Review of the Scientific Foundations of the Forests and Fish Plan

Transcription

1 Review of the Scientific Foundations of the Forests and Fish Plan Prepared for: Washington Forest Protection Association 724 Columbia Street, N.W., Suite 250 Olympia, WA Prepared by: th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA (425) April 20, 2000

2 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Overview Purpose of This Review Background and History of the Forests and Fish Plan Geographic Context Summary of the Forests and Fish Plan Legal Context for the Forests and Fish Plan Current Habitat Conditions Summary of the Science Adaptive Management Program Overall Conclusions References Chapter 2 Functional Discussions Large Woody Debris Heat Energy Coarse Sediment Fine Sediment Hydrology Pesticides Litterfall List of Tables Table 1-1 Summary of Forestland Ownership in Washington Table 2-1 Summary of Habitat Variables Table 2-2 Matrix of Effects for Major Input Variables Addressed by the Forests and Fish Report Prescriptions Table Rates of Large Wood Recruitment by Four Recruitment Processes in Small Streams in Southeastern Alaska Table Estimated Relative Contributions of Bank Erosion and Mortality to Total Wood Loading Under Three Bank Erosion Rates Table Estimated Proportion of Wood Recruited by Fire and Mortality to Streams Under Three Fire Cycles Table Estimated Proportion of Wood Recruited by Mass Wasting to Streams Table Variation in LWD Abundance Among Streams in the Pacific Northwest APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A117_TOC.DOC\ iii

3 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN Table Width of the Source Area Providing 95 Percent of the LWD Supply from Old-Growth and Mature Stands Table Site-Potential Tree Height by Region and Forest Site Class for Fish-Habitat Streams Under the Forests and Fish Plan Table Proportion of Potential LWD Supply to Streams in Western Washington under the Forests and Fish Plan Table Proportion of Potential LWD Supply to Streams in Eastern Washington under the Forests and Fish Plan Table Target Canopy Closure and Stream Temperature Situations Under the Eastside Shade Rule Table Summary of Sediment Travel Distances from Forest Roads Table Compliance Summary for 36 Sub-Basins in Washington State Table Proposed Herbicide Off-Set Widths at Streams and Wetlands Table Proposed Riparian Buffers on Westside Non-Fish-Habitat Streams List of Figures Figure 1-1 Conceptual westside riparian strategy Figure 1-2 Conceptual eastside riparian strategy Figure 1-3 Percent of Total and Cumulative Percent of Debris Pieces Originating in 50-Foot Increments From the Streambank for All Streams Figure 1-4 Percent of Total and Cumulative Percent of Angular Canopy Density Occurring in 50-foot Increments From the Streambank for an Old-Growth Forest Figure 1-5 Modeled Natural Background and Road-Related Sediment Yield in Basins Prior to And 5 Years After Implementation of Road Improvement Plans for Watershed Analysis in Washington Figure Relationship Between Length of Stable Debris and Channel Width Figure Relationship Between Diameter of Stable Debris and Channel Width Figure LWD Supply as a Function of Source Distance for Riparian Stands of Different Maturity and Location Figure Step Forming Elements for Small Streams in Second-Growth Stands Figure Size-Frequency Distribution of Functional and Non-Functional LWD in Small Streams Figure LWD Supply as a Function of Source Distance (as a Percent of Site-Potential Tree Height) Figure Inner Zone Management Options iv APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A117_TOC.DOC\

4 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN Figure Effects of Temperature on Salmonids Figure Relationship Between Angular Canopy Density and Riparian Area Width for Small Streams in Old-Growth Riparian Stands Figure Relationship Between Riparian Area Width and Effective Shade Figure Stream Temperature Versus the Difference Between Existing and Class A Target Canopy Closure Figure Stream Temperature Versus the Difference Between Existing and Class AA Target Canopy Closure Figure Existing Minus Class A Target Stream Temperature Versus Existing Minus Class A Target Canopy Closure Figure Existing Minus Class AA Target Stream Temperature Versus Existing Minus Class AA Target Canopy Closure Figure Modeled Natural Background and Road-Related Sediment Yield in Basins Prior to and 5 Years After Implementation of Road Improvement Plans for Watershed Analysis in Washington Figure Proposed Forests and Fish Buffer Guidelines for Minimizing Downwind Drift of Herbicides to Streams and Wetlands Using Two Nozzle Types APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A117_TOC.DOC\ v

