DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Final Environmental Assessment for the proposed Louie Creek 2026 Forest Management

Project on the Colville Reservation, Okanogan County, Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs

ACTION: Notice of Availability

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested parties that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

as lead federal agency, with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR), has

prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

for the Louie Creek 2026 Forest Management Project on the Colville Reservation, Okanogan

County, Washington. This notice also announces the EA is now available in hard copy at the

addresses below.

ADDRESSES: You may request a hard copy of the EA and FONSI by writing the BIA Colville

Agency, PO BOX 111, Nespelem, Washington, 99155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Friedlander, BIA Colville Agency

Superintendent, at (509) 634-2316 and Chasity Swan, Colville Tribe Integrated Resource

Management (IRMP) Coordinator, at (509) 722-7656.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Colville Tribe, through contractual obligations to the

BIA, has proposed the Louie Creek 2026 Forest Management Project. The activities under the agency

proposed action to harvest approximately 19 million board feet of timber on approximately 1,662

acres of tribally owned lands within the Omak/Nespelem District of the Colville Reservation in

Okanogan County, Washington. The activities will occur under guidelines in the CTCR Integrated

Resource Management Plan (IRMP)(CTCR 2015) and associated Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS)(CAR 2018).

Authority: This notice is published pursuant to 43 CFR 46.305 of the Department of Interior

Regulations (43 CFR Part 46), the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), and is in accordance with the exercise of

authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

Digitally signed by RANDALL FRIEDLANDER

Date: 2026.04.16 11:44:10 -07'00'

Randall Friedlander

Colville Agency Superintendent

Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Department of the Interior

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Date

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

Louie Creek Forest Management Project,

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Okanogan County, Washington

After reviewing the Final Environmental Assessment (BIA-NWR-EA-26-12), I have concluded

that the Federal Action for the Louie Creek Forest Management Project will not significantly

affect the human environment. Therefore, in compliance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement is not required.

Summary of Significance Evaluation (per DOI NEPA Procedures Section 1.2): The

following factors were used to determine that the Proposed Action does not constitute a major

federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment:

1. Duration of Effects:

Both short- and long-term effects were evaluated in Section 4 of the EA. While

construction impacts are short-term, operational impacts are long-term; neither duration

alone indicated significance. Road construction and use has been identified as having

both short and long term effects to water quality. All newly constructed roads will be

closed following project implementation. Mitigation has been developed for the loss and

reduction of wildlife habitat structures and functions to minimize impacts.

2. Beneficial and Adverse Effects:

The Proposed Action provides economic and forest health benefits; adverse effects (e.g.,

habitat disturbance, soil erosion) are mitigated and remain below significance thresholds.

3. Public Health and Safety:

Potential impacts to air quality, water quality, and cultural resources were assessed

(Section 4 of EA) and mitigations developed (Section 5 of EA). No significant health or

safety risks were identified.

4. Economic Effects:

The project will provide approximately $1.9 million in stumpage income for the CTCR.

Planning and implementation of this project would provide employment and business

opportunities both locally and regionally. The Forestry, logging and milling industry is a

central part of the regional economy.

5. Quality of Life:

The project enhances the forest health of the landscape and while short-term impacts may

temporarily impact wildlife and cultural plant populations, creating diversity across the

landscape enhances opportunities for the tribal population to hunt and gather without

adversely affecting cultural resources or public services. This project will provide much

needed road maintenance which enhances tribal member access for hunting and

gathering.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Conclusion:

Based on these considerations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs finds that the Proposed Action will

not result in significant environmental effects. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is

not required.

Digitally signed by RANDALL FRIEDLANDER

Date: 2026.04.16 11:44:52 -07'00'

Randall Friedlander, Superintendent

Colville Agency

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Date

LOUIE CREEK 2026 FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation

propose the harvest of approximately 19 million board feet (MMBF) of timber from 1,662 acres

of tribal land in the San Poil District of the Colville Reservation.

Prepared by:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Colville Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian

Reservation.

Official Decision Maker: Randy Friedlander, Superintendent, Colville Agency, BIA

For further information:

Chasity Swan

IRMP Coordinator

PO BOX 150 Nespelem, WA 99155

(509) 722-7656

Chasity.Swan.bia@colvilletribes.com

March 10, 2026

BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 1

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

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................ 1

1.3 Issues, Concerns and Objectives ................................................................................... 1

1.4 Compliance with Other Codes and Regulations ........................................................... 2

1.5 Determination ............................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Public Scoping .............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Alternatives Considered ......................................................................................... 3

2.1 General Discussion: Alternative Design ....................................................................... 3

2.2 Alternative A: No Action .............................................................................................. 3

2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action .................................................................................... 4

3.0 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6

3.1 Forestry ......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Fish and Wildlife......................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 11

3.5 Range Management .................................................................................................... 13

4.0 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 14

4.1 Forestry ....................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Fish and Wildlife......................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 24

4.5 Range Management .................................................................................................... 25

4.6 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 26

4.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 26

4.8 Social and Economic Impacts ..................................................................................... 27

5.0 Mitigation for Resource Protection ...................................................................... 27

6.0 List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 31

7.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 32

8.0 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 34

8.1 Project Maps and Activity Table ................................................................................ 34

8.2 Consultation ................................................................................................................ 37

8.3 Preliminary Transportation Analysis .......................................................................... 47

8.4 Technical Supplement: Prescription Descriptions ...................................................... 50

8.5 Army Corp of Engineers BMPs .................................................................................. 52

8.6 CTCR Holistic Goal and Desired Future Conditions.................................................. 55

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Louie Creek Forest Management Project is in the Louie Creek Watershed Management Unit

(WMU). It is bounded on the north by Bridge Creek, on the west by the Sanpoil River, on the

south by the Iron Creek drainage and by a north/south ridgeline that separates the Louie Creek

WMU from the Jones Creek WMU on the east. Forest management activities would occur within

the project boundary of the Louie Creek WMU. There are 21,455 acres within the Louie Creek

Forest Management Project boundary.

The San Poil Forestry District of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation

(CTCR) proposes harvest of approximately 19 million board feet (MMBF) of timber on 1,662

acres, 2,302 acres of Pre-Commercial Thin (PCT), and acres of artificial conifer regeneration

associated to post-harvest activities. Site preparation includes 649 acres of machine pile and

burn, and 1,013 acres of broad cast burn. Broadcast burn units would require approximately 21.7

miles of fireline construction. The proposed harvest would require approximately 1.84 miles of

new road construction and 2.18 miles of road reconstruction within the project area.

The federal action (40 CFR 1508.18) is the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approval of the Louie

Creek Forest Management Project which triggers BIA’s National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA) compliance review of the project 42 USC § 4321- 4347) and associated regulations

found in 40 CFR 1500-1508 (as amended) and 43 CFR 46.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

The CTCR are pursuing the implementation of the Louie Creek FMP to provide volume to

support a portion of the annual allowable cut, provide economic benefits for the Tribal

Membership and revenue for the Tribes.

The CTCR has calculated the annual allowable cut to be 77.1 million board feet for the 2015 to

2030 planning horizon. The CTCR Forest Management Plan stresses the need for a healthy forest

ecosystem with habitat that would contribute and support populations of native species,

particularly those associated with cultural use and provides for the protection and restoration of

watersheds on the Reservation to ensure they continue to provide high quality water and fish

habitat (Klock 2001). The Colville Tribes interdisciplinary Project Proposal Process (3P) Team

synthesized the proposed action to minimize impacts on other natural resources.

1.3 Issues, Concerns and Objectives

The following are issues or concerns that the Interdisciplinary Team (3P Team) has identified as

being relevant to the discussion of the “no action” and the “proposed action” alternatives.

Forestry Objectives

Capture the volume of dead and dying trees, provide income and employment for the CTCR. Bring

commercial forest acres into regulation.

Indicators:

a. Acres salvaged by each alternative

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 1

b. Estimated stumpage produced by each alternative

c. Estimated volume of timber harvested per alternative

Hydrology Objectives

To minimize erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters and prevent streambank/wetland

disturbance. Maintain ecological function of soils and prevent landslides.

Indicators:

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Harvest proximity/adjacency to surface water

Acres likely experiencing increased hydrologic response

Acres likely experiencing increased sediment delivery to surface water

Road construction/use within 200ft of surface water

Acres likely experiencing increased soil loss to surface water

Slope stability and failure risk, soil burn severity

Proximity of known and identified mass wasting sites

Fish and Wildlife Objectives

To maintain and restore critical forest structure, old growth forests, deciduous stands and

wetlands. Ensure wildlife and fish habitat needs are maintained, including large woody debris.

Indicators:

a. Wetland and stream adjacency acres

b. Block size and adjacent acres

c. Road density, miles/square mile

d. Miles of road construction

e. Miles of stream adjacent road

1.4 Compliance with Other Codes and Regulations

The Colville Indian Reservation IRMP provides an in-depth reservation-wide analysis that

addresses many of the concerns and issues outlined in the following section. Issues and concerns

discussed below with Fish and Wildlife, Hydrology, Cultural Resources, Soils, Range and

Vegetation were intensively analyzed in the IRMP Environmental Impact Statement. This project

is designed to be compliant with Colville Tribal Forest Practices Code 4-7 (208), CTC 4-9:

Hydraulic Project Permitting, 4-10: Water Resources Use and Permitting, the Endangered

Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and other applicable Tribal and Federal

Regulations.

1.5 Determination

The Colville Agency BIA Superintendent with the concurrence of the Colville Business Council

(CBC) would determine which alternative is selected for implementation.

a) To take no action (Alternative A).

b) To approve the proposed action (Alternative B).

c) To direct an additional alternative be created.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 2

The BIA Superintendent would also determine whether the environmental consequences are

significant and prepare a Finding of No Impact (FONSI) or determine that Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) would be required.

1.6 Public Scoping

In the process updating of the IRMP which provides goals and objectives to manage the Tribes’

natural resources a Colville Reservation Community survey was conducted to document the

priorities, preferences and concerns regarding the management of the Tribes’ natural resources

(Center for Applied Research [CAR] 2015). A total of 1,026 individuals participated.

Respondents indicated the forests provide essential revenue source (47%) and jobs (52%) for the

tribal membership and community. The strongest response on forest management (54%) was for

forest-wide thinning of insect and fire prone tree stands and to treat forest health issues. Many

community meetings were held to help shape the CTCR management strategy during the 2001

and 2015 IRMP planning processes.

The Louie Creek Forest Management Project was presented to the 3P Team in March of 2025.

The 3P Team and public also had a field tour of the project area in June of 2025. This project is a

part of that 15-year plan for Forest Resource Management on the Reservation (CTCR 2015).

2.0 Alternatives Considered

2.1 General Discussion: Alternative Design

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ), the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BIA have developed regulations that

require that a reasonable range of alternatives be considered in NEPA documentation, including

the “Proposed Action” and “No Action” alternatives.

For this project, Alternative A (No Action) is included to fulfill the requirements of NEPA and to

provide baseline values by which to measure the effects of other alternatives. For the purposes of

this document, “no action” means that no harvest or other resource manipulation would occur if

this alternative were adopted.

Alternative B (the Proposed Action) was constructed to fulfill the purpose and need. That is,

Alternative B was designed to:

• Reduce risk of loss of timber to overstocking, drought, insects, disease, and fire

or secondary fire effects

• Improve general forest health,

• Provide stumpage income for the Tribal Government of the Colville Tribes,

• Provide employment for Tribal members,

• Provide an opportunity for revenue to Tribally owned businesses,

• Expand forest regulation.

All alternatives are designed to meet all legal and procedural requirements to which the CTCR

and the BIA must adhere.

2.2 Alternative A: No Action

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 3

The “No Action Alternative” includes the BIA not approving the Louie Creek 2026 Project

and/or the BIA and Tribe not implementing activities under the project. Under this alternative no

timber harvest, road reconstruction, or other manipulation of resources would take place. Fuel

reduction treatments would not take place.

