United States Department of Agriculture North Fork Nooksack...

United States Department of Agriculture

North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Consider 508 Compliance: Right-click Photo > Format Picture > Alt Text > Type Title and description of photo

Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

Mt. Baker Ranger District July 2016

Responsible Official:

Erin Uloth, District Ranger Mt. Baker Ranger District

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 810 State Route 20

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

For More Information Contact: Mt. Baker Ranger District

810 State Route 20 Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

360-856-5700

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

North Fork Nooksack ATM

1 of 28

Decision Based on my review of the alternatives and consideration of public comments and Tribal consultation discussions, it is my decision to select a Modified Alternative B (Selected Alternative) that combines attributes of all analyzed alternatives and includes implementation options. Figure 1 illustrates the extent of changes; detailed maps and a road-by-road breakdown are available in Appendices A and B of this Decision. A few highlights include:

• Major arterial roads (31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39) will remain open, some with seasonal or scheduled closures

• Major spur roads that lead to important access points will remain open (e.g., 3040, 3060, 3170, 3140), some with seasonal closures

• 31 miles of currently closed roads will be decommissioned; 7 miles of currently open roads will be decommissioned.

While the entire system may retain a large majority of the existing, drivable roads in the long term, this decision also includes implementation options that may reduce the system periodically in the short term. Specifically, this decision includes the following options:

• Scheduled closures: we may, through this NEPA decision, administratively close roads to motorized vehicles in order to incur overall savings in agency budget. These closures would be strategic, temporary in duration, and may be unrelated to road failure or critical safety issues.

• Seasonal closures: this decision also allows roads to be closed to motorized vehicle use during a certain season or for a specific period of time in order to better protect the road and reduce maintenance costs in the long term. We may also utilize these closures to protect Tribal treaty access during certain times of year. This would be in addition to existing seasonal wildlife closures.

Seasonal closures include, but are not limited to, those identified in Table 1. Seasonal closures will be implemented based on need. While Table 1 represents the current planned closures, closures may be removed or enacted in the project area as needed. No closure will close a road longer than one year. All closures will be announced via press release and internet/social media with at least three month notice for new seasonal closures and one year for an annual closure. Tribes and special use permit holders will be notified separately. My authority to make emergency closures on an as-needed basis for health and safety issues (e.g., a road washout) still stands. As of this writing, there are no scheduled closures planned.

Table 1: Seasonal Closures scheduled for Project Area under this decision. Winter season would generally be mid-November through mid-May; summer season would generally be May-November.

Road System Closed Now? New Seasonal Closure

Canyon Creek (Forest Service Road (FSR) 31) X

Hannegan Road (FSR 32) X (winter)

Wells Creek (FSR 33) X X (existing winter wildlife closure; extended for Tribal treaty access)

Nooksack Cirque (FSR 34) X (winter)

Grouse Butte (FSR 36) X (Tribal treaty access in summer, open in winter)

Draft Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact

2 of 28

Road System Closed Now? New Seasonal Closure

Deadhorse Road (FSR 37)

Middle Fork (FSR 38)

Glacier Creek (FSR 39) X (winter for wheeled vehicles, starting after Canyon Creek opens)

Anderson Creek Road (FSR 3071) X (summer for wheeled vehicles)

This decision balances long and short-term needs for access and resource protection in the watershed. Through the scheduled and seasonal closures, we can strategically invest in stormproofing road infrastructure (e.g., culvert replacement, drainage improvement, etc.) across the watershed. As roads are stormproofed, maintenance costs and resource impacts should decrease on those roads. Decommissioning of existing, untreated, closed roads in addition to 7 miles of low-use roads will reduce these impacts further.

We also maintain the vast majority of the existing access overall. While there may be some constriction in access in the short-term as investments are made and some roads closed temporarily, we are not permanently closing any of the major roads or routes in the area.

This decision also incorporates some road-to-trail conversion. At Church Mountain, High Divide, and Nooksack Cirque trails, areas of existing roads that are part of a trail system will be declassified as roads and classified as trails. These road segments are currently used as trails and not accessible by vehicles. This decision maintains access to all system trailheads in the project area.

Fully implemented, this decision will retain 104 miles of the existing 138 miles currently open to the public. Access to all developed trails will be retained, and all recreational user groups currently allowed access would retain some area for use. Project design criteria designed to ensure protection of natural resources will also be implemented (see Project EA, Section 2.5). Road maintenance levels (MLs) within the Project Area will be modified and maintained as follows:

• Retain approximately 1 mile of FS roads at a ML5 (no change).

• Retain approximately 10 miles of FS roads at a ML4 (no change).

• Retain approximately 57 miles of FS roads at a ML3 (no change).

• Retain approximately 36 miles of FS roads at a ML2.

• Keep 36 miles of currently closed roads, closed to motorized vehicle access.

• Close approximately 28 miles of FS roads to public motorized vehicle access (currently not closed going to 1 or 2A):

o 11 miles would be administrative, and in some cases Tribal, motorized vehicle access only (ML 2A)

o 17 miles would be closed (ML 1).

• 38 miles would be decommissioned (7 miles currently open).


3 of 28

In my consideration to proceed with Modified Alternative B, I have reviewed the North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA; incorporated by reference herein), specialist’s reports prepared for the project, applicable direction in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (MBS Forest Plan), information received through government-to-government consultation with Tribal governments, comments received during the 30-day public comment period, and other information available in the project record.

In making this selection, I have also reviewed information in the project record, including but not limited to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA USDI 1994a); the North Fork Nooksack Watershed Analysis (1995), the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Forest-Wide Late-successional Reserve Assessment (USDA USDI 2001); the Mt. Baker—Snoqualmie National Forest Forest-wide Sustainable Roads Report (USDA 2015), consultation files and records involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; public and other agency comments; and applicable laws and regulations.