5 List of Preparers Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA) Project Manager Peter Heide, Director of Forest Management, WFPA Primary Authors Hans Ehlert, Project Manager, CH2M HILL Steve Mader, Ph.D., CH2M HILL Contributors and Reviewers Lee Benda, Ph.D., Lee Benda and Associates Wade Boyd, Ph.D., Longview Fibre Corporation Julie Dieu, Ph.D., Rayonier Domoni Glass, Glass Environmental Consulting Ann Goos, Director of Environmental Affairs, WFPA George Ice, Ph.D., National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Randal Johnson, Green Crow Vic Kaczynski, Ph.D., Consultant Jeff Light, Plum Creek Timber Company Mike Liquori, Champion Pacific Timberlands Doug Martin, Ph.D., Martin Environmental Jan Pauw, Esq., Weyerhaeuser Company Cassie Phillips, Esq., Weyerhaeuser Company, President WFPA Kate Sullivan, Ph.D., Consultant Tom Terry, Ph.D., Weyerhaeuser Company E. Steven Toth, Consulting Hydrologist vi APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A117_TOC.DOC\

6 CHAPTER 1 Overview 1.1 Purpose of This Review This review identifies the scientific foundations for the recommendations contained in the Forests and Fish Report and assesses the effectiveness of the recommendations in meeting the goals set forth by the Washington Forest Practices Board and authors of the Forests and Fish Report. This review was prepared for two reasons. First, it helps policymakers, the scientific community, and the public understand much of the scientific and technical information that was available to the authors while drafting the Forests and Fish Report. Second, this review assesses the Forests and Fish Report s recommendations to protect fish habitat and water quality on non-federal, non-tribal forestlands in the State of Washington. 1.2 Background and History of the Forests and Fish Plan In 1986, the tribes, timber industry, state resource agencies, 1 and environmental community initiated efforts to resolve controversial forest practices issues on state and private lands in Washington through a consensus process known as Timber Fish Wildlife (TFW). The first TFW agreement was reached in February Participants continued to work cooperatively to implement the agreement and resolve ongoing policy and local issues. Cooperative research and resource monitoring was started and continues through the present. In the spring of 1997, the TFW caucuses, now expanded to include county representatives, joined with the Governor s office and three federal resource agencies (EPA, USFWS, NMFS) 2 to address forest practices in light of then-current developments. These developments were the Endangered Species Act listing of fish stocks in the Columbia River system, the impending listing of several additional fish stocks in state waters, and the inclusion of more that 300 stream segments on Washington forestlands on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list. The resulting discussions were commonly known as the forestry module for Washington s Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy. The environmental caucus withdrew from discussion in September The remaining participants worked together to develop a plan that would meet the following goals: 1. To provide compliance with the Endangered Species Act for aquatic and ripariandependent species on non-federal forestlands. 2. To restore and maintain riparian habitat on non-federal forestlands to support a harvestable supply of fish. 3. To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act for water quality on non-federal forestlands. 4. To keep the timber industry economically viable in the State of Washington. 1 Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2 Refers to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition, the U.S. Forest Service provided technical input. APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

7 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Discussions culminated with release of the Forests and Fish Report on April 29, On June 7, 1999, Governor Locke signed House Bill (ESHB) 2091 into law. This act directed the Washington Forest Practices Board (the Board) to adopt emergency rules consistent with the Forests and Fish Report and strongly encouraged the Board to follow the Forests and Fish Report recommendations in adopting permanent rules. The authors of the Forests and Fish Report worked closely with the Board and agency staff to complete and interpret details of the Forests and Fish Report so that rule making could proceed. On January 20, 2000, the Board passed emergency forest practices rules adopting many provisions of the Forests and Fish Report. The authors agreed to continue to work on the refinements and detail necessary to have a complete working system of statutes, regulations, funding, and adaptive management. The Forests and Fish Report (TFW Caucuses 1999) together with its interpretation contained in the Forests and Fish Emergency Rules (Washington Forest Practices Board 2000) are collectively referred to in this review as the Forests and Fish plan. Importantly, this review does not consider the partial exemption from revised forest practices rules granted to some small landowners by the Legislature. 3 For purposes of this review, the permanent Forest Practices rules in effect prior to the adoption of the Forests and Fish Emergency Rules will be called the old rules (i.e., Washington Forest Practices Board 1998). The set of rules embodied in the Forests and Fish Emergency Rules will be called the new rules (i.e., Washington Forest Practices Board 2000). The Forests and Fish plan does not completely replace the old rules but rather builds on them by including additional measures, which primarily address riparian management and sediment delivery. 1.3 Geographic Context Of the 42,612,000 acres of land in Washington, more than half (21,362,000 acres) is composed of forestland (Table 1-1). Of the total forestland, approximately 46 percent is under private, state, or local government ownership. As a result, approximately 8 million 4 acres of forestland (37 percent) would be managed under prescriptions proposed in the Forests and Fish plan. 1.4 Summary of the Forests and Fish Plan The Forests and Fish plan is a consensus recommendation for changes in forest practices statutes, regulations, and management systems to attain the stated goals. The Forests and Fish plan recommends increased resource protection through programmatic and prescriptive standards and guidelines. A primary focus of these new standards and guidelines is to manage riparian vegetation and sediment input to maintain or enhance stream habitats and water quality. The recommendations are intended to improve management in several key resource areas, which are summarized below. The scientific foundations for these specific areas are discussed in Chapter 2 (Functional Discussions) of 3 ESHB 2091 exempted forest parcels 20 acres or less in size and owned by persons holding a total of 80 acres or less in the state from the Forests and Fish revisions to forest practices rules. Instead, the legislation required that these landowners be governed by permanent forest practices rules in place prior to Forests and Fish with the proviso that the Board could increase the previous buffers by up to 15 percent of the timber contained in a harvest unit. 4 Not included in this figure are approximately 1.8 million acres of state and private forestlands covered under federal habitat conservation plans (HCPs). 1-2 APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

