1

OBJECTION

CLEAR CREEK INTEGRATED RESTORATION PROJECT FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION

Submitted by the Nez Perce Tribe

April 10, 2015

The Nez Perce Tribe submits this Objection of the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (2015a) and Draft Record of Decision (DROD)

(2015b). The Project is located on the Moose Creek Ranger District of the Nez Perce -

Clearwater National Forest. The Responsible Official is Cheryl Probert, Forest Supervisor, Nez

Perce - Clearwater National Forest. A legal notice to begin the Project objection period appeared

in the Lewiston Tribune on February 26, 2015. This Objection is timely filed pursuant to 36

C.F.R. 218 and all of the issues described in this Objection are based on the Tribe’s previously

submitted comments which are located in the Project record and are incorporated by reference.

The Tribal contact for this Objection is David J. Cummings, Senior Staff Attorney, Nez Perce

Tribe Office of Legal Counsel, (208) 843-7355.

I. NEZ PERCE TRIBE’S INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CLEAR

CREEK PROJECT

A. Project Description

Alternative C proposed to accomplish the following over the next 5 to 10 years:

4,156 acres of regeneration harvest, site preparation, and reforestation.

331 acres of improvement harvest.

4,220 acres of commercial thinning.

1,793 acres of pre-commercial thinning.

1,371 acres of prescribed fire.

41 acres of grass restoration.

8.7 miles of temporary road construction on existing templates.27.6 miles of new

temporary road construction.

119.8 miles of NFS road reconstruction.

13.2 miles of NFS road decommissioning. Two site-specific Forest Plan amendments.

Amendment 41 would adopt the Region 1 soil standard of 15% for detrimentally

disturbed soils. Amendment 42 would replace the definitions of old growth.

2

B. The Nez Perce Tribe's Interest

The Nez Perce Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe with headquarters in Lapwai on the

Nez Perce Reservation. Since time immemorial, the Nez Perce Tribe has occupied and used over

13 million acres of lands now comprising north-central Idaho, southeast Washington, northeast

Oregon, and parts of western Montana. Tribal members engaged in fishing, hunting, and

gathering across their vast aboriginal territory, and these activities still do play a major role in the

culture, religion, subsistence, and commerce of the Tribe.

In 1855, the United States entered into a treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe. Treaty of June 11, 1855

with the Nez Perces, 12 Stat. 957 (1859). In this treaty the Nez Perce Tribe explicitly reserved,

and the United States secured, among other guarantees, a permanent homeland as the well as

“the right to fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory;

and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering

roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed lands.” Id.

The lands and waters of the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forest (Forest) are part of the vast

territory ceded by the Tribe, over which the Tribe has treaty-reserved rights. The Project is

located within the Middle Fork Clearwater, Clear Creek Watershed and is entirely within the

Tribe’s ceded territory as well as within the area determined by the Indian Claims Commission

(ICC) to be the exclusive use and occupancy area of the Tribe. The lower 18% of Clear Creek

and 39% of its tributary, Leitch Creek, flow through the Nez Perce Reservation.

These National Forest Service lands and waters provide irreplaceable critical habitat for Tribal

resources, including big game species and imperiled stocks of Snake River steelhead,

Spring/Summer Chinook salmon, bull trout, Pacific lamprey and other resident aquatic species.

These and other natural resources are subject to the exercise of the Tribe’s treaty-reserved rights.

See e.g., Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969), aff’d, United States v. Oregon, 529

F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976); Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing

Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (Fishing Vessel).

The treaty-reserved right to take fish and other resources reserved by the Tribe presumed the

continued existence of those resources. See Fishing Vessel at 678–79. Thus, the treaty secures to

the Tribe the continued existence of those biological conditions necessary for the resources that

are the subject matter of the treaties. See Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley

Irrigation District, 763 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, Sunnyside Valley Irrigation

District v. United States, 474 U.S. 1032 (1985). Harm to these resources and their habitat will

harm the Tribe and its members.

Unfortunately, many of the Treaty resources important to the Tribe are at risk. These declines

have resulted in significant negative impacts to the Tribe’s livelihood, culture and economy.

Treaty tribes, such as the Nez Perce have been recognized as managers of their treaty-reserved

resources. U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 339-40, 403 (W.D. Wash. 1974). As a co-

manager, the Tribe has devoted substantial time, effort, and resources to the recovery and co-

3

management of treaty-reserved resources within its treaty territory. The Tribe has taken an

active role in producing fish, restoring habitat, monitoring fish harvest, and monitoring the fish

and big game populations in the Clearwater River basin.

As a fiduciary, the United States and all its agencies owe a trust duty to the Tribe and other

federally-recognized tribes. See United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 480 U.S. 700,

707 (1987); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225 (1983); Seminole Nation v. United

States, 316 U.S. 286, 296–97 (1942). This trust relationship has been described as “one of the

primary cornerstones of Indian law,” Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 221 (1982),

and has been compared to one existing under the common law of trusts, with the United States as

trustee, the tribes as beneficiaries, and the property and natural resources managed by the United

States as the trust corpus. See, e.g., Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 225.

All executive agencies of the United States are subject to the federal trust responsibility to

recognize and uphold treaty reserved rights. Forest Service Manual 1563.01d states that the

Forest Service “must administer lands subject to off-reservation treaty rights in a manner that

protects Tribes’ rights and interests in the resources reserved under treaty.” FSM 1563 further

directs the Forest Service, among other responsibilities, to “[i]mplement programs and activities

honoring treaty rights and fulfill legally mandated trust responsibilities to the extent they are

determined applicable to National Forest System lands.”

The Tribe has consistently raised concerns to the Forest Service, through written comments, staff

interactions, and formal consultation about the need to evaluate and avoid the Project’s negative

impacts to treaty-reserved rights consistent with the agency’s responsibilities under the U.S.

Constitution, executive orders, Forest policy and applicable federal law.

The Tribe appreciates the Forest Service (FS) including in the “regulatory requirements” section

an acknowledgment of the Tribe’s 1855 treaty with the United States, as well as a general

recognition of the Forest Service’s responsibilities as an agency of the United States under the

treaty (FEIS p. 1-20). As described in this Objection, however, the Forest Service has not

adequately evaluated the project’s several negative impacts on elk and listed fish –critical treaty

resources – and their habitats. Accordingly, the Forest Service’s inadequate environmental

analysis leaves serious unanswered questions about the project’s impacts on treaty resources,

thereby presenting a substantial likelihood that the project may diminish treaty rights and

interests. The Forest Service’s responsibility to the Tribe, as enumerated by federal statutes,

cases, and the Forest Service’s own policies, is “to protect ‘to the fullest extent possible’ the

tribal treaty rights, and the resources on which those rights depend.” Klamath Tribes v. Forest

Service, 24 Ind. Law Rep. 3017 (D. Or. 1996).

