Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge

              Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact
Statement
Little Pend Oreille
National Wildlife Refuge
Volume 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
FINAL
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
LITTLE PEND OREILLE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
April 2000
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 1
Pacific Northwest Planning Team
16340 SW Beef Bend Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
1310 Bear Creek Road
Colville, WA 99114
Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and alternative management
actions/programs has been assessed consistent with requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Litt le Pend Oreille NWR
Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Proposed)
Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties, Washington
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Anne Badgley, Regional Director
For Further Information: Lisa Langelier, Refuge Manager
Little Pend Oreille NWR
1310 Bear Creek Road
Colville, Washington 99114
(509) 684-8384
Abstract: A preferred alternative and four other alternatives are described and compared for the
40,198 acre Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. The five alternatives are:
Alternative A. This alternative is the no action alternative as required by the National
Environmental Policy regulations. Selection of this alternative would mean that there
would be no change from past management programs and emphasis.
Alternative B. This alternative places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components
such as mature forests and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants
and animals. Existing uses and recreational activities will be continued but some may be
modified.
Alternative C. This alternative places management emphasis on restoration of habitat. Only
priority wildlife-dependent uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge system Improvement Act) will be allowed.
Alternative D. This alternative places a stronger management emphasis on restoration of habitat
than Alternative C does. Only priority wildlife-dependent uses identified in the Refuge
System Improvement Act will be allowed.
Alternative E. This alternative has been revised based on input received from the public on the
DEIS. It places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components along with a
mix of existing uses and priority recreation activities. Alternative E is the agency
preferred alternative.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes revisions to the Draft EIS (DEIS). The
DEIS was circulated for public review and comments from May through August 1999. Public
open house meetings were held on the DEIS in May1999. Changes noted in the Readers   Guide in
this FEIS indicate substantive revisions to the DEIS text. In addition, written comments received
on the DEIS, Service responses to these comments, and a list of FEIS recipients have been
incorporated into the FEIS.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Facts About the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
Location: The Refuge is located in Northeastern Washington, southeast of Colville in Stevens County.
Purpose: Little Pend Oreille NWR was established in 1939  . . . as a refuge and breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife . . .   (Executive Order 8014) and  . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary,
or for any other ma nagement pu rpose, for migratory b irds.   (Migratory Bird C onservation Act).
Acreage: Currently there are 40,198 acres, which equals 86% of the acquisition goal. Refuge inholdings
total 9437 acres and consist mainly of industrial timberlands owned by Stimson Lumber and Boise
Cascade. Total acreage within the approved boundary is 49,697 acres.
Habitat: Elevations range from 1,800 feet on the w estern boundary to 5 ,600 feet on the eastern b oundary.
The Refuge is bord ered on its so uthern and eastern side s by Natio nal Forests (Colville an d Kanik su) with
scattered industrial timberland, state lands, and privately-owned small farms, ranches, and subdivisions on
the north an d west.
Refuge mixed conifer habitats include lowland ponderosa pine, mid-elevation forest dominated by
Douglas-fir, western larch, and lodgepole pine, and upper elevation forests of true fir, spruce, hemlock, and
western red cedar. T he Little Pend Oreille R iver flows through the northern portion of the R efuge. Eastern
and southern boundaries follow the river  s watershed divide. Small streams and lakes, marshes, open
meadows, and former farm fields create diverse habitats on this forested refuge.
Wildlife: There are diverse m ontane for est and ripa rian wildlife communities. On e hundre d and eigh ty-six
bird specie s have bee n recorde d. Bald ea gles use the Little Pend Oreille Riv er during w inter mon ths. State
candidate or species of concern occurring on the Refuge include: golden eagle; northern goshawk;
flammulated owl; white-headed, pileated, Lewis   and black-backed woodpeckers; Vaux swift; pygmy
shrew; and To wnsend  s big-eared bat. Forest pass erine (perching) birds are p lentiful and include a m ixture
of eastern and western species. Cavity-dependent birds, such as woodpeckers, nuthatches, and chickadees
are abund ant.
Lakes and marshes provide spring stopover points for migratory waterfowl. The Refuge provides breeding
habitat for ground nesting waterfowl such as Canada geese and mallards, as well as cavity-nesters,
including wood duck, common goldeneye, and common and hooded mergansers. Native fish include
cutthroat trout, red-sided shiner, and sculpin. Rainbow, brook, and German brown trout, and tench have
been introduced. White-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, moose, black bear, cougar, coyote, and bobcat are some
of the large m ammals living on th e Refuge . The prese nce of fishe r, marten, w olverine, an d gray w olf is
unknown. The potential exists to manage for large species or species which require large tracts of forest
habitat.
History: In 1939, most Refuge lands were acquired through the Resettlement Administration which retired
marginal farmland. Other lands were either purchased from willing sellers, or acquired through exchange
with Washington Department of N atural Resources.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife managed the Refuge through a cooperative agreement
from 1965 to 1994. Department management objectives emphasized game species and wildlife-oriented
recreation. Habitat management action included timber harvest, prescribed fire, livestock grazing, forage
planting, an d noxiou s weed co ntrol. The U .S. Fish an d Wildlife Service res umed o n-site man agement in
1994.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
R-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Readers   Guide
This guide discusses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning process and displays major
changes made to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (CCP/EIS) that appear in this Final CCP/EIS. The changes are the result of comments
received from federal, state, and local agencies, interest groups and individual members of the
public. Also note that the CCP/EIS is divided into two volumes. Volume I contains the
Summary and Chapters, and Volume II contains the Appendices.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning process for all national wildlife refuges generally
involves three levels of planning: 1) the development of a broad Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP); 2) the formulation of detailed step-down management plans; and 3) annual work
plans and site specific projects. Public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance are continued through all appropriate levels in the process. This Final
Environmental Impact Statement provides NEPA compliance for planning documents from all
three levels of planning. The three documents include a CCP, a step-down Fire Management
Plan, and Forest Management Pilot Projects:
Level 1: Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Comprised of Chapters 1 and 2,
the selected alternative from Chapter 3, Appendix C, and Appendix F)
The CCP is a document that provides a conservation vision for a refuge. It describes the desired
future condition for fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats. The CCP provides direction to
refuge programs through long range management goals and objectives. It also determines
appropriate and compatible uses including recreational, commercial, and permitted uses. After
release of the Final EIS, the final CCP document for the Little Pend Oreille Refuge will be
separated from the EIS and will consist of Chapter 1 - Introduction, Chapter 2 - Affected
Environment, the preferred alternative from Chapter 3, Appendix C - Implementation, and
Appendix F - Compatibility Determinations.
Level 2: Fire Management Plan (Appendix G) - Public comments were received on
the Draft Fire Management Plan together with other comments when the Draft CCP/EIS was
circulated May-August 1999. No changes were made from the Draft to the Final Fire
Management Plan; therefore it has not been reprinted in this final CCP/EIS. The Final Fire
Management Plan is available from the Refuge upon Request.
Refuge step-down management plans are working documents that provide guidance and identify
specific actions for the major refuge programs to fulfill the goals and objectives outlined in the
CCP. The Fire Management Plan was written at the same time as the CCP.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Readers   Guide R-2 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Level 3: Forest Management Pilot Projects (Appendix E)
Annual work plans and site specific projects identify specific tasks for specific locations. Three
site specific forest management projects are included in Appendix E and received public review
and comment. It is anticipated that on-the-ground forest management actions could take place in
the winter months following the decision on the CCP/EIS if all compliance requirements are met.
Changes Made to Draft LPO CCP/EIS that Appear in Final  
Post Public Comment Analysis
This table shows the key changes that were made between the Draft CCP/EIS and this Final
CCP/EIS. The page references shown refer to the page numbers in the draft document. Nearly
all of these changes were made in response to public comment. Some additional editing changes
were made that are not detailed here.
Where Change
Originated in
Draft Document
Issues Raised
During
Comment
Period
Specific Changes Made From Draft to
Final
Fact Sh eet;
Summary p. S-6
Chapter (Ch.) 2 (p. 2-
1) Ch. 3 (p. 3-5)
Editing Acre age para grap h cha nged to 4 0,19 8 acr es to tal,
9,437 acres of inholdings and 49,697 within the
approved boundary.
Summary (p. S-14)
Ch. 3 (pp. 3-11, 3-23
and 24
Ch. 4 (p. 4-1)
App C (p. C-2)
Forest Habitat
Management
These 6 pages have references to the forest
management objective. We clarified why we can
have a 15,000 acre dry forest management objective
with only 7943 acres of dry forest habitat on the
refuge. Total acres of dry, moist and cold forest were
made consiste nt throug hout doc ument.
Summary (p. S-4 and
S- 5)
Ch. 3 (pp.3-3 to 3-5)
Snowmobiling Added snow mobiling o n Olson Creek Road to
Alternative E.
Ch. 1 Purpose Statement Retained purpose language from Executive Order
8104.
Ch. 1 (p. 1-5)
Ch. 3
Goa ls Refere nced p rovisions of Improveme nt Act to
inventory and monitor status and trends of fish,
wildlife , and plant s; added to Se ction 1.5 and C h 3 in
monitoring section. Goal 1 was rewritten to read
 Conserve, enhance..habitats and their associated
fish, wildlife and plants, ...native biological div ersity...  
Where Change
Originated in
Draft Document
Issues Raised
During
Comment
Period
Specific Changes Made From Draft to
Final
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Readers   Guide R-3 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Ch. 1 (p. 1-2), Map 1 Map Correc ted the C olville Nationa l Forest bounda ry to
the south of Refuge.
Ch. 1 (p. 1-3) Data Under section 1.4, Planning Process, added
descriptio n of re fuge spec ific stu dies cond ucte d in
the past 6 years.
Ch. 1 (p. 1-10) Grazing Elaborated on initial intent and purpose of Refuge,
especially how it relates to uses such as grazing .
Ch. 1 Air Force Revise d Issue summ ary state ment.
Ch. 2 (p. 2-31) Wildlife Clarified why particular indicator species were
chosen.
Ch. 2 (pp. 2-29 to 2-
30).
Wildlife
Snowmobiling
Lynx - added status of forage/cover ratios, Lynx
Management Zone s, Lynx Analys is Units, tren ds, etc.
Added references from Lynx Science Report that
points to fragmentation as plausible mechanism for
decline of lynx, including facilitating competition from
coyotes.
Ch. 2 (p. 2-24) Inter ior Co lumb ia
Basin Ecosystem
Management Project
(ICBEMP)
Expanded Kelly-Ringel   s summary of fish habitat
assessment - presented both INFISH and ICBEMP
standa rds for stre am co nditions.
Ch. 2 (p. 2-7) Historic Range of
Variability (HRV)
Added more background on HRV.
Ch. 2 (p. 2-49)
Ch. 3 (pp. 3-13 and 3-
39)
Roads Added State of Washington reference to the road
density s tandard s and K nudse n and N aef refere nce.
Also changed road closure dates to Jan 1 - April 14
on p 3-1 3 and p.3 -39.
Ch. 2 (pp. 2-73 to 2-
75)
Ch. 4 (p. 4-31)
Snowmobiling Updated current economic condition.
Ch. 2 (pp. 2-52 and 2-
53)
Hunting Added ba ckg roun d on p reda tor hu nting that is
discus sed in Comment and R espon se App endix.
Added current information from traffic counters
regarding estimates for hunters.
Where Change
Originated in
Draft Document
Issues Raised
During
Comment
Period
Specific Changes Made From Draft to
Final
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Readers   Guide R-4 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Ch. 2 (pp. 2-55 to 2-
56) Ch. 3 (p. 3-38)
App. F (p. F-24)
Alts table - s eparate
snowmobiling row
from OHVs.
Recreation Changed off-road vehicles objective: deleted
sentence saying :  Allow legal ATV use on
designated roads only.   Changed C h 2 as necessa ry
to clarify definitions of ORV, ATV, unlicenced etc,
and to present the CFR which prohibits off highway
vehicles .
Ch. 2 Map 13 (p. 2-57) Map Changed map to include more detailed information,
including 1999 information, multi-year overlays.
