DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Tribal code
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Environmental Assessment for the proposed Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management
Project on the Colville Reservation, Ferry 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, has prepared a
final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project on the Colville Reservation, Ferry 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 Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project. The activities under the
agency proposed action to harvest approximately 10.6 million board feet of timber on approximately
1,342 acres of tribally owned lands within the Inchelium District of the Colville Reservation in Ferry
County, Washington. The activities will occur under guidelines in the Colville Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Indian Reservation 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: 2026.02.19 14:29:45 -08'00'
Randall Friedlander
Colville Agency Superintendent
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
Date
Finding of No Significant Impact
Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project
Colville Reservation, Ferry County, Washington
Based on the attached final Environmental Assessment’s (EA) for the Simpson Lake 2026 Forest
Management Project for a proposal to harvest 10 million board feet of timber on approximately 1,342
acres of tribally owned lands in the Inchelium District of the Colville Reservation in Ferry County,
Washington, I have determined that by implementation of the agency proposed action and
environmental mitigation measures as specified in the EA, the proposed Simpson Lake 2026 Forest
Management Project, will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. In
accordance with Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
This determination is supported by the following:
1. Agency and Tribal Interdisciplinary Team involvement was conducted and environmental issues
related to development of the Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project were identified.
Alternative courses of action and mitigation measures were developed in response to environmental
concerns and issues. Tribal community outreach was conducted (CTCR Integrated Resource
Management Plan (IRMP) (2015) and associated Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS)(2018). A public field tour was given of the project area in June of 2025 (EA
section 2.1).
2. The EA discloses the environmental consequences of the “proposed action” and “no action”
alternatives.
3. Protective measures will be levied to protect air (Clean Air Act as amended 42 USC 7401 et seq.),
noise, and water quality (Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as outlined in the
Mitigation Measures (Section 4.7 of EA), CTCR Forest Practices Handbook (Colville Tribal Law
and Order Code Title 4-7), CTCR IRMP (CTCR 2015) and associated FEIS (CAR 2018).
4. The proposed action will not jeopardize threatened and endangered species (Threatened and
Endangered Species Act of 1983, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (EA Section 4.3, and Appendix
B).
5. There are no adverse effects on historic properties (National Historic Preservation Act, as amended
16 U.S.C. 470) for the purpose of 36 CFR 800.9 (b) by preserving archeological value through
conduct of appropriate research in accordance with applicable standards and guidelines. Should
undiscovered archeological remains be encountered during project ground-disturbing activities,
work will stop in the area of discovery and the stipulations 36 CFR 800.11 be followed. The BIA
Regional Archaeologist and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) were consulted for this
project (EA Section 4.4, Appendix B).
6. The proposed action will not affect public health or safety.
7. The proposed action will not cause a significant effect to energy resources (Energy Policy Act of
2005), water resources, wetlands (E.O. 11990), or flood plains (E.O. 11988). The Simpson Lake
2026 Forest Management Project will not result in discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. or
in surface water quality issues (Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (EA section
4.2).
8. The cumulative effects to the environment are mitigated to avoid or minimize effects of
implementation of the proposed project (EA Section 4.6).
9. The proposed action will not affect unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the
proximity to park lands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
10. It is unlikely that timber harvesting would have any detrimental effect on the functional integrity of
the land classification and the CTCR does not have future plans to develop the prime farmland
within this project area.
12. There are approximately 500 acres of mapped wetlands within the project area footprint. All
wetlands and surface water are buffered to minimize impacts of the project to these water systems
(CTC Chapter 4-7 Forest Practices, Section 4.2 of EA).
13. The Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project will not have significant impacts on natural
and unique geographic features such as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge
lands; wilderness areas; wild and scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or prime drinking
water aquifers; national monuments; eagles and migratory birds, and other ecologically significant
areas.
14. The proposed action will not produce highly controversial effects on the quality of the human
environment and will not have unresolved conflicts concerning alternate uses of available
resources.
15. The proposed action will not have highly uncertain effects on the human environment or involve
unique or unknown risks.
16. The proposed action will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or
represent a decision in principle about a consideration.
17. The Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project is not related to other actions with individual
insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects.
18. The proposed action will not affect American Indian Religious Freedom (42 U.S.C. 1996). The
action will not limit access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites on federal lands, by
Indian religious practitioners, and/or adversely affect the physical integrity of such sites (Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 32).
19. 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 will 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 would 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. (EA Section
4.7)
20. The proposed action will not contribute to the disposal of solid or hazardous waste (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976; 43 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.).
21. The proposed action will not be a violation of federal, state, local, or tribal law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment.
Digitally signed by RANDALL FRIEDLANDER
Date: 2026.02.19 14:28:42 -08'00'
Date
Randall Friedlander, Superintendent
Colville Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
Simpson Lake 2026 Forest
Management Project
Environmental Assessment
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Colville Confederated Tribes
of the Colville Indian Reservation
Proposed Action: The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian
Reservation propose the Simpson Lake 2026 Project. The project area lies within the Inchelium
District of the Colville Indian Reservation. This project would harvest approximately 10 million
board feet of timber from harvest on 1,342 acres and 951 acres of non-harvest stand improvement
treatments in the Simpson Lake project area. This project would require 3.62 miles of road
construction and 18.22 miles of road reconstruction.
Official Decision Maker:
For further information:
Randall Friedlander, Superintendent, Colville Agency, BIA
Chasity Swan
IRMP Coordinator
PO BOX 150
Nespelem, WA 99155
Chasity.swan.bia@colvilletribes.com
February 18, 2026
1
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................3
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................3
1.3 Issues, Concerns and Objectives ............................................................................................3
2.0 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................. 4
2.1 General Discussion: Alternative Design ................................................................................4
2.2 Alternative A: No Action .......................................................................................................4
2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action .............................................................................................5
3.0 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5
3.1 Forestry...................................................................................................................................5
3.2 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................6
3.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................7
3.4 Range Management..............................................................................................................10
4.0 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 11
4.1 Forestry.................................................................................................................................11
4.2 Hydrology.............................................................................................................................12
4.3 Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................................................18
4.4 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................................21
4.5 Range Management..............................................................................................................22
4.6 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................24
4.7 Mitigations……………………………………………………...…………………….……24
5.0 List of Preparers.......................................................................................................... 29
6.0 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................ 30
7.0 Appendixes .................................................................................................................. 32
7.1 Project Map and Activity Table ...........................................................................................32
7.2 Consultation .........................................................................................................................34
7.3 F&W Road Closures and ETD Preliminary Transportation Analysis .................................44
7.4 Army Corp of Engineers Road BMPs ..................................................................................48
2
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
1.0 Purpose and Need
1.1 Introduction
Foresters of the Inchelium District of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR)
propose harvest of timber from the Simpson Lakes 2026 Project Area. This would entail removal
of about 10 million board feet (MMBF) of timber from about 1,342 acres of tribally managed lands
in the Simpson Lakes 2026 Project Area. This harvest would require about 3.64 miles of road
construction and about 18.55 miles of road reconstruction.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action
The federal action (40 CFR 1508.18) is the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approval of the
Simpson Lake 2026 Forest Management Project, which triggers compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC § 4321-4375) and associated regulations (40 CFR
1500-1508, 43 CFR 46). This Environmental Assessment is prepared to meet BIA’s NEPA
responsibilities. The purpose of the action is to be able to implement the activities under the federal
action to meet the primary need of revenue for the Tribe.
