Biological Evaluation/Assessment - Fisheriesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · m e r C r e ek Silver ork Li c k G ul ch ... b e r r y u C e e k DemingGulch GrubbGulch

Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project Page 1 Fisheries Biological Evaluation/Assessment

Biological Evaluation/Assessment - Fisheries

January 30, 2008

Project Name: Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project

NEPA Document Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Environmental Assessment

National Forest/Ranger District: Rogue River-Siskiyou/Siskiyou Mountains Fifth-Field watersheds: Applegate River-McKee Bridge, Little Applegate

River, Upper Applegate River

Sixth-Field Sub-watersheds: Applegate River-Palmer Creek, Applegate-Beaver Creek, Applegate River Star Gulch, Applegate Lake, Lower Little Applegate River

Watershed Analysis Name/Date: Beaver and Palmer Creek, 1994 Squaw/Elliott/Lake, 1995 Little Applegate River, 1995

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (MSA) Considered (Table 1):

Table 1. Potentially affected species, ESU, status, and habitats assessed

Species Date ESU Status Assessed

coho salmon

Federal Register/ May,

1997

Southern Oregon / Northern California Coasts

(SONCC)

Threatened ESA Species

coho salmon

Federal Register/ May,

1999

Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coasts

Threatened ESA Critical Habitat

Chinook

salmon and coho salmon

December, 1997 Southern Oregon Coastal

Basin (3rd Field HUC) Threatened

MSA Essential

Fish Habitat

ESA Determinations: “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” SONCC coho salmon and critical habitat

EFH Determinations: “Would Not Adversely Affect” EFH for coho

and Chinook salmon

Project Fisheries Biologist: Susan Maiyo Level I Team Fisheries Biologist Susan Maiyo Project Hydrologist: Liz Berger Line Officer: Linda Duffy


Executive Summary It is the intent of this Biological Evaluation/Assessment to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the consultation process under Section (§) 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), focusing on salmonid fishes within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area. The information developed through this analytical process (Process) generally also satisfies the information requirements for essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation for Pacific salmon under the Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600) when the species is also listed under the ESA. The Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project (UAR) project is designed to provide hazardous fuel reduction and density management activities that meet the criteria for “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) determinations for Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast (SONCC) ESU coho salmon and its habitat. This would be accomplished through the development of project design criteria and Mitigation Measures (PDC’s and MM’s) that produce low-impact and low-

risk projects for watershed scale activities by addressing the causal mechanisms for impacts into stream channels. The majority of these PDC’s are consistent with past assessments and consultations or conferences on density management activities that have resulted in concurrence by the Service in NLAA determinations. The Upper Applegate Road Fuels Reduction project proposes to treat about 4,150 acres including portions of selected Riparian Reserves to reduce the risk of large scale wildfire through a variety

of mechanisms including density management commercial thinning, prescribed fire, and treatment of surface, ladder, and down fuels. The analysis contained herein has resulted in a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the above referenced Density Management activities and connected actions. Effects of the action were determined to “will not adversely affect” coho and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). There is no anticipated incidental take associated with the proposed project actions.

This project (and its analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act) is being authorized as a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. The Joint Counterpart Regulations of the Alternative Consultation Agreement between federal regulatory and land management agencies (50 CFR 402.04) were used to conduct required informal Endangered Species Act section-7 consultation. The journey-level biologist and line officer of record is Susan J. Maiyo and Linda Duffy, respectively. Both have passed the required Joint Counterpart Regulations and Alternative Consultation Agreement exam.


Figure 1. UAR Fish Distribution

Palmer Creek

Beaver Creek

Applegate River

Elliot Creek

Squaw Creek

Yale Creek

Beaver Creek

Star Gulch

Glade Creek

Little Applegate River

Sterling Creek

Palmer Creek

Silver F

ork

Lick Gulch

Mule Creek

Kinney Creek

Carberry Creek

Deming Gulch

Grubb Gulch

Joe Creek

Quartz Gulch

Dutch C

reek

French Gulch

Lime Gulch

Hanley Creek

Hukil l Hollow

Muddy Creek

Rock Gulch

Boaz Gulch

Rush Creek

Slickear Creek

Grouse Creek

Waters Gulch

Haskins Gulch

Box Canyon

Bear Gulch

Wol f Gul ch

China Gu

lch

Doe Hollow

Texter Gulch

Water Gulch

Donamore Creek

Tamarack Creek

Shump Gulch

Neds Gulch

Petes Camp Creek

No Name

Brushy Gulch

Manzanita Creek Kettle Creek

1918 Gulch

Mill Gulch

Slick Taw Gulch

Middlehell Creek

Flumet Gulch

Crepsey Creek

Bailey Gulch

Eagle Canyon

Murphy Gulch

Straight Gulch

First Water Gu

lch

Gilson Gulch

Billys GulchBroadenaxe Gulch

Lightning Gulch

Dark Canyon

City Gulch

Dog Fork Yale C

reek

Collings G

ulch

Hopkins Gulch

Armstrong G

ulchLadybug G

ulch

Benson Gulch

1917 Gulch

McCormick Gulch

Hole in the G

round

Stringtown Gulch

No Name

Lime Gulch

No Name

No Name

Grouse Creek

�Legend

SPECIES

ONKI

SPECIES

ONMY(A)

uar fish trout

SPECIES

ONCL

ONMY(R)

SAFO

UAR Project Area

Lakes_Rogue_River

Note: ONKI = coho, ONMY = steelhead (A)/rainbow trout (R), ONCL = cutthroat,


I. Proposed Actions Under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003, the USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, is proposing to reduce hazardous fuels over approximately 4,150 acres using a combination of variable density management, surface

fuel treatments, and prescribed fire techniques. Under the Proposed Action, a maximum 1,200 acres are proposed for variable density management commercial thinning. Initially, 940 acres are proposed for prescribed fire. An additional 2,010 acres are proposed for treatment of surface, ladder, and down fuels (both those created by management activities as well as those already present). Prescribed fire and surface fuel treatments may also occur on areas that have had density management treatments. See EA for in-depth project description. Below is a summary of the project as stated in the EA.

Project Summary:

Allow a maximum of 1,200 acres of commercial density management treatments, outside of the Kinney and Little Grayback Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)

Connected actions associated with commercial density management treatments could include ground based, skyline, and/or helicopter logging systems. Ground based systems would be limited to slopes of 30% or less.

Some temporary road construction could occur (0.38 miles), system road reconstruction (2.5 miles), and/or system road maintenance (10.5 miles) could occur. All roading and log landing sites proposed are either existing, ridgetop areas, or previously constructed log landings, and are located outside the IRAs.

Approximately 2,010 acres would receive an initial treatment of surface, ladder, and down fuels (both those created by management activities as well as those already present). Surface fuel treatments could occur on all areas and potentially within commercial density management areas.

Approximately 940 acres of broadcast burning would be initially applied to sites considered conducive to immediately restoring fire. It is proposed in areas where existing vegetation (i.e., brush and grasses) and other conditions, such as easy road access, would facilitate effective applications with minimal operational risk. Some form of treatment could occur on nearly every acre within the 4,150 acre Project Area.

II. Project Elements

Implementation of all proposed activities would require approximately 15 years. In general, at the watershed scale, most road improvements and maintenance would precede timber harvest and timber haul; mechanical fuels reductions and landscape burning would occur after timber harvest; and road obliteration and stabilization would occur after timber haul, mechanical fuels treatments and landscape burning. Although some mechanical fuels treatments and prescribed burning could occur every year, they would peak in years-5 through 15. The generalized timing of these elements at the Action Area scale is described in Table 2.


Table 2. Estimated Years in which project elements would occur within the Action Area (15

years, 2008-2022)

Year

Element 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Timber felling X X X X X X X X X X

Timber yarding X X X X X X X X X X

Timber hauling X X X X X X X X X X

Fuels Treatments X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Temp road and landing

construction

X X X X X X X X X X

Culvert replacements

X X X X X X X X X X

Road maintenance & Reconstruction

X X X X X X X X X X

Temporary Road decommissioning

and stabilizing

X X X X X X X X X X

Description of Elements – The density management, fuel treatment and other related project

activity elements are described below as to what each element entails -- their location and the relevant PDC that would be followed during project implementation.

o Density Management

o Timber Felling, Timber Yarding (Logging Systems), Timber Hauling o Fuel Treatments

o Prescribed Fire � Broadcast Burning, Underburning, Pile Burning, Swamper Burning,

Jackpot Burning

o Surface Fuel Treatments o Slashing, Pruning, Lop and Scatter, Hand Piling

o Temporary Road and Landing Construction

o Culvert Replacement

o Road Maintenance and Road Reconstruction

o Temporary Road Decommissioning and Stabilization

DENSITY MANAGEMENT

The potential harvest acres by 5th field watershed and land allocation is described in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Potential Harvest Acres by 5th Field Watershed and Land Allocation

5th Field Watershed AMA

Fish Bearing

Riparian

Reserve

Acres

Non-Fish

Bearing

Riparian Reserve

Acres

Total

Watershed

Acres

Project

acres as %

of

watersheds

Applegate River-McKee Bridge

979 44 180 52,301 2.3%

Little Applegate 0 0 0 72,320 0%

Upper Applegate River 0 0 0 142,323 0%

Sub Totals 979 44 180

TOTAL 1,200 acres


• Timber Felling Description – Timber felling involves the cutting of trees by means of a chainsaw. Trees that are cut will be felled away from Riparian Reserves as to minimize yarding through the reserves. Felling

will be done in a manner that will avoid or minimize damage to residual leave trees. • Timber Yarding (Logging Systems) Description – Within UAR, logging system options for stands that provide opportunities for commercial extraction include ground-based systems, skyline cable systems, and aerial (helicopter) systems. Ground-based Systems

This refers to a group of logging methods that are considered ground-based, and may also include mechanized harvesting equipment. Typically, logs are harvested using mechanized heavy equipment to skid the logs to a landing area, where they would be loaded onto a truck. These ground-based systems are usually utilized on terrain where slopes are less than 30%. Tractor – In this system, a cutter would fall, then limb and buck the tree in the bed where it landed when it was felled. Chokers are attached to the logs and a tractor equipped with a winch (while traveling on pre-designated skid trails) uses a “bull line” to pull the logs from their beds

into the skid trail. When a group of logs is assembled into a turn, the chokers are gathered together, the leading ends of the logs are suspended above the ground behind the tractor by way of an integrated arch or similar apparatus, and the trailing end of the logs drag along the ground on the way back to the landing. At the landing, a front-end or a knuckle-boom loader is used to load logs decked at the landing onto log trucks. Rubber-tired Skidder – This system is essentially the same as tractor logging in technique, although the skidding equipment has some operational and functional differences. While most

tractors have steel tracks with cleats that run along a rigid rail and tend to churn up some soil when it turns, rubber-tired skidders are often articulated in their middle instead of a rigid frame, and they displace somewhat less topsoil than a tractor would when it turns. Both types of equipment can have advantages, depending on the situation. Typically, tractors can work on somewhat steeper slopes, while skidders are faster and average skidding distances can be somewhat longer. By virtue of the fact that both tractors and

skidders bear the weight of one end of the logs being skidded, the weight of the machine skidding logs is not evenly distributed, but is instead concentrated near the back of the machine. This configuration can create disproportionately higher ground pressure on the soils being skidded upon than the machines rated or calculated pressure (in pounds per square inch) would indicate.

Skyline A method for transporting logs from stumps to landings using a wire rope cable that is suspended

between two high points. This cable (or skyline) functions as an overhead track for a load carrying carriage. Logs are lifted by cable or other devices attached to the carriage and pulled into a skyline corridor. The carriage is then pulled to the landing by a mainline powered by a yarder. The skyline provides vertical lift so that the logs have their leading end suspended above the ground during inhaul. In some cases, the entire log may be suspended above the ground.


Helicopter This logging system utilizes heavy-lift helicopters to transfer the logs from where they are cut to a landing where they are loaded on trucks for haul to a mill. Helicopters are divided into three classes, depending on their lift capabilities. Helicopters have high operating costs and are usually

utilized where there are concerns for ground disturbance or where road building is not desired.

• Timber Hauling Description – Timber hauling involves loading and transporting logs on log trucks along roads within the Action Area. Hauling will occur on all road surface types including asphalt, BST, gravel, and native-surfaced. Approximately 10.48 miles of road would be used for hauling. Haul Route

Any haul of commercially thinned timber would occur on the road within the action area of the Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field watershed. These roads are aggregate for much of its length and native surface in small portions. Any temporary spur roads constructed would be less than 2,000 feet total and avoid riparian areas and sensitive soils. Haul will occur during the dry season (normally May 15th to October 15th) only. Stream Crossings: About 11 nonfish-bearing stream and one fish-bearing stream (Mule Creek) would be crossed by log trucks and project vehicles. The hauling route includes four bridges which cross

over streams containing perennial coho salmon-bearing streams (Palmer Creek, Beaver Creeks, Applegate River). A projected maximum of 800 truckloads of logs would occur on these road systems. • Temporary Road and Landing Construction Description - Temporary roads are proposed where one-time access is needed as part of a timber sale, for access to harvest units. They typically have a lower planning, design, and initial development cost than permanent system roads. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 223.37)

require temporary roads to be re-vegetated within ten years. These roads cannot be compared to engineered roads (permanent system roads) as they are not designed for multiple uses or long-term resource protection (e.g., all-weather maintenance). Under UAR, previously existing spur roads or skid roads could be utilized for access. These would be considered as temporary roads. The need for temporary roads would be highly variable among alternatives, depending on stands selected, the previous logging system and access that created the

managed stand, and the logging system being considered for this treatment entry. No new temporary roads or landings are proposed nor allowed within Riparian Reserves. In many cases, these temporary roads are essentially an extension of a landing (a few hundred feet), or could actually be a travel way of up to 800 feet. Temporary roads are considered as part of the affected (detrimental) soil conditions under the Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines). The maximum percent of area for detrimental soil conditions under the LRMP is 15% for an activity area.

