Biological Assessment
Bowen Arrow Timber Sale and
Landscape Restoration Project
EA # OR115-06-06
Date: December 6, 2006
Attachment 1 - Page 1 of 59
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:
Reviewed By:
Gene Shull, Project Fish Biologist
Dale Johnson, Rogue Basin Level One
Team
Hydrologist Assisted in Preparing
Biological Assessment:
Shawn Simpson, Project Hydrologist
Hydrology and Soils BA Support
Attachment 1 - Page 2 of 59
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) 6182248 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
Attachment 1 - Page 3 of 59
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,
Attachment 1 - Page 4 of 59
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
7-1
Total
Acres
92
Acres in
TSZ
0
Acres in
Rip. Res.
Ave.
Slope
(%)
Board Feet
(thousands)
Logging
System
0
5%
644
T
T
49
T
T
Treatment Type
7-2
7
0
0
20%
7-3
2
0
2
5%
14
T
T
147
T
T
13-1
21
0
0
5%
13-2
92
0
0
10%
1656
T
SW-RH
13-3
12
0
0
10%
216
T
SW-RH
342
T
SW-RH
SW-RH
13-4
19
0
0
5%
13-5
11
0
0
35%
198
C
13-6
66
0
0
25%
1188
T
SW-RH
0
30%
207
C
NGFMA-RH
0
45%
598
C
NGFMA-RH
345
T
NGFMA-RH
13-7
13-8
9
26
0
0
15-1
15
0
0
30%
15-2
9
0
0
30%
207
T
NGFMA-RH
15-3
4
0
0
20%
92
T
NGFMA-RH
91
T
T
17-1
13
0
0
5%
17-2
18
0
0
5%
126
T
T
19-1
31
0
12
10%
217
T
T
168
T
T
19-2
24
0
3
10%
19-4
10
0
0
10%
70
T
T
84
T
T
19-5
12
0
0
10%
19-6
8
0
0
10%
184
T
NGFMA-RH
19-7
34
0
6
10%
238
T
T
266
T
T
19-8
38
0
0
5%
23-1
11
0
0
20%
253
T
NGFMA-RH
23-2
7
2
0
20%
161
T
NGFMA-RH
184
T
NGFMA-RH
23-3
8
0
0
20%
23-4
18
0
0
20%
414
T
NGFMA-RH
42
C
T
25-1
6
6
0
30%
25-2/3
45
45
0
10/40%
585
T/C
CONN-RH
25-4
23
23
0
20%
161
T
T
133
T/C
T
CONN-RH
25-5/6
19
19
0
30%
25-7/8
34
34
0
30%
442
T/C
25-9
22
22
0
20%
154
T
T
0
20%
210
T
SC
0
15%
117
T
CONN-RH
25-10
25-11
21
9
21
9
Attachment 1 - Page 5 of 59
Unit
Total
Acres
Acres in
TSZ
Acres in
Rip. Res.
Ave.
Slope
(%)
Board Feet
(thousands)
Logging
System
49
T
252
T
T
Treatment Type
25-12
7
7
0
20%
25-13
36
36
0
20%
0
30%
420
C
SC
0
30%
104
C
CONN-RH
133
C
T
NGFMA-RH
25-14
25-15
42
42
8
0
T
25-16
19
19
0
35%
31-1
15
8
0
30%
713
T
31-2
134
40
6
10%
938
T
T
0
10%
161
T
NGFMA-RH
21
T
T
266
T
T
31-3
7
7
31-4
3
3
0
10%
31-5
38
38
0
20%
0
35%
529
C
NGFMA-RH
322
T
NGFMA-RH
31-6
23
23
31-7
14
14
0
20%
31-7/8
30
30
0
35%
690
T/C
NGFMA-RH
20%
147
T
T
31-9
21
21
0
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
7-3
19-1
19-2
19-7
31-2
Acres of
Riparian
Thinning
2
12
3
6
6
Slope
Gradient
(%)
5
10
10
10
10
Distance to
CCH
(miles)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.6
Post Harvest Slash Treatment
Post harvest slash treatment would occur on all timber harvest units and consist of the harvest
Attachment 1 - Page 6 of 59
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.