The CTCR have designated a commercial land base where timber is grown for profit. Timber
growing, harvesting and processing are major sources of income for the Colville Reservation, the
tribal membership and other groups in the local population. The Colville Tribes’ 2015 Integrated
Resource Management Plan (IRMP) calls for an annual harvest of 77.1 MMBF of timber and calls
the capture as much mortality volume as possible.
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. The
issues, concerns and objectives of the CTCR are outlined in the 2015 CTCT IRMP and will not be
discussed in detail in this document.
Forestry Objectives
1. Capture the volume of dead and dying trees, provide income and employment for the
CTCR. Bring commercial forest acres into regulation.
Indicators:
a. Acres harvested by each alternative
b. Estimated stumpage produced by each alternative
c. Estimated volume of timber harvested per alternative
Hydrology Objectives
1. To minimize erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters and prevent
streambank/wetland disturbance. Maintain ecological function of soils and prevent
landslides.
3
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
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
1. 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
debri.
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
2.0 Alternatives Considered
2.1 General Discussion: Alternative Design
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
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 created to fulfill the purpose and need.
A public field tour of the project area was conducted in June of 2025. Project goals and objectives
were discussed and input from the tribal membership was obtained.
2.2 Alternative A: No Action
The “No Action Alternative” includes the BIA not approving the Simpson Lake 2026 Project at
this time and/or the BIA and Tribe would not be implementing activities under the project. Under
this alternative no timber harvest, road construction, or other manipulation of resources would take
place.
4
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action
The Proposed Action Alternative includes the BIA approving the Simpson Lake 2026 Project and
the BIA and Tribe implementing the activities under the project. This Alternative does meet the
Purpose and Need of the project.
The Proposed Action includes timber harvest of roughly 10 MBF from 1,342 acres with 3.62 miles
of road construction and 18.55 miles of road reconstruction. A considerable amount of road
belonging to Ferry County (21.0 miles) would also be used to transport logs out of the vicinity, as
would 14.8 miles of BIA System roads.
Approximately 949 acres of the proposed harvest would be regeneration harvest designed to
replace existing stands with young, thrifty, evenaged stands of more well-adapted species. Of this,
603 acres are proposed for seed tree cutting (ST), 346 acres would be shelterwood cutting (SW)
and 189 acres would be overstory removal (OR).
360 acres of the proposed harvest would consist of intermediate treatments. These are designed
to improve species composition, reduce stocking in overstocked stands, reduce insect and/or
disease occurrence, provide a monetary return, and harvest imminent mortality. These treatments
would include 204 acres of commercial thinning (CT) and 189 acres of overstory removal (OR).
This proposal also includes treatments that would not yield any merchantable wood volume – 951
acres of stand culture is also proposed in the project area. These treatments are intended to further
improve stand conditions, much like the intermediate treatments above but no timber volume
would be harvested. Treatments include: 167 acres of precommercial thinning; 22 acres of
planting; 204 acres of combined rehabilitation, scarification and sanitation (accompanied by
girdling of diseased overstory trees); and 498 acres of sanitation.
The above treatments are accompanied by 2,378 acres of proposed slash disposal/site preparation.
3.0 Affected Environment
3.1 Forestry
General Discussion
The Simpson Lakes Project Area is on the Inchelium District of the Colville Reservation located
in northeastern Washington State. The location and general condition of the project is shown
above in the Proposed Action. In short, this 20,000 acre project area is proposed to yield about
10 MMBF of lumber, in this entry. The project area contains parts of several stream drainages in
the extreme northeast corner of the Colville Reservation. The project area is intermixed
ownership with the Colville Tribes, the Bureau of Reclamation, and fee simple lands.
Table 1. Ownership of acres in Simpson Lake project area.
Total Acres in project area
20,000
Allotted Lands
1,283
Fee Lands
6,900
Freeboard Lands
420
Total =
8,603
Remainder (Tribal Trust) =
11,397
5
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Current Forest Conditions
The forest ecosystems of the mountain west evolved in the presence of fire. The general health of
the forest – its ability to sustain itself – is dependent on periodic fire. Although specific natural
fire cycles vary from site to site, fire has influenced every stand in the region since the last retreat
of the glaciers 12,000 to 14,000 years ago.
Beginning about 100 to 120 years ago, forestry organizations have suppressed fires with increasing
effectiveness. In addition, grazing has been sharply curtailed on the landscape. These conditions
are true of the Simpson Lakes 2021 project area. The result is that fire has been artificially
excluded as a force in ecosystem development and maintenance. Fire exclusion especially impacts
vegetation on the ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir plant communities within the Simpson
Lakes area. Exclusion of fire: (1) increases the ingrowth of plant species that are less adapted to
the site, (2) increases stocking (total living vegetative biomass) far above historic levels, (3)
increases fuel loading, and (4) encourages the development of fuel ladders (which lead fires from
the ground to the crowns resulting in hot fires of long duration and damage to the soil resource and
therefore the productivity of the site). The resulting is - vegetation that is stressed from
competition and therefore more susceptible to insects and disease. The subsequent increase in
fuels and the development of “ladder” fuels in the absence of fire, produces stands of vegetation
that are more likely to sustain catastrophic, stand-replacing wildfires.
These at-risk, plant communities make up 100% of the Project Area. About 22% of those are
currently in a “high hazard” condition.
Another aspect of forest health – that of direct damage to trees by insects, diseases, and parasitic
plants – is apparent in the project area. The most prevalent damaging agents are:
x
x
x
x
Douglas-fir beetle (present in 3.25% of the project area)
Ponderosa pine bark beetles (3.62% of the project area)
Root disease (39.2% of the project area)
Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp )
o 2.3 % of the acres are infected with ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe
o 3.0% of the acres are infected with western larch dwarf mistletoe
o 76% of the acres are infected with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe
3.2 Hydrology
The present condition of the affected environment is variable across the project area. The affected
environment is influenced by the Simpson Lakes project area in the Inchelium District of the
Colville Reservation located in northeastern Washington State. This project area contains the entire
Barnaby Creek, Columbia River 01, Columbia River 02, Columbia River 03, Little Jim Creek
Watershed Management Units (WMU).
The Simpson Lakes project area is contained within the Hall Creek Resource Management Unit
(RMU); this drainage is not influenced by any drainages on the Reservation. The Hall Creek RMU
contains ten WMUs in addition to the five within the project area; these WMUs are separated from
the project area by Rainy Ridge. WMUs to the west of the project area flow west into Hall Creek,
while the watercourses in the project area do not feed Hall Creek before flowing into the Columbia
River.