C. The Tribe’s Participation in Evaluating the Clear Creek Project

The Tribe submitted comments on the Project DEIS on May 31, 2013. The Forest and Nez Perce

Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC) had a formal consultation on the project on February 24,

2015. A field trip to the project area was held with some NPTEC members on March 12, 2015.

4

II. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS

A. The Project Violates the National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for all

“major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. §

4332(2)(C). NEPA is a procedural statute that requires agencies to examine and disclose the

environmental impacts of their proposed actions. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, Inc., 462

U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Under this standard, an agency is required to take a “hard look” at the

environmental consequences of proposed actions. Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States

Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1476 (9th Cir. 1998). The “hard look” requirement includes, at

minimum, that “a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable

environmental consequences” has been undertaken. Swanson v. Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343

(9th Cir. 1987). The Forest Service has not taken the requisite hard look.

The FEIS and ROD fail to adequately disclose and analyze the immediate and near-term impact

of the project on the Nez Perce Tribe’s treaty-reserved rights, which is necessary to evaluate the

full impact on the Tribe’s treaty-reserved rights. This violates NEPA and federal law. The Forest

Service has acknowledged that these are “minimum requirements.” For example, the Clearwater

Forest Plan identifies several forest-wide standards “that are considered as minimum

requirements that must be met” (Forest Plan at II-20), including General standard E1(d): “Insure

proposed practices and management activities are coordinated with other governmental entities

and Indian Tribes to insure requirements of all laws and regulations are met and terms of Indian

Treaties are upheld” (Forest Plan at II-21); and Cultural Resources standard E3(g): “[e]nsure

that Forest actions are not detrimental to the protection and preservation of Indian Tribes’

religious and cultural sites and practices and treaty rights. Id. at II-23.

B. The FEIS and DROD do not adequately evaluate and disclose the Project’s

sediment production and impacts.

1. The Forest Service does not disclose the extent to which sediment condition, as

evidenced by cobble embeddedness, indicates that streams within the project area are

already not functioning properly.

NOAA has described that cobble embeddedness in properly functioning streams measures less

than 20%, with 30% bordering “at risk” and “not properly functioning” (NOAA 2015). Average

cobble embeddedness on Forest land is 39% (see Table 1), with all prescription watersheds at or

well above the 30% threshold for “not properly functioning”.

5

Table 1: Cobble embeddedness and increase in sediment load over base for the proposed project.

Stream

Cobble

Embeddedness

(%)

Increase in

Sediment load

over base (%)

(NPCNF Lands)

Pine Knob Creek 44 18

Brown Springs Creek 30 28

Clear Creek 38 18

Solo Creek 31 19

MF Clear Creek 551 10

SF Clear Creek 512 9

Kay Creek 342 9

Hoodoo Creek 33 30

Average 39.5

(Primarily Private Lands)

Big Cedar Creek 50

Lower Clear Creek Face 50-75 1. Data collected in 1993 2. Data collected in 1998

2. The Forest Service has underestimated the effects of the increase in sediment yield.

Sediment models predict that increased sediment yield will occur in all sub-drainages by as much

as 30% over base as a result of implementing Alternative C (Table 1). These results are

troubling because the streams are already not functioning properly and that should be a signal to

the Forest that extra attention in conducting the analysis would be required. However, the Forest

chose to use a model to analyze sediment changes that is not robust; even though it has better

tools available. In addition, the reason behind the assumption that sediment increase will only be

of short-term duration is not explained. And finally, there appears to be no consideration that

“short-term” sediment impacts that have occurred for the last 20 years and will continue for the

next 15 – 20 years.

Good sediment analysis is critical to this project considering the current degraded condition of

the stream substrate. The Biological Assessment (BA) (USDA 2014) reviewed three documents

that assessed the accuracy of NEZSED in predicting sediment delivery to streams and found that,

based on average error in each of the three studies, NEZSED results ranged from underpredicting

sediment delivery by 60% to overpredicting sediment delivery by 23%. As stated in the BA, the

NEZSED model was not intended to predict sediment yields and results are not representative of

sediment loads delivered to streams. There is enough potential for error in these predictions that

the effects of the proposed activities bear more detailed examination.

However, as an example of a situation when it could easily take a more careful approach to

analysis of sediment delivery, the Forest did not do so. The Tribe has expressed concerns about

the amount of sediment that would occur simply from heavy road traffic in the watershed. An

estimated 17,000 round trips will be required to haul out the 85 MMBF of timber planned for the

6

project. That heavy vehicle traffic, in addition to other temporary road construction, road

decommissioning, and logging derived sediment should be quantified. The Forest did not

adequately analyze the potential sedimentation caused by log-haul and increased traffic because

it did not use models such as WEPP or GRAIP to do so. The FEIS attempted to complete

additional analysis on logging truck traffic using a NetMap / GRAIP-Lite tool. But the results

are not summarized in a format that gives any meaningful results. The only displays of results

are on Map 14, 15, and 16 of the BA; no values are given to show the levels of sediment

delivery.

In addition, there are many miles of non-system roads that are not shown on the map indicating

that no analysis was completed on them. Models such as WEPP or GRAIP could predict

sediment from non-system roads and are currently used by Forests for other projects. NEZSED

does not provide analysis for these non-system roads. So the Forest failed to collect the proper

data, even though it has the tools to do so.

The Biological Assessment provides no description for the Forest’s rationale that the increase in

sediment yield would be short-term (0-6 years) and would return to existing conditions within 10

years for nearly every sub-watershed.

Further, the Forest has not adequately described the addition of other “short-term” increases in

sediment that will occur and eventually find its way downstream. Approximately 22 miles of

system roads were decommissioned from 1996 to 2010. Other projects in the Clear Creek

drainage include a total of 10 miles of system and 73 miles of non-system road decommissioning

called the South Fork/West Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning (2011a and 2011b), which

commenced in 2012. Browns Spring culvert replacements involves the replacement and

upsizing of 2 culverts in the Upper Clear Creek subwatershed (USDA 2012). There are 65 miles

of road scheduled to be decommissioned under the Clear Ridge Road Decommissioning Project

(USDA 2015b). And of course there will be the 8.7 miles of temporary road construction, the

27.6 miles of new temporary road construction and decommissioning, the 119.8 miles of NFS

road reconstruction and the 13.2 miles of NFS road decommissioning associated with this

project. Although long-term benefits and stability to the watershed and its streams will likely

occur through these actions, there will be a significant amount of short-term sediment increases

involved – and the sediment will have to go somewhere.