Hand-pile/
Pile burn
Lop and
Scatter
Under
Burn
UNIT #
Acres
7-1
92
7-2
7
X
13-1
21
X
13-2
92
13-3
12
X
13-4
19
X
13-5
11
X
13-6
66
X
X
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
11
X
19-1
20
X
19-2
24
X
19-4
10
X
19-5
12
X
19-6
8
19-7
34
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
25-11
9
25-12
7
25-13
36
25-14
42
25-15
8
25-16
19
25-2/3
45
25-4
23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Attachment 1 - Page 7 of 59
UNIT #
Acres
25-5/6
19
25-7/8
34
25-9
22
31-1
31
31-2
31-3
Hand-pile/
Pile burn
Lop and
Scatter
X
X
X
X
8
126
7
31-4
3
31-5
38
31-6
23
31-7
14
31-7/8
30
31-9
21
Under
Burn
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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).
Attachment 1 - Page 8 of 59
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.
7-A
13-A*
13-B**
15-A
15-B
15-C
19-A***
23-A
23-B
Total
1
41.7
32.7
30.1
23
13.1
68
43.8
33.6
287
1
12.4
5.3
8.4
0
4.4
17.2
10.2
7.8
67
Avg.
Upland
Slope
(%)
0
25
20
23
28
31
<3
28
22
Distance To
Stream (feet)
Stream
Flow
Tree
Heights
(feet)
Distance
to CCH
(miles)
115
50 (2), 230 (1)
50 (2)
70
950
240
30 (2), 50 (1)
76
140
Perennial
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
No stream
Perennial
Inter/Per
Perennial
Perennial
40
50
50
50
50
40
50
50
60
115 feet
1
1.2
1.3
1.95
1.9
50 feet
1.6
2
*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%.
Attachment 1 - Page 9 of 59
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 #
35-2E-13.5
35-2E-10.1
No #
No #
Length (miles)
Distance To Stream
Distance To CCH
0.09
0.68
303 feet
0.10
0.93
Crosses
50-110 feet (3 streams)
Crosses [low water ford]
Crosses [low water ford]
1500 feet
0.9 to 1.3 miles
3.5
3.5
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 10 of 59
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 11 of 59
Table 6. Roads Identified for Possible Renovation.
Road #
35-2E-10
35-2E-10.1
35-2E-13.1
35-2E-13.10
35-2E-13.2
35-2E-13.3
35-2E-13.4
35-2E-13.5
35-2E-13.6
35-2E-13.8
35-2E-15.1
35-2E-23.2
35-2E-23.4
35-2E-23.6
35-2E-24
35-2E-25
35-2E-25.1
35-3E-17
35-3E-19
35-3E-29
35-3E-29.1
35-3E-31.1
35-3E-31.2
35-3E-31.3
35-3E-31.4
35-3E-31.6
35-3E-7.1
35-3E-8.1
Spur 31-1A
Spur 31-1B
Spur 31-2A
Spur 31-2B
Spur 7-1A
Spur 7-1B
Surface
Type
ASC
ABC
ABC
NAT
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
NAT
ABC
ABC
PRR
ABC
NAT
NAT
PRR
ABC
ABC
ABC
NAT
NAT
NAT
ABC
ABC
PRR
PRR
ABC
ABC
NAT
PRR
PRR
NAT
NKN
NKN
NAT
NAT
NKN
NKN
Road Name
Hukill Ck Rd
Hukill Ck Rd
Medco Sec 15 Spur
Medco Sec 15 Spur
Little Tokyo Sp
Little Tokyo Stub Spur
Doubleday Ck Sp
Little Tokyo Ts Spur
Little Tokyo Ts Spur
Little Tokyo Ts Spur
Little Tokyo Ts Spur
Little Tokyo Ts Spur
Hukill Crk
Doubleday Sp
Doubleday Sp
Fish Hatchery Leg Rd
Doubleday Sp E
Doubleday Sp E
Doubleday Sp
Doubleday Sp
Doubleday Sp
No Name
Aqueduct Rd
Bowen Ck Ml
Bowen Creek Flats Rd
Bowen Ck Lower Sp Rt
Bowen Ck Upper Lft Sp
Upper Bowen Orig
Bowen Ck Spur
Bowen Ck Spur
Bowen Ck R/w
Medco Rr Grade S
No Name
No Name
No Name
No Name
No Name
No Name
No Name
Attachment 1 - Page 12 of 59
Length (miles)
0.76
1.11
0.51
1.88
0.51
0.11
1.45
0.31
0.32
0.24
0.61
1.07
0.26
1.14
0.30
0.50
1.20
1.47
1.48
0.15
0.32
0.05
0.25
2.47
1.44
0.22
0.50
1.49
0.96
0.06
0.24
1.07
0.58
0.31
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.14
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.