6
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
In addition to direct impacts in the Little Jim Creek and Barnaby Creek watersheds, landscapescale impacts from activity in the Simpson Lakes project area would be detected in the Columbia
River. 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 2020), four other green timber sales have occurred in the Hall Creek RMU: Elbow Lake
(2020), Sleepy Hollow (2021), Hall Creek (2023), and Lynx Mountain (2024). Additionally,
49,018.3 acres in the Hall Creek RMU have burned in the last 5 years, most of which occurred
during the Inchelium Complex (2020), Summit Trail (2021), and Lynx Mountain (2025) fires. Of
these major fires, only 117 acres of the Summit Trail fire, and 693 acres of the Inchelium Highway
fire burned within the project area. All of these major fires were followed by salvage harvest within
the Hall Creek RMU, though none within the Simpson Lakes project area or any watersheds
influencing it. A portion of the Simpson Lakes project area is located within Range Unit 69.
Water resources in the project area include 61.85 miles of streams and 501.75 acres of wetlands,
as well as an unknown number of seeps and springs. Little Jim Creek and Barnaby Creek are the
major watercourses through the project area, flowing northwest to southeast before joining the
Columbia River. Tributaries to Little Jim and Barnaby Creek include type 3 streams, which are
generally perennial and fish-bearing, and type 4 streams, which are generally intermittent, highgradient headwater streams. Little Jim Creek and Barnaby Creek are both perennial and fishbearing.
Water quality is monitored at the mouth of Barnaby Creek, immediately upstream of the
confluence with the Columbia River. Water quality monitoring and analysis from 2018-2023
identified exceedances of the standards outlined in Colville Tribal Code 4-8 Water Quality
Standards (Axthelm 2024). Barnaby Creek exceeded the temperature standard for Class II waters
(18°C) on 7/29/2020 (19.4°C), and again on 6/21/2021 (18.6°C). Under the pH standard for Class
IIl waters, Barnaby Creek should maintain a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. Values of 8.54 and 8.68 were
recorded on 10/31/2018 and 10/21/2019, respectively. Additionally, during the analysis period
Barnaby Creek did not record a mean turbidity in exceedance of the 6.45 NTU turbidity standard
(5 NTU above background, 1.45); however, in 11 out of 33 observations (33%), individual
turbidity values exceeded the standard, with a high value of 46.6 on 5/2/18. There were no recorded
exceedances of the dissolved oxygen standard, and lab metrics (fecal coliform, e.coli, ammonia,
nitrate/nitrite, TKN and orthophosphates) were not analyzed at this location.
3.3 Cultural Resources
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
“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 CTCR
Cultural Resource Management Plan (CCT, 2007), the cultural resources overview for the Colville
Reservation (Gough, 1990), and the FEIS for the CTCR 2015 IRMP (CAR, 2018).
The Simpson Lakes Forestry Project is within the ancestral lands of the s[ࡊއL\íݦáS (Colville) 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
IDPLOLHV7KHPDMRULW\VSRNHWKH,QWHULRU6DOLVKODQJXDJHVRIQ[D௧DPFtQDQGQVOԥxcín, though the
7
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
6DKDSWLDQODQJXDJHVRIWKH1H]3HUFH QtPtSX௧ DQG3DOXV SDO~V ZHUHDOVRVSRNHQ7KHODQJXDJH
of the s[ࡊއL\íݦáS is nslԥxcín.
This project includes various forest and fire management treatments for approximately 1,342 acres
within the Simpson Lakes boundary in the Inchelium Forestry District (IFD). The Simpson Lakes
project area encompasses approximately 20,000 acres. For the purposes of consultation with the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the 2,260 acres of timber treatment areas, roads, and attendant landings shall be
considered the Area of Potential Effect (APE).
There have been five previous surveys within and immediately adjacent to the Simpson Lakes
Project area (Gough, 1990; Meyer, 2004, 2005a, Meyer, 2005b; Marchand, 2010). These inquiries
have resulted in documentation of ten archaeological sites and one cemetery within or immediately
adjacent to the Simpson Lakes project area. A review of the Colville Confederated Tribes
History/Archaeology (H/A) Program databases resulted in the documentation of twenty-one
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs).
A search of Bureau of Land Management/General Land Office (BLM/GLO) records indicates that
there are five historic land patents and multiple historic trails and roads within the project area.
Finally, an examination of Clair Hunt’s 1916 map of the South Half of the Colville Indian
Reservation determined there are one-hundred twenty-two historic Indian allotments in the project
area.
For the current project, a predictive model was used to select areas within the Simpson Lakes
Project area for a cultural resource survey that resulted in documentation of five archaeological
sites. They have been documented as 092525-1-ASH, 092525-2-ASH, 050125-1-MP, 111025-1ASH and 110625-1-ASH.
One hundred sixty-four resources have been documented within the Simpson Lakes project area.
Five previously documented archaeological sites, seven TCPs and thirty-five historic Indian
allotments identified within the project area are located within the APE for the current project. All
five of the newly documented archaeological sites are within proposed treatment blocks, all of
which will require mitigation to protect these resources. 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 significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. B) They must be associated with
the lives of persons significant 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 a significant 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
8
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
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 CTCR.
Oral history accounts of the region identify the general areas of Cuba Canyon, Rainy Ridge, Ant
Mountain, Elbow Lake, Abraham Canyon, Barnaby Canyon and Simpson Lakes as possessing
traditional value in addition to those locations observed during the archaeological survey. It is the
position of the CTCR that “A place is significant due to its location and the meaning assigned to
it, not the language of the name by which it is known. While recording place names in the original
languages is of immeasurable value, the places will 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 Hall Creek Watershed. Traditional religious use of
sweathouses perpetuate within the Hall Creek watershed, as do harvest of native culturally
significant plant species across the landscape. This area is the principle gathering location for at
least twenty-one different plant species for consumption, construction, weaving and religious
purposes. Two springs, which the CTCR attribute significant cultural value to, are documented
within this watershed. Fourteen locations within the watershed have been documented as important
areas for water-related resource use. Some of these are associated with Simpson Lakes, Lynx
Creek, Hall Creek, and the West Fork of Hall Creek.
The project area falls within portions of the watershed, which are documented as a principle
gathering location for at least twenty-two native plant species (Table 2) for consumption,
construction, weaving and religious purposes (Marker et al., 2012).
Table 2. Traditional Cultural Plants gathered within the Hall Creek and Twin Lakes Watersheds (Marker et
al. 2011).
Indian Carrots,
Wild Mushrooms,
Cottonwood,
Perideridia gairdneri
Multiple Species
Populus trichocarpa
Maple,
Tall Oregongrape,
Wild raspberry,
Acer circinatum
Berberis aquifolium
Rubus spp
9
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Foamberry,
Wild blackberry,
Indian potato,
Shepherdia canadensis
Rubus spp
Claytonia lanceolata
Wild thimbleberry,
Red Willow (Dogwood),
Fir,
Rubus spp
Conrus stolonifera
Multiple Species
Wild strawberry,
Cedar,
Lodgepole Pine,
Fragaria vesca
Thuja plicata
Pinus contorta
Western Larch,
Buckbrush,
Bunchgrass,
Larix occidentalis
Ceanothus
Reed Canary Grass,
Tule (aka bulrush),
Huckleberry,
Phalaris arundinacea
Schoenoplectus acutus
Vaccinium spp
Birch (including river birch),
Betulaceae
3.4 Range
The “Simpson Lake” project area intersects with parts of Range Unit 69. Range Unit 69 is a Range
Unit currently permitted for livestock grazing, however there are currently no livestock permitted
on the unit.