Remedy: In addition to the Remedy set forth in Section III of this Objection, the FS should

collect the proper data (cobble embeddedness, Clear Creek non-system road survey data using

GRAIP) prior to project implementation so that supportable conclusions about short-term

sediment delivery and educated decisions can be made. A field season of data collection is

necessary to make decisions about points of sediment delivery so they could be corrected before

timber harvest and log haul begins. A watershed analysis should be conducted before the

proposed project proceeds. Summarizing and reporting of data in a watershed analysis of Clear

Creek would satisfy the Tribe’s request for site-specific data.

7

C. The Equivalent Clearcut Area analysis does not accurately portray the effects of

the proposal.

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) analysis is a tool used to index the relationship between

vegetation condition and water yield from forested watersheds (Gerhardt 2000). The ECA model

is designed to estimate changes in mean annual streamflow resulting from forest practices or

treatments (roading, timber harvest, and fires), which remove or reduce vegetative cover, and is

usually expressed as a percent of watershed area (Belt 1980). ECA should be used to index

changes in water yield through time based on timber harvest, wildfire, and roading disturbances.

A lower ECA indicates a higher (better) watershed condition. At the 6th field HUC level, ECAs

of <15% indicate high (good) condition. ECAs of 15%–30% indicate moderate condition and

ECAs of >30% are considered low (poor) condition, according to 1997 Central Idaho Matrix of

Pathways and Indicators criteria (NOAA 1998).

Watershed condition for the ECA indicator would move from high condition to moderate

condition for the Upper and Lower Clear Creek subwatersheds (from 3% to 18% ECA – Table 2)

Table 2.

6th HUC Watershed Existing ECA

Increase in Percent

ECA from Project

Activities

Final ECA (%)

Upper Clear Creek 3 15 18

South Fork Clear Creek 1 7 9

Lower Clear Creek 6 9 16

In addition, because the magnitude of changes in water and sediment yield is inversely

proportional to stream order (MacDonald 1989), and because many of the regeneration and

commercial thin units are in first and second order streams, potential changes would be greater in

these higher watershed areas. The ECA procedure currently estimates streamflow responses in

third to fifth order watersheds and does not directly consider hydrologic responses in smaller

headwater streams (King 1989). The Forest Service studies describe that most streamflow

parameters increased in the small tributary watersheds in response to timber harvest and roading

(Summary of Results of the Horse Creek Watershed Study Gerhardt 2009). As such, they

stipulated that conservative approaches to scheduling harvesting in headwater streams is needed

(King 1993). The Forest’s project proposal is not consistent with this direction.

In addition, we have found that the Forest’s argument that the ECA increase is not expected to

have a measurable effect on water yield or stream habitat is based on some erroneous

information. For example, the BA states that regeneration harvest accounts for less than 8% of

any of the prescription subwatersheds. Yet Table 1 of same document provides acres of

regeneration harvest ranging from 2.2-22.4% of the subwatershed; a substantial difference from

the reported 8%. And regardless of the fact that Big Cedar and Lower Cedar subwatersheds are a

majority of private land, the percentage of regeneration harvest proposed on Forest lands in those

subwatersheds is 39.3% and 11.8% respectively. Further, the amount of openings caused by

8

regeneration harvest is incorrect. The BA states that, “Substantially less than 19% of any

subwatershed is proposed for regeneration harvest in Clear Creek.” The subwatershed of

Hoodoo Creek is proposed for 22% regeneration harvest.

And finally, the northern prescription watersheds: Big Cedar, Pine Knob, Browns Springs, Clear

and Solo Creeks along with Hoodoo Creek have the highest percent of the watershed with

regeneration and commercial thin harvest proposed, high percent of past harvest and are fish-

bearing. These prescription watersheds are contained in the Upper and Lower Clear Creek

Subwatersheds (6th HUC) an already have a reduced, moderate integrity watershed condition

class (USDA 2011c); their condition should not be further exacerbated by the project.

Remedy: In addition to the Remedy set forth in Section III of this Objection, the Forest Service

should prevent streams from bearing the detrimental effects of numerous, large openings by

reducing the amount of regeneration harvest in headwater, lower order streams.

D. The upward trend analysis required by Appendix A of the Forest Plan has not been

done.

The Biological Assessment does not provide evidence that an upward trend analysis was

completed as required by the 1987 Forest Plan. Appendix A of the 1987 Nez Perce National

Forest Plan (USDA 1987b) contains tables with all prescription watersheds on the Forest, along

with their existing condition (shown as a percent of optimal), an assigned fish/water quality

objective, a sediment yield guideline, and an entry frequency guideline. For all the watersheds

that had an existing condition below their assigned fish/water quality objective, footnoted

direction for upward trend was assigned. Footnote 3 applies to the following watersheds: Middle

Fork Clear Creek, Kay Creek, South Fork Clear Creek, Hoodoo Creek, Pine Knob Creek, Solo

Creek, Lodge Creek, Brown Springs Creek, and Clear Creek.

Footnote 3 states: “Sediment is the primary limiting factor in these streams. Improvements will

be scheduled between 1986 and 1995. Timber management can occur in these watersheds,

concurrent with improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in habitat carrying

capacity is indicated”.

The Forest has not collected sufficient substrate sediment data to determine whether a trend is

occurring. Without a good set of time series substrate data collected at the same sites using the

same methodology, the Forest cannot make conclusions about trend, upward or otherwise in

these prescription watersheds. The data that the Forest provides is from a single year and very

old. Data from Middle Fork Clear Creek, Kay Creek, and South Fork Clear Creek is over 20

years old. The Forest has the ability to collect and report on trend data to substantiate an upward

trend. They have done so with Red Pines, Meadow Face, American/Crooked, and Little Slate

project’s environmental analysis.

The Forest uses Appendix J of the FEIS (Summary of Watershed Improvement Projects) to

demonstrate an upward trend. But Appendix J is merely a list of projects and does not display

any analysis to whether or not the final outcome of the project predicts an upward trend. It refers

to tools such as NEZSED, FISHSED, and ECA models that were used to determine effects

9

analysis on proposed actions. But again, without a good set of time series substrate data

collected at the same sites using the same methodology, the Forest cannot make conclusions

about trend in these prescription watersheds, upward or otherwise. Therefore, there is no

compelling argument for an upward trend in the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project. It

would be a violation of the Forest Plan to implement this proposed project.

Remedy: In addition to the Remedy set forth in Section III of this Objection, the Forest Service

should collect monitoring data sufficient to conduct an upward trend analysis prior to conducting

timber management in Clear Creek.

E. The Forest Service is dismissive about the effects of its action on Kooskia Hatchery

and the fish it rears, particularly in the short term.

