Ursus Vegetation Management Project Deschutes National Forest Service Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District

Transcription

1 Ursus Vegetation Management Project Deschutes National Forest Service Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Biological Evaluation of Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and Specialist Report for Water Resources and Aquatic Species Prepared by Tom Walker District Fisheries Biologist /s/ Tom Walker 3/04/15 Tom Walker Date 1

2 Ursus Project INTRODUCTION The project area encompasses 6066 acres north of Tumalo Creek about 8 miles west of Bend, and is located within (3) 10 th field watersheds: Deep Canyon, McKenzie Canyon-Deschutes River, and Tumalo Creek, with ownership being primarily non-forest Service with the former twoupper Tumalo Creek 12 th field sub-watershed is a Tier 2 Key Watershed in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Tier 2 Key watersheds were selected as sources of high quality water and may not contain at-risk fish stocks. There are no at-risk fish stocks within this Key watershed. Activities proposed under the Ursus Project two action alternatives include regeneration harvest and salvage of dead trees within lodgepole pine stands, thin the overstory and salvage dead trees in mixed conifer stands, reduce ladder fuels, precommercially thin, whipfall, and mastication, burning, or biomass utilization of activity generated slash. Management activities for overstory and fuels treatments would total nearly 4,200 acres for both of the action alternatives. Watershed Condition Framework The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a national effort by the Forest Service to establish a consistent, comparable, credible, process to help focus and prioritize watershed health and function restoration efforts at the 12 th field scale (sub-watershed). Watershed condition describes the health of the hydrologic and soil functions in the watershed as indicated by physical and biological characteristics. A core set of 12 nationally consistent physical and biological indicators were used by an interdisciplinary team in the assessment. Sub-watersheds were classified into three categories: Class 1 (Functioning Properly) sub-watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Class 2 (Functioning at Risk) sub-watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Class 3 (Impaired Function) sub-watersheds exhibit low geomorphic hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Sub-watersheds within the Ursus Project area exhibit some deviation from the natural potential condition, tending toward Class 2 overall (Functioning at Risk). The Fire Condition Class ratings are Class 2, indicating potential for altered hydrologic and sediment regimes. The action alternatives of the Ursus Project apply vegetation and fuels management prescriptions to reduce the Fire Condition Class ratings on areas west of Bend, which in turn would reduce the overall WCF rating. Table 1. Watershed and Sub-watershed Acres within the Ursus Project Watershed Watershed Acres McKenzie Canyon- Deschutes River Subwatershed (12th field) 218,373 Laidlaw Butte- Deschutes River 2 Subwatershed Acres Subwatershed Acres within Project Area Boundary Current WCF Class Rating 42, N/A Tumalo Creek 38,004 Upper* 20, Tumalo Creek Tumalo Creek Lower 17, Tumalo Creek Deep Canyon 97,508 Bull Creek 32, Deep Canyon Snow Creek Ditch 14, *Northwest Forest Plan Tier 2 Key Watershed N/A = Due to small percentage of sub-watershed under federal ownership (<5%), WCF rating not calculated.