Temporary roads would be managed in accordance with water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) R-23. In order to prevent continued low level casual use, and to minimize resource impacts, such roads and landings would be obliterated at the completion of their intended use. Effective obliteration is generally achieved through a combination of the following measures:


o Temporary culverts are removed and natural drainage configuration is re-established; o Road surfaces are deeply ripped; o Sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized; road is effectively drained; and

o Road is blocked to further use, and road is returned to vegetation production through re-vegetation (seeding, planting browse species, or hardwood/conifer trees).

While a majority of the UAR project area has an existing network of roads and landings from previous harvests, there would be some additional areas created for log landings. These would primarily occur in areas where a change in logging systems (e.g., where skyline logging is now prescribed in areas previously tractor logged).

These additional landings are also highly variable by alternative and the selected logging system. For example, helicopter systems typically require larger (1 acre or larger) landing areas, whereas a tractor system could utilize areas barely larger than a road-width, although tractor and skyline systems would typically require many more landings. Temporary road (and landing) locations and stabilization measures are typically determined by the Forest Service Sale Administrator, with agreement by the purchaser. The Sale Administrator may request the advice of a watershed specialist in determining the most appropriate location and

stabilization measures to be required. All temporary roads will be located near ridgelines and none within 200 feet of stream course (perennial or intermittent). Helicopter Landings and Access

Design elements and mitigation require minimal ground disturbance and minimal new road access. Given these constraints, it is anticipated that aerial systems, e.g., helicopters would be a system used to accomplish commercial density management where existing access systems are not available or would cause extensive resource damage if utilized.

Helicopters can be used to move material from the treatment area sites, and move them to processing areas (i.e., landings). From the landings, material can then be removed from the forest by trucks, utilizing classified roads suitable for such use. The use of helicopters allows for full suspension of trees or material from the treatment area to the landing area and does not create excessive ground disturbance via skid trails or corridors.

In addition, the use of existing roads (in addition to or instead of additional landing construction) could be utilized during actual implementation, as long as compliance with State operational safety guidelines (OR-OSHA) occurred. New log landings would be limited in size to approximately one (1) acre in size. This generally equates to a landing that is approximately 208 feet by 208 feet in size. Some existing landings are larger than this. Using a “maximum case” scenario, approximately 250 landings would be needed and include a total of approximately 285 acres, of which over 60% of the area to be potentially utilized

for a landing, is already disturbed because it is or has been used as a road or log landing in the past.


• Culvert Replacements Description – Culvert replacement work would replace culverts in stream channels and drains that relieve road ditches. Many culverts in channels were deemed undersized to handle the water and sediment from areas above the structure. Culverts have a lifespan and effectiveness that diminishes as rust and corrosion decrease the strength and integrity of the structure and these

culverts will also be replaced. Work would entail excavating the fill covering the current culvert and removing the culvert. Excavation of the area to accommodate the new culvert would precede installation of the new structure. Fills placed over the new pipe will be compacted and the road prism shaped to provide good drainage in and around the new culvert. Preventive measures and PDC’s will be used to minimize stream channel disturbance at the site and reduce the amount of unconsolidated material remaining in the channel after installation of the new culvert is completed. Equipment will be clean of excess oil residue and in be good working order free or drips and leaks when working near streams.

• Road Maintenance and Road Reconstruction Description – Road maintenance includes several related activities which maintain drainage, cuts and fills and surfacing of the road prism to accommodate light and commercial road traffic; while maintaining the integrity of the road facility and minimizing effects to natural resources adjacent to the road. Much of this work is done with a motor grader, dump trucks and backhoe. Road maintenance

includes travel way surface maintenance, drainage ditch maintenance, culvert cleaning, surface rock placement, shaping of the roadway and ditches by blading, removal of slough materials, compacting and other mechanized and hand work. Road maintenance renders the road durable and useable or in a storage condition that minimizes effects on soil, water and other resources. Road maintenance includes use of rock quarries and pump chances, roadside brushing, grading, ditching, rocking of perennial stream crossings on native surface roads and other activities needed to maintain the road facility in good condition. Maintenance work is usually performed commensurate to the use of the

road and the condition of the road during and after the planned use is completed. Description – Classified Road Reconstruction involves restoring a Classified system road to its previous operational condition. Road repairs could have one or more of the following work items: removing fallen trees, cleaning out culvert inlets, removing and disposing of small cut slope slides, falling danger trees, replacing minor amounts of road surfacing etc. Treatments could include grading, clearing, restoring road width loss, or stabilizing a cut or fill (embankment) slope that was lost due to storm damage, by placing riprap materials (large boulders) against existing slopes.

• Temporary Road Decommissioning and Stabilization Description – The principal objective of temporary road decommissioning is to prepare the location the road occupies, so upon completion, the site has drainage restored to pre-road conditions or very near pre-road conditions. This will result in the site hydrologically functioning as if no road was or is present, and prevention of further displacement of soils. Most of this work is done with a motor grader, bulldozer, backhoe, excavator and/or a dump truck. This may or not include obliteration of all evidence of the roadway, cuts and fills and drain ways associated with the former road.


Actions associated with road decommissioning are removal of all culverts, out-sloping or other drainage methods to prevent un-natural concentration of water, ripping of compacted surfaces to facilitate vegetation growth, seeding, mulching, removing or repairing precarious fills or portions of the road prism not secure and other actions to drain the site in a more natural manner. When road

decommissioning is complete, the segment of road treated is removed from the National Forest road system and is no longer considered a road facility. Description – Road stabilization entails repairing the road so the facility: is more durable to traffic and environmental conditions, requires less future maintenance and causes less impacts to natural resources adjacent to the road prism. This work is done with a variety of mechanized equipment as listed above. Components of stabilization include re-compacting loose fills, rocking ditchlines, placing rocked spillways and rocked inlets at culverts, placing rock blankets to prevent erosion of

cuts and fills, installing rolls and dips to move water off the travelway and out-sloping to drain the road prism more effectively. A stabilized road segment remains on the National Forest road system. Action Area- Maps associated with the EA, BE/BA and attachments show the proposed thinning units, system roads to be used for haul and associated proposed actions within the watersheds. The Upper Applegate River 5th field watershed is located above Applegate Dam, an anadromous fish barrier. The project area within the Little Applegate River 5th field watershed is a 100-acre

segment, located on a ridgetop with no commercial treatment proposed. Thus, actions within the Upper Applegate River and Little Applegate River 5th field watersheds, for analysis purposes, will not be included in the action area for ESA and MSA species and habitat. Actions within all three watersheds will also be analyzed for R6 sensitive species FUEL TREATMENTS

Description – Prescribed Fire Activity fuels treatment refers to the slash and accumulated fuels loading resulting from the

proposed Density Management treatments. While there may be some slash from previous harvesting or from natural conditions, the majority of material would be generated through density treatment and commercial removal from this action. Activity fuels treatments proposed for this project include only those that are predicted to be necessary to obtain a resultant and acceptable fuels/fire risk. The combination of Density Management and activity fuels treatments should leave the stands in a

condition where a wildfire could burn through the stand, in the form of a surface fire that would not create unacceptable levels of mortality. Several methods of activity fuels treatment are being proposed and are described in depth within the UAR EA. They included the following:

o Broadcast Burning o Underburning o Pile Burning o Swamper Burning o Jackpot Burning

The methodologies described above are sometimes used in combination within a particular proposed treatment area, depending on existing conditions, treatment type, and location.


Description – Surface Fuel Treatments Fuel reduction objectives within Fire Management Areas (see Design Elements in EA Section xx) are to reduce surface and ladder fuels, decrease crown density, and retaining the largest trees, while increasing the height to live crown height (Agee, 2002 and Hessburg and Agree, 2003). To

meet these fuel objectives, additional treatment is recommended along with a combination of the following options along roads, private property or along ridge tops: Pruning; Manual Slashing; Lop and Scatter; Hand Machine Piling including disposal by burning; or other prescribed fire treatments. These treatments are described in depth within the UAR EA.

o Slashing o Pruning o Lop and Scatter

o Hand Piling Conservation Measures – All project elements would be accomplished within Forest Service Forest Plan Standards and Guides, Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Standard Operating Procedures. Standard Operating Procedures include adherence to State Water Quality standards; ODFW instream work periods; hazardous materials plans; EPA requirements for storage and use of petroleum products; ODFW, and NOAA Fisheries criteria for culvert replacements; and BMP’s for rock quarry operations. Additional site specific BMP’s and PDC’s were developed to further avoid,

minimize or reduce negative impacts to aquatic resources, SO/NC coho salmon, their critical habitat and EFH. They are listed below by element.

III. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA (PDC’S) AND

MITIGATION MEASURES

PDC’s and mitigation measures are designed for the following Project Elements:

• Timber Felling • Timber Yarding • Timber Hauling • Prescribed Fire • Temporary Road and Landing Construction • Culvert Replacements • Road Maintenance and Road Reconstruction • Temporary Road Decommissioning and Stabilizing

A. General For Inside Riparian Reserves

PDC 1. All snags greater than 20” will be maintained within the Riparian Reserve. All snags will be

maintained unless deemed a hazard to the operation. 2. Tailholds are permitted across perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams. 3. Cable yarding corridors (sky roads) are permitted across intermittent and ephemeral and

perennial streams. Corridors must be less than 12’ wide, spaced greater than 200’ apart when transecting the primary shade zone, as close to perpendicular to the channel as possible and can range 350’ to 1000’ in length.


4. No new temporary roads or landings, gap treatments, or heavy thinning is proposed nor

allowed within Riparian Reserves. 5. No Density Management treatment would reduce the existing overstory within Riparian

Reserve to less than 50% of the currently existing condition. 6. No Density Management or other treatments would occur within 25 ft. of the active stream

channel. 7. PDC’s for treatments within Riparian Reserves are specific to stream class.

Overall Design Elements for Riparian Reserve Treatments

• Currently unmapped Riparian Reserves within the project area or within one site-potential tree (assumed to be 150 feet for all areas) of the project area boundary would be identified and flagged prior to implementation of treatments by watershed specialists and/or biologists.

• No new temporary roads or landings, gap treatments, or heavy thinning is proposed nor allowed within Riparian Reserves.

• No density management treatment would reduce the existing overstory canopy within Riparian Reserve to less than 50%.

• No density management would occur within 25 ft. of the stream channel.

In portions of Riparian Reserves where density management treatments and commercial extraction are allowable, treatments would be designed to maintain 60 % canopy closure. Soil compaction or the loss of soil infiltration capacity in the riparian area from such things as skid roads could

establish a mechanism for sediment delivery from concentrated overland flow. As a special design element for this project, within 100 feet of a stream course, pre and post activity would not result in a loss of more than 10% of the soil infiltration capacity. This element would include existing skid trails, which could be re-utilized as necessary and then be deep ripped (as feasible) to re-establish soil infiltration capacity. This figure does not include new haul roads or landings because they would be prohibited within Riparian Reserves.

To facilitate log suspension with skyline operations, corridors for cable rigging would be allowed to pass through Riparian Reserves. A maximum width of 12 ft. is required and logs may be yarded through this corridor if necessary. Corridors must be spaced at a minimum of 200 feet apart if they pass through Riparian Reserves. Corridor “rub trees” would be left, even if damaged and/or felled. Riparian Reserve treatments and project design elements for UAR fall into three categories; fish-bearing perennial streams, non-fish-bearing perennial streams, and intermittent streams, wetlands

and unstable areas.


Category 1: Fish-bearing Perennial Streams

This category includes permanently flowing fish-bearing streams, typically Class I and II. The primary concern regarding treatments within this category is maintenance of stream temperature. Project design would follow direction provided in NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation

Strategies 20051. This involves protection and maintenance of existing stream shade, and maintenance of the existing micro-climate, ambient air temperature, and air movement. For this Category, Riparian Reserve widths are two site potential tree heights each side of stream course (150 ft. X 2 = 300 ft. each side; total width 600 ft). Category 2: Non Fish-bearing Perennial Streams

This category includes permanently flowing non fish-bearing streams, defined as Class III. The

primary concern regarding treatments within this category also is maintenance of stream temperature. Project design would also follow direction provided in NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies 2005. This involves protection and maintenance of existing stream shade, and maintenance of the existing micro-climate, ambient air temperature, and air movement. For this Category, Riparian Reserve widths are one site potential tree heights each side of stream course (150 ft. each side; total width 300 ft.).

