Hydrology and Aquatic Species Report and Biological Evaluation

Hydrology and Aquatic

United States Species Report and Department of Biological Evaluation Agriculture

Forest Bear Creek Cluster Service Allotment Management Plans Environmental Impact Statement June 2019

Ochoco National Forest

Lookout Mountain and Paulina Ranger Districts

Prepared by:

Jennifer Mickelson, Fisheries Biologist Contents

Introduction ...... 6

Pertinent Rules and Regulations ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Water Quality ...... 6

Management Area Prescriptions - Riparian ...... 7

Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines – Water ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Management Area Standards and Guidelines, Resource – Water ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Project Activities – Standard and Guideline ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) ...... 12

The Clean Water Act (CWA 1972) ...... 13

Executive Orders ...... 14

PACFISH/ INFISH ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Aquatic Species ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Analysis Design ...... 6

Potential Issues Acknowledged but not Analyzed ...... 14

Methodology ...... 14

Stream Data ...... 15

Analysis Measures ...... 16

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology ...... 17

Stream Temperature ...... 21

Sediment/Turbidity ...... 23

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation ...... 25

End of Season Monitoring ...... 26

Affected Environment ...... 26

Watersheds ...... 26

Streams ...... 27

Aquatic Species ...... 28

Mid-Columbia River Steelhead ...... 28

Redband trout ...... 29

Columbia Spotted Frog ...... 30

Existing Condition – Aquatic Habitat ...... 31

Allotment and Pasture Descriptions...... 31

Bear Creek Allotment ...... 31

Elkhorn Allotment ...... 42

Snowshoe Allotment ...... 54

Trout Creek Allotment ...... 60

Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 74

Alternative 1 - No Action ...... 74

Effects Common to All Allotments ...... 74

Determination for Aquatic Species ...... 116

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 80

Bear Creek Allotment ...... 81

Elkhorn Allotment ...... 91

Snowshoe Allotment ...... 97

Trout Creek Allotment ...... 102

Alternative 3 – Current Management ...... 105

Effects Common to All Allotments ...... 106

Cumulative Effects...... 107

Activities Contributing to Cumulative Effects in the Bear AMP Project Area ...... 108

Bridge Creek Wildfire (2008) ...... 108

Bridge Creek Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (2008/2009) ...... 108

Bailey Butte Wildfire (2014) ...... 108

Bailey Butte Fire Project (2015) ...... 110

Bailey Butte Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (2014/2015) ...... 110

Bailey Butte Post Fire Restoration (future) ...... 110

Travel Management Rule (2011) ...... 111

Road Closures, Decommissioning and Storage ...... 111

Fish Passage Improvements (Culvert Removals and Replacements) ...... 112

Stream and Riparian Restoration ...... 113

Invasive Plant Treatment FEIS (ROD, 2012) ...... 114

Ongoing Recreation ...... 114

Alternative 1 Cumulative Effects ...... 115

Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects ...... 117

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology ...... 117

Stream Temperature ...... 118

Sediment/Turbidity ...... 119

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation ...... 121

Determination for Aquatic Species ...... 122

Alternative 3 Cumulative Effects ...... 123

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology ...... 123

Stream Temperature ...... 123

Sediment/Turbidity ...... 124

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation ...... 124

Determination for Aquatic Species ...... 124

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) Viability Analysis ...... 125

Biological Evaluation Summary ...... 127

Determination for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species ...... 127

Appendix A. Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) Assessment for Subwatersheds in the Bear AMP Project area ...... 135

Appendix B - Ochoco National Forest Service RHCA and Waterbody Guidelines...... 137

Introduction

This report includes the entire Biological Evaluation (BE) for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive aquatic species in the Bear Creek AMP project area. The BE documents the review and findings of the Forest Service planned programs and activities for possible effects on species (1) listed or proposed for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Threatened or Endangered; or (2) designated by the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester as Sensitive; or (3) required consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (MSA). It is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2630.3, FSM 2672.4, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (Subpart B; 402.12, Section 7 Consultation). The R6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List from 2011 will be used, since it was in effect at the time of project initiation. A separate Biological Assessment for Mid-Columbia River steelhead will be prepared and consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will prior to a decision for the Bear Creek AMP project.

Regulatory Framework Forest Plan Direction

Water Quality

Direction for managing water quality, water quantity, and riparian areas on the Ochoco National Forest are found in the Forest Service Manual, Title 2500 - Watershed and Air Management (FSM 1984), Forest Service Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment (INFISH 1995), Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and Portions of California (PACFISH 1995), Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219), General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 2012), the Clean Water Act (CWA 1972), Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and 12088, the Organic Administration Act of 1897, and the Ochoco National Forest Land Resource and Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989).

Goals are generalized statements that provide broad direction for future management of the Forest. Objectives represent projected, potential outputs in support of overall goals and are based on available inventory data and assumptions. Desired future conditions summarize the anticipated physical changes that are likely to occur as a result of carrying out planned management practices over time.

Goals of the Ochoco National Forest include: • Maintain or improve water quality, quantity, and timing of run-off. • Comply with the objectives of the “Clean Water Act” and State of Oregon water quality standards. • Provide water of consistently high quality to users and dependent resources.

Objectives of the Ochoco National Forest include:

• Maintain or improve water quality through the proper management of entire watersheds at all times, with special attention given to riparian areas. • Maintain or improve all riparian areas to “excellent condition”.

Desired future condition of the Ochoco National Forest includes: • In ten years, individual watersheds on the Forest that are currently in excellent condition are expected to remain so and those not presently in good condition will be given first priority for improvement. • Fifty years and beyond, it is expected that 90 to 95 percent of the riparian areas on the Forest will be in “excellent condition” by the year 2040. No significant increases in runoff for the Forest are expected.

Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines – Water Water Quality • Comply with State requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of waters of the State of Oregon (Oregon Administrative Rules, Ch. 340-041-0001), through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 2012) in conformance with the Clean Water Act, regulations, and federal guidelines issued thereto (Forest Plan 4-236). Floodplains and Wetlands (including springs and wet meadows) (Forest Plan 4-237) • Consider the presence of, and potential impacts to, any inventoried floodplain in project area environmental analysis. • Do not locate major structures, roads, or other facilities within floodplains unless no feasible alternative sites exist outside floodplain. • Allow projects causing short-term impacts on floodplain values only if specific mitigation measures designed to minimize the impacts are documented in the project environmental analysis. Restore natural floodplain characteristics after the activity has ceased. See Management Area F15 Riparian for emphasis and desired future condition of riparian as a management area prescription (not including springs and wet meadows), and management area standards and guidelines for desired resource areas, such as Fire, Recreation, Timber, Transportation System, and Water.

Management Area Prescriptions - Riparian

A Forest Plan management area is composed of lands with similar capabilities or characteristics, and is allocated to emphasize a particular resource or mix of resources. In conjunction with Forest-wide standards and guidelines, management areas provide a site-specific management emphasis and desired future condition for that area.

Riparian areas include land adjacent to water, where plants that are dependent on a perpetual source of water occur. They normally have high water tables and soils which exhibit

characteristics of wetness. Riparian areas provide food, cover, and a source of large woody material for aquatic insects, fish and land animals. The vegetation of streamside areas filter sediment and shade the water surface to help maintain stable stream temperatures.

Management emphasis for riparian areas includes: • Manage streamside vegetation and habitat to maintain or improve water quality. Meet temperature and turbidity levels as required by state standards under the Clean Water Act.

Desired future condition for riparian areas includes: • Exhibiting a low, but apparent level of management. Vegetation may or may not appear manipulated, depending on the condition of the stream. Suitable amounts of large woody material will be apparent within the riparian area to provide streambank stability and habitat. • For management purposes, a special protection area (100 feet from the edges of perennial bodies of water) will be apparent. • Within the limits of ecological potential, a shady, brushy condition with a canopy of alder, willow, aspen, or other deciduous vegetation will exist. • Where coniferous evergreens are a natural component of the ecosystem, a variety of size classes will exist to perpetuate the supply of shade and woody debris over time. Sites unable to support a canopy of deciduous or evergreen species will be characterized by vigorous stands of forbs, grasses, and grass-like riparian species. • Bank slopes containing high plant densities, thick root masses, embedded angular boulders, and old logs will also characterize these areas. Extensive scouring of streambanks will be an uncommon occurrence as will soil deposition outside the norm for the individual stream system. Streambeds will be commonly covered by native aquatic growth on assorted sizeds of rocks and boulders. • Where cobble and gravel bars are prominent, they will become covered by sandy loam soils as riparian vegetation filters and traps stream sediments. As stream banks are rebuilt and cutbanks stabilized, a narrower, deeper channel will gradually develop. • Springs and wet meadows are not specifically included in this management area prescription, but should receive appropriate protection as stated in Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines for Water.

Management Area Standards and Guidelines, Resource – Water Temperature – Standard and Guideline • The requirements for shade along streams will generally correspond to provisions for more than 80 percent of the surface shaded. Where this can not be attained, 100 percent of the potential for shade is the standard. • Shade requirements may be reduced in cases where management is necessary to sustain a thrifty community of shade providing species over time, but activities may not result in an increase in termperatures above the limits specified (MA-F15 Riparian).

Turbidity – Standard and Guideline • Allow no more than 10 percent cumulative increase in stream turbidity. Short-term (less than five days) deviations from this standard to accommodate emergency or other legitimate activities will comply with state requirements for notification and approval (MA-F15 Riparian). Project Activities – Standard and Guideline • Special attention shall be given to land and vegetation for approximately 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes, and other bodies of water. This area shall correspond to at least the recognizable area dominated by the riparian vegetation. No management practices causing detrimental changes in water temperature or chemical composition, blockages, or deposits of sediment which seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat shall be permitted within these areas. • Give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources over other resources in cases of unresolvable conflicts. Vegetation and ground cover requirements • Where site potential and topographic factors permit, manage riparian areas to provide the shade necessary to meet stream temperature goals. • Maintain upper streambanks in a stable condition along at least 80 percent of the length of a stream. • Retain at least 80 percent of the potential ground cover in grass-forb riparian communities. Also, retain at least 80 percent of the potential tree or shrub cover in riparian areas dominated by trees or shrubs. In riparian areas with mixed layers, the cover requirement may be met by taking credit for the effective cover provided by all vegetative layers of the riparian community including shrubs, tree understories, and the dominant overstory. Consider the mitigating effect of stream size and orientation as well as surrounding topography when determining the amount of cover that may be removed.

PACFISH/ INFISH

Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) (USDA Forest Service 1995b) provides interim direction to protect habitat and populations of anadromous fish habitat in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. Mid-Columbia steelhead and/or their critical habitat is present in the Bear AMP project area within the following subwatersheds: Foley Creek, Headwaters Trout Creek, Opal Creek, Middle Bear Creek, West Branch Bridge Creek, Upper Bridge Creek and Headwaters Bridge Creek. PACFISH will apply to these subwatersheds and will be discussed further in this analysis.

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA Forest Service 1995a) provides direction to protect habitat and populations of resident native fish outside of anadromous fish habitat in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. For the Bear AMP planning area, INFISH provides protection for redband trout in the following

subwatersheds: Howard Creek, Upper Marks Creek, Upper Bear Creek, and Upper McKay Creek.

Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) describing good habitat were developed to describe desired condition for fish habitat. See Appendix A (USDA Forest Service 1995a; USDA Forest Service 1995b; Rosgen 1996; Cordova 1995; Rosgen and Silvey 1998). INFISH and PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives that will be discussed in this report relate to pools, temperature, large woody debris, bank stability and width to depth ratios. These parameters are indicators of effects to redband trout, steelhead and Columbia spotted frog habitat as a result of grazing management. Although sediment is not an INFISH/PACFISH RMO, it is an indicator of effects to redband trout, steelhead, and Columbia spotted frog and will be discussed in the effects section of this report.

Grazing management is addressed in INFISH (p. A-9) and PACFISH (p. C-12). It states: • GM-1. Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or are likely to adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objectives and avoiding effects on listed anadromous or resident fish. • GM-2. Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. For existing livestock handling facilities inside Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure that facilities do not prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect listed anadromous or resident fish. Relocate or close facilities where these objectives cannot be met. • GM-3. Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to those areas and times that will not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affected listed anadromous or resident fish.

Implementing INFISH and PACFISH is to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat features, to meet the life-history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed. Project proposals are to not retard the attainment of RMOs. To “retard” would mean to slow the rate of recovery below the near natural rate of recovery if no additional human caused disturbance was placed on the system (INFISH 1995 p. A-3 and PACFISH 1995 p. C-5). Riparian Management Objectives for Redband Trout and Steelhead Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) describing good habitat were developed to describe desired condition for fish habitat. Table 44 is in part taken from Table A-1. Interim Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) from INFISH (1995) and PACFISH (1995). As discussed below, some of these INFISH/PACFISH standards are used to describe aquatic conditions in the Bear AMP project area. Others, such as large woody debris and width to depth ratios, are modified based on more site-specific information, which, as such, is considered to be the best available scientific data for the project area.

Table 1. Riparian Management Objectives for Bear AMP Planning Area (INFISH 1995 and PACFISH 1995) Habitat Feature Interim Objective No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7-day moving average of daily maximum temperature measured as the average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest Water Temperature consecutive 7-day period). Maximum water temperatures below 59F within adult holding habitat and below 48F within spawning and rearing habitats. Bank Stability >80 percent stable. (non-forest systems) Large Woody Debris >20 pieces per mile; >12 inches diameter; >35 foot length Varies by channel width: Wetted width Pool Frequency 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 120 200 (feet) 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12 9 Pools per mile

Width/depth ratios (all See Table 4 below. Width to Depth Ratios by Stream Type (Rosgen systems) and Silvey 1998)

Aquatic Species

Threatened and Endangered species: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Mid-Columbia River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp) are listed as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and are found on the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland. The project area is not within bull trout watersheds and will have no effect (NE) on bull trout or their designated or proposed critical habitats. Mid-Columbia River steelhead trout are present in Upper Trout Creek and Bridge Creek watersheds within the project area. Grazing within steelhead habitat will have an effect on the species and listed critical habitat. Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service is required.

Management Indicator Species: Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are identified as management indicator species in the FEIS for the Forest Plan. In the past, these fish have been stocked by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. They are no longer stocked in the streams in the Bear Creek AMP planning, but may still naturally reproduce in many Class I and II streams. A Management Indicator Species analysis is located later on in this document.

R6 Regional Forester sensitive species list: The westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata), Harney Basin duskysnail (Colligyrus depressus), shortface lanx (Fisherola nuttalli), Indian Ford juga (Juga hemphilli spp. nov.), Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris), A caddisfly (Moselyana comosa), and Columbia clubtail (Gomphus lynnae) are on the R6 Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list (December 2011). Stream surveys since the mid-1990’s have not indicated any of these species to be present in the project area. Therefore, these species will not be discussed further.

Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp) is on the 2011 sensitive species list (USDA Forest Service 2011a). Historically they were present throughout the planning area and can be found in Class I and Class II streams: Big Log Creek, Dutchman Creek, Cartwright Creek, Potlid Creek, Bull Creek, Trout Creek, Dick Creek, Auger Creek, Little McKay Creek, Bear Creek, North Fork

Bear Creek, Grant Creek, Scotty Creek, Rail Creek, Cougar Creek, Dodds Creek, Heflin Creek, Marks Creek, Nature Creek, West Branch Bridge Creek, East Fork Howard Creek, and Bridge Creek.

The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) is a sensitive species on the R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list (USDA Forest Service 2011a). There are currently known populations of Columbia spotted frogs throughout the project area identified from informal surveys. Surveys have found Columbia spotted frog in Trout Creek, Dick Creek, Bear Creek, North Fork Bear Creek and Bridge Creek, but it is likely that they inhabit all the streams where redband trout occur listed above. Columbia spotted frog are highly aquatic, and are rearely found far from permanent quiet water. They usually occur at the grassy/sedgy margins of streams, lakes, ponds, springs and marshes.For this report, analysis is for Mid-Columbia steelhead and its critical habitat, redband trout and Columbia spotted frogs, the species present within the project area. Other Direction

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients

Oregon water quality standards are benchmarks established to assess whether the quality of rivers and lakes is adequate for fish and other aquatic life, recreation, drinking, agriculture, industry and other uses (i.e. beneficial uses). When chemicals or nutrients are released into streams at levels that impede the stream’s beneficial uses, those chemicals or nutrients become a pollutant to the stream. Water quality standards are also regulatory tools used by ODEQ and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prevent pollution of Oregon waters.

ODEQ assessed water quality in Oregon to meet the federal Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and Section 303(d) requirements to provide an Integrated Report on Oregon’s surface waters. ODEQ prepared Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report in phases and submitted a final 2010 Integrated Report to EPA in May 2011 (ODEQ 2010). EPA approved the submitted 303(d) listings and de- listings on March 15, 2012 but also disapproved DEQ’s submittal for not including other waters. EPA proposed additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list and completed its process and took final action on Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list on December 14, 2012 by adding 870 listed segments.

With EPA’s action, the listings/de-listings approved in March 2012 and listings added in December 2012 complete Oregon’s 303(d) list and the list can be used for Clean Water Act purposes.

Although not added to Oregon’s 303(d) list in December 2012, the Crooked River (main stem) has been monitored for Escherichia coli (E. coli) from river mile 82.6 to 109.2 and the Lower John Day River from river mile 9.7 to 181.7. No water bodies within the project boundaries are listed for E. coli.

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF)

The WCF process is part of the USDA’s Strategic Plan which targets the restoration of watershed and forest health as a core management objective of the National Forests and

Grasslands. To achieve this goal the Forest Service (FS) is directed to restore degraded watersheds by strategically focusing investments in watershed improvement projects and conservation practices at landscape and watershed scales (USDA 2011).

The product of this effort was a baseline watershed condition class established for every subwatershed on every national forest. With an established baseline, condition could be tracked over time with events and projects such as riparian and upland restoration, wildfires or any other event that may change watershed condition. One of the goals of all proposed projects on National Forest System lands should be to evaluate the existing baseline data and assess where there are opportunities to improve upon the overall watershed condition rating.

The process focuses on twelve Watershed Condition Indicators (with various attributes evaluated within the indicators) organized into four key Categories; Aquatic Physical, Aquatic Biological, Terrestrial Physical, and Terrestrial Biological. WCF scoring results from 2015 for the HUC 12 subwatersheds of the Bear AMP project area are described in detail in Appendix A.

As displayed in Appendix A, the overall ratings for the Bear AMP project area came out between ‘good’ and ‘fair’ for all project subwatersheds. Those attributes that received a rating less than ‘good’ are; • Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Condition - rated out ‘fair’ primarily due to instream bank instability caused by a number of factors in these watersheds (grazing, past instream manipulations, removal of large wood, etc.). • Water Quality – rated out as ‘fair’ primarily due to the water quality 303(d) impairment for stream temperature. • Water Quantity – rated as ‘fair’ in Headwaters Bridge Creek primarily due to diversion on Maxwell Creek. • Aquatic Habitat – rated as ‘fair/poor’ in a majority of the project subwatersheds because of issues with fragmentation from road/stream crossings and impacts to channel shape and function. • Roads and Trails – rated out as ‘fair’ primarily due to road maintenance concerns and proximity of roads/trails to water.

The Clean Water Act (CWA 1972)

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters to protect the Beneficial Uses as documented according to criteria by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ 2010). A beneficial use is a resource or activity that would be directly affected by a change in water quality or quantity.

To help implement the objectives of the Clean Water Act, Oregon has developed and adopted water quality standards. Water quality standards include beneficial uses, narrative and numeric criteria, and anti-degradation policies. Standards are designed to protect the most sensitive beneficial use within a water body. A determination that water quality is impaired can be based on: evidence of a numeric criterion exceedance; evidence of a narrative criterion exceedance;

evidence of a beneficial use impairment; or evidence of a declining trend in water quality such that it would exceed a standard prior to the next listing period (ODEQ 2010).

Executive Orders

The following Executive Orders pertain to this project: • Executive Order 12088 requires Federal compliance with pollution control standards (i.e. the Clean Water Act). • Executive Order 11988 requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. • Executive Order 11990 requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.

Analysis Design

Potential Issues Acknowledged but not Analyzed

The following potential issues are briefly discussed, but for reasons described were not considered further in this analysis:

• Lower bank angle (i.e. undercut banks) indicates a level of bank stability and is important hiding cover for fish. INFISH and PACFISH list specific Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) for lower bank angle in non-forested systems. The Bear AMP project area is mostly considered to be in a forested ecosystem. These lower bank angle measurements were not collected as part of any stream surveys within the Bear AMP project area and therefore could not be analyzed. • Roads are a major source of erosion and stream sedimentation on forested lands. Roads can increase erosion rates and turbidity three orders of magnitude greater than the undisturbed forest condition (Megahan 1974). Sediment eroded from the road prism can be delivered to a forest stream, resulting in increased turbidity, sediment loads, and degraded habitat for fish. Research has shown that roads have the greatest effect on erosion relative to other forest management practices (Megahan and King 2004). Forest roads do exist within the Bear AMP project area and are affecting the existing condition of the streams within most of the pastures; however, no road construction is being proposed as part of the Bear AMP and would not vary by alternative. • Water yield is particularly affected by changes in the water budget, which includes changes to precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration from vegetation, infiltration, and runoff. Changes in water yield can have an effect on bank erosion, stream temperatures, stream form, and habitat for fish. Grazing has very limited impact on changes in water yield. In addition, no tree removal except incidental removal associated with large wood placement and small-scale conifer thinning in aspen stands will take place in any of the action alternatives.

Methodology Stream data and four analysis measures were used in the analysis of the existing condition and

effects to aquatic resources in the Bear AMP project area. Each analysis measure is comprised of multiple parameters derived from stream data. The condition status of each parameter was rated on how well standards are met. If all or most of the parameters meet standards, then those parameters receive a rating of Properly Functioning (PF). If some parameters meet standards, then those parameters receive a condition status rating of Functioning at Risk (FAR). If most or all parameters do not meet standards, then those parameters receive a condition status rating of poor Not Properly Functioning (NPF). These parameters are weighted approximately equal and averaged together to provide the existing condition status of each analysis measure, with notation of what parameter is cause for impairment in the case of a fair or poor condition status rating. This method was applied to surveyed streams within each pasture. The resulting existing condition status of each of the four analysis measures for each stream within a pasture were then averaged together resulting in an overall condition status rating of each analysis measure for the pasture. See the example provided in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Stream Condition Status and Impairments in a Pasture

Analysis Measure #1 Analysis Measure #2 Analysis Measure #3 Analysis Measure #4 Stream Status Impairment Status Impairment Status Impairment Status Impairment

stream rating parameter rating parameter rating parameter rating parameter name

Overall rating parameter rating parameter rating parameter rating parameter

The overall condition status rating of each analysis measure for each pasture within an allotment was then compiled and averaged together resulting in an overall condition status rating of each analysis measure for each of the four allotments: Trout Creek, Bear Creek, Elkhorn, and Snowshoe.

For purposes of this analysis, short-term is defined as 0-9 years and long-term is defined as 10- 20 years unless otherwise referenced.

Stream Data

PFC (Proper Functioning Condition) is a methodology for assessing the physical functioning of riparian and wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process, and a defined, on-the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area. In either case, PFC defines a minimum or starting point. In the Bear AMP project area, there were six streams and 11 stream reaches (approximately 10 miles) surveyed for PFC in 2014. Level II and Bottom Line Survey (BLS) data have been used to help update livestock allotment management plans. Information from these data sets can serve as a useful tool in evaluating the condition of streams as well as a benchmark for monitoring trends. All of the most recent survey data was compiled and analyzed and was comprised of a mixture of BLS and Level II data from

1992-2014. It is recognized that the data are not entirely reflective of current management (last 3-5 years). For some stream systems, it is assumed that data collected before 2000 is the best available data to base the existing condition on. In addition, a partial amount of data was acquired from 2009-2013 and is considered current. Extrapolations will be made from currently collected data across the entire pasture and allotment, since data was not collected on every stream in every pasture. This analysis acknowledges that inherent variability and observer error exists in the measurement of the various aquatic parameters collected under the individual stream survey methodologies. This analysis assumes that in general, the error/variability in the measurement of each of the aquatic parameters is 5%. Therefore, no determination of consistency of an individual parameter to a specific standard or guide should be inferred if the measured value was within 5% of the standard. For example, the standard for stream shade for a specific site is 80%, if shade on the site was measured at 76% we would not be able to state with confidence that the standard is not being met because it falls within the 5% error/variability. Similarly, no determination of trend was applied to the comparison of more than one measure if the values were within 5%. For example, if stream shade was measured at 68% in 1995, and re-measured in 2006 at 71%, we would not be able to state with confidence that an upward trend exists. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program data were utilized in select streams (2001 through 2015) (USDA Forest Service 2015). The following parameters were used to evaluate stream conditions in pastures that contained PIBO monitoring sites: pool frequency, width to depth ratios, percent surface fines, percent stable banks, and large woody debris frequency.

Analysis Measures

Table 3 displays four analysis measures, comprised of parameters selected from stream data that represent the condition of aquatic habitat and water quality.

Table 3. Analysis Measures and Parameters

Analysis Measure Parameter

Width/Depth Ratio by Rosgen Habitat/Channel Stream Class Morphology Entrenchment Ratio by Rosgen Stream Class

Pools

LWD Shade Stream Temperature 7-day Average Maximum Temperature Cutbank Sediment/Turbidity Streambank Alteration

Fine Sediment Riparian Hardwood Hardwood

Vegetation PFC

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The sensitive species habitat/channel morphology analysis measure is comprised of four parameters: width-to-depth ratio (W/D); entrenchment ratio (ER); pools; and large woody debris (LWD).

The parameter of width-to-depth ratio (W/D) is an index of the cross-sectional channel shape, where both width and depth are measured at the bankfull level. Changes in discharge, bank stability, sediment load and/or bedload can rapidly alter the width and/or depth of the channel. Whether a stream erodes downwards, outwards, or both, can be influenced by bank shear stress, channel substrate type and the amount of riparian vegetation present on stream banks. Bank vegetation increases the resistance to erosion through its binding effects on banks, with erosion decreasing as the percentage of roots in the soil increases.

Bankfull W/D ratios are primary indicators of channel stability and thus are directly related to both pool quantity and quality. An inverse relationship between bankfull width and pool to pool spacing has been well documented by Rosgen (1996). For example, a stable B-type channel with a bankfull width of 10 feet will have about half the number of pools (88-132 pools/mile) when compared to a typical A-type channel that averages 5 feet wide at bankfull (264-285 pools/mile).

PACFISH/INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) directs that channel width/depth ratios in streams that support bull trout populations be less than 10. In the Bear AMP project area, some of the A, B and C-type channels currently have width/depth ratios that are greater than 10. Since the streams in the project area support redband trout populations, not bull trout populations, which are more sensitive to habitat disturbances, a more appropriate reference is reflected in the channel types as defined by Rosgen (1996). See Table 4 for these ratios.

As the width/depth ratio increases, the surface area exposed to solar radiation also increases, potentially resulting in elevated stream temperatures. Streamside vegetation also becomes less effective in providing shade to these widened channels. Discharge amounts provided by the affected drainages in this watershed are not substantial in late summer, thus a reduction in the width/depth ratios in the affected drainages may not have any significant influence on downstream temperatures. Width to depth is affected and changed by livestock use in streams and riparian areas (inner RHCA).

Existing condition for width to depth ratios in Bear AMP project area streams were compiled from stream surveys and rated as Not Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk, and Properly Functioning. Properly Functioning ratings indicate that width to depth ratios are meeting the standard as described in Table 4. The table rates width-to-depth by channel type. If it is within the range of the width to depth ratio standard for the channel type, it is rated as Properly Functioning; if it is within 1 value of the range, it is rated Functioning at Risk; if it is more than 1 value away from the range, it is rated as Not Properly Functioning.

Table 4. Width to Depth Ratio by Channel Type (Rosgen and Silvey 1998) with Condition Status Rating

Condition Status Rating Analysis Parameter Measure Properly Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning (PF) (FAR) Functioning (NPF) Width/Depth Ratio by w/in range w/in 1 of range >1 of range Rosgen Stream Class A <12 ≥12<13 >13 B >12 ≤12>11 <11 Sensitive Species C >12 ≤12>11 <11 Habitat/Channel D >40 ≤40>39 <39 Morphology DA <40 ≥40<41 <41 E <12 ≥12<13 >13 F >12 ≤12>11 <11 G <12 ≥12<13 >13

The parameter entrenchment ratio (ER) is defined by Rosgen (1996) as the bankfull width divided by the flood prone width. Flood prone width is the width of the stream at twice maximum bankfull depth. Entrenched streams are typically vertically confined (within cutbanks) due to vertical channel erosion and have entrenchment ratios that are less than 1.4 (see Figure 1); higher entrenchment ratios indicate that channels are not confined and have access to the floodplain- G and F-type channels are entrenched.

Existing condition for ER of the streams in Bear AMP project was compiled from stream surveys and rated as Not Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk and Properly Functioning. Properly Functioning ratings indicate that entrenchment is meeting the standard as described in Table 5. The table rates entrenchment by channel type. If it is within the range of the ER standard for the channel type, it is rated Properly Functioning; if it is within 1 value of the range, it is rated Functioning at Risk; if it is more than 1 value away from the range, it is rated Not Properly Functioning. Table 5. Entrenchment Ratios by Channel Type (Rosgen 1998) with Condition Status Ratings

Condition Status Rating Analysis Measure Parameter Properly Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning (PF) (FAR) Functioning (NPF) Entrenchment Ratio by w/in range w/in 1 of range >1 of range Rosgen Stream Class A <1.4 ≥1.4<2.4 >2.4 Sensitive Species ≥0.4 but <1.4 or >2.2 B 1.4-2.2 <0.4 or >3.2 Habitat/Channel but ≤3.2 Morphology C >2.2 ≤2.2>1.2 <1.2 D n/a n/a n/a DA >4.0 ≤4.0>3.0 <3.0

E >2.2 ≤2.2>1.2 <1.2 F <1.4 ≥1.4<2.4 >2.4 G <1.4 ≥1.4<2.4 >2.4

Figure 1. Changes in Channel Morphology and Water Table Elevation (entrenchment)

Deep pools with abundant large woody debris (LWD) create complex rearing habitats critical for salmon and trout. Large woody debris and beaver dams create slow water habitats, side- channels, and off-channel alcoves critical for winter fish rearing and amphibian breeding ponds. The frequency and area of pools is dependent on stream gradient and drainage area, generally as stream size (order) increases, pools become larger but more infrequent. In smaller order channels, large wood in the stream channel increases pool frequency (Montgomery and Buffington 1993). Pool depth and complexity is also a function of the abundance of woody debris and sediment routing. Large pulses of sediment moving through a stream system can restrict pool depth and ultimately limit habitat capability. The bankfull width/depth ratio, a primary indicator of channel dimension, is also directly related to both pool quantity and quality. An inverse relationship between width and pool spacing has been well documented by Rosgen

(1996).

For LWD, PACFISH/INFISH gives an interim objective of at least 20 pieces per mile. The natural amount of LWD reflects differences in physical processes that shape valley floors and the subsequent successional stages of terrestrial plant communities on these geomorphic surfaces. These processes vary across broad spatial scales. Reference conditions for LWD have been documented in streams of unmanaged, mix conifer forests in the Oregon Blue Mountains (Cordova 1995), a physiographic province more similar to the watersheds within the Bear AMP project area. We will use LWD frequencies from this study, instead of the PACFISH/INFISH interim objective, as the standard for the Bear AMP project area watersheds.

On page 93 of Cordova (1995), Table 16 shows wood frequency by wood diameter for all pieces over 1 meter in length. The PACFISH/INFISH interim objective for wood frequency is based on wood over 12 inches diameter and over 35 feet long. Because Cordova doesn’t give results for wood frequency with the same size class as the PACFISH/INFISH interim objective, the following assumptions were made:

• Cordova shows separate length and diameter frequency distributions (1995, Figure 7) that indicate roughly 50% of all wood pieces were over 35 feet in length and 37% of all wood pieces were over 12” diameter. • Based on personal communications with Cordova, diameter was tightly correlated to length (i.e. the larger diameter pieces were more likely to be greater in length). • Therefore, we are making the assumption that most of the pieces over 12” diameter were over 35 feet in length.

Based on these assumptions, we will use the wood frequencies given in Table 16 (Cordova 1995) as our Riparian Management Objective and the measure for Properly Functioning (Good). In moderately constrained channel types (typical of Class I, II, and III streams in the project area) LWM frequencies greater than 69 pieces per mile is considered Properly Functioning; in constrained channel types (typical of Class IV streams in the project area) LWM frequencies greater than 48 pieces per mile are considered Properly Functioning (Good). Streams that currently meet LWM frequency standards for Properly Functioning (Good), but lack potential sources of LWM recruitment to maintain that standard are considered Functioning at Risk (Fair). Streams that do not meet standards for Properly Functioning and lack potential LWM recruitment are considered Not Properly Functioning (Poor).

Existing condition of pools (based on PACFISH/INFISH standards) and LWD (taken from Cordova, 1995 as described above) in Bear AMP project area streams was compiled using values from stream survey data and Table 6 and rated as Not Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk and Properly Functioning. For pools, Properly Functioning ratings indicate that pools are meeting the standard; Functioning at Risk ratings indicate that at least half or more of the standard is being met; and Not Properly Functioning ratings indicate pools are below the standard. For LWD, Properly Functioning ratings indicate that LWD are meeting the standard and Not Properly Functioning ratings indicate pools are below the standard.

