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 Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management
Project on the Colville Reservation, Okanogan County, Washington
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs
ACTION: Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested parties that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
as lead federal agency, with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, has prepared a
final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project on the Colville Reservation, Okanogan County,
Washington. This notice also announces the EA is now available in hard copy at the addresses
below.
ADDRESSES: You may request a hard copy of the EA and FONSI by writing the BIA Colville
Agency, PO BOX 111, Nespelem, Washington, 99155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Friedlander, BIA Colville Agency
Superintendent, at (509) 634-2316 and Chasity Swan, Colville Tribe Integrated Resource
Management (IRMP) Coordinator, at (509) 722-7656.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Colville Tribe, through contractual obligations to the
BIA, has proposed the Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project. The activities under the agency
proposed action to harvest approximately 23.7 million board feet of timber on approximately 3,096
acres and hazard fuel reduction treatments on 6,723 acres of tribally owned lands within the
Omak/Nespelem District of the Colville Reservation in Okanogan County, Washington. The activities
will occur under guidelines in the 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.
Randall Friedlander
Colville Agency Superintendent
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
Date
Finding of No Significant Impact
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
Colville Reservation, Okanogan County, Washington
Based on the attached final Environmental Assessment’s (EA) for the Lost Creek 2026 Forest
Management Project for a proposal to harvest 23.7 million board feet of timber on approximately 3,096
acres and 6,723 acres of hazard fuel reduction treatments on tribally owned lands in the Omak/Nespelem
District of the Colville Reservation in Okanogan County, Washington, I have determined that by
implementation of the agency proposed action and environmental mitigation measures as specified in
the EA, the proposed Lost Creek 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 Lost Creek 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 1.6).
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). In order
to reduce impacts to air quality burning operations will only be conducted when conditions are
present that will reduce smoke accumulation.
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).
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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 Lost Creek 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.) Mitigation
measures to reduce sediment delivery have been outline in the EA (EA section 5).
8. The cumulative effects to the environment are mitigated to avoid or minimize effects of
implementation of the proposed project (EA Section 5).
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 278 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 5 of EA).
13. The Lost Creek 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 Lost Creek 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).
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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
5)
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.
Date
Randall Friedlander, Superintendent
Colville Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Final
LOST CREEK 2026 FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation
propose the harvest of approximately 23.7 million board feet (MMBF) of timber from 3,096
acres and conduct hazard fuel reduction utilizing prescribed on 6,723 acres of tribal land in the
Omak/Nespelem District of the Colville Reservation.
Prepared by:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Colville Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian
Reservation.
Official Decision Maker: Randy Friedlander, Superintendent, Colville Agency, BIA
For further information:
Chasity Swan
IRMP Coordinator
PO BOX 150 Nespelem, WA 99155
(509) 722-7656
Chasity.Swan.bia@colvilletribes.com
April 14, 2026
BIA FILE NO: NWR-BIA-EA-26-08
Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................ 1
1.3 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Compliance with Other Codes and Regulations ........................................................... 2
1.5 Determination ............................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Public Involvement ....................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................3
2.1 General Discussion: Alternative Design ....................................................................... 3
2.2 Alternative A: No Action .............................................................................................. 4
2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action .................................................................................... 4
3.0 Affected Environment ..........................................................................................7
3.1 Forestry ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Range Management .................................................................................................... 15
3.6 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 15
4.0 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 15
4.1 Forestry ....................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Fish and Wildlife......................................................................................................... 23
4.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 25
4.5 Range Management .................................................................................................... 26
4.6 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 27
4.7 Social and Economic Impacts ..................................................................................... 28
5.0 Mitigation for Resource Protection ..................................................................... 28
6.0 List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 32
7.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................. 32
8.0 Appendices ........................................................................................................ 34
8.1 Appendix A: Project Maps and Activity Table ........................................................... 34
8.2 Appendix B: Consultation........................................................................................... 43
8.3 Appendix C: Preliminary Transportation Analysis ..................................................... 52
8.4 Appendix D: Army Corp of Engineers BMPs ............................................................ 55
8.5 Appendix E: CTCR Holistic Goal and Desired Future Conditions ............................ 57
1.0 Purpose and Need
1.1 Introduction
The following Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the impacts of Lost Creek 2026 Forest
Management Project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) propose the harvest of approximately 23.7 MMBF of timber
from approximately 3,096 acres of Tribal land in the Omak/Nespelem District (OND) of the
Colville Indian Reservation in Okanogan County, Washington State. This harvest would require
about 9.49 miles of road construction and about 38.9 miles of road reconstruction. Hazard fuel
reduction (HFR) treatments will utilize prescribed under burning on 6,723 acres and require
6,292 fireline.
The federal action (40 CFR 1508.18) is the BIA approval of the Lost Creek 2026 Forest
Management Project, which triggers BIA’s National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
compliance review of the project 42 USC § 4321- 4347) and associated regulations found in 40
CFR 1500-1508 (as amended) and 43 CFR 46.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the action is to be able to implement the activities under the federal action to
meet the primary need meeting the goals outline in the CTCR 2015 Integrated Resource
Management Plan (IRMP). The CTCR IRMP has set an annual harvest level of 77.1 million
board feet (MMBF)(CTCR 2015). An integrated management approach wherein Fire
Management and Forestry work closely together to plan and implement Forest Management
Projects to restore fire to the ecosystem, reduce fuels already present and created by forest
management activities and create a more resilient ecosystem.
The Lost Creek Project Area contains timber stands that present a high risk of sustaining losses
to several forest insect and disease agents.
A detailed discussion of the forest health issues on the Colville Reservation and the need for
treatment can be reviewed in the 2023 Forest Management Plan (FMP). Environmental impacts
from the management of CTCR Natural Resources under the FMP and IRMP have been
analyzed in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (CAR 2018).
1.3 Objectives
The following are issues or concerns that the Interdisciplinary Team (3P Team) has identified as
being relevant to the discussion of the “no action” and the “proposed action” alternatives.
Forestry Objectives
Capture the volume of dead and dying trees, provide income and employment for the CTCR. Bring
commercial forest acres into regulation.
Indicators:
a. Acres salvaged by each alternative
b. Estimated stumpage produced by each alternative
c. Estimated volume of timber harvested per alternative
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
1
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Fuels/Fire Control Objectives
To minimize and alter the characteristics of available (burnable) fuels.
Indicators:
a. Acres of hazard fuel reduction
Hydrology Objectives
To minimize erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters and prevent streambank/wetland
disturbance. Maintain ecological function of soils and prevent landslides.
Indicators:
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Harvest proximity/adjacency to surface water
Acres likely experiencing increased hydrologic response
Acres likely experiencing increased sediment delivery to surface water
Road construction/use within 200ft of surface water
Acres likely experiencing increased soil loss to surface water
Slope stability and failure risk, soil burn severity
Proximity of known and identified mass wasting sites
Fish and Wildlife Objectives
To maintain and restore critical forest structure, old growth forests, deciduous stands and
wetlands. Ensure wildlife and fish habitat needs are maintained, including large woody debris.
Indicators:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Wetland and stream adjacency acres
Block size and adjacent acres
Road density, miles/square mile
Miles of road construction
Miles of stream adjacent road
1.4 Compliance with Other Codes and Regulations
This project is designed to be compliant with CTCR Forest Practices Code (208), CTC 4-9:
Hydraulic Project Permitting, 4-10: Water Resources Use and Permitting, the Endangered
Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Tribal Forest Protection Act,
National Indian Forest Resources and Management Act, National Historic Preservation Act,
Clean Air Act and other applicable Tribal and Federal Regulations.
1.5 Determination
The Colville Agency BIA Superintendent with the concurrence of the Colville Business Council
(CBC) would determine which alternative is selected for implementation.
a) To take no action (Alternative A).
b) To approve the proposed action (Alternative B).
c) To direct an additional alternative be created.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
2
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
The BIA Superintendent would also determine whether the environmental consequences are
significant and prepare either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or determine that
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required.
1.6 Public Involvement
In the process updating of the IRMP which provides goals and objectives to manage the Tribes’
natural resources a Colville Reservation Community survey was conducted to document the
priorities, preferences and concerns regarding the management of the Tribes’ natural resources
(Center for Applied Research [CAR] 2015). A total of 1,026 individuals participated.
Respondents indicated the forests provide essential revenue source (47%) and jobs (52%) for the
tribal membership and community. The strongest response on forest management (54%) was for
forest-wide thinning of insect and fire prone tree stands and to treat forest health issues. Many
community meetings were held to help shape the CTCR management strategy during the 2001
and 2015 IRMP planning processes.
The Lost Creek Forest Management Project was presented to the 3P Team in March of 2025.
The 3P Team and public also had a field tour of the project area in June of 2025. This project is a
part of that 15-year plan for Forest Resource Management on the Reservation (CTCR 2015).
Figure 1. Lost Creek Project Area on the Colville Indian Reservation.
2.0 Alternatives Considered
2.1 General Discussion: Alternative Design
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BIA have developed regulations that
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
3
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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.
All alternatives are designed to meet all legal and procedural requirements to which the CTCR
and the BIA must adhere.
2.2 Alternative A: No Action
The “No Action Alternative” includes the BIA not approving the Lost Creek 2026 Project and/or
the BIA and Tribe not implementing activities under the project. Under this alternative no timber
harvest, road reconstruction, or other manipulation of resources would take place. Fuel reduction
treatments would not take place.
2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action
The Proposed Action Alternative includes the BIA approving the Lost Creek 2026 Forest
Management Project and the BIA and CTCR implementing the activities under the proposal.
This Alternative does meet the Purpose and Need of the project. This alternative was proposed
by OND Foresters to meet forest health needs and provide volume for the Annual Allowable Cut
(AAC) of 77.1 MMBF outlined in the IRMP (2015).