Ch. 2 (Roads section,
pp. 2-42 to 2-50)
Snowmobiling Described snowmobile use of Olson Creek Road.
Ch. 2, Map 10 (p. 2-
45)
Editing Differentiated county roads: all are open. Changed
map to have a different line sy mbol for th e coun ty
roads and changed the map   s legend for open and
closed roads.
Ch. 2 Grazing Described the April 1999 Univ. of Idaho grazing
study.
Ch. 2 Air Force Rewrote description of Air Force use, mapped AF
use from 1997-1999, and described landing sites.
Ch. 2 (p. 2-74) Recreation Revised Table 2-14 and moved it to Chapter 4 under
Recreation programs section.
Ch. 2 (pp. 2-29 and 2-
30)
Wildlife Added information on the recent verification of lynx
pres ence clos e to th e refu ge co nfirm ed by hair
trapping DNA analysis.
Ch. 2 Fisheries Fish habitat assessme nt and maps w ere tied more
closely with grazing text. We also added m ore
information on stream conditions from two studies
prepared in 1997 and 1998 and compared stream
conditions to several standards in place for stream
attributes.
Ch. 2 (p. 2-23) Streams Discussed 303(d) listing. Used information from
Comment/Response S ection (Appendix J).
Ch.2 (pp. 2-13 &15) Editing Corrected acres table .
Ch 3. (pp. 3-39 and 3-
13)
Roads Added Starvation Lake access and changed
objective to note 9 access points open; changed map
for Alt. E.
Where Change
Originated in
Draft Document
Issues Raised
During
Comment
Period
Specific Changes Made From Draft to
Final
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Readers   Guide R-5 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Ch. 3 (p. 3 -31);
App. C (pp. C-8 and
C-9)
Snowmobiling Updated monitoring plan to add monitoring of winter
active mammals along Olson Creek Road and
elsewhere in Refuge.
Ch. 3 (p. 3-38) Snowmobiling Clarified off-road vehicle statement, separated
snowmobiling and added snowmobile use of Olson
Creek Road until an alterna te route is d evelope d.
Ch. 3 ( pp. 3-12 and 3-
29)
Old Fields Added clarity to objective and added planting of 200
acres o f annual o r perenn ial crops a s wildlife forag e.
Alt. Table & Objectives.
Ch. 3 (pp. 3-12 and 3-
29)
Noxious weeds and
goals and objectives
Revised weed objective and added six new
strategies for weed management.
Ch. 3 (pp. 3-13, 3-35,
and 3-39)
Hunting Revised objective to clarify hunt seasons including
predator hunting. Added strategies; no hound hunting
for anything and no bear baiting.
Ch. 3 (p. 3-24) Forest Habitat
Management
Added explanation about w hy we are prioritizing dry
forest treatments.
Ch. 3 Map 15 (p.3-21) Snowmobiling Changed to show that snowmobiles are allowed on
Olso n Cre ek ro ad in A lt. E, an d tha t the snowpark is
retained in A lt. E.
Ch. 3 (monitoring)
Ch. 4,Appendix C
Air Force Provided information on ground impacts (camping;
trails, etc.).
Ch. 3 (p. 3-14)
Ch. 3 (p. 3-38)
App. C (p. C-19)
Horsecamp Dele ted re feren ces to ho rseb ack over night s only
being allowed in Horse Camp.
Ch. 3 (pp. 3-31 to 32)
App. C (pp. C-8 & C-
9)
Goa ls Included more on monitoring fish and plants (monitor
stream fish, do rare plant surveys, etc.).
Ch. 3 Goa ls Added scientific references for vegetation and other
objectives.
Ch 3 Added law enforcement objective.
Ch. 3 (p.3-39,
Alternatives Tables)
Roads/Access Replaced April 15 or 16 open date to April 14.
Ch. 3 (pp. 3-34 and
35)
Fish objective Made changes to stocking, gasoline motors, impacts,
and gear.
Ch. 3 (p. 3-26) Streams Included strategies for monitoring water quality.
Where Change
Originated in
Draft Document
Issues Raised
During
Comment
Period
Specific Changes Made From Draft to
Final
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Readers   Guide R-6 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Ch. 3 (p. 3-39) Roads Open road density objective: specified density by
subwatershed, not averaged over whole refuge as
draft implied.
Ch. 4 Economics Recalculated economic effects with new information
gathered from additional literature, interviews,
snowmobile spending profiles and revised
(increased) use estimates.
Ch. 4 (p. 4-37) HRV Added more background information on the concept
of Historic Range of Variability and the Interior
Colum bia Bas in Ecos ystem Management Projec t.
Changed cumulative effects writeup to delete  clear
trends   part.
Ch 4. (p. 4-10) Snowmobiling and
Wildlife
Updated lynx analysis with information from the Lynx
Scientific Report, including coyote competition
information
Ch. 4 Air Force Expan ded disc ussion o f Air Force training effec ts.
Ch. 4 Recreation Updated estimates of recreation visitor days
anticipated in future; revised recreation effects based
on new estimates.
Ch. 4 (p. 4-29) Grazing Expan ded disc ussion o f grazing e ffects. Dra ft
analysis used 4 permittees, this changed to reflect
current number, 3.
Ch. 5 Public Involvement Updated public involvement section.
Appendix B References Added additional references based on additional
work between dra ft and final.
App. C (p. C-9) Streams Included a water quality monitoring plan to address
303 (d).
Appendix C Fishing Added plan to monitor angler impact to wildlife.
App. C (p. C-10) Noxious weeds Added inventory and m apping s trategy.
App. F
(pp. F-2 to F-25)
Snowmobiling
Compatibility
Determination
Updated impacts analysis. Updated final
compatibility decision use of Olson Creek. Clarified
that decision could be changed during public use
management plan, based on information gathered
through monitorin g, status o f new sn owpark, etc.
Where Change
Originated in
Draft Document
Issues Raised
During
Comment
Period
Specific Changes Made From Draft to
Final
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Readers   Guide R-7 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
App. F (p. F-13) Forest Habitat
Management, cut tree
marking
Changed paragraph  sales shall be exclusively cut tree
marked   so that we are employing the best marking
technique available that fits the prescription.
Appendix F Air Force Added Air Force compatibility determination.
Appendix F Collecting Rewrote compatibility determination to allow personal
use.
Appendix F Compatibility Revised horseback compatibility determination.
Appendix I Mailing List Updated mailing list with names received during
public rev iew of dra ft.
App. J Public Comments Added this new appendix of Public Comments on the
Draft EIS/CCP and FWS responses to the
comments.
App. K Weeds Added Appendix of State-listed noxious weeds for
Stevens County.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
i Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet
Refuge Facts
Readers   Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.4 Planning Process and Future Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.5 Legal and Policy Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1.6 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.7 Columbia Basin Ecoregion Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.8 Brief History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and
Historical Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.9 Refuge Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.10 Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
1.11 Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
1.12 Planning Issues and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13
Chapter 2: Affected Environment
2.1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Refuge Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.3 Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
2.4 Public Use Status and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49
2.5 Other Refuge Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63
2.6 Administrative Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-68
2.7 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-68
2.8 Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-74
Chapter 3: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
3.1 Formulation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Alternatives Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.3 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Relationship to Goals,
Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
3.4 Comparison of Funding and Personnel Needs by Alternative . . . . . . . 3-47
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Table of Contents ii Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences
4.1 Effects to Habitats and Evaluation Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Effects to Public Access and Recreation Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
4.3 Effects Related to Cattle Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
4.4 Effects Related to Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
4.5 Effects to Regional Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35
4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43
4.7 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
4.8 Potential Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45
4.9 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment
and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
4.10 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination
5.1 Public Involvement Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
Chapter 6: List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B References
Appendix C: Preferred Alternative: CCP Objectives, Projects, &
Implementation Strategies
Appendix D: Summary of Compliance
Appendix E: Detailed Description and Analysis of Forest Management Pilot Projects
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations
Appendix G: Fire Management Plan
Appendix H: Wildlife Species List
Appendix I: Mailing List
Appendix J: Comments on Draft CCP/EIS and Service Responses
Appendix K: Noxious Weed Species List
List of Figures
Map 1. Refuge Vicinity, Northeast Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Map 2. Land Exchange with State of Washington (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
Map 3. Refuge Features and Surrounding Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Map 4. Historic and Current Vegetation Structural Stages in the . . . . . . . 2-11
Colville Sub-basin
Map 5. Historic and Current Fire Regimes within the Colville Sub-basin . 2-13
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Table of Contents iii Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Map 6. Distribution of Forest Types and Selected Wildlife Habitats . . . . 2-16
Map 7. Aquatic Habitats and Subwatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Map 8. Riparian Condition Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Map 9. Fish Habitat Assessment on River Reaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Map 10. Open and Closed Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
Map 11. Open Road Density by Subwatershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
Map 12. Recreational Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57
Map 13. Air Force Survival School Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64
Map 14. Restoration Actions Alternatives A-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Map 15. Recreational Uses Alternatives A-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Map 16. Grazing and Fields Management Alternatives A-E . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Map E-1. Appendix E: Forest Management Pilot Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3
Figure 2.1 Major Habitat Types Cross-Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Figure 2-2 Fish Distribution by Species in the Little Pend Oreille River . . . . 2-45
Figure 2-3 Fish Distribution by Species in the North Fork of Bear Creek . . . 2-47
Figure 2-4 Fish Distribution by Species in Bear Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Changes in Vegetative Structure within the Colville Sub-basin. . . 2-10
Table 2-2 Changes in Fire Regimes throughout the Colville Sub-basin . . . . 2-12
Table 2-3 Acres and Percent of Habitat by Forest Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Table 2-4 Number and Percent of Palustrine Wetlands by Water Regime . . 2-22
Table 2-5 Number and Percent of Palustrine Wetlands by Vegetation . . . . . 2-22
Table 2-6. Summary of Standards for Stream Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Table 2-7 Stream Conditions as Compared to Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Table 2-8 Wildlife Species Predicted by Washington GAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Table 2-9 Species Used to Evaluate Effects of Proposed Alternatives . . . . . 2-37
Table 2-10 Birds Captured in Mistnets within Wooded Riparian . . . . . . . . . 2-40
Table 2-11 Miles of Roads by Ownership within the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
Table 2-12 Miles and Density of Roads by Subwatershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54
Table 2-13 Current Open Road Density in White-tailed Deer Winter Range 2-55
Table 2-14 Current Open Road Density in White-tailed Deer Summer Range 2-55
Table 2-15 Grazing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66
Table 2-16 Cultural Resources Recorded on the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-70
Table 2-17 Distribution of Refuge Visitors by Region of Origin . . . . . . . . . . 2-80
Table 2-18 Recreation Expenditures per Person per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-81
Table 3-1 Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Table 3-2 Comparison of Refuge Staffing under Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Table 3-3 Estimated Annual Non-Salary Expenditures by Alternative . . . . . 3-48
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Table of Contents iv Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Table 4-1 Projected Visitors in Key Recreation Categories by Alternative . . 4-25
Table 4-2 Summary of Studies on Large Mammals
From Low Flying Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
Table 4-3 Annual Refuge Salary and Nonsalary Expenditures
by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36
Table 4-4 Regional Economic Effects by Refuge Activities
by Sector and Alterative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37
Table 4-5 Change in Regional Economic Effects from the
No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
Table C-1 Appendix C: Primary Entrances and Improvements Needed . . . . C-21
Table C-2 Public Access Roads and Improvements Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-22
Table C-3 Seasonal Public Access Roads and Improvements Needed . . . . . . C-24
Table C-4 Summary of Wildlife and Habitat Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-28
Table C-5 Summary of Public Use Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-29
Table C-6 Summary of Maintenance and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-30
Table C-7 Total Project Costs Proposed for the Next 15 Years . . . . . . . . . . . C-30
Little Pend Oreille NWR
S-1 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Summary
PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is to develop and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge that best achieves the Refuge  s purpose, vision, and
goals; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; addresses the significant
issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located in northeast Washington.