The Stream Channel Protection Zone is from the edge of stream course up to 25 feet. No vegetation management (including commercial extraction) would occur within 25 ft. of the active stream channel. No hand piles would be located or burned within this zone. Prescribed fire would not be ignited within this zone but during fuels treatment fire may be allowed to “back down” within 25 feet of a stream channel (any slope, low intensity burn). The Primary Shade Zone is an area where no commercial extraction would occur (larger trees felled for skyline corridor clearing would be left), however some density management, fuels

reduction or other restoration treatments could occur. Distance from active stream channel varies according to height of existing overstory trees and hill slope in immediate area. The following table establishes the width of the Primary Shade Zone. Table 4. Primary Shade Zone Width, Based on Adjacent Hill Slope

Hill Slope <30% Hill Slope 30% to 60% Hill Slope >30%

Primary Shade Zone

Width

(slope distance)

50 ft. 55 ft. 60 ft.

The Temperature Implementation Strategies allow the distances in above table to be less (but not less than 25 ft.) if any of the following conditions applies:

-The trees are located on a south facing slope (175-185 degree azimuth) and therefore do not provide stream shade;

1 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation strategies - Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards. USFS and BLM; latest version September 9, 2005.


-An appropriate level of analysis is completed and documented, such as shade modeling, using site-specific characteristics to determine the primary shade tree width; and or -Field monitoring or measurements are completed to determine the width where optimum

Angular Canopy Density (65% or greater) is achieved (see TMDL Implementation Strategies). The Riparian Treatment Zone (Secondary Shade Zone) includes area from the edge of the Primary Shade Zone to the outer edge of the Riparian Reserve. Density management treatments and commercial extraction would be allowed, following guidelines and overall design elements for Riparian Reserve. Within the Riparian Treatment Zone, the primary concern is prevention of sediment delivery to

streams, prevention of concentrated overland flow, and maintenance of infiltration rates. The maximum percent of area for detrimental soil conditions under the LRMP is 15% for an

activity area. This standard includes roads and landings. The 10 % soil infiltration capacity

standard also applies, as noted above.

The primary difference between Category 1 and 2 is the width of the entire Riparian Reserve (which is differentiated by fish-bearing status). Figure 2 portrays the various zones associated with Riparian Reserves and design elements under Categories 1 and 2.

Figure 2. Riparian Reserve Design Elements - Categories 1 and 2.

Perennial Fish-bearing Stream Course

Class , II, & III

Stream Channel Protection Zone

(25 ft.)

Primary

Shade Zone

Riparian Treatment

Zone

Total Riparian Reserve Width (600 ft Category 1 or 300 ft. Category 2)

Two Site-Potential Tree Heights (300 ft.) or One Site-Potential Tree Height (150 ft.)


Category 3: Non Fish-bearing Intermittent Streams and Wetlands

This category includes intermittent non-fish-bearing streams, typically Class IV, wetlands greater than one acre and unstable areas not associated with Class I, II and III streams. The primary

concern is prevention of sediment delivery to streams, prevention of concentrated overland flow, and maintenance of micro-climates, ambient air temperature and humidity. The Stream Channel Protection Zone is from the edge of stream course up to 25 feet. No vegetation management (including commercial extraction) would occur within 25 ft. of the active stream channel. No hand piles would be located or burned within the channel. Prescribed fire would not be ignited within this zone but fire may be allowed to “back down” to stream channel.

The Riparian Treatment Zone includes area from the edge of the Stream Channel Protection Zone, to the outer edge of the Riparian Reserve (one site potential tree height). Density management treatments and commercial extraction would be allowed, following guidelines and design elements for Riparian Reserve. Figure 3 portrays zones associated with Riparian Reserves and design elements for Category 3. Figure 3. Riparian Reserve Design Elements - Category 3

Intermittent Stream Course, Wetlands, Unstable Areas

Class IV

Stream Channel Protection Zone

(25 ft.)

Riparian Treatment

Zone

Total Riparian Reserve Width

(300 ft.)

One Site Potential Tree Height (150 ft.)


B. Timber Felling PDC Trees being extracted as a by product of the UAR will be felled away from the primary shade zone. If trees are being felled for safety reasons and/or trees to be left on site,

they can be felled towards the stream. C. Timber Yarding PDC Yarding PDC’s and Mitigation measures are covered within the Riparian Reserve, D. Timber Hauling PDC

1. Apply mitigation and BMP’s for dust abatement, dry conditions, and erosion control as directed by physical scientist or road engineer.

2. For native-surface roads, all fish-bearing stream crossings will be rocked with an 8” lift for a distance of 100’ on either side of the stream.

3. Timber haul on gravel and native-surface roads will be limited to dry conditions.

Haul Restrictions to Prevent Fine Sediment Delivery to Streams

Haul or maintenance is permitted on roads under the following conditions: 1. During timber haul, weather conditions are monitored daily for the chance of precipitation

by the Timber Sale Administrator, Hydrologist or Fish Biologist.

2. No rutting of the road surface is occurring, indicating the subsurface is wet. 3. Frozen ground conditions. 4. Haul will cease at any time when the travelway of the road is wet and turbid water or fines

are observed moving off the road surface to ditchlines that deliver to stream channels regardless of time of year.

Roads Exempt from Haul Restrictions includes: 1. Paved roads

2. Surfaced Ridge top roads 3. Surfaced outsloped roads with no ditch or stream crossings

E. Prescribed Burning and Related Activities PDC 1. Mechanical piling and burning of large piles will be restricted to existing roads and landings. 2. Include all relevant PDC in silvicultural prescriptions and burn plan objectives for all fuel

treatment activities within Riparian Reserves. 3. Use all available fuel treatments and preparation activities as necessary (e.g. multiple

entries, slash pull-back; modified ignition methods, locations, timing, and sequence; thinning of small green trees; pruning of green trees and snags, prescribed fire, fire suppression, jack pot burning, etc.) to achieve the specific PDC.

4. For perennial and fish-bearing stream channels:

1. Within 25’ of critical habitat or EFH, manage this zone as a no-treatment buffer. 2. Within 25’ of non-critical habitat or EFH, manage this zone as a no-treatment buffer.

Prescribed burning is not permitted. 3. Within 25’ of the stream channel, do not burn slash piles. 4. Within 100’ of the stream channel, do not ignite broadcast burns; however, fire may be

allowed to “back down” toward the channel if all other PDC can be achieved. Ignite farther from the channel if necessary to achieve all other PDC.

5. Within Primary shade zone retain 100% of the overstory canopy closure.


For intermittent, non-fish-bearing stream channels:

1. Within 50’ of the stream channel, do not ignite broadcast burns; however, allow fire to “back down” toward the channel if all of other PDC can be achieved. Ignite farther from

the channel if necessary to achieve all other PDC. 2. Within 25’ of the stream channel, do not burn slash piles.

For the maintenance and use of pump chances: 1. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable, non-floodplain sites approved by a

geotechnical engineer or other qualified personnel. Use stable sites beyond the floodplain within Riparian Reserves that an interdisciplinary team has identified as stable and not susceptible to delivery of sediment to the adjacent stream. Provide erosion control at

disposal sites to minimize sediment delivery to water bodies. 2. Minimize disturbance of existing riparian vegetation to the greatest extent practical; in

particular, maintain shade, bank stability, and large woody material recruitment potential. 3. Use sediment control measures such as straw bales, filter cloth, or sediment fences when

conditions warrant. 4. Maximize maintenance activities during late summer and early fall to best avoid wet

conditions. 5. Do not pump from streams that do not have continuous surface flow. When pumping water

in all situations from streams, ensure that at least one-half of the original streamflow remains below the pump site.

6. Refuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, and prepare concrete at least 150 feet (or as far as possible from the water body where local site conditions do not allow a 150 foot setback) from water bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into associated water bodies.

7. Fisheries, hydrology or other qualified personnel must work with engineering/fire personnel to review proposed activities to minimize potential effects to fish, stream channel

conditions, and water quality. 8. Use and develop off-channel ponds. Decommission unnecessary in-stream pump chances. 9. Water withdrawal equipment must have a fish screen installed, operated and maintained in

accordance to NOAA Fisheries. F. Temporary Road and Landing Construction PDC

1. Do not locate on side slopes > 30 %.

2. Minimize cut and fill to maintain slope contour. 3. Do not locate within Riparian Reserves. 4. Do not build temporary roads in areas determined to have high erosion potential. 5. Restore as directed by physical scientist (e.g. scarify road bed, seed and/or plant road bed, water bar, use erosion control techniques, prevent vehicle access after haul). 6. Refuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, and prepare concrete at least 150 feet (or as far as possible from the water body where local site conditions do not allow a 150 foot setback) from water bodies to prevent direct delivery

of contaminants into associated water bodies 7. All landing locations will be reviewed by a soil scientist, geologist, or other qualified person to ensure stability and to recommend appropriate mitigation for erosion control.


8. Landings will be evaluated for long-term usefulness. Those not necessary for future activities will be restored using techniques similar to those applied to temporary roads. Landings designated for future use will be treated for erosion control.

9. Do not construct or use outside of dry conditions. 10. Erosion control measures will be used to reduce soil movement. 11. Generally no rock aggregate will be added to temporary roads unless approved by a Fisheries Biologist and or Hydrologist. 12. Soil and overburden removed during construction will be retained and stockpiled for use during restoration.

G. Culvert Replacements PDCs

Follow the Terms and Conditions of the Programmatic BO (as amended on May 21, 2003) relating to fish passage structures.

For all other fish-bearing streams, follow R-6 Regional Guidance for fish passage structure design as follows: 1. Fish passage is the first concern for crossings of fish-bearing streams. Other design

considerations include, in order of importance, (a) minimizing the consequences of plugging and overtopping, including the ability to prevent diversion; (b) hydraulic capacity, including

the requirement that headwater depth be less than, or equal to, the height of the culvert, and (c) cost.

2. Designs will meet or exceed state requirements and guidance for fish passage. 3. All designs should provide passage for all species and life stages present at that location,

unless there is a biological reason to separate or exclude populations. 4. Structure opening width should not constrict the stream or accelerate velocity at 2-year

high flow (bank full width). Active channel width or bed width are also used in describing this dimension. Use the most appropriate measure that ensures that the stream is not

constricted by the structure. 5. The natural stream gradient and substrate material, above and below the structure, will be

simulated through the structure. The use of bridges, open-bottom arches, or closed pipes partially buried in the streambed is encouraged.

6. Baffles, weirs, and other mechanical devices inside the culvert should only be employed when the simulation or use of natural stream bottoms is not physically possible. Baffles or weirs should only be used by experienced designers.

7. Culvert replacement and retrofit projects should be prioritized using the fish passage culvert inventory in conjunction with watershed and roads analysis.

8. Crossing structures should conform to the natural stream gradient. Instream structures should not be relied upon to modify stream elevations for new installations and replacements.

H. Road Maintenance, Road Reconstruction, and Rock Quarry PDC

Road Maintenance and Road Reconstruction

1. End haul waste material and slough to a designated disposal area. 2. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable, non-floodplain sites approved by a

geotechnical engineer or other qualified personnel. Use stable sites beyond the floodplain within Riparian Reserves only if an interdisciplinary process has identified the area as stable and not susceptible to delivery to the adjacent stream. Provide erosion control at disposal sites to minimize sediment delivery to streams.


3. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings to the greatest extent possible.

4. Minimize soil disturbance and displacement, but where sediment risks warrant, prevent off-site soil movement through the use of filter materials (such as straw bales or silt fencing) if

vegetation strips are not available. 5. Refuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, and prepare

concrete at least 150 feet (or as far as possible from the water body where local site conditions do not allow a 150 foot setback) from water bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into associated water bodies.

6. Avoid application of dust abatement materials (for example, lignon or mag-choride) within 25 feet of a water body or stream channel during or just before wet weather, and at stream crossings or other locations that could result in direct delivery to adjacent water

bodies. 7. Ensure that all large wood is retained in the stream channel during culvert cleaning

activities. 8. When cleaning culverts, remove only the minimum amount of wood, sediment and other

natural debris necessary to maintain culvert function. 9. Avoid the use of rock quarries during wet periods if they have the potential to generate and

deliver sediment to streams. 10. Rock aggregate will be added to system roads where necessary to minimize soil movement

from native surface roads. 11. Do not deposit material in riparian areas or over steep fill slopes. 12. Waste material may be piled along a road or on a fill slope if the area has been designated

as stable and erosion control measures are implemented. 13. Erosion control such as mulch, straw wattles, silt fences, or hydromulch application will be

recommended if extensive areas of exposed soils, cut slopes, or waste areas are created by maintenance activities.

PDC - for rock quarries 1. Shape for drainage and apply appropriate erosion control techniques for rock quarries used

for waste disposal. 2. Rock quarries on the forest may be utilized to produce aggregate for rocking roads,

landings, or pump chances. Require quarry development plans to include BMP’s and mitigation measures as part of the sale contract, monitoring plans to comply with stormwater pollution directives, and a site restoration plan to comply with Regional directives.

3. Quarries within areas infected with POC root disease will be constrained to dry weather use to minimize potential sedimentation and spore dispersal.

I. Temporary Road Decommissioning and Stabilization PDC

1. A fisheries biologist and/or hydrologist must participate in the design and implementation of each project.

2. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable, non-floodplain sites. Disposal of slide and waste material within existing road prism or adjacent hillslopes is acceptable to restore

natural or near-natural contours, as approved by a geotechnical engineer or other qualified personnel.

3. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings to the extent necessary to restore the hydrologic function of the subject road.


4. Minimize soil disturbance and displacement, but where sediment risks warrant, prevent off-

site soil movement through the use of filter materials (such as straw bales or silt fencing) if vegetation strips are not available.