Timber Harvest of roughly 23.7 MMBF from 3,096 acres of timber harvest blocks. Non timber
harvest activities included in this Proposal are: 663 acres of Pre-Commercial Thin (PCT) and
6,723 acres prescribed fire are proposed to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire by eliminating
the amount of dead and down fuel on the ground.
• Individual block prescriptions given in this document are given in good faith and are
appropriate for data collected and field review notes up to this point. However,
prescriptions may be adjusted when entire block is evaluated through the timber cruise
and marked for harvest.
• Pre-Commercial Thinning would be completed with traditional chainsaw thinning or a
piece of heavy equipment such as an excavator may also be used to achieve the desired
spacing of residual stand.
• Tree planting may require additional scarification using a piece of heavy equipment such
as an excavator and/or broadcast burning.
• In the case of broadcast burning there is an estimated total of 6,292 of total dozer
constructed fireline. 2,272 ft is on a restored road which will be put back in restored
condition at completion of burn.
Table 1. Prescription Summary for Alternative B.
Prescription- Non-Commercial Harvest
Pre-commercial Thin (PCT)
Mastication (PCT)
Tree Planting- Artificial Regeneration
Prescription- Commercial Harvest
Regeneration with Reserves (RRT)
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
Acres
527
135.5
543.9
Acres
543.9
4
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Seed Tree / Overstory Removal (ST/OR)
Seed Tree (ST)
Shelterwood (SW)
Sanitation (SANI)
Improvement Cut (IC)
Commercial Thin (CT)
Overstory Removal (OR)
Total Commercial Harvest
1,063.6
392.2
69.1
0
969.2
28.1
30.1
3,096.2
Table 2. Alternative B harvest systems.
Logging Method
Acres
Tractor
Tether
Total
2,855
241.2
3,096.2
Table 3. Hazard Fuel Reduction blocks utilizing prescribed underburn.
Block
875
876
877
Acres
2555 Acres
2456 Acres
1712 Acres
Treatment/Rx
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Tabbl 4. Alternative B road construction and reconstruction and use.
PROPOSED (new)
RECONSTRUCT
BIA
COUNTY
LOST CREEK 2026 ROADS
9.49 Miles (all within sale boundary)
38.9 Miles (2.19 miles outside of sale boundary)
12.03 Miles (5.92 miles outside of sale boundary)
6.94 Miles (3.64 miles outside of sale boundary)
Road Closure Plan
All newly constructed roads would be closed following post-harvest activities in accordance with
forest practices 4-7-60 2(E). However, closure may be delayed allowing for planned Forest
Development Activities. There are approximately 20 miles of road that would be temporarily
closed via tank traps.
Other Project Design Features
There are many other project design features that are included in this alternative. These are
included to help protect other resources such as fish and wildlife, and riparian areas. Some of
these design features are outlined below. These design features would help mitigate most of the
issues and concerns raised by Fish and Wildlife, Soils and Hydrology. These design features
would make the project meet the standards of the IRMP and Forest Practices Code and help to
mitigate some of the potential negative impacts of the project.
•
•
Habitat patches would be left in the large units to break up the “continuity” on the
landscape and provide refuge for wildlife.
Scattered over-story trees would be left on all units to provide a future source of snags
and down woody debris.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
5
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
•
•
•
•
•
•
Streams and wetlands would be buffered as required by the current CTCR Forest
Practices.
A combination of cable logging and ground-based systems would be used, depending on
steepness of the units and road placement.
Archeological sites would be buffered and protected from logging damage.
Corridors would be in place on the landscape to allow wildlife to travel across the project
area while being secure.
Continued monitoring for specific wildlife species would occur and operational
adjustments can be made if needed.
Skid trails would be spaced at least 100 feet to reduce soil compaction and displacement.
When timber harvest takes place, Best Management Practices (BMP’s) outlined in the Colville
Confederated Tribes Forest Practices Handbook (208 Handbook), dated 2023, would be
employed. Timber contract compliance by the Timber Sale Officer (TSO) would be the foremost
method ensuring that the BMP’s are followed and implemented. Proper maintenance of roads
and skid trails after logging operations would be implemented to reduce erosion. Designated skid
trails and cable assisted logging would help reduce impacts to the soil resources. Slash
treatments, on the ground and at the landings, would be either lop & scattered, slash, excavator
piled & burned, prescribed burned or left on site. The continual management of the stands
including monitoring from initial stand development to the maturity of the stand would be
completed by various forestry staff such as Silviculturists, Timber Sale Officers, and forest
development staff. The monitoring would ensure the individual stands are going down the
anticipated pathway to the desired future conditions.
Culverts would be replaced at certain locations depending on the necessity which would be
determined by the TSO’s, District Officer, the Road Engineer, or Non-Point Source Coordinator.
Also, new culverts would be installed to allow the continual flow of water to remain in the same
established channel and accommodate the estimated discharge of a 100-year flood event. Water
sources would be identified on the FPA/HPA application as potential sites to obtain water for
road watering, dependent on approval from the Water Administrator. Calcium chloride may be
used on sections of road as an alternative to road watering.
Riparian Management Zones (RMZ) would be identified in the planning process using stream
classification maps and determined by Presales Department personnel during block boundary
layout. RMZ buffers would follow requirements of the Forest Practices Code (CTC 4-7), dated
2023. During implementation of road construction activities and logging operations, some trees
may need to be harvested, if they present a safety hazard.
Fire and smoke management will utilize the strategy outlined in the CTCR Fire Management
Plan (2016). A written Prescribed Fire Plan will be approved prior to prescribed fire actions. The
Fire Management Officer or Burn Boss will take into consideration the following factors: Wind
direction and speed, fuel type, fuel loading, current visibility and the location of the burn project.
The risk of fire escaping into reserve stands will be assessed and a recommended category of
mop-up will occur. The burn boss will prepare a report covering the completeness of burn,
potential problems, re-burn possibilities and other concerns to provide to technician directly
responsible for patrol and mop-up.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
6
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Fire Control will evaluate dispersion conditions to minimize exposure of smoke and will inform
the public. Smoke warnings of reduced visibility will be utilized if smoke threatens visibility on
a highway.
3.0 Affected Environment
3.1 Forestry
Figure 2. Ariel View of Proposed Lost Creek Project Area.
General Discussion
The Lost Creek project is located approximately 20 miles north of Nespelem, WA, within the
Upper Lost Creek Watershed Management Unit (WMU) and the Lower Lost Creek WMU. The
Colville Reservation boundary is the north boundary of the project area. The project area has
common, adjacent boundaries with the following Watershed Management Units: west of the
Loony Creek; northwest of the Upper Gold Creek; north of the following WMU’s: Clark Creek,
Hayden Creek, and Swimptkin Creek; northeast of the Lost Creek Creek; and east of Brown Pass
Project Boundary. Little Moses Mountain is part of the south boundary and a landmark of the
Lost Creek Project boundary. Crawfish Lake is a landmark, part of the north boundary of the
project.
Forest Health
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
7
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Past management practices of fire suppression, reduction in grazing, and single tree selection had
the cumulative effect of creating a forest that is very different ecologically than the historically.
Another aspect of forest health is that of direct damage to trees by insects, diseases, and parasitic
plants. The forest condition is described in detail in the 2023 CTCR Forest Management Plan
and 2015 IRMP. Please refer to that those plans to understand the forest health issues occurring
on the Colville Reservation.
The Lost Creek Project Area was last managed around 2011. Previous harvest history shows a
mix of intermediate cuts such as Commercial Thins and Improvement Cuts such as
Seedtree/Overstory removals and RRTs. Maintenance treatments are planned in some of these
same blocks this entry. The Tunk Block and Northstar Fires of 2015 had a major impact on the
project area.
Most stands are overstocked, with a closed canopy of young trees that are in need of thinning.
Some have a multi-storied structure due to seeding in from over story trees. The risk of
catastrophic wildfire is greater in these stands than would have normally occurred, due to dense
stocking or ladder fuel conditions that would allow fire to spread into the forest canopy.
Fire Condition Class
Condition class is used to categorize the degree to which site conditions have departed/altered
from what would be considered their normal historic range and the risk of losing key ecosystem
components. There are three fire condition class categories.
Due to the past activities in the Lost Creek Project Area the condition class of the sites have
some departure from the normal historic range. Condition Class 2 (moderately altered /moderate
risk) is the most prevalent within the project area at 9,582 acres within the treatment areas, with
5,929 Acres of Condition Class 1(slightly altered/low risk), and 938 acres in Condition Class
3(significantly altered/high risk). 211 acres of Condition Class 1 and 487 acres of Condition
Class 2 are proposed to be treated that fall in the Haden Project area. 672 acres of Condition
Class 1, 544 acres of Condition Class 2, and 1216 acres of Condition Class 3 fall in the Clark
Creek Project area. Please note that Condition Class acres do not equal treated acres due to the
classifications of Barren and Sparsely Vegetated are not included in Fire Regime Condition Class
calculations, and the total is of the project acres, not treated acres. As a result of these past
harvest treatments condition class has improved and stand conditions are closer to their normal
historic range.