The Tribe has significant concerns about the effects of the project on Kooskia National Fish

Hatchery (NFH). We have tried to impress upon the Forest the potential for fish kills and the

effect that could have on tribal and non-tribal fishing, but the agency highlights the potential for

long term benefits and is unconcerned about the detrimental effects likely to occur within the

next 10 years.

Background

Kooskia NFH is located adjacent to Clear Creek near the confluence of Clear Creek and the

Middle Fork Clearwater River, on the Nez Perce Reservation. The hatchery program was first

authorized by Congress on August 31, 1961, by 75 Statute 255. The purpose of the hatchery is

to mitigate for tribal and sport fishing opportunities in the Clearwater River that were lost

because of the construction of water development projects in the Columbia River basin. The

hatchery was built in the 1960’s and has been producing fish important to meeting treaty

obligations to the Tribe since 1969. In 2006, through the Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004

(Public Law 108-447) management and operation of Kooskia NFH was transferred from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to the Nez Perce Tribe. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintain

ownership of the facility and provide funding for operation and maintenance.

Kooskia NFH was constructed to produce 2,000,000 spring Chinook salmon and 1,000,000

steelhead annually. Unfortunately, due to an inadequate ground water supply and poor water

quality and temperatures of surface water from Clear Creek, the hatchery has only been able to

produce a small fraction of the original production program. Extensive timber harvest and other

land use practices that took place in the Clear Creek Watershed during the 1960-1980’s have had

a negative impact on water temperatures and the amount of sediment that has come down Clear

Creek. Fish kills at Kooskia Hatchery in the 1980’s due to warm water and large amounts of

sediment clogging screens and filling up raceways were frequent.

Although the Clear Creek watershed has made some recovery over time (less frequency of big

sediment blowout events and cooler water temperatures), the hatchery continues to struggle with

water quality and temperature issues from Clear Creek. These challenges have resulted in the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spending millions of dollars on a chilling system to achieve

proper water temperatures and a new intake system to try and reduce the amount of sediment that

10

flowed into the facility ponds and water supply infrastructure. Through the formation of a

Complex with Dworshak NFH and the sharing of adult holding and spawning and juvenile

production capacities, the production level was set at 800,000 spring Chinook salmon. This level

was further reduced with the diminished capacity of Kooskia’s ground water wells to the current

production goal of 600,000 spring Chinook salmon smolts. In addition, Kooskia NFH is a

critical facility for implementation of the Tribe’s Clearwater Coho Restoration Program.

Annually, 600,000 coho salmon smolts are acclimated and released from Kooskia NFH.

Despite the challenges with operating Kooskia NFH to grow fish, the Nez Perce Tribe, in

coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Idaho Department of Fish and Game

(IDFG), has expanded the production of salmon and steelhead released into Clear Creek.

Juvenile salmon released from this location have some of the highest survival rates of fish

released in the Clearwater basin to Lower Granite Dam (~80%). In the spring 2015, just over 2

million juvenile salmon and steelhead will be released into Clear Creek at Kooskia Hatchery. In

addition to the 600,000 spring Chinook that are reared at Kooskia, 635,000 spring Chinook

(reared at Clearwater Hatchery), 675,000 coho( reared at Dworshak NFH and Eagle Creek

hatcheries), and 300,000 B run steelhead (reared at Dworshak NFH) are released into Clear

Creek. By the spring 2017, an additional 350,000 spring Chinook smolts will be released at

Clear Creek – for a total of just over 2.5 million juvenile salmon and steelhead.

Both IDFG and the Tribe are working to increase the hatchery releases at Clear Creek in order to

expand and grow successful Treaty and non-Treaty fisheries in the Clearwater basin. Clear

Creek, from the mouth to the hatchery, provide an important access point for Nez Perce tribal

members to harvest fish. This section of Clear Creek provides an exclusive tribal fishery and is

the second highest harvest rate for tribal members in the Clearwater Basin. The Tribe, through

Snake River Basin Adjudication funds, has also invested in improving Tribal member access

(i.e., new trail, fish habitat improvements) along this section of Clear Creek.

Concerns

The importance of the health and stability of the Clear Creek watershed to Kooskia NFH cannot

be overstated. The hatchery sits at the very bottom of the drainage and will be the recipient of

whatever happens in the headwaters. As stated in the BA (page 67), even though NFS lands

comprise 72% of the Clear Creek watershed, they contribute 84% of the average annual flow of

Clear Creek. The potential cumulative impact of land disturbing/landscape changing activities

over a relatively short time period (10-15 years) should be evaluated for short term impacts to

water supply and quality for Kooskia NFH (a facility tasked with providing a treaty based

resource). Concerns with the proposed project with regard to the surface water supply (and

consequently, fish culture activities, adult trapping, and Clear Creek fishery) are:

1. Change in Clear Creek water yield, peak flow, and altered hydrograph

2. Increased water temperatures

3. Increased risk of blow outs/landslides in drainage

4. Effects of increased sediment/turbidity

Surface Water supply

11

Ninety percent of the water used to rear fish at Kooskia NFH is surface water obtained from

Clear Creek. The water diversion intake structure for Kooskia Fish Hatchery is located one mile

upstream of the main hatchery facility on Clear Creek (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Kooskia NFH Map

The water supply system is design to handle flows up to the water right of 7,181 gallons per

minute (gpm) (16 cubic feet per second (cfs)) though average surface water supplies are only

5,835 gpm (13 cfs). The intake dam structure diverts Clear Creek water into an underground

12

pipeline that leads to a screen chamber and settling structure before going to the hatchery.

Inclined screens are installed to remove small debris and fish from creek water before going to

the settling basin. The screen is stainless steel wire mesh with 3/8 inch square opening. High

flows in the spring (Figure 2) result in debris, rocks, sand, and silt potentially blocking the intake

entrance and preventing water from going to the hatchery. In the 1970s-90s so much sediment

came into the hatchery that a tractor was used to scoop dump truck loads of sand out of the

rearing ponds and the intake structure had to be cleaned out on a regular (sometimes weekly)

basis to prevent the intake from clogging shut. Annual cost of this sediment removal was

$10,000 to $14,000.

Figure 2. Typical spring flow event in Clear Creek.

To avoid the intake of all this sediment a new diversion structure, involving two Obermeyer

(inflatable bladders) weirs was constructed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2008 for a

cost of $797,114 (Figure 3). Recent hatchery management practice during the spring runoff has

been to put the hatchery on reuse and lower the Obermeyer weir, allowing stream debris to sluice

past the intake structure. Personnel manually check the intake structure twice daily to remove

any debris that accumulates during operation.

