Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest Zigzag Ranger District June 2017

For More Information Contact:

Bill Westbrook, District Ranger Zigzag Ranger District Mt. Hood National Forest 70220 E. Highway 26 Zigzag, Oregon 97049 503-622-3191

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please contact the Zigzag Ranger District at 503-622- 3191.

Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Location of the Proposed Project Area ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Purpose and Need ...... 4 Cooperative Agreement ...... 4 Public Interest Promoted by the Exchange ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 5 Management Direction ...... 5 Forest Plan Direction Applicable to this Project ...... 6 Forest Service Management Direction ...... 8 What will be Decided? ...... 9 Public Involvement ...... 9 Issues ...... 10 Issue 1: Institutional Effects ...... 11 Chapter 2. Alternatives ...... 13 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 13 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 13 Intended Future Management ...... 15 Proposed Action Assumptions and Project Design Features ...... 17 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 18 Deed Restrictions...... 18 Direct Purchase ...... 19 Inclusion of Additional Parcels in the Exchange ...... 19 Comparative Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 19 Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences ...... 25 How We Considered Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 25 Consideration of Past Actions ...... 26 Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 26 How Specialist Reports Were Used ...... 27 Aquatic Species and Habitat ...... 27 Resource Indicators and Measures ...... 27 Affected Environment ...... 27 Existing Condition ...... 28 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...... 31 Summary of Effects ...... 38 Botanical Resources ...... 39 Analysis Assumptions ...... 39 Existing Condition ...... 40 Environmental Effects ...... 43 Heritage Resources ...... 46 Existing Condition ...... 46 Effects Analysis ...... 48 Hydrology ...... 49 Wetland and Floodplains Analysis Requirements for Land Exchanges ...... 49 Existing Condition ...... 50 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 57 Cumulative Effects ...... 61

i Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Wildlife Species and Habitat ...... 61 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species ...... 61 Region 6 Sensitive Species ...... 70 Management Indicator Species ...... 71 Survey and Manage Species ...... 75 Migratory Birds ...... 75 Summary of Effects for all Wildlife Species Evaluated ...... 76 Minerals ...... 78 Existing Condition ...... 78 Environmental Effects ...... 78 Hazardous Substances ...... 78 Regulatory Framework ...... 78 Existing Condition ...... 79 Environmental Consequences ...... 79 Economics ...... 79 Administrative Costs ...... 79 Boundary ...... 80 County and Community Economics ...... 80 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 80 Environmental Justice ...... 80 Prime Farmland, Caves, and Grazing ...... 81 Special Areas...... 81 Climate Change ...... 81 Land Appraisal ...... 82 Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 83 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 83 Tribes ...... 83 Others ...... 83 References ...... 85 General ...... 85 Aquatic Resources ...... 85 Links to websites ...... 87 Botany ...... 88 Climate Change ...... 90 Hydrology ...... 90 Wildlife ...... 92 Appendix A. Legal Descriptions of Proposed Exchange Parcels ...... 97 Appendix B. Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines ...... 103

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of project alternatives in terms of actions and objectives ...... 19 Table 2. Summary of unauthorized uses across National Forest System land exchange parcels .. 20 Table 3. Summary of project alternatives in terms of resource impacts ...... 21 Table 4. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies in City of Portland lands to be transferred to the Mt. Hood National Forest ...... 23 Table 5. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies in National Forest System lands to be transferred to the City of Portland ...... 23 Table 6. Stream crossings identified as needing to be assessed and replaced as an aquatic organism passage crossing (bridge or culvert) in future road maintenance activities in the Bull Run ...... 32

ii Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 7. Parcels affected by the proposed land exchange where listed fish are present and relevant habitat conservation measures applied to those parcels ...... 35 Table 8. Comparison of regulatory framework for Endangered Species Act-listed fish for exchange parcels where the species are present ...... 38 Table 9. Nonnative invasive plant species found within the City lands to be conveyed to Mt Hood ...... 41 Table 10. Nonnative invasive plant species found within Mt Hood lands to be conveyed to the City ...... 41 Table 11. Forested plant associations in the Bull Run exchange parcels ...... 42 Table 12. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies on City of Portland lands to be transferred to the Mt. Hood National Forest ...... 43 Table 13. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies on National Forest System lands to be transferred to the City of Portland ...... 43 Table 14. Stand age classes acres and percent area by parcel, National Forest System lands to be conveyed ...... 44 Table 15. Stand age classes acres and percent area by parcel, City lands to be acquired ...... 45 Table 16. Methods and data used for watershed condition effects analysis ...... 50 Table 17. Land exchange parcel acreage by sixth field subwatershed (based on current ownership) ...... 50 Table 18. Streams listed as water quality limited for stream temperature ...... 52 Table 19. Bull Run 5th field watershed water quality limited 303(d) streams 2012 integrated report assessment database...... 52 Table 20. Floodplain acreage by section for lands offered by City of Portland ...... 53 Table 21. Floodplain acreage by section for National Forest System lands ...... 54 Table 22. Acres of wetlands 0.5 acres or larger on the current City of Portland land-exchange parcels ...... 55 Table 23. Acres of wetlands 0.5 acres or larger on National Forest System land-exchange parcels ...... 55 Table 24. Northern spotted owl habitat in National Forest System lands offered to the City (2,890 acres total) ...... 62 Table 25. Northern spotted owl habitat in City of Portland lands offered to the Forest Service (2,440 acres total) ...... 62 Table 26. Northern spotted owl habitat within each land parcel offered by the USDA Forest Service in the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 63 Table 27. Northern spotted owl habitat in each land parcel offered by City of Portland in the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 63 Table 28. Known or historic spotted owl home ranges that overlap Forest Service exchange lands offered in the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 64 Table 29. Known or historic spotted owl home ranges that overlap City of Portland exchange lands offered in the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 65 Table 30. Summary of impacts to federal threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 76 Table 31. Summary of impacts to R6 sensitive wildlife species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 76 Table 32. Summary of impacts to management indicator species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 77 Table 33. Summary of impacts to survey and manage wildlife species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 77 Table 34. Summary of impacts to migratory birds addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange...... 77

iii Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 35. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Clackamas County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 5 East ...... 97 Table 36. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Clackamas County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 6 East ...... 97 Table 37. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Clackamas County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 2 South, Range 5 East ...... 98 Table 38. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Multnomah County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 6 East; parcels F-10, F-11, F- 12 ...... 98 Table 39. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Multnomah County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 6 East; parcels F-13 through F-20 ...... 98 Table 40. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 5 East ...... 99 Table 41. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 6 East ...... 99 Table 42. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 2 South, Range 6 East ...... 100 Table 43. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 2 South, Range 7 East ...... 100 Table 44. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Multnomah County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 5 East ...... 100 Table 45. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Multnomah County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 6 East ...... 100 Table 46. Applicable Bull Run watershed management unit general standards and guidelines (D) per the 2016 forest plan land use allocation administrative changes ...... 103 Table 47. Applicable Bull Run watershed management unit standards and guidelines (DA1) per the 2016 forest plan land use allocation administrative changes ...... 105 Table 48. Applicable Bull Run watershed management unit standards and guidelines (DA3 Research Natural Area) per the 2016 forest plan land use allocation administrative changes ...... 107

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map showing the project location (Bull Run watershed) with respect to the City of Portland and suburbs ...... 2 Figure 2. Current land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit ...... 3 Figure 3. Current land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit showing parcels offered for exchange ...... 14 Figure 4. Proposed land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit as a result of the land exchange ...... 15 Figure 5. Stream crossings that would need aquatic organism passage structures in the Lower Bull Run ...... 33 Figure 6. Stream crossings that would need aquatic organism passage structures along Road 10 near Reservoir 1...... 33 Figure 7. Wetlands on land exchange parcels ...... 56

iv Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action Introduction The Forest Service is proposing an exchange of approximately 2,890 acres of National Forest System land for approximately 2,440 acres of land owned by the City of Portland within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit of the Mt. Hood National Forest.1

We prepared this preliminary environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations2. This environmental assessment was prepared to determine whether the environmental impacts of the proposed exchange may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. It discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would likely result from the proposed action and alternatives, and is tiered to the final environmental impact statement and record of decision for the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) and amendments. Location of the Proposed Project Area The land parcels under consideration for inclusion in this land exchange are located in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, Oregon. The parcels are within the administrative boundaries of the Zigzag Ranger District on the Mt. Hood National Forest, approximately 13 miles southeast of Troutdale (figure 1). These parcels are located entirely within the Bull Run watershed management unit. The Federal parcels proposed for conveyance to the City of Portland Water Bureau (City) are located near the Bull Run River and Bull Run Reservoirs 1 and 2. The City- owned parcels proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service are located in the western and southern portions of the Bull Run watershed management unit. A complete list of all the parcels, including legal descriptions is provided in appendix A.

1 For resource effects analysis, the numbers used throughout this environmental assessment were generated using spatial data (i.e., Geographical Information Systems). The land description verification (LDV) forms, which were calculated using legal descriptions, are approximately 2,890 acres for the National Forest System parcels and 2,440 for the City of Portland parcels. Please note that all final acre values will be determined by a Forest Service surveyor at a future date. 2 By preparing this environmental assessment, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4371), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act regulations at 36 CFR Part 220, Forest Service environmental policies and procedures (Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15), and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.

1 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity map showing the project location (Bull Run watershed) with respect to the City of Portland and suburbs Background The Bull Run watershed has been the primary water supply source for the City of Portland and its wholesale customers since 1895. In parallel to development of the water system, the Bull Run watershed was designated as one of the nation’s first forest reserves in 1892. The Bull Run Reserve later became part of the Mt. Hood National Forest. This history has forged a century- long partnership between the Forest Service and the City of Portland.

The protected nature of the Bull Run watershed management unit enables the City of Portland to remain one of a very few large cities in the U.S. not required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, to filter its water supplies. The EPA filtration avoidance waiver was awarded to the City in 1992 and is annually reviewed by the State of Oregon. The waiver emphasizes the importance of watershed control, monitoring, and surveillance to protect drinking water quality.

The Bull Run watershed management unit includes the Bull Run River and its tributaries. Two reservoirs on the Bull Run River provide water storage for the City. The City currently owns some, but not all, of the land adjacent to the Bull Run River and the two reservoirs in the Bull Run watershed management unit. The remaining land adjacent to the river and reservoirs is National Forest System land (see figure 2).

The City of Portland holds a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate hydropower facilities at dam 1 and dam 2. The 50-year license (# 2821) was granted in 1979 and is up for renewal in 2029. The license boundary encompasses the hydropower facilities, the two reservoirs that supply water to the hydropower facilities, and powerline rights-of-way adjacent to the lower Bull Run River. Hydropower is generated at these facilities as a byproduct of drinking water supply operations.

2 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Figure 2. Current land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit

Federal laws regulating the management of the Bull Run watershed have been in effect for over 120 years. Below is a summary of the key Federal legislation and policies that currently apply specifically to the Bull Run watershed management unit:

• The Bull Run watershed management unit was established under Federal law in 1977 (Pub. L. 95-200, 91 Stat. 1425, 16 U.S.C. 482b note) (project record). This law includes a management objective for the Bull Run watershed management unit to produce “… pure, clear, raw potable water … for the City of Portland and other local government units and persons in the Portland metropolitan area …” • The Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 (ORCA) which became Section 1026 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4228) amended P.L. 95-200 (project record) and prohibited timber harvest on National Forest System land “within that part of the [Bull Run watershed management] unit consisting of the hydrographic boundary of the Bull Run River Drainage” (Section 1026(b)(1)). Tree cutting is only permitted for the following purposes: ♦ for the protection or enhancement of water quality in the area; or ♦ for the protection, enhancement, or maintenance of water quantity available from the area; or ♦ for the construction, expansion, protection or maintenance of municipal water supply facilities; or

3 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

♦ for the construction, expansion, protection, or maintenance of facilities for the transmission of energy through and over the unit or previously authorized hydroelectric facilities or hydroelectric projects associated with municipal water supply facilities (110 Stat. 4229). • In 2001, Public Law 107-30, the Little Sandy Protection Act, further amended Public Law 95- 200 (project record) and expanded the Bull Run watershed management unit boundary to include additional public lands in the Little Sandy hydrographic boundary and extended the timber harvest restrictions on Federal lands set forth by the Oregon Resource Conservation Act to the entire management unit. The Little Sandy River is a tributary of the Bull Run River. Purpose and Need The overall purpose of this project is to provide for more effective administration of National Forest System land and City-owned land in the Bull Run watershed management unit.

The City’s current land holdings in the Bull Run watershed management unit are dispersed and noncontiguous, reflecting past City actions to gradually secure water rights and to purchase inholdings to prevent private development and preserve water quality (figure 2).

The current ownership configuration in the Bull Run watershed management unit requires the City to obtain and renew administrative authorizations from the Forest Service to access and manage its water supply infrastructure, which includes the two dams and reservoirs, diversion headworks, water transmission systems to the City of Portland, and hydroelectric generation facilities. Review and approval of City actions to operate the water supply on Federal land, in turn, creates an ongoing administrative burden on the Forest Service in a time of constrained resources.

Cooperative Agreement The City and the Forest Service entered into an agreement in 2007 that expresses the parties’ intentions on how best to cooperate and partner in managing the Bull Run watershed management unit under the auspices of Public Law 95-200. The agreement provides a framework to clarify respective roles and responsibilities of the agencies, and to streamline the parties’ collective and respective administrative functions. The agreement reiterates the ongoing joint intent of both agencies (also mentioned in the 1979 Bull Run environmental impact statement, page 54) to pursue a land exchange to simplify land ownership and occupancy arrangements, and to better reflect the mutual intent to increase the operating efficiency of both agencies while also improving protection for the Bull Run’s resources (2007 Bull Run watershed management unit agreement, page 10).

Public Interest Promoted by the Exchange The objective of this exchange is to simplify the land ownership arrangements, consolidating City ownership around the water supply facilities used in daily operations and consolidating upland National Forest System lands. The exchange would thereby reduce the number of administrative authorizations that the City would have to periodically obtain from the Forest Service and reduce administrative effort and costs for the Forest Service.

The land exchange would consolidate City ownership to include the locations where the most frequent need for water system maintenance would occur (see figure 4 in chapter 2), and would

4 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

thereby reduce the federal staff time necessary for project-level approvals. The affected lands already contain water supply facilities and have experienced the land disturbance associated with the construction and maintenance of those facilities.

The land exchange would increase the City’s control of lands directly surrounding the dams and reservoirs, which is consistent with EPA’s direction under the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR section 141.71). In addition, public drinking water supplies are identified as critical infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the Federal Department of Homeland Security and EPA (Public Law 107-188). Direct ownership by the City of the lands including and directly surrounding the water supply dams and reservoirs would increase the City’s ability to meet Department of Homeland Security and EPA expectations for infrastructure security and surveillance.

The overall goal of the Bull Run watershed management unit is to serve as the main water supply for the City of Portland and its service areas, with the principal objective of the production of “pure, clear, raw potable” water (preamble to Public Law 95-200). Proposed Action The proposed action would be a land-for-land exchange to optimize the pattern of land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit and better serve the respective missions of the two agencies. The land exchange affects a relatively small portion (approximately 6 percent) of the total land area of the 95,000-acre Bull Run watershed management unit.

The Forest Service would convey a maximum of approximately 2,890 acres of National Forest System land near the Bull Run River and Bull Run Reservoirs 1 and 2 to the City of Portland Water Bureau. The Forest Service would also acquire a maximum of approximately 2,440 acres of City-owned land in the uplands of the western and southern portions of the Bull Run watershed management unit. The proposed action is described in detail in chapter 2 of this environmental assessment. Figure 3 in chapter 2 shows the parcels offered for exchange. Appendix A provides the legal descriptions of these parcels. Figure 4 in chapter 2 shows the resulting changed ownership if all offered parcels are exchanged. Management Direction The Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) (1990), as amended, guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the Mt. Hood National Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource protection and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. The forest plan also includes goals, objectives, and desired future conditions for each of the management areas on the Forest. The forest plan sets forth priorities for the disposal and acquisition of National Forest System lands within the Mt. Hood, and in so doing places an emphasis on optimizing land ownership patterns. The forest plan does not specifically address the non-Federal acres to be acquired, but typically, per Forest Service regulations, acquired lands take on the land use allocation of the National Forest System lands adjacent to them. As stated in 36 CFR 254.3(f), “Lands acquired by exchange that are located within areas having an administrative designation established through the land management planning process shall automatically become part of the area within which they are located, without further action by the Forest Service.”

5 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Forest Plan Direction Applicable to this Project This environmental assessment is tiered to the final environmental impact statement and record of decision for the forest plan (USDA Forest Service, 1990), as amended by the following:

• The Northwest forest plan – Record of decision for amendments to forest service and bureau of land management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl (USDA and USDI 1994) • Survey and manage – Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines (USDA et al. 2001); • Invasive plants – Pacific Northwest invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants record of decision (USDA 2005) and site-specific invasive plant treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia Gorge Scenic Area in Oregon (USDA 2008); • Bull Run watershed land use allocation administrative change – The Mt Hood forest plan and Northwest forest plan land use allocations were updated in March of 2016 to make the forest plan consistent with the public laws governing the management of the watershed (Northrop 2016). The forest plan incorporates direction from the Bull Run planning unit final environmental impact statement of 1979 (Bull Run final environmental impact statement), which was developed to carry out the intent of Public Law 95-200 (forest plan p. One-3). A forest plan land use allocation was developed specifically for the Bull Run watershed management unit (forest plan, p. Four-295 through Four-317, as amended in 2016). It was labeled “Category D” and subdivided into several management areas which coincide with the management direction established in the Bull Run final environmental impact statement. The 2016 amended management areas include DA1: Bull Run Watershed Management Unit; DA3 Research Natural Area; and A9: Key Riparian Lands. The intent of the Management Area Category D standards and guidelines is to complement existing direction provided in the Bull Run final environmental impact statement. The primary objective of management direction is to ensure that all activities reduce long-term risks to water quality and quantity. In the event of apparent conflict between the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Bull Run final environmental impact statement, guidance and direction in the Bull Run final environmental impact statement predominates (forest plan, p. Four-300).

The lands to be conveyed are in Management Area DA1. The lands to be acquired are surrounded by DA1, and therefore would assume the DA1 management area designation. All Management Area DA1 standards and guidelines as described in the forest plan, as amended would apply to the newly acquired lands (Northrop 2016). A list of the standards and guidelines applicable to the Bull Run watershed management unit are provided in appendix B of this environmental assessment.

All National Forest System land in the Bull Run watershed management unit that had been designated by the 1994 Northwest forest plan as matrix or late-successional reserve became designated as administratively withdrawn3 as a result of federal laws passed since 1994 (see

3 All lands in the Bull Run watershed management unit are administratively withdrawn under the Northwest forest plan. Administratively withdrawn areas are “identified in current forest and district plans or draft plan preferred alternatives and include recreational and visual areas, back country, and other areas

6 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

background section of this environmental assessment). Therefore, because they are surrounded by administratively withdrawn lands, the parcels to be acquired by the Forest Service would be designated as administratively withdrawn upon acquisition, and managed under that management designation according to the 1994 Northwest forest plan.

Public Law 95-200 designated this area as withdrawn, even if there are minor adjustments in the boundaries. This land exchange is considered a minor boundary adjustment. Neither the overall boundary of, nor the number of acres within the Bull Run watershed management unit would change as a result of this land exchange.

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan goal to “manage landownership within the forest considering other resource goals and management efficiency” (forest plan, p. Four-5).

This action responds to the land management goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan for land acquisition and adjustments (forest plan, pp. Four-123-125) to consolidate lands into generally solid blocks of ownership to advance resource management goals. It is consistent with the following forestwide standards and guidelines:

• FW-643: “Providing optimum patterns (USDA 1982 (forest land ownership plan)) of land ownership within the Forest, considering resource goals and efficiency of managing the Forest, shall be emphasized.” ♦ The exchange would consolidate land holdings within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit for Federal and City agencies. ♦ Federal acquisition of the City’s surrounded parcels would reduce in-holdings within the National Forest System lands as well as meet the primary purpose of the National Forest System and the land use designation identified in the forest plan. • FW-646: “Lands that are acquired to meet Forest or resource management needs shall be those listed in the Forest Land Ownership Plan under the following priorities:” Group 1 and group 2 are priority 1. Group 3 is priority 2. ♦ The Bull Run watershed management unit is in group 1. ♦ Group 1 lands are defined in FW-645 as, “Lands where Congress has either directly or indirectly instructed the Forest Service to retain ownership, or to acquire non-Federal lands for a designated purpose” (forest plan, p. Four-123). Although normally, we would not undertake an exchange out of group 1 lands, this constraint does not apply because the direction of the Bull Run Planning Unit final environmental impact statement supersedes forest plan direction for our management of the Bull Run watershed management unit in this case.

not scheduled for timber harvest” (Northwest forest plan record of decision, p. 7). As such, administratively withdrawn areas are not scheduled for timber harvest (Northrop 2016).

7 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

♦ The forest plan states, “In the event of apparent conflict between these Standards and Guidelines and the Bull Run FEIS (1979), guidance and direction in the Bull Run FEIS (1979) predominates” (Four-300). Page 57 of the Bull Run final environmental impact statement (1979) states, “Property exchange between the city, U.S. Forest Service and others within the Management Unit to consolidate ownership for more effective land management will be pursued. A management objective is to obtain full public ownership (city or U.S. Forest Service) of Management Unit lands.” We interpret this to mean lands are not to be exchanged out of public ownership and the protections that were spelled out in Public Law 95-200 (as amended by the Oregon Resources Conservation Act of 1996 and the Little Sandy Protection Act of 2001) and, subsequently, in City of Portland Code. The intent of the forest plan is to retain public ownership in the Bull Run. The land exchange is consistent with the land use allocation D-016 standard and FW-645 and 646 since all lands that are part of the exchange would remain in public ownership. It should also be noted that both the City and Forest Service have agreed to manage the lands within the Bull Run for the same resource protections and purpose, as stated in Public Law 95-200 … “to produce pure, clear, raw potable water …”. The specific types of resource protections are described in the Bull Run watershed management unit agreement between the Mt. Hood National Forest and Portland Water Bureau (USDA 2007) and highlighted in the project design features section of this environmental assessment.

The Bull Run River above the reservoirs is identified in the Northwest forest plan as a tier 2 key watershed, a watershed important for protection of its high quality water. There are no prohibitions of undertaking a land exchange in a tier 2 key watershed.

Because the Bull Run land exchange is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the forest plan (as amended by the Northwest forest plan, page C-17), it would not be subject to Regional Ecosystem Office or Regional Interagency Executive Committee review.

Forest Service Management Direction Federal laws authorizing land exchanges by the Forest Service are described in detail in Forest Service Manual 5430.1 and Forest Service Handbook 5409.13, chapter 30. These include:

• General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 465, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 485, 486) • Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988 (Pub. L. 100-409, 102 Stat. 1086; 43 U.S.C. 1716). • Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (FLPMA) (Pub. L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2755 as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1701, 1715, 1716, 1717). • The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681) as revised by Congress 2010 guidelines). For exchanges in excess of $500,000, the notice of exchange proposal will be forwarded for submission to the Secretary of Agriculture and congressional committees. Those exchanges where the Federal parcel is valued in excess of $1,000,000 cannot be consummated until the 30-day review period is completed. The notice of exchange proposal for this land exchange was submitted to congressional committees and Secretary for oversight and review in 2010 and the updated exchange proposal was submitted in 2016 (project record).

8 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

• The Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR section 254.3(f) requires the authorized officer to “consider only those exchange proposals that are consistent with land and resource management plans (36 CFR part 219). Lands acquired by exchange that are located within areas having an administrative designation established through the land management planning process shall automatically become part of the area within which they are located, without further action by the Forest Service, and shall be managed in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, and land and resource management plan applicable to such area.” As part of the decision, and in compliance with section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the responsible official will determine if the proposed land exchange serves the public interest. Factors that must be considered in a public interest determination for a proposed land exchange are listed in the code of Federal regulations:

• “To determine that an exchange well serves the public interest, the authorized officer must find that: ♦ The resource values and the public objectives served by the non-Federal lands or interests to be acquired must equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives served by the Federal lands to be conveyed (36 CFR §254.3(b)(2)(i)); and ♦ The intended use of the conveyed Federal land will not substantially conflict with established management objectives on adjacent Federal lands, including Indian Trust lands.” (36 CFR §254.3(b)(2)(ii)) The analysis of each of these public interest factors in the context of the proposed action will be disclosed in this environmental assessment. The responsible official will include a final public- interest analysis, and explain how it influenced the final decision in the decision notice. What will be Decided? The need for the proposal outlined earlier in this document sets the scope of the project and analysis to be completed. Based on the analysis, the responsible official4, will determine:

• Whether the resulting action would produce significant environmental impacts requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement, and if not, • Whether to authorize the proposed land exchange, and if so: ♦ Which non-Federal lands should be acquired and Federal parcels conveyed to meet the need for action, considering the public interest as described in the “Public Interest” section of this document. Public Involvement The Bull Run land exchange is an activity implementing a land management plan. It is not an activity authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148). Therefore, this activity is subject to pre-decisional administrative review consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74) as implemented by subparts A and B of 36 CFR part 218.

4 The responsible official is the Director of Lands, unless delegation of authority is granted to the forest supervisor. The responsible official will be established by the time the environmental assessment is finalized and ready for a decision.

9 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

We sent a scoping letter for this project t to a list of 112 potentially interested individuals, agencies, and groups on August 11, 2010. The Portland Water Bureau personnel sent an e-mail to a list of 85 potentially interested individuals, agencies, and groups. Water Bureau personnel also released a media advisory on August 13, 2010, and Water Bureau and Forest Service personnel held a joint public meeting on September 9, 2010, to present information about the proposed land exchange, answer technical questions, and help interested members of the public understand how to provide project input.