3.2 Hydrology
The Lost Creek project area is contained within the Lost Creek Resource Management Unit
(RMU), which contains Upper and Lower Lost Creek WMUs. Lost Creek flows north off of the
Reservation into the West Fork San Poil River in the Aenaes Valley, before flowing back onto
the Reservation and into the San Poil River. Tunk Creek WMU bounds the project area to the
west, though Tunk Creek itself flows north, off the Reservation and towards the Okanogan
River, without influencing Lost Creek. To the southwest, the Swimptkin and Stapaloop drainages
flow into Omak Creek, away from Lost Creek. The Haden Creek, South Fork Lost Creek, and
Moses Creek WMUs are located directly south of the project area and contain streams of the
same names that contribute to Lost Creek. Likewise, Loony Creek and Sheep Creek to the east
flow into Lost Creek below the confluence with Haden Creek. The Stepstone Creek and Upper
Gold Creek WMUs form a portion of the southeastern boundary, though Little Moses Mountain
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
8
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
forms the major drainage divide between the Lost Creek RMU, the Nespelem River RMU, and
the West Fork San Poil River RMU.
In addition to direct impacts in the Lost Creek watershed, landscape-scale impacts from activity
in the Lost Creek project area would be detected in the West Fork and the main stem of the San
Poil 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), one other green timber sale has occurred in the Lost Creek RMU: Haden
Creek (2020). Additionally, although few acres in the Lost Creek RMU have burned in the last 5
years, 9,317 acres of the RMU burned in the 2015 Northstar and Tunk fires, followed by salvage
harvest.
Water resources in the project area include 77.5 miles of streams and 277.6 acres of wetlands, as
well as an unknown number of seeps and springs. Lost Creek is the major watercourse through
the project area, flowing generally west to east across the project area before flowing off of the
Reservation. Tributaries to Lost Creek include South Fork Lost Creek (Type 2), multiple
unnamed type 3 streams, which are generally perennial and fish-bearing, and type 4 streams,
which are generally intermittent, high-gradient headwater streams. Lost Creek is perennial and
fish-bearing.
Water quality is monitored on the mainstem of Lost Creek (site ID: LOS040), downstream of the
confluence with Loony Creek. 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). Lost Creek exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard for Class II waters (8.0
mg/L) on 6/28/2021 and 7/27/2021, with measurements of 7.4 and 4.4 mg/L respectively.
Additionally, temperature exceedances of the standard for Class II waters (18°C) were recorded
on 7/29/2019 (19.1°C), 6/24/2020 (18.2°C), and 6/28/2021 (18.1 °C). These water quality
metrics are often associated, as warmer water can hold less dissolved oxygen than cooler water;
notably, water quality standard exceedances of these metrics align on 6/28/2021. Lab metrics
(fecal coliform, e.coli, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, TKN and orthophosphates) were only monitored
at LOS040 during 2018; however, during that time, there were multiple measurements of fecal
coliform and e.coli in exceedance of the Tribal Water Quality Standards.
Table 5. Hydrologic features within the Lost Creek Project Area footprint.
Hydrologic Feature
Potentially Affected Size
Mapped Streams
77.5 mi
Mapped Wetlands
277.6 ac
3.3 Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife
The Lost Creek project area supports habitat for a variety of birds including Northern goshawks,
great gray owls, other raptors, pileated woodpeckers and other cavity nesters, gold and bald
eagles, owls, and a wide range of songbirds. Habitat components that provide requirements for
the highest concentration of birds are found in and around riparian areas and areas with
deciduous vegetation. Other critical habitat components include large diameter trees, snags and
an abundance of large woody debris.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
9
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Other Species
The Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a large forest raptor, strongly associated with
mature forests where there is dense and closed canopy cover, open understory for flyways, and
multiple canopy layers for protection. These attributes are critical for nesting and foraging
Northern goshawks. Great gray owls (Strix nebulosi) share similar habitat requirements as the
Northern goshawk with the additional requirement of open meadows for hunting. Pileated
woodpeckers (Hylatomus pileatus) and white-headed woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus) are
residents of the project area. Woodpeckers seek habitat that contains large diameter trees and
mature stands of timber with an abundance of woody debris.
The Lost Creek Timber Sale 2026 Project Area contains habitat that meets the life requirements
of a variety of mammal species including snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), mice (Cricetidae
spp.), voles (Cricetidae spp.), beaver (Castor canadensis), several species of bat (Chiroptera
spp.), coyotes (Canus latrans), black bears (Ursus americanus), bobcats (Lynx rufus) and
cougars (Puma concolor). Retainment of coarse woody debris, in particular large trees/stumps,
provide rich denning habitat for black bears, as well as micro habitat for many insects and
reptiles. Reptiles and amphibians are also residents of the project area and are sensitive to habitat
changes. Areas used for reproduction are among the most important areas to protect for these
species. Each of these species would react differently to the impacts of logging operations but
maintaining species diversity and structural complexity would ensure the continuance of the
greatest suite of species.
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Rocky mountain
elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), and Moose (Alces alces) are culturally significant species to tribal
members for both subsistence and ceremonial uses and are found within and adjacent to the
project area throughout the year. Additionally, aerial big game surveys have documented winter
range for elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, and moose within the perimeter of the project area.
Mule deer can be found throughout the area from steep forested ridges to lowland shrub-steppe
habitat at all elevations. White-tailed deer are primarily found using riparian-associated habitat
adjacent to streams, rivers, meadows, or agriculture at elevations below 3,500 feet. Elk are
known to use portions of the area throughout the year, including calving grounds and winter
range.
The Colville Reservation is currently home to eight known wolf packs. Gray wolves (Canis
lupus) as an apex predator play an important role in ecosystem function, preying primarily on
ungulates such as deer, elk and moose. Currently, there is a wolf pack utilizing the Lost Creek
area, with habitat and prey existing to support wolves. This area provides travel habitat and
movement for resident and migrant wolves. Wolves in Eastern Washington are state threatened
species, but not a federal listed species.
It is likely that Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) are present in the Lost Creek Timber Sale 2026
Project Area due to its elevation and habitat type. Additionally, it has been recorded that Canada
lynx have used this area as an island to connect to their western Sinlahekin range. As originally
proposed, the Lost Creek project May Effect , unlikely to adversely affect Canadian Lynx.
Fish
The Lost Creek Project area is located in the headwaters of the Sanpoil River Basin including a
large portion of the Lost Creek drainage. Within the project area, several fish bearing streams are
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
10
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
present, including Lost Creek itself as well as several smaller type 3 and 4 streams. These
streams are home to native redband rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri, a culturally
significant species to the CTCR tribal membership, brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, native
minnows (Leucisidae), and sculpins (Cottidae). Ecological responses from the proposed actions
may include elevated sediment production, sediment delivery to stream channels, and an altered
hydrograph, and these responses are correlated with ground disturbing actions. Sedimentation of
streams may be abated by increased buffers and/or piling of slash on skid trails. It is
recommended that the RMZ buffers be maintained and protected, and where possible, sediment
abatement measures be instated accordingly.
The Lake Roosevelt drainage area, including the Sanpoil River Basin, 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 Lost Creek 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. Therefore, while bull trout have been rarely
encountered in Lake Roosevelt, bull trout are very unlikely to be impacted by this project.
Federally Threatened or Endangered Species
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) of 1973 as amended, and
its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 402, require federal agencies to insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat. The project would not directly or indirectly impact on any living
resources. Information for Planning and Conservation was acquired from the United States
Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI-FWS) for Endangered Species Act
Species List. An Official Species List from the United States Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service (USDOI-FWS) consultation code is included below (Appendix B). The
following species, listed in Table 6, have no critical habitat and no potential to occur within or
adjacent to the project site based on the appropriate USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle map.
Table 6. US-DOI-Fish and Wildlife Service: Official Species List.
Species
Canada Lynx
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Monarch Butterfly
Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee
Scientific Name
Lynx canadensis
Coccyzus americanus
Danaus plexippus
Bombus suckleyi
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
11
Status
Threatened
Threatened
Proposed Threatened
Proposed Endangered
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Bull Trout
Whitebark Pine
Salvelinus confluentus
Pinus albicaulis
Threatened
Threatened
Upon review of the location of the proposed action, consultation with the BIA and Tribal
Wildlife Biologist determined that the proposed actions and associated activities would have
‘May Effect, unlikely to adversely affect” Canada Lynx. This project will have “No Effect” to
the remaining species’ 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.
Table 7. US-DOI-Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Birds List. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC); Continental USA and Alaska (CON).
Species
Cassin’s Finch
Rufous Hummingbird
Evening Grosbeak
Bald Eagle
Golden Eagle
Lewis’s Woodpecker
Long-Eared Owl
Olive-Sided Flycatcher
Scientific Name
Carpodacus cassinii
Selasphorus rufus
Coccothraustes verpertinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aquila chrysaetos
Melanerpes lewis
Asio otus
Contopus cooperi
Status
BCC Rangewide (CON)
BCC Rangewide (CON)
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Non-BCC Vulnerable
BCC Rangewide (CON)
BCC Rangewide (CON)
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Habitat
The project area supports a variety of cottonwood and aspen (Populus spp.) stands possessing
multiple stand characteristics. Riparian areas within the project area are associated with seeps
and springs, intermittent and perennial streams, and wetlands. There are many seeps and springs
in this area that may not be visible until the ground is disturbed; this along with soil type and
slope could result in washouts and landslides. Deciduous trees and shrubs are present in the
lower elevations of the project and in the saddles and draws of the higher elevations; these areas
are considered riparian habitat if they are linked to a seasonal or perennial water source.
Within the project there are areas that contain sufficient woody debris both in the uplands and
riparian habitats. These areas would be impacted by the removal of large recruitment trees, the
reduction of snags and the removal of downed wood due to site prep and equipment operation.
3.4 Cultural Resources
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and its implementing
regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800, require federal agencies to identify cultural resources for
federal action. The significance of the resource must be evaluated using established criteria
outlined at 36 CFR 60.4. If a resource is determined to be a historic property, Section 106 of the
NHPA requires that effects of the undertaking on the resource be determined. A historic property
is “…any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material
remains related to such a property…” (NHPA, 16 USC 470w, Sec. 301[5]).