2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action Alternative includes the BIA approving the Louie Creek Forest

Management Project and the BIA and CTCR implementing the activities under the proposal.

This Alternative does meet the Purpose and Need of the project.

This alternative was proposed by the CTCR San Poil Forestry District to meet forest health needs

and provide volume for the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) of 77.1 MMBF outlined in the IRMP.

The Louie Creek Forest Management Project would harvest roughly 19 MMBF of timber on

approximately 1,662 acres, complete 2,302 acres of pre-commercial thinning, and plant

approximately 920 acres of conifer trees. There are an estimated 649 acres of machine pile and

burn and 742 acres of broadcast burn site preparation associated with the various silvicultural

treatments in this alternative.

Table 1. Prescription Summary for Alternative B.

Prescription

Pre-commercial Thin (PCT)

Commercial Treatment

Overstory Removal/Commercial Thin (OSR/CT)

Overstory Removal/Seed Tree/Commercial Thin

Seed Tree (ST)

Seed Tree/Commercial Thin (ST/CT)

Seed Tree/Improvement Cut

Shelterwood (SW)

Post Harvest Treatment, Site Prep

Machine Pile and Burn (MPB)

Broadcast Burn (BB)

Regeneration

Tree Planting – artificial regeneration

Natural Regeneration

Total Non-Commercial Treatment

Total Commercial Treatment

Total Post Harvest Treatment, Site Prep

Total Regeneration

Acres

2,302

86

125

524

63

271

593

649

1,013

920

742

2,302

1,662

1,662

1,662

The harvest system acres are shown in Table 2. The acres are estimated. Operational decisions

would be made on the ground to determine how each acre would be harvested. Generally, areas

over 39% slope would be tether logged, but there are small, steep inclusions that may be

harvested using a ground-based system such as tractor or forwarder and blocks averaging

between 40% and 70% harvested using tether/cable-assisted ground-based systems. Noncommercial thinning units are not included in these estimates because no logging equipment

would be used for those treatments.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 4

An additional category is included. Tether-Assisted/Ground Based harvest operations have

slopes from 0%-to-70% slope operability and both logging systems would be needed to facilitate

harvest in these blocks.

Table 2. Alternative B harvest systems.

Logging Method

Ground-Based

Tether-Assisted

Acres

1,336

326

Alternative B would require approximately 1.84 miles of new road construction, 2.18 miles of

road reconstruction, 0.25 miles of road abandonment, 23.29 miles of road use/maintenance, and

14.20 miles of county highway use to facilitate logging operations. Nearly 21.7 miles of fire line

construction are required for site preparation and prescribed broadcast burning activities. All fire

line rehabilitation, new construction and reconstruction proposed would be closed upon

completion of harvest/burning operations, site preparation, and planting activities.

Table 3. Alternative B road abandonment, maintenance, new construction and reconstruction.

Activity

Abandonment

Maintenance

Reconstruction

New Construction

Miles

0.25

9.39

2.18

1.84

Definitions for activity:

• Abandonment: Leaving the road prism in a free-drain state which includes removal of all

crossing structures and crossdrains and blocked to highway vehicle access. Typically, the

road prism is crossed at frequent intervals with excavated drainage through the road

prism. Frequency increases with road grade.

• Maintenance: Includes brushing limits of at least 4-6 feet from running surface shoulders,

and reshaping for proper surface water drainage. This may include the addition of

ditchlines and crossdrains.

• Reconstruction: Necessary cutting and reshaping of existing road prisms that are either

deeply degraded or have older vegetation or trees growing in the running surface of the

road.

• Construction: New road prism construction which includes proper location, clearing and

grubbing limits, brushing limits and parameters for road width, grades, turn radii and

turnouts per the Forest Practice Code and Forestry specifications.

Road Closure Plan

All newly constructed roads would be closed following post-harvest activities in accordance with

forest practices 4-7-60 2(E). However, closure may be delayed allowing for planned Forest

Development Activities.

Other Project Design Features

There are many other project design features that are included in this alternative. These are

included to help protect other resources such as fish and wildlife, and riparian areas. Some of

these design features are outlined below. These design features would help mitigate most of the

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 5

issues and concerns raised by Fish and Wildlife, Soils and Hydrology. These design features

would make the project meet the standards of the IRMP and Forest Practices Code and help to

mitigate some of the potential negative impacts of the project.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

All newly constructed roads would be closed following implementation.

Scattered over-story trees would be left on all units to provide a future source of snags

and down woody debris.

Compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), including

section 208 Water Quality Management Planning requirements (33 U.S.C . § 1288).

A combination of tethered and ground-based logging systems would be used, depending

on steepness of the units and road placement.

Summer and winter seasonal restrictions would be placed on units to protect the sensitive

ash cap soils from erosion. Summer would be dry soil conditions; winter restrictions

would require frozen ground and/or 2 feet of snow.

Archeological sites would be buffered and protected from logging damage.

Monitoring for specific wildlife species would occur and operational adjustments would

be made if needed.

Skid trails would be spaced at least 100 feet to reduce soil compaction and displacement.

When timber harvest takes place, Best Management Practices (BMP’s) outlined in the Colville

Confederated Tribes Forest Practices Handbook (208 Handbook), dated October 2006, would be

employed. Timber contract compliance by the Timber Sale Officer (TSO) would be the foremost

method ensuring that the BMP’s are followed and implemented. Proper maintenance of roads

and skid trails after logging operations would be implemented to reduce erosion. Designated skid

trails and tethered logging would help reduce impacts on the soil resources. Slash treatments, on

the ground and at the landings, would be either machine pile and burn, broadcast burn, lop and

scatter or left on site. The continual management of the stands including monitoring from initial

stand development to the maturity of the stand would be completed by various forestry staff such

as Silviculturists, Timber Sale Officers, and forest development staff. The monitoring would

ensure the individual stands are going down the anticipated pathway to the desired future

conditions.

Culverts would be replaced at certain locations depending on the necessity which would be

determined by the TSO’s, District Officer, the road engineer, or ETD NPS Management

Coordinator. Also, new culverts would be installed to allow the continual flow of water to

remain in the same established channel and accommodate the estimated discharge of a 100-year

flood event. Water sources would be identified on the FPA/HPA application as potential sites to

obtain water for road watering, dependent on approval from the Water Administrator. Calcium

chloride may be used on sections of road as an alternative to road watering.

Riparian Management Zones (RMZ) would be identified in the planning process using stream

classification maps and determined by Presales Department personnel during block boundary

layout. RMZ buffers would follow requirements of the Forest Practices Code (CTC 4-7), dated

October 2006. During implementation of road construction activities and logging operations,

some trees may need to be harvested, if they present a safety hazard.

3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 Forestry

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 6

General Discussion

The Louie Creek project area is in the San Poil District of the Colville Reservation, located in

northeastern Washington State, in southwest Ferry County.

The Louie Creek project is in the Louie Creek Watershed Management Unit (WMU). It is

bounded to the north by Bridge Creek, on the west by the Sanpoil River, on the south by the Iron

Creek drainage and by a north/south ridgeline that separates the Louie Creek WMU from the

Jones Creek WMU on the east. In addition to three west to east drainages, the area is

characterized by broken topography with numerous draws that contain small streams feeding into

the creeks in the area.

Figure 1. Louie Creek Project Area on the Colville Indian Reservation.

Forest Health

Past management practices of fire suppression, reduction in grazing, and single tree selection had

the cumulative effect of creating a forest that is very different ecologically than the historically.

Another aspect of forest health is that of direct damage to trees by insects, diseases, and parasitic

plants. The forest condition is described in detail in the 2023 CTCR Forest Management Plan

and 2015 IRMP. Please refer to that those plans to understand the forest health issues occurring

on the Colville Reservation.

Concerns identified in project area:

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 7

•

•

•

•

Dwarf Mistletoe

Armillaria Root Rot

Laminated Root Rot

Insects: Western Pine Beetle, Western Spruce Budworm, Tussock Moth, Douglas-fir

Beetle, Western Pine Beetle, Fir Engraver

Some of the proposed units within the project area have insect activity. Post-harvest slash and

site preparation treatments are planned and needed for conifer regeneration establishment and

hazard fuel reduction.

Road Conditions:

A transportation plan was developed for the Louie Creek project area. This includes maintenance

needs, new- and re-construction requirements and road abandonment work. Recommended haul

routes have been designated throughout the project area, and a detailed list of road work has been

provided in the Forest Officers Report. One hydrological permit would be submitted to improve

eight type 4 stream crossings that would be needed to access harvest units beyond these stream

courses.

The total area of past treatment in the Louie Creek project area is 5,334 acres (Table 4).

Table 4. Past treatments in the Louie Creek project area.

Historical Treatments

Improvement Cut

Regeneration Cut with Reserve Trees

Seed Tree Cut

Shelterwood Cut

Commercial Thin

Overstory Removal

Seed Tree / Overstory Removal

Sanitation Salvage

Salvage – Fire

Hazardous Fuels Removal

Uneven Age

Pre-Commercial Thin

Clear Cut

Total Treated Acres

Acres

1,094

1,604

347

644

182

466

65

141

21

19

203

16

532

5,334

3.2 Hydrology

Water Resources

The proposed project would involve approximately 1,662 acres of treatment. Within the project

area, there are 68.7 miles of streams and 612.32 acres of wetland. The proposed project plan

includes 327.67 acres of planned harvest activities within 200 ft. of hydrologic features. Harvest

activities would occur on 309.61 acres within 200 ft. of streams, and 18.06 acres within 200 ft. of

wetlands.

Table 5. Hydrologic features within the Louie Creek project area footprint.

Hydrologic Feature

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Potentially Affected Size

pg. 8

Mapped Streams

68.7 mi

Mapped Wetlands

612.32 ac

The present condition of the affected environment is variable across the project area. The

affected environment is influenced by the Louie Creek Project Area in the San Poil District of

the Colville Reservation located in northeastern Washington State. This project area is 21,455

acres, and contains the entire Louie Creek, Forty Mile Creek, and Iron Creek WMUS, as well as

24% of the Lower Sanpoil River WMU, 21% of the Bridge Creek WMU, and 3% of the Upper

Sanpoil River WMU.

The Louie Creek project area is contained mostly within the Lower Sanpoil River RMU, though

the portion located within the Bridge Creek WMU is within the Upper Sanpoil River RMU.

Although by arbitrary delineation the Lower San Poil RMU is influenced by the Upper Sanpoil

River RMU, in fact, these are the same major watershed, the main watercourse (the Sanpoil

River) of which flows from off of the Reservation down to the Columbia River. All subdrainages within the project area terminate at the Sanpoil River, and are influenced entirely by

their own contained hydrology.

In addition to direct impacts in the Louie Creek project area and the main stems of the major

watercourses within (Louie Creek and Iron Creek, primarily), landscape-scale impacts from

activity in the Louie Creek project area would be detected in the main stem of the Sanpoil River,

or further downstream in the Columbia. Generally, timber sales are active for five years after

approval, resulting in five years of direct impacts from timber harvest, though indirect impacts

can last longer. In the past five years (since 2021), three other green timber sales have occurred

in the Lower Sanpoil River RMU: Keller Ridge (2022) McAllister (2023), and John Tom (2024).

Additionally, two major fires have occurred in the Lower Sanpoil River RMU in the last 5 years,

the Chuweah Creek (2021) and Swawilla I (2024) fires. However, both of these fires occurred on

the western side of the RMU, opposite the Louie Creek project area. The Louie Creek project

area is located within Range Unit 19.

Water resources in the project area include 68.7 miles of streams and 612.32 acres of wetlands,

as well as an unknown number of seeps and springs. Louie Creek and Iron Creek are the major

watercourses through the project area, flowing east to west before joining the Sanpoil River.

Tributaries to these streams include type 3 streams, which are generally perennial and fishbearing, and type 4 streams, which are generally intermittent, high-gradient headwater streams.

Louie Creek and Iron Creek are both perennial and fish-bearing.

