# DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aconfederated_colville%3A97446e41c2f024e6 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## Text 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aconfederated_colville%3A97446e41c2f024e6. Public record. Not legal advice.