2.0 Environmental Setting · Project Area and Planning Area as related to land ownership, Planning Area basins, management activities on Plum Creek and adjacent federal, state, tribal,

CHAPTER 2.0: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2-1

2.0 Environmental Setting

2.1 Collection and Synthesis ofData

2.1.1 Data SourcesTwo major data sources were used duringpreparation of this document. The firstsource consists of technical reports, whitepapers, and other data prepared by PlumCreek Timber Company (Plum Creek).These reports are summarized in this sec-tion. The second major data source con-sists of documents prepared by variousfederal agencies, which are also listed inthis section. Other important data sources,including states and the primary scientificliterature, are listed at the end of thissection.

Plum Creek Technical Reports andWhite Papers

Plum Creek’s Science Team developed13 technical reports and 4 white papersthat were peer reviewed by outside ex-perts. These reports contain the detailedscientific foundations for Plum Creek’sproposed Native Fish Habitat Conserva-tion Plan (NFHCP), presented in Chap-ter 3, and range from ecological mappingto stream temperature modeling. They alsocontain background information used todescribe the affected environment forsome of the resources in the 1.6-million-acre Project Area (Plum Creek’s land). Inaddition, modeling and analytical toolsdescribed in several technical reports (forexample, sediment delivery, large woodydebris [LWD] loading, and stream tem-perature) were used to predict some of thepotential effects resulting from the pro-posed NFHCP, other action alternatives,and the No Action Alternative (Chapter 4,

What is the Purpose of the EnvironmentalSetting Chapter?

The purpose of this chapter is to broadlycharacterize environmental settings in theProject Area and Planning Area as related toland ownership, Planning Area basins,management activities on Plum Creek andadjacent federal, state, tribal, and otherprivate lands, and activities that Plum Creekseeks coverage for under the IncidentalTake Permit. This chapter also brieflydescribes the area’s climate, and thecollection and synthesis of data used duringdocument preparation. Descriptions ofphysical, biological, and social resources ofthe Project and Planning Areas arepresented in Chapter 4 under AffectedEnvironment discussions.

Affected Environment and EnvironmentalConsequences).

Technical reports and white papers weredeveloped by a team of scientists andanalysts from Plum Creek’s internal staff,consulting firms, and universities. Draftsof several of the documents were peerreviewed by at least three outside expertsmutually identified by Plum Creek andU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).Peer review comments were analyzed byPlum Creek and reviewed with FWSscientists during a series of technicalworkshops.

Brief overviews of the 13 technical reportsand 4 white papers are presented below.Executive summaries of each arecontained in Appendix B. Copies of thecompleted technical reports and whitepapers, and descriptions of modeling andanalytical methods developed specifically

2-2 FINAL EIS AND NFHCP

for assessing potential impacts in theenvironmental consequences sections ofChapter 4, are available on CD-ROM fromPlum Creek (see Appendix B).

Technical Report #1—Implementationof a Method to Detect the Presence ofBull Trout. This report describes resultsof a new survey method for determiningbull trout populations in streams andwatersheds. Scientists working with PlumCreek implemented this statistically basedsurvey method on 43 streams in Idaho,Montana, and Washington in 1993, andsurveyed 82 more streams from 1994 to1997. Six of the original 43 streams sur-veyed represented new bull trout dis-coveries. The U.S. Forest Service (FS) hadpreviously surveyed three of those streamswith no detection of bull trout. Compari-son of the old (FS) and new (Plum Creek)survey methods indicates the old methodwas less rigorous (Plum Creek 1997b).

Technical Report #2—FactorsAffecting the Distribution andAbundance of Bull Trout: AnInvestigation at Hierarchical Scales.Bull trout were listed as a threatened spe-cies by FWS in June 1998. To help thisspecies recover, it is important to under-stand the factors affecting bull trout distri-bution and population density. TechnicalReport #2 considers the kinds of factorsaffecting bull trout populations andassesses to what extent this species couldbe managed on a site-specific or region-wide basis (Watson and Hillman 1997[Technical Report #2]).

Technical Report #3—SurfaceErosion and Mass WastingAssessment and ManagementStrategies for Plum Creek’s NativeFish Habitat Conservation Plan. This

report develops the basis for managementstrategies in the NFHCP that deal with theeffects of surface erosion and mass wast-ing on aquatic habitat. Erosion is themovement of soil or rock by water, wind,ice, or gravity. Although erosion occursnaturally, its rate and magnitude canincrease because of human activities, suchas grazing, logging, or farming. TechnicalReport #3 summarizes the impacts of his-torical logging and road constructionpractices in the Pacific Northwest; dis-cusses current regulations and the protec-tion they provide; evaluates the effective-ness of current Best Management Practices(BMPs) in controlling erosion; andpresents general strategies and opportuni-ties to better address erosion in PlumCreek watersheds (Plum Creek 1998a).

Technical Report #4—An EcologicalClassification Integrating Uplandsand Riverine/Riparian HabitatsApplied to the Thompson RiverBasin, Montana. Effective landmanagement requires an understanding ofclimate, geology, vegetation patterns,landforms, soils, and streams. Ecologicalclassification provides a framework anddescriptive attributes for interpreting theeffects of land uses on habitat. TechnicalReport #4 describes a classification systemdeveloped for the Thompson River Basinin northwestern Montana that can be usedto assess the ecological potential andexisting condition of riparian habitat(Plum Creek 1998b).

Technical Report #5—Goat and PiperCreeks Watershed Analysis. PlumCreek initiated watershed analysis in theGoat Creek and Piper Creek Basins inMay 1997. Both basins are tributaries tothe Swan River Basin in northwesternMontana. Watershed analysis is a processused to assess the cumulative effects of


forest practices on two public resourceareas: fish habitat and water quality.Technical Report #5 presents results of thewatershed resource assessments andprovides documentation and justificationfor identifying and managing sensitiveareas. The report describes existing andpotential resource conditions and thephysical processes that affect resourceconditions (Plum Creek 1996a).

Technical Report #6—Summary ofRegulatory and Voluntary Programsfor Protecting Bull Trout on ForestLands within Plum Creek’s AquaticHabitat Conservation Planning Area.Various events have impacted waterquality and native fish, including bulltrout, over the last 190 years of settlementin the Pacific Northwest. From trappers inthe early 1800s to 20th-century livestockgrazing, fish harvest, and timber practices,the needs of native fish have been histori-cally ignored. During the past 25 years,however, timber harvest practices andother land uses have gradually come underregulation in the United States. TechnicalReport #6 summarizes and evaluatesregulatory and voluntary programs forprotecting bull trout habitat on forestlandsin the vicinity of Plum Creek’s ownership(Plum Creek 1997a).

Technical Report #7—Design ofEffective Riparian ManagementStrategies for Aquatic ResourceProtection in Montana, Idaho, andWashington. A complex issue facing theforest industry is the management ofriparian areas. These sensitive areassurround streams and affect fish habitat ina number of ways. Scientists oftendisagree on the amount of riparian arearequired to maintain healthy fish habitat.Technical Report #7 does not provide

specific standards and guidelines on thisissue, but does provide the foundation foranswering the question: “how muchriparian buffer is enough?” This reportdescribes differences in fish resourcesensitivities within a watershed; presents adesign for evaluating the results of variousriparian management scenarios; uses thisdesign to evaluate existing managementstrategies; and identifies gaps in existingriparian management strategies. Thisreport discusses the use of the ForestVegetation Simulator and RiparianAquatic Interaction Simulator to modelforest growth and LWD loading,respectively (Plum Creek 1999a).

Technical Report #8—Synthesis ofWatershed Analysis and Ecoclassifi-cation at a River-Basin Scale for theConservation and Management ofAquatic Ecosystems. Federal and statelaws typically provide for the managementof aquatic ecosystems by establishing astandard-width buffer zone on either sideof a stream. Fixed buffer zones are limitedin their effectiveness because they do notconsider variation in conditions within andamong watersheds. Some buffer zones aretoo small (narrow) to allow proper riparianfunction, while others are too large (wide)and exclude management for timber har-vest, disease control, and fire prevention.A better, but costly approach, is watershedanalysis, which consists of an extensiveassessment of stream conditions and thecause-effect relationships among stream-side vegetation, fish habitat, and waterquality. Technical Report #8 develops awatershed analysis framework, based onthe classification of watershed compo-nents, that can be applied cost-effectivelyto different watersheds (Plum Creek1998c).


Technical Report #9—Swan RiverBasin Ecological Classification. Thisreport uses the ecological classificationsystem developed in Technical Report #4(see above) to describe a classificationsystem for the Swan River Basin inMontana. This classification system can beused to assess the ecological potential andexisting condition of riparian habitat(Plum Creek 1996b).

Technical Report #10—ThompsonRiver Basin Ecological Classification.This report uses the ecological classifica-tion system developed in TechnicalReport #4 (see above) to describe a classi-fication system for the Thompson RiverBasin in Montana. This classificationsystem can be used to assess the ecologicalpotential and existing condition of riparianhabitat (Plum Creek 1997c).

Technical Report #11—ThompsonWatershed Analyses: Beatrice Creek,Boiling Springs Creek, Murr Creek.The nature of this technical report is thesame as Technical Report #5, except that itpresents results of watershed analyses forBeatrice, Boiling Springs, and MurrCreeks, which are tributaries to theThompson River in Montana (Plum Creek1998d).