All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the selected alternative. I have included all of the project design features and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources affected by implementation of the selected alternative. My intention to proceed with Alternative B with modifications is based on a review of the record that used the best available science.


4 of 28

Figure 1: Road maintenance levels under the Modified Alternative B selected in this decision.


5 of 28

Reasons for the Decision I intend to proceed with Modified Alternative B because this alternative, in both the short- and long-term, best meets the purpose and need driving the project: reducing resource impacts, bringing the road system into better alignment with the budget, and retaining a level of access for the Tribes and recreating public. All three alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Assessment represent some form of risk: aquatic and resource risk, risk of loss of Tribal treaty access, and risk of reduced access for a recreating public growing in size and demand. We need a decision that will help buffer the project area from impacts of these risks in the long term and allow for flexibility into the future. This decision will create a smaller road system on average, while allowing for flexibility to grow or reduce the system over time and as conditions demand.

Short and Long Term Considerations Currently, road failures in the project area are largely a product of deferred maintenance, unpredictable outcomes from large storm events, and unstable site conditions—and sometimes a confluence of all of these issues. The road failures themselves then lead to resource impacts and reduce access for administrative purposes, Tribes and the public. If we can reduce the amount of road failures—through timely maintenance, treatments, upgrades, and even reroutes—then we can reduce resource damage and access.

Options for preventing road failures include:

• close and/or decommission roads

• reduce maintenance costs overall, through stormproofing, reroutes, and seasonal closures

• reduce maintenance costs to the Forest Service, through grants and volunteers

In the short-term, all of these options have benefits and costs. Closing and treating roads that are currently open will reduce risk to natural resources, but will also impact access by recreation users and Tribal members. Stormproofing and reroutes will reduce resource impacts and costs in the long-term, but require up-front capital money, which is inconsistently available. Volunteers may provide an enormous service and reduce resource impacts and costs, but also require coordination and resources from the Forest Service, and may inadvertently incur damage on roads through well-intentioned, but misapplied, work.

These road management actions must also be considered within the context of long-term trends in the area. Specifically, I need to consider the uncertain impacts of a few key drivers: climate change, population growth in the Puget Sound region, and changing Tribal access needs over time.

The climate change analysis in the EA for this project indicates higher volumes of water being delivered as rain in the project area, and predictions of higher frequency of higher intensity storm events. Strategic investments in upgrades to crossings and drainage features will “stormproof” these roads better than even diligent maintenance. Further, keeping as many open roads at a ML 3 or higher will ensure the roads are eligible for emergency funds when major storms cause extensive damage.

Population growth and changing Tribal access needs both speak to ongoing and increasing demand for access in the project area. These types of access needs are qualitatively different, however, as Tribes have some need for privacy to exercise certain Treaty rights, as protected by law. Keeping as many roads open is important—but there is also a need to protect some level of Tribal access that allows for privacy.


6 of 28

An Adaptive Decision Ultimately, a well-maintained road system is of benefit for both users and the resource. When we have a system we can afford to maintain, we can better assure reliable access and protection of forest resources.

Given this, it is also not the case that a “sustainable road system” is a static thing—it will change, depending on funding available and access needs. Reaching this system will require a combination of the options outlined above. It will also require some flexibility, depending on resources available in a given year. In other words, we need to establish a means to adapt to changes and conditions in a given year.

As such, the decision includes not only road maintenance levels, but also an option for the Forest to engage certain actions when needed: seasonal closures and scheduled closures. Certain roads already have a seasonal closure for wildlife; others will now have a seasonal closure to reduce road damage and degradation and/or for Tribal treaty access needs.

Further, certain roads may be closed for an entire year in order to invest our current maintenance funds strategically into upgrades. These roads will not have any Forest Service maintenance dollars dedicated to their upkeep for the tenure of the closure except to deal with or prevent emergency failures. They will be closed in order to prevent further degradation of the road surface while funds are reallocated. If outside entities contribute funds or resources to upkeep of these roads for that annum, they may remain open. After one year, if the road had not been maintained with external sources, it will be reopened to the public.

In reality, this is no different than the current state of affairs, where each year a handful of roads in the project area is closed due to storm damage. In this case, the agency will provide the public advance notice of at least six months for seasonal closures and one year for annual closures, to allow users to plan. These closures are no different than the periodic health and safety closures occurring across the Forest after storm events. The effects of these closures is therefore covered by the existing condition overview of the analysis. Table 1 in the Decision section, above, outlines these planned closures.

Overall, the Selected Alternative largely reflects the findings of the Forest’s “Sustainable Roads Strategy,” an effort to engage forest users for the past number of years to identify areas and roads of high value to the Tribes and recreating public, as well as roads with higher resource risks. Ultimately, the range of roads put forward in that strategy is reflected in the road system determined in this decision.

In terms of road decommissioning, this decision does include a set of roads for removal. The vast majority, 31 of 38 miles, of these roads are already closed and have been closed for some time. They are also not in areas where we anticipate needing access for timber or other administrative needs. Full decommissioning of other roads will further mitigate impacts from keeping remaining roads open, by reducing risk of failure or impaired aquatic function around unused or low use roads.

In terms of impacts to resources, project design criteria (Project EA, Section 2.5) will ensure that proposed actions benefit natural resources in the long term and minimize or prevent adverse effects to these resources in the short term. No unacceptable cumulative effects to any resource are expected. Many beneficial effects will accrue from implementing the Project, and the risk associated with any potential negative effects, discussed in chapter 3 of the Project EA, is low.

