Lostine Corridor Public Safety Project AQUATICS

02/21/2017 Lostine Safety Project

Aquatic Resources There are 3 documents that go with the aquatics resources input for the Lostine Public Safety Corridor Project: - Aquatics Biological Evaluation (10/05/2016), - Salmonid Project Design Criteria Compliance Worksheet (11/29/2016), and - Letter of Concurrence level 1 Agreement – Lostine Corridor Vegetation (12/2/2016)

The proposed action detailed in both the Aquatics Biological Evaluation (BE) and the Salmonid Project Design Criteria Compliance Worksheet (Worksheet) were more intensive than what has the current Project Activities (Appendix A, Decision Memo). The project activities are lessened in scope and scale and therefore, are within the range of activities consulted on with National Marie Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Services.

Effects Determination Summary

Table 1. Effects determinations for aquatic resources for ESA listed species, Wallowa Whitman management indicator species, and Region 6 sensitive species.

Aquatics – Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species

Common name of species Effects Determination Snake River Steelhead May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect Snake River Spring/Summer May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook Salmon Columbia River Bull Trout May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect

Aquatics –Region 6 Sensitive Species

Redband Trout* MIIH Pacific Lamprey MIIH Western Ridge Mussel MIIH Shortfaced Lanx MIIH Columbia Pebblesnail MIIH MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing causing a loss of viability to the population. * Redband Trout are also a Management Indicator Species for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

02/21/2017 Lostine Safety Project

Consistencies Based on the information documented in this report, the proposed actions under the Lostine Project are found to be consistent with Forest Plan as amended by the Lostine Wild and Scenic River Plan.

Lostine Corridor Project Biological Evaluation For Aquatic Species

Date: 10/05/2016

Lostine River near Turkey Flat. Photo by Gretchen Sausen

Prepared by: Alan Miller Fisheries Biologist Wallowa RD, Joseph, Oregon

Contents Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Need ...... 1 Analysis Area ...... 3 Special Status Aquatic Species ...... 3 ESA-listed Fish Species ...... 3 Region 6 Aquatic Sensitive Species ...... 3 Proposed Action ...... 3 Existing Condition ...... 3 Desired Condition ...... 4 Project Objectives ...... 5 Proposed Activities ...... 5 Relevant Design/Mitigation Features ...... 14 Aquatics ...... 14 Forest Plan Direction (Aquatics) ...... 16 ESA-listed Fish Species ...... 17 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Fish Species ...... 17 SR Steelhead (Threatened) ...... 17 SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (ESA Threatened) ...... 20 Bull Trout (ESA Threatened)...... 23 Environmental Baseline ...... 29 Aquatic Habitat ...... 29 Effects of Proposed Action ...... 30 Direct and Indirect Effects to Forest Plan RMOs ...... 30 Fine Sediment RMO ...... 30 Water Temperature RMO ...... 34 LWD RMO ...... 35 Pool, Width-to Depth and Streambank Stability RMOs ...... 37 Effects to ESA Matrix Habitat Indicators ...... 38 Effects Determinations...... 45 SR Steelhead ...... 45 SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ...... 46 CR Bull Trout ...... 46 Effects to Critical Habitat ...... 47 SR Steelhead Critical Habitat ...... 47 Primary Constituent Elements ...... 47 SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat...... 48 Essential Habitat Features ...... 48 Bull Trout Critical Habitat ...... 50 Primary Constituent Elements ...... 50 Effects Determinations...... 52 SR Steelhead Critical Habitat ...... 52 SR Spring/Summer Salmon Critical Habitat ...... 53 CR Bull Trout Critical Habitat ...... 53 Cumulative Effects...... 53 Magnuson-Stevens Act ...... 55 Essential Fish Habitat ...... 55 Region 6 Sensitive Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Species ...... 56 Redband Trout (Inland Columbia Basin) ...... 56 Pacific Lamprey ...... 56 Western Ridge Mussel ...... 58 Shortfaced Lanx ...... 60 Columbia Pebblesnail ...... 61 References ...... 63 Appendix A – Road Maintenance BMPs/Conservation Measures ...... 67 Appendix B – Blue Mtn Project Design Criteria ...... 71

Table 1. Principle Watersheds and Subwatersheds for the Lostine Corridor Project...... 3 Table 2. Patch cut and group select units for the Lostine Corridor Project...... 8 Table 3. Summary of proposed patch cut and group select activities ...... 8 Table 4. Current and Post-treatment basal area by forest resiliency thinning unit...... 11 Table 5. Summary of Limited Activities for Blue Mountain PDCs...... 13 Table 6. Summary of proposed activities for the Lostine Corridor Project...... 14 Table 7. PACFISH RHCA widths for Lostine Corridor Project Area...... 17 Table 8. Acres of Streamside RHCAs for the Lostine Corridor Project Area...... 17 Table 9. Miles of Steelhead Critical Habitat Present in the Action Area...... 20 Table 10. Escapement of Adult Chinook Salmon to the Lostine River...... 21 Table 11. Miles of Critical Habitat for Spring/summer Chinook Salmon in Analysis Area...... 23 Table 12. Miles of Bull Trout Critical Habitat Present in the Lostine Corridor action area. . ... 27 Table 13. Miles of Streams in the Action Area...... 29 Table 14: Habitat summary data for the Lostine River on NFS Lands...... 30 Table 15. Water temperature data for streams in the Analysis Area...... 34 Table 16. Current multi-species matrix ratings for the two subwatersheds in the analysis area . 40 Table 17. ESA Matrix Criteria for Temperature Indicator ...... 41 Table 18. ESA Matrix Criteria for Temperature Indicator (Bull Trout) ...... 41 Table 19. ESA Matrix Criteria for Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate Indicators ...... 42 Table 20. ESA Matrix Criteria for Road Density ...... 42 Table 21. ESA Matrix Criteria for Road Density Indicator ...... 43 Table 22. Proposed Road Activities for the Lostine Corridor Project...... 43 Table 23. ESA Matrix Criteria for Road Density Indicator (Bull trout) ...... 43 Table 24. ESA Matrix Criteria for Disturbance History Indicator ...... 44 Table 25. ESA Matrix Criteria for Riparian Reserves/Conservation Areas Indicator ...... 45

Figure 1. Location of the Lostine Corridor Project...... 2 Figure 2. Distribution of SR Steelhead in Analysis areafor the Lostine Corridor Project...... 19 Figure 3. Distribution of SR Spring/Summer Chinook salmon ...... 22 Figure 4. Comparison of bull trout surveyed redds and index redds ...... 25 Figure 5. Distribution of CR Bull Trout in Analysis areafor the Lostine Corridor Project...... 26 Figure 6. Critical Habitat for CR Bull Trout in Analysis areafor the Lostine Corridor Project. . 28

Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) for fish and aquatic invertebrates satisfies requirements of Forest Service Manual 2672.4 requiring the Forest Service to review all planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on proposed, endangered, threatened or sensitive species by completing a BE. The BE process is intended to review the Lostine Corridor Project (LCP) in sufficient detail to determine effects of alternatives on species in this evaluation and ensure proposed management actions would not: • likely jeopardize the continued existence, or cause adverse modification of habitat, for a species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS or NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service; or • contribute to the loss of viability for species designated as sensitive by USDA Forest Service, Region 6, or any native or desired, non-native species; nor cause any species to move toward federal listing (FSM 2672.4). The following sources were used during the prefield review phase to determine the presence or absence of aquatic ESA-listed or Region 6 sensitive species in the effects area for the LCP: • Wallowa-Whitman N.F. GIS database • Regional Forester’s (R6) special status species list (Dated 07/21/2015) • ODFW stream survey and fish survey reports • Forest Service stream survey reports, Eagle Cap RD (on file at Joseph, OR) • Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ORNHP) database • Natural Heritage Conservation database (Biosource) • Oregon Native Fish Report

Purpose and Need The Lostine Corridor Project is designed to address issues identified in the project area. The project is located about 6 miles south of Lostine, Oregon (Figure 1). The project addresses public safety concerns present in the Lostine corridor area. The Lostine River provides habitat for steelhead, spring/summer Chinook salmon, and bull trout in addition to brook trout and redband trout. The purpose and need for the Lostine Corridor Project are: • Mitigation of hazard trees to road and recreation resources (developed and dispersed sites) to reduce the risk of personal harm and property damage to all users of public infrastructure in the Lostine Corridor. • Thinning of forest stands outside of RHCA’s up to 21” at DBH to reduce the intensity and severity of future wildfires in the corridor. • Reduce stand densities to enhance forest resistance and resiliency to disturbance events

Figure 1. Location of the Lostine Corridor Project.

2 Analysis Area The project area is about 2,112 acres in size and is located within the Lostine River Watershed (HUC 1706010502). Table 1. Principle Watersheds and Subwatersheds for the Lostine Corridor Project. Watershed Subwatershed (HUC Code) (HUC Code)

Lostine River-Silver Creek (170601050203)

Lostine River (1706010502) Lostine River-Lake Creek (170601050202)

The analysis area extends from the confluence of the Lostine River and the E.F. Lostine River (i.e. Two Pan Trailhead/Campground area) downstream to the Forest boundary. The analysis area is generally located in Township 2 South, Range 43 East; Township 3 South, Range 43 East; Township 4 South, Range 43 (Willamette Meridian). The analysis area was delineated based on professional judgment to capture the area where measurable effects from proposed activities may occur. Measureable effects from proposed activities are unlikely to extend downstream of the action area.

Special Status Aquatic Species

ESA-listed Fish Species The following ESA-listed fish species are present in the analysis area: 1) Snake River (SR) steelhead (Threatened), 2) SR spring/summer Chinook salmon (Threatened), and 3) Columbia River (CR) bull trout (Threatened). Critical habitat for all these species is located in the action area. Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook salmon is present in the Wallowa River Subbasin including in the action area.

Region 6 Aquatic Sensitive Species The following Region 6 aquatic sensitive species are present in the analysis area: redband trout. Additionally, the habitat for the following Region 6 aquatic sensitive species is present in the analysis area, though their presence has not been documented: 1) lamprey, 2) western ridge mussel, and 3) shortface Lanx (aka “Giant Columbia River limpet”)

Proposed Action

Existing Condition The Lostine Canyon Corridor is a cherished and complex component of the Eagle Cap Ranger District that has been experiencing a steady decline in forest health in recent decades. Forest health is a human concept and people have different views on what constitutes a healthy forest. Insect and disease agents play a critical role in terms of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats and also nutrient cycling. A healthy forest is not expected to be completely free of damaging insects, diseases or other disturbances. However, most definitions of forest health include the ideas that a healthy forest maintains its ecological function, diversity and resiliency; and a healthy forest also provides essential ecosystem services (i.e. clean and regulated water supply, clean air, carbon

3 sequestration, wildlife habitat, and scenic landscapes) which are typically non-marketable services that are nonetheless important to human health and livelihood. Ostensibly most of the general public as well as those who manage forest resources on either public or private lands, would not consider a forest dominated by mortality as a healthy forest. It is abundantly clear that the overall forest health of much of the Lostine Corridor is on a declining trajectory, and highly susceptible to disturbance from damaging insects, disease, and high severity wildfire. There are many factors that have contributed to this decline, and are largely correlated to past and current management of the corridor that has promoted unsustainably high densities and a shift in species composition from shade intolerant early seral species to a greater proportion of shade tolerant mid-late seral species. This change of density, composition and structure is largely attributed to the exclusion of wildfire through over a century of aggressive fire suppression. Other compounding factors include past selective high-grade logging and grazing that have changed these systems by removing large high value early seral and fire resistant species like ponderosa pine and western larch and flashy fuels that historically would carry low intensity natural fires through the understory and kill shade tolerant seedlings and saplings. The intent of the Lostine Public Safety Project has two primary objectives. First the project aims to mitigate danger trees to the Lostine River access road, recreation and administrative sites, and cultural resources in accordance with regional guidelines. Secondly, the project seeks to reduce the risk of epidemic levels of insect and disease disturbance and the probability of high intensity, high severity crown fires by thinning upland stands and conducting a multitude of fuels treatments to promote overall forest health, resistance and resiliency to future disturbance events. In addition to the upland thinning, up to nine two to three acre patch cuts are proposed to either change species composition or create strategic fuel breaks for wildfire suppression activities. Currently the forested stands in the Lostine corridor would be best represented by a fuel model 10, characterized by fires burning in the surface and ground fuels with greater intensity than the other timber litter models. Dead-down fuels include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger limbwood resulting from over maturity or natural events that create a large load of dead material on the forest floor.

Desired Condition The proposed treatments will reduce both standing and down fuels in the corridor. There will be greater spacing between the over story trees, as well as fewer understory tress that create ladder fuels. Ladder fuels are small understory trees that carry ground fire up into the canopy of the overstory. The dead and down fuels on the ground would also be greatly reduced by the piling and burning. This reduction in ground fuels will result in reduced fire intensity, as well as shorter flame lengths in the event of a ground fire in the corridor. After the proposed treatment actions listed above, it is expected that treated stands will best represented by a fuel model 8. In a fuel model 8 slow burning ground fires with low flame lengths are generally the case, although the fire may encounter an occasional “jackpot” of heavy fuel concentrations that can flare up. Only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds would the fuels pose fire hazards.

4 Project Objectives The proposed action is designed to meet the purpose and need for the project while responding to the key issues identified during the scoping period and information obtained through additional field verification. Treatments in the proposed action respond to the purpose and need for the project and are designed to accomplish the following objectives: • Mitigation of hazard trees to road and recreation resources (developed and dispersed sites) to reduce the risk of personal harm and property damage to all users of public infrastructure in the Lostine Corridor. • Thinning of forest stands outside of RHCA’s up to 21” at DBH to reduce the intensity and severity of future wildfires in the corridor. • Reduce stand densities to enhance forest resistance and resiliency to disturbance events.

Proposed Activities The components of the proposed action are listed as follows: 1. Hazard Tree Mitigation: Hazard trees are defined as any tree or tree part that is within striking distance of a permanent or transitory target of value (Field Guide for Hazard-Tree Identification and Mitigation on Developed Sites in Oregon and Washington Forests, 2014). Forest Service policy requires the agency to mitigate hazard trees. The proposed treatment would be to remove or trim trees, regardless of diameter, that pose a hazard to recreation sites, roadways, administration sites, identified historical significant areas, private lands, following R-6 direction. Mitigation of hazard trees may include the removal of trees to meet the fuels objectives. Hazard tree zones will be located: 1) along Forest Road 8250 (Lostine River Road), 2) around administration sites and identified historical significant areas, and 3) in and around recreation sites. It is predicted that there are between 2,000 to 3,000 hazard trees in the project area. Lostine River Road - Identification and mitigation of hazard trees will follow protocols in the 2008 “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response” (R6-NR-FP-PR-01-08; http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/fieldguidedangertree.pdf). The hazard tree zone along the Lostine River Road will extend about 200ft on either side of the road. All hazard trees adjacent to the Lostine River Road would be felled. A combination of mechanical felling from the road and hand felling will be used to fell hazard trees. Removal of hazard trees would occur with mechanized equipment operated from the Lostine River Road. a. Hazard trees within the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River will be felled. Trees within 200ft of the Lostine River will be felled and left on site; except as described below. Hazard trees greater than 200ft from the Lostine River will be felled and removed. • Hazard trees within the Lostine River RHCA that are located on the uphill side of the Lostine River Road will be felled and then removed with use of equipment working from the roadway. • Hazard trees within 200ft of the Lostine River that are located on the downhill side of the Lostine River Road that cannot be safely felled away from the road would be felled and removed as above.

5 b. Hazard trees within the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to Lake Creek will be felled. Determination of removal of hazard trees will be made on a case by case basis by the District Silviculturist and District Fish Biologist. c. Hazard trees within Category 2 RHCAs will be felled. Determination of removal of hazard trees will be made on a case by case basis by the District Silviculturist and District Fish Biologist. Generally, hazard trees within 100ft of Category 2 streams would be felled and left on site; except trees that cannot safely be felled towards the stream. These trees would be felled and then removed with use of equipment working from the roadway. Hazard trees greater than 100ft from Category 2 streams will be felled and removed. d. Hazard trees within Category 4 RHCAs will be felled. Determination of removal of hazard trees will be made on a case by case basis by the District Silviculturist and District Fish Biologist.

Figure 2 provides an example of how the various scenarios involved with the hazard tree mitigation activities will be implemented.

Figure 2. Example of proposed hazard tree mitigation activities.

7 Developed Sites, which include administration, historical, and recreation sites - Hazard trees in and adjacent to administration sites and identified historical significant areas would be felled. Where administration sites and identified historical significant areas are located in RHCAs hazard trees would be left on site where it is safe to do so. Felled hazard trees that interfere with the use of an administrative or historical site would be removed. 2. Patch and Group Select Treatments: Up to nine two-acre patch and/or group select regeneration treatments are proposed for three different objectives in the project area. Figures 3 and 4 display locations of patch cut and group select units in the project area. Group Select Units – Six group selection (GS) units (units 8a, 8b, 9a, 10, 11a, 11b) are proposed in even-aged lodgepole dominated stands to create variability in stand structure and composition by re-planting with fire resistant western larch (Table 1). Some dead lodgepole will be harvested and decked for public firewood utilization. Managed Patch Cut Units – Two managed patch cuts (MPC) (units 18a, 19a) are proposed to create strategic fuel breaks that generally connect the Lostine River Access Road to natural upslope fuel breaks (Table 1). All trees over 21” dbh will be retained in these managed patch cuts, and when no trees greater than 21” dbh occur, a minimum of five overstory trees per acre shall be retained. Maintenance of desired stand characteristics will occur as needed in the future to maintain the effectiveness of the treatment. Helispot Unit - One MPC unit (Unit 17a) is proposed adjacent to Turkey Flat to serve as a helispot for emergency ingress and egress for both wildfire suppression and medevac purposes (Table 2). Currently, aside from the stock trailer parking lot at the Two Pan Trailhead (which is usually full during the summer months) there are no adequate helispot sites for a Type 1 helicopter within the project area. Maintenance of desired stand characteristics will occur as needed in the future to maintain the effectiveness of the treatment. Table 2. Patch cut and group select units for the Lostine Corridor Project. Treatments: GS=Group Select, MPC=Managed Patch Cut. Unit # Acres Treatment Objective 8A 2 GS Species diversity. Replant with larch 8B 3 GS Species diversity. Replant with larch 9A 2 GS Species diversity. Replant with larch 10 2 GS Species diversity. Replant with larch 11A 2 GS Species diversity. Replant with larch 11B 2 GS Species diversity. Replant with larch 17A 2 MPC Helispot creation 18A 2 MPC Strategic Fuel Break 19A 2 MPC Strategic Fuel Break

Table 3 summarizes the proposed activities for patch cut and group select activities. Table 3. Summary of proposed patch cut and group select activities for the Lostine Corridor Project. Activity Amount Group Select Treatments 13 acres Managed Patch Cut Treatments 4 acres Turkey Flat Helispot 2 acres

Figure 3. Location of Patch Cut, Group Select, and Forest Resiliency Units. Forest Boundary to Lostine Guard Station.

Figure 4. Location of Patch Cut, Group Select, and Forest Resiliency Units. Lostine Guard Station to Two Pan Trailhead.