Table 6. Summary of Sensitive Species Habitat Analysis Measure and Condition Status Rating

Condition Status Rating Analysis Measure Parameter Properly Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning (PF) (FAR) Functioning (NPF) At least meeting half Below half of the Meeting standard of the standard or standard <48 ≥96 pools/mi. if above; ≥48 pools/mi. if Wetted Sensitive Species Pools Wetted Width ≤10', pools/mi. if Wetted Width (BFW) ≤10', Habitat/Channel >56 pools if Wetted Width ≤10', >28 <28 pools/mi. if Morphology Width ≤20' pools if Wetted Wetted Width (BFW) Width ≤20' ≤20' Meeting standard Below standard <69 LWD N/A ≥69 pieces/mi. pieces/mi.

Stream Temperature

The stream temperature analysis measure is comprised of two parameters, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and shade.

Steelhead and redband trout are the salmonids currently present in the project area. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality did not identify any bull trout habitat in the planning area (Oregon Water Quality Standards, Fish Use Maps). State water quality standards may be accessed at: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards.standards.htm. The Ochoco National Forest has incorporated design criteria to not measurably increase the 7-day moving average daily maximum water temperature on any adult holding habitat or spawning or rearing habitats in the planning area based on these interim RMOs. The state water quality standards more accurately reflect attainable conditions and target species (redband trout and steelhead) found in the project area. The state standards (340-041-0028, approved by EPA March 2004) say the seven-day- average maximum temperature of streams identified as having salmon and trout rearing and migration should not exceed 18.0ºC (64.4ºF). The state of Oregon assumes that waters meeting this standard will provide water temperatures suitable for redband trout and steelhead spawning.

Within the project area there are two streams with assessed water quality impairments related to summer water temperature. These are: • Little McKay Creek (RM 0.0 to 6.7) • Marks Creek (RM 0.0 to 17.1)

These streams are on Oregon's 2012 Section 303(d) List of "Water Quality Limited Waterbodies." The Oregon State Water Quality Standards states that the seven-day-average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon and trout rearing and migration use, including the streams within the planning area, may not exceed 18.0 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). No measurable increase in water temperature from management practices is allowed in these streams.

In order to compare the proposed alternatives relative to stream temperatures in the Bear AMP

project area, summer stream temperatures within and directly adjacent to the project boundary were compiled and 7-day-average maximum temperatures were determined for all sites. If the stream is 303(d) listed for temperature, or if most of the 7-day-average maximum temperatures do not meet standards at a site, it was given a condition rating of Not Properly Functioning (see Table 7).

Shade is measured with a Solar Pathfinder two feet above the water surface at mid-channel. Shade is recorded for hardwoods (include alder, aspen, sage brush, current, snowberry, etc.) as well as overall shade that includes tree species and steep valley walls. Shade values for a channel reach are determined by placing this instrument above the channel midpoint, reading areas across the curve that display a reflection of trees, or other shading features, and summing the values for those shaded areas.

Reductions in solar input resulting from shading are a primary factor affecting stream temperature. The term “stream shade” often refers to all shade on any part of the stream that blocks solar input to the stream channel. Shade functions (Beschta, et al. 1987) generally occur within 100-200 feet of the channel. Stream shade is primarily a function of stream orientation, channel width, tree heights adjacent to the stream, and ground slope above the bankfull channel.

On the Ochoco National Forest, the Forest Plan standards and guidelines direct that at least 80 percent of stream surfaces should be shaded, or that 100 percent of potential shade levels should be present when 80 percent shade cannot be attained (e.g. open wet meadow areas). Stream shade comes from adjacent conifer forests, topographic shading in steep drainages, or riparian vegetation near the stream. Open meadow areas are common in the watershed area and have a low potential for meeting the 80 percent shade criteria due to the absence of bordering forest and hillsides. The sources of shade in open meadows generally include sedges, rushes and other riparian vegetation that tends to flourish where the water table is high most of the year. However, many of the meadow systems in this project area have been impacted to varying degrees by an assortment of legacy issues and past practices (e.g. undersized culverts, ditching, irrigation); therefore, it is assumed that a portion of the potential shade for these meadow areas cannot be met without active restoration. It was not practical in this analysis to determine the history of impacts to each particular area and then assess to what degree its shade potential has been altered; Forest Plan standards were used. Table 7. Summary of Stream Temperature Analysis Measure and Condition Status Rating

Condition Status Rating Analysis Measure Parameter

Properly Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning (PF) (FAR) Functioning (NPF) Shade > 80%* 60-80%* < 60%* Stream At least 90% of At least 50% of Over 50% of 7-day Average Temperature observations are observations are observations are not Maximum Stream meeting standards; meeting standards; meeting standard; Temperature <18°C <18°C ≥18°C * - The requirements for shade along streams will generally correspond to provisions for more than 80 percent of the surface shaded. However, where this cannot be attained (such as in a

meadow system), 100% percent of the potential for shade is the standard. Meadow systems would not meet the 80% stream shade standard but would still be properly functioning.

Existing condition of stream shade in Bear AMP project area pasture streams were compiled from stream surveys and rated as Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk, and Not Properly Functioning. Properly Functioning ratings indicate that stream shade is meeting Forest Plan Standards (i.e. > 80 percent); Functioning at Risk conditions indicate stream shade between 60 and 80 percent; and a Not Properly Functioning rating is associated with stream shade of less than 60 percent (see Table 7). Sediment/Turbidity

The sediment/turbidity analysis measure is comprised of three parameters: cutbank, streambank alteration, and fine sediment. Each parameter was given a Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk, and Not Properly Functioning rating based on measured values.

Percent cutbank was estimated and summarized from the most recent Level II and Bottom Line Survey (BLS) data for each stream reach. It is noted that “cutbank” is measured in BLS above bank full and “bank in-stability” is measured in Level II surveys below bankfull. These are both measures that determine the amount of actively eroding streambank which may contribute to sediment/turbidity; therefore, the measures are combined and the terms are used interchangeably in this analysis.

Percent streambank alteration was estimated from Range DMA-Designated Monitoring Area data. Although 20 percent bank alteration is defined as a project design feature in Chapter 2, a measure of ten percent on a stream would be expected to yield less sediment than 20 percent bank alteration. Therefore, ten percent was used as a threshold between the Functioning at Risk and Properly Functioning rating; and 20% for Functioning at Risk to Not Properly Functioning.

Percent fines were estimated as percent of total particles that are less than 5.7 mm from Wolman Pebble Counts conducted as part of the Level II stream surveys for select stream reaches. Measurement factor values associated with condition ratings for all three bank stability measurement factors are summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Summary of Sediment/Turbidity Analysis Measure and Condition Status Ratings

Condition Status Rating Analysis Measure Parameter Properly Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning (PF) (FAR) Functioning (NPF) Cutbank < 10% 10-20% > 20%

Sediment/Turbidity Streambank Alteration < 10% 10-20% > 20%

Fine Sediment < 20% 20-40% > 40 %

Environmental effects of unstable streambanks include increased turbidity and sediment yield, development of cutbanks, and changes in channel morphology. The result of these changes may

result in water quality conditions that are lethal to aquatic organisms. Changes in channel morphology would primarily be seen with changes in entrenchment and width to depth ratios (Duff 1979). Streams with unstable banks typically erode laterally (i.e. become wider and shallower), which increases the width to depth ratio (See Soils section for additional descriptive information on soil erosion, channel erosion, bank erosion, and overland flow from compaction and/or displacement).

Turbidity is the degree to which suspended material in the water impedes light penetration. Turbidity is expressed in Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTUs). There can be a close correlation between turbidity and suspended sediment in a given stream, but the correlation can change as organic material increases over the summer or if the percent of sediment from different sources in the drainage changes. This correlation is poor in sediment-limited systems. Turbidity is not a good indicator of the amount of sediment being transported as bedload. At turbidity levels above 25 NTU, salmonid sight-feeding may be reduced. Most measurable effects to aquatic life result from sediment instead of turbidity.

Current State water quality standards direct that turbidity levels should not exceed background levels by more than 10 percent. There is no quantitative standard for sediment in the current Oregon DEQ water quality rules. The Narrative Criteria section (340-041-0007-12); however, states that activities can not result in the formation of appreciable organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life, but this is more of an objective than a standard. The state appears to be using turbidity as a surrogate for sediment.

The numerous organisms forming the base of the aquatic food chain find shelter and habitat in the open spaces within stream gravel and cobble. Filling these spaces with sediment reduces the habitable volume of the stream. As sediment sources and delivery exceeds 20 percent of the total area on the substrate, deposits within the larger cobble material of the streambed produce an embedded channel, with a consequent loss of aquatic habitat. Gravel embeddedness of less than 20 percent is essential to maintain a healthy salmonid population, particularly in those areas identified as potential or existing spawning areas (Bjorn and Reiser, 1991). If fine sediment exceeds 20 percent, the spaces between the rocks in the substrate are filled and oxygenation of eggs is reduced. Reduced oxygenation results in reduced success of fish and frog eggs surviving.

Soil disturbance on ridges or side slopes may never affect water quality, but disturbance of a channel bed or bank is immediately reflected in downstream sediment levels. Unstable stream banks associated with mechanical disturbance (including trampling), loss of vegetative root strength, decreases in roughness associated with large woody material (LWM) and vegetation removal, or channelized stream banks are highly susceptible to changes in flow or sediment load. These stream banks can account for most of the sediment load in a drainage system. If the discharge and/or the sediment load are substantially increased, the flow may erode the streambanks or deposit sediment to reach a new equilibrium. A high incidence of raw banks (i.e. cutbanks), headcuts, and/or braided channels (Rosgen channel type D) are indicative of unstable stream banks.

Streambank alteration refers to that amount of streambank (within the active floodplain) which has been altered by hoof shear, trampling, and/or post-holing (cumulatively referred to as hoof

action) and has the potential to result in a cutbank or alter channel morphology. Streambanks with hoof action alteration are more susceptible to the transport of fine soil particles from unvegetated banks to stream channels (i.e. higher sediment yield) than streams with vegetated banks (Skovlin 1984). Buckhouse et al. (1981) could find no particular relationship between streambank erosion and various grazing treatments in northeastern Oregon; however, Kauffman et al. (1983) found streambank retreat (erosion) to be statistically different between ungrazed and grazed treatments. Kauffman et al. (1983) measured significantly greater streambank losses in grazed areas compared to ungrazed areas in northeastern Oregon.

Streambank alteration is measured annually at Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) by range specialists and sometimes with the active permittee. This method incorporates a paced assessment over approximately 110 meters of stream length, which measures hoof action alteration on streambanks among other things (see Range Resource section). This protocol addresses Project Design Criteria in the Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment (2014) for Columbia spotted frogs of maintaining 90 percent bank stability- this number is not a standard or guideline. Rhodes et. al. (1994) recommends maintaining 90 percent bank stability even in those areas with no Oregon or Columbia spotted frogs.

Field observations show that most hoof action does not meet the criterion that would consider it as “cutbank.” Cutbank is defined as active erosional surfaces, at least 6” high that contribute fine sediment to the stream and have sloped >45% (USDA Forest Service 1992). However, “streambank alteration” typically does account for hoof action, yet may not be visible from year to year. For this reason, both cutbank and streambank alteration will be considered in this analysis, with the assumption that many years of consecutive streambank alteration above 10 percent may lead to the development of a cutbank. Higher levels of streambank alteration will lead to a faster development of a cutbank. Hence, streambank alteration is the shorter term (annual) measurement of cattle disturbance where percent cutbank is the longer term measurement that may result from many consecutive years of streambank alteration.

Bank stability from Level I and II Hankin Reeves Stream Inventory Handbook is the measure and sum of the lineal distance of actively eroding bank along both sides of every measured habitat unit. Bank stability is a measure of actively eroding banks at an elevation above the bankfull depth. An eroding bank is characterized by any one, or a combination of the following factors: bare exposed colluial or alluvial substrates, exposed mineral soil, evidence of tension cracks, or active sloughing. Bank stability is recorded to the nearest foot.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

This analysis measure comprises two parameters: Hardwood and Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Riparian hardwood vegetation condition is important when assessing the existing condition and effects to streams, because it impacts not only stream shade, but bank stability, stream temperature, and stream form. In order to assess the riparian vegetation condition, estimates of hardwood shade from BLS and Level II Stream Surveys in combination with PFC survey descriptions of riparian vegetation were utilized. Riparian hardwood vegetation condition was rated as: good if greater than 50 percent of the stream shade is from hardwoods; fair if 30 to 50 percent of the shade is from hardwoods; or poor for anything below 30 percent. In absence of

hardwood shade estimates, PFC survey descriptions of riparian vegetation were used to rate the condition as good, fair or poor (see Table 9). As stated previously, in the stream temperature analysis measure section, much of the meadow systems in this project area have been impacted to varying degrees by a variety of legacy issues and past practices. Therefore, a portion of the potential for riparian hardwood vegetation for these meadow areas most likely cannot be met without active restoration. It was not practical in this analysis to determine the history of impacts to each particular area and then assess to what degree its riparian hardwood vegetation potential has been altered. As a result, a pasture/allotment may receive a condition status rating of poor even if they might be at their vegetative potential. Table 9. Summary of Stream Temperature Analysis Measure and Condition Status Rating

Condition Status Rating Analysis Measure Parameter

Properly Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning (PF) (FAR) Functioning (NPF)

Riparian Hardwood Hardwood > 50% 30-50% < 30% Vegetation PFC subjective observation

End of Season Monitoring

Monitoring at each DMA takes place at the end of each grazing season. This end of year monitoring includes measurement of stubble height and bank alternation and stubble height. End of season monitoring results for each DMA for the last five years is displayed, including whether standards were met at each DMA or not.

Affected Environment Watersheds

The Bear AMP project area covers three watersheds and ten subwatersheds, also identified by Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC), which breaks drainage systems into progressively smaller areas. These are listed in Table 10. Headwaters Elliott Creek, Allen Creek, Headwaters Ochoco Creek, and Upper Mountain Creek will not be addressed in this report, as they occupy less than 1% of the project area and there are no aquatic resources to address. Table 10. Hydrologic Unit Codes for the Bear AMP Project Area Field Area Name Hydrologic Unit Total Area Area within the project boundary Code (ac) (%) 1st Region Pacific Northwest 17 - 2nd Sub-region Middle Columbia River 1707 - 3rd Basin Deschutes River 170703 - 4th Sub-basin Upper Crooked River 17070304 - 5th Watershed Upper NF Crooked River 1707030403 - 6th Subwatershed Headwaters Elliott 170703040302 183 <1% Creek 6th Subwatershed Howard Creek 170703040303 1915 3% 6th Subwatershed Allen Creek 170703040306 421 <1% 4th Sub-basin Lower Crooked River 17070305 - 5th Watershed Mill Creek 1707030503 -

6th Subwatershed East Fork Mill Creek 170703050301 325 <1% 5th Watershed McKay Creek 1707030505 - 6th Subwatershed Upper McKay Creek 170703050501 5347 9% 6th Subwatershed Allen Creek 170703050502 336 <1% 5th Watershed Upper Ochoco Creek 1707030502 - 6th Subwatershed Headwaters Ochoco 170703050201 205 <1% Creek 6th Subwatershed Upper Marks Creek 170703050203 1398 2% 4th Sub-basin Trout Creek 17070307 - 5th Watershed Upper Trout Creek 1707030701 - 6th Subwatershed Opal Creek 170703070101 2866 5% 6th Subwatershed Foley Creek 170703070102 5833 10% 6th Subwatershed Headwaters Trout Creek 170703070103 12412 20% 3rd Basin John Day River 170702 - 4th Sub-basin Lower John Day River 17070204 - 5th Watershed Bridge Creek 1707020403 - 6th Subwatershed Headwaters Bridge Cr 170702040301 5568 9% 6th Subwatershed West Branch Bridge Cr 170702040302 4292 7% 6th Subwatershed Upper Bridge Creek 170702040303 2783 5% 6th Subwatershed Upper Bear Creek 170702040304 13247 22% 6th Subwatershed Middle Bear Creek 170702040305 4024 7% 4th Sub-basin Upper John Day 17070201 - 5th Watershed Mountain Creek 1707020112 - 6th Subwatershed Upper Mountain Creek 170702011201 105 <1%

Streams

Table 11 features the miles of stream miles within each watershed and subwatershed contained within the Bear AMP project area and Table 12 summarizes the streams that are present in the Bear AMP project area by pasture and allotment. The Upper Trout Creek and Bridge Creek watersheds encompass a majority of the stream miles within the project area, followed by the McKay Creek watershed. Although the Upper Marks Creek subwatershed only contains 0.1 miles of fish-bearing stream, it will still be discussed in this report due to the amount of intermittent stream miles in the project area. Table 11. Stream miles by watershed and subwatershed, by flow regime and class in Bear AMP project area Perennial Intermittent Totals 1 2 3 2 4 Upper North Fork Crooked River - 1.4 2.0 - 4.0 7.4 Watershed Howard Creek - 1.4 2.0 - 4.0 7.4 McKay Creek Watershed - 3.4 2.1 0.5 9.1 15.1 Upper McKay Creek - 3.4 2.1 0.5 9.1 15.1 Upper Ochoco Creek Watershed - 0.1 1.3 - 3.4 4.8 Upper Marks Creek - 0.1 1.3 - 3.4 4.8 Upper Trout Creek Watershed 10.7 8.2 15.5 7.7 37.2 79.3 Opal Creek 2.5 1.0 2.9 - 4.5 10.9 Foley Creek 2.0 1.3 1.9 4.1 11.8 21.1 Headwaters Trout Creek 6.2 5.9 10.7 3.6 20.9 47.3 Bridge Creek Watershed 5.1 17.4 27.5 4.4 42.4 96.3 Headwaters Bridge Creek 3.1 4.2 4.0 1.4 10.6 23.4 West Branch Bridge Creek 0.3 1.0 5.6 0.5 6.3 13.7 Upper Bridge Creek - 0.3 2.0 0.02 1.8 4.1

Upper Bear Creek 1.4 11.1 11.6 0.3 18.6 42.5 Middle Bear Creek 0.3 0.8 4.2 2.2 5.1 12.6 TOTALS 15.8 30.5 48.8 12.6 96.1 203.8

Streams in the project area have a dendritic drainage pattern with approximately 204 miles of mapped streams with defined channels (Class I – IV). There are approximately 58 miles of fish bearing streams (Class I-II) within the project boundary. Table 12 lists the lengths of streams by stream class within the project area summarized by allotment and pasture. Definitions of stream class are in Appendix B. For the purposes of this analysis, only streams of Class I, II, III, or IV streams are considered functional streams. Class V drainages do not have established beds and banks and often are covered with vegetation.

Overall, streams in the Bear AMP project area are dominated by intermittent streams totaling 123 miles or 60% of stream miles in the project area. Numerous perennial streams, 68.5 miles or 34%, are first order spring-fed streams based on the classified stream layer. The Trout Creek allotment has the most miles of stream, including the most miles of fish-bearing stream, followed by Bear Creek allotment and Elkhorn allotment. Snowshoe allotment only has 0.1 miles of fish- bearing streams. Table 12. Allotment and pasture stream miles by flow regime and class in the Bear AMP project area Perennial Intermittent Totals 1 2 3 2 4 Bear Creek Allotment 1.8 11.9 16.7 2.5 22.8 67.6 North Bear Pasture 1.4 3.5 3.4 - 9.9 18.2 South Bear Pasture 0.1 3.9 5.7 0.3 3.6 13.6 Dodds Pasture 0.3 4.5 7.6 2.2 9.3 23.9 Stephenson Pasture - - - - - 0.0 Trout Creek Allotment 10.7 11.7 16.4 8.2 47.1 94.1 Trout Creek Pasture 10.7 11.7 16.4 8.2 47.1 94.1 Elkhorn Allotment 3.4 6.9 12.3 1.9 25.0 49.5 Val Trail Pasture - 1.1 0.9 - 6.0 8.0 Indian Trail Pasture - 0.3 1.4 - 0.4 2.1 Bridge Creek Pasture 3.1 4.5 6.2 1.4 13.2 28.4 Elkhorn Pasture 0.3 1.0 3.8 0.5 5.4 11.0 Snowshoe Allotment - 0.4 4.6 - 4.6 9.6 Snowshoe Pasture - - 2.5 - 3.1 5.6 North Nature Pasture - 0.1 1.0 - 1.5 2.6 South Nature Pasture - 0.3 1.1 - - 1.4

Aquatic Species Mid-Columbia River Steelhead

Deschutes River Basin

The Deschutes basin stretches over 10,700 square miles of land in central Oregon and covers 11 percent of Oregon’s land area. Summer steelhead occur throughout the mainstem lower Deschutes River below Pelton Reregulating Dam and in most tributaries below the dam. Summer steelhead enter the Deschutes subbasin, primarily from June through March, with peak movement in September and early October. Spawning in the lower Deschutes River and westside tributaries usually begins in March and continues through June. Spawning in eastside

tributaries (including Trout Creek) occurs from January through mid-April, and may have evolved to an earlier time than westside tributaries or the mainstem because stream flow tends to decrease earlier in the more arid eastside streams (Anonymous 2004).

Fry emerge in spring or early summer depending on time of spawning and water temperature during incubation. Zimmerman and Reeves (1996) documented summer steelhead emergence in late May through June. Juvenile summer steelhead emigrate from the tributaries in spring at age 0 to age 3. Many of the juvenile that migrate from the tributaries continue to rear in the mainstem lower Deschutes River before smolting.

The Deschutes River Eastside Population includes six Major Spawning areas. The major spawning area in the Bear AMP project area is Upper Trout Creek. Trout Creek is the upper- most, eastside tributary of the Deschutes River below the Pelton Round Butte complex. The headwaters originate in the Ochoco Mountains with a mainstem distance of 52 river miles. The Trout Creek watershed is currently the only network of drainages on both the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests where Deschutes River summer steelhead spawning and rearing occurs. Trout Creek on the Ochoco National Forest is used as spawning and rearing for steelhead. It is not the primary spawning area for steelhead as that occurs off-forest on flatter more meandering sections that are below the forest boundary. It is important for rearing of steelhead in colder waters that occur on forest.

John Day River Basin

The John Day River is the longest free-flowing river with wild steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. The John Dan Basin has the distinction of being one of the few large basins in Oregon with no steelhead hatchery program. Wild summer steelhead juveniles rear in the lower John Day River for 1-4 years before migrating to the ocean. John Day River-origin wild summer steelhead typically return after 1 or 2 years in the Pacific Ocean. Typical of other summer steelhead stocks, very few steelhead return to spawn multiple times.

Summer steelhead enter the John Day River Basin in late August to September when stream temperatures drop and stream flows increase. Steelhead reach spawning areas from March through mid-May while stream flows are suitable. They spawn from March through mid-June. Fry emergence is usually from May through mid-July depending on time of spawning and water temperatures during incubation. Fry emergence has been noted as late as August.

The major spawning area in the Bear AMP project area that is in the John Day River Basin is Bridge Creek. There are approximately 15 miles of fish-bearing stream on FS lands in the Bridge Creek watershed. There are 3.9 miles of stream on FS lands that are occupied by steelhead and are designated critical habitat (1.2 miles of Dodds Creek and 2.7 miles of Bridge Creek).

Redband trout

Historically, Redband trout may have occupied more aquatic habitat within the Bear AMP project area than presently. Road densities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and mining have

contributed to a reduction in suitable habitat and increased fish passage barriers.

Redband trout typically inhabit cooler, well-oxygenated water that is less than 70°F, although they tolerate a wider range of water temperatures (from 32°F up to 80°F) better than many other salmonid species (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Current research indicates that Redband trout have developed phenotypic traits that allow them to tolerate marginal trout habitats in the high desert areas of Oregon (Rodnick et. al. 2004, Gamperl et. al. 2002). Despite various phenotypic traits, the preferred temperature for optimum metabolic performance in Redband is 55.4°F (Gamperl et al., 2002) and the upper lethal temperature limits are 84.7-85.1°F, very similar to temperature profiles observed in most other Oncorhynchus species (Rodnick et. al. 2004).

Redband trout typically spawn between March and the end of June depending on water temperatures and timing of spring runoff. Egg deposition occurs in stream areas that have adequate water depth and velocity and appropriate sized gravels for redd construction. Water temperatures influence the number of days eggs incubate in the gravel before fry emergence. During the fry and parr life stages, Redband trout are often observed along stream margins in slower waters. Adults are most often observed in pools near large wood or available cover. Food sources for young and adults include aquatic insects, amphipods, fish and eggs and adults may also eat crustaceans when they are available (Wydoski and Whitney 1979).

There is little life history information for the populations in the Bear AMP project area. Redband trout inhabit perennial streams in the Upper Bear, Middle Bear, West Branch Bridge, Upper Bridge, Headwaters Bridge, Upper McKay, Upper Marks and Howard Creek subwatersheds within this project area.

Lower numbers of redband have resulted from the cumulative effects of loss of riparian vegetation (particularly hardwood trees) bank erosion, increased sedimentation (which can suffocate incubating trout eggs), entrenched streams, loss of beaver and woody debris, and altered stream channels. Columbia Spotted Frog

Historically the Columbia spotted frog was found at elevations ranging from near sea level to 7,370 feet. Their range extended from southeast Alaska through British Columbia, eastern Washington and Oregon to northeast California and eastward to western Montana and Wyoming, and northern Utah. Columbia spotted frogs have been found throughout the Ochoco National Forest and are present within the project area.

Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic, thus they are generally found in close proximity to water in riparian habitat. In winter months, the frogs burrow into mud in wet meadows or in streams. They breed in shallow water areas such as stream margins or pond edges, flooded meadows, or in pools of water formed by snow melt from early March through the end of May. Timing of breeding is dependent on snowmelt and rising water temperatures. After hatching, the larval stage (tadpole) remains in the water until metamorphosis into the adult form. Adults utilize both water habitat and nearby riparian areas for foraging and refuge needs.

The causes of decline are not fully understood, but like most amphibians a major threat is the

destruction, fragmentation and degradation of streams and wetlands. Land use activities have initiated or accelerated the channel incision process, which has changed the hydrologic function of meadow systems (USFWS 2011). These changes in the hydrology of meadows, mainly the lowering of the water table, can cause the vegetation communities to shift from wet meadow communities to dry upland plant communities. The loss of meadow complexes reduces the available habitat for Columbia spotted frogs. Natural fluctuations in environmental conditions (e.g., drought) tend to exacerbate the adverse effects of land use activities (USFWS 2011). Improvements in stream and wetland hydrology and riparian plant communities would improve Columbia spotted frog habitat.

Formal Columbia spotted frog surveys have not been conducted, but frog sightings have occurred in the project area. Vegetation preferred by frogs such as sedges, willows, and alders is limited, but available along some of the streams in the project area. There is no information about their population size, distribution, growth, survival, life history diversity and isolation, or persistence in project area subwatersheds.

Existing Condition – Aquatic Habitat Allotment and Pasture Descriptions Bear Creek Allotment

The Bear Creek allotment consists of 17,220 acres. The allotment is located within portions of the Opal Creek, Upper Bear and Middle Bear Creek subwatersheds. The Bear Creek allotment includes 4 pastures: North Bear (5,276 acres), South Bear (4,439 acres), Dodds (7,464 acres) and Stephenson (41 acres). Stephenson pasture contains no perennial or intermittent streams and will not be discussed further in this aquatics report. Figure 2 shows allotment and pasture boundaries, as well as DMA locations, and fish distribution, including Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat in the allotment. Table 13 provides a summary of pasture conditions and impairments in the Bear Creek allotment.

Table 13. Summary of Pasture Condition and Impairments in the Bear Creek Allotment Sensitive Species Stream Riparian Hardwood Pasture Habitat/Channel Sediment/Turbidity Temperature Vegetation Morphology North Bear FAR FAR FAR FAR South Bear FAR FAR NPF NPF Dodds FAR FAR NPF FAR Overall FAR FAR NPF FAR

Figure 2. Bear Creek Allotment, Pastures, Streams, Redband Trout and Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Distribution

North Bear Pasture

North Bear pasture is located within the Opal Creek and Upper Bear Creek subwatersheds. Lower Bear Creek is a Category 1 stream (fish-bearing and anadromous) downstream of the forest boundary. Bear Creek and North Fork Bear Creek is predominately a Rosgen B-type channel with inclusions of lower gradient C-type channels in the lower sections. Tributaries are predominately A-type channels. The upper reaches of Auger Creek are lower gradient B and E- type channels. Redband trout are present in mainstem Bear Creek and North Fork Bear Creek. A large majority of the North Bear Pasture is in a forested riparian system, but there is a meadow system located in the headwaters of Auger Creek, near Ingram Springs. There are nine water developments within this pasture. There are two Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the North Bear pasture. North Bear-1 is located on Bear Creek approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the confluence with North Fork Bear Creek and North Bear-2 is located on North Fork Bear Creek near Bear Spring. Table 14, 15 and 16 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this pasture.

Table 14. Summary of stream data in the North Bear Pasture

Stream Survey Type Stream and Re ach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level Bear Creek – 1 1993 C 2.4 (PF) 16 (PF) 14 (NPF) 27 (NPF) II Level Bear Creek – 1 1997 C 2.4 (PF) 21 (PF) 29 (NPF) 25 (NPF) 16 (FAR) 10 (PF) II Level Bear Creek – 1 2011 C 2.6 (PF) 18 (PF) 25 (NPF) 5 (NPF) 5 (PF) 15 (PF) 85 (PF) 53 (PF) II PIBO Bear Creek – I 2003 C 31 (PF) 74 (FAR) 103 (PF) 5 (PF) 8 (PF) PIBO Bear Creek – I 2008 C 17 (PF) 78 (FAR) 125 (PF) 4 (PF) 9 (PF) PIBO Bear Creek – I 2013 C 32 (PF) 102 (PF) 174 (PF) 0 (PF) 18 (FAR) PIBO Bear Creek – K 2008 C 22 (PF) 85 (FAR) 3 (PF) PIBO Bear Creek – K 2013 C 17 (PF) 92 (FAR) 80 (PF) 0 (PF) 31 (NPF) MIMS Bear Creek – 1 2011 C 247 (PF) 4 (PF) 9 (PF) MIMS Bear Creek – 1 2014 C 290 (PF) 46 (NPF) 8 (PF) BLS Bear Creek – 1 1992 C 213 (PF) 4 (PF) 46 (NPF) 68 (PF) BLS Bear Creek – 2 1992 C 53 (NPF) 11 (FAR) 44 (NPF) 57 (PF) BLS Bear Creek DMA 2013 C 146 (PF) 22 (NPF) 14 (FAR) 80 (FAR) Level NF Bear Creek – 2012 B 1.8 (PF) 15 (NPF) 28 (NPF) 11 (NPF) 12 (FAR) 13 (PF) 70 (FAR) 42 (FAR) II 1 Level NF Bear Creek – 2012 B 1.5 (PF) 16 (PF) 22 (NPF) 5 (NPF) 11 (FAR) 10 (PF) 89 (PF) 67 (PF) II 2 Level NF Bear Creek – 2012 A 2.1 (PF) 9 (PF) 20 (NPF) 9 (NPF) 10 (FAR) 9 (PF) 80 (FAR) 36 (FAR) II 3 Level NF Bear Creek – 2012 A 2.8 (NPF) 4 (PF) 13 (NPF) 32 (NPF) 17 (FAR) 20 (FAR) 87 (PF) 8 (NPF) II 4 CONDITIONS IN NORTH BEAR PASTURE PF PF NPF NPF FAR PF FAR FAR

Table 15. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in North Bear Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating Functional – At Risk – Bear Creek Reach 1 Good Upward Trend Bear Creek Reach 2 Properly Functioning Fair

Table 16. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the North Bear Pasture 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated 06/08/94 10/03/94 112 33 79 NPF 05/26/95 09/15/95 107 55 52 FAR 06/04/96 09/26/96 109 58 51 FAR 06/16/99 10/05/99 106 54 52 FAR Bear Creek, at 07/01/00 10/09/00 95 37 31 FAR Forest Boundary 6/15/01 10/01/01 103 28 75 NPF 6/18/04 11/08/04 138 77 61 FAR 6/26/12 12/31/12 183 160 0 PF 06/06/13 10/31/13 142 121 21 FAR 06/01/14 10/30/14 147 130 17 FAR Bear Creek, at 07/15/01 08/31/01 48 8 40 NPF DMA (PIBO) 07/15/03 08/31/03 48 6 42 NPF

07/15/08 08/31/08 48 40 8 FAR 07/15/13 08/31/13 48 47 1 PF North Fork Bear 5/26/95 7/13/95 43 43 0 PF Creek, at 06/04/96 09/26/96 109 64 45 FAR confluence with 06/16/99 08/14/99 54 20 34 NPF Bear Creek 06/07/12 09/22/12 102 70 32 NPF North Fork Bear Creek, downstream of 06/15/01 10/01/01 103 103 0 PF Road #2735 crossing 06/24/94 09/15/94 77 77 0 PF 05/15/97 09/10/97 113 113 0 PF Auger Creek, at 06/23/99 10/01/99 95 95 0 PF Road #2735 05/07/03 08/23/03 103 86 17 FAR crossing 06/04/04 11/08/04 152 152 0 PF 06/07/05 10/16/05 126 118 8 PF 06/20/09 08/14/09 50 46 4 PF

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The portions of Bear Creek and North Fork Bear Creek that are located within North Bear pasture are in poor condition relative to channel morphology/sensitive species habitat parameters with the exception of width/depth and entrenchment ratios, which rated “Properly Functioning” In general, large wood and pools were considered to be Not Properly Functioning. The only stream with any comparable trend data is Bear Creek. Level II surveys from 1993-2011 show a static trend in pool numbers and a downward trend in large wood from 1993 to 2011. PIBO data for Bear Creek (which is more repeatable and reliable than Level II) shows an improving trend in pools and large wood. MIMS data shows pool numbers are generally static from 2011 to 2014. Large wood and pools are generally lacking in streams in the North Bear pasture.