8 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW this document. For a detailed description of the recommendations, readers are urged to consult the Forests and Fish Report and the Forests and Fish Emergency Rules. TABLE 1-1 Summary of Forestland Ownership in Washington Forest Landowner Federal (Total) Parks, Wilderness Harvest Prohibited/Restricted President s Forest Plan Federal Multiple Use Acres (thousands) ( 10,226 ) 5,195 4, Percent of Total Forested ( 47 ) State Trust Lands 2, Native American 1,269 6 County and Municipal Private 7, Total 21, Fish and Stream Classification The Forests and Fish plan would broaden the list of fish covered by the rules and change the classification of streams to expand the area where protection is applied. Under the Forests and Fish plan, all fish would receive the same protection. The old rules limited protection to salmon and resident game fish. Also, the Forests and Fish plan would place all streams that provide fish habitat in the same category as streams where fish are currently present. This change would provide equal protection for habitat that may become occupied as fish populations recover. In addition, riparian protection would be extended to the channel migration zones associated with fish habitat streams. These migration areas include offchannel habitat, wetlands, and floodplains that are likely to become part of the stream in the future as natural processes work the stream across the valley bottom Westside Riparian Strategies Fish-Habitat Streams. West of the Cascade crest (Westside), fish-habitat streams would be protected with buffers that extend up to a site-potential tree height from the outer edge of the stream or channel migration zone (Figure 1-1). This distance is 90 to 200 feet, depending on the productivity of the land near the stream. Timber management within the buffers is progressively more restrictive in the zones closer to the stream. The riparian strategy consists of three zones. The core zone is the 50-foot no-harvest area closest to the stream. The inner zone is the area between 50 feet and 80 to 150 feet from the stream. Management in the inner zone would be prescribed to ensure that desired future riparian conditions grow and develop. The outer zone is the area beyond the inner zone. It would be managed to leave up to 20 trees per acre to protect special sites such as seeps, springs, or forested wetlands, or to provide permanent leave trees to support riparian protection. Management in the inner and outer zones would be controlled by rules to ensure that goals for riparian function will be met, and that most protection is provided closest to the stream where it will do the most good. APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

9 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Non-Fish-Habitat Streams. The upper reaches of streams typically are not expected to be occupied by fish, but are important because they deliver water, organic matter, and sediments downstream to fish habitat. In the Forests and Fish plan, these streams fall into two categories, perennial and seasonal streams. Perennial non-fish-habitat streams would receive a 50-foot-wide no-harvest buffer on each side for at least 50 percent of their length. The buffer would be placed at sensitive sites, such as perennial seeps, springs, unstable inner gorge slopes, alluvial fans, and perennial stream intersections; and could border up to 100 percent of a reach s length. A 30-foot-wide equipment limitation zone on each side would border portions of perennial and all-seasonal non-fish-habitat streams that do not receive 50-foot-wide no-harvest buffers. The equipment limitation zone is designed to protect streambank vegetation, prevent bank erosion, and substantially limit the potential for sediment delivery to the streams Eastside Riparian Strategies East of the Cascade crest (Eastside), riparian strategies are influenced by unique climatic and forest conditions that are different from the Westside. The goals for habitat protection are the same as on the Westside, but the prescriptions differ. Fish-Habitat Streams. Buffers on fish-habitat streams would extend to at least one sitepotential tree height from the edge of the stream or channel migration zone, up to 130 feet (Figure 1-2). The no-harvest core zone would be 30 feet wide. The restricted inner zone would extend to 75 or 100 feet from the core zone, depending on stream width. Where sitepotential tree height is greater than the fixed inner zone width, up to 20 of the largest trees per acre would be left in an outer zone. Timber management in the inner zone would be controlled by maximum and minimum tree densities over a range of growing sites to address current and future riparian function and forest health. Non-Fish-Habitat Streams. Non-fish-habitat streams would receive either a continuous, managed 50-foot buffer where partial-cut management techniques are used, or a no-harvest, discontinuous buffer where clearcut-management techniques are used. The 30-foot equipment limitation zone would apply to portions of perennial streams without a leavetree buffer and all-seasonal non-fish-habitat streams Unstable Slopes The Forests and Fish plan recommends considerable improvements to forest practices permitting processes with the goal of preventing forest practices from causing an increased rate of landslide-related sediment delivery. Improved topographic and geologic mapping would provide landowners and the DNR with more accurate tools to predict where landslides may occur. Detailed standards would be established to field-identify the most hazardous areas. Local slope stability issues would be identified through regional efforts following adoption of new rules. Resource professionals representing agencies, tribes, and landowners would be trained to recognize potentially unstable slopes, and with budget approval, a team of geologists would map hazard areas and assist resource professionals in assessing slope stability issues on the ground. 1-4 APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