Even with the new Obermeyer weir system and operations in place to reduce sediment intake to

Kooskia NFH, the screen chamber (18’x 29’x6’) has to be cleaned out at least every six months

(when the sediment reaches four feet high to prevent water flow to the hatchery from being

restricted) – which involves removing approximately 4,176 cubic feet of sand and sediment (154

cubic yards or 270 tons) annually. This equates to about 8 large dump truck loads or nearly 700

wheelbarrow loads of sand/sediment.

13

Figure 3. Kooskia NFH surface water intake,

Obermeyer weir system. Picture on the left is at lower summer flows and picture on the right

during spring flows when the weir is intended to sluice heavy sediment loads past the intake.

1. Change in Clear Creek water yield

Canopy removal from timber harvest and road building has the potential to cause changes to

streamflow and water yield. As described above in the ECA analysis above, it is likely that the

timber management in the drainage will effect channel stability (and hence sediment production)

as well as the timing and amount of flow that could reach the hatchery. Hatchery operations for

rearing juveniles and trapping and holding adults depend on this water yield.

2. Increased water temperature

The BA predicts no increase in stream temperature by subwatershed due to following PACFISH

buffers and removing riparian canopy at stream crossings. This analysis did not consider the

anticipated stream temperature increase due to climate change that the USFS has modeled

through their website NorWeSt

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/stream_temperature.shtml Both air and water

temperature are predicted to increase in the Clear Creek watershed. Current average water

temperature during August in mainstem Clear Creek near the mouth is 18.5C. NorWeSt

modeled stream temperature by 2040 at this same location is 20.4C due to climate change.

This anticipated increase in ambient air temperatures and water temperatures is likely to reduce

snowpack volume and duration of runoff. An increase in ambient air temperatures combined

with a loss in late annual runoff is likely to increase already sub-optimal maximum water

temperatures in Clear Creek. Low stream volume associated with reduced snowpack runoff in

late summer and fall will also show less resistance to warming air temperatures. As the draft

Biological Opinion states (page 43), “,Annual maximum temperatures for the Clear Creek

watershed are near the threshold for causing harm to steelhead rearing in the summer. Any

increase in temperature may render sections of habitat unusable during peak temperatures.” This

refers to Clear Creek watershed in the Forest where water temperatures are cooler. Increases in

14

water temperature flowing out of the Forest will be exacerbated by the time Clear Creek reaches

Kooskia NFH.

Warm water temperatures in Clear Creek are already too warm to grow fish at Kooskia NFH

almost seven months of the year. During the months of March-October well water is reused with

a 10% makeup that is chilled to avoid using Clear Creek water which often exceeds 70F (21C)

– water temperature that is considered lethal for salmonids. The cost of chilling water during

this time is almost $100,000 a year.

3. Increased risk of blowout/landslides

The analysis done on potential for landslides was focused around road densities and it

underestimates information from the individual watershed assessments. Page 68 of the BA

states:

Landslide prone road densities were not calculated since no information is

available for private lands. They remain very low at 0.1 mi/mi2 on Forest Service

lands. The majority of roads on private lands do not appear to occur on what

might be landside prone areas. The likelihood of sediment additions from

landslides is expected to be low based on few past landslides in the watershed and

the relatively good position of roads on the landscape.

These statements are inconsistent with individual subwatershed assessments.

Pine Knob Creek – RHCA and landslide prone road densities 2.2 mi/mi2and 0.6 mi/mi2,

respectively

Brown Springs Creek – RHCA and landslide prone road densities 2.6 mi/mi2 and 0.1

mi/mi2, respectively

Clear Creek – RCHA and landslide prone road densities would remain in the High

category at 0.8 mi/mi2 and 0.04 mi/mi2, respectively (page 48).

Solo Creek – Landslide prone road densities would remain at 0.2 to mi/mi2, a High

Matrix rating (page 51).

Middle Fork Clear Creek – RCHA and landslide road prone road densities would remain

in the High category at 0.9 mi/mi2 and 0.08 mi/mi2, respectively (page 54).

South Fork Clear Creek - RCHA and landslide road prone road densities would remain in

the High category at 1 mi/mi2 and 0.04 mi/mi2, respectively (page 56).

Hoodoo Creek - Landslide prone road densities would remain at 0.9 to mi/mi2, a High

Matrix rating (page 61).

One thing that current hatchery operations are not able manage around during the time that

juveniles are being reared (October – May) or adults are trapped and held (steelhead – March to

May; Chinook – May to August; coho – October to December) on Clear Creek water is

slide/blowout/turbidity events that occur in the watershed upstream from Kooskia NFH. An

example of this is the Leitch Creek event that occurred in March 2012. Following a rain event

the hillside gave way up Leitch Creek (a very small tributary) and dumped a massive load of

debris and sediment totally blocking the road and the creek (Figure 4). The muddy water,

sediment, and debris that came down Clear Creek made it impossible to keep fish at Kooskia

Hatchery alive and well. An emergency release was implemented for all the fish on station – if

15

they had not been released they would have all died. Thankfully, these fish were at the smolt

stage and near the time they would have been released. If this type of event would have occurred

in the fall fish would have to have been released regardless of the fact that at the earlier life stage

their chance of survival to smolt and returning adult is very small.

Figure 4. Pictures of Leitch Creek (tributary to Clear Creek upstream from Kooskia Hatchery)

slide/blowout, March 2012.

4. Effects of Increased Sediment Yield and Turbidity at Kooskia NFH

The BA models an increase in sediment over current sediment load in the subwatersheds of Clear

Creek of: Pine Knob – 18%, Brown Springs Creek – 28%, Clear Creek – 18%, Solo Creek –

19%, Middle Fork Creek – 10%, South Fork Clear Creek – 9%, Kay Creek – 9%, Hoodoo Creek

– 30%. These estimates are produced by NEZSED, which comes with the “general guidelines

for interpreting the results” of modeling efforts (page 37 BA):

Predicted sediment yields are not representative of actual sediment loads delivered to

streams, including bedload, suspended sediment concentration, and turbidity. …

The model cannot predict actual instream conditions….or water quality. Nor can the

model predict actual trends in any of those factors.

The model does not consider climatic variability. As such, the model cannot determine

the actual erosion rates or sediment yields from individual harvest units or road

segments occurring in a specific year; or for specific weather events within a given year.

The model is not a substitute for a cumulative watershed effects analysis.

Further, as described above, these estimates do not include the sediment loading that will occur

simply from heavy road traffic in the watershed, i.e., from the 17,000 round trips required to

remove 85 million board feet of timber.