BLS surveys in 2014 indicated that restoration activities had occurred in this reach in the past, including the placement of large wood that had created some large pools in the area. However, placed logs were frequently above bankfull. Many fish were observed concentrated in the deepest of the pools. Stream Temperature

In terms of stream temperature parameters, streams in the North Bear pasture are Functioning at Risk for shade and Not Properly Functioning for water temperatures. Water temperatures were considered Not Properly Functioning in Bear Creek mainstem, but were Properly Functioning in Auger Creek. In contrary to properly functioning stream temperatures in Auger Creek, shade conditions were rated as Not Properly Functioning, which could be due to strong groundwater interaction in the upper reaches of Auger Creek. In general, there appeared to be an improving trend in water temperatures in Bear Creek at the long-term temperature monitoring site at the forest boundary. Overall shade, including hardwood shade, is in fair condition for the pasture. BLS data from 1992 and 2013 show an improving trend in shade on Bear Creek.

Sediment/Turbidity

Even with the apparent lack of hardwoods in this pasture, bank stability is relatively good along streams in the pasture. Trends in Bear Creek from Level II and PIBO surveys show an improving trend in bank stability. MIMS shows a declining trend in bank alternation in Bear Creek from 2011 to 2014. Fine sediment also rated as good in streams in the North Bear pasture. In terms of trends, Level II surveys show a static trend in fine sediment from 1997 to 2011 and PIBO data shows a declining trend in fine sediment from 2003 to 2013 (increase from 8% to 18%). Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys were completed in 2014 by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists. The lower reach of Bear Creek was rated as “Functional – At Risk” and the upper reach was rated as “Properly Functioning”. Notes for Reach 1 included good riparian vegetation present throughout the reach, good wood placement, and noticeable beaver activity in the reach, but beaver dams were not stable. It was noted that the stream needed more connection to its floodplain. Notes for Reach 2 included that the channel was more confined in this reach, and that shade is not a limiting factor. There is very little floodplain due to the confined valley. Hardwood shade in this pasture was determined to be Functioning at Risk.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 17 displays end of season monitoring results at the two DMAs in the North Bear pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met. Table 18 displays PIBO monitoring data at DMAs.

Table 17. End of Season Monitoring Results for North Bear Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

DMA Stubble Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Bank Alternation Height Stubble Browse Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody

This pasture was rested from 2012 to 2015. North Trespass cattle have been 10% 4” * Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Bear -1 noted in the area and reported to law enforcement.

10% 4” * Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y This pasture was rested North from 2012-2015.

Bear – 2 Trespass cattle have been noted in the area and reported to law enforcement.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at both DMAs in the North Bear pasture. It is important to note, however, that this pasture has been rested since 2012.

Table 18. PIBO DMA Monitoring Data for Bear Creek Allotment Average MIM/Modified Average of All Livestock Stubble DMA Year MIM bank Woody Browse Indicators Height alteration (%) (%) (in)

Recent Bear signs but 2012 7/2 6.5 34.5 Creek not present

Aquatic Species

Redband trout are present in the North Bear pasture. Distribution data for the area indicates Redband trout are present in Bear Creek (1.3 miles) and North Bear Creek (approximately 2.4 miles). Although Bear Creek drains to the John Day River, it does not contain Mid-Columbia River steelhead due to a natural barrier downstream of the forest that restricts upstream passage. Although no formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs has occurred in streams in this pasture, it is likely that they are present in Bear, North Bear and Auger Creek.

South Bear Pasture

South Bear pasture is located within the Upper Bear Creek subwatershed. This pasture is essentially the upper headwaters of the Bear Creek watershed. Streams within this pasture are primarily Rosgen A with the exception of the lower ½ mile of Bear Creek, which is characterized as a Rosgen B channel type. Redband trout are present in mainstem Bear Creek, and the lower ½ mile of Scotty Creek and an unnamed tributary to Bear Creek that drains to the north. The South Bear pasture is almost entirely within a forested riparian system, but there is a complex of springs and wetlands at the headwaters of Rail Creek. There are nine water developments within this pasture. There are two Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the South Bear pasture. South Bear-1 is located on North Fork Bear Creek near the headwaters and South Bear -5 is located on Rail Creek near the headwaters. Tables 19, 20 and 21 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this pasture.

Table 19. Summary of stream data in the South Bear Pasture

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

MIMS Rail Creek – 1 2011 C 470 (PF) 0 (PF) 54 (NPF) MIMS Rail Creek – 1 2014 C 64 (FAR) 85 (NPF) 81 (NPF) BLS Rail Creek – 6 1992 A 132 (PF) 1 (PF) 24 (NPF) 0 (NPF) BLS Rail Creek DMA 2014 A 50 (FAR) 46 (NPF) 8 (PF) 72 (FAR) CONDITIONS IN SOUTH BEAR PASTURE NM NM FAR FAR FAR NPF FAR NPF

Table 20. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in South Bear Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR SOUTH BEAR PASTURE

Table 21. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the South Bear Pasture 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated Bear Creek, near confluence with 06/08/94 10/03/94 112 112 0 PF Tributary 5 Scotty Creek, 06/08/94 10/03/1994 112 93 19 FAR near confluence 06/16/99 10/05/99 106 106 0 PF with Bear Creek Rail Creek, downstream of 06/08/94 10/03/94 112 112 0 PF Road #2730 crossing

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The portions of Rail Creek that have been surveyed are in fair condition relative to channel morphology/sensitive species habitat parameters. There is no data available to assess width to depth and entrenchment ratios for streams in the South Bear pasture. Rail Creek showed functional habitat in terms of large wood and pools, but it is determined to be Functioning at Risk. Trend data from MIMS surveys in 2011 and 2014 show a downward trend in large wood numbers (went from “Properly Functioning” to “Functioning at Risk” between 2011 and 2014). In general, pools and large wood are lacking in streams within the South Bear Pasture. Trends from BLS surveys indicate a downward trend in large wood in the area.

BLS survey data from 2014 indicated that large woody debris was lower that the desired condition for the area, but that may reflect at least some areas that are in steeper meadows. Overall, the surveyors felt that the reach was in fair/good condition. It was also noted that there is a water trough located at the DMA which draws cattle away from the stream itself.

Stream Temperature

In terms of stream temperature parameters, streams in the South Bear pasture are Functioning at Risk for shade but Properly Functioning for water temperatures. Although stream temperature data is approximately 20 years old, it should still be applicable to the area since there has been no large-scale fire, logging or other disturbance in RHCAs that would significantly change shading and water temperatures. Water temperatures were considered Properly Functioning in Bear Creek mainstem, Scotty Creek (1999) and Rail Creek, but were Functioning at Risk in Scotty Creek in 1994. Good water temperatures in the South Bear pasture are contrary to Functioning at Risk shade conditions in the pasture. This could be due to a strong groundwater interaction in upper Bear Creek and its tributaries that may be influencing colder water temperatures more so then shade. BLS trend data indicates the shade is on an improving trend at the DMA. Overall, shade is in fair condition for the South Bear pasture. Sediment/Turbidity

Even with the apparent lack of hardwoods in this pasture, bank stability is Functioning at Risk for the pasture. Trends in Rail Creek from MIMS surveys show a sharp increase bank alteration from 2011 to 2014 (0% to 85%). Fine sediment also rated as Not Properly Functioning in Rail Creek, and no other fine sediment was collected for any other streams in the pasture. In terms of trends, MIMS surveys show an increase in fine sediment from 2011 to 2014 (from 54% to 81%) which could be explained by the increase in bank alteration from 2011 to 2014. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

No PFC or Modified Pfankuch surveys were completed in the South Bear pasture. Hardwood shade along Rail Creek was rated as Not Properly Functioning, but this is only one data point and should not be as an indication that there is inadequate hardwood shade in the pasture. End of Season Monitoring

Table 22 displays end of season monitoring results at the two DMAs in the South Bear pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 22. End of Season Monitoring Results for South Bear Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

This pasture was rested from 2012 to 2015. South 10% 4” * Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Light elk use noted in Bear -1 end of season monitoring notes.

This pasture was rested South from 2012-2015. Light 10% 6” * Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Bear – 5 elk use noted in end of season monitoring notes.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at both DMAs in the South Bear pasture. It is important to note, however, that this pasture has been rested since 2012.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout are present in the South Bear pasture. Distribution data for the area indicates redband trout are present in Bear Creek (approximately 2.1 miles), tributary to Bear Creek (0.5 miles) and Scotty Creek (approximately 0.5 miles). Although no formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs has occurred in streams in this pasture, it is likely that they are present in Bear Creek and its tributaries, as well as Scotty and Rail Creek.

Dodds Pasture

Dodds pasture is located within the Upper Bear Creek, Middle Bear Creek and Upper Marks Creek subwatersheds. Dodds and Heflin Creek are Category 1 streams within the pasture (fish- bearing and anadromous). Fish-bearing streams in the allotment are predominately Rosgen B- type channels with inclusions of higher gradient A-type channels towards the headwaters. Tributaries are predominately A-type channels. All of the streams in this pasture are in a forest riparian system. There are three water developments within this pasture. There are two Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the Dodds pasture. Dodds-6 is located on Cougar Creek approximately 1 mile upstream of the forest boundary and Dodds-7 is located on Nature Creek near the headwaters. Nature Creek is the Upper Marks Creek subwatershed. Approximately 10% of the Dodds pasture burned in the Bailey Butte fire in 2014. The fire burned in Heflin Creek and portions of Dodds Creek. Tables 23, 24 and 25 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this pasture.

Table 23. Summary of stream data in the Dodds Pasture

Alteration

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II Cougar Creek – 1 1989 A 15 (NPF) 28 (NPF) 106 (PF) 66 (NPF) 6 (NPF) Level II Cougar Creek – 1 2014 A 1.5 (FAR) 7 (PF) 17 (NPF) 11 (NPF) 8 (PF) 47 (NPF) 74 (FAR) 50 (PF) MIMS Cougar Creek – 1 2011 A 191 (PF) 31 (NPF) 44 (NPF) MIMS Cougar Creek – 1 2014 A 118 (PF) 24 (NPF) 37 (NPF) BLS Cougar Creek DMA 2014 A 75 (FAR) 60 (FAR) 27 (NPF) 87 (PF) Level II Dodds Creek – 1 1989 A 4 (PF) 26 (NPF) 38 (NPF) Level II Dodds Creek – 1 2011 A 2.1 (FAR) 9 (PF) 16 (NPF) 8 (NPF) 16 (FAR) 50 (NPF) CONDITIONS IN DODDS PASTURE FAR PF NPF NPF NPF NPF FAR FAR

Table 24. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Dodds Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR DODDS PASTURE

Table 25. Stream temperature rating by location and year in Dodds Pasture 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated Grant Creek, at 06/16/99 10/05/99 106 106 0 PF confluence with 06/26/12 12/31/12 183 183 0 PF Bear Creek 06/06/13 12/31/13 203 203 0 PF Dodds Creek, one mile upstream 05/26/95 09/21/95 113 113 0 PF from forest boundary 05/26/95 09/21/95 113 113 0 PF Dodds Creek, at 06/05/96 09/26/96 108 108 0 PF confluence with 05/31/12 12/31/12 209 209 0 PF Heflin Creek 06/06/13 12/31/13 126 126 0 PF

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The portions of Dodds and Cougar Creek that have been surveyed are in fair condition relative to channel morphology/sensitive species habitat parameters. Data collected in 2011 and 2014 indicate entrenchment ratios are Functioning at Risk and width to depth ratios are Properly Functioning. Trends from Level II surveys show an improvement in width to depth ratios in both Dodds and Cougar Creek. However, habitat appears to be Not Functioning Properly in terms of large wood, which has had a negative effect on the number of pools in these systems. Trend data from Cougar and Dodds Creek show a decrease in both pools and large wood. MIMs surveys in 2011 and 2014 also show a downward trend in large wood numbers, even though counts indicated numbers that are Properly Functioning. In general, pools and large wood are lacking in streams within the Dodds pasture. Trends from Level II surveys indicate a downward trend in large wood and pools in the area.

BLS survey data from 2014 indicated that large woody debris was likely adequate for the area, but due to the deep incision of the channel at the DMA, which disconnected the stream from its floodplain, that many pieces fallen across the top of the channel couldn’t be included in LWD totals since they did not engage bankfull.

Stream Temperature

In terms of stream temperature parameters, streams in the Dodds pasture are Functioning at Risk for shade but Properly Functioning for water temperatures. Water temperatures were considered Properly Functioning in all streams with monitoring stations in the pasture and never exceeded the threshold of 18°C in the pasture. BLS data collected at the DMA in Cougar Creek indicated Properly Functioning shade conditions, and trend data from Level II surveys indicated an improving trend in shade from 1989 to 2014. It is expected that shade conditions in Heflin Creek have been negatively impacted due to the Bailey Butte fire, but the response in stream temperatures is not known at this time, since this area appears to have a strong groundwater influence. Overall, shade is in fair condition for the Dodds pasture. Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability is Not Properly Functioning in the Dodds pasture. MIMs and BLS collected in 2011 and 2014 show bank alteration greater than 24%. Level II surveys in Cougar and Dodds Creek show slightly better conditions than those at the DMA sites. BLS survey notes from 2014 indicated that cutbanks may have been underestimated during that survey due to the amount of snow and fallen leaves covering the banks during the survey. Interestingly enough, the Dodds pasture has been rested since 2012, but BLS survey notes indicate that cattle trails and cut-banks were fairly common and extensive below the DMA, indicating likely unauthorized cattle use in the area. The large percentage of bank alternation at the DMAs reflects on fine sediment levels at these sites, which are rated at Not Properly Functioning. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

No PFC or Modified Pfankuch surveys were completed in the Dodds pasture. Hardwood shade along Rail Creek was rated as Functioning at Risk due to the large improvement from Level II surveys from 1989 to 2014, but hardwood shade has been impaired in the Heflin Creek drainage due to the Bailey Butte fire in 2014. End of Season Monitoring

Table 26 displays end of season monitoring results at the two DMAs in the Dodds pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 26. End of Season Monitoring Results for Dodds Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

MA D Stubble Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Bank Alternation Height Stubble Browse Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody

This pasture was rested Dodds-6 10% 6” * Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y from 2012 to 2015.

This pasture was rested Dodds-7 10% 4” * N/NA/Y Y/NA/Y Y/NA/Y Y/NA/Y Y/NA/Y Y/NA/Y from 2012-2015.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species NA – No stream channel in DMA to measure bank alteration

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at both DMAs in the Dodds pasture except for the Dodds Creek DMA, where stubble height exceeded standards in 2010. Since 2010, stubble height standards have been met at the Dodds Creek DMA. It is important to note, however, that this pasture has been rested since 2012.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout are present in the Dodds pasture. Distribution data for the area indicates redband trout are present in Grant Creek (approximately 0.6 miles), Dodds Creek (2.1 miles) and Heflin Creek (approximately 0.7 miles). Because the confluence of Dodds Creek is located downstream of the natural barrier to migration on Bear Creek, Dodds Creek is designated critical habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead. No formal steelhead surveys have been conducted in this pasture, but it is assumed that they are present in Dodds Creek (2.1 miles) and Heflin Creek (0.7 miles). No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this pasture; however, it is likely that they are present in Grant, Scotty, Dodds, Heflin and Cougar Creek.

Elkhorn Allotment

The Elkhorn allotment consists of 15,020 acres. The allotment is located within portions of the West Branch Bridge, Howard, Headwaters Bridge Creek, and Upper Bridge Creek subwatersheds and very small portions of Upper Mountain, Allen, Headwaters Elliott, Headwaters Ochoco and Upper Marks Creek subwatersheds. The Elkhorn allotment includes 4 pastures: Bridge Creek (8,657 acres), Elkhorn (2,970 acres), Val Trail (2,988 acres) and Indian Prairie (405 acres). Approximately 4,774 acres (55%) of the Bridge Creek pasture and 270 acres (10%) of the Val Trail pasture is in the Bridge Creek wilderness area. Figure 3 displays allotment and pasture boundaries, as well as DMA locations, and fish distribution, including Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat in the allotment. A summary of pasture conditions and impairment for the Elkhorn Allotment is given in Table 27.

Table 27. Summary of Pasture Condition and Impairments in the Elkhorn Allotment Sensitive Species Stream Riparian Hardwood Pasture Habitat/Channel Sediment/Turbidity Temperature Vegetation Morphology Elkhorn NPF FAR NPF PF Val Trail FAR NPF NPF ND Bridge Creek NPF FAR FAR NPF Indian Prairie ND ND ND ND

Overall NPF FAR NPF FAR No Data Collected (ND)

Figure 3. Elkhorn Allotment, Pastures, Streams, Redband Trout and Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Distribution

Elkhorn Pasture

Elkhorn pasture is located within the West Branch Bridge Creek subwatershed, with small portions of the Upper Marks, Headwaters Ochoco and Howard Creek subwatersheds. West Branch Bridge Creek is a Category 1 stream (fish-bearing and anadromous) from the forest boundary downstream. Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A-type channels in the lower reaches and are dominated by wetlands and wet meadows with lower gradient B and E- type channels towards the headwaters of West Branch Bridge Creek and its tributaries. The lower portions of the Elkhorn pasture are dominated by a forest riparian system and the areas near the headwaters mostly meadow and wetland systems. There are ten water developments within this pasture. There is one Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the Elkhorn pasture. Elkhorn-1 is located near Camp Creek and flows through forested sections and then through some smaller, relatively steep meadows on the downstream end of the reach. Tables 28, 29 and

30 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this pasture.

Table 28. Summary of stream data in the Elkhorn Pasture

%) Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines ( Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II West Branch 2013 G 25.3 (NPF) 10 (PF) 6 (NPF) 9 (NPF) 8 (PF) Bridge Creek – 1 MIMS Camp Creek – 1 2011 B 367 (PF) 23 (NPF) 33 (NPF) MIMS Camp Creek – 1 2014 B 191 (PF) 88 (NPF) 68 (NPF) BLS Camp Creek – 1 2012 B 94 (FAR) 7 (NPF) 6 (PF) 74 (FAR) 68 (PF) CONDITIONS IN ELKHORN PASTURE NPF PF FAR NPF FAR NPF FAR PF

Table 29. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Elkhorn Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating Camp Creek Reach 1 Properly Functioning Fair West Branch Bridge Creek Functional – At Risk Good Reach 1 Upward Trend West Branch Bridge Creek Properly Functioning Good Reach 2

Table 30. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Elkhorn Pasture 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated West Branch Bridge Creek, at 07/06/94 09/23/94 71 71 0 PF forest boundary

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The portions of West Branch Bridge Creek and Camp Creek that are located within Elkhorn pasture are not properly functioning relative to channel morphology/sensitive species habitat parameters with the exception of width/depth and pools per mile, which rated “Properly Functioning” and “Functioning at Risk”, respectively. The one measure of entrenchment ratio taken on West Branch Bridge Creek in a Level II survey in 2013 showed an entrenchment ratio that deviated greatly from natural conditions. Large woody debris is greatly lacking in stream survey segments surveyed in this pasture. The only stream with any comparable trend data is Camp Creek MIMS surveys at the DMA. Between 2011 and 2014, there was a decrease in pools per mile (but still remaining at Properly Functioning levels), and a very large increase in bank alteration and subsequently percent surface fines from 2011 to 2014. In discussions with the range staff, there observations during 2014 were that the Bailey Butte fire destroyed many fences in the area, which allowed cattle to linger in this area longer than anticipated.

BLS surveys in 2014 indicated the stream in places is incised but much of the stream has access to the floodplain. There was distinctly less surface flow upstream of the DMA, possibly because

ground water is being stored in this reach and then released downstream. Large woody debris in the forested reach was much higher. The lower reach flowed through small relatively steep meadows. The channel was incised in places and highly impacted by post-holing. Stream Temperature

Data for stream temperature is very limited in the Elkhorn pasture. Water temperature data in West Branch Bridge Creek was collected for one year in 1994 and was considered to be “Properly Functioning” (no 7-day average greater than 18°C). Even though temperature data is very limited, it can be assumed that stream temperatures have likely not changed substantially in this area. There has been no large landscape disturbance that would cause a decrease in shade along streams (i.e. wildfire) and this area is highly dominated by wetlands and meadows that act as storage for cold water to be released incrementally throughout the year. Shade readings were only taken at the DMA in 2012 during a BLS survey. Results from the survey showed that overall shade in “Functioning at Risk” and hardwood shade is “Properly Functioning”. The Properly Functioning Condition survey on Camp Creek in 2014 validates the results of the BLS surveys in that the team founds that overall, streambank vegetation was present and exhibited high vigor. Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability varied based on the stream segment and survey protocol. The Level II survey on West Branch Bridge Creek and BLS survey on Camp Creek showed bank stability is Properly Functioning, but MIMs surveys in both 2011 and 2014 at the DMA shows bank stability is Not Properly Functioning, and in fact, was found to be on a downward trend from 2011 to 2014. Fine sediment directly correlated to bank stability, in that when bank stability went down between 2011 and 2014 MIMS surveys, percent surface fines greatly increased. MIMS surveys at the DMA show a declining trend in bank alteration and percent surface fines. As described above, however, there were issues in 2014 following the Bailey Butte fire with fence maintenance and subsequently unauthorized cattle in these areas, or authorized cattle in these areas longer than they should have been. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys were completed in 2014 by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists. The reach of Camp Creek just upstream of the DMA was rated as “Properly Functioning”. Notes for Reach 1 included that the spring at the top of the PFC survey has postholes and wallowing evident. Reach 1 of West Branch Bridge Creek was rated as “Functional – At Risk, with an Upward Trend”. Notes for Reach 1 included there were headcuts present and that there was still erosion present for cutbanks, but that there was abundant plant communities present as a source for coarse and/or large woody material, good fish habitat up to the 4’ headcut that is acting like a fish barrier. In general, riparian vegetation was properly functioning in this reach. Reach 2 of West Branch Bridge Creek was rated at “Properly Functioning”. Notes for Reach 2 included a couple of crossings from cattle could be hardened, but that overall this reach was properly functioning. Hardwood shade in this pasture was determined to be Functioning at Risk.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 31 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMA in the Elkhorn pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 31. End of Season Monitoring Results for Elkhorn Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

Elkhorn- 10% 6” * Y/Y/NA Y/NM/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA . 1

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at the DMA in the Elkhorn pasture from 2010 to 2015.

Aquatic Species

Mid-Columbia River steelhead trout are not present in the Elkhorn pasture. Distribution data for the area indicates Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical ends near the forest boundary. Field visits to the lower portion of West Branch Bridge Creek near the forest boundary indicated that this area was very steep and would not support spawning and rearing of steelhead trout. Redband trout are present in West Branch Bridge Creek, according to presence/absence surveys conducted in 2013. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this pasture; however, it is likely that they are present in West Branch Bridge Creek and its tributaries, along with the numerous wetlands/wet meadows that occur in this pasture.

Val Trail Pasture

Val Trail pasture is located within the West Branch Bridge Creek, Howard Creek and Upper Bridge Creek subwatershed. West Branch Bridge Creek and Upper Bridge Creek subwatersheds are both Category 1 subwatersheds (fish-bearing and anadromous). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels in the lower reaches and are dominated by wetlands and wet meadows with lower gradient B and E-type channels towards the headwaters of tributaries to West Branch Bridge Creek. The lower portions of the Elkhorn pasture are dominated by a forest riparian system and the areas near the headwaters mostly meadow and wetland systems. There are seven water developments within this pasture. There is one Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the Val Trail pasture. Val Trail-1 is located on East Fork Howard Creek just downstream of the Indian Prairie pasture. Tables 32, 33 and 34

summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this pasture and Table 33 summarizes results of PFC surveys in West Branch Bridge Creek.

Table 32. Summary of stream data in the Val Trail Pasture

and

Stream Survey Type Stream Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II East Fork Howard 1991 C/E 54 (NPF) 263 (PF) Creek – 1 MIMS East Fork Howard 2011 C/E 271 (PF) 31 (NPF) 50 (NPF) Creek – 1 MIMS East Fork Howard 2014 C/E 239 (PF) 58 (NPF) 62 (NPF) Creek – 1 BLS East Fork Howard 2012 C/E 3 (NPF) 85 (PF) 8 (PF) 50 (NPF) Creek – 1 CONDITIONS IN VAL TRAIL PASTURE NM NM FAR PF FAR NPF NPF NM

Table 33. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Val Trail Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating East Fork West Branch Functional – At Risk Poor Bridge Creek Reach 1 Trend Not Apparent East Fork West Branch Properly Functioning Good Bridge Creek Reach 2

Table 34. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Val Trail Pasture 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated East Fork Howard Creek, at 06/10/94 08/25/94 69 29 40 NPF allotment boundary

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The portions of East Fork Howard Creek that are within the Val Trail pasture are Functioning at Risk relative to pools/mile and Properly Functioning relative to large woody debris. Unfortunately, no data is available to assess the condition of streams in terms of entrenchment ratio or width/depth ratios. It appears that in the two places surveyed, large wood numbers were adequate, and that pools numbers were either lacking according to Level II and BLS surveys, or in properly functioning condition according to MIMS surveys. The only stream with any comparable trend data is East Fork Howard Creek MIMS surveys at the DMA. Between 2011 and 2014, pools per mile stayed fairly consistent and remained at properly functioning levels. According to PFC ratings for reach 1 of East Fork West Branch Bridge Creek, channel morphology is not properly functioning (channel is not connected to its floodplain, and sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are not in balance with the landscape setting). According to PFC ratings for reach 2 of East Fork West Branch Bridge Creek, it appears that channel morphology

is properly functioning in this reach of stream.

BLS surveys in 2012 on East Fork Howard Creek indicated the vegetation is coniferous forest along the margins of the valley bottom and alder, grasses, and sedges along the stream. Most stream adjacent areas are well vegetated and there is little evidence of eroison. Some areas were recovering from headcuts and establishing new floodplains. Most of the stream reach had intact banks. Stream Temperature

Data for stream temperature is very limited in the Val Trail pasture (see Table 34). Water temperature data in East Fork Howard Creek at the allotment boundary was collected for one year in 1994 and was considered to be “Not Properly Functioning” (40 days over the 7-day average threshold of 18°C). Even though temperature data is very limited, it can be assumed that stream temperatures have likely not changed substantially in this area. There has been no large landscape disturbance that would cause a decrease in shade along streams (i.e. wildfire). Shade readings were only taken at the DMA in 2012 during a BLS survey. Results from the survey showed that overall shade is “Not Properly Functioning”. The BLS survey indicated that shade was low at 50% with most of the lack due to meadow reaches. There are a few hardwood areas along the stream (mainly alder) that do provide shade in these areas but overall the hardwood component is low. For both Reach1 and Reach 2 PFC surveys on East Fork West Branch Bridge Creek, vegetation rated as properly functioning in terms of diversity, composition, and vigor. Sediment/Turbidity

In terms of bank stability, MIMs surveys in both 2011 and 2014 at the DMA shows bank stability is Not Properly Functioning, and in fact, was found to be on a downward trend from 2011 to 2014. Fine sediment directly correlated to bank stability, in that when bank stability went down between 2011 and 2014 MIMS surveys, percent surface fines increased. MIMS surveys at the DMA show a declining trend in bank alteration and percent surface fines. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys were completed in 2014 by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists (Table 33). Reach 1 of East Fork West Branch Bridge Creek was rated as “Functional – At Risk, Trend Not Apparent”. Notes for Reach 1 included that the channel is downcut through the meadow and it is having a negative impact on groundwater connection and that many headcuts were present. Reach 2 of East Fork West Branch Bridge Creek was rated as “Properly Functioning”. Notes for Reach 2 included that the area from a hydrologic standpoint looked very good, but that some hardened cattle crossings could help with bank trampling that is occurring.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 35 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMA in the Val Trail pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or an N if standards were not met.

Table 35. End of Season Monitoring Results for Val Trail Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

Browse DMA Stubble Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Bank Alternation Height Stubble Browse Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody

Heavy elk use after removal of Val Trail- livestock; stubble 10% 6” * Y/Y/Y Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA 1 height is typically >12% at mid- season.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at the DMA in the Val Trail pasture from 2010 to 2015.

Aquatic Species

There are no fish species present in the portion of the Val Trail pasture that drains to the John Day River. On the Crooked River side of the pasture, redband trout are present in East Fork Howard Creek, from the allotment boundary to Indian Prairie (approximately 1 mile). No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this pasture; however, it is likely that they are present in East Fork Howard Creek and the headwaters of West Branch Bridge Creek, along with the numerous wetlands/wet meadows that occur in this pasture.

Bridge Creek Pasture

Bridge Creek pasture is located within the Headwaters Bridge Creek and Upper Bridge Creek subwatersheds, and very small portions of the Upper Mountain, Allen, Headwaters Elliott and Howard Creek subwatersheds. Headwaters Bridge Creek and Upper Bridge Creek are both Category 1 watersheds (fish-bearing and anadromous). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels with some wetland/meadows in the headwaters of Bridge Creek that are B and E-type channels. A large majority of this pasture is forested. There are 17 water developments within this pasture. There are two Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the Bridge Creek pasture. Both are located near the headwaters of Bridge Creek. Tables 36, 37 and 38 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this pasture.

Table 36. Summary of stream data in the Bridge Creek Pasture

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II Bridge Creek – 1 1993 A 6 (PF) 13 (NPF) 13 (NPF) Level II Bridge Creek – 1 2000 A 1.7 (FAR) 12 (FAR) 34 (NPF) 7 (NPF) 0 (PF) Level II Bridge Creek – 1 2014 A 2.8 (NPF) 19 (NPF) 14 (NPF) 5 (NPF) 5 (PF) 7 (PF) Level II Bridge Creek – 2 1993 A 13 (NPF) 7 (NPF) 40 (NPF) Level II Bridge Creek – 2 2000 A 7.4 (NPF) 9 (PF) 23 (NPF) 2 (NPF) 6 (PF) Level II Bridge Creek – 2 2014 A 2.4 (NPF) 15 (NPF) 14 (NPF) 11 (NPF) 3 (PF) 15 (FAR) Level II Bridge Creek – 3 1993 A 7 (PF) 12 (NPF) 34 (NPF) Level II Bridge Creek – 4 1993 A 7 (PF) 21 (NPF) 18 (NPF) Level II Bridge Creek – 5 1993 A 7 (PF) 17 (NPF) 22 (NPF) Level II Bridge Creek – 6 1993 E 2 (PF) 11 (NPF) 2 (NPF) Level II Bridge Creek – 6 2011 E 19.1 (PF) 4 (PF) 24 (NPF) 2 (NPF) 0 (PF) 91 (NPF) BLS Maxwell Creek – 1 2000 A 14 (NPF) 83 (PF) 26 (NPF) 0 (PF) 0 (PF) 82 (PF) 23 (NPF) BLS Maxwell Creek – 2 2000 A 132 (PF) 40 (NPF) 1 (PF) 0 (PF) 78 (FAR) 0 (NPF) BLS Maxwell Creek – 3 2000 A 97 (PF) 69 (PF) 0 (PF) 0 (PF) 90 (PF) 0 (NPF) BLS Bridge Creek – 1 2012 A 45 (NPF) 7 (NPF) 6 (PF) 10 (NPF) MIMS Bridge Creek DMA 2011 E 292 (PF) 1(PF) 100 (NPF) MIMS Bridge Creek DMA 2014 E 408 (PF) 48 (NPF) 100 (NPF) PIBO Bridge Creek – I 2005 E 4 (PF) 161 (PF) 28 (NPF) 0 (PF) 90 (NPF) PIBO Bridge Creek – I 2010 E 8 (PF) 76 (PF) 34 (NPF) 3 (PF) 100 (NPF) PIBO Bridge Creek – K 2010 E 42 (PF) 78 (PF) 0 (PF) CONDITIONS IN BRIDGE CREEK PASTURE NPF FAR FAR NPF PF FAR FAR NPF

Table 37. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Bridge Creek Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR BRIDGE CREEK PASTURE

Table 38. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Bridge Creek Pasture 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated Bridge Creek, at 07/10/94 09/22/94 76 76 0 PF forest boundary 06/17/97 09/21/97 91 91 0 PF 07/01/98 09/30/98 86 86 0 PF Bridge Creek, 06/29/99 10/01/99 89 89 0 PF approximately ½ 06/23/00 10/10/00 102 102 0 PF mile from forest 06/12/03 10/01/03 74 74 0 PF boundary 06/25/04 10/08/04 98 98 0 PF Bridge Creek, 07/01/94 09/22/94 76 76 0 PF approximately ¾ miles from forest 06/14/95 09/10/95 83 83 0 PF boundary Bridge Creek, 06/23/95 09/05/95 69 66 3 PF approximately 1 miles downstream 06/18/96 10/16/96 113 113 0 PF from DMA Bridge-2

Bridge Creek, just 06/14/95 08/27/95 60 60 0 PF upstream of the 06/17/96 10/15/96 113 113 0 PF 2630 road 06/17/97 09/21/97 91 91 0 PF crossing Bridge Creek, 07/15/05 08/31/05 42 42 0 PF downstream of 07/15/10 08/31/10 42 40 2 PF Bridge-2 DMA

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Bridge Creek has been surveyed periodically in the Bridge Creek pasture beginning in 1993. In general, data shows that entrenchment ratios and large wood are Not Properly Functioning, while width/depth ratios and pools are Functioning at Risk. It appears that pools/mile is dependent on which survey protocol was used. For example, under the BLS, PIBO and MIMS protocol, pool numbers were considered to be Properly Functioning in all surveys except for one, while Level II surveys showed pool numbers that were considered to be Not Properly Functioning in all surveys. There is comparable trend data available on Bridge Creek (Reach 1 Level II, Reach 2 Level II, Reach 6 Level II, MIMS and PIBO). In general when looking at trends, it appears that there is a downward trend in entrenchment ratio. There is an overall static trend in width/depth ratios except for Reach 1, which showed a downward trend and the PIBO data, which shows an improving trend. For pools, the trend is generally static. MIMS data shows an improvement in pools, which is also reflected at Reach 6 of Bridge Creek (in the same general area). PIBO data shows a downward trend in pool numbers, but are still considered to be Properly Functioning. Large wood is also static except for reach 2, which showed a general downward trend.