Water quality is monitored at the mouth of both Louie Creek (Station ID: LOU074) and Iron

Creek (Station ID: IROF73), immediately upstream of the respective confluences with the

Sanpoil River. Water quality monitoring and analysis from 2018-2023 identified exceedances of

the standards outlined in Colville Tribal Code 4-8 Water Quality Standards for both stations

(Axthelm 2024). Louie Creek exceeded the recorded exceedances of the 6.45 NTU turbidity

standard, with a high value of 49.7 on 10/1/18. There were no recorded exceedances of other

field metrics (pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen), or of lab metrics (fecal coliform, e.coli,

ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, TKN and orthophosphates) at this location. This was a targeted

sampling location that was only sampled during 2018. Iron Creek exceeded the pH standard for

Class IIl waters (between 6.5 and 8.5) on 7/29/2020. There were no recorded exceedances of

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 9

other field metrics (temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity), or of lab metrics (fecal

coliform, e.coli, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, TKN and orthophosphates) at this location.

3.3 Fish and Wildlife

Wildlife

The Louie Creek Timber Project area provides habitat and life cycle requirements for a variety of

wildlife species. Habitat components important for life requirements vary by species and guilds.

Priority and other wildlife species and habitats can be found in “Wildlife Management Program

Goals and Objectives” and Fish and Wildlife section of the CTCR IRMP.

Fish

Within the Louie Creek project area are several fish bearing streams, including Bridge, Louie,

and Iron creeks, as well as several smaller type 3 and 4 tributaries of these creeks. These streams

are all part of the Sanpoil River basin, which flows into Lake Roosevelt, and are an important

and vital system for both resident and reintroduced anadromous fish species. Fish species present

in these streams include Redband Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), Brook Trout

(Salvelinus fontinalis), Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), suckers (Catostomidae),

native minnows (Leuciscidae), Sculpins (Cottidae), and reintroduced Chinook Salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

The Lake Roosevelt drainage area is included in the Northeast Washington Research Needs Area

of the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit for bull trout (S. confluentus; USFWS 2002). Bull trout are

currently listed as “threatened” federally, while Washington State considers bull trout a

candidate for listing. However, Bull trout in the Louie Creek project area and surrounding areas

are extremely rare and believed to have been extirpated. Historically, populations likely occurred

in several tributaries to the Columbia River above Grand Coulee Dam (Lake Roosevelt).

However, currently no spawning populations exist within the Northeast Washington Research

Needs Area. Bull trout observation data within the Northeast Washington Research Needs Area

is not well tracked, sporadic, and often anecdotal, although they have been rarely encountered

during large-scale standardized fishery surveys. Since 2011, fewer than 25 bull trout have been

documented in Lake Roosevelt. The majority of these observations occurred in the north end of

Lake Roosevelt near the Canadian border, with infrequent observations near mouths of

tributaries. In 2012, a single adult bull trout was documented in the lower Sanpoil River Arm of

Lake Roosevelt. These fish likely derived from populations in the Spokane River or Pend Oreille

River basins, or from tributaries to the Columbia River in Canada. While bull trout have been

encountered rarely in Lake Roosevelt, they are very unlikely to be impacted by activities within

the project area.

Federally Threatened or Endangered Species

Federally Threatened or Endangered Species: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) of 1973 as amended, and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 402,

require federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such

agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 10

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), of 1940, as amended, and

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), of 1918, as amended, prohibits anyone, without

a permit, from “Taking” eagles or any bird, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Within this Act,

eagles/nests/eggs/young are not to be “Disturbed” including agitated or bothered. Aerial surveys

have been conducted in the past by the Colville Tribe to identify eagle and raptor nests. All

known nests are buffered and have seasonal restrictions.

Table 6. US-DOI-Fish and Wildlife Service: Official Species List.

Species

Canada Lynx

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Bull Trout

Monarch Butterfly

Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee

Scientific Name

Status

Lynx canadensis

Threatened

Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened

Salvelinus confluentus

Threatened

Danaus plexippus

Proposed Threatened

Bombus suckleyi

Proposed Endangered

Information for Planning and Conservation was acquired from the United States Department of

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI-FWS) for Endangered Species Act Species List. An

Official Species List from the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

(USDOI-FWS), is included.

3.4 Cultural Resources

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and its implementing

regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800, require federal agencies to identify cultural resources for

federal action. The significance of the resource must be evaluated using established criteria

outlined at 36 CFR 60.4. If a resource is determined to be a historic property, Section 106 of the

NHPA requires that effects of the undertaking on the resource be determined. A historic property

is “…any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material

remains related to such a property…” (NHPA, 16 USC 470w, Sec. 301[5]).

“Cultural resources” include archaeological sites, standing structures, and locations or landforms

that are important to the identity of the indigenous people of the area (i.e., traditional cultural

properties [TCPs]). For more details on the affected cultural environment, please consult the

CCT Cultural Resource Management Plan (CCT 2007), the cultural resources overview for the

Colville Reservation (Gough 1990), and the FEIS for the IRMP (CAR 2018).

The Louie Creek project is within the ancestral lands of the snpəʕʷílx (Sanpoil) Tribe, who can

identify their ancestry back over a thousand years in this area. The languages of the twelve tribes

comprising the CTCR have been grouped into general Salishan and Sahaptian language families.

The majority spoke the Interior Salish languages of nxaɁamcín and nsləxcín, though the

Sahaptian languages of the Nez Perce (nímípuɁ) and Palus (palús) were also spoken. The

language of the snpəʕʷílx is nsləxcín.

For the purposes of consultation with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) under

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the timber treatment areas, roads, and

attendant landings shall be considered the Area of Potential Effect (APE).

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 11

There have been two previous surveys within and immediately adjacent to the Louie Creek

project area (Gough 1990; Meyer 2006). These inquiries have resulted in the documentation of

twelve archaeological sites and one cemetery within or immediately adjacent to the Louie Creek

project area. A review of the Colville Confederated Tribes History/Archaeology (H/A) Program

databases resulted in the documentation of two Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs).

A search of Bureau of Land Management/General Land Office (BLM/GLO) records indicates

that there is one historic land patent and multiple historic trails in the northwestern portion of the

project area. Finally, an examination of Clair Hunt’s 1916 map of the South Half of the Colville

Indian Reservation determined there are no historic Indian allotments in the project area.

For the current project, a predictive model was used to select areas within the Louie Creek

Project area for a cultural resource survey. Three new cultural resources were identified and

recorded.

Eighteen resources have been documented within the Louie Creek project area. Due to the

proximity to proposed treatment blocks and road, two of these sites are located within the APE

of this project. The remaining resources appear to be eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP), but are outside of the project APE and should not be affected by project

implementation.

All TCPs and archaeological sites must meet at least one of the following criteria to be

considered eligible for evaluation to the National Register: A) they must be associated with

events that have made a contribution to the broad patterns of history. B) They must be associated

with the lives of persons to our past. C) They must embody the distinctive characteristics of a

type, period, or method of construction or they represent the work of a master, or that possess

high artistic values, or that represent and distinguishable entity whose components make

individual distinction. D) They must have yielded, or be likely to yield, information important in

prehistory or history. Additionally, to be a “property” a TCP must have tangible boundaries (36

CFR 60.4; Parker & King 1998).

Shannon and Moura (2007) have aptly observed that due to the unique nature of TCPs, the

standards identified above must also be evaluated with perception of Native American history.

When reviewing TCPs for continued use of at least 50 years, for instance, it must be recalled that

federal and state policies common in the 1800s restricted, regulated and denied access to

property to Tribal people which had previously been in their exclusive territory. Oftentimes,

Indian people may shift their area of use to adjacent or nearby locations if a previously utilized

property suddenly (and beyond Tribal control) became unavailable. Therefore, a location may

still retain value and continue to be a TCP when access is restored (Shannon & Moura 2007).

In pre-contact and historic times, the knowledge of these TCPs and their locations and use

provided people with a means for subsistence and important cultural items for personal use or

trade, cultural practices which continue to this day. Additionally, the nature of these sites and

their close proximity to other documented cultural resources, including pre-contact, historic and

additional TCP sites increases their potential to yield information important to the CCT.

Oral history accounts of the region identify the general areas of Thirteen Mile Creek, Seventeen

Mile Creek and South Seventeen Mile Creek as possessing traditional value in addition to those

locations observed during the archaeological survey. It is the position of the CCT that “A place is

due to its location and the meaning assigned to it, not the language of the name by which it is

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 12

known. While recording place names in the original languages is of immeasurable value, the

places would continue to have meaning and significance regardless of the language used to

describe them (George 2011).

It is likely that cairns, rock alignments, talus pits and other rock features may be found

throughout the area. Pictographs are common in this region and have a high potential to be

present on the flats adjacent to streams and springs where people would have camped while

taking advantage of upland resources. Small pre-contact camps may be present on the upland

areas adjacent to springs or creeks, or in sheltered canyons. Evidence of early historic-period

occupation, logging and mining features and\or graves may be present within the project area, as

suggested by the presence of historic allotments. Picture trees (i.e., old growth pine trees with

anthropomorphic figures carved into them) are possible in this area, as well as more customary

peeled pines.

The project area is located within the Upper Sanpoil River watershed. Traditional religious use

of sweathouses perpetuate within the Upper Sanpoil River watershed, as do harvest of native

cultural plant species across the landscape. This area is the principle gathering location for at

least ten different plant species (Table 7) for consumption, construction, weaving and religious

purposes (Marker et al. 2012). Nine springs, which the CCT attribute cultural value to, are

documented within this watershed. Eleven locations within the watershed have been documented

as important areas for water-related resource use. Some of these areas include West Fork,

Twentyonemile Creek, Thirtymile Creek, Devil’s Elbow, Central Peak, the Sanpoil River, and

Twentythreemile Creek.

Table 7. Traditional Cultural Plants gathered within the Upper Sanpoil River Watershed (Marker et al.

2011).

Lichen,

Wild Mushrooms,

Sages,

Bryoria fremontii

Multiple Species

Artenusua spp

Huckleberry,

Serviceberry,

Wild thimbleberry,

Vaccinium spp

Amelanchier alnifolia

Rubus spp

Foamberry,

Woods strawberry,

Ponderosa Pine,

Shepherdia canadensis

Fragaria virgiana

Pinus ponderosa

Cedar,

Thuja plicata

3.5 Range Management

Range Program Operations

The “Louie Creek” forest project area includes large portions of both the USGS Hydrologic Unit

(HUC) “Bridge Creek” and the “Louie Creek” HUC, with some blocks located in the “Iron

Creek” HUC. The “Louie Creek Natural Resource Project” proposed treatment blocks are

dispersed throughout the forest project area and intersect with parts of Range Unit 19. Range

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 13

Unit 19 is a Range Unit currently permitted for livestock grazing, with approximately 25 pairs of

livestock permitted in the project area from May 15th to November 1st.

The Louie Creek Forest project area receives on average 16”-30” of precipitation per year with

most in the form of winter snow. The change in precipitation values generally follows the change

in elevation values from near 3,600 ft at the most Southern portion of the project area to 4,200 ft

at the Northern portion of the project area.

The NRCS database lists seven forest habitat types in the blocks proposed for treatment. The

four most occurring habitat types are listed in order below. The most notable shrub species listed

are common snowberry, mallow ninebark, and bearberry. Most common understory grass species

in this area is pinegrass with Idaho fescue.

Douglas-fir/ninebark, pachistima

Grand Fir/Twinflower

Douglas fir/snowberry

Douglas Fir/Pinegrass, Bearberry

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Summary Table of Issues Indicators

Table 8. Summary table of issue indicators for goals and objectives.