The Simpson Lake Forest project area receives on average 20”-36” of precipitation per year with
most in the form of winter snow. The change in precipitation values generally follow the change
in elevation values from near 2,100 ft at the South Tip of the project area near the Inchelium
Highway to near 3,500 ft on the ridge that runs through of the forest project area.
The NRCS database lists six forest habitat types in the blocks proposed for treatment. The most
occurring habitat types are listed in order below. The most notable shrub species listed is common
snowberry, mallow ninebark, oceanspray, and big huckleberry. Most common understory grass
species in this area is pinegrass with Idaho fescue, and blue wildrye also present.
Douglas fir/common snowberry
Ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue
Douglas fir/pinegrass
Douglas-fir/pinegrass, kinnikinnick phase
Ponderosa pine/common snowberry
subalpine fir/northern twinflower
10
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.1 Forestry
Impacts to Forestry Resources Alternative A: No Action
x
x
x
x
x
x
No profits for Colville Tribe and this harvest would not contribute toward the AAC of 77.1
MMBF.
Forest management would not receive the forest management funds from this project.
No timber industry employment would be generated.
Forest health would likely decline, with an increase and spread of insects and disease/
Area would not be replanted and would likely take much longer to recover and be
productive in timber production, impacting the future tribal income.
Area would move farther away from the Desired Future Condition’s in the IRMP.
Under this alternative, no conifer trees would be harvested. No timber stumpage revenue would
be generated. No Forest Management Deduction funds would be generated. No logging industry
employment would be generated. No silvicultural treatments would be implemented. Forest health
issues and concerns could possibly worsen and move away from the Tribes’ desired future
conditions. Overstocking of forest stands; predominance of climax tree species, over mature trees,
tree mortality, competing vegetation, forest insects and diseases problems and other current forest
conditions would continue to affect the overall forest health. The potential forest site-productivity
may never be achieved in some locations.
“No Action” on Simpson Lake Project could put the pressure of achieving the projected stumpage
revenue onto other reservation-wide project areas and natural resources as these areas could take
longer to become productive. Specifically, the “No Action” alternative could be detrimental to the
health of the forest.
Burned trees would create a public safety concern for the tribal membership in this highly utilized
area.
Impacts to Forestry Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Approximately $727,666 profit for the Colville Tribe with a harvest of 10 MMBF.
2,260 acres will have treatments to improve stand conditions, 1,342 acres of harvest, 951
acres of stand culture including stand prep/slash removal
Forest health would improve, dead trees would be removed and disease-resistant species
would regenerate naturally and with planting.
Desired Future Condition’s outlined in the IRMP would be met over time.
3.62 miles new road construction would occur to facilitate logging and 18.22 miles of
existing road would be improved.
High hazard and out of balance stands would be treated.
All of these things cumulatively would potentially create a faster growing, disease resistant,
more productive forest landscape that would yield much higher volumes and value in the
future.
11
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
The implementation of Alternative B would improve forest health. The result of management
would be to: increase stand and individual tree vigor, increase insect and disease resistance, reduce
the fuel quantity, and provide more fire-resistant fuel arrangement in timber stands. The proposed
action would move a substantial portion of the vegetation in the project area toward the stand
structure distributions and size/age classes outlined as the desired condition CTCR Forest
Management Plan (CCT, 2023). This alternative would also achieve the goals for regulation of the
long-term timber supply, supply of wood to processing facilities, and stumpage return to the
Colville Tribe.
4.2 Hydrology
Impacts to Hydrology Resources Alternative A: No Action
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 (desired: 4.0 mi/mi2; current: Barnaby Creek: 6.92 mi/mi2, Columbia River 01: 4.16 mi/mi2,
Columbia River 02: 6.81 mi/mi2, Columbia River 03: 7.10 mi/mi2, Little Jim Creek: 7.58 mi/mi2),
but lower than the density that would be achieved as a result of the preferred alternative. 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 overland flow 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; each additional road increases these effects.
Existing roads in the Simpson Lakes project area are maintained to various levels of stability. 83
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
12
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
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.
Impacts to Hydrology Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action
•
•
•
•
3.62 miles of new road construction and 18.55 miles of road reconstruction
0.12 miles of new construction and 4.88 miles of reconstruction within 200 ft of
hydrologic features
Harvest activities within 200 ft of streams – 230.24 ac
Harvest activities within 200 ft of wetlands – 37.25 ac
The proposed action would involve 1,342 acres of timber harvest. Throughout the project area,
these activities overlap and abut streams and wetlands, with 243.98 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 uptake 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 will 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 will be the longest-on-going, longest-lasting,
and highest-degree negative impacts resulting from the proposed action. The use of heavy
machinery to create and redo roads will result in immediate sediment delivery to adjacent
waterbodies. Additionally, reconstruction results in soil compaction and disturbance, both of
which are significant 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.
Water Resources
The proposed project would involve approximately 1,342 acres of treatment. Within the project
area, there are 61.85 miles of streams and 500.35 acres of wetland. Within treatment blocks, there
are 3.43 miles of streams. The proposed project plan includes 267.49 acres of planned harvest
activities within 200 ft. of hydrologic features. Harvest activities will occur on 230.24 acres within
200 ft. of streams, and 37.25 acres within 200 ft. of wetlands.
13
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Table 3. Hydrologic features within the Simpson Lake project area footprint.
Hydrologic Feature
Potentially Affected Size
Mapped Streams
61.85 mi
Mapped Wetlands
500.35 ac
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.
1,524 acres, across 59 blocks, are proposed for ground based (tractor and cable assist) harvest.
Blocks range from approximately 500 to 2,000 feet in width oriented perpendicularly to the
hillslope. Assuming an average block width of approximately 1,000 feet (a conservative
estimation), with average skid trail spacing of 100 feet (as required by Colville Tribal Code 4-7
Forest Practices), almost 600 skid trails will be created in blocks prescribed for ground-based
harvest. Using aerial imagery from late summer 2022, skid trail spacing in previous sales,
including Summit Trail salvage blocks in the Upper Lynx Creek WMU, was determined to be
closer to an average of 50 foot spacing. With this knowledge, we can assume that skid trail creation
could be as much as double what is estimated above in ground-based harvest blocks. Additionally,
206.47 acres of proposed ground-based harvest will 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.
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 surfaces; and increased transport of vehicle associated
pollutants (including 6PPD-q, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide from exhaust, etc.), among others.
Proposed reconstruction and new construction in the Simpson Lakes project area will occur on
22.17 miles of road. The proposed haul route for logging vehicles to transport logs to the mills
includes an additional 18 miles of paved road between the town of Inchelium and the northern
boundary of the Reservation, primarily on Inchelium-Kettle Falls Road. 3.18 miles of
reconstruction and new construction will 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 roadbed material, and artificial crossing
structures such as culverts will 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.