3 3

4 Management Direction for the Ursus Project Area Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Standards and Guidelines (S & G s) relevant to the aquatic and riparian resources within the Deschutes Forest Plan include RP 1 8, RP-10-16, RP 33-35, RP-47, and WT 1-2, WT-2, and are incorporated by reference (USDA, 1990). In general, they provide for maintenance or enhancement of floodplains, riparian areas and riparian-dependent resources, and water quality, and require Water Quality Best Management Practices. Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) The project area is entirely within lands managed under the NWFP, which amended the Deschutes National Forest LRMP in The NWFP specifies standards and guidelines for Key Watersheds nd Riparian Reserves that prohibit or regulate activities that retard or prevent attainment of the ACS Objectives. A portion of the project area is within the Tier 2 Upper Tumalo Creek Key watershed (1030 acres). Tier 2 Key Watersheds were selected as sources of high quality water and may not contain at-risk fish stocks (USDA/USDI 1994). The Upper Tumalo Creek Key Watershed does not contain any at-risk fish stocks. Standard and Guidelines for Key Watersheds are incorporated by reference from the Record of Decision (ROD) for the NWFP Page C-7). Within Key Watersheds, there will be no net increase in roads, watershed analysis is required prior to timber harvest, and they are highest priority for watershed restoration. Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves are one component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) as described on page B-12 of the ROD for the NWFP. They are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply to direct land use. Standards and guidelines prohibit and regulate activities in Riparian Reserves that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Standard and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves are incorporated by reference from the ROD for the NWFP Page C-31-38). Generally, they require management activities that maintain or benefit the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Interim widths for Riparian Reserves necessary to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives will be adopted for the Ursus Project and are listed below (from Page C-30,31 ROD - NWFP): Permanently flowing nonfish-bearing streams (Category 2)- Riparian Reserves consist of the stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100 year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. This category would apply to Jack Pine spring as it leaves the wet meadow of its origin and flows toward Forest Service Road The channel soon becomes intermittent until receiving permanently flowing discharge from Cold Spring. There is approximately 7 acres of this category within the project area. Constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre (Category 3)- Riparian Reserves consist of the body of water or wetland and: the area to the outer edges or riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the wetland greater than 1 acre or the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, whichever is greatest. This category would apply to the 10 acre wet meadow (including Riparian Reserve buffer) associated with Jack Pine spring just west of Road 4602 and north of Road In addition, there is a stringer wet meadow complex located on the eastern portion of the project just south of Road 4601, encompassing approximately 3 acres, for a total of approximately 13 acres of this Riparian Reserve category in the Ursus project area. 4

5 Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, and unstable and potentially unstable areas (Category 5)- This category applies to streams with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the Riparian Reserve must include: The extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows), and the stream channel and extend to the top of the gorge, and the stream channel or wetland and the area from the edges of the stream channel, or wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, and extension from the edges of the stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. This category would apply to the drainage from Jack Pine spring as it crosses under Road 4602, the drainage approximately 2 miles north of Jack Pine Spring that also crosses under Road 4602, and 0.2 miles of Bottle Creek. There is approximately 100 acres of this category within the project area. Affected Environment Water and Aquatic Species Resources There are no fish-bearing streams within the project area. The landscape within the project area, despite precipitation of nearly 40 inches annually in the western portion of the project area, lacks surface water because of the highly permeable soils. The only perennial water within the project area is associated with the Jack Pine spring that initiates at a small wetland (7.2 acres) and Cold Spring. The perennial channel that exits the wetland soon becomes an intermittent channel until receiving more discharge from Cold Spring. A field check of the project area noted that some mapped stream channels do not exist. Intermittent channels within the project area have very sparse to no riparian vegetation, and total 3.5 stream miles, and only Bottle Creek has a surface connection to a perennial stream. They have bankfull widths less than 4 feet and discharges estimated at 2-3 cfs, with the exception of Bottle Creek (bankfull width of 8-10 feet and estimated bankfull flows of 20 cfs). Vegetation and fuels treatments are proposed adjacent to or within Riparian Reserves of sections of these channels. The road network within the project area has had minimal effects on sedimentation to streams and increasing the drainage network because of the lack of surface water, gentle to moderate slopes near streams, lack of roads within the Riparian Reserves, and high infiltration rates of soils that absorb road run-off. There are 4 road crossings of intermittent channels within the project area. There are no streams or lakes within the project area that are included on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality list of water quality impaired waterbodies (303(d) list). Table 2. Water and Riparian Resources within the Ursus Project Water/Riparian Feature Length Acres (including Riparian Reserve) Wetland - 13 Perennial non-fish <0.25 mile 7 bearing stream Intermittent Stream Best Management Practices Direction in National Core Best Management Practices (BMP - USDA, 2012) Veg-3: Aquatic Management Zones, Fire 2: Use of Prescribed Fire, Road 10: Equipment Refueling and Servicing, will be utilized for the Ursus project. These BMPs are used for planning and conducting vegetation and fuels treatments near aquatic ecosystems. Site specific measures are listed below: No thinning, salvage, ladder fuels reduction, whip falling, or mastication within riparian vegetation. 5