10 3. Forest Resilience Thinning: Proposed activities in forest resiliency thinning (FRT) units include: commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning and fuels reduction activities. FRT treatments are designed to improve the health of forested stands within the project area. Figures 3 and 4 display locations of FRT units in the project area. Commercial Thinning Activities - Within FRT units, thinning from below up to 21” dbh will occur on about 560 acres. Thinning prescriptions will focus on retaining healthy and vigorous dominant and co-dominant early seral conifer species. Prescriptions are designed to improve forest resiliency by reducing stand densities. Outside of the approximately 57 acres of thinning in even-aged lodgepole stands, the residual basal area will generally be between 100ft2 and 160ft2 (Table 4). Lodgepole stands (units 8, 9, 11) will have basal areas reduced to 50ft2 to promote establishment of western larch. Table 4. Current and Post-treatment basal area by forest resiliency thinning unit. Current Basal Post Treatment. Unit # Stand Type Acres Treatment Area (ft2) Basal Area (ft2) 1A Mixed Conifer 17 TFB 260 180 1B Mixed Conifer 20 TFB 260 180 2 Mixed Conifer 10 TFB 230 160 3 Mixed Conifer 2 TFB 230 160 4 Mixed Conifer 30 TFB 176 140 5 Mixed Conifer 51 TFB 228 150 6 Mixed Conifer 32 TFB 228 150 7 Mixed Conifer 53 TFB 218 150 8 Lodgepole 16 TFB 117 50 9 Lodgepole 16 TFB 117 50 11 Lodgepole 25 TFB 127 50 13 Mixed Conifer 19 TFB 266 160 14 Mixed Conifer 21 TFB 266 160 15 Mixed Conifer 49 TFB 266 160 17 Mixed Conifer 31 TFB 274 160 18 Mixed Conifer 38 TFB 296 150 19 Mixed Conifer 22 TFB 274 140 20 Mixed Conifer 28 TFB 274 140 21 Mixed Conifer 14 TFB 274 140 22 Mixed Conifer 7 TFB 274 140 23 Mixed Conifer 8 TFB 274 140

No mechanized equipment will operate in RHCAs adjacent to FRT units. In order to process harvest material away from the main Lostine road, and access the FRT units, short spurs, or “temporary roads” would be developed. About 2.5 miles of temporary road will be. Temporary roads will not be located in RHCAs. Temporary roads will be decommissioned following haul activities. Road maintenance activities would occur along the length of FR 8250 (11.2 miles) as needed for haul activities. Maintenance activities will likely include blading, spot rocking, and drainage work.

11 Non-commercial Thinning and Fuels Reduction Activities - All FRT units are proposed to be treated with a post-harvest fuels reduction thinning trees up to 7” dbh. The post-harvest fuels thinning within FRT units will generally leave around 50 understory trees per acre. For the purposes of this project understory trees are defined as those non-commercial trees between 1 to 7” dbh and at least 4.5’ tall. Spacing of retained understory trees will generally be of a variable distribution between 20 and 30 feet. . Activity and natural fuels (≤10” dbh) within FRT units will be machine piled and burned. No mechanized equipment will be operated in RHCAs. Aspen Stand Treatments – There are an estimated 5 acres of aspen present in FRT units in the project area. Thinning of competing conifers less than 21” dbh and prescribed burning will occur as needed to reduce competing vegetation and improve aspen stand conditions. Stand- specific prescriptions will be developed by the District Silviculturist and District Botanist.

5. Fuels Reduction Activities: Fuels reduction thinning within the project area outside of FRT units will occur to remove ladder fuels in the lower canopy. Fuels reduction thinning will include the removal of trees up to 9” dbh. Thinning and piling of slash would be accomplished by hand. Thinning in RHCAs will follow Blue Mountain PDC direction for riparian thinning and slash pile burning activities (Table 5). Fuels reduction thinning treatments will occur as funding becomes available and where determined to be appropriate and effective.

12 Table 5. Summary of Limited Activities for Non-Commercial Thinning and Prescribed Fire Activities in RHCA Buffers, Blue Mountain PDCs.

Permanently Seasonally Flowing Fish Bearing Flowing nonfish or Intermittent and Designated Bearing and Streams, wetlands Critical Ponds, Lakes and < 1 acres, PACFISH/ Habitat RHCA Restrictions wetlands > 1 landslides and INFISH Category Streams acres landslide-prone (300’) (Activities allowed outside (150’) areas the limited activity stream buffer**) (100’)

Activity Default Limited Activity Buffers

treatment by hand only (no ground based equipment) prior to treatment 500 – 2,500 stems per acre; post treatment fully stocked (generally 175 – 220 trees per

75’ on slopes < 50’ on slopes < acre) Thinning in 100’ 30% 30% variable spacing RHCAs all shade providing trees and long term wood recruitment trees retained only trees < 9” dbh treatment by hand only all shade providing, instream and long term wood

75’ on slopes < 50’ on slopes < recruitment trees retained Prescribed Fire in 100’ 30% 30% fully stocked canopy retained RHCAs hand applied ignition (such as drip torch or fusees) within the limited activity buffer, piles located outside the no activity RHCA buffer width and in locations to avoid damage to remaining overstory canopy

100’ 75’ 50’ hand piling only (no mechanical treatments) Slash Pile Burning maximum size four feet in height and six feet in diameter piles burned when there is a high soil moisture content

** RHCA restrictions are for the areas between the limited activity buffer and boundary of the full PACFISH buffer.

13 Summary of Proposed Activities – Table 6 summarizes the proposed activities for the Lostine Corridor Project. Table 6. Summary of proposed activities for the Lostine Corridor Project. Activity Amount Hazard Tree Mitigation 2000-3000 trees Forest Resiliency Treatments 460 acres Managed Patch Cut Treatments 6 acres Group Select Treatments 13 acres WUI Treatments 20 acres Fuels Reduction Treatments Project area wide Road Maintenance 11.2 miles Temporary Road Construction 2.5 miles

Relevant Design/Mitigation Features Protection measures for this project include both project design features and standard design elements. Project design features are action designed specifically for this project to reduce or prevent undesirable effects from proposed activities. They can include avoiding the effect, minimizing or mitigating the effect by limiting the action, rectifying the effect, reducing the effect through maintenance, or compensating for the effect. Following are the mitigation measures that relate to the aquatic resources. GN-3-- Limit processing, decking, loading, and slash pile locations to landings off Forest Service Road 8250. GN-4-- Limit haul and use of heavy equipment on Forest Service Road 8250 during July 1- September 30. GN-5-- If a feller-buncher is used and trees are skid whole tree, limit mechanized felling and skidding to winter time conditions or similar conditions. GN-6-- If a cut to length system is used, allow mechanized felling and skidding outside of winter-time conditions provided that a slash mat is used on skid trails. Harvester-processors or dangle heads will be allowed to operate between skid trails, provided their cutting pattern is a single pass. GN-7-- Use slash mats to maneuver vehicles across landscape to reduce soil disturbance if treatments are not carried during winter (over snow) conditions GN-8-- Block and rehabilitate all temporary roads and landings that are not associated with the firewood use group selects.

Aquatics AQ-1-- Refueling and servicing of equipment will occur outside of RHCAs. AQ-2-- Contractor will be required to have an approved Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) and any Petroleum product spill will be promptly reported.

14 AQ-3—Landings, decks, and temp roads would not be located in RHCAs. AQ-4—Mechanical equipment will not be operated off the Lostine River Road within RHCAs during hazard tree removal activities. AQ-5-- Landings would be rehabilitated after completion of timber harvest activities where needed to minimize bare soil conditions. Techniques may include subsoiling or scarifying, and seeding with a native herbaceous seed mix recommended by a Forest Service Botanist. AQ-6-- BMPs (e.g. scattering slash, seeding, waterbars) would be used as appropriate to minimize erosion from skid trails.

15 Forest Plan Direction (Aquatics) The following documents contain management direction regarding aquatic/riparian habitat and aquatic species in the analysis areas: • The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”; 1990) • The Lostine River Wild and Scenic Management Plan (1993) • Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (aka “PACFISH”, 1995) • The Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (SR spring Chinook salmon, SR fall Chinook salmon, SR sockeye salmon; NMFS, 1995) • Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management Plans for National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Resource Areas in the Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units (SR steelhead; NMFS, 1998) • Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management Plans for National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Resource Areas in the Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units (CR bull trout; USFWS, 1998) The WWNF Forest Plan was amended in 1995 with the PACFISH and INFISH Forest Plan Amendments. The analysis area includes areas managed by PACFISH. The goals of PACFISH are to maintain or restore: 1. Water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems; 2. Stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed; 3. Instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges; 4. Natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands; 5. Diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian zones; 6. Riparian vegetation to: a. Provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems; b. Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and aquatic zones; and c. Help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic of those which the communities developed. 7. Riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within the specific geo-climatic region; and 8. Habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian- dependent communities.

16 Adverse effects to riparian and aquatic habitats are minimized by restricting management activities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and adherence to PACFISH standards and guidelines (PACFISH 1995). RHCA widths for the Lostine Project are displayed in Table 7. RHCAs are estimated in GIS for planning and analysis purposes. RHCAs are delineated and marked during sale layout activities. Table 7. PACFISH RHCA widths for Lostine Corridor Project Area. RHCA Category Stream / Feature Type Description

Distance equal to 2 site potential trees or 300 feet slope 1 Fish Bearing Streams distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 150 feet slope 2 Perennial Nonfish Bearing Streams distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 150 feet slope 3 Ponds, Wetlands (>1 acre in size) distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 100 feet slope Intermittent Nonfish Bearing Streams, 4 distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever Wetlands (<1 acre in size) is greatest

Based on GIS, there are about 974 acres of streamside RHCAs in the action area. (Table 8). Table 8. Acres of Streamside RHCAs for the Lostine Corridor Project Area. RHCA Category Acres 1 515 2 148 4 311 Total 974

ESA-listed Fish Species

Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Fish Species

SR Steelhead (Threatened) SR steelhead were listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened under the federal ESA on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 15417). SR steelhead are present in the action area. SR steelhead present in the analysis area belong to the Wallowa River (MPG). The Wallowa River population is currently rated as viable though the lack of data adds some uncertainty (NOAA Fisheries 2014). Life History Steelhead are the anadromous form of Oncorhynchus mykiss. Adult summer steelhead return from the ocean to freshwater from June through September. Adults overwinter in large rivers while sexually maturing. Adults resume migration to spawning streams in early spring the

17 following year. Spawning takes place from March through May. Eggs incubate during the spring and emergence occurs from April through July depending on water temperatures. Juveniles typically spend two to three years in freshwater. Juvenile steelhead generally utilize habitats with higher water velocities than juvenile Chinook salmon. In winter, juveniles utilize deep pools with abundant cover. Juveniles may reside in their natal stream for their entire freshwater rearing phase or may migrate to other streams within a watershed. Smoltification occurs during late winter and emigration to the ocean occurs during spring. Summer steelhead typically rear for one to two years in the ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn. Distribution in Analysis Areas The Lostine River provides spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead in the analysis area (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of SR Steelhead in Analysis Area for the Lostine Corridor Project. Note: Critical habitat overlaps steelhead distribution.

19 Abundance Population estimates for steelhead in the analysis area are lacking. The Lostine steelhead population exceeds ODFW benchmarks for distribution, abundance, productivity, and independence from hatchery influence (ODFW 2005). Critical Habitat Description Critical habitat for SR steelhead is present in the action area. Critical habitat was designated for the SR steelhead DPS on February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764) and revised on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52808). Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches, and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high-water line (33 CFR 319.11). There is about 13 miles of critical habitat for SR steelhead in the analysis area (Table 9). Critical habitat for steelhead overlaps the current distribution of steelhead in the action area. Table 9. Miles of Steelhead Critical Habitat Present in the Action Area. Habitat use types: SR=spawning and rearing, FMO=feeding, migration, overwinter. Stream Habitat Use Type Miles

Lostine River SR 12.51

Silver Creek SR 0.33

Lake Creek SR 0.00

Total 12.84

SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (ESA Threatened) SR spring/summer Chinook salmon are present in the action area. SR spring/summer Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the ESA on April 22, 1992 (57 CFR 14653; see correction on June 3, 1992, 57 CFR 23458); threatened status reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 CFR 37160). Spring/summer Chinook salmon in the analysis area belong to the Lostine/Wallowa local population of the Grande Ronde/Imnaha MPG. The Lostine/Wallowa local population is currently rated as at high risk of extinction. The proposed minimum abundance threshold for recovery of the Lostine/Wallowa population is an abundance of 1000 (Draft Recovery Plan). Escapement estimates from 2002 to 2012 exceed the abundance threshold all years with a mean of 3,621 (Cleary et al. 2014). Life History Juvenile spring/summer Chinook salmon are generally associated with pool habitats. An increase in sediment lowers spawning success and reduces the quantity and quality of pool and interstitial habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian vegetation, undercut banks and LWD. Adult spring/summer Chinook salmon return to the Lostine River during the spring. Adults hold in deep pools during the summer while sexually maturing. Spawning occurs during fall, generally from August through September. Embryos incubate over the winter and emergence occurs the following spring. Juveniles generally rear for one year in freshwater and use habitats

20 with slower water velocities (pools, glides, and side channels). Juveniles overwinter in deep pools with abundant cover. Smoltification and emigration to the ocean occurs in the spring of their second year. The ocean rearing phase lasts from one to three years. Abundance The NPT annually monitors escapement to the Lostine River. From 2002 to 2012, escapement ranged from a high of 6,484 salmon in 2010 to a low of 2,429 adult Chinook salmon in 2007 (Cleary et al. 2014, Table 10). Table 10. Escapement of Adult Chinook Salmon to the Lostine River. (Source Cleary et al. 2014). Origin 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Natural 358 368 197 146 182 150 382 522 733 864 639

Hatchery 442 316 837 692 395 272 1005 1449 3741 2833 1230

Total 2802 2687 3038 2843 2583 2429 3395 3980 6484 5708 3881

Distribution in Action Area The Lostine River in the analysis area provides spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon spawning in the action areas occurs the in the Lostine River from the Forest Boundary to about French Camp where suitable spawning habitat is present. About 14% (range 4 - 32%) of the total Chinook salmon redds in the Lostine River are located within in the analysis area in any given year. The average number of redds in the analysis area is 68 with a range of 2- 221 redds.

Figure 3. Distribution of SR Spring/Summer Chinook salmon in the Lostine Corridor Project Action Area. French Camp is about the upper extent of spawning.

22 Critical Habitat Description Critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon is present in the action area. Critical habitat was designated for the SR spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543) and revised on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57399). Critical habitat consists of river reaches of the Columbia, Snake, and Salmon Rivers, and all tributaries of the Snake and Salmon Rivers presently or historically accessible to SR spring/summer Chinook salmon (except reaches above impassible natural falls and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams). Critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon is described as “all accessible stream reaches” by NOAA Fisheries (64 FR 57399). Using Category 1 streams in the analysis area as a surrogate for “all accessible stream reaches”, there are about 14 miles of critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon in the analysis area (Table 11). Table 11. Miles of Critical Habitat for Spring/summer Chinook Salmon in Analysis Area. Stream Habitat Use Type Miles

Lostine River Spawning and Rearing 12.51

Silver Creek Rearing 0.33

Lake Creek Rearing 0.74

Total 13.58

Bull Trout (ESA Threatened) CR bull trout are present in the action area. CR bull trout were listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened under the federal ESA on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). The analysis area is located in the Wallowa/Minam Rivers core area of the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit (USFWS 2015). Primary threats identified in the Recovery Plan for the Wallowa/Minam Rivers core area are: 1) land use activities resulted in high water temperatures and low flows that degrade habitat quality and impede connectivity, particularly in FMO habitats; and 2) presence of brook trout that has resulted in hybridization and increased competition. Both of these factors are affecting the Lostine River population. The Lostine River local population consists of both resident and fluvial life histories. The 5-Year Status review rated the Lostine River population as stable with “at risk” of extinction (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/5-yr%20Review/BTFINAL_42508.pdf, accessed 5/17/2016) Life History Characteristics Bull trout spawn from approximately September 1 to October 31. Hatching may occur in winter or early spring (McPhail and Murray 1979). Emergence from gravels occurs at the end of April. Growth, maturation, and longevity vary with environment; first spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living 10 or more years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Two distinct life history forms, fluvial and resident, occur in inland bull trout populations (Pratt 1992, Buchanan et al. 1997). Fluvial forms rear in natal tributaries for one to four years before moving to larger rivers to mature. Fluvial bull trout may use a wide range of habitats ranging from second to sixth order streams and varying by season and life stage. They live for another

23 two to four years in these larger systems, growing to much larger sizes than resident forms, before returning to natal tributaries to spawn (Meehan and Bjornn 1991). Seasonal movements may range up to 300 km as migratory fish move from spawning and rearing areas into overwintering habitat in downstream reaches of larger basins (Bjornn and Mallet 1964, Elle et al., 1994). The resident form may be restricted to headwater streams throughout life. Both forms are believed to exist together in some areas, but migratory fish may dominate populations where corridors and subadult rearing areas are in good condition (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Status of Population in Action Area The Lostine River population was considered a moderately-strong population within the Grande Ronde Sub basin (Buchanan et al. 1997). The Lostine River population had a decrease in redd counts in 2015 (28 compared to 44 in 2014). The Lostine River contains brook trout. While the degree of hybridization between brook trout and bull trout is unknown; observations during spawning surveys suggests bull trout spawning with brook trout and hybridization is much more likely than past information has shown. Distribution in Action Area CR bull trout are present in the Lostine River and may be present in the lower reaches of Lake Creek and Silver Creek. The Lostine River in the analysis area provides the primary spawning and rearing habitat for the Lostine population. Abundance The following abundance information for bull trout in the analysis area is from the 2015 Bull Trout Redd Monitoring Report (USFWS 2016): “Twenty-eight total bull trout redds for 10.1 miles of survey, including Pole Bridge to Six Mile Bridge, were documented in 2015 on the Lostine River. The Pole Bridge to Six Mile Bridge section has not been surveyed every year. The following data for the Lostine River compares consistently surveyed index areas on the Lostine River (8.5 miles) from 1999 to 2015, excluding the Pole Bridge to Six Mile section (Figure 2). The Lostine River had a low of 19 redds in 2011, and a high of 70 redds in 2003. Redd numbers decreased again in 2004 but had been increasing through 2008. Redd numbers decreased in 2009 through 2011, with the lowest redd count in 2011, and increased in 2012 and decreased again in 2013, with a slight increase in 2014, compared to 2013 with a decrease in 2015. The fifteen-year average from 1999 to 2015 (subtracting out 2003, which had an outlier of 70 redds) for the Lostine River is 35.1 redds, approximately 70.2 percent of the high of fifty redds found in 2008 and 2012. The highest bull trout redd numbers (“the bread and butter”) within the Lostine River has consistently been observed and recorded in the headwaters, from Shady Campground to Bowman, at approximately River Mile (RM) 24.5 to RM 22. In 2015, as in most years, the densities were greatest in the uppermost reach, from Shady Campground to French Camp, which is upstream of the chinook spawning index areas. In 2015, both upper reaches, Shady Campground to French Camp and French Camp to Bowman had the highest redd densities (15, and 11, respectively).”

Figure 4. Comparison of bull trout surveyed redds and index redds (comparable miles) documented from 1999 to 2015 on the Lostine River (USFWS 2015).

Figure 5. Distribution of CR Bull Trout in Analysis Area for the Lostine Corridor Project.