“Cultural resources” include archaeological sites, standing structures, and locations or landforms
that are important to the identity of the indigenous people of the area (i.e., traditional cultural
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
12
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
properties [TCPs]). For more details on the affected cultural environment, please consult the
CCT Cultural Resource Management Plan (CCT 2007), the cultural resources overview for the
Colville Reservation (Gough 1990), and the FEIS for the IRMP (CAR 2018).
The Lost Creek Forestry Project is within the ancestral lands of the Okanogan Tribe, who can
identify their ancestry, back over a thousand years in this area. The languages of the twelve tribes
comprising the CTCR have been grouped into general Salishan and Sahaptian language families.
The majority spoke the Interior Salish languages of nxaɁamcín and nsləxcín, though the
Sahaptian languages of the Nez Perce (nímípuɁ) and Palus (palús) were also spoken. The
language of the Okanogan is nsləxcín.
For the purposes of consultation with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the timber treatment areas and attendant
landings, any road construction and reconstruction as well as all existing roads utilized for
logging operations shall be considered the Area of Potential Effect (APE).
Approximately 516 acres were previously surveyed within and immediately adjacent to the Lost
Creek Forestry Project area (Gough 1990, Marchand 2008). These inquiries have resulted in
documentation twelve archaeological sites and three Traditional Cultural Properties within or
immediately adjacent to the Lost Creek Forestry area and a review of the Colville Confederated
Tribe History/Archaeology.
A search of Bureau of Land Management/General Land Office (BLM/GLO) records indicates
that there is one historic Indian allotment, seven land patents, two mining prospects, one historic
road in the approximate location of the current Moses Meadows/Lyman Lake road, and one
historic trail now known as Colby Trail Road documented within the project area.
For the current project, a predictive model (Hess 2001) was used to select areas within the Lost
Creek Project area for a cultural resource survey. One new archaeological site and one
significant cultural plant population was documented during this survey.
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) the 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 may lake individual distinction, or D) they must have yielded, or be
likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Additionally, to be a “property” a
TCP must have tangible boundaries (36 CFR 60.4; Parker & King 1998).
Shannon and Moura (2007) have aptly observed that due to the unique nature of TCPs, the
standards identified above must also be evaluated with perception of Native American history.
When reviewing TCPs for continued use of at least 50 years, for instance, it must be recalled that
federal and state policies common in the 1800s restricted, regulated and denied access to
property to Tribal people which had previously been in their exclusive territory. Oftentimes,
Indian people may shift their area of use to adjacent or nearby locations if a previously utilized
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
13
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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 increase their potential to yield important information to the CTCR.
Oral history accounts of the region identify the general areas of Moses Meadows, Lost Creek ,
Haden Creek and Crawfish Lake as possessing traditional value. 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 would continue to have meaning and significance regardless of
the language used to describe them (George 2011).
It is likely that cairns, rock alignments, and other rock features may be found throughout the area
due to the prominent landscape of the mountains in the area. Small pre-contact camps may be
present on the upland areas adjacent to springs or creeks, or in sheltered canyons, where people
would have camped while taking advantage of upland resources. Evidence of early historicperiod occupation, logging and mining features and\or graves may be present within the project
area. It is also likely that eagle feather collection areas are utilized by current Tribal members,
given the proximity to the Columbia River.
The project area is located within the Lost Creek Watershed, which contains all or portions of
Lost Creek, Haden Creek, Loony Creek, Moses Creek, and Crawfish Lake. Water-based
activities occur in equal amounts during the fall, spring and summer within this watershed. This
area is documented as the principle gathering location for at least eight plant species for
consumption, construction and religious purposes (Table 8). One spring, which the CCT attribute
significant cultural value to, are documented within this watershed. Four locations within this
watershed have been documented as important areas for water-related resource use, legendary
landscapes, or spiritual areas. Some of these are associated with the Moses Meadows and Lost
Creek.
Table 8. Traditional Cultural Plants gathered within the Lost Creek Watershed (Marker et al. 2011).
Valerian,
Wild Strawberry,
Lodogepole Pine,
Valerina spp
Fragaria vesca
Pinus contorta
Fir,
Red Willow (Dogwood),
xusxus (Canby’s Lovage),
Multiple Species
Conrus stolonifera
Ligusticum canbyi
Western Larch,
Cedar,
Larix occdentalis
Thuja plicata
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
14
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
3.5 Range Management
Range Program Operations
Within forest project areas grazing is a secondary land use but is important to CTCR livestock
owners for success in their economic venture. Grazing can also provide positive impacts by
reducing accumulated fuel and reinvigorating grasses. Rangeland structural resources such as
fences, watering facilities, and cattle guards are an important component to the sustainable
stewardship of land designated for grazing and are very expensive to replace. The proposed
treatment blocks for this project are located within the Northern portion of Range Unit 5. The
Range Programs infrastructure GIS layer indicates quite a few structural assets associated with
RU 5 that would likely be encountered during this project. Fences and cattle guards are of
particular concern. CTCR Range Program asks that when range infrastructure is encountered
such as cattle guards, watering facilities, and fences they be avoided as much as possible. If
range infrastructure is damaged during project activity the project proponent would be
responsible for notifying the Range Program and seeing that damage is repaired in a timely
manner. If cattle guards are located on roads that need to be used for heavy traffic, they should
be assessed for the ability to handle the weight of large trucks and equipment. The Range
Program can assist with that if contacted in a timely manner. If it is determined the cattle guard
does not meet specifications for the anticipated weight of the traffic, and there is no way to
bypass it, the cattle guard may need to be temporarily removed. If this is the case it is essential
the Range Program be notified 48 hours prior to the removal. The removed cattle guard would be
reinstalled by the proponent of the project unless other arrangements are made with the CTCR
Range Program.
The impacted Range Unit 5 has approximately 300 head of livestock permitted on it. 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. The
Range Program would also be notified when burning occurs in the forest project area before the
turnout date of May 15th so the Range program can move livestock to an area on the range unit
that would not be affected.
3.6 Air Quality
This project is located within the Okanogan River Airshed. Air quality is generally good, with
the primary reason for lower air quality is smoke from wildfires, however, the majority of days
are in the least polluted air quality category. (CAR 2018)
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Summary Table of Issues Indicators
Table 9. Summary table of issue indicators for goals and objectives.
Resource Issue
Issue Indicator
Alt. A
Alt. B
Vegetation Forest Health
/Timber
Acres Treated
0
3,096 ac
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
15
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Support of Tribal
Wood Processing
Timber Volume
for Processing
0
23.7 MMBF
Tribal Income
Projected
Stumpage
$0
$7 Million
4.1 Forestry
Impacts to Forestry Resources Alternative A: No Action
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No profits for Colville Tribe and would not meet the AAC of 77.1 MMBF.
Forest management would not receive the 10% funds.
No timber industry employment would be generated.
Forest health would decline.
No Improvements in forest roads.
Area would move farther away from the Desired Future Condition’s in the Integrated
Resource Management Plan.
No new acres would be added to the regulated forest.
Catastrophic wildfire would not be reduced.
Under this alternative, no conifer trees would be harvested. No timber stumpage revenue would
be generated. No Forest Management Deduction (10%) 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 the desired objectives would not be
achieved in regard to 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.
The effect of No action on historic and desired future fire regimes would be to allow site
conditions to continue to depart from historic conditions and further increase the probability of a
wildfire scenario that would likely cause stand replacement on a considerable portion of the
project area. Fire suppression activities would continue as in the past. Although much of this
area historically burned at 35-100 year intervals, current policy dictates that this would not occur.
North facing shaded aspects would have a high severity stand replacement if a wildfire occurred.
South facing aspects would have mixed severity results. The exclusion of fire has resulted in an
overabundance of vegetation. More fire prone species such as Douglas fir and lodge pole pine
have dominated the understory and created an abundance of ladder fuel, mixed with the amount
of dead and downed material from any fuels reductions activities. These areas would continue to
develop the stand composition and structure that makes them more prone to stand replacement
events.
Forest roads would not be maintained and/or reconstructed and potentially upgraded by culvert
installation and erosion control which would affect the access and use of resources by the
Colville Tribe and public. Under-sized culverts and plastic culverts would not be replaced.
Impacts to Forestry Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action
•
$7 million dollars of profit for the Colville Tribe with a harvest of 23.7 MMBF
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
16
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
•
•
•
•
•
•
Forest health would improve, diseased trees would be lessened, and disease-resistant
species would be regenerated naturally and with planting.
Understory Douglas-fir, Subalpine/Grand Fir, Lodgepole Pine encroachment would be
piled and/or burned, reducing the likelihood of catastrophic fire and prepare site for
regeneration of desirable species.
6,723 acres will undergo prescribed underburn reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Density would be reduced in overstocked stands, creating a healthier forest.
Desired Future Condition’s outlined in the IRMP would be met over time.
38.9 miles of existing roads and 12.03 miles of BIA roads would be improved.
Thinning/logging would increase the dead and down fuel loading but will be mitigated with
under burning. Returning fire to the ecosystem would increase resilience of function. Fire on the
landscape increases fire adapted vegetation species occupying these sites supporting healthy
resilient plant communities. The target of this treatment is to increase the crown base height,
reduce dead and down fuel loading, and crown bulk density to decrease the probability of
supporting a crown fire.
Some of the potential negative impacts that a timber sale may create, include the following:
Visual landscape changes or disturbances would occur. Man-made “signs” (ribbon, tags, paint)
are introduced into the area to guide the forest management. Noise and dust are created from
logging operations. Existing vegetation is temporarily disturbed, but their resiliency to
disturbances would allow them to come back. Skid trails and landings are created. Woody slash
material is created.