Established in 1939, Little Pend Oreille NWR is one of more than 500 refuges in the National
Wildlife Refuge System managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). In 1997, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge System Improvement Act) (Public
Law 105-57) was passed. The Act requires each national wildlife refuge to have a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). This document for the Little Pend Oreille Refuge is a
combination of a Final CCP and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to develop a vision for the Refuge and
provide management guidance for maintenance, restoration, and use of Refuge resources during
the next 15 years. Specifically, the CCP will:
• set a long-term vision for the Refuge;
• establish management goals, objectives, and strategies;
• define compatible recreational uses of the Refuge;
• determine the future use of livestock grazing;
• determine future Air Force Survival School training use of the Refuge;
• outline habitat and public use projects that support the goals and objectives;
• identify public entry points into the Refuge;
• describe forest management prescriptions for three areas; and
• adopt a step-down fire management plan.
Overall, there is a need to bring the Refuge in line with the National Wildlife Refuge System
mission, goals, objectives, and policies. A Comprehensive Conservation Plan is needed to
address significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish,
wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems. Specifically,
these problems at the Refuge include the need to: ensure the biological integrity, diversity and
environmental health of Refuge forests; restore degraded stream habitats; evaluate and manage
visitor use; and resolve conflicts between the U.S. Air Force use of the Refuge and the Refuges  s
wildlife purpose. In addition, the Refuge System Improvement Act directs the Service to
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-2 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
provide, to the extent practicable, opportunities for people to experience compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation.
Other agencies involved in discussions related to this document include the U.S. Forest Service,
National Park Service, U.S. Air Force, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Department of Natural Resources.
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan provides a framework for future Refuge management.
The analysis associated with implementation of the Plan is addressed at the programmatic level.
Projects are not analyzed in detail. For example, additional planning, with consideration of site-specific
impacts, will be necessary before facilities are built. An exception to this is the detailed
analysis of forest management prescriptions for Starvation Flats, Minnie Flats, and Biarly Flats
(Appendix E).
The Refuge System Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of National
Wildlife Refuge System lands and that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of refuge lands shall be maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge
System mission and the specific purposes for which it was established. Additionally, the Act
identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As priority public
uses of the Refuge System, these uses will receive enhanced consideration over other uses in
planning and management.
Lands within the national wildlife refuge system are different from other, multiple use public
lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge
use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in
the sound professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.
Brief History and Purpose of the Refuge
Beginning in 1879, the Refuge was homesteaded, farmed, grazed by livestock, logged and later
classified  submarginal   for homesteading, although much of the Refuge was unaffected.
Executive Order 8104 (May 2, 1939) established the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge  . . . as
a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . .   Lands added later to
the Refuge were acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16
U.S.C.715d)  . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds . . . .  
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-3 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Refuge Vision Statement
Forest habitat management is vital to the future of wildlife conservation in northeastern
Washington. As the only mixed-conifer montane forest in the National Wildlife Refuge System,
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge has a unique role to play in forest habitat
management. Its forests, streams, and wetlands are used seasonally by bald eagles and numerous
migratory birds for nesting, foraging and migration. It provides critical winter range for deer and
habitat for several species of interest including the Canada lynx and flammulated owl.
The Service envisions using this Plan to build on native wildlife habitat diversity as a theme with
emphasis on developing late successional forest and restoring riparian habitat - habitats that are
increasingly rare in the region. In the next 15 years, Refuge staff will focus management efforts
in over-stocked stands of dry forest using thinning and prescribed fire techniques that mimic
natural ecological processes, such as wildfire. Degraded streams will be restored to enhance and
maintain the natural diversity of the Refuge.
A healthy Refuge environment will provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife viewing,
hunting, and fishing in a natural setting. Interpreting wildlife and the Refuge  s unique heritage,
as well as improving facilities will enhance the visitors   experience while protecting the cultural
integrity of the area. To meet these challenges, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue
to seek partnerships with other agencies, interest groups, landowners, and local communities.
These efforts will result in greater protection of wildlife and fish resources throughout
northeastern Washington.
Refuge Goals
The following broad goals are proposed for the Little Pend Oreille NWR. They are consistent
with Refuge purposes, Refuge System goals, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, Service policy, and international treaties.
Goal 1: Conserve, enhance, and restore native forest, riparian, in-stream, and wetland
habitats and their associated fish, wildlife, and plants, representative of the
native biological diversity of northeastern Washington.
Goal 2: Monitor, protect, and recover special status plants and animals and species of
management interest.
Goal 3: Provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to
enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of Refuge wildlife,
fish, habitats, and cultural history.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-4 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives, developed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, provide ways to
address and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and opportunities identified
during the planning process.
A number of issues were identified during the public scoping process. Alternatives then were
developed in response to identified issues. Habitat restoration is a common element in each
action alternative. The alternatives are intended to provide a range of uses and access, and
respond to the significant issues. Five alternatives are described and evaluated in the draft EIS:
• Alternative A: No Action-Status quo;
• Alternative B: Restoration of Wildlife Habitat with Management of Existing
Uses;
• Alternative C: Restoration of Wildlife Habitat emphasizing Priority Uses;
• Alternative D: Ecological Reserve Strategy; and
• Alternative E: Agency Preferred Alternative (Modified form Draft).
The preferred alternative is the alternative that would best achieve the Refuge purpose, vision
and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues; and is
consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The preferred alternative
(Alternative E) with associated objectives, strategies, and projects represents the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Little Pend Oreille NWR.
This section describes the five alternatives. Only Alternative E was revised as a result of public
comments on the draft.
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION   STATUS QUO
This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and emphases. No changes
would be made to current uses, which include Air Force survival training, livestock grazing,
hunting, fishing, camping, snowmobiling, and horseback riding. In the past, management for
game species was very important and the forest management policy required that all wildfires
must be suppressed as quickly as possible.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-5 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
ALTERNATIVE B: RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND MANAGEMENT
OF EXISTING USES
Alternative B places new management emphasis on the restoration of habitat such as mature dry
forest ponderosa pine and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and
animals. Under Alternative B, existing uses and recreation activities will be modified but
continued. Recreation activities would include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, camping,
and horseback riding. The annual livestock grazing program would be continued but would have
limitations on numbers of animals, locations, and time of year. A major change would be to
move grazing out of riparian zones and high-elevation areas. This would require building
additional fences to control livestock use. The Air Force survival training program would be
continued, however, training intensity would be reduced and helicopter use eliminated except in
emergency situations.
ALTERNATIVE C: HABITAT RESTORATION EMPHASIZING PRIORITY REFUGE
SYSTEM USES
This alternative would also place management emphasis on mature dry forest ponderosa pine and
riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and animals. Priority wildlife-dependent
uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
would be the only activities allowed. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation activities. Hunting opportunities
would be expanded and additional effort would be spent on environmental education activities
and interpretation. Other existing recreational activities such as camping, horseback riding, and
snowmobiling would be eliminated. No annual livestock grazing program would be included but
some limited livestock grazing may occur, in order to meet specific wildlife and habitat
objectives. The Air Force survival training program would be discontinued.
ALTERNATIVE D: THE  ECOLOGICAL RESERVE   ALTERNATIVE
The focus of Alternative D is to manage the Refuge as an ecological reserve. To some, the
theme may evoke ideas of  passive management   such as often occurs in wilderness areas.
However, objectives encompassed in Alternative D are more complex than a sole strategy of
passive management allows. The key components of the alternative are to promote habitat
restoration, especially in the dry forest zone, to restore aquatic conditions to natural states, and to
effectively enlarge roadless areas in the eastern Refuge by reducing human intrusions. The
alternative would support the priority uses established under the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting of forest predators such as bear and cougar would be
eliminated, so as to diminish interference with the natural process of predation. Only no-trace
camping would be allowed. Other uses such as horseback riding, livestock grazing, and the Air
Force survival training would be eliminated from the Refuge. Four access points to the Refuge
would be maintained. Several roads on the eastern half of the Refuge would be blocked or gated
to create a large area within the eastern half of the Refuge that would remain essentially free of
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-6 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
human disturbances throughout the year. Inholder access would be managed through a
cooperative gating system.
ALTERNATIVE E: AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MODIFIED FROM
DRAFT)
Alternative E originated as a combination of the preliminary Alternatives B and C. The Agency
Preferred Alternative E places management emphasis on restoration of habitat components such
as mature dry forest and riparian habitats that support declining and rare species of plants and
animals. Under Alternative E, a mix of existing uses and priority recreation activities will be
managed. A wide range of recreational activities would be supported including hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, camping, horseback riding, photography, and interpretation. Additional
hunting seasons would be added. Interpretation, viewing, photography, and environmental
education would receive added emphasis. Some recreational uses, such as camping and
horseback riding would be restricted in some areas and during some seasons. Camping would be
allowed in designated campgrounds April 15 to December 31 and in additional designated sites
from October 1 to December 31. Selected campsites would be removed from environmentally
sensitive riparian zones. Snowmobiling would be prohibited from all areas of the Refuge except
Olson Creek Road. The snowpark would remain. The annual livestock grazing program will be
continued at its present level for five additional years. Subsequent livestock grazing may be
employed to meet wildlife habitat management objectives. The Air Force survival training
program would be phased out over five years.
Features Common to all Alternatives
All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length
and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions.
• Refuge Boundary and In-holdings
The Refuge boundary remains the same across all alternatives. There is continued
interest by the Fish and Wildlife Service to consolidate management of lands within the
existing Refuge boundary. This could be done through management, protection,
exchange or acquisition of the approximately 9400 acres of in-holdings within the
boundary. A significant portion of these in-holdings are industrial timber land including
Boise Cascade (approximately 1550 acres) and Stimson Lumber Company
(approximately 4530 acres).
• Other Refuge-Managed Parcels
The Little Pend Oreille NWR currently manages two fee properties outside of the
approved boundary of the Refuge: the Norris Tract (54.7 acres) near Springdale,
Washington and the Cusick track (298 acres) north of Cusick, Washington; and four
Summary of Alternatives Found in the Final CCP/EIS for the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
Program or
Issue
Alt. A
(Status quo)
Alt. B
(Restoration of wildlife
habitat and management
of existing uses)
Alt. C
(Restoration; emphasizing
Refuge System Priority
uses)
Alt. D
(Reserve strategy,
reduce human
disturbances)
Alt. E
(Combined B and C,
Agency Preferred)
HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAMS
Forest
management
Limited forest
management. Some
salvage activities and
precommercial thinning.
Limited prescribed fire and
total fire suppression.
Restore natural forest
structure and composition.
Aim for a mosaic of stands to
approximate the appropriate
Historical Range of
Variability (HRV) within
each forest group. For the
long-term, promote large tree
size and stand development
into mature and old stages
over approximately 50% of
the Refuge. Use
precommercial and
commercial thinning,
selective harvest techniques,
and prescribed fire. Suppress
all wildfires outside of
prescription.
Restore natural forest
structure and composition.
Aim for a mosaic of stands
to approximate the
appropriate HRV within
each forest group. For the
long-term, promote large
tree size and stand
development into mature
and old stages over
approximately 50% of the
Refuge. Use precommercial
and commercial thinning,
selective harvest techniques,
and prescribed fire.
Suppress all wildfires
outside of prescription.
Restore natural forest
structure and composition
and role of fire, using
thinning and prescribed
fire. No commercial
thinning in unlogged
stands. For the long-term,
promote large tree size and
stand development into
mature and old stages over
approximately 50% of the
Refuge. Employ low
impact fire suppression
techniques as much as
possible. Promote
protection of wildlife
corridors and buffer zones
with neighboring land
owners and managers.
Restore natural forest structure
and composition. Aim for a
mosaic of stands to
approximate the appropriate
HRV within each forest type.
For the long-term, promote
large tree size and stand
development into mature and
old stages over approximately
50% of the Refuge. Use
precommercial and commercial
thinning, selective harvest
techniques, and prescribed fire.
Suppress all wildfires outside
of prescription. Promote
protection of wildlife corridors
and buffer zones with
neighboring land owners and
managers.
Riparian and
stream
management
No change; no plantings or
restoration.
Repair/improve roads that
limit fish passage or cause
excessive stream
sedimentation; plant and
stabilize streambanks. Enact
200-foot setback from water
bodies for dispersed
camping, commercial
thinning, and road
construction.