26 Critical Habitat Description Critical habitat for CR bull trout is present in the action area. The USFWS issued a Final Rule for bull trout critical habitat for the coterminous United States on January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2270). Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the opposite bank. Critical habit for CR bull trout is present in the analysis area (Figure 5). Critical habitat in the analysis area consists of about 14 miles spawning and rearing habitat (Table 12). Table 12. Miles of Bull Trout Critical Habitat Present in the Lostine Corridor analysis area. Habitat use types: SR=spawning and rearing, FMO=feeding, migration, overwinter. Stream Habitat Use Type Miles

Lostine River SR 12.51

Silver Creek SR 0.33

Lake Creek SR 0.74

Total 13.58

Figure 6. Critical Habitat for CR Bull Trout in Analysis Area for the Lostine Corridor Project.

28 Environmental Baseline

Aquatic Habitat There are four fish-bearing (PACFISH Category 1) streams in the action area: Lostine River, E.F. Lostine River, Silver Creek, and Lake Creek. There are a total of 11.2 miles of Category 1 streams, 3.5 miles of Category 2 streams, and 10.7 miles of Category 4 streams in the analysis area (Table 13). Table 13. Miles of Streams in the Action Area. Category 1=Fish bearing, Category 2=Perennial Nonfish Bearing, Category 4=Intermittent Nonfish Bearing. Stream Category Miles in Action Area 1 11.2 2 3.5 4 10.7

Critical aquatic habitat elements as defined by the 1990 Forest Plan (including the 1995 PACFISH amendment) and the 1995 and 1998 Forest Plan Biological Opinions (“FP BiOps”) include: 1) pool frequency, 2) water temperature, 3) large woody debris, 4) bank stability (nonforested systems), 5) width to depth ratio, and 6) fine sediment levels. These habitat elements can be important indicators of aquatic habitat function and health. Riparian management objectives (RMOs) were developed as part of PACFISH to provide criteria for managers to compare existing stream habitat conditions to criteria that constitutes good habitat for anadromous fish (PACFISH 1995). RMOs are defined by PACFISH as “Quantifiable measures of stream- and streamside conditions that define good anadromous fish habitat, and serve as indicators against which attainment, or progress toward attainment, of the goals will be measured.” (PACFISH 1995). Default RMOs came from a review and synthesis of data from stream inventories and monitoring studies throughout the western United States where “high quality” habitat occurred (PACFISH 1995). PACFISH RMOs are meant to apply to two broad-based ecosystems– forested and nonforested ecosystems (PACFISH 1995). The pool frequency RMO is considered a key feature and applies to both forested and nonforested systems. Supplemental features include: water temperature (all systems), large woody debris (forested systems), bank stability (nonforested systems), lower bank angle (nonforested systems, and width/depth ratio (all systems). The intent of these RMOs was to provide benchmarks to agency biologists and managers for evaluating the current conditions of streams and to initiate changes in management where management activities were preventing the attainment of RMOs. PACFISH states that RMOs must be met to consider anadromous habitat to be in good condition. However, the utility of PACFISH RMOs and other similar channel-based indicators have been questioned with regards to their sensitivity to management activities and for describing high quality fish habitat (Reid and Furniss, 1998; Kershner and Roper, 2010). Additionally, PACFISH does not specify the methodology with which channel-based RMOs are measured. Natural variability in stream channel dimensions/characteristics through time, variability in monitoring methodologies, and variability in observers can result in wide

29 differences in measurements of PACFISH RMOs (Whitacre et al., 2007, Al-Chokhachy et al., 2001). A watershed analysis for the Lostine River Watershed was completed in 1997. As part of the analysis, watershed-specific RMOs were developed for the Lostine River. The watershed analysis concluded that the existing condition of habitat elements reflected the natural potential of the system and therefore the existing condition of habitat elements were adopted as RMOs (Table 14). Table 14: Habitat summary data for the Lostine River on NFS Lands. Reaches 1 – 3 are in the action area. Reach 4 located in Eagle Cap Wilderness upstream of the action area. Shading indicates that a habitat element is meeting Forest Plan RMOs and FP BiOp indicators. N/D= No Data. Length Wetted Pieces Embeddedness % Stable Reach (miles) Width Pools/Mile1 W/D Ratio LWD/Mile (%) Banks (feet)

Reach 1 5.1 38.3 3.7 78.2 13.5 13.0 91.7

Reach 2 2.9 40.1 7.3 67.3 33.3 27.9 83.1

Reach 3 3.8 31.8 11.6 138.8 21.8 25.9 76.7

Reach 4 5.4 21.9 7.0 15.2 34.7 13.4 65.4

RMO/Indicator See Note 1 See Note 1 See Note 1 See Note 1 See Note 1 1) Existing condition of RMOs reflect natural potential, 1997 Lostine River Watershed Analysis

Effects of Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects to Forest Plan RMOs Time frames for direct/indirect effects to aquatic habitat are: short-term (0 to 5 years), mid-term (5 to 10 years), and long-term (10+ years). The analysis of direct and indirect effects to riparian and aquatic habitat will focus on the potential effects to: 1) the fine sediment RMO (i.e. potential increases in fine sediment levels in streams in response to potential increases in erosion rates from proposed thinning and prescribed burning activities); 2) the water temperature RMO (i.e. potential reductions in shading as a result of prescribed burning and thinning activities in RHCAs): and the LWD RMO (i.e. potential decreases in future LWD levels as a result of hazard tree mitigation, prescribed burning and thinning activities in RHCAs). Impacts to pool habitat, width-to-depth, and streambank stability RMOs are unlikely since proposed activities will not occur adjacent to fish bearing streams.

Fine Sediment RMO Ecological Importance of RMO Composition of the stream substrate is an important feature of aquatic habitat. Cobble and gravel substrates provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of benthic macroinvertebrates as well as eggs and early life stages of numerous fish species. Macroinvertebrates represent a substantial portion of the diet available to various fish species, particularly stream dwelling salmonids.

30 Fine sediment in streams is a normal component of salmonid habitat; however, major disruptions of aquatic ecosystems occur when sediment levels substantially exceed natural levels. Filling of interstitial spaces (i.e. the gaps between rocks on the stream bottom) with fine sediment (particles < 2 mm in size) eliminates habitat for many macroinvertebrates. Fish eggs and early life stages can also be buried and smothered when interstitial spaces are embedded with fine sediment. Studies have shown that an increase in 1-3mm size sand from 20% to 30% can decrease emergent survival of salmonid species from 65% down to 40% (Phillips et al. 1975). Fine sediments are known to impact fry emergence and survival, and fine sediment (<6.5mm in size) levels above 40% can effectively eliminate salmonid populations and many macroinvertebrate species (Everest and Harr 1982). Winter habitat for juvenile salmonids is also lost as interstitial spaces in cobble-sized and larger streambed material are embedded with fine sediment. Increases in fine sediment can occur from both increased transport of fine sediment from upland areas and from destabilized stream banks. Increases can result from both episodic sources such as wildfires or from chronic sources such a native surface roads. Episodic sources normally result in short-term increases that return to pre-disturbance levels through natural recovery processes. Chronic sources can result in long-term changes of stream channels, aquatic habitat, and aquatic communities. Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines The PACFISH amendment (1995) did not include an RMO for fine sediment. As part of the ESA consultations for the Forest Plan the WWNF received a term and condition to include the following RMO for fine sediment: <20% fine sediment (particles <6.4mm in size) in spawning areas or < 30% embeddedness (NMFS 1995, 1998). Existing Conditions Fine sediment levels in the Lostine River reflect the natural potential of the watershed (Lostine Watershed Analysis). Effects of the Proposed Action Hazard Tree Mitigation Under the proposed action, hazard trees along FR 8250 would be felled. Hazard trees in the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River and within 200 feet of the Lostine River would be left on site. Hazard trees within this area that are on the uphill side of the road would be felled and removed. Hazard trees in the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River and greater than 200 feet from the river would be felled and removed. All mechanized equipment would be operated from the FR 8250; no off-road mechanized equipment operation would occur in the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River. Proposed hazard tree mitigation activities have the potential to result in small localized areas of bare soil due to soil disturbing activities as trees are felled and yarded to the road for processing. Commercial Thinning (> 9 inches) Under the proposed action, commercial thinning (thinning of material > 9 inches dbh) activities using mechanical equipment would occur over about 536 acres. The prescription for the commercial thinning units is a thin from below with an upper diameter limit of 21 dbh while managing for fire adapted species (Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa pine). Post-treatment basal area will reduced to the lower management zone for stand type where possible.

31 Ground disturbing activities (i.e. yarding, development and use of skid trails and landings) would generally be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. PACFISH RHCA widths were designed to provide a sufficient area to trap most fine sediment generated from upslope management activities such as timber harvest and ground-based yarding, and eliminate adverse effects to fish species from these activities (PACFISH 1995). In order to access thinning units an estimated 10 crossings of Category 4 RHCAs will be used. BMPs (brush mats, hardened crossings, etc.) will be used to reduce the potential for fine sediment at the crossing sites. There is a low likelihood of increased erosion rates in the project area from proposed commercial thinning activities. Therefore, increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat are likely to be immeasurable. Noncommercial Fuels Reduction Thinning (≤ 9 inches) Under the proposed action, noncommercial thinning (thinning of material ≤ 9 inches dbh) activities would occur over about 536 acres in the action area. Fuels reduction thinning would occur in the same units as the commercial thin and would occur after commercial thinning activities are completed. Areas outside RHCAs would be thinned using mechanized equipment. Thinning in RHCAs would be hand. BMPDC no-activity buffers from would be used in RHCAs. Slash piles within RHCAs would be located outside BMPDC no-activity buffers and in locations that avoid damage to remaining overstory canopy. Ground disturbing activities would generally be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. PACFISH RHCA widths were designed to provide a sufficient area to trap most fine sediment generated from upslope management activities such as timber harvest and ground-based yarding, and eliminate adverse effects to fish species from these activities (PACFISH 1995). There is a low likelihood of increased erosion rates in the project area from proposed commercial thinning activities. Therefore, increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat are likely to be immeasurable. Group Select Cuts Under the proposed action, 8 group select cuts up to 2 acres in size would be created (16 acres total). Group select cuts result in all trees < 21 dbh being removed from an area. Once the trees are removed the area is replanted with desired tree species (western larch). Group select areas will be located outside of RHCAs. Group select activities would be accomplished using mechanized equipment. Ground disturbing activities (i.e. yarding, development and use of skid trails and landings) would be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. PACFISH RHCA widths were designed to provide a sufficient area to trap most fine sediment generated from upslope management activities such as timber harvest and ground-based yarding, and eliminate adverse effects to fish species from these activities (PACFISH 1995). There is a low likelihood of increased erosion rates in the project area from proposed commercial thinning activities. Therefore, increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat are likely to be immeasurable. Prescribed Fire Activities Prescribed burning would occur in RHCAs in addition to upland areas in the project area. Fire ignition would not occur within RHCAs; however low intensity prescribed fire would be allowed to burn into RHCAs. Prescribed burning under conditions that would: avoid entirely consuming sound logs 6 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length (10,000 hour fuels) to limit impacts to downed wood in RHCAs and thus limiting increases in erosion rates and fine sediment in streams. Overall, the burn pattern where burning activities occur would result in a mosaic of

32 unburned areas and burned patches. In general, prescribed fire ignition would not occur in RHCAs. Instead, prescribed fire would be allowed to burn into RHCAs from adjacent upslope areas (i.e. backing fire). This technique reduces fire severity and results in a patchy burn in RHCAs. Monitoring of erosion rates following prescribed fire activities indicates that slope, burn severity, and the occurrence and timing of major rainfall events following burning are important determinants for post-fire erosion rates (Harris et al. 2007). While increases in erosion rates following prescribed burning have been documented, resulting increases in fine sediment levels in streams have not. Monitoring of fine sediment levels in streams in conjunction with prescribed burning in the Sierra Nevada in California (Beche et al., 2005) and the South Fork Salmon River area of Idaho (Arkle and Pilliod, 2010) revealed no increases in fine sediment. Harris et al. (2007) concluded that prescribed fire and fuels treatments in uplands implemented under normal operating conditions are unlikely to be measurable, or detectable in tributaries because effects are small and well with the range of variability of natural erosion rates. Fire severity resulting from proposed burning would not be high enough to consume significant quantities of downed wood that play a role in trapping fine sediment on hill slopes, in intermittent stream channels, and on floodplains. Some ground cover would be consumed but would be quickly replaced as litter fall occurs in the first year following burning and herbaceous plants recover in the second year following burning. A measurable increase in fine sediment in stream channels as a result of burning activities is unlikely due to the combination of a predicted patchy, low severity burn in RHCAs and typical recovery of ground cover within two years of prescribed burning. Transportation System Activities FR 8250 would be used as a haul route for commercial haul activities. FR 8250 is double lane road with a crushed aggregate surface from the Forest Boundary to MP 4.95 (Lostine Guard Station). Objective maintenance level is a 4 and operation maintenance level is a 3. FR 8250 is single lane road with turnouts with an improved native surface from MP 4.95 (Lostine Guard Station), to MP 11.08 (Two Pan Trailhead/Campground). Objective maintenance level is a 3 and operational maintenance level is a 2. There are about 6.6 miles of FR 8250 present in the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River in the action area. Additionally FR 8250 crosses 32 Category 4 streams 5 Category 2 streams, and 1 Category 1 stream, Lake Creek, in the action area. FR 8250 would be maintained to standard to protect road surfaces and reduce potential for erosion from road surfaces. Rates of sediment delivery from unpaved roads are closely correlated to traffic volume on unpaved roads (Reid and Dunne 1984, Sullivan and Duncan 1981). Reid and Dunne (1984) found that erosion from roads in the Coast Range of Washington varied with traffic volume; averaging from 354 tons/km/yr. for heavily used roads to 0.14 tons/km/yr. for lightly used roads to 0.006 tons/km/yr. for abandoned roads. Haul activities for the Lostine Corridor project will likely result in a short-term increase in erosion rates from FR 8250 due to the increase in traffic and heavier loads compared to normal recreational traffic on the road.

33 Water Temperature RMO Ecological Importance of RMO Water temperature influences the metabolism, behavior, and health of fish and other aquatic organisms. Fish can survive at temperatures near extremes of suitable temperature ranges. However, growth is reduced at low temperatures because all metabolic processes are slowed. At the opposite extreme, growth is reduced at high temperatures because most or all energy from food must be used for maintenance needs. Fish are also more susceptible to diseases near the extremes of their suitable temperature ranges. A large range of temperature preferences for redband trout/rainbow trout, steelhead and Chinook salmon have been reported in the literature, with substantial regional variability. In general, redband trout, steelhead and Chinook salmon occupy waterbodies with water temperatures from 55 to 64°F and bull trout occupy waterbodies with water temperatures from 40 to 55°F. Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines The Forest Plan water temperature standards are to meet state water quality standards and prevent measurable increases in water temperature (Forest Plan, 1990; PACFISH 1995). The water temperature RMO for PACFISH is to maintain maximum water temperatures below 64°F within migration and rearing habitat and below 60°F within spawning habitats (Maximum 7-day mean maximum). Existing Conditions Water temperatures in the Lostine River reflect the natural potential of the watershed (Lostine Watershed Analysis). Table 15. Water temperature data for streams in the Analysis Area. Max 7-day Years Monitored Site RMO Mean Max Stream Year (from July – Temperature (RM) (ºF) September) (ºF)

Wilderness Boundary Lostine River (25.0) 60 49.6 1996 1996

Shady Campground Lostine River (23.9) 60 59.8 2007 2001,2005,2006,2007

Effects of the Proposed Action Commercial Thinning Activities Thinning activities would not occur in RHCAs under the proposed action. Restricting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along perennial streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. The RHCA width adjacent to these streams, 300 feet for Category 1 streams and 200 feet for Category 2 streams, are sufficient to prevent removal of trees that provide stream shading. Therefore, measurable increases in stream temperatures are unlikely to result from proposed thinning activities adjacent to RHCAs.

34 Group Select Cuts Under the proposed action, group select cuts would not occur RHCAs. RHCA widths for all RHCA categories are wider than a site potential tree height (≈ 100 ft). Therefore there would be no effects to shading along streams in the action area.

Prescribed Fire Activities Proposed burning activities would result in a low severity fire in RHCAs adjacent to perennial streams in the project area. Fire ignition would not occur within RHCAs; however low intensity prescribed fire would be allowed to burn into RHCAs. Prescribed burning would occur under conditions that would minimize impacts to overstory vegetation thus limiting impacts to stream shading and water temperature. These techniques result in low intensity fires that burn in a patchy distribution of burned and unburned areas in RHCAs. Trees killed by prescribed fire in RHCAs would primarily be understory trees (≤ 8” dbh). Understory trees of this size typically do not provide significant levels of stream shading. Under fall burning conditions, the percentage of burned area typically ranges from 40 to 60% with flame heights ranging from 1 to 2 feet. Based on these burning conditions the predicted range of mortality of overstory trees (trees >14” dbh) would range from 5 to 13% of less fire tolerant species such as grand fir in burned areas. The predicted mortality for more fire tolerant species, such as Douglas fir or ponderosa pine, would likely range from a low of 3 to 7% in the burned area. Based on the high end of predicted fire intensities (2’ flame lengths, 60% burned area) this would result in the mortality of about 3% of overstory trees in the shade producing zone of the RHCA (within about 100’ of the stream channel). Therefore, the risk of a measurable increase in stream temperatures as a result of mortality of overstory trees is low. Few riparian shrubs are also expected to be killed as a result of the proposed burning because they are present in the moister riparian areas. Where the above ground portions of riparian shrubs are killed, they would likely sprout back relatively quickly because the low severity fire would not be hot enough to kill the roots. The proposed burning in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams poses little risk of increasing stream temperatures because these streams are normally dry during the summer and fall months. Based on these factors, the Lostine Corridor Project is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water temperature and a degradation of aquatic habitat in streams in the aquatic effects analysis area.

LWD RMO Ecological Importance of RMO LWD is a major feature of streams in the PNW. LWD increases channel complexity and salmonid populations with higher levels of LWD resulting in higher levels of channel complexity and higher levels of salmonids (Bisson and Sedell 1984, Bisson et al. 1987). In general, pool habitat increases as LWD increases (Dollof and Warren, 2003; Montgomery et al., 1995). Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines The PACFISH RMO for streams east of the Cascade crest is greater than 20 pieces per mile; with piece size greater than 12” in diameter and greater than 35’ in length.