10 c1.01_e sea. westisde riparian strategy.fh gr Seasonal Non-Fish-Habitat Streams Perennial Stream Initiation Point (min 10,000 sq ft) Inner Gorge (>70% Slope) Seasonal Non-Fish-Habitat Stream NOTE: Figure depicts Riparian Management Zones. Also required but not shown are standards for road construction, pesticide application, shade protection, and protection of unstable slopes. Perennial Non-Fish-Habitat Stream (>1000 ft long) RMZ width ft depending on stream size and site class Outer Zone A minimum of 50% of the perennial non-fish-habitat streams would be buffered, including all sensitive sites and priority areas. 50-ft Radius Tributary Junction (min 10,000 sq ft) Perennial Stream Initiation Point (min 10,000 sq ft) Inner Zone Core Zone (50 ft) Seep/Spring (min 10,000 sq ft) No-Harvest Riparian Management Zone 50 ft 50 ft Managed Zones 500 ft Perennial Non-Fish-Habitat Stream (>1000 ft long) 30-ft Equipment Limitation Zone Core Zone (50 ft) Inner Zone Fish-Habitat Stream Outer Zone NOTE: Figure is not to scale. FIGURE 1-1 Conceptual Westside Riparian Strategy Review of Scientific Foundations of the Forests and Fish Plan

11 Outer Zone c1.01_e sea. eastisde riparian strategy.fh gr Seasonal Non-Fish-Habitat Streams Perennial Stream Initiation Point Seasonal Non-Fish-Habitat Stream 50-ft-wide Partial-Cut Continuous RMZ (Discontinuous buffer option not shown) RMZ width ft depending on stream size, site class, and habitat type Tributary Junction Perennial Stream Initiation Point Outer Zone Inner Zone Core Zone (30 ft) Seep/Spring 50 ft 50 ft No-Harvest Riparian Management Zone Managed Zones Perennial Non-Fish-Habitat Stream 30-ft Equipment Limitation Zone Core Zone (30 ft) Inner Zone Fish-Habitat Stream NOTE: Figure is not to scale. FIGURE 1-2 Conceptual Eastside Riparian Strategy Review of Scientific Foundations of the Forests and Fish Plan

12 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Forest Roads The Forests and Fish plan proposes that all existing forest roads be improved and maintained to a higher standard for providing fish passage, preventing landslides, limiting delivery of sediment and surface runoff water to streams, and avoiding capture or redirection of surface or groundwater. To accomplish this, landowners would be required to bring all of their forest roads into an approved maintenance plan within 5 years and to complete improvements within 15 years. The plan also recommends new road construction standards to meet water quality goals. Standards, priorities, and implementation guidelines are recommended in the Forests and Fish plan Pesticide Application The Forests and Fish plan recommends changes in buffering rules and best management practices for the application of forest pesticides, including herbicides, to prevent direct entry into water. There are also recommendations that would limit unintentional damage to riparian vegetation by limiting spraying near riparian management zones Wetland Protection The Forests and Fish plan acknowledges that timber harvest in some forested wetlands may influence the interaction between the wetland and fish-habitat waters. There are recommendations for specific scientific review to address the uncertainty. In addition, the plan recommends improved mapping of wetlands and clarification of existing rules for wetland protection Other Provisions The Forests and Fish Report contains agreement on adaptive management and a number of additional issues covering programmatic changes to forest practices regulation, assurances from regulatory agencies, and funding that are not directly addressed in this review. These issues are essential to the consensus reached by the authors of the Forests and Fish Report and are critical components of an overall system of forest practices regulation. Adaptive management is discussed later in this chapter (Section 1.8). For a discussion of the other issues not covered here, readers should consult the Forests and Fish Report. 1.5 Legal Context for the Forests and Fish Plan Background This section is intended to be a general review of the legal standards that apply to the Forests and Fish plan. An overview of these standards helps one better understand the goals used to develop the Forests and Fish Report and the negotiated results. Federal and state agencies would implement the Forests and Fish plan through administrative actions under a variety of federal and state laws. Each of these programs has its own purposes, procedures, and standards. However, a recurring and unifying theme is that the Forests and Fish plan s prescriptions can be approved if they are found to reflect an appropriate balance between protection for the species in question and competing values, including environmental, social, and economic. Although the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, State Forest Practices Act, and other applicable laws are strong laws, APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