6 Wheeled or tracked equipment to operate outside of riparian vegetation and 50 feet or more from edge of intermittent stream channels, whichever is greatest. Wheeled or tracked equipment to operate 100 feet or more from wetlands and perennial stream reaches (the reach of Jack Pine Spring stream channel west of Road 4602 (<0.1 mile length) and adjacent to Cold Spring (0.15 mile length)). Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and sediment runoff would be minimized. Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted soils and on steep slopes unless operations can be conducted without causing excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies. No mechanized equipment will operate on slopes greater than 30% in Riparian Reserves. Locate skid trails outside of Riparian Reserves to the extent practicable. Small tree thinning (pre-commercial, whip falling, and ladder fuels reduction) can occur within Riparian Reserves. No thinning of trees within 10 feet of stream channels. Handpile outside of riparian vegetation and 25 feet or greater from edge of stream channels, whichever is greatest. Placement of handpiles and machine piles would focus on upslope areas and avoid areas of washes and depressions that may facilitate water run-off toward streams. Burning would occur under conditions that do not allow excessive creeping from the pile, generally 10 feet or less. Machine pile 100 feet or more from intermittent channels and wetlands. Fisheries biologist, hydrologist, or soils scientist to assist in identifying and marking stream and wetland buffers in the field. Directionally fall trees away from riparian vegetation and stream channels to limit disturbance. No landings or equipment staging and parking areas will be located within Riparian Reserves. No temporary roads will be constructed within Riparian Reserves. Temporary roads and landings will be obliterated after use, with the surface deeply ripped; natural drainage features re-established, road effectively drained and blocked; and road returned to native vegetation through either replanting or natural succession. Refuel and stage equipment used for vegetation and fuels management 200 feet or more from wetlands and stream channels. Storage of all fuels and other toxicants used during management activities shall be stored 200 feet or more from riparian vegetation and stream channels. Mitigation Measures Perform routine road maintenance during and after project activities to provide proper drainage and maintain natural hydrologic pathways. Maintain passage of flow through culverts. 6

7 Direct and Indirect Effects to Water Resources (Alternative 1) Timing and Volume of Peak/Base Flows and Water Yield. There would be no direct effects to water and aquatic species resources as no on-the-ground activities would occur. There is potential for indirect effects to occur under this alternative, but effects would primarily occur outside of the Ursus Project area, specifically on Tumalo Creek found to the south. Over time, continued forest health deterioration and fuels build-up within the project area could lead to high severity wildfires that have the potential to change peak/base flows and water yield because of decreased infiltration. These potential effects would be dependent on wildfire reaching Tumalo Creek, or tributaries. Changes in flow would depend on variables such as size, timing, location, and severity of fire, and climatic conditions post-fire. A fire of high severity, which results in severe heating of soils, reduces ground cover and can form a water repellant layer (hydrophobic) that restricts infiltration and percolation, can result in increased surface runoff. In addition, reduced evapo-transpiration and interception by the tree canopy after a wildfire could compound runoff (Ice, 2003). Within the Ursus Project area, increases in stream flow resulting from wildfire could occur in the small perennial or intermittent channels. Hydrologic changes, whether within or outside the Ursus Project area, would be limited because of the highly permeable soils found within this landscape. Direct and Indirect Effects to Water Resources (Both Alternative 2 and 3) The two action alternatives, although differing in acres of total treatment and prescriptions, are expected to have similar potential effects to water quality and stream flow. Alternative 2 would treat 4,208 acres (70% of project area) and Alternative 3 would harvest 4,148 acres (69% of project area). Actions: Vegetation management actions focus on salvage, regeneration harvest, thinning, and fuels reduction activities (understory treatments). Within Riparian Reserves, Alternative 2 would treat the overstory and fuels on 32 acres. In addition, another 32 acres within Riparian Reserves would be treated just for fuels, for a total of 64 acres. Activities would occur primarily along intermittent channels. Alternative 3 activities within Riparian Reserves are identical, with the exception of 6 less acres of overstory treated (26 acres overstory treated). See Table 3 below. Both alternatives would construct just over 2 miles of temporary road (none within Riparian Reserves) and close after work is completed, and administratively close 17.1 miles of road. Both alternatives would masticate nearly 140 acres of slash. Table 3. Activity acres within Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2. Unit # Alt. 2 Overstory Treatment Alt. 2 Fuels treatment Riparian Reserve Category* 7 Length adjacent to stream channel** Acres of overstory treatment in RR 26 - LFR HTH/HSV LFR HCR Whip HTH/HSV LFR HCR Whip HTH/HSV LFR HTH/HSV LFR HCR Whip HCR Whip 5/ HCR Whip 3/ HCR Whip 5/ HTH/HSV LFR HCR Whip HTH/HSV LFR Acres of fuels treatment in RR