35 Existing Conditions The Lostine River in the analysis area is meeting the RMO for LWD (Table 14). Effects of the Proposed Action Hazard Tree Mitigation There are an estimated 2500 hazard trees along 11.2 mile length of FR 8250. There are an estimated 2000 hazard trees in the Lostine River RHCA and another 500 hazard trees in Category 4 RHCAs. Category 1 RHCAs: Under the proposed action, hazard trees along FR 8250 would be mitigated. Hazard trees along westside of FR 8250 and within 200 feet of the Lostine River would be felled towards the river and left on site where possible. Hazard trees within this area that are on the eastside (uphill side) of the road would be felled and removed. Hazard trees in the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River and greater than 200 feet from the river would be felled and removed. Hazard trees in the inner 200 ft of the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to Lake Creek would be felled and left on site where possible. Hazard trees in the outer 100 ft of the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to Lake Creek would be felled and removed, except as above. Category 2 RHCAs: Hazard trees in the inner 100 ft of Category 2 RHCAs would be felled and left on site where possible. Hazard trees in the outer 50 ft of Category 2 RHCAs would be felled and removed. Category 4 RHCAs: Hazard trees in the inner 50 ft of Category 4 RHCAs would be felled and left on site where possible. Hazard trees in the outer 50 ft of Category 4 RHCAs would be felled and removed. Hazard tree mitigation activities along FR 8250 are expected to minor impacts to future LWD levels in the action area. Under the proposed action, hazard trees along FR 8250 would be felled. A site potential tree in the analysis area is about 100 ft in height (Clint Foster, WMO Silviculturist). About 1 mile of FR 8250 is within 100 feet of the Lostine River. Majority of hazard trees within 200 ft of the Lostine River and Lake Fork will be felled and left on site. Some hazard tress within 200 ft of the Lostine River and Lake Fork will be cut and removed because they cannot be cut and left on site safely. A similar situation will likely occur in Category 2 RHCAs. Hazard tree mitigation activities will result in a decrease in future LWD in Category 4 streams because a site potential tree is greater than 50 ft tall. However, PACFISH does not specify an RMO for non-fish bearing streams. Commercial Thinning (> 9 inches) Under the proposed action, commercial thinning (thinning of material > 9 inches dbh) activities using mechanical equipment would not occur in RHCAs. RHCA widths for all RHCA categories are wider than a site potential tree height (≈ 100 ft). Therefore, proposed commercial thinning activities are unlikely to affect LWD levels in streams in the action area. Noncommercial Fuels Reduction Thinning (≤ 9 inches) Under the proposed action, noncommercial thinning (thinning of material ≤ 9 inches dbh) activities would occur in RHCAs as prescribed by BMPDCs. Thinning in RHCAs would be hand. BMPDC no-activity buffers from would be used in RHCAs (Appendix B). Thinning of trees ≤ 9 inch is unlikely to impact future LWD levels in streams in the action area. These trees

36 are suppressed and are unlikely to grow to a size that would contribute to LWD levels if left uncut. Modelling for the project area indicates that there is unlikely to be a growth response from residual trees following thinning of trees ≤ 9 inches in RHCAs (Clint Foster, WMO silviculturalist).

Group Select Cuts Under the proposed action, group select cuts would not occur RHCAs. RHCA widths for all RHCA categories are wider than a site potential tree height (≈ 100 ft). Therefore there would be no effects to future LWD levels in streams in the action area.

Prescribed Fire Activities Prescribed burning would occur in RHCAs in addition to upland areas in the project area. Fire ignition would not occur within RHCAs; however low intensity prescribed fire would be allowed to burn into RHCAs. Prescribed burning under conditions that would: avoid entirely consuming sound logs 6 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length (10,000 hour fuels) to limit impacts to downed wood in RHCAs and thus limiting consumption of existing LWD. Monitoring of erosion rates following prescribed fire activities indicates that slope, burn severity, and the occurrence and timing of major rainfall events following burning are important determinants for post-fire erosion rates (Harris et al. 2007). While increases in erosion rates following prescribed burning have been documented, resulting increases in fine sediment levels in streams have not. Monitoring of fine sediment levels in streams in conjunction with prescribed burning in the Sierra Nevada in California (Beche et al., 2005) and the South Fork Salmon River area of Idaho (Arkle and Pilliod, 2010) revealed no increases in fine sediment. Harris et al. (2007) concluded that prescribed fire and fuels treatments in uplands implemented under normal operating conditions are unlikely to be measurable, or detectable in tributaries because effects are small and well with the range of variability of natural erosion rates. Fire severity resulting from proposed burning would not be high enough to consume significant quantities of downed wood that play a role in trapping fine sediment on hill slopes, in intermittent stream channels, and on floodplains. Some ground cover would be consumed but would be quickly replaced as litter fall occurs in the first year following burning and herbaceous plants recover in the second year following burning. A measurable increase in fine sediment in stream channels as a result of burning activities is unlikely due to the combination of a predicted patchy, low severity burn in RHCAs and typical recovery of ground cover within two years of prescribed burning.

Pool, Width-to Depth and Streambank Stability RMOs Pool Habitat Effects of the Proposed Action Pool habitat in the Lostine River reflect the natural potential of the watershed (Lostine Watershed Analysis). Impacts the RMO for pool habitat are unlikely to result from thinning activities. Thinning activities will not occur in RHCAs under the proposed action. PACFISH RHCA widths are sufficient to eliminate impacts to future LWD that originates from the streamside zone for

37 Category1 and 2 streams. The RHCA width for both of these streams categories is greater than the average site potential tree height for the project area. Impacts the RMO for pool habitat are unlikely to result from burning activities. Fire intensities in RHCAs during prescribed burning activities will be lower than needed to consume existing LWD. Prescribed burning activities in RHCAs will result in minor mortality of trees. This has the potential to increase poll habitat through increased LWD inputs, though again, based on the stream survey data there is no clear relationship between LWD levels and the number of pools in the Lostine River (Table 10). Width-to-Depth Ratio, Streambank Stability Effects of the Proposed Action As noted earlier, the Lostine River in the analysis area is within the expected ranges for width-to- depth ratios (Table 14). Impacts to width-to-depth ratio will not occur because activities that could result in mechanical bank disturbance will not occur adjacent to Category 1 streams under the proposed action. Some limited areas of decreased bank stability may occur where herbaceous vegetation along streambanks is top-killed during burning activities. These areas are likely to be small (less than 100 feet in length) and of limited duration (< 5 years). Expected increases in fine sediment in streams will be immeasurable and will not reach a level where streambank erosion would be initiated. Therefore changes in width-to-depth ratios and streambank stability are unlikely.

Effects to ESA Matrix Habitat Indicators When consulting on Forest Service proposed actions, a determination of the direct and indirect effects to listed fish and their habitat indicators is completed. This involves an analysis of the existing baseline condition for the project area, coupled with a specific analysis of the effects the project may have on the life history of the listed fish. Guidance for making this biological determination is provided by Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale (NMFS 1996) and A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale (USFWS 1998). This guidance is based on a “Matrix of Pathways and Indicators” (Matrix), provides the information required to characterize environmental baseline conditions and predict the effect of human activities on them. This guidance provides a consistent approach for analysis of impacts to listed fish species and their habitat including designated critical habitat. Effects to the functionality of the habitat indicators are rated as follows: 1) Restore: to change the function of a “functioning at risk” indicator to “functioning appropriately”, or change the function of a “functioning at unacceptable risk” indicator to “functioning at risk or “functioning appropriately” (i.e. it does not apply to “functioning appropriately” indicators). 2) Maintain: the function of an indicator does not change (i.e. it applies to all indicators regardless of functional level). 3) Degrade: to change the function of an indicator for the worse (i.e. it applies to all indicators regardless of functional level). The matrix used to assess impacts to SR spring/summer Chinook salmon is the same as used for SR steelhead (NMFS 1996). Therefore the analysis used for determining impacts to matrix habitat indicators (Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate, Temperature, LWD, Disturbance History,

38 Riparian Conservation Areas, and Road Density indicators) for SR steelhead are applicable to SR spring/summer Chinook Salmon. The matrix used to assess impacts to CR bull trout is similar to the matrix used for SR steelhead (NMFS 1996, USFWS 1998). There are minor differences in the groupings and labeling of habitat indicators. The major differences with regard to habitat indicators is that the numeric criteria for 1) the temperature indicator differ due to the lower temperatures required by bull trout compared to steelhead and Chinook salmon and 2) the Road Density indicator. The analysis used for determining impacts to matrix habitat indicators (Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate, LWD, Disturbance History, and Riparian Reserves/Conservation Areas) for SR steelhead and SR spring/summer Chinook salmon is applicable to CR bull trout. The Temperature and Road Density indicators are discussed separately for bull trout. Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline for the subwatersheds encompassing the analysis area are rated overall as “Functioning at Risk” (Table 16). The ratings are based on habitat data and professional judgement. Activities proposed under the Lostine Corridor Project have the potential affect the following Matrix Indicators: 1) Sediment/Turbidity/ Substrate, 2) Temperature, 3) LWD, 4) Disturbance History, and 5) Riparian Conservation Areas.

39 Table 16. Current multi-species matrix ratings for the two subwatersheds in the analysis area for the Lostine Corridor Project Area: Lostine River-Silver Creek (170601050203); Lostine River-Lake Creek (170601050202) Functioning Functioning at Diagnostic or Pathway Functioning at Risk Appropriately Unacceptable Risk Water Quality Indicators

Temperature (Steelhead/Salmon) 202, 203

Temperature (Bull Trout) 202, 203

Sediment/Turbidity 202, 203

Chemical Contamination/ Nutrients 202, 203

Habitat Access Indicators

Physical Barriers 202, 203

Habitat Elements Indicators

Substrate 202, 203

Large Woody Debris 202, 203

Pool Quality/ Frequency 202, 203

Off-Channel Habitat 202, 203

Refugia 202, 203

Channel Condition and Dynamics Indicators Width/Depth Ratio 202, 203

Streambank Condition 202, 203

Floodplain Connectivity 202, 203

Flow/ Hydrology Indicators:

Change in Peak/Base Flows 202, 203

Increase in Drainage Network 202, 203

Watershed Conditions Indicators

Road Density (Steelhead/Salmon) 202, 203

Road Density (Bull Trout) 202, 203

Disturbance History 202, 203

Riparian Conservation Areas 202, 203

Disturbance Regime 202, 203

Overall SWS Rating 202, 203

40 Temperature Indicator (SR Steelhead, SR Spring/Summer Chinook salmon) Table 17. ESA Matrix Criteria for Temperature Indicator (SR Steelhead, SR Spring/Summer Chinook salmon) (NMFS 1996) Species Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

Steelhead, Chinook Salmon 50-57° F 57-60°F (spawning) > 60°F (spawning) 57-64°F (migration & rearing) > 64°F (migration & rearing)

Currently the 2 subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning Appropriately’ for the Temperature habitat indicator (Table 16). Effects of the Proposed Action Thinning activities would not occur in RHCAs under the proposed action. Restricting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along perennial streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. The RHCA width adjacent to these streams, 300 feet for Category 1 streams and 200 feet for Category 2 streams, are sufficient to prevent removal of trees that provide stream shading. Therefore, measurable increases in stream temperatures are unlikely to result from proposed thinning activities. Prescribe burning activities may result in some patchy tree mortality in RHCAs however; the predicted mortality is not likely to result in a measurable reduction in shading or a measurable increase in water temperatures in streams. Therefore, a measurable change in the water temperature habitat indicator is not expected and would be maintained in its current condition. Temperature Indicator (Bull Trout) Table 18. ESA Matrix Criteria for Temperature Indicator (Bull Trout) (USFWS 1998) Functioning at Unacceptable Species Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Risk

Bull Trout 7 day average maximum 7 day average maximum 7 day average maximum temperature in a reach during temperature in a reach during temperature in a reach during the following life history stages: the following life history stages: the following life history stages: incubation 2 - 5°C incubation <2°C or 6°C incubation <1°C or >6°C rearing 4 - 12 °C rearing <4°C or 13 - 15°C rearing >15 °C spawning 4 - 9°C spawning <4 °C or 10°C spawning <4 °C or > 10°C also temperatures do not exceed also temperatures sometimes also temperatures regularly 15°C in areas used by adults exceeds 15°C in areas used by exceeds 15°C in areas used by during migration (no thermal adults during migration (no adults during migration (no barriers) thermal barriers) thermal barriers)

Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as functioning at risk for the water temperature indicator for bull trout (Table 16). Effects of the Proposed Action Thinning activities would not occur in RHCAs under the proposed action. Restricting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along perennial streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. The RHCA width adjacent to these streams, 300 feet for Category 1 streams and 200 feet for Category 2 streams, are sufficient to

41 prevent removal of trees that provide stream shading. Therefore, measurable increases in stream temperatures are unlikely to result from proposed thinning activities. Prescribe burning activities may result in some patchy tree mortality in RHCAs however; the predicted mortality is not likely to result in a measurable reduction in shading or a measurable increase in water temperatures in streams. Therefore, a measurable change in the water temperature habitat indicator is not expected and would be maintained in its current condition. Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate Indicators Table 19. ESA Matrix Criteria for Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate Indicators (NMFS 1996, USFWS 1998) Species Properly Functioning1 At Risk1 Not Properly Functioning1

Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, < 12% fines (<0.85mm) in 12-17% (west-side), 12-20% >17% (west-side), >20% Bull Trout gravel, turbidity low; (east-side), turbidity moderate; (east side) fines at surface or dominant substrate is gravel or gravel and cobble is depth in spawning habitat, cobble (interstitial spaces subdominant, or if dominant, turbidity high; bedrock, sand, clear), or embeddedness <20% embeddedness 20-30% silt or small gravel dominant, or if gravel and cobble dominant, embeddedness >30% 1) For Bull Trout: Functioning Appropriately, Functioning at Risk, Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning at Risk’ for the Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate habitat indicators (Table 16). The Lostine River is naturally high in fine sediment due to the geology and disturbance regimes of the Lostine Watershed. Effects of the Proposed Action Burning and thinning activities proposed under the proposed action may result in a short-term increase in fine sediment in streams in the aquatic effects area however; the predicted level of increase is not likely to be measurable against current background levels. Therefore, measurable changes in the Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate habitat indicators are not expected and these indicators would be maintained in their current condition. LWD Indicator (SR Steelhead, SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon) Table 20. ESA Matrix Criteria for Road Density Species Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, >20 pieces/ mile >12"diameter currently meets standards for does not meet standards for Bull Trout >35 ft. length2; and adequate properly functioning, but lacks properly functioning and sources of woody debris potential sources from riparian lacks potential large woody recruitment in riparian areas areas of woody debris debris recruitment recruitment to maintain that standard Note: Road density calculated using open roads, total roads and current subwatersheds. Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning Appropriately’ for the LWD indicator (Table 16). Effects of the Proposed Action Current levels of LWD will not be impacted by proposed activities because activities will not occur in streams or within inner RHCAs. Future LWD levels may be impacted by proposed hazard tree mitigation actions though the impact is likely to be immeasurable.

42 Road Density Indicator (SR Steelhead, SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon) Table 21. ESA Matrix Criteria for Road Density Indicator (SR Steelhead, SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon) (NMFS 1996) Species Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

Steelhead, Chinook Salmon <2 mi/mi², no valley bottom 2-3 mi/mi², some valley >3 mi/mi², many valley roads bottom roads bottom roads Note: Road density calculated using open roads, total roads and current subwatersheds. Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning at Risk’ for the road density indicator for steelhead/salmon (Table 16). About 60% of FR 8250 is located in the RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River. Other roads in the analysis area are limited to roads within and accessing campgrounds and trailheads. Effects of the Proposed Action Under the proposed action there would be no new road construction, road closures or road decommissioning would occur. An estimated 2.0 miles of temporary road would be constructed for commercial haul activities. Temporary roads will be obliterated following use. Therefore, no change in the current road densities of the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are anticipated. Table 22. Proposed Road Activities for the Lostine Corridor Project. Road Density Related Indicator Activities Proposed Action

Temporary roads constructed ≤2.0

Open roads proposed for closure 0.0

Roads proposed for decommissioning 0.0

Roads proposed for reconstruction 0.0

Closed road proposed for reopening 0.0

Note: Temporary road would be built over existing user created routes and would be decommissioned after completion of project activities.

Road Density Indicator (Bull trout) Table 23. ESA Matrix Criteria for Road Density Indicator (Bull trout) (USFWS 1998) Functioning at Species Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Unacceptable Risk

Bull Trout <1mi/mi²; no valley bottom 1 - 2.4 mi/mi²; some valley >2.4 mi/mi² ; many valley roads bottom roads bottom roads Note: Road density calculated using existing open motorized routes, total motorized routes and current subwatersheds. Currently the subwatersheds in the Lostine Corridor analysis area are functioning at risk for the road density indicator for bull trout (Table 16). Effects of the Proposed Action Under the proposed action there would be no new road construction, road closures or road decommissioning would occur. An estimated 2.0 miles of temporary road would be constructed

43 for commercial haul activities. Temporary roads will be obliterated following use. Therefore, there would be no change in the road density indicator. Disturbance History Indicator Table 24. ESA Matrix Criteria for Disturbance History Indicator (NMFS 1996, USFWS 1998) Species Properly Functioning1 At Risk1 Not Properly Functioning1

Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, <15% ECA (entire watershed) <15% ECA (entire watershed) >15% ECA (entire Bull Trout with no concentration of but disturbance concentrated watershed) and disturbance disturbance in unstable or in unstable or potentially concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable areas, unstable areas, and/or refugia, potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian and/or riparian area and/or refugia, and/or area riparian area 1) For Bull Trout: Functioning Appropriately, Functioning at Risk, Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning Appropriately’ for the Disturbance History indicator (Table 16). Current ECA in the analysis area is likely in the historic range of variation for the Lostine Watershed. Timber harvest activities have been limited since the creation of the Wallowa Nation Forest in 1906, no overstory harvest has occurred in the last 20 years, and large fires have not occurred for over 50 years in the watershed. Very few signs of timber harvest were observed along the Lostine River during the 1991 stream survey. Along the lower portion of Reach 1 a small area of heavy harvest with no buffer was noted. This harvest was estimated to be greater than 30 years old in 1991. Towards the top of the same reach there was an area of light harvest also greater than 30 years old. There were no other signs of timber harvest during the survey. Miscellaneous Forest Service records indicate 467 MBF board feet of timber was taken from an 83 acre area between 1950 and 1965. Between 1967 and 1990 another 4562 acres were harvested. No statistics of board feet removed during this period are available. The last timber harvest in the analysis area occurred in 2006/07 when 313 MBF board feet of timber were removed during the Lostine Hazard Tree project. Hazard trees on the westside of FR 8250 (river side) were cut and left while hazard trees on the eastside of FR 8250 were cut and removed during this project. Much of the Lostine Canyon was burned over in the 1870's and again in 1915. In 1958 the Silver Creek fire burned 419 acres. This was a low intensity fire. More recently fire occurrence in the watershed has been low. Since the 1970’s only small fires have occurred in the action area. The most significant fire in this time period was the East Lostine fire of 1988. This fire consumed 58 acres. The most recent fire in the analysis area occurred in 2013 near the headwaters of Silver Creek. This fire burned less than 10 acres. Effects of the Proposed Action Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning Appropriately’ for the Disturbance History habitat indicator (Table 16). Equivalent clearcut area (ECA) is used to estimate changes in water yield as a result of timber harvest activities and is the primary statistic used to rate the Disturbance History matrix indicator. ECAs >15% generally indicates that water yield would be increased (NMFS 1996, USFWS 1998). However, a recent synthesis of studies on the effects of vegetation treatments on peak flows found that there is a great variability in watershed response to vegetation treatments in snow dominated areas (Grant et al. 2008).