The BA (page 68-69) summarizes the impact from the modeled increase in sediment in Clear

Creek to be 17% over baseline conditions (at the Forest boundary) and projects that this sediment

will pass through the reach of private land and “deposit into the Middle Fork Clearwater”. The

BA neglects to mention that the water intake for Kooskia NFH is one mile upstream from the

16

confluence of Middle Fork Clearwater and that additional sediment will pass over the intake as it

moves down Clear Creek.

Again, as described previously, the Tribe has serious concerns with sediment modeling.

However, if we assume that the cumulative effects analysis of 17% over baseline is correct and

this sediment will be transported down the mainstem Clear Creek it will be directed right to the

Kooskia NFH Obermeyer weirs and intake.

As explained in earlier descriptions of Kooskia NFHs surface water intake, there is room for

about 4 feet of sediment in the intake screen chamber. Current operations reach the 4 foot level

regularly. A 17% increase in sediment in the screen chamber equates to 8 more inches of

sediment. If the chamber fills up with more than 4 feet of sediment it will block off the flow of

water to Kooskia NFH. Whatever adults or juveniles being held/reared at the time the hatchery

is utilizing surface water from Clear Creek will suffocate and die. The hatchery does not have a

backup pump to provide water from another location and other than a very limited amount of

well water there is no alternate source of water to support the fish.

An additional concern regarding increased sediment load and turbidity is its effect on fish being

reared at Kooskia NFH. As captured in NOAA’s draft Biological Opinion (page 53-54) (NOAA

2015) suspended sediment can cause problems with fish behavior and health:

“Suspended sediment can affect fish through a variety of direct pathways:

abrasion (Servizi and Martens 1992), gill trauma (Bash et al 2001), behavioral

effects such as gill flaring, coughing, and avoidance (Berg and Northcote 1985;

Bisson and Bilby 1982; Servizi and Martens 1992; Sigler et al. 1984), interference

with olfaction and chemosensory ability (Wenger and McCormick 2013); and

changes in plasma glucose levels (Servizi and Martens 1987). These effects of

suspended sediment on salmonids generally decrease with sediment particle size

and increase with particle concentration and duration of exposure (Bisson and

Bilby 1982; Gregory and Northcote 1993; Servizi and Martens 1987, Newcombe

and Jensen 1996). The severity of sediment effects is also affected by physical

factors such as particle hardness and shape, water velocity, and effects on

visibility (Bash et al. 2001). Although increased amounts of suspended sediment

cause numerous adverse effects on fish and their environment, salmonids are

relatively tolerant of low to moderate levels of suspended sediment. Gregory and

Northcote (1993) have shown that moderate levels of turbidity (35 to 150 NTU)

can accelerate foraging rates among juvenile Chinook salmon, likely because of

reduced vulnerability to predators (camouflaging effect).”

Again, as noted in the draft Biological Opinion (NOAA 2015), fish in nature mitigate the adverse

effect of increased suspended sediment by moving to another area (page 53):

“Salmon and steelhead tend to avoid suspended sediment above certain

concentrations. Avoidance behavior can mitigate adverse effects when fish are

capable of moving to an area with lower concentrations of suspended sediment.

17

To avoid turbid areas, salmonids may move laterally (Servizi and Martens 1992)

or downstream (McLeay et al. 1987).”

Fish confined in a hatchery raceway, however, do not have the luxury of moving to a less

turbid area. Fish in a hatchery are also at much higher densities than those in the wild

and events such as high turbidity cause stress potentially leading to fish health outbreaks

and/or mortality events.

The draft Biological Opinion (NOAA 2015) provides a good explanation of the measurement of

suspended sediments as turbidity (page 53):

“Concentration of suspended sediment in the water column is often measured as

turbidity (i.e., scattering of light due to suspended sediment in the water column)

in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Turbidity is typically visually

unrecognizable to the eye below 5 NTU, and streams with prolonged

measurements of 50 NTU or above are in violation of Idaho water quality

standards in addition to likely adversely affecting steelhead. Rough estimates

from USFWS and IDFG surveys conducted in the 1990’s indicate an average

July/August turbidity of 2.2 NTU (2.02 m visibility) in lower Clear Creek and 3.9

NTU (1.37 m visibility) in upper Clear Creek, with one transect/year near the

Kooskia National Hatchery weir excluded from averaging calculations as a unique

event and significant outlier (1997, 56.1 NTU, 0.18 m visibility). Aside from the

excluded measurement, all values were well below the Idaho water quality

standard and rate “low” according to guidelines (NOAA 1996), indicating the

Clear Creek watershed does not have continuously high levels of suspended

sediment; however, intense rain storms, which commonly occur several times a

year, can cause intermittently high turbidity. Observations of peak turbidity would

be expected during spring run-off or persistent weather events which commonly

occur outside of the typical summer snorkel sampling season.”

It is unclear why the NTU measurement at Kooskia NFH of 56.1 NTUs was excluded

from the water quality assessment of Clear Creek contained in the draft Biological

Opinion (refer to underlined text in the previous paragraph). As described above,

sediment loads and turbidity of Clear Creek at the Kooskia NFH intake are regular

problems.

Water quality standards for activities affecting turbidity upstream from a hatchery water supply

have been established by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of

Transportation, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game at other facilities in the state of Idaho.

Construction activities effecting the turbidity of the hatchery water supply would cease if 1) there

was an instantaneous increase to 50 NTUs or greater, 2) increase of 25 NTUs above background

turbidity for 10 days, 3) observation of a plume.

Remedy: The Forest Service should conduct an action that indicates no short-term increase in

sediment; provide for an alternate water supply for the hatchery to deal with short-term increases

18

in sediment; and establish a real-time, continuous monitoring station for turbidity at the FS

boundary.

F. A Watershed Analysis should be conducted

Watershed Analysis is a systematic procedure for determining how a watershed functions in

relation to its physical and biological components. This is accomplished through consideration of

history, processes, landform, and condition. Watershed Analysis is a prerequisite for

determining which processes and parts of the landscape affect fish and riparian habitat, and is

essential for defining watershed-specific boundaries for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and

for Riparian Management Objectives. Watershed Analysis forms the basis for evaluating

cumulative watershed effects; for defining watershed restoration needs, goals, and objectives; for

implementing restoration strategies; and for monitoring the effectiveness of watershed protection

measures. It is the framework for understanding and carrying out land use activities within a

geomorphic context, and is a major component of the evolving science of ecosystem analysis.

Watershed Analysis is an iterative process which includes monitoring, evaluation, and

adjustment to incorporate detected changes (USDA 1987b Nez Perce NF LRMPlan Amendment

No. 20).

A watershed analysis should be completed to analyze current conditions and to set a baseline of

all limiting factors so that upward trend can be properly monitored, prior to this project moving

forward. Simply noting that current data was not collected or is not available is not acceptable.