14
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
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 will 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. A minimum of 13 culverts will likely be installed during
this project. Road miles and road density in the project area will increase due to the 3.62 miles of
new road construction.
Wetlands:
The proposed forestry activities will impact wetland ecosystems through soil disturbance,
hydrological alteration, and disruption of vegetative communities. 37.25 acres of harvest activities
occur within 200 feet of wetlands and forestry associated road work includes 1.82 miles of road
reconstruction within 200 feet of wetlands. An additional 0.28 Right of Way (ROW) road segments
are indicated within 200 feet of wetlands.
Floodplains:
NOAA mapping indicates a fairly extensive 100-year floodplain associated with Barnaby Creek,
as well as small, isolated areas of 100-year floodplain along Little Jim Creek. Additionally, several
type 3 tributaries, including Cedar Creek, have associated 100-year floodplains mapped. However,
blocks and roads proposed for this project do not encroach on the 100-year floodplain of Barnaby
or Little Jim Creek, except for existing road locations.
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. Individual instances of turbidity have previously exceeded water
quality standards in Barnaby Creek; this is likely to continue, potentially resulting in an overall
decrease in water quality leading to non-compliance with code standards, and detrimentally
affecting aquatic organisms. Additionally, turbidity is often associated with temperature, which
has also been a metric of concern at this Barnaby Creek sampling site. Increased heating of surface
water, particularly in headwaters and tributaries, is likely, due to removal of vegetative cover.
Degradation of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity metrics will likely be short term
impacts of timber sale activities. Water quantity in the main stem of Barnaby Creek may increase
in the short term, due to removal of vegetation and reduction of transpirative losses, though likely
not markedly due to the distribution of blocks. Additionally, much of this water will travel as
overland flow, becoming vulnerable to evaporation and interception from road prisms, skid trails,
and other anthropogenic alterations, and potentially not reaching Barnaby Creek at all. Water
distribution across the landscape is likely to change for this reason. 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 will likely decrease for these
15
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
reasons as well. These impacts will be sustained over the duration of the project, approximately
five years.
Wetlands:
There is no harvest indicated in mapped wetlands or wetland RMZ buffers. Unmapped wetlands
have been identified and must be buffered according to field verified extent. 20 individual
incidences of harvest activity within 200 feet of wetlands totals 37.25 acres. Extensive tree
removals, designated as Seed Tree prescriptions in COMP 447 BLOCK 718 within 200 feet of
Water Type III Freshwater Emergent Wetland E.HAL_056; In COMP 447 BLOCK 211 within
200 feet of Water Type II Freshwater Emergent Wetland E.HAL_055; In COMP 425 BLOCK 136
within 200 feet of Water Type II Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland E.HAL_239, Water Type
III Freshwater Emergent Wetland E.HAL_154, and Water Type III Freshwater Emergent Wetland
E.HAL_090; In COMP 426 BLOCK 155 within 200 feet of Water Type II freshwater Emergent
Wetland E.HAL_376 and Water Type III Freshwater Pond Wetland E.HAL_365; And in COMP
425 BLOCK 124 within 200 feet of Water Type III Freshwater Emergent Wetland E.HAL_096,
are 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 will be contained to the existing road locations, where sediment
delivery potential will be increased, and impacts to off-channel floodplain habitat may occur. With
the utilization of Best Management Practices, the area of impact should be minimized.
Direct Impacts – Long-Term
Surface Water:
Long term impacts on surface water will continue until vegetation is established and disturbed
areas are stabilized. As skid trails and roads are seeded with herbaceous vegetation, soils will
become more stable, and water quality will gradually return to pre-harvest conditions. As larger
vegetation and trees establish, surface water quantity will 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 will not be deconstructed at the conclusion of the sale. Therefore, road density
impacts on interception and diversion will persist, and road use will continue into the foreseeable
future. Crossing structures will also not be removed, and impacts from improperly installed or
sized structures will continue to impact water quality in the long term. Additionally, any road use
over streams will continue to deliver sediment and contaminants to the surface water at the
crossing.
Wetlands:
There are 1.82 miles identified for road reconstruction and 0.28 miles indicated for the use of Right
of Way (ROW) within 200 feet of wetlands. Over the long-term the construction and use of
forestry-related roads contribute to sedimentation in wetlands, aiding in nutrient and pollutant
delivery as well as degrading wetland function, water quality, and habitat.
Floodplains:
16
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Existing roads in the floodplains will likely continue to be used following the timber sale, as they
are currently primary travel routes for local traffic. For this reason, impacts will continue in the
long term, though they will be reduced following the conclusion of the Simpson Lakes timber sale
when traffic from heavy machinery and logging trucks has ceased.
Water Resources – No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no predictable anthropogenic changes to surface
water, wetlands, or floodplains, and no significant avoidable direct, indirect, short-term, long-term,
or cumulative impacts to water resources anticipated.
Water Resources Impacts – Conclusions
Table 4. Water Resources Impact Summary from the Proposed Action.
Water
Resource
Surface Water
Wetlands
Floodplains
Short-Term Direct
Impacts
Yes
Yes
None
Long-Term Direct
Impacts
Yes
Yes
None
Cumulative
Impacts
None
Yes
None
The project will 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) will be minimal as vegetation
reestablishes and stabilizes slopes. The Proposed Action will result in significant short-term
impacts to water resources.
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
Inchelium district, major travel corridors include Bridge Creek Road (Ferry County Public Works),
and Inchelium-Kettle Falls Highway (Ferry County Public Works), among others (Tribal DOT,
BIA DOT.). 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 Simpson Lakes timber sale project proposes the construction of 3.62 miles of new road, and
18.55 miles of reconstruction of existing forest roads. The use of these roads for timber sale
operations will 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 will 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 will decrease the amount of maintenance that can be allocated to existing segments,
and cause road quality to deteriorate over time.
17
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Short- and long-term direct impacts to water resources have been identified with the proposed
Simpson Lakes Timber Sale project. Implementing the proposed action would result in new and
cumulative significant impacts to water quality and wetlands. Mitigation measures to attenuate
these impacts are outlined in Section 4.7.
4.3 Fish and Wildlife
Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources Alternative A: No Action
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 are 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 impact fish and wildlife species and habitat within the project area.
Removal of timber from 1,113.6 acres could negatively impact wildlife populations that use the
habitat in the project area to meet their life requirements. Impacts to the habitat within the project
area would include but are not limited to: an increase in soil compaction and ground disturbance,
a growth 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. However, when
timber management occurs, it opens the forest floor, increasing sunlight and precipitation for grass,
forb, and shrub species, thereby amplifying forage opportunities for several wildlife species.
These changes to the habitat structures and functions within the project area would have effects on
a variety of wildlife species. The implementation of this project would 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.
Infrastructure (culverts) should allow for the passage of fish, flow, sediment, and debris.
Undersized culverts may lead to channel avulsion, head cutting, and/or complete failure of the
structure. Constricting flow through undersized culverts may contribute to velocity barriers
limiting the instream movement of resident fish at early or all life stages. The failure of inadequate
sized structures typically occurs long after work has been completed.