Concerns raised during Comment Period During the comment period, I heard from a number of people who wanted to see no changes to the system, who argued strenuously against closing—much less decommissioning—roads anywhere (Alternative A). Their concern is around lost opportunity, where any closure makes access to those areas


7 of 28

much less likely in the future. While this may be true, it is also true that the cumulative effect of not adequately maintaining the majority of our roads would lead to a similar outcome: ongoing loss of access. However, in this scenario, not only would we lose access, we would also have no control over where the loss of access might happen. The intent with this project is to focus funds on a set of roads we can better maintain, and in so doing, better protect long-term, reliable access.

Some commenters asked about the timber program, and why we couldn’t grow the timber program to better support the road system. Timber sales are one way to bring some short-term funds to a road system. However, the current Forest Plan direction, combined with the Forest Service budget, does not permit the level of harvesting that originally funded the construction of the road system in the area. Unless both Forest Plan standards and guides are relaxed and the agency is funded for much higher timber sales, this mechanism will not be a solution for the entire area, nor for the long term.

In comments unrelated to specific alternatives but generally in argument against Alternative C, many commenters asked why the Forest Service couldn’t do more with volunteers or external funding opportunities to offset losses or gaps in the budget. The Forest Service has benefited greatly from volunteer efforts in the past number of years, and will continue to pursue and grow these relationships and funding opportunities. Volunteer work can make a substantial difference in the agency’s ability to maintain roads. However, there are some aspects of the work that cannot be conducted by volunteers, and some road work requires agency oversight. Further, potential damage to roads done by volunteers, while unintentional, is not insured or bonded like contract work. As a consequence, there is a risk to the agency when volunteers conduct major, machine-driven work that could cause more damage—and thereby demand more funds than those available. Therefore, while volunteers will be more of a resource for the agency in the coming years, the solution to the problem is not wholly resolved with volunteer hours.

Ultimately, implementation of this decision is not going to happen immediately—it is contingent on funding availability, which is variable over time. The decision also does not preclude the agency from establishing other mechanisms by which roads slated to be closed could remain open, should arrangements for maintenance and failure repair be developed.

Alternatives Considered Prior to making the decision to proceed with Modified Alternative B, I considered Alternatives A (no action), B (proposed action), and C. I also considered alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study in the Project EA (Project EA, Section 2.2).

Alternative A: No Action The no-action alternative forms the basis for a comparison between meeting the project needs and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides baseline information for understanding the environmental effects associated with the action alternative and expected environmental responses as a result of past management actions. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), no road decommissioning or closure of the existing road system would be implemented within the Project Area at this time. Approximately 208 miles of roads would remain as they currently are on the landscape, with 71 currently closed to the public.

Alternative B Implementing this alternative would include removing approximately three percent of the roads from the Forest’s transportation system within the analysis area, most of which are already closed to public access (5/6 miles). This alternative includes decommissioning approximately 6 miles of roads and closing approximately 77 miles of roads, 59 of which are already closed.


8 of 28

Alternative C Alternative C was developed in order to meet the current and expected maintenance funding levels within the Project Area and to analyze a full range of alternatives. One of the primary drivers for this alternative was the level of funding received to complete road maintenance work, approximately $70,000 per year for the Project Area (see Funding in Project EA Section 1.5 for further discussion). Implementing this alternative would include decommissioning largely existing closed (ML1) roads, with 36 of the total 41 miles proposed (88%) currently an ML1 (closed). The alternative also proposes closing approximately 73 miles of the roads from the Forest’s transportation system within the Project Area; 36, or half, of these road miles proposed for closure are already closed. Road decommissioning and closure would occur as funding becomes available for implementation, through a different set of federal funds than those that fund maintenance.

Reasons for Not Selecting the Other Alternatives Alternative A does not meet the purpose and need of the project: it retains the existing road system in its entirety. The agency currently suffers annually from road failures, causing issues with access to popular use areas (Project EA Section 1.3) and seeing ongoing resource impacts (Project EA Chapter 3). In reality, many roads close themselves each year after fall and winter storm events. When that happens, we are often unable to determine the full extent of the damage—whether there are more failures or issues past the lowest failure point—and the impacts associated with the failures. In the long-term this is an unsustainable way to provide access to the Tribes and public, and it prohibits us from being able to effectively steward the land and protect resources. While many commenters supported Alternative A, the analysis for this project does not support that course of action.

Alternative B, generated from the Sustainable Roads Strategy conducted in the region in years prior to the analysis, provides some relief from ongoing road failure issues and deferred maintenance, but not to a great degree. This alternative effectively keeps as many roads open at lower maintenance levels as possible. However, the Forest puts itself more at risk with more Level 2 roads, as emergency funds are not available to roads below a Level 3. Furthermore, while the Alternative does reduce aquatic risk, it does not go far enough given concerns about changing climate and ongoing budget stressors.

While Alternative C provides the most protection for natural and cultural resources, as described above, it does not go far enough to ensure protection of access to areas of the Forest for a wide range of users. There would be complete elimination of snowmobile, mountain bike, and motorcycle use areas along the Forest Service-managed area of the 542 corridor, and access to hunting, dispersed, and traditional and cultural areas would be greatly reduced.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study I considered several alternatives, based largely on public comments received during scoping and during the 30-day public review of the draft environmental analysis. The following alternatives represent those that I considered, but for various reasons, eliminated from detailed study.

Climate Change Alternative Climate change emerged as a “key issue” in the scoping process, and the interdisciplinary team had an extensive conversation on whether another alternative could be developed. We determined that the scope of climate change impacts exceeded the scope of this analysis, which is focused on a 10-15 year timeframe. The scope of climate change impacts are based on more reliable models which begin at 2040. As a result, we included climate change impacts throughout the analysis as well as a dedicated analysis section to the topic (EA Section 3.4.1).