Technical Report #12—StreamTemperature Considerations in theDevelopment of Plum Creek’s NativeFish Habitat Conservation Plan. Manyscientific studies have proven that stream-side timber harvest can increase stream(water) temperatures. The primary reasonis that harvest removes steam shading andsunlight reaches the water’s surface,warming the stream. Native salmonids,particularly bull trout, are sensitive toincreases in stream temperature. Technical

Report #12 evaluates stream temperaturefeatures that were considered in thedevelopment of Plum Creek’s NFHCP(Plum Creek 1998e).

Technical Report #13—AdaptiveManagement: Concepts andApplications to Plum Creek’s NativeFish Habitat Conservation Plan.Adaptive management is a challengingblend of rigorous science and practicalmanagement designed to provide the basisfor “learning by doing.” Plum Creek’sNFHCP uses adaptive management toaddress areas of uncertainty and risk.Adaptive management can be used toaddress “leaps of faith” in the NFHCPwhere there is dependence on theoreticalmodels and adoption of untested conser-vation measures. Technical Report #13defines adaptive management, describespotential research and monitoring projectsfor the NFHCP, and identifies evaluationcriteria for the projects (Plum Creek1999b).

White Paper—Plum Creek TimberCompany Higher and Better UseLands and Implications for NativeFish Conservation. Higher and BetterUse (HBU) lands are those lands ownedby Plum Creek that might have a highervalue for some use other than timberharvest. For example, HBU lands may bemore valuable for recreation or conserva-tion than timber harvest. While land salesare generally an issue addressed in theImplementing Agreement (IA) for HCPs,Plum Creek has addressed certain land useplanning measures as conservationcommitments under the NFHCP (PlumCreek 1998g).


White Paper—Livestock Grazing onPlum Creek Timber Company Land inthe Native Fish Habitat ConservationPlanning Area. Livestock grazing hasbeen a traditional use of much of PlumCreek’s land in the NFHCP Project Areasince the turn of the century. Improperlivestock grazing can adversely affect fishhabitat and water quality. This white paperdiscusses the history of grazing in theProject Area, current status of grazing onPlum Creek lands, condition of riparianareas in grazing allotments, and PlumCreek’s Grazing BMPs (Plum Creek1998f).

White Paper—Thompson RiverRiparian Reconnaissance andMonitoring. The riparian area along theThompson River in northwestern Montanahas been impacted by legacy land useactivities over the past 100 years. Thiswhite paper assesses conditions along theUpper Thompson River, predicts futureriparian vegetation conditions, andrecommends methods for restoringimpacted riparian areas. The study will beused as a pilot for developing otherriparian assessments under the NFHCP(Plum Creek 1997d).

White Paper—Grazing BestManagement Practices. This documentoutlines Plum Creek’s Grazing BMPs,which set policies to conduct grazing in anenvironmentally sensitive manner. Thegrazing BMPs are intended to fulfillobligations under the federal Clean WaterAct. A toolbox of individual BMPs isprovided in this white paper for ranchingleaseholders to include in their resourcemanagement plans (Plum Creek 1999c).

Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Plan Documents

Documents prepared by the FS and Bureauof Land Management (BLM) for theInterior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project (ICBEMP) were fre-quently referred to during EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) and NFHCPpreparation. These documents include AnAssessment of Ecosystem Components inthe Interior Columbia Basin and Portionsof the Klamath and Great Basins: VolumesI-IV (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), theUpper Columbia River Basin DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement:Volumes I and II (ICBEMP 1997a), andthe Eastside Draft Environmental ImpactStatement: Volumes I and II (ICBEMP1997b). These documents contain infor-mation important to the NFHCP becausethey cover all or large portions of the1.6-million-acre Project Area and the16.5-million-acre Planning Area, describethe affected environment at a scaleappropriate for many of the same resourceareas being assessed in this EIS/NFHCP,and were recently completed (in 1997).The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH)was implemented as an interim manage-ment strategy for native, non-anadromous(resident) salmonids until long-termmanagement direction is developedthrough the ICBEMP Final EISs.

Other Data Sources

Numerous other studies providedimportant data and information duringpreparation of this document. Examplesinclude Biological Opinions, recoveryplans, and background documentsprepared by FWS and National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS; used together,the Services) for species covered in theNFHCP, rigorously reviewed papers that


have been published in refereed scientificjournals, other EISs, Land and ResourceManagement Plans and associatedprogrammtic EISs for National Forestswithin the Planning Area, and theServices’ policy documents dealing withissues associated with HCPs and EISs.Information from states, including bulltrout conservation documents and othersources, was also used, as well as infor-mation from the primary scientific litera-ture. Full references for all data andinformation sources referred to in the textare contained in Chapter 7, References, ofthis document.

2.1.2 Geographic InformationSystemMuch of the analysis of project data wasaccomplished using the overlay capabili-ties of a Geographic Information System(GIS). An Intergraph Modular GISEnvironment (MGE) was used to graphi-cally display and spatially analyze projectdata. This technology allows the user totest hypotheses and perform sensitivitytests on a variety of assumptions and alter-natives in different combinations on thesame base area.

Plum Creek collects and synthesizes dataspecific to managing its own lands. Datafor adjacent lands were acquired fromnumerous sources. Adjacent land owner-ship data were acquired from the ICBEMPreports; these data are to a large scale andonly several years old. Their accuracy wasconsidered acceptable because of the largesize of the NFHCP Project Area and EISPlanning Area. Stream location data wereacquired from state agencies or directlyfrom U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)7.5-minute quadrangles.

2.2 Land Ownership andPlanning Area Basins

2.2.1 Plum Creek and AdjacentLandsThe 16.5-million-acre Planning Areaincludes 1.6 million acres of Project Arealands (10 percent of the total) and14.9 million acres of adjacent lands(90 percent of the total). Project Arealands are owned by Plum Creek, whileadjacent lands are owned or administeredby federal, state, tribal, and other privateentities and occur in the same key riverbasins as Project Area lands. Adjacentlands are integral parts of the Services’strategy to address the entire PlanningArea as an ecosystem. An ecosystemapproach is needed because nativesalmonids, which are the species includedin the proposed Incidental Take Permit(Permit), inhabit streams throughout thePlanning Area and are not restricted toPlum Creek lands. In the interim periodbetween release of the DEIS andpublication of this FEIS, Plum Creekacquired additional lands in southwestWashington and sold lands in northernIdaho. Since the total land area of thesechanges equals only 0.6 percent of thePlanning Area and less than 6 percent ofthe Project Area, the conclusions reachedin this FEIS were not significantlyinfluenced by this shift in ownershippattern. Some lands in Montana areexcluded (along with road use as a coveredactivity associated with actions on thoselands) from this Permit application butmay be included by amendment pendingconsideration of additional environmentalissues by Plum Creek. These amendmentlands comprise about 15,000 acres(0.9 percent) of the Project Area and areevaluated in this FEIS.


Project Area lands are located in westernMontana (1,460,000 acres, 93 percent ofthe entire Project Area), northern Idaho(40,000 acres, 3 percent), and Washington(70,000 acres, 4 percent). The 14.9 millionacres of adjacent lands include9,619,803 acres (58 percent of the entirePlanning Area) of federal lands;403,478 acres (2 percent) of state lands;1,295,166 (8 percent) of tribal lands; and3,603,610 acres (22 percent) of otherprivate lands. The Project Area, PlanningArea, and Land Ownership are depicted inMap 1.3-1.

2.2.2 Planning Area BasinsThe Planning Area is comprised of 15 keyriver basins (referred to as Planning Areabasins). Planning Area basins are depictedin Map 2.2-1 and include ten basins inMontana, one in Idaho, and four inWashington. Table 2.2-1 summarizesacres owned by Plum Creek and byadjacent landowners or administrators ineach Planning Area basin. Table 2.2-1 alsolists those “outliers” or comparativelysmall acreages of Plum Creek (ProjectArea) lands that are outside of PlanningArea basins. As stated in the NFHCP,these outliers will be considered with theLewis River Planning Area basin for thepurposes of adapting management,including trigger calculation andmanagement response development.

Boundaries of the Planning Area basinswere largely identified through other con-servation planning processes for bull trout.In Montana, the Montana Bull TroutRestoration Team identified RestorationConservation Areas (RCAs) basedgenerally on existing, interconnected riverbasins that are subsets of bull troutmetapopulations. Those RCAs are used inthis document to represent Planning Area

Why Distinguish Between the ProjectArea and Planning Area?

The Project Area is 1.6 million acres of landowned by Plum Creek in Montana, Idaho,and Washington. Because Plum Creek hasmanagement control of these lands, theNFHCP only covers this Project Area. ThePlanning Area is the big picture: 16.5 millionacres of Project Area, federal, state, tribal,and other adjacent lands that can beaffected as an ecosystem by actions withinand outside the Project Area. Therefore, theNFHCP directly affects approximately10 percent of the Planning Area consideredin this EIS. Approximately 58 percent of thePlanning Area is comprised of federal lands.

basins in Montana. The exception to thewatershed or hydrologic divide approachis where river basins cross state and inter-national boundaries. In Idaho, Key BullTrout Basins identified in the Governor’sBull Trout Conservation Plan are used asPlanning Area basins where they containPlum Creek Project Area lands. InWashington, a rationale similar to theMontana interconnected river basinapproach was used to identify PlanningArea basins.