Information about the proposal is also posted on the Forest Service’s and Water Bureau’s websites. This proposal has appeared on the Mt. Hood National Forest’s schedule of proposed actions since October 1, 2010. The proposal has also been mentioned in annual reports and quarterly project lists published online by the Water Bureau staff (www.portlandoregon.gov/).

As required by 36 CFR section 254.8, we also published a notice of exchange proposal in the Oregonian newspaper for four consecutive weeks, beginning on August 16, 2010. The notice invited the public to comment or express concerns about the proposed land exchange during a 45- day period that began on the initial date of publication. On August 19, 2010, we sent letters to adjacent landowners, state and local governments, and the congressional delegation. These letters also invited the recipients to submit comments and concerns about the exchange proposal. We have received seven responses to these invitations for public input

An amended agreement to initiate was prepared in 2016 to update the scoping and to document some minor changes in the parcels to be offered for exchange. The primary purpose of the parcel changes was to ensure that the entirety of the project boundary defined in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license was included in the lands to be received by the City. On February 5, 2016, we sent 26 letters to additional interested parties, including adjacent landowners, state and local governments, Tribal governments, and the congressional delegation; and we published an updated notice of exchange proposal in the Oregonian newspaper for four consecutive weeks. One comment was received in response to notification of this amendment (project record).

We read all of these submissions to identify individual comments within each and then grouped similar comments into categories. Our project interdisciplinary team reviewed these comments to identify issues and information that should be addressed in the environmental assessment. The team’s responses to these comments are in table 2 of the “Scoping Summary and Response to Comments” in the project record. Issues “Issues (cause-effect relationships) serve to highlight potential effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the purpose and need for the proposal, while reducing adverse effects” (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 12.42). They may also be identified as analysis topics to routinely evaluate the relative merits or impacts of the alternatives, such as to determine the effectiveness of the alternatives in addressing the purpose and need, or to determine consistency with laws, regulations, and policies.

10 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Issue 1: Institutional Effects The public expressed concerns that the laws, regulations, and policies providing protections currently applied to National Forest System land parcels would no longer apply to those land parcels once they were conveyed to the City. Public comments on this issue included the following:

• “This land exchange has potentially significant impacts on old growth and aquatic habitat” (Comment 5.13). “We look forward to seeing an EA that takes a hard look at the potential impacts this proposal may have on management of aquatic resources, old growth habitat, and watershed health” (Comment 6.08). • “This proposed change in land ownership has significant implications under the Endangered Species Act” (Comment 6.05). • “Because NEPA only applies to federal agencies, this proposal would take away the procedural protections NEPA provides” (Comment 6.01).

Issue 1 Indicators The likely direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and any alternatives on watershed conditions, old-growth forests, aquatic habitat, watershed health, listed and sensitive species, and public decision making will be analyzed and disclosed in the environmental assessment.

Each resource analysis will disclose the legal implications of the land exchange in terms of the changes likely to occur in the laws, regulations, and policies affecting the land being offered for exchange by both parties and the indirect effects of these changes on resources.

Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives The implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act require federal agencies to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources” (40 CFR section 1501.2(c)). Therefore, issues may also be identified in order to formulate alternative ways to address the purpose and need while reducing undesired impacts or unintended consequences. Alternatives may include modified actions, new design criteria, or mitigation measures. All alternatives analyzed in detail must address the project’s purpose and need and be consistent with existing law, regulation, and policy. Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, none of the parcels proposed for exchange would be exchanged. Administration of National Forest System land and City-owned land in the Bull Run watershed would not become more efficient. Federal staff time necessary for project-level approvals of City management of its water supply infrastructure would not be reduced. Consolidation of City ownership around the water supply facilities used in daily operations and consolidation of upland National Forest System lands would not occur. The City would continue to lack full control of lands directly surrounding the dams and reservoirs, the use of which are regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR section 141.71) and by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the hydropower license boundary area. The City would also continue to lack full control of public drinking water dams and reservoirs which are identified as critical infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the Federal Department of Homeland Security and EPA (Public Law 107-188).

Forest Service personnel would continue to administer seven special-use permits and an easement. Dispersed City facilities currently on National Forest System land and the following unauthorized uses5 would need to be processed for authorization by the Forest Service personnel (including the Reservoir 1 boat house, the microwave reflector located along Road 10 near the east end of Reservoir 1, the Station 18 key station used for streamflow measurement and water quality monitoring, and gazebo). The dispersed City-owned upland forest lands would continue to be surrounded or abutted by National Forest System land. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The proposed action would be a land-for-land exchange to optimize the pattern of land ownership within the Bull Run watershed management unit and better serve the respective missions of the two agencies. The land exchange affects a relatively small portion (approximately 6 percent) of the total land area of the 95,000acre Bull Run watershed management unit.

5 Unauthorized use is defined under CFR 36 section261.10 as use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without special-use authorization when such an authorization is required.

13 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Figure 3. Current land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit showing parcels offered for exchange

The Forest Service and City are jointly proposing to exchange fee title to some or all of the approximately 2,890 acres of Federal land and 2,440 acres of non-Federal land located within the boundaries of the Bull Run watershed management unit. The final land exchange configuration will be determined in part based on land value as determined by an appraisal of both the Federal and non-Federal lands prepared and approved in accordance with the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice, the uniform appraisal standards for federal land acquisitions, and written supplemental instructions.

Parcels were selected for the exchange with the intent of transferring Federal land directly surrounding the reservoirs to the City in exchange for lands of equivalent value currently owned by the City (see figure 4).

14 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Figure 4. Proposed land ownership in the Bull Run watershed management unit as a result of the land exchange

Intended Future Management Since the act of conveying lands itself has no environmental effects, this environmental assessment focuses on (1) the future use and management of the lands acquired and conveyed and (2) the effect of the exchange on the lands that adjoin them (Forest Service Handbook 5409.13, section 33.41).

This exchange would not change Forest Service land management practices in the Bull Run watershed. The current management of the Federal land to be conveyed in this exchange is essentially the same as the current management of the City-owned property. Both the Forest Service and the City of Portland staff manage the respective lands in the Bull Run watershed management unit for the same objective: to produce “pure, clear, raw potable water…for the City of Portland and other local government units and persons in the Portland metropolitan area” (Public Law 95-200). Once the land exchange is completed, each party would continue to manage the exchanged parcels for that objective. Both the City and Forest Service are subject to a variety of Federal watershed and habitat protection statutes and regulations (for example, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act). Overall management of the Bull Run watershed management unit would continue to occur in a partnership between the City and Forest Service. The physical state of the lands to be exchanged is intended to remain the same after the exchange as before the exchange.

15 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Prohibitions on timber harvest would continue to apply on both City-owned and Federal land in the watershed. Management of the forest on lands to be received by the Forest Service would continue to be regulated by Public Law 95-200 as amended; no timber harvest would be allowed, and no change from current management is expected.

In 2010, the Portland City Council adopted a chapter of Portland city code (21.36.050, Bull Run watershed protection policy) that strengthens watershed protections for the Bull Run watershed by formalizing land use restrictions and prohibiting tree cutting on City-owned lands in, and adjacent to, the watershed (City of Portland, 2010). This legislation placed the same restrictions on timber cutting for City-owned land as the Oregon Resource Conservation Act and the Little Sandy Protection Act placed on Federal lands in the Bull Run watershed management unit. The watershed protection would apply to the land the City acquires from the Federal Government as a result of this land exchange. No timber harvest would be allowed on lands to be received by the City, and no change from current management is expected.

Lands and facilities used by the City for hydropower would remain under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction. Currently, some affected lands and facilities are on Federal land and some are on City land. After the exchange, the intent is for all lands included in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for the City’s hydropower facilities to be in City ownership.

Administrative activities, maintenance (for example, road maintenance and hazard tree removal), and improvements to administrative sites would continue to occur. However, these activities would not be within the scope of this analysis because they would not be automatically triggered by the land exchange. They can proceed whether the land exchange is completed; they are not interdependent parts of the land exchange and do not depend on the land exchange for their justification (40 CFR section 1508.25(a)(1)).

The transportation road analysis for Forest Service is contained in the project file. Road easements, cost share agreements, and other outstanding road rights have been reviewed as part of this analysis. Findings are summarized here:

The condition of the roads on the Federal and City parcels do not vary between the condition of a specific road and the ownership and management of that road. Under the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit 1977 Act (Pub. L. 95-200, 91 Stat. 1425, 16 U.S.C. 482b note), the road system in the entire watershed unit is closed to public access. In addition, there is a special land designations closure order for the Bull Run watershed management unit pursuant to 36 CFR section 261.50 (a) and (b) which prohibits unauthorized personnel being on a road in the area. Pursuant to 36 CFR section 261.50 (e), the following persons are exempt from this order 1) persons with a permit specifically authorizing the otherwise prohibited act or omission, 2) owners or lessees of land in the area, 3) Any Federal, State, or local officer or member of any organized rescue or fire-fighting force in the performance of an official duty, and 4) persons engaged in specifically authorized business, trade, or occupation in the area (project record). There are no cost share roads across the subject land exchange parcels or in the Bull Run watershed management unit.

In 2007, the City and the Forest Service signed the Bull Run watershed management unit agreement describing how to best cooperate in the managing of the unit (USDA 2007). The parties agreed that the roads retained in the watershed would be primarily for the operations of the City. The City, with a few exceptions, would become responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the transportation system while the Forest Service would retain jurisdiction,

16 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

subject to all existing easements and valid rights. This agreement was intended to set the framework and the formal authorization for assuming maintenance responsibilities would follow.

It should be noted all roads across City land exchange parcels are under the Forest Service jurisdiction or joint jurisdiction of the Forest Service and the City, as National Forest System roads as stated in the road easements. The remaining six acquired road easements are still essential for the management of the Mt. Hood National Forest. These remaining six road easements granted to the United States would be terminated if the land exchange is implemented since the roads would merge with title for lands acquired by the Forest Service (project record). Thus, these particular roads would remain in the full jurisdiction and control of the Forest Service. This exchange proposal would not close or decommission any existing National Forest System roads or City roads. No new roads are anticipated.

Approximately 1.88 miles of roads across parcels offered to the City would no longer be needed by the Forest Service personnel for access. Forest Service personnel would no longer be responsible for maintaining these road segments, but they would continue to be used and maintained by the City. The Forest Service acquired two road easements in the 1960s across the non-Federal land exchange parcels. Since then, these roads have been decommissioned. These two easements would be terminated, avoiding any condition requirements of the easements. Terminating these two easements would eliminate 0.63 miles of National Forest System roads. Additionally, approximately 7.88 miles of National Forest System roads across the existing Federal land exchange parcels would be reserved by the Forest Service for administrative access rights only. The City would have jurisdiction of these right-of-way roads and would be responsible for the overall maintenance. A total of 10.39 mile net reduction of National Forest System roads would occur with this proposed land exchange proposal. The Forest Service would retain full jurisdiction and control of approximately 1.70 miles of roads across lands conveyed to the City (map available in project record). The City and the Forest Service would continue to cooperate on management of the full Bull Run road system as described in the 2007 memorandum of agreement (project record).

Proposed Action Assumptions and Project Design Features

Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan The City will conduct its activities in the Bull Run watershed and Sandy River basin as described in the Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan and in compliance with the implementing agreement of the incidental take permit issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2009. The habitat conservation plan defined 49 habitat conservation measures to protect and improve habitat for Endangered-Species-Act-listed fish species affected by the water supply system in Bull Run. The habitat conservation plan and permit documents are filed in the project record. Additional information about this assumption is in the “Aquatics and Fisheries” section of chapter 3.

Aquatic Organism Passage To maintain the protections for aquatic species afforded by the Mt. Hood forest plan, which was amended by the Northwest forest plan, all stream crossings along the impacted roads that are part of the Bull Run land exchange between Mt. Hood National Forest and the City of Portland Water Bureau would be assessed for an aquatic organism passage crossing. The forest plan states fish passage should be maintained or improved (FW-115 and FW-145) and human-made fish passage barriers should be identified and corrected (FW-117 and FW-147). The Northwest forest plan’s

17 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

aquatic conservation strategy (objectives 1 and 2) includes the objective of maintaining and restoring connectivity within and between watersheds, which must provide unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling the life history requirements of aquatic species (for fish, amphibians, crayfish, aquatic shrews, insects, etc.). In addition, the Northwest forest plan's road management guidelines state the agencies shall construct new culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate at least the 100-year flood (RF-4) and shall provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams (RF-6).

Once it is determined that a culvert, bridge or other stream crossing is to be replaced or constructed on lands that are conveyed to the City of Portland Water Bureau, the stream crossing would be assessed for replacement using the Forest Service's stream simulation design approach. Once a stream crossing is replaced, aquatic organism passage projects would be monitored and reassessed using the Forest Service stream simulation design approach. Additional information about this assumption is in the “Aquatics and Fisheries” section of chapter 3, including a table and 2 maps identifying 14 crossings known to be in need of assessment and replacement with an aquatic organism passage crossing at some point in the future.

Management of Large Woody Debris All large woody debris would continue to be used for restoration projects in the Sandy River Basin and fully coordinated with the Forest Service fisheries or hydrology personnel. Additional information about the need for and availability of large woody debris is in the “Aquatics and Fisheries” section of chapter 3. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail As part of the 2010 scoping, the public suggested several alternatives to address their concerns. Those alternatives and the results of our considerations of all alternatives suggested by the public are in table 2 of the “Scoping Outcome and Response to Comments” in the project record. One suggested alternative (deed restrictions) addressed the issue of institutional effects recognized by the interdisciplinary team. The team did not recommend this alternative be analyzed in detail. A second alternative (direct purchase) was considered by the interdisciplinary team but will also not be analyzed in detail.

Deed Restrictions Consideration of this alternative was suggested in public comments and by Forest Service Handbook 5409.13, section 33.41a. Public comments suggested the use of deed restrictions on conveyed federal land that would prohibit public tours of the Bull Run watershed management unit to protect water quality. Public comments also suggested the use of deed restrictions that would continue to apply the laws, regulations, and policies affecting the National Forest System lands conveyed to the City.

Forest Service Response: None of the criteria for applying a deed restriction would be met on Federal lands conveyed through this exchange and thus, this alternative was not considered in detail. The purpose of deed restriction would be to limit use or development of the Federal lands after conveyance as a means of addressing an environmental concern. Deed restrictions controlling future use and development of Federal lands conveyed into non-Federal ownership should be used only when required by law, regulation, or executive order, or when the intended use of the conveyed Federal land would substantially conflict with established management objectives on adjacent Federal lands (Forest Service Handbook 5409.13, section 33.41c). Because the management of the exchange parcels would remain essentially the same after the exchange is

18 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

completed and are consistent with management on adjacent lands, neither of these situations would occur as a result of the Bull Run land exchange.

Direct Purchase Consideration of a direct purchase alternative was not suggested in public comments but is required by Forest Service Handbook 5409.13, Sec. 33.41a. Under this alternative, no lands would be exchanged. Either the Federal land would be purchased by the City of Portland or the City’s land would be purchased by the Forest Service.

Forest Service Response: This alternative was not considered in detail because it would not address the purpose and need to the benefit of both parties in the exchange. If the Forest Service acquired the City of Portland’s parcels through direct purchase, that would still leave the City without ownership of all lands surrounding the two water supply reservoirs and associated infrastructure. If the City of Portland acquired ownership of the National Forest System parcels through direct purchase, scattered, irregularly shaped City-owned inholdings would remain, continuing the present management problem for both Forest Service and City of Portland personnel. Furthermore, the amount of funds required for direct purchase would be considerable and not likely available to either party.

Inclusion of Additional Parcels in the Exchange The public suggested extending City ownership further upstream to include the area of a possible third dam and reservoir.

Forest Service Response: Extending city ownership further up the Bull Run River to include the area of a third reservoir is not warranted at this time. Although the Water Bureau did a preliminary evaluation of a potential dam site upstream of Reservoir 1 during the mid-1990s, the decline in peak-season demand and development of other water sources in the Portland region has reduced the need for a third Bull Run dam. The City added the Columbia South Shore Wellfield as a backup groundwater system in the late 1980s. This supplemental water source, along with declining demand, makes the possibility of the need for a new dam in the Bull Run watershed extremely remote for the foreseeable future. Comparative Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Table 1. Summary of project alternatives in terms of actions and objectives Items Being Compared No-action Alternative Propose Action City-owned acres offered 0 2,440 for acquisition to the Forest Service National Forest System 0 2,890 acres available for conveyance to City of Portland National Forest System 87,658.19 87,208.19 land in Bull Run watershed management unit (acres)

19 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Items Being Compared No-action Alternative Propose Action Non-Federal land 4,480 4,930 ownership in Bull Run watershed management unit (acres) National Forest System No change Net reduction of 3 miles of boundary boundary line to maintain lines for the Forest Service to within Bull Run watershed administer management unit (miles) City isolated inholdings in No change 5 isolated inholdings eliminated Mt. Hood National Forest Total acres: 711.09 (# and acres) National Forest System No change Overall implementation would result roads (miles) in a 10.39 mile net reduction of National Forest System roads Special uses and 7 authorizations would need to be 1 easement would merge with title easement authorizations renewed, processed, and and Forest Service would no longer granted to the City administered by Forest Service be involved. The remaining 6 special personnel increasing the Forest use permits would be terminated Service workload. resulting in a reduction in future cost for Forest Service in processing requests for project authorizations associated with the easement and permits. . Unauthorized uses 6 new applications would need to be There would no longer be any affecting Federal processed for authorization unauthorized uses6 affecting the exchange parcels increasing the Forest Service federal exchange parcels once the workload parcels are conveyed. Forest Service would not need to dedicate any time to resolve these 6 unauthorized uses.

Table 2. Summary of unauthorized uses across National Forest System land exchange parcels Federal Land Exchange Parcel Unauthorized Uses7 Across Federal Land Exchange Parcels F-4 A stretch of powerlines F-13 Trail and water gauging station (known as Station 18) as well as cable crossing equipment for crossing the Bull Run river. F-14 Passive reflector owned and operated by the city of Portland along National Forest System Road #10 F-16 Boat house owned and operated by the City of Portland F-16 Shelter gazebo owned by the City of Portland and a trail leading to the gazebo.

6 Unauthorized use is defined under CFR 36 section 261.10 use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without special-use authorization when such an authorization is required. 7 See footnote 6

20 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 3. Summary of project alternatives in terms of resource impacts Resource and Indicator No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Botany- sensitive No Impact on individuals or habitat of No Impact on individuals or habitat of species any species any species Forest Service would acquire a known site for a survey and manage category C lichen and a known site for a species of concern Botany- nonnative No change in current status or The same 4 species of nonnative invasive plants management. invasive plants have been identified in 9 parcels that would be acquired and in 12 parcels that would be conveyed. No change in current status or management. Botany- forest stand No effect See table 4 and table 5, acreage and structure and age percent area of stand age classes classes Cultural resources No effect Adverse effects mitigated (see environmental assessment chapter 2 “Mitigation” and chapter 3 “Cultural Resources”) Wildlife No effect See table 5, summary effects on wildlife Wildlife- northern No effect No effect spotted owl habitat 1 owl site would be acquired by Forest Service No owl sites would be conveyed to City Wildlife- northern No effect No effect spotted owl critical 1,696 acres conveyed to City habitat 0 acres acquired by Forest Service (but most would be considered suitable if inventoried) Aquatics and fish- No effect No effect, based on assumptions listed species regarding aquatic organism passage, management of large woody debris, and habitat conservation plan (see “Assumptions” in chapter 2 and “Aquatics and Fisheries” in chapter 3) Fish - critical habitat No effect No direct or indirect effects. No adverse modification of designated critical habitat for lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and steelhead Fish - essential fish No effect No adverse effect to essential fish habitat habitat for lower Columbia River Chinook and coho Fish- regional forester No effect No effect sensitive species

21 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Resource and Indicator No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Hydrology- wetlands No effect Largest wetland, located on parcel 2, conveyed to Forest Service Net increase of 0.9 acres of wetlands on National Forest System lands City wetland score 120.42 Forest Service wetlands score 104.67 No effect Hydrology- floodplains No effect Net decrease of 5.9 acres of stream floodplains on National Forest System lands Net decrease of 57 acres of reservoir- related floodplains on National Forest System lands No increase in flood risk Hydrology- water No effect No change in hydrologic processes quantity impacting water quantity b/c no vegetation removal or new road development Hydrology- water No effect No change in any of the 3 indicators of quality sediment, riparian shading and habitat, or water quality limited 303(d) streams because there would not be any earth disturbance Hydrology- water No effect No change. One existing water right rights under the City of Portland for hydroelectric power generation at Bull Run Dam Number 1 Economic No change Reduction in future cost to City administration associated with acquiring easements and permits. This would also be a reduction in future cost for the Forest Service in processing the easement and permit requests. Reduces inefficiencies to both agencies of managing isolated or intermingled parcels. Both agencies would realize an administrative savings of dollars and time. Climate change No effect No measurable effect

Hazardous No effect No effect substances Prime farmland, Not present Not present caves, grazing Inventoried roadless None present None present areas Wilderness Not present Not present

Wild and scenic rivers Not present Not present

22 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 4. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies in City of Portland lands to be transferred to the Mt. Hood National Forest Water 1-80 81 to 180 181 to 220 220+ Bodies years old years old years old years Total 21.8 614.3 1,084 237 437 2,400 acres 1% 26% 45% 10% 18% 100%

Table 5. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies in National Forest System lands to be transferred to the City of Portland Water 1-80 81 to 180 181 to 220 220+ Bodies years old years old years old years Total 538.3 378.2 1,152.7 339.3 402.3 2,810.8 acres 19% 13% 41% 12% 14% 100%

Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences This analysis considers the environmental effects of exchanging all land parcels offered by both parties (appendix a). This allows the full scope of the exchange to be analyzed. The final configuration of the land exchange will depend in part on the appraised value of the land parcels and may not include all land parcels included in this analysis. For resource effects analysis, the numbers used throughout this environmental assessment were generated using spatial data (i.e., geographical information systems). The land description verification forms, which were calculated using legal descriptions, are approximately 2,890 acres for the National Forest System parcels and 2,440 for the City of Portland parcels. All final acre values will be determined by a Forest Service surveyor at a future date.

Land exchanges differ from other typical land management activities that the Forest Service implements in that no direct impacts from land exchanges occur on the exchanged parcels. The Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act regulations define direct effects as effects that occur at the same time and same place as the action (40 CFR section 1508.8(a)). This land exchange itself would involve no ground-disturbing activities on the exchanged parcels and would alter no ecological relationships. The action is not implemented in sequential phases over time, but is completed entirely and instantaneously when the property deeds are recorded.

The indirect impacts of the Bull Run land exchange would be classified as institutional impacts. Neither party has plans to implement new projects or activities that would be facilitated by the exchange. The only potential impacts would be the indirect impacts that would result from the changes in the laws, regulations, and policies that each party would apply to the land parcels they acquire in the exchange. These changes would occur and be completed the instant the exchanged titles are recorded. However, any indirect impacts resulting from these changes would be expected to last for as long as each of the parties holds title to the land they acquire in the exchange.

This analysis is directed toward those potential indirect impacts. Both the Forest Service and the City of Portland manage their lands in the Bull Run watershed management unit for the same objective: to produce “…pure, clear, raw potable water…for the City of Portland and other local government units and persons in the Portland metropolitan area…” (Public Law 95-200). Once the land exchange is completed, each party would continue to manage the parcels they acquire for that same objective, as required by Federal law and by City code. How We Considered Potential Cumulative Impacts We evaluated cumulative impacts of the alternatives on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions whose direct and indirect impacts have the potential to overlap with the impacts of the proposed land exchange and its reasonable alternatives in both time and geographic space (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Sec. 15.2). If the land exchange would result in no direct or indirect impacts, there would be no cumulative impacts. It logically follows that if the direct and indirect impacts of the land exchange would occur within a different context than the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there would also be no potential for impacts to overlap and accumulate in time and geographic space.

A list of cumulative actions considered for the cumulative impacts analysis for each affected resource is in the project record.

25 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Consideration of Past Actions The analysis of cumulative impacts begins with consideration of the direct and indirect impacts on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the proposed action and alternatives. Once the direct and indirect impacts are determined, we then look for existing (residual indirect) impacts of past actions.

Only those residual impacts from past actions that are of the same type, occur within the same geographic area, and have a cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives are considered relevant and useful for the cumulative impact analysis.

To understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative impacts of the alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative impacts.

The cumulative impacts analysis does not attempt to quantify the impacts of past human actions by adding up all individual residual impacts of prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are practical reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions in the past, and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible.

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual impacts of past actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions. This is because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions and one cannot reasonably identify each and every past action that has incrementally contributed to current conditions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual impacts of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those impacts.

This practice adheres to direction in the Council on Environmental Quality’s interpretive memorandum of June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions” (Connaughton 2005, project record). For these reasons, our analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Cumulative impacts can only occur when the likely impacts resulting from the proposed action or alternatives overlap spatially and temporally with the likely impacts of reasonably foreseeable future actions (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 15.2).

The code of federal regulations at 36 CFR part 220 (project record) provides direction for identifying reasonably foreseeable future actions that should be considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts.

“Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those federal or non-federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals” (36 CFR

26 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

section 220.3). “Identified proposals for Forest Service actions are those for which the Forest Service has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR section 1508.23)” (36 CFR section 220.4(a)(1)). How Specialist Reports Were Used This section of the environmental assessment is an overview of the resource evaluations conducted for the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Each resource evaluation has a comprehensive report comprised of detailed descriptions of the affected environment, Bull Run history, analysis assumptions and methodology, all applicable protective laws and regulations, and the environmental effects of the proposed land exchange. Some of the tables, maps, and illustrations from the reports were not carried over into the environmental assessment. The reports are available if additional detail and background are of interest to the reader or desired for a deeper understanding of the issue. Aquatic Species and Habitat

Resource Indicators and Measures National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service to revise the methods for making determinations of effect for land management activities impacting Endangered Species Act-listed salmonid species in the Northwest forest plan geographical area (USDA 2005). This approach was used to assess the effects of the proposed action. In this regard, the elements of the proposed action were analyzed for potential effects on Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead due to changes in the habitat pathways of water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flow and hydrology, and watershed conditions. In applying the analysis approach, the agencies consider eight factors, derived largely from the joint NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation handbook, when evaluating the effects of an action on habitat indicators and subsequently the effects on Endangered Species Act-listed fish. These factors are proximity, probability, magnitude (severity and intensity), nature, distribution, frequency, duration, and timing, where applicable.

This analysis considered the potential direct and indirect effect of the project’s elements on each habitat indicator and then utilized the relevant factors to determine if there was an effect and whether it was measurable, insignificant, discountable, or beneficial. A summary for each habitat indicator was developed to ascertain whether effects from various elements combine to create adverse effects on any of the indicators. These effects and those of interrelated or interdependent actions to the proposed action were considered to reach an overall effect determination for this project.

Affected Environment The affected environment, also known as the action area, is defined as all areas to be affected directly, indirectly or cumulatively as a result of the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR section 402.02]. This includes an analysis of how long (short term versus long term) the effects will occur (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 152b). For this analysis, the action area is defined as all of the land proposed under the exchange, as well as aquatic habitat areas in the Bull Run River basin where potential effects could occur. The short-

27 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

term effects are defined as any effects that will take place within 2 years, and the long-term effects are those that will take place over multiple decades.

The land exchange area involves 1st through 4th order tributaries of the Bull Run River (5th order). The main streams in the proposed land exchange area are the Bull Run River, South Fork Bull Run River, Bear Creek, Cedar Creek, Camp Creek, Deer Creek, Fir Creek, Cougar Creek, and the North Fork Bull Run River. Additionally, there are 536 acres of the reservoirs area associated with parcels currently on National Forest System lands proposed for exchange.

Existing Condition

Habitat Aquatic habitat conditions within the action area vary depending on the location, past land management activities, and natural events such as floods, fire, and debris torrents. Habitat conditions where land management has occurred range from poor to good, depending on the type and scale of disturbance, proximity to streams, timing and duration of land management activities, and sensitivity of channel type to perturbation. The subwatersheds in the action areas have been altered by past land management activities. Separately and cumulatively, these activities have resulted in loss of function of natural processes related to water quality and quantity, riparian and floodplain function and connectivity, in-channel habitat, and obstruction free migration corridors for aquatic organisms.

Anadromous fish historically used about 49 miles of stream habitat in the Bull Run River watershed. Anadromy was limited at river mile 5.8 by construction of the Headworks Diversion Dam in 1921. Listed fish currently use 5.8 miles of habitat in the lower Bull Run River and 12 miles of habitat in the Little Sandy River. Forest Service staff concluded anadromous fish-bearing stream habitat in the Bull Run River exhibited a high percentage of riffle and large pool habitat (USFS 1997). Sediment production was attributed to mass wasting, land disturbances, and flow- induced stream channel geomorphic processes (USFS 1997.) Much of the lower river is situated in a canyon, and confined to a relatively narrow channel by steep bedrock walls. River velocities can become high enough to mobilize and transport gravel and larger streambed materials (R2 Resource Consultants 1998). In 2002, the lower Bull Run River was included on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 303(d) list as water quality limited for water temperatures. Approximately 20 percent of the annual discharge from the Bull Run Basin is diverted for municipal water supply at the Headworks Division Dam, which affects streamflow in the lower Bull Run River, particularly in the summer and early fall. Streamflow in the Little Sandy River was affected by Portland General Electric’s hydropower operation until the hydroelectric facilities, including Portland General Electric’s Little Sandy Dam, were decommissioned and removed in 2007 and 2008.

Designated critical habitat is present for three species in the Bull Run and Little Sandy River that is part of the action area. Much of the discussion concerning critical habitat, including effects analyses, centers on the physical and biological features related to freshwater habitat conditions that include spawning, rearing, and migration for lower Columbia River steelhead trout and coho and Chinook salmon. Nothing in the proposed project would have an effect on estuarine or marine habitat components, thus they were not discussed.

Populations of Chinook salmon, steelhead trout and coho salmon have access to the lower 5.8 miles of habitat in the Bull Run River and the lower 12 miles of habitat in the Little Sandy River.

28 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

This habitat represents approximately 5 percent of the total stream miles currently used by anadromous fish in the Sandy River Basin (Sandy River Basin Partners 2005).

The lower Bull Run River flows through parcel F-8 offered by the Forest Service in the exchange. The Lower Bull Run River and the Little Sandy River flow through parcel F-9 offered by the Forest Service in the exchange. Approximately 1.0 mile of designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act and essential fish habitat under the Magnuson Stevenson Act is located on these parcels (calculated as 0.988 miles using GIS and 1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey stream layer). The other parcels offered by the Forest Service or the City in the exchange (and the majority of the total parcels offered in total) are located above the limit of anadromy in the Bull Run River (the spillway weir located below the Bull Run Dam 2 spillway) and outside designated critical habitat or essential fish habitat. Endangered Species Act-listed species are therefore not present on the other parcels.

Sediment, Turbidity, and Substrate Fine sediment deposition and turbidity in streams can adversely affect fish and fish habitat, particularly for salmonids, by reducing the quantity and/or quality of spawning habitat, reducing food supply by impacting invertebrate habitat, reducing interstitial habitat, thereby decreasing fry survival, and reducing pool quality and quantity. Both past and on-going land use activities can contribute fine sediment in streams. The Mt. Hood forest plan states spawning habitat shall maintain less than 20 percent fine sediments less than 2 millimeters (0.08 inches) (FW-096).

With the exception of the sediment process indicator in the Blazed Alder Creek subwatershed, all the subwatersheds (Middle Bull Run River, South Fork Bull Run River, Little Sandy River, and Lower Bull Run River) are in the properly functioning condition for sediment production and delivery, riparian shading and habitat, and hydrology (hydrology specialist report). Blazed Alder Creek is in the functioning-at-risk category for sediment production and delivery.

Baseline determination is properly functioning.

Chemical Contaminants and Nutrients Chemical contamination in water can cause both lethal and sublethal effects to salmonids and other aquatic species. Effects from contaminants may reduce or eliminate production of specific aquatic invertebrates which could impact food forage for salmonids. Introduction of nutrients may be beneficial (increase primary production and aquatic invertebrate production) or in excess may lead to lethal or sub-lethal effects to aquatic plants and invertebrates.

There are no Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303d reaches in the Bull Run subwatersheds listed for contaminants. Aumen and others (1989) stated, “By any objective standard, the water quality of the Bull Run Watershed’s streams can only be described as extraordinary. From the earliest days of using the basin as Portland’s water supply, its purity has been lauded. At present, chemical measurement of dissolved species in the water require the utmost in analytical skill because of the minimal amounts of their concentrations -- generally at or near the limits of detection for accepted analytical methodologies.”

The Little Sandy River from the confluence with the Bull Run River to river mile 14.5 is 303(d) listed for biological criteria (waters of the State must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in the resident biological communities). The biological criteria standard is based on macroinvertebrate communities in Oregon’s perennial, wadeable streams.

29 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Baseline determination is functioning at risk.

Peakflows, Baseflows, and Drainage Network All the subwatersheds are below the threshold associated with the methodology for addressing cumulative watershed effects, watershed sensitivity, and hydrologic recovery associated with the Mt. Hood forest plan (USDA 1990A). When the combined impacts of vegetation management and roads are examined, all the subwatersheds are rated as properly functioning (Miller, in press) (as found in the hydrology specialist report).

Another factor in evaluating changes in peakflow and baseflow are changes in the stream drainage network due to roads and trails. The relatively impermeable surfaces of roads and trails cause surface runoff to bypass subsurface flow routes in soils (hydrology specialist report). Roads and trails are hydrologically connected by ditch-lines and gullies and therefore, the stream network is considered lengthened wherever they inter-relate (hydrology specialist report). With the exception of riparian road density and overall road density in the Lower Bull Run River subwatershed, indicators are in good condition. The riparian road density and overall road density indicators in the Lower Bull Run River subwatershed are in the fair condition category.

The final factor evaluated to determine the existing condition in peak/base flows was the amount of water being diverted from the Bull Run River for water supply. Approximately 20 percent of the annual discharge from the Bull Run Basin is diverted for municipal water supply at the Headworks Division Dam, which affects streamflow in the lower Bull Run River, particularly in the summer and early fall. Streamflow in the Little Sandy River was affected by Portland General Electric’s hydropower operation until the hydroelectric facilities, including Portland General Electric’s Little Sandy Dam, were decommissioned and removed in 2007-2008.

Baseline determination is functioning at risk.

Pool Quality and Quantity Pool habitat is a critical component of healthy stream habitat for salmonid populations. The forest plan requires that pool habitat be maintained or increased resulting from a given project (FW-088) and that streams contain one or more primary pools per 5 to7 channel widths in low-gradient streams (less than 3 percent slope) and one per 3 channel widths in steeper channels (FW- 090/091). A primary pool is defined as a pool at least 3 feet deep, which occupies at least half of the low-water-flow channel. Pool frequency is often related to the occurrence of large wood or other channel obstructions (Montgomery et al. 1995), and pool depth is a function of a variety of factors, including sediment input and the ability of the stream at that site to scour, and maintain, a pool. Fine sediment above natural background levels can fill pools and increase bed mobility, resulting in shallower scour depths (Buffington et al. 2002).

Pool frequency did not meet National Marine Fisheries Service analytical process indicators or forest plan standards. The 1997 Bull Run watershed analysis reported that pool counts are at the low end of the range of natural variation, however, pool volumes are outside and above the range of natural variation indicating large main stem pools. Aquatic habitat types, pool volumes, large woody debris levels and large woody debris recruitment potential is in the mid to upper range of natural variation for these components and would appear to meet habitat requirements for resident fish.

Baseline determination is properly functioning.

30 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. The land exchange would not be implemented and the purpose and need would not be met. The Forest Service would maintain the approximately 2,890 acres of National Forest System land near the Bull Run River and Bull Run Reservoirs 1 and 2 and the City of Portland Water Bureau would maintain the approximately 2,440 acres of City-owned land in the uplands of the western and southern portions of the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Sediment, Turbidity, and Substrate Because no ground-disturbing actions would occur, the existing condition in regards to fine sediment and turbidity levels in the action area would remain. Current sources of fine sediment include roads.

Chemicals and Nutrients Because no change in land use or ground-disturbing actions would occur, the existing condition in regards to current sources of chemicals and nutrients would remain the same in the action area.

Change in Peakflows and Baseflows Because no increase in impervious surfaces or storm-drainage networks would occur, the existing condition in regards to peakflows would remain unchanged.

Change in Stream Drainage Network Because no increase in road and ditch networks would occur, the existing condition in regards to stream drainage would remain unchanged.

Pool Quantity and Quality Because no change in land use or ground-disturbing actions would occur, the existing condition in regards to pool quantity and quality would remain the same in the action area.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action This exchange would not change Forest Service or City of Portland land management practices in the Bull Run watershed. The current management of the Federal land to be conveyed in this exchange is essentially the same as the current management of the City-owned property. Both the City and Forest Service are subject to a variety of Federal watershed and habitat protection statutes and regulations. Overall management of the Bull Run watershed management unit would continue to occur in a partnership between the City and Forest Service. The physical state of the lands to be exchanged is intended to remain the same after the exchange as before the exchange. Prohibitions on timber harvest would continue to apply on both City-owned and Federal land in the watershed.

Assumptions Made in Analyzing Alternative 2, the Propose Action Stream Crossings: It is assumed that to maintain the protections for aquatic species afforded by the Mt. Hood forest plan (amended by the Northwest forest plan), all stream crossings along the impacted roads that are part of the Bull Run land exchange between Mt. Hood National Forest and the City of Portland Water Bureau would be assessed for an aquatic organism passage crossing at the time that the existing culverts would be replaced. The stream crossings and

31 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

culverts do not have to be assessed prior to completion of the land exchange. They would be assessed and replaced as necessary during road maintenance activities in the future. The forest plan states fish passage should be maintained or improved (FW-115 and FW-145) and human- made fish passage barriers should be identified and corrected (FW-117 and FW-147). The Northwest forest plan aquatic conservation strategy (objectives 1 and 2) includes the objective of maintaining and restoring connectivity within and between watersheds, which must provide unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling the life history requirements of aquatic species (for fish, amphibians, crayfish, aquatic shrews, insects, etc.). In addition, the Northwest forest plan's road management guidelines state the agencies shall construct new culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate at least the 100-year flood (RF-4) and shall provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams (RF-6).

Once it is determined a culvert, bridge, or other stream crossing is to be replaced or constructed on lands that are conveyed to the City of Portland Water Bureau, the stream crossing would be assessed for replacement using the Forest Service's stream simulation design approach (USDA 2008). Once a stream crossing is replaced, aquatic organism passage projects would be monitored and reassessed using the Forest Service stream simulation design approach. See table 6 for a list of the culverts that are part of the proposed land exchange. They are also identified on figure 5 and figure 6.

Table 6. Stream crossings identified as needing to be assessed and replaced as an aquatic organism passage crossing (bridge or culvert) in future road maintenance activities in the Bull Run Road Number Milepost Stream Name Latitude and Longitude 1000183 1.072 No name 45.43218, -122.18483 12 1.136 Intermittent* 45.44344, -122.13045 10 4.278 No name 45.44834, -122.15976 10 8.180 No name 45.47719, -122.10264 10 8.224 No name 45.47733, -122.10183 10 8.493 No name 45.47856, -122.09690 10 9.021 No name 45.48262, -122.09207 10 9.704 No name 45.48707, -122.08503 10 9.813 Bear Creek 45.48779, -122.08382 10 10.871 No name 45.48975, -122.06471 10 11.032 Cougar Creek 45.49111, -122.06208 10 11.182 Deer Creek 45.49137, -122.05935 10 12.031 No name 45.49016, -122.04380 10 12.534 Hamilton Creek 45.49333, -122.03623 *This is an intermittent stream. The road-stream crossing needs aquatic organism passage to meet the needs of all life stages of aquatic species.

32 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Figure 5. Stream crossings that would need aquatic organism passage structures in the Lower Bull Run

Figure 6. Stream crossings that would need aquatic organism passage structures along Road 10 near Reservoir 1.

33 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Large Woody Debris is transported by storms each winter season and captured by booms at the head of Reservoir No. 1. This floating debris is an important source of large woody debris for restoration projects in the Sandy River Basin. For instance, after the 1999 flood, the Zigzag Ranger District fisheries department secured approximately 165 logs that were more than 24 inches in diameter and at least 35 feet in length for restoration projects in the Upper Sandy River Basin. Since 2011, over 200 pieces of large wood retrieved from Bull Run Reservoir No. 1 have been used for restoration projects in the Salmon River and Still Creek. Forest products such as these are a valuable resource to restoration practitioners in the Upper Sandy when considering the cost for analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, log acquisition, and staff time. Currently, these stream restoration logs or whole trees are generated from National Forest System lands and collected and removed by the City staff from Reservoir No. 1. The boundary change that would result from the land exchange as proposed would mean large woody debris for restoration would now be collected from City-owned land. It is assumed all large woody debris more than 20 feet in length and 12 inches in diameter would continue to be used for restoration projects in the Sandy River Basin and would be fully coordinated with Forest Service fisheries or hydrology personnel.

The Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan is a 50-year plan to protect and improve aquatic habitat while continuing to manage the Bull Run River watershed as a water supply for the City of Portland, Oregon. The City created the habitat conservation plan, with technical assistance from the Sandy River Basin Partners, to minimize and mitigate the effects of covered activities associated with the Bull Run water supply operations on listed and unlisted Endangered Species Act-listed species and their associated habitat. The primary focus of the habitat conservation plan is protection of Endangered Species Act -listed anadromous fish under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, but it also includes other aquatic species. The Bull Run habitat conservation plan evaluated the effects of covered activities on the individual listed species and estimated the effect of implementing the plan’s conservation measures. In 2009, NMFS issued an incidental take permit to the City pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and signed an implementing agreement with the City.

In the incidental take permit issued to the City, the National Marine Fisheries Service personnel determined that if the City’s activities in the Bull Run watershed and the Sandy River basin are conducted as described in the habitat conservation plan and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the implementing agreement and the permit, the expected take would be appropriately minimized and mitigated for and would not appreciably decrease the likelihood of survival or recovery of the Endangered Species Act-listed species covered in the plan. Furthermore, the biological opinion for the habitat conservation plan concluded that after reviewing the status of salmonids considered in the opinion, their designated critical habitats, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, National Marine Fisheries Service staff concluded the proposed action would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed salmonids and would not be likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 and Section 10: The Federal Endangered Species Act defines two mechanisms for formal consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service personnel about the impacts of projects and activities on listed fish species. As a Federal agency, the Forest Service consults with National Marine Fisheries Service personnel under section 7. The City, as a non-Federal agency, has the option to consult under section 7 (when there is a Federal agency nexus) or under section 10. While these two mechanisms vary in form and geographic application, the underlying species and habitat protection objectives are the same. In

34 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

2008, the City of Portland submitted a habitat conservation plan to National Marine Fisheries Service personnel as the basis for incidental take coverage under section 10. The Bull Run water supply habitat conservation plan defined 49 habitat conservation measures to protect and improve habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed fish species affected by the water supply system in Bull Run. In 2009, National Marine Fisheries Service personnel granted an incidental take permit to the City for all of the listed fish species based on implementation of the habitat conservation plan. The term of the permit is 50 years, or 2009 to 2059. The City submits annual compliance reports to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which are posted on the Portland Water Bureau website at https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/46157.

As part of the process of issuing the Bull Run water supply habitat conservation plan, National Marine Fisheries Service personnel also completed a section 7 biological opinion. A copy of the section 7 biological opinion is in the Bull Run land exchange project record.

Land Exchange Proposed Action Clarifications relevant to Listed Fish and their Habitat: Activities currently occurring on lands offered by the Forest Service in the exchange that affect listed fish species would continue after the exchange, namely operation of the City’s water system and maintenance of existing roads. These activities are covered by the Bull Run water supply habitat conservation plan incidental take permit issued by National Marine Fisheries Service personnel. Habitat conservation measures relevant to these lands are summarized in table 7 below. Additional detail is available online at https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/46157.

Activities currently occurring on land parcels offered by the City to the Forest Service in the exchange would continue after the exchange. These parcels are located upstream of the limit of anadromy on the lower Bull Run River and listed fish species or designated critical habitat are not present.

Table 7. Parcels affected by the proposed land exchange where listed fish are present and relevant habitat conservation measures applied to those parcels Primary Habitat Parcels Relevant Habitat Conservation Measure in the Bull Run Effects Affected Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan Flow and water F-8 and F-1: Minimum instream flows, normal water years temperature in the Bull F-9 F-2: Minimum instream flows: water years with critical seasons Run River F-3: Flow down-ramping (no more than 2 inches per hour) F-4: Little Sandy flow agreement (foregoing exercise of city water rights on Little Sandy River during 50-year term of the habitat conservation plan) T-2: Post-infrastructure temperature management (operation of multiple elevation intakes at Dam 2 to meet Sandy River Basin total maximum daily load and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality-approved temperature management plan) Flow in the Little Sandy F-9 F-4: Agreement to forego exercise of City’s water rights on the River Little Sandy River for the term of the habitat conservation plan Riparian protection F-8 and H-2: Riparian land protection F-9 O&M-1: Bull Run Infrastructure operations and maintenance (for example, erosion control and dechlorination of discharges from water supply conduits) Operation and maintenance-2: Bull Run spill prevention (for example, fuel transport and storage)

35 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

The riparian buffer in habitat conservation plan measure H-2 is defined as a prohibition on tree cutting within 200 feet of the river’s average high water level on City-owned lands. This lateral distance is less than what is defined in the Northwest forest plan’s aquatic conservation strategy applicable to Federal lands. The defined buffers need to be understood, however, in the context of the timber harvest prohibitions in place for the Bull Run watershed management unit. On Federal land, the harvest prohibition is defined in Public Law 95-200, as amended in 1996 and 2001 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/404058). On City land, the Federal harvest prohibitions are mirrored in City code (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/292198). Functionally, therefore, prohibition on timber harvest and protection of riparian forest on City- owned land extends farther than is defined in the habitat conservation plan and is not substantially different than for Federal land in the watershed management unit.

Regulatory action related to City land or City activities by National Marine Fisheries Service staff would occur according to National Marine Fisheries Service rules, including opportunity for public comment. Changes in implementation of the habitat conservation plan would be reported in the annual compliance reports. Regulatory action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would occur according to their rules, including opportunity for public comment. City actions could also potentially require permitting under state or county regulations (for example, Oregon Division of State Lands removal and fill permitting), which would also provide for public involvement under the rules of the relevant agency. No projects requiring action by any of the above jurisdictions are currently envisioned or necessary on exchange parcels F-8 or F- 9.

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are those that occur during project implementation. To directly impact aquatic species and habitat, the activity needs to be in close proximity to the water body where they reside, often within the water body itself. From an aquatic perspective, direct effects most often result in disturbance to aquatic organisms – forcing movement or a flight response. Depending on the activity, it is possible that individuals can be injured or killed; this is almost always a result of people or equipment working directly in water. For example, removal of vegetation directly adjacent to a stream can immediately reduce shade thereby reducing available cover for fish which might alter their use of that area.

Indirect effects are those caused by or resulting from the proposed actions, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur. The magnitude of such an effect, if it occurred, would depend on the amount of disturbance, location, and elevation of the stream, amount of stream flow, etc. In this case, there are no effects documented for the land exchange because the difference between preservation of aquatic habitat under the Northwest forest plan and the habitat conservation plan is difficult to measure since both are designed to prevent aquatic ecosystem loss and both are approved by National Marine Fisheries Service personnel.

This land exchange would not change Forest Service or City of Portland land management practices in the Bull Run watershed. Overall management of the Bull Run watershed management unit would continue to occur in a partnership between the City and Forest Service. The physical state of the lands to be exchanged is intended to remain the same after the exchange as before the exchange and no change from current management is expected. Prohibitions on timber harvest would continue to apply on both City-owned and National Forest System land in the watershed.

36 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Sediment, Turbidity, and Substrate There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. This indicator is expected to remain the same as the existing condition (Hydrology specialist report). As a result, there is a high probability there would be “no effect to the Bull Run River or its tributaries.”

Chemicals and Nutrients The Little Sandy River from the confluence with the Bull Run River to river mile 14.5 is 303(d) listed for biological criteria. There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in vegetative disturbance in the riparian reserves nor are activities planned that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. It is anticipated that the macroinvertebrate community (as assessed by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s predictive assessment tool for Oregon) would remain in the same range as the existing condition because primary shade zones and sediment inputs from roads are anticipated to stay at the current levels or potentially see an improved condition as indicated by the aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program trend scores. As a result, there is a high probability there would be “no effect to the Bull Run River or its tributaries.”

Change in Peakflows and Baseflows There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in vegetative disturbance in the riparian reserves nor are activities planned that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. Water being withdrawn from the stream for human use (for example, drinking water) would continue. As a result, there is a high probability there would be “no effect to the Bull Run River or its tributaries.”

Change in Stream Drainage Network As described in the hydrology specialist report, changes in the stream drainage network is strongly correlated to the road network. The key process of concern is associated with inboard ditches delivering runoff to a stream where a road intercepts the stream. This channel lengthening process can result in increased peakflows which is described above in the stream drainage network section. There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in vegetative disturbance in the riparian reserves nor are activities planned that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. As a result, there is a high probability there would be “no effect to the Bull Run River or its tributaries.”

Pool Quantity and Quality There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in vegetative disturbance in the riparian reserves nor are activities planned that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. As a result, there is a high probability there would be “no effect to the Bull Run River or its tributaries.”

37 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Since there are no direct or indirect effects on aquatic species and their habitats, a cumulative effects analysis was not required or conducted.

Summary of Effects There would be no measurable change from baseline conditions resulting from implementation of this land exchange which may affect designated critical habitat and associated listed fish species as well as essential fish habitat. A review of potential impacts determined that the proposed Bull Run land exchange would not change sediment, turbidity and embeddedness, water quality, peak and base streamflows and pool habitat for lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and steelhead nor Region 6 sensitive species. The land exchange was determined to have no effects to aquatic organisms or habitat in the action area as there were no causal mechanisms to indicator measures. Activities currently occurring on lands affecting the listed species are not expected to change with the change in land ownership. The only difference between the no-action and proposed action alternatives is the difference in policies and regulations in effect on Federal versus city-owned land. This is summarized in table 8.