9 of 28

Improving Maintenance Levels or Increasing the Existing Road System Alternative Improving maintenance levels or increasing the existing road system would increase costs to the agency for road maintenance, and therefore not meet the purpose and need of creating a more fiscally sustainable travel system.

Converting Roads to Trails Alternative The team examined converting roads to trails in Alternative C primarily, as Alternative B includes only 6 miles of new closures. In Alternative C, converting roads to trails would happen primarily on roads that access trailheads. In those cases, such as Canyon Creek (31) or Wells Creek (33), the conversion would result in over 25 miles (13 and 12, respectively) of new trail. These and other trails would still require appropriate trail-sized drainage improvements (culverts and bridges) to be installed following decommissioning and therefore would require ongoing maintenance.

While trail maintenance does not typically impose the same costs as road maintenance, these roads and their structures would still require extensive attention in order to prevent failures—and would potentially be challenging access-wise for maintenance or repair in an emergency. Effectively, converting roads to trails would simply shift a burden to a different part of the agency that is also suffering from chronic budget declines. We did not want to create an unintended consequence on the Forest’s overall budget.

Tribal, Public, and Agency Involvement

Tribal Consultation The Forest Service has a trust responsibility to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis for actions taking place on federal lands (Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments).

Consultation with several Tribes was first invited in a letter dated August 3, 2015, during development of the proposed action. This letter requested information on Tribal interests or knowledge of cultural uses or properties, concerns about possible effects on historic properties of religious or cultural significance, or information on reserved treaty rights within the Project Area. Tribes were contacted again in late January. A briefing paper was provided, advising a Draft EA would be released in early February, and inviting further consultation opportunities. Following release of the Draft EA, we conducted additional consultation and coordination with the Nooksack, Lummi, and Tulalip tribes.

The Tribes included in notification and outreach for this project included:

• Lummi Indian Business Council

• Nooksack Indian Tribal Council

• Samish Tribe

• Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Council

• Stillaguamish Board of Directors

• Swinomish Tribal Community

• Tulalip Board of Directors

• Upper Skagit Tribal Council


10 of 28

Public Involvement After identifying the actions that the Project would implement to address the problems in chapter 1 of the Project EA, I sought public comment on them. The Forest mailed 122 scoping letters and emailed 391 scoping notices (which included a link to the Forest’s project website) to individuals, organizations, local, state and federal agencies, companies and local land owners on August 14th, 2015. On August 17th, 2015, the Forest Service published a legal notice in The Everett Herald and posted a public scoping letter and map information on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest project web site. Project information was also available on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions. The Forest also sent out a news release to local media and interested partners and stakeholders on August 19th, 2015. In response to scoping, we received 18 written letters and one oral comment from interested individuals, organizations, and government agencies.

Public comments within the scope of the Project and not covered by previous environmental review or existing regulations were reviewed for substantive content related to the Project. Based largely on public comment, some alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed study. The alternatives are described in the Project EA, chapter 2. Comments relevant to clarifying how the Project would be implemented or relevant to the effects of implementing the Project are addressed in the Project EA, chapters 2 and 3; the Project design criteria (EA, Appendix A); or the Project file. Agencies and individuals consulted are identified in the Project EA, chapter 4.

A legal notice, advertising the availability of the Upper North Fork Nooksack ATM Project Draft Environmental Assessment for a 30-day public review and comment period, was published in the Skagit Valley Herald on February 4, 2016. Letters were mailed to interested parties on February 3, 2016, notifying them of the availability of the Draft EA. The legal notice and letters indicated the beginning and end of the 30-day comment period, described the comment process, and identified a Forest Service contact person. Copies of the Draft EA were made available at the Mt. Baker District office and on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest website.

During the comment period, the Forest Service hosted two public meetings: one in Maple Falls on February 16, 2016, and one in Bellingham, WA on February 18, 2016. Approximately 170 people participated between the two meetings. Opportunities to ask questions of Forest Service staff and to submit written comment were provided at the meetings. The Forest Service also held meetings with Congressional staff, the Whatcom County Executive and staff, and the Sustainable Roads Cadre (consisting of a range of environmental and recreational interests).

Comments from 108 parties were received. These comments and the Forest Service responses to them are summarized in Appendix D of the Project EA.

Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the effects of the proposed action on threatened and endangered wildlife species occurred under the Programmatic Biological Assessment for Forest Management: Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2002). The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has used the “Biological Opinion of the Effects of Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Program of Activities for 2003-2007 on Marbled Murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls” (Ref. No. 1-3-02-F-1583) to implement a large portion of the Forest’s program of work. A Biological Opinion (BO) on this consultation [for the Programmatic] was issued by USFWS in September


11 of 28

2002. The USFWS granted incidental take of spotted owl and marbled murrelet due to harassment from noise-generating projects, consistent with this Biological Opinion.

• On December 18, 2007 the USFWS issued an extension letter to extend the expiration date (Ref. No. 13410-2006-F-0015) for the existing programmatic biological opinion for coverage through June 16, 2009.

• On May 7, 2009 the USFWS issued a second extension letter to extend the expiration date (Ref. No. 13410-2006-F-0015) for the existing programmatic biological opinion for coverage through December 31, 2009.

• On March 19, 2010 the USFWS issued a third extension letter (Ref. No. 13410-2006-F-0015) for the existing programmatic biological opinion for coverage until the programmatic could be revised.

The Level 1 Team (which consists of USFWS, NMFS, and Forest Service biologists) reviews consistency of projects with the programmatic assessment and Opinion, and completes a Project Consistency Evaluation Form (PCEF), thus meeting consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act. Preliminary determinations are:

• The effect determination for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet is may affect, likely to adversely affect, due to noise disturbance occurring in the breeding season.