44 Proposed thinning activities are likely to result in a less than 1% increase in the ECA in the action area. Therefore, proposed thinning activities are unlikely to result in a significant increase in ECA in the action area. Riparian Reserves/Conservation Areas Indicator Table 25. ESA Matrix Criteria for Riparian Reserves/Conservation Areas Indicator (NMFS 1996, USFWS 1998) Species Properly Functioning1 At Risk1 Not Properly Functioning1

Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, the riparian reserve system moderate loss of connectivity riparian reserve system is Bull Trout provides adequate shade, large or function (shade, LWD fragmented, poorly woody debris recruitment, and recruitment, etc.) of riparian connected, or provides habitat protection and reserve system, or incomplete inadequate protection of connectivity in all protection of habitats and habitats and refugia for subwatersheds, and buffers or refugia for sensitive aquatic sensitive aquatic species includes known refugia for species (.70-80% intact), (<70% intact), and/or for sensitive aquatic species and/or for grazing impacts: grazing impacts: percent (>80% intact),and/or for percent similarity of riparian similarity of riparian grazing impacts: percent vegetation to the potential vegetation to the potential similarity of riparian natural natural vegetation to the potential community/composition 25- community/composition natural 50% or better <25% community/composition >50% 1) For Bull Trout: Functioning Appropriately, Functioning at Risk, Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Currently the two subwatersheds in the analysis area are rated as ‘Functioning at Risk’ for the Riparian Conservation Area habitat indicator (Table 16). The presence of FR 8250 and developed recreation facilities have impacted RHCAs in the action area. Periodic removal of hazard trees along FR 8250 and in developed recreation facilities have occurred. An estimated 100 to 300 hazard trees are cut annually from recreation sites in the action area. Effects of the Proposed Action There are an estimated 2500 hazard trees along FR 8250. Mitigation of hazard trees along FR 8250 is required for public safety. Removal of hazard trees has the potential to result in a decrease in LWD in the future.

Effects Determinations

SR Steelhead The Lostine Corridor Project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) SR steelhead. Anticipated effects to aquatic habitat from the Lostine Corridor Project are short-term in nature. Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. The Lostine River appears to be naturally high in fine sediment as a result of geology and disturbance regimes. The anticipated increases in erosion rates from thinning activities, prescribed burning activities and an increase in road traffic during haul activities are unlikely to result in a measurable increase in fine sediment levels. Water temperature in the Lostine River is low and is meeting the water temperature RMO. Mortality of overstory trees as a result of burning in RHCAs adjacent to streams is unlikely to result a reduction in shading and a measurable increase in water temperature in the analysis area.

45 Removal of shade producing trees is unlikely as a result of commercial thinning activities because commercial thinning will not occur in RHCAs. LWD levels in the Lostine River are high and are meeting the RMO for LWD. Current levels of LWD will not be impacted by proposed activities because activities will not occur in streams or within inner RHCAs. Future LWD levels may be impacted by proposed hazard tree mitigation actions though the impact is likely to be immeasurable. Impacts to future LWD levels from proposed commercial thinning activities are unlikely because these activities will occur outside of RHCAs. Impacts to future LWD levels from proposed fuel reduction thinning are unlikely because trees thinned are too small to provide LWD.

SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon The Lostine Corridor Project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) SR spring/summer Chinook salmon. Anticipated effects to aquatic habitat from the Lostine Corridor Project are short-term in nature. Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. The Lostine River appears to be naturally high in fine sediment as a result of geology and disturbance regimes. The anticipated increases in erosion rates from thinning activities, prescribed burning activities and an increase in road traffic during haul activities are unlikely to result in a measurable increase in fine sediment levels. Water temperature in the Lostine River is low and is meeting the water temperature RMO. Mortality of overstory trees as a result of burning in RHCAs adjacent to streams is unlikely to result a reduction in shading and a measurable increase in water temperature in the analysis area. Removal of shade producing trees is unlikely as a result of commercial thinning activities because commercial thinning will not occur in RHCAs. LWD levels in the Lostine River are high and are meeting the RMO for LWD. Current levels of LWD will not be impacted by proposed activities because activities will not occur in streams or within inner RHCAs. Future LWD levels may be impacted by proposed hazard tree mitigation actions though the impact is likely to be immeasurable. Impacts to future LWD levels from proposed commercial thinning activities are unlikely because these activities will occur outside of RHCAs. Impacts to future LWD levels from proposed fuel reduction thinning are unlikely because trees thinned are too small to provide LWD.

CR Bull Trout The Lostine Corridor Project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) CR bull trout. Anticipated effects to aquatic habitat from the Lostine Corridor Project are short-term in nature. Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. The Lostine River appears to be naturally high in fine sediment as a result of geology and disturbance regimes. The anticipated increases in erosion rates from thinning activities, prescribed burning activities and an increase in road traffic during haul activities are unlikely to result in a measurable increase in fine sediment levels. Water temperature in the Lostine River is low and is meeting the water temperature RMO. Mortality of overstory trees as a result of burning in RHCAs adjacent to streams is unlikely to result a reduction in shading and a measurable increase in water temperature in the analysis area.

46 Removal of shade producing trees is unlikely as a result of commercial thinning activities because commercial thinning will not occur in RHCAs. LWD levels in the Lostine River are high and are meeting the RMO for LWD. Current levels of LWD will not be impacted by proposed activities because activities will not occur in streams or within inner RHCAs. Future LWD levels may be impacted by proposed hazard tree mitigation actions though the impact is likely to be immeasurable. Impacts to future LWD levels from proposed commercial thinning activities are unlikely because these activities will occur outside of RHCAs. Impacts to future LWD levels from proposed fuel reduction thinning are unlikely because trees thinned are too small to provide LWD.

Effects to Critical Habitat

SR Steelhead Critical Habitat

Primary Constituent Elements The primary constituent elements (PCEs) that are essential for the conservation of listed ESUs are those sites and habitat components that support one or more life stages. The following PCEs are present in the action area: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development; (2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; PCEs 4, 5, and 6 involve estuarine, nearshore and offshore marine areas, which do not occur in the analysis area and are not addressed in this analysis. Effects to Primary Constituent Elements PCEs were developed that describe habitat elements needed for continued survival and recovery of SR steelhead. These elements are addressed when discussing proposed or ongoing project affects to critical habitat for SR steelhead. PCE 1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. Burning and thinning activities proposed under the proposed action may result in a short-term increase in fine sediment in streams in the analysis

47 area however; the predicted level of increase is not likely to be measurable against current background levels. Similarly, prescribe burning activities may result in some patchy tree mortality in RHCAs however; the predicted mortality is not likely to result in a measurable reduction in shading or a measurable increase in water temperatures in streams. PCE 2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; Change in water quantity is unlikely to change as a result of the activities proposed under the proposed action. Proposed thinning activities are unlikely to result in large nonforested openings that will change the hydrologic cycle in the Lostine watershed. No new activities will occur in floodplains in the analysis area as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, no additional impacts to floodplains are likely. PCE 2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; Impacts to water quality are discussed under PCE 1. PCE 2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Proposed thinning activities will not occur within 100 feet of the Lostine River. Hazard tree mitigation activities within 200 feet of the Lostine River will result in removal of some trees that could eventually fall and be incorporated as LWD. Proposed prescribed burning activities could result in minor mortality of trees and shrubbery that provides shading along the Lostine River and perennial tributaries. None of these activities are expected to result in significant changes to aquatic habitat in the Lostine River. PCE 3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; Elements of this PCE have already been addressed under PCEs 1 and 2.

SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat

Essential Habitat Features Accessible areas of the Wallowa River Subbasin (HUC 17060105) were designated as critical habitat for the SR spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU. Essential habitat features of critical habitat consist of four components: (1) Spawning and rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for growth and development to adulthood; and (4) adult migration corridors. Essential habitat features (EHFs)were developed that describe habitat elements needed for continued survival and recovery of listed Snake River salmon ESUs as part of the critical habitat designation process. Essential features of spawning and rearing habitat include adequate: (1) spawning gravel; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4) water temperature; (5) food; (6) riparian vegetation; and (7) access.

48 Of the seven EHFs for spawning and rearing habitat, EHFs that could be impacted by proposed activities are discussed below. The habitat features are: (1) spawning gravel; (3) water quantity; (4) water temperature; and (6) riparian vegetation. Essential habitat features were developed that describe habitat elements needed for continued survival and recovery of listed Snake River salmon ESUs as part of the critical habitat designation process. These elements must be addressed when discussing proposed or ongoing project affects to critical habitat for listed Snake River salmon ESUs. Effects to Essential Habitat Features EHF (1) Spawning Gravel Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. Fine sediment levels are naturally high based on the 1991 stream survey. Under the proposed action, commercial thinning activities using mechanical equipment would occur over about 536 acres. Ground disturbing activities (i.e. yarding, development and use of skid trails and landings) would be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. PACFISH RHCA widths were designed to provide a sufficient area to trap most fine sediment generated from upslope management activities such as timber harvest and ground-based yarding, and eliminate adverse effects to fish species from these activities. The potential for increases in erosion rates as a result of proposed commercial thinning activities is analyzed in the Fine Sediment RMO Section (Direct/indirect Effects Section). Based on that analysis there is a low likelihood of increased erosion rates in the project area from proposed commercial thinning activities. Therefore, the likelihood of measureable increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat is low. EHF (3) Water Quantity Change in water quantity is unlikely to change as a result of the activities proposed. Where ECA exceeds 15 %, water quantity can change. The predicted increase in ECA from proposed commercial thinning activities is less than 1% in the action area. Therefore, it is unlikely that water quantity will change. No new activities will occur in floodplains in the analysis area as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, no additional impacts to floodplains are likely. EHF (4) Water Temperature The proposed burning in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams poses little risk of increasing stream temperatures because these streams are normally dry during the summer and fall months. Based on these factors, the Lostine Corridor Project is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water temperature and a degradation of water quality in streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. EHF (6) Riparian Vegetation See response to EHF (4) Water temperature

49 Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Primary Constituent Elements PCEs were developed that describe habitat elements needed for continued survival and recovery of CR bull trout. These elements are addressed when discussing proposed or ongoing project affects to proposed critical habitat for CR bull trout. PCEs identified in 75 FR 2270 are: (1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. (2) Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. (3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. (4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. (5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence. (6) In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of- the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system. (7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph. (8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. (9) Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout.

Effects to Primary Constituent Elements PCE 1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. Under the proposed action commercial thinning activities will not occur within 100 feet of springs and seeps. Therefore measureable effects to PCE 1 are unlikely.

50 PCE 2) Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. Water quality will be protected by limiting activities in RHCAs and the use of BMPs and design features to limit the impacts from proposed activities. Increases in water temperature are unlikely because in general thinning activities will occur outside of RHCAs for Category 1 and 2 streams. Barriers to migration will not occur as a result of the proposed activities. Therefore measureable effects to PCE 2 are unlikely. PCE 3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Activities proposed under the Lostine Corridor Project are unlikely to have measurable effects to aquatic habitat and will not affect the potential food base for bull trout. Therefore measureable effects to PCE 3 are unlikely. PCE 4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. Pool habitat and LWD levels are likely lower than prior to the start of intensive timber harvest activities in the analysis area. While specific habitat data is not available for the project area, trends in changes in LWD and pool habitat in the Pacific Northwest and adjacent areas have likely occurred in the project area. McIntosh et al. (2000) and Quigley et al (1997) documented a general decline pool habitat since the 1930’s. Bilby and Ward (1991) found a significant decrease in LWD in managed streams compared to old-growth streams. Cover et al. (2008) documented increases in fine sediment in streams as the result of management activities in the Klamath Mountains of northern California. Timber harvesting activities (including riparian harvesting) and the development of the current road system are likely causative factors in the decline in LWD, pool habitat, and increases in fine sediment compared to the pre-settlement conditions. Activities proposed under the Lostine Corridor Project are unlikely to have measurable effects to aquatic habitat. Immeasurable increases in fine sediment are likely to occur as a result of the Lostine Corridor Project. Effects to LWD, pool habitat and streambanks will not occur because activities will not occur within 200 feet of fish bearing streams. Therefore measureable effects to PCE 4 are unlikely. PCE 5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence. The proposed burning in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams poses little risk of increasing stream temperatures because these streams are normally dry during the summer and fall months. Based on these factors, the Lostine Corridor Project is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water temperature and a degradation of water quality in streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. Therefore measureable effects to PCE 5 are unlikely. PCE 6) In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the- year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from

51 silt to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system. Fine sediment levels are naturally high in the analysis area as a result of geology and disturbance regimes. Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. Current levels of fine sediment in the Lostine River are not believed to be resulting in adverse impacts to bull trout. Under the proposed action, commercial thinning activities using mechanical equipment would occur over about 536 acres. Ground disturbing activities (i.e. yarding, development and use of skid trails and landings) would be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. PACFISH RHCA widths were designed to provide a sufficient area to trap most fine sediment generated from upslope management activities such as timber harvest and ground-based yarding, and eliminate adverse effects to fish species from these activities. There is a low likelihood of increased erosion rates in the project area from proposed commercial thinning activities as a result of yarding activities, and increased traffic related to haul activities. The likelihood of measureable increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat is low. Therefore measureable effects to PCE 6 are unlikely. PCE 7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph. Flows in the Lostine River through the analysis area are augmented for irrigation purposes. Water is stored in Minam Lake, a manmade reservoir in the Eagle Cap Wilderness that captures water from the Minam watershed and transfers it to the Lostine watershed. Change in water quantity is unlikely to change as a result of the activities proposed. Where ECA exceeds 15 %, water quantity can change (NMFS 1995, USFWS 1998). The proposed thinning activities are unlikely to result in a significant change in the current ECA in the action area. It is unlikely that water quantity will change, therefore measureable effects to PCE 7 are unlikely. PCE 8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. This PCE repeats habitat elements already discussed in previous PCEs. See responses to PCEs 5 and 7. PCE 9) Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. Brook trout are present throughout the Lostine Watershed including high mountain lakes. Brook trout are known to hybridize with bull trout in the Lostine Watershed. Hybridization rates may be at a level where affects to the bull trout population are occurring. Proposed activities will not result in increases in brook trout or hybridization rates.

Effects Determinations

SR Steelhead Critical Habitat The Lostine Corridor Project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) critical habitat for SR steelhead in the action area. Activities proposed are consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (PACFISH) of the Forest Plan, as amended.

52 Anticipated effects aquatic habitat are generally short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment as a result of prescribed burning activities and an increase in road traffic during haul activities. This short-term immeasurable increase in fine sediment will have a short-term effect to PCE 1. Current levels of fine sediment in 2 of the 3 reaches of the Lostine River in the analysis area exceed the BiOp objective for embeddedness. The Lostine River appears to be naturally high in fine sediment as a result of geology and disturbance regimes. The anticipated increases in erosion rates from prescribed burning activities and an increase in road traffic during haul activities are unlikely to result in exceeding the 20% threshold. Fire severity resulting from proposed burning would not be high enough to consume significant quantities of downed wood that play a role in trapping fine sediment on hill slopes, in intermittent stream channels, and on floodplains. Some ground cover would be consumed but would be quickly replaced as litter fall occurs in the first year following burning and herbaceous plants recover in the second year following burning. A measurable increase in fine sediment in stream channels as a result of burning activities is unlikely due to the combination of a predicted patchy, low severity burn in RHCAs and typical recovery of ground cover within two years of prescribed burning. The proposed activities are unlikely to affect PCE 2 because change in water quantity is unlikely to change as a result of the activities proposed. The predicted increase in ECA from proposed commercial thinning activities will increase is less than 1% in the action area.

SR Spring/Summer Salmon Critical Habitat The Lostine Corridor Project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon. Activities proposed are consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (PACFISH) of the Forest Plan, as amended. Proposed activities will have short-term affects to EHFs of critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon. Short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment as result of timber harvest and prescribed burning activities. Short-term immeasurable increases in water temperature may result from proposed burning activities.

CR Bull Trout Critical Habitat The Lostine Corridor Project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) critical habitat for CR bull trout. Activities proposed under the Lostine Corridor Project are consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (PACFISH) of the Forest Plan, as amended. Activities proposed the Lostine Corridor Project (non-commercial/commercial thinning and prescribed burning activities, hazard tree mitigation activities) may result in immeasurable increases in fine sediment and/or water temperature. These impacts would not result in a change in habitat conditions that contribute to the functionality of PCEs 1-9.

Cumulative Effects Discussion of ESA cumulative effects are required for formal consultation (50 CFR § 402.14). If the effect determination is NLAA, an assessment of ESA cumulative effects is not required by the regulations, but may be beneficial in certain circumstances (e.g., where specific information is readily available regarding non-Federal actions that are reasonably certain in the foreseeable

53 future and are relevant to the proposed Federal action). However, such analysis for anticipated NLAA actions is optional and is at the discretion of the action agency. Cumulative effects for ESA consultation are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the analysis area of the Federal action subject to consultation [50 CFR §402.02]. This definition applies only to section 7 analyses and should not be confused with the broader use of this term in the National Environmental Policy Act or other environmental laws. The cumulative effects analysis areas for the Lostine Corridor Project are in the same as the analysis areas used for the direct and indirect effects analysis. Time frames for this cumulative effects discussion are the same as those used for the direct/indirect effects analysis: short-term (0 to 5 years), mid-term (5 to 10 years), and long-term (10+ years). Refer to the Lostine Corridor Project EA for a list of projects and activities occurring in the analysis area that were considered for cumulative effects to aquatic habitat. Only activities that pose a risk of cumulative effects (adverse or beneficial) are discussed below. The risks of cumulative effects with the effects of proposed activities for the Lostine Corridor Project are rated as: • Low – insignificant or discountable cumulative effects to aquatic habitat may occur. Insignificant effects are defined as effects that a person, based on professional judgment, would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate. Discountable effects are those that are extremely unlikely to occur. • Moderate – insignificant cumulative effects to aquatic habitat are likely to occur. A moderate rating assumes potential effects to aquatic habitat. The level of effects will not result in measureable changes in survival rates or population levels of aquatic species with special management status (i.e. ESA listed, MIS, or Sensitive). • High – measureable cumulative effects to aquatic habitat are likely to occur. Measurable effects to aquatic habitat are likely to result in changes in survival rates and population levels of aquatic species with special management status (i.e. ESA listed, MIS, or Sensitive). A high rating assumes obvious adverse effects to habitat and aquatic species with special management status. There is a moderate risk of cumulative effects to ESA-listed fish species and their habitat from the proposed activities under the Lostine Corridor project and ongoing activities in the analysis area. Ongoing activities (recreation, road use, road maintenance) can result in increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat. For ongoing road maintenance activities, short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following PACFISH standards and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system. For recreation activities, the potential cumulative effects are minimized by meeting PACFISH Standards and Guidelines for recreation activities. Climate Change Global climate change has the potential to have impacts to aquatic habitat through increases in water temperature and changes in streamflows in response to changes in climates. The following changes to aquatic habitat in the analysis are likely occurring as a result of global climate:

54 • Increases in water temperatures in response to increases in air temperature, • Changes in runoff patterns in response to an increase in the amount of winter precipitation that falls as rain: • Decreases in summer streamflows in response to a reduction in snowpack. • Reduced duration of spring runoff but higher peak flows due to an increase the amount of winter precipitation that falls as rain The following management actions are suggested to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic habitat in the Pacific Northwest (Pete Bisson, Aquatic and Land Interactions Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Salmon and Trout in the Pacific Northwest and Climate Change (http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/aquatic-ecosystems/salmon-trout.shtml, accessed 03/21/2013): 1. Minimize anthropogenic increases in water temperature by maintaining well-shaded riparian areas. 2. Maintain a forest stand structure that retains snow, reduces the “rain on snow” effect associated with forest openings, and promotes fog drip. 3. Disconnect road drainage from the stream network to soften discharge peaks during heavy rainstorms. 4. Ensure that fish have access to seasonal habitats, e.g., off-channel wintering areas or summer thermal refugia. 5. Protect springs and large groundwater seeps from development and water removal, as these subterranean water sources will become increasingly important when surface flows are altered by climate change. Activities proposed are unlikely to have measureable cumulative effects with global climate change because the proposed activities will have only limited effects to riparian areas. An immeasurable reduction in stream shading may result from prescribed burning activities proposed action area. However, the reduction in shading is not likely to result in a measureable increase in stream temperatures in the analysis area. Therefore, climate change is rated as having a low risk of negative cumulative effects with the activities proposed for the Lostine Corridor Project on watershed processes, and aquatic species and their habitat.