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
Road Surface
* 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.
Stream Type
Distance To
(Order/Flow)
CCH (mile)
35-2E-10.1
Replace Undersized Culvert
1/Intermittent
0.9
Clean Culvert
1/Intermittent
0.3
35-2E-13
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.
Road #
Treatment
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
Attachment 1 - Page 13 of 59
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 35-2E23.4, which is presently ripped now.
Table 9. Road decommissioning and proximity to CCH.
Road #
35-2E-13.01
35-2E-13.3
35-2E-13.5
35-2E-13.10
35-2E-15.1
35-2E-23.4
35-2E-23.6
35-2E-25.1
35-3E-17
35-3E-31.4
Spur 31-1B
Spur 31-2A
Spur 31-2B
Spur 7-1A
Spur 7-1B
Road
Length
(miles)
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
236 ft
0.1
0.1
300 ft
0.2
0.1
0.3
In Riparian
Reserve
Cross
Stream
Stream Flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
NA
Intermittent (2 streams)
Intermittent (2 streams)
Intermittent (low water ford)
NA
Intermittent
Perennial (1)/Intermittent (2)
NA
NA
Intermittent
NA
Intermittent (low water ford)
Intermittent (low water ford)
NA
NA
NA
# of
Culverts
Removed
1 steel/ 1log
1
0
NA
0
2*
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
Distance To
CCH (miles)
1 (both)
1,050 ft (both)
1,550 ft
NA
NA
2.4 (both)
NA
NA
0.5
NA
1.7
1.8
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
Attachment 1 - Page 14 of 59
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)
Spur 13-1
Spur 13-2
Spur 13-3
Spur 15-1
13.5, 13.6
13.6, 13.7
13.2
15-1, 15-2, 15-3
0.06
0.12
0.24
0.33
Spur 15-2
15-3, 15-4
0.46
Spur 17-1
17.2
0.19
Spur 17-2
Spur 23-1
17.1
23-1, 23-2
0.06
0.19
Spur 23-2
Spur 23-3
Spur 25-1
Spur 25-2
Spur 25-3
23.4
23-5
25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4
25.7, 25.8
25-8
total
0.07
0.06
0.25
0.20
0.08
2.10
Length in Riparian
Reserves and Distance to
Adjacent Stream
0
0
0
0
0.46 mile in RR and 162
feet to stream
0.19 mile in RR and 30*
feet to stream
320 feet in RR and 130
feet to stream
0
330 feet in RR and 278
feet to stream
0
0
0
0
0.8
Distance
from
CCH
(miles)
1.1
1.1
0.17
1.3
1.3
0.5
0.32
1.9
2.2
1.7
2
3+
2
*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
Attachment 1 - Page 15 of 59
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 #
35-2E-13
35-2E-15
35-3E-17
35-3E-17.2
35-3E-29
35-3E-29.1
Length
4.6
0.86
0.21
0.07
1.6
0.35
# Of Stream
Crossings
5
1
None
1
1
3
Existing Road
Surface
Rocked
Rocked
Natural
Rocked
Rocked
Rocked
Distance to CCH (mi)
1,500 ft (rest are over 1 mile)
1.3
NA
0.5
0.35
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
Attachment 1 - Page 16 of 59



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.
