council); Tim Kunka (Stevens County Cattlemen s Association); Dan Len

(Colville National Forest); Cena Lotze (Horseback Rider); Beverly McLaughlin

(conservationist); George Potter (Inland Empire Fly Fishing Club); Scott Price (wildlife

photographer); Dick Rivers (Spokane Audubon Society and Lands Council); Dave Robinson

(Kettle Range Conservation Group); Shelly Short (Congressman George Nethercutt s office);
Little Pend Oreille NWR

Final CCP/EIS April 2000

Chapter 5: Public Involvement , 

Consultation and Coordination With Others 5-13

Tony Delgado (Stevens County Federal Lands Advisory Council); Jim Kolthoff (Colville

National Forest/Air Force Survival School liaison); and Russ Larsen (Stevens County Federal

Lands Advisory Council). Others attending one of these meetings included Kevin Morrissey,

Lello Galassi, and Al Bobst from the Air Force Survival School; Ed Shaw and Chris Loggers

from the Colville National Forest; and Steve Zender from Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife Service

Many Service employees attended planning meetings and/or provided input on draft documents

including: Howard Browers (wildlife biologist, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office); Brian

Cates (field supervisor, Mid-Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office); Rick Coleman (formerly

regional refuge supervisor for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington); Nancy Curry (refuge manager,

Turnbull NWR); Michelle Eames (wildlife biologist, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office);

Julie Gillum (regional writer/editor); Ben Harrison (regional NEPA coordinator); Chuck

Houghten (regional refuge planner); Barb Kelly-Ringel (fisheries biologist, Mid-Columbia Fish

and Wildlife Office); Dick Kuehner (regional education, publications and interpretive

communications chief); Phil Laumeyer (field supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife

Office); Jim Lillie (LPONWR administrative officer); Karl Mallory (maintenance worker/law

enforcement officer, LPONWR); Dave Menke (outdoor recreation planner, Klamath NWR

Complex); Steve Moore (regional refuge operations chief); Dick Munoz (assistant regional

refuge supervisor for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington); Sandy Noble (assistant field supervisor,

Mid-Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office); Fred Paveglio (regional biologist); Bill Pyle (biologist,

Gray s Lake NWR); Mike Rule (biologist, Turnbull NWR); Lou Ann Speulda (regional

archeologist/historian); Don Voros (refuge supervisor for Columbia Basin Ecoregion); and Tara

Zimmerman (regional nongame biologist).

Others

Others providing input during planning meetings included: Dr. Margaret O Connell, Eastern

Washington University; Lt. Col. William Osborne, Chief Carson House, Lt. Col. Steve Childers,

SMSgt. Clay Steele from the Air Force Survival School; Jim McGowan, Cindy Len, Julie

Richardson, and Carl Damman from the Colville National Forest; Chuck McComb, Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife; Jim Gleaton, Natural Resource Conservation Service; Kevin

Ritzer, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bruce Edmonston, National Park Service; and Phil Dubois,

Rick and Roger Larsen, and Andy and Bobbi Kroiss who are Refuge grazing permittees.

Post Draft CCP/EIS input was appreciated from the following sources: Ken Hull - Chewelah

Sno-Posse Snowmobile Club; Larry Inman - Driftriders Snowmobile Club and former trail

groomer; Robert Beech - owner of Beaver Lodge; and Perry Anderson - Colville Chamber of

Commerce. 
Little Pend Oreille NWR 6-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000

Chapter 6: List of Preparers

Name Contributions Degree(s) Years of Experience

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contributors:

PNW Refuge Planning Team:

Mike Marxen Planning Team Leader BLA Landscape Architecture 20

Kevin Gergely Writing MPA Public Policy 11

Helen Hamilton Writer/Editor BS Wildlife Management 20

& Forestry, Minors in Range

Management & History

Sharon Selvaggio Wildlife, GIS, Writing BS Biology 11

MS Energy & Resources

Little Pend Oreille NWR:

Lisa Langelier Refuge Management, Writing, BS Wildlife Resources 17

Public Involvement MS Wildlife Resources

Jerry Cline Wildlife and Fisheries, Writing BS Wildlife 10

MS Wildlife

Steve Fowler Forestry, Fire, Operations, Writing BS Forestry & Wildlife 20

Barbara Rasch Mailing and Comments Sections BS Biology 4

Regional Office and Field Stations:

Ron Beitel Geographic Information Systems BA Chemistry 22

Maps 

Don DeLong Native Habitat, FWS Policy, BS Wildlife 10

MS Wildlife

Matt Hasti Graphic Design BS Technical Illustration/ 9

Graphic Design

Barbara Kelly Ringel Fish, Fish Habitat Surveys, BA Biology 11

Leavenworth, WA Objectives & Strategy MS Fish & Wildlife Mgnt.

William Pyle Riparian Habitat Evaluation BS Wildlife 10

Grays Lake NWR MS Wildlife

Lou Ann Speulda Cultural Resources, History BS Anthropology & History 20

MS Archeology & History

Consultant:

Nick Dennis Economics BS Forestry 25

Jones and Stokes MS Forestry

Associates, Inc PhD Forestry & Resource
Little Pend Oreille NWR

1310 Bear Creek Road

Colville, Washington 99114

509/684-8384

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

http://www.r1.fws.gov/planning/plnhome.html

Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

Whitetail deer, McDowell Lake,

Ponderosa pine stand, and

background photo/USFWS

All other photos - © Scott Price

April 2000