• The effect determinations for grizzly bear and gray wolf is may affect and likely to beneficially affect, due to increase of core and security habitat for these species as a result of road closure and decommissioning.

• The effect determinations for designated marbled murrelet critical habitat and designated northern spotted owl critical habitat are no effect.

Fish This project will implement appropriate non-discretionary conservation measures required from the following:

• Road Maintenance from the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Forest Services’ Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation (WRIAs 1,3,4,5,7,8,9,10). NMFS Tracking No. 2002/01961.

• Programmatic Consultation for Effects to Bull Trout from Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Program of Activities for June 17, 2004, to June 16, 2009 (FWS Reference Number 1-3-04-PI-0606).

• Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Coquille Indian Tribe for Programmatic Aquatic Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington that Affect ESA-listed Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species and their Critical Habitat (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

• Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Programmatic Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington, CY 2007-2012 (National Marine Fisheries Service 2008).


12 of 28

Botany • No federally listed plant species are known to occur on the Forest, and none were

identified in the project area during past surveys. Thus it is concluded that the Selected Alternative will have “No Effect” on federally listed plant species.

Changes to the Environmental Assessment The draft EA was edited to address items that came to light during the 30-day comment period. These changes include the addition of a section addressing effects to fire and fuels (EA at 148-150) and a section addressing treaty rights (EA at 106). Other revisions to the EA were minor corrections or revisions intended to improve clarity.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Based on the site-specific environmental analysis documented in the North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment, I have determined that the activities described will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This determination was made in light of the following factors (40 CFR 1508.27):

Context Project activities have been viewed and approved in a Regional context through the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA USDI 1994a). This action only affects a small portion of the Forest, which in turn, is a very small portion of the Region.

Intensity 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

Project actions will have both beneficial and adverse effects. I have considered the benefits that the ecosystem will receive from implementing the Project actions and find that the overall beneficial effects to the ecosystem outweigh any short-term adverse effects. Further, I find that when considered alone, the adverse effects of this project, which hare localized, minor, and in most cases temporary, are not significant (Project EA, chapter 3).

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

No significant adverse effects to public health or safety have been identified (Project EA, chapter 3). Roads remaining open to public access will be maintained at a level more consistent with funding, which should benefit the safety of those who use them. Other roads will be treated to reduce the risk of failures and associated sedimentation into streams.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.


13 of 28

My decision will not adversely affect unique characteristics associated with the geographic area such as historical or cultural resources, parklands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The characteristics of the geographic area do not make it uniquely sensitive to the effects of project actions. Past actions of similar intensity in similar areas have not indicated any significant adverse effects (Project EA, chapter 3).

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

I have determined that the effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial (Project EA, chapters 1 and 3).

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

My review of the EA Chapter 3 and supporting documentation indicates that the possible environmental effects of implementing Modified Alternative B are typical of this type of project. Planned actions are similar to those already accomplished on similar lands within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest The possible effects on the human environment do not involve any highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks. The effects on wildlife habitat and aquatic system components are disclosed in the EA and are based on sound scientific research, as well as previous experience in the basin and on the Forest (Project EA at 62-65, 70-80, 86-93). The effects on public use are clearly disclosed in the EA (pp. 87-91 and 92-97).

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

Actions that will be implemented by the Project do not set a precedent for future actions because similar actions have been implemented in the past (Project EA, chapter 3).

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The Project EA describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soil (Project EA at 71-76), water (Project EA at 70-71, 76-80), aquatic and terrestrial species (Project EA at 52-58, 62-65, 86-93), and other components of the human environment. There are no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated from implementing project actions. The analysis of cumulative effects considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on National Forest lands as well as for other ownerships in the affected watershed (Project EA, chapter 3).

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant, scientific, cultural, or historic resources.

The Nooksack Falls Historic District is bisected by Wells Creek Road (FSR 33; see Project EA at 101). Any physical impact proposed prior to implementation would have to be evaluated for potential adverse effects and consultation would be required with the WA


14 of 28

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Project EA at 101). Implementation of Project Design Criteria (Project EA, Section 2.5.2) will ensure that if any sites are uncovered during project implementation, effects, if any, to cultural resources will be minimal (Project EA at 105).

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The wildlife, botany, and fisheries reports prepared for the Project indicate the project will not significantly affect any federally listed species or their habitat (see Project EA at 51, 62-65, 86-93; this Decision at 10-11).

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

The Project is in compliance with relevant Federal, State and local laws, regulations and requirements designed for the protection of the environment. The Project will meet or exceed State water quality standards (see Project EA at 70, 76-77) and no impacts to air quality are expected.

All project activities and design criteria will comply with the Record of Decision (October 2005) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. Actions will be designed to prevent the spread of invasive plants, including noxious and undesirable weeds (Project EA at 28, 46, 56-58). Cleaning of off-road equipment pursuant to Executive Order 13112, dated February 3, 1999, will be required (Project EA, Section 2.5).

The Project will have no significant adverse effects on wetlands, floodplains (EA at 77-79), farm land, range land, park land, wilderness (Project EA at 131-139), wild and scenic rivers, or inventoried roadless areas (Project EA at 112-113, 130); minority groups, civil rights, women, or consumers (Project EA at 146-148), or subsistence rights, sacred sites; and heritage resources (Project EA at 103-106). Actions will be consistent with the scenic quality objectives for the planning area (Project EA at 96-97).