Fish
The Simpson Lake Project area is located on the east by the Columbia River (Lake Roosevelt) and
on the north by the Colville Reservation Boundary. This area encompasses Barnaby Creek, its
tributaries, Cuba Canyon Creek, Little Jim Creek, Cedar Creek, Lake Roosevelt, Elbow Lake and
Simpson Lake. The aquatic habitat within the affected area of the Simpson Lake Project supports
18
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
native redband rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri, (redband trout) a culturally
significant species to the CTCR tribal membership, brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, native
minnows (Leucisidae), and sculpins (Cottidae).
Additionally, 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 Threatened and Endangered Species federal status is currently listed as “threatened”
while Washington State considers bull trout a candidate for listing. Bull trout in the Simpson Lake
Project Area and surrounding areas are extremely rare and believed to be 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. Since 2011, fewer than 25 bull trout have been documented in
the mouths of tributaries to Lake Roosevelt or in Lake Roosevelt/Columbia River itself. In 2012,
a single adult bull trout was documented in the lower Sanpoil River Arm of Lake Roosevelt. Bull
trout observation data within the Northeast Washington Research Needs Area is not well tracked,
is sporadic, and often anecdotal, although they are rarely encountered during large-scale
standardized fishery surveys. Bull trout present in the Northeast Washington Research Needs Area
likely derive from local populations in the Coeur d’Alene/Spokane River or Pend Oreille River
basins, or from tributaries to the Columbia River in Canada and have been entrained over dams.
While bull trout are rarely encountered in Lake Roosevelt, multiple fish passage barriers on Hall
Creek, including an impassable culvert and a waterfall, further reduce the likelihood of their
presence in the project area and therefore bull trout are very unlikely to be impacted.
Federally Threatened or Endangered Species
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.) of 1973 as amended and
its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 402, require federal agencies to ensure 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. The CTCR Wildlife Biologist determined that the proposed actions and
associated activities would have ‘No Effect’ to threatened or endangered species, or candidate or
proposed species, or suitable or critical habitat within the action area. Documentation is found in
Appendix B.
Information for Planning and Conservation was acquired from the United States Department of
the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI-FWS) for the Endangered Species Act Species List.
An Official Species List from the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service (USDOI-FWS) is included as Appendix B.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), of 1940, as amended, and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), of 1918, as amended, prohibit 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. All known nests
are buffered and have seasonal restrictions.
Within the Simpson Lake project boundary, there are at least 3 known bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) nests that have been buffered appropriately. Per code 4-7-68, a minimum of two
reserve trees per acre, well distributed, shall be left standing (CTCR, 2006). Due to this being a
19
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
suitable habitat for eagle species, it is requested that these reserve trees consist of the largest
diameter and tallest living trees, especially in blocks near waterbodies. If, during harvest activities,
a bald or golden eagle nest is thought to have been found, please contact the 3P wildlife biologist
immediately.
Within the project area, there are no known active great gray owl or Northern goshawk territories.
If a great gray or goshawk nest is located, a no-harvest activity buffer would be put into place,
with a 0.5-mile seasonal (March 1- August 31) buffer to protect fledging activities. With the
timbered habitat bordering open habitat, there is the available structure to support both great gray
owls and goshawks. If at any time during harvest activities, goshawk or great gray owls are
observed, the 3P wildlife biologist should be contacted.
Protection Measures
In the Simpson Lake project area, there are approximately 978 acres of blocks that are adjacent to
streams; that is, of the 62 blocks in the Simpson Lake project area, 14 (27%) contain or are adjacent
to streams. These bodies of water include but are not limited to Barnaby Creek, Cedar Creek,
Nicholas Lake, Simpson Lake, Elbow Lake, Cuba Canyon Creek, Lake Roosevelt, Little Jim
Creek, and several unnamed type 3 and type 4 tributaries. Harvesting close to or near these bodies
of water would likely lead to increased sedimentation, temperature, decreased supply of woody
debris and an increase in turbidity, all of which would reduce fish habitat and water quality. These
streams and their riparian habitat have some of the highest fish and wildlife richness and diversity
and are extremely susceptible to environmental change.
The proposed action of the Simpson Lake project falls within five of the Reservation WMUs,
which are Barnaby Creek, Columbia River 01, Columbia River 02, Columbia River 03, and Little
Jim Creek. The CTCR IRMP states that total road density would be reduced to less than 3.5 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; Table 5
depicts the road density for the affected WMUs.
Table 5. Road Density by WMU.
WMU
Roads (mi) WMU (ac)
WMU (mi2) Road Density (mi/mi2)
Barnaby Creek
101.10
9,345.47
14.60
6.92
Columbia River 01
9.92
1,528.24
2.39
4.16
Columbia River 02
35.26
3,309.12
5.17
6.81
Columbia River 03
42.44
6,615.14
10.34
7.10
Little Jim Creek
34.57
2,918.91
4.56
7.58
20
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Currently, all of the WMUs exceed the IRMP target of 3.5 mi/mi2 total road density. Alternative
B proposes roughly 3.62 miles of new construction and 18.55 miles of reconstruction, which would
increase both open road and total road densities, further exceeding the Tribes' goal of 3.5 mi/mi².
It is to be noted that these numbers are inflated due to the lack of ground truthing of the CTCR
roads GIS layer(s); i.e., many open roads do not exist/are closed but are not verified. Further
analysis would be required to achieve an accurate road density per WMU, but these numbers reflect
the most up-to-date data on hand.
Table 6. Proposed road Density reduction by WMU for Alternative B. for the Wildlife Dept.
WMU
Roads
(mi)
Proposed Closures by
Wildlife Dept (mi)
WMU
(mi2)
Road density reduction (mi/mi2)
Barnaby
Creek
101.1
2.19
14.6
0.15
Columbia
River 01
9.92
2.79
2.39
Road density does not change. This
mileage being closed is new construction.
The Fish and Wildlife Department suggests that unnecessary segments and select reconstructed
roads should be closed to adhere to the IRMP goal of 3.5 mi/mi2 total road for WMU’s along with
1.5 mi/mi² of open tribal forest road densities (IRMP 2015). The department is proposing 5 double
tank traps to eliminate vehicle use (Appendix D). Table 6 depicts the CTCR Fish and Wildlife road
closure proposals for a total length of 4.98 mi. Forest road systems fragment wildlife habitat,
reduce available habitat, and create barriers to population movement. New construction and
reconstruction of roads also have the potential to affect the surrounding fish habitat and water
quality/quantity.
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 on the known cultural resources identified within the project area.
21
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
The historic exclusion of fire on the Reservation has resulted in 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 affect its integrity and
increase 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 ten archaeological sites, twenty-one TCPs and thirty-five historic Indian
allotments recorded in the Simpson Lakes APE. Seven archaeological sites will require mitigation
for protection.