8 154 HCR Whip HCR Whip Total Riparian Reserve Category 2 permanently flowing non-fish bearing stream. Riparian Reserve Category 3 Constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre. Riparian Reserve Category 5 seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, and unstable or potentially unstable areas. **May include one or both sides of stream. Stream Flow Timing, Duration, and Volume of Peak/Base Flows and Water Yield. Direct Effects: Operation of ground-based equipment, including within Riparian Reserves, has potential to increase soil compaction that could increase runoff to intermittent streams. Harvest of live trees reduces evapo-transpiration which can increase available water to streams. However, within the Ursus Project area, any additional water yielded as a result of reduced evapo-transpiration from vegetation management activities would be expected to rapidly move into groundwater rather than into streams, due to highly permeable surface soils allowing high infiltration of precipitation. Furthermore, because much of the commercial activity involves the removal of dead trees, any potential effects to evapo-transpiration are reduced. With the implementation of the BMPs listed above, wetlands, stream channels, and springs would be protected. The riparian buffers and retainment of streamside downed wood and ground cover would limit the potential for overland flow to stream channels. There would be no effect to the timing, duration, water yield, and volume of peak and base flows under these two alternatives. Indirect Effects: These alternatives reduce the potential for indirect effects to occur as described above under the No Action alternative (increased run-off in the case of high severity wildfire). The potential for changes in peak flows would be limited by the highly porous soils on the landscape. The project design features, including stream setbacks buffers for mechanized equipment, slope restrictions for equipment, timing of operations, and location of skid trails and landings (prescribed under both action alternatives), are designed to minimize potential effects to changes in stream flow. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for stream flow were assessed at the 12 th field sub-watershed scale per professional judgment and Forest Plan direction (S & G RP-8). There are portions of (5) 12 th field watersheds within the Ursus Project area (See Table 1 above). Relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Tables 9and 10 of the Ursus Project Environmental Assessment were considered. Cumulative effects from increases in stream flow have potential to result in degraded stream bank conditions. Because alternatives 2 and 3 would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on stream flow, there would be no cumulative effects to stream flow at the sub-watershed scale from either Alternative 2 or 3. Water Quality 8