Repair/improve roads that
limit fish passage or cause
excessive stream
sedimentation; plant and
stabilize streambanks.
Instream flows take priority
over diversion flows. Enact
200-foot setback from water
bodies for timber removal
and road construction.
Breach dams and diver-sions
to restore natural
hydrology. Repair or
obliterate roads limiting
fish passage and/or causing
excessive sedimentation;
plant and stabilize
streambanks. Enact 200-
foot setback from water
bodies for dispersed
camping, commercial
thinning, and road
construction.
Repair/improve roads that limit
fish passage or cause excessive
sedimentation; plant and
stabilize streambanks.
Instream flows take priority
over diversion flows. Enact
200-foot setback from water
bodies for dispersed camping,
commercial thinning, and road
construction.
Summary S-7
Program or
Issue
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Use of old fields
and farms
Continue grazing on
approximately 430 acres
(65%) of the old fields and
farms. Allow remaining
openings to reforest
naturally.
Plant up to 200 upland acres
with perennial crops and
exclude livestock grazing to
provide wildlife forage and
viewing opportunities. Allow
about 135 acres to revert to
native vegetation, using
prescribed fire and thinning
to enhance natural
succession. Maintain
remaining upland openings
(390 acres) with grazing,
mowing, prescribed fire, and
other mechanical methods.
Same as Alt. B except that
upland meadows would be
maintained with prescribed
fire, mowing, or other
methods, with no annual
grazing.
No human created
openings would be
maintained. Plant or thin
trees, shrubs, or native
vegetation to enhance
natural succession.
Control weeds.
Plant up to 200 acres with
crops. Upland meadows
would be maintained with
prescribed fire, mowing, or
other methods, with no
annual grazing
Noxious Weed
Management
Use integrated weed
management methods to
treat 34 miles of road-side
weeds plus 12 acres of
non-forest habitats.
Use integrated weed
management methods to
reduce seed production by
annually treating 50 linear
miles of road-side weeds plus
250 acres of non-forested
habitats and 250 acres of
forested habitats. Reduce
noxious weed cover on the
Refuge by half by the year
2015.
Use integrated weed
management methods to
reduce seed production by
annually treating 50 linear
miles of road-side weeds plus
250 acres of non-forested
habitats and 250 acres of
forested habitats. Reduce
noxious weed cover on the
Refuge by half by the year
2015.
Use integrated weed
management methods to
reduce seed production by
annually treating 50 linear
miles of road-side weeds
plus 350 acres of non-forested
habitats and 350
acres of forested habitats.
Reduce noxious weed
cover on the Refuge by
half by the year 2015.
Develop an integrated weed
management plan. In
interim, treat 50 linear miles
of road-side weeds plus 250
acres of non-forested habitats
and 250 acres of forested
habitats.
Summary S-8
Program or
Issue
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Entrances and
roads
No change (12 entrances,
201 miles of total roads, 91
miles of open roads).
Open road density in 14
subwatersheds range from
0.2 mi/sq. mi. - 1.9 mi./sq.
mi. Close selected roads
during breakup.
Eight entrances. Close or
obliterate selected roads as
outlined in road manageme n t
criteria. Open road density
in 14 subwatersheds not to
exceed 1.5 mi./sq. mi. from
Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and "d 0.5
mi./sq. mi. from Jan.1 -
Apr.15. Close all but the
county-maintained roads
from Jan. 1 - Apr.15.
Eight entrances. Close or
obliterate selected roads as
outlined in road management
criteria. Open road density in
14 subwatersheds not to
exceed 1.5 mi./sq. mi. from
Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and "d 0.5
mi./sq. mi. from Jan. 1 - Apr.
15. Close all but the county-maintained
roads Jan. 1- Apr.
15.
Four entrances. Close or
obliterate numerous
selected roads. Protect and
enlarge effective roadless
areas by closing roads to
public entry, including
Cedar Creek Rd. and
Blacktail Mountain Rd.
east of Blacktail Bridge.
Manage inholder access
through cooperative
agreements. Open road
density in 14
subwatersheds not to
exceed 1.0 mi./sq. mi.
from Apr. 16-Dec. 31 and
"d 0.5 mi./sq. mi. from Jan.
1 - Apr. 15. Close all but
the county-maintained
roads Jan. 1- Apr. 15.
Nine entrances. Close or
obliterate numerous selected
roads as outlined in road
management criteria. Open
road density in 14
subwatersheds not to exceed
1.5 mi./sq. mi. from Apr. 15-
Dec. 31 and "d 0.5 mi./sq. mi.
from Jan. 1 - Apr. 14. Close
all but the county-maintained
roads Jan. 1- Apr. 14.
Hunting All state seasons
Oct 1 - Dec 31. September
seasons northern portion of
Refuge only.
All state seasons Oct 1 - Dec
31. September seasons
northern portion of Refuge
only.
Expand quality hunting
opportunities (spring turkey,
grouse, and deer/elk bow
hunts). Offer hunter education
programs.
Allow ungulate, gamebird,
and waterfowl hunting.
Eliminate predator (bear,
cougar, coyote, and
bobcat) hunting.
Promote quality hunting
experiences and expand
hunting opportunities by
opening State seasons for
spring turkey, grouse, and
deer/elk bow hunts.
Promoter hunter education
programs.
Wildlife
Observation,
Interpretation,
Photography
Minimal programs as staff
time allows
Minimal programs as staff
time allows
Increase available viewing
information and opportunities;
offer programs, and events
(e.g., summer youth program).
Interpret natural and cultural
history.
Minimal programs as staff
time allows.
Increase available viewing
information and
opportunities; offer
programs, and events (e.g.,
summer youth program).
Interpret natural and cultural
history.
Summary S-9
Program or
Issue
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Fishing Continue current
April - October fishing
opportunities. Lakes
stocked.
Continue current
April - October fishing
season. Increase
opportunities for natural
spawning in lakes. Continue
stocking program.
Continue current seasons and
increase catch and release
fishing on LPO River.
Increase opportunities for
natural spawning at lakes.
Delay fishing opener on lakes
until July 1 to minimize
disturbance to nesting birds.
Continue stocking program.
No stocking. Breach
stream diversions and
dams to restore natural
hydrology.
Continue current
April - October fishing
season and increase catch
and release fishing in LPO
River. Increase opportunities
for natural spawning in lakes
and streams. Continue
stocking program.
Camping Unregulated. Five
designated campgrounds &
many dispersed sites.
Allowed in designated
campgrounds and dispersed
sites only between Apr. 15
and Dec. 31. Eliminate
dispersed riparian camping.
Eliminated Primitive (no-trace)
camping allowed only.
Close off all campgrounds
and camps accessible by
vehicle.
Allowed in designated
campgrounds Apr. 15 - Dec.
31 and designated dispersed
sites only between Oct. 1 and
Dec. 31. Eliminate dispersed
riparian camping.
Horseback Riding Unregulated Develop equestrian plan,
specifically addressing
overnight use (Horse Camp
only), trails, feed, and
maintenance.
Eliminated Eliminated Develop equestrian plan,
specifically addressing
overnight use, trails, feed and
maintenance.
Off-Road Vehicles ATVs and dirt bikes are
not allowed but illegal use
occurs.
Eliminate illegal use with
law enforcement patrols.
Eliminate illegal use with law
enforcement patrols.
Eliminate illegal use with
law enforcement patrols.
Eliminate illegal use with
public education, signing and
law enforcement patrols.
Restrict nonprohibited
vehicles including mountain
bikes, to existing open roads.
Snowmobiling Snowmobiling allowed
only on Olson Creek Rd.
and Blacktail Mtn. Rd.
(from bridge east).
Eliminate illegal use with
law enforcement patrols.
Maintain snowpark, but
discontinue snowmobiling on
Refuge.
Eliminate illegal use with law
enforcement patrols. Remove
snowpark and discontinue
snowmobiling on all Refuge
roads and lands.
Eliminate illegal use with
law enforcement patrols.
Remove snowpark and
discontinue snowmobiling
on all Refuge roads and
lands.
Eliminate illegal use with
public education, signing and
law enforcement patrols.
Continue snowmobile use on
Olson Creek road with
restrictions. Discontinue
snowmobiling on all
remaining Refuge lands.
Summary S-10
Program or
Issue
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
OTHER PROGRAMS
Livestock grazing No change; up to 750
AUMs annually; based on
coordinated resource
management plan
developed by Soil
Conservation Service in
1978.
Modified annual grazing
program conducted outside
low-gradient alluvial riparian
areas and outside of high
elevation areas (e.g. not
above 3000'). Exclude
livestock from ecologically
sensitive areas including wet
meadows. Livestock grazing
would be concentrated in
areas where it may provide a
benefit to spring forage for
white-tailed deer.
Phase out annual program; use
grazing only as habitat
management tool to achieve
wildlife objectives.
Phase out annual program
in five years.
Continue annual program
through 2004; beginning
2005, use grazing only to
achieve wildlife habitat
objectives.
Air Force
Survival School
No change. Use
concentrated in late
summer with an average of
90 personnel/day. Ground
and helicopter use.
Reduced training use,
allowing only activities not
disturbing to wildlife.
Eliminate use of helicopters
except in emergency
situations.
Phased out over five years Phased out over five years. Phased out over five years.
Cultural
Resources
Program
Protect cultural resources
in accordance with law and
policy.
Protect cultural resources in
accordance with law and
policy. Implement a
proactive program to
inventory and evaluate
potential cultural resource
assets.
Protect cultural resources in
accordance with law and
policy. Implement a proactive
program to inventory and
evaluate potential cultural
resource assets.
Protect cultural resources
in accordance with law and
policy.
Protect cultural resources in
accordance with law and
policy. Implement a
proactive program to
inventory and evaluate
potential cultural resource
assets.
Summary S-11
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-12 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
conservation easements ranging in size from 10 to 65 acres in Stevens County. All of these properties
resulted from Farmer  s Home Administration land disposal through loan defaults. Fee title lands are
transferred to the Service for management while conservation easements transfer only the rights of
easement management and serve to protect wetlands and converted wetlands through restrictions that are
perpetual. These tracts will be managed consistently with the management alternative selected for the
primary Refuge. In addition, a step-down management plan will be prepared for each of these units. The
Kalispel Tribe of Indians has expressed interest in cooperatively managing the Cusick unit which is
located close to tribal lands. Partnerships will be considered for the cooperative management of outlying
units.
• Land Protection Strategy Outside Approved Boundary
The Service has the ability to protect and acquire key wildlife habitats outside of the approved
Refuge boundary. Additional NEPA analysis will be necessary to evaluate the environmental
effects of protecting or acquiring lands before they can be added. Land protection methods may
include cooperative agreements, conservation easements, fee title acquisition, leases, donations,
transfers, and exchanges. Only willing participants would be considered for any of these
approaches. Priority for protection will be lands adjacent to the Refuge particularly riparian,
wetland, ponderosa pine and high elevation forest (above 4,000 foot elevation) habitats. Medium
priority for protection will be lands adjacent to other Service managed properties in Stevens and
Pend Oreille Counties and seasonally flooded agricultural lands within the Colville River
floodplain.
• Protection of the Kaniksu Unit, A Separate but Related Action
The Service is currently in the process of evaluating the potential acquisition of 747 acres being
offered by one landowner northeast of Deer Lake, Washington. This property is referred to as the
Kaniksu Unit. Approximately 550 acres of this property are under a perpetual wetland easement
administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. A separate environmental assessment
will be completed if the preliminary project proposal is approved by the Washington Office. If
acquired and added to the Refuge, this area would be subject to many of the management
recommendations provided by the CCP. A unit plan would be prepared in the future to make
management of this area consistent with its purpose, with the CCP, and with other factors unique
to its acquisition.
• Protection of Existing Research Natural Areas (RNA)
Two Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Refuge will be maintained and protected for their
research values. In general  passive   or natural management will be practiced in the RNAs,
including  hands-off   management of wildfire unless external lands appear threatened. Baird
Basin RNA is a 160-acre tract in the North Fork of the Bear Creek watershed, representing three
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-13 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
forest cover types under the Society of American Forester  s (SAF) classification system: Larch-
Douglas Fir (SAF 212), Ponderosa pine-Larch-Douglas fir (SAF 214) and Lodgepole Pine (SAF
218). Varline Grove RNA is an 80-acre tract representing the Lodgepole Pine cover type (SAF
212).