Resource Issue

Issue Indicator

Alt. A

Alt. B

Vegetation Forest Health

/Timber

Acres Treated

0

1,662 acres Harvest

2,302 acres PCT

920 acres Tree Planting

Support of Tribal

Wood Processing

Timber Volume

for Processing

0

19 MMBF

1,662 acres MPB, BB

Tribal Income

Projected

Stumpage

$0

$1,900,000 – $2,280,000

4.1 Forestry

Impacts to Forestry Resources Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A, no activity would occur. CTCR would not generate revenue from their

timber. The San Poil Forestry District would have reduced funds needed to plant trees, thin trees,

and collect cones for seedling production. Economic development does not occur and there

would not be work for the tribal membership. Cost to maintain and improve the road network

would not be incurred. Forest health would continue to decline over time as these issues would

not be addressed with silvicultural treatments. Tree mortality would continue to increase.

Suitable conditions for Douglas-fir would continue to develop and encroachment would

continue. The Louie Creek area would trend towards a condition where overstocking increases

the risk of insect outbreak, spread of tree born disease and an increasing risk of wildfire as

surface and standing fuels accumulate.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 14

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Louie Creek would move farther away from the Desired Future Conditions described

in the Plan for Integrated Resource Management.

Forest health would decline.

Reforestation would not occur or be diminished.

Wildfire prevention/mitigation would not occur.

Increased risk of disease, insects, drought, and wildfire.

The Colville Tribe would not generate revenue.

The Colville Tribe would fail to meet the AAC of 77.1 MMBF.

Forest Management program funds would receive revenue.

Industry employment would not be generated.

Forest roads would not be improved by limiting access to CTCR lands for tribal

members.

Impacts to Forestry Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Revenue generation of $1,900,000 to $2,280,000 for the Colville Tribe with a harvest of

19 MMBF

Species composition on 3,964 acres would shift conditions favorable to ponderosa pine

and western Larch dominance after removal of trees in both commercial and precommercial treatments

Forest health would improve, diseased trees would be removed, and disease-resistant

species would be regenerated naturally and with planting

Understory Douglas-fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine encroachment would be piled and/or

burned, reducing the risk of severe wildfire and preparing the site for regeneration of

desirable species

Density would be reduced in overstocked stands, increasing health and vigor in reserve

trees

Desired Future Conditions outlined in the IRMP would continue to increase over time

Improved road conditions with 1.84 miles of new road construction to facilitate logging,

9.39 miles of existing road would receive maintenance, and 2.18 miles of road would be

reconstructed

Hazard fuel treatment on 1,662 acres (broadcast burned and mechanical pile), reducing

wildfire risk to homes and other Tribal property and other resources

Some of the potential negative impacts that a timber sale may create, include the following:

Visual landscape changes or disturbances would occur; man-made “signs” (ribbon, tags, paint)

are introduced into the area to guide the forest management; noise and dust are created from

logging operations; existing vegetation is temporarily disturbed, but their resiliency to

disturbances would allow them to come back; skid trails and landings are created; woody slash

material is created.

4.2 Hydrology

Impacts to Hydrology Resources Alternative A: No Action

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 15

The no action alternative would allow for the natural ecological process to continue. Stream

channel hydraulics and associated riparian vegetation would not be impacted by harvest related

activities. Effective ground cover and hydraulic roughness would remain, continuing to provide

overland flow attenuation and prevent nonpoint source pollutant delivery to downslope

watercourses. Retention of mature vegetation would continue to provide canopy interception and

reduced rain splash erosion. Infiltration would remain high, and rill and scour erosion would

remain minimal. Additionally, soil structure would be maintained in the current state. All

methods of timber harvest, ground- or cable-based, result in some amount of soil disturbance.

Soil compaction generally occurs in locations where machinery tracks have traveled (particularly

in wet conditions), while destruction of soil structure and subsequent sediment mobilization

generally occurs as a result of ground-based operation on steep slopes and a lack of traction.

Transport of trees by logging equipment also results in soil disturbance and transportation. These

effects would be avoided through the No Action Alternative, maintaining soil structure, density,

and productivity.

Road density would be maintained at the current level under the No Action Alternative. Existing

road density in all WMUs in the project area are higher than the desired condition outlined in the

IRMP; however, in the Bridge Creek and Iron Creek WMUs where road reconstruction and new

construction would occur, this number is still lower than the density that would be achieved as a

result of the preferred alternative (desired: 4.0 mi/mi2; current: Bridge Creek: 5.62 mi/mi2, Iron

Creek: 5.96 mi/mi2).

The No Action Alternative would also not involve reconstruction of any existing roads, allowing

existing vegetative cover and stability to be maintained. Maintaining the lowest road density (i.e.

the existing condition) would provide the closest approximation of natural hydrologic conditions,

between the two scenarios. High road densities are detrimental to watershed hydrology primarily

due to the interception and diversion of water from natural flow paths. When water flowing

down a hillslope is intercepted by a road prism, ditch, blocked or undersized culvert, or other

infrastructure, that water is generally diverted or lost to evaporation, rather than continuing as

overland, shallow subsurface, or groundwater flow. As climate change advances, it becomes

increasingly important to retain water on the landscape. High road density contributes to the loss

of water on the landscape through decreased infiltration and increased evaporation, and each

additional road increases these effects.

Existing roads in the Louie Creek project area are maintained to various levels of stability. 147

existing segments, with a total length of 35.88 miles, were identified for review; segments were

selected for review if they were within or adjacent to swales, draws, wetlands, streams, or other

aquatic resources. Additionally, some segments had previously received restoration treatment,

and were identified to prevent unauthorized use. Under the No Action Alternative, none of these

segments would be reconstructed, and use would not increase. However, segments that have not

been maintained may continue to be at risk of failure, and crossings obstructing flow and fish

passage would continue to do so.

Water Resources – No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to surface water, wetlands, or

floodplains, and no major direct, indirect, short-term, long-term, or cumulative impacts to water

resources anticipated.

Impacts to Hydrology Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 16

•

•

•

•

1.84 miles of new road construction and 2.18 miles of road reconstruction

0.24 miles of new construction and 0.08 miles of reconstruction within 200 ft of hydrologic

features

Harvest activities within 200 ft of streams – 309.61 ac

Harvest activities within 200 ft of wetlands – 18.06ac

The proposed action would involve 1,662 acres of timber harvest. Throughout the project area,

these activities overlap and abut streams and wetlands, with 327.67 acres of harvest activities

within 200 feet of wetlands and streams.

Harvest operations, including the use of heavy machinery to fell and skid timber, cause soil

compaction and erosion; additionally, as a result of decreased vegetation, interception,

infiltration and water use are decreased, and a greater volume of water occurs as overland flow.

This can result in great sediment transportation to downslope streams and wetlands, resulting in

decreased water quality. Additionally, harvest operations create linear features such as skid trails.

If oriented parallel to the slope, or located in swales and topographic low points, these linear

features channelize water, and lead to rill and gully erosion, sediment transportation, and road

failure. These effects can be minimized by locating skid trails perpendicular to slope direction,

and through the use of cable logging rather than ground based harvest systems, particularly on

steeper slopes.

All road construction and use associated with proposed timber harvest activities would lead to

soil disturbance and loss as well as alteration of watershed hydrology (Hunner 2014).

Specifically, road miles within 200 ft. of surface water are statistically likely to deliver

sediment/erosion to surface water (Dubé et al, 2004). Road reconstruction and new construction

effects on water quality, hydrologic processes, and aquatic habitat would be the longest-ongoing, longest-lasting, and highest-degree negative impacts resulting from the proposed action.

The use of heavy machinery to create and redo roads would result in immediate sediment

delivery to adjacent waterbodies. Additionally, reconstruction results in soil compaction and

disturbance, both of which are causes of decreased soil health, eventual runoff channelization

and continued erosive losses. Repeated improper reconstruction procedures that fail to

reincorporate disturbed material into the road prism create linear features that channel water

away from natural water features. When these features are created adjacent to streams, heavy

flow events can cause the relocation of the active channel into the road prism, creating a safety

hazard, and drastically altering the natural hydrology of the area.

The impacts from the proposed project to the affected environment are multi-faceted. Harvest

impacts include: alterations in flow paths due to skid trail creation and machinery operation;

reduced infiltration and increased erosion due to soil compaction from machinery operation;

increased sediment and nutrient delivery to surface waters; loss of wetland and riparian

vegetation; and potential delivery of herbicide to surface waters, among others.

Prior to initiation of harvest, calculation of exact miles of skid trails is not feasible. However,

impacts can be estimated through looking at the number of blocks and acreage of harvest

impacts. 1,662 acres, across 21 blocks, are proposed for ground based (tractor and cable assist)

harvest. Blocks range from approximately 1,500 to 4,000 feet in width oriented perpendicularly

to the hillslope. Assuming an average block width of approximately 2,000 feet (a conservative

estimation), with average skid trail spacing of 100 feet (as required by Colville Tribal Code 4-7

Forest Practices), over 420 skid trails would be created in blocks prescribed for ground based

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 17

harvest. This estimation is fundamentally imprecise, but allows an estimate of magnitude.

Additionally, 327.67 acres of proposed ground based harvest would occur within 200 feet of

hydrologic features. The potential for sediment and nutrient delivery to surface water via skid

trail creation is elevated in these acres.

Tethered logging, which involves the use of a winch for assistance in machinery operation of

slopes, is proposed for 326.44 acres of blocks. Existing Tribal Code does not allow for operation

of ground based harvest systems on slopes over 35% due to potential soil impacts, recognizing

the increased magnitude of machinery impacts as slope increases. However, tethered logging has

been adopted for use on slopes up to 70%, to increase efficiency and decrease costs of harvest.

Where any ground based harvest system is used on vulnerable soils, the potential for compaction

and erosion is increased. When these factors are combined with steep slopes and proximity to

aquatic resources, the potential for sediment delivery and resource damage is high. 95.47 of these

acres are located within 200 feet of hydrologic features (streams and wetlands), increasing the

potential for sediment delivery due to the combination of ground based operation and steep

slopes.

Road development and use impacts include: alterations in flow paths due to the creation of linear

landscape features (roads) perpendicular to natural slopes; reduced infiltration and increased

erosion due to the creation of impervious or resistant surfaces; and increased transport of vehicle

associated contaminants (including 6PPD-q, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from exhaust,

etc.), among others.

Proposed reconstruction and new construction in the Louie Creek project area would occur on

4.02 miles of road. The proposed haul route for logging vehicles to transport logs to the mills

includes an additional 50 miles of paved road to the northern boundary of the Reservation,

primarily on State Route 21, Bridge Creek Road (Ferry County Road 8020), and IncheliumKettle Falls Road. 0.32 miles of reconstruction and new construction would occur within 200

feet of surface water. High road densities detrimentally affect water retention on the landscape,

creating interception points that redirect flow from reaching creeks, streams, and wetlands.

Abandonment and revegetation of roads can mitigate some of the effects of high road density,

improving infiltration and decreasing overland flow, but retention of road prisms, nonnative road

bed material, and artificial crossing structures such as culverts would continue to alter hillslope

hydrology regardless of vegetation establishment. Additionally, studies have shown that the

chemical 6PPD-quinone, used in the manufacture of rubber tires, can cause acute mortality in

salmonids, including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), found in streams across the Colville

Reservation. Roads in proximity to salmonid bearing waters may result in 6PPD-q related

effects.

Therefore, the action in this area would have direct physical changes on the environment. The

Proposed Action Alternative approval would have cumulative effects resulting from road

construction and timber harvest. The associated effects are discussed in Section 4.7 of this EA.

Water Resources Impacts – Proposed Action

Surface Water:

The proposed alternative would generate sediment through the creation of skid trails, increase

overland flow through the removal of vegetation, and create interception points through the

construction and reconstruction of roads. 10 culvert installations or replacements are proposed.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 18

Road miles and road density in the project area would increase due to the 1.84 miles of new road

construction.

Wetlands:

The proposed forestry activities would have minimal impact to wetland ecosystems through soil

disturbance, hydrological alteration, and disruption of vegetative community. Field observations

of National Wetlands Inventory mapped wetlands in the northern portion of harvest block

350064 and associated new construction road do not provide sufficient wetland indicators

beyond the confined stream channel, so these map units were not included in calculations. 18.06

acres of ground-based harvest activities occur within 200 feet of wetlands and there is no record

for forestry associated road work within 200 feet of wetlands.

