Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Integrated Resource Management Plan

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Meetings Report

Prepared by

THE CENTER FOR APPLIED RESEARCH

March 8, 2016

1

Programmatic EIS Scoping Meetings

October 26 – 29, 2015

Introduction

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have prepared an Integrated

Resource Management Plan (IRMP) for the Colville Reservation. The plan updates the

expiring 2000 IRMP and provides goals and objectives to guide future management of

the Tribes’ natural resources. The Colville Business Council has chosen to prepare a

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental and

socioeconomic impacts that are likely to occur with the implementation of the IRMP.

In November of 2014, the Tribes published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register

announcing preparation of the IRMP and EIS and the intent to conduct scoping

meetings to elicit comments from the public and tribal stakeholders concerning the

analysis of impacts in the EIS.

A series of community meetings were announced on the Tribes’ website, public notices

were posted at community facilities and email notices were sent to interested members

of the Reservation community. Public scoping meetings were held at community

centers in Inchelium, Keller, Omak and Nespelem during the week of October 26 – 29,

2015. In addition, the IRMP Core Team held scoping meetings at the Tribes’

administration building in Nespelem on October 28 and 29 .

th

th

The scoping meetings included a presentation of the IRMP planning process, the

alternative management approaches that were considered by the IRMP Core Team and

the Colville Business Council, and the alternative rankings by the participants in the

Community Survey. The presentation also provided an overview of the content of the

IRMP and the management enhancements developed as part of the preferred

management alternative. The Scoping Meeting presentation is included in this report.

The Programmatic EIS process and requirements under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) were also presented. The scoping meetings were a part of this

process where participants were invited to provide comments and concerns to be

considered in the analysis for the EIS.

The IRMP Core Team scoping effort also included a review of the 2000 Programmatic

EIS with additional discussion in IRMP meetings in November. Team members also

submitted additional written material concerning EIS content and methodology.

2

Community Input

An immediate concern of the participants in the scoping meetings were the impacts of

the 2015 wildfires on the Reservation environment and the timber harvest schedule

proposed in the IRMP. Among these concerns were the erosion impacts of the wildfires.

The assessment of harvest treatments and leave tree requirements on forest health and

scenic values were suggested for consideration. The impact of forest road construction

and the development of construction standards and maintenance were also suggested

for inclusion in the EIS.

The effects of weather variations and climate change on natural resources were also

proposed for consideration in the impact analysis. Concerns about drought and water

supply were expressed.

The control of noxious weeds was suggested for inclusion, especially in regard to the

impacts of pesticide use.

Livestock impacts on riparian zones and the impacts of grazing on surface water quality

were mentioned. In contrast, it was also suggested that the beneficial impacts of grazing

on range health and weed control be included in the assessment.

The effects of IRMP implementation on watershed health was suggested, including the

impacts on the health of streams and lakes. The loss of perennial streams was expressed

as a concern. Impacts on wetlands and groundwater quantity and quality were also of

concern.

Participants expressed concern that protection of designated wilderness areas be

included in the assessment. The loss of old growth forest and impacts to wildlife habitat

were suggested for inclusion in the analysis.

Impacts to culturally important plants from both forestry practices and livestock

grazing were suggested for inclusion in the EIS.

The question of population growth resulting from the plan implementation, as well as

possible changes to the transportation network was expressed.

3

IRMP Core Team Review of the 2000 FEIS Methodology and Conclusions

The IRMP Core Team reviewed the analysis of environmental consequences in the 2000

Final EIS in an effort to identify useful data and analysis for the new EIS. It was noted

that the forest section did not adequately address environmental impacts and was

needlessly complicated. It was suggested that the EIS analyze environmental impacts of

the alternatives using measureable or comparable attributes that tie back to the desired

future conditions.

It was also noted that wildfires may have changed the landscape more than the

proposed harvest and silvicultural treatments outlined in the IRMP. There was no way

for the plan to predict the large changes to the landscape that would occur from fire. It

is likely this will continue to be the case during the next planning period.

It was suggested that the EIS focus on the proposed goals and objectives and compare

the differences between the alternative management approaches.

There was concern that the FEIS did not provide enough detail regarding impacts on

big game populations, which are culturally very significant and should be considered

just as much as threatened and endangered species. The predicted impacts for

threatened and endangered species were fairly accurate, though they excluded wolves.

It was noted that with the lack of comprehensive road management, monitoring and

data, it is difficult to determine the impacts of forest roads, especially on fish bearing

streams of the Reservation.