Findings Required By Other Laws and Regulations As required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan (Chapter 2 of the EA and pages 1-2 of this Decision disclose information on the activities proposed in each alternative along with design features, Chapter 3 of the EA discloses information on the environmental effects of implementing each alternative and the findings of consistency with the Forest Plan and applicable laws, regulations, and policies). This decision is tiered to the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Management direction comes from the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990) as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA USDI 1994) and is designed to meet or exceed the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy as set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan (Project EA at 78-80).


15 of 28

Implementation Date Implementation of this project may not proceed until five working days after the close of the 45-day objection filing period, if no objections are filed (36 CFR 218.12).

Administrative Review and Objection This draft decision for the Project is subject to an objection process pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 218. This process replaces the post-decisional appeal process (36 CFR 215) used since 1993. Objections will only be accepted from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with §218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after the designated comment opportunities.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed via mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, express delivery, or messenger service. Objections may be mailed to: Forest Supervisor, Objection Reviewing Officer, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Attn. 1570 Appeals and Objections, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Everett, WA 98201. Objections may be e-mailed to: [email protected]. Please put OBJECTION and the project name in the subject line. Electronic objections must be submitted as part of an actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf) only. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the objection, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. Objections may also be hand delivered to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Attn. 1570 Appeals and Objections, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, WA 98201 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. Objections may also be faxed to: Forest Supervisor, Attn. Objections at (425) 783-0141.

Objections must be submitted within 45 calendar days following the publication of notice of availability of this decision in the Skagit Valley Herald. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the time to file an objection.

The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in §218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in §218.8(b). It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer pursuant to §218.9. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process.

At a minimum an objection must include the following (36 CFR 218.8(d)):

1. The objector’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; 2. A signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for Email may be

filed with the objection); 3. When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector (verification of the

identity of the lead objector shall be provided upon request); 4. The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the name(s) of

the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented; 5. A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific

issues related to the proposed project if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental

mailto:[email protected]


16 of 28

analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and

6. A statement that demonstrates connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection.

Contact Person For further information, contact Erin Uloth, at the Mt. Baker Ranger District, by phone at (360) 854-2601, or by email to [email protected].

References United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990a. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

Land and Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Documents within the Range of the northern Spotted Owl and Standards and guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted owl.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Forest-Wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Forest-wide Sustainable Roads Report. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Everett, WA. 42 p.

Responsible Official:

Draft Draft ERIN ULOTH Date District Ranger Mt. Baker Ranger District Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest


17 of 28

Appendix A Detailed maps of decision.


18 of 28


19 of 28


20 of 28


21 of 28


22 of 28

Appendix B Table of road maintenance levels proposed under Modified Alternative B selected under this decision. *MP = Mile Post. ** ML = Maintenance Level. +ALT = Alternative

ROAD NO. ROAD NAME BEGIN MP*

END MP

MILES CURRENT ML** SELECTED ALT. + ML

3000020 RESIDENCE 0 0.3 0.3 3 3

3000025 GARBAGE CUTOFF 0 0.4 0.4 2 2

3000050 COAL 0 0.15 0.15 1 0

3000050 COAL 0.15 0.3 0.15 1 0

3000055 HORN 0 0.2 0.2 1 2A

3000058 NONAME 0 0.1 0.1 1 0

3000060 KILOWATT 0 0.15 0.15 2 2A

3000060 KILOWATT 0.15 0.4 0.25 2 2A

3000061 AMPERE 0 0.2 0.2 2 2A

3000075 GALONE 0 0.6 0.6 1 0

3000076 SYLVESTER 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3010020 DAVIS CR 0 0.6 0.6 1 0

3010030 BOTTOMLESS 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3010035 GALLOP CR 0 0.2 0.2 2 2A

3010040 DEEP CR 0 0.6 0.6 1 1

3010040 DEEP CR 0.6 1.5 0.9 1 0

3010042 HI-LO 0 0.6 0.6 1 0

3015000 RANGER STATION 0 0.2 0.2 3 3

3017000 YACC CAMP 0 0.1 0.1 1 1

3017000 YACC CAMP 0.1 0.4 0.3 1 0

3018000 HUMPY 0 0.1 0.1 1 0

3018000 HUMPY 0.1 1.1 1 1 0

3018020 GET UP 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3019000 CONDOMINIUM 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3020000 DOUGLAS FIR CG 0 0.5 0.5 3 3

3020000-A DOUGLAS FIR CG-A 0 0.159 0.159 3 3

3035000 FOURMILE 0 0.2 0.2 1 2A

3035000 FOURMILE 0.2 1.2 1 1 0

3040000 EAST CHURCH 0 1.95 1.95 3 3

3040000 EAST CHURCH 1.95 2.1 0.15 1 3

3040000 EAST CHURCH 2.1 2.7 0.6 1 0

3040011 POWERLINE 0 0.3 0.3 1 2A

3040111 0 0.15 0.15 1 2A

3045000 EXCELSIOR CG 0 0.7 0.7 3 3

3060000 WELCOME PASS 0 0.7 0.7 3 3


23 of 28


END MP


3060000 WELCOME PASS 0.7 1.2 0.5 1 0

3065000 TWIN LAKES 0 4.4 4.4 3 3

3065012 BOURNS POND 0 0.3 0.3 2 2

3065012 BOURNS POND 0.3 0.6 0.3 1 0

3065013 POND PIT 0 0.2 0.2 2 2

3065015 WEST SWAMP 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3065019 SLIP OUT SPUR 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3065020 MUD HOLE 0 0.6 0.6 1 0