• Protection of Roadless Area
A 5,520-acre roadless area exists in the southeast corner of the Refuge that may have potential for
wilderness designation. All of the alternatives considered in this draft CCP/EIS would be managed
in such a manner that the primitive roadless character of this area and associated values are not
impaired. The roadless area of the Refuge will be studied further in the step-down management
planning process (Habitat and Public Use) to determine if it is suitable as a Wilderness Study Area.
• Tribal Coordination
Common to all alternatives will be increased regular communication with American Indian Tribes
who have an interest in the Refuge. The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians are three local tribes the Refuge will work
with regarding issues of shared interest.
• Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships
Volunteer opportunities and partnerships occur in all alternatives. These are recognized as key
components of the successful management of public lands and vital to implementation of Refuge
programs, plans and projects.
• Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment
Annual payments to Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties will continue at similar historic rates under
each alternative. Total payment made to Stevens County in 1997 was $231,804. If in-holding
lands are acquired and added to the Refuge then the county payment will increase accordingly.
• Salvage Harvest by Permit
Salvage harvest is allowed on the Refuge with a special use permit only, when wind or other
events add excessive, high-risk fuels. This use will continue under all alternatives, where
opportunities arise and where salvage could be used to further other forest habitat management
objectives.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-14 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
• Firewood Cutting by Permit
The firewood cutting permit system remains the same under all alternatives. Current Refuge
policy is to allow cutting between August 1 and November 1. Each permittee is allowed to cut up
to two cords of downed wood within 200 feet of a designated road. The number of permits issued,
cords allowed, and locations will vary from year to year based on conditions, demand, and need.
• Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities
Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge administrative facilities will be necessary regardless
of the alternative selected. Facilities include the Refuge headquarters complex, one government
residence and one cabin. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility
and to support staff and management needs. Recently, the headquarters office was
expanded/remodeled to add office space. Funding has been acquired to upgrade the storage
building. Funding needs have been identified to upgrade and enlarge the shop and to renovate the
Winslow cabin to provide volunteer housing.
• Protection and Management of Cultural Resources
The Service has legal responsibility to consider the effects its actions have on archeological and
historic properties. Under all alternatives, the Service will manage cultural resources in
accordance with public law and agency policy. To this end, small projects will require a  Request
for Cultural Resource Compliance   form be completed in conformance with the Programmatic
Agreement among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the State of Washington Historic Preservation Officer. Additional consultation,
surveys, and clearance will be required when large projects are sponsored by the Refuge or when
activities affect properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (more than 50 years
old).
• Management of Minor Recreational Uses
Certain recreational activities are occasionally pursued on the Refuge. Under all alternatives, any
group activity involving more than 25 people will require a Special Use Permit. Dog sledding and
search and rescue training will also require Special Use Permits. Incidental collecting of antler,
mushrooms, and berries will be allowed. Other recreational activities not specifically addressed in
this document (cross country skiing, snowshoeing) will be allowed to continue on Refuge lands
unless they are found to conflict with wildlife or habitat objectives.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-15 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
• Wildlife Habitat
Important habitats for wildlife will be identified, protected, and enhanced including but not limited
to suitable snags, downed wood, movement corridors, late successional forest communities,
wetlands, and aspen groves.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Geographic and Ecological Setting
The Little Pend Oreille NWR is located in northeastern Washington, about 70 miles north of Spokane and
ranges from about 1,800 to 5,600 feet above sea level.
Within the 1939 Executive Order boundaries of the Refuge are approximately 6500 acres of inholdings.
Most of the inholding parcels are owned by Stimson Lumber Company or Boise Cascade, both
commercial timber companies.
Two Research Natural Areas have been established within the Refuge. These areas protect natural
features and preserve natural processes for scientific purposes; the guiding principle is to prevent unnatural
encroachments and activities which directly or indirectly modify ecological processes. There is also a
5,520 acre block of unroaded and largely undisturbed forest in the southeastern corner of the Refuge.
On non-Fish and Wildlife Service managed land surrounding and within the Refuge boundary, there are
increasing trends towards road development, forest fragmentation, loss of older aged-forest, recreational
use, riparian habitat degradation, and rural residential development.
The Refuge is a mixture of diverse habitats including: riparian, aquatic, fields, and forests types that
support stands of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, grand fir, cedar, hemlock, western larch, subalpine fir, and
aspen. Riparian areas provide some of the Refuges   most species rich-habitats.
Landscape Perspective
In order to understand the role of Refuge lands within the ecosystems of this region, it is helpful to
consider some natural resources and processes within a larger landscape context. For the purposes of this
analysis, the Colville sub-basin, an area measuring some 650,000 acres, was chosen as the scale at which
to assess the surrounding ecosystem. The refuge is a 40,198 acre parcel of land which lies within the
Colville sub-basin.
Although forest cover types continue to be found over approximately the same total areas as in 1900,
dramatic changes in forest structure have occurred over large areas of the Colville River sub-basin.
Specifically, old single-strata forest is gone from the watershed completely and old multi-strata forest
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-16 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
covers only about 10% of its former area in the watershed. Young forests, particularly the mid seral types
of young multi-strata forest and understory reinitiation forest, cover about 15-18 times their extent in
1900. These changes in forest structure on a sub-basin scale have significant repercussions for wildlife
habitat, especially for those species with narrower habitat requirements. At the scale of the entire Interior
Columbia Basin, at least eight terrestrial vertebrate species have experienced a loss of greater than 67% of
the habitat available to them historically, while an additional 47 terrestrial species have experienced a loss
of 33-67% of their historical habitat (Wisdom, et al. 1998). These species include the white-headed
woodpecker, the flammulated owl, western bluebird, hoary bat, and many others.
There has been a clear shift in fire regimes throughout the Colville River sub-basin from frequent to
infrequent fires. In general, fires regimes have also become more lethal. Specifically, non-lethal, frequent
and very frequent fires and mixed, frequent fires have declined, with a corresponding dramatic rise in
lethal and infrequent fires. The frequent, non-lethal fires of the past contributed to the maintenance of
large trees and open understories typical of single strata ponderosa pine. The loss of frequent and non-lethal
fires have led to ever-increasing fuel loads, crowded and over-stocked forest stands and a greater
and greater risk of catastrophic (lethal) fire occurrence.
Fish and Wildlife and their Habitat
The Refuge supports a variety of wildlife and fish common to riparian, field, and forest habitats, including
approximately 196 species of birds, 58 species of mammals, and 14 reptiles and amphibians. The Refuge
also includes parts of all the major forest zones located in Northeast Washington, from the dry forest of
ponderosa pine through the moist, mixed conifers, to the cold forest of Engelmann spruce and subalpine
fir zone. Not only is the Refuge one of the largest refuges in the state, it is bordered by the Colville
National Forest on two sides, essentially magnifying the Refuge  s value for wide ranging species of
wildlife.
The only federally listed threatened or endangered species known to regularly occur on the Refuge is the
bald eagle. Bald eagles are frequently seen along the Little Pend Oreille River, primarily in winter.
Habitat also exists for the Canada lynx, a species recently listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Lynx presence has been confirmed near the Refuge. Migratory birds are of particular
interest due to being mentioned in the Executive Order establishing the Refuge. White-tailed deer are a
species of local interest and have historically been a focus of management activities at the Refuge.
Many species of waterfowl have been observed on the Refuge. Duck species include mallard, ruddy,
redhead, common goldeneye, ringneck, and bufflehead. Wood ducks and green-wing, blue-wing and
cinnamon teal are all commonly observed, along with common and hooded mergansers. Canada geese
breed on several Refuge lakes and wetlands. Migratory and other birds of interest include the American
redstart, northern goshawk, flammulated owl and ruffed grouse.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-17 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
The Little Pend Oreille River (approximately 10 miles) and the main fork and North Fork of Bear Creek
(approximately 15 miles) provide most of the in-stream fish habitat managed on the Refuge. The four
trout species that are found are rainbow, cutthroat, brook, and brown trout. Native non-game species
observed are redside shiner and shorthead sculpin. Amphibian species known or suspected to occur on the
Refuge include tiger salamander, long-toed salamander, western toad, Pacific tree frog, and Columbia
spotted frog.
While no Federally listed proposed, threatened or endangered plant species are known to inhabit the
Refuge, one Washington State threatened species, adder  s-tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum), is known to
occur at one location. Most Refuge habitats harbor non-native plants. Some of these plants occur
incidentally but others, having a tendency to invade and displace native plants, are considered noxious
weeds. Weeds that occur on the Refuge include leafy spurge, plumeless thistle, and yellow hawkweed.
Approximately 200 miles of roads currently exist within the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
administrative boundary. The majority of these roads are located on Refuge lands; others are situated
within inholdings. Approximately half of these roads are infrequently used and would need clearing for
vehicle access.
Refuge Recreation and Special Uses
The Refuge estimates use at over 50,000 visitor use days each year. The two most popular recreational
activities are fishing and hunting. Several species of big game, small game, predators, and migratory
waterfowl are hunted on the Refuge. There is also a growing interest in wildlife viewing. With the
exception of the early spring fishing season and the fall deer hunting season, most Refuge camping is not
directly associated with other Refuge uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation or photography.
Horseback riding, including organized rides, also occurs on the Refuge. Other recreational activities
include snowmobiling, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, and dog sledding.
For the past 33 years, the Air Force Survival School has used the Refuge and adjacent lands for survival
and evasion training. The training occurs from January through September, with concentrated use in the
late summer. The Refuge area has a history of being homesteaded, logged, and farmed. A livestock
grazing program has been managed to some degree on the Refuge since its establishment. No prehistoric
sites have been located within the Refuge.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
In the following discussion, the terms  positive  ,  negative  , and  neutral   are used frequently. A
 positive effect   means that the action would be favorable over the short or long term to the resources
under consideration. A  negative effect   means that the action or set of actions would be detrimental over
the short or long term to the health or availability of the resource under consideration. A neutral effect
means either (a) that there would be no discernable effect, either positive, or negative, on the resources of
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-18 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
concern over the time period indicated; or (b) that positive and negative effects would both occur and in
summary cancel each other out. No change in management practices from the present (as in Alternative
A) does not imply neutral effects over time. See each resource for the comparison of effects under
different alternatives.
Effects to Forest Habitats
Coniferous Forests
Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (dry site) forest habitats would be actively managed under Alternatives B,
C, D, and E using precommercial and commercial thinning, selective harvest, and prescribed fire.
Approximately 1,000 acres per year would be treated, with an overall goal of treating approximately
15,000 acres over the 15-year span of this plan. The long-term intent of the treatments under these
alternatives is to restore the forest structure and composition to conditions more closely resembling the
conditions present in the mid 1880s, just prior to settlement by American pioneers, homesteaders, and
miners. Thinning and use of prescribed fire is also intended to promote conditions that would be favorable
to reintroduction of a more natural fire disturbance regime over the long-term, thus lessening the
likelihood of a  catastrophic   fire that could wipe out huge areas. Treatments in Alternatives B ,C, and E
would begin the process of promoting forest stand development into mature and old stages. These habitats
are increasingly scarce at a regional scale (especially the mature ponderosa pine stand types) and have
important values to native wildlife.
Alternative D would adopt a slightly more conservative approach than Alternatives B, C, or E. Under
Alternative D, forest areas that remain unroaded would not be commercially thinned or salvaged. Low
impact techniques for fire suppression would be used across the Refuge as much as possible. Benefits to
interior forest dwelling and disturbance sensitive wildlife would likely be higher, at least under the short-term,
than under Alternatives B, C, or E.
Alternative A takes a largely passive management approach, proposing a limited amount of activity,
mainly salvage and limited thinning and burning. Wildfires would also be actively suppressed. Under this
alternative, tree density would remain high and species conversions to shade tolerant types would
continue, augmenting problems associated with forest health. This would result in increased fuel loadings,
such that over the long-term, these conditions would probably make catastrophic wildfire inevitable,
despite fire suppression efforts.
