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

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)

10th field watersheds: Deep Canyon, McKenzie Canyon-Deschutes River, and Tumalo Creek, with ownership being

primarily non-Forest Service with the former twoUpper Tumalo Creek 12th 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, pre-

commercially 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 12th 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

Sub-

watershed

(12th field)

Sub-

watershed

Acres

Sub-

watershed

Acres within

Project Area

Boundary

Current

WCF Class

Rating

McKenzie

Canyon-

Deschutes

River

218,373 Laidlaw

Butte-

Deschutes

River

42,749 235 N/A

Tumalo Creek 38,004 Upper*

Tumalo Creek

20,766 1030 1.7

Tumalo Creek Lower

Tumalo Creek

17,238 1271 1.9

Deep Canyon 97,508 Bull Creek 32,153 2408 1.9

Deep Canyon Snow Creek

Ditch

14,636 1026 1.7

*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

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 1994. 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 4602. 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 4601. 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.

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

bearing stream

<0.25 mile 7

Intermittent Stream 3.5 100

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.

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.

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*

Length adjacent to stream channel**

Acres of overstory treatment in RR

Acres of fuels treatment in RR

26 - LFR 5 0.15 - 0.6

32 HTH/HSV LFR 2 0.2 1 2.6

52 HCR Whip 5 0.15 1.5 2.7

53 HTH/HSV LFR 5 0.5 3.5 6.7

54 HCR Whip 5 0.3 2.2 4

55 HTH/HSV LFR 5 0.4 3.5 6.3

56 HTH/HSV LFR 5 0.2 1.3 2.3

57 HCR Whip 5 0.2 2.3 4

59 HCR Whip 5/2 0.25 2 3.5

62 HCR Whip 3/5 0.15 3.1 9.3

66 HCR Whip 5/2 0.45 1.5 3.7

104 HTH/HSV LFR 5 0.5 2.5 4.7

106 HCR Whip 5 0.1 0.9 1.5

118 HTH/HSV LFR 5 0.15 1.5 2.6

8

154 HCR Whip 5 0.2 3.2 6

170 HCR Whip 5 0.2 2 3.5

Total 32 64

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 12th field sub-watershed scale per professional judgment and

Forest Plan direction (S & G RP-8). There are portions of (5) 12th 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

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 12th 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.

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 11988 (Floodplains) and Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 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 11990 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 11-16 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

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 4600-370 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 10th 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) 10th 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) 10th 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

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 non-

existent. 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.

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

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. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report:

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 274

pp. plus appendices.

Ice, G.G. 2003. 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, 2003.

Lakel III, W.A., W.M. Aust, M.C. Bolding, C.A. Dollof, P. Keyser, and R. Feldt. 2010. Sediment Trapping by

Streamside Management Zones of Various Widths after Forest Harvest and Site Preparation. Forest Science

56(6), pp. 541-551.

NatureServe. 2009. “Elimia hemphilli”. Version 7.1 (2 February 2009). Data last updated: October 2009.

Available at: www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed 17 May 2010).

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2004-2010. Database of Waterbodies considered for 303(d)

Listing in Oregon.

USDA, Forest Service, 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Deschutes National Forest Final

Environmental Impact Statement.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. 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.

15

USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands.

USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Rhyacophila chandleri , a caddisfly.

Species Fact Sheet. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/species-guides.shtml