5. Maximize maintenance activities during late summer and early fall to best avoid wet conditions.

6. Refuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, and prepare concrete at least 150 feet (or as far as possible from the water body where local site conditions do not allow a 150 foot setback) from water bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into associated water bodies.

7. Develop and implement an approved spill containment plan that includes having a spill containment kit on-site and at previously identified containment locations.

IV. STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES, ESSENTIAL FISH

HABITAT, AND CRITICAL HABITAT

A. Species Status

NOAA Fisheries listed Southern Oregon/Northern California (SO/NC) coho salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 6, 1997, (62 FR 42588) and critical habitat on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049). The critical habitat designation included all stream reaches accessible to coho salmon except areas above specified dams or longstanding, naturally impassible barriers. Interim final rules for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) were published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 62, No. 244, December 19, 1997 and final rules published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 12, January 17,2002. These rules are pertinent to Chinook salmon and coho salmon habitat within the Southern Oregon Coastal Basin.

There is no Recovery Plan for SONCC coho salmon. An ESU review has not been completed.

The USDA Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest coverage was used to delineate miles of coho distribution within the Action Area. Approximately 22.4 miles of coho, Critical and Essential Fish Habitat occur within the Project Area. Refer to Figure 1 for the distribution of critical habitat in relation to the Action Area. Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal (SONCC) chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and Southern Oregon/California Coasts (SOCC) coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), and KMP steelhead trout (O. mykiss) are sensitive species under the Regional Forester’s (Region 6) Sensitive species list (USDA 2002). No special status from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife exists for any fish species in the Action Area (ODFW 2005).

B. Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), in accordance with the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) designates EFH for coho and Chinook salmon (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12). The MSA defines EFH as “...those waters and substrate

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12).” EFH closely mirrors the occupied and historic habitat of coho and Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon and its habitat is primarily located within the mainstem Applegate River within the action area.


C. Critical Habitat

On May 5, 1999, NOAA Fisheries filed proposed rules with the Federal Register( 64 FR24049) to designate critical habitat: Critical habitat is defined as “ Critical habitat for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between the Mattole River in California and the Elk River in Oregon, inclusive”. “The areas described in this final rule represent the current freshwater and estuarine range of the listed species. For both ESUs, critical habitat includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). After considering public comments and reviewing additional scientific information, NMFS is modifying various aspects of the proposed designation, including a revised description of adjacent riparian zones and the exclusion of tribal lands from critical habitat. NMFS has identified several dams in the range of these ESUs that currently block access to habitats.” Section 7 of the ESA prohibits the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (CH). Within the action area, proposed critical habitat almost mirrors the Forest coho distribution found on Figure 1. Approximately twenty-two miles of critical habitat exists within the Action Area for coho salmon and its critical habitat (Table 5). Table 5. Miles of Anadromy, Miles of occupied coho, Miles of Critical and Essential Habitat

by fifth field

5th Field

Watershed

5th Field

Watershed

Acres

Total miles of anadromy

(Using Winter

Steelhead)

Miles of Occupied

Coho Habitat

Miles of Essential Fish

Habitat and Critical

Habitat

Applegate River-McKee Bridge

52,301 35.4 22.4 22.4

D. Primary Constituent Elements

This BE/BA has been prepared using the Analytical Process to determine the effects on ESA listed fish and could be used interchangeably for consultation if necessary. It focuses on analysis of specific indicators that are pertinent to aquatic habitat health. As a result, the habitat indicators (non-watershed scale) addressed also represents the primary constituent elements (PCE’s) of CH for SONCC Coho Salmon. Therefore, this analysis is sufficient for consultation of proposed CH as

well. When the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was re-authorized in 1996, it directed Regional Fishery Management Councils to identify EFH for commercial fish species of concern. Effects analysis contained in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation address potential effects to EFH (i.e. effects to coho and Chinook salmon habitat). The list of Primary Constituent Elements essential for the conservation of the SONCC coho ESU

include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (64 FR 24050, May 5, 1999) (Table 6). Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and input of large woody debris or organic matter.


NMFS defines 10 essential habitat features to include substrates, water quality, water quantity, water temperature, water velocity, cover/shelter, food, riparian vegetation, space, and safe passage conditions (64 FR 24059, May 5, 1999). For the purposes of this BE, the 10 essential habitat features are cross referenced with the respective Habitat Indicators.

Table 6. Primary Constituent Elements for Coho Salmon

Essential Feature of

CCH Habitat Indicator

Substrate Sediment, Pool Quality, Landslide Rates, Large Woody Debris

Water Quality Temperature, Sediment, Road Density & Location

Water Quantity Peak/base flows, Drainage Network Increase, Road Density and Location

Water Temperature Temperature, Riparian Reserves, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, Peak/base flows, Riparian Reserves, Floodplain Connectivity.

Water Velocity

Peak/base flows, Drainage Network Increase, Floodplain Connectivity, Off-channel Habitat, Width/Depth Ratio, Road Density and Location, Streambank Condition, Large Woody Debris

Cover/shelter

Sediment, Pool Quality, Streambank Condition, Riparian Reserves, Refugia, Large Woody Debris, Off-channel Habitat, Width/Depth Ratio, Floodplain Connectivity

Food Sediment, Riparian Reserves, Floodplain Connectivity, Large Woody Debris, Temperature

Riparian Vegetation Riparian Reserves, Large Woody Debris, Disturbance History, Floodplain Connectivity

Space Pool Quality, Off-channel Habitat, Floodplain Connectivity

Safe Passage

Conditions Refugia, Physical Barriers, Change in Peak/Base Flows

V. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. General Information for Baseline Conditions

Within the Action Area, the proposed action includes:

• Timber felling, yarding: approximately 1,200 acres. • Timber falling and yarding in Riparian Reserves: approximately 180 acres. • Fuels treatments will take place on approximately 10.48 miles of roads over multiple

ownerships. • Approximately 0.38 miles of new temporary roads and 2.5 miles of classified road

reconstruction may occur. Seventy acres of landings may be reconstructed/constructed and then drained and decommissioned; 42 acres (60%) within disturbed areas and 28 acres (40%) with new construction. New temporary road and landing construction are not allowed within the Riparian Reserve.

• There are roughly 12 culvert crossings within the Applegate River-McKee Bridge watershed; one of the culverts crosses a steelhead/rainbow fish bearing stream (Mule Creek). It is estimated that 3 of the culverts outside of critical coho habitat will be replaced.

• Timber hauling and road maintenance will occur on approximately 10.48 miles of NFSL.


Temporary roads for this project are located only in the Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field watershed and are associated with commercial timber extraction (Table 7).

Table 7. Summary of temporary roads to be constructed and decommissioned in one season

by 5th Field Watershed

Watershed Classified Road

Reconstruction (miles)

New Temporary

Roads (miles)

Total

(miles)

Applegate River-McKee Bridge 2.5 0.38 3.0

Little Applegate River 0 0 0

Upper Applegate 0 0 0

Table 8. Applegate River-McKee Bridge Watershed – Ownership in 6th-Field Watersheds

(acres)

Watershed

Acres in

Proposed

Project

Area Owner Total Acres

Total

Percent

Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th Field 3,883 52,299 7.42

Private 2,973

5.68

NFSL 10,603 20.27

Applegate River-Beaver Creek 6th Field (17,503 acres)

BLM 3,927 7.50

Private 1,728 3.30

NFSL 16,469 0.03

BLM 405 0.77 Applegate River -Palmer Creek 6th Field (18,683 acres) COE 81 0.15

Private 2,124 4.06

NFSL 197 0.38 Applegate River-Star Gulch 6th Field

(16,113 acres) BLM 13,792 26.37

Little Applegate River 5th Field 31 72,320 0.06

B. Population Characteristics

Indicators – Population Size and Distribution

Growth and Survival

Life History Diversity and Isolation

Persistence and Genetic Integrity

Important fish-bearing streams in the project area located within the Applegate-McKee 5th field watershed are Applegate River and its tributaries: Beaver Creek, Palmer Creek, and Star Gulch. This 5th field watershed contains Pacific lamprey, reticulate sculpin, three-spined sticklebacks, and five salmonid species (coho salmon, Chinook salmon, summer and winter runs of steelhead trout, rainbow and cutthroat trout.) The Applegate River in this watershed also contains Klamath smallscale sucker.


Status of fish species and habitat listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the project area include: coho salmon; Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCCC) Evolutional Significant Unit (ESU) - listed as Threatened species, Federal Register/May 1997. Critical Habitat (CH) for coho salmon is listed as Threatened habitat, Federal Register/May 1999.

Status of habitat listed under the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): SONCCC coho salmon and SOCC Chinook salmon habitat listed as threatened Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Federal Register, January 1998. Currently Chinook salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout are sensitive species included on the Forest Service Regional Forester’s (Region 6) Sensitive Species list (USDA/Forest Service 2002). No special status from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife exists for any fish species in the 5th field watershed (ODFW 2005). An ESA recovery plan has not been established for SONCCC

coho. Forest Service stream surveys and some ODFW smolt trap records are on file, which have some fish population information. Table 9. Number of Miles of Fish Habitat Presence within 6th Field Watersheds within the

Project Area

Stream

Name

Coho

Salmon

(miles)

Chinook

Salmon

(miles)

Steelhead/Rainbow

Trout

(miles)

Cutthroat

Trout

(miles)

ESA/MSA Fish

bearing/Habitat miles

w/in Proposed

Project Area

Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th Field Watershed Applegate River 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 0.90

Beaver Creek 2.1 0 9.0 12.3 1.17

Palmer Creek 2.5 0 5.7 7.5 0.38

Star Gulch 5.4 0 6.7 9.9 0.28

Mule Creek 0 0 1.6 1.6 0.48

Kinney Creek 0 0 0 0 0

Facing Drainages

0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 22.4 12.4 35.4 43.7 3.21

Upper Applegate River 5th Field Watershed Applegate Lake (French Gulch)

0 0 0.4 (rainbow only) 0.4 0

Little Applegate 5th Field Watershed Lower Little Applegate River

6.4 (rare)

6.4 (rare) 6.4 (abundant) 6.4 0

Coho Salmon A Recovery Plan for SONCCC coho salmon does not exist. However, much is known of their population size, distribution, habitat requirements and threats to recovery. Coho salmon spawn in the mainstem Applegate River in this watershed including Forest Service sections near Jackson campground and McKee bridge day use area and Boaz Gulch near a BLM section. Coho salmon are found in Beaver Creek up to a natural waterfall near river mile (RM) 1.8 and in Palmer Creek to a bedrock chute above the Lime Gulch confluence near RM 2.4.

Adult coho salmon abundance in Beaver and Palmer creeks has increased 53% and 38% respectively per year between 1997 and 2004 (Fig.1, USDA, Reid 2005). Coho salmon spawner abundance counts in 2004 were some of the highest in recent history with about 45 redds per mile in Beaver and 30 in Palmer Creek (USDA, Reid 2005).


Chinook Salmon Low numbers of fall-run Chinook salmon migrate to the upper Applegate River in this 5th field watershed and spawn during early winter in the low gradient, gravel rich reaches of the main stem and its tributaries. Chinook have not been observed on National Forest System Lands (NFSL)

within Beaver and Palmer creeks by either state or federal biologists; intensive surveys have not been conducted to confirm. The SOCC Chinook salmon in the sub-basin exhibits a fall-run life history. They select both main stem streams and tributaries for spawning. Juveniles emerge in late spring and immediately move downstream to rear in the Applegate River and then migrate to the ocean during the fall rains. Because their fry out-migrate soon after emergence, they can utilize streams that do not posses cool summer water temperatures or abundant large wood material and pool habitat.

Steelhead Trout

The exact upper distribution of steelhead in these streams is not known but is estimated to be near RM 7 above Petes Camp in Beaver Creek and RM 5 above Dark Canyon in Palmer Creek (Nawa 1999, 2001; unpub. data). Steelhead trout spawn in the mainstem Applegate River as stated in the coho salmon section stated above. Steelhead abundance indices in these streams have fluctuated between 2000 and 2004 with a peak of about 45 redds per mile in 2003. Steelhead counts from 2004 and preliminary data from 2005 show low spawning activity in Beaver and very low in Palmer Creek (USDA, Reid 2005). From peak abundance data, most of the spawning activity in recent years

has been comprised of winter steelhead. Recent steelhead counts are substantially lower than those obtained in the 1950s and 1960s.

Cutthroat Trout

Palmer Creek and especially Beaver Creek provide spawning habitat for large, fluvial (river-migrating) coastal cutthroat trout. Little is known about this life history of cutthroat trout in the Applegate sub-basin and its distribution and use of the Applegate River-McKee Bridge watershed. Resident coastal cutthroat or rainbow trout are found in headwater sections of most perennial streams in this watershed.

Recreational Fisheries Coho and fall Chinook salmon produced in this watershed contribute to in-river sport fisheries in the Rogue River and Chinook are taken in commercial off-shore fisheries. Steelhead produced in this watershed contribute to recreational fisheries in the Rogue and Applegate Rivers. While most streams in this watershed are closed to angling, the Applegate River is open to winter steelhead and trout angling. With much of the Applegate River mainstem in private ownership, Forest Service

parcels in this watershed at Jackson Campground, Flumet Flat, Placer, McKee Bridge, and the Star administrative site provide important fishery access to the public.

C. Baseline Conditions and Analysis of Effects

Most of the project will occur in the Applegate River – McKee Bridge 5th filed watershed with only a few hundred acres of actions other than commercial thinning occurring in the other two watersheds. The adjacent two watersheds are: Upper Applegate and Little Applegate River. Baseline conditions and descriptions below usually describe conditions in the project area within the

Applegate River – McKee Bridge watershed, unless otherwise specified.