9 Direct and Indirect Effects: The action alternatives include limited vegetation treatments within Riparian Reserves, including overstory and understory treatments. These treatments would reduce fuels and reduce the severity of effects to Riparian Reserves under a wildfire scenario (hydrophobic soils, decreased ground cover, severely burned soils). Lakel and others (2010) concluded from a study of streams in Virginia that stream buffers as little as 25 feet were effective in limiting sedimentation after timber harvest but recommended a minimum of 50 feet. The project design features, including stream setbacks buffers for mechanized equipment (50 feet minimum), protection of riparian vegetation, slope restrictions for equipment, timing of operations, and location of skid trails and landings (prescribed under both action alternatives), are designed to minimize potential for overland flow of sediments and nutrients to stream channels that would affect water quality. The stream channels within the project area have no surface connection to perennial water outside of the project area, with the exception of Bottle Creek, limiting any potential water quality effects to perennial streams. There would be no measurable direct or indirect effects to water quality under either action alternative. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for water quality were assessed at the 12 th field sub-watershed scale, based on professional judgment and Forest Plan direction (S & G RP-8). Relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Tables 9 and 10 of the Ursus Project Environmental Assessment were considered. Cumulative effects to water quality can lead to increased water temperatures, ph, turbidity, and sedimentation. Because alternatives 2 and 3 would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on water quality, there would be no cumulative effects to water quality at the sub-watershed scale from either alternative. Biological Evaluation There are no fish species in the project area, therefore no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive Fish Species. Two aquatic invertebrates included on the December, 2011 Region 6 Foresters Sensitive Species List that have been documented or suspected on the Deschutes National Forest; A Caddisly (Rhyacophila chandleri) suspected, and Indian Ford Juga (Juga hemphilli ssp.) documented. A Caddisfly (Rhyacophila Chandleri) Existing Population and Habitat: This species of caddisfly is known only from Siskiyou Co., California, and Lane and Deschutes counties, Oregon, and is a recent addition to the 2011 Region 6 Sensitive Species List. It is thought to be a rare species that is very patchily distributed, and apparently highly localized where it does occur (Wisseman pers. comm. in USDA and USDI 2005). Its range is thought to be in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and California. It is associated with very cold, larger spring-fed streams (Wisseman pers. Comm. in USDA and USDI 2005). Analysis of Effects: There is likely no habitat for this species. Jack Pine spring and the associated wetland and Cold Spring may contain habitat, which would be buffered from management activities. The project would have No Impact to (Rhyacophila Chandleri). Indian Ford Juga (Juga hemphilli ssp.) Existing Population and Habitat: An aquatic snail, Juga hemphilli ssp. was added to the 2011 Region 6 Sensitive Species List and is a new (undescribed) subspecies which somewhat resembles Juga (Juga) hemphilli maupinensis in its relatively large size (~25mm) (Frest & Johannes 1995). As a whole, Juga hemphilli is known from the headwaters of the Columbia River in British Columbia, the Columbia River Gorge of Oregon and Washington, and the Deschutes River system in Oregon (NatureServe 2009). Although this new subspecies may have been historically widespread in the upper Deschutes system, it is currently known from a single site: Indian Ford Creek, near Indian Ford Campground in the Deschutes National Forest, Deschutes County, Oregon (Frest & Johannes 1995). Analysis of Effects: There is no habitat for this species. The project would have No Impact to Indian Ford Juga. 9

10 Other Findings ODEQ 303(d) Waterbodies There would no effect to any Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303(d) listed stream or lake as none are found within the project area and there would be no measurable effects to water quality. Consistency with Executive Order (Floodplains) and Executive Order (Wetlands) Floodplains: Executive Order provides direction to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Floodplains are defined by this order as,... the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no impacts to floodplains. The BMPs including equipment buffers would protect riparian vegetation and ground cover within floodplains. Wetlands: Executive Order provides direction to avoid to the extent possible adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. Wetlands are defined by this order as,... areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no adverse impacts to the limited wetlands within the project area because of the BMPs, including an adjacent equipment buffer. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Consistency The project is consistent with Forest Plan: S & Gs RP 1-4 as riparian areas would be maintained and protected. S & Gs RP 6,7 as no adverse effects to water temperature would occur. Best Management Practices are being utilized. S & G RP 8 as cumulative effects to steam flow, water quality, stream channel conditions, and fish habitat were evaluated. Measures to avoid adverse effects to these resources are included in the design. S & G RP 10 as woody debris and riparian vegetation would be managed to maintain stream channel and bank structure. S & Gs RP as there would be no scheduled timber harvest in riparian zones and within approximately 100 feet of Class I, II, and III streams, ground cover disturbance is minimized, channel conditions and water quality would be protected through project design criteria and mitigation measures, and future large woody debris inputs to streams, shade, and streambanks would be maintained. Scheduled timber harvest is described as what meets the criteria of allowable sale quantity (ASQ). ASQ was calculated for the Forest Plan over the entire forest but only certain management areas were considered for scheduled harvest. These calculations did not include timber within riparian zones or 100 feet of streams. S & G RP-33,34 as only hand piling of burn piles of small size would occur near riparian areas, and adequate numbers of residual live trees larger than 5 inches would be left intact to provide for streambank stability, shading, and wildlife habitat. No-cut stream buffers were included in the design. S & G RP-47 as natural floodplain characteristics would be maintained. S & Gs WT-1,2 as Water Quality Best Management Practices would be implemented and monitored. Northwest Forest Plan Consistency 10