Planning Area basins are all subsets ofPermit species’ ranges. Planning Areabasins subdivide the Planning Area so thatalternatives could be analyzed in ameaningful way for Permit species.

2.3 Land Management within thePlanning Area

2.3.1 Plum Creek’s LandManagementThe following sections describe PlumCreek’s ownership, activities to be


TABLE 2.2-1Land Ownership or Administration (acres) by State and Planning Area Basin

Tribal

Bureau ofLand

ManagementForestService

Fish andWildlifeService

NationalPark

ServicePlumCreek

OtherPrivate State

Water/Other* Total

MontanaUpper Kootenai River 0 0 664,643 0 0 7,030 119,100 8,161 851 799,785Middle Kootenai River 0 0 460,930 0 0 328,597 103,396 16,533 635 910,091Lower Kootenai River 0 0 568,801 0 0 33,232 44,401 2,844 330 649,608Flathead River 167,149 0 1,038,710 0 630,118 102,980 520,808 122,603 -186 2,582,182Swan River 1,432 0 280,705 2,251 0 84,413 63,801 39,324 0 471,926Blackfoot River 3,519 83,986 613,996 0 0 292,926 476,359 8,640 3 1,479,429Bitterroot River 0 0 1,246,531 2,759 0 80,646 463,233 28,249 1,130 1,822,548Upper Clark Fork River 0 63,445 1,014,711 0 1,545 105,490 1,145,950 36,135 4 2,367,280Middle Clark Fork River 1,115,694 0 1,236,997 23,145 0 421,538 356,361 40,671 4,387 3,198,793Lower Clark Fork River 0 0 586,374 0 0 2,651 121,728 2,491 3,281 716,525

Montana Total 1,287,794 147,431 7,712,398 28,155 631,663 1,459,503 3,415,137 305,651 10,435 14,998,167Idaho

Lochsa River 0 0 716,014 0 0 40,424 530 6 -52 756,922

Idaho Total 0 0 716,014 0 0 40,424 530 6 52 756,922WashingtonAhtanum Creek 7,372 37 591 0 0 10,130 22,374 30,594 1 71,099Lewis River 0 66 321,289 0 0 27,692 68,906 49,977 219 468,149Lower Tieton River 0 0 45,013 0 0 10,067 2,520 12,180 39 69,819North Riffe Lake 0 31 17,115 0 0 15,216 94,143 5,070 630 132,205Outliers 0 0 0 0 0 7,357 0 0 0 7,357

Washington Total 7,372 134 384,008 0 0 70,462 187,943 97,821 889 748,629Grand Total 1,295,166 147,565 8,812,420 28,155 631,663 1,570,389 3,603,610 403,478 11,272 16,503,718

*Water refers to all designated waters such as streams, rivers, and lakes. Other includes owners or administrators of small, unspecified parcels such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and counties. Negative values for the Flathead River (Montana) and Lochsa River (Idaho) reflect discrepancies between Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan ownership and Planning Area basin data.

Certain lands (4,026 acres in the Flathead River Planning Area basin and 10,806 acres in the Blackfoot River Planning Area basin) included In this table have been analyzed inthis EIS, but withdrawn from Permit application pending additional environmental considerations for a possible future amendment.


Map 2.2-1Page 1 of 2 (11” x 17”)

Planning Area Basins, Tier 1Watersheds, and Tier 2 Lands in the

Planning Area


Map 2.2-1Page 2 of 2 (11” x 17”)

Planning Area Basins, Tier 1Watersheds, and Tier 2 Lands in the

Planning Area


covered under the Permit, andclassification of Tier 1 watersheds andTier 2 lands within the Project Area.

Ownership

The Project Area consists of certain PlumCreek lands in western Montana(1,460,000 acres, 93 percent of the entireProject Area), northern Idaho (40,000acres, 3 percent), and Washington(70,000 acres, 4 percent). These lands aredistributed across the 15 Planning Areabasins (Table 2.2-1). The greatest PlumCreek ownership occurs in the MiddleClark Fork River, Middle Kootenai River,and Blackfoot River Basins.

The history and checkerboard configura-tion of many of the lands now owned byPlum Creek in the Planning Area beganwith the 1864 land grant established byCongress (Raedeke Associates, Inc.,1995). Under that legislation, NorthernPacific Railroad Company was authorizedto construct a railway from Lake Superiorto Puget Sound. Upon completion of each25 miles of railroad, the law providedNorthern Pacific 400-foot right-of-waysand alternate sections of land of 20 squaremiles each on either side of the right-of-ways in territories between Minnesota andOregon. Plum Creek purchased this landfrom Burlington Resources in 1989.Burlington Resources had previouslyacquired this land from BurlingtonNorthern, Northern Pacific’s successor(Raedeke Associates, Inc., 1995).

Activities to be Covered under thePermit

Current management activities on PlumCreek lands and activities that Plum Creekseeks coverage for under the Permit aredescribed briefly below. The managementactivities for which Plum Creek seeksPermit coverage are regulated according tofederal, state, and local regulations andBMPs. Specific governing regulations foreach of the Plum Creek managementactivities proposed for coverage under thePermit are listed in Chapter 3,Section 3.3.1, Existing Regulations—NoAction Alternative.

Plum Creek manages its lands in Montana,Idaho, and Washington primarily to grow,harvest, and sell timber, while seeking touse environmentally and economicallysound forest management practices. Aminor portion of the Project Area lands aremanaged for other purposes, whichinclude seed and seedling production,forest products manufacturing,miscellaneous forest products, and otherland uses. Specific prescriptions associatedwith some of the covered activities aresummarized in Chapter 3, Table 3.3-1,Habitat Conservation PrescriptionsContained in the Alternatives.Prescriptions are presented for PlumCreek’s proposed NFHCP, two otheraction alternatives, and the No ActionAlternative considered in this document.Commercial forestry activities, as well asother activities in the Project Area thatPlum Creek wishes to include in thePermit, are described below. Potentialeffects of these activities are assessed inChapter 4, Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences.


Commercial Forestry and AssociatedActivities

These activities consist of silviculturalactivities (tree planting, site preparation,prescribed burning, timber harvest inriparian and upland areas, standmaintenance, forest nurseries, and seedorchards), as well as associated activities,including logging road construction andmaintenance and gravel quarrying forroads. These activities are describedbelow.

Tree Planting. Plum Creek is required byIdaho and Washington state laws toregenerate harvested forestlands withinspecified time frames. Montana BMPsencourage “rapid” reforestation ofharvested areas to re-establish protectivevegetation to avoid erosion. Plum Creek’sEnvironmental Principle on reforestationsets a policy of reforestation of allharvested areas within 2 years in thewestside forests of the Cascade Region,and within 5 years on the east slopes of theCascade Region and in the RockyMountain Region. Reforestation occursthrough natural or artificial regeneration.Natural regeneration plays a much greaterrole in reforestation of Plum Creek landstoday as Plum Creek moves away fromclearcutting as a timber harvest method.However, Plum Creek still plants over2 million seedlings annually in the ProjectArea to ensure adequate stocking wherenatural regeneration success is less likely,and to supplement naturally occurring treeestablishment and species diversity.Planting is done by hand, althoughmachine planting has been used on alimited basis in the past and may be usedagain in the future.

Potential risk to fish habitat from soildisturbance while planting trees is low.

Soil disturbance just prior to planting,known as scalping, is typically by hand. Atree-planting hoe is used to expose a12-inch square of ground in which theseedling is planted. In Montana, trees arenever planted closer than 50 feet to anystream, unless it is a restoration project notassociated with timber harvest. In Idaho,planting may occur up to the edge ofintermittent streams if an area has beenclearcut (clearcutting comprised only 2percent of the acres harvested by PlumCreek in 1998). In Washington, seedlingsare routinely planted up to the edge ofintermittent and non-fish-bearing perennialstreams using hand-scalping techniques.Tractor scalping is used less than20 percent of the time near theseWashington streams, and is never closerthan 25 feet to a stream. This techniqueconsists of lightly scattering rather thanpiling slash, and results in some incidental,minor soil exposure away from the stream.

Tree species selected for planting varyaccording to geographic location as wellas environmental and growing conditions.Important species planted east of theCascades include ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, western larch, lodgepole pine, westernwhite pine, and Engelmann spruce.Important species planted west of theCascades include Douglas fir, noble fir,and western hemlock. The resultant fully-stocked stands of improved, native treespecies contribute to ecological function inriparian and upland areas of the ProjectArea.

Site Preparation. Plum Creek sometimesprepares sites for forest regenerationwithin 1 year following harvest, if needed.Such preparation provides betterassurances that sites will be fully stockedwith healthy trees and desirable species.Site preparation consists of clearing slashand competing vegetation and exposing


adequate mineral soil for subsequent treeplanting or natural regeneration. This isaccomplished using one or moretechniques, such as tractors or excavators,tree planting hoes, and broadcast burns(described further below). The extent ofsite preparation has been reduced over thelast few years because of specificenvironmental concerns. For example,Plum Creek seldom practices broadcastburning; and scarification of large areas isused only when necessary for seedlingestablishment and survival, and whenerosion and runoff can be controlled.