13 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW future approval of the Forests and Fish plan s prescriptions under those laws would involve agency discretion and judgment to balance competing and, sometimes, conflicting values Endangered Species Act The purposes of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of [certain international] treaties and conventions [ESA Sec. 2(b), 16 USC 1531(b)]. Federal agencies must use their programs to further those purposes and, in consultation with the USFWS and NMFS, must avoid taking any action that will jeopardize threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat [ESA Sec. 7(a)(1) and (2); 16 USC 1536(a)(1) and (2)]. The ESA does not impose similar obligations on state agencies or private parties. However, it does prohibit take of endangered species, and authorizes USFWS and NMFS to adopt rules prohibiting take of threatened species. It defines take to include harm, and both USFWS and NMFS have adopted rules defining harm for this purpose to include actions that result in actual death or injury to members of a listed species, including habitat modifications that result in actual death or injury by impairing essential behavioral patterns. The take prohibitions apply to all persons, including state agencies and private parties. However, take of threatened species may be allowed by rule, and incidental take of either threatened or endangered species may be authorized by permit. The USFWS and NMFS are expected to help implement the Forests and Fish Report in two stages: first through rules adopted under ESA Sec. 4(d), and later through incidental take permits issued under ESA Sec. 10(a)(1)(B). The former, known as 4(d) rules, apply only to threatened species; the latter can apply to endangered species as well. The USFWS and NMFS have broader discretion under the ESA regarding threatened species than endangered species, including the option of not prohibiting take at all or prohibiting some but not all forms of take in some but not all circumstances. If they do adopt 4(d) rules, the rules may contain such provisions as USFWS and NMFS find necessary and desirable to provide for the conservation of the threatened species involved. In issuing incidental take permits, the agency requires an accompanying habitat conservation plan (HCP). The legal standard for approval of an HCP is that it will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of [the authorized] taking and not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Thus, in approving the Forests and Fish Report, USFWS and NMFS will be expected to determine, for the 4(d) rules, whether it is necessary and desirable to prohibit take of threatened species that might result from forest practices covered by the Forests and Fish Report prescriptions. For the subsequent incidental take permit, the agencies will determine whether the Forests and Fish Report prescriptions minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of take authorized by the permit and avoid jeopardy. In exercising their discretion under the ESA, the USFWS and NMFS presumably will consider such factors as contributions to recovery expected to result from enlisting state agencies and others in positive efforts to benefit listed species through the Forests and Fish Report, and 1-10 APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

14 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW negative effects likely to result from attempts to rely on the take prohibition alone, without state support, in the context of forest practices on non-federal lands Clean Water Act The purposes of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation s waters [CWA Sec. 101(a); 42 USC 1251(a)]. The CWA gives EPA direct control over point sources of water pollution, such as wastewater discharges from municipal treatment plants and factories. However, nearly all water pollution from forest practices is considered nonpoint in nature. The CWA leaves state and local agencies with primary responsibility for control of nonpoint sources, but EPA does have significant oversight responsibilities under CWA Sections 208, 303, and 319. The EPA is expected to help implement the Forests and Fish Report through its exercise of those oversight responsibilities. The state has considerable flexibility on where and how to address nonpoint water pollution problems. For example, it must have plans that include a process to (i) identify, if appropriate,... silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution... and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources. [CWA Sec. 208(b)(2)(F), 42 USC 1288(b)(2)(F); see also CWA Sec. 303(e)(3)(B), 42 USC 1313(e)(3)(B)]. Similarly, it must develop programs to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, pollution resulting from nonpoint source activities. [CWA Sec. 319(a)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1329(a)(1)(C)]. Under Washington law, the state forest practices rules are the means by which CWA requirements for forestry-related nonpoint pollution are met. [RCW (2)(g); ]. The EPA has repeatedly approved the Washington Forest Practices Act (FPA) and rules under the CWA as part of the state s continuing water quality planning process. Therefore, the FPA s legal standard (discussed below) remains the controlling one. The CWA subsection 303(d), 33 U.S.C. 1313(d), and EPA s implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R , require states to identify waters where pollution controls are insufficient to achieve water quality standards and to adopt Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waters. If other pollution controls such as the Forests and Fish plan are viewed as sufficient, then DOE can exclude forested streams from the list altogether, or defer TMDLs on forestland while focusing on other priorities Washington Forest Practices Act The Washington Forest Practices Act (FPA) opens with legislative findings and declarations that: the forest land resources are among the most valuable of all resources in the state; that a viable forest products industry is of prime importance to the state s economy; that it is in the public interest for public and private commercial forest lands to be managed consistent with sound policies of natural resource protection; that coincident with maintenance of a viable forest products industry, it is important to provide protection to forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity and quality, air quality, recreation and scenic beauty. [RCW (1)]. The FPA then authorizes rulemaking to: create and maintain a comprehensive system of laws and forest practices regulations, which will achieve the following purposes and policies: APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