BLS surveys in 2012 on Bridge Creek at the DMA characterized the reach as a Rosgen E-type meadow stream with little to no shade or large woody debris naturally. The channel is not incised and has access to its entire floodplain. Large woody debris is low, with sections that are directly adjacent to foreseted areas, the only places with woody debris. The stream has low power and does not move any woody debris that may fall in from adjacent or upstream reaches. Pools per mile did not meet standards (45/mile), but much of the stream is narrow and deep without defined pool tail outs and probably meets a stable and appropriate condition for this stream type in this setting. Stream Temperature

Data is fairly abundant for Bridge Creek in terms of stream temperature (see Table 38). For all years and areas surveyed, water temperature conditions were considered to be Properly Functioning. There were very few days, if any, where stream temperatures exceeded the 18°C threshold. It is apparent that this area is likely very dominated by groundwater, which keeps instream water temperatures cooler. This is obvious especially with sites directly downstream of the DMA because it is noted in several surveys that shade is lacking through the meadow reach (but would be expected in a meadow dominated stream), which likely means that groundwater is the major influence on water temperatures (shade at the DMA was 10% during the 2012 BLS survey). Shade in Maxwell Creek appears to be at least Functioning at Risk, which runs through a more forested environment.

Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability in the Bridge Creek pasture is considered to be Properly Functioning. Level II, BLS and PIBO data show values all below 10%. MIMS data, however, shows bank stability was deteriorating between 2011 and 2014. Fine sediment appears to be Functioning at Risk or Properly Functioning in sections of Bridge Creek that are higher gradient, but are Not Properly Functioning in the upper meadow sections. This is likely not correlated to bank instability, but more the nature of these meadow systems that contain very little gravel and cobble and are dominated by fines naturally. The BLS survey notes in 2012 indicated that cutbank was low through this reach and that the banks were very stable due to vegetation such as sedges and rushes. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no PFC data available for the Bridge Creek pasture. Additionally there is very little data available for hardwood shade conditions. However, notes indicate very little hardwood shade in the meadow system in the headwaters of Bridge Creek, and hardwood shade readings in Maxwell Creek indicate lower numbers of hardwood, likely because this area is very forested. However, based on notes from surveys, hardwood shade would not be expected in the meadow system at the headwaters of Bridge Creek, and thus is likely functioning at its potential.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 39 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMA in the Bridge Creek pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 39. End of Season Monitoring Results for Bridge Creek Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

Browse DMA Stubble Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Bank Alternation Height Stubble Browse Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody

No channel or Bridge 10% 6” * Y/NA/NA Y/NA/NA Y/NA/NA Y/NA/NA Y/NA/NA Y/NA/NA hardwoods Creek-1 present.

No Bridge hardwoods. 10% 6” * No data No data Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Creek-2 Appears ungrazed during each

visit.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at the DMA in the Bridge Creek pasture from 2010 to 2015.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout are present in the Bridge Creek pasture. Distribution data for the area indicates redband trout are present in Bridge Creek (approximately 5 miles). Bridge Creek is designated as Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat from the forest boundary upstream three miles. No formal steelhead surveys have been conducted in Bridge Creek, but it is assumed that they are present in this pasture based on available habitat. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this pasture; however, it is likely they are present in Bridge Creek, its tributaries, and any connected wetlands/wet meadows in the pasture.

Indian Prairie Pasture

Indian Prairie pasture is located entirely within the Howard Creek subwatershed. This pasture is small and contains approximately 2 miles of stream (perennial and intermittent). However, almost the entire pasture is located within a large complex of wetlands/meadows in the headwaters of East Fork Howard Creek. Streams are predominately E-type channels. There are three water developments within this pasture. There is one Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the Indian Prairie pasture. Indian Prairie-1 is located at the headwaters of East Fork Howard Creek. There is no habitat or stream temperature data available for the Indian Prairie pasture. A field visit to this pasture in 2014 indicated that streams in this area were incised and dewatering the meadow. Based on these observations, it can be assumed that entrenchment and width/depth ratios are Not Properly Functioning. Because this area is dominated by meadows, it is expected that large wood, pools and shade are low naturally, but that stream temperatures are probably Functioning Appropriately because this area has a heavy groundwater influence that keeps stream temperatures low. As discussed below in the end of season monitoring data, bank alteration has been met every year since 2011, so at least at the DMA, bank instability appears to be Functioning at Risk.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 40 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMA in the Indian Prairie pasture from 2011-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 40. End of Season Monitoring Results for Indian Prairie Pasture, 2011-2015

Standards 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES DMA

Browse Stubble Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Bank Alternation Height Stubble Browse Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody

Indian 20% 6” * Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Prairie-1

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height, bank alteration and wood browse have been met at the DMA in the Indian Prairie from 2010 to 2015.

Aquatic Species

No fish species are present in the Indian Prairie pasture. However, because of the perennial nature of Indian Prairie, it is assumed that Columbia spotted frogs are present in this pasture.

Snowshoe Allotment

The Snowshoe allotment consists of 2,658 acres. The allotment is located within portions of Middle Bear, West Branch Bridge and Upper Marks Creek subwatersheds. The Snowshoe allotment includes 3 pastures: Snowshoe (2,217 acres), North Nature (334 acres), and South Nature (107 acres). The entire allotment is within the perimeter of the 2014 Bailey Butte fire. Figure 4 displays allotment and pasture boundaries, as well as DMA locations, fish distribution, including Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat in the allotment, and 303(d) water quality limited stream segments. Table 41 gives a summary of pasture condition and impairments in the Snowshoe allotment.

Table 41. Summary of Pasture Condition and Impairments in the Snowshoe Allotment Sensitive Species Stream Riparian Hardwood Pasture Habitat/Channel Sediment/Turbidity Temperature Vegetation Morphology Snowshoe ND ND NPF ND ND ND South and North ND ND Nature Overall ND ND ND ND No Data Collected (ND)

Figure 4. Snowshoe Allotment, Pastures, Streams, Redband Trout and Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Distribution. Map also includes 303(d) water quality limited stream reaches.

Snowshoe Pasture

Snowshoe Pasture is located within the West Branch Bridge Creek and Middle Bear Creek subwatershed, with the very southern end of the pasture in the Upper Marks Creek subwatershed. West Branch Bridge and Middle Bear Creek subwatersheds are both Category 1 subwatersheds (fish-bearing and anadromous). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels throughout and are dominated by a forested riparian system with very few wetlands/meadows. There are 11 water developments within this pasture. There are two Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) in the Snowshoe pasture. Snowshoe-2 is located in the headwaters of Nature Creek and Snowshoe-3 is located in the Heflin Creek watershed. Tables 42 and 43 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for

analysis within this pasture. There is no temperature data available for the Snowshoe pasture.

Table 42. Summary of stream data in the Snowshoe Pasture

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

MIMS Nature Creek 2011 C/E 194 (PF) 39 (NPF) 90 (NPF) DMA MIMS Nature Creek 2014 C/E 66 (NPF) 95 (NPF) DMA CONDITIONS IN VAL TRAIL PASTURE NM NM PF NM NPF NPF NM NM

Table 43. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Snowshoe Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR SNOWSHOE PASTURE

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The only data available in the Snowshoe pasture is MIMS surveys at the DMA near the headwaters of Nature Creek. Therefore, we are unable to assess the condition of entrenchment ratio, width to depth ratios and large wood. MIMS data indicates that pools in 2011 were properly functioning. There is no data available for pools in 2014 to assess trend. Observations in 2011 indicated that there is a large amount of hardwoods armoring banks in this pasture, which have helped armor banks from bank alterations. Stream Temperature

There is no data available to assess stream temperatures in the Snowshoe pasture. Observations in 2011 indicate that hardwoods were present and included multiple age classes (20% young and 60% mature). The stream side vegetation is also dominated mostly by hardwoods and conifers. There may be changes in stream temperature due to the Bailey Butte fire, which burned through the entire pasture, and may have had a negative impact on overstory shade species that keep stream temperatures cooler. Sediment/Turbidity

In terms of bank stability, MIMs surveys in both 2011 and 2014 at the DMA shows bank stability is Not Properly Functioning, and in fact, was found to be on a downward trend from 2011 to 2014. Fine sediment (surface fines) stayed static between 2011 and 2014, but were very high and considered Not Properly Functioning. Fine sediment is likely not correlated to bank instability, but more the nature of these meadow systems that contain very little gravel and cobble and are dominated by fines naturally. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no numerical data available to assess riparian hardwood vegetation. However, notes from 2011 indicate that hardwoods were present and included multiple age classes. There is a

great deal of alder and hawthorne along the stream banks. However, there may be impacts to riparian hardwood vegetation due to the Bailey Butte fire.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 44 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMA in the Snowshoe pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 44. End of Year Monitoring Results for Snowshoe Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

Snowshoe- Y/NM/N 10% 4” * NM NM Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA Y/Y/NA 2 A

Showshoe- Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N No channel or 10% 4” * Y/NM/NM 3 M M M M M hardwoods.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height and bank alteration have been met at the DMA in the Snowshoe pasture from 2010 to 2015 when measured.

Aquatic Species

There are no fish species present in the Snowshoe pasture. This includes tributaries to Heflin Creek, which were field verified in 2014 to have no fish species present, and O’Kelly Creek, which has a natural barrier (series of cascade waterfalls) near the forest boundary. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this pasture; however, it is likely they are present in tributaries to Heflin Creek and O’Kelly Creek.

North Nature and South Nature Pasture

North Nature and South Nature pasture will be discussed together in this section because they are small pastures that lie either on the north or south side of Nature Creek. These pastures are located in the Upper Marks subwatershed. These pastures are Category 2 pastures (Redband Trout only and drains to the Crooked River). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels throughout and are dominated by a forested riparian system with very few wetlands/meadows. There are 2 water developments within this pasture. There are two

Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs), one in North Nature and one in South Nature pasture. North Nature-1 is located on a tributary to Upper Marks Creek and South Nature-1 is located on Nature Creek. The only data available for these pastures is PFC surveys completed in 2014 on Nature Creek (see Table 45).

Table 45. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in North Nature/South Nature Pasture PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating Functional – At Risk Poor Nature Creek Reach 1 Upward Trend Functional – At Risk Poor Nature Creek Reach 2 No Apparent Trend

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Reach 1 of Nature Creek, based on observations during the PFC survey, appears to be connected to its floodplain and the riparian-wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent. Floodplain and channel characteristics such as rocks, overflow channels and large wood are adequate to dissipate energy. Surveyors indicated that plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody material. However, the stream in this reach did not appear to be vertically stable or in balance with the water and sediment being supplied. Notes indicated that historic incision disconnected the stream from its historic floodplain. The channel has now widened, creating an inset floodplain.

Reach 2 of Nature Creek, based on observations during the PFC survey, is in a more degraded condition compared to Reach 1. The stream is not connected to its floodplain and the stream is not vertically stable. In general, floodplain and channel characteristics are not adequate to dissipate energy, but plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody material. This reach is not in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the watershed. The existing stream channel through this reach is mostly a gully channel, and has eroded down to more resistant gravel/cobble layer. Stream Temperature

There is no data available to assess stream temperatures in the North and South Nature pastures. PFC surveys in 2014 indicate that there is good riparian vegetation composition and vigor in Reach 1 that helps with shading the stream, and that the majority of the riparian vegetation integrity was maintained following the Bailey Butte fire. However, Reach 2 did not exhibit good riparian vegetation composition and vigor, and this reach of stream burned hotter with more mortality during the Bailey Butte fire. Sediment/Turbidity

Reach 1 of Nature Creek, based on observations during the PFC survey, appears to have adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows, but there may be some lateral stream movement that is not associated with natural channel sinuosity. Streambank vegetation in Reach 1 is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events. There was

evidence during surveys in 2014 of post-fire storm high flow events that had eroded hillsides and roads, depositing large amounts of sediment in the stream. Fine sediments are likely higher in Nature Creek post-fire due to these events.

Reach 2 of Nature Creek, based on observations during the PFC survey, is in a more degraded condition compared to Reach 1. There is not adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows, and lateral stream movement is not associated with natural sinuosity. Streambank vegetation is not comprised of those plants or plant communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Riparian hardwood vegetation is discussed in more detail under “Stream Temperature” above.

End of Season Monitoring

Table 46 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMA in the North and South Nature pasture from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 46. End of Season Monitoring Results for North and South Nature Pasture, 2010-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

North Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N No channel or 20% 4” * Y/NM/NM Nature-1 M M M M M hardwoods.

South Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N Y/NM/N No channel or 20% 4” * Y/NM/NM Nature-2 M M M M M hardwoods.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards from stubble height have been met every year from 2010 to 2015. Because there is no channel or hardwoods present at these DMAs, bank alteration and woody browse is not measured.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout are present in the South Nature pasture. Distribution data for the area indicates redband trout are present in for approximately 0.3 miles within the pasture. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this pasture; however, it is likely they are

present in Nature Creek as well.

Trout Creek Allotment

The Trout Creek allotment consists of 26,364 acres. The allotment is located within portions of Foley Creek, Headwaters Trout Creek, Opal Creek and Upper McKay Creek subwatersheds. There are no pastures within this allotment. Figure 5 displays allotment and pasture boundaries, as well as DMA locations, fish distribution, including Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat in the allotment, and 303(d) water quality limited stream segments. Data will be displayed by subwatershed rather than by pasture (Table 47). End of season monitoring results will be displayed at the end of this section for the entire allotment.

Figure 5. Snowshoe Allotment, Pastures, Streams, Redband Trout and Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Distribution. Map also includes 303(d) water quality limited stream reaches.

Table 47. Summary of Subwatershed Conditions and Impairments in the Trout Creek Allotment Sensitive Species Stream Riparian Hardwood Subwatershed Habitat/Channel Sediment/Turbidity Temperature Vegetation Morphology Foley Creek FAR FAR FAR NPF

Headwaters Trout NPF FAR FAR NPF Creek Opal Creek NPF FAR FAR FAR Upper McKay Creek NPF NPF FAR NPF Overall NPF FAR FAR NPF No Data Collected (ND)

Foley Creek Subwatershed

The Foley Creek subwatershed includes two major tributaries to Trout Creek: Big Log and Dutchman Creek. Foley Creek is a Category 1 watershed (fish-bearing and anadromous). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels with some C-type channels near the forest boundary. A large majority of this subwatershed in the Trout Creek allotment is forested. There are two water developments within this subwatershed. There are no DMAs in the Foley Creek subwatershed. Tables 48, 49 and 50 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this subwatershed.

Table 48. Summary of stream data in the Foley Creek Subwatershed

Survey

Stream Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II Dutchman Creek 1990 C 34 (NPF) 16 (NPF) – 1 Level II Dutchman Creek 1999 C 2.8 (PF) 11 (NPF) 32 (NPF) 16 (NPF) 2 (PF) 7 (PF) – 1 Level II Dutchman Creek 1999 B 2.3 (FAR) 9 (NPF) 39 (NPF) 20 (NPF) 7 (PF) 8 (PF) – 2 BLS Big Log Creek – 1 1992 G 26 (NPF) 70 (FAR) BLS Big Log Creek – 1 1996 G 1.8 (FAR) 8 (PF) 114 (PF) 63 (NPF) 13 (FAR) 64 (FAR) 1 (NPF) BLS Big Log Creek – 2 1992 B 22 (NPF) 64 (FAR) BLS Big Log Creek – 2 1996 B 1.8 (PF) 10 (NPF) 106 (PF) 53 (NPF) 4 (PF) 62 (FAR) 5 (NPF) BLS Big Log Creek – 3 1992 A 14 (FAR) 47 (NPF) BLS Big Log Creek – 3 1996 A 1.6 (FAR) 10 (PF) 22 (NPF) 58 (NPF) 2 (PF) 55 (NPF) 1 (NPF) BLS Dutchman Creek 1992 C 22 (NPF) 70 (FAR) 9 (NPF) – 1 BLS Dutchman Creek 1996 C 2.3 (PF) 11 (NPF) 45 (NPF) 46 (NPF) 3 (PF) 81 (PF) 41 (FAR) – 1 BLS Dutchman Creek 1992 B 10 (FAR) 80 (PF) 28 (NPF) – 2 BLS Dutchman Creek 1996 B 1.5 (PF) 12(FAR) 96 (PF) 29 (NPF) 20 (FAR) 73 (FAR) 2 (NPF) – 2 BLS Dutchman Creek 1992 B 19 (FAR) 81 (PF) 4 (NPF) – 3 BLS Dutchman Creek 1996 B 1.7 (PF) 7 (NPF) 82 (FAR) 34 (NPF) 1 (PF) 54 (NPF) 0 (NPF) – 3

BLS Dutchman Creek 1992 A 11 (FAR) 73 (FAR) 2 (NPF) – 4 BLS Dutchman Creek 1996 A 1.9 (FAR) 7 (PF) 43 (NPF) 52 (NPF) 1 (PF) 59 (NPF) 0 (NPF) – 4 CONDITIONS IN FOLEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED FAR FAR FAR NPF FAR PF FAR NPF

Table 49. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Foley Creek Subwatershed PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR FOLEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED

Table 50. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Foley Creek Subwatershed 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated 06/02/94 07/18/94 41 24 17 FAR 05/25/95 09/20/95 113 100 13 PF 06/05/96 09.26.96 108 54 54 FAR 05/24/97 09/18/97 112 73 39 FAR Big Log Creek, 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 42 50 NPF near forest 07/08/00 10/22/00 101 60 42 FAR boundary 05/18/01 11/07/01 168 155 13 PF 07/13/02 10/10/02 84 68 16 FAR 06/04/03 10/08/03 82 13 69 NPF 05/22/04 10/26/04 152 100 52 FAR Big Log Creek, 06/24/94 09/15/94 78 71 7 FAR upstream of #2720 road 06/27/96 09/25/96 83 83 0 PF crossing 06/02/94 09/15/94 99 39 60 NPF 05/25/95 09/20/95 113 90 23 FAR 06/04/96 09/26/96 109 81 28 FAR Dutchman Creek, 05/16/97 09/11/97 113 73 40 FAR near forest 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 39 53 NPF boundary 06/23/99 10/03/99 97 72 25 FAR 07/04/00 10/22/00 105 67 38 FAR 05/17/01 11/08/01 169 119 50 FAR 06/02/14 11/01/14 147 138 9 PF Dutchman Creek, 06/24/94 09/15/94 77 77 0 PF upstream of #2720 road 05/15/97 09/12/97 113 113 0 PF crossing Dutchman Creek, upstream of 05/15/97 09/12/97 113 81 32 FAR #2740-015 crossing

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Dutchman and Big Log Creek have been surveyed periodically in the Foley Creek subwatershed beginning in 1990. The most recent data available in this subwatershed is from 1999, but this

data is still pertinent to the area based on the assumption that no large scale changes due to fire, floods, insect and disease outbreaks, or other large landscape events have taken place that would cause any considerable change since the 1990’s. In general, data shows that entrenchment ratios, width/depth ratios and pools are Functioning at Risk, while large wood is Not Properly Functioning. In fact, large wood numbers in all surveys were considered Not Properly Functioning. There is comparable trend data available on Dutchman Creek (Level II survey near the forest boundary). In general, it appears that there was a static trend in pools per mile and large wood numbers between 1990 and 1999. There are no DMAs in the Foley Creek subwatershed, so no current BLS data is available for streams in this subwatershed. Stream Temperature

Data is fairly abundant for Dutchman and Big Log Creek in terms of stream temperature. In general, water temperatures in this subwatershed are Functioning at Risk, although there seems to be an improving trend in stream temperatures (Table 50). For example, at the long-term temperature monitoring site on Dutchman Creek near the forest boundary, temperatures were either Functioning at Risk or Not Properly Functioning until 2014, where there were only 9 instances where the seven-day average maximum exceeded 18 °C. There appears to be less groundwater influence in this area as compared to other areas such as Bridge Creek based on the change in stream temperatures from year to year. Climate likely plays a larger part in stream temperatures here as compared to other areas analyzed for this AMP.

Shade is Functioning at Risk in the Foley Creek subwatershed. Trend data (from 1992 to 1996) shows, in general, that shade was static during the period of survey in Big Log Creek, and was generally on a downward trend in Dutchman Creek. There were large reductions in shade in Reach 3 and 4 of Dutchman Creek from 1992 to 1996.

Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability in the Foley Creek subwatershed is considered to be Functioning at Risk. BLS data from 1992 to 1996 shows an overall improving trend in bank stability in Big Log Creek and Dutchman Creek at all reaches except for Reach 2 on Dutchman Creek, where unstable banks increased from 10 to 20 percent from 1992 to 1996. In Big Log Creek, there were large improvements in bank stability during this time period, sometimes improving from Not Properly Functioning to Properly Functioning. Only two sites were measured for percent surface fines in 1999 in Dutchman Creek. Based on those measurements, percent surface fines are considered to be Properly Functioning. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no PFC data available for the Foley Creek subwatershed. BLS data collected in Big Log and Dutchman Creek in 1992 and 1996 indicate that hardwood shade in this subwatershed in Not Properly Functioning. All but one measurement of hardwood shade was Not Properly Functioning. However, based on personal observations in this subwatershed, this areas is heavily dominated by conifers, and riparian areas did not appear to have abundant hardwoods due to overstory shading by conifers.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout and Mid-Columbia River steelhead are present in the Foley Creek subwatershed. Distribution data for the subwatershed indicates that redband are present in Big Log Creek for approximately 3 miles and in Dutchman Creek for approximately 2.3 miles. Both Big Log and Dutchman Creek are designated as Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat (approximately 1.5 miles of Big Log Creek and 2.3 miles of Dutchman Creek). No formal steelhead surveys have been conducted in these streams, but it is assumed that they are present in based on available habitat. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this subwatershed; however, it is likely that they are present in both Big Log and Dutchman Creek, and potentially some tributaries.

Headwaters Trout Creek Subwatershed

The Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed includes the headwaters of Trout Creek and three major tributaries to Trout Creek: Cartwright, Potlid and Dick Creek. Trout Creek is a Category 1 watershed (fish-bearing and anadromous). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels with some C-type channels near the forest boundary, especially on mainstem Trout Creek. A large majority of this subwatershed in the Trout Creek allotment is forested. Dick Creek, a tributary to Trout Creek, has a meadow approximately ½ mile in length near the confluence with Trout Creek that was restored in 2013. There are 18 water developments in this subwatershed. There is one DMA in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed. It is located in the upper reaches of Potlid Creek. Tables 51, 52 and 53 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this subwatershed.

Table 51. Summary of stream data in the Headwaters Trout Creek Subwatershed

ear

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Y Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II Trout Creek – 1 1995 B 27 (NPF) 24 (NPF) 0 (PF) Level II Trout Creek – 1 2011 B 2.8 (FAR) 16 (PF) 25 (NPF) 3 (NPF) 10 (PF) 28 (FAR) Level II Trout Creek – 2 1995 A 42 (NPF) 66 (NPF) 0 (PF) Level II Trout Creek – 2 2011 A 3.3 (NPF) 12 (FAR) 31 (NPF) 11 (NPF) 10 (PF) 29 (FAR) Level II Dick Creek – 1 2013 A 2.2 (FAR) 13 (NPF) 56 (FAR) 35 (NPF) 23 (NPF) 52 (NPF) Leve II Dick Creek – 2 2013 A 10.8 (NPF) 6 (PF) 29 (NPF) 9 (NPF) 24 (NPF) 40 (NPF) Level II Cartwright Creek 1990 B 28 (NPF) 37 (NPF) 0 (PF) – 1 Level II Cartwright Creek 1997 B 2.2 (PF) 17 (PF) 38 (NPF) 24 (NPF) 4 (PF) – 1 Level II Potlid Creek – 1 1991 B 5 (NPF) 35 (NPF) 197 (PF) Level II Potlid Creek – 1 1997 B 2.1 (PF) 14 (PF) 34 (NPF) 18 (NPF) 14 (FAR) Level II Potlid Creek – 1 2014 B 2.4 (FAR) 16 (PF) 15 (NPF) 11 (NPF) 14 (FAR) 24 (FAR) Level II Bull Creek – 1 1990 A 43 (NPF) 19 (NPF) 0 (PF) BLS Potlid Creek – 2013 B 103 (PF) 264 (PF) 1 (PF) 62 (FAR) DMA BLS Bull Creek – 1 1992 A 20 (NPF) 29 (NPF) 70 (FAR) 3 (NPF) BLS Bull Creek – 1 2011 A 1.6 (FAR) 9 (PF) 72 (FAR) 19 (FAR) 66 (FAR) 16 (NPF)

BLS Dick Creek - 1 1992 A 22 (NPF) 47 (NPF) 57 (NPF) 3 (NPF) BLS Dick Creek – 1 1999 A 3.0 (NPF) 7 (PF) 12 (NPF) 5 (NPF) 0 (PF) 83 (PF) 41 (FAR) BLS Dick Creek – 2 1992 A 31 (NPF) 37 (NPF) 77 (FAR) 3 (NPF) BLS Dick Creek – 2 1999 A 7.9 (NPF) 4 (PF) 61 (FAR) 3 (NPF) 0 (PF) 60 (FAR) 0 (NPF) BLS Trout Creek, West 1992 A 2 (PF) 75 (FAR) 9 (NPF) Fork – 1 BLS Trout Creek, West 1999 A 7.0 (NPF) 5 (PF) 109 (PF) 1 (NPF) 1 (PF) 77 (FAR) 24 (NPF) Fork – 1 MIMS Potlid Creek DMA 2011 A 484 (PF) 30 (NPF) 38 (FAR) MIMS Potlid Creek DMA 2014 A 225 (PF) 70 (NPF) 69 (NPF) CONDITIONS IN HEADWATERS TROUT CREEK FAR PF NPF NPF FAR FAR FAR NPF SUBWATERSHED

Table 52. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Headwaters Trout Creek Subwatershed PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR HEADWATERS TROUT CREEK SUBWATERSHED

Table 53. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Headwaters Trout Creek Subwatershed 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated 07/20/94 09/15/94 52 13 39 NPF 05/20/95 09/15/95 113 77 36 FAR 06/04/96 09/26/96 109 59 50 NPF Cartwright Creek, 05/24/97 09/17/97 111 70 41 FAR near the forest 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 44 48 NPF boundary 06/23/99 10/03/99 97 59 38 FAR 07/07/00 10/09/00 89 39 50 NPF 05/17/01 10/01/01 132 99 33 FAR Cartwright Creek, near the Road 06/27/96 09/25/96 83 21 62 NPF #2720 crossing 06/02/94 09/16/94 100 54 46 FAR 05/19/95 09/15/95 113 83 30 FAR 06/03/96 09/27/96 109 68 41 FAR Potlid Creek, near 05/16/97 09/12/97 114 69 45 FAR the forest 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 46 46 FAR boundary 06/22/99 10/05/99 98 76 22 FAR 07/05/00 10/10/00 92 64 28 FAR 05/08/01 09/28/01 92 73 19 FAR Potlid Creek, 06/27/96 09/25/96 83 30 53 NPF downstream of Road #2720-755 05/16/97 09/11/97 113 67 46 FAR crossing Potlid Creek, near Road #2720/ 06/02/94 09/16/94 99 24 75 NPF 2720-750 junction Potlid Creek, 07/20/94 09/16/94 51 26 25 FAR upstream of Road #2720 road 05/15/97 09/12/97 113 110 3 PF crossing Potlid Creek, 05/15/97 09/12/97 161 161 0 PF

upstream of Road #2725 crossing 05/20/95 09/15/95 113 89 24 FAR 06/04/96 09/26*96 109 59 50 FAR 05/15/97 09/10/97 113 89 24 FAR 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 57 35 FAR 06/23/99 10/01/99 95 77 18 FAR 07/04/00 09/16/00 69 36 33 FAR Trout Creek, at 05/09/01 09/27/01 136 105 31 FAR forest boundary 05/22/02 10/10/02 136 74 62 FAR 04/19/03 10/08/03 167 125 42 FAR 06/04/04 10/26/04 139 114 25 FAR 06/07/05 10/16/05 126 100 26 FAR 05/06/06 10/11/06 113 113 0 PF 06/20/09 09/21/09 88 81 7 PF 06/30/11 12/31/11 173 173 0 PF 05/20/95 09/15/95 113 89 24 FAR Trout Creek, 06/17/03 10/09/03 107 47 60 NPF approximately ¼ 05/31/12 12/31/12 208 208 1 PF mile upstream of 06/04/13 10/31/13 144 95 49 FAR forest boundary 06/02/14 10/31/14 146 92 54 FAR Trout Creek, downstream of 06/03/14 10/31/14 145 128 17 FAR the confluence with Dick Creek 06/06/05 10/17/05 126 126 0 PF Trout Creek, 05/05/06 10/12/06 113 113 0 PF upstream of Road 06/19/09 09/22/09 88 80 8 FAR #2725 crossing 06/04/14 10/31/14 145 109 36 FAR Trout Creek, ¼ 06/03/94 09/15/94 98 90 8 FAR mile upstream of confluence with 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 92 0 PF Dick Creek Trout Creek, upstream of Road 06/22/99 10/02/99 95 95 0 PF #2725-100 crossing Trout Creek, upstream of confluence with 06/03/94 09/16/94 99 99 0 PF West Fork Trout Creek Bull Creek, near 07/19/94 09/19/94 52 17 35 NPF confluence with 05/15/97 09/10/97 113 76 37 FAR Trout Creek 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 54 38 FAR 05/14/97 09/11/97 113 48 65 NPF Dick Creek, 07/21/12 10/31/12 97 60 37 FAR upstream of Road 06/04/13 10/31/13 144 77 67 FAR #2725 crossing 06/02/14 10/31/14 146 51 95 NPF Dick Creek, 07/20/12 10/31/12 97 75 22 FAR approximately ¾ 06/04/13 10/31/13 144 118 26 FAR miles upstream of confluence 06/04/14 10/31/14 146 138 8 PF with Trout Creek Trout Creek 05/15/97 09/10/97 113 113 0 PF

Tributary, upstream of 06/24/98 09/29/98 92 62 30 FAR confluence with Trout Creek West Fork Trout Creek, upstream 06/03/94 09/15/94 98 98 0 PF of confluence with Trout Creek West Fork Trout Creek, upstream 05/15/97 09/12/97 113 113 0 PF of Road #2730 crossing

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Trout Creek, along with Dick, Cartwright, Potlid, Bull and West Fork Trout Creek have been surveyed periodically since 1990. The most recent data available for each of the streams within this subwatershed is used to assess sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. In general, data shows that entrenchment ratios are Functioning at Risk and width to depth ratios are Properly Functioning, but pools and large woody debris are considered to be Not Properly Functioning in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed. In fact, large wood numbers in all surveys except for one were considered Not Properly Functioning. There is comparable trend data available on two reaches of Trout Creek, Cartwright creek, Potlid Creek and Dick Creek. Pools remained static in these streams with the exception of Potlid Creek, where large wood numbers decreased from 1997 to 2014. Pools in all stream appeared to be on a declining trend. Restoration projects completed in 2013 on Dick Creek and 2014/2015 on Trout Creek (lower 1 mile) have improved large wood conditions, and over time should improve the number of pools, entrenchment ratios and width/depth ratios.

Notes from BLS survey on Potlid Creek at the DMA in 2013 indicated that the section of stream flows through a mostly intact forest with good riparian vegetation through most of the reach. However, harvest was evident through numerous sections of the survey. Some areas had evidence of harvest very close to the stream (within the RHCA). Upstream of the DMA, there was evidence of prescribed fire in the area that had partially consumed some of the instream large woody debris. There was also evidence of large woody debris being cut out of Potlid Creek in several areas. Even with these observations, pools and large wood met standards during this survey at the DMA. Stream Temperature

Data is abundant in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed in terms of stream temperature. In general, water temperatures are Functioning at Risk (Table 53). The general observation in this subwatershed is as you move up in elevation, stream temperatures appear to be more desirable than those further downstream near the forest boundary. As with Foley Creek, there appears to be less groundwater influence in this area as compared to other areas such as Bridge Creek based on the change in stream temperatures from year to year. Climate likely plays a larger role in stream temperatures here compared to other areas analyzed for this AMP.

Shade is Functioning at Risk in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed. Trend data derived

from BLS surveys in Bull, Dick, and Trout Creeks show a mostly static trend in shade. Dick Creek Reach 1 had a large increase in shade from 1992 to 1999 (53% to 83%).

Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed is considered to be Functioning at Risk. Level II surveys in Trout, Dick, Cartwright and Potlid Creeks show a static trend in bank stability. BLS surveys in Bull and Dick Creek (1992-1999) show a large improvement in bank stability during that time period. MIMS surveys at the Potlid Creek DMA, however, show a large increase in bank alteration from 2011 to 2014. Percent surface fines are also Functioning at Risk in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed. MIMS data from 2011 and 2014 shows a large increase in percent surface fines, which is likely tied to the large increase in bank alteration during this time period. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no PFC data available for the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed. BLS data collected in Bull, Dick and West Fork Trout Creek show either a static or improving trend in riparian hardwood shade from 1992 to 1999. However, based on personal observation in this subwatershed, this area is heavily dominated by conifers, and riparian areas did not appear to have abundant hardwoods due to overstory shading by conifers.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout and Mid-Columbia River steelhead are present in the Headwaters Trout Creek subwatershed. Distribution data for the subwatershed indicates that redband are present in Cartwright Creek for approximately 1.7 miles, Potlid Creek for 3 miles, Trout Creek for 3.5 miles, West Fork Trout Creek for 1.6 miles, Bull Creek for 0.7 miles, and Dick Creek for 0.5 miles. Cartwright, Potlid and Trout Creek are designated as Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat (approximately 1.7 miles of Cartwright Creek, 2.2 miles of Potlid Creek and 2.7 miles of Trout Creek). No formal steelhead surveys have been conducted in these streams, but it is assumed that they are present in based on available habitat. Steelhead spawning has been documented in lower Trout Creek on a yearly basis from the forest boundary upstream to the Road #2725 crossing. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this subwatershed; however, it is likely that they are present in in all tributaries in this subwatershed.