Riparian and Deciduous Forests
Alternatives B, C, D, and E each propose active measures to plant trees and shrubs in devegetated or
degraded riparian areas. These alternatives also would eliminate livestock grazing completely (Alternative
D) or in riparian areas (Alternative B), or use grazing only as an occasional vegetative management tool
(Alternatives C and E). The elimination of annual livestock grazing from riparian areas can dramatically
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-19 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
speed the vegetative recovery of bare and degraded sites. Other active measures to restore aspen pockets
(both through use of fire and curtailing of grazing) would also occur under Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all reintroduce periodic fire into the landscape which may have positive
benefits to aspen.
Some riparian areas on the Refuge are in poor condition due to recreational use. Alternative C, which
eliminates all Refuge camping, would go the furthest to aid recovery of riparian areas damaged by
camping. Dispersed riparian camping would be prohibited under Alternatives B and E, and Alternative D
would likely result in little to no riparian camping. Riparian areas would be protected from road
construction and timber harvest by a buffer measuring 200 feet or to the extent of the 100-year floodplain
under Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
Compared to the other alternatives, Alternatives C and D restore and develop riparian forests the most,
especially the deciduous riparian forests of the alluvial stream areas that have been strongly affected by
grazing. Alternative A would not adopt any additional measures to restore or protect riparian areas and
would keep grazing and camping at its present level. This alternative would have a continued negative
impact to existing and potential riparian forests.
Effects to Other Plants
Noxious Weeds
Noxious weeds, which mainly inhabit roadsides and open fields at the Refuge, would be controlled using
integrated weed management under all alternatives. The action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) incorporate
direct measures to treat both roadsides and fields. The action alternatives would also attempt to curb the
spread of noxious weeds indirectly through controls on grazing and horse use. All of the action
alternatives strive to reduce weed infestation beyond Alternative A, which sets no objective for weed
elimination. Overall, Alternative D would enact the most aggressive programs against noxious weeds.
Rare Plants
Under Alternatives B, C, and E, all known locations inhabited by rare plants would be monitored on a
regular basis. Alternatives A and D include provisions for monitoring Ophioglossum pusillum only.
Inventories to find new locations of rare plants are planned under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. These
alternatives would better protect Refuge populations of rare plants than Alternative A, because a resource
cannot be protected with certainty if its existence is unknown. Protection of known rare plant locations
would occur under all alternatives.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-20 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Effects to Water Quality and Aquatic Habitats
Water Quality
All alternatives would minimize the construction of new roads. In addition, Alternatives B, C, D, and E
each would involve repair of roads that limit fish passage and/or cause sedimentation to aquatic habitats,
and the planting and stabilizing of devegetated or unstable streambanks. These measures would result in a
reduction of direct sediment input to streams. Alternative A proposes no active measures to limit stream
sedimentation except by minimizing new road construction.
Alternative B would eliminate grazing within the riparian zones. Riparian grazing would also effectively
be discontinued under Alternatives C and E. Alternative D eliminates grazing altogether. These
restrictions would help to diminish soil compaction, streambank erosion, and fecal contamination of
Refuge streams. Alternative A would not have these beneficial effects. Ohmart (1996) demonstrated that
riparian recovery may be two to four times faster in ungrazed riparian areas than in riparian areas
subjected to managed grazing.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E each also propose forest management activities that would possibly involve
some soil displacement stemming from yarding, fuels reduction, or road construction. Forest harvest is
also known to increase the magnitude and frequency of peak flows, especially in areas subject to rain-on-snow
events. These effects are proportional to the number of acres harvested and the percent of canopy
removed. Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the Refuge would adopt 200-foot buffers along streams
where timber harvest and road construction would generally not occur. This rule would help to keep
displaced soil from entering Refuge water systems. Some short-term increases in peak flows with
resultant potential effects to channel morphology are possible. In sum, Alternatives B, C, D and E would
be likely to have a small negative short-term effect on water quality stemming from forest management
activities. Over the long-term, water quality should be enhanced as a larger percentage of the Refuge
develops into mature structural stages.
Over the short-term, Alternative A would not result in dramatic degradation or improvement of water
quality. However, under this alternative, the Refuge has a slightly higher likelihood of experiencing
catastrophic wildfire. Wildfire could cause severe loss of vegetation cover and can increase soil surface
water repellency for a short period.
No dispersed riparian camping would be allowed under Alternatives B, C, and E. Although this rule could
be difficult to enforce in all parts of the Refuge, overall there would likely be an immediate reduction in
pollutants and, over time, visible riparian recovery in these former campsites.
Aquatic Habitats
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-21 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Stream sedimentation, high road densities, loss of in-stream large wood, and loss of pool habitat have been
cited as key factors involved in fish species declines in the inland northwest. Alternatives B, C, D, and E
would be expected to have positive long-term benefit to aquatic habitats, owing to passive and active
measures taken in these alternatives to repair or obliterate eroding roads, replace culverts that block fish
passage, restore streambank stability, and increase in-stream structural complexity.
Hydrologic changes at the Refuge would occur under Alternatives C, D, and E. Alternatives C and E
would ensure that flows in the original channels of diverted streams take priority over diversion flows. In
a low water year, this could result in positive benefits to stream conditions at the expense of the lake
habitats. Alternative D goes farther, proposing to restore the natural hydrology altogether on the Refuge
by breaching the dams and diversions that were built to establish Bayley and McDowell Lakes and Potter's
Pond. The lake beds would likely revert to shallow wetland areas. Eliminating the diversions would
mean that more water would remain in the main streams, especially during high water runoff seasons (late
spring).
Aquatic habitats would realize an additional positive benefit under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, because
grazing would be eliminated or conducted outside riparian areas.
Effects to Air Quality
Known and predictable air quality impacts would result primarily from smoke generated by forestry
activities undertaken under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Temporary impacts to air quality (mainly from
particulates) can be expected from the prescribed burning and slash disposal that would occur on up to
1000 acres/year under these alternatives.
The Refuge will follow the smoke mitigation recommendations in the step-down Fire Management Plan.
Hence, the impacts from the proposed prescribed fire management program should be of relatively short
duration and will mainly affect unpopulated areas of the Colville National Forest, east of the Refuge.
Large volumes of smoke could be released at any time (normally late summer) if a catastrophic wildfire
were to occur, exceeding EPA standards for particulates. Wildfire could occur under any of the
alternatives, but is more likely under Alternative A. This alternative would allow fuel loading to continue
and increase unchecked, whereas the other alternatives include plans to thin and underburn approximately
8,000 acres of dry forest over the life of this plan. Stands receiving this treatment are less likely to ignite
or contribute to the spread of large wildfires.
Effects to Selected Fish and Wildlife Evaluation Species
Rather than try to predict the effects to every species or rely on  guild   analysis, certain fish and wildlife
species were selected, based on a variety of criteria, for more detailed analysis. A summary is provided
below.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-22 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Bald Eagle: It is not known if any of the Refuge lakes are large enough to attract eagles for nesting. As a
highly visible species found mainly in association with aquatic habitats, the eagle is more vulnerable than
many other species to human disturbance, especially at nest areas (Anthony, et al. 1992).
The level of recreational use that would be expected to continue near the lakes under Alternatives A, B,
and E during the nesting season would probably preclude the possibility of eagles establishing a nest on
the Refuge. Foraging habitat for bald eagles could improve slightly under Alternatives B, C, and E,
primarily due to improved aquatic habitats resulting in healthier fish populations. The delay of the fishing
opener at the lakes until July 1 under Alternative C, coupled with the elimination of camping, could
improve the chance of nest site establishment at McDowell or Bayley Lake.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all eliminate low-level helicopter overflights on the Refuge. This
policy would benefit the eagle. Under Alternative D, the eagle could suffer a negative impact due to the
loss of the lake habitat, yet since most of their use of the Refuge occurs during winter and along the river,
this impact is expected to be small.
Alternative A would be expected to result in a negative impact to bald eagles, due to the continuing
degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats, loss of streamside vegetation, absence of active management
to promote the development of large nest or roost trees, and the continuation of helicopter overflights by
the Air Force within proximity of potential or occupied roost trees.
Canada lynx: This feline predator should benefit primarily from actions that would reduce or eliminate
human disturbance and access into its habitats, especially during winter, and from actions that would
promote or maintain the specific habitat needs necessary for this species to den and find adequate food
(Koehler and Aubrey 1994).
Current disturbance impacts to lynx and their habitat stem primarily from snowmobile use of high
elevation areas of the Refuge, including Olson Creek Road, during winter months. Alternative A would
continue snowmobiling as it currently exists on the Refuge. Alternative E would allow snowmobilers to
pass through the Refuge on Olson Creek Road only.
Impacts of snowmobiles to lynx are mainly indirect, resulting from 1) effects impacting their main food
source (snowshoe hares) and from 2) effects benefitting a key competitor (coyotes). These phenomena are
explained in the next several paragraphs.
According to Neumann and Merriam (1972) snowmobile use affected snowshoe hare and red fox mobility
and distribution in Ontario, mainly within 76 meters of snowmobile trails. Snowshoe hares avoid
snowmobile trails while red foxes use them. Snowshoe hares are the primary food of lynx, therefore loss
of snowshoe hare habitat areas affects lynx by reducing their food source.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-23 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
The authors of The Lynx Science Report (Ruggiero et al. 1999) feel that the coyote is a  potentially
formidable   competitor with lynx, citing the coyote  s wide habitat niche, heavy predation on snowshoe
hares, high reproductive rate, great behavioral plasticity, and high tolerance of humans. Coyote
population numbers have increased dramatically in many places over the last few decades, (including a 44
times increase in Washington state between 1960-1984), using coyote harvests as an indicator. With
several citations, The Lynx Science Report substantiates the claim that coyotes access high elevation areas
by moving along paths, roads, and even snowshoe hare trails.
The habitat issues highlighted by The Lynx Science Report authors and others (openings, snowmobiles,
higher road densities, etc.) all exist in the local area and may be combining to pose a problem for lynx.
These problems would worsen under Alternative A. Under Alternative E, the Refuge would seek to
delineate another snowmobile route, ultimately resulting in no snowmobiling impact on the Refuge. In the
interim, snowmobile use would continue Olson Creek Road and the potential negative effects of this
activity on lynx will be the same as those of Alternative A. Alternatives B, C, and D would all eliminate
snowmobile use on the Refuge and on Olson Creek Road. Although this strategy would require increase
law enforcement patrols, it would clearly benefit lynx. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would also provide
benefit by implementing road closures on all but the county maintained roads between January 1 and April
14, a critical time for lynx.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E each include forest management actions to promote the development of late
successional characteristics on forest lands. To the extent that these actions occur in high elevation lynx
habitat, these actions would benefit the lynx, which relies on late successional forests with large downed
woody debris to provide denning sites with security and thermal cover for kittens. Under Alternative A,
conditions for the lynx would be expected to continue to deteriorate.
Overall, Alternative D would be expected to have the most benefit to lynx, since this alternative limits
human access to the Refuge to the greatest extent, avoids roading and harvest in unlogged stands,
implements proactive measures to restore forest structures, eliminates Air Force training use, and reduces
camping significantly.
Columbia Spotted Frog: Alternatives B, C, D, and E, which include measures to eliminate grazing in
riparian areas and measures to restore streamside vegetation, would result in positive benefits for the
spotted frog. Alternative D would be likely to have the most positive benefit of the alternatives because it
also eliminates fish stocking and restores the natural hydrology of the lakes. Under Alternative A, habitat
conditions for the spotted frog would possibly deteriorate and would not improve.
Northern Goshawk: Forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire) would occur within
potential goshawk habitat under alternatives B, C, D, and E. Forest management has the potential to cause
short-term deleterious effects to goshawks through removal of canopy closure. Depending upon the
prescription, thinning and/or prescribed fire may temporarily reduce canopy closures below levels that
support goshawk territories (USFWS 1998). To mitigate disturbance and habitat impacts to goshawks, a
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-24 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
combination of distance buffers and seasonal restrictions would be applied where forest management
activities are undertaken near known nest sites under Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would all be expected to have (over the long-term) a positive effect on
goshawks, since the forest treatments identified in these alternatives would provide for a greater
abundance of large trees (and in some areas, multi-storied canopies may develop as a result of thinning
and underburning). Over the short-term, there could be some negative impacts to goshawks as forests are
thinned.