Floodplains:

NOAA mapping indicates an extensive 100-year floodplain associated with Bridge Creek and

Louie Creek. Due to the steep slopes in the rest of the project area, tributaries to Louie Creek and

Iron Creek are generally confined, and do not have associated floodplains. Blocks and roads

proposed for this project do not encroach on the 100-year floodplain of Louie Creek, and only

one existing road approach would impact the floodplain associated with Bridge Creek.

Direct Impacts – Short-Term

Surface Water:

Timber harvest activities are likely to result in short term impacts to surface water quality

through the generation of sediment. Turbidity has previously been an issue in Louie Creek; this

is may occur immediately following timber harvest, which would result in detrimental effects on

aquatic organisms. Increased heating of surface water, particularly in headwaters and tributaries,

is likely, due to removal of vegetative cover; this is a more likely impact, due to concentration of

blocks in headwater areas. Degradation of temperature and turbidity metrics would likely be

short term impacts of timber sale activities. Road construction and reconstruction is responsible

for interruption of natural landscape hydrology, creating diversion points perpendicular to

hillslopes. These diversions result in altered flow paths, increased evaporation, and increased

sedimentation. Short term water quality would likely decrease for these reasons as well. These

impacts would be sustained over the duration of the project, approximately five years.

Wetlands:

Extensive tree removal in Seed Tree Rx Blocks 352010 & 350064, adjacent to CTCR Wetland

E.SPL_132, along the NE Louie Creek Tributary, is predicted to contribute to short-term rise in

local water tables which influence the timing and seasonal persistence of surface water, interrupt

pollutant processing capacity of the wetlands, and disrupt growth habits of wetland vegetation.

Floodplains:

Short term impacts to floodplains would be contained to the road approach for the existing road

crossing Bridge Creek. Sediment delivery to Bridge Creek is possible, but, with the utilization of

Best Management Practices, the area of impact should be minimized.

Direct Impacts – Long-Term

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 19

Surface Water:

Long term impacts to surface water would continue until vegetation is established and disturbed

areas are stabilized. As skid trails and roads are seeded with herbaceous vegetation, soils would

become more stable, and water quality would gradually return to pre-harvest conditions. As

larger vegetation and trees establish, surface water quantity would decrease with increased

evapotranspiration. Depending on the duration and severity of impacts to natural hillslope

hydrology, flow paths may be permanently altered by the creation of skid trails and roads.

Additionally, roads would not be deconstructed at the conclusion of the sale. Therefore, road

density impacts on interception and diversion would persist, and road use would continue into

the foreseeable future. Crossing structures would also not be removed, and impacts from

improperly installed or sized structures would continue to impact water quality in the long term.

Additionally, any road use over streams would continue to deliver sediment and contaminants to

the surface water at the crossing.

Wetlands:

There is no record of new or reconstructed road proposed within 200 feet of wetlands in the

Louie Creek project. However, over the long-term, the construction and use of forestry-related

roads contributes to increased risk of sedimentation in surface waters that may be delivered to

the approximately 612 wetland acres throughout the project area with potential increases in

nutrient and pollutant delivery as well as degrading wetland function, water quality, and habitat.

Floodplains:

The crossings on Bridge Creek and its floodplain is a permanent action; this road would continue

to be used after the conclusion of the sale, and sediment delivery would continue to occur,

particularly as the road would not be maintained for haul operations. In the long term, relocation

of this road should occur, as these would become chronic sediment delivery impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Surface Water:

As discussed above, three other timber sales have occurred in the Lower San Poil RMU in the

past 5 years. Between these three sales (McAllister, Keller Ridge, John Tom), 7,365 acres were

harvested. The Louie Creek project would add an additional 1,662 acres of timber harvest in the

drainage. Each acre of timber harvest results in sediment generation, nutrient transport, and

hydrologic alteration.

Wetlands:

Increased runoff and sedimentation associated with ground-based harvest systems and road

construction, reconstruction, and forestry related road use are expected to have cumulative

systemic impacts to the wetlands adjacent to harvest blocks as well as the downstream wetlands

associated with Louie Creek as well as Bridge Creek and subsequently the Sanpoil River. The

Louie Creek project would occur simultaneously with BIA Land Operations grazing permits in

Range Units 3, 19, 42, and 80. There are few grazing controls identified for range practices along

creek associated wetlands or isolated wetlands throughout the project area. Cattle impacts

including wetland soil disruption and biological impacts would be exacerbated by forest

practices contributing to excess sedimentation and nutrient inputs.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 20

Floodplains:

No additional impacts to the Bridge Creek floodplain have been documented prior to this project.

Therefore, there are no likely cumulative impacts from the proposed action.

Water Resource Impact Conclusions

Table 9. Water Resource Impact Summary from proposed action.

Water Resource

Type

Surface Water

Wetlands

Floodplains

Short-Term Direct

Impacts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Long-Term Direct

Impacts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cumulative

Impacts

Yes

Yes

None

The project would result in short term impacts to soil and surface water, particularly within the

top 12-24 inches. Long term impacts (after the conclusion of the project) would be minimal as

vegetation reestablishes and stabilizes slopes. However, the cumulative impact of the project, in

conjunction with previous timber sale impacts, would impact water quality and quantity

throughout the Lower Sanpoil River RMU. The Proposed Action would result in short term and

cumulative impacts to water resources including surface water and wetlands.

Resource Use Patterns

Transportation Networks:

The existing transportation network on the Reservation consists of nearly 10,000 miles of road

managed under multiple jurisdictions, maintained to varying degrees of stability. Within the San

Poil district, major travel corridors include State Route 21 (Washington State DOT), Cache

Creek Road (Okanogan County Public Works), and Bridge Creek Road (Ferry County Public

Works), among others (Colville Tribal DOT, BIA DOT, etc.). Additionally, the district contains

multiple thousands of miles of forest roads, which do not fall under any of the above

jurisdictions, and therefore do not receive any maintenance. These roads are primarily used for

timber harvesting, fire suppression, and member access for hunting, fishing, and gathering. In

addition to this multi-jurisdictional network, there are over 3,300 stream crossings.

Direct Impacts Short-Term

The Louie Creek timber sale project proposes the construction of 1.84 miles of new road, and

2.18 miles of reconstruction of existing forest road. The use of these roads for timber sale

operations would result in short-term impacts to the existing transportation network through

physical degradation of roads. Large vehicles carrying heavy machinery and loads of logs cause

road quality to deteriorate. This would occur throughout the life of the project.

Direct Impacts Long-Term

The existing roads network is not well maintained; creation of new roads and reconstruction of

existing roads would decrease the amount of maintenance that can be allocated to existing

segments, and cause road quality to deteriorate over time.

4.3 Fish and Wildlife

Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources Alternative A: No Action

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 21

The “no action’ alternative would not have adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat in the

project area. Leaving the timber intact would allow the area to follow natural succession patterns

and would benefit wildlife species both terrestrial and aquatic. Fires and/or insect/disease die offs

could affect the project area but the timing and severity of these disturbances is not known.

Natural disturbances may even benefit fish and wildlife species by increasing habitat values.

Overstocked and diseased stands may show a decline in value for some species of wildlife.

Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would have impacts on fish and wildlife species and habitat within the

project area. Removal of timber from 1,662 acres could have negative impacts on wildlife

populations that use the habitat in the project area to meet their life requirements. Impacts to the

habitat within the project area could include but are not limited to: an increase in soil compaction

and ground disturbance, an increase in open road density, an increase and introduction of

noxious weeds, the creation of large openings, a decrease in water quality, degradation of

instream and riparian habitats, a reduction and loss of large diameter snags, future snags and

large diameter downed wood, a deterioration or loss of mature and old growth coniferous forest,

a loss of large diameter trees, a decline or loss of wildlife travel corridors, a decrease in hiding,

escape and thermal cover, and a reduction in canopy cover.

These changes to the habitat structures and functions within the project area could have effects

on a variety of wildlife species. The implementation of this project could decrease effective

wintering, calving and summer/fall range for resident and migrant big game species, reduce the

amount of suitable habitat for pileated and white headed woodpeckers, reduce the quality and

quantity of instream and riparian habitat and impact the ecological function of aspen stands

wetlands, seeps, and springs.

Some wildlife and habitats may benefit from the effects of timber management. Opening the

forest canopy would encourage the growth of shrubs and forbs. This increases the forage values

for big game species and other early seral species. These areas would be utilized as long as

nearby hiding/escape cover is retained.

Timber harvest would result in a loss and reduction of mature and old growth coniferous forest,

future and large diameter snags and large diameter downed wood. This would result in a loss of

functional habitat for those species that depend on late seral habitat components such as primary

and secondary cavity nesters, bats, and amphibians and reptiles.

Timber harvest would increase ground disturbance and allow for the establishment of noxious

weeds that would compete with native vegetation. The loss of native vegetation would reduce

habitat quality for desired wildlife species.

Timber harvest has the potential to impact the ecological function of aspen stands, wetlands,

springs, and seeps due to soil compaction, excessive ground disturbance, herbicide application,

inadequate riparian buffers and other ground and vegetation disturbances. Aspen stands may be

regenerated by the ground disturbance of logging practices and the removal of conifers from

suppressed stands.

Timber harvest activities near and adjacent to streams would reduce the quality and quantity of

instream and riparian habitat that provides important seasonal ranges, travel corridors and

breeding habitat to a high density and diversity of unique or dependent species. Increased

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 22

sediment delivery to streams would decrease water quality and affect amphibians and other

wildlife species that utilize those areas.

Effects of roads and skid trails on wildlife and their habitats include direct loss of habitat, habitat

fragmentation, road kill, increased hunting/poaching mortality, increased predation, road

avoidance, increased edge, and reduction in the suitability of habitat for use by wildlife (Demers

2006).

Protection Measures

The CTCR IRMP states that total road density would be reduced to less than 4 mi/ mi2, with

open road density to be reduced to less than 1.5 mi/ mi2 wherever feasible across the

Reservation. It is the suggestion of the Fish and Wildlife Department that unnecessary segments

and reconstructed roads should be closed to adhere to the IRMP goal of 4.0 mi/mi2. All new

roads should be considered for closure to comply with the roads target.

The proposed action of the Louie Creek project falls within four of the Reservation WMUs

which include Bridge Creek WMU, Louie Creek #1 WMU, Upper Nine Mile WMU, and Jones

Creek WMU. The CTCR IRMP states that total road density would be reduced to less than 4 mi/

mi2, with open road density to be reduced to less than 1.5 mi/ mi2 wherever feasible across the

Reservation. Road densities on the Reservation are calculated using the WMU boundaries.

Currently all of the WMU’s are above the IRMP road density objective. This road density layout

is an over estimation of the current road system within the project area. It is unknown if all the

roads are drivable, non-drivable, or closed. Alternative B is recommending 1.84 miles of new

construction and 2.18 miles of reconstruction. Road closure locations are located in Appendix B.

These are approximate locations and field verified locations would need to be determined by

staff from the Wildlife and Forestry Departments. The Alternative B new road density is in Table

10.

Table 10. Road Density of WMUs following implementation of the proposed action.

WMU

Bridge Creek

Louie Creek #1

Upper NineMile

Jones Creek

Proposed

New Rd

(mi)

190.28

1.38

75.46

0.46

66.02

0

47.97

0

Roads

(mi)

Proposed

Total Rd

Recon Rd

(mi)

(mi)

0.89

191.66

1.28

75.92

0

66.02

0

47.97

WMU

(mi2)

30.4625

10.67

9.25

6.31

Road

Density

(mi/mi2)

6.2917

7.1153

7.1373

7.6022

Federally Threatened and Endangered Species

The BIA and Tribal wildlife biologist determined that the proposed actions and associated

activities would ‘No Effect’ to threatened or endangered species, or candidate or proposed

species, or suitable or critical habitat within the action area. The basis for the determination is

summarized below for each species:

•

Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus, Threatened. The yellow-billed cuckoo

is a migratory bird that overwinters in South America, and nests in portions of the

central United States. Per WDFW, breeding likely ended in the state of Washington

by the 1940s. There have been no known sightings on the Colville Reservation.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 23

•

•

•

•

Canada Lynx, Lynx Canadensis, Threatened. Canada Lynx inhabits boreal and

subalpine forests above 4,000 feet within the western United States. Canada Lynx

predominately rely on snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) for survival.

Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, Threatened. There are no records of Bull Trout

documented in the Louie Creek project area. Historical presence of Bull Trout in this

tributary system is unknown; however, they are believed to be extirpated, and there is

no designated critical habitat in or near the project area.

Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus, Proposed Threatened. Monarch butterflies are

not currently federally listed under the Endangered Species Act; therefore, no Section

7 determination is required.

Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee, Bombus Suckleyi, Proposed Endangered. Suckley’s

Cuckoo Bumble Bee is not currently federally listed under the Endangered Species

Act; therefore, no Section 7 determination is required.

Resource Use Patterns

Hunting, Fishing, Gathering

“The Tribes regulate the harvest of wildlife resources within the aboriginal territory of the

Colville Tribes. In regulating wildlife and recreation resources of the Reservation, tribal

members are afforded the greatest possible freedom to use and enjoy these resources, consistent

with the preservation and improvement of these resources for future generations. Wildlife found

on the Reservation may be taken only at such times, in such places, and in such a manner as

provided by tribal law” (CTCR 2015).

4.4 Cultural Resources

Impacts to Cultural Resources Alternative A: No Action

Although there may be a number of direct and indirect effects to the Reservation’s resources

from the implementation of Alternative A, it is important to recognize that cultural resources are,

for the most part, non-renewable resources. The ‘No Action’ alternative would have a number of

various effects to the known cultural resources identified within the project area.

The historic exclusion of fire on the Reservation has resulted with an overabundance of

vegetation. Although Alternative A would leave the timber intact and allow for natural

succession patterns; overstocked and diseased stands have increased ladder fuels which must be

addressed by current management practices.

Potential impacts of Alternative A include vegetation encroachment to sites which exhibit

surface features. This encroachment may reduce visibility of the site, potentially affecting its

integrity and increasing the likelihood of adverse effects to it from wildland or prescribed fire.

Invasive non-native plant species within this area would likely perpetuate and increase,

competing with native plant species of traditional and cultural significance. The ‘No Action’

alternative may also cause physical damage to sites from snags or trees falling upon them,

dismantling, destroying or otherwise impacting surface features. Fallen trees may also expose

buried subsurface cultural materials, which otherwise would have remained intact.

Impacts to Cultural Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action

There are currently twelve archaeological sites, two TCPs and one cemetery recorded in the

Louie Creek APE. Although there has been no official determination of National or Colville

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 24

Register eligibility for these sites, all eighteen appear to be eligible. These sites may be

considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as described in 36 CFR Part

60.4. The ‘Proposed Action’ would result in No Adverse Effect to these sites as long as the

prescriptions remain the same and that ground disturbance stays to minimum.

4.5 Range Management

Impacts to Range Resources Alternative A: No Action

This alternative would have no disturbance impact on the current plant community condition.

The No Action Alternative, being a management decision, would also not address the forest

health concerns identified in the proposal. Degraded forest plant communities would remain in a

degraded state.

Impacts to Range Resources for Alternative B: Proposed Action

Harvest disturbance within forested plant communities often benefits plant community health by

reducing potential for disease, insects, and wildfire effects. Reducing canopy densities can also

release understory plants that have been suppressed by overstocked conditions. Desirable natural

understory plants are usually adept at recovery with the type of soil disturbance that normally

occurs with harvest. Areas of concern may be landings, skid trails, roads, and pile burning sites,

all areas where activity may create highly disturbed soil conditions or a change in soil fertility

properties. The potential of increased soil disturbance in these areas may hinder the recovery of

desirable understory plants and increase the possibility of establishing new invasive and noxious

weed populations.

The annual precipitation for the blocks in this proposal is 16” to 30” annually. This broad range

of average annual precipitation can cause variable potential for the rapid recovery of forest native

understory species. Areas of high soil disturbance in the lower end of the precipitation range can

be slow in recovering naturally allowing more competitive invasive noxious weed populations

the opportunity to become established. Once established many invasive and noxious weeds can

outcompete the natural vegetation. If highly competitive undesirable plants become established,

they are often hard to eliminate. New patches of persistent competitive invasive weeds also

provide a future seed source for further spread in the area.

The most common forest habitat type represented in the project blocks is Douglas-fir with

pinegrass as the component understory grass species. Pinegrass is also very common in the other

habitat types represented in the treatment blocks. Pinegrass is a resilient species and should

naturally recover except where the soil profile has been highly mixed. Also common in this area

is Idaho fescue, Columbia brome, and blue wildrye. If seeding should be determined to be

needed to assist in recovery Idaho fescue and Columbia brome should be considered for a seed

mix depending on the forest habitat type targeted.

Post treatment monitoring of understory recovery should occur. If monitoring determines a need,

inputs in the form of native plant seeding and/or herbicide treatment should be considered to

assist in the recovery. Intermediate wheatgrass and Siberian wheatgrass should not be used for

ground cover as they are nonnative, persistent, and highly competitive. These nonnative species

although classified as forage plants seem to be less preferred to wildlife and livestock. Grazing

animals would go to the more preferred native plants first increasing the grazing pressure on

those plants. If something is needed to quickly provide ground cover, there are alternatives to

consider that are less competitive and do not persist for more than a couple years. These

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 25

alternatives may also provide a nurse crop benefit to native plants that germinate from native

seed planted. If the project manager determines a need for herbicide treatment and/or seeding the

Land Operations department can offer suggestions for herbicide treatment and seed mix if

assistance is needed.

Range Program Operations

Within forest project areas grazing is a secondary land use but is important to CTCR livestock

owners for success in their economic venture. Grazing can also provide positive impacts by

reducing accumulated fuel and reinvigorating grasses. Rangeland structural resources such as

fences, watering facilities, and cattle guards are an important component to the sustainable

stewardship of land designated for grazing and are very expensive to replace. The proposed

treatment blocks for this project are located within the Northern portion of Range Unit 19. The

Range Programs infrastructure GIS layer indicates very few structural assets associated with RU

19 that would likely be encountered during this project. Fences and cattle guards are of particular

concern. CTCR Range Program asks that when range infrastructure is encountered such as cattle

guards, watering facilities, and fences they be avoided as much as possible.

Noxious Species

Logging and related activities can introduce new invasive species to a site via uncleaned

equipment and soil disturbing activities or cause currently present invasive species to spread

more rapidly. In order to insure the action would not contribute to the introduction, continued

existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area,

or promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species, cleaning

equipment prior to using on site, washing equipment in a centralized area, re-seeding heavily

disturbed sites such as skid trails and landings is required. Monitoring of understory recovery

should occur and if monitoring determines a need, inputs in the form of native plant seeding

and/or herbicide treatment should be considered to assist recovery, giving a competitive

advantage to desired plant species. If the project manager determines a need for herbicide

treatment and/or seeding the Land Operations department can offer suggestions for herbicide

treatment and seed mix if assistance is needed.

4.6 Air Quality

Impacts to Air Resources for Alternative B: Proposed Action

Timber harvesting influences air quality, particularly through the emission of particulate matter

(PM). PM, a blend of solid particles and liquid droplets, permeates the air, originating from both

natural and human-made sources.

4.7 Cumulative Impacts

In addition to the Louie Creek timber harvest, three other timber harvests have occurred in the

Lower San Poil RMU in the past five years. This results in cumulative stress on the existing and

proposed transportation network through the use of heavy machinery and large vehicles.

Short- and long-term direct impacts and cumulative impacts to water resources have been

identified with the proposed Louie Creek Timber Sale project. Implementing the proposed action

would result in new and cumulative impacts to water quality and wetlands. Mitigation measures

to attenuate these impacts are outlined in Section 5.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 26

A complete analysis of cumulative impacts is detailed in the CTCR IRMP FEIS.

4.8 Social and Economic Impacts

The median household income on the Reservation according to the 2010 US Census was $35,

534. The CTCR’s natural resource management plays an important role in the local regional

economy on and off the Reservation. The Forestry, logging and milling industry accounts for

20% of the working population in the Region of Okanogan and Ferry Counties (CAR 2018). The

CTCR itself is the single largest employer in both Ferry County and Okanogan County (CAR

2019). The communities benefit from the CTCR Natural Resource Management not only directly

through employment but also the social programs funded directly from Tribal expenditure of

funds generated through Timber Harvest. More detailed discussion of the population dynamics

and social and economic impacts of CTCR’s natural resource management can be found in the

CTCR IRMP FEIS (CAR 2018).

5.0 Mitigation for Resource Protection

Soil and Water

Operators must ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMP) and standards for timber

harvest identified in Colville Tribal Code (CTC) Chapter 4-7: Forest Practices are followed in

order to minimize hydrologic disturbance resulting from actions taken under this alternative.

During road construction and reconstruction Planners and Operators must ensure that new/reconstructed roads meet the BMPs and standards for roads identified in CTC Chapter 4-7: Forest

Practices, and CTC Chapter 4-9 Hydraulic Projects if doing any culvert/bridge work. By meeting

these BMPs Planners and Operators would minimize the water quality, hydrologic process, and

aquatic habitat degradation associated with roads as a result of the actions taken under this

alternative. The transportation plan developed by the consultant incorporated input from the

Environmental Trust Department regarding stream adjacent roads, new road locations, and

culvert sizing and placement. The Forest Roads Engineer should continue to work with the

Watershed Restoration Program to remove any unnecessary road construction, and determine

where roads can be closed or decommissioned to reduce road density.

A preliminary transportation memo was distributed on 2/25/25 identifying roads that should not

be used due to stream or wetland adjacency. These segments were then field verified, and

adjustments were made accordingly. Several segments identified for review overlapped with

roads proposed for use in the sale; however, after field assessment, most of these segments were

deemed to not pose a risk to aquatic resources.

A layer was also provided of all restored roads within the project area, including

decommissioning, closure, and permanent abandonment. In the original preliminary

transportation memo, the following was stated: “The Restoration Program has completed several

projects in and around this timber sale area, including the 2015 East Sanpoil Watershed

Restoration project, and the 2018 25 Mile, Deadhorse, and Bridge Creek Watershed Restoration.

Seven road segments included in the 2015 project and two segments from the 2018 project are

within or directly adjacent to the Louie Creek sale area; these roads have been decommissioned

or permanently abandoned, and are not available for use.” None of the roads treated by the

Restoration Program have been proposed for use.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 27

In order to mitigate for impacts to soils from compaction, as well as risks to aquatic resources

from sediment mobilization and transportation to surface water from ground based harvest

methods (including tethered logging), the following mitigations were developed:

Table 11. Soil Compaction and surface water mitigation requirements.

Std_ID

Acres

Rx

Synthesis Recommendation

350017

350031

350039

350021

86.1203

124.598

48.6701

105.554

SW

OSR/SW

SW

CT/UN

352192

93.3068

ST

winter harvest preferred

locate landing FID 26 out of swale

keep landing FID 72 out of swale

winter harvest preferred

specify location of skid trail

Locate landing FID 67 outside of RMZ

Planners and Operators should develop practices that would effectively mitigate for increased

road surface erosion. Such practices should include a plan for permanent road decommissioning

to meet the IRMP objectives and comply with CTC Forest Practices Code.

Per Colville Confederated Tribes Law and Order Code [CCT 4-7-67(e)] Riparian Management

Zone buffers are required for wetlands. No harvest activities, movement of equipment or

vehicles, nor staging of materials or waste, should occur within the wetland or wetland RMZ

buffer. Wetland ecosystem presence and extent proximate to proposed harvest blocks has been

derived from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data. NWI mapping is a service of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and is conducted via remote sensing techniques which require field

verification for jurisdictional purposes. The project proponent is responsible for assuring all

wetlands are properly buffered based on ground conditions. The proposed forestry activities would

have minimal impact to wetland ecosystems through soil disturbance, hydrological alteration, and

disruption of vegetative community.