Only about 5 percent or less of the totalacres harvested by Plum Creek aremechanically site-prepped. This is doneprimarily by tractor scalping on somelands in Washington, as described aboveunder Tree Planting. Tractor scalpingcauses some incidental, minor exposure ofsoil as slash is scattered, but never closerthan 25 feet to a stream. A tractor can beused to prepare sites with slopes of up to25 percent, while special backhoeequipment can be used on sites withsteeper slopes (up to 45 percent), ifneeded. Existing state regulations andforest practices acts are designed toprovide some stream and streamsideprotection by governing or excludingmechanical site preparation activities inriparian buffers. The proposed NFHCPbuilds on these existing regulations andpractices through equipment exclusionprescriptions in riparian buffers andspecial site preparation provisions inInterface Caution Areas located betweenriparian and upland habitat types. NFHCPprescriptions, and prescriptions associatedwith the other alternatives, are described inChapter 3 and evaluated in Chapter 4 ofthis EIS/NFHCP.

During the fall, Plum Creek conductscontrolled burns of some debris and brush

piles remaining from harvests as a part ofsite preparation. The timing of burnsreduces the potential for wildfire to igniteor spread through the site.

Prescribed Burning. Prescribed burningis used in commercial forestry primarily toreduce fire hazard and in site preparation(discussed above). Prescribed burns canalso be used to enhance wildlife habitat, tocontrol potentially competing vegetation,and in grazing management. The main useof prescribed burns on Project Area landsis to reduce slash loads, thereby complyingwith state laws to minimize fire hazardsassociated with logging debris. The threemain kinds of slash disposal from most toleast common are as follows:

1. Burning of slash piles accumulated atroadsides where trees have beenprocessed into logs

2. Burning of slash in the woods that hasbeen machine-piled

3. Broadcast burning, where a fire isignited that can carry itself across theforest floor. This includes “jack-pot”burning, which is discontinuous andoccurs only in high concentrations ofslash.

Slash burning was routinely used by PlumCreek prior to 1990, but today more of thetree is used to create forest products,which minimizes the amount of slash leftafter harvest. Any slash that remains isoften left unburned to enhance habitat bycovering land and providing nutrientsthrough decay.

When controlled burning is prescribed toreduce moisture stress and competitionfrom other vegetation for space, fires areignited during fall or winter when stateregulations and weather conditions permit.


Large broadcast burns are no longer usedby Plum Creek as a standard managementtool. This minimizes the potential forexposing large areas of barren soil forextended periods of time that may becomesubject to slope erosion and possiblesediment delivery to streams.

Timber Harvest. Plum Creek uses even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvestingmethods in riparian and upland habitattypes of the Project Area. Even-agedmethods include clearcuts, seed-treeharvests (where 20 or fewer trees per acreremain after harvest), and overstoryremoval (where large trees are harvestedand a fully stocked stand of young treesremains after harvest). Plum Creek’sEnvironmental Principles encourage theminimization of clearcutting in theRockies, where clearcutting constitutesless than 5 percent of the acres harvested.Uneven-aged methods includeshelterwood harvest (where 20 to 50 treesper acre remain after harvest), encouragingregeneration in the understory;commercial thinning (where 70 or moremerchantable but thrifty growing trees peracre remain after harvest); and otherselective harvesting. Combining uneven-aged harvesting methods can be effectivein maintaining diverse wildlife habitats.Shelterwood harvests are normallyfollowed 10 to 20 years later by ashelterwood removal harvest, and PlumCreek varies the approach to accomplishsite-specific objectives, such asmaintaining structural diversity.

Uneven-aged silvicultural practices aretypically used by Plum Creek in Montana,Idaho, and Washington east of theCascades where arid conditions prevail,and stand structure and speciescomposition are more varied. Even-agedsilviculture is widely used by Plum Creekin Washington west of the Cascades. This

harvesting technique favors tree species,such as Douglas fir, that grow best in openconditions with full sunlight.

Timber harvest operations in even-agedand uneven-aged stands include fellingtrees, then moving (yarding) them tolanding sites where they are limbed andbucked (trimmed). Methods of movingtrees depend on terrain slope, road access,worker safety, and other factors. Tractor-based systems are usually used onrelatively flat slopes, cable yarders areused on steeper slopes, and helicopters areused where there is limited road access orslopes are very steep. Logs are loaded ontrucks at the landings, then transportedover private and public roads to millswhere they are processed. In some cases,small logs or tree tops may bemanufactured into wood chips on site andtransported in chip vans to paper or pulpmills.

Plum Creek seeks to protect and enhanceenvironmental values of uplands andriparian areas during timber harvest inseveral ways. These include complyingwith all applicable state and federal forestpractices regulations and BMPs (describedin Section 3.3.1, Existing Regulations—NoAction Alternative), and by making theserequirements of timber felling contractors:

1. Avoid yarding logs through streams

2. Refrain from causing soil erosion ordegrading side slopes

3. Mitigate impacts on natural resources

4. Comply with special conditions suchas trail protection or visual sensitivity

5. Maintain a cost-effective productionlevel while meeting state and federalsafety guidelines


Representative trees are left standing inupland areas, either individually or inclumps, to serve as wildlife reserves, greenrecruitment trees (trees that will matureinto wildlife reserves), visual buffers,green-up strips, and wildlife corridors.During timber harvest, Plum Creek alsoensures that riparian buffers aremaintained along all fish-bearing streamsand along most non-fish-bearing streams.Timber harvest in riparian areas isaddressed in Plum Creek’s NFHCP andother alternatives in Chapter 3.

Stand Maintenance. Stand maintenanceis an essential component of forestmanagement to promote tree growth andcontrol undesirable, competing vegetation.Tree growth is promoted byprecommercial and commercial thinning.Thinning of overstocked even-aged standsconcentrates the site’s growth potential onfewer trees. Pre-commercial thinningoccurs about 15 years after standregeneration. Commercial thinning beginsat about 35 years. Retained (leave) treesare selected for even spacing across a siteso that each benefits from greater growingspace. Thinned trees are processed onsiteor harvested for transport to mills wherethey are processed.

Vegetative competition for moisture is amajor cause of seedling mortality east ofthe Cascades, while competition for lightis a major contributor to seedling mortalitywest of the Cascades. Plum Creek controlscompeting vegetation manually bychainsaw. Trees are inspected for severalyears following planting to check that theirsurvival and growth is not impeded bycompeting vegetation.

Forest Nurseries and Seed Orchards.Other common commercial forestryactivities include the operation of forestnurseries and seed orchards. Plum Creek

operates two forest nurseries and two seedorchards in Montana, and one forestnursery and one seed orchard inWashington. These are confined facilitieswithout known influences on riparian andaquatic areas.

Logging Road Construction. PlumCreek constructs new logging roads andupgrades existing roads to minimizeimpacts on the landscape and to use forforest management activities. Roads areplanned and located where appropriate forthe terrain, soils, and timber type. PlumCreek’s typical road design andconstruction standards are single laneswith occasional turnouts, surface width of12 feet, and grade less than 15 percent.Roads are typically constructed withnative surfacing and are outsloped withouta ditch, but may consist of 15 feet ofsubgrade with a 2-foot drainage ditch.Excavated soil is used as part of thesubgrade fill or disposed at a stable site.Culverts or bridges are placed at all watercrossings. Erosion control measurestypically used by Plum Creek during roadconstruction include installing crossdrainage or ditch-line relief features tominimize water velocity, armoring(stabilizing) culvert head walls,constructing stable cut-and-fill slopes, andusing grass seeding, sediment filters, strawmatting, ditch-line energy dissipaters, andappropriately placed riprap.

Plum Creek’s proposed NFHCP, presentedat the end of Chapter 3, and otheralternatives discuss in detail all aspects offorest road management. Effects of forestroad management on sediment deliveryand on other Project Area resources, andthe projected effects under the proposedNFHCP, two other action alternatives, andthe No Action Alternative, are described inChapter 4, Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences.


Logging Road Maintenance. PlumCreek inspects and maintains roads toprovide proper drainage function andsubgrade stability. Plum Creek’s roadmaintenance plans are intended to reducethe potential effects of roads and their useon streams and riparian habitat by thefollowing:

1. Minimize road building activitiesthrough regular maintenance

2. Minimize disruption of naturalhydrologic flow patterns

3. Restrict sidecasting to preventsediment from entering streams andriparian areas

4. Minimize erosion at road sites usingadvanced erosion control techniques

5. Identify roads and associated drainagefeatures that pose a potential risk

6. Close or stabilize roads based on short-term and long-term transportationneeds in each watershed

Current effects of forest road maintenanceon sediment delivery and on other ProjectArea resources, and the projected effectsunder each of the alternatives, aredescribed in Chapter 4, AffectedEnvironment and EnvironmentalConsequences.