Table 8. Comparison of regulatory framework for Endangered Species Act-listed fish for exchange parcels where the species are present Proposed Action – Lands are Primary Potential No Action – Land ownership stays the exchanged as proposed. Effects on Listed Fish same as current. Parcels F-8 and F-9 Parcels F-8 and F-9 become City- Species * remain in Federal ownership. owned land. Streamflow in the lower City action regulated by habitat No change. Bull Run River conservation plan on City-owned and National Forest System lands. Also regulated by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (via license amendments) under the existing license up for renewal in 2029. Streamflow in the Little City action regulated by habitat No change. Sandy River conservation plan on City and USFS owned lands. Water temperature in City action regulated by habitat No change. the lower Bull Run River conservation plan on City-owned and National Forest System lands. Also regulated by Clean Water Act via total maximum daily load and associated Oregon Department of Environmental Quality-approved temperature management plan. Riparian protection City action regulated by aquatic No substantial change. City action conservation strategy on parcels F-8 and regulated on parcels F-8 and F-9 by F-9 (National Forest System land) and by habitat conservation plan (within the Public Law 95-200 prohibitions on timber defined buffer) and by City code harvest. prohibition on timber harvest (within and outside the habitat conservation plan buffer). *Other fish habitat indicators such as spawning gravel and large wood recruitment were evaluated in the Bull Run habitat conservation plan and environmental impact statement. These effects are mitigated by implementation of both onsite and offsite measures in the habitat conservation plan. The proposed change in land ownership does not affect implementation of these habitat protection measures.

38 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Effect Determination for Listed Species No direct or indirect effects to listed species were identified.

Effect Determination for Critical Habitat The project would have no adverse modification on designated critical habitat for lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and steelhead in the Bull Run watershed.

Effect Determination for Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat for those salmon species regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has recommended an essential fish habitat designation for Pacific salmon fishery that would include those waters and substrate necessary to ensure the production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery.

Salmon fishery essential fish habitat includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to the three salmonid species identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: coho salmon, Chinook and Puget Sound pink salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above impassable barriers identified by Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC 1999). Salmon essential fish habitat excludes areas upstream of longstanding naturally impassable barriers (natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years).

Essential fish habitat is commensurate with critical fish habitat where designated. If critical habitat has not been designated then the action agency defines the extent of essential fish habitat based on known or suspected fish distribution. The proposed project would have “no adverse effect to essential fish habitat” for lower Columbia River Chinook and coho in the Bull Run watershed.

Effect Determination for Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species There would be no measurable change from baseline conditions resulting from implementation of this land exchange which may affect or impact individuals or habitat. The proposed action would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for any Region 6 regional forester’s special status species (July 2015 list) based on the potential for changes in sediment, turbidity and embeddedness, water quality, peak/base streamflows and pool habitat. Botanical Resources Botanical species, forested plant communities, and nonnative invasive plant species in the proposed land exchange parcels were addressed to compare and evaluate the terrestrial ecosystem values and services they offer.

Analysis Assumptions When 90 percent of the Bull Run was designated as a late-successional reserve in 1994 (Agee and Krusemark 2001), commercial timber harvest (including salvage logging of windthrown or fire- killed trees) was largely excluded from the watershed. Timber harvest was further restricted by

39 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

1996 and 2001 amendments to Public Law 95-200 and by analogous prohibitions for City-owned land enacted in City code. No changes in land use or land management practices are planned or anticipated on Federal or City land, before the exchange compared to after the exchange.

Existing Condition

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants No federally listed (threatened or endangered) or federally proposed botanical species are documented (known) to occur on the Mt. Hood National Forest. Only one federally listed threatened species is suspected to occur on the Mt. Hood, water howellia (Howellia aquatilis var. aquatilis), but it has never been found. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), a Region 6 sensitive species, is a candidate species for federal listing for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on its biological status and threats to propose it as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act but currently the development of a proposed listing regulation for the species is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Candidate species receive no statutory protection under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages cooperative conservation efforts for candidate species because they are, by definition, species that may warrant future protection under the Endangered Species Act.

There are 54 sensitive botanical species documented as occurring and 48 sensitive botanical species suspected to occur on the Mt. Hood National Forest (July 13, 2015 list). They include 44 vascular plants, 31 bryophytes, 9 lichens, and 18 fungi, altogether totaling 102 species. These numbers may vary slightly from year to year as sensitive species are added to or dropped from the Region 6 regional forester’s special status species list.

The biological evaluation assessed the potential effects of the proposed land exchange on sensitive botanical species (vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, and fungi) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.), Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1604 et seq.).

Sensitive botanical species are rare taxa (vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, or fungi) listed on the Region 6 regional forester special status species list (July 2015). Nineteen sensitive vascular plant species are either documented or suspected to occur in the Bull Run watershed (Bull Run Watershed Analysis 1997; NRIS TESP-IS database 2017). Sensitive plant survey records date back to 1981 (36 years ago). The nineteen vascular plant species that are currently listed as sensitive on the Region 6 regional forester list plus seven species listed as “Inventory” species at the time of the writing of the Bull Run Watershed Analysis (1997) are identified in the Bull Run botany-ecology specialist report (project record). “Inventory” appears to be a category designation used by former botanists working on the Mt. Hood National Forest for species of interest: that is, species uncommon enough to take note of but not rare enough to be listed as a sensitive or strategic species. The category is no longer used by the present botanists working on the Mt. Hood National Forest. The seven “inventory” species, however, are still listed as “review” or “watch” taxa (species to keep an eye on) by the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Additional information about the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center is in the specialist report. Fifteen rare bryophytes, lichens, and fungi are documented in the Bull Run watershed (NRIS TESP-IS database).

40 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Only one parcel involved in the proposed land exchange contains a known rare species site. Parcel 10 contains one Hypogymnia duplicata (survey and manage category C lichen) site (060609EO00228 NRIS TESP-IS). Parcel 10 is City of Portland land proposed to be transferred to the Mt. Hood National Forest.

There are other known rare species sites located nearby the other parcels, but none are located within the parcels themselves.

Nonnative Invasive Plant Species The nonnative invasive plant species identified within the exchange parcels include herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). See table 9 and table 10 .

Table 9. Nonnative invasive plant species found within the City lands to be conveyed to Mt Hood Species City Parcel Herb Robert 1B Canada thistle 1B, 6B, 8 Scotch broom 2, 4B, 5 Himalayan blackberry 2, 5

Table 10. Nonnative invasive plant species found within Mt Hood lands to be conveyed to the City Species Forest Service Parcel Herb Robert F4, F5 Scotch broom F11, F12, F17 Himalayan blackberry F4, F17, F18, F20

Within the proposed land exchange parcels, herb Robert and shiny leaf geranium can be found along National Forest System Road 12 on the south side of Reservoir No. 2 and also along stretches of National Forest System Road 1211 along the south side of the Bull Run River and Reservoir No. 1. Many invasive plant populations are located the area of the watershed from which municipal drinking water is drawn. Herbicide use is not allowed in the area, limiting invasive plant treatment to manual (pulling by hand) or mechanical (mowing) control. In many places, these labor-intensive, less effective methods are not controlling nonnative invasive plants. Coordination on invasive plant management in the Bull Run watershed includes the invasive species coordinator for the Portland Water Bureau, the westside zone botanist for the Mt. Hood National Forest, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The invasive species coordinator for the Portland Water Bureau conducts invasive plant surveys in the watershed, documents and maps new infestations, and monitors invasive plant treatments for their effectiveness.

Any treatments of invasive plants conducted in the Bull Run watershed by the Forest Service must comply with standards and guidelines specified in two final environmental impact statements: the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (April 2005) and (b) Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16 (March 2008).

41 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

The City developed, and is implementing, an invasive species management plan (PWB 2016). This plan meets National Forest System standards and is used to guide invasive plants management and prevention on City-owned lands as well as on National Forest System land where City facilities are located. City employees and contractors are required to follow associated standard operating procedures for both aquatic and terrestrial invasive plants.

Forest Stand Structure and Age Classes The Bull Run watershed extends across the western hemlock and Pacific silver fir zones. Sixty percent of the watershed lies in the western hemlock zone, 40 percent in the Pacific silver fir zone, and less than 1 percent in the mountain hemlock zone (Bull Run Watershed Analysis, 1997). The western hemlock zone dominates the western portions of the watershed and forms a crescent-shaped band that extends up the main fork of the Bull Run River and its adjacent slopes. The main fork of the Bull Run River and its adjacent slopes are where the majority of the proposed land exchange parcels are located (except for City parcels 9 and 10). Parcel 9 is a mix of the Pacific silver fir and western hemlock forest plant associations; and in Parcel 10 Pacific silver fir predominates. Table 11 summarizes the plant associations for the proposed land exchange parcels based on the Pacific Northwest Region’s ArcGIS vegetation layer.

Table 11. Forested plant associations in the Bull Run exchange parcels Parcels Forested Plant Associations (PNV Model) 1A,1B,2A,3,4A western hemlock/sword fern-salal-dwarf Oregon grape (owned by City) (TSHE/POMU-GASH-BENE) western hemlock/sword fern-oxalis (TSHE/POMU-OXOR) 2,4B,5, 5A,5B,6A,6B,7,8 western hemlock/sword fern-oxalis (TSHE/POMU-OXOR) (owned by City) western hemlock/dwarf Oregon grape-salal (TSHE/BENE-GASH) western hemlock/devil’s club-skunk cabbage (TSHE/OPHO-LYAM) F-2,F-3,F-4,F-5,F-6,F-7, F-8,F-9,F-10,F-11,F-12, F-13,F-14,F-15,F-16,F- 17, F-18,F-19, F-20 (federal forest land) 9 Pacific silver fir/vine maple/vanilla leaf-coolwort (ABAM/ACCI/ACTR-TIUN) (owned by City) western hemlock/Alaska huckleberry/bunchberry dogwood (TSHE/VAAL/COCA) Pacific silver fir/Alaska huckleberry (ABAM/VAAL) 10 Pacific silver fir/vine maple/vanilla leaf-coolwort (ABAM/ACCI/ACTR-TIUN) (owned by City) Pacific silver fir/Alaska huckleberry (TSHE/VAAL/OXOR) Pacific silver fir/wet forest-other (ABAM/wet forest-other) western hemlock/Alaska huckleberry/oxalis (TSHE/VAAL/OXOR) western hemlock/Alaska huckleberry/bunchberry dogwood (TSHE/VAAL/COCA) mountain hemlock/queens cup beadlily-coolwort (TSME/CLUN-TIUN)

42 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Under the proposed land exchange, a maximum of 2,440 acres of land owned by the City of Portland would be transferred to the Mt. Hood National Forest and a maximum of 2,890 acres of National Forest System land would be transferred to the City of Portland. Table 12 and table 13 below displays the total acres proposed for exchange and the acreage and percent area occupied by stand age classes and water bodies (reservoirs, Bull Run River, and streams).

Table 12. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies on City of Portland lands to be transferred to the Mt. Hood National Forest Water 1-80 81 to 180 181 to 220 220+ Total Bodies years old years old years old years Acres 21.8 614.3 1,084 237 437 2,400 1% 26% 45% 10% 18% 100%

Table 13. Acreage and percent area of stand age classes and water bodies on National Forest System lands to be transferred to the City of Portland Water 1-80 81 to 180 181 to 220 220+ Total Bodies years old years old years old years Acres 538.3 378.2 1,152.7 339.3 402.3 2,810.8 19% 13% 41% 12% 14% 100%

The acreage of stand age classes and water bodies in the proposed land exchange parcels were calculated using gradient nearest neighbor analysis data. Stands 1 to 80 years in age are young (early seral) forest, 81 to 180 years in age are mature to late-successional forest, 181 to 220 years in age are old-growth forest, and 220 or more years old are old-growth forest. More information about gradient nearest neighbor can be obtained at the following link: http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/projects/imap .

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1- No Action The status and management of sensitive plants, nonnative invasive plants, and forest stand structure and composition would be as described under existing condition.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

Sensitive Plants The Mt. Hood National Forest would acquire a known site for a survey and manage category C lichen, with the transfer of parcel 10 from the City and a known site for a species of concern (Federal status), with the transfer of parcel 1B from the City. There are no other documented known sites according to the Forest Service’s rare species database (NRIS TESP-IS) for any rare vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, or fungi in the other parcels that would be conveyed from the Mt. Hood National Forest to the City or from the City to the Mt. Hood National Forest.

The proposed land exchange would have no impact on individuals or the habitat of special-status (sensitive) vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, or fungi on the Region 6 regional forester special status species list (July 2015) or on individuals or the habitat of survey and manage vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, or fungi on the survey and manage list (December 2003). The proposed land exchange would not contribute to a trend towards Federal listing of any sensitive

43 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

species or loss of viability to any sensitive species overall (that is, throughout its geographical range).

Nonnative Invasive Plants The Forest Service requirements for treatments of nonnative invasive plants as described under the existing condition would apply to the parcels to be acquired but no longer to those conveyed. The conveyed parcels would be managed by the City as described under existing condition. City management techniques are consistent with Forest Service requirements, with the intended goal of consistent prevention and management of invasive plants for the entirety of the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Forest Stand Structure and Age Classes A summary comparison of what the Forest Service would be acquiring versus conveying in terms of forest stand structure and stand age classes is displayed in table 12 and table 13 in the “Existing Condition” section. The acreage and percent area of stand age classes for each parcel of National Forest System and City lands are displayed in table 14 and table 15 .

Table 14. Stand age classes acres and percent area by parcel, National Forest System lands to be conveyed 81-180 181 to 220 Parcel Acres Waterbodies 1-80 years years years > 220 years F-2 39.5 0 3.7 29.3 1.4 5 0 9% 74% 4% 13% F-3 50.9 1.8 15.6 26 1.8 5.7 4% 31% 51% 3.5% 11% F-4 19.9 0 4 15.7 0.2 0 0 20% 79% 1% 0 F-5 160.6 16.2 14 118.6 10 1.8 10% 9% 74% 6% 1% F-6 237.4 54.8 18.2 130.2 16.6 17.6 23% 8% 55% 7% 7% F-7 37.8 0 6.4 22.8 4.8 3.8 0 17% 60% 13% 10% F-8 39.9 0.3 1.8 35.8 0.2 1.8 0.01% 5% 90% 0.5% 4.5% F-9 121.6 3.1 23.6 81.6 6.4 6.9 3% 19% 67% 5% 6% F-10 9.6 0 2.1 3.4 0 4 0 22% 35% 0 42% F-11 152.9 4.5 37.1 56.3 14.4 40.6 3% 24% 37% 9% 27% F-12 273.7 38.9 76.5 52.6 30.8 74.9 14% 28% 19% 11% 27% F-13 312.6 8.4 53.2 105.1 57.6 88.3 3% 17% 34% 18% 28% F-14 118.6 30.8 2.8 37.4 31.2 16.4 26% 2% 32% 26% 14%

44 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

81-180 181 to 220 Parcel Acres Waterbodies 1-80 years years years > 220 years F-15 297.9 153.3 31.5 40.8 42.7 29.7 51% 11% 14% 14% 10% F-16 440.5 188.5 15.7 141.9 52.1 42.4 43% 4% 32% 12% 10% F-17 332.3 13.4 55.5 176 39.2 48.2 4% 17% 53% 12% 15% F-18 9.4 0 1.3 8.1 0 0 0 14% 86% 0 0 F-19 39.3 3.1 2.1 16.9 15.1 2.2 8% 5% 43% 38% 6% F-20 116.4 21.2 13.1 54.2 14.8 13 18% 11% 47% 13% 11% Total acres 2,811 538.3 378.2 1,152.7 339.3 402.3 Total % NA 19% 13% 41% 12% 14% area rounded

Table 15. Stand age classes acres and percent area by parcel, City lands to be acquired 81-180 181 to 220 Parcel Acres Waterbodies 1-80 years years years > 220 years 1A 41 0 0.3 39.1 1.6 0 0 1% 95% 4% 0 1B 201 0 107.9 85.5 0 7.2 0 54% 43% 0 3% 2 609 1.3 266.3 239.6 9.5 91.9 <1% 44% 39% 2% 15% 2A 9.7 0 6.6 3.1 0 0 0 68% 32% 0 0 3 160 0 61.5 89.2 4.2 5.4 0 38% 56% 3% 3% 4A 158 0 10.2 102.2 10.3 35.4 0 6% 65% 7% 22% 4B 39 0 0.6 37.5 0.5 0.4 0 2% 96% 1% 1% 5 227 3.6 53.6 97.2 13.5 58.7 1% 24% 43% 6% 26% 5A 9.6 0.1 0 3.4 1.8 4.3 1% 0 35% 19% 45% 5B 19.1 0 8.7 9.4 0.9 0.1 0 46% 49% 5% <1% 6A 78 0.6 0 35.5 21.3 20.6 1% 46% 27% 26% 6B 230 0 4.8 105.3 82.2 37.8 0 2% 46% 36% 16%

45 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

81-180 181 to 220 Parcel Acres Waterbodies 1-80 years years years > 220 years 7 160 0 7.5 103.8 43.8 5.1 0 5% 65% 27% 3% 8 151 0.4 4.8 51.8 18.3 75.7 <1% 3% 34% 12% 50% 9 158 15.8 27.5 40.6 0.9 73.3 10% 17% 26% <1% 46% Total acres 2,400 21.8 614.3 1,084 237 437 Total % area NA 1% 26% 45% 10% 18% rounded

A number of maps are available in the botany-ecology specialist report (project record) that illustrate in color the forest plant associations, ages, and conditions in the Bull Run watershed management unit. The City and National Forest System parcel locations are overlain on the maps. Heritage Resources The transfer of ownership of the National Forest System lands constitutes a Federal undertaking as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act. The lands are also subject to the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Forest Service personnel must therefore take into consideration the possible effects of the land exchange on significant cultural resources. To meet the requirements of these statutes, it was necessary to conduct an archaeological resource survey of the proposed land exchange area.

Heritage resources include structures, sites, and objects that reflect the prehistory, protohistory, and history of people. The analysis area for heritage resources in this environmental assessment is the area of National Forest System lands to be conveyed for the proposed action.

The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act both require consideration be given to the potential effect of federal undertakings on heritage resources. The guidelines for assessing effects and for consultation are provided in 36 CFR 800. To implement these guidelines, in 2004, Region 6 of the Forest Service entered into a programmatic agreement with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

In accordance with the 2004 agreement, heritage resource surveys have been conducted for the conveyed lands requiring inspection and documented in heritage resource reports #1628 (AINW 2006), #2016-060609-018 (Willamette CRA 2013), and 2008 Bear Creek Houses Nos. 1 and 2 (Portland Bureau of Planning), for the proposed action.

Existing Condition The first pedestrian surveys conducted in 2006 identified 11 archaeological resources: six prehistoric isolates (occurrences of less than 10 artifacts) and five prehistoric archaeological sites. All but three of these resources are situated in the drawdown zone of Reservoir No. 1. All archaeological sites are lithic scatters. Only two sites (temporary designations 05/1231-3 and 05/1231-4) were found to have subsurface archaeological deposits. All of the remaining sites

46 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

consisted entirely of surface deposits, most of which appear to be eroded items lacking any intact soil matrix.

A combination of surface scrapes, shovel tests, and controlled excavations were also conducted at the Bear Creek construction camp site. Although an extensive assemblage of artifacts was documented in these field investigations, most of artifacts was composed of architectural debris— nails and other metal fasteners and window glass associated with the former camp cookhouse. A few artifacts representing domestic and personal use were also recorded and collected.

Based on these results, Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. recommended 2 of the 12 archaeological resources identified and investigated in this study are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The 2 archaeological sites (05/1231-3 and 05/1231-4) have evidence of buried archaeological deposits and artifact assemblages that are sufficiently numerous and diverse to offer the potential for addressing some important questions regarding the prehistory of the Bull Run watershed. The Bear Creek construction camp archaeological deposits are associated primarily with the camp cookhouse and are dominated by architectural debris with little or no data potential. The artifact assemblage contains few domestic or personal items that would have the potential to shed light on the lives of those living and working at the camp. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. concluded the construction camp archaeological deposits are not eligible for listing on the National Register.

Of the 2 sites recommended as significant, one (05/1231-3) is located partially in the Reservoir No. 1 drawdown zone and is therefore likely to be experiencing ongoing erosion as the reservoir level fluctuates. More systematic studies of this site, monitoring of the site conditions, or both are recommended to more fully assess the effects of the changes in reservoir level and to determine if the reservoir operations are having an adverse effect on the archaeological deposits. Site 05/1231- 4 is in an area that does not appear to be affected by reservoir operations or other activities at its location. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. recommends periodic monitoring of the site location in the future to ensure that no inadvertent disturbance occurs at the site location.

The secondary survey completed in 2013 located 2 historic feature sites. Both features are abandoned road grades. Site 13-18-1 likely served as an earlier alignment of the access road to the lower portion of Dam Number 1, which appears to follow the original (1920s) route and was replaced by the current alignment following construction of a large retaining wall sometime between 1973 and 1986. The second site, 13-18-2, may have been an earlier alignment of National Forest System Road 10 as it closely follows the alignment shown on maps postdating 1958 but is similar enough to the current alignment that it is unknown when it was abandoned. Neither of these historic road features are associated with any artifacts of other features. Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, Ltd. recommended both historic road grade sites are not eligible for listing on the National Register.

A historical evaluation and determination of eligibility for the above ground resources was conducted in 2008 by the Portland Bureau of Planning. Bear Creek houses numbers 1 and 2 are the only remaining buildings from the Bull Run Dam construction camps developed from 1926 to 1929. It was determined both houses derive their significance from their historical associations with the construction of the dam and the broader histories of the City of Portland’s water supply system, the Bull Run watershed and Mt. Hood National Forest. The Bear Creek houses were found to be individually eligible or as an ensemble for their associations with the construction of Bull Run Dam No. 1 and the history of the Bull Run watershed and water supply system of Portland. Dam No. 1 has not been evaluated nor has a determination of eligibility been completed. The results of discussions with the City for how to this will be addressed in the

47 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

memorandum of agreement are underway and will be disclosed in the final environmental assessment and decision document.

Effects Analysis

No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects Under the no-action alternative, heritage resources would be managed as directed by standards and guidelines in the Mt Hood forest plan (USDA 1990) and the Northwest forest plan (USDA 1994), as well as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (Public Law 89-665; 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) including section 106 (36 CFR Part 800), and the National Environmental Policy Act (1970). This alternative would have no effect on heritage resources.

Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects The land exchange would alter the way in which the Forest Service is able to manage land within the Bull Run. The current management of the Federal land to be conveyed in this exchange would no longer be managed by our current Federal regulations. As stated in 36 CFR part 800.5 2(vii) an adverse effect occurs in the “Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.” This alternative would have an adverse effect on heritage resources. However, a memorandum of agreement between the Forest Service, City of Portland, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office is under development. The agreement will describe the mitigation that is acceptable and agreeable to all parties, which satisfies the requirements of 36 CFR part 800.6 (C). The completed memorandum of agreement would be in effect before the affected lands leave federal ownership.

Under 36 CFR part 800.6 (a) the Forest Service personnel have consulted with the City of Portland and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office personnel to develop alternatives “that could avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties.” The three agencies have agreed mitigation for the adverse effect resulting from this alternative would be the creation and implementation of a historic properties management plan by the City of Portland.

The historic properties management plan will be in accordance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The management plan is intended to manage historic properties; which refer to a broad range of cultural and historical resources, including archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, and features eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The goals of the historic properties management plan are to protect and maintain the integrity of the historic properties within the land exchange parcels. To avoid or mitigate project-related impacts on historic properties and to ensure consistency with existing Federal regulations and Federal resources.

Cumulative Effects For heritage resources, any effects are limited to site specific locations. Any cumulative effects would also be limited to heritage resources situated within the proposed lands to be exchanged. The transfer of ownership of the National Forest System lands for the proposed action resulted in direct or indirect effects to heritage resources being adversely affected by this action. The adverse effect is not for ground-disturbing activities but for the actual transfer of lands out of Federal ownership.

48 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

There have been several repairs and updates to the cabins and Dam No. 1 since their construction, although changes have been in-kind to repair failing elements which have not impacted or changed the environment or structures. There have been no impacts to archaeological resources other than natural and environmental effects. There are no foreseeable future projects that would impact heritage resources. There would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources as a result of implementing the proposed action.

Consistency Determination The consultation for the heritage resource survey results and recommendations for the project, has been completed in accordance with the 2004 PA and submitted to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office for review.

The land exchange as proposed would impact heritage resources. Based on the proposed action, the project meets the criteria in the programmatic agreement for “Historic Properties may be Adversely Affected” determination (stipulation III (B) 4).

Heritage resource inventories were conducted in compliance with the 2004 programmatic agreement (FW-602 and FW-606), the field survey results were fully documented (FS-608), and the potential effects to heritage resources from the proposed projects were assessed (FW-609, FW-610). Heritage resources potentially affected by the project were evaluated (FW-612). All records and documents concerning heritage resources for the project are kept on file at the Zigzag Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest (FW-626).

The Forest Service has met its obligation as a Federal agency in fulfilling all the requirements of section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) and other policies and laws including government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes. Consultation occurred in the early stages of this project. Due to the duration of this project, Forest Service personnel will reinitiate consultation prior to completion of the memorandum of agreement. Hydrology

Wetland and Floodplains Analysis Requirements for Land Exchanges Both the Federal and non-Federal lands shall be inspected and evaluated for wetlands in accordance with Executive Order 11990 issued May 24, 1977 and for floodplains in accordance with Executive Order 11988 issued May 24, 1977 (Forest Service Manual 2527). Wetlands are to be evaluated separately from floodplains even if their acres overlap. Executive Order 11990 requires that the exchange preserve wetland functions with no net loss to the Federal estate. Executive Order 11998 requires that the exchange not increase flood hazards to the non-Federal estate. Since the intent of each executive order differs, the authorized officer has the responsibility to balance qualitative and quantitative factors to meet the intent of both executive orders.

49 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

The following list of three conditions satisfy the requirements of the two executive orders:

1. The value of the wetlands or floodplains for properties received and conveyed is equal (balancing test) and the land exchange is in the public interest. 2. Reservations or restrictions are retained on the unbalanced portion of the wetlands and floodplains on the Federal lands when the land exchange is in the public interest but does not meet the balancing test. 3. The Federal property is removed from the exchange proposal when the conditions described in the preceding paragraphs 1 or 2 cannot be met.