Attachment 1 - Page 17 of 59

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)
Excellent Moderate
76
17
Poor
7
Sediment (% of total
miles surveyed)
Low
85
Large wood (% of total
miles surveyed)
Moderate High Adequate
3
12
79
Attachment 1 - Page 18 of 59
Low
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 BLMadministered lands the LSFBBC watershed.
Table 13. Stand Age Classes and Seral Stages in the LSFBBC 6th field watershed on BLMadministered 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.
Attachment 1 - Page 19 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 20 of 59
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
Sediment, Pool Quality, Landslide Rates, Large Woody
Substrate
Debris
Water Quality
Temperature, Sediment, Road Density & Location
Peak/base flows, Drainage Network Increase, Road
Water Quantity
Density and Location
Temperature, Riparian Reserves, Refugia, Width/Depth
Water Temperature
Ratio, Streambank Condition, Peak/base flows, Riparian
Reserves, Floodplain Connectivity.
Peak/base flows, Drainage Network Increase, Floodplain
Connectivity, Off-channel Habitat, Width/Depth Ratio,
Water Velocity
Road Density and Location, Streambank Condition, Large
Woody Debris
Sediment, Pool Quality, Streambank Condition, Riparian
Cover/shelter
Reserves, Refugia, Large Woody Debris, Off-channel
Habitat, Width/Depth Ratio, Floodplain Connectivity
Sediment, Riparian Reserves, Floodplain Connectivity,
Food
Large Woody Debris, Temperature
Riparian Reserves, Large Woody Debris, Disturbance
Riparian Vegetation
History, Floodplain Connectivity
Pool Quality, Off-channel Habitat, Floodplain
Space
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
Attachment 1 - Page 21 of 59
and numbers above Butte Falls naturally very low.
Adult Coho Population for the Upper Rogue Basin
25,000
# of returning adults
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
02
96
93
90
99
20
19
19
19
84
81
87
19
19
19
78
19
72
69
75
19
19
19
63
60
66
19
19
19
54
51
48
57
19
19
19
19
45
19
19
19
42
0
`````````````
`
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 22 of 59
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 110 feet to over 3 miles
Falling/Yarding/Post Harvest Slash
Treatment outside of RRs)
Plantation Thinning
50 feet to over 2 miles
Riparian Thinning (to include Tree
0.5 miles to over 2 miles
Falling & Yarding)
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
Attachment 1 - Page 23 of 59
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
Riparian Thin
Plantation Thin
Acres
Avg. Canopy
Closure after
Harvest (%)
19-1
12
50
19-7
2
7-A
Distance to
Stream (feet)
Distance to
CCH (miles)
No Name
100
1.2
50
No Name
100
1.7
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
Unit
Stream
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
Attachment 1 - Page 24 of 59
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 2nd 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.
Attachment 1 - Page 25 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 26 of 59
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. Bulllining 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
Attachment 1 - Page 27 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 28 of 59
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 29 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 30 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 31 of 59
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 longterm (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
Attachment 1 - Page 32 of 59
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 #
35-2E-13.01
35-2E-13.3
35-2E-13.5
35-2E-15.1
35-2E-23.4
Spur 31-1B
Spur 31-2A
Road
Length
(miles)
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
300 ft
In Riparian
Reserve
Cross
Stream
Stream Flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Intermittent (2 streams)
Intermittent
Intermittent (low water ford)
Intermittent
Perennial (1)/Intermittent (2)
Intermittent (low water ford)
Intermittent (low water ford)
# of
Culverts
Removed
1 steel/ 1log
1
0
1
2*
0
0
Distance To
CCH (miles)
1 (both)
1,050 ft
1,550 ft
1
2.4 (both)
1.7
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
Attachment 1 - Page 33 of 59
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)
Attachment 1 - Page 34 of 59
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.