Gravel Quarrying for Roads. PlumCreek surfaces some of its roads withgravel to improve the road standard andreduce the potential for road-relatederosion. Gravel is normally obtained fromnearby gravel pits on Plum Creek lands.Smaller pits are located adjacent to roadsin specialized locations where thesubsurface rocky material has desirablecharacteristics. These produce “pit run”

gravel and are 1 to 3 acres in size,constituting over 90 percent of PlumCreek’s pits. Larger gravel pits greaterthan 5 acres are developed at high-qualityrock sources that have characteristicsdesirable for crushing. A rock crusher isused at these sites to manufacture “crushedgravel” to desired specifications. PlumCreek occasionally purchases gravel fromadjacent landowners. Although the siteshave not been inventoried, Plum Creekestimates that 250 to 500 gravel pits arelocated in the Project Area and that 25 to50 more gravel pits would be developedduring the proposed 30-year Permitperiod.

Plum Creek’s gravel pits tend to be locatedaway from streams and near ridgesbecause the best rock is generally alongridgetops. In addition, forest practicesrules and BMPs in Montana, Idaho, andWashington prohibit gravel quarrying instreams or within equipment exclusionzones of riparian areas. New gravelquarries are not permitted in StreamsideManagement Zones (SMZs) of perennialand connected streams, and they would notbe permitted in Interface Caution Areas(ICAs) under Plum Creek’s proposedNFHCP. ICAs modify and provide extracaution for forest management activitiesadjacent to but outside SMZs of perennialand connected streams. Current PlumCreek operational procedures and stateforest practice rules and BMPs minimizethe potential for sediment delivery fromgravel quarries to streams. Legacy quarriesthat no longer produce gravel exist. Theywould be inspected along with the roadsystems under the proposed NFHCP andtreated as hot spots when warranted.

Other Forestry Activities

Forest Fire Suppression. Actions aretaken to fight and suppress forest fires to


minimize the total number of acres thatcould potentially be affected by unwantedwildfires. Forest fires are caused by nature(lightning), carelessness (escapedcampfires), or prescribed fires that haveescaped control. Forest fires originate onPlum Creek lands or adjacent ownerships.Suppressing unwanted forest fires protectshuman life, private property, and trees, theprimary economic asset of commercialforests. Fire suppression can protect theenvironment, including terrestrial andaquatic resources and their habitats, andprevents the potential for acceleratederosion of barren soil and sedimentation ofstreams. State governments have theprimary responsibility for suppressingunwanted forest fires. However, PlumCreek fights fires, as needed, usingcurrently accepted standard techniques andtools that include fire trucks, hoses,shovels, and tractors.

Open Range Cattle Grazing. Livestockhave grazed portions of Project Area landsfor more than a century. Over 90 percentof the Project Area is “open range” understate law and 46 percent is leased orallotted for grazing. Specific grazingmanagement prescriptions are summarizedin Chapter 3, Table 3.3-1, for the proposedNFHCP, two other action alternatives, andthe No Action Alternative. Grazingmanagement prescriptions associated withthe proposed NFHCP are described indetail at the end of Chapter 3. Currenteffects of grazing livestock on riparianresources in the Project Area and theprojected effects under the proposedNFHCP, two other action alternatives, andthe No Action Alternative are described inChapter 4, Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences.

Miscellaneous Forest and LandProduct Sales. Forest managers

occasionally supplement or diversify PlumCreek’s commercial forestry revenuesthrough the sale of miscellaneous forestand land products encountered duringnormal forestry operations. Theseactivities represent a very small fraction ofthe overall commercial activities onProject Area lands and require noadditional facilities or equipment beyondthose routinely used in Plum Creek’scommercial forestry operations. Examplesof miscellaneous forest and land productsales include the following: stonescollected from roadsides and talus slopesfor landscaping and chimney construction;gravel for roads to nearby landowners;Christmas trees to commercial tree sellers;conifer branches collected for makingChristmas boughs; Pacific yew bark formaking medicine; stumps for certainchemicals they contain; and sawdust andwood chips.

Conservation Activities. Conservationactivities include stream enhancementprojects, livestock exclusions, engineeredfish habitat restoration, irrigation diversionmanagement, landslide repairs, andscientific surveys and studies. Plum Creekperforms stream habitat enhancement andconstructs engineered fish habitats undervarious cooperative agreements withlandowners, agencies, and organizations.Projects include development of poolstructures and removal of fish passageobstructions. Scientific surveys and studiesare conducted by Plum Creek staff,contractors, resource agency staff, andindependent researchers. The researchfocuses on commercial forestry, fish (forexample, the brook trout suppressionexperiment) and wildlife, water qualityand hydrology, and related naturalresource topics. Surveys of listed speciesare subject to approval by the federal andstate agencies with jurisdiction over the


species and, if collection or other forms oftake are involved, a federal EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) Section 10(a)(1)(A)permit and equivalent state authorizationare required as appropriate. Conservationactivities anticipated under the NFHCPand other action alternatives are describedin Chapter 3.

Non-Forestry Activities and SpecialForest Uses

Commercial Outfitting. A Special ForestUse Permit is required from Plum Creekwhen professional outfitters wish to useProject Area lands to conduct theirbusiness. A commercial outfitter is definedby Plum Creek as someone who is familiarwith an area and an activity and sells theirguiding services to recreationists who wishto pursue those activities, such as hunting,fishing, or photography. Outfitting can beexclusive, although Plum Creek does notcurrently sell exclusive rights to outfittersfor an activity in the Project Area.Outfitters must conduct their business onPlum Creek lands in compliance withPlum Creek’s Environmental and LandUse Principles, applicable state fishing andhunting regulations, and other stateregulations directed specifically atcommercial outfitting.

Recreation and Other Special ForestUses. Special Forest Use Permits may berequired by Plum Creek for variouscategories of activities. One activitycategory is group recreation, although thisactivity is not common in the Project Area.For example, a permit may be required if aclub sponsors a group mountain bike rideon Plum Creek lands and the participantspay an entry fee. Also, a permit may besold by Plum Creek to grant the right touse a Plum Creek road for a specificpurpose, such as hauling logs. Special

Forest Use Permits provide Plum Creekthe opportunity to generate income,require certain provisions of the permittedactivity so that it complies with PlumCreek’s Environmental and Land UsePrinciples and applicable governmentregulations and BMPs, and requireinsurance coverage by the Permittee.

Electronic Facility Sites. Plum Creekleases sites for the construction andoperation of electronic transmissionfacilities. The sites are located at the topsof mountains, which are numerous onPlum Creek lands. There are less than twodozen electronic transmission sites in theProject Area. Existing roads provideaccess to these sites. Existing regulationsreferenced in Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 inChapter 3 determine the siting,construction, and operation of facilities.

Manufacturing of Forest Products.Forest products manufacturing facilitiesare located in Columbia Falls, Kalispell,Fortine, and Pablo, Montana. The facilitiesproduce finished products of lumber,plywood, and medium-density fiberboardfor retail, industrial, and other specialtymarkets. They include four sawmills, twoplywood plants, one medium-densityfiberboard plant, and one remanufacturingplant.

Typically, logs are brought to the facilitiesby truck and stored onsite prior toprocessing. They are debarked and cut torough dimension in the sawmill buildings.The green dimensional lumber is sortedand stacked, then placed in greeninventory until it is dried in drying kilns.Dried lumber is placed in dry roughinventory. Once dried, the lumber issurfaced and cut to final length in theplaner buildings, where it also is sorted,stacked, and packaged for shipment. Nowood treating or processing of treated


lumber is conducted on the sites. Typicalstructures at the facilities include officebuildings, sawmill/planer buildings, dryingkiln buildings and cooling sheds, boilers,maintenance shops, and various storagebuildings. Sites have large areas of log andfinished product storage. Water-holdingponds in the event of fire, process waterinfiltration ponds, stormwater retentionbasins, and gravel pits may be present.

In the plywood process, logs are peeledinto thin sheets of veneer using a lathe.After being cut to size, these sheets aredried in a veneer dryer to the propermoisture content. Resin is then applied tothem and several veneer sheets are pressedinto plywood panels. These panels are cutto final size, sanded, patched, andpackaged for shipping.

In the medium-density fiberboard process,sawdust and planer shavings are refinedinto fine cellulose fibers. These fibers aremixed with resin and dried to the propermoisture content. The dried fibers are thenformed into a mat and pressed intofiberboard panels. These panels aresanded, cut to final size, and packaged forshipment.

In the remanufacturing process, shortsections of lumber are fingerjointed andglued into longer sections of lumber or areedge-glued into wider boards. These arecut to size if necessary, then packaged forshipment. Larger boards are also cut intosmaller sizes to remove defects andincrease the quality.

Log yard waste—mixed bark, soil, androck—is handled according to state solidwaste regulations. Onsite waste storageoccurs away from aquatic areas andpotential receiving waters, or is separatedby erosion control structures to preventdischarges. Solidified waste resins and

non-log-yard wastes are transported tomunicipal landfills for proper disposal.Industrial chemicals and fuels, such asdiesel fuel, gasoline, lubricating andhydraulic oils, and boiler water treatmentchemicals, are stored in above groundstorage tanks and containers surroundedby concrete secondary containment areas.Each facility has a Spill PreventionControl and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan,if required. Office trash and wastedpackaging materials are hauled toapproved offsite municipal landfills fordisposal. Used oil is completely consumedonsite for equipment lubrication orproperly disposed of by a licensed used oilrecycler.