Field observations of National Wetlands Inventory mapped wetlands in the northern portion of

harvest block 350064 and associated new construction road do not provide sufficient wetland

indicators beyond the confined stream channel, so these map units were not included in calculations.

No road work and approximately 18 acres of harvest will occur within 200 ft of wetlands. Soil and

surface water mitigation requirements in table 11 were recommended to decrease soil erosion into

wetlands. Road segments identified in the Preliminary Transportation Analysis and field verified as

impacting wetlands were avoided. Extensive tree removal in Seed Tree Rx Blocks 352010 & 350064,

adjacent to CTCR Wetland E.SPL_132, along the NE Louie Creek Tributary, is predicted to

contribute to short-term rise in local water tables which influence the timing and seasonal persistence

of surface water, interrupt pollutant processing capacity of the wetlands, and disrupt growth habits of

wetland vegetation.

Table 12. Wetland RMZ requirements.

Block

Wetland

Location

CCT Water

Type

352010

350064

E.SPL_132

Louie Creek

Tributary

III

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

RMZ

(applied to each side of wetland)

100 feet

pg. 28

Upon completion of harvest or haul operations the following maintenance & monitoring actions

shall be performed:

● Clear all drainage improvements of obstructions

● Stabilize or remove unstable material and forest debris with potential to block drainage

improvements

● Repair or replace all damaged drainage improvements to fully restore their function

● Leave road surface in a condition that would prevent subsequent erosion, and keep runoff

within natural drainages, by outsloping, removing berms from the outside of roads,

providing drain dips, waterbars, rolling grade or other methods

Fish and Wildlife

Large blocks that reduce habitat and cover requirements for big game species would need wildlife

reserve patches to provide cover within 600 feet of all treatment areas. The blocks requiring reserve

patches are listed below in Table 13.

Table 13. Wildlife Reserve Patch Blocks.

Wildlife Reserve Patch

Comp

Block

# of Patches

1

350

3

1

2

350

6

2

3

350

7

1

4

350

10

3

5

350

29

2

6

350

31

2

7

350

64

1

8

352

10

2

9

352

192

1

Mitigating for the loss and reduction of habitat structures and functions discussed above would

minimize the negative impacts to wildlife habitats and species in the Louie Creek project area.

The following mitigation efforts are requested by the Wildlife Department in the case that

Alternative B “proposed action” is chosen and implemented.

•

•

•

•

•

If at any time during harvest a bald or golden eagle nest is found, cease work within .25

miles of nest and contact the District Biologist; all timber harvest is prohibited within 660

feet of active bald eagle nests (Klock 2001).

If at any time during harvest a Northern goshawk, great gray owl or other raptor nest

and/or territory are thought to be found, cease work within 750 feet and please contact the

District Biologist.

All lynx tracks, sightings, or dens should be reported to the District Biologist for

immediate assessment and review.

Fawning/calving habitat: all areas of deciduous trees within wet areas and draws should

be protected from disturbances.

Wildlife corridors should be setup to allow for natural movement between seasonal and

daily habitats.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 29

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Blocks that are scheduled to be cable logged need to have their reserve patches and/or

wildlife travel corridors setup in a way that would provide habitat for wildlife while still

allowing the operation of a cable system to be operational.

Snags in harvest units should be retained in clumps with their associated understory

vegetation intact to insure their retention after site preparation. Green leave trees would

be identified and retained as future snags in all areas. The majority of large diameter trees

should be left standing

All native fruit bearing shrub and tree species should be protected and retained.

Leaving more than the required 2 snags per acre would help mitigate some of the losses

of large woody debris and recruitment trees.

In areas where large blocks of timber would be treated under the burn RX prescription

visual shields should be left to provide cover and escape routes for wildlife. This would

reduce fragmentation of the habitat and decrease the vulnerability of big game to legal

and illegal harvest. These areas would act as wildlife corridors and should be setup to

allow for natural movement between seasonal and daily habitats.

Blocks that have a burn RX work being done either in conjunction or independently from

timber harvest need to ensure that all large woody debris targets are being met. In

addition in blocks that are piled a minimum of 2-3 piles per acre need to be left on site

and not burned.

All large diameter woody debris should be left on the ground to provide habitat for a

wide range of species.

All wetlands should be protected with maximum RMZ lengths and should all be

protected from equipment entry. RMZs should be measured out from the edge of the

riparian vegetation instead of from the ordinary high water mark.

Culverts should be placed at a gradient of less than 2% unless the terrain and profile of

the stream doesn’t allow for it. All culverts should be fortified at the entry to the culvert

as well as the outlet to prevent erosion near the placement of the pipe. Culverts should be

countersunk to allow deep enough water for fish to pass through and fill material should

be placed in culvert to mimic the natural stream components and help juvenile fish get up

the stream channel.

Implementation of bank stabilization, sediment traps and road surface improvements are

encouraged to decrease risk of sediment delivery and runoff into surrounding watersheds.

To reduce soil compaction and ground disturbances seasonal restrictions and slash mats

should be used to protect sensitive and/or highly erodible soils.

Areas where there is considerable soil disturbance should be planted with native seed to

reduce encroachment and establishment of noxious weeds, ie landings and highly

disturbed skid trails.

With the construction of new roads, cut banks should be kept to a minimum due to the

tendency of water to rise to the surface when there is an interruption of the hydrologic

environment. Water seeping out of cut banks leads to erosion of road surfaces and

ultimately sediment delivery to streams.

In order to reduce disturbance, harassment and increased hunting pressure, all roads that

are not considered main access routes should be closed and decommissioned following

the project. Multilayered cover should be left along roads with high vehicular use.

Minimize the amount of use on stream adjacent roads and prioritize them for permanent

closure.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 30

•

Infrastructure (culverts/bridges) should allow for passage of all life stages of fish, and for

water, sediment, and wood/debris during 100 year flow events.

Cultural Resources

The Tribal Archaeologist would brief the Timber Sale Officer (TSO) and others working in the

13 Mile project area regarding the steps taken to identify and report cultural resources. If

resources are found, the TSO shall ensure that all work stops in the vicinity of the find, that steps

are taken to protect the find, and that the Tribal Archaeologist is called immediately. No work

shall resume until the THPO has approved a management plan.

Range Operations

The Range Programs infrastructure GIS layer indicates very few structural assets associated with

RU 19 that would likely be encountered during this project. Fences and cattle guards are of

particular concern. CTCR Range Program asks that when range infrastructure is encountered

such as cattle guards, watering facilities, and fences they be avoided as much as possible. If

range infrastructure is damaged during project activity the project proponent would be

responsible for notifying the Range Program and seeing that damage is repaired in a timely

manner. If cattle guards are located on roads that need to be used for heavy traffic, they should

be assessed for the ability to handle the weight of large trucks and equipment. The Range

Program can assist with that if contacted in a timely manner. If it is determined the cattle guard

does not meet specifications for the anticipated weight of the traffic, and there is no way to

bypass it, the cattle guard may need to be temporarily removed. If this is the case it is essential

the Range Program be notified 48 hours prior to the removal. The removed cattle guard would be

reinstalled by the proponent of the project unless other arrangements are made with the CTCR

Range Program.

The impacted Range Unit 19 has approximately 25 pairs of livestock permitted on it. Range Unit

fences and cattle guards need to remain functional, with any gates closed and damage to fences

quickly repaired. The Range Program needs to be notified if an infrastructure problem becomes

apparent. The Range Program would also be notified when burning occurs in the forest project

area before the turnout date of May 15th so the Range program can move livestock to an area on

the range unit that would not be affected.

6.0 List of Preparers

Name

Malcolm Vollmer & Marc LeClair

Mason Bruce & Girard Natural Resource

Consultants

Ossian Laspa

Bryan Jones

Jessica Utt, Brandton Harvey

Charlotte Axthelm

Stacy King

Guy Moura

Amanda Hoke

Chasity Swan

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Contributions

Forestry

Wildlife

Fish

Range/Noxious Weeds

Hydrology

Wetlands

History/Archaeology

History/Archaeology

Editor

pg. 31

7.0 Literature Cited

Axthelm, Charlotte. 2024. Water Quality Assessment Report for the Confederated Tribes of the

Colville Reservation 2018-2023. Technical. Nespelem, WA. CTCR.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2018. General Land Office Patent Records. Available

online at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/

Center for Applied Research, Inc (CAR). 2018. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 2015 Integrated Resource

Management Plan.

Center for Applied Research, Inc (CAR). 2015. Results of the 2014 Colville Reservation

Community Survey.

Colville Confederated Tribes. 2023. Forest Practices Handbook. Colville Tribal Code

Chapter 4-7 Forest Practices. Nespelem, WA. 89 pp.

Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT). 2007. Cultural Resource Management Plan of the

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Prepared by the CCT

History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.

Colville Confederated Tribes (2010). CCT Chapter 4-8 Water Quality Standards. Available

from:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/572d09c54c2f85ddda868946/t/5824a1774402431a6

8a34e9d/1478795640147/4-8-Waterqualitystandards.pdf

CTCR. 2015. Integrated Resource Management Plan 2015. Prepared by The Center for Applied

Research, Inc.

CTCR. 2023. Forest Management Plan for the Colville Indian Reservation. Prepared by Jeremy

Hunt. Approved June 23, 2023.

Dubé, K., Megahan, W., McCalmon, M. 2004. Washington road surface erosion model prepared

for the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA.

Goheen, E. M., & Willhite, E. A. (2021). Field guide to the common diseases and insect pests of

Oregon and Washington conifers (Rev. ed., R6-FHP-RO-2021-01). USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Gough, Stan. 1990. A Cultural Resources Overview, Sampling Survey, and Management Plan,

Colville Indian Reservation, Okanogan and Ferry Counties, Washington. Eastern

Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-74. Archaeological and

Historical Services. Cheney, WA.

Hawksworth, F. G. (1977). The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system (General Technical Report

RM-48). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station.

Hunner, Walt. 2014. Hydrology Report. Technical. Nespelem, WA: CTCR.

Hunt, Clair. 1916. Diminished Colville Indian Reservation (map). General Land Office,

Department of the Interior.

Klock, Glen O. 2000. Colville Indian Reservation: Integrated Resource Management Plan 20002014: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Western Resources Analysis, Inc.

Wenatchee, WA.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 32

Klock, Glen O. 2001. Colville Indian Reservation: Record of Decision and Plan for Integrated

Resources Management. Western Resources Analysis, Inc. Wenatchee, WA.

Mason, Bruce, and Girard, Inc. April 8, 2025. Project Proposal Form: Louie Creek Timber Sale

2026 PPF. Nespelem, WA. BIA

Marker, D., R. Thomon, T. Bosworth, T. Li and C. Tornow. 2012 Upper Columbia River Site

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Tribal Consumption and Resource Use

Survey. Final Draft Report. Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10. Westat. Rockville, MD.

Meyer, Jon. 2006. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 13 Mile Forest Management

Project. On file at the Colville Tribes History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.

Shannon, D. & G. Moura. 2007. Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake Traditional Cultural

Property Research 2006 Technical Report. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of

Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared by CCT History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem,

WA.