Alternative A would be expected to have a neutral effect on the goshawk. No proactive measures would
be taken to improve nesting opportunities on the Refuge, but foraging habitat would continue to be
available.
Ruffed Grouse: Implementing Alternative A includes allow livestock grazing at approximately the current
stocking level. Livestock would continue to browse the aspen, retarding both the expansion and
development of more desirable multi-aged stands. Alternative A would continue to allow unregulated
camping. The majority of these camping sites are in riparian habitats, reducing or eliminating their value
as high quality grouse habitat. Under this alternative, grouse populations would be expected to remain
stable or gradually decrease.
Alternative B would eliminate grazing in low-gradient alluvial riparian areas. Removing livestock
browsing pressure in this area of high aspen density would have a substantial positive effect on the
quantity and quality of existing and future grouse habitat. Alternative B would eliminate dispersed
camping and restore riparian areas, having a positive affect on the amount and quality of ruffed grouse
habitat available.
Alternative D would have effects very similar to Alternatives C and E. All three eliminate livestock
grazing and riparian camping, restore natural forest structure through thinning and prescribed fire, and
plant and stabilize stream banks. Theses actions would have positive impacts on grouse habitat.
MacGillivray  s warbler: The MacGillivray  s warbler represents passerine migrants that utilize woodland
riparian and aspen habitats. Planting trees and shrubs in riparian areas as proposed in Alternatives B, C,
D, and E should have a positive effect by increasing the amount of woody shrub habitat available. Many
of these riparian sites are vegetatively degraded due to many years of annual livestock grazing. The
elimination of livestock grazing Refuge-wide (Alternative D), or in riparian areas (Alternative B), or only
using grazing an occasional vegetation management tool (Alternatives C and E), should have a significant
positive impact on habitat quality for MacGillivray  s warbler and other wildlife species using riparian sites
by speeding the recovery of these degraded areas. The potential decrease in the number of cowbirds
infesting the Refuge expected with the decrease or total elimination of cattle grazing proposed under
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would likely have little effect on nesting success of MacGillivray  s warbler.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-25 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Traditional camping sites next to streams have resulted in the loss of riparian vegetation. The total
elimination of camping on the Refuge (Alternative C), or the elimination of dispersed recreational
camping in riparian areas (Alternatives B and E) should result in the recovery of vegetation in these
camping sites. Implementation of Alternative D would likely result in little to no riparian camping, with a
similar positive result.
Measures to restore and encourage aspen reproduction, such as prescribed fire, tree planting, and curtailing
grazing, would occur under all action alternatives. These actions should also result in positive benefits for
this species.
Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, riparian areas would be protected from road construction and timber
harvest by either a 200 foot buffer (or greater, depending on the width of the 100 year flood plain).
Adoption of this standard should protect these areas from the pre-commercial and commercial thinning of
nearby upland sites proposed under all the action alternatives. This thinning, when combined with the
prescribed fire also proposed in the alternatives, should encourage shrub growth, further enhancing habitat
quality for this warbler.
Alternative A would not adopt any additional measures to restore or protect riparian areas, nor include the
increased use of prescribed fire, while maintaining livestock grazing and camping at present levels.
Therefore, this alternative would have a continued negative impact on MacGillivray  s warbler.
Common Goldeneye: Alternative D would eliminate much of the lacustrine habitat on the Refuge, by
breeching dams and diversions. Under this alternative, goldeneye habitat would be reduced by about 115
acres.
The curtailment or elimination of riparian camping under Alternatives B, C, D, and E would benefit the
goldeneye. Camping and other human uses disproportionately impact riparian areas on the Refuge and
likely disturb or disrupt nesting or foraging goldeneyes and other species of waterfowl.
Overall, Alternative C would be likely to result in the most positive benefit to the common goldeneye,
partly due to camping restrictions and partly because the delay in the fishing opener reduces disturbance to
nesting waterfowl. Alternatives A, B, and E are expected to have a negative effect on goldeneye since
human disturbances at Refuge lakes would remain at mostly similar levels to those existing currently.
Flammulated owl: An associate of low to mid elevation mature ponderosa pine forests, this insectivorous
owl benefits from actions that promote the development of large diameter ponderosa pines (for nesting)
and a multilayered and relatively open canopy (for foraging) interspersed with dense thickets (for
roosting). Because of the forest restoration efforts planned in low elevation forests under Alternatives B,
C, D, and E, these alternatives would have the most positive effect on this species. Alternative A, which
does not adopt forest restoration measures, would be expected to have a slightly negative effect on the
owl.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-26 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Hoary Bat: This species is a foliage-roosting bat closely associated with late successional forests for
roosting. As a user of contrasting habitats, the hoary bat represents those species that rely on the
simultaneous maintenance of several components of Refuge habitat. This species may realize more
benefits from the fields that have been maintained on the Little Pend Oreille than most other native
species; yet it would also likely benefit from actions to improve the distribution of riparian forests and
actions to promote mature and late successional forests. Alternatives B, C, and E would be expected to
positively benefit the species, primarily due to actions promoting late successional characteristics in
forested habitats (considered best for roosting), the actions to restore riparian habitats, and the
maintenance of some fields as openings.
Alternative D would be expected to have a neutral effect on this species because it enhances roosting
habitat and some foraging habitat in riparian areas, but all fields would also be allowed to revert back to
forest. Alternative A would also likely have a neutral effect because it maintains fields as foraging
habitats but does nothing to promote roosting habitat.
White-tailed Deer: Alternatives B, C, D, and E each propose the reintroduction of low intensity fire in dry
forest habitats. Underburning under the right conditions can stimulate sprouting and regeneration of
browse species such as ceanothus, thus benefitting the winter range habitats of the white-tailed deer.
Fields remaining from historic patterns of human settlement currently provide rich sources of late
winter/early spring forage for deer, with the smallest fields providing forage in close proximity to secure
cover. Alternatives B, C, and E each propose maintaining up to 500 acres of this habitat, with grasses
maintained through cattle grazing, mowing, or fire (Alternative B) or mowing or prescribed fire
(Alternatives C and E). Within the 500 acres, Alternatives B, C, and E would maintain 200 acres with
annual or perennial crops that would benefit wintering white-tailed deer.
Alternative A would allow grazing where it occurs presently (65% of the Refuge  s open habitats are
grazed). Under Alternative A, a greater number of acres would be available in grass forage, but
competition between cattle and deer would slightly diminish the quantity and quality of forage available to
the deer, and little would be done to slow the spread of noxious weeds. Aggressive integrated
interventions to suppress noxious weeds in the fields would be undertaken in Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
Alternative B, C, and E all apply management in old fields that would improve deer habitat more than
Alternative A. Thirty-five miles of interior fencing, an impediment to wildlife passage that occasionally
causes deer mortality, would be removed under Alternatives C, D, and E.
The cumulative effect of practices under Alternative A is a moderate to high level of disturbance. Because
of these negative impacts under current management, Alternative A is considered to be poor for deer.
Additional deer hunting opportunities could potentially be offered at the Refuge under Alternatives C and
E. Though these hunts may increase hunting disturbance somewhat over current levels. The cumulative
level of disturbance will be considered when designing seasons.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-27 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Alternatives C, D, and E would eliminate all disturbances associated with the Air Force and Alternative B
would reduce the level of Air Force disturbance by eliminating wintertime use, limiting the number of Air
Force personnel, and curtailing helicopter and off-road vehicle use. Alternatives B, C, E, and especially
D, would ensure road density levels remain at or below the standard recommended by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Enacting these closures would significantly reduce disturbance to deer,
especially in the winter, when only the three county maintained roads would be open between January and
April. This action could also reduce incidental poaching.
Although all of the action alternatives would benefit deer, overall, deer would be best served under
Alternatives C and E.
Pileated woodpecker: Alternatives B, C, D, and E would be expected to benefit the pileated woodpecker
over the long-term because the forest restoration efforts that are included in these alternatives would be
expected to produce a higher density of large trees and snags that these woodpeckers use for feeding,
roosting, and nesting. Alternative A would likely have a neutral effect.
Rainbow Trout: Changes in the livestock grazing program proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D would
all be expected to have an immediate positive effect on this species. Alternative E would begin to have a
positive effect after five years.
Stocking only occurs in the lakes, but a small potential occurs for stocked fish to spill over into streams
during high water (Shuhda, pers. comm.). Although it is highly unlikely ceasing stocking would cause the
river fish to revert back to the  pure   and distinct native strains, ceasing stocking would at least have the
benefit of not further polluting the gene pool. Strategies under Alternatives B, C, and E would include
ceasing stocking of the eastern brook trout, but stocking of coastal rainbow would continue.
The riparian and stream restoration efforts undertaken under Alternatives B, C, and D would also aid the
trout. Alternative A would be expected to result in a negative effect on rainbow trout since stream
degradation from grazing, camping, and roads would continue. Effects of continued livestock grazing
under Alternative E would result in a negative effect on rainbow trout similar to that associated with
alternative A. A positive effect should begin in 2005 when livestock grazing is discontinued under
alternative E.
Effects to Cultural Resources
Under all alternatives, the cultural resource values of the Little Pend Oreille NWR would be treated
according to the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Alternative B would have a neutral to positive effect on cultural resources. Changes in programs that
would have a positive effect on cultural resources include maintaining 200 acres of openings, closing off a
few entrances and roads, and eliminating off-road vehicles. Changes that could have a negative effect on
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-28 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
cultural resources include forest management techniques that include harvest and thinning and control of
wildfires, and revegetating old farm fields. This alternative also includes provisions to enact a proactive
cultural resources program, which would be very positive for cultural resources.
Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except for some modifications that make this alternative generally
more positive toward cultural resources. Positive changes in programs include the elimination of the Air
Force survival school, camping, horseback riding, and off-road vehicles, and closing off roads and
entrances. Maintaining 200 acres of openings, developing wildlife viewing in some fields, and developing
an interpretive program that includes natural and cultural history are very positive aspects of this
alternative. This alternative also includes provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources program,
which would be very positive for cultural resources.
Generally, Alternative D has a positive affect on preserving cultural resource values. Limiting access to 4
entrances and closing roads would lessen the opportunity for vandalism of archaeological sites.
Elimination of the Air Force survival school, grazing, and horseback riding would lessen the threats to
historic sites posed by these activities.
Alternative E includes both positive and negative affects to cultural resources. Phasing out the Air Force
Survival School, closing selected roads, and modifying or eliminating the grazing program would be
positive steps toward resource protection. Developing interpretive programs would be very beneficial for
cultural resources, especially for interpreting the homestead landscape. This alternative also includes
provisions to enact a proactive cultural resources program, which would be very positive for cultural
resources.
Activities that have a neutral affect on cultural resources are the current fishing strategies, noxious weed
management, and camping in designated campgrounds. Repairing roads for fish passage would require
compliance with Section 106, but no known sites would be affected.
Effects to Public Access and Recreation Opportunities
Public Access
The Refuge would have more controlled access under all alternatives except Alternative A. Alternatives B
and C would maintain an intermediate level of public access with 8 maintained entrances; Alternative D
would close all but four entrances. Alternative E would maintain 9 entrances. Seasonal road closures to
reduce wintertime disturbance to wildlife would also be implemented under Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
The reduced access under Alternatives B, C, and E may have a slight effect on public use, but this effect is
expected to be negligible because most Refuge users utilize the eight or nine entrances that would be
maintained.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-29 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Recreation Opportunities
General: Outdoor recreational use of public lands is on the increase nationwide, and, with the population
growth in Stevens County and Spokane, the Little Pend Oreille NWR can probably expect increased
visitation in the next ten years, even if an alternative is chosen that limits traditional uses of the Refuge
such as camping. Even without any management initiatives, (Alternative A) visitor use at the Refuge
would change over the next fifteen years, reflecting national and regional demographic and recreational
preference trends. We used historical trends as a basis for predicting future visitor levels under
Alternative A.
