Bowen Arrow Timber Sale and Landscape Restoration Project ...The purpose of the timber sale and...

Attachment 1 - of 59

Biological Assessment

Bowen Arrow Timber Sale and

Landscape Restoration Project

EA # OR115-06-06

Date: December 6, 2006


Biological Assessment for

Bowen Arrow Timber Sale

Project Name: Bowen Arrow Timber Sale and

Landscape Restoration

BLM District and Resource Area: Medford District, Butte Falls Resource Area

Project Location (6th Field HUC watersheds): Lower South Fork Big Butte Creek

(HUC code 171003070404)

Project Location (5th Field HUC watershed): Big Butte Creek (HUC code 1710030704)

Watershed Analysis Name and Date Completed: Lower Big Butte Creek 1999

Central Big Butte Creek 1995

Upper Big Butte Creek 1995

NEPA Document ID Number: OR115-06-06

Fish Species Considered: Southern Oregon/Northern California

(SONC) Coho Salmon, SONC Critical

Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat

Effects Determination: SONC Coho and Critical Habitat - May

Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

(NLAA), Essential Fish Habitat – Not

Likely to Adversely Affect

Report Prepared By: Gene Shull, Project Fish Biologist

Reviewed By: Dale Johnson, Rogue Basin Level One

Team

Hydrologist Assisted in Preparing Shawn Simpson, Project Hydrologist

Biological Assessment: Hydrology and Soils BA Support


I. Executive Summary

The following Biological Assessment analyzes the effects of the Bowen Arrow Timber Sale for

the Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The

action area includes Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch), listed as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The analysis

contained herein has resulted in a determination of “May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely

Affect” to coho salmon and coho critical habitat (CCH) for the Bowen Arrow Timber Sale.

Effects of the action “would not adversely affect” coho and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Butte Falls Resource Area is requesting, through informal

consutation, a letter of concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for this

assessment. Any questions and/or comments regarding this assessment or the proposed project

should be addressed to Gene Shull, Fisheries Biologist, Butte Falls Resource Area at (541) 618-

2248 or Dale Johnson, District Fisheries Biologist, Medford District BLM at (541) 618-2339.

II. Introduction

The Butte Falls Resource Area proposes to harvest timber on 1,193 acres and thin plantations on

287 acres within the Big Butte Creek 5th

field watershed (See Map A). The timber sale lies

within the Lower South Fork Big Butte Creek (LSFBBC) 6th

field watershed. Proposed forest

management activities include three types of regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, select

cutting, riparian thinning, plantation thinning, and site preparation or slash disposal activities,

such as under burning or piling and burning. Proposed road work includes temporary and

permanent road construction, road realignment, partial road decommissioning, road renovation,

and road surfacing.

All timber harvest, with the exception of the riparian thinning and riparian plantation thinning,

would occur outside of Riparian Reserves. Site potential trees (SPT) height for the LSFBBC

watershed is 190 feet. All timber harvest and road activities would occur during dry conditions

(generally May 15 to October 15).

The LSFBBC watershed is a 16,206-acre sub-watershed within the 158,330-acre Big Butte

Creek 5th

field watershed. The BLM manages 25% of the LSFBBC watershed, private timber

companies and residences own 69%, the Forest Service manages 4%, and the Medford City

Water Commission owns 2%.

South Fork Big Butte Creek (SFBBC) and the lower portion of Bowen Creek are the only

streams designated as coho critical habitat (CCH) in the LSFBBC watershed. Proposed harvest

units are located along tributary streams to SFBBC and Bowen Creek. Log hauling and road

work would occur above CCH, primarily on the south side of SFBBC. The closest activity to

CCH is a plantation thinning unit along Bowen Creek and is 50 feet away.

The purpose of the timber sale and landscape restoration project is to contribute toward meeting

objectives identified in the Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the

Northwest Forest Plan. These objectives include providing a sustainable source of forest


commodities for the local community, improving forest ecosystem health, providing connectivity

between late-successional reserves, improving habitat for fish, protecting habitat for listed

species, and reducing wildfire risks.

III. Description of the Proposed Action(s) and Action Area

A. Proposed Action

Timber Harvest

Regeneration Harvest

Three different types of regeneration harvest would occur: Northern General Forest Management

Area (NGFMA), Connectivity and Diversity Block (CDB), and Shelterwood. Each regeneration

treatment method would protect the best growing trees as well as the healthy understory

ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir trees. The BLM would retain all

wildlife snags and coarse woody debris. Post slash treatment includes a variation of lop/scatter,

hand piling, pile burning, and under burning. A total of 172 acres of regeneration harvest is

proposed in the Transient Snow Zone (TSZ).

NGFMA regeneration harvest would occur on 207 acres. The prescription would retain 6 to 8

trees per acre greater than 20 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Canopy closure after

treatment would be 10 to 15 percent, with an average of 12 percent. Eighty four acres of

NGFMA regeneration harvest would occur in the TSZ. See Table 1 for a summary of the harvest

units.

CDB harvest would occur on 92 acres. The prescription would retain 12 to 18 green trees per

acre greater than 20″ DBH. After harvest, canopy closure would be 20 to 30 percent and 25

percent on average. Unit 13-2, in section 13 would leave 18 trees per acre in order to reduce the

risk of altered peak flows (see discussion under peak and base flows). Eighty eight acres of CDB

would occur in the TSZ. See Table 1 for a summary of the harvest units.

Shelterwood harvest would occur on 206 acres. The prescription would retain 12 to 25 green

trees per acre greater than 20″ DBH. After harvest, canopy closure would be 20 to 30 percent and

25 percent on average. No Shelterwood treatment would occur in the TSZ. See Table 1 for a

summary of the harvest units. Unit 13-2 would leave the 18 trees per acres to assist in

maintaining hydrologic recovery in this area.

Select Cut

The Select Cut harvest would occur on 62 acres. The prescription would remove poor vigor

trees from all diameter classes. The resulting stand would be multi-aged and –layered. Canopy

closure would range from 40 to 60 percent following treatment, with a 50 percent average. Sixty

two acres would occur in the TSZ. Post slash treatment includes a variation of lop/scatter, hand

piling, pile burning, and under burning. See Table 1 for a summary of the harvest units.

Commercial Thinning

Commercial Thinning would occur on 600 acres. The prescription would thin from below,


removing individual trees promote enhance forest growth and diversity, while maintaining

healthy dominant and co-dominant trees. Resulting canopy closure would range from 40 to 60

percent, with a 50% average. Post slash treatment includes a variation of lop/scatter, hand piling,

pile burning, and under burning. See Table 1 for a summary of the harvest units. Twenty nine

riparian thinning units are proposed, see below for more details.

Table 1. Timber harvest units and proximity to CCH.

Unit

Total

Acres

Acres in

TSZ

Acres in

Rip. Res.

Ave.

Slope

(%)

Board Feet

(thousands)

Logging

System Treatment Type

7-1 92 0 0 5% 644 T T

7-2 7 0 0 20% 49 T T

7-3 2 0 2 5%

14 T T

13-1 21 0 0 5%

147 T T

13-2 92 0 0 10% 1656 T SW-RH

13-3 12 0 0 10% 216 T SW-RH

13-4 19 0 0 5% 342 T SW-RH

13-5 11 0 0 35% 198 C SW-RH

13-6 66 0 0 25% 1188 T SW-RH

13-7 9 0 0 30%

207 C NGFMA-RH

13-8 26 0 0 45% 598 C NGFMA-RH

15-1 15 0 0 30% 345 T NGFMA-RH

15-2 9 0 0 30% 207 T NGFMA-RH

15-3 4 0 0 20% 92 T NGFMA-RH

17-1 13 0 0 5%

91 T T

17-2 18 0 0 5%

126 T T

19-1 31 0 12 10% 217 T T

19-2 24 0 3 10% 168 T T

19-4 10 0 0 10% 70 T T

19-5 12 0 0 10% 84 T T

19-6 8 0 0 10% 184 T NGFMA-RH

19-7 34 0 6 10%

238 T T

19-8 38 0 0 5% 266 T T

23-1 11 0 0 20% 253 T NGFMA-RH

23-2 7 2 0 20% 161 T NGFMA-RH

23-3 8 0 0 20% 184 T NGFMA-RH

23-4 18 0 0 20%

414 T NGFMA-RH

25-1 6 6 0 30%

42 C T

25-2/3 45 45 0 10/40% 585 T/C CONN-RH

25-4 23 23 0 20% 161 T T

25-5/6 19 19 0 30% 133 T/C T

25-7/8 34 34 0 30% 442 T/C CONN-RH

25-9 22 22 0 20% 154 T T

25-10 21 21 0 20%

210 T SC

25-11 9 9 0 15% 117 T CONN-RH


Unit

Total

Acres

Acres in

TSZ

Acres in

Rip. Res.

Ave.

Slope

(%)

Board Feet

(thousands)

Logging

System Treatment Type

25-12 7 7 0 20% 49 T T

25-13 36 36 0 20% 252 T T

25-14 42 42 0 30% 420 C SC

25-15 8 0 0 30%

104 C CONN-RH

25-16 19 19 0 35%

133 C T

31-1 15 8 0 30% 713 T NGFMA-RH

31-2 134 40 6 10% 938 T T

31-3 7 7 0 10% 161 T NGFMA-RH

31-4 3 3 0 10% 21 T T

31-5 38 38 0 20%

266 T T

31-6 23 23 0 35%

529 C NGFMA-RH

31-7 14 14 0 20% 322 T NGFMA-RH

31-7/8 30 30 0 35% 690 T/C NGFMA-RH

31-9 21 21 0 20% 147 T T

Total 1193 469 29 14948

Riparian Thinning

The riparian thinning units would have the same prescription as the commercial thinning units

and would occur on 29 acres. Treatment would thin understory trees with average heights of 70

feet and the proposal is to harvest only trees in the outer 100 feet of the Riparian Reserves,

leaving 90 foot no-cut buffers along streams. The objective is to release nutrients and water in

areas where tree density is high, thereby reducing inter-tree competition and more rapidly

producing healthy mature stands. All riparian species, such as Pacific yew, big leaf maple, and

red alder, and all snags would remain. Resulting canopy coverage would range from 40 to 60

percent, with a 50% average (See Table 2 for proximity to CCH and Map B). Slopes in the

Riparian Reserves range from five to 10 percent. No heavy equipment would enter Riparian

Reserve boundaries. All logs would be bull-lined out.

Table 2. Site information and proximity of riparian thinning units to CCH.

Unit

Acres of

Riparian

Thinning

Slope

Gradient

(%)

Distance to

CCH

(miles)

7-3 2 5 0.5

19-1 12 10 0.5

19-2 3 10 0.5

19-7 6 10 0.8

31-2 6 10 1.6

Post Harvest Slash Treatment

Post harvest slash treatment would occur on all timber harvest units and consist of the harvest


units would consist of a variation of lop/scatter, hand-piling, pile burning, and under burning.

Table 3 identifies the acres and types of post harvest slash treatment. No heavy equipment would

be used during slash treatment.

Table 3. Summary of the post harvest slash treatment units.

UNIT # Acres Hand-pile/

Pile burn

Lop and

Scatter

Under

Burn

7-1 92 X

7-2 7 X

13-1 21 X

13-2 92 X

13-3 12 X

13-4 19 X

13-5 11 X

13-6 66 X

13-7 9 X X

13-8 26 X or X

13-9 6 X or X

15-1 15 X

15-2 9 X

15-3 4 X

17-1 13 X

17-2 18 X

19-1 11 X

20 X

19-2 24 X

19-4 10 X

19-5 12 X

19-6 8 X X

19-7 34 X

19-8 38 X

23-1 11 X

23-2 7 X

23-3 8 X

23-4 18 X

25-1 6 X

25-10 21 X

25-11 9 X

25-12 7 X

25-13 36 X

25-14 42 X

25-15 8 X

25-16 19 X

25-2/3 45 X

25-4 23 X


UNIT # Acres Hand-pile/

Pile burn

Lop and

Scatter

Under

Burn

25-5/6 19 X

25-7/8 34 X

25-9 22 X

31-1 31 X

31-2 8 X

126 X

31-3 7 X

31-4 3 X

31-5 38 X

31-6 23 X X

31-7 14 X X

31-7/8 30 X X

31-9 21 X

Under burning prescriptions would minimize damage to reserve trees, duff, and soil. Burning

would prepare the site for planting, control competing vegetation, and reduce fire hazard.

Piles would be burned in the fall and winter season after one or more inches of precipitation has

fallen. Under burning typically occurs from fall through late spring, when fuel and weather

conditions would permit successful achievement of resource objectives. Specific adjustments to

planned fuels treatments would require Field Manager approval.

Landing piles in all units may be burned. This may be completed in conjunction with in-unit

burns or as a stand-alone operation.

Pine Plantation Thinning

Nine plantation units would be thinned for a total of 287 acres and of those acres, 67 acres occurs

in Riparian Reserves (Table 4). The prescription would thin ponderosa pines to reduce density

and promote the growth of remaining pine and Douglas-fir. Remaining canopy coverage would

be 50%. Tree heights range from 40 to 60 feet, with most being 50 feet. Ground based equipment

with ground pressure of <6 lbs/in² will harvest and remove trees on all units. Trees would be

processed in the units and the resulting slash placed on skid trails to reduce ground disturbance.

Units 13-A, 13-B, 15-A, and 19-A are either located in more than one Riparian Reserve and/or

on both sides of adjacent streams.

No-cut buffers range from 30 to 240 feet and vary depending on upland slope gradients ranging

from <2 to 31 percent. Under most circumstances, a 100-foot buffer is sufficient to prevent

delivery of sediment via un-channelized flow, and an absolute minimum width should be 30 feet

(Wenger 1999). All buffer widths meet or exceed the minimum widths recommended by Wenger

(1999) of 2 ft per 1% increase in upland slope to reduce the risk of sediment delivery to streams.

The Soil types are either Freezner or Geppert, both of which are stable soils and have low risks

of erosion (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).


The buffers along unit 19-A were set closer due to the upland slopes of the channels being near

zero. The topography in this unit is nearly flat and none of the three channels, including Bowen

Creek, have much of a swale. Slopes between the unit boundaries and adjacent channels are less

than three percent. Additionally, the harvesting equipment would process slash over skid trails,

reducing the amount of soil disturbance.

Table 4. Proximity of plantation units to CCH and slope conditions.

Unit Total

Acres

Acres in

Rip.

Res.

Avg.

Upland

Slope

(%)

Distance To

Stream (feet)

Stream

Flow

Tree

Heights

(feet)

Distance

to CCH

(miles)

7-A 1 1 0 115 Perennial 40 115 feet

13-A* 41.7 12.4 25 50 (2), 230 (1) Intermittent 50 1

13-B** 32.7 5.3 20 50 (2) Intermittent 50 1.2

15-A 30.1 8.4 23 70 Perennial 50 1.3

15-B 23 0 28 950 No stream 50 1.95

15-C 13.1 4.4 31 240 Perennial 40 1.9

19-A*** 68 17.2 < 3 30 (2), 50 (1) Inter/Per 50 50 feet

23-A 43.8 10.2 28 76 Perennial 50 1.6

23-B 33.6 7.8 22 140 Perennial 60 2

Total 287 67

*Unit 13-A is in 3 Riparian Reserves and adjacent to 3 streams, the two with 30 foot buffers are

intermittent and the 50 foot one is perennial. **Unit 13-B is in 2 Riparian Reserves and adjacent to 2 streams. ***Unit 19-A is in 3 Riparian Reserves and adjacent to 3 streams, including Bowen Creek.

Timber Yarding

Timber yarding would be completed with tractor and skyline cable yarders. Generally, tractor

yarding causes the most ground disturbance.

Tractor yarding would occur on 948 total acres on slopes generally less than 35%. Where it may

be necessary to exceed these slope gradients, ridge tops would be used where possible. In order

to minimize ground disturbance, the BLM would avoid creating new skid roads and would utilize

existing skid roads where feasible. The number of skid roads would be minimized by spacing

skid roads an average of 150 feet apart in all commercial thinning and select cut units. Skid road

widths would be minimized. Where skid roads encounter large coarse woody debris, a section

would be removed for equipment access. The remainder would be left in place and not disturbed.

Using designated and existing skid trails would limit the amount of compaction from tractor

yarding to 12% or less of each unit. This would equate to an increase of four acres of compaction

across the LSFBBC watershed.

All skid trails used in regeneration harvest units would be water-barred and ripped. All tractor

yarding and soil ripping operations would be restricted to the period of May 15 to October 15, or

when soil moisture is less than 25%.


Skyline cable yarding would occur on 217 acres with slopes between 30 to 45% slope. Corridors

would be located at least 150 feet apart at the tail end. Partial suspension (at a minimum) would

be required on all skyline cable units to minimize soil disturbance. No yarding corridors would

cross any streams.