Existing Condition

Watershed Condition The existing condition for the 6th field watersheds is based on datasets associated with the “Northwest Forest Plan–The First 20 Years (1994 to 2013) Watershed Condition Status and Trend Report” (Miller et al. 2015). The watershed monitoring module (also known as the aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program) determines if the aquatic conservation strategy in the Northwest forest plan is achieving the goals of maintaining and restoring the condition of watersheds. Table 16 summarizes how the monitoring program was used for the watershed condition analysis.

Table 16. Methods and data used for watershed condition effects analysis

Method and Data Utility Limitation Aquatic and riparian Gives a general idea of overall Model utilizes a number of GIS- effectiveness monitoring watershed condition and key derived outputs relative to program assessment of processes that affect overall watershed condition. These may watershed condition including: watershed condition. differ somewhat from what is on the Overall watershed condition; ground due to actual site conditions sediment production and which are variable across the delivery; wood production and landscape delivery; riparian habitat; hydrologic processes (specifically peak flows); and fish passage

There are 6th field watersheds associated with the land exchange parcels (see table 17).

Table 17. Land exchange parcel acreage by sixth field subwatershed (based on current ownership) City of Portland USDA Forest Percent of 6th Field Subwatershed Water Bureau Service Total Watershed Blazed Alder Creek 150 0 150 3% Gordon Creek 208 0 208 4% Little Sandy River 158 9 167 3% Lower Bull Run River 1,738 1,227 2,965 56% Middle Bull Run River 0 1,605 1,605 30% South Fork Bull Run River 146 29 175 3% TOTAL 2,400 2,870 5,270 100%

50 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

The aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program scores for process indicators were assessed using the same break points for properly functioning, functioning at risk, and not properly functioning as the Watershed Condition Framework process.

This analysis focused on project impacts to water quality and water quantity; therefore, the overall watershed condition, riparian condition, sediment condition, and hydrology condition are the most relevant. All of the subwatersheds are in the properly functioning condition for the overall upslope and riparian condition.

With the exception of the sediment process indicator in the Blazed Alder Creek subwatershed, all the subwatersheds are in the properly functioning condition for sediment production and delivery, riparian shading and habitat, and hydrology. Blazed Alder Creek is in the functioning-at-risk category for sediment production and delivery.

Water Quality The Clean Water Act requires States to set water quality standards to support the beneficial uses of water. The act also requires States to identify the status of all waters and prioritize water bodies whose water quality is limited or impaired. For Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality develops water quality standards and lists water quality limited waters. In addition, Region 6 of the Forest Service has entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to acknowledge the Forest Service as the designated management agency for implementation of the Clean Water Act on National Forest land. In an effort to support the Clean Water Act, the Mt. Hood personnel conduct a variety of monitoring and inventory programs to determine the status of meeting state water quality standards as well as other regulatory and agency requirements.

By authorities delegated from the EPA under the Clean Water Act, as well as related state statutes, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality manages the quality of Oregon’s streams, lakes, estuaries, and groundwater.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that water bodies violating State or tribal water quality standards be identified and placed on a 303(d) list. The EPA regulations also allow States and tribes to include threatened waters (that is, waters that display a downward trend that suggests water quality standards would not be met in the near future).

By direction of the Clean Water Act, where water quality is limited, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality develops total maximum daily load plan to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of water. For water-quality-limited streams on National Forest System lands, the Forest Service personnel provide information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to support state processes to protect and restore water quality.

In 2002, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality listed the lower Bull Run River (RM 0–RM 5) as a “water quality limited stream” due to summer water temperatures. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality staff subsequently prepared a total maximum daily load under the authority of the Clean Water Act, to define requirements for the Bull Run River and other Sandy River stream segments. Because water temperature standards for the Bull Run River are set at a level to protect coldwater fish species (including the listed fish), the City concluded a coordinated plan to address both the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act requirements was needed. With this in mind, the City prepared a habitat conservation plan to be consistent with the Clean Water Act requirements and also prepared a temperature management plan. The temperature management plan relies on the water temperature measures included in the

51 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment habitat conservation plan. The temperature management plan was approved by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality personnel in May 2008 (City of Portland Water Bureau 2008).

In addition to the lower Bull Run River, streams detailed in table 18 were listed as water quality limited due to summer water temperatures in 2002, by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Table 18. Streams listed as water quality limited for stream temperature Stream Miles Listed Season Listing Status Blazed Alder Creek 0 to 3.9 Year round Cat 4A: Water quality limited, total (non-spawning) maximum daily load approved Bull Run River 0 to 4.9 August 15 - June 15 Cat 4A: Water quality limited, total maximum daily load approved Bull Run River 0 to 5 Summer Cat 4A: Water quality limited, total maximum daily load approved Bull Run River 0 to 26.9 Year round Cat 4A: Water quality limited, total (non-spawning) maximum daily load approved Gordon Creek 0 to 10.5 September 15 - June 30 Cat 4A: Water quality limited, total maximum daily load approved Little Sandy Creek 0 to 15.7 Year round Cat 4A: Water quality limited, total (non-spawning) maximum daily load approved

By direction of the Clean Water Act, where water quality is limited, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality develops a total maximum daily load plan to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of water. For water-quality-limited streams on National Forest System lands, Forest Service personnel provide information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to support state processes to protect and restore water quality. The Sandy River Basin total maximum daily load was approved by the EPA in 2005 (ODEQ 2005). This total maximum daily load addresses stream temperature in the project area as well as other issues.

A water quality management plan to serve as the total maximum daily load implementation plan for the Sandy River Basin total maximum daily load was also developed (ODEQ 2005). Under the water quality management plan on National Forest System lands the protection and recovery of water quality depends on implementation of the Mt. Hood forest plan as amended. The water quality management plan also acknowledges the role of the City’s habitat conservation plan and related temperature management plan for protecting water quality. The water quality management plan was completed before the habitat conservation plan was approved.

Table 19 details the water quality status of streams in the project area associated with Oregon's 2012 Integrated Report Assessment Database and 303(d) List. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality submitted Oregon's 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) list to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in November 2014. EPA will review and either approve or disapprove the 2012 303(d) list as submitted. After EPA has taken final action, the 2012 303(d) list will become effective for Clean Water Act purposes.

Table 19. Bull Run 5th field watershed water quality limited 303(d) streams 2012 integrated report assessment database Stream Name Pollutant River Miles Listed Little Sandy River Biological criteria 0 to 14.5

52 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for protecting the waters of the State from pollution that may adversely affect drinking water, aquatic life, and recreational uses. The department routinely monitors conventional water quality parameters such as nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, conductivity, and bacteria to report on the water quality status and trends in Oregon. However, resource limitations make it impractical to measure all the potential pollutants which may impair Oregon’s waters. Aquatic insect communities are direct indicators of biological conditions and a surrogate for watershed health. They provide a cost effective screening tool for assessing and identifying problems that may require further examination.

Stream Network and Floodplains

Stream Network The land exchange area involves 1st- through 4th-order tributaries of the Bull Run River (5th order). The main streams in the proposed land exchange area are the Bull Run River, South Fork Bull Run River, Bear Creek, Cedar Creek, Camp Creek, Deer Creek, Fir Creek, Cougar Creek, and the North Fork Bull Run River.

First order streams in the land exchange area are primarily incised channels with very narrow or nonexistent floodplains, which most often do not flow year-long. Many of the remaining 2nd- through 5th-order streams and rivers (Rosgen stream types A and B) (Rosgen 1996) where the floodplain assessment was conducted also have incised channels with insignificant floodplains. There are currently a total of 17 miles of intermittent (7.1) and perennial (9.9) streams and 0 miles of reservoirs on the City of Portland lands. There are 32.9 miles streams (6.3 intermittent and 14.0 perennial) and reservoirs (12.6) on the NFS lands. Figures displaying the stream network are in the water quality specialist report, p. 17-18.

Floodplains The width of the 100-year floodplain on all accessible perennial streams (Mt. Hood NF 1:24,000 streams GIS layer) in the land exchange area was evaluated in the field by US Forest Service and City of Portland hydrologists. Hydrologists evaluated channel morphology and high water indicators (debris, sediment deposits, etc.) at cross-sections spaced between 100 to 300 feet apart, using professional judgment to identify the100-year floodplain on each side of all accessible perennial streams. In some cases, the interval between cross-sections was greater because of access or safety concerns.

Floodplain acreage by section and parcel is displayed in table 20 and table 21.

Table 20. Floodplain acreage by section for lands offered by City of Portland Section Parcel Acres 18 4A and 4 0 19 5 and 5A 0.9 20 6 2.7 23 1A and 1B 0 24 2 and 2A 0.2 26 3 0.3 30 5B and 7 0.3

53 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Section Parcel Acres 32 8 6.6 2 10 0.2 12 9 0 Total 11.2

Table 21. Floodplain acreage by section for National Forest System lands Section Parcel Acres 9 F-10 0 10 F-11 0.5 11 F-12 0.4 12 F-12 1.4 14 F-14 0.2 15 F-15 16 F-16 0.2 17 F-17 0.3 18 F-18 20 F-19 and F-20 25 F-1 26 F-2 and F-3 0.1 30 F-6 0.4 31 F-7 0.2 36 F-5 3 F-8 0.1 4 F-9 1.1 35 F-4 0.4 Total 5.3

Wetlands The City of Portland hired Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. to identify the approximate location of all wetlands within the 5,507-acre study area, classify the type of wetlands and also to determine each wetland’s functions and values. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. teamed with Char Corkran and Salix Associates to conduct the inventory. The inventory fieldwork was conducted between November 2004 and March 2005 with additional fieldwork completed in June and July 2013. Within this period, pairs of scientists visited all of the tax lots in the 5,507-acre study area. Any area satisfying the three required criteria of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 (hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) was designated as a wetland. All wetlands greater than 0.5 acres in size will be considered in the land exchange. All wetland boundaries were drawn on true color or color infrared aerial photographs, which were provided to the Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. project team by the City of Portland and the Mt. Hood National Forest personnel. GPS data was also recorded at each wetland and at points along the wetland boundaries. Wetland boundaries were digitized and transferred to GIS-based maps. All wetlands greater than 0.5 acre in size will be considered in the land exchange. The City and

54 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

National Forest System parcels with wetlands are listed in table 22 and table 23. Figure 7 provides an illustration of the wetlands in relation to the exchange parcels. The quality of each wetland greater than 0.5 acres was assessed using the hydrogeomorphic wetlands assessment methodology. The “Guidebook for Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)-based Assessment of Oregon Wetland and Riparian Sites” was used to analyze wetland quality for the purposes of this project. Specifically, the judgmental method was used to qualitatively assess wetland functions and values within the study area. This method addresses the value of the functions of flood water storage, sediment trapping and stabilization, nutrient processing, stream temperature maintenance, and habitat support for plants, invertebrates, amphibians, and birds. By considering such an array of functions, the methods avoid an oversimplification of complex, dynamic systems (Van Staveren, Eisner, and Campbell 2013).

Table 22. Acres of wetlands 0.5 acres or larger on the current City of Portland land-exchange parcels Parcel Acres 2 9.1 6B 2.3 7 7.4 Total 18.8

Table 23. Acres of wetlands 0.5 acres or larger on National Forest System land-exchange parcels Parcel Acres F-12 2.0 F-13 7.2 F-15 5.6 F-19 1.0 F-4 0.5 F-5 1.0 F-8 0.6 Total 17.9

55 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Figure 7. Wetlands on land exchange parcels

Water Rights Water rights associated with the exchange parcels are recorded with the Oregon Water Resources Department. There is one water right permit (Permit 43857) for the generation of hydro-electric power at the Bull Run Dam No. 1 on a land exchange parcel currently on National Forest System lands. Permit S 43857 was granted to the City of Portland in 1979 for the generation of hydroelectric power at the Bull Run Dam No. 1.

The State Legislature enacted ORS 538.420 in 1909. This statute grants to the City “the exclusive rights to the use of waters of the Bull Run and Little Sandy Rivers.” The City also has filed claims to pre-1909 water rights, with a priority date of 1886 on the Bull Run River and a priority date of 1892 on the Little Sandy River. The City currently diverts about 20 percent of the annual flow of the Bull Run River, but it has not made use of its water right on the Little Sandy River. Portland General Electric has a pre-1909 water claim for diversion from the Little Sandy River. The City and Portland General Electric are the only entities with water claims or rights on the Little Sandy River. Portland General Electric’s pre-1909 water claim for diversion from the Little Sandy River was in the process of being converted to instream use in 2008 (OWRD 2008). The City’s habitat conservation plan foregoes exercise of City water claims on the Little Sandy River for the term of the habitat conservation plan.

56 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects Common to Alternatives 1 and 2

Sediment There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. This indicator is expected to remain the same as the existing condition under alternatives 1 and 2.

Riparian Shading and Habitat There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in disturbance in the riparian reserves. Conditions are expected to remain the same as the existing condition under alternatives 1 and 2.

Stream Temperature With continued implementation of the water quality management plan for the Sandy River Basin and the temperature management plan incorporated into the Bull Run water supply habitat conservation plan conditions are expected to remain the same as the existing condition under alternatives 1 and 2.

Water Quality Limited 303(d) Streams The Little Sandy River from the confluence with the Bull Run River to river mile 14.5 is 303(d) listed for biological criteria. There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in vegetative disturbance in the riparian reserves nor are activities planned that would result in earth disturbance and associated erosion. It is anticipated that the macroinvertebrate community as assessed by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s predictive assessment tool for Oregon would remain in the same range as the existing condition under alternatives 1 and 2, because primary shade zones and sediment inputs from roads are anticipated to stay at the current levels or potentially see an improved condition as indicated by the aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program trend scores.

Water Quantity Changes in hydrologic processes associated with management activities can be grouped into two classes according to causal mechanisms. One class consists of change resulting from removing forest vegetation through harvest. A second class consists of changes in hydrologic processes that control infiltration and the flow of surface and subsurface water. This latter class is dominated by the effects of forest roads (USDA 1993).

The hydrology indicator associated with the aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program 20-year assessment addresses the influence of road and vegetation changes on peak flows. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the same condition as the existing condition because there is no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities associated with either of them.

57 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Stream Network and Floodplains There are currently 5.3 acres of floodplains on National Forest System land exchange parcels and 11.2 acres of floodplains on City of Portland land exchange parcels so there would be no change under alternative 1 and a net increase of 5.9 acres of floodplains on National Forest System lands associated with implementation of the land exchange under alternative 2.

Under both alternatives, the stream network and associated floodplains on National Forest System lands would be managed as directed by standards and guidelines in the Mt Hood forest plan (USDA, 1990) and the Northwest forest plan (USDA, 1994). Per the Mt Hood forest plan, the principal objective for this area is the production of "pure, clear, raw potable" water of a quantity and quality that is at least as good as that historically produced. Additional standards and guidelines in the Northwest forest plan (USDA, 1994) are intended to protect or restore these areas. Key to this strategy are the standards and guidelines and the aquatic conservation strategy objectives to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to restore key watershed conditions.

Under both alternatives, the stream network and associated floodplains on City of Portland lands would be managed by the City for the objective: to produce “pure, clear, raw potable water…for the City of Portland and other local government units and persons in the Portland metropolitan area” (Portland City code 21.36.050, Bull Run Watershed Protection Policy) and except as necessary for protection, enhancement, operation or maintenance of the water supply system and facilities for electric power generation and transmission. City lands shall not be developed or used for residential, industrial, or commercial purposes.

There are no vegetation management, new road construction, or road decommissioning activities planned in the land exchange parcels by the Forest Service or the City of Portland that would result in disturbance in the floodplains. Conditions are expected to remain the same as the existing condition under alternatives 1 and 2.

Under alternative 2, an additional 57 acres (49 acres for Reservoir 1, 8 acres for Reservoir 2) of reservoir-related floodplains on National Forest System lands would be transferred to the City of Portland. These reservoir-related floodplains are associated with routine and regular fluctuations of reservoir levels. There are no anticipated effects on reservoir-related or downstream floodplains as a result of this proposed exchange as floodplain conditions are expected to remain the same as the existing condition under alternatives 1 and 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1

Wetlands Wetlands (17.9 acres) on National Forest System land exchange parcels would continue to be managed by the Forest Service as directed by standards and guidelines in the Mt. Hood forest plan (USDA 1990) and the Northwest forest plan (USDA 1994). Additional standards and guidelines in the Mt, Hood forest plan are intended to protect or restore these areas. The Northwest forest plan recognizes them to be riparian reserves, prescribes specific buffer widths to protect them even further, and encourages restoration if needed. Key to this strategy are the standards and guidelines and the aquatic conservation strategy objectives to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to restore key watershed conditions.

Under Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) “Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve

58 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; and (2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.” in addition “When federally owned wetlands or portions of wetlands are proposed for lease, easement, right-of-way or disposal to non-Federal public or private parties, the Federal agency shall (a) reference in the conveyance those uses that are restricted under identified Federal, State or local wetlands regulations; and (b) attach other appropriate restrictions to the uses of properties by the grantee or purchaser and any successor, except where prohibited by law; or (c) withhold such properties from disposal.”

Wetlands on National Forest System lands would remain in their current condition and largely undisturbed and unimpaired. They would continue to have high functional value for organic production and transport, amphibian habitat, and richness of native aquatic plants. This alternative would minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands so it would be consistent with Executive Order 11990.

Wetlands on City of Portland owned land exchange parcels (18.8 acres) would remain in private ownership. Any future development or construction within them would have to be authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State Lands and necessitate requisite review and permitting. These wetlands would continue to offer high functional values for organic production and transport; good habitat for fish, aquatic vertebrates, mammals, and birds; and richness of native aquatic plants. They also would continue to store water and filter sediment.

Water Rights None of the water rights in the exchange parcels would change under the no-action alternative. There are no water rights on record in the name of the Forest Service in the exchange parcels. Water rights in noncancelled status would be expected to stay with their current right holders, and for the same beneficial uses unless transferred according to Oregon Water Resources Department rules.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2

Wetlands Examining wetlands less than 0.5 acres (as specified in the protocol for the wetlands inventory) there are a total area of 18.8 acres of wetlands on City of Portland lands proposed for exchange and 17.9 acres of wetlands on National Forest System lands proposed for exchange, which would result in a net increase of 0.9 acres of wetlands on National Forest System lands after the exchange.

Each wetland was given a score of between 0 and 1 based on the functions and values it provides. Each wetland was given an adjusted score (wetland size multiplied by total of all functions and values). The total of all adjusted scores determined that the Water Bureau wetlands have an adjusted score of 120.42 and the Forest Service of 104.67. This result is due in part to the large (9.08 acre), high-quality wetland in Walker Prairie, which is located on parcel 2 and offered to the Forest Service in the exchange. In addition, most of the wetlands on National Forest System lands offered to the City in the exchange are associated with the inundation areas of the city’s reservoirs.

59 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires that when property in floodplains or federally owned wetlands or portions of wetlands is proposed for lease, easement, right-of-way, or disposal to non-federal public or private parties:

1. Reference in the conveyance documents those uses that are restricted under identified Federal, State, or local floodplain or wetland regulations; and 2. Attach other appropriate restrictions, which have been identified in the environmental analysis, to the use of the properties by the grantee or purchaser and any successors. In Oregon, wetlands are regulated through the authority of Federal and State laws and, in some cases, City or County ordinances.

The Clean Water Act, under the jurisdiction of the EPA, is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include filling wetlands for development, water resource projects such as dams and levees, infrastructure development such as highways and airports, and mining projects. Section 404 requires that a permit be issued before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities) (Oregon Explorer, Wetland Regulations website).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Clean Water Act (Oregon Explorer, Wetland Regulations website).

The Oregon Division of State Lands regulates wetlands under the State Removal-Fill Law, which was enacted in 1967 to protect public navigation, fishery, and recreational uses of "waters of the state", which includes wetlands (Oregon Explorer, Wetland Regulations website).

The Oregon Division of State Lands’ wetlands program implements the State Wetlands Conservation Act (1989), which promotes the protection, conservation and best use of wetland resources, their functions and values through the integration and close coordination of statewide planning goals, local comprehensive plans and state and federal regulatory programs (Oregon Explorer, Wetland Regulations website).

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality reviews federal permits and licenses affecting wetlands for compliance with Oregon's water-quality standards under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Oregon Explorer, Wetland Regulations website).

The Forest Service would acquire a net addition of 0.9 acres of wetland that would remain in their current condition and largely undisturbed and unimpaired. This net increase includes the 9.08 acre wetland located on parcel 2. Wetlands acquired from the City would continue to offer high functional values for organic production and transport; good habitat for fish, aquatic vertebrates, mammals, and birds; and richness of native aquatic plants. They also would continue to store water and filter sediment. The wetlands transferred to the City of Portland would be subject to Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon Division of State Lands regulations. It is assumed that wetlands on City of Portland lands would remain in their current condition and largely undisturbed and unimpaired.

For lands conveyed to the National Forest, this alternative would minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of

60 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

wetlands as required in the Executive Order. For lands conveyed to City of Portland wetlands would be subject to ACOE and DSL regulations and conveyance documents would identify those uses that are restricted under identified Federal, State, or local floodplain or wetland regulations to help ensure that activities associated with the implementation of the land exchange would be consistent with Executive Order 11990.

No hazards to life or property are known to exist in the wetland or floodplain areas involved, due to both to the remoteness of the sites, steep terrain, and closure of the Bull Run watershed to public entry.

Water Rights On National Forest Systems lands to be exchanged with the City of Portland, the single appurtenant water right on record within the conveyance parcels is in the name of the City of Portland and is associated with the generation of hydroelectric power at the Bull Run Dam No. 1. The status of this water right would remain unchanged under implementation of the land exchange because the water right is already held by the City of Portland.

There are no water right permits or water right certificates for any of the land parcels owned by the City that are proposed for Federal ownership.

Cumulative Effects A cumulative effects analysis for water resources was not conducted or required because no direct or indirect effects were identified. Wildlife Species and Habitat

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides a list of federally threatened (T), endangered (E), proposed (P), and candidate (C) species and nonessential/experimental population (XN). The only federally listed species thought to occur presently or historically in the Bull Run watershed management unit is the federally threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Designated critical habitat for the species also occurs within the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Two other listed or proposed species have the potential to occur nearby on the Mt. Hood National Forest: the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) (T) and the North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) (P). However, there are no known occurrences or likely suitable habitat for either species within the Bull Run watershed management unit, nor has any critical habitat been designated for either species on the Zigzag Ranger District. Therefore, they are not addressed any further in this document and there would be “no effect” to these species.

Northern Spotted Owl This species is typically associated with old-growth forested habitats throughout the Pacific Northwest. Northern spotted owls have been documented in a variety of forest types; however, this species does show a preference to Douglas-fir forests (USDI 2011). Nest sites and roost sites are typically found in forests that exhibit complex structure and heterogeneity. These habitats are multi-storied with large diameter trees (20 inches in diameter at breast height and greater) and high canopy cover (greater than 60 percent). Most spotted owls are territorial and dispersal of young depends on availability of suitable habitat and prey species (USDI 2011).

61 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Past management activities, such as timber harvest, have reduced or fragmented northern spotted owl habitat throughout its range. In addition, the barred owl has presented cumulative impacts to this species (Courtney et al. 2004, USDI 2011). The barred owl is an invasive species from the eastern United States and has expanded its range extensively throughout the Pacific Northwest. It is a generalist that can utilize a wide range of habitat types and forest age classes. It also has a wide diet range and can survive on many different prey types (Forsman et al 2004, USDI 2011). As a result, overall northern spotted owl population densities have decreased, specifically in areas where habitat reduction is concentrated and where barred owls are present (USDI 2011).

Suitable spotted owl habitat consists of forested stands used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting and foraging. Features that support nesting and roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees (with a diameter at breast height of greater than 30 inches); a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly. This habitat is described as nesting and roosting habitat in the revised northern spotted owl recovery plan (USDI 2011).

Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting and roosting habitat, but such habitat may not always support successfully nesting pairs (USDI 2011). Trees within foraging habitat may vary in size, and could be of smaller diameter than trees in nesting and roosting habitat depending on site specific conditions. Together, nesting, roosting or foraging habitat comprise suitable habitat in this analysis.

Existing Conditions The tables below describe the northern spotted owl habitat existing conditions within the parcels offered for exchange. Table 24 and table 25 provides a summary of the habitats to be involved in the land exchange.

Table 24. Northern spotted owl habitat in National Forest System lands offered to the City (2,890 acres total) Habitat Type Acres Suitable 1,767 Designated Critical 1,696 Open Water - Non-Habitat 543 Acres Within Known/Historic Owl 908 Home Ranges

Table 25. Northern spotted owl habitat in City of Portland lands offered to the Forest Service (2,440 acres total) Habitat Type Acres Suitable 1,441 Designated Critical 0 Open Water - Non-Habitat 0 Acres Within Known/Historic Owl 1,767 Home Ranges

62 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 26 and table 27 describe the existing conditions within each proposed parcel of land involved in the land exchange. Suitable habitat was determined using GIS vegetation information from the Forest Service and the City of Portland.