Project Summary of Elements for the Watershed

List of Project Elements- The proposed action includes the following elements:

• Timber Felling • Timber Yarding • Timber Hauling • Fuels Treatments • Temporary Road and Landing Construction • Culvert Replacements • Road Maintenance and Road Reconstruction • Temporary Road Decommissioning and Stabilizing

1. Water Quality

A. Temperature

Baseline Water Temperature – Forest Service Records, Hydrology Report

In the Applegate Subbasin Temperature TMDL, ODEQ identified that for non-point sources the load allocation is system potential vegetation quantified as average percent shade. Current and

future shade was modeled for every perennial stream in the subbasin (ODEQ 2003). National Forest System Lands within the proposed project area, Beaver Creek, Brushy Gulch, Mule Creek, Rock Gulch, and Waters Gulch, have a current shade value of greater than 80% effective shade. Future shade values show an increase in shade over 80% to account for a margin of safety. At a value of greater than 80% effective shade, a stream is considered recovered. The Applegate River, Kinney Creek, Palmer Creek, and Star Gulch have effective shade values less than 80%. Current shade on the Applegate River is 4%, Kinney Creek is 76.8%, Palmer Creek is 79.1%, and Star

Gulch is 60%. For these streams, the TMDL describes the time to recovery as the time needed to reach full system potential percent effective shade (ODEQ 2003). Applegate River, were active channel width exceeds 100-feet, ODEQ identified the current shade value as 4% and the future shade value as 13% (ODEQ 2003). There is little or no opportunity to improve vegetative stream shading (Hydrology Report). This watershed is considered functioning at risk with respect to the stream temperature indicator. Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing. Proximity – Most of these activities would occur outside of the primary shade zone of streams with surface water flows. No new temporary roads, landings or openings will be allowed with Riparian Reserves. Some of these activities would occur within Riparian Reserves away from stream channels with surface flow and with the PDC’s discussed previously, these actions would not

increase summer rearing temperatures.


A “Primary Shade Zone” criteria will be implemented to ensure that no warming of surface waters occurs. New and temporary road construction: There is no new road construction proposed. Therefore there is no loss of vegetation on any perennial streams and no effect to increasing stream temperature. No sediment from temporary road construction will affect the stream

channel morphology of intermittent streams or downstream perennial streams. Increased sediment loading can cause the channel to become wider and shallower, exposing more surface area to solar radiation and resulting in higher stream temperatures. No channel changes would occur from the proposed activities. See Hydrology section for further in-depth discussion. Fuel treatments activities in riparian areas will be accomplished by backing prescribed fire into the riparian area. Ignition points will not occur closer than 75 feet from a perennial stream. Based on monitoring of past prescribed fires in the 1995 Waters Creek fuel reduction project, the fire will

be a low intensity ground burn stopping at least 25 feet from the stream. Timber felling and timber yarding may occur within the primary shade zone and corridor widths would be limited to twelve feet wide or less across all streams and at least 200 feet apart. Timber hauling, road maintenance, culvert replacements and road decommissioning and stabilizing will occur near streams at existing crossings. See Hydrology section for further in-depth decision. Probability – No-harvest buffers, minimal corridor widths across streams and other design measures with the primary shade zone are specifically to protect shade (see PDC’s for timber felling and timber yarding). These measures will prevent warming of surface waters in stream channels. Fuels treatments will not decrease shade along streams and these actions will have no effect on stream temperature. No shade-providing trees will be removed except in the case of yarding corridors, which will be limited in size (12 feet in width) and frequency (no closer than 200 feet apart). No measurable stream heating from solar radiation is anticipated and water temperatures will be maintained. No primary shade zone over story riparian canopy, as described in Table 1 of the NWFP Temperature Strategy, will be affected by the prescribed burn. There will be no increase in stream temperature from prescribed burning. It is highly unlikely that stream

temperatures will increase from these activities at the site scale or at critical habitat downstream in fish-bearing streams. Magnitude – Yarding corridors twelve feet in width or less and a minimum of 200 feet apart are highly unlikely to cause increased solar radiation and warming of surface waters. (See Hydrology Report and modeling) The effect on water temperature will be dependant on the stream orientation, valley configuration and other factors. PDC’s are designed to ensure that these effects are very

small, if at all and not measurable at the site or reach scale. No measurable increase in stream temperatures will occur at critical habitat. These local effects are expected to be very slight and immeasurable on coho salmon individuals present at the site and downstream in the action area. Changes in surface water temperatures will be not be measurable or detectable and therefore will be discountable. It is highly unlikely that critical habitat will be affected by very minimal canopy openings only at occasional yarding corridor locations as all other vegetation shading surface waters in the reach will remain unaffected.

Effects on critical habitat will be immeasurable and discountable. These actions will have a very slight negative (-) effect on temperature.


B. Suspended Sediment – Intergravel DO/Turbidity, Substrate Character and

Embeddedness

Baseline Suspended Sediment – Hydrology Report, TMDL study, Stream Surveys

The Applegate Subbasin Sedimentation TMDL addresses the 1998 listing of Beaver Creek. The numeric target of less than or equal to 33% cobble embeddedness has been identified as the loading capacity for Beaver Creek. To achieve the loading capacity and meet the TMDL, ODEQ identified the surrogate measures as 1) system potential riparian vegetation for the length of Beaver Creek, 2) road density targets set for each drainage, and 3) road-stream crossing targets set for each drainage (ODEQ 2003).

The system potential riparian vegetation surrogate measure is identical to the targets set in the Temperature TMDL. Thus, the measures implemented to meet the Temperature TMDL would also meet the surrogate measure targets for the sedimentation TMDL. Riparian reserves would be 150 feet on either side of non-fish bearing streams and 300 feet on either side of fish bearing streams. This reserve width may be larger than that required to meet percent-effective shade targets, but would provide additional protections from sediments.

Long-term road density targets were identified by ODEQ for the Beaver Creek and its tributaries. The current road density for Beaver Creek (Mid) was 0.60 miles per square mile. Portions of this drainage area are within the project area. The current road density was the same as the 10-year target road density, thus, there was no percent reduction in road density identified for this portion of Beaver Creek. The target crossing frequencies were determined by ODEQ to be 2.0 crossings per stream mile and 3.0 crossings per road mile. For Beaver Creek (Mid), there were four drainage crossings in the middle position in the drainage. A portion of the Beaver Creek (Mid) drainage is within the project area. There were 2.7 crossings per mile of stream and no roads (i.e. no crossing

per mile of road). Thus, a 26% reduction in crossings per mile of stream would be needed to meet the target (Hydrology Report). Beaver Creek, in the Applegate –McKee 5th field watershed, is considered to be functioning at risk. Palmer Creek within this watershed is properly functioning for this parameter.

Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing. Proximity –Buffers within the Riparian Reserve are included in prescriptions for all streams to prevent sediment delivery mechanisms to channels. These include no cut buffers within 25 feet of all channels and buffers with very limited ground disturbance 50 to 60 feet (equal to the primary shade zone discussed in the Temperature section above) adjacent to stream channels. Following PDC’s, little ground disturbance will occur within 100 feet of stream channels in order to prevent sediment delivery and loss of soil porosity. Suspension of logs across channels through limited

width corridors and no new temporary roads within riparian zones will also filter sediment caused by ground-disturbing activities. As a preventative measure to prevent soil delivery, no more than 10% of soil infiltration capacity will be lost within 100 feet of streams. This mitigation measure is to prevent creation of sediment delivery pathways, providing a soil protection zone near streams.


Timber felling and timber yarding may occur across streams when yarding corridors are employed, corridor widths will be minimal and logs will be suspended over streams. To minimize disturbance in the soil protection zone within 100 feet of streams several alternate harvest techniques may be

applied: full suspension of yarded logs, helicopter yarding or long-reach harvesters running on slash or other methods will be employed to lessen soil impacts. All units where thinning will occur with subsequent harvest of merchantable trees will have 150 foot no harvest buffers on perennial and 300 foot no harvest buffers on fish bearing streams. The PDC’s and soil protection zones discussed previously will ensure that sediment does not reach channels. Timber hauling, road maintenance, culvert replacements and road decommissioning and stabilizing will occur near streams at existing crossings that have surface rock. PDC’s will be in place to add

surface rock at native surface stream crossings, replace culverts with minimal channel disturbance and haul during dry road conditions only. If roads are wet, sale administrators will monitor weather conditions and cease haul and road maintenance actions when ditchlines begin to flow water and/or roadbeds begin to saturate. Timber hauling within Riparian Reserves can result in dust and dirt becoming mobilized into the air and may eventually settle in streams. Dust abatement measures will be used to reduce the likelihood of this occurring. It is highly unlikely that this material will reach critical habitat in amounts that are discernable from natural background levels of suspended sediment.

Fuels treatments will occur away from stream channels, Hydrology Report. Following salvage logging of the fire killed trees from the 1987 Silver Fire on the Siskiyou National Forest, the effectiveness of riparian buffers were monitored before and after helicopter harvest. The Silver Fire used the following Siskiyou Forest Plan buffer widths:

• 150 feet on fish bearing streams • 100 feet on perennial streams • 25 feet on intermittent streams

A summary of the monitoring results found that buffer areas were very effective in maintaining

stream bank integrity as well as blocking sediment delivery (Kormeier 1995). Probability – No-harvest buffers to prevent sediment delivery (see PDC’s for timber felling and yarding, Hydrology report) will make it highly unlikely that sediment will deliver to streams. To minimize disturbance in the soil protection zone, full suspension of yarded logs, helicopter yarding or long-reach harvesters running on slash or other methods will be employed to lessen soil impacts. The proposed buffer widths are in excess of 100 feet from a stream, and with the less ground disturbing activity of thinning, the buffers are more than adequate to prevent any fine sediment

from reaching a stream. There will be no increase in fine sediment delivery to a stream or associated increase in turbidity from thinning and yarding. Several studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of riparian areas in buffering sediment delivery to a stream from upslope skyline timber harvest. All of the studies used clear cut harvest methods and not the less ground disturbing method of thinning as proposed in this project. Buffer widths of 100 feet were found to be effective in preventing sediment delivery from timber harvest (Corbett et al. 1978, Lynch et al. 1985, Moring 1982).


To detect changes in channel morphology from sediment delivery following riparian thinning and burning, photo points were established on a stream prior to activities for the 1995 Waters Creek Thin. Thinning and burning occurred within 25 feet of the stream channel. Monitoring sites on the stream included areas sensitive to increases in sediment delivery and flow from the project

activities. This included a pool, a vertical stream bank on a bend, and a vegetated low gradient section. In January 1997, two years after the project activities, there was a 50-year storm event. Comparison of the 1995 and 2005 photo points showed no change in the stream channel. There were no sediment deposits in the pool or low gradient stream section. The stream bank was unchanged. No evidence of sediment movement was present in the 25 foot to treatment area or in the riparian area where thinning and burning occurred (Hydrology report). Fuels treatments will occur away from stream channels with adequate buffers to filter any overland flow or movement of soils. A summary of the monitoring results stated from the hydrology report found that buffer areas were very effective in maintaining stream bank integrity as well as blocking sediment delivery (Kormeier 1995). Road maintenance and timber hauling at crossings, culvert replacement and road decommissioning and stabilizing could cause some sediment to enter channels through ditches or during work within stream channels in the case of culvert replacement or road decommissioning and stabilizing work. It is highly unlikely that sediment in sufficient quantities to affect local site conditions in the

stream channel or at critical habitat will occur during these activities. Sale administrators will observe weather and road conditions to ensure traffic on roads does not deliver sediment to ditchlines. The effects on sediment will be discountable at site and watershed scale. None of the streams in the proposed project area are listed as water quality limited for dissolved oxygen. The only potential effects on reducing dissolved oxygen from the activities would be a reduction in stream shade or mass wasting of sediment into a stream resulting in changes to the channel morphology. There will be no loss of stream shade (See Hydrology, Temperature Section)

or increase in sediment delivery (See Hydrology, Fine and Coarse Sediment sections.) No changes in dissolved oxygen associated with the proposed activities would occur. Magnitude – All units where thinning would occur with subsequent harvest of merchantable trees would have a 300-foot Riparian Reserve on fish-bearing perennial streams, an 150-foot Riparian Reserve on non fish-bearing perennial streams, and an 150-foot Riparian Reserve on intermittent streams and wetlands. The proposed Riparian Reserves are greater than or equal to the widths

found to prevent sediment delivery to streams and maintain stream bank integrity. Further, with the less ground disturbing activity of thinning (as compared to clear cut methods used in published studies), the Riparian Reserves would be more than adequate to prevent any fine sediment from reaching a stream. By implementing the Riparian Reserve widths above and the PDCs, the Hydrology Report states that there would be no increase in fine sediment delivery to a stream or associated increase in turbidity from thinning activities. PDC’s for these actions will greatly decrease the amount of sediment entering the stream system

and these occurrences will be few and varied in time and space. The PDC’s are designed to prevent creation of pathways or delivery mechanisms allowing sediment to reach stream channels. Very small amounts of sediment, if any, may enter stream channels during timber hauling, road maintenance, culvert replacement and road decommissioning and stabilizing activities.