The facilities do not have any ongoing,direct discharges of process water tosurface waters; however, periodicdischarges of stormwater may occur. Themills generate wastewater from the boilerblowdown, boiler water treatment, andequipment washing. The boiler blowdownwater and boiler water treatmentblowdown water are sent to holding pondswhere it is reused or sent to a publicwastewater treatment plant for disposal.Boiler steam condensate is returned to theboiler and reused. Wash water fromequipment washing is run throughoil/water separators. Water used forwatering logs for blue stain fungus control(wet decking) is collected and recycledback to the log watering system. With theexception of minimal sheet flow from afew areas, all stormwater is collected inretention basins or in stormwater ponds.Groundwater and surface water dischargesare regulated under state water qualitydischarge permits and monitored forcompliance. Sanitary wastewaters aredisposed of onsite in septic tank/drainfieldsystems, or piped to a public wastewatertreatment plant. Air emissions are


regulated under the federal Clean Air Act,and tribal and state laws.

Tier 1 Watersheds and Tier 2 Lands

To customize NFHCP conservationcommitments based on specific habitatneeds, Plum Creek categorized watershedunits based on bull trout biology. Thisspecies is the most widely distributednative salmonid in the Project Area andhas the most specific habitat requirements.In addition, because Plum Creek hasstudied bull trout habitat and distributionin the Project Area since 1993, more dataare available for bull trout than for otherPermit species. Native salmonid habitatmanagement, conservation, and restorationactivities under the NFHCP designed toconserve bull trout spawning and rearinghabitat would use Tier 1 designations toaid prioritization, along with otherprioritization methods identified duringNFHCP development. While based on bulltrout spawning and rearing, the Tier 1designation organizes conservationcommitments that also apply to all liferequisites of other Permit species of nativesalmonids occurring in Project Area Tier 1drainages. Similarly, conservationcommitments designed to conserveforaging, migration, and over-winteringhabitat would be applied in Tier 2 lands, asprescribed under the NFHCP. Thesecommitments are also intended to benefitall life requisites of other Permit speciesoccurring in Project Area Tier 2 drainages.

Tier 1 Watersheds. Tier 1 watersheds,depicted in Map 2.2-1, are those PlumCreek Project Area lands within catchmentareas tributary to first-, second-, third-, andfourth-order watercourses known tosupport spawning and juvenile rearing of

What Does Land Ownership Mean toPermit Species?

Land ownership in the Project Area isdiscussed in terms of Tier 1 watersheds andTier 2 lands. These classifications are basedon bull trout biology. Tier 1 watersheds arethe catchment areas for those streams withknown bull trout spawning and juvenilerearing. These are the most specialized ofbull trout life history stages and, in somecases, may be the most sensitive to landmanagement. Tier 2 lands are the remainingPlum Creek lands in the Project Area andmay include areas where bull trout migrate,forage, and over-winter. Habitatimprovements in Tier 1 watersheds and Tier2 lands are designed to benefit bull trout lifehistory stages present in those areas, andother Permit species as well.

bull trout. On an areal basis, Tier 1watersheds cover 19 percent of the entireProject Area (Table 2.3-1).

Of the 301,067 acres of Tier 1 watershedsin the Project Area, 272,624 acres(91 percent) are in Montana, 13,368 acres(4 percent) are in Idaho, and 15,075 acres(5 percent) are in Washington. Tier 1acreages within each Planning Area basinare summarized in Table 2.3-1.

Of the 81 Tier 1 watersheds in the ProjectArea, 65 are in Montana, 7 are in Idaho,and 2 are in Washington. Appendix C liststhe individual Tier 1 watersheds withineach Planning Area basin.

Tier 2 Lands. Tier 2 lands, depicted inMap 2.2-1, are those Plum Creek ProjectArea lands within catchment areastributary to all other watercourses withinthe Columbia River Basin. Some of theseareas are known or suspected to providemigratory, foraging, and over-wintering


habitat for adult and sub-adult bull trout.These areas also provide the majority ofavailable habitat (on Plum Creek lands)for the other native salmonid Permitspecies that occur on Plum Creek lands,including westslope cutthroat trout, theSnake River steelhead trout ESU, redbandtrout, coastal rainbow trout, pygmywhitefish, and mountain whitefish. Tier 2

lands cover an estimated 81 percent of theProject Area.

Of the 1,269,322 acres of Tier 2 lands inthe Project Area, 1,186,879 acres(93 percent) are in Montana, 27,056 acres(2 percent) are in Idaho, and 55,387 acres(5 percent) are in Washington. Tier 2acreages within each Planning Area basinare summarized in Table 2.3-1.

TABLE 2.3-1Plum Creek’s Tier 1 Watersheds and Tier 2 Lands by State and Planning Area Basin

Planning Area BasinTier 1

(acres)Tier 2

(acres)Total Area

(acres)

Montana

Upper Kootenai River 0 7,030 7,030

Middle Kootenai River 12,153 316,444 328,597

Lower Kootenai River 6,311 26,921 33,232

Flathead River 11,440 91,540 102,980

Swan River 36,183 48,230 84,413

Blackfoot River 124,580 168,346 292,926

Bitterroot River 19,223 61,423 80,646

Upper Clark Fork River 10,580 94,910 105,490

Middle Clark Fork River 50,242 371,296 421,538

Lower Clark Fork River 1,912 739 2,651

Montana Total 272,624 1,186,879 1,459,503

Idaho

Lochsa River 13,368 27,056 40,424

Idaho Total 13,368 27,056 40,424

Washington

Ahtanum Creek 7,443 2,687 10,130

Lewis River 7,632 20,060 27,692

Lower Tieton River 0 10,067 10,067

North Riffe Lake 0 15,216 15,216

Outliers 0 7,357 7,357

Washington Total 15,075 55,387 70,462


TABLE 2.3-1Plum Creek’s Tier 1 Watersheds and Tier 2 Lands by State and Planning Area Basin

Planning Area BasinTier 1

(acres)Tier 2

(acres)Total Area

(acres)

Project Area Total 301,067 1,269,322 1,570,389

Percent of Total Project Area 19% 81% 100%

Certain lands (4,026 acres in the Flathead River Planning Area basin and 10,806 acres in the BlackfootRiver Planning Area basin) included in this table have been analyzed in this EIS, but withdrawn from Permitapplication pending additional environmental considerations for a possible future amendment.

Approximately 124 miles of rivers flowingthrough lands in the Project Area weredesignated as Key Migratory Rivers byPlum Creek during NFHCP development.

Key Migratory Rivers are segments oflarge rivers bordering and longitudinallyencompassed by Plum Creek lands thatprovide habitat for any and all Permitspecies and are shown on Map 4.6-1 inChapter 4 of the EIS. The distinguishingfeature of Key Migratory Rivers is thatthey serve to connect the variety ofhabitats used by the migratory life formsof the Permit species. These are generallyrivers that Permit species use to migratefrom the ocean or a lake or a big river tosmaller, lower order spawning or rearingstreams. The Key Migratory Riverdesignation captures the largest streamsthroughout the Project Area where Permitspecies rely on the distinct featuresprovided by larger river habitat, such asover-wintering habitat, foraging habitat, orpre-spawn staging habitat. Key MigratoryRivers also share a common legacy ofhistoric land management patterns notusually found on other Project Area lands,including railroads and highways,residential development, concentratedrecreation, and flood control andchannelization.

2.3.2 Adjacent Federal LandManagementNearly 9.6 million acres of federal landslie within the Planning Area, representingapproximately 58 percent of the totalPlanning Area acreage. The FS managesapproximately 92 percent of these lands(Table 2.3-2). The National Park Service(NPS), BLM, and FWS manage theremainder. Table 2.2-1 summarizes majorfederal land managers by Planning Areabasin. Other federal land managers presentwithin the Planning Area but who do notrepresent significant acreages include theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Department of Defense, Department ofEnergy, and Bureau of Reclamation.

Adjacent federal land managers in thePlanning Area and their management unitsare listed in Table 2.3-3.

Primary Assumptions for FederalLand Management

Management on federal lands is describedby the FWS (1998a) in its BiologicalOpinion of the effects on bull trout fromcontinued implementation of existing FSand BLM plans. Activities administeredby the FS are carried out under the exist-ing direction of their Land and ResourceManagement Plans (LRMPs). BLM


TABLE 2.3-2Summary of Adjacent Federal Lands Within the Planning Area

AgencyMontana(acres)

Idaho(acres)

Washington(acres)

Total(acres)

Percent ofPlanning Area

Forest Service 7,712,398 716,014 384,008 8,812,420 53.4%

National Park Service 631,663 0 0 631,663 3.8%

Bureau of Land Management 147,431 0 134 147,565 0.9%

Fish and Wildlife Service 28,155 0 0 28,155 0.2%

Totals 8,519,647 716,014 384,142 9,619,803 8.3%

TABLE 2.3-3Adjacent Federal Land Managers and Their Management Units

Federal Agency Management Units

Montana

Forest Service Beaverhead National ForestBitterroot National ForestDeerlodge National ForestFlathead National ForestHelena National ForestKootenai National ForestKaniksu National ForestLewis and Clark National ForestLolo National ForestCabinet Mountain WildernessMission Mountains WildernessScapegoat WildernessRattlesnake WildernessWelcome Creek Wilderness

National Park Service Glacier National ParkGrant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site

Fish and Wildlife Service Lee Metcalf National Wildlife RefugeNinepipe National Wildlife RefugePablo National Wildlife RefugeSwan River National Wildlife RefugeNational Bison Range

Corps of Engineers Seattle District

Bureau of Land Management Butte District

Idaho

Forest Service Clearwater National ForestSelway Bitterroot Wilderness

Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District


TABLE 2.3-3Adjacent Federal Land Managers and Their Management Units

Federal Agency Management Units

Washington

Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National ForestWenatchee National ForestWilliam O. Douglas Wilderness AreaGoat Rocks Wilderness AreaIndian Heaven WildernessTrapper Creek WildernessColumbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

National Park Service Fort Vancouver National Wildlife RefugeMt. Ranier National Park

Fish and Wildlife Service Columbian White Tailed Deer National Wildlife RefugeConroy Lake National Wildlife RefugeRidgefield National Wildlife RefugeToppenish National Wildlife Refuge

Corps of Engineers Seattle District

Department of Defense Present but unspecified

Department of Energy Present but unspecified

Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region

activities are administered under thedirection of Resource Management Plans(RMPs) or Management Framework Plans.For convenience, all plan documents arereferred to in this document as LRMPs.