3065021 SLACKLINE 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3065023 KEEP KOOL 0 0.1 0.1 3 0

3065023 KEEP KOOL 0.1 0.3 0.2 3 0

3066000 SWAMP CR 0 2 2 1 0

3066019 TWO GOATS 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3067000 SILVER FIR CG 0 0.5 0.5 3 3

3067000-A SILVER FIR CG-A 0 0.3 0.3 3 3

3070000 RAZOR HONE 0 2.5 2.5 2 2

3070000 RAZOR HONE 2.5 3 0.5 2 2

3070020 WEST RAZOR 0 0.8 0.8 1 1

3070025 EAST RAZOR 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3071000 ANDERSON CR 0 2.1 2.1 2 2

3071000 ANDERSON CR 2.1 4.1 2 2 2

3071000 ANDERSON CR 4.1 4.4 0.3 1 1

3071000 ANDERSON CR 4.4 4.9 0.5 1 1

3071017 ANDERSON SPUR 0 0.8 0.8 1 1

3071020 BAROMETER CR 0 0.8 0.8 1 1

3071025 ADVERSE POINT 0 0.7 0.7 1 1

3075000 WHITE SALMON 0 1.3 1.3 2 2

3075000 WHITE SALMON 1.3 1.6 0.3 2 1

3075000 WHITE SALMON 1.6 1.9 0.3 1 1

3075010 3075010 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3075011 SALMON PATTERN 0 0.3 0.3 2 2

3075011 SALMON PATTERN 0.3 0.5 0.2 2 0

3075100 3075100 0 0.1 0.1 1 1

3080000 SALMON RIDGE 0 0.5 0.5 3 2A

3080000 SALMON RIDGE 0.5 1 0.5 2 1

3080011 SKI TOW 0 0.3 0.3 2 2A

3080012 RIDGE SPUR 0 0.8 0.8 1 1

3080013 CHAIRLIFT 0 1.2 1.2 1 2A

3090000 AUSTIN PASS 0 0.3 0.3 4 4


24 of 28


END MP


3095000 HEATHER MEADOWS 0 0.5 0.5 2 2A

3096000 ALPINE VISTA 0 0.123 0.123 3 1

3100000 CANYON CR 0 2.357 2.357 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 2.357 5 2.643 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 5 5.9 0.9 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 5.9 7.2 1.3 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 7.2 7.8 0.6 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 7.8 8.8 1 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 8.8 9.5 0.7 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 9.5 10 0.5 4 4

3100000 CANYON CR 10 13.226 3.226 3 3

3100000 CANYON CR 13.226 14.6 1.374 3 3

3100000 CANYON CR 14.6 15 0.4 3 1

3100015 LOWER HURST CR 0 1 1 1 0

3100018 LORETTA 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3100020 WEST HURST 0 1.9 1.9 1 1

3100444 3100444 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3120000 WEST CHURCH 0 2.1 2.1 2 2

3120000 WEST CHURCH 2.1 3.3 1.2 2 1

3120000 WEST CHURCH 3.3 4.3 1 2 1

3120011 POKE SPUR 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3120013 NONAME SPUR 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3120015 BEECHES SPUR 0 0.4 0.4 1 1

3120016 JAN SPUR 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3120030 BUMP SPUR 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3120033 NORTH SLOPE 0 1.7 1.7 1 1

3120035 BLOOPER 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3120037 DISMAL 0 0.4 0.4 1 1

3122000 LITTLE MTN 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3122000 LITTLE MTN 0.5 2.6 2.1 1 1

3122000 LITTLE MTN 2.6 3.6 1 1 1

3122100 HURST SLUMP 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3122110 TWO ENTRY 0 0.14 0.14 1 1

3124000 WEST VIEW 0 1 1 2 2

3124010 WEST RIDGE 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3124012 TOPSY 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3130000 KIDNEY CR 0 1.3 1.3 2 1

3130000 KIDNEY CR 1.3 2.5 1.2 1 1


25 of 28


END MP


3132000 WESTERN 0 0.3 0.3 2 1

3132000 WESTERN 0.3 0.4 0.1 2 1

3132000 WESTERN 0.4 1.3 0.9 1 1

3132011 WEST PIT 0 0.3 0.3 2 1

3132014 FUJII 0 0.4 0.4 1 1

3140000 CANYON RIDGE 0 5.7 5.7 2 2

3140000 CANYON RIDGE 5.7 6.6 0.9 2 2

3140000 CANYON RIDGE 6.6 6.8 0.2 2 2

3140000 CANYON RIDGE 6.8 8 1.2 1 1

3140025 BALD BOUNDARY 0 0.24 0.24 1 2

3140025 BALD BOUNDARY 0.24 0.5 0.26 1 2

3140026 HEAD-N-SOUTH 0 0.48 0.48 1 2

3140026 HEAD-N-SOUTH 0.48 1 0.52 1 2

3140040 KNOCK OUT 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3140045 NW CORNER 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3140045 NW CORNER 0.4 0.5 0.1 1 0

3140046 UPTOP 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3142000 BANYON 0 1.5 1.5 1 1

3142012 BUD 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3146000 BOUNDARY RD 0 0.68 0.68 1 1

3146000 BOUNDARY RD 0.68 1 0.32 1 1

3146010 ADD ON 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3146011 WOBBLY 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3150000 CANYON VIEW 0 0.8 0.8 1 1

3160000 WHISTLER CR 0 0.5 0.5 2 1

3160000 WHISTLER CR 0.5 5 4.5 2 1

3160013 BEE CR 0 0.9 0.9 1 1

3160015 EVERLAST 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3160016 FOG 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3170000 BEARPAW 0 1.3 1.3 2 1

3170000 BEARPAW 1.3 2.8 1.5 2 1

3170012 OTS 0 0.4 0.4 1 1

3170020 CANYON LAKE 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3170021 STAPLER 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3200000 HANNEGAN 0 0.6 0.6 3 3