Magnuson-Stevens Act

Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires the inclusion of essential fish habitat (EFH) descriptions in Federal fishery management plans. In addition, the MSA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The Wallowa Subbasin has been designated as EFH for Chinook salmon. EFH is present in the action area. Based on the similarities between habitat for steelhead and salmon species and the effects analysis for the Lostine Corridor Project on habitat for SR spring Chinook salmon, proposed activities may affect but are not likely to adversely affect EFH for MSA-managed species in the action area. Short-term potential increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the action area. Based on the analysis of effects to aquatic habitat, mortality of overstory trees

55 (>14 inches dbh) as a result of burning in the RHCA adjacent to streams in the analysis area is unlikely to result a reduction in shading and a measurable increase in water temperature in streams in the action area. In the long-term, the proposed action would improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire regime in the project area which would have beneficial impacts to EFH. Therefore, the Lostine Corridor Project may affect EFH for Chinook salmon.

Region 6 Sensitive Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Species

Redband Trout (Inland Columbia Basin) Redband trout (resident steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss) are present in the analysis area. Habitat requirements for redband trout are the same as those for steelhead, therefore the effects to redband trout from proposed activities are the same as those previously disclosed for steelhead. The Lostine Corridor project may impact redband trout and their habitat. Impacts will consist of temporary immeasurable increases in fine sediment from proposed harvest and fuels reduction activities. There is a moderate risk of cumulative effects to redband trout and their habitat from the proposed activities and ongoing activities in the analysis area. Ongoing activities (recreation, road use, road maintenance) can result in increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat. Increases in fine sediment can reduce reproductive success redband trout. For ongoing road maintenance activities, short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following PACFISH standards and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system. For recreation activities, the potential cumulative effects are minimized by meeting PACFISH Standards and Guidelines for recreation activities.

Pacific Lamprey Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate) have been designated as a Regional Foresters Sensitive Species. Historically, Pacific lampreys were thought to be distributed wherever salmon and steelhead occurred. However, recent data indicate that distribution of the Pacific lamprey has been reduced in many river drainages. They no longer exist above dams and other impassable barriers in west coast streams, including many larger rivers throughout coastal Washington, Oregon, and California, nor above dams in the upper Snake and Columbia Rivers. Available data also indicate that Pacific lampreys have declined in abundance throughout the Columbia River basin and southern California. Life History The following life history description is excerpted from USFWS species description (https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489457): “Lampreys belong to a primitive group of fishes that are eel-like in form but lack the jaws and paired fins of true fishes. Pacific lampreys have a round sucker-like mouth, no scales, and gill openings. Identification of lampreys depends largely on the number, structure, and position of teeth found in adult lamprey. Adult Pacific lampreys are characterized by the presence of three large anterior teeth and many smaller posterior teeth on the oral

56 disc. As ammocoetes (larvae), Pacific lampreys are difficult to distinguish from other lampreys. As adults in the marine environment, Pacific lampreys are parasitic and feed on a variety of marine and anadromous fish including Pacific salmon, flatfish, rockfish, and pollock, and are preyed upon by sharks, sea lions, and other marine animals. They have been caught at depths ranging from 300 to 2,600 feet, and as far off the west coast as 62 miles in ocean haul nets. After spending one to three years in the marine environment, Pacific lampreys cease feeding and migrate to freshwater between February and June. They are thought to overwinter and remain in freshwater habitat for approximately one year before spawning. During that time they may shrink in size up to 20 percent. Most upstream migration takes place at night. Adult size at the time of migration ranges from about 15 to 25 inches. Pacific lampreys spawn in habitat similar to that of salmon: gravel bottomed streams at the upstream end of riffle habitat. Spawning occurs between March and July depending upon location within their range. The degree of homing is unknown, but adult lampreys cue in on ammocoete areas which release pheromones that are thought to aid adult migration and spawning location. Both sexes construct the nests, often moving stones with their mouth. After the eggs are deposited and fertilized, the adults typically die within 3 to 36 days after spawning. Embryos hatch in approximately 19 days at 59° Fahrenheit (F) and the ammocoetes drift downstream to areas of low velocity and fine substrates where they burrow, grow and live as filter feeders for 3 to 7 years and feed primarily on diatoms and algae. Several generations and age classes of ammocoetes may occur in high densities. Ammocoetes move downstream as they age and during high flow events. We know little about movement and locations of ammocoetes within the substrates. Anecdotal information suggests that they may occur within the hyporheic zone (a porous substance zone in the sediment) and may move laterally through stream substrates. Metamorphosis to the juvenile phase (macropthalmia) occurs gradually over several months, usually beginning in summer and is complete by winter. As developmental changes occur, including the appearance of eyes and teeth, the juveniles leave the substrate to enter the water column. Moving downstream, they emigrate to the ocean between late fall and spring where they mature into adults.” Abundance in Analysis Area The Oregon Native Fish Status Report states (ODFW 2005): “Counts at dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers indicate a severe decline in Pacific lamprey abundance. Annual counts at Bonneville Dam prior to 1970 often exceeded 250,000 fish. The recent seven-year average at Bonneville Dam is 52,000. This average is driven by significant increases in 2002 and 2003. Annual counts at Lower Monumental Dam on the Snake River have declined from over 8,000 fish in 1969 to fewer than 500 in recent years. The recent Bonneville data suggests the interior Columbia Pacific lamprey population passes the abundance criterion, but the absence of a similar improvement at other dams, including Lower Monumental, leads us to fail the population for this criterion.”

57 The presence of lamprey in the analysis area is unknown. Spawning and rearing habitat for lamprey normally overlaps spawning and rearing habitat for Pacific salmonids. Direct and Indirect Effects Since habitat and distribution of lamprey overlaps with Pacific salmonids, direct and indirect effects to lamprey would be the same as those already discussed for salmonids present in the project area. The Lostine Corridor project may impact Pacific lamprey and their habitat. Impacts will consist of temporary immeasurable increases in fine sediment from proposed harvest and fuels reduction activities. Cumulative Effects Since habitat and distribution of lamprey overlaps with Pacific salmonids, cumulative effects to lamprey would be the same as those already discussed for salmonids present in the project area. There is a moderate risk of cumulative effects to Pacific lamprey and their habitat from the proposed activities and ongoing activities in the analysis area. Ongoing activities (recreation, road use, road maintenance) can result in increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat. For ongoing road maintenance activities, short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following PACFISH standards and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system. For recreation activities, the potential cumulative effects are minimized by meeting PACFISH Standards and Guidelines for recreation activities.

Western Ridge Mussel Western ridge mussels (Gonidea angulata) were designated a Region Forester’s Sensitive Species during the development of the 2008 R6 Sensitive Species List. Initially, western ridge mussels were suspected to be present on the Wallowa-Whitman NF based a review of occurrence records. Additional record reviews and data searches by WWNF personnel revealed that western ridge mussels were historically present in large numbers in the Snake River and confirmed that western ridge mussels are currently present in the Snake River, Hells Canyon portion, on the Hells Canyon NRA. The current Snake River western ridge mussel population is suspected to be at very low levels compared to pre-European settlement. Relic shells of western ridge mussels were collected by WMO personnel during a monitoring trip on the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River in October of 2010. Western ridge mussels were also documented in the Powder River (1963) and Grande Ronde River (pre-1929) downstream of the WWNF. Life History Western ridge mussels occur in streams of all sizes and are rarely found in lakes or reservoirs. They are found mainly in low to mid-elevation watersheds, and do not often inhabit high elevation headwater streams where western pearlshell mussels (Margaritifera falcata) are typically found. They often share habitat with western pearlshell throughout much of the Pacific Northwest. Western ridge mussels inhabit mud, sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. Western ridge mussels are more tolerant of fine sediments than western pearlshells and occupy depositional habitats and banks. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with highly unstable or very soft substrates. Cursory evidence suggests that western ridged mussels are more pollution-tolerant than other native mussels.

58 Habitat for western ridge mussels appears to have fairly broad environmental gradients. In the John Day system western ridge mussels are more abundant in the mid and lower reaches of the M.F. and N.F. John Day Rivers compared to western pearlshell mussels (Brim Box et al., 2006). Habitat in the middle reaches of these streams is warmer and has higher levels of fine sediment compared to the upper reaches. In the Salmon River, Vannote and Minshall (1982) found western pearlshell mussels being replaced by western ridge mussels where fine sediment had increased as a result of timber management activities in the watershed. Threats to western ridge mussels and other species of freshwater mussels include loss of host fish, introduction of non-native fish, dams, channel modification from channelization and suction dredge mining, thermal pollution, chemical pollution, sedimentation and siltation from silvicultural and agricultural practices, water withdrawal and diversion, and livestock grazing in riparian areas. Since western ridge mussels require stable habitats, they may be particularly threatened by dewatering and other activities that cause shifting substrates, water level fluctuations, and seasonal hypoxia or anoxia. Species that live for 20-30 years, as has been suggested for western ridge mussels, often appear to have healthy populations, when in reality only the older adults may be withstanding environmental changes and the population may no longer be reproducing. Abundance in Analysis Area The presence of western ridge mussels has been documented on the WWNF but has not been confirmed in the analysis area for the Lostine Corridor project. The Lostine River in the analysis area provides suitable habitat conditions for western ridge mussels. Direct and Indirect Effects The Lostine Corridor Project May Impact Individual western ridge mussels and their Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to western ridge mussels may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section). Current levels of fine sediment in the Lostine River in the analysis area are generally below the 20% threshold used to indicate impacts to salmonids and other aquatic species. Short-term potential increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in the Lostine River in the analysis area. Impacts from activities proposed under the Lostine Corridor Project are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for western ridge mussels. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine sediment and water temperature are within habitat tolerances for western ridge mussels. Cumulative Effects There is a moderate risk of cumulative effects to western ridge mussel habitat from the proposed activities and ongoing activities in the analysis area. Ongoing activities (recreation, road use, road maintenance) can result in increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat. Increases in fine sediment can reduce reproductive success and overall fitness of western ridge mussels. For ongoing road maintenance activities, short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following PACFISH standards and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system.

59 For recreation activities, the potential cumulative effects are minimized by meeting PACFISH Standards and Guidelines for recreation activities.

Shortfaced Lanx Life History The following information was obtained from the Fisherola nuttalli (shortface lanx) species profile available from the Xerces Society website (http://www.xerces.org/giant-columbia-river- limpet/ accessed March 18, 2013; see original document for references cited): “Fisherola nuttalli is a small pulmonate (lunged) snail in the family Lymnaeidae. It inhabits cold, unpolluted, medium to large streams with fast-flowing, well-oxygenated water and cobble and boulder substrate, and is generally found at the edges of rapids. It was historically present throughout much of the Columbia River drainage in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia, but most populations were extirpated due to habitat loss resulting from dams, impoundments, water removal, and pollution. Currently, large populations of F. nuttalli persist in only four streams: the lower Deschutes River in Oregon; the Okanogan River and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River in Washington; and the Snake River in Oregon and Idaho. Additional small populations are found in Oregon in the John Day and Imnaha Rivers, and the lower Columbia River near Bonneville Dam; the Methow River, Washington; and the Grande Ronde River, Washington and Oregon. This species is threatened by habitat alteration and reduced water quality due to dams, impoundments, and siltation and pollution from agriculture, development, industry, and grazing. Fisherola nuttalli is generally restricted to relatively large perennial streams ranging from 30- 100 m (98-300 ft.) wide. Within such streams it is found primarily at the edges of rapids or immediately downstream from rapids in areas that have suitable substrate. This species requires clean, cold, well-oxygenated water with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. In an assessment of Hells Canyon Dam (Snake River, Idaho), F. nuttalli was found on cobbles in higher velocity areas of the stream much more frequently than any other mollusk species; this was considered to reflect the species’ preference to attach themselves to hard surfaces in high velocities to avoid competition with other species (Richards et al. 2005). Fisherola nuttalli has not been found in areas with the following characteristics: slow flow; silt or mud substrates; extreme seasonal variations in discharge; an abundance of macrophytes (aquatic plants) or epiphytic algae; a bedrock substrate; or where dredging or mining occurs (Neitzel & Frest, 1992; Frest & Johannes, 1995; Frest, 1999; Richards et al., 2005). The snails feed by scraping algae and diatoms from the surface of rocks and boulders.” Abundance in Analysis Area The presence of shortfaced lanx has been documented on the WWNF but has not been confirmed in the analysis area. The Lostine River in the analysis area provides suitable habitat conditions for shortfaced lanx. Direct and Indirect Effects The Lostine Corridor Project May Impact Individual shortfaced lanx and their Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or

60 species. Impacts to shortfaced lanx may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section). Current levels of fine sediment in the Lostine River in the analysis area are generally below the 20% threshold used to indicate impacts to salmonids and other aquatic species. Short-term potential increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area. Impacts from activities proposed under the Lostine Corridor Project are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for shortfaced lanx. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine sediment and water temperature are within habitat tolerances for shortfaced lanx. Cumulative Effects There is a moderate risk of cumulative effects to shortfaced lanx habitat from the proposed activities and ongoing activities in the analysis area. Ongoing activities (recreation, road use, road maintenance) can result in increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat. Increases in fine sediment can reduce reproductive success and overall fitness of shortfaced lanx. For ongoing road maintenance activities, short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following PACFISH standards and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system. For recreation activities, the potential cumulative effects are minimized by meeting PACFISH Standards and Guidelines for recreation activities.

Columbia Pebblesnail Life History The following information was obtained from the species profile for Fluminicola fuscus, (Columbia pebblesnail); available from the USFS / BLM Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning- documents/species-guides.shtml; accessed March 18, 2013; see original document for references cited): “Originally known from the Lower Snake and Columbia River drainages in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and possibly Montana (Frest and Johannes, 1995; Hershler and Frest, 1996). Probably extirpated from the middle and upper Columbia River in Washington, Montana, and British Columbia, and may be extinct in the lower Columbia River in Washington and Oregon (Frest and Johannes, 1995). It is still extant in some tributaries in Washington (Okanogan and Methow Rivers). Found in larger tributaries and rivers, on upper surfaces of stable rocks, boulders and bedrock outcrops in fast current, in relatively shallow water. Species requires cold water with high oxygen content, so is not found behind impoundments, or where water is warm, slow, nutrient-enriched or turbid. Generally found in areas with few aquatic macrophytes of epiphytic algae. Impoundments created by dams and other structures which create oxygen-poor conditions can create unsuitable habitat for this species. Waste-water or agricultural run-off into

61 rivers can also create nutrient-rich conditions which are unfavorable to this species. Pollutants from pulp mill effluents or metal smelting discharges is harmful to Columbia pebblesnails.” Abundance in Analysis Area The presence of Columbia pebblesnails has been documented on the WWNF but has not been confirmed in the analysis area. The Lostine River in the analysis area provides suitable habitat conditions for Columbia pebble snail. Direct and Indirect Effects The Lostine Corridor Project May Impact Individual Columbia pebblesnail and their Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to Columbia Pebblesnail may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section). Current levels of fine sediment in the Lostine River in the analysis area are generally below the 20% threshold used to indicate impacts to salmonids and other aquatic species. Short-term potential increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area. Impacts from activities proposed under The Lostine Corridor Project are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for Columbia pebblesnail. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine sediment and water temperature are within habitat tolerances for Columbia pebblesnail. Cumulative Effects There is a moderate risk of cumulative effects to Columbia pebblesnail habitat from the proposed activities and ongoing activities in the analysis area. Ongoing activities (recreation, road use, road maintenance) can result in increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat. Increases in fine sediment can reduce reproductive success and overall fitness of Columbia pebblesnail. For ongoing road maintenance activities, short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following PACFISH standards and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system. For recreation activities, the potential cumulative effects are minimized by meeting PACFISH Standards and Guidelines for recreation activities.

62 References Al-Chokhachy, R., B.B. Roper, E.K. Archer, and S. Miller. 2011. Quantifying the Extent of and Factors Associated with the Temporal Variability of Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Streams in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140:399-414. Arkle, R.S. and D.S. Pilliod. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: A stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 893-903. Beche, L.A., S.L. Stephens, and V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218: 37-59. Bilby, R. E. and J. W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 2499-2508 Bisson, P. 2008. Salmon and Trout in the Pacific Northwest and Climate Change. (June 16, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/aquatic-ecosystems/salmon-trout.shtml Bisson, P.A. and J.R. Sedell. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs. old-growth forests of western Washington. In: Meeahn, W.R.; Merrell, T.R., Jr.; Hanley, T.A. eds. Fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests. Juneau, AK: American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists: 121-129. Bisson, P.A.. Bilby, R.E., Bryant, M.D.. Dolloff. c.A.. Grette. G.B., House. RA, Murphy. M.L Koski. K.Y., and Sedell, J.R. 1987. Large Woody Debris in Forested Streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, Present, and Future, In, Streamside Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions, E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (Eds.). Contribution no. 57, College of Forest Resources, Univ. Washington. Seattle, WA., pp. 143-190. Bjornn, T.C. and J. Mallet. 1964. Movements of planted and wild trout in an Idaho river system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93:70-76. Brim Box, J., J. Howard, D. Wolf, C. O’Brian, D. Nez and D. Close. 2006. Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida) of the Umatilla and Middle Fork John Day Rivers in Eastern Oregon. Northwest Science 80:95-107. Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon Cederholm, C.J.; Reid, L.M. 1987. Impact of forest management on Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: a project summary. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W. eds. Streamside management forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution No. 57. Seattle, WA. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 373- 397 Cleary, P.J, M. Edwards, I.P. Wilson, E. Shoudel, and D. Bright. 2014. Evaluation of Spring Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Supplementation in the Lostine River, Oregon 2012 Annual Report (January 2012 to December 2012). Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management Lapwai, Idaho.

63 Dollof, C.A. and M.L. Warren. 2003. Fish relationships with large wood in small streams. American Fisheries Symposium, 37:179-193. Dunham, J.B., A.E. Rosenberger, C.H. Luce and B.E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of wildfire and channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10:325-336. Elle, S., T. Lamansky and R.F. Thurow. 1994. Idaho Department Fish and Game, River and Stream Investigations. Job Performance Report, Grant F-73-R-16, Subproject II, Study IV. Rapid River bull trout movement and mortality studies. pp. 1-31. Boise. Everest, F.H., and R.D. Harr. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America; 6. Silvicultural Treatments. USDA, Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-134. PNW Forest and Range Exp. Station, Portland, Ore. 19 pp. Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323. Grant, Gordon E.; Lewis, Sarah L.; Swanson, Frederick J.; Cissel, John H.; McDonnell, Jeffrey J. 2008. Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of- science report for western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p. Harris, R.M., Clifton, C.F., and Wondzell, S.M. 2007. Hillslope erosion rates in areas with volcanic parent materials and the effects of prescribed fires in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington, USA. In: Furniss, M.J., Clifton, C.F., and Ronnenberg, K.L. (Eds.), Advancing the Fundamental Sciences, Proceedings of a Conference for FS Earth Scientists. 18- 22 Oct. 2004. San Diego, CA. PNW-GTR-689. Jackson, C. R., and C. A. Sturm.2002. Woody debris and channel morphology in first- and second-order forested channels in Washington’s coast range. Water Resour. Res., 38: 16.1-16.14 Kershner, J.K, and B.B. Roper. 2010. An evaluation of management objectives used to assess stream habitat conditions on federal lands within the interior Columbia Basin. Fisheries 35:269- 277. Malheur National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Umatilla National Forest, USFWS, and NMFS. 2013. Blue Mountain Province Expedited Process Instrument II for Programmatic Informal Consultation with Project Design Criteria For Federal Land Management Activities Affecting ESA and MSA Listed Animal and Plant Species Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, Baker City, OR. McIntosh, B.A., J.R. Sedell, R.F. Thurow, S.E. Clarke and G.L. Chandler. 2000. Historical changes in poll habitats in the Columbia River Basin. Ecological Applications 10:1478-1496. McPhail, J.D. and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Submitted to BC Hydro and Power Authority and Kootenay Region Fish and Wildlife. 113 p. Meehan, W.R. and T.C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:47-82. 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.