4.2 Hydrology
Impacts to Hydrology Resources Alternative A: No Action
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 because 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 Watershed Management Units (WMUs) in the project area are higher than the
desired condition outlined in the IRMP (desired: 4.0 mi/mi2; current: Upper Lost Creek: 5.47
mi/mi2, Lower Lost Creek: 6.03 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
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
17
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
maintained. Maintaining the lowest road density (i.e. the existing condition) would provide the
closest approximation of natural hydrologic conditions, between the two scenarios. High road
densities are detrimental to watershed hydrology primarily due to the interception and diversion
of water from natural flow paths. When water flowing down a hillslope is intercepted by a road
prism, ditch, blocked or undersized culvert, or other infrastructure, that water is generally
diverted or lost to evaporation, rather than continuing as overland, shallow subsurface, or
groundwater flow. As climate change advances, it becomes increasingly important to retain
water on the landscape. High road density contributes to the loss of water on the landscape
through decreased infiltration and increased evaporation, and each additional road increases
these effects.
Existing roads in the Lost Creek project area are maintained to various levels of stability. 37
existing segments, with a total length of 12.17 miles, were identified for review; segments were
selected for review if they were within or adjacent to swales, draws, wetlands, streams, or other
aquatic resources. Additionally, some segments had previously received restoration treatment,
and were identified to prevent unauthorized use. Under the No Action Alternative, none of these
segments would be reconstructed, and use would not increase. However, segments that have not
been maintained may continue to be at risk of failure, and crossings obstructing flow and fish
passage would continue to do so.
Impacts to Hydrology Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action
•
•
•
4.22 miles of new construction and 7.54 miles of reconstruction within 200 ft of
hydrologic features
Harvest activities within 200 ft of streams – 305.38 ac
Harvest activities within 200 ft of wetlands – 59.30ac
The proposed action would involve 3,097 acres of timber harvest. Throughout the project area,
these activities overlap and abut streams and wetlands, with 364.68 acres of harvest activities
within 200 feet of wetlands and streams.
Harvest operations, including the use of heavy machinery to fell and skid timber, cause soil
compaction and erosion; additionally, as a result of decreased vegetation, interception,
infiltration and water use are decreased, and a greater volume of water occurs as overland flow.
This can result in great sediment transportation to downslope streams and wetlands, resulting in
decreased water quality. Additionally, harvest operations create linear features such as skid trails.
If oriented parallel to the slope, or located in swales and topographic low points, these linear
features channelize water, and lead to rill and gully erosion, sediment transportation, and road
failure. These effects can be minimized by locating skid trails perpendicular to slope direction,
and through the use of cable logging rather than ground-based harvest systems, particularly on
steeper slopes.
All road construction and use associated with proposed timber harvest activities would lead to
soil disturbance and loss as well as alteration of watershed hydrology (Hunner 2014).
Specifically, road miles within 200 ft. of surface water are statistically likely to deliver
sediment/erosion to surface water (Dubé et al 2004). Road reconstruction and new construction
effects on water quality, hydrologic processes, and aquatic habitat would be the longest-ongoing, longest-lasting, and highest-degree negative impacts resulting from the proposed action.
The use of heavy machinery to create and redo roads would result in immediate sediment
delivery to adjacent waterbodies. Additionally, reconstruction results in soil compaction and
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
18
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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.
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. 3,097 acres, across 46 blocks, are proposed for ground based (tractor and cable assist)
harvest. Assuming an average block width of approximately 2,000 feet (a conservative
estimation), with average skid trail spacing of 100 feet (as required by Colville Tribal Code 4-7
Forest Practices), over 900 skid trails would be created in blocks prescribed for ground-based
harvest. 2022 aerial imagery from previous sales, including the 2020 Hayden Creek timber sale,
was determined to be closer to an average of roughly 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, 364.68 acres of proposed ground-based harvest
would occur within 200 feet of hydrologic features. The potential for sediment and nutrient
delivery to surface water via skid trail creation is elevated in these acres.
Tethered logging involves the use of a winch for assistance in machinery operation of slopes, is
proposed for 241.2 acres of blocks. Existing Tribal Code does not allow for operation of groundbased harvest systems on slopes over 35% due to potential soil impacts, recognizing the
increased magnitude of machinery impacts as slope increases. However, tethered logging has
been adopted for use on slopes up to 70%, to increase efficiency and decrease costs of harvest.
Where any ground-based harvest system is used on vulnerable soils, the potential for compaction
and erosion is increased. When these factors are combined with steep slopes and proximity to
aquatic resources, the potential for sediment delivery and resource damage is significant. 9.7 of
these acres are located within 200 feet of hydrologic features (streams and wetlands), increasing
the potential for sediment delivery due to the combination of ground-based operation and steep
slopes.
Road development and use impacts include alterations in flow paths due to the creation of linear
landscape features (roads) perpendicular to natural slopes; reduced infiltration and increased
erosion due to the creation of impervious or resistant surfaces; and increased transport of vehicle
associated contaminants (including 6PPD-q, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from exhaust,
etc.), among others.
Proposed reconstruction and new construction in the Lost Creek project area would occur on
48.39 miles of road. The proposed haul route for logging vehicles to transport logs to the mills
would utilize Moses Meadows Road, and then north off the reservation through Aeneas Valley
on to Highway 20. According to the Transportation Planner, there is a small possibility that the
haul route would go down to Highway 155, if logs were being sent to Cle Elum. 11.76 miles of
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
19
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
reconstruction and new construction would occur within 200 feet of surface water. High road
densities detrimentally affect water retention on the landscape, creating interception points that
redirect flow from reaching creeks, streams, and wetlands. Abandonment and revegetation of
roads can mitigate some of the effects of high road density, improving infiltration and decreasing
overland flow, but retention of road prisms, nonnative roadbed material, and artificial crossing
structures such as culverts would continue to alter hillslope hydrology regardless of vegetation
establishment. Additionally, studies have shown that the chemical 6PPD-quinone, used in the
manufacture of rubber tires, can cause acute mortality in salmonids, including rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), found in streams across the Colville Reservation. Roads in proximity to
salmonid bearing waters may result in 6PPD-q related effects.
Therefore, the action in this area would have direct physical changes on the environment. The
Proposed Action Alternative approval would have cumulative effects resulting from road
construction and timber harvest. The associated effects are discussed in Section 5.6 of this EA.
Surface Water:
The proposed alternative would generate sediment through the creation of skid trails, increase
overland flow through the removal of vegetation, and create interception points through the
construction and reconstruction of roads. A minimum of 54 culverts would be installed or
replaced during this project. Road miles and road density in the project area would increase due
to the 9.49 miles of new road construction.
Direct Impacts Short-Term
Timber harvest activities are likely to result in short term impacts to surface water quality
through the removal of vegetation. Temperature and dissolved oxygen standards have been
exceeded at the Lost Creek water quality monitoring site on multiple occasions during the
previous monitoring period. Increased heating of surface water, particularly in headwaters and
tributaries, is likely, due to removal of vegetative cover. Degradation of temperature and
dissolved oxygen metrics would likely be short term impacts of timber sale activities.
Additionally, although turbidity has previously not been a metric of concern in Lost Creek,
ground-based timber harvest is likely to result in sediment generation and transport to surface
water through soil disturbance and creation of linear flow paths. Water quantity is the main stem
of Lost Creek may increase in the short term, due to removal of vegetation and reduction of
transpirative losses. However, much of this water would travel as overland flow, becoming
vulnerable to evaporation and interception from road prisms, skid trails, and other anthropogenic
alterations. 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 would likely
decrease for these reasons as well. These impacts would be sustained over the duration of the
project, approximately five years.
Direct Impacts Long-Term
Long term impacts to surface water would continue until vegetation is established and disturbed
areas are stabilized. As skid trails and roads are seeded with herbaceous vegetation, soils would
become more stable, and water quality would gradually return to pre-harvest conditions. As
larger vegetation and trees establish, surface water quantity would decrease with increased
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
20
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
evapotranspiration. Depending on the duration and severity of impacts to natural hillslope
hydrology, flow paths may be permanently altered by the creation of skid trails and roads.
Additionally, roads would not be deconstructed at the conclusion of the sale. Therefore, road
density impacts on interception and diversion would persist, and road use would continue into
the foreseeable future. Crossing structures would also not be removed and impacts from
improperly installed or sized structures would continue to impact water quality in the long term.
Additionally, any road use over streams would continue to deliver sediment and contaminants to
the surface water at the crossing.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, one other timber sale has occurred in the Lost Creek RMU in the past 5
years. This timber sale, Haden Creek, occurred in the WMU of one of the major Lost Creek
tributaries; in the year the sale was initiated, temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements
were in exceedance of the water quality standards on several occasions. While harvest operations
are likely complete, impacts from loss of cover and soil disturbance would continue to impact
water quality in Lost Creek. The Lynx Mountain Sale would add an additional 3,097 acres of
timber harvest in the drainage. Additionally, 9,317 acres of the Lost Creek RMU burned during
the North Star and Tunk Fires, followed by salvage harvest. Each acre of timber harvest results
in sediment generation, nutrient transport, and hydrologic alteration.
Wetlands:
The proposed forestry activities would impact wetland ecosystems through soil disturbance,
hydrological alteration, and disruption of vegetative community. 59.30 acres of harvest activities
occur within 200 feet of wetlands and forestry associated road work includes 2.11 miles of new
road and 2.01 miles of road reconstruction within 200 feet of wetlands.