Bull-lining in Riparian Reserves would occur on 29 acres on ground with slopes 10% or less.

There would be no suspension of logs.

Low pressure tracked harvester/processors and forwarders (both <6 lbs/in²) would remove trees

on the 287 acres of plantation thinning units. The harvester and forwarder would walk over

resulting slash to process and minimize soil impacts.

Timber Hauling

Approximately 3,340 log trucks would come out of the Bowen Arrow Timber Sale. Hauling

would occur on 26 miles of road across the LSFBBC 6th

field watershed on BLM and private

lands. Hauling surfaces include 3 miles of natural surfaces and 23 miles of rocked surfaces and

there are 38 streams crossings. About 11 miles of haul routes are within Riparian Reserve

distances from streams across both BLM and private lands. Of those miles, 0.93 miles are on

natural surfaced roads (Table 5) and 10.1 miles are on rocked roads. The natural surfaced roads

proposed within Riparian Reserves range from 1,500 feet to over 3 miles from CCH. The

crossing on the 35-2E-13.5 road has a low water ford over a 1.5 foot wide short-term intermittent

stream. The channel is four inches deep with no erosion or downcutting and has a very flat

gradient (<2%). Two other natural surfaced roads, in Section 31, cross small intermittent streams

with a low water fords and are 1.7 miles from CCH in Bowen Creek. All hauling on natural

surfaced roads would occur when intermittent channels are dry. Any damage to the channels

would be repaired the same season. The other crossings have culverts and are farther away. A

total of 0.3 miles of haul routes is proposed within Riparian Reserves of CCH on SFBBC and

Bowen Creek and these are on rocked roads. There is one stream crossing within the Riparian

Reserve of Bowen Creek designated as CCH. The other 14.7 miles are outside of Riparian

Reserve distances from streams.

Table 5. Log hauling on natural surfaced roads.

Road # Length (miles) Distance To Stream Distance To CCH

35-2E-13.5 0.09 Crosses 1500 feet

35-2E-10.1 0.68 50-110 feet (3 streams) 0.9 to 1.3 miles

No # 303 feet Crosses [low water ford] 3.5

No # 0.10 Crosses [low water ford] 3.5

0.93

All log hauling would be seasonally restricted, usually October 15 to May 15, whenever soil

moisture conditions or rainstorms could result in the transport of sediment to nearby stream

channels, such as water running off roads into ditches then into streams. If precipitation creates

the above conditions, the contract administrator will cease log hauling. About eight miles of haul

routes would receive rock, reducing erosion potential when hauling.


The application of dust palliatives, such as lignin and Mag-Chloride, would be used to minimize

dust on the gravel and natural surface roads. Dust palliative application would be restricted

during or just before wet weather, and at stream crossings or other locations that could result in

direct delivery to a water body (typically not within 25 feet of a water body or stream channel).

Road Renovation

Road renovation may occur, as needed, on 26 miles of haul routes with gravel and natural

surfaces (Table 6 and 7) prior to road use for forest management activities (primarily haul routes)

and as needed. Proposed road renovation activities includes blading road surfaces and ditch lines;

cleaning and/or enlarging stream culvert and cross-drain catch basins; flushing corrugated metal

culverts; removing brush growing near culvert inlets or outlets; cleaning culvert inlets and

outlets; and removing brush, limbs, and trees along roadways to improve sight distance and

allow for proper road maintenance. Ditch cleaning would only occur where soil has filled ditches

and culverts have plugged, restricting flows and forcing water to run down road surfaces. After

the completion of timber harvest activities, contractors would inspect and renovate all drainage

structures, including culverts and ditch lines, as needed. Renovation would make roads more

drivable and erosion-resistant.

The proximity of potential road renovation to CCH ranges from 360 feet to over three miles

(Table 5). All haul routes connected to streams within 1/2 mile to CCH were inventoried. Field

visits indicated all ditch lines this zone was in good shape and no ditch blading would occur.

Casual observations and discussions with the project road engineer indicate most roads proposed

for renovation outside of 1/2 mile are in good shape would only need minimal work. There are

32 stream crossings on roads potentially renovated outside of the 1/2 mile zone from CCH. Three

low water fords will be crossed and subsequently renovated the same season, before the rains

come (see above for locations). All work would occur during the dry season. Contractors would

repair any damage to the channel during the same season. See Table 5 for the miles of potential

road renovation near streams and CCH.

The BLM fully decommissioned the 35-2E-23 road that crosses Doubleday Creek, about 2.5

miles from SFBBC, was fully decommissioned about 10 years ago. The BLM pulled the draw

pipe and planted the road. The BLM is proposing to temporarily re-open and renovate the road to

access harvest units. The BLM would install a temporary culvert on Doubleday Creek then fully

decommission the road after harvest in the same season. More details are in the road

decommissioning section below.

The BLM proposes to replace three stream culverts (one is an old log culvert), clean out one

plugged stream culvert, and replace four cross-drain culverts (Table 8). The stream culverts

range from 1,000 feet to over three miles from CCH. The culvert in the 35-2E-13.3 road is 1,000

feet from SFBBC. The culvert is presently undersized and at a high risk of failure. The BLM

would place straw bails below the culvert site to trap and remove sediment. The culvert clean-out

site is on the 35-2E-13 road and 1,500 feet from SFBBC. We would install straw bails below to

trap and remove sediment. All other culvert projects are between one and four miles from

SFBBC. None of the proposed cross-drain culvert replacements are connected to streams.


Table 6. Roads Identified for Possible Renovation.

Road # Surface

Type Road Name Length (miles)

35-2E-10 ASC Hukill Ck Rd 0.76

ABC Hukill Ck Rd 1.11

35-2E-10.1 ABC Medco Sec 15 Spur 0.51

NAT Medco Sec 15 Spur 1.88

35-2E-13.1 ABC Little Tokyo Sp 0.51

35-2E-13.10 ABC Little Tokyo Stub Spur 0.11

35-2E-13.2 ABC Doubleday Ck Sp 1.45

35-2E-13.3 ABC Little Tokyo Ts Spur 0.31


35-2E-13.5 NAT Little Tokyo Ts Spur 0.24



35-2E-15.1 PRR Hukill Crk 0.26

35-2E-23.2 ABC Doubleday Sp 1.14

35-2E-23.4 NAT Doubleday Sp 0.30

35-2E-23.6 NAT Fish Hatchery Leg Rd 0.50

35-2E-24 PRR Doubleday Sp E 1.20

ABC Doubleday Sp E 1.47

35-2E-25 ABC Doubleday Sp 1.48

35-2E-25.1 ABC Doubleday Sp 0.15

NAT Doubleday Sp 0.32

35-3E-17 NAT No Name 0.05

35-3E-19 NAT Aqueduct Rd 0.25

35-3E-29 ABC Bowen Ck Ml 2.47

35-3E-29.1 ABC Bowen Creek Flats Rd 1.44

35-3E-31.1 PRR Bowen Ck Lower Sp Rt 0.22

35-3E-31.2 PRR Bowen Ck Upper Lft Sp 0.50

35-3E-31.3 ABC Upper Bowen Orig 1.49

35-3E-31.4 ABC Bowen Ck Spur 0.96

NAT Bowen Ck Spur 0.06

35-3E-31.6 PRR Bowen Ck R/w 0.24

35-3E-7.1 PRR Medco Rr Grade S 1.07

35-3E-8.1 NAT No Name 0.58

Spur 31-1A NKN No Name 0.31

Spur 31-1B NKN No Name 0.06

Spur 31-2A NAT No Name 0.12

Spur 31-2B NAT No Name 0.16

Spur 7-1A NKN No Name 0.14

Spur 7-1B NKN No Name 0.26


Total 26.08

Table Abbreviations:

ABC = rock

ASC = aggregate surface course

GRR = gravel

NAT = natural surfaced

NKN = unknown (likely gravel surface)

PRR = pit run

Table 7. Road Surface Types and Distances of Proposed Road Renovation from Streams.

Road Surface Miles of Road within 1 SPT

(non-fish bearing)

Miles of Road within 2 SPT

(fish-bearing/no CCH)

Miles of Road within 2 SPT

(CCH streams)

Gravel 6.3 4.4 0.3*

Natural 1.4 0.3 0

Not known** 0.2 0 0

Total 7.9 4.7 0.2

* No road renovation would occur on roads connected to streams and within 1/2 mile of CCH.

** These roads are assumed to be gravel surfaced roads.

Table 8. Culvert projects under road renovation.

Road # Treatment Stream Type

(Order/Flow)

Distance To

CCH (mile)

35-2E-10.1 Replace Undersized Culvert 1/Intermittent 0.9

35-2E-13

Clean Culvert 1/Intermittent 0.3

Replace Cross-drain No Stream NA

Replace Cross-drain No Stream NA

35-2E-13.3 Replace Undersized Culvert 1/Intermittent 1000 feet*

35-3E-29 Replace Undersized Culvert 1/Perennial (spring) 2.1

35-3E-29 Replace Cross-drain No Stream NA

35-3E-7.1 Replace Cross-drain No Stream NA

* straw bails would be installed below culvert to trap and remove sediment.

All renovation would be seasonally restricted whenever soil moisture conditions or rainstorms

could result in the transport of sediment to nearby stream channels, as determined by the contract

administrator. All road renovation work would be restricted from October 15 to May 15, or when

soil moisture exceeds 25%.

Partial Road Decommissioning

The BLM proposes to partially decommission 13 roads, totaling 3 miles. Partial

decommissioning includes building water bars to divert water of road beds, blocking

roads with an earthen barrier, and pulling two draw pipes on the 35-2E-13.1 road. We


would remove six culverts, ranging from 1,050 feet to 2.4 miles away from CCH (Table

9). All culverts have a high risk of failure. Straw bails would be installed below the

culvert on the 35-2E-13.3 road to trap and remove excess sediment. Road

decommissioning work would be restricted from October 15 to May 15, or when soil

moisture exceeds 25%.

The existing 35-3E-17 road crosses an intermittent stream with a low water ford, 1/2 mile

from SFBBC. Off-highway vehicles are presently damaging the road and stream

crossing, causing excess sediment to enter the stream. The BLM would decommission the

low water ford and construct a new crossing just down streams. The crossing would be

ripped and recontoured.

The 35-2E-23.4 road crosses Doubleday Creek 2.4 miles from SFBBC. The BLM fully

decommissioned the road about 10 years ago and will re-open it to access harvest units.

There is one existing culvert in the road on an intermittent tributary to Doubleday Creek.

After harvest, we will rip, remove the existing and temporary culvert on Doubleday

Creek, and plant the road.

There would be no net change to road density because the only road ripped is the 35-2E-

23.4, which is presently ripped now.

Table 9. Road decommissioning and proximity to CCH.

Road #

Road

Length

(miles)

In Riparian

Reserve

Cross

Stream Stream Flow

# of

Culverts

Removed

Distance To

CCH (miles)

35-2E-13.01 0.5 Yes Yes Intermittent (2 streams) 1 steel/ 1log 1 (both)

35-2E-13.3 0.3 Yes Yes Intermittent (2 streams) 1 1,050 ft (both)

35-2E-13.5 0.2 Yes Yes Intermittent (low water ford) 0 1,550 ft

35-2E-13.10 0.1 No NA NA NA NA

35-2E-15.1 0.2 Yes Yes Intermittent 0 NA

35-2E-23.4 0.3 Yes Yes Perennial (1)/Intermittent (2) 2* 2.4 (both)

35-2E-23.6 0.3 No NA NA NA NA

35-2E-25.1 0.3 No NA NA NA NA

35-3E-17 236 ft Yes Yes Intermittent 0 0.5

35-3E-31.4 0.1 No NA NA NA NA

Spur 31-1B 0.1 Yes Yes Intermittent (low water ford) 0 1.7

Spur 31-2A 300 ft Yes Yes Intermittent (low water ford) 0 1.8

Spur 31-2B 0.2 No NA NA NA NA

Spur 7-1A 0.1 No NA NA NA NA

Spur 7-1B 0.3 No NA NA NA NA

Total 3

*The road was decommissioned and the culvert on Doubleday Creek was removed, one

will be temporarily put in to haul on then removed. An existing culvert is still in on the

intermittent stream that would be removed.

Temporary Spur Road Construction

The BLM proposes to construct 12 new temporary spur roads for a total length of 2.1 miles (see


Table 10). Most temporary spurs are located on or near ridge tops, outside of Riparian Reserves.

Part of the 15-2, 17-1, and 17-2 spur roads are in the outer edge of Riparian Reserves. There are

no draws below the spurs connecting them to streams. The 17-1 and 17-2 spur roads are located

within on a flat ground with slopes less than 2%. The proposal is do decommission all spur

roads in the same season as constructed.

Table 10. Temporary Spur Roads and Distance from CCH

Route

Number

Units Accessed by

Spur

Length

(miles)

Length in Riparian

Reserves and Distance to

Adjacent Stream

Distance

from

CCH

(miles)

Spur 13-1 13.5, 13.6 0.06 0 1.1

Spur 13-2 13.6, 13.7 0.12 0 1.1

Spur 13-3 13.2 0.24 0 0.17

Spur 15-1 15-1, 15-2, 15-3 0.33 0 1.3

Spur 15-2 15-3, 15-4 0.46

0.46 mile in RR and 162

feet to stream 1.3

Spur 17-1 17.2 0.19

0.19 mile in RR and 30*

feet to stream 0.5

Spur 17-2 17.1 0.06

320 feet in RR and 130

feet to stream 0.32

Spur 23-1 23-1, 23-2 0.19 0 1.9

Spur 23-2 23.4 0.07

330 feet in RR and 278

feet to stream 2.2

Spur 23-3 23-5 0.06 0 1.7

Spur 25-1 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4 0.25 0 2

Spur 25-2 25.7, 25.8 0.20 0 3+

Spur 25-3 25-8 0.08 0 2

total 2.10 0.8

*topography in this area is flat (<2% slope)

Permanent Road Construction

The BLM proposes to construct two new permanent roads on and near a ridge top in Section 25,

totaling 0.8 miles. Both roads are outside of Riparian Reserves; however, one crosses a dry draw

about 640 feet from the start of an intermittent stream. The roads are located over two miles from

SFBBC. The road density for the LSFBBC watershed would increase by less than 0.01

miles/square mile.

Road Realignment

In T35S-3E-Section 17, the BLM road# 35-3E-17 is currently crossing a small intermittent

stream with a low water ford. Off highway vehicles are causing extensive damage to the road

where it crosses the stream and generating lots of fine sediment. We propose decommission the

existing low water ford and construct a new road just down stream with a culvert. The length of

new road is about identical to the piece proposed for decommissioning, about 380 feet. The

distance between the new crossing and CCH is about 0.5 mile. All work would occur during the


dry season. All disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched and all excess sediment removed

before the fall rains.

Road Surfacing

The project proposes to apply rock to 7.6 miles of road. Table 11 below describes the amount of

rocking and distance to CCH. All rocking would occur during the dry season and stopped if rains

occur capable of delivering sediment off surfaces into ditch lines. Careful application would

occur over stream crossings to prevent sediment from entering streams.

Table 11. Road surfacing and proximity to CCH.

Road # Length # Of Stream

Crossings

Existing Road

Surface Distance to CCH (mi)

35-2E-13 4.6 5 Rocked 1,500 ft (rest are over 1 mile)

35-2E-15 0.86 1 Rocked 1.3

35-3E-17 0.21 None Natural NA

35-3E-17.2 0.07 1 Rocked 0.5

35-3E-29 1.6 1 Rocked 0.35

35-3E-29.1 0.35 3 Rocked 360 ft

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

The following project design features (PDFs) would be adopted as part of the implementation of

this project to reduce adverse environmental impacts. These PDFs are a set of the Best

Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Medford District RMP and resource protection

measures identified by the EA interdisciplinary team. These measures would also help projects

meet the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

Seasonal Restrictions

Seasonally restrict all road renovation, rock hauling, timber hauling, and landing

operations whenever soil moisture conditions or rain events could result in road damage

or the transport of sediment to nearby stream channels, generally October 15 to May 15.

The contract administrator would be on site to monitor weather conditions.

On adequately rocked roads, restrict all rock hauling, timber hauling, and landing

operations whenever soil moisture conditions or rain events could result in road damage

or the transport of sediment to nearby stream channels, especially between the dates of

October 15 to May 15. Allow road or landing use between those dates only during

periods of dry weather.

To Minimize Soil Erosion and Sedimentation to Stream

Ground-based equipment would not be used within Riparian Reserves associated with

timber harvest unless used for lining from existing roads and landings.

Ground based equipment used for plantation thinning would low pressure equipment with


a maximum of <6 lbs/in². Equipment would use existing skid roads, where feasible. All

other access must be approved prior to falling timber in units. Contractors would process

trees in units and walk on resulting slash. Operate ground-based equipment on slopes

generally less than 35 percent.