Opal Creek Subwatershed

The Opal Creek subwatershed includes only one major tributary to Trout Creek, which is Auger Creek. Opal Creek is a Category 1 watershed (fish-bearing and anadromous). Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels. A large majority of this subwatershed in the Trout Creek allotment is forested. There is one water development within this subwatershed. There are no DMAs in the Opal Creek subwatershed. Tables 54, 55 and 56 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this subwatershed.

Table 54. Summary of stream data in the Opal Creek Subwatershed

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II Auger Creek – 1 1990 B 14 (NPF) 5 (NPF) 0 (PF) Level II Auger Creek – 1 2013 B 1 (NPF) 10 (NPF) 10 (PF) 13 (PF) BLS Auger Creek – 1 1992 B 3 (PF) 43 (NPF) 21 (NPF) BLS Auger Creek – 1 1999 B 3.2 (FAR) 11 (NPF) 65 (FAR) 16 (NPF) 77 (FAR) 41 (FAR) BLS Auger Creek – 2 1992 B 9 (PF) 72 (FAR) 56 (PF) BLS Auger Creek – 2 1999 B 2.1 (PF) 5 (NPF) 53 (FAR) 30 (NPF) 84 (PF) 47 (FAR) BLS Auger Creek – 3 1992 E 4 (PF) 23 (NPF) 42 (FAR) BLS Auger Creek - 3 1999 E 3.3 (PF) 7 (PF) 73 (FAR) 4 (NPF) 75 (FAR) 45 (FAR) BLS Auger Creek – 4 1992 B 17 (FAR) 64 (FAR) 55 (PF) BLS Auger Creek – 4 1999 B 6.2 (NPF) 8 (NPF) 79 (FAR) 13 (NPF) 81 (PF) 57 (PF) BLS Auger Creek – 5 1992 B 13 (FAR) 60 (FAR) 45 (FAR) BLS Auger Creek – 5 1999 B 5.5 (NPF) 7 (NPF) 83 (FAR) 39 (NPF) 75 (FAR) 9 (NPF) CONDITIONS IN OPAL CREEK SUBWATERSHED FAR NPF FAR NPF FAR PF FAR FAR

Table 55. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Opal Creek Subwatershed PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating NO PFC OR MODIFIED PFANKUCH FOR OPAL CREEK SUBWATERSHED

Table 56. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Opal Creek subwatershed 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated 06/04/96 09/26/96 109 79 30 FAR 05/15/97 09/10/97 113 113 0 PF 07/07/00 11/01/00 112 112 0 PF Auger Creek, at 06/15/02 09/19/02 91 76 15 FAR forest boundary 06/11/12 10/31/12 147 131 16 FAR 06/25/13 10/31/13 121 51 70 NPF 06/05/14 10/31/14 143 108 35 FAR 06/03/94 09/15/94 98 79 19 FAR Auger Creek, 05/15/97 09/10/97 113 133 0 PF downstream of 06/23/99 10/01/99 95 95 0 PF Road #2730-150 05/07/03 08/23/03 103 87 16 FAR crossing 06/04/04 11/08/04 152 152 0 PF 06/07/05 10/16/05 126 120 6 PF

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Auger Creek has been surveyed periodically in the Opal Creek subwatershed beginning in 1992 with BLS surveys along the entire reach. In general, data shows that entrenchment and pools per mile are Functioning at Risk, and width to depth ratios and large woody debris are Not Properly Functioning. In fact, large wood numbers in all surveys were considered Not Properly Functioning. There is comparable trend data available (Level II survey near the forest boundary in 1990 and 2013). It appears that there has been a downward trend in pools and a static trend in large wood debris. BLS surveys conducted in 1999 on Auger Creek indicated all reaches had

pool numbers that are considered Functioning at Risk. Stream Temperature

Data at two long-term temperature monitoring sites in Auger Creek indicate that water temperatures are Functioning at Risk (Table 56). In 2013, the number 7-day average maximum temperatures greater than 18 °C was greater than the days with less than 18 °C for the 2013 season, and thus was considered to be Not Properly Functioning. There appears to be more groundwater influence in Auger Creek as compared to other places in the Trout Creek allotment such as Trout or Dutchman Creek based on the small change in 7-day average maximum water temperature from year to year (with the exception of 2013, which appears to be an outlier).

Shade is Functioning at Risk in the Opal Creek subwatershed. Trend data (from 1992 to 1999) show, in general, that shade was improving at all five sites surveyed. All reaches improved to either a Functioning at Risk or Properly Functioning status during that time period.

Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability in the Opal Creek subwatershed is considered to be Functioning at Risk. Level II surveys in 1990 and again repeated in 2013 showed bank stability was Properly Functioning, although there was an increase in unstable banks from 0% in 1990 to 10% in 2013. Reaches 4 and 5 showed the highest percentage of unstable banks, but were still considered Functioning at Risk. Only one site was measured for percent surface fines in 2013 in lower Auger Creek. Based on this measurement, percent surface fines are considered to be Properly Functioning, which coincides with unstable bank measurements in the subwatershed.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no PFC data available for the Opal Creek subwatershed. BLS data collected in Auger Creek in 1992 and 1999 indicated that hardwood shade in this subwatershed is Functioning at Risk. For the most part, hardwood shade stayed static in Auger Creek, although there was a large improvement in hardwood shade in Reach 1 (near the forest boundary) and a large decrease in Reach 5 (near the allotment boundary). However, compared to other areas in the Trout Creek allotment, riparian hardwood vegetation is functioning better in the Opal Creek subwatershed.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout and Mid-Columbia River steelhead are present in the Opal Creek subwatershed. Distribution data for the subwatershed indicates that redband are present in Auger Creek for approximately 3.2 miles. 2.1 miles of Auger Creek from the forest boundary upstream is designated as Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat. No formal steelhead surveys have been conducted in these streams, but it is assumed that they are present in based on available habitat. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this subwatershed; however, it is likely that they are present throughout Auger Creek.

Upper McKay Creek Subwatershed

The Upper McKay Creek subwatershed includes only one major tributary to McKay Creek, which is Little McKay Creek. Streams in this pasture are predominately Rosgen A and B-type channels. A large majority of this subwatershed in the Trout Creek allotment is forested. There are seven water developments within this subwatershed. There is one DMA in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed. It is located on Little McKay Creek approximately 1.2 miles downstream from the headwaters. Tables 57, 58 and 59 summarize the existing condition of streams for the aquatic measures identified for analysis within this subwatershed.

Table 57. Summary of stream data in the Upper McKay Creek Subwatershed

Stream Survey Type Stream and Reach Survey Year Rosgen Channel Type Entrenchment Ratio Width/Depth Ratio Pools/Mile LWD/Mile Banks Unstable (%) Bank Alteration (%) mm <5.7 Fines (%) Shade (%) Hardwood Shade (%)

Level II Little McKay – 3 1989 B 26 (NPF) 51 (NPF) 51 (NPF) 11 (NPF) Level II Little McKay – 3 1997 B 1.6 (PF) 15 (PF) 14 (NPF) 20 (NPF) 11 (FAR) Level II Little McKay – 4 1997 B 2.7 (FAR) 10 (NPF) 23 (NPF) 27 (NPF) 1 (PF) Level II Little McKay – 5 1997 B 2.5 (FAR) 6 (NPF) 16 (NPF) 19 (NPF) 1 (PF) Level II Little McKay - 6 1997 B 5.0 (NPF) 6 (NPF) 16 (NPF) 13 (NPF) 7 (PF) Level II Little McKay Trib 2005 A 2.3 (FAR) 18 (NPF) 5 (NPF) 47 (NPF) 4 (PF) 36 (FAR) 4 – 1 Level II Little McKay Trib 2005 A 2.7 (NPF) 12 (PF) 26 (NPF) 33 (NPF) 49 (NPF) 21 (FAR) 4 – 2 Level II Little McKay Trib 2005 A 2.6 (NPF) 9 (PF) 13 (NPF) 78 (PF) 23 (NPF) 40 (FAR) 6 - 1 ODFW Little McKay – 2 2007 B 1.9 (PF) 14 (PF) 136 (PF) ODFW Little McKay – 3 2007 B 2.0 (PF) 9 (NPF) 76 (FAR) BLS Little McKay Trib 1995 A 6 (PF) 42 (NPF) 45 (NPF) 42 (NPF) 4 – R2 BLS Little McKay Trib 1995 A 6 (PF) 43 (NPF) 53 (NPF) 52 (NPF) 6 (NPF) 6 – 1 BLS Little McKay Trib 1995 A 10 (PF) 53 (FAR) 22 (NPF) 68 (FAR) 0 (NPF) 6 – 2 CONDITIONS IN UPPER MCKAY CREEK FAR FAR NPF NPF FAR FAR NPF NPF SUBWATERSHED

Table 58. Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys in Upper McKay Creek Subwatershed PFC Rating Modified Pfankuch Stream Reach Rating Functional – At Risk Little McKay Creek - 1 Fair Upward Trend Functional – At Risk Little McKay Creek - 2 Good Upward Trend

Table 59. Stream temperature rating by location and year in the Upper McKay Creek Subwatershed 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature Site Name Start Date Stop Date Condition Rating #7-Day Averages # <18°C # > 18 °C Calculated Little McKay 06/13/95 09/09/95 83 15 68 NPF Creek, near 05/29/96 09/24/96 113 49 64 NPF downstream end 07/09/05 09/25/05 79 62 17 FAR

of allotment 06/15/06 10/15/06 116 86 30 FAR boundary 06/05/07 10/3/07 115 102 13 FAR 05/14/08 10/16/08 150 147 3 PF 06/20/09 09/17/09 84 70 14 FAR 07/20/12 10/31/12 98 98 0 PF 06/04/13 10/31/13 144 143 1 PF 05/28/14 10/31/14 151 151 0 PF

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Little McKay Creek and two tributaries have been surveyed periodically in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed portion of the Trout Creek allotment beginning in 1989. The most recent data is from 2005/2007, and the only comparable data present is on Reach 3 of Little McKay Creek (1989 and repeated in 1997). In general, entrenchment and width to depth ratios are Functioning at Risk, while pools and large wood per mile are Not Properly Functioning. In fact, most surveys on Little McKay Creek and its tributaries indicate that pools and large wood are well below standards. Comparing Level II surveys on Little McKay Creek from 1989 to 1997 indicates a downward trend in both large wood and pools in that particular reach. Pools and large wood are lacking in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed portion of the Trout Creek allotment. Stream Temperature

Data at one long-term temperature monitoring site on Little McKay Creek at the downstream end of the allotment indicates that water temperatures are Functioning at Risk, although there appears to be an improving trend in water temperatures as compared to the mid-1990’s. Monitoring in 1995 and 1996 indicated that temperatures were Not Properly Functioning, with a large majority of the 7-day average maximum temperatures over 18°C. The last three years of monitoring (2012-2014) showed a great improvement in water temperatures, with only one 7-day average maximum temperature over 18°C in the three years of monitoring.

Shade is Not Properly Functioning in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed, although the most recent shade data is from 1995 on tributaries to Little McKay Creek. The PFC surveys along Little McKay Creek indicated that there was lots of good shade with a few sunny gaps, and that overall, there was a diverse composition of riparian-wetland vegetation that had high vigor.

Sediment/Turbidity

Bank stability in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed is considered to be Functioning at Risk. Level II surveys in 1997 along Little McKay Creek indicated that all bank measurements except for the lowest reach had unstable banks <10%. On tributaries to Little McKay Creek surveyed in 2005, measurements indicated two of the three reaches had unstable banks that are Not Properly Functioning. PFC surveys on Little McKay Creek in 2014 indicated that there was adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows, and that vegetation has root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events. Percent surface fines data collected on tributaries to Little McKay Creek in 2005 indicated that parameter is Functioning at Risk, with values ranging from 21% to 40%.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

PFC data collected on Little McKay Creek Reach 1 indicated that there is a diverse composition of riparian-wetland vegetation that has high vigor and that is comprised of plant communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events. However, Reach 1 lacks a diverse age-class distribution of riparian wetland vegetation. In general, it was noted that this reach was comprised of single aged species. For Reach 2 of Little McKay Creek, riparian vegetation appeared to be in better condition. In this reach, it was noted that there was also a diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation that was lacking in Reach 1. Hardwood shade values that have been collected are older (1989 and 1995), but indicate that hardwood shade is Not Properly Functioning in the Little McKay Creek subwatershed.

Aquatic Species

Redband trout are present in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed. Distribution data for the subwatershed indicates that redband are present in Little McKay Creek for 3.0 miles. The McKay Creek watershed, including Little McKay Creek, has an experimental population of Mid- Columbia River steelhead trout, but do not receive the same protections as non-experimental populations under the Endangered Species Act. It is unknown whether experimental steelhead trout reside in this section of Little McKay Creek. No formal surveys for Columbia spotted frogs have occurred in streams in this subwatershed; however, it is likely that they are present throughout Little McKay Creek

End of Season Monitoring – Trout Creek Allotment

Table 60 displays end of season monitoring results at the DMAs in the Trout Creek allotment from 2010-2015 and a Y if standards were met or a N if standards were not met.

Table 60. End of Season Monitoring Results for Trout Creek Allotment, 2015-2015

Standards 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NOTES

Browse DMA Stubble Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Bank Alternation Height Stubble Browse Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody Stubble Height/Bank Browse Alt./Woody

No channel or Trout-1 10% 6” * Y/Y/Y Y/NM/NM Y/Y/NM Y/Y/NM Y/Y/NM N/Y/NM hardwoods.

No channel or Trout-2 10% 6” * Y/Y/Y Y/NM/NM Y/Y/NM Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y Y/Y/Y hardwoods.

* - switch of preference from grass to wood species

Standards for stubble height have been met every year from 2010 to 2015 except in 2015 at the DMA in Little McKay Creek. There were identified issues of unauthorized cattle in the Trout Creek allotment in 2015, and may be contributing to this DMA not meeting standards. Standards for bank alteration and woody browse, when measured, met standards at both DMAs from 2010 to 2015.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 - No Action

In summary, under Alternative 1 grazing would not be reauthorized and the current permit holders would be notified that their term grazing permits would be cancelled. All Term Grazing Permits would be cancelled after 2 years, pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 part 16.24, and 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 222.4(4)(1). All livestock grazing in the Bear AMP planning area would be removed. Effects Common to All Allotments

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

There would be beneficial impact to hydrology and aquatic species and their habitat because livestock grazing impacts would be removed from the planning area. These impacts include bank trampling that causes bank instability, increased sedimentation and reduction in riparian hardwood species from browse. Stream form and function would improve except in areas where channel incision has occurred.

Riparian shrubs would expand in areas where there remains a seed source for the shrubs and where the canopy opens as the result of loss of live trees. Riparian shrubs would increase streamside shade and reduce water temperatures as well as provide cover and habitat for insects, a food source for fish and frogs.

Cancelling the grazing permit would remove grazing pressure from the project area and eliminates livestock from trampling banks and consuming riparian vegetation. Magilligan and McDowell (1997) noted that channel adjustment processes are both physical (adjustments in channel morphology accomplished by localized scour and deposition, and changes in channel hydraulic characteristics) and biological (increases in vegetation and thus flow resistance in the riparian zone), but biological adjustments are considered particularly important following grazing exclosures. Removal of grazing pressure allows riparian vegetation to increase in height and percent cover, resulting in bank stabilization, provision of shade, and restoration of natural organic inputs to the channel (Kauffman et al. 1983; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Elmore and Beschta 1987). Woody riparian vegetation is particularly effective in improving channel form and ecological conditions (Magilligan and McDowell 1997). These are all characteristics of healthy fish and frog habitat.

Geomorphic theory and empirical studies suggest that when cattle grazing pressure is eliminated,

vegetation cover (including woody vegetation) increases and banks become more stable (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Stream channel width decreases and depth increases, usually resulting in lower width-to-depth ratios (Stuber 1985; Clifton 1989).

The clearest response of streams was documented by Clifton (1989) at a 50-year old cattle exclosure on Wickiup Creek in eastern Oregon. At this site, the channel inside the exclosure was significantly narrower, deeper, had a smaller width-depth ratio, a smaller cross-sectional area, a larger bankfull depth, and a larger hydraulic radius than the channel in a comparable grazed reach (Magilligan and McDowell 1997).

On Wickiup Creek, spatial and temporal adjustments in the morphology were largely the result of vegetation structure and composition, local physiography, and livestock use. The ungrazed reach displays what the potential would be for the surrounding habitat with grazing.

The narrow channel allows vegetation to grow and cover the stream surface. This reduces the amount of direct solar radiation on the water. Stream temperatures are reduced with increased cover and deeper water. The increased cover provides cover for fish and frogs and increased habitat for insects that fish and frogs feed on. The increased depth to a channel gives resting areas for fish and hiding cover. The deeper portions of streams provide resting areas and refuge of cooler water during summer high temperatures and low flow periods.

The study on Wickiup Creek showed the density and height of vegetation on the channel increased. Channel bank vegetation traps suspended sediment and increases bank strength, producing aggradation of the bed and banks. Abundant grasses and sedges growing in the channel offer greater resistance to flow further reducing fluvial erosion by decreasing velocities.

Historic adjustments in the morphology of Wickiup Creek were observed in the exclosure. Cattle were excluded in 1938, and by 1948, the site had revegetated and the channel had narrowed and deepened. By 1986 the channel had undergone an order of magnitude reduction in bankfull channel cross section area.

Rates of recovery will vary according to channel type (Rinne 1988). The time it takes for improvement of habitat for fish and frogs will vary in the Bear AMP Planning Area as there are varied channel types. For example, streams with relatively little fine sediment available for transport may require considerable time to achieve channel narrowing. Sites that do not support woody vegetation may take longer to show channel narrowing than sites with woody vegetation. It may not be possible to observe response to exclosures because a comparable grazed reach may not exist (Rinne 1988).

For the Bear AMP Planning Area, where vegetation has been removed yet has remnant riparian vegetation, vegetation recovery could respond within 10 years of livestock removal. Within 50 years, channel conditions could improve to an order of magnitude that appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile for the corresponding channel type.

Magilligan states geomorphic adjustments tend to lag behind vegetation response (Kondolf 1993). A minimum lag time has not yet been established, but for exclosures less than

approximately five to ten years old, little geomorphic difference exists despite noticeable differences in riparian vegetation (Buckhouse et al. 1981).

Habitat for frogs that has been removed would be improved. Increase in riparian vegetation would provide habitat for insect populations that are food for fish and frogs. Pooled water would increase as vegetation increased. As pooled water increased, floating and emergent vegetation needed for frog reproduction would increase.

Frogs are restricted to the same aquatic habitats that serve as watering sites for livestock. Metamorphs (change in physical form) may be particularly susceptible to trampling because they are not able to swim well enough to escape in deep water, and they occur only in moist areas next to water bodies, the same place that cattle are concentrated. As adults, spotted frogs depend heavily on riparian vegetation for cover and as a resource for their insect prey. Removing livestock would improve spotted frog habitat and increase their population survival as there would be a reduction in trampling, improvement in water quality, and expansion of their habitat with increased riparian vegetation.

Changes in channel morphology and aquatic species habitat with the removal of grazing would be most improved in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn and Snowshoe allotments because cattle grazing is currently authorized in these three allotments. The Trout Creek allotment currently is authorized for sheep grazing. Sheep grazing tends to be different from cattle grazing because sheep have a herder present and have select routes that avoid streams and riparian areas. Undoubtedly, there are always deviations from this select path that may take the herd through riparian areas, but for the most part, there are less effects on channel morphology from sheep grazing compared to cattle grazing.

Riparian Management Objective (RMO), GM-1, GM-2, and GM-3 (USDA 1995, p. A-9) would be met. Livestock grazing practices would be removed to attain RMOs. There would no longer be a need for handling and/or management facilities; trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling facilities.

This alternative would be consistent with the water goals and maintaining cutbank levels to below 20 percent as outlined in the LRMP. This alternative would be consistent with the Riparian Management Goals outlined in PACFISH/INFISH and with the RMO of maintaining bank stability greater than 80 percent. This alternative would protect designated beneficial uses and would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12088.

It is important to note that this alternative does not include additional stream restoration actions in the project area. Stream reaches that are currently impaired would continue to passively restore themselves, but this is long-term, and most of these areas will not improve to pre- disturbance condition without active restoration, even with the removal of cattle and sheep grazing. Channels that are severely incised and disconnected from their floodplains would continue to be degraded with the removal of grazing.

Stream Temperature

Implementation of this alternative would provide improvement to vegetation cover and subsequently stream temperatures. There would be no grazing of riparian shrubs by livestock.

As vegetative recovery occurs plants should expand and vegetative cover conditions, and thus stream temperatures, would improve. Streams currently on the 303(d) list are expected to have higher vegetative cover values and lower stream temperatures.

Overgrazing on riparian areas increases the amount of insolation reaching streams, resulting in cumulative increases in stream temperatures downstream (Barton et al. 1985), especially in high desert watersheds of the intermountain West (Platts and Nelson 1989). A study on the effects on grazing on high desert streams in the John Day Basin (Li et al. 1994) found that the removal of the riparian canopy in high desert streams in the John Day Basin resulted in elevated stream temperatures that were stressful to salmonids. For example, at five of the study sites, maximum daily stream temperatures at five of the study sites exceeded published values of upper incipient lethal temperatures for rainbow trout.

There would be a more marked improvement in stream temperatures long-term in areas with less groundwater influence. This includes areas such as Trout Creek and Bear Creek, which have less wetland/wet meadow habitats that store cold water. There is more influence in these watersheds from shading from riparian vegetation that is impacted by grazing. However, in the Trout Creek allotment, riparian vegetation (and subsequently stream temperatures) is less impacted by sheep grazing because active management keeps sheep away from riparian areas.

This alternative would be consistent with the Riparian Management Goals outlined in INFISH and with the RMO of no measurable increase in stream temperatures. This alternative would move towards protecting the designated beneficial uses of the downstream waters and would move towards the delisting of 303(d) listed streams (compliance with the Clean Water Act). This alternative would be consistent with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12088.

Sediment/Turbidity

Implementation of this alternative would provide for improvements to streambank alteration and vegetative conditions. There would be no direct effects from livestock grazing, trampling, or trailing that would occur on an annual basis. There would be no direct impact to streambanks in those areas accessible to livestock. There would be no further effects to width-to-depth ratio, entrenchment, or sediment yield than what currently exists.

Streambank hoof action, from cattle, would continue for two years; however, grazing would cease after the two year period. With the removal of cattle, it is expected that hoof action from cattle would not be present. The only hoof action to remain within the project area would be from wildlife.

Sedimentation would decrease in the stream channel when the riparian vegetation and upland vegetation increase in size and numbers. Movement of fines throughout the channel would prevent sediment from consolidating in one area. Less sedimentation in the substrate during

spawning season would allow for photosynthesis as the sunlight reaches plants that are no longer covered in sediment. Oxygenation of fish eggs in the gravels increases with less sedimentation in the gravels. Lower sedimentation would result in increased available invertebrates, food for fish and frogs.

Rates of recovery would be expected to vary across this project area. Most streambanks would be expected to stabilize with vegetation over the next 10-15 years, if some extent of riparian vegetation is already present. Studies of livestock exclusion from heavily grazed riparian areas have found that recovery of riparian vegetation occurred in three to eight years, depending on existing conditions and strategies (Skovlin 1984). Previously altered sites presently lacking a riparian vegetation component would take longer to recover vegetation and stabilize streambanks. Recovery of riparian vegetation may take 15+ years in these sites, or the site may not be capable of producing riparian vegetation without some sort of active management such as timber harvest or due to soil type. Streams with vertical streambanks (cutbanks) would take several decades or more to adjust bank slopes and stabilize with vegetation, even without cattle grazing. Areas that are currently entrenched (G and F-type channels) will remain as such until vertical side slopes naturally adjust and become vegetated. The return to original conditions (pre-European) on some sites would be very slow or non-existent (Laycock 1989, Winward 1991). Sediment yield from these entrenched systems would continue to exist, but would decline as streambanks adjust slope and become vegetated.

The Trout Creek allotment currently is authorized for sheep grazing. Sheep grazing tends to be different from cattle grazing because sheep always have a herder present and have select routes that avoid streams and riparian areas. Undoubtedly, there are always deviations from this select path that may take the herd through riparian areas, but for the most part, there are fewer effects on sediment/turbidity from sheep grazing compared to cattle grazing.

Overall, this alternative would have the least negative impacts to streambanks across all allotments and pastures. With less bank alteration it is expected that there would be less cutbank development, alteration of channel morphology through changes in width to depth ratios, entrenchment, and sediment yields. Areas that are currently entrenched (G and F-type channels) will continue to adjust and may take several decades to become stable with vegetation. Sediment yield from these entrenched systems would continue to exist, but would decline as streambanks adjust slope and become vegetated.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Removal of livestock as a direct disturbance to riparian vegetation would facilitate a more rapid increase than is presently occurring in the amount and diversity of riparian grasses, sedges, and rushes. Removing range developments, such as fences and possibly abandoning or removing water improvements, could directly affect vegetation in the short-term, most notably where heavy equipment is needed to facilitate the removal. However, measurable increases in vegetative cover are not expected where heavy equipment is used to remove fence or water developments.

Studies of livestock exclusion from riparian areas have found that recovery of riparian vegetation occurred in three to eight years, depending on site location and condition (Skovlin 1984). Rates of recovery would be expected to vary across this project area, depending on overstory canopy cover, stream type and soil type. Areas with abundant conifer cover could provide too much shade for some species of deciduous vegetation, while different soil and stream types would support different riparian species. Previously altered sites presently lacking a riparian vegetation component would take longer to fully recover. The return to original conditions (pre-European) on some sites would be very slow or non-existent (Laycock 1989, Winward 1991). In the long- term (15+ years) desirable riparian vegetation, such as riparian grasses, sedges, rushes, and woody species, would out-compete and replace undesirable species, such as shallow rooted annuals. Recovery of hardwoods in areas with conifer encroachment would be dependent upon active vegetative management (i.e. burning or thinning) within RHCAs.

Woody species would benefit in both the short (0-15 years) and long-terms (15+ years) from less browsing pressure and would likely expand their canopy cover providing more stream shade. In areas capable of supporting woody species, such as willows and alders, increased amounts and age classes of these deeply rooted plants would help stabilize streambanks, catch large woody debris, and filter sediment, all helping to improve water quality. It is expected that increases in the numbers, age classes, and distribution of woody species would only occur in areas with suitable site conditions.

Most stream types, associated wetlands, and floodplains, except D-, F-, and G-channels, would benefit immediately from the removal of livestock grazing and a reduced browsing pressure on riparian vegetation. D-, F- and G- streams would re-achieve equilibrium over a longer period of time whereby they redevelop a pattern, profile and dimension that is capable of transporting its flow and sediment. Morphologic recovery of these stream types is not likely to occur within a 15 year timeframe.

The removal of livestock under this alternative would result in increased growth, vigor, and expansion of willow, alder, sedges, rushes and other riparian obligate vegetation in wetlands and floodplains. Where riparian vegetation is present, vegetative cover is expected to show measureable increases in 3-8 years. Where riparian vegetation is not present, but once was, it may or may not re-establish itself. Re-establishment would depend on local factors such as site capability (soil type and availability of water), departure from historic means, elevation, and aspect. It is expected that re-establishment with some riparian shade would be noticeable after 15 years. In entrenched systems (G and F-type channels) recovery of riparian vegetation is expected to take decades to recover, if at all. Some of these entrenched systems may need some sort of active restoration to have vegetative recovery. Recovery of vegetation is expected to be at a lower elevation, as the water table generally lowers with entrenchment.

Changes in riparian hardwood vegetation with the removal of grazing would be most improved in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn and Snowshoe allotments because cattle grazing is currently authorized in these three allotments. The Trout Creek allotment currently is authorized for sheep grazing. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive when they congregate in riparian

areas. Cattle that are grazing in spring, or in 2-3 pasture rotations are the best for willow production, while season long grazing or fall only grazing are incompatible for willow management. Sheep grazing tends to be different from cattle grazing because sheep always have a herder present and have select routes that avoid streams and riparian areas. Undoubtedly, there are always deviations from this select path that may take the herd through riparian areas, but for the most part, there are fewer effects on riparian hardwood vegetation from sheep grazing compared to cattle grazing.

Alternative 1 would improve vegetation cover in the project area faster than Alternatives 2 and 3 over all allotments. Alternative 1 would be consistent with the water goals and would improve upon moving towards meeting the Standard and Guideline of maintaining 80 percent shade or 100 percent of potential as outlined in the LRMP. This alternative would be consistent with the Riparian Management Goals outlined in PACFISH/INFISH and with the RMO of no measurable increase in stream temperatures. This alternative would move towards protecting the designated beneficial uses of the downstream waters and would move towards the delisting of 303(d) listed streams (compliance with the Clean Water Act). This alternative would be consistent with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12088.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The current permitted amount of AUMs in each allotment would be maintained in Alternative 2. Alternative 2, however, allows for the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment instead of cattle grazing. Alternative 2 identifies restoration projects for streams, meadows and riparian areas, aspen stand improvements, reconstruction, construction and removal of water developments, construction of corrals and holding pens, two stock driveways, exclosures around springs and streams, and juniper thinning, as well as active management. These projects and active management would incrementally improve stream form and function and riparian vegetation conditions.

Changes to the grazing system in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn and Snowshoe allotments are also proposed under Alternative 2. These changes include the use of Category 1 pastures prior to July 15th in the Bear Creek and Elkhorn allotments. In the Snowshoe allotment, it was determined after field review for this project that there is no suitable fish habitat anywhere in the allotment, thus eliminating the need for the current July 15th restriction currently in place in the Snowshoe pasture. These changes to deferred rotation and their subsequent effects are discussed in more detail for each allotment.

Alternative 2 addresses the purpose and need of the project, as outlined in Chapter 1 by proposing active management, allowing for the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment, modifying or constructing new water developments, reconstructing or constructing new exclosures, constructing stock driveways, and implementing stream restoration projects. These projects would include planting of riparian hardwoods, enhancing and protecting aspen stands, placing logs and rocks in and along stream channels, filling1 and connecting floodplains

1 In some stream and meadow systems in the Bear AMP Project area, past management practices including the removal of large wood and riparian vegetation, as well as channel straightening has caused streams to incise, causing streams to lose connectivity to their floodplains. A technique used more recently is filling the stream and/or

and the protection of riparian vegetation that would promote healthy riparian and upland vegetation. Active management of livestock would be required on all allotments.

Pasture improvements are expected to occur throughout the next 10 years, and would be prioritized by staff and funding availability. Active restoration would accelerate the recovery of stream habitats and improve water quality faster than the proposed changes to grazing management alone. Measurable increases in stream form and function, and improvements to aquatic species and their habitats, would vary with proposed activities and their response would be based on their current condition. Specific projects are proposed for each allotment and are addressed in more detail under the individual pasture analysis below. Bear Creek Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 17,220 acres divided between four pastures – North Bear, South Bear, Dodds and Stephenson. • The current permitted amount of 685 AUMs with 132 cow/calf pairs from June 5 to September 30 would be authorized. • Ewe/lamb livestock may be used instead of caw/calf pair of 1,298 AUMs with 1,100 ewe/lamb pairs from June 5 to September 30. • 10 water developments will be reconstructed and 2 will be removed and relocated. • Interior fencelines would not be required with ewe/lamb pairs since there is a herder. Approximately 12 miles of fence would be reauthorized. • The grazing system would be a three pasture rotation deferring North Bear and South Bear pastures each year and utilizing Dodd’s pasture after July 15th those years. Deferred rotation for Dodd’s pasture would occur once every two-three years, grazing it earlier that year. Redd surveys will be required prior to Dodds Creek being used before July 15th so deferred use for Dodd’s pasture will be dependent on time required to monitor. If redds are found and not able to be temporarily protected from early grazing, grazing will occur after July 15th.

Effects Common to All Pastures Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Bear Creek allotment will have additional beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. This adaptive management strategy allows for adaptations in grazing; timing, intensity and duration to better coincide with yearly climatic and/or vegetative conditions. Deferred rotation has been successful in restoration and improving riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). The potential advantages in terms of deferred rotation in terms of effects to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology is that riparian area grazing and concentration may not occur every year. During the springtime, livestock are usually better distributed between the upland and riparian areas due to more palatable vegetation floodplains and in some instance reconstructing a new channel to allow the stream or meadow to have floodplain connectivity. This also has the added benefit of raising the water table and storing more groundwater throughout the year. Fill would be taken from an area away from the floodplain and transported to the site, where filling of channels or gullies would occur.

in the uplands and increased flooding and colder temperatures in the riparian areas. Throughout the warmer summer season, upland vegetation palatability decreases and water becomes more limited drawing livestock to riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). Deferred rotation will help limit the effects in terms of bank stability and instream habitat because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year as Alternative 3.

Stream Temperature

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Bear Creek allotment will have additional beneficial effects on stream temperature. As described above, deferred rotation has been shown to be successful in improving riparian areas. The changes in timing, frequency and intensity in riparian areas decreases the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery (Wyman et al. 2006). This, in turn, should have beneficial effects on stream shading and subsequently stream temperatures. Deferred rotation will also help limit the effects in terms of bank stability (and thus stream temperatures) because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year as in Alternative 3.

Sediment/Turbidity

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Bear Creek allotment will have additional beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. It is expected that deferred rotation would improve lower levels of streambank alternation and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetation cover.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Bear Creek allotment will have additional beneficial effects on riparian hardwood vegetation. As described above, deferred rotation has been shown to be successful in improving riparian areas. The changes in timing, frequency and intensity in riparian areas decreases the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery (Wyman et al. 2006). This, in turn, should have beneficial effects on the health and vigor of riparian hardwood vegetation beyond those in Alternative 3.