15 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Afford protection to, promote, foster and encourage timber growth. Afford protection to forest soils and public resources. Recognize both the public and private interest in the profitable growing and harvesting of timber. Promote efficiency by permitting maximum operating freedom consistent with the other purposes and policies stated herein. Provide for regulation of forest practices so as to avoid unnecessary duplication in such regulation. Provide for interagency input and intergovernmental and tribal coordination and cooperation. Achieve compliance with all applicable requirements of federal and state law with respect to nonpoint sources of water pollution. To consider reasonable land use planning goals. Foster cooperation among managers of public resources, forest landowners, Indian tribes and citizens of the state [RCW (2)]. The FPA thus explicitly requires a balancing of environmental protection with maintaining a viable industry. Its purposes also include protection of fish and wildlife (which are covered by the definition of public resources ), coordination with federal agencies, and reconciling to the extent practicable the competing concerns of state and federal agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders State Environmental Policy Act and Regulatory Reform In adopting rules under the FPA, the Board must also comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the state Regulatory Reform Act. The relevant SEPA standard for rulemaking requires that the Board select biologically credible proposals, but that it has a duty under the FPA to choose the less costly solution. In 1995 the Legislature adopted major changes in the Administrative Procedures Act provisions relating to rulemaking, which are informally known as the Regulatory Reform Act. These included the following requirements: The Board must identify specific objectives of the statute that the rule implements. The Board must analyze whether the probable benefits are greater than the probable costs. The Board must consider alternative versions of the regulation, and find that the rule adopted is the least burdensome. The Board must select the alternative, which meets the specific objectives of the statute. The Board must analyze whether the rule differs from any federal regulation, and justify any differences [RCW (1)] APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

16 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW 1.6 Current Fish Habitat and Water Quality Conditions Background Logging and forest road construction have the potential to have significant, adverse effects on water quality and fish habitat if they are conducted without using forestry best management practices (BMPs) (NCASI 1999). Logging in the Pacific Northwest began in the mid-1800s, long before the advent of modern forest practices BMPs. Pioneers used Washington s river systems to transport logs and other goods. Trees were felled directly into streams, rivers, and salt water and floated to their destinations, or pulled to streams and trapped behind splash dams, which were dynamited or pulled away, causing logs to sluice downstream. Roads for oxen, then railroads, followed transportation by water. In railroad logging, powerful steam-powered donkey engines pulled logs across great distances on the ground, crossing streams and anything else in the way. Following World War II, truck road systems replaced railroads, but smaller streams continued to be used as transportation corridors. These practices were usually the result of a lack of awareness, but sometimes good intentions caused problems. As recently as the 1970s, fish biologists were advising (and agencies requiring) foresters to clean log jams and other large woody debris from streams, in the mistaken belief that it would improve fish habitat or serve other values (SRGC 1983). Stream cleaning was common, affecting 58 percent of watersheds surveyed in a recent summary of watershed analyses completed to date (Beak 1998). Recognizing that forest practices could impair water quality, the forestry profession, research community, and regulators began to develop and test BMPs to minimize or avoid these adverse effects. After the Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972, implementation of BMPs began in earnest, and was made mandatory in Washington with adoption of the state's Forest Practices Act in Significance of Current Conditions The current conditions of fish habitat and water quality on private forestlands in Washington are the result of natural processes, influenced by over a century of relatively unrestricted practices, followed by 25 years of practices under an evolving set of forest practices rules and BMPs. It is difficult to separate conditions caused by activities that predate the old (prior to the Forests and Fish Emergency Rules) forest practices rules; therefore, current conditions in and of themselves tell us little about the effectiveness of today s forestry practices. Nevertheless, it is useful to understand current conditions to understand priorities for implementing change, and to serve as a benchmark against which change can be measured Putting Forestry in Perspective Forestry impacts on water quality have been the subject of extensive research and regulation, reflecting a high degree of interest and concern. Nevertheless, forest practices are a relatively minor cause of impairment of water quality in the United States. Reports from the EPA and others indicate that forestry activities are having a diminishing contribution to impairment of rivers and streams (NCASI 1999). APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