To a large extent the alternatives are designed to differentially channel human activities on the Refuge;
each alternative strikes a different balance between the goal of meeting public demand for wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities and the goal of maintaining and restoring wildlife populations and
habitats. Under all action alternatives, many recreational activities would be reigned in or regulated in one
form or another.
Hunting: Alternatives C and E could expand Refuge hunting opportunities, specifically offering the state
seasons for spring turkey, grouse, and deer and elk bow hunts. Alternative D would restrict Refuge
hunting, specifically banning bear, cougar, coyote, and bobcat hunts.
Hunting seasons would remain the same as at present under Alternatives A and B; some restrictions on
camping would occur under Alternative B but these would probably negligibly affect hunting
opportunities. Game and waterfowl would likely become increasingly difficult to find under Alternative
A, due to the combined effects of disturbance from roads, unregulated camping, Air Force use, and lack of
habitat management. National and state trends for hunting predict declines over the next fifteen years.
The alternatives would be affected by these larger trends, however, total hunting visits on the Refuge
would be influenced by the seasons offered and area available for hunting and camping as well.
Alternatives C and E could expand Refuge hunting opportunities, specifically offering the state seasons for
spring turkey and grouse, and fall deer and elk bow hunts. By eliminating Air Force use of the Refuge
under Alternatives C, D, and E, a larger area could also be made available for hunting during fall seasons.
Even with these expanded opportunities, total hunting on the Refuge would likely decline slightly under
Alternative E. Under Alternative C, camping restrictions would make hunting a day use only opportunity.
Fishing: Overall, the elimination and strong restrictions on camping under Alternatives C and D would
probably result in far fewer visitors fishing at the Refuge under these alternatives. This could increase the
quality of fishing, with larger fish in streams. Lake fishing would also decline severely under Alternative
D, since the dams maintaining Bayley and McDowell Lakes would be breached, and these areas would
revert to seasonally moist wetlands. In addition, stocking would cease. The overall result would be a loss
of fishing opportunities.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-30 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Alternatives C and E would promote catch and release fishing on the Little Pend Oreille River.
Alternatives B, C, and E all seek to increase opportunities for natural spawning at the lakes and streams.
Alternatives A, B, and E continue the fishing seasons as they presently exist on the Refuge, while
Alternative C would delay the fishing opener on Refuge lakes to favor waterfowl nesting.
Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, Environmental Education, and Photography: Wildlife observation and
photography are two of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activities, both statewide and nationwide.
Even without active programs to encourage this activity, all alternatives would see a marked increase in
visitation for wildlife observation and photography. It is not known to what extent visitors combine
wildlife observation and photography with other activities at the Refuge such as camping, fishing, and
hunting. However, people who exclusively come to the Refuge to view and photograph wildlife may be
deterred to some extent by hunting, snowmobiling, Air Force overflights, and other noisy, disturbing
activities. The Refuge has received comments from visitors to that effect over the years. The
opportunities for these non-consumptive activities would therefore increase as these human disturbances
decrease.
Overall, Alternative D would probably result in the least disturbance on the Refuge, followed by
Alternative C. On the other hand, wintertime road closures under all of the action alternatives would limit
vehicular access and thus increase potential viewing opportunities for certain publics. For those willing to
walk, snowshoe, or ski, viewing opportunities could be greatly enhanced during this season under
Alternatives B, C, E, and especially Alternative D. Alternatives C and E would emphasize visitor
education and create both viewing areas and programs.
Snowmobiling: Snowmobile use would not be allowed to continue on the Refuge under Alternatives B,
C, and D. In addition, snowmobile traffic on Olson Creek Road, which largely accesses Calispell Peak,
would be eliminated under Alternatives B, C, and D, and the snowpark off Highway 20 at Olson (Tacoma)
Creek Road would be eliminated under Alternatives C and D. Under Alternative E, snowmobile use
would also be prohibited, except that traditional snowmobile ingress and egress (together with associated
grooming) along the four miles of Olson Creek Road that cross the Refuge would be permitted at the
current level of use. No off-road snowmobile excursions would be allowed. The Refuge would also
initiate work with adjacent land managers and recreationists to seek a new snowpark and alternate winter
access to Calispell Peak.
Camping: Camping opportunities would be curtailed under Alternatives C, D, and E, and, to some extent,
B. Under Alternative C, camping would no longer be allowed. Alternative D would allow primitive (no-trace)
camping in areas that vehicles cannot access; all vehicle accessible camps and campgrounds would
be closed and restored to a natural condition. Dispersed riparian camping would be stopped under
Alternatives B and E; these two alternatives would also permit camping only in certain designated
campgrounds and dispersed sites during specific times of year. Alternative A would allow camping to
continue in a largely unregulated fashion.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-31 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Other recreational activities: Horseback riding would be eliminated under Alternatives C and D.
Alternatives B and E could maintain or even increase horseback riding, but it would occur under the
auspices of an equestrian plan that would deal with such issues as overnight use, trails, and horse feed.
Most other recreational activities (including dog sledding, cross-country skiing, snow sledding, mountain
biking, and others) would be allowed to continue as at present under all alternatives until and unless these
uses become incompatible with Refuge goals and purposes.
Dirt bikes and unlicensed all-terrain vehicles would be prohibited from operating on the Refuge under all
alternatives. Only licenced motorized vehicles would be allowed on designated roads.
Effects Related to Livestock Grazing
Continuation of cattle grazing as currently practiced under Alternative A and for the first five years
Alternative E would result in continued negative effects to riparian and deciduous forest, water quality,
aquatic habitats, and evaluation species including bald eagles, Columbia spotted frogs, MacGillivray's
warbler, deer, rainbow trout, ruffed grouse. In addition, continuation of cattle grazing would be likely to
negatively affect the protection of cultural resources, and riverine fishing.
Based on an in-Service 1996 grazing review (USFWS 1997), fisheries habitat surveys of the Little Pend
Oreille River and Bear Creek in 1996 and 1997 (Kelly Ringel 1997; Kelly Ringel 1998), and a riparian
condition evaluation on 32 valley units of five Refuge streams in 1996 and 1997 (Pyle 1997), the annual
cattle grazing program is contributing to a poor condition for Refuge fish and wildlife riparian and stream
habitats. Cattle grazing poses risks to wildlife, fish and plants in upland areas as well as riparian areas,
through a number of mechanisms. Livestock can compete with wildlife for a common food source,
displace wildlife through their presence, facilitate the invasion of pest species, and alter the structure of
habitat.
All of the action alternatives would improve the situation for native fish and wildlife at Little Pend Oreille,
by reducing or eliminating livestock grazing. Managed, rotational grazing designed to reduce impacts on
riparian habitats would occur under Alternative B, and would diminish effects of grazing on Refuge
habitats compared to Alternative A. This alternative would require modification of existing allotments
and the construction of additional fencing to keep cattle out of alluvial riparian areas. Non-alluvial
riparian areas would continue to be available. Recovery of grazed areas currently showing impacts would
be faster under Alternatives C and D and those locations in Alternative B where cattle are excluded
completely (according to Ohmart 1995, riparian healing occurs two to four times more rapidly under
exclusion than when subjected to rotational grazing.) Under Alternative E, recovery of these grazed areas
will be delayed five years.
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-32 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Effects Related to Air Force Survival School
The continuation of the Air Force Survival School training program under Alternative A would result in
negative effects to bald eagle, lynx, deer, cultural resources, hunting opportunities, wildlife viewing,
photography, interpretation, and environmental education opportunities.
The most significant potential impacts to wildlife are associated with helicopter support of training which
involves low-level flights, hovering and landing; use of certain pyrotechnics and simulated weapons, and
effects of disturbance from approximately 80 people scattered over one-third of the Refuge.
Air Support of Training
Effects to wildlife: Since no on-site empirical studies have been completed, we relied on several literature
reviews undertaken by others to explore the effects of aircraft noise and proximity on wildlife. Bryant
(1993) completed an annotated bibliography of the effects of disturbances due to aircraft on fish and
wildlife. Bryant  s review is the most comprehensive and the most recent and was used as the basis for the
analysis presented here.
Of the fifty-three sources Bryant reviewed, thirty-four constituted scientific studies. Of these, about 12
were considered of superior value because they were conducted with large sample sizes and/or were
experimental manipulations with controls.
Raptor studies: Both raptor studies showed effects from military training activities and/or low flying
aircraft.
Large mammal studies: Eight of the 10 studies considered most reliable in Bryant (1993) showed that
large mammals exhibit a variety of stress reactions in response to low level overflights.
Effect of distance and sound level: Distance seems to be a better predictor of response to helicopter
overflights than sound level. An inverse relationship existed between the distance from the helicopter to
the subject and the rate of response (Watson 1993; Grubb and Bowerman 1997; Delaney et al. 1997).
Stockwell et al. (1990), described height of helicopters flying above the ground as a threshold for
mountain sheep.
Type of aircraft and proximity: Of the three types of aircraft evaluated for their effect on nesting raptors
(low level jets, light fixed wing aircraft, and helicopters), helicopters appear to cause the greatest
disturbance (Grubb et al. 1992; Watson 1993; Grubb and Bowerman 1997).
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-33 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Habituation: Evidence exists that raptors may become habituated to aircraft disturbance. Indications of
this phenomenon were reported in red-tailed hawks (Andersen et al. 1989) and Mexican spotted owls
(Delaney et al. 1997). The extent and frequency of this effect are not yet understood.
Effects to people: Aircraft noise also disturbs Refuge visitors who seek quiet and the potential for a
wildlife encounter. Campers, bird watchers, horseback riders and hunters have complained about Air
Force low-level helicopter flights. Refuge neighbors have also complained about helicopter activity,
particularly night flights.
Summary: All the information available describing the effects of helicopter and other aircraft on wildlife
pertains to overflights and other  in air   activities. The relatively longer duration of noise associated with
the take-offs, approaches, and landings being conducted in forest openings and fields on the LPO NWR
may impose a substantially greater level of disturbance to wildlife using specific landing zones. In
summary, Alternatives C, D, and E, which eliminate Air Force Survival School Training at the Refuge,
would completely eliminate the risk this activity poses. Alternative B, which eliminates helicopter and
explosive use, but maintains most other aspects of the program, would also benefit wildlife.
Ground-based Training Activity
The effect of the ground-based activity is likely similar to other ground-based public use activities,
particularly camping, use of off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, and hiking. The Air Force Survival School
creates an additive impact to public activities like camping. There are approximately 50 Air Force camps
scattered throughout the Refuge. At any one time, the Training School is represented by about 80 plus
people, split into two groups, using about twenty-two square miles of the Refuge, but with the majority of
use in the core of the Refuge.
USAF Survival School ground activity may be more disturbing to some wildlife than the helicopters. All
studies of disturbance to raptors that included an analysis of ground activity disturbance found it to have a
greater effect on birds of prey than did aircraft.
The reduction of ground-based disturbances can only benefit Refuge wildlife and habitats. Alternatives C,
D, and E, which eliminate Air Force training at the Refuge, would have the most positive benefit to
wildlife. Alternative B would continue some negative impact, though it would be less than Alternative A.
Effects to Regional Economy (Stevens County)
Refuge Management Economics
Refuge management would directly generate more jobs and income under Alternatives B, C, and E than
under Alternative A. Fewer jobs and income would be generated under Alternative D than under
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Summary S-34 Final CCP/EIS - April 2000
Alternative A. The same comparative results apply to the total (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced)
employment and income effects.
Forest Products Economics
Under Alternative A, 50-250 thousand board feet (MBF) would be harvested annually on the Little Pend
Oreille NWR, consistent with recent harvesting levels and patterns. Under Alternatives B, C, and E, 100-
1,000 MBF would be harvested annually, mostly through commercial thinnings designed to remove
excess small trees from the forest understory. Under Alternative D, 250-500 MBF would be harvested
annually.
Employment and income effects under the action alternatives would increase relative to Alternative A in
proportion to the annual harvest level. Assuming that an average of 150 MBF is harvested annually under
Alternative A, it is estimated that Refuge timber sales would account for a total of 0.3 jobs and $20,000 in
personal income in the regional forest products indus