Table 26. Northern spotted owl habitat within each land parcel offered by the USDA Forest Service in the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Critical Habitat Open Water Parcel # Total Acres Suitable Acres Acres Acres F-1 59 55 0 0 F-2 40 40 0 0 F-3 50 48 0 1 F-4 20 20 0 0 F-5 160 64 0 13 F-6 224 112 16 58 F-7 40 26 2 0 F-8 38 38 0 1 F-9 117 109 0 7 F-10 10 7 10 0 F-11 155 96 150 5 F-12 280 191 243 37 F-13 320 298 305 15 F-14 120 81 91 29 F-15 299 72 142 157 F-16 451 154 271 180 F-17 340 255 325 15 F-18 10 10 10 0 F-19 36 33 33 3 F-20 120 58 98 22 Totals 2,889* 1,767 1,696 543

*Includes rounding errors

Table 27. Northern spotted owl habitat in each land parcel offered by City of Portland in the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Critical Habitat Open Water Parcel # Total Acres Suitable Acres Acres Acres 1A 41 41 0 0 1B 200 19 0 0 2 620 247 0 0 2A 20 20 0 0 3 159 5 0 0 4A 157 134 0 0 4B 39 21 0 0 5 232 232 0 0 5A 10 7 0 0

63 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Critical Habitat Open Water Parcel # Total Acres Suitable Acres Acres Acres 5B 19 9 0 0 6A 84 70 0 0 6B 228 228 0 0 7 154 142 0 0 8 154 151 0 0 9 160 0 0 0 10 160 115 0 0 Totals 2,437* 1,441 0 0 *Includes rounding errors

Nearly all of the land offered by the City that is currently not considered suitable habitat is capable of developing into suitable. The same is true of the National Forest System land with the exception of the 543 open water acres which are not capable of developing into suitable habitat. The majority of the capable but not currently suitable acres comes as a result of past timber harvest practices.

There are 8 known or historic owl nest sites with home ranges that overlap with lands proposed to be exchanged in the Bull Run land exchange (table 28 and table 29). The Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (2011) places the Mt. Hood National Forest in the Willamette Province. For the Willamette Province, the northern spotted owl home range is a 1.2 mile radius circle (2,955 acres) centered on the historic nest site. Only one nest site actually occurs in a proposed land exchange parcel, a City-owned parcel that would be conveyed to the Forest Service. There are 23 known or historic spotted owl nest sites in the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Table 28. Known or historic spotted owl home ranges that overlap Forest Service exchange lands offered in the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Spotted Owl Nest Site # Overlapped Parcel #(s) Acres 4408P94 F-6, F-17, F-18, F-20 227 4427P94 F-17, F-18, F-19, F-20 410 4420P92 F-2, F-4, F-8 63 4410P94 F-1, F-5, F-6, F-7 439 4409P90 None None 4180T90 None None 4075T90 None None 4425P94 None None

64 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 29. Known or historic spotted owl home ranges that overlap City of Portland exchange lands offered in the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Spotted Owl Nest Site # Overlapped Parcel #(s) Acres 4408P94 2, 2A, 4A, 4B, 5*, 5A, 5B, 6A, 7 1,030 4427P94 4A, 5, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7 714 4420P92 None None 4410P94 5B, 7, 8 189 4409P90 6B, 8 102 4180T90 9 57 4075T90 10 113 4425P94 10 160 *Owl nest site 4408P94 is in this parcel

Designated Critical Habitat The final rule on northern spotted owl critical habitat was published on December 4, 2012 (USDI 2012). Critical habitat units are intended to provide large blocks of suitable habitat within the landscape that would provide the necessary elements to maintain stable, viable, and interconnected populations. Lands designated as critical habitat include special management considerations with an emphasis placed on meeting spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem restoration and conservation. Critical habitat units were only designated on Federal Lands; non-Federal lands were not eligible for designation.

The critical habitat in the Bull Run watershed management unit is in the West Cascades South (WCS–1) subunit which consists of approximately 92,586 acres in Multnomah, Hood River, and Clackamas Counties, Oregon, and comprises only Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. There are approximately 1,696 acres of designated critical habitat in the Forest Service parcels proposed for transfer to the City of Portland.

Dispersal Habitat Dispersal habitat allows northern spotted owl movement across the landscape between stands of suitable habitat and for juveniles to disperse from natal territories. This habitat generally lacks the optimal characteristics to support nesting and typically lacks multi-storied canopies, large trees or large snags, and down wood. Dispersal habitat generally consists of mid-seral stands between 40 and 80 years of age with canopy cover of 40 percent or greater, and trees with a mean diameter of 11 inches or more (USDI 2011). Most managed or natural forest stands 35 to 40 years old begin to develop dispersal habitat conditions. Currently, dispersal habitat is not limiting across the landscape of the Bull Run watershed management unit. Nearly all of the offered lands not currently considered suitable habitat would be considered dispersal habitat with the exception of the 543 open water acres offered by the Forest Service.

Barred Owls The revised recovery plan identifies competition from the barred owl as an important threat to the spotted owl (USDI 2011). Current science shows that the barred owl is an invasive species from the eastern United States and has expanded its range extensively throughout the Pacific Northwest. Unlike the northern spotted owl, the barred owl is a generalist that can utilize a wide range of habitat types and forest age classes. The species has a wide diet range and can survive on many different prey types (Forsman et al 2004, USDI 2011). As a result, overall northern spotted owl population densities have decreased and barred owls are believed to be out competing

65 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

spotted owls for habitat and food (USDI 2011). The barred owl resilience to habitat fragmentation and modification increases the likelihood of persistence on the landscape. Hybridization levels may increase if northern spotted owl population levels decrease substantially (Courtney et al. 2004). Vegetation management activities can also benefit barred owls indirectly by providing habitat and prey species that are not necessarily preferred by the northern spotted owl.

Because routine surveys have not been conducted for spotted owls on the Mt. Hood National Forest since approximately 1994, it is unknown as to what extent their presence has affected the population of spotted owls. However, within the Oregon demographic study areas, there has been a steady increase in the number of barred owls as measured by the proportion of spotted owl sites with barred owls detected, with as many as 60 percent of the spotted owl sites having barred owls detected (Forsman et al. 2011). Dugger et al. (2011) modeled extinction and colonization rates for spotted owl pairs in the South Cascade demographic study area where barred owls were detected on some home ranges. They found extinction rates for spotted owls increased with decreasing amounts of old forest in the core area, and that the effect was 2 to 3 times greater when barred owls were detected. They found colonization rates for spotted owls decreased as the distance between patches of old forest increased (increased habitat loss and fragmentation) and that barred owl presence similarly decreased the rate of colonization of spotted owl pairs. They concluded that conserving large blocks of contiguous old-forest habitat was important for reducing interference competition between the two owl species.

Wiens (2012) found that spotted owls and barred owls both prefer conifer forests more than 120 years old with dominant overstory trees larger than 90 centimeters in diameter at breast height. Use of such forests was 2 to 5 times greater than their availability. Loss of these old forests is likely to increase the competition between the two owl species for territorial space with negative impacts to spotted owls. Wiens (2012) found a significant decline in survival of spotted owls as the percent of old conifer forest in the general home range dropped below 35 percent. He recommended conifer forests older than 120 years be protected to avoid further increasing the competition pressure from barred owls.

Barred owls occur at some level throughout the Mt Hood National Forest with active breeding populations in many areas. They are known to exist and breed in the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Recovery Action 32 Designations Among the recovery actions in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, recovery action 32 is one of the most important actions in retaining high quality suitable habitat. It states:

Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, land managers should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high-quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.

Maintaining or restoring forests with high-quality habitat will provide additional support for reducing key threats faced by spotted owls. Protecting these forests should provide spotted owls high-quality refugia habitat from the negative competitive interactions with barred owls that are likely occurring where the two species’ home ranges overlap.

66 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Maintaining or restoring these forests should allow time to determine both the competitive effects of barred owls on spotted owls and the effectiveness of barred owl removal measures. Forest stands or patches meeting the described conditions are a subset of NRF habitat and actual stand conditions vary across the range. These stands or patches may be relatively small but important in a local area, may not be easily discernable using remote sensing techniques, and likely require project-level analysis and field verification to identify.

Habitat currently identified as high quality suitable or as RA-32 exists within lands offered by both the City and Forest Service.

Disturbance The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded noise can result in a disruption of breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior of the spotted owl such that it creates the potential for injury to individuals (incidental take in the form of harassment) (USDI 2011). For a substantial disruption of spotted owl behavior to occur, the disturbance and spotted owl(s) must be in proximity. The northern spotted owl breeding season generally extends from March 1 to September 30 with March 1to July 15 considered to be critical from a disturbance perspective (USDI 2011).

Activities that generate noise above ambient levels have the potential to disturb or disrupt nesting spotted owls. A spotted owl that may be disturbed at a roost site is presumably capable of moving away from a disturbance without a substantial disruption of its behavior. Since spotted owls forage primarily at night, projects that occur during the day are not likely to disrupt foraging behavior. The concern about noise is with breeding behavior at active nest sites. Activities that generate noise above ambient levels have the potential to disturb nesting spotted owls and may result in the incidental take of young and adult birds.

In the late breeding period, potential effects from disturbance decline because juvenile spotted owls are increasingly more capable of moving as the nesting season progresses. The critical breeding period is March 1 through July 15. After July 15, most fledgling spotted owls are capable of sustained flight and can move away from most disturbances (USDI 2011).

Environmental Consequences

No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects Under the no action alternative there would be no transfer of parcels. Existing habitat in 2,890 acres of National Forest System lands in the Bull Run watershed management unit would remain under Forest Service management and 2,440 acres of City of Portland lands would remain under City management. Timber harvest is prohibited on federal land in the Bull Run watershed management unit by the 1996 and 2001 amendments to Public Law 95-200, as well as by the habitat protection measures in the Northwest forest plan. City code 21.36.050 prohibits harvest on City-owned land. . In the short-term (approximately 5 years) marginally suitable habitat and dispersal habitat would remain in their current conditions. In the longer term, stands would continue to develop with additional amounts of suitable habitat available in future decades barring future disturbances such as wildfire or insect outbreak.

The no-action alternative would have “no effect” to northern spotted owl or its habitat.

67 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat Northern spotted owls may be affected if habitat is modified in their median home range (1.2 mile radius around the nest tree) or in the core activity center. Habitat modification may occur in three different ways: (1) habitat degradation which affects the quality of suitable or dispersal habitat without altering the functionality of such habitat; (2) habitat downgrading which alters the functionality of suitable habitat so that it no longer supports nesting, roosting, and foraging; and (3) habitat removal which alters suitable or dispersal habitat to such an extent that the habitat no longer supports nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal.

The National Environmental Policy Act decision to be made is only to exchange lands, which in and of itself will not result in habitat modification, thus there would be no direct effects to northern spotted owl or its habitat as a result of this land exchange.

This land exchange would not change Forest Service or City of Portland land management practices in the Bull Run watershed management unit. City code 21.36.050 prohibits timber harvest on city land in a manner mirroring the harvest prohibitions on Federal land enacted in the 1996 and 2001 amendments to Public Law 95-200. The current management of the Federal land to be conveyed in this exchange is essentially the same as the current management of the City- owned property. Overall management of the Bull Run watershed management unit would continue to occur in a partnership between the City and Forest Service. The physical state of the lands to be exchanged is intended to remain the same after the exchange as before the exchange and no change from current management is expected. Prohibitions on timber harvest would continue to apply on both City-owned and National Forest System land in the watershed and would protect habitat for the northern spotted owl.

In the short-term (approximately 5 years) marginally suitable habitat and dispersal habitat would remain in existing condition. In the longer term, stands would continue to develop with additional amounts of suitable habitat available in future decades barring future disturbances such as wildfire or insect outbreak. The 543 acres of open water proposed to be transferred to the City would not be habitat in perpetuity. All other land involved in the exchange would continue to function currently as suitable habitat or would continue to develop into suitable habitat.

The proposed action would have “no effect” to territorial or dispersing northern spotted owl habitat, due to current and future land management in the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Designated Critical Habitat Critical habitat units are intended to provide large blocks of suitable habitat within the landscape that would provide the necessary elements to maintain stable, viable, and interconnected populations. The physical and biological features of critical habitat essential to species conservation are identified as primary constituent elements. These elements are described in the final Critical Habitat Rule as the specific elements that comprise the physical or biological characteristics required to sustain the species’ life-history processes.

68 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

In addition, four special management considerations or protections were identified for this zone in the final Critical Habitat Rule and are listed below. These recommendations should be used to evaluate and to manage for desired future conditions.

1. Conserve older stands that contain the conditions to support northern spotted owl occupancy or high-value northern spotted owl habitat as described in recovery actions 10 and 32. 2. Management emphasis needs to be placed on meeting northern spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem restoration and conservation. When there is a conflict between these goals, actions that would disturb or remove the essential physical or biological features of northern spotted owl critical habitat need to be minimized and reconciled with long-term restoration goals. 3. Continue to manage for large, continuous blocks of late-successional forest. 4. In areas that are not currently late-seral forest or high-value habitat and where more traditional forest management might be conducted (for example, matrix), these activities should consider applying ecological forestry practices. There are 1,696 acres of critical habitat in the National Forest System lands proposed for exchange. Because critical habitat was not designated on non-Federal lands, there is no designated critical habitat in the City lands proposed for exchange. The completion of the proposed land exchange would result in a strictly administrative loss of critical habitat. All actions proposed by the land exchange would not affect primary constituent elements and are consistent with the four special management considerations. It is important to note that the proposed land exchange would not modify or remove the function of any habitat and it is the intention of the City of Portland to continue to manage the exchanged lands in a manner consistent with the recovery of the northern spotted owl.

Currently, there is no mechanism for designating the City lands proposed for exchange as critical habitat to offset the administrative loss of the critical habitat in the National Forest System lands proposed for exchange. However, based on location, if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel were to ever revisit designation of critical habitat, it is highly likely that most of the City lands proposed for transfer to the Forest Service would be included as critical habitat.

Because the proposed land exchange would not affect primary constituent elements and because the special management considerations would still be met and because the loss of critical habitat is strictly administrative in nature, the proposed action would have “no effect” on northern spotted owl critical habitat. The lands lost from the critical habitat administrative base with the proposed exchange would continue to contribute to the recovery of the northern spotted owl and, therefore, the proposed action is consistent with maintaining the intended recovery role of northern spotted owl critical habitat.

Barred Owls The proposed land exchange would have no impact on habitat and would not expand the range of barred owls within the Bull Run watershed management unit. Therefore, the proposed land exchange would have “no effect” on potential barred owl impacts to spotted owls in the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Consistency with Recovery Action 32 Designations The proposed land exchange would have no impact on any habitat. All lands that currently meet the recovery action 32 definition would be maintained. Therefore, the proposed land exchange is consistent with recovery action 32 of the recovery plan and would promote spotted owl recovery.

69 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Disturbance The proposed land exchange would have no direct effects from disturbance to northern spotted owls. A spotted owl with the potential to be disturbed at a roost site is presumably capable of moving away from a disturbance without a substantial disruption of its behavior. Since spotted owls forage primarily at night, projects that occur during the day are not likely to disrupt its foraging behavior. The primary concern with disruption is with breeding behavior at active nest sites.

After the proposed land exchange, the City’s water supply operations, maintenance, and repair activities would continue without change. Activities with potential to affect owls include but are not limited to road maintenance and repair, hazard tree removal, culvert repair or replacement, and occasional use of helicopters. The City avoids disturbance to nesting spotted owls by following, at a minimum, the requirements in the “Biological Assessment of Routine Land Management Activities with the Willamette Planning Province of Oregon with the Potential to Disturb the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)” and its associated letter of concurrence (USDA and USDI, March 2017). In general, this means avoiding impacts by scheduling activities that are within the distance of disruption to nesting owls and have potential to disturb owls outside the seasonal nesting period (after July 15).

Disturbance impacts from the proposed land exchange would not harm spotted owls or interfere with essential nesting, roosting, or foraging behaviors because the activities would, either, occur beyond the required disruption distances or be subject to seasonal timing restrictions. Therefore, the proposed land exchange would have “no effect” from disturbance on nesting spotted owls.

Region 6 Sensitive Species The most recent Region 6 sensitive species wildlife list (effective 21 July 2015) was reviewed and 23 species that may occur in or near the Mt. Hood National Forest were identified (table 6 of wildlife biological evaluation and specialists report). Although each of these species are known to occur, or could potentially occur, in or near the Mt. Hood National Forest, not all of them have potential to occur in the Bull Run watershed management unit. A pre-field wildlife review of the proposed land exchange parcels and surrounding area for all Region 6 sensitive species was completed using heritage database records, Mt. Hood National Forest data, literature reviews, communication with Mt. Hood and City personnel, and the forest plan to identify which sensitive species to analyze for. Some species have neither habitat nor documented occurrences in the Bull Run watershed management unit. Therefore, the proposed land exchange would have “no impact” on them. No further analysis is provided for these species.

The remaining species have potential habitat at least in portions of the Bull Run watershed management unit and proposed land exchange area and require further analysis. These species were analyzed, the results of which are summarized below and displayed for each individual in table 30 through table 34 below.

Alternative 1 (No Action) The no-action alternative would have no impact on any Region 6 Sensitive Species

Alternative 2 (Proposed Land Exchange) The proposed Bull Run land exchange would not result in habitat removal or modification, thus there would be no effects to any Region 6 Sensitive Species habitat as a result of this land exchange. In addition, this land exchange would not change Forest Service or City of Portland

70 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

land management practices in the Bull Run Management Unit. Prohibitions on timber harvest would continue to apply on both City-owned and National Forest System land in the watershed. Therefore, the proposed land exchange would have no impact to any Region 6 Sensitive Species or its habitat. The proposed Bull Run land exchange is consistent with forest plan direction relevant to sensitive species.

Management Indicator Species Forest Service Manual 2620.5 defines management indicator species as "…plant and animal species, … selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent".

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to manage wildlife habitat to “maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species on the Forest”. Because it is difficult to monitor all species at the same time, the act requires the Forest Service to identify management indicator species through the planning process and establish objectives to maintain and improve the habitat of indicator species. The primary assumption of this process is that management indicator species represent the habitat needs of other species that have similar habitat requirements. Spotted owls, for example, indicate the needs of a variety of species that use old-growth forest (final environmental impact statement for the Mt. Hood Forest plan, page III- 55).

Monitoring at the national forest scale has been documented in annual monitoring reports available on the Mt. Hood National Forest website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood). There is no requirement in the forest plan to survey for or gather site-specific, project-scale population data regarding the project implementation’s effects to the viability of the population of management indicator species. Rather, the Forest Plan directs that habitat be used as a proxy for population monitoring (final environmental impact statement for the Mt. Hood Forest plan, page III- 55).

Six management indicator species or habitat were evaluated because of their presence in the project area. The five wildlife species are listed below. Salmonids are described in the “Aquatic Species and Their Habitat” section.

Northern Spotted Owl The northern spotted owl was selected as a management indicator species because it represents old-growth habitats. The overall trend for spotted owl populations is declining in the Pacific Northwest. The recovery for the species is covered under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis causarina) (USDI 2011). Because the northern spotted owl is listed as a threatened species, the Forest Service consults on the effects to the species and its habitat with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to making decisions on actions by the agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has not found any proposed actions on the Mt. Hood National Forest to place the northern spotted owl in jeopardy. Under both alternatives, the proposed Bull Run land exchange would have no effect to northern spotted owl habitat and when combined with other projects that affect owl habitat would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Mt. Hood National Forest for the northern spotted owl.

Deer and Elk Deer and elk were selected as management indicator species because they are economically important game animals (USDA 1990). They utilize a wide range of forest types for both foraging

71 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

and cover. Elk appear to be more sensitive to the effects of forest management and are most often used to represent the general habitat requirements of both species. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines have minimum requirements for optimal and thermal cover habitat components, but no specific level for forage. Thermal cover for elk is defined as a stand of coniferous trees at least 40-feet tall with an average crown closure of 70 percent or more. Optimal cover is found mainly in multi-storied mature and old-growth stands. During the 1980s and when the forest plan was written, wildlife managers considered cover to be crucial to deer and elk survival and production. More recent research has indicated that cover is not as important as was once thought and that forage quality and abundance is much more critical (Cook et al. 1998). Further research has shown that high summer and fall forage quality is critical to elk reproduction, survival, and population growth and stability (Cook et al. 2013). The increased importance of available forage abundance and quality compared to thermal cover has also been supported by nutritional and physiological studies of black-tailed deer (Parker et al. 1999). With the reduction in timber harvest using regeneration methods on the Mt Hood National Forest in the past two decades, continued tree growth, and suppression of fire, cover habitats now far exceed the desired levels for optimal and thermal cover but openings for forage are becoming scarce making forage a limiting factor.

Both species migrate using summer and winter ranges. Elk and deer migration is due to habitat and forage accessibility in the summer and winter months. Summer range areas occur at higher elevations from spring through early winter and continue until the snow depth drives them out. Winter range areas are typically below 2800 feet in elevation on the west side of the Cascades on the Forest and are areas where elk congregate during the cold season. Deer and elk use natural openings (such as wet meadows) extensively for foraging, breeding, and calving.

Elk herds exhibit a close association with riparian habitat in areas of gentle terrain and low road density. Forage is widely available but is generally of low quality on the west side of the Cascades. The low quality of the forage, especially in winter range, and the lack of wetlands and permanent low-gradient streams within winter range are considered limiting factors for elk and deer on the Forest.

Deer and elk are considered common within the Bull Run watershed management unit, though they do not occur in large numbers. With the management restrictions in the management unit and the reduction in regeneration timber harvest over the years, the area now has abundant optimal and thermal cover, but openings for forage are scarce. Nearly all parcels proposed in the land exchange are considered severe winter range.

Under both the no-action alternative and the proposed action, the existing amounts of optimal, thermal, and foraging habitat in the Bull Run watershed management unit would remain unchanged. Management practices for the proposed parcels would remain the same for both alternatives.

The current population trend for deer and elk on the Mt. Hood National Forest is decreasing due to the incremental reduction in early-seral habitat. Under both alternatives, the proposed Bull Run land exchange would not remove or modify any habitat for deer and elk and thus, would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Mt. Hood National Forest for deer and elk.

Pileated Woodpecker This species was selected as a management indicator species because of its association with mature and over-mature habitat, and their need for large snags and decadent trees (USDA 1990).

72 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

In Oregon and Washington, the range of the pileated woodpecker includes the Olympic Peninsula, Coastal Mountains, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains, Northeast Washington, and forested fringes of the Puget Trough, Willamette, Rogue, and Umpqua Valleys. The woodpecker is absent from higher and lower elevations due to lack of large trees for nesting, roosting, and foraging (Marshall et al. 2003). The pileated woodpecker is a common, year-round resident within the Bull Run watershed management unit.

Pileated woodpeckers use mature and older, closed-canopy stands for nesting and roosting but may use younger (40 to 70 years), closed-canopy stands for foraging if large snags are available; large snags and decadent trees are important habitat components for pileated woodpeckers on the west side of Oregon and Washington (Hartwig et al. 2004, Mellen et al. 1992). The association with late-seral stages comes from the need for large-diameter snags or living trees with decay for nest and roost sites, large-diameter trees and logs for foraging on ants and other arthropods, and a dense canopy to provide cover from predators.

Since identification of the pileated woodpecker as a management indicator species in the forest plan, several factors have contributed cumulatively to a trend of improving habitat. The following have changed on the Mt. Hood National Forest since the species was identified in the forest plan:

• The establishment of late-successional reserves and riparian reserves has resulted in the retention of late-successional stands and the enhancement of younger stands to accelerate the development of late-successional conditions.

• The Northwest forest plan required the Mt. Hood National Forest to reassess the need for land allocations for pileated woodpeckers during watershed analysis. On the Mt. Hood, most of the B5 land allocations were removed during watershed analyses because the network of late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, and other land allocations would provide for the species.

• Several wilderness areas have been designated.

• Timber harvest even on Matrix8 lands has transitioned from reliance on regeneration harvest of mature stands to a program of thinning younger stands.

• The Mt. Hood National Forest has decommissioned several hundred miles of roads reducing disturbance.

• Hazardous fuels have been treated on the Mt. Hood National Forest to reduce the potential impact of wildfire on the species.

• Insects have killed many trees on the Mt. Hood, thereby increasing available pileated woodpecker foraging habitat.

8 Matrix is the Federal land allocation in the range of the northern spotted owl that is outside the six other categories of designated areas under the Northwest forest plan. The other six categories are: congressional reserved areas, late successional reserves, adaptive management areas, managed late successional areas, administratively withdrawn areas, and riparian reserves. Matrix is also the area in which most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities will be conducted; however it does contain nonforested areas as well as forested areas that may be technically unsuited for timber production (Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, p. 6-7).

73 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

For these reasons, the current population trend on the Mt. Hood National Forest for pileated woodpecker is increasing. Under both alternatives, the proposed Bull Run land exchange would not remove or modify any habitat for pileated woodpecker and thus, would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Mt. Hood National Forest for pileated woodpecker.

American Marten This species was selected as a management indicator species because of its association with mature and over-mature habitat, and their need for large snags and large amounts of down wood (USDA 1990).

The American marten can be found throughout Canada and Alaska, south through the Rockies, Sierra Nevada, northern Great Lakes Region, and northern New England though its distribution is often fragmented. In Oregon and Washington, the species can be found in montane forests of the southern Oregon Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains, Olympic Peninsula, and northeast Washington (Marcot et al. 2003). There are no documented occurrences in the Bull Run watershed management unit, though suitable marten habitat exists.

American marten are typically associated with late-seral coniferous forests with closed canopies, large trees, and abundant snags and down woody (Zielinski et al. 2001). Coarse woody debris is an important component of marten habitat. Large logs and other structures provide protection from predators, access to the subnivean (beneath the snow) space where most winter prey are captured, and protective thermal conditions, especially during winter (Buskirk and Powell 1994). A variety of structures are used for dens, with trees, snags, logs, and rocks accounting for 70 percent of reported den structures (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994).

Since the marten was identified as a management indicator species in the forest plan, several factors listed below have contributed cumulatively to a trend of improving habitat:

• The Northwest forest plan required the national forests to reassess the need for land allocations for American marten during watershed analysis. On the Mount Hood National Forest, most of the B5 land allocations were removed during watershed analyses because the network of late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, and other land allocations would provide for the species.

• Several wilderness areas have been designated.