Place waste stockpile and borrow sites resulting from road construction or reconstruction

in a location where sediment-laden runoff can be confined, at least one site potential tree

length (160 feet) from a stream.

When removing culverts, pull slopes back to the natural slope, or at least 1:1 slope, to

minimize sloughing, erosion, and the potential for the stream to undercut streambanks

during periods of high stream flows. All exposed soil would be seeded and mulched

before the rainy season.

Dewater the stream on perennial streams during culvert replacement to minimize

sediment mobilization.

To Limit Soil Productivity Loss (Due to Soil Compaction, Loss of Slope Stability, or Loss of

Soil Duff Layer) and therefore further minimize soil erosion and sedimentation to streams

When necessary to construct new temporary roads, use ridge tops wherever possible.

Restrict tractor and mechanical operations to slopes generally less than 35 %. In areas

where it is necessary to exceed these gradients, utilize ridge tops where possible.

In commercial thinning and selection harvest units, minimize the total number of skid

roads by designating roads at an average spacing of 150 feet. In order to minimize ground

disturbance, avoid creating new skid roads and utilize existing roads, where feasible.

In regeneration harvest units, use existing skid roads where feasible.

Restrict all tractor yarding and soil ripping operations from October 15 to May 15, or

when soil moisture exceeds 25%.

Waterbar all skid roads during the same operating season as constructed. Use spacing for

high erosion class soils.

Locate skid roads to minimize disturbance to coarse woody debris. Where skid roads

encounter large coarse woody debris, a section would be bucked out for equipment

access. The remainder would be left in place and not disturbed.

Rip areas identified for ripping (e.g., skid roads, landings, decommissioned roads) to a

depth of 18 inches using a sub-soiler or winged-toothed ripper.

Rip all skid trails in tractor-yarded regeneration harvest units.

To Reduce Risk of Hazardous Material Spill

Store all hazardous materials and petroleum products in durable containers placed outside

of Riparian Reserves. Locate so an accidental spill would be contained and not drain into

the stream system.

Refuel equipment outside of Riparian Reserves.

Ground-based equipment would not be used within Riparian Reserves during timber

harvesting unless used for lining from existing roads and landings.

Require a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan prior to operation. The Plan

will include, but not be limited to, identification of hazardous substances to be used in the

project area and purchaser’s representatives responsible for supervising initial

containment action for releases and subsequent cleanup.


Restrict the application of dust abatement materials, such as lignin or Mag-Chloride,

during or just before wet weather, and at stream crossings or other locations that could

result in direct delivery to a water body (typically not within 25 feet of a water body or

stream channel).

B. Action Area

The Action Area, defined under the ESA, includes “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly

by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR § 402).

The Action Area not only includes the immediate footprint of the harvest and road-related

activities, but any ground and downstream reaches that may be affected indirectly

Timber harvest would occur on 1,193 acres within the LSFBBC watershed. There are ten 7th

field watersheds within the LSFBBC and timber harvest and log hauling would occur in seven of

the watersheds. Harvest units and haul routes are located in Township 35 South, Range 2 East

and Township 35 South, Range 3 East, Willamette Meridian. The Action Area includes the

section of SFBBC within the LSFBBC watershed and the lower 2.2 miles of Bowen Creek.

Bowen Creek has not been documented to support coho but the lower section is suitable habitat.

Above 2.2 miles, the channel gradient increases to six percent and the channel narrows. No

impacts would occur at the Big Butte Creek 5th

field level and will not be discussed at this scale.

The majority of soil types found within the LSFBBC watershed are Freezner and Geppert soils

derived from sedimentary rock. These soil types are moderately to well drained. Both soils have

high stability and are not prone to erosion (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

There are approximately 3,418 acres of Transient Snow Zone (TSZ) within the LSFBBC 6th

field

watershed. This represents approximately 21% of the watershed and 172 acres of regeneration

harvest is proposed in the TSZ, which equals 5 percent.

There are 64 miles of streams in the LSFBBC watershed, 36 miles of which are intermittent and

28 miles are perennial streams. In general, headwater streams are colluvial then they become

cascade/step-pool type reaches lower down, and are flatter, alluvial channels as they reach

SFBBC (as per Montgomery and Buffington, 1997).

Riparian surveys were completed on most BLM sections within the LSFBBC watershed except

for Bowen Creek, totaling 13.7 miles. The BLM surveyed about 11 miles of streams during the

summer of 2006. Surveys indicated most streams were in good shape based on channel stability,

fine sediment levels and wood quantities (Table 12).

Table 12. Tributary stream conditions for SFBBC.

Channel/Streambank Stability

(% of total miles surveyed)

Sediment (% of total

miles surveyed)

Large wood (% of total

miles surveyed)

Excellent Moderate Poor Low Moderate High Adequate Low

76 17 7 85 3 12 79 21


SFBBC and the lower 2.2 miles of Bowen Creek are the only streams designated as CCH in the

project area. The Butte Falls waterfall, at river mile 1.4 on South Fork Big Butte Creek, is a

barrier to chinook salmon and a barrier to coho on most years. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW) monitored coho smolt populations in SFBBC, above Butte Falls, from 1999 –

2001 (Vogt 1999, 2000, & 2001). ODFW only caught 21 coho fry in the trap during the 1999

year and 37 smolts in 2000, indicating coho use SFBBC above the falls, but on a very limited

basis. Bowen Creek is low gradient and approximately 8 feet wide for 2.2 miles, after which the

stream gradient becomes six percent or greater and the width drops to about 5 feet wide.

ODFW conducted fish habitat surveys on SFBBC in 1997. Surveys indicated fine sediment

levels were low (~ 10%) and stream bank stability was high (>97% stable banks). Pool area was

fair (32%) but only 3% below optimal conditions of 35%. Large wood levels were low with less

than three pieces per mile. Riffle habitat had low gravel quantities (12%) available as spawning

habitat (Foster et al. 2001). Overall, SFBBC habitat quality is fair. Due to the lack of spawning

gravels, most spawning activity would occur higher up on SFBBC, Willow Creek, and Four Bit

Creek. More recent data on habitat quality is unavailable, but conditions either likely are the

same or slightly improved. Since 1997, there has been nine years of stream buffer protection on

both public and private timber lands.

The dominant trees in the LSFBBC watershed are Douglas-fir, white fir, incense cedar, sugar

pine and ponderosa pine. Past BLM timber harvest has occurred on 3,750 acres within the

LSFBBC watershed. Of those acres, select cutting occurred on 2,600 acres. Most private timber

cut most their lands and they presently are in early to mid-seral stages. The BLM assumes

private timber lands are on a 60 year harvest rotation. As a general indicator of landscape

structure and pattern within the project area, Table 13 shows the estimated stand ages on BLM-

administered lands the LSFBBC watershed.

Table 13. Stand Age Classes and Seral Stages in the LSFBBC 6th field watershed on BLM-

administered lands (4,055 acres total in the LSFBBC watershed).

Stand Age Class Seral Stage Acres Percent of Total

0-10 Early 185 5

11-40 Mid- 675 17

41-80 Late 1,145 28

81-200 Mature 1,144 28

200+ Old Growth 903 32

Road densities within the LSFBBC watershed are 5.2 miles/square mile. The Medford District

RMP does not identify what road density is considered high or what the desired road density is.

A study conducted in the Clearwater River Basin in the Olympic Peninsula looked at road

densities and their influence on stream sediment levels. The study found densities above 4

miles/square mile to be responsible for 2.6-4.3 times the natural rate of sediment production to

streams (Cederholm, et al. 1981). Based on the literature and the number of roads in the analysis

area, it is reasonable to assume the road densities are high.


IV. Description of Affected Species and Critical Habitat

Coho salmon within the project area are part of the SONC coho salmon Evolutionarily

Significant Unit (ESU) and were listed as “threatened” on May 6, 1997 by the NOAA Fisheries

Division then reaffirmed on June 28, 2005.

Coho are present, at limited numbers, in the entire 7.8 miles of SFBBC within the LSFBBC

watershed and use the stream for spawning and rearing (ODFW 2005). Coho have not been

confirmed in the lower portion of Bowen Creek but the gradient is low and this portion is

suitable habitat. Historical distribution of coho likely was not much greater due to the Butte Falls

waterfall. For the purposes of this consultation, EFH is identical to CCH and includes all of

SFBBC in the LSFBBC watershed. There is no habitat data for CCH on Bowen Creek because

most is on private land, but casual observations indicate the stream has excellent stability and

adequate wood levels.

Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat

CCH for SONC coho salmon was designated by NMFS on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049). CCH is

defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “the specific areas within the geographical area

occupied by the species ... on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential

to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations

or protection.” Critical habitat was designated (64 FR 24049, May 5, 1999) to include all river

reaches accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda,

California.

Aquatic habitat in SFBBC is fair. Channel stability is excellent and percent fine sediment is low.

Pool area is moderate but near desirable levels. Large wood levels are low as well as gravel

quantities. This stretch of SFBBC has several roads along it that has removed much of the

conifer overstory, resulting in low wood levels. See above discussion for more detailed analysis.

Water quality is good in SFBBC. No water quality parameters for SFBBC are listed on the

Oregon State 303d list.

Half of the Riparian Reserves and most riparian areas on private lands within the LSFBBC

watershed were previously logged including along the short piece of Bowen Creek on BLM land.

However, there has been sufficient recovery for wood recruitment as wood levels in the tributary

streams to SFBBC is good in most streams on BLM- administered lands.

When the Magnuson-Stevens 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 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 SONC 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 14). 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 BA, the 10

essential habitat features are cross referenced with the respective Habitat Indicators.

Table 14. 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

Coho Population and Production

Little information exists for the coho population in SFBBC. The coho population for the Upper

Rogue Basin has been monitored at Gold Ray Dam since 1942. The wild adult population has

been on an upward trend since the extremely low years of 1964 – 1979, where numbers were as

low as 12 returning adults (see Figure 1) have (Satterthwaite 2004). Coho within the Big Butte

Creek and LSFBBC watersheds are included in the fish counted over Gold Ray Dam and are

assumed to have the same local population trends.

The only fish data for the project area is from a smolt trapping project ODFW conducted on

SFBBC from 1999-2001. In 1999, ODFW caught 21 coho fry, but no smolts, and caught 37

smolts in 2000 but no fry. No coho were caught during the 2001 season. ODFW determined coho

can and do pass above the Butte Falls but at extremely low numbers (Vogt 1999, 2000, & 2001).

This was the concluded from there being favorable stream flows for adult migration the during

that time and high number of returning adults for the Upper Rogue Basin, yet there were very

low numbers of coho migrating past the falls. ODFW considers the Butte Falls as a natural

barrier to adult coho under most flow conditions. Therefore, the BLM assumes coho production


and numbers above Butte Falls naturally very low.