11 The project is consistent with Northwest Forest Plan: S & G TM-1 - insect damage has resulted in degraded conditions within and adjacent to Riparian Reserves. Removal of excess fuels through salvage and application of silvicultural practices would take restorative actions to maintain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. S & G FM-1 - fuel treatments have been designed to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. S & G RF-2 landing locations would be located outside Riparian Reserves, road operation and maintenance criteria have been developed for the road, and natural hydrologic flow paths disruption would be minimized. Key Watershed S & Gs there will be no increase in the amount of roads, and watershed analysis has been completed (Tumalo Creek 2008, Bull Creek 2011). The following is an analysis of the effects to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives at the 10 th field watershed scale and local (project) scale. Since Alternatives 2 and 3 would have similar effects at the watershed and project scale, the respective effects to the ACS Objectives are considered to be the same. The project area is located within (3) 10 th field watersheds: McKenzie Canyon-Deschutes River, Deep Canyon, and Tumalo Creek. There is no surface water within the portion of the McKenzie Canyon-Deschutes River watershed that includes the Ursus project area. ACS Objective 1: Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted. The two action alternatives contribute to a restorative effect on Objective 1 by reducing, disconnecting, and fragmenting accumulations of fuel loadings across broad areas of the Ursus project area landscape, including areas within and adjacent to Riparian Reserves, providing protection to the limited aquatic systems in the watersheds. Additionally, treatments would increase stand structural diversity, moving closer towards conditions historically present on the landscape. Because the project area is spread across (3) 10 th field watersheds, the proposed restorative treatments are limited at the watershed scale, but are of greater effect at the local scale. Watershed and landscape features that influence aquatic systems are protected. The project meets this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 2: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include flood plains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. The project area and immediate vicinity of the project area have a very limited stream network and riparian component. Most aquatic species are limited to those few areas of perennial water and wetlands within the project area, although some invertebrates may persist in intermittent channels. The network of drainage connections are within the range of natural variability, but the heavy fuels could lead to adverse effects to drainages under the scenario of wildfire. The two action alternatives would help maintain lateral, longitudinal and drainage network connections both within each watershed and between the 3 watersheds by protecting floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia by reducing and changing the arrangement of fuel loadings and increasing stand structural diversity across the landscape, including areas within and adjacent to Riparian 11

12 Reserves. Chemically and physically unobstructed routes would be maintained. The project meets this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 3: Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. With the exception of Jack Pine spring, minor wetlands, and Bottle Creek, streamside riparian vegetation is nearly nonexistent. The physical integrity of the aquatic systems are within the range of natural variability. By reducing excessive fuel loadings across the landscape including within Riparian Reserves, the action alternatives would reduce the potential damage to the physical integrity of aquatic systems by wildfire. Fires of high intensity and severity are likely under existing conditions, which could damage streambank vegetation and soils, potentially leading to long-term streambank instability. Best Management Practices prescribed under the two action alterantives, including equipment buffers, would protect the aquatic system. Shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations would not be impacted. The two action alternatives meet this objective at both the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 4: Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.. Perennial springs within the project area are of cool water temperatures at the source, which are likely within the range of natural variability. Intermittent channels in the project area are a result of seasonal snowmelt and water temperatures are a primarily a function of flow, ambient temperatures, and solar radiation, and have a wider range of temperatures than spring-fed systems. Water temperatures in these intermittent channels is likely within the range of natural variability. The action alternatives were developed to provide shade and minimize the potential for sediment to enter stream channels as a result of temporary roads, landings, skid trails, burn piles, and logging practices. Ground disturbance that could lead to overland flow of sediments to streams is limited by the project design features including heavy equipment buffers. The action alternatives would not impact water temperatures, turbidity, or sedimentation, therefore water quality would remain within the range of natural variability. The project meets this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 5: Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. The small spring-fed systems within the project area, typical of other stable, spring-fed systems, transport little sediment compared to precipitation and snow-melt systems. The intermittent channels within the project area have potential to transport more sediment than the springs due to higher variability in discharge. Bottle Creek, an intermittent channel, is the only stream system in the project area that has a surface connection to a perennial stream outside of the project area, with other systems becoming dry at the surface. Stream channels do not exhibit accelerated bank erosion, indicating the sediment regime is likely within the natural range of variability. 12