These sites may be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Place, as described in
36 CFR Part 60.4. The implementation of Alternative B would result in adverse or significant
effects on the seven archaeological sites eligible for the National or Colville Registers identified
within the APE unless mitigation measures are taken to protect these sites. These mitigations are
in section 4.7. The other resources within and adjacent to the Simpson Lakes Project area are
outside the APE and will not be affected by the proposed project.
4.5 Range
Impacts to Range Resources Alternative A: No Action
This alternative would have no disturbance impact on the current plant community condition. No
action, 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 Alternative B: Proposed Action
Note: This evaluation includes all blocks identified for treatment in the forest project area
including those designated for pre commercial thinning.
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.
22
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
The annual precipitation for the blocks in this proposal is 20” to 36” 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 represented in the project blocks is Douglas-fir/common
snowberry with pinegrass as a major 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 will
go to the 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 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 Range Unit 69. The Range Programs
infrastructure GIS layer indicates quite a few structural assets associated with RU 69 that will
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 will 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
23
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
removed cattle guard will be reinstalled by the proponent of the project unless other arrangements
are made with the CTCR Range Program.
The impacted Range Unit 69 does not currently have livestock permitted on them. However, Range
Unit fences 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.
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
Surface Water:
As discussed above, four other timber sales have occurred in the Hall Creek RMU in the past 5
years. However, these timber sales have occurred outside of the Simpson Lakes project area and
therefore influence separate sub watersheds before flowing into the Columbia River. Additionally,
although portions of the Simpson Lakes project area burned in the Inchelium Complex and Summit
Trail fires, salvage harvest was excluded from these areas. For these reasons, cumulative impacts
to the Simpson Lakes project area from activities on the Reservation are minimal, and difficult to
meaningfully quantify.
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 Elbow Lake, Simson Lake, Barnaby Creek, Little Jim Creek, and other Columbia
River tributaries. The Simpson Lakes 2026 Forestry Harvest Project will occur simultaneously
with BIA Land Operations grazing permits in Range Unit 69. There are grazing controls identified
for range practices along Barnaby Creek and Simpson Lake, but not over the majority of riverine
and isolated wetlands in the project area. Cattle impacts including wetland soil disruption and
biological impacts will be exacerbated by forest practices contributing to excess sedimentation and
nutrient inputs.
Floodplains:
No additional impacts to the Barnaby Creek and Little Jim Creek floodplains have been
documented prior to this project. Therefore, there are no likely cumulative impacts from the
proposed action.
4.7 Mitigations
Mitigations for Soil and Water Resources:
Operators must ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMP) and standards for timber harvest
as required 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/re-constructed 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 will 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 Inchelium Forest Roads Engineer incorporated input from the Environmental
24
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
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 3/11/25 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; after field assessment and coordination with the Inchelium
Transportation Planner, one of these segments will be utilized for the sale before being closed. The
other overlapping proposed segments were relocated away from the previously restored segments
or determined 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 restoration work in and around
this timber sale area, including as part of the 2017 Barnaby and Jim Creeks Watershed Restoration
project. 20 road segments included in the 2017 project are within or directly adjacent to the
Simpson Lakes sale area; these roads have been decommissioned or permanently abandoned and
are not available for use.” Road segment FID3795 (“simpson roads” shapefile) overlaps with a
road that was decommissioned by the Environmental Trust Department in 2017, which was
identified on this original layer. This road was reopened during the Summit Trail Fire. After
discussion with the Transportation Planner, this road will be utilized for sale, then tank trapped.
This will prevent the creation of two parallel, drivable roads, and an additional crossing location.
The road segment will be fully decommissioned again by ETD at a later date.
The provided culvert shapefile was incomplete. During field work, multiple additional undersized
or failed culverts were identified. A layer titled “Simpson Culverts” has been provided to the
Transportation Planner. The following table identifies those crossings and the necessary
treatments.
Table 7. Undersized or failing culverts in the Simpson Lake project area requiring treatment.
ETDID Existing
Proposed
C1
Ford
36" CMP
C2
None
36" CMP
C3
?
24" CMP
C4
Plastic 24" pipe
36" CMP
C5
None
Unsure -- below beaver dam. Discuss
C6
None
24" CMP
C7
None
24" CMP
C8
None
24" CMP
25
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Table 8. Simpson Lake harvest blocks requiring mitigation for water resource protection.
Comp Block Acres Rx
Mitigation
426
9
35.06 SW Use Barnaby Creek Road as block boundary
448
10
19.44 SW Road within buffer allowable for use
448
39
47.24 REH Unmapped stream and wetland
425
76
Functionally close road immediately following completion of harvest
42.76 SW Winter harvest preferred
425
136
27.08 ST
Culvert replacement necessary
Unmapped wetland
No heavy equipment
415
263
7.95
Sal
415
282
73.04 SAN Don't use bottom-most road
419
332
9.31
PCT Type 2 stream can be buffered as Type 4
Table 9. Blocks adjacent to Lake Roosevelt requiring a 200 ft buffer, per CCT 4-15 Shoreline Management.
Comp
Block Acres Rx
Notes
425
710 10.16 CT
Buffer Lake Roosevelt 200 ft.
447
710 44.45 OR
Buffer Lake Roosevelt 200 ft.
426
714 30.65 ST
Buffer Lake Roosevelt 200 ft.
426
715 19.79 ST
Buffer Lake Roosevelt 200 ft.
447
718 97.33 OR
Buffer Lake Roosevelt 200 ft.
448
995 10.46 REH
Buffer Lake Roosevelt 200 ft.
Planners and Operators should develop practices that will 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 CCT Forest Practices Code.
Upon completion of harvest or haul operations the following maintenance & monitoring actions
shall be performed:
Ɣ Clear all drainage improvements of obstructions
Ɣ Stabilize or remove unstable material and forest debris with potential to block drainage
improvements
Ɣ Repair or replace all damaged drainage improvements to fully restore their function
Ɣ Leave road surface in a condition that will 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
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 have 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
26
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
sensing techniques which require field verification for jurisdictional purposes. Though harvest
activities have been excluded from NWI mapped wetlands, the project proponent is responsible
for assuring all wetlands are properly buffered based on ground conditions.
Mitigations for Fish and Wildlife:
Several significant impacts have been identified for the proposed action, and thus mitigation is
required, or degradation in wildlife habitat is anticipated to affect a variety of species, and
therefore, the following mitigation measures apply:
Table 10. Harvest Blocks Fish and Wildlife protection measures.
Comp-Block
Action required
415-281
Clip block boundary to mapped wetland.
415-053
Clip block boundary to mapped wetland.
416-038
Clip block boundary to stream buffer of Barnaby Creek
416-576
Clip block boundary to mapped stream.
419-332
Clip block boundary to mapped Barnaby Creek tributary.
425-104
Buffered for 660ft due to eagle nest. Harvest restriction from March 1st to August 31st.
425-136
Clip block boundary to mapped wetland and stream.
425-710
Clip block boundary to Little Jim Creek and wetland.
425-076
Clip block boundary to mapped wetland and creek.
426-009
Clip block boundary to Barnaby Creek Road.
426-155
Clip block boundary to mapped wetland and stream.