North Bear Pasture

The following projects proposed in the North Bear Pasture will have no effect on aquatic resources because they are not within close proximity to streams, springs, meadows or riparian areas.

• Construction of two new corrals, one on the 2730-2745 junction and one on the 2735- 2750 junction. • One holding pen at the end of the 2735-109 road.

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 5 water developments and protect springs. • Riparian restoration activities would take place on 4 miles of North Fork Bear Creek; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary in Ingram Meadow (approximately 22 acres) and 1.25 miles of Auger Creek and tributaries; activities would include in-stream placement of large wood, filling and reconnecting floodplains, cutting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.

Effects in the North Bear Pasture

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The overall rating for sensitive species habitat/channel morphology is Functioning at Risk. Redband trout are present in these streams and Columbia spotted frogs are suspected to occur within the stream corridors and springs.

Active restoration projects, such as hardwood planting and instream placement of wood and rock structures, would reduce livestock use on streams. The placement of large wood and rocks creates pools, hiding cover for fish and frogs, and adds complexity for fish habitat. Planting hardwoods and the creation of physical barriers to cattle would improve bank stability. It is expected that the number of pools and large wood would increase with direct inputs into North Fork Bear Creek and Auger Creek, and that the number of pools would increase as livestock tramping is reduced in and around North Fork Bear Creek, Auger Creek and in Ingram Meadow. The Ingram Meadow restoration site is already within a cattle exclosure so cattle trampling is not a concern at this site, but the site is historically degraded with the channel having lost floodplain connection due to downcutting and bank instability.

The use of active management throughout the pasture will help to achieve desired distribution to prevent excessive forage utilization or streambank alteration. This will keep cattle from concentrating in riparian areas for long periods of time. Consequently active management would promote bank stability and riparian cover (shade). The requirement that livestock will be checked a minimum of 2 days per week up until July 1st and then a minimum of every other day after July 1st will help relieve pressure on streams and riparian areas in the future.

draw livestock away from riparian areas, the intensity of annual livestock use on those riparian areas is limited by utilization, stubble height and streambank alteration standards. Therefore since livestock may utilize a given pasture up to the point those standards are reached, the development of upland water sources serves to extend the time in any given pasture prior to reaching standards. Water developments are expected to draw cattle away from riparian areas and result in less disturbance to streambanks and riparian vegetation.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the North Bear pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Sheep are moved through the pasture with a herder and are bedded in areas that are away from streams and mainly use upland areas for grazing based on their routes. This leads to less interaction with streams and riparian areas, and therefore less effect.

Stream Temperature

Overall, existing stream temperatures are Functioning at Risk. It is expected that stream temperatures will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on water developments on page 80). Active management will also have increased benefits to shade in the pasture (see discussion on page 80). Riparian shade conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2 due to active restoration. Improved stream shade conditions would result in improved stream temperatures in Bear Creek, North Bear Creek, Auger Creek and its tributaries.

Actively restoring a 4-mile section of North Fork Bear Creek and a 1.25 mile section of Auger Creek, using rock and log structures, would move the stream toward a properly functioning form. Properly functioning stream form often results in smaller width-to-depth ratio conditions. Narrower streams provide less surface area for heating and ultimately result in increased stream shade and reduced stream temperatures. In addition, stream temperature would improve with adjustments in channel morphology such as deeper narrower channels and more pools with cooler waters. Finally, it is expected that riparian vegetation will improve under Alternative 2, which will improve stream shade and ultimately lower stream temperatures long-term.

In Ingram Meadow, reconnecting floodplains through the filling gullies will ultimately improve water temperatures long-term by storing colder groundwater in the meadow, and improve riparian vegetation growth by having water closer to the surface.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the North Bear pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep

find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive when they congregate in riparian zones.

Sediment/Turbidity

The overall rating for sediment/turbidity is Functioning at Risk for streams in the North Bear pasture. It is expected that proposed activities would maintain or improve lower levels of streambank alteration and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetative recovery. Reconstruction of non-functional water developments and active management will also improve sediment/turbidity (see discussion on page 80).

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods in the North and South Bear pastures. For aspen stands and other hardwoods close to streams, hardwood root strength would provide roughness and bank stability resulting in a reduction in fine sediment and turbidity in streams.

Alternative 2 also includes actively restoring a 4 mile section of North Fork Bear Creek and a 1.25 mile section of Auger Creek and Ingram Meadow. Active restoration of this reach would have a negative short-term impact on sediment and turbidity where there is instream placement of rock or logs or filling and connecting floodplains that may cause increased turbidity during implementation. This is a short-term negative impact that would occur only during the time of construction (less than 1 month). Rock and log placement would move streams towards a more properly functioning stream form. This active restoration technique would stabilize headcuts migrating upstream and prevent them from moving further upstream, subsequently reducing fine sediment and turbidity in streams long-term.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Riparian hardwood vegetation is Functioning at Risk in the North Bear pasture. Riparian hardwood conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods. It is expected that this would improve riparian vegetation cover. Also, by maintaining hardwood root strength along streams, upstream migration of headcuts and the subsequent lowering of local water tables would be reduced. By maintaining water tables net to streams, floodplains are able to continue to functioning allowing for more vigorous growth of riparian vegetation long-term. Additionally, placement of thinning debris adjacent to streambanks would provide microsites for riparian vegetation to thrive and would provide

obstacles to livestock trailing. Active management and reconstruction of non-functional water developments will also help improve riparian hardwood vegetation across the pasture (see discussion on page 80).

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the North Bear pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive when they congregate in riparian zones.

South Bear Pasture

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 4 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials to protect aspen in two stands (3 acres and 2 acres). Construct buck and pole fence around spring and aspen sprouts. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 2.5 miles of Rail Creek; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.

Effects in the South Bear Pasture

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

since livestock may utilize a given pasture up to the point those standards are reached, the development of upland water sources serves to extend the time in any given pasture prior to reaching standards. Water developments are expected to draw cattle away from riparian areas and result in less disturbance to streambanks and riparian vegetation.

Active restoration projects, such as hardwood planting and instream placement of wood and rock structures, would reduce livestock use on streams. The placement of large wood and rocks creates pools, hiding cover for fish and frogs, and adds complexity for fish habitat. Planting hardwoods and the creation of physical barriers to cattle would improve bank stability. It is expected that the number of pools and large wood would increase with direct inputs into Rail Creek, and that the number of pools would increase as livestock tramping is reduced in and around Rail Creek. With less pressure from livestock in and around streams, it is expected that width-to-depth ratios would decrease, entrenchment would improve, and the density and distribution of riparian vegetation, including hardwoods, would increase short-term (0-9 years) and long-term (10-20 years).

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the South Bear pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Sheep are moved through the pasture with a herder and are bedded in areas that are away from streams and mainly use upland areas for grazing based on their routes. This leads to less interaction with streams and riparian areas, and therefore less effect.

Stream Temperature

Overall, existing stream temperatures are Functioning at Risk. It is expected that stream temperatures will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on water developments on page 83). Active management will also have increased benefits to shade in the pasture (see discussion on page 80). Riparian shade conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2 due to active restoration. Improved stream shade conditions would result in improved stream temperatures in Bear Creek and its tributaries.

Actively restoring a 2.5 miles section of Rail Creek using rock and log structures, would move the stream toward a properly functioning form. Properly functioning stream form often results in smaller width-to-depth ratio conditions. Narrower streams provide less surface area for heating and ultimately result in increased stream shade and reduced stream temperatures. In addition, stream temperature would improve with adjustments in channel morphology such as deeper narrower channels and more pools with cooler waters. Finally, it is expected that riparian vegetation will improve under Alternative 2, which will improve stream shade and ultimately lower stream temperatures long-term.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the South Bear pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive

when they congregate in riparian zones.

Sediment/Turbidity

The overall rating for sediment/turbidity is Not Properly Functioning for streams in the South Bear pasture. It is expected that proposed activities would maintain or improve lower levels of streambank alteration and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetative recovery. Reconstruction of non-functional water developments and active management will also improve sediment/turbidity (see discussion on page 83).

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods in the South Bear pasture. For aspen stands and other hardwoods close to streams, hardwood root strength would provide roughness and bank stability resulting in a reduction in fine sediment and turbidity in streams.

Alternative 2 also includes actively restoring a 2.5 mile section of Rail Creek. Active restoration of this reach would have a negative short-term impact on sediment and turbidity where there is instream placement of rock or logs or filling and connecting floodplains that may cause increased turbidity during implementation. This is a short-term negative impact that would occur only during the time of construction (less than 1 month). Rock and log placement would move streams towards a more properly functioning stream form. This active restoration technique would stabilize headcuts migrating upstream and prevent them from moving further upstream, subsequently reducing fine sediment and turbidity in streams long-term.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in both pastures from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Sheep are moved through the pasture with a herder and are bedded in areas that are away from streams and mainly use upland areas for grazing based on their routes. This leads to less interaction with streams and riparian areas, and therefore less effect in terms bank trampling that ultimately increases sediment and turbidity.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Riparian hardwood vegetation is Not Properly Functioning in the South Bear pasture. Riparian hardwood conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the South Bear pastures from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive when they congregate in riparian zones.

Dodds Pasture

The following projects proposed in the Dodds pasture will have no effect on aquatic resources because they are not within close proximity to streams, springs, meadows or riparian areas.

• New corral site at borrow pit on the 2730-501 road to be used only after July 15th.

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 1 water developments, remove and relocate 2 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials to protect aspen in two stands (both 2 acres in size). Construct buck and pole fence around spring and aspen sprouts. •

Effects in the Dodds Pasture

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The overall rating for sensitive species habitat/channel morphology is Functioning at Risk with pools and large wood considered to be Not Properly Functioning in the pasture. Entrenchment and width to depth ratios are considered Properly Functioning or Functioning at Risk. Redband trout are present in these streams and Columbia spotted frogs are suspected to occur within the stream corridors and springs.

The reconstruction of water developments that aren’t functioning correctly would reduce pressure on an associated riparian area as grazing impacts have been shown to be inversely correlated to the distance to water (Stillings et al. 2003). Although upland water developments draw livestock away from riparian areas, the intensity of annual livestock use on those riparian areas is limited by utilization, stubble height and streambank alteration standards. Therefore since livestock may utilize a given pasture up to the point those standards are reached, the development of upland water sources serves to extend the time in any given pasture prior to reaching standards. Water developments are expected to draw cattle away from riparian areas

and result in less disturbance to streambanks and riparian vegetation.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the Dodds pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Sheep are moved through the pasture with a herder and are bedded in areas that are away from streams and mainly use upland areas for grazing based on their routes. This leads to less interaction with streams and riparian areas, and therefore less effect to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology.

Stream Temperature

Overall, existing stream temperatures are Functioning at Risk in the Dodds pasture. It is expected that stream temperatures will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on water developments above). Active management will also have increased benefits to shade in the pasture (see discussion above). Improved stream shade conditions would result in improved stream temperatures in Dodds, Heflin and other tributaries in this pasture.

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the Dodds pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive when they congregate in riparian zones.

Sediment/Turbidity

The overall rating for sediment/turbidity is Not Properly Functioning for streams in the Dodds pasture. It is expected that proposed activities would maintain or improve lower levels of streambank alteration and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetative recovery. Reconstruction of non-functional water developments and active management will also improve sediment/turbidity (see discussion on page 86).

There is a potential added beneficial effect in the Dodds pasture from the option of allowing sheep grazing instead of cattle grazing. Sheep are moved through the pasture with a herder and are bedded in areas that are away from streams and mainly use upland areas for grazing based on their routes. This leads to less interaction with streams and riparian areas, and therefore less effect in terms bank trampling that ultimately increases sediment and turbidity.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Riparian hardwood vegetation is Functioning at Risk in the Dodds pasture. It is expected that riparian hardwood conditions will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water. Active

management and reconstruction of non-functional water developments will also help improve riparian hardwood vegetation across the pasture (see discussion on page 86).

Elkhorn Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 15,020 acres divided between four pastures – Bridge Creek, Elkhorn, Indian Prairie and Val Trail. • The current permitted amount of 1,378 AUMs with 290 cow/calf pairs from June 15 to September 30 would be authorized. • 6 new water developments will be constructed, 13 reconstructed, 1 removed and 6 removed and reconstructed. • The grazing system would be a three pasture rotation utilizing Elkhorn or Val Trail pastures first most years with Bridge Creek pasture utilized after July 15th and Bridge Creek pasture first every two-three years. Redd surveys will be required prior to Bridge Creek being used before July 15th so deferred use for Bridge Creek will be dependent on time required to monitor. If redds are found and not able to be temporarily protected from early grazing, grazing will occur after July 15th.

Elkhorn Pasture

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 4 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Construct 2 new water developments and protect springs as needed. • Relocate 2 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment to protect aspen in two aspen stands (8 acres and 2 acres). Construct buck and pole fence around aspen sprouts. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 5.5 miles of West Branch Bridge Creek and tributaries, and 0.25 miles of Camp Creek; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.

Val Trail Pasture

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 2 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Construct 1 new water developments and protect spring as needed. • Relocate 2 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials andprescribed fire, to protect aspen in seven 5-acre aspen stands. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 0.7 miles of West Branch Bridge Creek and tributaries; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned material to protect two aspen stands totaling 12 acres.

Bridge Creek Pasture

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 6 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Construct 2 new water developments and protect springs as needed. • Relocate 2 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Thin conifers in two plantations (40 acres) off the 450 road about 0.8 miles longs and about 100 yards wide to create two stock driveways. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials and prescribed fire=to protect aspen in an approximately 5 acre aspen stands. Construct buck and pole fence around aspen stand below the 450 road. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 0.75 miles of Bridge Creek; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.

Indian Prairie Pasture

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology,

stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 1 water development and protect spring as needed. • Construct 1 new water development and protect spring as needed. • Thin conifer encroachment into the meadow and utilize thinned materials to protect sensitive areas. • Protect and fill rills and gullies that are dewatering the meadow to restore the water table; activities would include filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. The Indian Prairie site is approximately 58 acres. Wood and physical barriers material may come from on-site. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials and prescribed fire to protect aspen in two aspen stands (10 acres and 2 acres). Construct buck and pole fence around aspen stand to protect sprouts. • Place boulders around the dispersed campsite off the 2630.

Effects Common to All Pastures

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The overall rating for sensitive species habitat/channel morphology is Not Properly Functioning in the Bridge Creek and Elkhorn pastures, and Functioning at Risk in the Val Trail pasture. The status of sensitive species habitat and channel morphology was not determined in the Indian Prairie pasture; however, based on field observations, it appears that entrenchment and width to depth ratios are Not Properly Functioning in this pasture. Redband trout are present in these streams and Columbia spotted frogs are suspected to occur within the stream corridors and springs. Mid-Columbia River steelhead may also present in mainstem Bridge Creek, but no formal surveys have been conducted to verify they are present.

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Elkhorn allotment will have additional beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. This adaptive management strategy allows for adaptations in grazing; timing, intensity and duration to better coincide with yearly climatic and/or vegetative conditions. Deferred rotation has been successful in restoration and improving riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). The potential advantages deferred rotation in terms of effects to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology is that riparian area grazing and concentration may not occur every year. During the springtime, livestock are usually better distributed between the upland and riparian areas due to more palatable vegetation in the uplands and increased flooding and colder temperatures in the riparian areas. Throughout the warmer summer season, upland vegetation palatability decreases and water becomes more limited drawing livestock to riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). Deferred rotation will help limit the effects in terms of bank stability and instream habitat because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year.

Active restoration projects, such as hardwood planting and instream placement of wood and rock

structures, would reduce livestock use on streams. The placement of large wood and rocks creates pools, hiding cover for fish and frogs, and adds complexity for fish habitat. Planting hardwoods and the creation of physical barriers to cattle would improve bank stability. It is expected that the number of pools and large wood would increase with direct inputs into West Branch Bridge Creek and its tributaries, and that the number of pools would increase as livestock tramping is reduced in and around West Branch Bridge Creek and its tributaries.

With less pressure from livestock in and around streams, it is expected that width-to-depth ratios would decrease, entrenchment would improve, and the density and distribution of riparian vegetation, including hardwoods, would increase short-term (0-9 years) and long-term (10-20 years). In Indian Prairie pasture, the filling of rills and gullies in the prairie will improve entrenchment and width to depth ratios on East Fork Howard Creek. The improvements to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology will be more significant in the Elkhorn and Indian Prairie pasture due to the amount of stream being treated in comparison to the size of the pasture. Only small sections in the Bridge Creek and Val Trail pasture are proposed for treatment, so the improvements will be less.

Stream Temperature

Overall, existing stream temperatures are Functioning at Risk in the Elkhorn and Bridge Creek pasture, and Not Properly Functioning in the Val Trail pasture. The status of stream temperatures was not determined in the Indian Prairie pasture; however, based on field observations and local knowledge of the area, it is expected that stream temperatures are Properly Functioning because of the dominant presence of groundwater in that area. It is expected that stream temperatures will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction and construction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on water developments on page 90). Active management will also have increased benefits to shade in the pasture (see discussion on page 90). Riparian shade

conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2 due to proposed active restoration. Improved stream shade conditions would result in improved stream temperatures in Bridge Creek, West Branch Bridge Creek, Camp Creek, East Fork Howard Creek and associated tributaries.

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Elkhorn allotment will have additional beneficial effects on stream temperature. As described above, deferred rotation has been shown to be successful in improving riparian areas. The changes in timing, frequency and intensity in riparian areas decreases the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery (Wyman et al. 2006). This, in turn, should have beneficial effects on stream shading and subsequently stream temperatures. Deferred rotation will also help limit the effects in terms of bank stability (and thus stream temperatures) because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year.

Actively restoring streams within pastures in the Elkhorn allotment (proposed restoration listed above), using rock and log structures, would move the stream toward a properly functioning form. Properly functioning stream form often results in smaller width-to-depth ratio conditions. Narrower streams provide less surface area for heating and ultimately result in increased stream shade and reduced stream temperatures. In addition, stream temperature would improve with adjustments in channel morphology such as deeper narrower channels and more pools with cooler waters. Finally, it is expected that riparian vegetation will improve under Alternative 2, which will improve stream shade and ultimately lower stream temperatures long-term. In Indian Prairie pasture, reconnecting floodplains through the filling gullies will ultimately improve water temperatures long-term by storing colder groundwater in the meadow, and improve riparian vegetation growth by having water closer to the surface. The improvements to stream temperature will be more significant in the Elkhorn and Indian Prairie pasture due to the amount of stream being treated in comparison to the size of the pasture. Only small sections in the Bridge Creek and Val Trail pasture are proposed for treatment, so the improvements will be less.

Sediment/Turbidity

The overall rating for sediment/turbidity is Not Properly Functioning for streams in the Elkhorn and Val Trail pasture, and Functioning at Risk in the Bridge Creek pasture. The status of sediment/turbidity was not determined in the Indian Prairie pasture; however, based on field observations and local knowledge of the area, it is expected that sediment/turbidity is Not Properly Functioning based on the high amount of bank instability and stream entrenchment in this pasture. It is expected that proposed activities would maintain or improve lower levels of streambank alteration and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetative recovery. Reconstruction of non-functional water developments and active management will also improve sediment/turbidity (see discussion on page 90).

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Elkhorn allotment will have additional beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. It is expected that deferred rotation would improve lower levels of streambank alternative and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetation cover.

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods in the Elkhorn pasture. For aspen stands and other hardwoods close to streams, hardwood root strength would provide roughness and bank stability resulting in a reduction in fine sediment and turbidity in streams.

Alternative 2 also includes actively restoring several stream sections in the Elkhorn allotment (proposed restoration reaches listed above). Active restoration of these reaches would have a negative short-term impact on sediment and turbidity where there is instream placement of rock or logs or filling and connecting floodplains that may cause increased turbidity during implementation. This is a short-term negative impact that would occur only during the time of construction (less than 1 month). Rock and log placement and reconnecting floodplains through channel filling would move streams towards a more properly functioning stream form. This active restoration technique would stabilize headcuts migrating upstream and prevent them from moving further upstream, subsequently reducing fine sediment and turbidity in streams long- term. The improvements to sediment/turbidity will be more significant in the Elkhorn and Indian Prairie pasture due to the amount of stream being treated in comparison to the size of the pasture. Only small sections in the Bridge Creek and Val Trail pasture are proposed for treatment, so the improvements will be less.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Riparian hardwood vegetation is considered to be Properly Functioning in the Elkhorn pasture, Not Properly Functioning in the Bridge Creek pasture, and not determined in the Val Trail and Indian Prairie pasture. Based on conditions in the other pastures in the area, it is expected that riparian vegetation conditions in the Val Trail and Indian Prairie pasture are at least Functioning at Risk. Riparian hardwood conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2.

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Elkhorn allotment will have additional beneficial effects on riparian hardwood vegetation. As described above, deferred rotation has been shown to be successful in improving riparian areas. The changes in timing, frequency and intensity in riparian areas decreases the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery (Wyman et al. 2006). This, in turn, should have beneficial effects on the health and vigor of riparian hardwood vegetation.

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods. It is expected that this would improve riparian vegetation cover. Also, by maintaining hardwood root strength along streams, upstream migration of headcuts and the subsequent lowering of local water tables would be reduced. By maintaining water tables next to streams, floodplains are able to continue to functioning allowing for more vigorous growth of riparian vegetation long-term. Additionally, placement of thinning debris adjacent to streambanks would provide microsites for riparian vegetation to thrive and would provide obstacles to livestock trailing. Active management and reconstruction of non-functional water developments will also help improve riparian hardwood vegetation across the pasture (see discussion on page 90).

The improvements to riparian vegetation will be more significant in the Elkhorn and Indian Prairie pasture due to the amount of stream being treated in comparison to the size of the pasture. Only small sections in the Bridge Creek and Val Trail pasture are proposed for treatment, so the improvements will be less.

Snowshoe Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 2,658 acres divided between three pastures – North Nature Creek, Snowshoe and South Nature Creek. • The current permitted amount of 343 AUMs with 156 cow/calf pair from August 12 to September 30 would be authorized. • Reconstruct 7 water developments, relocate 2 water developments and construct 1 new water development. • The grazing system would be a three pasture deferred rotation system deferring North Nature Creek, Snowshoe and South Nature Creek pasture. There is no critical habitat or fish-bearing streams in the Snowshoe pasture so deferred rotation can be implemented with no timing restrictions. • The Sheep Smother Meadow exclosure will be reconstructed and continue to be grazed once every 3 years.

Effects Common to All Pastures Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Snowshoe allotment will have additional beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. This adaptive management strategy allows for adaptations in grazing; timing, intensity and duration to better coincide with yearly climatic and/or vegetative conditions. Deferred rotation has been successful in restoration and improving riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). The potential advantages in terms of deferred rotation in terms of effects to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology is that riparian area grazing and concentration may not occur every year. During the springtime, livestock are usually better distributed between the upland and riparian areas due to more palatable vegetation in the uplands and increased flooding and colder temperatures in the riparian areas. Throughout the warmer summer season, upland vegetation palatability decreases and water becomes more limited drawing livestock to riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). Deferred rotation will help limit the effects in terms of bank stability and instream habitat because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year.

Stream Temperature

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Snowshoe allotment will have additional beneficial effects on stream temperature. As described above, deferred rotation has been shown to be successful in improving riparian areas. The changes in timing, frequency and intensity in riparian areas decreases the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery (Wyman et al. 2006). This, in turn, should have beneficial effects on stream shading and subsequently stream temperatures. Deferred rotation

will also help limit the effects in terms of bank stability (and thus stream temperatures) because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year.

Sediment/Turbidity

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Snowshoe allotment will have additional beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. It is expected that deferred rotation would improve lower levels of streambank alternative and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetation cover.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

A three-pasture deferred rotation in the Snowshoe allotment will have additional beneficial effects on riparian hardwood vegetation. As described above, deferred rotation has been shown to be successful in improving riparian areas. The changes in timing, frequency and intensity in riparian areas decreases the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery (Wyman et al. 2006). This, in turn, should have beneficial effects on the health and vigor of riparian hardwood vegetation.

Snowshoe Pasture

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 6 water developments and protect spring as needed. • Construct 1 new water development and protect spring as needed. • Relocate 3 water developments and protect springs as needed • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials and prescribed fire to protect aspen in an approximately 2 acre aspen stand. Construct buck and pole fence around aspen sprouts where necessary. • Construct a 5 acre exclosure around Nature Creek tributary. • Reconstruct a 6.5 acre exclosure around Sheep Smother Spring and cut and leave conifers encroaching around the meadow (approximately 10 acres).

Effects in the Snowshoe Pasture

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The overall rating for sensitive species habitat/channel morphology was not determined in the Snowshoe pasture. Redband trout are not present in streams in the pasture; however, Columbia spotted frogs are suspected to occur within the stream corridors and springs.

checked a minimum of 2 days per week up until July 1st and then a minimum of every other day after July 1st will help relieve pressure on streams and riparian areas in the future.

Sensitive species habitat/channel morphology is expected to stay static or improve slightly based on the information provided above. Additionally, the 5-acre exclosure on a tributary to Nature Creek will prevent cattle from impacting habitat in that section of stream. There is no active restoration proposed in this pasture.

Stream Temperature

There is no stream temperature data available for the Snowshoe pasture. It is expected that stream temperatures will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on water developments above). Active management will also have increased benefits to shade in the pasture (see discussion above). Improved stream shade conditions would result in improved stream temperatures in tributaries to Heflin and Nature Creek in this pasture.

Sediment/Turbidity

The overall rating for sediment/turbidity is Not Properly Functioning for streams in the Snowshoe. There is expected slight improvement in sediment and turbidity in the Snowshoe pasture under Alternative 2 due to the reconstruction of water developments that will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating near stream banks and causing instability (see discussion above). Active management will also improve sediment/turbidity across the pasture (see discussion on page 95).

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no riparian hardwood data available for the Snowshoe pasture. It is expected that riparian hardwood conditions will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on page 95). Active management will also improve riparian hardwood vegetation across the pasture (see discussion on page 95).

North and South Nature Pastures

The following projects are proposed to improve sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperature, sediment/turbidity, and riparian hardwood vegetation.

• Reconstruct 1 water developments and protect spring as needed. • Relocate 1 water development and protect spring as needed. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 0.50 miles of Nature Creek; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.

Effects in the North and South Nature Pastures

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The overall rating for sensitive species habitat/channel morphology was not determined in the North and South Nature pastures. Redband trout are present in these streams and Columbia spotted frogs are suspected to occur within the stream corridors and springs.

100

and result in less disturbance to streambanks and riparian vegetation.

Stream Temperature

There is no stream temperature data available for the North and South Nature pastures. It is expected that stream temperatures will be improved slightly over existing management conditions because the reconstruction of water developments in this pasture will help improve distribution across the pasture, keeping cattle from concentrating in riparian areas in search of water (see discussion on water developments above). Active management will also have increased benefits to shade in the pasture (see discussion above). Riparian shade conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2 due to active restoration. Improved stream shade conditions would result in improved stream temperatures in Nature Creek.

Actively restoring a 0.5-mile section of Nature Creek using rock and log structures, would move the stream toward a properly functioning form. Properly functioning stream form often results in smaller width-to-depth ratio conditions. Narrower streams provide less surface area for heating and ultimately result in increased stream shade and reduced stream temperatures. In addition, stream temperature would improve with adjustments in channel morphology such as deeper narrower channels and more pools with cooler waters. Finally, it is expected that riparian vegetation will improve under Alternative 2, which will improve stream shade and ultimately lower stream temperatures long-term.

Sediment/Turbidity

There is no sediment/turbidity data available in the North and South Nature pastures. It is expected that proposed activities would maintain or improve lower levels of streambank alteration and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long- term with improvements in vegetative recovery. Reconstruction of non-functional water developments and active management will also improve sediment/turbidity (see discussion on page 96-97).

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods in the North and South Nature pastures. For aspen stands and other hardwoods close to streams, hardwood root strength would provide roughness and bank stability resulting in a reduction in fine sediment and turbidity in streams.

Alternative 2 also includes actively restoring a 0.5 mile section of Nature Creek. Active restoration of this reach would have a negative short-term impact on sediment and turbidity where there is instream placement of rock or logs or filling and connecting floodplains that may cause increased turbidity during implementation. This is a short-term negative impact that would

101

occur only during the time of construction (less than 1 month). Rock and log placement would move streams towards a more properly functioning stream form. This active restoration technique would stabilize headcuts migrating upstream and prevent them from moving further upstream, subsequently reducing fine sediment and turbidity in streams long-term.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

There is no riparian hardwood vegetation data available for the North and South Nature pastures. Riparian hardwood conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2.

Trout Creek Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 26,364 acres. • The current permitted amount of 1,797 AUMs with 1,953 ewe/lamb pairs from June 16 to September 15 would be authorized. • Reconstruct 15 water developments and protect springs as needed. • Remove 2 water developments and return sites to their natural state because they are no longer needed by the permittee. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 4.5 miles of Little McKay Creek and tributaries; activities would include filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site. • Large wood placement would take place where necessary on a total of 8 miles of Potlid, Cartwright, Dutchman and Big Log Creeks and tributaries; activities would include instream placement of large wood and planting hardwoods. Large wood material may come from on-site. • Grade control and stabilization will take place on 0.25 miles of Potlid Creek in T12S R18E SW1/4 Section 7 near the 2720-802 road. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 2.5 miles of Auger Creek and tributaries; activities would include in-stream placement of large wood, filling

102

and reconnecting floodplains, cutting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 1.5 miles of Dick Creek and tributaries; activities would include filling and reconnecting floodplains or plugging channel and allowing to fill and reconnect to the floodplain and planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods. • Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 2.5 miles of Dutchman Creek and tributaries; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures to stabilize existing headcuts and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect aspen and hydrologically stabilize an existing road bed. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site. • Conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials and prescribed fire to protect aspen in an approximately 5 acre aspen stand. Construct buck and pole fence around aspen sprouts where necessary.

Effects in the Trout Creek Allotment

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

The overall rating for sensitive species habitat/channel morphology is Not Properly Functioning in the Trout Creek allotment. Conditions appear to be slightly better in the Foley Creek subwatershed, where conditions are Functioning at Risk. Mid-Columbia River steelhead and Redband trout are present in these streams and Columbia spotted frogs are suspected to occur within the stream corridors and springs.

Active restoration projects, such as hardwood planting and instream placement of wood and rock structures, would improve sensitive species habitat and channel morphology conditions in the Trout Creek allotment. The placement of large wood and rocks creates pools, hiding cover for fish and frogs, and adds complexity for fish habitat. Planting hardwoods and the creation of physical barriers to cattle would improve bank stability. It is expected that the number of pools and large wood would increase with direct inputs into Little McKay Creek, Potlid, Cartwright, Dutchman, Big Log, Auger, Dick and Dutchman Creeks. With less pressure from livestock in and around streams, it is expected that width-to-depth ratios would decrease, entrenchment would improve, and the density and distribution of riparian vegetation, including hardwoods, would increase short-term (0-9 years) and long-term (10-20 years). The improvements to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology would occur in all of the subwatersheds in the allotment.

Sheep are moved through the pasture with a herder and are bedded in areas that are away from streams and mainly use upland areas for grazing based on their routes. This leads to less interaction with streams and riparian areas, and therefore less effect.

103

Stream Temperature

Overall, existing stream temperatures are Functioning at Risk in the Trout Creek allotment. Stream temperatures are more degraded in the Upper McKay Creek subwatershed portion of the allotment, where stream temperatures are considered to be Not Properly Functioning. Because sheep do not typically graze in riparian areas, there will be no change in stream temperatures over existing management conditions due to the reconstruction and reconstruction of water developments in the allotment.

Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) found that while sheep find willows very palatable they do very little damage if good herding practices are followed, which is in contrast to cattle that do not prefer willows as much as sheep but are more destructive when they congregate in riparian zones.

Actively restoring streams within the Trout Creek allotment (proposed restoration listed above), using rock and log structures, would move the stream toward a properly functioning form. Properly functioning stream form often results in smaller width-to-depth ratio conditions. Narrower streams provide less surface area for heating and ultimately result in increased stream shade and reduced stream temperatures. In addition, stream temperature would improve with adjustments in channel morphology such as deeper narrower channels and more pools with cooler waters. Finally, it is expected that riparian vegetation will improve under Alternative 2, which will improve stream shade and ultimately lower stream temperatures long-term. Stream temperatures will be improved in all subwatersheds in the Trout Creek allotment.

Sediment/Turbidity

The overall rating for sediment/turbidity is Functioning at Risk for streams in the Trout Creek allotment. It is expected that proposed activities would maintain or improve lower levels of streambank alteration and improve streambank stability. Sediment yield would be expected to decrease long-term with improvements in vegetative recovery.

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods in the Trout Creek allotment. For aspen stands and other hardwoods close to streams, hardwood root strength would provide roughness and bank stability resulting in a reduction in fine sediment and turbidity in streams.