Adult Coho Population for the Upper Rogue Basin

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

# o

f re

turn

ing

ad

ults

`````````````

`

Figure 1. Adult coho population for the Upper Rogue Basin.

V. Description of Environmental Baseline and Potential Effects of the Proposed Action

Effects of the proposed actions were evaluated at the Action Area level. Unless specifically

stated otherwise, effects analysis of the proposed actions are limited to the Action Area and do

not extend to the watershed level (see Description of the Action Area, pg. 14). Sources of

information for the Baseline conditions consist of the following: Geographic Information

System data, BLM Riparian Surveys (USDI 2006), Aquatic Habitat Inventories (ODFW 1997),

Aquatic Habitat Benchmarks (Foster et al. 2001), Central Big Butte Creek Watershed Analysis

(USDI 1998), and BLM Field Observations. Properly Functioning Condition ratings are based on

the NMFS Table of Population and Habitat Indicators, as modified by the Rogue River/South

Coast Level 1 Team for the Klamath Province/Siskiyou Mountains.

The summary statement for each indicator uses the terms positive; negative; or neutral to

describe the effect of the project element (Table 15) on the direction of the baseline indicator

over time. A positive effect would improve the direction of the baseline indicator. Conversely, a

negative effect would cause a decline in the direction of the baseline indicator. A neutral effect

would not change the baseline indicator nor affect the direction of the baseline indicator, either

positively or negatively. For the purposes of this specific assessment, a discountable impact

(either positive or negative) is a qualitative statement indicating that there is an extremely

unlikely probability of something occurring. An immeasurable impact (either positive or

negative) is a qualitative statement indicating a potential impact, but lacks of sufficient

magnitude to be meaningfully measured or affect resources.


Where one or more project elements have a similar effect to one or more indicators, the project

elements and/or indicators are grouped and analyzed together.

Table 15. Project Elements and Proximity to CCH

Project Element Distance to CCH

Timber harvest (to include upland Tree

Falling/Yarding/Post Harvest Slash

Treatment outside of RRs)

110 feet to over 3 miles

Plantation Thinning 50 feet to over 2 miles

Riparian Thinning (to include Tree

Falling & Yarding)

0.5 miles to over 2 miles

Log hauling 90* feet to more than 4 miles

Temporary road construction 900 feet to over 3 miles

Permanent road construction 2.2 miles

Road decommissioning 1000** feet to over 3 miles

Road renovation 1000** feet to over 3 miles

Road Surfacing 360 feet to over 2 miles

Road Re-alignment 0.5 miles

*Haul routes are this close only where they connect to paved highways.

**Distance is for roads connected to streams.

HABITAT INDICATORS (NON-WATERSHED CONDITION INDICATORS)

A) Water Quality

Temperature Baseline (BLM)

Hukill and Doubleday Creek, within the LSFBBC watershed, are listed on the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality 303(d) list for high summer temperatures. No other

streams in the project area are listed for temperature. However, summer 7-day average

maximum in SFBBC has consistently been between 57-60oF for the past eight years.

Baseline Rating: Functioning At Risk

Effects on Temperature

The following PEs would have no effect on stream temperature because there is no causal

mechanism for them to affect shade levels: timber harvest, log hauling, permanent road

construction, road decommissioning, road surfacing, and road renovation. These activities would

not remove trees from Riparian Reserves; therefore, would have no effect to stream temperature.

Riparian thinning, plantation thinning, temporary road construction in Riparian Reserves, and the

road re-alignment would occur in Riparian Reserves and would remove riparian trees.

Riparian Thinning/Plantation Thinning

Twenty nine acres of riparian thinning would occur adjacent to five streams, three of which are


perennial. A total of 67 acres of plantation thinning would occur along nine streams, five of

which are perennial.

Proximity: Table 16 lists the riparian thinning and plantation thinning units adjacent to perennial

streams and their proximity to CCH. All other riparian thinning and riparian plantation thinning

units occur along intermittent streams. Unit 19-A would thin plantation trees within 50 feet of

Bowen Creek, outside of the primary shade zone. All thinning and plantation thinning would

maintain canopy coverage in the primary shade zone and maintain 50 percent canopy coverage

in the secondary shade zone. All other timber harvest units occur outside Riparian Reserves.

Table 16. Riparian thinning units along perennial streams with proximities to streams and CCH.

Treatment Unit Acres

Avg. Canopy

Closure after

Harvest (%)

Stream Distance to

Stream (feet)

Distance to

CCH (miles)

Riparian Thin 19-1 12 50 No Name 100 1.2

19-7 2 50 No Name 100 1.7

Plantation Thin

7-A 1 50 SFBBC 110 110 feet

13-A 16 50 No Name 110 1

15-A 28 50 Hukill Creek 70 1.4

15-A 2 50 Hukill Creek 100 1.4

15-C 20 50 Hukill Creek 240 1.9

19-A 5 50 Bowen Creek 50 50

23-A 18 50 Doubleday Creek 150 1.6

23-A 26 50 Ginger Creek 80 1.6

23-B 40 50 Doubleday Creek 200 2

Probability: All riparian thinning and plantation thinning would occur on the outside of the

Riparian Reserves. The resulting canopy coverage in the treated area would be 50 percent. All

prescribed no-cut buffers would protect the primary shade zone, providing full shade during the

peak shade hours of 10 am to 2 pm. Trees outside the 50-foot zone are in the secondary shade

zone, where only 50% canopy coverage is needed to maintain shade levels in the off peak sun

hours (before 10am and after 2pm). According to the USDA and USDI (2004) report

“Sufficiency Analysis for Stream Temperature”, maintaining 50% canopy coverage in the

secondary shade zone would provide all necessary shade to not alter stream temperatures. Based

on this report (USDA and USDI 2004) and analysis from the project hydrologist, the prescribed

buffers would prevent changes in stream temperatures in all perennial streams.

Shade levels would be maintained along perennial streams. For these reasons, there is no

probability water temperature would not change as a result of riparian thinning and plantation

thinning in riparian areas.

Element Summary:

The riparian thinning and plantation thinning in Riparian Reserves would maintain existing

stream shade levels. Therefore, no causal mechanisms exist for these PEs to affect water


temperature and would result in a neutral (0) effect.

Temporary Road Construction (in Riparian Reserves)/Road Realignment

Proximity: Four temporary roads totaling 0.8 miles would be constructed between 30 and 278

feet from streams. All streams are 1st or 2

nd order short-term intermittent streams (flow <3

months). See table 10 for proximity of different roads to streams and CCH.

The road realignment includes building a new permanent road crossing and decommissioning the

existing road on the 35-3E-17 road. Because the new road would cross the stream, trees would

be removed in the road path across the stream. The stream is a 2nd

order small intermittent stream

that flows less than four months.

Probability: All temporary roads would not remove trees in the primary shade zone and are along

small intermittent streams. The BLM expects no probability of affecting stream temperatures

because the streams do not flow during the warm season and the buffers would protect the

primary shade zone.

The road realignment would remove some shade trees but the stream only flows during the

winter months and would not affect summer temperatures.

Element Summary:

The temporary roads constructed in Riparian Reserves and the road realignment would not affect

strea temperatures because the streams only flow during the winter months. Therefore, these PEs

would result in a neutral (0) effect.

Indicator Summary:

No PEs would affect stream temperatures. The riparian thinning, plantation thinning in Riparian

Reserves, and temporary road construction would occur along intermittent streams and maintain

existing stream shade levels. The road realignment would not affect temperature in CCH because

of the small amount of opening (only the road path) and on a stream that does not flow during

the spring, summer, and fall seasons. All other activities occur outside of Riparian Reserves and

would not affect existing shade levels. Therefore, overall the temperature indicator would be a

neutral (0) effect.

Suspended Sediment – Intergravel DO/Turbidity, Substrate Character/Embeddedness

Baseline (SSIDT/SCE) (ODFW, BLM, OB)

These two indicators have similar causal mechanisms of affect and that is fine sediment entering

streams from erosion or runoff. They will be lumped together for the analysis.

Fine Sediment

The soil types found within the LSFBBC watershed are derived from Freezner and Geppert soils.

Both these soils are not erosion prone and have a low risk for increasing sediment levels in

streams.


There are 131 miles of gravel and natural surfaced roads in the LSFBBC watershed. The BLM

owns 30%, private industry and residents own 26%, Jackson County owns 3%, Forest Service

owns 2%, and unknown ownership has 39% of the roads. Roads can increase stream sediment

levels by surface run-off, erosion, and mass failures (Megehan and Kidd 1972 and Cederholm et

al 1981). Road densities in the project area are over 5 miles/square mile. Cederholm et al. (1981),

in Washington State, found road densities over 4 miles per square mile to produce 2.6-4.3 times

more sediment in streams than occurs naturally.

The forest roads proposed for use and work in the timber sale are overall in fair to good

condition. The BLM would add crushed rock to 7.6 miles of roads on roads with inadequate

levels, which are presently adding excess sediment to streams. Three stream culverts and four

cross-drain culverts are presently undersized and will be replaced with larger ones. One culvert is

presently plugged and will be cleaned out. Additionally, a low water ford on an intermittent

stream is presently used by off highway vehicles, causing damage to the channel and increased

erosion. These road problems increase the risk of sediment entering streams. Other than these

few issues, the roads in the project area are in good condition.

ODFW conducted habitat surveys on SFBBC in 1997 and found fine sediment levels were at

about 10 percent.

Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning

Effects on (SSIDT/SCE) Indicators

These two habitat indicators have a similar causal mechanism of effect: increased fine sediment.

High fine sediment levels negatively affect fish spawning production, juvenile rearing survival,

and food production (aquatic insects) for coho in SFBBC (Waters 1995; Meehan 1991; Everest,

et al. 1987; Meyer et al. 2005).

The timber harvest occurring outside of Riparian Reserves have no causal mechanism to deliver

sediment to streams. Any soil disturbance would stay on or near the sites and would not reach

any streams because soils are stable, overland flows are extremely rare, and remaining ground

vegetation would trap any mobilized. Nine of the 13 temporary spur roads are located on ridges

(See Table 10 above for proximity of temporary roads to CCH); outside of Riparian Reserves,

with no streams or draws capable of delivering sediment to streams. The timber harvest and

temporary road construction occurring outside of Riparian Reserves have no avenues to deliver

sediment to streams. Therefore, these activities would be no affect to the SSIDT/SCE habitat

indicators.

The following PEs occur in Riparian Reserves and have potential to deliver sediment to streams

and subsequently to CCH: riparian thinning, plantation thinning, log hauling, road renovation,

road decommissioning, road realignment, temporary spur road construction (the four roads in

Riparian Reserves), new permanent road labeled 35-2E-25.3, and road surfacing.

Riparian Thinning/Plantation Thinning

Proximity: Five riparian thinning units occur adjacent to tributary streams of CCH in sections 7,

19, and 31 on slopes less than 10 percent. See table 2 above for proximity to streams, slope

gradients, and proximity to CCH. Treatments would occur in the outer parts of the Riparian


Reserves with no-treat buffers of 90 feet. Tree harvest, bull-lining and subsequent ground

disturbance would occur in the outer 100 feet of these Riparian Reserves. The 90 foot no-cut

buffer widths exceed the minimum recommended width of 30 feet by Wenger (1999) to reduce

the risk of sediment delivery. No heavy equipment would enter any Riparian Reserve

boundaries. No disturbance would occur on the ground in the prescribed 90 foot no-cut buffers.

Fourteen plantation thinning units would occur in Riparian Reserves. No-cut buffers between 30

and 240 feet would separate units from streams and they are located between 50 feet to 2 miles

away from CCH. Table 4 above describes the riparian area slopes, stream information, and

proximity to adjacent stream and CCH. Unit 19-A is 50 feet away from Bowen Creek but the

upland slope between the unit and the creek is less than 3 percent and there would be no cutting

or disturbance in the no-treat buffer. Unit 7-A is 110 feet away from SFBBC but the topography

is completely flat (0 percent slope) and a road is located between the unit and the stream. All

other plantation thinning occurs outside of Riparian Reserves.

Probability: All no-cut buffers meet or exceed Wenger’s (1999) minimum recommended buffer

width of 30 feet and the method to develop widths of 2 feet per 1 percent increase in slope to

reduce the risk of sediment delivery. There are no draws between the riparian units and the

associated streams. Therefore, the mechanism for sediment to reach streams is from surface

runoff via overland flow. Surface runoff over undisturbed ground generally permeates the soil

and moves to stream channels via subsurface flow (Chamberlain et al. 1991). Soils in the project

area are very stable and are not erosion prone.

The probability of sediment reaching adjacent streams from the riparian thinning, bull lining, and

post harvest slash treatment would be discountable. Due to the 90 foot no-treat buffers, slope

gradients 10% or less, and stable soils it is extremely unlikely sediment could mobilize and

travel to adjacent streams. Additionally, falling trees away from streams would reduce the

amount of ground disturbance and no heavy equipment would enter Riparian Reserves. Bull-

lining would disturb soils but only in the path of the tree. Without draws to transport sediment,

the only way sediment could move to a stream would be from overland flows. Overland flow on

the forest floor is rare in the Pacific Northwest as surface water generally permeates the soil and

moves to stream channels via subsurface flow (Chamberlain et al. 1991). The project are has

high infiltration rates and the probability of overland flow is extremely unlikely. Based on these

factors, there is a discountable probability that any sediment generated from the riparian

thinning, bull-lining, and post-harvest slash treatment would reach adjacent streams and CCH

(Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

The probability of sediment from the riparian plantation thinning units being directly delivered

into CCH would zero. Unit 7-A is 100 feet away from SFBBC on flat ground, therefore there is

no delivery mechanism to transport sediment. Unit 19-A is 50 feet away from Bowen Creek and

nearly flat ground. Unit 19-A would also treat within 30 feet of two intermittent streams. Again,

the slope in this unit is less than three percent and with the high infiltration rates and undisturbed

buffers, there would be a discountable probability of sediment reaching Bowen Creek directly or

through the intermittent streams with 30 foot buffers. The vegetation in the buffers are dense

ponderosa pines 40 feet tall and dense ground cover. Ground disturbance would be insignificant

because the use of low pressure ground based equipment and contractors would process trees in

the units, walking on the resulting slash. The low gradient (0-<3%), lack of draws, high

infiltration rates, stable soils, equipment walking on processes slash, and 50 and 110 feet of


undisturbed vegetation would reduce the risk of sediment delivery to streams to a discountable

probability.

The other units are between 50 and 240 feet from streams and at least one mile from CCH.

Again, with the lighter ground equipment walking on processes slash, stable soils, high

infiltration rates, and undisturbed buffers, there would be a discountable probability of any

sediment delivered to streams and CCH (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

Element Summary:

With the prescribed buffers of undisturbed vegetation, slopes of 0 to 31%, high infiltration rates,

stable soils, it is extremely unlikely the riparian thinning or plantation thinning would result in

sediment delivery to streams. Additionally, the thinning units (excluding unit 7-A and 19-A) are

at least one mile from CCH with streams capable of trapping and sorting most or all sediment

delivered to them, which further reduces the likelihood of sediment reaching SFBBC. Therefore,

riparian thinning, riparian yarding, associated post harvest slash treatment, and riparian

plantation thinning PEs would result in a discountable negative (-) effect on the SSIDT/SCE

habitat indicators.

Permanent Road Construction, Temporary Road Construction within Riparian Reserves

Proximity: The new permanent road labeled 35-2E-25.3 crosses an ephemeral draw about 640

feet above the initiation of an intermittent channel. The road is located over two miles from

CCH.

Four temporary roads are proposed in Riparian Reserves (see table 10). The roads range from 30

to 278 feet from streams. Spur 17-2 is starts off an existing road running along a stream. The

point where the spur road starts is 30 feet to the stream, then goes away from the channel (See

Map B). The area around the channel is flat, with less than 1% slope. Although this stream is

close to the channel, there are no draws to transport sediment and there is no gradient to move

water or sediment. The other three spur roads are 130 feet away from streams or more.

Probability: The fact the new permanent road 35-2E-25.3 crosses an ephemeral draw creates a

potential for delivering sediment into the stream system. However, the road crosses the draw 640

feet above the imitation of the intermittent stream channel and is located over two miles from

CCH. The ephemeral draw has dense vegetation and wood capable of trapping most the sediment

created by the road construction and culvert installation (Duncan et al. 1987). There is the

potential for clay sized particles (<0.06mm) to be transported because they generally remain

permanently entrained (Banda et al. 2005).

There are no draws connecting the four temporary spurs in located in Riparian Reserves to the

adjacent channels to transport sediment. Based in the proximity of the proposed roads to adjacent

streams, the lack of any draws to transport sediment, and the flat gradient between spur 17-2 and

the stream, there is zero probability these four spur roads would deliver sediment to adjacent

channels or CCH.

Magnitude: If a heavy rain occurs immediately after the construction of the new permanent road

crossing an ephemeral dray, ultra fine particles likely would be transported to the intermittent

stream. The PDFs of stabilizing slopes with seed and mulch and completing work during the dry


season, the amount of clay sized particles potentially transported would be insignificant. Due to

the two miles between the road and SFBBC, if the sediment reached SFBBC, it would be

immeasurable and insignificant.

Element Summary: Constructing a permanent road across an ephemeral draw was the only

activity out of all proposed road construction with the potential to transport sediment to CCH.

Due to the proximity to CCH in Bowen Creek and the insignificant volume of sediment

expected, the effects on the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators would be an insignificant negative (-)

effect.

Log Hauling

Proximity: Log hauling would occur on 26 miles of roads with gravel (23 miles) or natural

surfaces (3 miles). There are 38 stream crossings for all haul routes. Haul routes in Riparian

Reserves total 11.3 and of those, 2.2 miles total run along to Hukill Creek, Doubleday Creek,

and Bowen Creek, but are at least 20 feet away and on adequately rocked roads (See Map B).

Haul routes would cross 38 streams, three of which are low water fords and one on a rocked road

about 360 feet above CCH on Bowen Creek. There is a low water fords located in section 13

(1,500 feet from CCH) and two in section 31 (1.7 miles from CCH). Two tenths of a mile of haul

routes is in the SFBBC Riparian Reserve and at least 100 from CCH over undisturbed ground

and about one tenth in the Riparian Reserve of Bowen Creek, which crosses the stream about

360 above the end of CCH. All roads within the Riparian Reserve of CCH are rocked.

Probability: Potential sediment sources from log hauling include surface erosion from truck

traffic and dust when crossing streams. PDFs to reduce the risk of sediment generated from log

hauling include restricting log hauling during wet conditions and using dust palliatives. About

eight miles of haul routes would receive new rock surfacing, including the crossing on Bowen

Creek, reducing the risk of surface erosion. The roads proposed for rocking would improve

hauling conditions and reduce sediment delivery risks on 10 stream crossings. Contract