LRMPs for both FS and BLM areamended by the following two interim fishprotection strategies:

• Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in EasternOregon and Washington, Idaho,Western Montana, and Portions ofNevada (INFISH: USDA and USDI1995a)

• Interim Strategy for ManagingAnadromous Fish-ProducingWatersheds in Eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho, and Portions of

California (PACFISH: USDA andUSDI 1995b)

PACFISH and INFISH provide the basisof the assumptions used in federal landmanagement and implemented by theLRMPs. Recent decisions by the FS andBLM have added interim aquatic strategiesto LRMPs within the geographic range ofthe Columbia River Basin bull troutdistinct population segment (CRB bulltrout DPS; in this document, bull trout).National Forests and BLM Districts withanadromous fish have modified theirLRMPs to include PACFISH eitherthrough amendment (FS) or instructionmemorandum (BLM). The FS, throughINFISH, amended LRMPs wherePACFISH was not already in place. TheBLM produced instruction memoranda toapply INFISH direction to bull troutwatersheds. The agencies also consult on


site-specific actions conducted under thedirection of the LRMPs that may affectfederally listed species. LRMPs,PACFISH, and INFISH are discussedfurther below.

Purpose and Function of LRMPs.Within the range of bull trout, LRMPsprovide direction and standards for broadclasses of project activities and land andwater management practices that mayaffect bull trout. LRMPs provide policyguidance for various federal activitiescarried out on the forest or managementarea. While all FS and BLMadministrative units implement many ofthe same land-use practices, the levels ofactivities and outputs vary depending onlocal conditions. Although LRMPs setimportant parameters for authorization ofspecific projects, with some exceptions,LRMPs do not themselves authorize theprojects. Actual authorization of projectsdepends on analysis of site-specific effectsand consistency with appropriatemanagement direction and applicable legalrequirements.

LRMPs provide direction and standardsfor a variety of projects and activities,including forest management, recreation,range management, mining, watershedrestoration, fish and wildlife habitatmanagement, fire and fuels management,land exchanges and acquisitions, and otherspecial uses. Specific actions associatedwith these program activities are describedby the FWS (1998a).

Broad-scale, science-based managementdirection for lands administered by the FSand BLM in the interior Columbia RiverBasin is under development through theICBEMP. Technical documentssupporting the NFHCP rely uponinformation contained in the ICBEMPDEISs. The ICBEMP has not yet been

approved as an amendment to the affectedLRMPs in the Planning Area. It isreasonably foreseeable, however, that theICBEMP will be approved early in thePermit period and will contribute toadditional conservation commitments andprotection for native fish.

PACFISH and INFISH Implementation.PACFISH and INFISH provideprogrammatic direction for managementof lands administered by the FS and BLM.Both are interim strategies intended toprovide protection against extinction orfurther endangerment of fish stocks and tomaintain long-term management options,such as those being considered in twoDEISs for the ICBEMP. For details on theaquatic conservation strategies containedin INFISH and PACFISH, refer to INFISH(USDA and USDI 1995a), PACFISH(USDA and USDI 1995b), and FWS(1998a).

Federal land management agenciesselected these interim strategies becausethey recognize their prominent role inadministering much of the remaininghabitat used for spawning and larval andjuvenile rearing by salmonids. Most of theremaining strong populations of steelheadand stream-type chinook salmon are insubwatersheds on federal land (70 percentand 88 percent, respectively) (Quigley andArbelbide 1997). More than 90 percent ofremaining bull trout and westslopecutthroat trout subwatersheds with knownor predicted strong populations are on FSand BLM administered lands.

Federal land management recognizes thatrehabilitation of depressed native salmonidpopulations cannot rely on habitatimprovement alone, but requires aconcerted effort to address causes ofmortality in all life stages. These includefreshwater spawning, rearing, juvenile


migration, ocean survival, and adultmigration. Federal recovery efforts attemptto maintain good-quality habitats andpopulations, as well as increases in thedistribution of high-quality spawning andearly-rearing habitats.

2.3.3 Adjacent State LandsManagementThere are 403,478 acres of state landswithin the Planning Area, representingapproximately 2 percent of the entirePlanning Area acreage. Of this total,305,651 acres (76 percent) are in Montana,6 acres (<1 percent) are in Idaho, and97,821 acres (24 percent) are inWashington (Table 2.2-1).

As important as state lands are to certainfishes and aquatic communities, Quigleyand Arbelbide (1997) found thatimprovements are not expected to beuniform throughout the Planning Area andconditions are not expected to improvesubstantially. This conclusion was alsoreached during ICBEMP analyses for thefollowing reasons:

1. The goals of state natural resourceagencies charged with managing statelands are generally directed atproviding the states revenues whileminimizing impacts, and are thereforemore similar to private landowners’goals than federal landowners’ goals.States are not charged with the missionof restoring aquatic ecosystems.

2. As one moves from broad and uniformapplication of forest practice rules,which may not be fully protective ofriparian function, to rangelands andsettlement areas, the outcomes ofregulations and laws are variable,localized, and often vague.

3. Adequate information about species ata site that will be affected bymanagement activity is generallylacking, especially in terms of thebiological condition and presence ofrare species.

Current management practices on adjacentstate lands in Montana, Idaho, andWashington are described below.

Montana Current ManagementPractices

The Montana Department of NaturalResources and Conservation (MDNRC),Trust Land Management Division, over-sees forested, state-owned trust lands toprovide income to the various schooltrusts, which is derived from the sale offorest products (Montana ForestManagement Bureau [MFMB] 1998). TheMDNRC also provides program directionand support to the field foresters, whohave primary responsibility for on-the-ground land management activities. Thatsupport is provided in several subprogramsor areas of expertise: forest land manage-ment, planning, hydrology, soils,economics, wildlife, and fisheries. Supportand program direction are offered inseveral different ways: the development ofresource management standards, site-specific review and recommendations forproposed management activities, andparticipation as members of inter-disciplinary teams to develop landmanagement proposals.

The Montana State Forest LandManagement Plan (SFLMP), approved bythe State Land Board in 1996, guides themanagement of forested trust lands. Thisguidance is provided in the form ofgeneral management philosophy andspecific resource management standards.The strategic guidance provided by the


SFLMP aims to produce long-term incomefor the trust by managing intensively forhealthy and biologically diverse forests.The MDNRC manages with the philoso-phy that a diverse forest is a stable forestthat will produce the most reliable andhighest long-term revenue stream. Healthyand biologically diverse forests wouldprovide for sustained income from timberand a variety of other uses. They wouldalso help maintain stable trust income inthe face of uncertainty regarding futureresource values. In the foreseeable future,timber management will continue to be theprimary source of revenue and primarytool for achieving biodiversity objectives.

Idaho Current Management Practices

Following a mandate set forth in the 1863Organic Act of the Territory of Idaho, the1890 Idaho Admission Bill granted Idahothe equivalent of 2 out of every 36 squaremiles of federally-owned land within theborders of Idaho. The Admission Billdesignated these granted, or endowed,lands as “school lands,” requiring that they(or the proceeds from their sale or lease)be used exclusively for the support ofpublic schools (Idaho Department ofLands 1998). The Idaho Admission Billalso authorized additional substantialgrants of federal land to the state, to beheld in trust and used for the support ofpublic beneficiaries. Idaho received over3.65 million acres in nine individualendowments. In keeping with the spiritand intent of the Admission Bill, the Idahostate constitution mandates foreverprotecting and improving the entrustedlands and the revenues they generate.

To effectively manage the endowmentlands and funds, Article IX of the IdahoConstitution established the State Board ofLand Commissioners. To allow the Boardto more efficiently carry out its

constitutional functions, the Idaholegislature created the Idaho Departmentof Lands (IDL) in 1905. The Department’smission statement echoes that of theBoard: “We manage endowment trustlands for the beneficiaries and protectnatural resources for the people of Idaho.”Today, lands owned by the State of Idahoare managed by the IDL, IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game (IDFG),Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation(IDPR), or other state agencies, and arerequired to be managed in compliancewith Idaho laws and Idaho water qualitystandards, including bull trout standards(IDFG 1996).