17 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW The National Council on Air and Steam Improvement summarized the EPA s 1998 reports on state water quality programs (305(b) reports), which identified a number of humancaused sources other than forestry as the leading sources of water quality impairment for rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs and for impairment to estuaries and ocean shorelines. Furthermore, forestry was not reported as a leading source for wetland loss or groundwater contamination (NCASI 1999). NCASI (1999) further summarized silviculture s contribution to nonpoint water pollution from nearly 25 years of EPA 305(b) reports as follows: 1. The first 305(b) report included silviculture in the discussion and in a table with just presence/absence of impairment for each state (EPA 1975). It did not quantitatively estimate how much of impairment is due to silviculture. 2. Silviculture was at or near the lowest leading source of pollution or impairment for rivers and streams shown in summary charts for each EPA 305(b) report from 1988 through In the latest 305(b) report (EPA 1998), the EPA dropped silviculture from the chart that showed the leading sources of impairment for rivers and streams. 3. The total number of river and stream miles impaired due to silviculture peaked in 1994 at 20,315 miles and declined 20 percent to 16,334 by The relative amount of total river and stream impairment due to silviculture dropped from 9 percent in 1988 to 7 percent in The length of river and stream miles impaired from natural causes is about twice the length impaired by silviculture, 18 percent of all impaired miles in 1992, and 14 percent in The number of river and stream miles classed as major impairment due to silviculture dropped 83 percent from 8,454 miles in 1988 to 1,436 in Silviculture was not included in summary charts of leading sources of impairment of lakes and reservoirs nor for estuaries and ocean shorelines in the EPA s 305(b) reports. 8. Wetlands loss and degradation were not quantitatively reported in 305(b) reports; however, states reporting wetland loss or degradation peaked at seven (ID, MA, NC, TX, VT, WA, and WI) in 1992, and declined to two (CA and MT) in the 1996 report (EPA 1998). 9. None of the 305(b) reports listed silviculture as a cause of groundwater impairment. 10. None of the 305(b) reports listed silviculture as causing public health or aquatic life concerns. The 1998 Washington State Water Quality Assessment, Section 305(b) Report (Butkus 1997) used a sampling approach to assess all streams in the state for use impairment under EPA guidelines. Although 65 percent of the streams in the state were found to be use impaired for at least one category, silviculture was a possible source for use impairment on only 4 percent of the state s streams. This is among the lowest impacts identified, and was less than half of the number of possible natural sources for use impairment, which was 11 percent APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

18 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Current Habitat Conditions on Private Forestlands There is no systematic assessment of current stream habitat conditions on forestlands in Washington. 5 Some of the best available sources of data are watershed analyses conducted under Washington's forest practices rules since The watershed analysis process includes collecting certain types of information under a defined set of protocols for use in the analysis. Beak (1998) summarized the data contained in the watershed analyses completed as of that date. However, the results of the Beak review should be used with caution, because they do not reflect a statistically sound or unbiased monitoring program. Beak collected data from 53 watershed analyses, representing approximately 1.65 million acres of forested lands in the state. Most of the land (71 percent) was state or private land, governed by state forest practices rules. The state and private lands analyzed reflects 16 percent of the total in the state. The analyses were distributed throughout the state, and characterized nearly 2,700 miles of fish-bearing waters. Data from western and eastern Washington were summarized separately. Beak used the Watershed Analysis Manual's system to characterize habitat features as good, fair, or poor (Washington Forest Practices Board 1995). This system was developed from scientific literature focusing on coho salmon, which are adapted to lowergradient streams. Most of the surveyed streams on state and private forestland are steep and confined (Beak 1998); thus the good/fair/poor criteria are somewhat conservative for the forestlands surveyed. In addition, the completed watershed analyses used in the Beak review reflect worse-than-average conditions because DNR s highest priorities for analysis were watersheds with the greatest resource concerns. The Beak review summarized the watershed analyses as follows: Fish Species Present. Resident trout species dominate the species distribution list because the forestlands surveyed are located primarily in the upper portions of watersheds. Almost all the watersheds (91 percent statewide) included resident trout species (cutthroat and rainbow). More Westside streams than Eastside included anadromous fish (e.g., 84 percent Westside included steelhead trout compared to 38 percent Eastside); while bull trout were found only in eastern Washington streams (54 percent). Non-native brook trout were reported in 85 percent of Eastside streams and 37 percent of Westside streams. Fish Distribution. Road culverts and dams are the two most common barriers to migration of adult fish in the areas surveyed. Culverts were the most prevalent blocking agent, but dams affected fish access to the greatest amount of stream miles. Fish Habitat Status Percent Pools. The majority (53 percent) of the watersheds surveyed rate existing pool percentages in fish-bearing streams as either fair or good for fish habitat; 47 percent were rated poor. The percentage of pools ranged from 1 to 100 percent, with an average of 31 percent pools. Results were similar in both western and eastern Washington. 5 There is habitat information available on many forest streams in the state, but data were collected under diverse protocols, making consolidation difficult (Beak 1998). One of the most important tasks for the adaptive management process under the Forests and Fish Report will be to collect and interpret consistent monitoring data. One of the most promising sources should be the database of physical habitat and channel parameters being collected through the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Ambient Monitoring Program. APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