Society of American Foresters. 1998. The dictionary of Forestry. Helms, J.A. editor. The society

of American foresters. Bethesda MD.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010). Colville National Forest: Collaborative Forest Landscape

Restoration Program proposal, Stevens and Ferry Counties, Washington. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Colville National Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 23, Northeast Washington Recovery Unit,

Washington. 73 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 33

8.0 Appendices

8.1 Project Maps and Activity Table

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 34

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 35

Forest Activities Table

Std_ID

350002

350003

350005

350006

350007

Acres

47

80

42

120

52

Operab

SKID

SKID

SKID

SKID

SKID

Rx

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

Site

Prep

MPB

MPB

MPB

MPB

MPB

350010

104 SKID

ST/IC

MPB

350017

350021

80 TETH/SKID

86 SKID

ST/IC

OSR/CT

MPB

MPB

350026

88 SKID

ST/IC

MPB

350029

113 SKID

ST

BB

350031

350039

125 SKID

49 TETH/SKID

OSR/ST/CT BB

SW

MPB

350043

350050

46 TETH/SKID

60 TETH/SKID

ST

SW

BB

MPB

350064

350077

92 SKID/TETHER ST

144 SKID

SW

BB

MPB

352010

173 SKID

ST

BB

352192

352204

101 SKID

63 SKID

ST

ST/CT

BB

MPB

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

Regen

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

150 PP; 150

WL

Est

Harvest

Vol.

(Mmbf)

504

778

413

1207

549

1099

885

783

2277

2720

1798

539

463

640

1232

2822

2241

2054

1069

pg. 36

8.2 Consultation

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 37

ESA Section 7 Consultation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 38

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 39

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 40

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 41

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 42

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 43

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 44

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 45

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 46

8.3 Preliminary Transportation Analysis

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 47

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 48

Consultation was initiated by the Watershed Analyst on February 25, 2024 when the preliminary

transportation analysis memo was distributed. To supplement the consultation the following

resources and individuals were consulted during the preparation of this document:

Stacy King, CTCR Wetlands Specialist, Nespelem, WA.

Joseph Ezell, CTCR Restoration Program Manager, Nespelem, WA.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 49

8.4 Technical Supplement: Prescription Descriptions

The following silvicultural treatments pertain to density management in combination with insect and

disease preventative management and forest protection: Seed Tree / Overstory Removal (ST/OR), and

Pre-commercial Thinning (PCT). Density management is a preventative treatment to help reduce the risk

of potential bark beetle infestation and improves the overall health of individual trees by reducing the

competition for limited resources such water and nutrients. Bark Beetle activity including western pine

beetle, mountain pine beetle, pine engraver beetle, and Douglas-fir beetles is present and typically occurs

on overly dense stands of conifers, and sometimes after some kind of natural or man-made disturbance.

At preferred stocking levels, the individual conifer trees are more vigorous and able to fight off bark

beetle attacks with their natural defenses. In addition, density management treatments will help to reduce

the risk of a wildfire becoming a catastrophic disturbance; by reducing the amount of ladder fuels present

and the potential of a wildfire moving into the crowns of the trees. Stands with high densities are prone to

insect attacks and increased mortality.

This section is supplemental information regarding the prescriptions for cutting of timber treatments. It

does not contain site specific information on the project area, but it does give a background regarding the

various prescriptions prescribed in each block. A detailed stand prescription for every unit is available at

the Omak-Nespelem Forestry District Office.

Seed Tree/Overstory Removal (ST/OR) is a combination of a regeneration method and an intermediate

treatment. ST/OR blocks contain a mixture of desirable tree species, of various ages, with manageable

levels of insects and diseases. These stands contain stocking levels of non-commercial sized trees (i.e.

seedlings, saplings, and pole sized) of a species that are desirable to manage. Typical concerns include

overstocking of non-commercial sized trees, over mature trees, dwarf mistletoe in the overstory trees, and

under-stocked areas that could allow the encroachment of non-native species (i.e. noxious weeds). The

DFC of a ST/OR block is a naturally regenerated stand of healthy, desirable seral species such as

ponderosa pine and/or western larch at the desirable stocking level. This is achieved by maintaining and

protecting the established regeneration during logging operations, removing overstory trees with dwarf

mistletoe, and by leaving overstory trees for a seed source to regenerate the under-stocked areas. After a

stand has been regenerated naturally or artificially, an Overstory Removal treatment may be prescribed to

remove the remaining overstory trees, especially if dwarf mistletoe is present. Typically, after the

Overstory Removal is completed, a pre-commercial thinning will be implemented to thin the stand to the

desired stocking level (150 to 300 trees per acre). There will be 5 to 15 trees per acre left to provide a

seed source, depending on how much of the stand still needs to be regenerated.

Regeneration Cut with Reserve Trees (RRT) The blocks contain undesirable tree species, of various

ages, with unmanageable levels of forest insects and disease problems. Typical concerns include: overly

dense stands, predominance of climax tree species, over mature tree ages, impending tree mortality due to

forest insect and disease problems, high severity of dwarf mistletoe in all conifer species, root-rot

diseases, defoliating insects, bark beetles, and competing vegetation. These blocks have serious health

and productivity concerns. The (DFC) of a RRT block is an artificially regenerated stand of healthy, seral

tree species. This is achieved by harvesting most of the commercial-sized trees, slashing and/or weeding

all remaining, undesirable trees especially if the advance regeneration is showing sign of insect and

disease problems such as dwarf mistletoe, implementing site preparation (broadcast burning or excavator

scarification) and planting ponderosa pine and/or western larch seedlings. Ten years after the

implementation of the site preparation and planting, the desired stocking for the stand would be at least

300 trees per acre or supplemental planting of conifers would need to occur.

Seed Tree (ST) is a regeneration method treatment. Seed Tree blocks are similar to RRT’s, except they

have enough healthy over-story trees of ponderosa pine and western larch to provide a seed source for

natural regeneration. ST blocks contain a majority of undesirable tree species, of various ages, with some

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 50

type of need to initiate the initial stand development stage with natural regeneration. Typical concerns

include: the age of the stand, species composition of the stand, insufficient stocking level of the stand, and

unmanageable levels of insect and disease problems such as high severity of dwarf mistletoe in all conifer

species, root-rot diseases, defoliating insects, bark beetles, and competing vegetation. There are a

sufficient number of seral, tree species within the block that can left on site to produce seed for natural

regeneration of seedlings. These blocks have serious health and productivity concerns. The DFC of a ST

block is a naturally regenerated stand of healthy, seral tree species such as ponderosa pine or western

larch. This is achieved by retaining specific seed trees, approximately 7-15 trees per acre, to remain on

site, harvesting all other trees of commercial size. Follow logging operations with a slashing and/or

weeding if feasible of all remaining, non-commercial trees, especially if the advance regeneration is

showing symptoms of insect and disease problems such as dwarf mistletoe. Next, some type of site

preparation (broadcast burning or excavator scarification) will need to be implemented, to prepare the site

for the establishment of natural regeneration. Potentially some artificial regeneration may be implemented

in a ST block to speed up occupancy of the site and supplement the desired natural regeneration. Ten

years after the implementation of the site preparation, the desired stocking for the stand would be at least

300 trees per acre or supplemental planting of conifers will need to occur. When the stand has been

adequately regenerated to desired levels approximately 5 to 20 years, an Overstory Removal may be

implemented at any time, especially if the overstory trees are showing symptoms of insect & disease

problems such as dwarf mistletoe.

Shelterwood (SW) Blocks contain a mix of undesirable and desirable tree species, of various ages with

some type of need to initiate the initial stand development of natural regeneration such as the age of the

stand, species composition of the stand, insufficient stocking level of the stand, and insect and disease

problems. Typically, there is a large number of the preferred seral, tree species on-site to provide both a

seed source and shelter for initial stand development. Some underlying concerns such as harshness of the

site (dry and rocky), the need to provide shade and shelter (i.e. micro-environment) for stand development

of seedlings, aesthetic appeal, and the desire to utilize the existing stand as much as possible necessitate

the requirement to leave a larger number of trees per acre compared to a “ST” treatment. The (DFC) of a

“SW” block is a naturally regenerated stand of healthy, seral tree species. This is achieved by retaining

specific seed and shade trees, approximately 12-30 trees per acre, to remain on site, harvesting all other

trees of commercial size, slashing and/or weeding all remaining especially if the advance regeneration is

showing sign of insect and disease problems such as dwarf mistletoe, undesirable trees and implementing

site preparation to the site to prepare the ground for the establishment of natural regeneration. This is

achieved by selecting certain seed trees and shelter trees to remain on site, harvesting all others of

commercial size, slashing all remaining, undesirable trees, and broadcast burning the site to prepare the

ground for natural regeneration. Ten years after the implementation of the site preparation, the desired

stocking for the stand would be at least 300 trees per acre or supplemental planting of conifers would

need to occur.

Commercial Thin (CT) Commercial Thin (CT) is an intermediate treatment. CT blocks contain desirable

tree species, of a manageable age (i.e., 60-120 years) with manageable levels of insects and disease

problems. A typical concern is overstocking. The overstocking of stands lead to low tree vigor,

suppressed growth, higher susceptibility to insect and disease potential problems, and other immediate

and long-term health and productivity concerns. The desired future condition (DFC) of a commercial

thinning is a healthy stand of desired tree species, growing at desired stocking levels of 60 to 80 Basal

Area depending on the site. This is achieved by thinning or harvesting the stand to the desired stocking

levels. These prescriptions are used for harvesting trees in order to redistribute and maximize growth

potential on desirable trees, and to benefit the residual stand quality.

Improvement Cut (IC) An Improvement Cut is a combination of a regeneration method and an

intermediate treatment. IC blocks contain a mix of undesirable and desirable tree species of multiple-ages

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 51

that need a variety of silvicultural treatments to address the typical concerns such as overly dense stands,

predominance of climax tree species, over mature trees, impending tree mortality due to forest insect and

disease problems, high severity of dwarf mistletoe in all conifer species, root-rot diseases, defoliating

insects, bark beetles, and competing vegetation. Typically, an IC treatment occurs on stands that have

clumps of multiple-age classes of ponderosa pine with low severity of dwarf mistletoe. For example some

areas of the stand may have clumps that need density management similar to Commercial Thin, while an

area containing openings with established advanced regeneration of a preferred seral species can be

managed like an Overstory Removal to release the natural regeneration, and another area dominated by

Douglas-fir with unmanageable dwarf mistletoe with scattered, large sawtimber of ponderosa pine and

western larch could be managed similar to a Seed Tree or Shelterwood treatment. In other words, these

stands are very variable and diverse in different age-classes and structures (3 or more layers). The stand

could have trees that range from 5 to 150 years old. It would not be feasible to break each type of

treatment into small blocks because the stand’s high variability occurs in small patches or clumps. The

Desired Future Condition (DFC) for this type of stand is to manage the saplings, poles, and small

sawtimber with a density management regime (i.e., Commercial Thin), and to retain seed trees to

regenerate any natural or created openings with natural regeneration of a preferred, seral species.

Eventually the stand should look more even aged, after the openings are naturally regenerated and an

Overstory Removal has been implemented to remove the large seed trees.

Pre-commercial Thin (PCT) is a cutting of non-merchantable sized trees to favor preferred conifer

species and phenotypically superior trees, at a determined spacing guideline such as 12 to 16 foot spacing.

At preferred stocking levels, the individual conifer trees are more vigorous and able to combat insect and

disease problems with their natural defenses. This treatment does not yield trees of commercial value.

Thinning the stand increases individual tree growth. This creates larger diameter trees than a non-thinned

stand, and subsequently improves merchantability and value.

Site Preparation Techniques

Typically, Regeneration Method Treatments (RRT, ST, and SW) on tractor logging ground will have

Excavator/Scarification/Pile for site preparation which will involve pile burning afterwards. Some of the

Excavator/Scarification/Pile objectives are: 1) to reduce the amount of hazardous ladder fuels, 2) reduce

vegetative competition for artificial and natural seedlings, 3) to scarify the duff layer down to bare

mineral soil, to create a seed bed for natural regeneration of ponderosa pine and western larch, 4) to create

a planting spot for artificial regeneration. Mechanical site preparation also allows for the protection of

existing regeneration. Periodic underburning on a 7-to-15-year return interval is also part of the longrange DFC for the lower elevations of the project area, especially the areas dominated by ponderosa pine

and western larch.

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 52

8.5 Army Corp of Engineers Best Management Practicess

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 53

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 54

8.6 CTCR Holistic Goal and Desired Future Conditions

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 55

Louie Creek BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-12

pg. 56