Alternative 2 includes actively restoring many streams in the Trout Creek allotment (proposed restoration reaches listed above). Active restoration of these reaches would have a negative short-term impact on sediment and turbidity where there is instream placement of rock or logs or filling and connecting floodplains that may cause increased turbidity during implementation. This is a short-term negative impact that would occur only during the time of construction (less

104

than 1 month). Rock and log placement and reconnecting floodplains through channel filling would move streams towards a more properly functioning stream form. This active restoration technique would stabilize headcuts migrating upstream and prevent them from moving further upstream, subsequently reducing fine sediment and turbidity in streams long-term. Changes in sediment/turbidity will occur in all subwatersheds in the Trout Creek allotment.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Riparian hardwood vegetation is considered to be Not Properly Functioning in the Trout Creek Allotment. Conditions appear to be slightly better in the Opal Creek subwatershed, where riparian hardwood vegetation is considered to be Functioning at Risk. Riparian hardwood conditions are expected to improve over the existing conditions in Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 includes projects aimed at improving or maintaining aspen stands and planting hardwoods. It is expected that this would improve riparian vegetation cover. Also, by maintaining hardwood root strength along streams, upstream migration of headcuts and the subsequent lowering of local water tables would be reduced. By maintaining water tables next to streams, floodplains are able to continue to functioning allowing for more vigorous growth of riparian vegetation long-term. Additionally, placement of thinning debris adjacent to streambanks would provide microsites for riparian vegetation to thrive and would provide obstacles to livestock trailing. There would be large improvements in riparian hardwood vegetation in all of the subwatersheds in the Trout Creek allotment due to instream improvements and direct riparian hardwood planting.

Alternative 3 – Current Management

Under Alternative 3, grazing management and cattle distribution would be maintained as currently implemented – see DEIS Chapter 2, Alternative 3. This alternative continues to implement the current grazing standards as defined by the Ochoco National Forest LRMP. Though current management practices within the Bear Creek project area appear to be satisfactory (meeting Forest Plan standards and PACFISH/INFISH Standard and Guidelines), the overall rates of recovery of riparian conditions would be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2. Under Alternative 3, cattle would not be actively managed and no structural water improvements would be made other than those already scheduled to be maintained. No reductions of AUMs within the Bear Creek, Elkhorn, Snowshoe and Trout Creek allotments would occur. No change would be made to current livestock distribution patterns (absent additional limited off-riparian watering). Under Alternative 3, existing Forest Plan management standards would generally maintain and potentially improve riparian conditions long-term through most of the project area. However, with no active riparian restoration, existing incised and entrenched stream reaches would likely not recover for several decades.

105

Effects Common to All Allotments

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Alternative 3 would continue the existing grazing management in the Bear Creek project area. Stream form may remain static in certain stream reaches and current trends would continue. In some reaches, width-to-depth, pools, and entrenchment would not improve without active management and the range improvements as proposed in Alternative 2. Streams in each pasture may continue the fair or poor status and impairments of LWD, pools, entrenchment and width- to-depth parameters would continue without active stream restoration.

Habitat for frogs and fish that has been degraded would continue to be impacted by grazing, post holing, trampling streambanks, and removal of riparian vegetation in streams with a static trend. Habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead, redband trout and Columbia-spotted frogs and their populations may remain static in areas where INFISH RMOs are not being met.

Trampling by livestock would continue in springs and riparian areas and may continue to cause mortality to frogs, fish, redds, and egg masses. Frogs are restricted to the same aquatic habitats that serve as watering sites for livestock. Metamorphs (change in physical form) may be particularly susceptible to trampling because they are not able to swim well enough to escape in deep water, and they occur only in moist areas next to water bodies, the same place that cattle are concentrated. As adults, spotted frogs depend heavily on riparian vegetation for cover and as a resource for their insect prey. Renewing livestock existing permits would continue to impact spotted frog habitat.

Stream Temperature

The rate of recovery of riparian vegetation and subsequently stream temperature in Alternative 3 would be slower than Alternative 1 and 2. Static trends in riparian vegetation and stream temperature may continue in some streams. Altered channel morphologies may also affect stream temperatures – see above. Streams with high bank instability are not capable of sustaining or producing as much riparian vegetation and streams with high width to depth ratios are shallower and have more surface area exposed to solar radiation.

This alternative would be consistent with the Riparian Management Goals outlined in PACFISH/INFISH and with the RMO of no measurable increase in stream temperatures in most of the planning area. This alternative would move towards protecting the designated beneficial uses of the downstream waters and would slowly move towards the delisting of 303(d) listed streams (compliant with the Clean Water Act). Exceptions to meeting all of the previously referenced standards may include areas that are highly degraded from past actions. These include areas where trend is static or downward for certain analysis measure parameters as identified in the existing condition section of this report. This alternative would be consistent with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12088. However, this alternative would not meet standards and guidelines as rapidly as Alternative 1 and 2 because it lacks active management, deferred rotation (Elkhorn and Bear Creek allotments), riparian restoration, exclosure reconstruction, and new and reconstructed water developments.

106

Sediment/Turbidity

Overall, this alternative would have the most impact to streambanks and sediment production across all allotments and pastures, primarily due to lack of active management, riparian restoration, exclosure reconstruction, and new water development construction. Allotments and streams that have been showing high bank alteration and cutbank values would be expected to slowly improve long-term and potentially decline in areas where streams are highly degraded from past activities. In general, alteration of channel morphology through changes in width to depth ratios, entrenchment, and sediment yield are expected to continue to improve throughout the project area. Areas that are currently entrenched (G and F-type channels) would continue to adjust and may take several decades to become stable with vegetation. Sediment yield from these entrenched systems would continue. Cutbanks and fine sediment production would continue to be reduced in this alternative long-term, but slower than Alternative 1 and 2.

With the exception of a few stream reaches outlined in the existing condition section, this alternative would be consistent with the water goals and maintaining cutbank levels to below 20% as outlined in the LRMP. Similarly, this alternative would generally be consistent with the Riparian Management Goals outlined in PACFISH/INFISH and with the RMO of maintaining bank stability greater than 80%. This alternative would not generally have an impact on beneficial uses which would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12088.

Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

This alternative may result in riparian shade conditions that are more impaired than Alternative 1 and 2. Riparian vegetation would continue to slowly improve throughout most of the project area, except in highly degraded stream channels impacted from historic activities as identified in the pasture descriptions.

In general, this alternative would be consistent with the water goals and would improve upon moving towards meeting the Standard and Guideline of maintaining 80% shade or 100% of potential as outlined in the LRMP. Exceptions to meeting all of the previously referenced standards may include areas that are highly degraded from past actions. These include areas where trend is static or downward for certain analysis measure parameters as identified in the existing condition section of this report. Improvements will continue, but at a much slower rate. This alternative would be consistent with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12088. However, this alternative would not meet standards and guidelines as rapidly as Alternative 1 and 2 because it lacks active management, deferred rotation (Bear Creek and Elkhorn allotments), riparian restoration, exclosure reconstruction, and new and reconstructed water developments.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary for hydrology and aquatic species in the entire Bear Cluster AMP project area. Listed below are activities within the cumulative effects boundary for hydrology and aquatic species that are still contributing to cumulative effects.

107

Activities Contributing to Cumulative Effects in the Bear AMP Project Area Bridge Creek Wildfire (2008)

The Bridge Creek Fire started on August 7th, 2008, approximately 7 miles southwest of the town of Mitchell, Oregon. The fire burned approximately 4,880 acres. Approximately 2,775 acres (57%) were on Forest Service administered lands. About half of the fire on Forest Service administered lands was in the Bridge Creek Wilderness. On Forest Service administered lands, the fire burned mainly in the Bridge Creek pasture. The northeast corner of the Val Trail pasture was also burned. There would be no cumulative effects in the Val Trail pasture because such a small portion burned and there are no streams in this area. The fire burned on approximately 600 acres in the Headwaters Bridge Creek Subwatershed and 2,176 acres in the Upper Bridge Creek Subwatershed. In terms of fire suppression, activities associated with suppression are no longer contributing to cumulative effects.

It is likely that there was increased hillslope erosion and subsequent instream sedimentation following the Bridge Creek Fire, but only continued until vegetation recovery occurred on burned areas (at least 5 years). The fire occurred over 8 years ago, so it is expected that this area has recovered. Stream temperatures and riparian hardwood conditions are likely still impaired. Most of the streams in the fire perimeter on Forest Service lands are perennial, non-fish bearing streams or intermittent. In these streams it is expected that large woody debris numbers have increased, but stream-side shade from riparian hardwoods may be limited until those plants fully recover to heights that would shade the stream. The cumulative effects of the Bridge Creek Fire in the Bridge Creek pasture in terms of the Bear AMP project are addressed below.

Bridge Creek Burned Area Emergency Response (2008/2009)

Following the Bridge Creek Fire, a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team was identified to conduct further fire restoration efforts. The team’s task was to conduct an assessment to identify imminent post wildfire threats resulting from the Bridge Creek Fire that could impact (i) human life and safety (ii) property (iii) and critical natural and cultural resources. BAER treatments that were funded in the Bridge Creek Fire were centered around road improvements, such as installing road closures, road drainage, installation of fords and hazard tree removal, in-channel tree felling in a tributary to Gable Creek near North Pisgah meadow, weed treatments and monitoring, heli-mulching, fencing repair and signage. All work associated with BAER in the Bridge Creek fire area would have beneficial effects on aquatic resources due to long-term reductions in fine sediment, instream channel improvements, and fencing to prevent unauthorized cattle use on the forest. Work under BAER was completed in the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009.

Bailey Butte Wildfire (2014)

The Bailey Butte Fire started on July 14th, 2014 by lightning and was contained on July 26th, 2014 after burning just over 10,000 acres on both private (2,483 acres) and Forest Service (7,789) lands. The fire burned acres within the following Subwatersheds: West Branch Bridge Creek, Middle Bear Creek, and Upper Marks Creek. Burn severity was generally low

108

(approximately 60% of the fire acres were considered low severity). High severity was about 1% of the total fire. The fire burned the entire Snowshoe, North Nature and South Nature pastures and portions of the Dodd’s and Elkhorn pastures. Table 60 displays the burn severity acreages by allotments in the Bear AMP project area.

Table 60. Burn Severity by Allotment in the Bailey Butte Fire ALLOTMENT/Severity Acres/Total Acres BEAR CREEK 1- Unchanged/Very Low 205 2-Low Severity 718 3-Moderate Severity 319 4-High Severity 2 BEAR CREEK Total 1244 ELKHORN 1- Unchanged/Very Low 10 2-Low Severity 88 3-Moderate Severity 19 4-High Severity 0 ELKHORN Total 116 SNOWSHOE 1- Unchanged/Very Low 390 2-Low Severity 1378 3-Moderate Severity 910 4-High Severity 31 SNOWSHOE Total 2710

In terms of fire suppression, most of the fireline within the Bear AMP project area was on existing open roads that were used as fuel breaks and subsequently became fireline. There was some additional fireline constructed in Dodds Creek (Dodds pasture), in the northern portion of the Snowshoe pasture, and in and around the Elkhorn pasture. This fireline was a rehabilitated during the fall of 2014, and is recovered in terms of sediment delivery to streams. All firelines that crossed perennial or intermittent streams were rehabilitated soon after the fire was contained.

It is expected that there would be increased hillslope erosion and subsequent instream sedimentation following the Bailey Butte Fire, and would continue until vegetation recovery has occurred on these burned areas (at least 5 years). It is likely that hillslope erosion and subsequent instream sedimentation are continuing in the Bailey Butte fire. In stream corridors that burned, trees are beginning to die and fall over, which contributes large wood to the stream channel. Large wood, pools and other aquatic habitat features are improving in the Bailey Butte fire perimeter. However, because the conifer canopy and riparian hardwoods were killed during the fire, shade is limited, thus having an adverse effect on stream temperatures in the fire area. The cumulative effects of the Bailey Butte Fire in the Dodds, Snowshoe, North Nature, South Nature and Elkhorn pastures in terms of the Bear AMP project are addressed below.

109

Bailey Butte Fire Project (2015)

The purpose of the Bailey Butte Project was to harvest fire killed trees that have economic value, reforest desired tree species in severely burned stands to aid in accelerated development of forest conditions consistent with management plan objectives, and improve public, administrative and operational safety by abating (felling) hazard trees along public and administrative-use roads. The Bailey Butte Project overlaps with the Bear AMP project in the Middle Bear, West Branch Bridge Creek and Upper Marks Creek Subwatershed. There are harvest units in the Dodds, Snowshoe, and Nature Creek pastures. The project, completed in 2015, harvested approximately 300 acres and removed hazard trees along 19 miles of road (approximately 600 acres) in the Bailey Butte fire area. Also proposed was six miles of active riparian restoration (directional felling of fire-killed trees and riparian planting) on severely burned streams in the project area. This included treatments on Heflin Creek and a tributary to Heflin Creek, Clover Creek, O’Kelly Creek and Camp Creek. Planting of riparian hardwoods was completed on a tributary to Heflin Creek and a portion of Heflin Creek during the spring of 2015. More planting on Heflin Creek is planned during the spring of 2016. No funding has yet been secured for directional felling of fire-killed trees. The cumulative effects of the Bailey Butte Fire Salvage Project in the Bear AMP project area are addressed below.

Bailey Butte Burned Area Emergency Response (2014/2015)

Following the Bailey Butte Fire, a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team was identified to conduct further fire restoration efforts. The team’s task was to conduct an assessment to identify imminent post wildfire threats resulting from the Bailey Butte Fire that could impact (i) human life and safety (ii) property (iii) and critical natural and cultural resources. BAER treatments that were funded are focused around boundary fence repair in the Dodds pasture to protect Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat, weed treatments and survey, native seeding around the research natural area, road and trail improvements including cleaning culverts and catch basin, construction of waterbars, ditch brushing, removal of three culverts and resizing of two culverts, construction of four vented fords, installation of ditch relief culverts, and installation of drainage structures on the Cougar Trail. All BAER work in the Bailey Butte fire area would have beneficial effects on aquatic resources due to long-term reductions in fine sediment from roads, protection of sensitive areas from unauthorized cattle use, and protection of native vegetation in the fire area. Work under BAER was completed in the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015.

Bailey Butte Post Fire Restoration (future)

In addition to BAER work, the Ochoco National Forest identified additional items that were not funded through BAER and requested funding from the regional office to implement these activities. Activities proposed for additional funding through the regional office reforestation of conifers, invasive plant survey, monitoring and treatment, watershed restoration that includes six culvert repairs/replacements, 8.5 miles of road drainage and erosion control, 131 acres of native grass seed collection and propagation, 6.3 miles of directional tree felling and riparian planting (covered under the Bailey Butte Fire project), 3 wildlife habitat improvement projects, repairs at trailheads and campgrounds, range fence and water development reconstruction, and

110

reestablishment of the boundary and fencing on the Ochoco Divide RNA. All work associated with this post fire restoration request would have beneficial effects on aquatic resources due to long-term reductions in fine sediment from roads, improvements to streams and riparian areas, improvements to unauthorized cattle use from damaged fencing, and improvements to native vegetation. Funding has not been secured for these projects.

Derr Tree Felling Project (2018)

In May of 2018, a Decision Notice was signed for the Derr Tree Felling Project. This project includes tree felling by hand to prevent cattle trampling at the Designated Monitoring Area in the Elkhorn pasture. This project is expected to be implemented in the next year. The purpose of the project is to increase large woody material and create intermittent tree barriers in order to reduce livestock access to streambanks. This project will be beneficial to the 650 feet of stream covered in the Elkhorn pasture that continually sees bank trampling.

Travel Management Rule (2011)

The Record of Decision for the Travel Management Project was signed in September 2011 and the Travel Management Decision implementation started as of January 2012. The decision does the following: 1) limits motor vehicle use to designated roads, trails, and areas shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Maps; 2) designates some gravel pits open to motorized access; 3) creates new conditions for motor vehicle access off of designated roads for dispersed camping; 4) changes some system roads to highway legal vehicle use only. No existing open designated roads or motorized trails were closed as a result of the decision; however, changes to cross- country travel, motorized access for dispersed camping, and motorized mixed use (highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles) of some system roads were made. Cross-country travel is no longer allowed on the Ochoco National Forest. Motorized access for dispersed camping is only allowed to existing sites within 300 feet of roads shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map and motor vehicles cannot drive closer than 30 feet to any wetland, stream, or water body at dispersed campsites. The decision makes no changes to developed campgrounds and does not apply to over-snow motorized travel or permitted activities such as firewood cutting. The cumulative effects associated with the 2011 Travel Management Rule are discussed below.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule has the potential to reduce sediment delivery in the project area short and long-term. Travel management would reduce sediment delivery and reduce peak flows long-term through reduction in road use, closure and decommissioning. These projects will help to reduce scour-related mortality (and increase survival) of eggs and alevins, reduce involuntary downstream movement of juveniles during freshets, increase substrate interstitial spaces used for refuge by fry, restore timing of discharge-related life cycle cues (e.g., migrations), and increase spatial structure.

Road Closures, Decommissioning and Storage

Road closures and decommissioning have occurred in the project area, particularly in the Trout Creek allotment. In 2014, approximately 4 miles of road were decommissioned or closed in Trout Creek in the Big Log Creek watershed. This included hydrologically stabilizing the road

111

the waterbars, light scarification to promote growth of vegetation, and removal of unneeded crossings on intermittent streams. In 1999, Road #2730-150 was decommissioned. This road had negative impacts on Auger Creek because of its proximity to the stream. Along with the road decommissioning, an undersized crossing on Auger Creek was also removed that allowed fish passage and eliminated the risk of failure at this site. Various other roads in the project area have been decommissioned or closed. This has positive benefits on aquatic resources because it reduces instream sedimentation into area streams, reduces fish passage barriers, and overall improves aquatic conditions.

Fish Passage Improvements (Culvert Removals and Replacements)

Fish passage improvements in the form of culvert removals and replacements have occurred in the project area. All the improvements have been in the Trout Creek allotment. Table 61 displays the crossings replaced or removed, the estimated year of removal/replacement and the approximate number of miles of fish habitat made available.

Table 61. Fish Passage Improvements in the Bear AMP Project Area Removal/Replacement Estimated Approximate Miles of Stream – Road Number Year Upstream Habitat Made Available Little McKay Creek – 2700-203 Replacement 2005 0.7

Little McKay Creek – 2700-205 Replacement 2005 0.9

Little McKay Creek – 27 Replacement 2005 0.5 2005, Little McKay Creek – 2700-050 Replacement cleaned in 0.7 2012 Big Log Creek – 2720 Replacement 2000 0.8

Big Log Creek – 2720 Replacement 2000 0.7

Dutchman Creek – 2720 Replacement 2000 1.3

Cartwright Creek – 2720 Replacement 1998 0.9

Potlid Creek – 2720 Replacement 1996 0.5

Potlid Creek – 2720-801 Removal 1996 0.9

Bull Creek – 2725 Replacement 1998 0.0

Trout Creek – 2725-201 Removal 1996 0.2

Dick Creek – 2725 Replacement 2008 0.2

Trout Creek – 2725 Replacement 1996 2.0

West Fork Trout Creek – 2730 Replacement 1999 0.1

112

Auger Creek – 2730 Replacement 2008 0.4

Auger Creek – 2730-050 Removal 1999 0.7

In total, approximately 3 miles of upstream habitat have been restored in the Little McKay Creek watershed and 9 miles in the Trout Creek watershed. Replacement and removal of undersized culverts has not only benefited aquatic species including redband trout and Mid-Columbia River steelhead, but has also benefited water quality by removing the risk of failure at these sites during high runoff events. There are still many fish passage barriers from undersized culverts in the project area, mainly in the Bear Creek watershed. These actions are considered in the cumulative effects for the Bear AMP project area.

Stream and Riparian Restoration

Many stream and riparian restoration projects have taken place in the Bear AMP project area, mainly in the Trout Creek allotment. Table 62 displays the stream restoration activities that have taken place in the Bear AMP project area, including stream name, activity and year implemented.

Table 62. Fish Passage Improvements in the Bear AMP Project Area Stream/Riparian Year of Stream/Area Name Approximate Miles/Acres Restored Restoration Activity Completion Dispersed Campsite Little McKay Creek 2012 0.1 acres Removal Near Stream Channel and Streambank Big Log Creek 2012 0.2 miles Stabilization Channel Reconstruction Little McKay Creek and Habitat 1997 2.0 miles Improvement Meadow Protection and McKay Saddle 2013 1.0 acre Improvement Meadow Protection and Highland Flat 2013 1.0 acre Improvement Meadow Protection with Buck and Pole Exclosure, Divide Spring/Cabin Road Closure, Water 2013-2015 5 acres Development, Cattle Deterrence Installed Cartwright Creek Log Structure Placement 1986 1.3 miles Channel/Streambank Big Log Creek 2012 0.2 miles Stabilization Removal of berms for floodplain connection, large wood complexes, Trout Creek 2014-2016 1.0 miles unauthorized ATV closure, riparian planting in 2015 and 2016 Meadow Restoration – filled in channels to Dick Creek 2013-2015 7 acres, 1.0 miles restore groundwater connection, added large

113

wood, riparian planting and caging Removal of road fill encroaching on floodplain, placement of Auger Creek 2015-2016 1000 feet 10 large wood complexes, riparian planting Nature Creek Riparian planting 2015 1.0 acres Erosion control, streambank stabilization North Pisgah Meadow 2009 2.0 acres and grazing structural improvement

In total, approximately 6 miles of stream and 17 acres of riparian habitat have been restored in the Little McKay, Trout, Nature and Bridge Creek watersheds. Restoration of streams, including placement of large woody debris, riparian planting, and stream channel reconstruction has benefited aquatic species and their habitat including redband trout and Mid-Columbia River steelhead and water quality by rehabilitating areas that were significantly degraded and producing large amounts of fine sediment. These actions are considered in the cumulative effects for the Bear AMP project area.

Invasive Plant Treatment FEIS (ROD, 2012)

The Ochoco and Deschutes Invasive Plant FEIS covers manual and herbicide treatments of invasive plants on Ochoco and Deschutes National Forests. This reduces the extent of invasive plant infestations at identified sites and protects areas not yet infested from future introduction and spread.

Ongoing Recreation

There are numerous dispersed camping sites located along streams throughout the Bear AMP project area that are used during spring, summer and fall months. These sites and general recreation activities (camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, etc.) have the potential to impact water quality, sensitive species and their habitat. Impacts to streambanks and riparian vegetation (including utilization of LWD and large wood recruitment) occur. Rock dams are often constructed at these sites which often result in fish barriers and reduction of stream flow. Furthermore, fishing is permitted within streams and ponds within the project area during summer months. These activities coupled with implementation of the project activities may impact individual fish or habitat for short periods of time (days to weeks), but will not likely contribute to any long-term (months to years), negative trends in population dynamics or effects to habitat at the current scale and distribution of impacted areas.

Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project (future)

The Blue Mountain Forest Resiliency Project is proposing to use commercial and non- commercial thinning and low severity fire in dry forest habitat on about 118,000 acres across the Ochoco National Forest. The proposed action includes units in all Bear Cluster allotments in this

114

analysis. Short-term adverse effects are expected due to implementation, mainly from sediment delivery from increased haul route traffic. There will be long-term beneficial effects from the project as the canopy cover is decreased. This will result in an increase in forage availability and improved forage quality for livestock in the uplands, which will reduce pressure on riparian areas. The effects of the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project are considered in the cumulative effects for the Bear Cluster AMP Project below.

Alternative 1 Cumulative Effects

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects boundary that could negatively affect sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperatures, sediment/turbidity and riparian hardwood vegetation include the Bridge Creek wildfire, Bailey Butte wildfire, Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project and ongoing recreation in the project area. The Bridge Creek fire is currently having the least negative impacts of the three projects because recovery is continuing to occur in the area. However, stream temperatures and riparian hardwood conditions are likely still impaired in the fire perimeter area. The Bailey Butte wildfire continues to have negative effects on stream temperatures, sediment/turbidity and riparian hardwood vegetation. Hillslopes have still not recovered to their pre-fire conditions and erosion is still prevalent both on hillslopes and in stream channels as they adjust. This is especially true in areas where high severity fire burned through riparian areas, including Heflin and O’Kelly Creeks. As with Bridge Creek, stream temperatures and riparian hardwood conditions are impaired in stream corridors that burned and likely have impacts on stream temperatures. The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project will have short-term negative impacts due to fine sediment delivery from haul routes. Finally, ongoing recreation in the project area continues to cause minor, generally immeasurable effects to the four analysis measures.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule has beneficial effects to sensitive species habitat/channel morphology and sediment/turbidity parameters in the short and long-term. Limiting travel routes will allow riparian vegetation to improve in RHCAs. Specifically, LWD recruitment and reduced firewood cutting in riparian areas will incrementally improve LWD recruitment, pool formation and width to depth ratios. The restriction of off-road travel in RHCAs will also reduce sedimentation into streams.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects boundary that have beneficial effects on sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperatures, sediment/turbidity and riparian hardwood vegetation include restoration activities under the Bailey Butte fire project, Bailey Butte post-fire restoration, road closures, decommissioning and storage, fish passage improvements, stream and riparian restoration actions that have occurred in the project area, and the Blue Mountain Forest Resiliency Project. All of the activities listed above have made improvements to the analysis measures for this project. There have been large improvements, especially in the Trout Creek allotment, in the amounts of large wood debris that are important for instream habitat, road closures and decommissioning that decrease sediment delivery to area streams, channel reconstruction that improves channel morphology and instream habitat, and riparian planting that improves riparian hardwood shade and subsequently stream temperatures. The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency

115

Project, once implemented, will reduce canopy cover in treated units, which will ultimately improve forage conditions in the upland and reduce livestock use in riparian areas.

Based on the above activities that are contributing to cumulative effects, Alternative 1 will have a beneficial effect on the four analysis measures (sensitive species habitat/channel morphology, stream temperatures, sediment/turbidity and riparian hardwood vegetation) with the removal of grazing from the Bear AMP planning area. However, further restoration activities proposed under Alternative 2 would not occur, thus reducing the rate of recovery of streams in terms of channel morphology, sedimentation, temperature and riparian hardwood condition. There are no expected measurable adverse effects to the four analysis measures from this alternative. This alternative is expected to improve the analysis measures at the fastest rate compared to the other three alternatives. Determination for Aquatic Species

Removing livestock pressure from springs and streams would improve stream form features: pools, entrenchment, and width-to-depth. Streams would narrow, water depth would increase (decreasing width-to-depth of the stream), current velocity would improve allowing for movement of sediment throughout the stream, stream temperatures would decrease, and shade would increase allowing cover for fish and stabilization of streambanks. Woody vegetation would increase with livestock pressure removed. Long rooted woody vegetation holds the soil of streambanks reducing cut banks, increasing shade, and providing hiding cover and shade for aquatic species and increased habitat for their food source (insects).

Densities of benthics (bottom dwelling) organisms are highest where sediment loads are lowest. Density declines with increasing sediment loads and reduced substrate size (Whol and Carline 1996). With a reduction of sediment in the riparian areas from improvement in vegetation in the uplands and the riparian areas, macroinvertebrates (insect food for fish and frogs) would increase. It is important to note that this alternative does not include additional stream restoration actions in the project area. Stream reaches that are currently impaired would continue to passively restore themselves, but this is long-term, and most of these areas will not improve to pre- disturbance condition without active restoration, even with the removal of cattle and sheep grazing. Channels that are severely incised and disconnected from their floodplains would continue to be degraded with the removal of grazing.

Trampling by livestock would be removed from springs and riparian areas that cause mortality to frogs, fish, and egg masses.

The determination for redband trout and Columbia spotted frogs would be Beneficial Impact (BI).

The determination for Mid-Columbia River steelhead and its critical habitat would be Beneficial Effect (BE).

116

Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are described in detail under “Activities Contributing to Cumulative Effects in the Bear AMP Project Area” and are also applicable to this alternative.

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Past, present and foreseeable actions that could negatively affect sensitive species habitat and channel morphology within the Bear AMP planning area include the Bailey Butte wildfire, and ongoing recreation in the project area. In the Bailey Butte fire area, streams continue to adjust that were severely burned, and are still experiencing some level of bank instability and changes in channel morphology. This is especially true in streams in the Dodds, Snowshoe, North Nature and South Nature pastures. It is expected that instream habitat and channel morphology will continue to recover over the next five years. Ongoing recreation in the project area continues to cause minor, generally immeasurable effects to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology at very localized locations where potential or active large wood is removed from the channel and dispersed campsites and unauthorized ATV use is causing bank instability and changes in width to depth ratios.

Past, present and foreseeable actions that have benefits to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology are restoration activities proposed under the Bailey Butte Fire Project/Bailey Butte post-fire restoration, fish passage improvements, stream and riparian restoration actions that have occurred in the project area, the Travel Management Rule, and the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project. Directional tree felling and planting of riparian vegetation in severely burned areas under the Bailey Butte Fire Project/Bailey Butte post-fire restoration will help improve instream habitat and improve bank stability in the Dodds and Snowshoe pastures. Fish passage improvements (mostly in the Trout Creek allotment) has allowed fish in the project area to access more habitat, some of which may be in better condition. These replacements have also locally improved channel morphology at these sites. Stream and riparian restoration actions in the project area have made positive improvements to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology, mainly in the Trout Creek allotment. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule has beneficial effects to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology across the project area. Limiting travel routes in RHCAs will reduce firewood cutting in riparian areas, which will incrementally improve LWD recruitment, pool formation and width to depth ratios. The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project, once implemented, will reduce canopy cover in treated units, which will ultimately improve forage conditions in the upland and reduce livestock use in riparian areas.

117

vegetative disturbance to a level at which vegetative cover would remain high enough to minimize potential effects to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. Existing areas that are highly impacted are expected to recover.

Riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 2 will also have beneficial impacts to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology across the project area. There will be improvements in pools, instream large wood, width to depth ratios and overall channel form and function. The option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment will have an added beneficial effect on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology because sheep grazing practices tend to avoid use in streams and riparian areas.

Based on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions described, coupled with actions proposed in Alterative 2, there will be long-term benefits to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. This alternative overall is expected to increase pools and large wood, improve width-to-depth and entrenchment where conditions are favorable or restoration actions are proposed. Cumulatively, sensitive species habitat and channel morphology would be on an improving trend in the project area. It is also important to note that, as discussed in the Existing Condition section, end of season monitoring at all DMAs has been met in all pastures and allotments for the past 6 years, with the exception of stubble height in Dodds Creek in 2010 and Little McKay Creek in 2015. End of season monitoring results are indicative of grazing management that is adequately protection riparian resources. Additionally, PFC results across the Bear AMP project area show that streams are either in a Properly Functioning or Functional condition with an upward trend. Only three sites were functioning with no apparent trend, indicating that conditions are generally improving in these allotments. Stream Temperature

Past, present and foreseeable actions that could negatively affect stream temperatures within the Bear AMP planning area include the Bridge Creek wildfire and Bailey Butte wildfire. In the Bridge Creek wildfire, it is expected that overstory canopy from both conifers and riparian hardwood vegetation is still recovering in the fire area where burn severity was high in riparian corridors. This has had a negative impact on streams in the Bridge Creek pasture. Recovery will continue in these areas. In the Bailey Butte fire area, overstory canopy that shades streams in the Dodds, North Nature, South Nature and Snowshoe pasture was killed during the Bailey Butte fire. As with Bridge Creek, there is a negative effect on stream temperature in these areas. Recovery will continue in these areas.

Past, present and foreseeable actions that have benefits to stream temperatures are restoration activities proposed under the Bailey Butte Fire Project/Bailey Butte post-fire restoration and stream and riparian restoration actions that have occurred in the project area. Riparian planting in the Bailey Butte fire area will increase the rate of recovery of riparian hardwoods in streams that were severely burned during the fire. This will improve stream temperature conditions long- term in the Dodds and Snowshoe pastures. Past stream and riparian restoration actions in the project area have focused on planting riparian hardwood vegetation that has improved shade and subsequent stream temperatures and also narrowed streams, which has positive effects on stream temperatures.

118

Under Alternative 2, structural water improvements, active livestock management of cattle and the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment are expected to reduce use in riparian areas. Additionally, changes in grazing management (deferred rotation in all pastures) in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn and Snowshoe allotments will help limit the effects on riparian vegetation that help keep streams shaded because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year as in Alternative 3. Cattle are still expected to be responsible for a certain level vegetative disturbance that can have negative impacts on stream temperature; however this alternative was developed in part to minimize vegetative disturbance to a level at which vegetative cover would remain high enough to minimize potential effects to stream temperatures. Existing areas that are highly impacted are expected to recover. Riparian restoration activities proposed under Alternative 2 will have a short-term negative impact during implementation. This impact would only occur during the time of construction (less than 1 month at each site). Riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 2 will have a long-term beneficial impact to sediment/turbidity across the project area. There will be improvements bank and channel stability, and riparian vegetation which will reduce fine sedimentation into area streams. The option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment will have an added beneficial effect on sediment/turbidity because sheep grazing practices tend to avoid use in streams and riparian areas, causing less bank instability and sedimentation.

Based on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions described, coupled with actions proposed in Alterative 2, there will be long-term benefits to stream temperatures. This alternative overall is expected to improve stream width to depth ratios and riparian vegetation conditions where conditions are favorable or restoration actions are proposed. Cumulatively, stream temperatures would continue to be on an improving trend in the project area. Sediment/Turbidity

Past, present and foreseeable actions that could negatively affect sediment/turbidity within the Bear AMP planning area include the Bailey Butte wildfire, Bailey Butte post-fire restoration, ongoing recreation in the project area, and the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project. In the Bailey Butte fire area, streams continue to adjust that were severely burned, and are still experiencing some level of bank instability and instream sedimentation. Hillslopes have not fully revegetated following the fire, and are still contributing fine sediment into project area streams, especially in the Dodds, Snowshoe, North Nature and South Nature pastures. It is expected that sediment/turbidity in streams in the fire area will continue to recover over the next five years. Ongoing recreation in the project area continues to cause minor, generally immeasurable effects on sediment/turbidity at very localized locations where dispersed campsites and unauthorized ATV use is causing bank instability and sedimentation. The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project will have short-term negative impacts due to fine sediment delivery from haul routes.