13 The action alternatives would not impact the sediment regime. Best Management Practices including stream buffers are prescribed along the springs and intermittent stream channels that would limit potential for overland flow of sediment. Over the long term, the stands receiving thinning are expected to produce more vigorous stand conditions that would promote slope and streambank stability. At the watershed scale changes in the overall sediment rates would not be detectable given the high variability in natural rates of sediment input. The project maintains this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 6: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and restore riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected. Stream channels do not exhibit accelerated bank erosion, indicating the flow regime, including peak flows, is likely within the range of natural variability. If left untreated, a wildfire could potentially lead to an increase in peak flows by reducing ground fire and evapo-transpiration by living vegetation. The action alternatives would maintain the current instream flow conditions. The low volume of live trees removed from each watershed would not affect evapo-transpiration to the point of increasing stream flows. Any reduction in evapo-transpiration would be a temporary effect (<10 years) until crown expansion and ground vegetation response offsets the short-term reduction. Over time, the accelerated growth response of the residual trees as well as the development of understory vegetation will increase evapo-transpiration rates. Best Management Practices, including stream buffers, would prevent an increase in the stream network and potential for increasing stream flows. Flow regimes at the local scale and within the watershed would remain within the range of natural variability. The project meets this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 7: Maintain and restore timing, variability, and duration of flood plain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Floodplain inundation in the springs is limited by the stable nature of these stream systems. The intermittent channels exhibit a narrow floodplain. Water tables in meadows and wetlands in the project area are primarily influenced by groundwater. Floodplain inundation and water table elevations in meadows and wetlands are likely within the range of natural variability. Under the two action alternatives, no activity would occur within floodplains or wetlands. Buffers restricting equipment from wetlands and floodplains would be implemented. The action alternatives would maintain the current floodplain inundation and water table conditions at both the project and the watershed scales in the immediate short and long term due to the design of the action alternatives, including project design criteria, that would be implemented along all stream channels and wetlands. ACS Objective 8: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in the limited riparian areas and wetlands within the project area are within the range of natural variability. Under the two action alternatives, there would be no activities within riparian areas or wetlands, and equipment setbacks and no treatment buffers are included in the project design features. The project removes primarily dead material from Riparian Reserves adjacent to riparian areas and wetlands, and provides protection to these areas in the case of wildfire by removing heavy fuels. By protecting riparian vegetation, processes such as nutrient filtering, surface erosion, bank erosion, channel migration, and 13

14 distribution of woody debris would remain within the natural range of variability. The project meets this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Objective 9: Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. The distribution of native plants, invertebrates and vertebrate riparian-dependent species is within the range of natural variability. The project would remove some material that could serve as habitat to some terrestrial invertebrates and vertebrates. However, applicable Forest Plan and NWFP standards for wildlife and vegetation would be met or exceeded to maintain habitat within Riparian Reserves to support well-distributed populations of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates. Protection of riparian vegetation through project design features such as no treatment buffers would maintain the existing microclimates which are especially important for species that are extremely sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity, such as amphibians and certain types of vegetation, as well as for those animals that use the riparian areas as travel corridors (some bird species), or young-rearing habitat (e.g. deer and elk. The effects at the watershed scale are diminished because of the small acreage treated in relation to the size of the watersheds. The project meets this objective at the watershed and local scale. ACS Summary: The project would meet the 9 objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. References: Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. Contract #43-0E pp. plus appendices. Ice, G.G Effects of Wildfire on Soils and Watershed Processes. Conference on Post-Fire Restoration and Salvage Harvesting: Applying Our Knowledge and Experience. Bend, Oregon, October 21-23, Lakel III, W.A., W.M. Aust, M.C. Bolding, C.A. Dollof, P. Keyser, and R. Feldt Sediment Trapping by Streamside Management Zones of Various Widths after Forest Harvest and Site Preparation. Forest Science 56(6), pp NatureServe Elimia hemphilli. Version 7.1 (2 February 2009). Data last updated: October Available at: (Accessed 17 May 2010). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Database of Waterbodies considered for 303(d) Listing in Oregon. USDA, Forest Service, Land and Resource Management Plan, Deschutes National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 14

15 USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management Rhyacophila chandleri, a caddisfly. Species Fact Sheet. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 15