administrators would stop all hauling if soil moisture conditions or rainstorms could result in the

transport of sediment to ditch lines and nearby stream channels to prevent road damage and

excess sediment from entering streams.

Hauling on the low water fords would only occur during dry conditions when no water is in the

channels. Additionally, these streams are 1st order short-term intermittent streams (flows <3

months) and are less than 2 feet wide. The stream crossing the 35-2E 13.5 road has a gradient of

less than 2 percent and a depth of about four inches. The channels in section 31 have gradients

about 2 and 5 percent and are also not entrenched at all. Due to the small sized streams, the

shallow channel depths, the proximity to CCH, the amount of bank damage would be

insignificant, therefore the probability of sediment reaching CCH would be low, but not

discountable.

All ditch lines within 1/2 mile of CCH are well vegetated or armored, capable of trapping

sediment derived from hauling. Per the project road engineer, about 90 percent of the haul routes

have good rocked surfaces and most road ditch lines are in good condition. The overall stable

condition of haul routes would reduce the amount of surface erosion from hauling as would the

above PDFs, but there is a low risk of sediment to enter streams.


Magnitude: The expected effects from log hauling operations would be insignificant. Hauling

during dry conditions and the amount of adequately rocked roads would reduce surface erosion

to an insignificant volume at any one stream. About 7.5 miles of inadequately rocked roads that

cross 10 streams, including Bowen Creek, would receive additional rock, further reducing the

risk and magnitude of sediment runoff. Road improvements and renovations completed prior to

haul would further reduce potential erosion and sediment production during and after hauling.

All ditch lines connected to streams within 1/2 mile of CCH were inventoried and they all have

grass and other low lying vegetation capable of trapping and slowing the rate of transport of

sediment. Any sediment to move off roads would occur during winter rains and would be an

immeasurable amount. Dust palliatives would further reduce the amount of dust generated and

most would be filtered out by vegetation. Furthermore, 25.5 miles of the hauling is over 1/2 mile

from CCH and most sediment entering streams likely would be trapped and sorted out before it

reaches CCH. Any sediment generated from hauling on rocked and natural surfaced roads and

delivered to CCH from hauling on roads with culverts would be insignificant.

The low water fords would only be used during dry conditions. The shallow depths and narrow

widths would limit bank disturbance. All three fords are 1st order streams and only flow for a few

months during the winter. Additionally, all channel damage would be repaired the same season,

before the rains. The crossing 1,500 away from CCH has a gradient of less than 2 percent and is

a depositional channel. The amount of sediment generated from this low water ford would be an

insignificant volume and would be immeasurable at SFBBC. The other fords are over 1.5 miles

and the sediment potentially reaching Bowen Creek CCH would be insignificant. Therefore,

hauling across the low water fords would have insignificant effects to CCH.

The dispersed locations of haul routes, over seven 7th

field watersheds, and the anticipated

insignificant amount of sediment delivered to streams from hauling on both maintained and

natural surfaced roads, and the low water fords would result in an insignificant effect to sediment

levels in SFBBC and Bowen Creek (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

Element Summary: Log hauling in dry conditions, on well maintained roads with most ditch

lines having vegetation to trap sediment, the magnitude of sediment delivered to CCH would

immeasurable and insignificant. Therefore, timber hauling would result in an insignificant

negative (-) effect on the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators.

Road Renovation, Road Surfacing

Proximity: Road renovation may occur on 26 miles of road (haul routes) within the project area.

Of those miles, 11.3 miles are located within Riparian Reserves. There are 38 stream crossings,

18 of which are on perennial and 20 on intermittent streams. The closest point of renovation to

CCH is 100 feet but has undisturbed vegetation between them. All the roadside ditches, stream

culverts, and cross-drain culverts connected to streams within 1/2 mile of CCH were inventoried.

Ditch lines connected to streams within this zone are in good condition and would not be bladed.

All ditch blading connected to streams would occur farther than 1/2 stream mile from CCH and

casual observations of roads indicate the amount of ditch blading would be minimal (personnel

communication project road engineer).

Three stream culverts would be replaced on the 35-2E-10.1, 35-2E-13.3, and 35-3E-29 roads, on

two intermittent streams and a perennial stream, respectively. The culvert on the 35-2E-13.3 is


1,000 feet away from SFBBC, the 35-2E-10.1 road is located 1 miles from SFBBC and the

culvert on the 35-3E-29 road is located over 2 miles from CCH on Bowen Creek on a perennial

stream. One culvert on the 35-2E-13 road is plugged and would be cleaned out. This culvert is

located 1,500 feet from SFBBC and on an intermittent stream. The cross-drain culverts are not

connected to streams.

Road surfacing would occur on six roads for a total length of 7.6 miles. Proximity of surfacing

where it crosses streams from CCH ranges from 360 feet to over three miles. There are 10

crossings. See table 11 above for exact distances to CCH.

Probability: Road renovation has the potential to deliver sediment to streams when blading ditch

lines connected to streams and replacing and cleaning draw culverts. There is more than a

discountable probability of sediment reaching CCH because portions of road renovation (>1/2

stream miles from CCH) are connected to streams and from the draw culvert work. The BLM

would place straw bails below the culvert sites within 1,500 feet of SFBBC to trap and remove

excess sediment generated.

Road surfacing would occur during the dry season. Great effort would be put into not blading

material into channels or ditch lines. Some sediment may enter ditch lines capable of delivery to

stream channels to CCH.

Magnitude: Most the roads and ditch lines in the LSFBBC watershed are in good condition per

communication with the project engineer. All ditch lines connected to streams within 1/2 mile of

CCH were inventoried and none would be treated. Ditch line blading would occur on roads

connected to streams outside of 1/2 mile from CCH but only where sediment has filled ditches

forcing water to run on road surfaces. Where ditch lines have good form, no blading would

occur. Field observations and communication with the project engineer indicate there would be

very little ditch blading because most areas are in good shape.

All road renovation would occur during the dry season. All excess sediment would be removed

from ditch lines leaving only surface sediment with potential for transport. All proposed ditch

blading, for roads connected to streams, is at least 1/2 mile from CCH and is well-dispersed

throughout seven 7th

field watersheds. Therefore, any sediment generated from ditch blading

would have to travel at least 1/2 mile before reaching SFBBC and not concentrated in any one

stream. In addition, sediment transport on most streams would occur during winter flows, and

streams below the road activities are capable of trapping and sorting most the sediment before

reaching CCH. Removing all access sediment from ditch lines would eliminate the risk of large

quantities of sediment mobilized. In addition, only blading where ditches are full of sediment,

forcing water on roads, blading will limit it to a few problem areas only. According to the project

hydrologist, the amount of sediment to reach CCH from road and ditch line blading would be

indistinguishable from background levels and would have an insignificant effect to the

SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators due to the dispersed affects and little volume of sediment

mobilized at each site would be low.

The BLM would install straw bails below the two culvert sites within 1,500 of SFBBC, reducing

the amount of sediment capable of reaching SFBBC. All excess sediment would be removed and

all exposed soil would be seeded and mulched. All other culvert work is at least one mile from

CCH and the streams are in good condition and capable of trapping and sorting most sediment


generated. Any sediment to reach CCH would mostly occur during the winter and is expected to

be insignificant. According to the project hydrologist, with the PDFs, proximity to SFBBC, and

dispersed culvert sites, the amount of sediment to reach CCH would be indistinguishable from

background levels and would have an insignificant effect to the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators.

On the positive side, road renovation would only occur where current problems exist such as

where ditch lines are full of sediment, forcing water on road. This would reduce road induced

sediment to streams. Replacing the undersized culverts and cleaning out the plugged one would

reduce the risk of a major road failure that would deliver large quantities of sediment into

streams and CCH, likely adversely affecting habitat. In the long-term, the amount of sediment

generated from the proposed road renovation would be less than would occur from the existing

road conditions.

The amount of sediment expected to enter streams and CCH from road surfacing would be

immeasurable and insignificant. Contractors would be instructed to make all effort to not push

material into stream channels or ditch lines. The surfacing is well dispersed across five 7th

field

watersheds. Only two streams are within 1/2 mile of CCH and all others are between 1 and 2+

miles from CCH. Any sediment inadvertently delivered to a stream channel would be an

insignificant amount and would have to travel over a mile to reach CCH in most instances.

Completing work during the dry season would prevent run-off occurring and damage to roads

during work. Except for the two perennial stream crossings (located 360 feet and 0.35 miles from

CCH), any sediment generated would occur during the winter and would be indistinguishable

from background levels. The amount of sediment potentially delivered to the two perennial

streams would be insignificant and immeasurable by following the PDFs.

Due to the dispersed locations of stream crossings and working during the dry season, diverting

flows on the perennial stream culvert replacement, and using straw bails below culvert sites

within 1,000 feet of SFBBC, pulling draw slopes back, mulching disturbed soils and only

blading ditches presently full of sediment, the BLM expects any sediment to reach CCH would

not be measurable and would be insignificant.

Element Summary: Sediment is expected to enter streams from the ditch line blading and culvert

work and potentially could with surfacing. However, with the PDFs of working during the

summer, moving all excess sediment moved off-site, the sites being dispersed across the project

area, and straw bails below the closer culvert sites, the amount of sediment expected to reach

CCH would be insignificant. The longer-term reduction in sediment from improved road

conditions would also be insignificant across the project area. Therefore, road renovation and

surfacing would result in a short-term (first winter) insignificant negative (-) effect and long-

term (2+ year) insignificant positive (+) effect on the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators.

Road Decommissioning, Road Realignment

BLM roads 35-2E-13.10, 35-2E-23.6, 35-2E-25.1, 35-3E-31.4, Spur 31-2B, Spur 7-1A, and Spur

7-1B are outside of Riparian Reserves with no mechanism to deliver sediment to streams (see

table 9). Decommissioning these roads would have no causal mechanism to affect to the

SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators. The other roads listed in Table 9 cross streams and have potential

to affect CCH. The realignment of the 35-3E-17 road involves decommissioning the existing low

water ford and installing a culvert at a new crossing adjacent to it. This activity may also add


sediment to SFBBC.

Proximity: See Table 17 below for proximity of proposed road decommissioning to CCH.

The realignment site of BLM road 35-3E-17 is located in section 7 (See Map B) and 1/2 mile

from SFBBC on an intermittent stream. The ground in this section is nearly flat (<2% slope).

Table 17. Proximity of decommissioned roads that cross streams.

Road #

Road

Length

(miles)

In Riparian

Reserve

Cross

Stream Stream Flow

# of

Culverts

Removed

Distance To

CCH (miles)

35-2E-13.01 0.5 Yes Yes Intermittent (2 streams) 1 steel/ 1log 1 (both)

35-2E-13.3 0.3 Yes Yes Intermittent 1 1,050 ft

35-2E-13.5 0.2 Yes Yes Intermittent (low water ford) 0 1,550 ft

35-2E-15.1 0.2 Yes Yes Intermittent 1 1

35-2E-23.4 0.3 Yes Yes Perennial (1)/Intermittent (2) 2* 2.4 (both)

Spur 31-1B 0.1 Yes Yes Intermittent (low water ford) 0 1.7

Spur 31-2A 300 ft Yes Yes Intermittent (low water ford) 0 1.7

Probability: Excavation and replacement of road fills and stream channel materials are likely to

temporarily increase stream turbidity, sedimentation, and rearrange substrate materials on site.

The road realignment project would decommission the existing low water ford and build a new

stream crossing with culvert. Both road renovation and realignment likely would deliver

sediment to SFBBC.

Magnitude: In general, the amount of disturbed soil remaining in a stream channel following

culvert removal is directly related to the diameter of the culvert, and the amount of fill to be

removed and replaced (i.e. the smaller the culvert and fill, the smaller the amount of loose soil

remaining in the channel). All of stream culverts proposed for removal are between 12” and 18”

in diameter. The BLM proposes to install straw bails below the culvert site at the 35-2E-13.3

road, which is 1000 feet from SFBBC, to reduce the amount of sediment reaching SFBBC from

the site with the greatest potential to affect CCH. All other culverts are at least one mile away

from CCH. The project hydrologist estimated up to 1 cubic foot of disturbed soil, but likely less,

could remain in the channel following each respective culvert removal. Working in dry channels,

contractors are able to remove most the disturbed soil in the channels, only leave what they can

not remove by hand, reducing the volume of sediment to even lower levels.

The road realignment site is 1/2 mile from CCH on a stream with less than 2 percent gradient and

has low transport capabilities. Due to the low gradient and low transport capability, most the

sediment generated would likely only travel a short distance off site and little if any would reach

SFBBC.

Due to the dispersed locations of these culverts (See Map B), the small amount (≤ 1 yd3) of

disturbed soils potentially left at each respective culvert site, and the small (1-2 ft bankfull width)

size of these streams, storage and/or substantial sorting of culvert-related sediment is likely to

occur well above CCH. Additionally, by working during the dry season, using straw bails below

culvert sites within 1,000 feet of SFBBC, pulling draw slopes back, removing excess sediment,

and mulching disturbed soils, the BLM expects the amount of sediment delivered to coho habitat


downstream would not be meaningfully measurable against background levels and have an

insignificant magnitude (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

Removing the culverts and improving the crossing in Section 7, would reduce the amount of

chronic sediment delivered to streams and less risk of a major road failure, all of which

negatively affect CCH.

Element Summary: Due to proximity to CCH, straw bails below the closest sites, and streams

capability of trapping and sorting sediment, the road decommissioning and road realignment

would result in an immeasurable negative (-) effect on SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators as a result

of culvert removal and new culvert installation activities. Removing draw culverts and

improving the crossing in Section 7 would reduce the amount of chronic sediment delivery and

the risk of a major blow out, both of which would have an immeasurable positive (+) effect on

these indicators.

Indicator Summary:

The log hauling, road decommissioning, permanent road construction, road renovation, road

surfacing, and road realignment could deliver sediment to SFBBC. Consequently, there is

potential for collective effects from these PEs on the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators. Effects from

other PEs either would have a neutral effect or are extremely unlikely to occur.

Probability: The probability of significant collective effects from these activities would be low.

Permanent Road Construction: Only the construction of the permanent road crossing an

ephemeral draw has the potential of delivering sediment to CCH. The draw below the new road

is ephemeral for 640 feet, of which is capable of trapping most the sediment. Any sediment to

reach the intermittent stream below would be clay sized particles and inconsequential when

reaching CCH.

Log Hauling – Haul routes occur in eight 7th

field watersheds so any sediment effects would not

be concentrated in one stream. If sediment entered a stream, it would be insignificant and washed

out during the first few rains.

Road Decommissioning and Road Realignment-Sediment generated from road decommissioning

and realignment would only occur from draw pipe removal. The PDFs such as removing excess

sediment, installing straw bails in the culverts within 1,000 feet to SFBBC, removing and

installing culverts during dry conditions, seeding and mulching exposed soil, and recontouring

stream banks would reduce the amount of sediment generated to insignificant levels. All other

culverts replaced or the new one installed would be at least 1/2 mile away from CCH. All but

one culvert are on intermittent streams and sediment delivery to SFBBC would occur during the

winter and assimilated into background levels and be immeasurable. Furthermore, most stream

gradients are low (<3%) as they reach CCH and the reaches are depositional reaches capable of

trapping and sorting most of the sediment (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

Road Renovation and Road Surfacing-Draw culvert replacement, cleaning ditches connected to

streams, and cleaning draw pipes are the only renovation activities capable of delivering

sediment to streams. Road renovation would occur across eight 7th

field watersheds, so impacts

would be well dispersed. Draw pipe replacement would generate the most sediment (up to 1 yd3)


and would be localized to the associated streams and below. PDFs, such as dewatering perennial

streams, removing excess sediment, installing straw bails in the culverts within 1,500 feet to

SFBBC, replacing culverts during dry conditions, seeding and mulching exposed soil, and

recontouring streambanks would minimize the amount of sediment generated. Sediment

mobilization at the culvert sites, except on the 35-3E-29 road (2+ miles away), would occur

during the winter when background levels are naturally higher. Sediment generated from ditch

cleaning and culvert cleaning would move out during the first few rains and would likely not last

all winter. The amount of sediment would be indistinguishable from background turbidity levels

and would be localized to the immediate area.

Road surfacing may cause sediment to enter streams flowing into CCH but the amount would be

insignificant and inconsequential. Contractors would be careful to not push material into

channels and the rock would be gravel with little to no fine sediment. With doing work during

the summer and the dispersed area treated, the effects would not be detectable.

Both renovation and surfacing activities are dispersed across five to eight 7th

field watersheds.

Because of the dispersed effects and the individual magnitude of effects being insignificant, there

is a low probability of increased collective effects.

Magnitude: Sediment would enter streams from these projects and would cause an individual

insignificant negative effects to the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators; however, this combined effect

from would be also be insignificant because: 1) sediment generated from each PE would be

insignificant if or when it reached CCH, 2) sediment would mostly be mobilized during the

winter when turbidity levels are naturally high; 3) sediment traps would be installed in the

culvert sites within 1500 feet of CCH, 4) the other culverts have ample lengths of streams

capable of trapping or sorting out most of the sediment generated; 5) sediment impacts would be

spread out across the project area; and 6) effects from sediment generated at culvert sites would

be localized and the sites are spread out enough that effects would not be concentrated in any one

section of stream. Therefore, the collective effect of this PEs would still be insignificant to

SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators in CCH (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients Baseline (BLM, WA)

There are no active mining claims in the LSFBBC watershed. However, this watershed was

historically mined for gold and cinnabar. Old mining tailings, glory holes, and other historical

mining debris are not prevalent in this watershed, indicating there was less mining than in other