A NOAA Biological Opinion stipulated that watershed analysis should be conducted prior to

actions that would increase ECA in 3rd to 5th order priority watersheds where ECA exceeds 15

percent (National Marine Fisheries Service 1995).

The Forest Service has chosen Clear Creek as a priority watershed for restoration. The Tribe is

concerned with the Forest’s lack of summarized data. Current monitoring for baseline data in the

Clear Creek watershed is also lacking. There have been no monitoring reports released from the

Forest in years. The 2010-2011 Clear Creek NFMA assessment does not have recent data, for

example, sediment yield data is from 2001 and road density information is from 1988. The

PIBO report (2012) does not have individual stream data available to the public. There should

have been sediment monitoring from the South Fork/West Fork Road Decommissioning project

in 2012.

Remedy: In addition to the Remedy set forth in Section III of this Objection, a watershed

analysis should be conducted before the proposed project proceeds.

19

G. The Forest Service Failed to take a hard look at the Project's impacts to elk

resources

Elk are a vital treaty-reserved resource of the Tribe, and the maintenance of healthy populations

within the Tribe’s aboriginal territory is a high priority. The Tribe has two related concerns

regarding anticipated impacts of the proposed project to elk:

1. The Forest Service is relying upon an outdated metric for evaluating elk habitat

impacts.

The FEIS quantifies impacts and benefits to summer range elk habitat (Elk Habitat Effectiveness,

or EHE) based upon guidelines developed by Thomas Leege in 1984 (‘Guidelines for evaluating

and managing summer elk habitat in northern Idaho’). More recent peer-reviewed literature has

documented that these guidelines fail to account for the spatial configuration of roads within a

project area, an important determinant of summer range elk habitat quality (Rowland et al.

2000). This and other recent studies (ex. Unsworth et al. 1998, Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et

al. 2005) have greatly expanded our understanding of the direct and indirect effects of roads,

motorized recreation, nutrition, livestock grazing, and other factors on the distribution and health

of elk populations.

The Forest Service acknowledged ongoing scientific progress on these issues in its January 1990

amendment (#7) of the Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA

1987a) and again in its development of Servheen et al.'s 1997 ‘Interagency guidelines for

evaluating and managing elk habitats and populations on U.S. Forest Service lands in central

Idaho’, the subject of recent litigation (Friends of the Clearwater et al. v. U.S. Forest Service

2015). In that case, plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service’s reliance on Leege’s 1984 guidance

was inappropriate following development of the 1997 document which more accurately reflected

the best available science for evaluating summer range elk habitat impacts. The plaintiffs

prevailed on this issue, with U.S. District Judge Lodge noting that “when the Forest Service itself

creates and adopts an updated more accurate measuring standard, that is the best science that

must be considered” (Memorandum Decision and Order, p. 23). NEPA requires the Forest

Service to use accurate, up-to-date, and high quality information and to react when significant

new information or events change its previous assumptions. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d

1019, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004). The Forest Service cannot tier to or rely on a stale analysis. N. Plains

Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1086-87; see also W. Watersheds

Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013)

Federal law requires that the responsible official use “the best available scientific information to

inform the planning process” (36 CFR 219.3) and information “of high quality” (40 CFR

1500.1(b)). Federal law further requires that agencies “insure the professional integrity,

including scientific integrity, of the discussion and analyses in environmental impact statements”

(40 CFR 1502.24). The Forest Service’s reliance on the outdated analytical approach of Leege

(1984) precludes the “hard look at environmental consequences” required by NEPA (Natural

Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir., 1972)) and fails to satisfy

the criteria outlined above.

20

Remedy: In addition to the Remedy set forth in Section III of this Objection, the Tribe notes the

Forest Service’s willingness to use the best available scientific information as a basis for

amending forest old-growth definitions (Green et al. 1992; FEIS p. 1-8) and encourages it to do

so in this context as well. At a minimum, the Forest Service should use the 1997 ‘Interagency

guidelines for evaluating and managing elk habitats and populations on U.S. Forest Service lands

in central Idaho’ by Servheen et al. to evaluate impacts to elk on summer range. In addition, the

Tribe suggests use of the large volume of elk research generated by the Forest Service's own

Starkey Experimental Forest (Rowland et al. 2000, Wisdom 2005) as a basis for a more

scientifically defensible and complete analysis of impacts to elk generated by the Clear Creek

Project. This new analysis should evaluate habitat quality and quantity in addition to disturbance

from the road network and timber harvest activities and elk vulnerability to hunters during and

after timber harvest, all of which are factors that can significantly impact the exercise of the

Tribe’s treaty rights. The Tribe recommends that the Forest Service withdraw the Draft Record

of Decision and revise the FEIS to incorporate the best available scientific information in a more

comprehensive and defensible evaluation of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts

of the proposed project on elk.

2. Projected impacts to the Tribe’s treaty-reserved elk resources.

Elk represent a vital treaty-reserved resource of the Tribe, yet the FEIS makes clear that an

overall decline in summer and winter habitat quality for elk is expected to result from this

project. Regardless of whether EHE is projected to remain above Forest Plan objectives for 50%

summer habitat quality within all relevant Elk Analysis Areas (EAAs) (FEIS, p. 3-202), this

projected decline of a treaty-reserved resource is of serious concern to the Tribe.

The calculation of summer range EHE, as defined by Leege (1984), incorporates rudimentary

metrics for both security cover and forage availability. The Forest Service paradoxically claims

that “elk populations are expected to respond favorably to proposed treatments due to increased

foraging opportunities” (FEIS p. 3-202), a determination which is inconsistent with the

methodology and results described in the FEIS. In fact, overall summer range EHE is projected

to decline by an average of 5.7% across the project area due to the loss of hiding cover, increased

distances to hiding cover, and high road densities in some areas (FEIS p. 3-202).

The Forest Service further acknowledges that persistently low calf recruitment within the

resident elk population (IDFG 2014, p. 76) may be related to “reductions in forage quality (poor

condition of cows and low calf weights), high predation rates, less security area, and greater

human disturbance and/or hunting pressure” (FEIS p. 3-199). One EAA within the project area

is already below the 30% secure habitat threshold identified in Hillis et al. 1991 and would be

further reduced by 3% due to this project (FEIS p. 3-204). On balance, the Forest Service’s own

data and modeling make clear that the proposed project would exacerbate, rather than reverse,

this trend within elk summer range on portions of the project area.