3200000 HANNEGAN 0.6 2.67 2.07 3 3

3200000 HANNEGAN 2.67 5.2 2.53 3 3

3200000 HANNEGAN 5.2 5.5 0.3 3 3

3200015 NANNY GOAT 0 1.4 1.4 1 0


26 of 28


END MP


3200016 BEFUDDLED 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3200022 GOAT BEARD 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3200024 SEFRIT 0 1 1 1 0

3200026 BABE 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3300000 WELLS CR 0 0.6 0.6 3 3

3300000 WELLS CR 0.6 1.9 1.3 3 3

3300000 WELLS CR 1.9 5.2 3.3 3 3

3300000 WELLS CR 5.2 12 6.8 2 2A

3300018 MAD MIRA 0 0.6 0.6 1 1

3300020 EAST COUGAR 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3300025 KITTY 0 0.1 0.1 1 1

3300030 KNOB 0 0.1 0.1 2 1

3310000 PINUS LAKE 0 1.2 1.2 2 2A

3310000 PINUS LAKE 1.2 1.39 0.19 2 2A

3310000 PINUS LAKE 1.39 3.4 2.01 2 1

3310011 ROCK SPUR 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3310012 PILLAR ROCK 0 0.3 0.3 2 2A

3310012 PILLAR ROCK 0.3 0.5 0.2 2 2A

3310012 PILLAR ROCK 0.5 0.8 0.3 2 1

3400000 NO FK NOOKSACK 0 1 1 3 2

3400000 NO FK NOOKSACK 1 2.9 1.9 1 0

3600000 GROUSE BUTTE 0 3.1 3.1 2 2

3600000 GROUSE BUTTE 3.1 4 0.9 2 2

3600000 GROUSE BUTTE 4 5 1 2 0

3600011 SUMMIT VIEW 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3600012 CABIN PLUNDER 0 0.1 0.1 1 1

3610000 LOOKOUT MTN 0 1.3 1.3 2 2

3610011 COAL CR 0 0.8 0.8 1 1

3610012 OUTLOOK 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3620000 ROCKY CREEK 0 1.5 1.5 2 2

3620000 ROCKY CREEK 1.5 3 1.5 1 1

3620014 ROCKY POINT 0 0.5 0.5 1 1

3620020 BRENDA SPUR 0 0.4 0.4 1 1

3630000 ELK HORN 0 1.4 1.4 2 2

3630000 ELK HORN 1.4 1.9 0.5 2 2

3700000 DEADHORSE 0 7.9 7.9 3 3

3700000 DEADHORSE 7.9 12.5 4.6 3 3

3700000 DEADHORSE 12.5 12.8 0.3 3 0

3700011 MINERS QUARRY 0 0.3 0.3 2 2


27 of 28


END MP


3700025 UPPER BURNT KNOB 0 1 1 1 1

3700026 LOWER BURNT KNOB 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3700030 TAIL HOLD 0 0.7 0.7 1 0

3700031 EXCELSIOR MINE 0 0.5 0.5 2 1

3700032 TRISH 0 0.7 0.7 1 1

3700033 DRY HORSE 0 0.4 0.4 1 1

3700035 GOOFED 0 0.3 0.3 1 1

3700036 CASCADE CREEK 0 0.5 0.5 1 0

3700040 JUMP OFF 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

3700050 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3722000 BRIDGE CAMP 0 0.5 0.5 2 2

3800000 MID FK NOOKSACK 0 9.1 9.1 3 3

3800000 MID FK NOOKSACK 9.1 9.9 0.8 3 3

3800000 MID FK NOOKSACK 9.9 12.3 2.4 3 3

3800000 MID FK NOOKSACK 12.3 14.3 2 2 2

3800023 RIDLEY CR 0 0.1 0.1 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 0 1 1 5 5

3900000 GLACIER CR 1 3 2 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 3 3.2 0.2 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 3.2 4 0.8 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 4 7.8 3.8 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 7.8 7.9 0.1 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 7.9 8.1 0.2 3 3

3900000 GLACIER CR 8.1 9.2 1.1 3 1

3900000 GLACIER CR 9.2 9.3 0.1 2 1

3900000 GLACIER CR 9.3 9.4 0.1 2 1

3900012 OLD GLACIER 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3900013 SAMPSON CR 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3900014 THREE RIDGES 0 1 1 1 0

3900015 SCAB 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3900018 LO LO 0 0.5 0.5 1 0

3910000 THOMPSON CR 0 1.5 1.5 3 2

3910000 THOMPSON CR 1.5 1.9 0.4 2 2

3910000 THOMPSON CR 1.9 2 0.1 2 0

3910000 THOMPSON CR 2 2.7 0.7 2 0

3910000 THOMPSON CR 2.7 4.3 1.6 2 0

3910010 LAME DUCK 0 1.3 1.3 1 0


28 of 28


END MP


3910025 PRIVY 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3910030 COMPTON SPUR 0 0.3 0.3 1 0

3910105 SOPHIE 0 0.2 0.2 1 0

3912000 THOMPSON RIDGE 0 0.5 0.5 1 0

3912020 TOMMY GUN 0 0.4 0.4 1 0

3914000 BEAVER CR 0 0.11 0.11 2 2

3914000 BEAVER CR 0.11 0.7 0.59 2 0

3916000 OLD GRADE 0 2.8 2.8 1 0

3940000 SMITH-BASIN 0 2.1 2.1 2 0

3940020 NORTH SMITH 0 0.5 0.5 1 0

3940022 PALISADES 0 0.7 0.7 1 0

3940025 UPPER SMITH 0 0.5 0.5 1 0

United States Department of Agriculture North Fork Nooksack...

Documents

Transcript of United States Department of Agriculture North Fork Nooksack...