• Timber harvest on the Mt. Hood National Forest, even on Matrix lands, has transitioned from reliance on regeneration harvest of mature stands to a program of thinning younger stands.

• The Mt. Hood National Forest has decommissioned several hundred miles of roads, reducing disturbance.

• Hazardous fuels on the Mt. Hood have been treated to reduce the potential impact of wildfire on the species.

74 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

For these reasons, the current population trend on the Forest for American marten is stable. Under both alternatives, the proposed Bull Run Land Exchange would not remove or modify any habitat for American marten and thus, would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Mt. Hood National Forest for American marten.

Survey and Manage Species In 1994 the Northwest forest plan developed a system of reserves, aquatic conservation strategy, and various standards and guidelines for the protection of old-growth-associated species. Mitigation measures were also included for species that were rare, or thought to be rare due to a lack of information about them. It was unknown whether the major elements of the Northwest forest plan would protect these species. These species, collectively known as survey and manage species, were included in standards and guidelines under “Survey and Manage, Protection Buffers, and Protect Sites from Grazing”.

In January 2001, a record of decision for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines (2001 amendment) was signed. This decision amended the Northwest forest plan survey and manage and related standards and guidelines to add clarity, remove duplication, increase or decrease levels of management for specific species based on new information, and established a process for making changes to management for individual species in the future (USDA USDI 2001).

The 2001 amendment put into place a review process that would allow for the adding or dropping of species, based on new information. The 2001 amendment also grouped the species into six categories (A through F) based on level of relative rarity, ability to reasonably and consistently locate occupied sites during surveys prior to habitat disturbing activities, and the level of information known about the species or group of species. A complete description of the categories can be found in the 2001 amendment standards and guidelines pages 6 through 14.

The Bull Run land exchange applies the survey and manage species list published in December 2003 under direction resulting from legal action and a district court’s remedy order issued on 18 February 2014 (Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C08-1067-JCC) and thus meets the provisions of the 2001 record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines, as modified by the 2014 court order. The species listed in table 9 of the wildlife biological evaluation and specialist report lists the current survey and manage species whose known or suspected range includes the Mt. Hood National Forest. The species and resulting effects are also listed in table 30 through table 34 of this environmental assessment.

Migratory Birds Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” directs Federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. In 2008, a memorandum of understanding was developed between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporate migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. In early 2016, both Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel agreed to extend the memorandum as currently written. The Forest Service personnel have implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to

75 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

be addressed in the National Environmental Policy Act process when actions have the potential to impact migratory bird species of concern.

Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally small ranges, loss of habitat, observed population declines, and other factors. The forest plan contains a variety of objectives, standards, and guidelines that further the conservation of migratory birds. Objectives describe desired resource conditions. The most relevant objectives for bird conservation are those relating to vegetation diversity, landscape structural diversity, snags and down woody material, riparian condition, habitat improvements, and disturbance processes. Standards and guidelines are designed to help achieve those objectives and are implemented at the project level.

Direct and Indirect Effects Table 10 of the wildlife biological evaluation and specialist report (project record) lists the 30 landbirds of conservation concern that were evaluated. Habitat for migratory landbirds would not be removed or modified as a result of the land exchange under either the no-action alternative or proposed action. Existing vegetation conditions would continue to follow natural successional pathways, and bird populations would respond accordingly. The proposed Bull Run land exchange would not affect this group of species such that their ability to persist in the vicinity of the land exchange or throughout their ranges would be compromised.

Summary of Effects for all Wildlife Species Evaluated Table 30 through table 34 provides a summary of effects determinations for threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive, management indicator, survey and manage, and migratory bird species addressed in this analysis.

Table 30. Summary of impacts to federal threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Species Impact of No Action Impact of Proposed Action Northern spotted owl (threatened) No effect No effect Northern spotted owl critical habitat No effect No effect Oregon spotted frog (threatened) No effect No effect North American wolverine (proposed for listing) No effect No effect

Table 31. Summary of impacts to R6 sensitive wildlife species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Species Impact of No Action Impact of Proposed Action American peregrine falcon No impact No impact Bald eagle No impact No impact White-headed woodpecker No impact No impact Lewis’s woodpecker No impact No impact Bufflehead No impact No impact Harlequin duck No impact No impact Sierra Nevada red fox No impact No impact Townsend’s big-eared bat No impact No impact Fringed myotis No impact No impact Western pond turtle No impact No impact

76 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Species Impact of No Action Impact of Proposed Action Larch Mountain salamander No impact No impact Cope’s giant salamander No impact No impact Johnson’s hairstreak No impact No impact Mardon skipper No impact No impact Western bumble bee No impact No impact Beller’s ground beetle No impact No impact Puget Oregonian No impact No impact Columbia sideband No impact No impact Dalles sideband No impact No impact Crater Lake tightcoil No impact No impact Crowned tightcoil No impact No impact Shiny tightcoil No impact No impact

Table 32. Summary of impacts to management indicator species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Species Impact of No Action Impact of Proposed Action Northern spotted owl No impact Addressed as threatened species Pileated woodpecker No impact No impact American marten No impact No impact Western gray squirrel No impact No impact Merriam’s turkey No impact No impact Deer No impact No impact Elk No impact No impact

Table 33. Summary of impacts to survey and manage wildlife species addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Species Impact of No Action Impact of Proposed Action Larch Mountain salamander No impact Addresed as sensitive species Great gray owl No impact No impact Red tree vole No impact No impact Columbia oregonian No impact No impact Crater Lake tightcoil No impact No impact Dalles sideband No impact No impact Evening fieldslug No impact No impact Panther jumping slug No impact No impact Puget oregonian No impact No impact

Table 34. Summary of impacts to migratory birds addressed for the proposed Bull Run land exchange. Species Impact of No Action Impact of Proposed Action Applicable birds of conservation concern and No impact No impact Partners In Flight focal species

77 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Minerals A minerals assessment was conducted to assess the mineral potential of the public and private lands considered for the proposed land exchange. The complete report (DeRoo 2013) is filed in the project record.

Existing Condition The entire Bull Run watershed management unit was closed to public entry in 1904 to protect the water supply for the city of Portland (Public Law 206, The Bull Run Trespass Act). There is no specific statute that states the watershed is withdrawn from mineral entry, but the Office of General Counsel believes the lands were implied withdrawn from mineral entry in 1904 pursuant to 33 Statute 526, chapter 1774.

There are no mining claims, mineral activity, evidence of past mineral activity, solid or fluid mineral leases, or mineral material contracts or permits within the exchange parcels. None of the lands are formally classified as known geothermal resource areas or known leasing areas. There are no known locatable mineral occurrences within 10 miles of the parcels included in the land exchange, nor any known mineralization or significant alteration within the parcels included in the proposed exchange (DOGAMI, 1984).

Environmental Effects The whole or parts of the area have mineral potential with no foreseeable development potential. The acreage and mineral potential of the public and private lands is about the same so a land exchange would not be or greater advantage to either party, from a minerals standpoint. Hazardous Substances

Regulatory Framework The principle regulatory direction applicable to hazardous materials on the Mt. Hood National Forest include:

• Compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Forest Service manual direction (Forest Service Manual 2160, Hazardous Materials Management) is required in any land transaction. • CERCLA, as amended, requires Federal agencies to provide information and certain warranties concerning the presence of hazardous materials on conveyed parcels. The same procedures are used for inspection of private lands proposed for acquisition. The Forest Service follows the guidelines in the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 and All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI, Title 40 CFR Part 312), Standard Practice of Environmental Site Assessments: Phased 1 Environmental Site Assessments and United States Department Agriculture (USDA)/United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Reacquisition Environmental Assessment Guidance for Federal Land Transactions. The goal of this process is to identify any actual or possible contamination from hazardous substances, petroleum products, or other contaminants so as to ensure that the Forest Service does not unknowingly acquire or convey contaminated property (project file). • Section 120 (h) of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 required physical inspection and examination of records for federal parcels to be conveyed.

78 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Existing Condition All parcels to be acquired and conveyed by the Mt. Hood National Forest have been inspected by a qualified contractor for the presence of hazardous substances and the reports have been reviewed by a qualified Forest Service environmental professional to ensure that it is acceptable and complies with the appropriate standards and regulations. There is no evidence of release, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 2 (Proposed Action) Since there is no evidence of release, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products for one year or more on any of the Federal or non-Federal parcels, there would be no effect with the implementation of either alternative. Because the implementation of either alternative would result in no effect regarding hazardous or solid wastes, there is no need to consider impacts from cumulative effects because the proposed land exchange would not create an additional impact.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Regulations Both alternatives are consistent with the forest plan direction for land adjustments, direction in Forest Service Manual 2160, Hazardous Materials Management, and Section 120 (h) of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986. It is also compliant with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Economics

Administrative Costs If the land exchange is implemented, parcels acquired by the Forest Service would be incorporated into the on-going administration of the surrounding National Forest System lands subject to the Federal legislation and policies that currently apply specifically to the Bull Run watershed management unit. Acquired outstanding road easements for which the Forest Service is the grantee would merge with the acquired lands. Existing unauthorized uses would no longer require authorization thus reducing cost and time for both agencies.

Parcels acquired by the City would be managed for the trust beneficiaries of the City of Portland under the Portland City code (21.36.050, Bull Run Watershed Protection Policy). Previously acquired outstanding rights in the form of special use permits and easement would be terminated, since the City is the holder of all the affected special use permits and easement. Forest Service would reserve current access rights when applicable to provide for future management needs.

The exchange proposal would result in consolidation of scattered City land into larger, more manageable block. Reducing the intermingled ownership pattern would allow more efficient land management by both agencies. Five isolated parcels of City land have been identified for exchange. City would acquire 20 parcels, all adjacent to existing City land and many with existing roads and legal access that minimize the cost of acquiring additional easements and road use permits, which will minimize FS cost and time for managing these authorizations.

79 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Boundary Under the exchange proposal, there would be a net reduction of approximately 3 miles in the total number of boundary lines needed to define the acquired non-Federal parcels. While these newly established national forest property boundary lines would not require a survey until a new project proposal requires the property lines to be identified on the ground, the affected acquired non- Federal parcels would then need to be surveyed.

The boundary lines previously surveyed and currently marking the land exchange Federal parcels’ boundaries would no longer be correct and would require boundary line markers removed. Though due to the unique situation of the Bull Run watershed management unit of limited ownership, there are fewer postings. There has been little survey activity in the area; therefore, any required future landline survey, marking and corner location could be extensive depending on the survey need and the status of existing survey evidence. Given that neither agency intends to change current land management, the future need for landline surveys is likely limited.

County and Community Economics The federal parcels provide revenue to counties in the form of payments in lieu of taxes and under the Secure Rural Schools Act. The combined payments in lieu of taxes and Secure Rural Schools Act payments made in fiscal year 2016 were $3.01 per acre to Multnomah County and $2.80 per acre to Clackamas County, Oregon (PR - Source: U.S. Department of the Interior). The City of Portland is not subject to property tax payments or payments in lieu of taxes.

Direct and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative would result in no change to existing Federal or City payments to counties. No change in payment calculation methods or acreage would occur.

The proposed action would result in a distribution shift in payments to the affected counties. There would be a net increase in National Forest System acreage and payments to Clackamas County. There would be a net decrease in National Forest System acres and payment in Multnomah County. This reduction in a dollar amount for the per-acre payments in lieu of taxes would be negligible considering the total entitlement acres and annual revenues within the county. Payments in lieu of taxes would change based on these changes in acreage, but the Secure Rural Schools Act portion of the payment to counties would be dependent on the reauthorization of the act. It is too speculative to estimate after 2016 how the proposed action would affect the Secure Rural Schools Act payments.

Community economic base would generally remain unchanged for both alternatives based on the continued primary use of the Federal and non-Federal lands identified. Existing direct benefits to local industry, business and residents is not expected to change.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, amended by Executive Order 12948 of January 30, 1995, ordered Federal agencies to identify and address the issue of environmental justice. Environmental justice is defined as adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low income populations. Low-income populations are households that live below the subsistence or poverty level as defined by local, State, or national government. The order simultaneously directs Federal agencies to avoid making decisions that discriminate against these communities. Environmental justice means that to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law 1) populations are provided the opportunity to

80 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

comment before decisions are rendered on and 2) are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.

Public access uses (for example, recreation) and settlement are prohibited in the Bull Run watershed management unit to protect drinking water quality. No impact analysis of environmental justice is required because no environmental justice populations exist in the area of influence. The land exchange would not impact minority and low income populations nor would it affect housing for these populations.

Executive Order 12898 also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. None of the alternatives would alter opportunities for subsistence hunting and fishing by Native American tribes. Native American tribes holding treaty rights for hunting and fishing on the Mt. Hood National Forest were provided the opportunity to comment on the proposal. No racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group would be disproportionately impacted by the proposal or its alternatives. Prime Farmland, Caves, and Grazing There would be no effect to prime farmland, rangeland or forest land (Department regulation 9500-3), to cave resources (Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988), or to grazing rights (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, section 402 (g)). Special Areas Inventoried Roadless Areas: None of the alternatives being considered would affect Inventoried Roadless Areas because the proposed exchange parcels are not located in Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Wilderness: None of the alternatives being considered would affect wilderness areas because the proposed exchange parcels are not located in designated or potential wilderness areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: None of the alternatives being considered would affect Wild and Scenic Rivers because neither the Bull Run River nor its tributaries are designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These waterways are also not listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Climate Change This proposed action would affect a maximum of 5,327 acres of mostly forested land by exchanging ownership. This land exchange would result in no physical change in vegetation, soils, watershed, or any other indicator of the ecological character of the affected area, including its capacity to sequester carbon.

A land exchange where the resulting management of the exchanged parcels would remain essentially the same would contribute no greenhouse gases and would have no impact on global climate change. In addition, because there would be no direct or indirect impacts on the contribution of greenhouse gasses, the proposed action’s impacts would also not contribute to cumulative impacts on greenhouse gases and climate change.

81 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate change of global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). In 2010, human-caused contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several sectors:

• Industry, transportation, and building – 41 percent • Energy production – 35 percent • Agriculture – 12 percent • Forestry and other land uses – 12 percent This land exchange does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Land Appraisal The appraisal for this land exchange will be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and written supplemental instructions. Federal appraisal standards require that the land and interests associated with the land be appraised to market value considering the economic highest and best use. Values of both the federal and non-federal lands are based upon the private, open market, not value to the government or non-federal party. The appraisal prepared for the land exchange is reviewed by a qualified Forest Service review appraiser to ensure that it is acceptable and complies with the appropriate standards. The appraised value of the lands will be disclosed in the decision notice. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all exchanges must be equal in value. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR section 254.3(c) require that exchanges must be of equal value or equalized pursuant to 36 CFR section 254.12 by cash payment, after making all reasonable efforts to equalize values by adding or deleting lands. If lands proposed for exchange are not equal in value, either party may make them equal by cash payment not to exceed 25 percent of the Federal land value. The amount of any cash equalization payment must be kept to a minimum.

82 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment: Federal, State, and Local Agencies City of Portland Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Clackamas County Multnomah County Portland General Electric Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Quality Division City of Sandy City of Fairview Tribes Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Others Oregon Public Broadcasting Our National Forests, Inc. Trout Unlimited Western Lands Project BARK Washington State University Oregonian Clackamas River Water Citizens Interested in Bull Run Mt. Scott Water District Sandy Post Newspaper Wilderness, Conservation Association, OSPIRG The Nature Conservancy of Oregon Cascade Resources Advocacy Group Bull Run Community Planning Organization Gresham outlook Mazama Conservation Committee Mountain Times Native Plant Society of Oregon Nature of the Northwest Oak Lodge Water District Oregon Chapter Sierra Club

83 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Oregon Wild Reed Forest Watch Rhododendron Community Planning Organization South Fork Water Board The Trust for Public Land Approximately 182 other individuals were mailed hard copy or emailed scoping notices

84 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

References General City of Portland. 2010. Charter, Code and Policies. Chapter 21.36 Bull Run Watershed Protection. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/52452

Public Law 95-200, Nov. 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 1425, as amended Pub.L. 104-208, Div. B, Title VI, § § 601 to 604, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-541; Pub.L. 104-333, Div. I, Title X, § 1026(a), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4228; Pub.L.107-30, § § 1, 2(a), (c), Aug. 20, 2001, 115 Stat. 210, 211. Bull Run Act, 16 U.S.C. § 482b Note.

USDA and Portland Water Bureau 2007. Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Agreement between USDA Forest Service, Mt Hood National Forest and Portland Water Bureau, Pursuant to Public Law 95-200, Section 2 (d). Aquatic Resources Anderson, N.H. 1976. Distribution and ecology of Oregon trichoptera. Technical Bulletin #134. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 152 pp.

Borgias, D. and Wisseman R.W. 1999. Report on the 1998 and 1999 survey for Rhyacophila colonus, in forested torrents near O'Brien, Oregon

Buffington, J. M., Lisle, T. E., Woodsmith, R. D., and S. Hilton. 2002. Controls on the size and occurrence of pools in coarse-grained forest rivers. River Research and Applications. 18: 507-531.

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 274 pp. plus appendices.

Furnish, J.L., and R.W. Monthey. 1998. Draft Management Recommendations For ROD Mollusk Species Associated With Springs And Spring Runs: Fluminicola new species 2, 3, 11, 19; Vorticifex new species 1, Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini; Juga (Oreobasis) new species 2; and Lyogyrus new species 1 and 3. v. 2.0

Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, R. D. Smith, K. M. Schmidt, and G. Pess. 1995. Pool spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research. 31: 1097-1105.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared by CH2M HILL. December 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Incidental Take Permit for the Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion, Unlisted Species Analysis, Section 10 Findings, and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.

85 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon, and Lower Columbia River Steelhead.

NOAA. 2006. Historical Population Structure of Pacific Salmonids in the Willamette River and Lower Columbia River Basins. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-73. February 2006

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1997. Sandy River Management Plan. Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2002. Draft Sandy Sub-basin Summary. Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council. May 17, 2002.

Oregon Forest Practices Technical Note Number 1. Water Classification. Effective April 11, 1994. Retrieved on July 22, 2016 from: https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/WorkingForests/WaterClassificationTechNote1 .pdf

Portland Water Bureau, 2008. Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan – for the Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental take of Threatened and Endangered Species. October 2008. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/46157

Sandy River Basin Partners (SRBP), 2005. Sandy River Basin Habitat Characterization Report. Portland, Oregon. http://www.sandyriverpartners.org/pdfs/SRBCR7-20-05.pdf

Spellman, F.R. 2008. The science of water: concepts and applications. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FL. 422

PGE -Taylor, B 1998. Salmon and Steelhead Runs and Related events of the Sandy River Basin – a Historical Perspective, Prepared for Portland General Electric.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

USDA Forest Service et al. 2013. Fish Habitat Restoration Activities Affecting ESA-Listed Animal and Plant Species and their Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat and Designated Essential Fish Habitat under MSA found in Oregon, Washington and parts of California, Idaho, and Nevada

USDA Forest Service (USFS) no date. Unpublished presence data for Region 6 Sensitive Aquatic Species on the Mt. Hood National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, et al. 2005. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings. National Technology and Development Program San Dimas, CA.

86 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Wanner, G and Arendt, K. 2015. Caddisfly Survey around Mt. Hood: Search for Scott’s Apatanian and other sensitive caddisfly species. Mt. Hood National Forest, Zigzag, Or.

Waters. T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7 Bethesda, Maryland.

Wiggins, G.B. 1973. Contributions to the systematics of the caddisfly family Limnephilidae (Trichoptera). I. Life Sciences Contributions Royal Ontario Museum No. 94. 32 pp.

Wisseman, B. 2010. Survey for Sensitive Aquatic Invertebrate Species in Tributaries of Still Creek and the West Fork Salmon River in the Vicinity of Proposed Mountain Bike Trails for the Timberline Lodge Winter Sports Area, Mount Hood, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon, August 9-10, 2010.

Links to websites U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. Species Fact Sheet. Coastal Cutthroat Trout. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/CoastalCutthroatTrout.pdf

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). (2016) Salmon Recovery Trend Summaries. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/pubs_esu_trend.cfm

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2016. Enforcement Database Query Results for Government Camp Sanitary Sewer. Retrieved on 8/8/2016 from http://www.oregon.gov/deq/nr/012216govcampE.pdf

Oregon Department of Environment Quality (ODEQ) 2016. Notice of Civil Penalty Assessment and Order Case No: WQ/M-NWR-15-208p. http://www.oregon.gov/deq/nr/012216govcampE.pdf

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). 2016a. Water Quality How Toxic Runoff Affects Pacific Salmon & Steelhead. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/habitat/fact_sheets/stormwater_fact _sheet_3.22.2016.pdf

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). 2016b. ArcGIS Critical Habitat Mapping Tool. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf7 5b8dbfb77

87 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Botany Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 493 p.

Agee, J.K. 1996. Fire regimes and approaches for determining fire history. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report 341, pp. 12-13.

Agee, J.F. and F. Krusemark. 2001. Forest fire regime of the Bull Run watershed, Oregon. Northwest Science 75(3): 292-306.

Bull Run Watershed Analysis. 1997. USDA – Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 510 p.

Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Semi-Annual Report. 2012. Portland Water Bureau and U.S. Forest Service, October 2012. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/417551

Diaz, N.M., C.T. High, T.K. Mellen, D.E. Smith, and C. Topik. 1997. Plant association and management guide for the mountain hemlock zone. Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests. R6-MTH-GP-TP-08-95. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 141 p.

Dickmann, D.I. and D.T. Cleland. Draft 2002. Fire intervals and fire cycles for historic fire regimes in the Great Lakes region: a synthesis of the literature. Great Lakes Ecological Assessment. 21 p.

EMS TRANSMISSION – 06/19/2014, Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2014-037, Additional Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure as a Result of Court Ruling in Conservation Northwest et al. v. Bonnie et al., Case No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR, June 13, 2014.

Forest Health Protection website (www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r6/fhp/ads).

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 452 p.

Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) Analysis dataset. Provided by the LEMMA (Landscape Ecology, Monitoring, Mapping & Analysis) team, comprised of employees of the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. GNN data for the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange parcels retrieved and analyzed by hydrologist Todd Parker, Mt. Hood National Forest.

Hall, F.C., L.W. Brewer, J.F. Franklin, and R.L. Werner. 1985. Plant communities and stand conditions. In: Brown, E.R., tech. ed., Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, publication No. R6-Fish & Wildlife-192-1985, pp. 17-31.

Hall, F.C. 1998. Pacific Northwest eco-class codes for seral and potential natural communities. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-418.

88 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Halverson, N.M., C. Topik, and R.V. Vickle. 1986. Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-ECOL- 232A-1986, 111 p.

Hemstrom, M. A. and J. F. Franklin. 1982. Fire and other disturbances of the forests in Mount Rainier National Park. Quaternary Research 18:32-51.

Hemstrom, M.A., W.H. Emmingham, N.M. Halverson, S.E. Logan, and C. Topik. 1982. Plant association and management guide for the Pacific silver fir zone, Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6- ECOL-100-1982a.

Henderson, J.A., R.D. Lesher, D.H. Peter, and C.D. Ringo. 2011. A landscape model for predicting potential natural vegetation of the Olympic Peninsula USA using boundary equations and newly developed environmental variables. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-841, August 2011.

Kertis, Jane. 2017. U.S. Forest Service fire ecologist, Willamette and Siuslaw National Forests. Personal communication.

Krusemark, F., J.K. Agee, and D. Berry. 1996. The history of fire in the Bull Run watershed, Oregon. University of Washington (Seattle, WA). 48 p.

Land and Resource Management Plan – Mt. Hood National Forest (also known as the Forest Plan). 1990. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

McCain, C. and N. Diaz. 2002. Field guide to the forested plant associations of the westside central Cascades of Northwest Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-02-02.

Morgan, P., C.C. Hardy, T.W. Swetnam, M.G. Rollins, and D.G. Long. 2001. Mapping fire regimes across time and space: understanding coarse and fine-scale fire patterns. International J. of Wildland Fire 10: 329-342.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Non-Native Invasive Species Best Management Practices: Guidance for the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region. 2012. USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5412628.pdf

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP. Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure (Pechman Exemptions). Oct. 10, 2006.

NRIS TESP database. Natural Resource Information System – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants. USDA Forest Service.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) http://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic (formerly Oregon Natural Heritage Program)

89 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Climate Change IPCC. 2000. Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), special report on land use, land use change and forestry, summary for policy makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ Hydrology AREMP 2016. AREMP Attribute Documentation for the WCF 2016 Assessment

Aumen, Nicholas G, Thomas Grizzard, Richard Hawkins. 1989. Task Force Final Report Water Quality Monitoring in the Bull Run Watershed, Oregon

Burns William J., Katherine A. Mickelson, Cullen B. Jones, Mathew A. Tilman, and Dan E. Coe. 2015 Surficial and bedrock engineering geology, landslide inventory and susceptibility, and surface hydrography of the Bull Run Watershed, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, Oregon, by 2015, 59 p., 1:24,000; 1:5,000. State of Oregon, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries SPECIAL PAPER 46

City of Portland Water Bureau. 2008. Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan For the Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species. Final October 2008

City of Portland Water Bureau. Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/46157

City of Portland Water Bureau. Bull Run Source Water Assessment. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/327672

Lanigan, S.H. and S.N. Gordon. 2012. A comparison of the U.S. Forest Service national watershed condition classification system to the Northwest Forest Plan watershed monitoring results. Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP). http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/watershed/WCC%20vs%20Aremp%20white%20 paper.pdf

Hubler, S. 2008. PREDATOR: Development and use of RIVPACS-type macroinvertebrate models to assess the biotic condition of wadeable Oregon streams (November 2005 models). State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

90 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

Miller, S. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring, 20-Year Report Status and Trend of Watershed Condition. Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP). Briefing Paper. DRAFT 5/14/2015.