Additionally, 35% of the project area is designated as MA 16 Winter Range for elk (FEIS p. 3-

199). The management goal for MA 16 areas is to “improve the quality of the winter range

habitat for deer and elk through timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and other management

practices” (USDA 1987a, p. III-46). The FEIS fails to present a comprehensive evaluation of

21

impacts specific to MA 16 portions of the project area (i.e. one that accounts for both hiding

cover losses and increased forage production, similar to EHE calculations for summer range). At

the scale of the EAAs, however, some of which are dominated by areas classified as MA 16, the

proposed project is projected to degrade, not improve, the overall quality of elk habitat (FEIS p.

3-202).

Remedy: In addition to the Remedy set forth in Section III of this Objection, to more fully

support the maintenance and health of treaty-reserved elk resources within the project area, the

Tribe recommends that the Forest Service withdraw the Draft Record of Decision and amend the

project to promote a static or upward trend in appropriate metrics for elk within both summer and

winter range areas.

III. Remedy

The Tribe requests that the Forest Service not issue any final Record of Decision that would

authorize approval of the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project for any action alternative

reviewed in the FEIS. The Regional Forester must remand the FEIS and DROD back to the

Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest with instructions to correct all errors described in this

Objection consistent with applicable federal law, regulations and policies before the USFS can

consider approving any operations for proposed validation activities in connection with the

Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project.

IV. Conclusion

As described above and in previous comments submitted by the Tribe, the FEIS and DROD fail

to comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations. The Regional Forester must therefore remand

both documents to the Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forest to correct all errors described in this

Objection consistent with applicable federal law. The USFS cannot approve any of the action

alternatives described in the FEIS and DROD, or any alternative at all that the applicant may propose,

unless and until all applicable laws are satisfied. Please direct all communications regarding this

Objection to the undersigned attorney.

/s/ David Cummings

David J. Cummings (ISB # 5400)

NEZ PERCE TRIBE

OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

P.O. Box 305

Lapwai, ID 83540

(208) 843-7355

(208) 843-7377 (fax)

djc@nezperce.org

Senior Staff Attorney for Nez Perce Tribe

22

Bibliography

Belt, George H. 1980. Predicting Streamflow Changes Caused by Forest Practices Using the

Equivalent Clearcut Area Model. University of Idaho. College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range

Sciences. Bulletin Number 12.

Gerhardt, Nick. 2000. A Brief History of Water Yield and ECA Guidelines on the Nez Perce

National Forest. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.

Grant, G E.; S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest

practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western

Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.

Green, P.; Joy, J.; Sirucek, D.;Hann, W.; Zack, A.; and Nauman, B. 1992. Old-growth Forest

Types of the Northern Region (errata corrected 2/2005). USDA Forest Service, Northern

Region, Missoula, MT. At: http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/forest/inv/project/old_growth.htm

Hillis, J. Michael; Thompson, Michael J.; Canfield, Jodie E.; Lyon, L. Jack; Marcum, C. Les;

Dolan, Patricia M.; and McCleerey, David W. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm.

Pages 38-43 in Christensen, A. G.; Lyon, L. J.; and Lonner, T. N., editors. Proceedings: Elk

Vulnerability Symposium, April 10-12, 1991. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2014. Idaho elk management plan 2014-2024.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

King, J. G. 1989. Streamflow responses to road building and harvesting: a comparison with the

equivalent Clearcut area procedure. Res. Paper INT-401. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. 13 pages.

King, J. G. 1994. Streamflow and sediment yield responses to forest practices in north Idaho. In

proceedings of Interior Cedar-Hemlock-White Pine Forest: Ecology and Management, held

march 1993 in Spokane, WA. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State

University, Pullman, WA 99164.

Leege, Thomas A. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in

northern Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 11, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

MacDonald L.H. 1989. Snowmelt and runoff in the Central Sierra Nevada: effects of forest harvest

and cloud-seeding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 261 pages plus

appendices.

National Marine Fisheries Service 1995. Biological Opinion on the Land and Resource

Management Plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

23

National Marine Fisheries Service 1996. Biological Opinion on the Land and Resource

Management Plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

NOAA 1998. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition for Chinook, Steelhead,

and Bull Trout, Local Adaptation for the Clearwater Basin and Lower Salmon. (Local adaptation

of Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions

at the Watershed Scale, 1996).

NOAA 2015. Draft Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion and Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the

Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Clear Creek, HUCs 170603040101, 170603040102,

170603040103 Idaho County, Idaho. NMFS Consultation Number: WCR-2014-1844

Rowland, Mary M.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Johnson, Bruce K.; and Kie, John G. 2000. Elk

distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684.

Rowland, Mary; Wisdom, Michael; Johnson, Bruce; and Penninger, Mark. 2005. Effects of Roads

on Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M.

technical editor, The Starkey Project: a Synthesis of Long-Term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer.

Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence Kansas, USA.

Servheen, Gregg; Blair, Steve; Davis, Dan; Gratson, Michael; Leidenfrost, Klaus; Stotts, Bryan;

White, Jim; and Bell, Jack. 1997. Interagency guidelines for managing elk habitats and

populations on U.S. Forest Service lands in central Idaho. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain

Research Station.

Unsworth, James; Kuck, Lonn; Garton, Edward; and Butterfield, Bart. 1998. Elk Habitat

Selection on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1255-

1263.

USDA Forest Service. 1987a. Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Volume 1, as amended.

Grangeville, ID. Nez Perce National Forest,.

USDA Forest Service. 1987b. Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Volume 2, Appendices.

Grangeville, ID. Nez Perce National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. South Fork-West Fork Clear Creek road decommissioning project

environmental assessment. Grangeville, ID: Nez Perce National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. South Fork-West Fork Clear Creek road decommissioning project

decision notice and finding of no significant impact. Grangeville, ID: Nez Perce National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Watershed Condition Framework: A Framework for Assessing

and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/

24

USDA Forest Service. 2010-2011. Clear Creek NFMA Assessment. Middle Fork Clearwater

River Drainage, Grangeville, ID: Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Browns Springs Culvert Replacement. Grangeville, ID: Nez Perce

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Biological Assessment for Clear Creek Integrated Restoration

Project Alternative C and Clear Ridge Decommissioning Project. Moose Creek Ranger District,

Idaho County, ID. Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest.

Wisdom, Michael; Johnson, Bruce; Vavra, Martin; Boyd, Jennifer; Coe, Priscilla, Kie, John;

Ager, Alan; and Cimon, Norman. 2005. Cattle and Elk Response to Intensive Timber Harvest.

Pages 197-216 in Wisdom, M. technical editor, The Starkey Project: a Synthesis of Long-Term

Studies of Elk and Mule Deer. Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence Kansas, USA.

Wisdom, Michael, technical editor. 2005. The Starkey Project: a Synthesis of Long-Term Studies

of Elk and Mule Deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife

and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence Kansas, USA.