19 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW In-Channel Large Woody Debris (LWD). In 36 percent of the stream reaches surveyed, the abundance of in-channel LWD is either fair or good for fish habitat; 64 percent were rated poor. The LWD frequency along fish-bearing waters was low relative to desired levels. Again, results were similar for both western and eastern Washington. Substrate Conditions (Percent Fines). Three out of four streams surveyed for levels of fine sediment in spawning gravels were rated in fair to good condition for fish production. Data along fish-bearing waters ranged from 1 to 22 percent fines, with an average of 9 percent fines. Streams in eastern Washington carried a higher fine sediment load than in western Washington. Overall Fish Habitat Rating. In watershed analysis, fish habitat analysts are asked to make a general, subjective rating of fish habitat. They perceive the watersheds surveyed to offer fair fish habitat conditions overall. Statewide, 6 percent of the streams measured were rated good or excellent, 64 percent were rated fair, and 30 percent were rated poor. Results in both western and eastern Washington were similar. Factors Influencing Fish Habitat. Riparian harvest, stream cleaning, and road development were the most common mechanisms affecting fish habitat statewide. Grazing, water diversions, dams, and surface erosion were more frequent in eastern Washington than in western Washington. Debris flows were more common in western Washington. Riparian Conditions Near-Term LWD Recruitment. LWD recruitment is a reflection of the extent and quality of the forests in riparian areas. Approximately 55 percent of the forestlands measured have good to fair near-term LWD recruitment potential in riparian zones along fishbearing streams. Six percent are naturally poor, and 39 percent were rated poor. LWD recruitment potential in eastern Washington is greater than that in western Washington (76 vs. 60 percent, respectively, in the good, fair, or naturally poor category). Shade Conditions. More than half (57 percent) of fish-bearing waters surveyed have adequate shade to satisfy numeric water quality standards for stream temperature. 6 Another 17 percent are naturally low in shade. The greatest proportion of these naturally low areas occur in large and wide Type 1 waters. Results are similar for western and eastern Washington. Western Oregon Results. The Oregon Department of Forestry recently published a report on stream habitat conditions in managed forests in western Oregon as part of its ongoing monitoring program (Thom et al. 1999). The report compared surveyed sites to unmanaged, historic reference conditions. Results were similar to those reported by Beak (1998) in Washington: Substrate conditions (gravel) were similar to reference conditions, as was stream shading. In-stream LWD was variable, but near-term LWD recruitment (riparian conifers) was lower than reference conditions. 6 The criteria used to predict stream temperature are the shade targets for various elevation zones provided in the Washington Forest Practices Board Manual (1998): Section 1 Method for Determination of Adequate Shade Requirements on Streams APRIL 20, 2000 SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\

20 REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE FORESTS AND FISH PLAN: CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Fine sediment in lower-gradient streams on non-industrial forestlands, which included mixed agricultural lands, was higher than reference conditions Implications for the Forests and Fish Report Although forest practices can have an adverse effect on water quality, overall, forestry is a relatively minor source of impairment nationwide. Overall, habitat conditions are fair on the majority of state and privately owned forested watersheds sampled in Washington. Substrate conditions (the percentage of fine sediments in gravels) are good in most streams, as is the ability of existing riparian forests to provide adequate shade to streams. Fish passage and the factors affecting pool-forming LWD (in-stream LWD and near-term LWD recruitment) on fish-bearing streams should be priorities for forest practices improvement and restoration activities. The most common contributing factors among past practices were riparian harvest, stream cleaning, and road development. Debris flows on the Westside were also a concern. These conditions and factors are the focus of the Forests and Fish plan, with the exception of stream cleaning, which was discontinued in the 1980s. Chapter 2 of this review will discuss how the Forests and Fish plan addresses these issues in detail. 1.7 Summary of the Science This section summarizes the science that contributes to the effectiveness of the prescriptions in the Forests and Fish plan. The Forests and Fish plan would provide cumulative benefits to stream habitats and water quality on private forestlands and downstream waters. The accelerated rate at which they would be achieved, and the magnitude of benefits, would be significant. The relevant watershed functions at the heart of the Forests and Fish plan are discussed below. Refer to the Functional Discussions in Chapter 2 of this document for detailed reviews of the scientific foundations of the Forests and Fish plan. It should be noted that the Forests and Fish plan has been designed to adapt and change as new scientific learning becomes available. A cornerstone of Forests and Fish plan is adaptive management, the process of gathering and using scientific information to evaluate and improve management decisions. Monitoring is an important element of the adaptive management process that is necessary to determine whether the aquatic resource goals, objectives, and targets are being achieved. For a detailed discussion of the Adaptive Management Program recommended by the Forests and Fish plan, see Section 1.8 of this document Accelerated Rate of Benefit Achievement The benefits of the Forests and Fish plan would be realized quickly more quickly than under the old rules. For example, the Forests and Fish plan would necessitate a much more rapid rate of road condition assessment and improvement than would be done under the existing watershed analysis process. Since the Board adopted watershed analysis into regulation in 1992, original assessments have been completed for only 56 of the 754 (7 percent) of the forested watershed analysis units (DNR 2000). That translates to approximately eight units (WAUs) per year. At that rate, it would take about 87 years to complete original watershed analyses on all forested watersheds in Washington. APRIL 20, SEA1-1A119_OVERVIEW.DOC\