Direct Impacts Short-Term
Extensive tree removal adjacent to the Lost Creek associated Freshwater Emergent Type 2
Wetland, W.LC_013, in the RRT Rx Block 160-085 and adjacent to Freshwater Emergent Type
3 Wetland, W.LC_061, in the Seed Tree/Overstory Removal Rx Blocks 163-084 and 163-101are
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. Environmental Trust has received verbal
confirmation that a previously unmapped wetland (W.LC133e) in RRT Rx Block 160-024 would
be buffered with a 50 ft RMZ, but mapping as of 12/4/25 does not show this indication. There
remains a direct impact potential and this wetland must be buffered based on on-ground
conditions.
Direct Impacts Long-Term
There are 2.11 miles of new road and 2.01 miles of road reconstruction within 200 feet of
wetlands indicated in the Lost Creek Forestry Project with 12 incidences totaling 0.8 miles of
reconstructed road within Wetland RMZ buffers. 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.
Cumulative Impacts
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
21
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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 Lost Creek and its associated streams. The Lost Creek 2026 Forestry Harvest
Project would occur simultaneously with BIA Land Operations grazing permits in Range Unit 5
and adjacent to Range Units 10 and 12. There are no grazing controls identified for range
practices along Lost Creek and the associated wetlands or isolated wetlands throughout the
project area. Cattle impacts including wetland soil disruption and biological impacts would be
exacerbated by forest practices contributing to excess sedimentation and nutrient inputs. In order
to address these issues the CTCR Wetland Specialist is going to work with the Land Operations
Program in evaluating each Range Unit to identify resource protections during the next grazing
cycle renewal process.
Floodplains:
NOAA mapping indicates an extensive 100-year floodplain associated with Lost and Haden
Creek, including in the upper reaches of Lost Creek. Lower typed tributaries tend not to have
associated floodplain due to topography and slopes within the project area. Blocks and roads
proposed for this project do not encroach on the 100-year floodplain of Lost or Haden Creek,
with the exception of existing road approaches.
Water Resource Impact Conclusions
Table 10. Water Resource Impact Summary from proposed action.
Water Resource
Type
Surface Water
Wetlands
Short-Term Direct
Impacts
Yes
Yes
Long-Term Direct
Impacts
Yes
Yes
Cumulative
Impacts
Yes
Yes
The project would result in short term impacts to soil and surface water, particularly within the
top 12-24 inches. Long term impacts (after the conclusion of the project) would be minimal as
vegetation reestablishes and stabilizes slopes. However, the cumulative impact of the project, in
conjunction with previous timber sale and wildfire impacts, would impact water quality and
quantity throughout the Lost Creek RMU. The Proposed Action would result in short term and
cumulative impacts to water resources including surface water and wetlands.
Resource Use Patterns
Transportation Networks:
The existing transportation network on the Reservation consists of nearly 10,000 miles of road
managed under multiple jurisdictions, maintained to varying degrees of stability. Within the
Omak/Nespelem district, major travel corridors include State Route 155 (Washington State
DOT), Cache Creek Road (Okanogan County Public Works), and Columbia River Road (BIA
DOT), among others (Tribal DOT, etc.). Additionally, the district contains multiple thousands of
miles of forest roads, which do not fall under any of the above jurisdictions, and therefore do not
receive any maintenance. These roads are primarily used for timber harvesting, fire suppression,
and member access for hunting, fishing, and gathering. In addition to this multi-jurisdictional
network, there are over 3,300 stream crossings.
Direct Impacts Short-Term
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
22
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
The Lost Creek timber sale project proposes the construction of 9.49 miles of new road, and 38.9
miles of reconstruction of existing forest road. The use of these roads for timber sale operations
would result in short-term impacts to the existing transportation network through physical
degradation of roads. Large vehicles carrying heavy machinery and loads of logs cause road
quality to deteriorate. This would occur throughout the life of the project.
Direct Impacts Long-Term
The existing roads network is not well maintained; creation of new roads and reconstruction of
existing roads would decrease the amount of maintenance that can be allocated to existing
segments, and cause road quality to deteriorate over time.
Indirect Impacts
No indirect impacts from this project are likely to impact the transportation network.
Cumulative Impacts
In addition to the Lost Creek timber sale, one other timber sale has occurred in the Lost Creek
RMU in the past five years. This results in cumulative stress on the existing and proposed
transportation network through the use of heavy machinery and large vehicles.
Short- and long-term direct, and cumulative impacts to water resources have been identified with
the proposed Lost Creek 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 5.
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 is not known.
Natural disturbances may even benefit fish and wildlife species by increasing habitat values.
Overstocked and diseased stands may show a decline in value for some species of wildlife.
Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources Alternative B: Proposed Action
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
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), of 1918, as amended, prohibits anyone, without
a permit, from “Taking” eagles or any bird, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Within this Act,
eagles/nests/eggs/young are not to be “Disturbed” including agitated or bothered. Aerial surveys
have been conducted in the past by the Colville Tribe to identify eagle and raptor nests. All
known nests are buffered and have seasonal restrictions.
Within the Lost Creek Timber Sale Project boundary there is no known bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) or golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) territories. 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
suitable habitat for eagle species it is requested that these reserve trees consist of the largest
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
23
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
diameter and tallest living trees. 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 is no known active great gray owl territories. One northern goshawk
was observed in the pre-synthesis within the Lost Creek project area, and the nest was located
(119.1980109°W 48.4632165°N). There shall be no harvest activity buffer of 660 feet, which
would be put into place, with a 0.5-mile seasonal (March 1- August 31) buffer to protect
fledgling activities. If at any time during harvest activities, goshawks or great gray owls are
observed, contact the OND wildlife biologists.
Other Fish and Wildlife Species
The Proposed Action would have impacts on fish and wildlife species and habitat within the
project area. Removal of timber from 3,096 acres could have negative impacts on wildlife
populations that use the project area habitat 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, an increase and introduction of noxious weeds, the creation of large
openings, a decrease in water quality, degradation of instream and riparian habitats, a reduction
and loss of large diameter snags, future snags and large diameter downed wood, a deterioration
or loss of mature and old growth coniferous forest, a loss of large diameter trees, a decline or loss
of wildlife travel corridors, a decrease in hiding, escape and thermal cover, and a reduction in
canopy cover. 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 habitat structures and functions within the project area would affect 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
inadequately sized structures typically occurs long after work has been completed.
Protection Measures
Wildlife buffers create travel corridors for wildlife and maintain blocks of habitat designed as
thermal cover. There are a total of four wildlife buffers that act as travel corridors and help
provide cover for larger open areas. The buffers are located linearly between all northern RRT
blocks in the Lost Creek Timber Sale Project area.
In the Lost Creek Timber Sale 2026 Project Area, there are approximately 1,172 acres of blocks
that are adjacent to streams; that is, of the 49 blocks in the Lost Creek 2026 Project Area, 11
(22%) contain or are adjacent to streams. These bodies of water include but are not limited to
Lost Creek, Moses Creek, Hayden Creek, and several unnamed type 3 and type 4 tributaries, and
all contributing streams in each watershed. It is to be noted that this sale is on a large lake in the
WMU, which includes Crawfish Lake. Harvesting close to or near these bodies of water would
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
24
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
allow for increased sedimentation, temperature, decreased supply of woody debris for
invertebrates, 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.
Table 11. Fish and Wildlife Objectives for Proposed Action.
IRMP
Objective
Issue
Indicator
Units
Existing
Condition
Alternative
A
Alternative B
F&W
Objective 1
Wetland/
stream
adjacency
Acres
n/a
No Change
1,142 acres
3.68mi/mi2
F&W
Objective 2
Road
construction
and use
Miles
(Lower
Lost Creek)
3.71 mi/mi2
(Upper
Lost Creek
WMU)
9.49 mi New Construction
No Change
38.9 mi Reconstruction
433 ac buffers in western half
(zones 8/9).
F&W
Objective 3
Buffers
Added
Acres
n/a
No Change
Blocks Removed:
38,42,41,47,45,56
80 ac of buffers in eastern half
Portion of blocks (zone 5)
Blocks partially removed :
111,102, 117
4.4 Cultural Resources
Impacts to Cultural Resources Alternative A: No Action
Although there may be a number of direct and indirect effects to the Reservation’s resources
from the implementation of Alternative A, it is important to recognize that cultural resources are,
for the most part, non-renewable resources. The ‘No Action’ alternative would have a number of
various effects to the known cultural resources identified within the project area.
The historic exclusion of fire on the Reservation has resulted with an overabundance of
vegetation. Although Alternative A would leave the timber intact and allow for natural
succession patterns; overstocked and diseased stands have increased ladder fuels which must be
addressed by current management practices.
Potential impacts of Alternative A include vegetation encroachment to sites which exhibit
surface features. This encroachment may reduce visibility of the site, potentially affecting its
integrity and increasing the likelihood of adverse effects to it from wildland or prescribed fire.
Invasive non-native plant species within this area would likely perpetuate and increase,
competing with native plant species of traditional and cultural significance. The ‘No Action’
alternative may also cause physical damage to sites from snags or trees falling upon them,
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
25
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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 sixteen known cultural resources recorded in the Lost Creek Forestry project
area. Although there has been no official determination of National or Colville Register
eligibility for these sites, all appear to be eligible. These sites may be considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, as described in 36 CFR Part 60.4. One TCP is within the
project’s APE, and is not expected to be impacted by project implementation. The area
delimitated with a significant population of a culturally significant plant was removed from the
proposed sale block. The ‘Proposed Action’ would result in No Adverse Effect to these sites as
long as the prescriptions remain the same and that ground disturbance stays to minimum.
4.5 Range Management
Impacts to Range Resources Alternative A: No Action
This alternative would have no disturbance impact on the current plant community condition.
The No Action Alternative, being a management decision, would also not address the forest
health concerns identified in the proposal. Degraded forest plant communities would remain in a
degraded state.