No measurable increase in sediment will occur at critical habitat as any sediment entering stream courses is expected to be very slight and immeasurable. Effects of very small amounts of sediment reaching critical habitat and coho salmon individuals present at the site and downstream in the action area will be discountable. The proposed action will have a slight negative (-) effect on

sediment.

C. Water Quality - Chemical Contamination/Nutrient

Baseline-DEQ, Monitoring

Beaver and Palmer Creeks are not listed on the 303(d) list for contaminants or excessive nutrients. Downstream on agriculture and residential lands some contamination may occur from agriculture runoff or effluent from septic tanks, lawns and other sources. In the action area on National Forest System Lands (NFSL), the watershed is properly functioning and it is assumed that the entire watershed is properly functioning.

Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing The proposed project elements do not place equipment near stream channels where it would be possible for chemicals to spill. Replacing culverts within stream channels has the potential to deliver petroleum products to downstream critical habitats and affect individual coho salmon. This will not occur under normal circumstances due to guidelines and design criteria set forth here

where equipment will be required to be free of leaks and drips to prevent fuels, oils and other contaminants from entering stream courses. A spill plan will be in place prior to any activity, which would encompass appropriate BMPs for minimizing any risk of spills associated with equipment use.

Hazardous materials (particularly petroleum products) would be stored in durable containers and

located so that any accidental spill would be contained and not drained into riparian areas. All landing trash and logging materials would be removed. Accidental spills or discovery of the dumping of any hazardous materials would be reported to the Sale Administrator and the procedures outlined in the “Rogue River–Siskiyou NF Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Emergency Response Contingency Plan” would be followed. The proposed elements would have a neutral (0) effect on Chemical Contamination/Nutrients.

2. Habitat Access - A. Physical barriers

Baseline-WA

Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th Field Watershed Coho salmon are found in Beaver Creek up to a natural waterfall near river mile 1.8 and in Palmer Creek to a bedrock chute above the Lime Gulch confluence near river mile 2.4. A water diversion in lower Palmer Creek on NFSL is a potential barrier to juvenile fish migration during certain flows. Stream connectivity in Palmer Creek is compromised by hydraulic mining deposits, and stream sinuosity is reduced in both streams by channel incision or mining tailing piles. Stream restoration

is currently being deployed to correct the segments of stream with summer passage barriers due to past mining activities.


A natural falls over bedrock exists at the mouth of Star Gulch. A fish ladder was constructed to facilitate passage over this fall in 1974 (USDI, 2005). This ladder has been observed occasionally to plug up with debris, and at such times passage over it is probably reduced. In Star Gulch juvenile coho were present to the 1918 Gulch confluence (~river mile 4.3) in 2005, where an old debris jam

with subsurface flow through aggraded substrates appeared to halt upstream migration to juveniles. The debris jam would likely not be an adult coho barrier during normal winter flow levels.

There are no known culverts or human structures on National Forest System Lands within the Action Area that block passage of coho salmon at any life stage from upstream and downstream migration. The Applegate River-McKee Bridge is properly functioning for this indicator.

Little Applegate River 5th Field Watershed

Eleven irrigation dams and seven culverts block or restrict movement of fish and other aquatic species. Diversion dams are on private lands on the mainstem of the Little Applegate River and

McDonald Creek. All of the culverts are on BLM and NFSL roads. A natural falls approximately 1.9 river miles on the Little Applegate River is suspected to be a coho and Chinook salmon barrier (USDA 1995). No known confirmed occurrence of theses two species exists above the falls. Upper Applegate River 5th Field Watershed Applegate Dam is a complete barrier to anadromous fish. This dam exists at the boundary between Upper Applegate River 5th field watershed and Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field watershed.

Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing The proposed project elements would not create any physical barriers to fish migration. Most activities are well away from fish-bearing streams. In addition, riparian habitat would be protected from logging damage by directionally felling trees and yarding logs away from or parallel to the riparian buffers. Culvert replacements in stream channels, if they occur, will not be in or near Critical Habitat for coho salmon.

The proposed elements would have a neutral (0) effect on Physical Barriers. 3. Habitat Elements

A. Large Woody Material

Baseline- Watershed analyses, stream surveys

Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field watershed In general, fish habitat in Applegate River and its tributaries have been substantially altered from pre-European condition. Various human activities have reduced the quality and quantity of fish habitat in this watershed. The Applegate River has been dammed, channelized, diked, experienced wood extraction, water withdrawal, and currently lacks substantial off-channel habitats important for fish rearing. Management activities that have reduced the quality and quantity of fish habitat in Beaver and Palmer Creeks are: road-building, timber harvest (especially in the riparian area),

stream cleanout, water diversion, hydraulic and placer mining (USDA 1994).


For example, large wood frequency in both Beaver and Palmer creeks in 1994 was only about 25% of the desired level (> 80 pieces per mile, USDA FS 1994). The baseline conditions for Eastside Klamath Mtn. (Klamath-Siskiyou Mtn. Habitat Matrix) stream reaches is 25 pieces of wood per mile that meets a diameter of at least 24 inches and a length of 50 feet or twice the bankfull width in

length (Rogue- South Coast Level 1 Team, 1998). In comparison, frequency of high-quality pools greater than 3 feet deep was extremely low (USDA 1990, 1998). Although some spawning gravel exists in these streams, the streambeds are generally dominated by cobble-sized substrate inadequate for spawning. Decomposed granitic sand is common in Beaver Creek, occupying about 30% of the volume of many pools (ARWC unpub. data). Large wood has been added to sections of Beaver and Palmer creeks during the past decade to remedy fish habitat deficiencies and has provided local habitat benefits. Areas where large wood was placed has changed from a bedrock-dominated substrate to cobble and gravel. Habitat complexity has increased in these selected sites

providing much needed rearing and spawning habitat. Little Applegate River 5th field watershed Less than one percent of riparian acreage along the mainstem Little Applegate is dominated by late successional vegetation and contribute very little large wood to fish habitat. Timber harvest, road construction next to streams and mining have removed potential source of wood for stream channels as stated in the watershed analysis (USDA 1995).

Upper Applegate River 5th field watershed Past timber management activities and stream clean out have removed most wood from Squaw Creek tributaries as stated in the watershed analysis (USDA 1995). Therefore, LWD would be considered functioning at risk.

Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing

Proximity – Most of the project elements would not have a direct or indirect impact on LWD within the stream channel. These activities will take place generally at least one site tree from the stream channel and thus for the most part be outside of the large wood contribution zone. Timber felling and timber yarding will occur within one site tree to remove competing and generally smaller diameter trees. In some localized and scattered instances a yarding corridor with a maximum width of twelve feet will facilitate reaching thinning areas at inaccessible locations within the plantation.

Fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing will either occur away from the wood contribution zone of stream channels or the nature of the work will have no effect on future wood contribution. Probability – Timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing will mostly occur outside of the primary shade zone of stream channels, the primary wood contribution zone for streams. Timber felling and timber yarding may occur through yarding corridors of limited width and extent along the stream. In these very specific locations some trees will be removed from a twelve-foot wide swath to accommodate suspension of logs from across the channel. Trees felled within the primary shade zone would be left on site for course woody debris. These corridors will be widely spaced (200 feet or greater) and sporadic within the watershed.


Thinning will occur in young managed stand incapable of supplying large wood to streams at present. Project activities within the first site tree of perennial channels will emphasize thinning to accelerate growth to large trees and not remove large trees. These activities will have little effect on current large wood recruitment, as they will not reduce the supply of large wood from the

riparian forest wood contribution zone or remove wood present in the stream. No large wood will be removed from stream channels as part of this project. Fuels treatments will be located mostly outside of the primary shade zone or at least 25 feet from channels. It is highly unlikely that these projects will affect wood regimes at local and watershed scales.

The 25-foot no treatment zone along both sides of all stream channel types will provide for attrition of young trees as these areas thin naturally and wood enters the adjacent stream channel. The soil protection zone and primary shade zone will add protection to this area near streams. At

critical habitat these effects will be much less likely to occur as these streams are almost always perennial and larger, thus primary shade zones and other PDC’s will further protect the wood contribution zone along streams. Long-term positive effects of thinning stands in the large wood delivery zone of streams may have a small positive effect on the large wood indicator. Magnitude - Effects of timber felling and yarding in the large wood contribution zones will be immeasurable. Most trees thinned and yarded will be understory or smaller diameter trees that would probably not grow to full size as the stand would have thinned itself over time. Thinning

prescriptions are designed to create a large tree forest within the Riparian Reserve. Where yarding corridors are created to facilitate yarding, effects will be very localized along specific twelve-foot long segments of the stream profile. Effects will be negligible and insignificant at the local and watershed scale from these narrow corridors. The proposed elements would have a slight negative (-) effect and a slight positive (+) effect on Large Woody Material.

B. Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel Habitat, Refugia

C. Channel Condition and Dynamics (Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio,

Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity)

Baseline- Stream Surveys, Hydrology Report

Applegate River The Applegate River within the proposed project area is characterized as a low gradient unconfined

alluviated valley. Typically, streams located in this type of valley are sinuous with connected floodplains. The dominant bed material is gravel and cobble and a meandering stream channel. Along the Applegate River, as with other valley sections throughout the area, to maximize useable land for homes and agriculture riparian vegetation is cut and the stream is straightened. The stream responds by down cutting creating steep streambanks and becoming dissociated from the floodplains. Areas that were previously depositional zones have become transport zones and effectively removed gravels from the system (USDI, USDA 1995). Beaver and Palmer Creek Large wood frequency in both Beaver and Palmer creeks in 1994 was only about 25% of the desired level (> 80 pieces per mile) (USDA FS 1994). In addition, frequency of high-quality pools greater than 3 feet deep was extremely low (USDA 1990, 1998). Side channels and other types of off-channel habitats are rare in both Beaver and Palmer creeks (Tioga 1999, 2001).


Large wood has been added to sections of Beaver and Palmer creeks during the past decade and has provided local habitat benefits. In Beaver Creek, there are areas where large wood was placed, changing the site from a bedrock-dominated substrate to cobble and gravel with pool habitat. Habitat complexity has increased in these selected sites providing much needed rearing and

spawning habitat within both creeks (USDA 2006). See Habitat Element – Wood above for further pool and channel description. Star Gulch In general, Star Gulch is a moderate to high gradient channel located in a narrow, steep valley. Riffles are the dominant feature and pools comprise less than 20% of the habitat. Gravel (30%), cobble, boulder, and bedrock make up the majority of substrate present. Fine substrate accounts for 10% or less of all substrate present in the anadromous fish reaches. Large wood is generally

lacking. Star Gulch is overall managed by the Medford Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service manages a ¾ mile stream segment in the lower subwatershed (USDA 2006). Information on channel morphology for the remaining streams within the proposed project area is limited. Neither Level 2 Stream Surveys nor Rosgen Level II surveys were conducted. In addition, the watershed analyses that included these streams did not have any specific information on physical characteristics for these streams.

The watershed is functioning at risk for Pool Frequency, Large Pools, Off-Channel Habitat and Refugia. Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing Proximity – Project activities would not have any affect on instream pool habitats, off-channel habitats or refuge areas for salmonids due to the proximity of these actions away from stream

channels. No-harvest buffers away from the channel and PDC’s that limit temporary road construction to outside of RRs will protect instream features. Only yarding corridors would be close to these instream habitat features and these will be very infrequent in the stream system.

Probability – Pool habitats form as a result of the interaction between the stream and large woody debris accumulations and the geologic features that form the channel. There is no probability that the very small and localized effects to large wood recruitment and sediment would translate to

changes in stream habitat and affect the nature of pools. The project is thinning small diameter trees, which would not contribute to formation of pools at critical habitat. Yarding corridors will take some small diameter trees from near the channel in very localized areas. There is no probability that these actions will affect instream habitat elements such as pools, off-channel areas and refuge areas, width, bankfull dimensions or floodplain connectivity.. Magnitude - These independent and scattered actions such as timber yarding corridors will not have an effect on primary habitat constituents such as pools, off-channel habitats and refugia. These

instream features are formed by large trees forming complexes or large geomorphic features that are unaffected by localized vegetation changes. The magnitude of sediment reaching stream channels from road-related actions will be extremely low and insignificant to instream habitats.


No effects to pool depth or pool volume will occur. There is no chance of these possible small inputs of sediment affecting Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel Habitat, or Refugia habitats, Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity at the site level or at critical habitat.

These elements would result in a neutral (0) effect on these indicators. 5. Flow/Hydrology

A. Changes in Peak and Base Flows

Baseline-Hydrology Report

Base Flows Streamflow within the proposed project area reflects the precipitation pattern and runoff lags about a month behind the precipitation. Approximately 80% of the annual precipitation falls from November through April, thus about 80% of the runoff occurs from December through May (USDI,

USDA 1995). Flow data is limited to streams with past and/or current gage stations. Data from the Star Gulch gaging station showed that flows ranged from 1400 cfs during storm events to 0 cfs during low flow (USDA 1994). On the Applegate River, streamflow has been regulated since 1980 by releases from Applegate Dam (USDI, USDA 1995) (USGS NWIS). Mean monthly discharge from October 1981 to September 2006 show that mean monthly flows ranged from 236 cfs in August to 749 cfs in January (USGS NWIS). There are no flow records for the other streams within the proposed project area.