drainages. There is a potential that mercury (used to extract gold) is buried in the sediments of

streams; however, no surveys have been conducted to determine this.


Effects on Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients

All the PEs would not have any effect on chemical contamination/nutrients, as these elements do

not propose the release of chemicals or nutrients. The possibility of an oil spill is a remote risk

and is not considered part of the proposed action; therefore the effects were not evaluated. The

PDFs such as storing hazardous material in durable containers, outside of Riparian Reserves and

inspecting all equipment and vehicles to ensure they are in working order and free of leaks would

reduce the remote risk of an accident.


Element Summary: The proposed elements would have a neutral (0) effect on Chemical

Contamination/Nutrients.

B) Habitat Access

Physical Barriers Baseline (BLM)

The Butte Falls waterfall, at river mile 1.4 on South Fork Big Butte Creek, is the only fish barrier

the LSFBBC watershed. The falls completely blocks chinook and is a barrier to coho on most

years (see discussion above on ODFW smolt trapping project). There are no known artificial

barriers in the project area.


Effects on Physical Barriers

None of the PEs would create any physical barriers that block passage for coho. The only culvert

replacement in a fish stream is on Doubleday Creek and is 2.4 miles above CCH. No causal

mechanism exists for any PEs to affect this indicator for coho; therefore, there would be no

affect to the physical barrier baseline indicator.

Element Summary

No part of the proposed timber sale would create a barrier for fish; therefore, all PEs would

result in a neutral (0) effect to the physical barrier indicator.

C) Habitat Elements

Large Wood Baseline (ODFW, OB)

Large wood quantities in SFBBC are well below adequate levels and appear adequate in Bowen

Creek. Wood levels in SFBBC were low (<3 key pieces per mile) and recruitment appears to be

poor along the stream (ODFW 1994 & 1995). Most of SFBBC has roads or power line corridors

running along it, significantly reducing recruitment.

The Riparian Reserves proposed for treatment are younger second growth stands, which do not

provide an adequate source for LW to streams. This results in low wood levels in adjacent

streams (Murphy and Koski 1989). Most tributary streams to SFBBC, on BLM-administered

lands have adequate wood levels.

Baseline Rating: Not Properly Functioning

Effects on Large Wood Baseline

The following PEs would not affect the wood levels in streams: timber harvest, log hauling, and

all road activities. These activities would not remove any trees in Riparian Reserves; therefore,

having no causal mechanism to change wood recruitment for streams. Activities that may affect

future wood levels in streams include the riparian thinning and plantation thinning. No PE would

remove any existing in-stream wood.

Riparian Thinning/ Plantation Thinning


Proximity: Riparian thinning and slash treatment would occur on 29 acres along five tributary

streams to SFBBC and Bowen Creek. The units are located in sections 7, 19, and 31 (See Table

2). Ninety foot no-cut buffers would separate all streams from harvest.

Riparian Plantation thinning would occur on 67 acres and along 9 streams in sections 7, 13, 15,

19, and 23. Table 4 above defines the distance from units to adjacent streams and to CCH.

Probability: The riparian thinning and slash treatment units are 90 feet away from adjacent

streams, which is the distance from streams where 90% of the wood recruitment occurs (Gregory

et al. 2003). Trees in the units average 100 feet and the trees proposed for harvest are the

understory trees with 70 foot average heights. The trees harvested are not tall enough to reach

adjacent streams. Therefore, there would be no affect to present wood levels in any stream.

Future levels are not expected to negatively affected because these stands are over stocked and

tree growth is stunted. Furthermore, the streams adjacent to the units are 1st and 2

nd order with

gradients less than 5%, which makes them incapable of transporting wood 110 feet long. Based

on these factors, there is zero probability the proposed treatment would affect wood levels in

CCH.

Alternatively, the stands are presently overstocked and growth rates are hampered and they do

not provide a good source of wood for streams (Murphy and Koski 1989). Thinning these stands

would expedite mature stand conditions and improve wood recruitment over the long-term (20+

years).

The plantation units are between 30 and 240 feet away from adjacent streams. The trees

proposed for treatment are between 40 and 60 feet tall. The only unit closer than the trees thinned

are tall is along two 1st order intermittent streams in unit 19-A. Trees in this unit are 40 feet tall

and the no-cut buffer is 30 feet. Removing trees in the 30-40 foot range would reduce

recruitment but it would be insignificant for SFBBC. The streams are 1st order with gradients less

than <5% and are incapable of transporting wood 40 feet long. In addition, if a tree fell from the

30 to 40 foot zone, only the upper 10 feet would reach the channel and most would remain out of

the channel, further reducing the likelihood of it being mobile. The section along Bowen Creek is

10 feet farther than the trees are tall. Due to the small streams sizes and gradients and distance to

CCH, there is no probability the treatment would affect wood levels in CCH. The no cut buffers

along all other units are at least as far away as the trees are tall or wider, and none of the would

reach any stream anyways. Therefore, there is zero probability the proposed plantation thinning

would affect wood levels in CCH.

Element/Indicator Summary:

The prescribed buffers of 90 feet on thinning units and 30 to 240 feet along plantation units, the

short tree heights in the plantation units, and the small size of streams with narrower buffers,

would result in no probability of reducing wood levels in CCH streams. Therefore, these PEs

would have a neutral (0) effect to the large wood indicator in SFBBC.

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

Environmental Baseline - ODFW, BPJ


Pool Frequency and Quality

Based on ODFW surveys, pool area in SFBBC was fair with total area at 32% but only 3%

below optimal conditions of 35% (Foster et al. 2001). Pool depth is good as most streams are

nearly two meters deep. Pool frequency is fair with about 7 pools per mile.


Large Pools

There are not values for number of large pools in the habitat indicator table but based on the

ODFW data, the amount of pools in SFBBC are adequate.


Off-channel Habitat and Refugia

SFBBC is hillslope constrained and does not naturally have off channel habitat or refugia.


Effects on the Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel Habitat, Refugia Indicators

Timber Harvest/Riparian Thinning/Plantation Thinning

Proximity: See tables above for proximity to streams and CCH.

Probability: Pool habitats form mostly as a result of the interaction between the stream and large

woody debris accumulations (Beechie and Sibley, 1997). As mentioned above, there is no

probability of any PE having a negative affect on LWD recruitment to the aquatic system.

Sediment can fill pools and negatively affect fish habitat. However, existing fine sediment levels

in SFBBC are good (<11 percent) and appear good in Bowen Creek and PEs individually and

collectively are expected to add only an insignificant amount of sediment to streams. The lack of

off-channel habitat and refugia are a result of the topography of SFBBC, and no project would

affect that.

Element Summary: These elements would have no affect to wood levels and an insignificant

affect to sediment levels and transport, therefore, they would result in a neutral (0) effect on

these indicators.

Road Activities, Timber Hauling

Proximity: See previous tables above for proximity to streams and CCH.

Probability: As indicated previously under the SSIDT/SCE habitat indicators, immeasurable

amounts of suspended sediment may enter the stream channel from timber hauling or road

activities. If the magnitude of these inputs is so small as to be immeasurable, there is no

probability that they could impact Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel

Habitat, or Refugia.

Element Summary: Where there is an immeasurable magnitude impact to one indicator (such as


suspended sediment) it should not result in additional speculative impacts to another indicator

(such as the pool indicators discussed here). In this case, the probability of a causal mechanism

becomes too weak and speculative to continue (ie. immeasurable effects to one indicator should

not lead to immeasurable effects to another indicator). Therefore, in the absence of a probable

causal link, the proposed elements would have a neutral (0) effect on Large Pools, Off-channel

Habitat, Refugia and Pool Frequency and Quality.

Indicator Summary:

None of the PEs would affect the Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel Habitat,

Refugia Indicators. All PEs were found to have either a neutral affect on these indicators due to

their either neutral or insignificant negative affects to sediment, wood, and flow levels.

Therefore, overall affect to the Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel Habitat,

Refugia Indicators would be a neutral (0) effect.

D) Channel Condition & Dynamics

Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain

Connectivity Baseline (ODFW, OB)

These three habitat indicators have similar causal mechanisms of affect. They include changes to

LWD, sediment levels, and peak or base flows. Therefore, these habitat indicators will be

lumped together for analyses of effects from project PEs.

Width/depth Ratio

The width/depth ratio for SFBBC is 20. This ratio is high for by both ODFW and FWS/NMFS

Table of Population and Habitat Indicators standards. Although this typically indicates low

channel stability, channel stability is excellent (97%) for SFBBC within the project area. SFBBC

is in equilibrium for its channel width and the width/depth ratio appears natural for this type of

channel due to the high channel stability and the hills constraining it. .


Streambank Condition

Streambanks on SFBBC are well vegetated with shrubs and armored with cobbles within the

LSFBBC watershed. The percent of stable banks for entire 7.4 miles is 97%. Stream bank

stability of 90% or higher is considered optimal (Cowley 2002).


Floodplain Connectivity

SFBBC is naturally constrained by hill slopes and there is no floodplain. This is natural for this

type of channel.


Effects on the Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and

Floodplain Connectivity Indicators


These four habitat indicators have similar causal mechanisms of affect. They include changes to

LWD, sediment levels, and peak or base flows.

Timber Harvest, Plantation Thinning

Proximity: See previous tables for proximity of these PEs to streams and CCH.

Probability: As indicated previously changes to peak and base flows from timber harvest may

occur but would be immeasurable and insignificant to stream channels. This is due to amount of

non-recovered area for most watersheds being below 25% and on the ones above 25%, there has

been significant hydrologic recovery in the stands older than 16 years. In addition, channel

stability for most streams is high and would withstand the anticipated immeasurable increase in

peak and base flows (see Change in Peak/Base Flows discussions below). The BLM expects

insignificant affects to the SSIDT/SCE and no affects to the Large Woody Debris indicator.

Therefore, there is no probability that an immeasurable magnitude effect on peak or base flow or

sediment would result in a measurable effect on the channel forming processes in SFBBC

represented by these habitat indicators.

Element Summary: The BLM anticipates insignificant affects to peak flows and fine sediment

levels and no affect to wood levels, therefore, the proposed elements would have a neutral (0)

effect on Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain

Connectivity.

Road Activities, Timber Hauling

Proximity: See previous description under the SSIDT/SCE Indicator.

Probability: As indicated previously under the SSIDT/SCE Indicator, an immeasurable amount

of fine sediment may enter reach SFBBC from the timber hauling, and road activities. There is

no probability that an immeasurable magnitude effect on sediment would result in a measurable

effect on the channel forming processes represented by these habitat indicators.

Element Summary: There would be no impact from the road activities or timber hauling on

wetted width/depth ratios, streambank condition, or floodplain connectivity as the affects to the

SSIDT/SCE Indicator from all PEs both individually and collectively would be insignificant.

Therefore, the road activities or timber hauling would have a neutral (0) effect on Average

Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity.

Indicator Summary:

None of the PEs would affect the Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank

Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity Indicators. All PEs were found to have either a neutral

affect on these indicators due to their either neutral or insignificant negative affects to sediment,

wood, and flow levels. Therefore, overall affect to the Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth

Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity Indicators would be a neutral (0)

effect.


E) Flow/Hydrology

Changes in Peak and Base Flows

Environmental Baseline - BLM

The LSFBBC watershed is a mid-elevation, rain dominated watershed. Mean annual

precipitation is 35 inches. No data is available for the baseline peak flows and summer base flow

conditions but the BLM expects that both parameters have been altered somewhat from past

forest management. However, a majority of the streams channels in the project area and SFBBC

having excellent channel stability strongly suggests present peak flows are not elevated enough

to modify channels.

Transient snow zone (TSZ) occurs in the elevation range of 3,500 – 5,000 feet and covers 21%

of the LSFBBC watershed. Five 7th

field watersheds have TSZ area ranging from <1% to 47%

(Table 18). Watershed 424, with <1% area in the TSZ, will be excluded from TSZ analysis due

to the small area and no harvest is proposed in it.

Private timber companies have harvested most of their lands and the BLM-administered

harvested about 3,750 acres up to date across the entire LSFBBC watershed. Of the 3,750 acres

of past harvest on BLM lands, about 2,600 acres were selective cut treatments.

The project hydrologist and fish biologist set the spatial scale for peak and base flow analysis at

the 7th

field and the LSFBBC 6th

field watershed scales. These areas were designated based on

the locations of the proposed units in proximity to CCH. Watershed 412 (see below) lays on both

sides of SFBBC and both sides were analyzed for effects to peak and base flows.

The commercial, select cut, riparian, and plantation thinning treatments would leave canopy

closures of 50%. The project hydrologist regards this canopy coverage as hydrologically

recovered regarding peak and summer base flows in both TSZ and rain-dominated areas.

Therefore, these activities will not be analyzed for impacts to peak and base flows. The BLM

analyzed the risk of changes to peak and base flows with the different regeneration harvest

treatments only. Six 7th

field watersheds have regeneration harvest proposed and those are 409,

412, 421, 415, 424, and 427.

To assess the present risk of altered peak flows due from rain-on-events in the TSZ, the project

hydrologist analyzed the amount of forest with 30 percent canopy openings or less. Due to the

small amount of TSZ and openings in the TSZ, there is a low risk of increased peak flows from

current forest conditions (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006). Table 18 describes the present

condition and likelihood of a detectable peak flow increase from past harvest.


Table 18. Current openings in the TSZ.

WA Acres % WA

in TSZ

% TSZ with

Open Canopy

Detectable Peak Flow Increase

– Current Condition

409 4,547 36 8 No

415 1,841 40 8 No

421 1,136 19 2 No

427 1,630 47 9 No

LSFBBC 16,206 21 8 No

Rain events influence peak flows in the other 79% of the LSFBBC watershed. Timber harvest in

rain-dominant areas can increase peak and alter base flows from reduced evapotranspiration and

interception rates (Rothacher 1970, Harr 1976, Keppeler and Ziemer 1990, Jones and Grant

1996, Jones 2000, Hicks et al. 1991). Most of the literature is consistent is finding timber harvest

can affect smaller, more frequent peak flows (< one year events) and but inconsistent in the

affects to larger events (Thomas and Megehan 1998, Wright et al. 1990, Ziemer 1981, Harr 1986,

and Harr 1976). Small peak flows with frequencies of less than one year return intervals tend to

have little to no impact to streams (Ziemer 1981).

Roads and landings can modify peak flows by reducing infiltration on compacted surfaces and

channeling water more directly into streams (Ziemer, 1981). Roads can also cause water to be

transported to streams quicker than would naturally occur (Harr, et. al. 1975). Road density for

the LSFBBC watershed is 5.2 miles/square mile, equaling less than 4% of the total of the

watershed. Harr, et al. (1975) and Ziemer (1981) observed no measurable affects to peak flows

when roads occupy less than 12% and 6% of a watershed, respectively. Therefore, the present

amount of roads in the LSFBBC watershed is unlikely to cause measurable changes to peak

flows magnitudes.

Colluvial, cascade, or step pool morphology channel are generally resilient to changes in

discharge and sediment supply. In addition, studies of steep-gradient channels report that large

bed-forming grains typically become mobile only during infrequent (i.e 50-100 yr) hydrologic

events (Grant et al., 1990; Kondolf et al., 1991; Whittaker, 1987b – as cited in Montgomery and

Buffington, 1997). As a result, no mobilization of bed particles or changes to channel substrates

is anticipated in streams such as these. A majority of streams in the project area are colluvial,

cascade, or step-pool type channels. Reaches close to SFBBC are alluvial type reaches

(Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006). The BLM completed stream/riparian surveys on all

streams totaling 13.7 miles on BLM-administered lands in the project area, excluding SFBBC.

The majority of streams had excellent channel and stream bank stability and Riparian Reserves

were in good condition (Table 19). Therefore, most the streams in the project area and SFBBC

(see above discussions) are resilient to increased peak and altered base flows, which is evident by

the prevalence of high channel stability in most streams.


Table 19. Channel stability and Riparian Reserve conditions.

Channel/Streambank

Stability (% of total)

Riparian Reserve

Condition (% of total)

Excellent Moderate Poor Good Moderate Poor

76 17 7 76 13 11

Different levels of harvest have demonstrated variable effects on peak and base flows (Jones and

Grant 1996; Thomas and Megehan 1998, Keppeler et al. 2003, Harr et al. 1979, Hicks et al.

1991). Additionally, the few studies examining changes in peak and base flows over time

indicate altered peak and base flows diminish as forest canopies recover (Hicks et al. 1991,

Thomas and Megehan 1998, Lewis et al. 2001, Keppeler et al. 2003). Thomas and Megehan

(1998) and Keppeler et al. (2003) found detectable increases in peak flows to last for only 10 to

12 years, respectively. Hicks et al. (1991) found maximum changes in summer base to occur in

the first years following harvest then to diminish over time and to persist 16 years when 25% of a

basin was clear cut. Each of these studies found altered flows to return to pre-harvest or the same

as un-treated watersheds after 16 years.

The project silviculturist and hydrologist determined stands over 27 years old to be 100%

hydrologically recovered based on Harr’s (1983) work in the HJ Andrews watersheds. The BLM

assumed the same principle of when 25% of a watershed or less is non-hydrologically recovered

there would be no detectable change to peak and base flows. This is supported by Stednick

(1996) and the NMFS Memorandum (2005) who state and concur there would be no detectable

change to peak and base flows when less than 25% of a watershed is harvested. When a

watershed had more than 25% area non-recovered, the project hydrologist did further analysis on

stands <16 years old to further assess risks. The above studies concluded that after 16 years,

there is sufficient hydrologic recovery to not detect measurable increases in peak and summer

base flows when only 25% of a basin is clear cut (Thomas and Megehan 1998 and Hicks et al.

1991) and approximately 50% was clear cut (Keppeler et al. 2003). Therefore, the BLM assumed

the same principle of stands aged 16 to 27 years old as not being fully recovered but having

significant hydrologic recovery. Table 20 describes the present condition and likelihood of

detectable increased peak and base flows with current forest conditions by assessing the amount

of 27 year old stands and if greater than 25%, assessing the amount of stands 16 years old or

younger.


Table 20. Existing risk of increased peak/base flows during rain events in the Action Area.

Watershed Area

(acres)

Non-

recovered

(% Area)

Stands < 16

Years Old (%

Area)

Detectable

Changes To

Water Yield*

409 4,547 17 -- No

412 1,864 29 12 No

(South SUB-WA 412) 205 8 1 No

(North SUB-WA 412) 770 25 0 No

415 1,841 19 -- No

421 1,136 20 -- No