Past, present and foreseeable actions that have benefits to sediment/turbidity are Bridge Creek BAER work, restoration activities proposed under the Bailey Butte Fire Project/Bailey Butte post-fire restoration, Bailey Butte BAER work, road closures, decommissioning and storage, fish passage improvements, stream and riparian restoration actions that have occurred in the project area, the Travel Management Rule, and the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project. Activities

119

performed under Bridge Creek BAER reduced the amount of fine sediment entering streams in the fire area through road improvements and heli-mulching to reduce hillslope erosion. Riparian planting already completed under the Bailey Butte Fire Project will help with bank stability in the Heflin Creek watershed, which will help reduce downstream sedimentation. Future work proposed under the Bailey Butte Fire Project includes more riparian planting that will further help with bank stability. Activities not yet completed under the Bailey Butte post-fire restoration project include further road and trail improvement work that will further improve sediment delivery from roads to streams. Bailey Butte BAER activities completed in 2014 and 2015 also made road improvements or closures that improved sediment delivery to streams and native seeding that helped the recovery rate of hillslopes. Additional road closure, decommissioning and storage work in the Bear AMP project area have improved sediment delivery from roads, especially where there were problems identified. Fish passage improvements through culvert replacements and removals eliminated the risk of failure during high flows at these sites, which could send large amounts of road fine sediment downstream at these sites if there were failures. Stream and riparian restoration actions, mainly in the Trout Creek allotment, have improved bank stability and decreased fine sediment delivery at these sites. The planting of riparian hardwood vegetation at many of the locations will continue to help stabilize these areas. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule will reduce off-road travel near streams that, in many cases, causes negative effects in terms of fine sediment delivery. Finally, the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project, once implemented, will reduce canopy cover in treated units, which will ultimately improve forage conditions in the upland and reduce livestock use in riparian areas.

Under Alternative 2, structural water improvements, active livestock management of cattle and the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment are expected to reduce use in riparian areas, which, in turn, will reduce bank instability and subsequent instream sedimentation. Additionally, changes in grazing management (deferred rotation in all pastures) in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn and Snowshoe allotments will help limit the effects on riparian vegetation that helps keep banks stable because riparian areas may not be grazed as intensely year after year as in Alternative 3. Cattle are still expected to be responsible for a certain level of bank and vegetative disturbance; however this alternative was developed in part to minimize bank and vegetative disturbance to a level at which vegetative cover would remain high enough to minimize potential effects to sediment and turbidity. Existing areas that are highly impacted are expected to recover.

Riparian restoration activities proposed under Alternative 2 will have a short-term negative impact during implementation. This impact would only occur during the time of construction (less than 1 month at each site). Riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 2 will have a long-term beneficial impact to sediment/turbidity across the project area. There will be improvements bank and channel stability, and riparian vegetation which will reduce fine sedimentation into area streams. The option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment will have an added beneficial effect on sediment/turbidity because sheep grazing practices tend to avoid use in streams and riparian areas, causing less bank instability and sedimentation.

Based on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions described, coupled with actions proposed in Alterative 2, there will be a short-term negative impact and long-term benefit to

120

sediment/turbidity in the project area. This alternative overall is expected to improve sediment/turbidity conditions in the project area through improvements and additions of structural water improvements and active livestock management that keep cattle out of riparian areas and riparian restoration activities. Cumulatively, sediment/turbidity would continue to be on an improving trend in the project area. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Past, present and foreseeable actions that could negatively affect riparian hardwood vegetation within the Bear AMP planning area include the Bridge Creek wildfire and Bailey Butte wildfire. In the Bridge Creek wildfire, it is expected that riparian hardwood vegetation is still recovering in the fire area where burn severity was high in riparian corridors. This has had a negative impact on riparian areas burned in the Bridge Creek pasture. Recovery will continue in these areas. In the Bailey Butte fire area, riparian hardwood vegetation in the Dodds, North Nature, South Nature and Snowshoe pasture was either killed or damaged during the Bailey Butte fire. Recovery will continue in these areas.

Past, present and foreseeable actions that have benefits to riparian hardwood vegetation are restoration activities proposed under the Bailey Butte Fire Project/Bailey Butte post-fire restoration, stream and riparian restoration actions that have occurred in the project area, treatments under the Invasive Plant Treatment EIS, and the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project Riparian planting in 2015 in Heflin Creek and a tributary to Heflin Creek will increase the rate of recovery of riparian hardwoods in streams that were severely burned during the fire. Future riparian planting planned in the Bailey Butte fire will continue to improve riparian hardwood vegetation conditions in the Dodds and Snowshoe pastures. Past stream and riparian restoration actions in the project area have focused on planting riparian hardwood vegetation and improving surface groundwater connection which improves growing conditions for riparian hardwood vegetation. Invasive weed treatments, especially in riparian areas, remove unwanted species that may outcompete native riparian vegetation, including hardwoods. This has had a positive benefit on recovery and growth of riparian hardwoods in treatment areas. The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project, once implemented, will reduce canopy cover in treated units, which will ultimately improve forage conditions in the upland and reduce livestock use in riparian areas.

Riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 2 will also have beneficial impacts to riparian hardwood vegetation in the project area. Proposals include filling and reconnecting floodplain,

121

planting hardwoods and creating physical barriers to minimize cattle disturbance in riparian areas, which will all have positive benefits to riparian hardwood conditions. The option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment will have an added beneficial effect on stream temperatures because sheep grazing practices tend to avoid use in riparian areas.

Based on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions described, coupled with actions proposed in Alterative 2, there will be long-term benefits to riparian hardwood vegetation in the project area. This alternative overall is expected to improve surface groundwater connection and riparian vegetation conditions where conditions are favorable or restoration actions are proposed. Cumulatively, stream temperatures would continue to be on an improving trend in the project area. Determination for Aquatic Species

There would be a short-term negative effect to Mid-Columbia River steelhead, redband trout and Columbia spotted frog in the Bear Cluster AMP project area due to fine sediment delivery during stream and riparian restoration activities. This may include fish and frog displacement and disruption of normal habits during implementation. Long-term, the activities proposed would move stream form and riparian vegetation towards meeting INFISH standards, thus improving habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead, redband trout and Columbia spotted frog. Improvement in riparian vegetation and stream form/function would be expected to occur over the long-term. Improvements to Mid-Columbia River steelhead, redband trout and Columbia spotted frog habitat and subsequent benefits to populations would be expected to occur more slowly than under Alternative 1, but more quickly than under Alternative 3. There will still be the opportunity for negative impacts to Redband trout and Columbia spotted frog from trampling of fish, frogs and eggs during the grazing season, and increases sedimentation where bank trampling and other disturbance occurs. In pastures with Mid-Columbia River steelhead, grazing will either not occur prior to July 15th or redd surveys will be conducted. If redds are encountered, they will either be protected or no grazing will occur until after July 15th, thus eliminating any changes of mortality to Mid-Columbia River steelhead eggs due to trampling.

Effects to the habitat and species that are additive to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would be described in the “Direct and Indirect Effect - Alternative 2” section. No cumulative effects are expected to adversely affect Redband trout, Mid-Columbia River steelhead and Columbia spotted frog. Proposed changes to grazing management, improved distribution with water developments, and proposed stream restoration activities will improve conditions for these species. Cumulative activities in the project area have had impacts, mainly from the Bailey Butte fire, but recovery continues in these areas. Past restoration activities, including stream, riparian, road decommissioning and fish passage improvements have further improved conditions for aquatics species in the project area. Cumulatively, the trend for aquatic species in the project area would be improving. The previously mentioned projects and Alternative 2 will result in a call of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for Mid- Columbia River steelhead and its critical habitat and “May Impact, but Not Likely to Trend Toward Federal Listing” call for Redband trout and Columbia spotted frog.

122

Alternative 3 Cumulative Effects

Sensitive Species Habitat/Channel Morphology

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions and their effect on sensitive species habitat and channel morphology are described in detail under “Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects”.

Under Alternative 3, there would be no structural water improvements, active livestock management of cattle and the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment that would improve sensitive species habitat and channel morphology. Cattle are expected to be responsible for a certain level of bank and vegetative disturbance. There is no riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 3, and thus no additional benefits to sensitive species habitat and channel morphology in the project area.

Current trends in sensitive species habitat and channel morphology would be expected to continue under Alternative 3. Adhering to existing Forest Plan standards would generally lead to maintenance and potentially improvement to stream conditions long-term. However, with no active riparian restoration, existing incised and entrenched stream reaches would likely not recover for several decades; therefore, habitat for aquatic species would remain degraded. Cumulatively, trends in sensitive species habitat and channel morphology would be maintained or slightly improved with Alternative 3. It is also important to note that, as discussed in the Existing Condition section, end of season monitoring at all DMAs has been met in all pastures and allotments for the past 6 years, with the exception of stubble height in Dodds Creek in 2010 and Little McKay Creek in 2015. End of season monitoring results are indicative of grazing management that is adequately protection riparian resources. Additionally, PFC results across the Bear AMP project area show that streams are either in a Properly Functioning or Functional condition with an upward trend. Only three sites were functioning with no apparent trend, indicating that conditions are generally improving in these allotments. Stream Temperature

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions and their effect on stream temperature are described in detail under “Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects”.

Under Alternative 3, there would be no structural water improvements, active livestock management of cattle and the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment that would improve stream temperatures in the project area. Cattle are expected to be responsible for a certain level of bank and vegetative disturbance that can increase stream temperatures. There is no riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 3, and thus no additional benefits to streamside shade and subsequent stream temperatures in the project area.

Current trends in stream temperatures would be expected to continue under Alternative 3. Existing Forest Plan standards would generally maintain and potentially improve stream

123

conditions long-term. However, with no active riparian restoration, existing incised and entrenched stream reaches and areas with inadequate shade to keep stream temperatures low would likely not recover for several decades; therefore, stream temperatures would remain degraded. Cumulatively, trends in stream temperatures would be maintained or slightly improved with Alternative 3. Sediment/Turbidity

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions and their effect on sediment/turbidity are described in detail under “Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects”.

Under Alternative 3, there would be no structural water improvements, active livestock management of cattle and the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment that would have a beneficial effect on sediment/turbidity in the project area. Cattle are expected to be responsible for a certain level of bank and vegetative disturbance that can increase sediment into project area streams. There is no riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 3, and thus no additional benefits in terms of improving bank stability and sediment/turbidity in the project area.

Current trends in sediment/turbidity would be expected to continue under Alternative 3. Existing Forest Plan standards would generally maintain and potentially improve stream conditions long- term. However, with no active riparian restoration, existing incised and entrenched stream reaches and areas with high bank instability would likely not recover for several decades; therefore, sediment/turbidity would remain degraded. Cumulatively, trends in sediment/turbidity would be maintained or slightly improved with Alternative 3. Riparian Hardwood Vegetation

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions and their effect on riparian hardwood vegetation are described in detail under “Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects”.

Under Alternative 3, there would be no structural water improvements, active livestock management of cattle and the option of sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment that would improve riparian hardwood conditions in the project area. Cattle are expected to be responsible for a certain level of vegetative disturbance that can have negative impacts on riparian hardwood vegetation. There is no riparian restoration proposed under Alternative 3, and thus no additional benefits to riparian hardwood vegetation in the project area.

Current trends in riparian hardwood vegetation is expected to continue under Alternative 3. With no active riparian restoration, areas with inadequate or impacted riparian hardwood vegetation would continue to be degraded. Cumulatively, trends in riparian hardwood vegetation would be maintained or slightly improved with Alternative 3. Determination for Aquatic Species

Alternative 3 is the continuation of the existing allotment management plan. No projects are proposed for this alternative that would improve stream form or riparian vegetation. Current

124

trends in stream form and function and riparian vegetation would be expected to continue. Under Alternative 3, existing Forest Plan management standards would generally maintain and potentially improve riparian conditions long-term through most of the project area; therefore, improvements to Mid-Columbia River steelhead, Redband trout, and Columbia spotted frog habitat and subsequent benefits to populations would be expected. However, with no active riparian restoration, existing incised and entrenched stream reaches would likely not recover for several decades; therefore, habitat for aquatic species in these areas would remain degraded until recovery occurs. Consequently, in these areas, aquatic populations may continue to be suppressed. There will still be the opportunity for negative impacts to Mid-Columbia River steelhead, Redband trout and Columbia spotted frog from trampling of fish, frogs and eggs during the grazing season, and increases in sedimentation where bank trampling and other disturbance occurs. It is important to note that this alternative does not include additional stream restoration actions in the project area. Stream reaches that are currently impaired would continue to passively restore themselves, but this is long-term, and most of these areas will not improve to pre- disturbance condition without active restoration, even with the removal of cattle and sheep grazing. Channels that are severely incised and disconnected from their floodplains would continue to be degraded with the removal of grazing.

Effects to the habitat and species that are additive to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would be described in the “Direct and Indirect Effect - Alternative 2” section. No cumulative effects are expected to adversely affect Redband trout, Mid-Columbia River steelhead and Columbia spotted frog. There are no activities proposed under Alternative 3 that would aim to improve conditions for aquatic species. Cumulative activities in the project area have had impacts, mainly from the Bailey Butte fire, but recovery continues in these areas. Past restoration activities, including stream, riparian, road decommissioning and fish passage improvements have further improved conditions for aquatics species in the project area. Cumulatively, the trend for aquatic species in the project area would be improving. The previously mentioned projects and Alternative 3 will result in a call of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for Mid-Columbia River steelhead and “May Impact, but Not Likely to Trend Towards Federal Listing” call for Redband trout and Columbia spotted frog.

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) Viability Analysis

Fish species identified as management indicator species are listed in the FEIS for the Forest Plan. These species are rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). In the past, these fish have been stocked by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. They are no longer stocked in the streams in the Bear AMP project area but may naturally reproduce in many streams (Classes I and II). For purposes of this analysis, effects to Redband trout will act as a surrogate for MIS fish species. No further evaluation for brook trout will be discussed in this section.

Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy stream and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic

125

ecosystem includes: cold and clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy streamside vegetation; complex channel habitat created by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and provide for instream wood recruitment.

The existing condition of Redband trout habitat and extent of Redband trout populations in the project area is displayed in the section of this report titled “Project Area Description and Existing Condition”. Refer to this section of the report for more information on conditions for Redband trout in the project area.

Limiting factors and threats for Redband trout are similar throughout their range on the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland. The predominate threats are increases in stream temperature due to channel degradation due to riparian area management issues and population fragmentation from upstream passage issues mostly related to culverts at stream crossings.

Causal factors include legacy impacts from over grazing, logging and road building in the 20th century. In most cases channels are currently recovering from these impacts, especially grazing and logging; however, road building issues that constricted floodplains continue to cause impacts to fish habitat. Road crossings on the Ochoco are being replaced on a yearly basis with over 60 culverts either removed or replaced in the last 16 years. This has increased the ability of Redband trout to move freely within and between watersheds.

There are no models developed to determine viability of the Redband trout based on habitat. However, based on the local science from Stuart et al. (2007) and the estimated habitats from the Inter Columbia Basin Management Plan there appears to be appropriate habitat that is well distributed and available for Redband trout across the Ochoco National Forest. In conclusion, the viability assessment indicates that habitat of the Redband trout is still available in adequate amounts, distribution, and quality to maintain Redband trout viability on the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland.

Given the additional actions proposed, including changes in grazing management (deferred rotation), active management, additions and improvements to water developments, optional sheep grazing in the Bear Creek allotment and additional stream restoration actions proposed under Alternatives 2 from the existing condition (especially relative to the scale of the Forest or overall subwatersheds included in this project), the continued viability of Redband trout is expected to occur on the Ochoco National Forest. The predominate threats to Redband trout on the Ochoco National Forest are increases in stream temperature and fragmentation of habitats from road culverts. The Bear AMP project was determined to have a beneficial effect to riparian hardwood vegetation and riparian areas in general under Alternatives 1 and 2 and no effect under Alternative 3, therefore the viability of Redband trout will not be affected.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and Other Laws/Regulations

All alternatives would be consistent with the Ochoco National Forest Plan. Alternatives would

126

be consistent with the water goals and maintaining cutbank levels to below 20 percent as outlined in the LRMP. All alternatives would be consistent with the water goals and would improve upon moving towards meeting the Standard and Guideline of maintaining 80 percent shade or 100 percent of potential as outlined in the LRMP. Monitoring would also ensure that harmful effects to water quality and fisheries resources would be properly and rapidly addressed.

A review of the standards and guidelines provided in PACFISH and INFISH found that activities in the Bear Cluster AMP Project are within PACFISH and INFISH requirements and direction.

Grazing Management

GM-1 – Modify grazing practices (e.g. accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish or anadromous fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objectives.

Monitoring at all DMAs has consistently shown that grazing practices in the Bear Creek Cluster project area are satisfactory (both stubble height and bank alteration standards are met consistently on a yearly basis). It is determined that because grazing standards are being met, that all alternatives will not retard nor prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives. If stubble height and bank alteration standards are not consistently being met, action will be taken against the permittee to ensure RMOs are not impacted.

GM-2 – Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. For existing livestock handling facilities inside the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure that facilities do not prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives. Relocate or close facilities where these objectives cannot be met.

No new livestock handling and/or management facilities are located within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

GM-3 – Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native or anadromous fish.

Every attempt is made to limit trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading and other handling efforts in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Based on monitoring data at DMAs, grazing practices have been satisfactory for both stubble height and bank alteration, which indicates that riparian areas are not being overutilized. Additionally in Alternative 2, stream restoration actions are proposed to limit the amount of trailing by cattle in key areas.

Biological Evaluation Summary Determination for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species

127

Table 63. Aquatic species, their status and determination of effects in the Bear AMP Planning Area

Species Scientific Name Status Alt 1. Alt 2. Alt 3. Alt. 4

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus T NE NE NE NE

Mid-Columbia steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp T BE NLAA NLAA NLAA

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris S BI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. S BI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi S NI NI NI NI

Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulate (suspected) S NI NI NI NI

Harney basin dusky snail Colligyrus depressus S NI NI NI NI

Juga hemphilli s. nov. Indian Ford juga S NI NI NI NI (suspected)

Shortface lanx (Gastropoda) Fisherola nuttalli (suspected) S NI NI NI NI

Fluminicola sp. Nov. Metolius pebblesnail S NI NI NI NI (Metoloius) (suspected)

Juga sp. nov. (Blue Mountains) Blue Mountains juga S NI NI NI NI (suspected)

Juga sp. nov. (Opal Springs) Opal Springs (Crooked River) juga S NI NI NI NI (suspected)

Dalles mountainsnail Oreohelix vaiabilis (suspected) S NI NI NI NI

Pristine springsnail S NI NI NI NI Pristinicola hemphilli

128

(determined)

Columbia clubtail Gomphus lynnae (suspected) S NI NI NI NI

A caddisfly Moselyana comosa (suspected) S NI NI NI NI

Status

E Federally Endangered

DL Federally Delisted

T Federally Threatened

S or St Sensitive or Strategic species from 2011 Regional Forester's ISSSP list

C Candidate species under Endangered Species Act

P Proposed species published in the Federal Register to list as endangered or threatened

Effects Determinations – Threatened and Endangered Species

NE No Effect

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

LAA May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect

BE Beneficial Effect

Effects Determinations – Sensitive Species

NI No impact

MIIH May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards

129

federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species

Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to WIFV a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

BI Beneficial impact

References

Anonymous. 2004. Deschutes River Subbasin Plan submitted to Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, May 2004. URL http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/deschutes/plan/

Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5(3A): 364-378.

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, Salo EO, Cundy TW (eds). Institute of Forest Resources, Univeristy of Washington. Seattle, WA. 191-232.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat (W. R. Meehan, Ed.). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Buckhouse, J.C., J.M. Skovlin, and R.W. Knight. 1981. Streambank erosion and ungulate grazing relationships. Journal of Range Management 34: 339-340.

Clifton, C. 1989. Effects of vegetation and land use on channel morphology. In: Gresswell, R.E., B.A. Barton, J.L. Kershner, eds. Riparian resource management. Billings, MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 121-129.

Cordova, J.J. 1995. Streamside forest, channel constraint, large woody debris characteristics, and pool morphology in low order streams, Blue Mountains, Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. p. 143.

Craig, D.L., H.J Fallowfield, and N.J. Cromar. 2004. Use of microcosms to determine persistence of Escherichia coli in recreational coastal water and sediment and validation with in situ measurements. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 96: 922-930.

130

Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In: Proc., Forum-Grazing and Riparian/ Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91.

Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management. Rangelands 9(6): 260-265.

Gamperl, A. K., Rodnick, K. J., Faust, H. A., Venn, E. C., Bennett, M. T., Crawshaw, L. I., Keeley, E. R., Powell, M. S. and Li, H.W. 2002. Metabolism, swimming performance, and tissue biochemistry of high desert redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.): Evidence for phenotypic differences in physiological function. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 75, 413–431.

Grace, J.M. III. 2003. Minimizing the impacts of the forest road system.” In: Proceedings of the conference 34 international erosion control association; ISSN 1092-2806. International Erosion Control Association: 301-310.

Howell, J.M., M.S. Coyne and P.L. Cornelius. 1996. Effects of sediment size and temperature on fecal coliform mortality rates and the fecal coliform/fecal streptococci ratio. Journal of Environmental Quality. 25: 1216-1220.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle grazing streambanks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 36: 683-685.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management. 37: 430-438.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment to livestock exclosure, White Mountains, California. Restoration Ecology 1: 226-230.

Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1991. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In: Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. May 29-31, 1991.Sun Valley, ID. p. 111-119.

Laycock, W.A. 1989. Stable States and Thresholds of Range Condition in North American Rangelands: A Viewpoint.

Li, H.W., Lamberti, G. A., Pearsons, T.N., Tait, C.K., Li, J. L. & Buckhouse, J.C. 1994. Cumulative Effects of Riparian Disturbance in Small Streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Transactions of American Fisheries Society. V123: 627-640.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2010. Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp

Magilligan, F.J. and P.F McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 33: 867-878.

131

McDonald, A.T. and D. Kay. 1981. Enteric bacterial concentrations in reservoir feeder streams: baseflow characteristics and response to hydrograph events. Water Resources. 15: 961-968.

Megahan, W.F. and King, J. G. 2004. Erosion, sedimentation, and cumulative effects in the Northern Rocky Mountains. In: Ice, G.G and Stednick, J.D. [Eds.]. A Century of Forest and Wildland. Watershed Lessons. Bethesda, MD. Society of American Foresters. 9:201-222.

Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel conditions. Olymipa, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Report TFW-SH 10-93-002. 84 p.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Characteristics of riparian plant communities and streambanks with respect to grazing in northeastern Utah. In. Gresswell et al. Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management, An Educational Workshop. Billings, MT. 1989. BLM-MT-PT-89-001-4351.

Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough, and F.A. Espinosa, Jr. 1994. A coarse screening process for evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing habitat in ESA consultations. Portland, OR, USA: Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. Technical Report 94-4. 126 p.

Rinne, J.N. 1988. Grazing effects on stream habitat and fishes: research design considerations. North American Journal of Fish Management 8: 240-247.

Rodnick, K.J.; Gamperl, A.K.; Lizars, K.R.; Bennett, M.T.; Rausch, R.N.; and, Keeley, E.R. 2004. Thermal tolerance and metabolic physiology among redband trout populations in south-eastern Oregon. Journal of Fish Biology, 64: 310–335.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey. 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland Hydrology. p. 193.

Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator bacterial survival in stream sediments. Journal of Environmental Quality. 21: 591-595.

Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitats: A review. In: NRC/NAS, Developing strategies for rangeland management. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 1001-1103.

Solo-Gabriele H, Wolfert M, Desmarais T, Palmer C. 2000. Sources of Escherichia coli in a coastal subtropical environment. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 66: 230–237.

Stephenson, G.R., and R.C. Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: a reservoir of Escherichia coli in rangeland streams. Journal of Rangeland Management. 35: 119-123.

Stillings, A.M., J.A. Tanaka, N.R. Rimbey, T. DelCurto, P.A. Momont, and M.L. Porath. 2003.

132

Economic implications of off-stream water developments to improve riparian grazing. Journal of Range Management 56 (5): 418-424.

Stuart, A.M., D. Grover, T.K. Nelson, and S.L. Thiesfeld. 2007. Redband trout investigations in the Crooked River basin. Pages 76–91 in R.K. Schroeder and J.D. Hall, editors. Redband trout: resilience and challenge in a changing landscape. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.

Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian habitat along Sheep Creek, Colorado. p. 310-314. In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM- 120.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest Region. November.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Land and Resource Management Plan, Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. August.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. The Bottom Line Survey. An approach to evaluate the attainment of riparian area standards and guidelines on the Ochoco National Forest. R-6 Fish Habitat Relationship Technical Bulletin Number 2.

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Environmental Assessment. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Intermountain, Northern and Pacific Northwest Regions.

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) Environmental Assessment. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Intermountain, Northern and Pacific Northwest Regions.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. FS-978. p. 49.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Unpublished report for the Pacific Northwest Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USDA Forest Service. 2015. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Data. http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/nr/pibo/index.shtml

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Fork for Columbia Spotted Frog. https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/cp-fws-candidate-ha-rana- luteiventris-2011-04.pdf

133

Whol, N.E. and R.F. Carline. 1996. Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 53(1): 260-266.

Winward, A. 1991. A Renewed Commitment to Management of Sagebrush Grasslands.

Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington.

Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area management: grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas (Technical Reference No. 1737-20). Denver, CO, USA: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Zimmerman, C.E. and G.H Reeves. 1996. In Steelhead and Rainbow trout early life history and habitat use in the Deschutes River, Oregon. Annual Report (1995) to the Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon.

134

Appendix A. Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) Assessment for Subwatersheds in the Bear AMP Project area

Aquatic Biota Aquatic Habitat Terrestrial Physical Terrestrial Habitat

ation

and Disease

Subwatershed Presence Life Form Species Native Species Invasive Riparian Vegetation Condition SCORE TOTAL Waters Impaired Quality Water Problems Characteristics Flow Habitat Fragmentation Large Woody Debris and Shape Channel Function SCORE TOTAL Density Road Open Maintenance Road to Proximity Road Water Wasting Mass Soil Productivity Soil Erosion Contamin Soil SCORE TOTAL Class Fire Condition Effects Wildfire Forest Cover Insects Ozone – ExtentInvasive Spread of and Rate Vegetative Range Condition SCORE TOTAL TOTAL WATERSHED SCORE

Howard Creek 1 2 1 2 1.7 3 2 1 3 1 2 1.8 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1.4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.6

Upper McKay 1 1 1 2 1.5 3 2 1 1 2 2 1.7 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1.9 2 1 1 1 1 2 1.4 1.7 Creek Upper Marks 1 2 1 2 1.7 3 2 1 3 2 3 2.1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1.8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1.2 1.8 Creek Opal Creek 1 2 1 2 1.7 3 2 1 2 2 2 1.8 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1.6 2 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.6 Foley Creek 1 2 1 2 1.7 3 2 1 3 2 3 2.1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1.5 2 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.7 Headwaters 1 2 1 2 1.7 3 2 1 3 2 3 2.1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1.5 2 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.7 Trout Creek West Branch 1 2 1 2 1.7 1 1 1 3 1 2 1.3 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 1.9 2 1 1 1 2 1.0 1.7 Bridge Creek Upper Bridge 1 2 1 2 1.7 3 2 1 3 1 2 1.8 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 1.7 2 3 1 1 1 1.2 1.7 Creek Upper Bear 1 2 1 2 1.7 1 1 1 3 2 2 1.4 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 2.0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1.2 1.7 Creek Middle Bear 1 2 1 3 2.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1.7 2 2 1 1 1 2 1.4 1.6 Creek

135

• Indicator scores: (1) = Good, (2) = Fair and (3) = Poor. • For more complete information on Watershed Condition Framework, see

136

Appendix B - Ochoco National Forest Service RHCA and Waterbody Guidelines

The following stream, waterbody, and RHCA guidelines were compiled for the Ochoco National Forest utilizing INFISH standards, Oregon State Forest Practices, and professional knowledge.

INFISH pages A-5, A-6. Interim RHCA widths would apply where watershed analysis has not been completed. Site-specific widths may be increased where necessary to achieve riparian management goals and objectives, or decreased where interim widths are not needed to attain RMOs or avoid adverse effects. Establishment of RHCA’s would require completion of watershed analysis to provide the ecological basis for the change. However, interim RHCAs may be modified by amendment in the absence of watershed analysis where stream reach or site-specific data support the change. In all cases, the rationale supporting RHCA widths and their effects would be documented.

The four INFISH categories (five Ochoco classes) for RHCAs of streams or water bodies and the standard widths for each are defined as:

INFISH Category 1 (Ochoco Class I or II) Fish-bearing streams. Interim RHCAs consist of the stream and:

1. The area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or 2. To the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or 3. To the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or 4. To a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 5. 300 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Ochoco Class I Perennial or intermittent waterbody segments that have one or more of the following characteristics:

1. High densities of spawning, rearing or migrating fish; 2. Domestic/potable water source; 3. Flows enough water to be a major contributor to the quality of water in downstream reach that meets 1 or 2 above). 4. Is a section of stream channel that connects stream reaches that are classified as Class I. 5. PACFISH (Anadromous waters)

Ochoco Class II Perennial or intermittent stream segments thereof that have one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Densities /numbers of spawning, rearing or migrating fish presence. Present in any quantity less than the defined high density quantity defined in Class I 1. . (Based on Oregon State Forest Practices (p32, (II), (b)), “Fish use will be assumed to occur upstream of the known fish use until the first natural barrier to fish use is encountered.”); 2. Flows enough water to be a moderate , or not clearly identifiable, contributor to the quantity of water to a downstream Class I reach, or 3. Is a major contributor of water to a downstream reach classified as Class II because it meets criteria 1. 4. Is a section of stream channel that connects stream reaches that are classified as Class II.

INFISH Category 2 (Ochoco Class III) Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams. Interim RHCAs consist

137

of the stream and:

1. the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or 2. to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or 3. to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or 4. to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential trees, or 5. 150 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

INFISH Category 3 (Ochoco Class III) Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre. Interim RHCAs consist of the body of water or wetland and:

1. the area to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or 2. extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or 3. extent of the moderately and high unstable areas, or 4. 150 feet slope distance from the maximum pool elevation or edge of the stock pond; whichever is greatest.

Ochoco Class III Perennial or intermittent waterbody or segments; or perennial or intermittent spring fed segments; and do not meet Class II criteria, in that they have one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Densities /numbers of spawning, rearing or migrating fish are absent; or 2. Upstream from a natural barrier. Based on Oregon State Forest Practices (p32, (II), (b)), “Fish use will be assumed to occur upstream of the known fish use until the first natural barrier to fish use is encountered.”); 3. Flows enough water to be a moderate or not clearly identifiable contributor to the quantity of water to a downstream Class II reach; or 4. Is a section of stream channel that connects stream reaches that are classified as Class III.

INFISH Category 4 (Ochoco Class IV) Seasonally flowing of Intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides, and landslide-prone areas. This category includes features with high variability in size and site specific characteristics. At a minimum the interim RHCAs must include:

1. the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas, 2. the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge 3. the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, 4. for Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide- prone area to a distance equal to a. the height of one site-potential tree, or b. 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest 5. for watersheds not identified as Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to a. the height of one-half site potential tree, or b. 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Ochoco Class IV All other intermittent stream segments thereof that do not meet higher criteria and possess all of the following characteristics:

Have a defined channel with evidence of scour and deposition

Ochoco Class V Ephemeral stream segments

*Class V is not a standard Forest Service stream classification but is being used to indicate streams that do not meet the criteria for stream class I-IV. These streams do not have well defined channels and only flow in direct response of precipitation or snow melt. Swales are included in this classification.

138

The following Class V streams are of special concern and may have special stream protection requirements due to a high risk of their turning into Class IV streams and/or producing high sediment loads:

1. Those having accumulations of sediment behind wood debris, splash pools where water flows over the debris and channel sides starting to form where flow is constricted. These streams have somewhat higher litter accumulation than Class IV streams. 2. Those having steeper slopes leading to narrow channels. 3. Those having headcuts and stepped headcuts.

INFISH In non-forested rangeland ecosystems, the interim RHCA width for permanently flowing streams in Categories 1 and 2 is the extent of the 100-year flood plain.

Definitions

Waterbody – Stream, spring, wetland, pond.

Perennial Streams – Normally flow yearlong except in period of extreme drought. Have well defined channels and show signs of washing, scouring and/or sorting of bed material. Based on the Oregon State Forest Practices (p41, (60, (a)), “The determination that a stream is perennial shall be …based in a reasonable expectation that the stream will have summer flow after July 15.” These streams are critical in meeting state water quality temperature standards (peak temperatures normally occur in July and the first part of August) as well as effect sedimentation and turbidity. A spring that flows into a Class IV stream should be treated as a wetland with the RHCA the same as a Class IV if less than an acre or a Class III if equal or greater than an acre. PACFISH/INFISH: Streams that flow continuously throughout the year.

Intermittent Steams – Carry water most of the year, but cease to flow during the dry season because evaporation and percolation into their bed and banks exceeds the available streamflow. Have well defined channels. Include channels that show signs of scouring, washing, and sorting of bed material and/or evidence of riparian vegetation even though they may only flow during or immediately after precipitations or melting of snow. Intermittent streams normally lack litter in late spring and early summer, but may develop accumulations of litter or vegetation by the fall or during periods of prolonged drought indicating streamflow sufficient to move material during runoff. Intermittent streams don’t include ephemeral streams. (If an intermittent stream appears to be incorrectly mapped or is not mapped at all, a fisheries biologist or hydrologist should be notified so that stream data base and GIS layer can be updated.) PACFISH/INFISH: A stream which flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface source, such as melting snow.

Ephemeral streams – Carry only surface runoff and flow only in direct response to precipitation or snow melt. Form is slight depressions in the natural contour of the ground surface but do not normally develop sufficient flow to wash scour the channel. Can usually be identified by the presence of needles or other litter in the depressions. PACFISH/INFISH: Streams that only flow as a direct response to rainfall or snowmelt events. They have no base flow.

139