Some of the perennial streams have such low flow in the summer months that measuring flow is not warranted. For example, the Squaw/Elliot/Lake Watershed Analysis notes that Mule Creek is dry by June in most years and summer flows in Kinney Creek are so low they can be measured in terms of gallons per minute (1995). According to watershed analyses streams within the proposed project area have been altered from past human activities, including extensive hydraulic and placer mining, timber harvest, road building, grazing, and agriculture. The effects from some of these activities are currently still present (USDA 1994, USDI, USDA 1995, USDA(2) 1995) as stated in the

Hydrology Report. Peak Flows Increases in peak flows can be associated with some forest management activities. Many studies have shown that certain methods of timber harvest can result in increased peak flows. Recent literature from Grant et al addresses the effects of forest practices on peak flows and the consequent channel response in western Oregon (draft in review, 2006). Grant et al synthesizes the findings of an extensive array of existing literature linking forest practices in the Pacific

Northwest with changes to peak flow. Based on the hydroregions developed by Grant et al, the proposed project area would be located in the transitional hydroregion. For basins within the transitional zone, Grant et al found that the detection threshold for changes in peak flows occurs at 20% of watershed area harvested. Thus, changes in peak flows cannot be detected at harvest levels of less than 20%. Further, Grant et al found that peak flow increases decrease with decreasing percent of basin area harvested (draft in

review, 2006).


Although most of the existing studies examined clearcut and shelterwood harvests, evaluating this type of treatment provides a frame of reference for interpreting the maximum likely effects of thinning harvest practices more common today (e.g., extensive riparian buffers, limited ground

disturbance logging methods, and fire.) Grant et al concludes that partial cutting and thinning should result in peak flow changes that are commensurately lower than those indicated and may be undetectable in some basins (draft in review, 2006) as stated in the Hydrology Report. The watershed is at risk for this Flow/Hydrology indicator. Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing Proximity: Most of these activities will occur away from stream channels and outside of one site tree distance from streams and/or outside the near surface water delivery zone of stream systems. Buffers within the Riparian Reserve are included in prescriptions for all streams to prevent accelerating delivery mechanisms to channels. These include no cut buffers within 25 feet of all channels and buffers with very limited ground disturbance 50 to 60 feet (equal to the primary shade zone discussed in the Temperature section above) adjacent to stream channels. Following PDC’s, little ground disturbance will occur within 100 feet of stream channels to prevent

acceleration of water delivery and loss of soil porosity.

Probability - Thinning of overcrowded trees in managed stands is not expected to have any measurable impact on stream flow within fish-bearing waters below the treatment areas. Recent literature from Grant et al addresses the effects of forest practices on peak flows and the consequent channel response in western Oregon (Grant et al, 2006). Recent literature from Grant et al addresses the effects of forest practices on peak flows and the consequent channel response in western Oregon (Grant et al, 2006). Grant et al synthesizes the findings of an extensive array

of existing literature linking forest practices in the Pacific Northwest with changes to peak flow. For basins within the transitional zone, Grant et al found that the detection threshold for changes in peak flows occurs at 20% of watershed area harvested. Thus, changes in peak flows cannot be detected at harvest levels of less than 20% (Grant et al 2006). Based on the hydroregions developed by Grant et al, the project area would be located in the transitional hydroregion. The proposed project would be implemented over 7.4% of the Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field

watershed and over 0.2% of the Upper Applegate River 5th field watershed. The percent of the watershed treated would be much less than the percentage determined by Grant et al to detect any increase in peak flow due to harvest. Further, most of the existing studies examined clearcut and shelterwood harvests, thus, evaluating this type of treatment would interpret the maximum likely effects of the harvest practices proposed for the UAR HFR project. Gordon et al also concludes that partial cutting and thinning should result in peak flow changes that are commensurately lower than those indicated and may be undetectable in some basins (Grant et al, 2006). Therefore, due to the small amount of the watersheds affected and the types of treatments proposed (density

management, prescribed fire, and surface fuels treatment), no increase in peak flows would be expected.


The proposed project would have a neutral (0) effect on Changes in Peak and Base Flows.

A. Flow/Hydrology - Drainage Network Density

Baseline-WA

The density of a stream network reflects the climate pattern, geology, soils, and vegetation cover within a watershed. The drainage density in the watershed is characterized by a finely divided network of streams with short lengths and steep slopes. The short lengths decrease the travel time of water down the channels and the steepness increases the potential for sediment delivery and transport. Additionally, the small sizes of the 6th field watersheds result in a more rapid stream flow increase in response to rainfall. Intermittent channels are the dominant stream type in

the watersheds. See road density for impacts. The drainage network density and would be considered properly functioning.

Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber hauling, fuels treatments, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing No new permanent roads are proposed with this project that would increase drainage density.

These elements would have no causal mechanism to impact drainage network density, and would result in a neutral (0) effect on this indicator.

Timber Yarding, temporary roads and landings Proximity – See previous discussion in indicators above, these actions are minimal near streams.

Probability –Project design mostly implementing actions away from stream channels – primarily outside of the proposed 100 foot wide soil protection zone - ensures that any excessive soil furrowing would not serve as a direct conduit of water to stream channels. Yarding lanes that cause excessive furrowing would be hand water-barred and/or filled with limbs or other organic debris to prevent erosion, rilling and extension of the drainage network. In addition, little or no thinning would occur near streams providing a riparian buffer that would further dissipate any concentrated flow potentially originating from these yarding trails.

Temporary roads and landings will be constructed and then obliterated away from riparian areas and stream channels and not add to the drainage network. Using the primary shade zones as protected buffers for soil movement to stream channels will prevent sediment delivery to channels. Therefore, there is no probability of an effect from this project element. Timber yarding and temporary roads and landings would result in a neutral (0) effect on drainage network densities. 6. Watershed Conditions

A. Road Density

Baseline-WA, Hydrology Report


There are 10.48 miles of roads across all ownerships within the project area (excludes 0.74 mile of county road.) The road density for all roads is 1.62 miles of road per square mile and 1.01 miles per square mile for NFSL roads. The watershed relief is 10.5%. These road densities with a 10.5% watershed relief are in the low watershed risk category. If watershed relief is greater than 30%, a road density of less than 2.0 is considered low risk. If watershed relief is less than 30%, a road density of less than 3.0 is considered low risk (UDSA 1993).

There are nine road stream crossings and 0.86 road crossings per mile of road. In the Applegate Subbasin Sedimentation TMDL, the target crossing frequencies are a maximum of 3.0 crossings per mile of road (See Water Quality section below). There are 1.15 miles of road within 100 feet of streams; thus, 10.91% of existing roads are within 100 feet of streams. Most of these road segments are on slopes less than 30%.

There would be a maximum of 2,000 feet (0.38 mile) of temporary road construction. Temporary roads would be defined as a created travel way, for the purpose of transporting logs that is built, utilized, and decommissioned (obliterated) over the course of the treatment. Obliteration of these roads would occur at the completion of their intended use. Temporary roads would only include reconstruction of existing (Unclassified) roads where there is an existing road template. These temporary roads would be located near ridgelines. In addition, the temporary roads would not be located within Riparian Reserves or within 100 feet of ephemeral streams as stated within the Hydrology Report.

Road Density for the watershed and action area would be considered functioning.

Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber hauling, prescribed burning, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing: There is no new road construction proposed. Therefore there is no loss of vegetation on any perennial streams and no effect to increasing stream temperature. No sediment from temporary road construction will

affect the stream channel morphology of intermittent streams or downstream perennial streams since they will be built for short distances away from streams and these will be drained and obliterated immediately after use. The proposed elements would have a neutral effect (0) on Road Density. 7. Watershed Conditions A. Disturbance History & Regime


GIS analysis of stand age on managed NFSL in the Applegate River-McKee Bridge watershed showed that there are no stands less than 30 years old. The acres of BLM lands that are characterized as young stands were determined based on analysis completed for the Deadman’s Palm Landscape Project. Percent crown closure was estimated using vegetation condition class, and

young stands were identified as stands that had a crown closure of 30% or less.


Early-seral/seedling/sapling and pole classes and were considered to have a crown closure of 30% or less. Approximately 3,006 acres (5.7%) are currently characterized as young stands within the watershed. This may be an overestimation of acres in young stands because the slow growth of conifers on many sites in this area means that trees 11 inches in diameter may be much older than

30 years. On private land, all stands are assumed to be young (7,004 acres, 13%). This assumption was made because the Forest Service does not have accurate data for stand age on private lands, and harvest is generally managed on a shorter rotation than that which occurs on public lands. Thus, since approximately 19% of the watershed is likely young stands, there would be a moderate watershed risk. Disturbance History for the watershed and action area would be considered functioning at risk.

Analysis of Effects Timber felling, timber hauling, fuels treatments, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing There are no timber sale projects currently being implemented on managed NFSL in the Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field watershed. On BLM lands, the Bobar/Bald Lick Timber Sale and the Deadman Palm Landscape Project are assumed to be implemented because a NEPA Decision Record has been completed and signed. Although there are no management activities associated with these projects currently occurring, implementation could begin in the near future. Both of these projects

include thinning and fuels reduction, non-commercial fuels reduction, and pre-commercial thinning of pole-sized commercial stands. None of these projects would increase the amount of young stands within the watershed. Harvest on private lands is assumed to be on-going with management occurring on a 60-year rotation.

The proposed project is a density management treatment plan that would enhance development of the mid-seral age stands to late successional habitat conditions. Thinning prescriptions will retain trees outside of the no-harvest buffers where landslides or debris flows are most likely to initiate, particularly those that could impact streams, ponds, and wetlands. Permanent roads will not be

constructed and other activities near streams will be very localized, minor and not affect the watershed conditions. There is no probability that the activities proposed will affect the disturbance regime, as harvest buffers would prevent disturbance from negatively affecting riparian areas and critical habitat downstream. Local very small effects to sediment, large wood and Riparian Reserves will be negligible and not collectively influence the disturbance regime of the watershed. Short-term local

and insignificant effects will be offset by long-term benefits to the large wood regime and Riparian Reserves from accelerated tree growth. Fire suppression has occurred over the last 100 years. Although timber harvest does not replace the full range of effects from fire, it does mimic a disturbance pattern within the watershed and the potential for fire in the watershed still exists. It is improbable that any change in the overall disturbance regime, as a result of this project, would affect critical habitat.

There is no probability that timber hauling on existing roadways or road maintenance would impact the overall Disturbance Regime for the action area or watershed. All temporary road construction would be constructed, used during the dry season, and stabilized for over-wintering or decommissioned the same season as constructed.


Therefore, there is no probability for road related effects (such as increased peak flows) resulting from the new temporary construction. The proposed elements would have a neutral (0) effect on Disturbance History and Regime.

B. Riparian Reserves


The vegetation in Riparian Reserves is comprised of riparian and upland forest communities. Generally where riparian areas are present, they are functioning with a variety of conifers, hardwoods, riparian shrubs, and wetland plant species. In some areas, there are large patches of blackberry out-competing riparian species. In Beaver Creek, Palmer Creek, and Star Gulch there are few large conifers in the riparian areas due to past management activities. Infestations of

blackberry in these areas inhibit recovery and potential large wood recruitment. In areas where there is sparse to no riparian vegetation, the plant community is similar to the adjacent upland forest. At some sites, this is due to the effects of roads located near the streams. The forest vegetation is overstocked in some of the Riparian Reserves due to past fire exclusion and harvesting practices. In their present state, some of the Riparian Reserves are as vulnerable to stand replacement wildfires as the adjacent uplands (USDA 2006). The watershed is functioning at risk for the Riparian Reserve indicator. Analysis of Effects

Timber felling, timber hauling, prescribed burning, temporary road landing and construction, culvert replacements, road maintenance and road decommissioning and stabilizing Proximity – Approximately 44 acres of fish bearing and 180 of nonfish bearing Riparian Reserves will be managed by this project to accelerate tree growth to late seral conditions within the Riparian Reserve. Prescriptions are designed to remove competing smaller trees and provide

adequate growing space for the forest to mature. This will benefit riparian values and expedite large wood contribution, shade and other riparian benefits to streams. PDC’s will allow harvest in riparian areas only if the action meets shade, sediment, large wood objectives and other water quality, fisheries and terrestrial wildlife objectives to improve Riparian Reserve functions. Fiber production is considered incidental for the project within Riparian Reserves and only considered outside of the primary shade zones of streams with surface water. Most thinning will occur in the outer band of riparian areas, outside of primary shade zones.

Probability – The portions of the Riparian Reserves proposed for thinning and prescribed burning have been harvested in the past. Since much of the project area has been harvested, there is a shortage of large wood for recruitment. Thinning would increase tree growth and lessen the time needed to establish future large wood delivery. Both thinning and fuels treatment would lower the likelihood of a stand replacement fire in the overstocked Riparian Reserves. By implementing PDCs, the Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies

and BMPs (1988), impacts to riparian vegetation would be minimal. No timber harvest or fuels treatments would be allowed within 25 feet of streams. Probability is very low that thinning of understory trees to promote tree growth will negatively affect riparian function and values.


Prescriptions are designed to release healthy trees and remove sub-dominant trees taking up growing space and retarding dominant tree growth. Effects on riparian functions will be very slight, if at all, during and immediately after thinning operations and the probability of effects discountable and negligible. Increased tree growth will produce a small positive effect for riparian

zones by accelerating growth to a mature riparian forest. Magnitude – The extent of effects on Riparian Reserves will be small as trees are thinned and short-term. Only those portions of the riparian areas will be thinned where channels are protected from sediment inputs and removal of shade trees. Long-term there may be slight positive effects to the functionality of the Riparian Reserve as trees grow larger and provide mature tree habitat along streams. The very slight effects on Riparian Reserves from thinning are considered insignificant and discountable at the local site and watershed scale.