424 1,168 9 -- No

427 1,630 21 -- No

LSFBBC WA 16,206 23 -- No

The only watershed with more than 25% non-recovered area was watershed 412 (Table 20). This

watershed drains in to SFBBC from both sides and has only two streams draining it. Further

analysis of the drainage areas for these two streams showed they both are below the 25 percent

threshold for non-recovered forest and there would be no detectable increases in peak or base

flows. The bulk of the non-recovered forest occurs in watershed d412 where there are no streams

draining into SFBBC. All other 7th

fields have less than 25 percent non-recovered forest,

including the LSFBBC watershed. Therefore, it is very unlikely present peak and base flows

would be measurably altered.

Each of the 7th

field watersheds and the LSFBBC watershed have roads and forests harvested in

the last 30 years, both of which can affect peak and base flows. The BLM expects baseline peak

and base flows in the project area are altered compared to pre-harvest and road development

levels, but the present forest conditions would not cause detectable differences in flows.

Baseline Rating: Functioning-at-risk

The Effects on Peak and Base Flows

The following harvest activities would not affect peak flows: commercial thinning, select cut,

riparian thinning, plantation thinning, log hauling and road surfacing. These lighter harvest

treatments would be fully hydrologically recovered, therefore, would not affect peak or base

flows. The log hauling and road surfacing have no causal mechanism to affect peak or base

flows because there would be no vegetation removed and ground compaction would not be

increased.

Timber Harvest

Proximity: See Table 1 for proximity of harvest units to CCH and the TSZ.

Probability: Forest canopy removal can increase the rate of snow-melt during rain-on-snow

events (Harr 1981). Regeneration harvest would only occur in the TSZ of the 409 and 415


watersheds. In these watersheds, proposed regeneration harvest would increase open areas

(<30% cover) by 9 and 6 percent in watersheds 409 and 451, respectively. Combined, the

increase for the LSFBBC watershed would by 5% (Table 21). Based on the small amount of TSZ

(3,403 acres or 21%) in the project area and the small amount of regeneration harvest proposed

in all the TSZ (174 acres or 5%) spread across two 7th

field watersheds, there is a discountable

probability of the proposed timber harvest and slash treatment resulting in increased peak flows

in these areas (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

Table 21. Risk of Increased Peak Flows during Rain-on-Snow Events from Proposed Action.

WA Acres %WA in

TSZ

% TSZ

with Open

Canopy

Detectable Peak

Flow Increase –

Current

Condition

% TSZ with

<30% Canopy-

Post Harvest

Detectable

Peak Flow

Increase -Post

Harvest

409 4,446 37 8 No 17 No

415 1,414 52 8 No 14 No

LSFBBC 16,206 21 8 No 13 No

Removal of trees can increase alter stream summer flows (Hicks et al. 1991) from reduced

evapotranspiration and interception (Harr et al. 1979). However, water yield increases are

usually only detected when a substantial portion of harvest occurs in a watershed. When timber

harvest occurs on less than 25% of a watershed, Stednick (1996) and the NOAA Fisheries

Memorandum (2005) support that no detectable changes in peak and base flows would occur.

Regeneration harvest would occur on 504 acres in the LSFBBC watershed and of those acres,

206 acres are NGFMA and 298 acres are CDB /Shelterwood treatments (these two treatments

would leave the same canopy cover). The 412, 415, and the LSFBBC watersheds are the only

ones with more than 25% non-recovered area after harvest (Table 22). All other watersheds had

below 25% non-recovered area and would not have any detectable changes to peak and base

flows.

Table 22. Risk of detectable peak flows after proposed harvest.

WA

Baseline Conditions Post Harvest Conditions

Acres

0-27 Year

Age Class

(% Area)

0-16 Year

Age Class

(% Area)

Acres

Regen

0-27 Year

Age Class

(% Area)

Net Change

(% Area)

0-16 Year

Age Class

(% Area)

Detectable

Changes To

Water Yield

409 4,552 17 -- 215 22 +5 -- No

412 1,864 29 12 10 29 +<.01 12 No*

(South

SUB-WA

412)

205 8 1 10 13 +5 6 No

(North

SUB-WA

412)

770 25 0 None 25 0 0 No

415 1,841 19 12 170 28 +9 21 Possible

421 1,136 20 -- 11 21 +1 -- No


424 1,168 9 -- 29 11 +2 -- No

427 1,630 21 -- 1 22 +1 -- No

LSFBBC 16,206 23 10 436 26 +3 13 Undetect. **

*The determination was no because the only two stream drainages in this watershed were below 25% non-recovered area after

harvest.

** See below

Watershed 412 lays on both sides of SFBBC and the entire watershed has more than 25 percent

non-recovered forest; therefore, the BLM analyzed the affects of proposed regeneration harvest

to peak flows for the two streams draining into SFBBC. There are only two stream drainages

draining this 7th

field watershed into SFFBC and they are labeled South Sub-WA 412 and South

Sub-WA 412. The South Sub-WA 412 has a drainage area of 205 acres and the North Sub-WA

412 has a drainage area of 770 acres. The rest of watershed 412 has no streams and are frontal

type slopes. The BLM proposes 77 acres of Shelterwood regeneration harvest in watershed 412,

all of which is on the south side of SFBBC. Seventy four acres occurs in the South Sub-WA 412

and three acres is outside the drainage area of this small drainage.

No regeneration harvest would occur in the North Sub-WA 412, so there would be no changes to

peak or base flows. The BLM proposes 74 acres of Shelterwood regeneration harvest in the

South Sub-WA 412. Unit 13-2, 64 acres of which are in South Sub-WA 412, would leave 18

trees per acre. This would leave a canopy closure, for this particular unit, at 32 percent. The

dense understory layer of 20 foot tall Douglas firs presently has a 65 percent canopy cover, half

of which would be removed after harvest. The resulting canopy coverage for this unit, when

combining the overstory cover of 32 percent with the ~32 percent understory coverage, would be

about 65 percent. The project hydrologist determined this amount of canopy cover to maintain

full hydrologic recovery. Therefore, this unit was dropped from the analysis and the increase in

non-recovered forest would be only 10 acres or 5 percent. A 5 percent increase in younger stands

added to the existing 8 percent (16 acres) would result in a total non-recovered area of 13 percent

of the South Sub-WA 412. The other 3 acres of regeneration harvest outside the South Sub-WA

412 drainage area doe not have any stream draining it. Based on this more detailed analysis, the

slight increase in non-recovered forest in watershed 412 would not affect peak or base flows and

the amount of non-recovered forest after harvest is well below the 25 percent threshold

prescribed by Stednick (1995) and supported by the NOAA Fisheries Memorandum (2005).

In watershed 415, the proposed regeneration harvest would increase the existing 19% non-

recovered area to 28% in 415, a net increase of 8%. The probability of the proposed action

affecting peak and base flows would be low but not discountable.

The LSFBBC watershed would increase in non-recovered area from 23 percent to 26 percent.

The resulting non-recovered area is only one percent over the 25 percent threshold. Fifty two

percent of the non-recovered acres are 18 and 22 year age classes, which have substantial

hydrologic recovery. In addition, this watershed is larger than the smaller watersheds the

literature is consistent with being able to detect changes in peak and base flows from timber

harvest. Therefore, the probability of being able to detect changes in peak flows would be

discountable (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).


All other 7th

field watersheds would remain have less than 25% non-recovered area after harvest.

Based on the literature (Stednick 1996) and NOAA Fisheries Memorandum (2005), changes in

peak and base flows would not be detectable in these watersheds.

Magnitude: Watershed 415 would have an increase in non-recovered area by 9%, resulting in

28% non-recovered, which is only 3% over the 25% threshold. The proposed treatment may

increase peak flows and alter summer flows; however, the BLM expects the changes to be

immeasurable and insignificant. For example, the non-recovered area after harvest would stands

aged classes of 0 (proposed shelterwood), 7, 10, 18, and 22 years old, which would have a

certain amount of hydrologic recovery since harvest. To illustrate the amount of recovery, the

proportions of different age classes would be 61 percent 22 and 18 years old (not fully recovered

but having substantial recovery), less than one percent combined for the 10 and seven aged

stands, and 32 percent newly cut with the Shelterwood treatment. Sixty one percent of the 28

percent non-recovered area would have substantial hydrologic recovery being 18 and 22 years

old. It’s important to also consider the resulting canopy cover left the Shelterwood treatment is

25% canopy coverage, which would not have as strong of influence peak and base flows as a

clear cut would.

Due to the amount of non-recovered area in watershed 415 being only three percent above the

25% threshold and most the area as having substantial hydrologic recovery (61 percent 22 and 18

years old), the project hydrologist concluded the changes to peak and base flows would be so

small they would be immeasurable and undetectable. Any change in peak or base flows would

not be of the magnitude to have geomorphic affects to channels. Additionally, the channels in

watershed 415 are colluvial, cascade, and step pool type channels, resistant to frequent small

peak flows. Recent riparian surveys (2006) indicate streams in this watershed presently have

excellent channel stability and most Riparian Reserves are in properly functioning condition.

Therefore, any change to peak and base flows from the proposed regeneration harvest in

watershed 415 would have an insignificant affect on channels (Hydrology and Soils BA Support

2006) and subsequently, an insignificant to CCH.

Element Summary: The proposed regeneration harvest would increase the amount of non-

recovered area in watershed 412 by less than half a percent and in watershed 415 by 9 percent.

The LSFBBC watershed would be increased to 26 percent, which is only one percent over the 25

percent threshold. Further analysis of the only two drainages within watershed 412 found neither

would have a change in peak or base flows due to the proposed harvest. Both sub-drainages

would be below 25 percent non-hydrologically recovered forest. Watershed 415 would have an

increase of non-recovered forest by 9 percent but still would only be three percent over the 25

percent threshold. The amount of existing hydrologic recovery in the 23 percent non-recovered

area in watershed 415 coupled with the abundance of colluvial, cascade, and step/pool type

channels, any increase in peak flows would be insignificant and have no affect to channels or

CCH below. The LSFBBC watershed would only have one percent non-recovered forest over the

25 percent threshold prescribed by Stednick (1995) and with the amount of small amount of

younger stands (3%) after harvest, it is very unlikely there would be any detectable change to

peak or base flows and if they were increased the flows would be insignificant and not channel

modifying events. Based on these factors, the proposed regeneration harvest would have an

insignificant negative (-) effect on changes in Peak and Base Flows.

Temporary and Permanent Road Construction, Road Renovation, Road Realignment, Road


Decommissioning, and Road resurfacing

Proximity: See Tables above in proposed action for proximity to CCH.

Probability: Roads can modify storm flow peaks by reducing infiltration on compacted surfaces

and allowing rapid surface runoff, or by intercepting subsurface flow and surface runoff and

channeling it more directly into streams (Ziemer, 1981). Road density for the LSFBBC

watershed is 5.2 miles/square mile and covers less than 4% percent of the LSFBBC watershed.

The new permanent road is outside of any Riparian Reserves and not hydrologically connected to

streams. The amount of new road would only increase density by 0.03 miles/square miles and the

area of road less 0.001%. Harr, et al. (1975) and Ziemer (1981) observed no affects to peak flows

from roads when they occupy less than 12% and 6% of a watershed, respectively. Road

decommissioning would only pull culverts and storm proof roads but not rip any roads and

would not reduce road density. Most temporary roads are outside of Riparian Reserves and the

ones partially in Riparian Reserves are not connected to streams by any means. The road

realignment would fully decommission nearly the same amount of newly constructed road, not

changing density. Road renovation and re-surfacing would not result in any change to run-off.

Based on these factors, the BLM expects a discountable probability of any affect to the peak or

base flow habitat indicator from the proposed new road construction. All other road activities

would not increase or decrease road density.

Element Summary: Due to the small amount of roads within the Action Area, extremely small

increase in road density, and lack of hydrologic connection from new ground compaction to

streams, the proposed activities would result in a discountable negative (-) effect to the peak

and base flow indicator.

Indicator Summary:

Only the regeneration harvest has any potential to affect peak or base flows. The proposed

permanent road construction has a mechanism to affect peak and base flows but due to the small

amount proposed, there is a discountable probability of any affects. Based on the amount of

recovery in stands younger than 27 years old in watersheds 415 (61%) and the LSFBBC 52%),

the high channel stability in the project area, and small amount of increase in younger stands, the

overall affect to the peak and base flow indicator would be insignificant negative (-) effect.

Increase in Drainage Network

Environmental Baseline -WA, BLM

The road density (road miles per square mile) for the LSFBBC watershed is 5.2. The stream

density (stream miles per square mile) for the LSFBBC watershed is 2.5. Current road/stream

ratio (road density/stream density) for the watershed is 2.1. These numbers indicate a moderate

increase in active channel length correlated with human caused disturbance (i.e. roadside ditches,

compaction, impervious surfaces).



Effects of the Drainage Network Density

Road Activities

Proximity: see previous tables for proximity to streams and CCH.

Probability: New permanent road construction is proposed on 0.84 miles and located on a ridge

top and outside of any Riparian Reserves. The road would cross an ephemeral dray about 650

feet above the initiation of an intermittent stream and is over two miles from CCH. Road

decommissioning would install water bars on 3.4 miles of roads, reducing the drainage network

by disconnecting roadside ditches to intermittent streams. Road improvements and renovations

would install a culvert on the permanent road but on a dry draw not classified as a stream

channel. Road improvements, renovations, and decommissioning would reduce the concentration

of flow associated with road and ditch networks thereby reducing the potential for increases in

the drainage network through culvert and road failures. The permanent road would slightly

increase the drainage network with the culvert on the ephemeral draw.

Two miles of temporary roads would be constructed with 0.8 miles occurring in Riparian

Reserves. The closes point to any stream is 30 feet but on flat ground with less than 2% slope.

The road would be decommissioned the same season constructed, before the rainy season. Since

the road is temporary, it would not increase the drainage network.

Magnitude: The permanent road construction would slightly increase the drainage network by

crossing an ephemeral draw. Ephemeral draws only flow in the response to rain events but the

road ditch line would increase the amount of water transported to the stream. Due to the

proximity of the road to CCH and the increase in drainage network being associated with an

ephemeral draw over 600 feet above an intermittent stream, the affects to CCH would be

insignificant. The road decommissioning would disconnect a less than one mile of road total

from the system. The positive and negative affects of these actions would likely be too small to

be meaningfully measured.

Element Summary: The proposed road activities would result in an insignificant positive (+)

and negative (-) effect on the Drainage Network Density.

Riparian Thinning/Plantation Thinning [yarding activities within these PEs]

Proximity: see previous tables above.

Probability: All skid roads would be waterbarred and all skid roads in regeneration would be

ripped to a depth of 18 inches. In addition, tractor yarding in harvest units would not occur

within Riparian Reserves. There is no probability of an effect from tractor yarding in the timber

harvest units. Low ground pressure tractor equipment (<6 lbs/in²) would yard trees in the


plantation units. Eight plantation units are within Riparian Reserves (Table 4). The units range

from 30 feet to 140 feet away from streams. Unit 19-A is 50 feet away from CCH on Bowen

Creek and unit 7-A is 110 feet away from SFBBC but the topography is less than three percent

and zero gradient in the stream buffers, respectively. There are no draws between any of the

plantation units and adjacent streams. Therefore, the probability of the yarding in the plantation

units increasing the project area drainage network is discountable.

Element Summary: The proposed timber harvest would result in a discountable negative (-)

effect on the Drainage Network Density.

Timber Harvest, Timber Hauling

These elements would have no causal mechanism to impact drainage network density, and would

result in a neutral (0) effect on this indicator.

Indicator Summary:

The road activities, riparian thinning, and plantation thinning PEs had the potential to increase

the drainage network density. However, the timber yarding activities within the riparian thinning,

and plantation thinning PEs would have a discountable probability of negatively affecting the

drainage network indicator because there would be buffers between all yarding and streams. The

road work PEs would have both an insignificant positive and negative affect to the drainage

network density indicator. The negative effects, when considered collectively, would remain an

insignificant negative (-) affect to the density based on the expected and potential increases.

G) WATERSHED CONDITION INDICATORS (WCI)

Road Density/Location Baseline (BLM, OB)

Road density in the LSFBBC watershed, for both private timberlands and BLM-administered

lands combined, is 5.2 miles/square mile. The roads are located throughout the project area from

along streams to mid-slopes to ridge tops. The density of roads in Riparian Reserves is about

eight miles/square mile.


Effects on the Road Density/Location Indicator

The only PEs to potentially affect these indicators is the temporary and permanent road

construction. The road decommissioning would only storm proof roads but not rip them,

essentially leaving the road in place. All other activities have no causal mechanism to affect

these indicators.

The proposed road construction includes constructing 13 temporary spur roads totaling 2 miles

and constructing two permanent roads totaling 0.84 miles. The permanent roads are located on or

near a ridge top but one does cross an ephemeral draw about 650 above the initiation of an

intermittent stream. Proximity of the permanent roads to CCH is over two miles. The increase in

density would be less than 0.03 miles/square miles. Of the two miles of temporary roads, 0.8

total miles are located in Riparian Reserves. Proximity of the temporary roads, in Riparian


Reserves, to adjacent streams ranges from 30 feet (on flat ground) to 278 feet. Proximity to CCH

ranges from 0.3 miles to over two miles. None of the roads are connected to streams. The

temporary roads would be decommissioned (ripped, seeded, and mulched) the same season,

before the rainy season.

The increase in road density from permanent road construction would result in an insignificant

negative (-) effect in the LSFBBC watershed. The temporary road construction would not

increase road density, thereby having a neutral (0) effect to these indicators. Therefore, there

would be an insignificant negative (-) effect to the Road Density and Location indicator by the

action.

Human Disturbance History Baseline (BLM)

The majority of the private lands in the LSFBBC watershed have been logged and about 3,750

acres on BLM-administered lands were logged in the past. Road densities are high in the

LSFBBC watershed (5.2 miles/square mile), but not the extent of measurably influencing peak

flows.


Effects of the PEs on the Human Disturbance History Indicator

The BLM proposes to harvest timber on 996 acres within the LSFBBC watershed. Road work

would have a slight net increase in road density (0.03 miles/square mile). Soils in the entire

project area are stable and not prone to erosion. Only a small portion of Riparian Reserves would

be treated (~96 acres) with the objective of improving conditions in presently overstocked stands

with high densities. Other activities occurring in Riparian Reserves include log hauling, road

renovation, road decommissioning, and temporary road construction. These activities would

have insignificant negative and positive effects. The analysis of effects to the peak flow indicator

determined the proposed timber harvest would not result in measurable changes in peak and base