Impacts to Range Resources for Alternative B: Proposed Action
Harvest disturbance within forested plant communities often benefits plant community health by
reducing potential for disease, insects, and wildfire effects. Reducing canopy densities can also
release understory plants that have been suppressed by overstocked conditions. Desirable natural
understory plants are usually adept at recovery with the type of soil disturbance that normally
occurs with harvest. Areas of concern may be landings, skid trails, roads, and pile burning sites,
all areas where activity may create highly disturbed soil conditions or a change in soil fertility
properties. The potential of increased soil disturbance in these areas may hinder the recovery of
desirable understory plants and increase the possibility of establishing new invasive and noxious
weed populations.
The annual precipitation for the blocks in this proposal is 20” to 36” annually. This broad range
of average annual precipitation can cause variable potentials for the rapid recovery of forest
native understory species. Areas of high soil disturbance in the lower end of the precipitation
range can be slow in recovering naturally allowing more competitive invasive noxious weed
populations the opportunity to become established. Once established many invasive and noxious
weeds can outcompete the natural vegetation. If highly competitive undesirable plants become
established, they are often hard to eliminate. New patches of persistent competitive invasive
weeds also provide a future seed source for further spread in the area.
The most common forest habitat type represented in the project blocks is Douglas-fir/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.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
26
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Post treatment monitoring of understory recovery should occur. If monitoring determines a need,
inputs in the form of native plant seeding and/or herbicide treatment should be considered to
assist in the recovery. Intermediate wheatgrass and Siberian wheatgrass should not be used for
ground cover as they are nonnative, persistent, and highly competitive. These nonnative species
although classified as forage plants seem to be less preferred to wildlife and livestock. Grazing
animals would go to the 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 the need for herbicide treatment and/or seeding the Land Operations
department can offer suggestions for herbicide treatment and seed mix if assistance is needed.
Noxious Species
Logging and related activities can introduce new invasive species to a site via uncleaned
equipment and soil disturbing activities or cause currently present invasive species to spread
more rapidly. In order to insure the action would not contribute to the introduction, continued
existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area,
or promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species, cleaning
equipment prior to using on site, washing equipment in a centralized area, re-seeding heavily
disturbed sites such as skid trails and landings is required. Monitoring of understory recovery
should occur and if monitoring determines a need, inputs in the form of native plant seeding
and/or herbicide treatment should be considered to assist recovery, giving a competitive
advantage to desired plant species. If the project manager determines a need for herbicide
treatment and/or seeding the Land Operations department can offer suggestions for herbicide
treatment and seed mix if assistance is needed.
4.6 Air Quality
Impacts to Air Resources for Alternative B: Proposed Action
Timber harvesting, a critical component of forest management, significantly influences air
quality, particularly through the emission of particulate matter (PM). PM, a blend of solid
particles and liquid droplets, permeates the air, originating from both natural and human-made
sources.
Smoke from wildland fires can contribute to short-term and intermediate health effects. The health
effects are generally reversible with the short term exposure this burn would create. Little data exists
confirming or denying a higher risk for wildland fire personnel. Individuals with asthma, allergies, or
the capacity to develop reactive airways are more likely to be susceptible to the effects of smoke
(Sharkey 1997). Visibility reduction from wildland fire can impact scenic vistas, as well as create
hazards along transportation routes. Of particular concern are low-lying areas near bodies of water
(e.g., lakes, stream and river corridors) that are prone to the development of fog. These same areas
can be geographic locations where SMOG can form, a mixture of smoke particulates and fog
moisture droplets.
The Air Quality Program will work with Mt. Tolman Fire Control to minimize exposure to fire
smoke and provide outreach to the public.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
27
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
4.7 Social and Economic Impacts
The median household income on the Reservation according to the 2010 US Census was $35,
534. The CTCR’s natural resource management plays an important role in the local regional
economy on and off the Reservation. The Forestry, logging and milling industry accounts for
20% of the working population in the Region of Okanagan and Ferry Counties (CAR 2018). The
CTCR itself is the single largest employer in both Ferry County and Okanogan County (CAR
2019). The communities benefit from the CTCR Natural Resource Management not only directly
through employment but also the social programs funded directly from Tribal expenditure of
funds generated through Timber Harvest. More detailed discussion of the population dynamics
and social and economic impacts of CTCR’s natural resource management can be found in the
CTCR IRMP FEIS (CAR 2018).
5.0 Mitigation for Resource Protection
Soil and Water Mitigations
Operators must ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMP) and standards for timber
harvest identified in Colville Tribal Code (CTC) Chapter 4-7: Forest Practices are followed in
order to minimize hydrologic disturbance resulting from actions taken under this alternative.
During road construction and reconstruction Planners and Operators must ensure that new/reconstructed roads meet the BMPs and standards for roads identified in CTC Chapter 4-7: Forest
Practices, and CTC Chapter 4-9 Hydraulic Projects if doing any culvert/bridge work. By meeting
these BMPs Planners and Operators would minimize the water quality, hydrologic process, and
aquatic habitat degradation associated with roads as a result of the actions taken under this
alternative. The transportation plan developed by the OND Transportation Planner incorporated
input from the Environmental Trust Department regarding stream adjacent roads, new road
locations, and culvert sizing and placement. The Forest Roads Engineer should continue to work
with the Watershed Restoration Program to remove any unnecessary road construction, and
determine where roads can be closed or decommissioned to reduce road density.
A preliminary transportation memo was distributed on 3/17/25 identifying roads that should not
be used due to stream or wetland adjacency. These segments were then field verified, and
adjustments were made accordingly. Several segments identified for review overlapped with
roads proposed for use in the sale; however, after field assessment, most of these segments were
deemed to not pose a risk to aquatic resources.
A layer was also provided of all restored roads within the project area, including
decommissioning, closure, and permanent abandonment. In the original preliminary
transportation memo, the following was stated: “The Restoration Program has completed
restoration work in and around this timber sale area, including as part of the 2020 and 2021 Lost,
Loony, and Haden Creeks Watershed Restoration projects. 83 road segments included in the
2020 and 2021 project are within or directly adjacent to the Lost Creek timber sale project area;
these roads have been decommissioned or permanently abandoned, and are not available for
use.”
In order to mitigate for impacts to soils from compaction, as well as risks to aquatic resources
from sediment mobilization and transportation to surface water from ground-based harvest
methods (including tethered logging), the following mitigations were developed:
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
28
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Table 12. Mitigations developed for harvest to mitigate for soil and water resources.
Block
ID
Acres
163-111
163-117
163-102
161-169
82.7
80.5
87.7
70.5
RX
Skid System Mitigations
IC C
Maintain dead and down trees over 10" DBH to reduce
soil impacts.
Bring slash onto skid trails at conclusion of harvest.
Summer harvest only.
ST C
Maintain dead and down trees over 10" DBH to reduce
soil impacts.
Bring slash onto skid trails at conclusion of harvest.
Summer harvest only.
Recommend block 117 is harvested after blocks 102 and
111, to provide additional sediment interception.
Additional 50 foot Riparian Management Zone (RMZ)
(total: 175' foot RMZ) on Lost Creek.
IC C
Maintain dead and down trees over 10" DBH to reduce
soil impacts.
Bring slash onto skid trails at conclusion of harvest.
Summer harvest only.
IC T
Block boundary has been amended to reflect wetland
mapped in field.
Road previously included to access northwestern portion
of block should be ended at new northern extent of block.
160-085
35.0
RRT T
Road indicated within mapped wetland buffer. However,
ground conditions allow for construction of road in this
location due to topography.
163-137
50.7
ST/OR T
Block can be taken to topographic break in field, instead
of mapped buffer.
Additionally, prescribed burning is proposed for the Lost Creek project area. Block 101 proposes
to utilize a restored road as a control line. The Fuels program has proposed that this does not
have to become a full road in order to be utilized, and line width can be minimized by utilizing
smaller machinery for line construction. Additionally, this road would be brought back to the
current restored condition, with recontouring and material placement on the historic prism; this
restoration would comply with specifications provided by the Restoration Program.
Per Colville Confederated Tribes Law and Order Code [CCT 4-7-67(e)] Riparian Management
Zone buffers are required for wetlands. No harvest activities, movement of equipment or
vehicles, nor staging of materials or waste, should occur within the wetland or wetland RMZ
buffer. Wetland ecosystem presence and extent proximate to proposed harvest blocks has been
derived from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data. NWI mapping is a service of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and is conducted via remote sensing techniques which require field
verification for jurisdictional purposes. The project proponent is responsible for assuring all
wetlands are properly buffered based on ground conditions.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
29
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Table 13. Wetland RMZ requirements.
RMZ
Comp Block Wetland
Location
CCT Water
Type
(applied to each side
of wetland)
160
011
W.LC_026
NW corner of Block
III
100 feet
160
011
W.LC_005
NE corner of Block
III
100 feet
160
024
W.LC_001
western edge, southern
portion of Block
III
100 feet
160
024
W.LC_133e northern portion of Block
IV
50 feet
160
028
W.LC_026
W edge of Block
III
100 feet
160
028
W.LC_007
center of Block
IV
50 feet
160
042
W.LC_003
western edge of Block
II
125 feet
160
064
W.LC_022
western edge of Block
III
100 feet
160
084
W.LC_013
southern edge of Block
II
125 feet
160
085
W.LC_013
southern edge of Block
II
125 feet
161
169
W.LC_080e northern edge, topo change
III
100 feet
163
078
W.LC_061
eastern edge of Block
III
100 feet
163
084
W.LC_061
western edge of Block
III
100 feet
163
101
W.LC_061
western edge of Block
III
100 feet
163
115
W.LC_123
SW corner of Block
II
125 feet
163
120
W.LC_079
western edge of Block
III
100 feet
163
137
W.LC_128
western edge of Block
III
100 feet
163
137
W.LC_064
northern edge of Block
II
125 feet
163
137
W.LC_083
SW edge of Block
III
100 feet
163
137
W.LC_079
SE edge of Block
III
100 feet
Mitigation for Fish and Wildlife, Alternative B: “Proposed Action”
Several 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:
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
30
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Table 14. Fish and Wildlife Mitigations.