64 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. NMFS Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch, Seattle, WA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1995. Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Northwest Region Office, Seattle, WA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management Plans for National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Resource Areas in the Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units. Northwest Region Office, Seattle, WA. Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Oregon Native Fish Status Report. Volumes I and II. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/native_fish_status_report.asp#documents Phillips, R.W., R.L. Lantz, E.W. Claire, and J.R. Moring. 1975. Some effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead trout fry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104:461-466. Platts, W. S., R. J. Torquemada, M. L. McHenry, and C. K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:274-283. Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. In Proc. Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. P.J. Howell and D.V. Buchanan (editors). Oreg. Chapter of the Am. Fish. Soc., Corvallis, Oreg., pp. 5–9. Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Volumes 1-4. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20(11):1753-1761. Reid, L.M., and M.J. Furniss. 1998. On the use of regional channel-based indicators for monitoring. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California. 24 p. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden, Utah. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Sausen, G. 2016. 2015 Bull Trout Redd Monitoring in the Wallowa Mountains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Grande Field Office, La Grande Oregon.

65 Schiess, P. and F. Krogstad. Sediment and Road Density Reduction. 2000. In: Proceedings Summit 2000, Washington Private Forests Forum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Sullivan, K.O., and S. H. Duncan. 1981. Sediment yield from road surfaces in response to truck traffic and rainfall. Weyerhaeuser research report. Weyerhaeuser, Western Forestry Research Center, Centralia, Washington, 46 pp USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (PACFISH). 1995. Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (INFISH). 1995. Interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and portions of Nevada (INFISH). (On file at Wallowa RD Office, Joseph OR) USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Region 1, Portland, Oregon USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Whitacre, H.W., B.B. Roper, and J.L. Kershner. 2007. A Comparison of Protocols and Observer Precision for Measuring Physical Stream Attributes. Journal of American Water Resources Association 43:923-937.

66 Appendix A – Road Maintenance BMPs/Conservation Measures (From 2013 WWNF Forest-wide Road Maintenance Draft BA, Appendix A) Road Surface Blading

• All material bladed will remain on or adjacent to the road prism. • Application of water for compaction and grading is restricted to the road surface. • Amount of water applied does not create runoff to areas outside of the road prism. • When drafting water from fishbearing streams for blading and compaction, a 3/32 inch or smaller mesh intake screen will be used to prevent injury to small fish. • Pump only from streams that have continuous surface flow where the pumping will not adversely affect water quantity or quality in stream reaches inhabited by ESA-listed species. • Ensure that any water withdrawal will not reduce flow at the time of withdrawal by more than 10% in stream reaches inhabited by ESA-listed species, or by more than 50% in other streams. • Utilize natural moisture or delivered water in blading operations to ensure rapid consolidation and compaction of the disturbed surface material. • Remove and re-incorporate material from the outside edges of the roadway that may result in the formation of a berm or other barrier to proper dispersal of water. • DO NOT side cast waste material within RHCA’s, waste material must be end hauled to an appropriate disposal location. Outside of RHCA’s, side casting of minor amounts of material, such as oversize rock, may occur if no other practical solution exists. In no instance should side cast material be placed in a manner that results in oversteepened fill slopes or impede proper drainage.

Asphalt Repair

• Excess asphalt is disposed of off Forest at designated and approved sites. • Do not conduct asphalt patching or sealing of road surfaces that drain directly to streams or to bridges over streams, outside of the dry season. • To minimize the potential for petroleum leachates, repaving of asphalt surfaces will occur during the dry season and will not occur within 24 hours of predicted rain.

Chip Sealing

• To minimize the potential for petroleum leachates, chip sealing will occur during the dry season and will not occur within 24 hours of predicted rain. • All material is to remain on the road prism.

Drainage Maintenance

• Clean ditches and catch basins only as needed to keep them functioning. • Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut fill slopes only when needed for adequate drainage. • Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings. • Leave grass in the ditch when or where the ditch is properly functioning to minimize exposed soil and transport to fish-bearing streams. • Do not remove vegetation in drainage ditches that discharge within 300 feet of listed fish-bearing streams unless an effective sediment trap exists or is installed and maintained until the vegetation is reestablished. • Minimize soil disturbance and displacement, but where sediment risks warrant, prevent off-site soil movement through use of filter materials (such as straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing) if vegetated areas between the road and fish-bearing streams are not present.

67 • Place cross-drain culverts where they will drain onto stable, vegetated slopes with porous soils, allowing for water infiltration, and with low probabilities of erosion and formation of new channels that connect to existing streams. • Culverts on Category 2 streams (perennial non-fishbearing) will be replaced during the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended instream work period, and during periods of low flow to minimize effects to downstream areas that are occupied by listed fish and are critical habitat for the species. • Culverts on Category 4 streams (intermittent nonfishbearing) will be replaced when the stream channel is dry. • After replacing an existing culvert, move any excess overburden material (road fill material) to a stable site away from riparian areas and floodplains. • Culverts will be properly sized to prevent the degradation of streambanks and maintain integrity of the stream channel and stream processes. • A Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan will be developed, which includes a description of any regulated or hazardous products or materials that will be used for the project, notification procedures, cleanup and disposal instructions for different products, and methods for disposal of spilled materials. • Fuel/oil leakage from construction equipment into the stream channel and floodplain will be minimized by establishing staging areas, for vehicles and fuel storage, at least 150’ from the stream or beyond the floodprone area, or as far away as possible from the stream channel. • Sedimentation resulting from earthmoving activities will be minimized by: delineating construction impact areas, confining work to the noted area, and confining impacts to the minimum area necessary to complete the project; keeping a supply of erosion control materials (e.g., silt fence or straw bales on hand to respond to sediment emergencies); minimizing amounts of debris and sediment falling into streams; and removing debris or large sediment spills that have fallen into the channel. • Site preparation related impacts will be minimized by: flagging boundaries of clearing limits associated with site access, riparian crossings, stream crossings; keeping large wood, riparian vegetation, topsoil, and surface vegetation that is moved or altered during construction on site for restoration activities; and minimizing tree removal and stockpiling removed trees for site restoration. • Upon project completion the site may be restored by stabilizing disturbed areas by seeding and mulching or planting with native seed mixes or plants. • Ditches within 300 feet of Category 1 streams (fishbearing) will not be cleaned unless an effective sediment trap exists or is installed and maintained until vegetation is re-established. • Vegetation from swales, ditches, shoulders and cut fill slopes will be removed only when it impedes adequate drainage, bedload or debris, vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance.

Repair of Bridges, Abutments, and Buttresses

• Use best management practices to confine, remove, and dispose of construction waste, including every type of debris, discharge water, concrete, cement, grout, washout materials, welding slag, petroleum products, or other hazardous materials generated, used, or stored at the work site; • Employ measures to ensure that concrete falling from over-water structures being constructed or repaired will fall into a tarp or other device to prevent its entering water bodies or wetlands. • Limit riprap use to scour protection of existing bridge or culvert structures and the replacement of pre-existing rock riprap, or pre-existing rock buttresses. Riprap use will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Outside of these uses riprap is not authorized. • Slope stabilization with rock: When a footing, facing, head wall, or other structure must be constructed with rock to prevent scouring or downcutting of, or fill slope erosion or failure at an existing culvert or bridge, the amount of rock used is limited to the minimum necessary to protect the integrity of the structure. • Use sediment control measures such as straw bales, filter cloth, or sediment fences when conditions warrant.

68 • Any riprap placed instream along roads in alluvial bottoms will not encroach upon the stream channel. • Follow label direction for application, clean up and disposal of paints, solvents, preservatives and cleaning agents. Minimize quantities on the job site to those needed to complete the job. • All rock materials (rip-rap) used to stabilize the streambank shall be free of excess dirt. Reduce the amount of riprap used at the site to the greatest extent possible. • Prepare concrete at least 150 feet (or as far as possible where site conditions do not allow a 150 foot setback) from waterbodies and wetlands; • Ensure that fresh concrete (cured less than 72 hours) concrete contaminated waste water, welding slag and grindings, concrete saw cutting, and sandblasting abrasives do not come in contact with water bodies;

Repair/Maintenance of Existing Culverts on Fishbearing Streams

• Limit riprap use to scour protection of existing culvert structures and the replacement of pre- existing rock riprap. Riprap use will be minimized to the greatest extent possible Outside of these uses riprap is not authorized. • Any riprap placed instream along roads in alluvial bottoms will not encroach upon the stream channel. • All rock materials (rip-rap) used to stabilize the streambank shall be free of excess dirt. • Reduce the amount of riprap used at the site to the greatest extent possible.

Dust Abatement (Magnesium Chloride)

• Do not apply magnesium chloride within 24 hours of predicted rain. Do not apply at stream crossings or other locations that could result in direct delivery to a water body (e.g., do not apply within 25 feet of a water body or stream channel including intermittent streams). • Utilize good surface preparation and multiple pass application of chloride products to minimize runoff and promote infiltration of the product. • Observe all safety precautions and follow manufacturer’s directions when handling, mixing and applying dust suppressants. • Apply during the dry season only. • Use the minimum quantity of product needed. • Apply only on the road surface.

Danger Tree Removal

• Do not remove cut hazard or blowdown trees in riparian areas. If blowdown trees in riparian areas need to be cut, keep logs as long as possible. • Trees may be dropped into streams with approval of the aquatics resource specialist.

Snowplowing

• Maintain a packed snow floor and/or utilize shoes on blades, dozers and other snow removal equipment to minimize amount of road surface material placed in snow berms.

Road Closures

• Minimize soil disturbance and displacement, but where sediment risks warrant, prevent off-site soil movement through use of filter materials (such as straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing) if vegetated areas between the road and fish-bearing streams are not present.

69 • Culverts on Category 2 streams (perennial non-fishbearing) will be removed during the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended instream work period, and during periods of low flow to minimize effects to downstream areas that are occupied by listed fish and are critical habitat for the species. • Culverts on Category 4 streams (intermittent nonfishbearing) will be removed when the stream channel is dry. • After removing an existing culvert, move any excess overburden material (road fill material) to a stable site away from riparian areas and floodplains. • Upon project completion the site may be restored by stabilizing disturbed areas by seeding and mulching or planting with native seed mixes or plants.

General Project Design Criteria/Best Management Practices/Conservation Measures

• Avoid ground-disturbing activities during wet periods that have the potential to generate and deliver sediment to streams. • Exposed soils that may deliver sediment to streams shall be treated prior to fall rains with native grass seed, hydroseeding with native vegetation, slash, water bars or other appropriate methods that will stabilize soils and minimize or eliminate sediment delivery. • All road maintenance actions will meet PACFISH/INFISH Standards and Guidelines. • Dispose of unusable waste materials in designated disposal sites. • A pollution control plan (PCP) will be developed. This may include but is not limited to: refueling of equipment at least 150 feet from streams and wetlands, hazmat booms and spill kit kept on site where there is a potential for toxic spill into aquatic systems. • Equipment will be cleaned prior to arrival on the project site to limit introduction of oil products. • Minimize to the utmost extent possible the entry of mechanized equipment into wetted stream channels.

70 Appendix B – Blue Mtn Project Design Criteria

Table 5 (Modified). Summary of Limited Activities for Non-Commercial Thinning and Prescribed Fire Activities in RHCA Buffers. Seasonally Fish Bearing Permanently Flowing or and Flowing non- Intermittent Designated fish Bearing and PACFISH/ Streams, Critical Ponds, Lakes INFISH wetlands < 1 Habitat and wetlands > RHCA Restrictions Category acres, landslides Streams 1 acres and landslide- (Cat 1, 300’) (Cat 2, 150’) (Activities allowed outside prone areas the limited activity stream buffer**) (Cat 4, 100’)

Activity Default Limited Activity Buffers

• treatment by hand only (no ground based equipment) • prior to treatment 500 – 2,500 stems per acre; post treatment fully stocked 75’ on slopes 50’ on slopes Thinning in 100’ (generally 175 – 220 trees per acre) < 30% < 30% RHCAs • variable spacing • all shade providing trees and long term wood recruitment trees retained • only trees < 9” dbh • piles located outside the no activity RHCA buffer width and in locations to avoid damage to remaining overstory canopy • hand piling only (no mechanical Slash Pile 100’ 75’ 50’ treatments) Burning • maximum size four feet in height and six feet in diameter • piles burned when there is a high soil moisture content

** RHCA restrictions are for the areas between the limited activity buffer and boundary of the full PACFISH buffer.

Salmonid Project Design Criteria Compliance Worksheet Blue Mountain Provincial Expedited Process

Project Name: Lostine Corridor Project Administrative Unit: Eagle Cap Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Agency Contacts: Alan Miller, Clint Foster Report Date: November 29, 2016 Level I team: Wallowa-Whitman Species and/or designated critical habitat covered:

Fish Species Status

SR Steelhead and Critical Habitat Threatened

SR Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Critical Habitat Threatened

CR Bull Trout and Critical Habitat Threatened

Watershed(s) affected by the project: (include HUC#) The action area includes portions of two subwatersheds: Lostine River-Silver Creek (HUC 170601050203), and Lostine River-Lake Creek SWS (HUC 170601050202).

Acres Affected (wetted width) for EFH: None, no activities will occur within EFH.

Project Description: (focus on the project components that may affect listed salmonid species or their designated critical habitats) (if a project occurs within an RHCA document compliance with applicable Standards and Guidelines and RMOs)

The Lostine Corridor Project has been designed to be consistent with the Blue Mountain PDCs. Proposed activities are displayed in the table below. Summary of proposed activities for the Lostine Corridor Project. Activity Amount Hazard Tree Mitigation 2000-3000 trees (est) Forest Resiliency Treatments (Commercial/noncommercial thinning) 509 acres Patch Cut Treatments 6 acres Group Select Treatments 13 acres Fuels Reduction Treatments - Uplands 154 acres Fuels Reduction Treatments - RHCAs 437 acres Road Maintenance 11.2 miles Temporary Road Construction ≤2.5 miles

Project Objectives The proposed action is designed to meet the purpose and need for the project while responding to the key issues identified during the scoping period and information obtained through additional field verification. Treatments in the proposed action respond to the purpose and need for the project and are designed to accomplish the following objectives: • Mitigation of hazard trees to road and recreation resources (developed and dispersed sites) to reduce the risk of personal harm and property damage to all users of public infrastructure in the Lostine Corridor. • Thinning of forest stands outside of RHCAs to reduce the intensity and severity of future wildfires in the corridor. • Thinning of forest stands outside of RHCAs up to 21” DBH to reduce stand densities to enhance forest resistance and resiliency to future disturbance events. • Thin within RHCAs to reduce the intensity and severity of future wildfires, and reduce stand densities to enhance resiliency and provide for current and future levels of RMOs (shading, LWD). Proposed Activities The components of the proposed action are listed as follows: Hazard Tree Mitigation: Hazard trees are defined as any tree or tree part that is within striking distance of a permanent or transitory target of value (Field Guide for Hazard-Tree Identification and Mitigation on Developed Sites in Oregon and Washington Forests, 2014). Forest Service policy requires the agency to mitigate hazard trees. The proposed treatment would be to remove or trim trees, regardless of diameter, that pose a hazard to recreation sites, roadways, administration sites, identified historical significant areas, private lands, following R-6 direction. Hazard tree zones in the project area are located: 1) along Forest Road 8250 (Lostine River Road), 2) around administration sites and identified historical significant areas, and 3) in and around developed and designated dispersed recreation sites. There are currently estimated to be between 2,000 to 3,000 hazard trees in the project area. Lostine River Road – Identification and mitigation of hazard trees will follow protocols in the 2008 “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response” (R6-NR-FP-PR-01-08; http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/fieldguidedangertree.pdf). The hazard tree zone along the Lostine River Road will extend about 200ft on either side of the road. All hazard trees adjacent to the Lostine River Road would be felled. A combination of mechanical felling from the road and hand felling will be used to fell hazard trees. Removal of hazard trees would occur with mechanized equipment operated from the Lostine River Road. a. Hazard trees within the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River will be felled. Trees within 200ft of the Lostine River will be felled and left on site; except as described below. Hazard trees greater than 200ft from the Lostine River will be felled and removed. • Hazard trees within the Lostine River RHCA that are located on the uphill side of the Lostine River Road will be felled and then removed with use of equipment working from the roadway. • Hazard trees within 200ft of the Lostine River that are located on the downhill side of the Lostine River Road that cannot be safely felled away

from the road would be felled and removed as above. b. Hazard trees within the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to Lake Creek will be felled. Determination of removal of hazard trees will be made on a case by case basis by the District Silviculturist and District Fish Biologist. c. Hazard trees within Category 2 RHCAs will be felled. Determination of removal of hazard trees will be made on a case by case basis by the District Silviculturist and District Fish Biologist. Generally, hazard trees within 100ft of Category 2 streams would be felled and left on site; except trees that cannot safely be felled towards the stream. These trees would be felled and then removed with use of equipment working from the roadway. Hazard trees greater than 100ft from Category 2 streams will be felled and removed. d. Hazard trees within Category 4 RHCAs will be felled. Determination of removal of hazard trees will be made on a case by case basis by the District Silviculturist and District Fish Biologist.

Figure 2 provides an example of how the various scenarios involved with the hazard tree mitigation activities will be implemented.

Figure 2. Example of proposed hazard tree mitigation activities.

Developed Sites, which include administration, historical, and recreation sites – Hazard trees in and adjacent to administration sites and identified historical significant areas would be felled. Where administration sites and identified historical significant areas are located in RHCAs hazard trees would be left on site where it is safe to do so. Felled hazard trees that interfere with the use of an administrative or historical site would be removed. Consistency with Blue Mountain PDCs Hazard tree mitigation activities were included for consultation under the Blue Mountain PDCs (BMPDC BA, p. 83). Proposed hazard tree mitigation treatments are consistent with Blue Mountain PDCs: 1) Hazard trees will be felled and removed from areas where hazard trees are unlikely to provide LWD to stream channels. Therefore, current and future LWD levels are unlikely to be reduced as a result of the proposed hazard tree mitigation treatments. 2) Mechanized equipment will only be operated from the Lostine River Road or road surfaces within campgrounds or admin sites within RHCAs. Therefore, soil disturbance will be minimized and fine sediment levels are unlikely to increase as a result of the proposed hazard tree mitigation treatments. Patch and Group Select Treatments: Up to nine two-acre patch and/or group select regeneration treatments are proposed for three different objectives in the project area. Figures 3 and 4 display locations of patch cut and group select units in the project area. Group Select Units – Six group selection units (units 8a, 8b, 9a, 10, 11a, 11b) are proposed in even-aged lodgepole dominated stands to create variability in stand structure and composition by re-planting with fire resistant western larch (Table 1). Some dead lodgepole will be harvested and decked for public firewood utilization. Patch Cut Units – Two patch cuts (units 18a, 19a) are proposed to create strategic fuel breaks that generally connect the Lostine River Access Road to natural upslope fuel breaks (Table 1). All trees over 21” dbh will be retained in these patch cut units. Where no trees greater than 21” dbh occur in the patch cut units, a minimum of five overstory trees per acre shall be retained. Maintenance of desired stand characteristics will occur as needed in the future to maintain the effectiveness of the treatment. Helispot Unit – One patch cut unit (Unit 17a) is proposed adjacent to Turkey Flat to serve as a helispot for emergency ingress and egress for both wildfire suppression and medevac purposes (Table 1). Currently, aside from the stock trailer parking lot at the Two Pan Trailhead (which is usually full during the summer months) there are no adequate helispot sites for a Type 1 helicopter within the project area. Maintenance of desired stand characteristics will occur as needed in the future to maintain the effectiveness of the treatment.