Endowment lands currently total nearly2.5 million acres, including 780,000 acresof commercial timberland and about3 million acres containing minerals. TheIDL applies the “manage and protect”philosophy to such diverse activities as thefollowing:

• Land sales, exchanges, leases, andpermits

• Cropland and grazing landmanagement and leasing

• Lake encroachment protection

• Recreational and commercial mineralsmanagement and leasing

• Fire prevention, suppression, andhazard management

• Forest practices management andinsect and disease control

IDL is the agency responsible formanaging Idaho endowment and publictrust lands, and is responsible for “on-the-ground” vegetative and soil managementon these lands. These lands receive amixture of forest, grazing, recreation, and


other uses. IDL implements managementplans to meet water quality standards andprotect beneficial uses. Its primaryauthorities stem from the Idaho ForestPractices Act (Title 38, Chapter 1, IdahoCode); Dredge and Placer MiningProtection Act; Idaho Surface Mining Act;Idaho Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act(Title 47, Chapters 13, 15 and 17, IdahoCode); and the Idaho Lake Protection Act(Title 58, Chapter 13, Idaho Code).

Washington Current ManagementPractices

Washington state lands range fromscattered, isolated parcels under 40 acresin size to large contiguous blocks in excessof 110,000 acres (NMFS 1998a). Currentmanagement of state land in the PlanningArea is guided by the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources(WDNR) HCP, which was finalized in1997. The Lewis River and North RiffeLake Planning Area Basins in the NFHCPare in the Columbia Unit of the WDNRHCP, which also provides conservationmeasures for fish.

Most WDNR-managed lands have beenlogged at least once in the last 100 years.The WDNR HCP contains a riparianconservation strategy in westernWashington that aims to maintain orrestore salmonid habitat and help conserveother riparian and riparian-obligatespecies. Specific riparian protection relieson watershed-level assessments ofphysical and biological conditions todetermine the level of protection over thelong term. Interim management strategiesand buffer-width guidelines are providedwhile assessments are being completed. Inaddition to the HCP measures, the WDNRwill continue to participate in watershedanalysis in accordance with state ForestPractice Rules. If watershed analysis

indicates that state resources require agreater level of protection than thatspecified in the WDNR HCP, measuresdeveloped through watershed analysis toprovide this additional protection areimplemented.

The WDNR HCP provides averagestreamside management zones of 150 to160 feet, but can be up to 250 feet andvary by stream type. In the inner riparianbuffer, no timber harvest is allowed in thefirst 25 feet, and minimal harvest canoccur within the next 75 feet. Low harvestis allowed in the outer wind buffer morethan 100 feet from the active channelmargin. Harvest restrictions apply tointermittent streams on unstable slopes.

The WDNR HCP provides a roadmanagement strategy that uses roadmanagement plans to direct annual roadcondition inventories; repair legacyproblems; conduct aggressivemaintenance, stabilization, and accesscontrol; and place limits on road networkexpansion.

2.3.4 Adjacent Private LandsManagementApproximately 3.6 million acres ofadjacent private lands are within thePlanning Area, representing approximately22 percent of the total Planning Area. Ofthis total, 3,415,137 acres (95 percent) arein Montana, 530 acres (less than 1percent)are in Idaho, and 187,943 acres (5 percent)are in Washington (Table 2.2-1). Theselands can be generally grouped intoindustrial and non-industrial private lands.

Private lands affect river and streamcorridors, low- to mid-elevationwatersheds, valleys, and meadows. All ofthese are important to different aquatic


communities and to water quality. Theinterspersion, checkerboard nature, andvarying parcel sizes of private landsamong different ownerships presentchallenges to consistent and coordinatedmaintenance and restoration of aquaticresources across ownership boundaries.

Federal, state, and local regulations andBMPs provide varying levels of consistentdirection and goals for land managementwithin jurisdictions. The array of basicregulations applicable to private landmanagement is covered in detail inChapter 3 under the No ActionAlternative. Surveys suggest thatcompliance with BMPs is high, especiallyamong large industrial private landowners.For example, in Montana Plum Creek hasaveraged 97 percent compliance withBMP application since 1994, higher thanany other Montana landowner, public orprivate (Frank 1994; Mathieus 1996;Fortunate et al. 1998). While BMPcompliance is high, their effectiveness atconserving Permit species is uncertain.

Within the context of basic regulations,individual management decisions amongprivate ownerships vary according tomany factors, including land managementhistory, market conditions, stakeholderexpectations, access, and site-specificconditions and land capabilities. Industrialforests, and many other private forests, aremanaged primarily for timber productioneast of the Cascades (O’Laughlin et al.1993). Generally, private landmanagement east of the Cascades hasincreased efforts to improve forest health.Management has shifted from even-agedand single species stands, to uneven-agedmanagement promoting species betteradapted to naturally-occurring wildfire

conditions. A concerted effort is beingmade to reduce fuel loads and fire hazardsfrom forested ecosystems using thismanagement approach.

Economics drive many of the site-specificproject decisions within the context ofregulatory compliance. Industrial forestryoften involves strategies to sustain a highvolume and quality of timber by applyingthe most appropriate managementtechniques and silvicultural practices.High levels of capital and labor are used,with environmental concerns operating asconstraints (O’Laughlin et al. 1993). Non-industrial private forest landowners arelikely to follow a strategy involvingrelatively low-level applications ofoperating and investment costs to a forestproperty. However, state forest practiceregulations require minimum reforestationand water quality standards (O’Laughlin etal. 1993).

Conservation efforts attempt to bridgemanagement inconsistencies amongownerships, such as the Idaho Bull TroutConservation Plan, Washington WildSalmonid Policy, and the Montana BullTrout Restoration Plan. However, theICBEMP did not assume that private landmanagement would anchor efforts tomaintain fish habitat and water quality(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). As it didfor state lands, the ICBEMP assumed that,as important as private lands are to certainfishes and aquatic communities,improvements are not expected to beuniform throughout the Planning Area andconditions are not expected to improvesubstantially (Quigley and Arbelbide1997). This ICBEMP conclusion wasreached through similar reasoning asstated earlier for state land management.


2.3.5 Adjacent Tribal LandsManagementNearly 1.3 million acres of adjacent triballands occur within the Planning Area,representing approximately 8 percent ofthe entire Planning Area. Of this total,1,287,794 acres (99 percent) are inMontana and 7,372 acres (1 percent) are inWashington (Table 2.2-1). No tribal landslie within the Planning Area in Idaho.Adjacent tribal landowners in the PlanningArea are as follows:

• Montana− Flathead Indian Reservation− Blackfeet Indian Reservation

• Washington− Yakama Indian Reservation

• Idaho (tribal landowners adjacent tothe Planning Area)− Nez Perce Indian Reservation

Tribal governments have broad naturalresource responsibilities, and often operateunder different cultural and organizationalgoals than federal, state, or private landmanagers (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).Enrolled tribal members may exercisethose reserved rights and benefits held bya tribal government, but are subject totribal government regulations. Differencesin the character of tribal organizationsexist among tribes based on how they weregiven federal recognition, providedreservations, and whether they adopted theIndian Reorganization Act of 1934.

Tribes’ traditional and complex culturalties to lands generate direction on howthose lands are managed. Tribalgovernments, now with enhancedgoverning authority, directly address

natural resource issues. Most tribes haveevolving internal organizations anddeliberative skills to deal with landmanagement. Native American peoplehave long held pronounced and specialattachments to the land. Traditional landuses usually occur in the context ofculturally significant places, and tribes areinterested in maintaining the integrity ofsuch sites. Many tribal land managementdecisions are made with consideration ofcumulative effects of individual actions.

2.4 ClimateThe Planning Area occurs within atransition-type climatic zone that isinfluenced by three distinct air masses(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997):

• Moist, marine air from the west thatmoderates seasonal temperatures.

• Continental air from the east andsouth, which is dry and cold in winterand hot with convective precipitationand lightning in summer.

• Dry, Arctic air from the north thatbrings cold air to the area in winter andcools the area in summer.

Most precipitation accumulates in winter(about 60 to 100 inches in the westernCascades, 30 to 50 inches in the easternCascades, and 10 to 37 inches in thenorthern Rockies). The mountainsnowpack acts like a natural reservoir andsupplies the Planning Area with most of itsuseable water. Only the eastern part of thePlanning Area has summer maximumprecipitation, which is associated withconsiderable thunderstorm activity.Summer precipitation throughout thePlanning Area ranges from about 8 to20 inches (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).


Temperatures are usually moderate inmuch of the Planning Area because ofperiodic influences of Pacific moisture.Mean monthly temperatures range fromapproximately 15 to 30°F during winter toapproximately 50 to 60°F during summer(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

High mountain areas have cold wintersand short, cool summers with growingseasons as brief as 30 days. Lower

elevation valleys and plateaus have cool tocold winters, hot summers, and growingseasons as long as 200 days (ICBEMP1997b).

Climatic events that occur in the PlanningArea can significantly disrupt ecosystemprocesses. Such events include lightning,weather front passage and the spread ofwildfire, strong winds and blow-down,drought, extreme cold, and rain on snowfloods (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).