426-714
Buffer appropriately for eagle nest. 660 ft no harvest zone with a 0.5 mi seasonal buffer from
March 1st - August 31st.
Clip block boundary to Cuba Canyon Creek.
447-501
Buffer appropriately for eagle nest. 660 ft no harvest zone with a 0.5 mi seasonal buffer from
March 1st - August 31st.
447-533
Buffer appropriately for eagle nest. 660 ft no harvest zone with a 0.5 mi seasonal buffer from
March 1st - August 31st.
447-718
Clip block boundary to mapped wetland and stream.
448-010
Clip block to stream buffer
Mitigating for the loss and reduction of habitat structures and functions discussed above would
minimize the negative impacts to fish and wildlife habitats and species in the Simpson Lake project
27
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
area. The following mitigation efforts are requested by Fish and Wildlife for any alternative that
is chosen and implemented:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
In order to reduce disturbance, harassment, and increased hunting pressure, all roads
that are not considered main access routes should be closed following the project.
Multilayered cover should be left along all access roads that have high vehicular use.
Minimize the amount of use on stream adjacent roads and prioritize them for
permanent or seasonal closure.
Leaving more than the required 2 snags per acre would help mitigate some of the
losses of large woody debris and recruitment trees.
Wildlife corridors should be set up to allow for natural movement between seasonal
and daily habitats.
Snags in harvest units would be retained in clumps with their associated understory
vegetation intact to ensure 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. Blocks that would be treated
under the RRT prescription should have more than 2 trees per acre after the harvest.
All large-diameter woody debris should be left on the ground to ensure habitat for a
wide range of species.
All wetlands should be protected with maximum RMZ lengths and should all be
protected from equipment entry.
Implementation of bank stabilization, sediment traps, and road surface improvements
to decrease the risk of sediment delivery and runoff into surrounding watersheds.
Areas where there is considerable soil disturbance should be planted to reduce
encroachment and establishment of noxious weeds.
If at any time during harvest a bald or golden eagle nest is found, cease work within
.25 miles of the nest and contact the 3P wildlife biologist; all timber harvest is
prohibited within 660 feet of active bald eagle nests.
If at any time during harvest a Northern Goshawk or Great Gray nest and/or territory
is thought to have been found, cease work within 750 feet and please contact the 3P
wildlife biologist.
Infrastructure (culverts/bridges) should allow for the passage of all life stages of fish,
and for water, sediment, and wood/debris during Q100 flow events. Culverts should be
1.2 times the bankfull width for proper installation, to allow fish passage.
Mitigation for Cultural Resources:
The Tribal Archaeologist will work with IFD to mitigate the effects of Alternative B and will
coordinate with the Timber Sales Officer (TSO) and others working in the Simpson Lakes project
area to insure that the proper steps are taken to protect these significant cultural resources. In the
event that additional cultural resources are found, the TSO shall insure 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 Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)
has approved a management plan. Mitigation measures proposed for the protection of cultural
resources identified within the project area include, but are not limited to, the following:
28
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
1) Great care is taken to not destroy or damage components of archeological sites 45FE993;
092525-1-ASH; 092525-2-ASH; 092515-3-ASH and 050125-1-MP. A small buffer may
be implemented to facilitate these measures.
2) The culturally modified trees in sites 111025-1-ASH and 110625-1-ASH will not be
damaged or removed during timber harvest efforts.
3) All other resources are not expected to be negatively impacted by project
implementation.
Mitigation for Range Resources:
Invasive Plants
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.
The surrounding project area contains the following weed species: diffuse and spotted knapweed,
scotch thistle, common St. Johnswort, hoary alyssum, longspine sandbur, and likely others that
haven't been recorded. Land Operations recommends the following: cleaning equipment prior to
using on site, washing equipment in a centralized area, re-seeding heavily disturbed sites such as
skid trails and stacking sites, the use of biological controls on large weed infestations and
herbicides as needed primarily along roadsides. If borrow pits or fill material are used from offsite,
it is recommended that these materials be weed free to reduce the spread of invasive species. The
Land Operations Program recommends that loggers, Forestry and Land Operations/Range staff
work together to reduce the amount of weed infestations and treat disturbed areas post harvests.
Seeding is recommended in highly disturbed areas to reduce the amount of invasive species
regrowth following road closures. Recommend use of an approved seed mix that would be highly
competitive with currently present invasive species.
x
x
x
Allocate funding to develop an Integrated Invasive Species Plan to include herbicide,
mechanical and biological treatments, if possible.
Seed all disturbed areas using an appropriate native seed mix designed for the sites
abiotic conditions.
Impacts of weeds within the project area minimized by ensuring that the under-carriage
of vehicles is free of seed heads and plant residues.
5.0 List of Preparers
Name
Barry Coles
Charlotte Axthelm
Stacy King
Tiffany Nappi
Elizabeth Odell
Amanda Hoke
Guy Moura
Jessica Utt, Brandton Harvey
Chasity Swan
Contributions
Forestry
Hydrology
Fish and Wildlife
History/Archaeology
THPO
Range
Editing
29
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
6.0 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. Integrated Resource Management Plan.
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Nespelem, WA.
Coles, Barry. March 25, 2025. Project Proposal Form: Simpson Lakes Timber Sale 2026 PPF.
Nespelem, WA. BIA
Colville Confederated Tribes. 2023. Forest Practices Handbook. Colville Tribal Code
Chapter 4-7 Forest Practices. Nespelem, WA. 89 pp.
Colville Confederated Tribes. 2023. Forest Management Plan. Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation. Nespelem, WA.
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.
Dubé, K., Megahan, W., McCalmon, M. (2004) Washington road surface erosion model
prepared for the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA.
Gough, Stan (ed.). 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.
Hunner, Walt. 2014. Hydrology Report. Technical. Nespelem, WA: CTCR.
Hunt, Clair. 1916. Diminished Colville Indian Reservation (map). General Land Office,
Department of the Interior.
Marchand, Amelia. 2010. Cultural Resources Survey Form of the Simpson Lakes Natural
Resource Project, Inchelium Forestry District. On file at the Colville Tribes
History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
Marker, David, 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. 2004. Cultural Resources Survey Report for Allotment 1547. On file at the Colville
Tribes History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
Meyer, Jon. 2005a. Cultural Resources Survey Report for Hall Creek Forest Management
Project. Undertaking Number U05-057. On file at the Colville Tribes
History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
30
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Meyer, Jon. 2005b. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Hemming’s Flat OSR Environmental
Assessment. On file at the Colville Tribes History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
Shannon. D. and 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.
31
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
7.0 Appendixes
7.1 Project Maps and Activity Table
32
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
33
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
7.2 Consultation THPO and ESA
34
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
35
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
36
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
37
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
38
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
39
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
40
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
41
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
42
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
43
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
7.3 F&W Road Closures and ETD Preliminary Transportation
Analysis
44
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
45
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
46
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
Consultation was initiated by the Watershed Analyst on March 11, 2025 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.
47
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
7.4 Army Corp of Engineers Road BMPs
48
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
49
Simpson Lake 2025 Forest Management Project NOA-FONSI-EA-26-01
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.