The proposed elements would have a negligible negative (-) effect and a negligible positive (+) effect on Riparian Reserves.

Discussion of Watershed Effects

Proposed activities for the UAR Project; principally thinning within the watershed, were determined

to have slightly negative effects for a few specific habitat and water quality indicators cited above within the Applegate River-McKee Bridge watershed. Four indicators within the project area would receive slight short-term negative effects – Water temperature, Sediment/Embeddedness of stream substrates, Large Woody Material and Riparian Reserves – and also were determined to receive slightly beneficial effects in the longer term. The project objectives of restoring riparian functions and processes by accelerating tree growth in riparian areas will have benefits to shading surface waters, growing future large wood for stream and aid in restoring riparian area functions in less time. The project was determined to have neutral effects on the remaining indicators.

It is not anticipated that these slight negative effects will work synergistically to create a larger effect within the watershed. Riparian areas and riparian vegetation will buffer stream channels and downstream critical habitat from effects. Project activities will be scattered in location and timing and are anticipated to only slightly affect different stream reaches and streams at different periods of time. These effects, if any, are expected to be very small, insignificant and immeasurable.

There is a low probability that tree harvest and fuels reduction work occasionally twenty-five feet away from stream channels and in most instances at least 100 feet on each side of streams will produce even very localized and minor effects. Riparian buffers in place and with other PDC’s will prevent most effects in headwater streams, fish-bearing stream reaches, and effects to critical habitat. Any negligible effects that do occur related to sediment delivery to streams are expected to occur during the first fall rains or at the time of first flushing of leaves and detritus in channels and thus be short term in duration. Little or no sediment will reach active stream channels, and

project designs and mitigations will ensure that surface waters will not be warmed by increased solar radiation. These PDC’s will also result in accelerated tree growth and provide future and current large wood to channels at the expected frequency and spacing along stream profiles. Riparian Reserves will continue to function and canopy openings created by thinning will result in more rapid tree growth along streams in the project area.


If small effects do occur at specific sites, these are expected to be very minor, short term (less than one year), immeasurable, insignificant and discountable at both the site, reach and sub-watershed and watershed scale. Beneficial long-term effects (as long as several decades), likewise minor and insignificant, are expected with accelerated tree growth in Riparian Reserves.

These positive effects will be slight at the watershed scale as treatment areas are located sporadically within the stream system and riparian zones thinned represent a very small percentage of total riparian zones along streams. More rapid tree growth will decrease solar radiation to surface waters, provide larger wood to channels in a shorter time period and restore riparian forests to mature condition more rapidly. Given the frequent periodicity of wild fire historically in the Applegate River sub-basin, thinning may reduce the intensity, rate of spread and size of future wildfires. This may better protect riparian and aquatic flora and fauna from the effects of very

intense wildfires. The streams within the three 5th field watersheds drain directly into the Applegate River, Rogue River and than to the Pacific Ocean. It is not expected that any of the possible slight negative or positive effects from this project will be measurable and project effects will be insignificant in affecting fish or critical habitat downstream in the mainstem Applegate River or the Rogue River.

No Action

If no action occurs, a large scale wildfire could occur. While many uncertainties exist about effects of wildlife to fish (see Bisson et al. 2003), in general, direct or short-term physical effects from large scale wildfire can include reduction in ground and canopy cover and an increase in water temperature, erosion and sedimentation rates, and changes in pH and chemical concentrations

(Rieman and Clayton 1997; Benda et al. 2003). These physical effects can be manifested in fish individuals and populations by altered behavior, reduced fitness, and subsequent declines in population abundance and distribution. Conversely, wildfires can improve fish habitat and increase fish production through increased input of large wood, gravels, and nutrients (Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Minshall 2003; Spencer et al. 2003). In Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains, summer water temperature increased as much as 10° C in small streams that were intensely burned by the Silver Fire and lost canopy cover (Amaranthus 1990).

However, Amaranthus found water temperatures did not increase at the mouth of large, fish-bearing streams downstream of the fire area, possibly due to increased base flows or groundwater recharge. In Glade Creek, seven-day average maximum temperatures increased 0.7° C the summer following the Quartz Gulch Fire, while no increase was observed in an adjacent unburned watershed (Reid unpub. data). In Glade Creek, Sedell (2003) found an increase in large wood and bank instability, and a decrease in deep pool frequency the year following the Quartz Gulch Fire.

Effects of fire-caused physical changes to fish populations vary based on fire intensity; physical watershed parameters such as geology, drainage density, slope, land management, precipitation, and vegetation; and connectivity and abundance of fish sub-populations (Dunham et al. 2003; Rieman et al. 2003; Kershner et al. 2004). Fish population abundance and distribution can decrease in the first or second year following a large wildfire, then increase to pre-fire levels or greater in the following years because of improved spawning and rearing habitats (Howell 2003). These responses were observed during recent large wildfires in Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains with juvenile steelhead in Silver Creek (Haspiel 1990) and rainbow trout in Glade Creek (Chambers 2003; Reid unpub. data).


VI. ESA EFFECTS DETERMINATION

DICHOTOMOUS KEY FOR MAKING SECTION 7 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Name and location of action UAR Project, Applegate River-McKee Bridge 1. Are there any proposed/listed anadromous salmonids and/or proposed/designated critical habitat

in the watershed or downstream from the watershed?

NO........................................................................................................................................................... No effect YES .................................................................................................................................May affect, go to 2 *

2. Will the proposed action(s) have any effect whatsoever2 on the species and/or critical habitat?

NO...........................................................................................................................................................No Effect YES ........................................................................................... Go to 3

3. Does the proposed action(s) have the potential to hinder attainment of relevant properly

functioning indicators (from checklist)? NO ............................................................................................ Go to 4

YES ...........................................................................................................................Likely to adversely affect

4. Does the proposed action(s) have the potential to result in "take" **of proposed/listed

anadromous salmonids or destruction/ adverse modification of proposed/designated critical habitat?

A. There is a negligible (extremely low) probability of take of proposed/listed anadromous

salmonids or destruction/adverse modification of proposed/designated critical habitat ........

.......................................................................Not likely to adversely affect

B. There is more than a negligible probability of take of proposed/listed anadromous salmonids or destruction/adverse modification of proposed/designated critical habitat ...................................... ....................................................................................................................................Likely to adversely affect

* "Any effect whatsoever” includes small effects, effects that are unlikely to occur, and beneficial effects, i.e. a “no effect” determination is only appropriate if the proposed action will literally have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect, an effect that is unlikely to occur, or a beneficial effect.

** "Take" - The ESA (Section 3) defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct". The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering", and "harass" as "actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering".


Threatened species The proposed action may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect SONCCC coho salmon or their critical habitat. Sediment would likely be delivered to critical habitat as a result of road maintenance and haul. However, the amount of sediment delivered to stream channels would be

very small and of short duration. Adequate mitigations would be in place to limit the amount of sediment to levels within the range of natural variability for the season of impact. Therefore, this increase in sediment would not likely render critical habitat unsuitable or affect coho salmon productivity, survival, or mortality.

Magnuson-Stevens Act species The proposed action would not adversely affect essential fish habitat for SONCC coho salmon or SOCC Chinook salmon. Long-term benefits of habitat improvement outweigh the potential for a slight increase in sediment delivery during the high fall stream-flows.

Conservation Recommendations for Essential Fish Habitat (EHF) The Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures, together with Best Management Practices and

the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would adequately minimize the type, frequency, duration, timing, and intensity of potential adverse effects to EFH. Therefore, no further conservation measures are recommended.

Consultation for the ESA & MSA

This project (and its analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act) is authorized as a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003, as previously stated earlier in this document. The analytical process was utilized and the determination was may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect SONCC coho salmon or their critical habitat. This meets

requirements under the Joint Counterpart Regulations of the Alternative Consultation Agreement between federal regulatory and land management agencies (50 CFR 402.04). This project will be reported to NOAA Fisheries in the first March following line officer signature on the Decision Notice.

Regional Forester’s Region Six Forest Service Sensitive Species List

Sensitive fish species reside in similar or upstream areas and habitat from the project area as coho salmon. Project actions will have comparable effects to sensitive species as stated for threatened species. A “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards

Federal Listing or Cause A Loss of Viability to The Population or Species” determination was made for KMP steelhead trout, SONCC chinook salmon, and SOCC coastal cutthroat trout.

VII. LITERATURE CITED

Amaranthus, M. 1990. Stream shading, summer stream flow, and maximum water temperature following intense wildfire in headwater streams. In: Wildfire recovery and monitoring. Siskiyou National Forest 1990 monitoring reports. Benda, L., D. Miller, P. Bigelow, and K. Andras. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channel environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 105-119.

Bisson, P.B., B.E. Rieman, C. Luce, P.F. Hessburg, D.C. Lee, J.L. Kershner, G.H. Reeves, and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and key questions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 213-229.

Chambers, J. 2003. The impacts of the Quartz Gulch Fire on fish and amphibian population dynamics in Glade Creek, Oregon. Poster. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February.


Dunham, J.B., M.K. Young, R.E. Gresswell, and B.E. Rieman. Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 183-196.

Dwire, K.A. and J.B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 61-74.

Haspiel, A. 1990. Fish habitat and population in Silver and Indigo creeks. In: Wildfire recovery and monitoring. Siskiyou National Forest 1990 monitoring reports. Available from Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 333 W. 8th St., Medford, OR 97501.

Howell, P. 2003. Effects of wildfire and subsequent floods, debris torrents, and landslides on fish distribution and abundance in tributaries of North Fork John Day River. Presentation. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February.

Kershner, J., L.M. Decker, and D. Winters. 2004. An evaluation of the short-term effects of the Hayman Fire on aquatic ecosystems. Presentation. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Sunriver, OR, 18-20 February.

Rieman, B. and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and conservation of sensitive species. Fisheries: 22(11): 6-15.

Sedell, T. 2003. Impacts of the Quartz Gulch Fire on stream channel characteristics within Glade Creek. Poster. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February.

ODFW, 2005. Oregon Native Fish Status Report 2005 Public Draft. Internet site: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/Vol%20I%20Introduction.pdf,

Tioga Resources, Nawa, Richard K. 1999. 1998 Beaver Creek Level II Stream Survey for Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Applegate Ranger District, Jacksonville,, Oregon.

Tioga Resources, Nawa, Richard K. 2001. 2000 Palmer Creek Level II Stream Survey for Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Applegate Ranger District, Jacksonville, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 1990. 1990 Palmer Creek Level II and Beaver Creek Level II Stream Survey, Applegate Ranger District, Jacksonville, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 1994. Beaver Palmer Watershed Analysis, Applegate Ranger District, Jacksonville, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 1995. Little Applegate River Watershed Analysis, Applegate Ranger District, Jacksonville, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 1995. Squaw-Elliott Watershed Analysis, Applegate Ranger District, Jacksonville, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office. 2008. Region 6 Regional Sensitive Species List, Portland Oregon.

USDA, Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Reid, I. 2005. Steelhead and coho salmon spawning abundance data. Applegate Ranger District, 6941 Upper Applegate Rd., Jacksonville, OR 97530.

USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 2008, Hydrology Report for the Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project, Jacksonville, OR 97530


ATTACHMENT A

NATIONAL FIRE PLAN PROJECT ESA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

CONSULTION REQUIREMENTS, USING THE

COUNTERPART CONSULTATION REGULATIONS

USDA FOREST SERVICE


ATTACHMENT B

Procedural Checklist to Certify that Procedural Requirements

Have Been Met, Pursuant to the ACA

Region ____6____Name of Forest and District Rogue River-Siskiyou / Siskiyou Mountains

Date _____January 30, 2008__________Certifying Line Officer __Linda Duffy _______

Evaluation of Determination of Effects Documents that Support NLAA Determinations

Action Agency ______ROR-SIS NF___Name of Subunit _____Siskiyou Mountains RD__

Name of Project________Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuels Project______________

Team Representative _Susan Maiyo_______ Date _____January 30, 2008_______

Product/Criterion Yes No

1 Identifies proposed action clearly (includes a description of the various components of the action)

X

2 Identifies spatial and temporal patterns of the action’s direct and indirect environmental effects, including direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions

X

3 Identifies Action Area clearly (based on information in 2.) X

4 Identifies all threatened and endangered species and any designated critical habitat that may be exposed to the proposed action (includes a description of spatial, temporal, biological characteristics and constituent habitat elements appropriate to the project assessment)

X

5

Compares the distribution of potential effects (identified in 2) with the threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat (identified in 4) and establishes, using the best scientific and commercial data available, that (a) exposure is improbable or (b) if exposure is likely, responses are insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial

X

6 Determination is based on best available scientific and commercial information X

Criterion Consulting and Reviewing Biologists have: Yes No

1 Access to current published biological and ecological information X

2 Access to current published biological and ecological information relevant to the conservation of the threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat

X

3 Access to information on the methods and procedures for environmental assessments

X

4 Access to current information on the environmental consequences of human actions on threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat

X

5 Access to current information on the success or failure of actions intended to minimize affects on threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat

X

6 Access to continued agency training and guidance on section 7 X

7 Access to biological assessment template and other tools where applicable (e.g., Northwest regional consultation tools)

X