It was commented that risk factors for fish habitat in the FEIS seemed skewed towards

overly optimistic outcomes of practices, even if the plan had been implemented

perfectly. The connotation of the wording seemed generally positive as opposed to

neutral.

It was noted that the FEIS made an assumption of no net increase in road density and a

possible reduction under some of the alternatives. It was commented that it has not

been demonstrated that any appreciable reduction in road density took place during

2000-2014 planning period, while the chronic and acute effects of the existing road

network continued to be realized.

Concern was expressed that the FEIS did not consider impacts to traditional cultural

properties and also predicted that archaeological sites and historic structures would be

protected if avoided during timber harvest projects. It was noted that several of these

sites were damaged or destroyed in fire and windstorm events because fuels and timber

in the area were not removed.

The FEIS assumed that cultural plant specialists would work with planners to develop

strategies to protect and promote cultural plants with the knowledge that some cultural

plant habitats would be temporarily sacrificed. It was noted that the cultural plant

specialist position was not occupied throughout this period and coordination was

intermittent.

4

It was commented that the FEIS focused on ground disturbance and vegetation

modification and did not assess alteration of hydrologic functions. Impacts to water

resources from sedimentation caused by road construction and harvest activities were

underestimated with little basis for the assumptions. It was argued that the assumption

that designation of Riparian Management Zone buffers would effectively prevent

degradation to streams is not supported by current science, given the designated size of

the buffers.

Concern was expressed that cumulative impacts to the Reservation and the region were

not adequately addressed in the FEIS.

It was suggested that management directions identified in the FEIS were contradictory

between the various resources and many were not implemented. It was asserted that

natural resource programs received no funding to implement the directions or to

perform monitoring and there was no process to confirm implementation of the

management directions.

Staff members generally commented that baseline information for natural resources is

often lacking and monitoring information is incomplete or non-existent. Some

departments are working toward establishing valid baseline data, however, due to the

size of the Reservation, inventories and surveys can take years to complete.

There are, however, several monitoring programs that have been active during the last

planning period and some useful information has been collected that can provide a

basis for analysis in the new EIS. These include two range inventories, the Continuous

Forest Inventory, fish and wildlife population surveys, water quality monitoring, a

forest road inventory, and two extensive hydrology reports, among others.

The Programmatic EIS

The Tribes’ IRMP consultant, The Center for Applied Research, is preparing the

Programmatic EIS as part of the IRMP Core Team effort. The Center will conduct the

environmental impact analysis of the preferred alternative for the IRMP, utilizing data

provided by the Tribes’ natural resource departments, the Resource Assessment, the

Community Survey, and other sources.

The Programmatic EIS will describe the existing environment and socioeconomics of

the Colville Reservation and will present the likely impacts of the Forest Management

and Range Management plans as they are implemented over the next 15 years. The

analysis will compare these anticipated impacts with the likely impacts of four other

management alternatives that were developed in the course of the IRMP project.

The Draft Programmatic EIS will be circulated for review by agencies and the general

public. The IRMP Core Team will collect and compile comments and questions received

and respond to them in the Final Programmatic EIS.

5

Integrated Resource Management Plan

Scoping Meeting

Presentation

October 26-29, 2015

IRMP Planning Process

Management Alternatives

1. Continue the current management strategy.

2. Enhance and improve the current management strategy.

3. Concentrate on forest and rangeland health problems.

4. Expand forest and cattle production.

5. Eliminate timber harvesting and livestock grazing.

Community Input

Respondent Views on Alternative Approaches to Forest and Range Management

2014 Community Survey Responses by Age Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Concentrate on

Enhance and

forest and

Expand forest

Eliminate

Continue the

improve the rangeland health

and cattle

harvesting and

problems

production livestock grazing

Sample current strategy current strategy

Age Group

As a Percentage of Age Group

Size

18-24

62

18%

39%

26%

6%

15%

25-34

220

17%

52%

40%

5%

8%

35-44

187

15%

49%

39%

8%

12%

45-64

392

10%

61%

55%

7%

8%

65 or older

143

23%

46%

43%

10%

13%

Not indicated

22

14%

27%

23%

5%

9%

Total

1026

15%

53%

45%

7%

10%

153

543

458

73

102

153 Responses 543 Responses

458 Responses 73 Responses 102 Responses

543

458

153

73

102

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

IRMP Plan Design Criteria

• Enhance and improve the 2000 IRMP.

• Update goals and objectives to reflect current

conditions.

• Improve adaptive management with goals

and objectives that provide management

flexibility.

• Create an IRMP that provides clear and

concisely stated goals and objectives, and

functions as an informational document for

the CBC and the Reservation community.