flow volumes. Consequently, there would be an insignificant negative (-) effect to the human

disturbance history.

Riparian Reserves Baseline (BLM, OB)

Approximately 50% of all Riparian Reserves in the LSFBBC watershed are 80 to 200+ years

old, 20% is between 40 to 80 years old, and 30% is less than 40 years old. Stands 40 year old or

younger are heavily overstocked and presently do not provide an adequate source of large wood

for streams. This assessment is consistent with Murphy and Koski (1989) who determined

younger, second growth riparian stands do not provide an adequate source for LW to streams,

resulting in streams with low LW levels (Murphy and Koski 1989). Road density in Riparian

Reserves is high with over 8 miles/square miles and several run adjacent to streams.

Present Riparian Reserve buffers are 190 feet for non-fish bearing and 380 feet for fish bearing

streams, which is providing good protection. Riparian Surveys completed in 13.7 miles of

streams within the timber sale area concluded 76% of the Riparian Reserves with the sections

with harvest units are properly functioning (Figure 2), indicating most riparian areas on BLM-

administered lands have recovered since harvest. In the nonfunctioning and functioning-at-risk

riparian areas, the most common riparian habitat deficiencies include diverse aged/size structure

of vegetation, LWD to provide channel structure, and older standing conifers to provide a long-


term source for instream LWD. This is due primarily to past logging and road building activities

occurring in Riparian Reserves. Overall, conditions are fair.


Riparian Reserve Condition

76%

13%

11%

PFC FAR NF

Figure 2. Riparian condition in sections With harvest units (PFC – properly functioning, FAR -

functioning at risk, and NF- non functioning).

Effects on the Riparian Reserves Indicator

Proposed harvest in Riparian Reserves includes 29 acres of thinning and 67 acres of plantation

thinning. Trees range in size of 40 to 110 feet. Presently, the stands proposed for treatment are

densely stocked, resulting in increased inter-tree competition and slower growth rates. As stated

above, these stands do not provide an adequate source of wood for streams. The objective of the

treatment is to reduce competition and expedite large diameters capable of providing a good

source of wood for streams. Ninety foot buffers are prescribed for the riparian thinning units and

variable widths of 30 feet to 240 feet are prescribed for the plantation thinning units, based on

upland slopes. The prescribed buffers meet or exceed the minimum width of 30 feet

recommended by Wenger (1999) based on upland slopes of 2 ft per 1% increase in slope.

According to Wenger (1999), this would be adequate to prevent sediment deliver to streams and

with stable soils in the project area, the BLM expects no sediment to reach adjacent streams.

Trees will have less competition for resources following treatment and more rapidly reach

mature conditions. There would be an insignificant, short-term negative effect to the Riparian

Reserve indicator from the thinning and post harvest slash treatment in the riparian units, but the

treatments would have a long-term beneficial effect by expediting succession to mature

conditions. These affects would have a neutral affect to coho and CCH because shade levels

would be maintained and present and future LWD levels would not be affected.

The road decommissioning would not return roads to forested ground, resulting in no change to

the amount of Riparian Reserves. All other PEs would not occur within Riparian Reserves or

would not change the existing amount or condition of Riparian Reserves and therefore would


have no causal mechanism to affect it.

Due to the little area Riparian Reserves treated, the proposed riparian treatments would result in

an insignificant negative (-) and positive (+) effect on the Riparian Reserve indicator.

Disturbance Regime

Environmental Baseline - WA, BLM, BPJ

The underlying geology in the LSFBBC watershed is a mix of Freezner and Geppert soils. Both

of which are very stable soils and very low risk to landslide events. Additionally, the topography

in the project area is generally low to moderate slopes (~80% of LSFBBC is <5% slope and 15%

between 30-60%). As stated above, the prevalence of high stream channel stability indicates

increased peak flows are either not occurring or of such a small magnitude, they have no

geomorphic effects to channels. This indicates the hydrograph for LSFBBC watershed is

functioning properly. Habitat complexity is low in SFBBC and appear fair to good in Bowen

Creek. This is likely due to the presence of several miles of roads along SFBBC and a powerline

corridor that continually prevents trees from growing.

This area has not been a large fire in the project area for at least 30 years. Overall, the

disturbance regime for the project area is appears moderately altered due to timber harvest and

road development (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).


Effects on the Landslide and Erosion Rates

Timber harvest, yarding, and road construction can affect landslide and erosion rates; however,

the entire project area is on very stable soils not prone to erosion or landslides. Furthermore, with

approximately 80% of the project area having slopes <5%, there would be little to no risk of any

proposed action increasing landslide or erosion rates (Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006).

There is a discountable probability that timber harvest, timber yarding, and road construction

activities would affect the disturbance regime because little would occur in Riparian Reserves

and the prescribed buffers would protect stream conditions and fish habitat. All road construction

would occur in stable areas and with no hydrologic connection to streams.

There is no probability that timber hauling and the road improvements/renovations on existing

roadways would impact the overall Disturbance Regime for the action area or watershed

(Hydrology and Soils BA Support 2006). All temporary road construction would be constructed,

used, and decommissioned the same season constructed. Therefore, there is no probability for

road related effects altering the disturbance regime resulting from the new temporary

construction.

The proposed elements would have a discountable negative (-) effect on Disturbance Regime.

H. SPECIES AND HABITAT

Summary/Integration of all Species and Habitat Indicators


No supporting data for the action area. An ESA recovery plan has not been established for

SONC coho.

VI. ESA and EFH Effects Determinations

Determination of Effects on SONC Coho Salmon and SONC Critical Habitat and from

Implementation of the Bowen Arrow Timber Sale:

The PEs with potential and likelihood to add sediment to CCH are log hauling, road renovation

and decommissioning, road surfacing, and road realignment. The amount of sediment generated

and delivered to CCH for each PE singly and collectively was determined to be, at most, an

insignificant amount. This is because road work and hauling would occur during dry conditions.

PDFs would reduce the impacts of sediment generated and delivered such as only blading ditch

lines where its needed and not within 1/2 mile of CCH, installing straw bails for all culvert work

closer than 1/2 mile to CCH, seeding and mulching all exposed soils around streams, and

removing excess sediment during culvert work. In addition, most streams in the project area are

in good conditions with adequate channel structure capable of trapping and sorting most

sediment if any moves through the system from proposed road work. These activities would

result in an insignificant short-term (< 1 year) negative affect to the SSIDT/SCE habitat

indicators.

The road renovation, road decommissioning, road surfacing, and road realignment would also

reduce chronic sediment sources, resulting in an insignificant positive affect to the SSIDT/SCE

habitat indicators.

The riparian thinning and plantation thinning would leave enough of a buffer that there would be

a discountable probability of delivering sediment to adjacent streams and CCH. This is due to a

combination of the slope gradient of the buffers, buffer widths, and the mitigation measures such

as walking on slash in the plantation units.

All other PEs would have no effect to sediment levels where CCH occurs.

Constructing 0.84 miles of permanent roads would slightly increase the drainage network, but

would not add more than an insignificant amount of sediment to streams; therefore would have

an insignificant affect to coho or CCH.

Proposed timber harvest in watershed 415 and the LSFBBC watershed may result in increases in

peak and summer base flows, but the effects would be insignificant as would the effects to

channels in CCH. Peak and base flows in all other watersheds with proposed harvest would not

change after harvest.

All other habitat indicators would have neutral effects from all the PEs.

The entire proposed timber sale would have at most insignificant negative affects to the road

density, Riparian Reserve, and Disturbance Regime.

Based upon the insignificant nature of the potential effects, the proposed action would constitute


a “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for SONC coho salmon in the LSFBBC

watershed. In addition, this project is not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for SONC

coho salmon.

Essential Fish Habitat

The Bowen Arrow Timber Sale project would not adversely affect EFH in the LSFBBC

watershed. Based on the analysis on affects of the proposed timber sale discussed above, the

proposed action would Not Adversely Affect EFH for SONC coho or Chinook salmon.

Project Effects Determination Key for Species and Designated Critical Habitat

Project Name: Bowen Arrow Timber Sale

Field Office: Butte Falls Resource Area

Project Status: Future

1. Do any of the indicator summaries have a positive (+) or negative (-) conclusion?

A. NO.......................................................................................................................... No effect

B. YES..................................................................................................... May Affect, Go to 2

2. Are the indicator summary results only positive?

A. NO............................................................................................................................ Go to 3

B. YES............................................................................................................................ NLAA

3. If any of the indicator summary results are negative, are the effects insignificant or

discountable?

A. NO............................................................................... LAA, fill out Adverse Effects Form

B. YES........................................................................................................................... NLAA

References

Beechie, T. J. and T. H. Sibley, 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody

debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 126:217-229.


Benda, Lee, Marwan A. Hassan, Michael Church, and Christine L. May, 2005. Geomorphology

of Steepland Headwaters: The transition From Hillslopes to Channels. Journal of the American

Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 41(4):835-851.

Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B., and Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Stream

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In Streamside management:

forestry and fishery interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy. Institute of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. pp. 191–232.

Bryan, R. 2006. Bowen Arrow project road engineer. Personal communication.

Cederholm, C. J., L. M. Reid, and E. 0. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment

on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In

Proceedings from the conference Salmon-Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the

Pacific Northwest? p. 39-74. Rep. 39. State of Washington Water Research Center, Pullman.

Chamberlain, T. W., R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and

watershed processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181-205.

Cowley, E. R. 2002. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Levels of Streambank Alteration.

Grazing Management Support Documents. Website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/teams/techtran/projects/pacfish/publications/Allowable%20Levels

%20of%20Streambank%20Alteration.pdf

Duncan, S. H., R. E. Bilby, and J. T. Heffner, 1987. Transport of Road-Surface Sediment

Through Ephemeral Stream Channels. Water Resources Bulletin 23(1):113-119.

Everest, F. H, R. L Beschta, J. C Scrivener, K. V Koski, J. R Sedell, and C. J Cederholm. 1987.

Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98–141 in E. O. Salo and T. W.

Cundy, editors. Streamside management and forestry and fishery interactions. University of

Washington, College of Forest Resources, Contribution 57, Seattle.

Foster, S.C., C.H. Stein, and K.K. Jones. 2001. A guide to interpreting stream survey reports.

Edited by P.A. Bowers. Information Reports 2001-06. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Portland.

Grant, G.E., Swanson, F.J. and Wolman, M.G. 1990. Pattern and origin of stepped-bed

morphology in high-gradient streams, western Cascades, Oregon. Geological Society of

America Bulletin 102: 340-352.

Gregory, S.V., Meleason, M.A., Sobota, D.J., 2003. Modeling the dynamics of wood in streams

and rivers. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 37, 315–335.

Harr, R.D. 1976. Forest Practices and Streamflow in Western Oregon. USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-49. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,

Portland, OR.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/teams/techtran/projects/pacfish/publications/Allowable%20Levels%20of%20Streambank%20Alteration.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/teams/techtran/projects/pacfish/publications/Allowable%20Levels%20of%20Streambank%20Alteration.pdf


---------- 1981. Some characteristics and consequences of snow-melt during rainfall in western

Oregon. J. Hydrology 53:27-304.

---------- 1983. Potential for augmenting water yield through forest practices in western

Washington and western Oregon, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 19(3): 383-393.

Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, J.T. Krygier, and F.S. Hseih. 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after

road building and clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range, Water Resources Research, Vol.

11(3): 436-444.

Harr, R.D., R.L. Fredriksen and J. Rothacher. 1979. Changes in streamflow following timber

harvest in Southwestern Oregon. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-249, 22 pp.

Portland, Oregon.

Hicks B.J., Beschta, R.L. and Harr, R.D. 1991. Long-term changes in streamflow following

logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources Bulletin 27:

217-226.

Jones JA. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, regrowth,

and roads in small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resour. Res.

36(9):2621±42.

Jones, J.A., Grant, G.E., 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large

basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resour. Res. 32, 959±974.

Keppeler, Elizabeth T., Jack Lewis, Thomas E. Lisle. 2003. Effects of forest management on

streamflow, sediment yield, and erosion, Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds. In: Renard,

Kenneth G.; McElroy, Stephen A.; Gburek, William J.; Canfield, H. Evan; Scott, Russell L., eds.

First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, October 27-30, 2003. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; 77-82.

Keppeler, E. T.; Ziemer, R. R. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: water yields and summer

low flows at Caspar Creek in northwestern California. Water Resources Research 26(7): 1669-

1679.

Kondolf, G. M., Cada, G. F., Sale,M. J., and Felando, T., 1991, Distribution and stability of

potential salmonid spawning gravels in steep boulder-bed streams of the eastern Sierra Nevada:

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 120, p. 177–186.

Lewis, J., S. R. Mori, E. T. Keppeler, and R. R. Ziemer (2001), Impacts of logging on storm peak

flows, flow volumes, and suspended sediment loads in Caspar Creek, California, in Land Use

and Watersheds: Human Influence on Hydrology and Geamorphology in Urban and Forest

Areas, Water Sci and Appl. Sen, vol 2, edited by M. S. Wigmosta and S. J. Surges, pp 85-125,

AGU, Washington, D. C.

Meehan, W.R., editor. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on

salmonid fishes and their habitats American Fisheries Society special Publication 19.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/keppeler/Keppeler_Lewis_Lisle_ICRW.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/keppeler/Keppeler_Lewis_Lisle_ICRW.pdf


Megahan, W. F. and W. J. Kidd. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and

sediment deposition from steep terrain. J. Forestry 70(3): 136-141

Meyer, C.B., Sparkman, M.D., and Klatte, B.A. 2005. Sand seals in coho salmon redds: do they

improve egg survival?. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:105–121, 2005.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel reach morphology in mountain drainage

basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109:596-611.

Murphy, M.L. and Koski, K.V. 1989. Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska Streams

and Implications for Streamside Management. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management: Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 427–436.

NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Memorandum. Timber Harvest and Streamflow. Available at the Butte

Falls Resource Area, Medford District, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504. (Not seen; cited

from Stednick 1996).

ODFW. 2005. Coho Distribution Maps By Hydrologic Unit. Available on the Internet @

http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/Dists/coho_dist.htm

---------- 1997. Aquatic Habitat Inventories. Available at the Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford

District, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford OR 97504.

Roni, P., Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M., and Pess, G.R. 2002. A

Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing

Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management: Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1–20.

Rothacher, J. 1970. Increases in water yield following clear-cut logging in the Pacific

northwest. Water Resour. Res. 6 (2) :653-658.

Satterthwaite, T.D. 2002. Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 1999 Annual Report.

Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2002-09, Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland.

Stednick, JD. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of

Hydrology 176:79-95.

Thomas, R.B. and Megehan, W.F. 1998. Peak flow responses to clearcutting and roads in small

and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: a second opinion. Water Resour. Res. 34,

3393±3403


USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Sufficiency Analysis for

Stream Temperature: Evaluation of the Adequacy of the Northwest Forest Plan Riparian

Reserves to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards. Available at the

Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office, Butte Falls Resource Area. 2006.

Lower South Fork Big Butte Creek Watershed Riparian Surveys.

----------, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office, Butte Falls Resource Area

2006. Hydrology and Soils BA Support Document.

----------, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office, Butte Falls Resource Area

1995. Lower South Fork Big Butte Creek Watershed Riparian Surveys.

----------, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Grants Pass Resource Area. 1998.

Central Big Butte Creek Watershed Analysis.

Vogt, J. 1999. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project, 1999. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife. Available at the Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District, 3040 Biddle Road,

Medford OR 97504.

---------- 2000. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project, 2000. Oregon Department of Fish and


Medford OR 97504.

---------- 2001. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project, 2001. Oregon Department of Fish and


Medford OR 97504.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American

Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and

vegetation. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens, Georgia. 59 p.

Whittaker, J.G. 1987. Sediment transport in step-pool streams. In Thorne, C.R., Bathurst, J.C.

and Hey, R.D., editors, Sediment Transport in Gravel-bed Rivers. Chichester, U.K. John

Wiley and Sons: 545-570. [as cited in Montgomery and Buffington 1997)

Wright, K.A., Sendek, K.H., Rice, R.M. and Thomas, R.B. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow:

storm runoff at Caspar Creek in northwestern California. Water Resources Research 26:

1657-1667.

Ziemer, Robert R. 1981. Storm flow response to road building and partial cutting in small

streams of northern California. Water Resources Research 17: 907-917.

Bowen Arrow Timber Sale and Landscape Restoration Project ...The purpose of the timber sale and...

Documents

Transcript of Bowen Arrow Timber Sale and Landscape Restoration Project ...The purpose of the timber sale and...