Miller, S.A., S.N. Gordon, P. Eldred, R.M. Beloin, S. Wilcox, M. Raggon, H. Andersen, and A. Muldoon. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan - The First 20 Years (1994-2013): Watershed Condition Status and Trend. Portland OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Available online at: http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr- report/.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2005. Sandy River Basin Total Maximum Daily

Oregon Explorer, Wetland Regulations website. http://oregonexplorer.info/content/wetland- regulations

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 2008. Surface Water Registration #389.

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

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1976. Flood Hazard Analysis, Upper Sandy River and Tributaries, Clackamas County, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Mt. Hood National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. 491 pp.

USDA, USDI. 1994. Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. US Government Printing Office.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Bull Run Watershed Analysis. Mt. Hood National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Protocol for Addressing Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listed Waters. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/protocol.pdf

USDA Forest Service 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS- 990a. April 2012.

USDA Forest Service 2014. Memorandum of Understanding between State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region documenting the U.S. Forest Service and DEQ strategy for managing and controlling nonpoint source pollution for U.S. Forest Service managed lands in the State of Oregon.

91 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Van Staveren John, Shawn Eisner, Eric Campbell. 2013. Bull Run Watershed Wetland Inventory Report for the City of Portland – Mt. Hood National Forest Bull Run Land Exchange. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Wildlife Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight (www.orwapif.org) and American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory.

Aubry, K. B., K. S. Mckelvey, J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management. Article: pp. 2147–2158

Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Burke, T.E. 2013. Land Snails and Slugs of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 344 Pp.

Bury, R. B., C. Barkhurst, R. Horn, L. Todd, S. Wray, R. Goggans, K. Beal, N. Sisk. February 2001. Western Pond Turtle: Survey Protocol and Monitoring Plan. Interagency Western Pond Turtle Working Group. Final Draft.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat Ecology of Fishers and American Martens. In: Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. (Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, comps., eds.) Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Pp. 283-296.

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States. (L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, eds.) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Report RM-254.

Cameron, S. A., J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange, J. B. Koch, N. Cordes, L. F. Solter, and T. L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662–667.

City of Portland Water Bureau. 2008. Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan; For the Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species.

Cook, R. C, J. G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, S. M. Mccorquodale, L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, S. L. Murphie, B. L. Murphie, K. A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. B. Hall, R. D. Spencer, D. A. Immell, D. H. Jackson, B. L. Tiller, P. J. Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional condition and reproduction in elk. Wildlife Monographs 184:1–44.

Cook, J. G., L. L. Irwin, L. D. Bryant, R. A. Riggs, and J. W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs 141.

92 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Copeland J. P., Peak J., Groves C., Melquist W., McKelvey K. S., McDaniel G. W., Long C. D., Harris C. E. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2201–2212

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (SEI Report). Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland OR. September 2004.

Crisafulli, C. M., D. Clayton, and D. Olson. 2008. Conservation Assessment for the Larch Mountain Salamander. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 36p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning- documents/assessments.shtml

Cushman, K. A. and C. A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 46p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/assessments.shtml

Dugger, K.M., R.G. Anthony and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, habitat composition, and the demons of competition present. Ecological Applications.

Duncan, N. 2004. Conservation Assessment for Pristiloma arcticum crateris, Crater Lake Tightcoil. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 18p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/assessments.shtml

Duncan, N. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Conservation Assessment for Monadenia fidelis minor, Dalles Sideband. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 14p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning- documents/assessments.shtml

Foster, A. D. and D. H. Olson. 2014. Conservation Assessment for the Cope’s Giant Salamander. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 57p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/assessments.shtml

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and Foraging Behavior of Northern Spotted Owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38: 214-230.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, K.P. Burnham, D.R. Anderson, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.B. Lint, R.J. Davis, S.H. Ackers, L.S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, S.A. Gremel, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T.J. Snetsinger and S.G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society.

Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 274 pp. plus appendices.

Frest, T.J. and E. J. Johannes. 2000. Baseline Mollusk Survey of Southwest Oregon (Rogue and Umpqua Basins). Deixis Consultants, Seattle, Washington. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland Oregon.

93 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Goulson, D. 2003. Bumblebees: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Oxford University Press. 317p.

Hartwig, C.L., D.S. Eastman, and A.S. Harestad. 2004. Characteristics of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 187:225-234.

Hayes, G. and G. J. Wiles. 2013. Washington bat conservation plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 138+viii pp.

Isaacs, F. B., and R. G. Anthony. 2011. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting in Oregon and along the lower Columbia River, 1978-2007. Final Report, 18 March 2011. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Johnson, P.J. 1979. Report on a survey for Beller's ground beetle on the North Fork Snoqualmie River, King Co. WA. Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers. 19 pp.

Kerwin, A. E. and R. Huff. 2011. Conservation Assessment for the Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 57p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/assessments.shtml

Kogut, T. and N. Duncan. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cryptomastix devia, Puget Oregonian. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 24p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/assessments.shtml

Lacki, M.J., J.P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, eds. 2007. Bats in forests, conservation and management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 329p.

Larsen, E.M., E. Rodrick and R. Milner. 1995. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume I. 42-46 pp.

Marcot, Bruce G., Barbara C. Wales, and Rick Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the Interior Columbia River Basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. PNW-GTR-583, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 304 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr583/

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp.

Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:96-103.

Mellen-McLean, K., B. Wales, and B. Bresson. 2013. A Conservation Assessment for the White- headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 41 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents2/ca-bi-picoides-albolarvatus-2013-08- 07.pdf

94 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for Observing Known Potential Peregrine Falcon Eyries in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, editor. Proceedings of a symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Forest Service, Medford, Oregon. 125pp.

Parker, K. L., M. P. Gillingham, T. A. Hanley, and C. T. Robbins. 1999. Energy and protein balance of free-ranging black-tailed deer in a natural forest environment. Wildlife Monographs 143.

Perrine, J. D., L. A. Campbell, and G. A. Green. 2010. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): a conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, R5-FR-010.

Schmitt, C.L. and L.H. Spiegel 2008. Johnson's Hairstreak butterfly and dwarf mistletoe backgrounder. USDA Forest Service Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, La Grande, OR, unpublished memo to Forest Supervisors, 8p.

Stone, T. and R. Huff. 2011. Species Fact Sheet: Columbia sideband, Monadenia fidelis Columbiana. USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.

Tobalske, B. W. 1997. Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In The Birds of North America, No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

USDA-Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest. 1995. Forest Plan Management Direction Interpretation #7 (Protection of Habitat for TE&S plants and animals).

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 1990. Record of Decision, Land and Resource Management Plan. Mt Hood National Forest.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standard and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) - Final Rule. Fed. Reg. Vol. 77. 233: 71876- 72068. December 2012.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. p. 90-93.

Wiens, J.D., 2012, Competitive Interactions and Resource Partitioning between Northern Spotted Owls and Barred Owls in Western Oregon. PhD Dissertation: Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University, p. 141.

95 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Wiggins, D. (2005, October 17). Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/harlequinduck.pdf

Xerces Society. 2012. Database of records from Bumble Bee Citizen Monitoring Project (2008 to 2012). Maintained by Rich Hatfield, Xerces Society.

Xerces Society. Hairstreaks: Johnson's hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni). http://www.xerces.org/johnsons-hairstreak/. Accessed February 27, 2017.

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, C. R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, and D. G. Kudma. 2001. Status of American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy 82:478- 4

96 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Appendix A. Legal Descriptions of Proposed Exchange Parcels The parties acknowledge official and actual acreage of Federal parcels, are certified by the Forest Service Surveyor, since official and actual acreage may differ.

Since these parcels have public domain or reserved public domain status, it is further understood that actual acreage of parcels will be used for appraisal purposes and the official acreage will be used in the patent and quit claim deed in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management Handbook H-1860.

All legal land descriptions are with reference to the Willamette Meridian.

Table 35. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Clackamas County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 5 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres F-1 25 N1/2SE1/4NW1/4 19.76 20.00 F-1 25 S1/2SE1/4NW1/4 19.71 20.00 F-1 25 S1/2SW1/4NW1/4 19.80 20.00 F-2 26 SE1/4SW1/4 39.69 40.00 F-3 26 NE1/4SE1/4 39.91 40.00 F-3 26 SE1/4NW1/4SE1/4 9.97 10.00 F-4 35 N1/2SW1/4NE1/4 19.93 20.00 F-5 36 N1/2NE1/4 80.00 80.00 F-5 36 N1/2NW1/4 80.00 80.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-1 are 59.27; total official acres are 60.00. Total actual acres in parcel F-2 are 39.69; official acres are 40.00. Total actual acres in parcel F-3 are 49.88; official acres are 50.00. Total actual acres in parcel F-4 are 19.93; official acres are 20.00. Total actual acres and official acres in parcel F-5 are 160.00.

Table 36. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Clackamas County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 6 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres F-6 30 All Lot 2 36.22 37.41 F-6 30 All Lot 3 35.88 37.03 F-6 30 All Lot 4 35.55 36.64 F-6 30 E1/2SW1/4 77.51 80.00 F-6 30 SW1/4SE1/4 38.68 40.00 F-7 31 N1/2NW1/4NE1/4 20.00 20.00 F-7 31 N1/2NE1/4NW1/4 20.00 20.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-6 are 223.84; official acres are 231.08 Total actual acres in parcel F-7 are 40.00; official acres are 40.00

97 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Table 37. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Clackamas County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 2 South, Range 5 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres F-8 3 All Lot 4 38.34 38.34 F-9 4 All Lot 3 38.46 38.46 F-9 4 All Lot 4 38.80 38.80 F-9 4 SW1/4NW1/4 40.00 40.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-8 are 38.34; official acres are 38.34 Total actual acres in parcel F-9 are 117.26; official acres are 117.26

The subtotals of actual and official acres of Federal land in Clackamas County are 748.21 and 756.68, respectively.

Table 38. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Multnomah County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 6 East; parcels F-10, F-11, F-12 Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres F-10 9 SE1/4SE1/4SE1/4 10.00 10.00 F-11 10 All Lot 4 34.66 34.66 F-11 10 SE1/4SW1/4 40.00 40.00 F-11 10 S1/2SE1/4 80.00 80.00 F-12 11 NE1/4SW1/4 40.00 40.00 F-12 11 S1/2SW1/4 80.00 80.00 F-12 11 SE1/4 160.00 160.00

Total actual acres in parcel F-10 are10.00; official acres are 10.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-11 are154.66; official acres are 154.66 Total actual acres in parcel F-12 are280.00; official acres are 280.00

Table 39. Legal descriptions and acres of Federal parcels in Multnomah County offered for conveyance to the City of Portland: Township 1 South, Range 6 East; parcels F-13 through F-20 Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres F-13 12 S1/2NE1/4 80.00 80.00 F-13 12 SE1/4NW1/4 40.00 40.00 F-13 12 SW1/4 160.00 160.00 F-13 12 NW1/4SE1/4 40.00 40.00 F-14 14 N1/2N1/2NE1/4 40.00 40.00 F-14 14 N1/2NW1/4 80.00 80.00 F-15 15 All Lot 1 38.58 38.58 F-15 15 N1/2NE1/4 80.00 80.00 F-15 15 SW1/4NE1/4 40.00 40.00 F-15 15 NE1/4NW1/4 40.00 40.00 F-15 15 S1/2NW1/4 80.00 80.00 F-15 15 N1/2NW1/4SW1/4 20.00 20.00 F-16 16 Lot 1 31.67 31.67

98 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres F-16 16 Lot 2 33.54 33.54 F-16 16 Lot 3 38.48 38.48 F-16 16 Lot 4 38.48 38.48 F-16 16 Lot 5 38.31 38.31 F-16 16 Lot 6 37.34 37.34 F-16 16 Lot 7 37.11 37.11 F-16 16 Lot 8 36.10 36.10 F-16 16 NW1/4 160.00 160.00 F-17 17 E1/2NE1/4 80.00 80.00 F-17 17 SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4 10.00 10.00 F-17 17 SE1/4NE1/4SW1/4 10.00 10.00 F-17 17 S1/2SW1/4 80.00 80.00 F-17 17 SE1/4 160.00 160.00 F-18 18 SE1/4SE1/4SE1/4 9.67 10.00 F-19 20 NW1/4NE1/4 36.11 40.00 F-20 20 NE1/4NW1/4 39.57 40.00 F-20 20 NW1/4NW1/4 40.15 40.00 F-20 20 SW1/4NW1/4 40.16 40.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-13 are 320.00; official acres are 320.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-14 are 120.00; official acres are 120.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-15 are 298.58; official acres are 298.58 Total actual acres in parcel F-16 are 451.03; official acres are 451.03 Total actual acres in parcel F-17 are 340.00; official acres are 340.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-18 are 9.67; official acres are 10.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-19 are 36.11; official acres are 40.00 Total actual acres in parcel F-20 are 119.88; official acres are 20.00

The subtotals of actual and official acres of Federal land in Multnomah County are 2,139.93 and 2,144.27, respectively.

The total actual and official acres of Federal land in both counties offered for exchange are 2,888.14 and 2,900.95, respectively.

Table 40. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 5 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 3 26 NW1/4 159.08 160.00

Table 41. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 6 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 5B 30 S1/2NW1/4NE1/4 19.28 20.00 7 30 NE1/4NE1/4 38.46 40.00

99 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 7 30 SW1/4NE1/4 38.60 40.00 7 30 SE1/4NE1/4 38.50 40.00 7 30 NE1/4SE1/4 38.55 40.00 8 32 N1/2N1/2 153.84 160.00 Total actual acres in parcel 5B are 19.28; official acres are 20.00 Total actual acres in parcel 7 are 154.11; official acres are 160.00 Total actual acres in parcel 8are 153.84; official acres are 160.00

Table 42. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 2 South, Range 6 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 9 12 NW1/4 160.00 160.00

Table 43. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Clackamas County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 2 South, Range 7 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 10 2 Lot 1 40.16 40.16 10 2 Lot 2 40.24 40.24 10 2 S1/2NE1/4 80.00 80.00

Total actual acres in parcel 10 are 160.40; official acres are 160.40

The subtotals of actual and official acres of City of Portland Land in Clackamas County are 806.71 and 820.40, respectively.

Table 44. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Multnomah County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 5 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 1A 23 NW1/4NE1/4 40.62 40.00 1B 23 S1/2SE1/4 80.07 80.00 1B 23 NE1/4SE1/4 40.37 40.00 1B 23 S1/2SW1/4 80.04 80.00 2 24 Section 24 EXCEPT 620.00 620.00 N1/2SE1/4NW1/4 2A 24 N1/2SE1/4NW1/4 20.00 20.00 Total actual acres in parcel 1A are 40.62; official acres are 40.00 Total actual acres in parcel 1B are 200.48; official acres are 200.00 Total actual acres in parcel 2 are 620.00; official acres are 620.00 Total actual acres in parcel 2A are 20.00; official acres are 20.00

Table 45. Legal descriptions and acres of City of Portland parcels in Multnomah County proposed for acquisition by the Forest Service: Township 1 South, Range 6 East Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 4A 18 NE1/4 157.14 160.00

100 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Parcel # Section Portion Actual Acres Official Acres 4B 18 Un-numbered Lot in 18.07 18.63 S1/2SW1/4NW1/4 4B 19 S1/2SE1/4NW1/4 21.02 20.00 5 19 Lot 1 37.31 37.31 5 19 Lot 2 37.49 37.49 5 19 Lot 3 37.67 37.67 5 19 NW1/4NE1/4 40.00 40.00 5 19 E1/2NW1/4 80.00 80.00 5A 19 SE1/4SE1/4SE1/4 10.00 10.00 6A 20 S1/2SW1/4 84.34 80.00 6B 20 S1/2NE1/4 72.25 80.00 6B 20 SE1/4 EXCEPT 155.51 157.50 NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4SE1/4 Total actual acres in parcel 4A are 157.14; official acres are 160.00 Total actual acres in parcel 4B are 39.09; official acres are 38.63 Total actual acres in parcel 5 are 232.47; official acres are 232.47 Total actual acres in parcel 5A are 10.00; official acres are 10.00 Total actual acres in parcel 6A are 84.34; official acres are 80.00 Total actual acres in parcel 6B are 227.76; official acres are 237.50

The subtotals of actual and official acres of City of Portland land in Multnomah County are 1,631.90 and 1,638.60, respectively.

The total actual and official acres of City of Portland land in both counties offered for exchange are 2,438.61 and 2,459.00, respectively.

101

Bull Run Land Exchange Environmental Assessment

Appendix B. Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

Table 46. Applicable Bull Run watershed management unit general standards and guidelines (D) per the 2016 forest plan land use allocation administrative changes Standard or Guideline Number Description D-001 A) The Forest Service and the City of Portland Water Bureau shall meet at least annually to review planned management activities and impacts on water quality and quantity, and to assure that land management and operations activities within the unit are appropriately coordinated. Note: "Staff of the Portland Water Bureau and the Forest should meet on a day-to-day basis for effective planning and operational management. Current data should be compared at least annually for the purpose of determining compliance with the standards and the significance of any deviation." D-002 B) Public entry into the Management Unit shall not be permitted except as agreed to by the Forest Service and the City of Portland Water Bureau. D-003 C) The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) and Buck Peak Trail may remain in their present location. Trail D-004 D-005 reconstruction and maintenance may occur. New or alternative trails shall be constructed outside of the Watershed Management Unit. D-006 C1) The trails should be posted and the trespass provision shall be enforced by the Forest Service to keep people D-007 from leaving the trail. D-008 C2) In the event that problems develop regarding public use of the trails, administrative controls and/or trail closure may be utilized as corrective measures (Bull Run Planning Unit FEIS). D-009 D) Scientific research may continue within the Watershed Management Unit. D-010 E) The development, extraction, and use of common variety mineral resources (rock, gravel, sand, etc.) within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit shall be accomplished only after coordination and agreement with the City of Portland. D-011 E1) Common variety minerals within the DA1 Management Area may be utilized on National Forest system lands within the Watershed Management Unit if development and extraction can be accomplished in a manner which is consistent with other resource objectives. D-013 E3) Common variety minerals development shall be prohibited within DA3, DA8, DA9, and DA13 Management Areas. Development shall be discouraged within DB5, DB7, and DB8. F) See also the current Administrative and Operational Guidelines for the bull Run Watershed Management Unit. G) Cultural Resources Management See Forestwide Cultural Resources Management Standards and Guidelines. D-015 H) Range Management Commercial livestock grazing shall be prohibited.

103 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Standard or Guideline Number Description I) Geology See Forestwide Geology Standards and Guidelines. D-016 J) Lands and Special Uses 1. Lands shall be retained. See Forestwide Lands Program Standards and Guidelines. D-017 J) Lands and Special Uses 2. Existing powerline corridors and facilities may occur. D-018 J) Lands and Special Uses 3. Recreation special uses shall be prohibited except those associated with use of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and the Buck Peak Trail. D-019 J) Lands and Special Uses 4. Non-recreation special uses shall be discouraged. K) Fire Prevention and Suppression 1. See Forestwide Standards and Guidelines 2. See DA3 Management Area Standards and Guidelines for exceptions. D-022 K) Fire Prevention and Suppression 3. Application of aerial fire retardants in fire suppression shall be permitted only as approved by the City of Portland Water Bureau. L) Wood Residue Management 1. See Forestwide Soil Productivity, Wildlife and Forest Diversity Standards and Guidelines regarding woody debris. D-020 L) Wood Residue Management 2. Prescribed fire may occur. See DA3 and DA8 Management Area Standards and Guidelines. D-021 M) Integrated Pest Management 1. Chemical insecticides and herbicides shall be prohibited within the Bull Run physical drainage. M) Integrated Pest Management 2. See Forestwide Timber Management Standards and Guidelines regarding Integrated pest Management.

104 Bull Run Land Exchange Environmental Assessment

Table 47. Applicable Bull Run watershed management unit standards and guidelines (DA1) per the 2016 forest plan land use allocation administrative changes Standard or Guideline Number Description DA1-001 A) Planning and Implementation As directed by the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Act (Public Law 95-200), the City of Portland Water Bureau and the Mt. Hood National Forest Shall: Jointly participate in the planning of all projects. Cooperatively conduct water monitoring programs. DA1-002 B) Management of Water Quantity and Quality 1. Water quantity and quality shall be maintained at or above historical levels (Public Law 95-200). DA1-003 B) Management of Water Quantity and Quality 2. Water quality shall meet standards developed cooperatively between the Forest Service and the City of Portland. See Bull Run Water Quality Standards, 1984 (or updated versions).

DA1-004 C) Fire Potential and Fuels Management 1. Fire and fuels management activities shall provide for both short term and long term protections of water quality. DA1-005 C) Fire Potential and Fuels Management 2. Risk of water quality degradation due to catastrophic wildfire shall be reduced. DA1-006 C) Fire Potential and Fuels Management 2.a. Activities which reduce the hazard shall be permitted. DA1-007 C) Fire Potential and Fuels Management 2.b. Activities which reduce the risk of human-caused fires within the Management unit shall be permitted. DA1-008 C) Fire Potential and Fuels Management 2.b.1. Public access (i.e. including contractors) shall be restricted by a permit system. DA1-009 C) Fire Potential and Fuels Management 2.b.2. During periods of extreme fire weather conditions, access should be limited to Forest Service and Water Bureau personnel and others needed to protect the watershed and operate the water system.

DA1-010 D) Use of Chemicals 1. Application of chemical insecticides and herbicides shall be prohibited. DA1-011 D) Use of Chemicals 2. Application of aerial fire retardants in fire suppression shall be permitted only as approved by the City of Portland Water Bureau. DA1-012 D) Use of Chemicals 3. Use of chemicals shall not be permitted for any other purpose, unless approved by the City of Portland Water Bureau and the Forest Service.

105 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Standard or Guideline Number Description DA1-013 E) Timber Management 1. Regulated timber harvest activities shall be prohibited. DA1-014 and DA1-015 E) Timber Management Changed to reflect the language within the Bull Run Act: "Unregulated timber harvest may be permitted only if water quality standards are met. The cutting of timber is only allowed for the following reasons as defined in Public Law 95-200: The protection or enhancement of water quality; or, The protection, enhancement, or maintenance of water quantity available; or, The construction, expansion, protection or maintenance of municipal water supply facilities; or, The construction, expansion, protection, or maintenance of facilities for the transmission of energy through and over the unit or previously authorized hydroelectric facilities or hydroelectric projects associated with municipal water supply facilities." DA1-016 E) Timber Management 3. To minimize soil disturbance, techniques such as suspended logging systems should be employed to minimize exposed bare soil, compaction, and alterations of natural hydrologic characteristics.

DA1-024 F) Fish and Wildlife Management 1. Existing fish habitat and populations shall be protected. DA1-025 F) Fish and Wildlife Management 2. Anadromous fish shall not be reintroduced. DA1-026 F) Fish and Wildlife Management 3. Wildlife habitat enhancement shall be encouraged. See Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. DA1-027 G) Hydroelectric Power Hydroelectric power generation from existing and proposed damns may be permitted provided generation is compatible with the primary objectives of water quality. DA1-028 H) Visual Quality Management All management activities should consider viewers outside of the Watershed Management Unit looking into the drainage, unless achievement would affect meeting the primary water quality objective.

DA1-038 H) Visual Quality Management Management activities shall achieve a visual quality objective of Retention as viewed from Columbia Wilderness trails. DA1-029, DA1-030 I) Minerals Management Common variety minerals (e.g. sand and gravel) may be utilized on National Forest System lands. Quarry development shall protect water quality.

106 Bull Run Land Exchange Environmental Assessment

Standard or Guideline Number Description DA1-031 J) Road Construction and Maintenance 1. Roads may be constructed, reconstructed, and maintained where needed to support management activities within the drainage. DA1-032 J) Road Construction and Maintenance 2. Roads shall be designed and constructed to ensure stability and maintain water quality. DA1-033, DA1-034, DA1-035 J) Road Construction and Maintenance 3. Stream crossings shall be designed to allow free passage of water during major storm events. Emphasis shall be given to bridge construction rather than placement of fills and culverts on streams. Culvert arches and pipers shall be designed to contain excess water flow capability. K) Streamside Protection Area See DB7 General Riparian Area Standards and Guidelines. L) Soils, Air Quality, and Forest Diversity 1. See Forestwide Soil Productivity, Air Quality, and Forest Diversity Standards and Guidelines. DA1-036 L) Soils, Air Quality, and Forest Diversity 2. Watershed improvement activities shall be encouraged. DA1-037 L) Soils, Air Quality, and Forest Diversity 3. Site rehabilitation necessary due to recreational trespass activities should occur.

Table 48. Applicable Bull Run watershed management unit standards and guidelines (DA3 Research Natural Area) per the 2016 forest plan land use allocation administrative changes Standard or Guideline Number Description A) See A3 Research Natural Area Management Area Standards and Guidelines DA3-001 B) Management within the Fir Creek drainage portion of the Big Bend RNA shall be conducted in a manner which protects the area's role as the control watershed for the Bull Run water quality standards compliance process. DA3-002 B)1. Vegetative manipulation for research purposes shall not be allowed. DA3-003 B)2. Entry in to the Fir Creek drainage shall be for water quality management purposes only. DA3-004 B)3. Requests for access to areas within the Fir Creek drainage may be granted by the District Ranger after consultation and coordination with the City of Portland. DA3-005 B)4. Use of ground machines (e.g. tractors) in suppression of wildfires shall be prohibited. DA3-006 C) Regulated timber harvest and unregulated timber harvest shall be prohibited. DA3-007 D) Site rehabilitation necessary due to recreational trespass activities should occur.

107 Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Standard or Guideline Number Description DA3-008 E) Wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement, soil and water improvement, and prescribed fire activities may occur only as associated with approved research projects.

108