Mitigation Measure
Natural Resource Protected
Reserve Patches for Blocks 164-012 (7+
Acres), 162-026, 160-064 (7+ Acres).
Thermal Cover and Travel Corridor for
Wildlife.
Entire timber sale has a high potential for
Goshawk and Great Gray owl nesting activity.
None besides the above mentioned area with
(1) confirmed goshawk nest. Please notify
OND biologist if any additional Goshawk or
Great Gray Owl found.
Mitigation for Cultural Resources
The Tribal Archaeologist would brief the TSO and others working in the Lost Creek Project
Area regarding the steps to be taken to identify and report cultural resources. If 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.
Mitigations for Range Operations
Within forest project areas grazing is a secondary land use but is important to CTCR livestock
owners for success in their economic venture. Grazing can also provide positive impacts by
reducing accumulated fuel and reinvigorating grasses. Rangeland structural resources such as
fences, watering facilities, and cattle guards are an important component to the sustainable
stewardship of land designated for grazing and are very expensive to replace. The proposed
treatment blocks for this project are located within the Northern portion of Range Unit 5. The
Range Programs infrastructure GIS layer indicates quite a few structural assets associated with
RU 5 that would likely be encountered during this project. Fences and cattle guards are of
particular concern. CTCR Range Program asks that when range infrastructure is encountered
such as cattle guards, watering facilities, and fences they be avoided as much as possible. If
range infrastructure is damaged during project activity the project proponent would be
responsible for notifying the Range Program and seeing that damage is repaired in a timely
manner. If cattle guards are located on roads that need to be used for heavy traffic, they should
be assessed for the ability to handle the weight of large trucks and equipment. The Range
Program can assist with that if contacted in a timely manner. If it is determined the cattle guard
does not meet specifications for the anticipated weight of the traffic, and there is no way to
bypass it, the cattle guard may need to be temporarily removed. If this is the case it is essential
the Range Program be notified 48 hours prior to the removal. The removed cattle guard would be
reinstalled by the proponent of the project unless other arrangements are made with the CTCR
Range Program.
The impacted Range Unit 5 has approximately 300 head of livestock permitted on it. 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. The
Range Program would also be notified when burning occurs in the forest project area before the
turnout date of May 15th so the Range program can move livestock to an area on the range unit
that would not be affected.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
31
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
6.0 List of Preparers
Name
Shay Logue, Leland Wellons, Megan Crim
Marcus McClung, Ossian Laspa
Kevin Manuel
Bryan Jones
Jessica Utt, Brandton Harvey
Charlotte Axthelm
Stacy King
Guy Moura
Amanda Hoke
Chasity Swan
Contributions
Forestry
Wildlife
Fuels/Fire Management
Fish
Range/Noxious Weeds
Hydrology
Wetlands
History/Archaeology
History/Archaeology
Editor
7.0 Literature Cited
Axthelm, Charlotte. 2024. Water Quality Assessment Report for the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation 2018-2023. Technical. Nespelem, WA. CTCR.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2018. General Land Office Patent Records. Available
online at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/Center for Applied Research, Inc.
(2014) Resource Assessment, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 2015
Integrated Resource Management Plan.
Center for Applied Research, Inc (CAR). 2018. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 2015 Integrated Resource
Management Plan.
Center for Applied Research, Inc (CAR). 2015. Results of the 2014 Colville Reservation
Community Survey.
Colville Confederated Tribes. 2023. Forest Practices Handbook. Colville Tribal Code
Chapter 4-7 Forest Practices. Nespelem, WA. 89 pp.
Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT). 2007. Cultural Resource Management Plan of the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Prepared by the CCT
History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
CTCR 2016. Wildland Fire Management Plan for the Colville Indian Reservation. Prepared by
the CTCR Land and Property Management and Revised by Mt. Tolman Fire Control.
Nespelem, WA.
CTCR. 2015. Integrated Resource Management Plan 2015. Prepared by The Center for Applied
Research, Inc.
CTCR. 2023. Forest Management Plan for the Colville Indian Reservation. Prepared by Jeremy
Hunt. Approved June 23, 2023.
Dubé, K., Megahan, W., McCalmon, M. 2004. Washington road surface erosion model prepared
for the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA.
George, Matilda (ed.). 2011. Traditional Cultural Property Overview Report and Native
American Place Name Document for Traditional Territories of the Confederated Tribes
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
32
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
of the Colville Reservation, Grand Coulee Dam project area, North Central Washington.
CCT History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
Gough, Stan. 1990. A Cultural Resources Overview, Sampling Survey, and Management Plan,
Colville Indian Reservation, Okanogan and Ferry Counties, Washington. Eastern
Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-74. Archaeological and
Historical Services. Cheney, WA.
Hess, Sean. 2001. Predictive Model for Use on the Colville Indian Reservation. On file at the
CCT History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
Hunner, Walt. 2014. Hydrology Report. Technical. Nespelem, WA: CTCR.
Hunt, Clair. 1916. Diminished Colville Indian Reservation (map). General Land Office,
Department of the Interior.
Logue, Shay. March 24, 2025. Project Proposal Form: Lost Creek Timber Sale 2026 PPF.
Nespelem, WA. BIA
Marker, D., R. Thomon, T. Bosworth, T. Li and C. Tornow. 2012 Upper Columbia River Site
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Tribal Consumption and Resource Use
Survey. Final Draft Report. Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10. Westat. Rockville, MD.
Marchand, A. 2008. A Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Lost Creek Forestry
Management Project. On file at the CCT History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem, WA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery
Program for Threatened and Endangered Species – October 1, 2006 - September 30,
2008. 184 pp. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esabiennial2008.pdf
Parker, Patricia L. & T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional
Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin #38, United States Department of the
Interior, National Park Service.
Shannon, D. & G. Moura. 2007. Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake Traditional Cultural
Property Research 2006 Technical Report. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared by CCT History/Archaeology Program. Nespelem,
WA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 23, Northeast Washington Recovery Unit,
Washington. 73 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
33
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
8.0 Appendices
8.1 Appendix A: Project Maps and Activity Table
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
34
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
35
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Unit Activity Table Lost Creek 2026– Harvest Blocks
Block
Acres
Rx
160-011
160-024
160-025
160-028
160-042
160-064
160-081
160-084
160-085
161-069
161-074
161-159
161-161
161-163
161-164
161-169
162-026
162-068
163-013
163-078
163-084
163-086
163-096
163-097
163-099
163-101
163-102
163-104
163-106
163-108
163-111
163-115
163-117
163-118
163-119
163-120
163-137
164-003
164-012
164-019
164-027
164-031
164-032
165-014
165-020
165-308
308.9
66
70.3
100.4
79.8
179.2
42
38.5
27.1
48.3
28.1
24.2
73.2
45.4
63.3
49.7
128.3
129.3
30.1
39.3
58.7
16.8
51.1
37.1
50.4
48.9
60
43
93.7
47
59.8
40.3
46.3
37.6
34.2
62.4
36.1
75.1
125.6
50.7
69.1
88.9
60
85.2
47.7
99.1
IC
RRT
ST/OR
RRT
IC
RRT
RRT
ST/OR
RRT
IC
CT
RRT
IC
IC
ST/OR
IC
ST/OR
IC
OR
ST/OR
ST/OR
RRT
RRT
RRT
ST/OR
ST/OR
IC
IC
ST/OR
ST/OR
IC
ST/OR
ST
IC
IC
ST/OR
ST/OR
ST
ST
ST/OR
SW
ST/OR
ST
ST
ST/OR
ST/OR
Skid Type
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tether
Tractor
Tractor
Tether
Tether
Tether
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tether
Tractor
Tether
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor
Slash Disposal
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Slash/Burn
Slash/Burn
Slash/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Pile/Burn
Pile/Burn
Lop and Scatter
Lop and Scatter
Site Prep
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
RxB
RxB
RxB
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
ExPile
Whole
Tree
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
PCT
Evaluate
Evaluate
PLANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Evaluate
Evaluate
Yes
Evaluate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
Evaluate
3,096
Lost Creek 2026 Precommercial Thinning Blocks
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
36
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
BLOCK
ACRES
RX
158-020
39.5
PCT
158-150
15.8
PCT
160-033
21.7
PCT
162-030
79.9
PCT
163-013
30.1
PCT
163-023
13.9
PCT
163-028
34.3
PCT
163-103
8.1
PCT
163-123
9.8
PCT
163-127
28.1
PCT
164-024
27.6
PCT
164-025
9.3
PCT
165-302
5.7
PCT
166-070
203.2
PCT
160-060
39.4
MASTICATION
160-061
14.9
MASTICATION
160-065
4.5
MASTICATION
160-076
76.7
MASTICATION
TOTAL
662.5
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
37
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
38
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
39
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
40
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
41
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
42
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
8.2 Appendix B: Consultation
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
43
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
44
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
45
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
46
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
47
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
48
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
49
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
50
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
51
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
8.3 Appendix C: Preliminary Transportation Analysis
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
52
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
53
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
54
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
8.4 Appendix D: Army Corp of Engineers BMPs
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
55
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
56
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
8.5 Appendix E: CTCR Holistic Goal and Desired Future
Conditions
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
57
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
Lost Creek 2026 Forest Management Project
58
BIA-NWR-CTCR-EA-26-08
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.