IRMP Table of Contents

• Introduction

• Soil, Water and Air

• Resource Management Planning

• Agriculture

• Tribal Codes and Federal Laws

• Rangeland

• The 2014 Community Survey

• Holistic Goal & Desired Future

Conditions

• Trust Claims Settlement and the

Natural Resources Restoration

Plan

• Forests

• Forest Roads

• Fish, Wildlife & Habitat

• Cultural Resources

• Parks & Recreation

• Climate Change Strategy

• Management Alternatives

2015 IRMP

Enhancements and

Improvements

1. Establish

Special Emphasis

Management

Areas

Lake Management Areas

Wildlife Habitat And Travel Corridors

Cultural Plant Gathering Areas

2. Enhanced Best

Management

Practices

Forestry

Agriculture

Grazing

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

reduce impacts to water quality by

preventing pollution, erosion and

stream sedimentation.

3. Adaptable

Harvest Volume

Adaptable Harvest Volume For

Timber Sales Based On Site

Conditions.

Adaptable harvest scheduling to

respond to wildfire events and market

fluctuations.

Timber Harvest and Wildfire

Damage

4. Improved

Range Unit Permit

Compliance

Increased coordination with Range

Unit Permittees to support compliance

with Conservation Plans.

Improved Enforcement Of Rangeland

Grazing Permit Requirements.

Promotion of grazing best

management practices.

***

Continue:

Take half/Leave half standard to

accommodate wildlife.

Potential grazing level: 47,000

Approved level: 13,000

Actual permitted cattle: 3,800

5. Forest Road

Management Plan

Development Of A Forest Road

Management Plan With Construction

And Closure Standards.

Development of Tribal Code road

standard requirements.

Establishment of long-term funding

for road maintenance and closure.

6. LIDAR

Technology

State-of-the-art technology for aerial

mapping and landscape analysis.

Transportation and Timber Harvest

Plans to be developed with LIDAR

Technology.

7. Climate Change

Development of an adaptable Climate

Change Strategy.

Monitoring advances in climate change

science and forecasting.

Participation in Department of Interior

and BIA climate change programs.

8. Native Plants

Fish & Wildlife Department

developing Memorandum of

Understanding with BPA To Reestablish Native Plants In Mitigation

Areas.

9. Control

Invasive Weeds

Increased Efforts To Control Invasive

Weeds.

Emphasize Non-herbicidal

Treatments.

10. Augmentation

of Wildlife

Populations

Additional Wildlife Population

Augmentation For Species With

Diminishing Numbers.

11. Aboriginal

Territories

Okanogan Nation Alliance

Collaboration Regarding Traditional

Rights in Aboriginal Territories.

Resource Specific Plans

Supporting the IRMP

• 2015 Forest Management Plan

• Cultural Resource Management Plan 2006

• Range Management Plan 2015-2029

• Traditional Cultural Plant Community

Restoration Plan 2013

• Agricultural Resource Management

Plan

• Integrated Weed Management Plan

• Forest Roads Management Plan

• Mount Tolman Wildfire Prevention

Plan 2011-2015

• Soil and Water Management Plan 2015

• Quality Assurance Project Plan For Water

Quality Monitoring 2014

• Non-Point Source Water Pollution

Management Plan 2012

• Wetland Program Plan 2012

• Fish and Wildlife Interim Five Year

Management Plan 2012-2017

• Wellhead Protection Plan 2000

• Parks & Recreation Plan 2011

• Wildlife Site-Specific Management Plans

• Natural Resources Restoration Plan

The Programmatic

Environmental Impact

Statement

Assessing the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed

IRMP and the identification of appropriate mitigation measures.

Comparison of the potential impacts of the five management alternatives

developed by the IRMP Core Team.

Notice of

Intent

November 21, 2014

This notice advises the public

that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),

in cooperation with the Confederated

Tribes of the Colville Reservation

(Tribes), intends to gather information

necessary to prepare a programmatic

environmental impact statement

(Programmatic EIS) for the proposed

Integrated Resource Management Plan

(IRMP) for the Colville Reservation.

NEPA

Process

and the

IRMP

• Scoping Meetings with Colville

Reservation Communities

• Preparation of the Draft

Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement

• Public Review and Comment

• Response to Comments

• Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact

Statement

• BIA/DOI Approval

• Approval and Adoption of the

IRMP & FEIS by CBC

IRMP

PROGRAMMATIC EIS

Scoping meeting

Community input concerning the

scope of the Programmatic EIS