Baseline Rating: Functioning At Risk
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 35 of 59
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.
Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning
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
Attachment 1 - Page 36 of 59
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 2nd 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
Attachment 1 - Page 37 of 59
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.
Baseline Rating: Functioning At Risk
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.
Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning
Off-channel Habitat and Refugia
SFBBC is hillslope constrained and does not naturally have off channel habitat or refugia.
Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning
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
Attachment 1 - Page 38 of 59
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. .
Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning
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).
Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning
Floodplain Connectivity
SFBBC is naturally constrained by hill slopes and there is no floodplain. This is natural for this
type of channel.
Baseline Rating: Properly Functioning
Effects on the Average Wetted Width/ Maximum Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and
Floodplain Connectivity Indicators
Attachment 1 - Page 39 of 59
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 40 of 59
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 41 of 59
Table 18. Current openings in the TSZ.
WA
Acres
% WA
in TSZ
% TSZ with
Open Canopy
Detectable Peak Flow Increase
– Current Condition
409
415
421
427
LSFBBC
4,547
1,841
1,136
1,630
16,206
36
40
19
47
21
8
8
2
9
8
No
No
No
No
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 42 of 59
Table 19. Channel stability and Riparian Reserve conditions.
Channel/Streambank
Stability (% of total)
Excellent Moderate Poor
76
17
7
Riparian Reserve
Condition (% of total)
Good
Moderate Poor
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 43 of 59
Table 20. Existing risk of increased peak/base flows during rain events in the Action Area.
Area
(acres)
Nonrecovered
(% Area)
409
4,547
412
1,864
Watershed
(South SUB-WA 412)
(North SUB-WA 412)
Stands < 16
Years Old (%
Area)
Detectable
Changes To
Water Yield*
17
--
No
29
12
No
205
8
1
No
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
Attachment 1 - Page 44 of 59
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
409
415
LSFBBC
4,446
1,414
16,206
37
52
21
% TSZ
with Open
Canopy
8
8
8
Detectable Peak
Flow Increase –
Current
Condition
No
No
No
% TSZ with
<30% CanopyPost Harvest
17
14
13
Detectable
Peak Flow
Increase -Post
Harvest
No
No
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.
Baseline Conditions
Post Harvest Conditions
Detectable
Changes To
Water Yield
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)
409
4,552
17
--
215
22
+5
--
No
412
(South
SUB-WA
412)
(North
SUB-WA
412)
415
1,864
29
12
10
29
+<.01
12
No*
205
8
1
10
13
+5
6
No
770
25
0
None
25
0
0
No
1,841
19
12
170
28
+9
21
Possible
421
1,136
20
--
11
21
+1
--
No
WA
Attachment 1 - Page 45 of 59
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% nonrecovered 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).
Attachment 1 - Page 46 of 59
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 nonrecovered 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
Attachment 1 - Page 47 of 59
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).
Baseline Rating: Functioning At Risk
Attachment 1 - Page 48 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 49 of 59
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.
Baseline Rating: Not Properly Functioning
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
Attachment 1 - Page 50 of 59
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.
Baseline Rating: Not Properly Functioning
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 BLMadministered 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 longAttachment 1 - Page 51 of 59
term source for instream LWD. This is due primarily to past logging and road building activities
occurring in Riparian Reserves. Overall, conditions are fair.
Baseline Rating: Functioning At Risk
Riparian Reserve Condition
11%
13%
76%
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
Attachment 1 - Page 52 of 59
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).
Baseline Rating: Functioning At Risk
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
Attachment 1 - Page 53 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 54 of 59
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 55 of 59
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 56 of 59
---------- 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): 16691679.
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 57 of 59
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
Attachment 1 - Page 58 of 59
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
Wildlife. Available at the Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District, 3040 Biddle Road,
Medford OR 97504.
---------- 2001. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project, 2001. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Available at the Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District, 3040 Biddle Road,
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.
Attachment 1 - Page 59 of 59