Table 1. Patch cut and group select units for the Lostine Corridor Project. Unit # Acres Treatment Objective 8A 2 HSG Group select; Species diversity. Replant with larch 8B 3 HSG Group select; Species diversity. Replant with larch 9A 2 HSG Group select; Species diversity. Replant with larch 10 2 HSG Group select; Species diversity. Replant with larch 11A 2 HSG Group select; Species diversity. Replant with larch 11B 2 HSG Group select; Species diversity. Replant with larch 17A 2 HSG Patch cut, Helispot creation 18A 2 HSG Patch cut, Strategic Fuel Break 19A 2 HSG Patch cut, Strategic Fuel Break

Table 2 summarizes the proposed activities for patch cut and group select activities. Table 2. Summary of proposed patch cut and group select activities for the Lostine Corridor Project. Activity Amount Group Select Treatments 13 acres Patch Cut Treatments 4 acres Turkey Flat Helispot 2 acres

Consistency with Blue Mountain PDCs Selection harvest activities were included for consultation under the Blue Mountain PDCs (BMPDC BA, p. 79). Proposed Patch and Group Select Treatments are consistent with Blue Mountain PDCs: 1. Patch cut and group select treatments will not occur within RHCAs therefore impacts to RMOs are not likely to occur. 2. Mechanized equipment associated with patch cut and group select treatments will not be operated in RHCAs therefore impacts to RMOs are not likely to occur. 3. Periodic maintenance of desired stand characteristics in patch cut and group select units are not likely to affect RMOs in the future because patch cut and group select units are outside of RHCAs.

Figure 3. Location of Patch Cut, Group Select, and Forest Resiliency Units. Forest Boundary to Lostine Guard Station.

Figure 4. Location of Patch Cut, Group Select, and Forest Resiliency Units. Lostine Guard Station to Two Pan Trailhead.

Forest Resilience Treatments: Proposed activities to improve forest resiliency include: commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning and fuels reduction activities. Forest resiliency treatments are designed to improve the health of forested stands, and reduce intensity and severity of future wildfires within the project area. Figures 3 and 4 display locations of forest resiliency treatments in the project area. Commercial Thinning Activities – Commercial thinning prescriptions are designed to improve forest resiliency by reducing stand densities. Within forest resiliency treatment units, commercial thinning would occur on about 509 acres. Commercial thinning prescriptions will focus on retaining healthy and vigorous dominant and co-dominant early seral conifer species. The prescription will be a thin from below from below up to 21” dbh. Commercial thinning prescriptions in mixed conifer stands will generally result in a residual basal area of between 100ft2 and 160ft2 (Table 3). Commercial thinning prescriptions in lodgepole stands (units 8, 9, 11) will have basal areas reduced to 50ft2 to promote establishment of western larch. No mechanized equipment will operate in RHCAs adjacent to forest resiliency treatment units. Table 3. Current and Post-treatment basal area by forest resiliency thinning unit. Current Basal Post Treatment. Unit # Stand Type Acres Treatment Area (ft2) Basal Area (ft2) 1A Mixed Conifer 17 HT21 260 180 1B Mixed Conifer 20 HT21 260 180 2 Mixed Conifer 10 HT21 230 160 3 Mixed Conifer 2 HT21 230 160 4 Mixed Conifer 30 HT21 176 140 5 Mixed Conifer 51 HT21 228 150 6 Mixed Conifer 32 HT21 228 150 7 Mixed Conifer 53 HT21 218 150 8 Lodgepole 16 HT21 117 50 9 Lodgepole 16 HT21 117 50 11 Lodgepole 25 HT21 127 50 13 Mixed Conifer 19 HT21 266 160 14 Mixed Conifer 21 HT21 266 160 15 Mixed Conifer 49 HT21 266 160 17 Mixed Conifer 31 HT21 274 160 18 Mixed Conifer 38 HT21 296 150 19 Mixed Conifer 22 HT21 274 140 20 Mixed Conifer 28 HT21 274 140 21 Mixed Conifer 14 HT21 274 140 22 Mixed Conifer 7 HT21 274 140 23 Mixed Conifer 8 HT21 274 140

FR 8250 would be used as a haul route for commercial haul activities. FR 8250 is double lane road with a crushed aggregate surface from the Forest Boundary to MP 4.95 (Lostine Guard Station @ Lake Creek). The objective maintenance level is a 4 and operation maintenance level is a 3 for this section of FR 8250. FR 8250 is single lane road with turnouts with an improved native surface from MP 4.95 (Lostine Guard Station @ Lake Creek), to MP 11.08 (Two Pan

Trailhead/Campground). The objective maintenance level is a 3 and operational maintenance level is a 2 for this section of FR 8250. Haul will be limited to dry or frozen conditions only by contract provision. There are about 6.6 miles of FR 8250 present in the Category 1 RHCA adjacent to the Lostine River in the action area. Additionally FR 8250 crosses 32 Category 4 streams 5 Category 2 streams, and 1 Category 1 stream, Lake Creek, in the action area. FR 8250 would be maintained to standard to protect road surfaces and reduce potential for erosion from road surfaces and lessen effects to aquatic habitat. Maintenance would include spot rocking, blading, and drainage work to reduce erosion from the road surface. Snow plowing would occur during winter haul. Road maintenance would be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs RF-2f, RF-3a, and RF-3b. Road maintenance would also incorporate USFS National BMPs for road maintenance activities (ref: FS-990a, pp. 111-114; FSM 772 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 60). Rates of sediment delivery from unpaved roads are closely correlated to traffic volume on unpaved roads (Reid and Dunne 1984, Sullivan and Duncan 1981). Reid and Dunne (1984) found that erosion from roads in the Coast Range of Washington varied with traffic volume; averaging from 354 tons/km/yr. for heavily used roads to 0.14 tons/km/yr. for lightly used roads to 0.006 tons/km/yr. for abandoned roads. Haul activities for the Lostine Corridor project will likely result in a short-term increase in erosion rates from FR 8250 due to the increase in traffic and heavier loads compared to normal recreational traffic on the road. However, with the use of haul restrictions and appropriate road maintenance activities measureable increases in fine sediment in the Lostine River or other fish bearing streams in the project area are unlikely. In order to process harvest material away from the main Lostine road and access forest resiliency treatment units, about 2.5 miles of temporary road will be constructed. Temporary roads will be short, low gradient spurs off of FR 8250. Temporary roads will not be located in RHCAs. Temporary roads will be decommissioned following haul activities. USFS National BMPs will be used during construction, use, and decommissioning of temporary roads (ref: FS-990a, pp. 114-115). See Appendix 1 for maps of locations for proposed temporary roads. Non-commercial Thinning and Fuels Reduction Activities – All forest resiliency treatment units are proposed to be treated with a post-harvest fuels reduction thinning of trees up to 7” at dbh. The post-harvest fuels thinning within forest resiliency treatment units will generally leave around 50 understory trees per acre. For the purposes of this project understory trees are defined as those non-commercial trees between 1 to 7” dbh and at least 4.5’ tall. Spacing of retained understory trees will generally be of a variable distribution between 20 and 30 feet. Activity and natural fuels (≤10” dbh) within forest resiliency treatment units will be machine piled and burned. No mechanized equipment will be operated in RHCAs and no machine piling will occur in RHCAs. Aspen Stand Treatments – There are an estimated 5 acres of aspen present in forest resiliency treatment units in the project area. Thinning of competing conifers less than 21” dbh and prescribed burning will occur as needed to reduce competing vegetation and improve aspen stand conditions. Stand-specific prescriptions will be developed by the District Silviculturist and District Botanist.

Consistency with Blue Mountain PDCs Understory harvest activities (BMPDC BA, p. 79).and mechanized post-harvest activities (BMPDC BA pp. 81-83) were included for consultation under the Blue Mountain PDCs Proposed forest resiliency treatments are consistent with Blue Mountain PDCs: 1) Mechanized equipment will not be operated within RHCAs. Therefore, soil disturbance will be minimized and fine sediment levels are not likely to increase as a result of the proposed forest resiliency treatments. 2) Forest resiliency treatments will not occur in RHCAs. Therefore impacts to RMOs (shading and LWD) are not likely to occur. 3) Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat. 4) Temporary roads will be located outside of RHCAs and on gentle slopes (<30%) and will be obliterated following use.

Fuels Reduction Activities: Fuels reduction thinning on 591 acres will occur outside of forest resiliency treatment units to remove ladder fuels in the lower canopy. Fuels reduction thinning will include the removal of trees up to 9” dbh. Thinning and piling of slash would be accomplished by hand. Of the 591 acres identified for fuels reduction thinning, 437 acres are located in RHCAs. Fuels reduction thinning in RHCAs will follow Blue Mountain PDC direction for riparian thinning and slash pile burning activities (Table 4). Fuels reduction thinning treatments will occur as funding becomes available and where determined to be appropriate and effective. Prescribed burning will occur as needed in the project area. Prescribed burning in RHCAs will follow Blue Mountain PDC direction (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of Limited Activities for Non-Commercial Thinning and Prescribed Fire Activities in RHCAs in the Lostine Corridor Project Area. Permanently Seasonally Fish Bearing Flowing non- Flowing or and fish Bearing Intermittent Designated PACFISH/ and Ponds, Streams, Critical INFISH Lakes and wetlands < 1 RHCA Restrictions Habitat Category wetlands > 1 acres, landslides Streams acres and landslide- (Activities allowed outside (300’) (150’) prone areas the limited activity stream buffer**)

(100’)

Activity Default Limited Activity Buffers

• treatment by hand only (no ground based equipment) • prior to treatment 500 – 2,500 stems per acre; post treatment fully stocked 75’ on slopes 50’ on slopes Thinning in 100’ (generally 175 – 220 trees per acre) < 30% < 30% RHCAs • variable spacing • all shade providing trees and long term wood recruitment trees retained • only trees < 9” dbh • treatment by hand only • all shade providing, instream and long term wood recruitment trees retained 75’ on slopes 50’ on slopes Prescribed 100’ • fully stocked canopy retained < 30% < 30% Fire in RHCAs • hand applied ignition (such as drip torch or fusees) within the limited activity buffer, • piles located outside the no activity RHCA buffer width and in locations to avoid damage to remaining overstory canopy

• hand piling only (no mechanical Slash Pile 100’ 75’ 50’ treatments) Burning • maximum size four feet in height and six feet in diameter • piles burned when there is a high soil moisture content ** RHCA restrictions are for the areas between the limited activity buffer and boundary of the full PACFISH buffer.

Consistency with Blue Mountain PDCs Small diameter thinning activities were included for consultation under the Blue Mountain PDCs (BMPDC BA, p. 86). Proposed fuels reduction activities are consistent with Blue Mountain PDCs: 1) Fuels reduction thinning in RHCAs will follow Blue Mountain PDC direction. Therefore impacts to RMOs (shading, fine sediment, LWD) are not likely to occur. 2) Prescribed burning in RHCAs will follow Blue Mountain PDC direction. Therefore impacts to RMOs (shading, fine sediment, LWD) are not likely to occur.

Relevant Design/Mitigation Features Protection measures for this project include both project design features and standard design elements. Project design features are action designed specifically for this project to reduce or prevent undesirable effects from proposed activities. They can include avoiding the effect, minimizing or mitigating the effect by limiting the action, rectifying the effect, reducing the effect through maintenance, or compensating for the effect. Following are the mitigation measures that relate to the aquatic resources. AQ-1-- Refueling and servicing of equipment will occur outside of RHCAs. (PACFISH SG TM-1) AQ-2-- Contractor will be required to have an approved Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) and any Petroleum product spill will be promptly reported. (Project Design Feature) AQ-3—Landings, decks, and temp roads would not be located in RHCAs. (Project Design Feature) AQ-4—Mechanical equipment will not be operated off the Lostine River Road within RHCAs during hazard tree mitigation activities. (Project Design Feature) AQ-5-- Landings would be rehabilitated after completion of timber harvest activities where needed to minimize bare soil conditions. Techniques may include subsoiling or scarifying, and seeding with a native herbaceous seed mix recommended by a Forest Service Botanist. (Project Design Feature) AQ-6-- BMPs (e.g. scattering slash, seeding, waterbars) would be used as appropriate to minimize erosion from skid trails and temp roads (prior to obliteration). (Project Design Feature) AQ-7 – Temporary roads will be obliterated following completion of sale activities. (Project Design Feature)

Aquatic Habitat A watershed analysis for the Lostine River Watershed was completed in 1997. As part of the analysis, watershed-specific RMOs were developed for the Lostine River. The watershed analysis concluded that the existing condition of habitat elements reflected the natural potential of the system and therefore the existing condition of habitat elements were adopted as RMOs (Table 5).

Table 1: Habitat summary data for the Lostine River on NFS Lands. Reaches 1 – 3 are in the action area. Reach 4 located in Eagle Cap Wilderness upstream of the action area. Shading indicates that a habitat element is meeting Forest Plan RMOs and FP BiOp indicators. N/D= No Data. Length Wetted Pieces Embeddedness % Stable Reach (miles) Width Pools/Mile1 W/D Ratio LWD/Mile (%) Banks (feet)

Reach 1 5.1 38.3 3.7 78.2 13.5 13.0 91.7

Reach 2 2.9 40.1 7.3 67.3 33.3 27.9 83.1

Reach 3 3.8 31.8 11.6 138.8 21.8 25.9 76.7

Reach 4 5.4 21.9 7.0 15.2 34.7 13.4 65.4

RMO/Indicator See Note 1 See Note 1 See Note 1 See Note 1 See Note 1 1) Existing condition of RMOs reflect natural potential, 1997 Lostine River Watershed Analysis

Table 2. Current multi-species matrix ratings for the two subwatersheds in the action area for the Lostine Corridor Project Area: Lostine River-Silver Creek (170601050203); Lostine River-Lake Creek (170601050202). Functioning Functioning at Diagnostic or Pathway Functioning at Risk Appropriately Unacceptable Risk Water Quality Indicators

Temperature (Steelhead/Salmon) 202, 203

Temperature (Bull Trout) 202, 203

Sediment/Turbidity 202, 203

Chemical Contamination/ Nutrients 202, 203

Habitat Access Indicators

Physical Barriers 202, 203

Habitat Elements Indicators

Substrate 202, 203

Large Woody Debris 202, 203

Pool Quality/ Frequency 202, 203

Off-Channel Habitat 202, 203

Refugia 202, 203

Channel Condition and Dynamics Indicators

Width/Depth Ratio 202, 203

Streambank Condition 202, 203

Floodplain Connectivity 202, 203

Flow/ Hydrology Indicators:

Change in Peak/Base Flows 202, 203

Increase in Drainage Network 202, 203

Watershed Conditions Indicators

Road Density (Steelhead/Salmon) 202, 203

Road Density (Bull Trout) 202, 203

Disturbance History 202, 203

Riparian Conservation Areas 202, 203

Disturbance Regime 202, 203

Overall SWS Rating 202, 203

Rationale for consistency with Project Design Criteria Habitat Parameter PDC Component Rationale Water Quality Water Temperature No, proposed thinning and Rx burning in RHCAs follows Is there any risk of affecting water temperature? BMPDCs.

Sediment and Substrate No, all soil disturbing activities will occur outside of Will the project contribute to the introduction of sediments RHCAs. Skidtrails, landings, temp roads are located into stream courses? outside of RHCAs. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree mitigation activities where machinery will be restricted to FR 8250. Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat. Chemical Will the project increase nutrients or introduce chemical No, skidtrails, landings, temp roads are located outside of Containments/nutrients contaminants to stream courses? RHCAs. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree mitigation activities where machinery will be restricted to FR 8250. No refueling will occur in RHCAs. Spill kits required at fueling sites. Barriers Will the project result in any impediment to movement of No, no activities are proposed within active channels of any life stage of fish? fish bearing streams.

Habitat Elements Large Wood Will the project reduce the amount of large wood within No, LWD RMO being met in Lostine River. Removal of stream courses? hazard trees in RHCAs will occur on a limited basis.

Pools Will the project adversely affect pool frequency in any No, LWD RMO being met in Lostine River. Removal of stream course? hazard trees in RHCAs will occur on a limited basis.

Channel Wetted Width/Depth Will the project affect the wetted width/depth ratio? No, no activities are proposed within active channels of Conditions and Ratio fish bearing streams or along streambanks. Dynamics Streambank Condition Will the project result in decreasing stream bank stability No, no activities are proposed within active channels of or artificially raising or lowering natural water levels? fish bearing streams or along streambanks.

Habitat Parameter PDC Component Rationale Flow/Hydrology Changes in Peak/Base Will the project result in detectable changes in peak or No, the project will not result in a significant increase Flow base flows? ECA because the majority of thinning is within the understory. The Turkey Flat Helispot will be maintained as a nonforested area (2 acres). Drainage Network Will the project increase the drainage network? No. No new system roads will be constructed. Increase Temporary roads will be obliterated after use.

Watershed Cumulative Effects to Are there any baseline indicators for this watershed that are No and no (see Table 6). . Condition Watershed Condition rated Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (FUR), and will this project affect those indicators?

Does the project occur within a subwatershed that has No and no (see Table 6). . Disturbance History baseline indicator for Disturbance History rated Functioning Appropriately (FA)? If yes, will the project change the indicator? If no does it require an ACOE 404 permit, result in take, or are short-term effects negligible? Explain. Direct Effects to Individuals No Does the project contain the risk of a “take”? NO

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT Primary Constituent Elements of Steelhead Critical Habitat

PCE Habitat PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Changes in Proposed thinning activities will not result in a Peak/Base Flows measureable increase in water yield because thinning activities will primarily be in the Water Quantity Flow/Hydrology understory. No increase in drainage network is Increase in Drainage anticipated because no new roads will be Network constructed and temporary roads will be obliterated after use. (1) Freshwater spawning sites Temperature Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Mtn with water quantity and PDCs. All soil disturbing activities will occur quality conditions and Sediment/Turbidity outside of RHCAs. No machinery will be substrate supporting operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree spawning, incubation and mitigation activities where machinery will be larval development; restricted to FR 8250. Thinning activities in RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with limited Water Quality Flow/Hydrology activity buffers. Fueling will not occur within Chemical RHCAs. Spill kits will be required to be present at Contamination/ fueling sites. Nutrients Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat.

PCE Habitat PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Mtn PDCs. All soil disturbing activities will occur outside of RHCAs. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree mitigation activities where machinery Suitable Substrate will be restricted to FR 8250. Thinning Habitat Elements Substrate Embeddedness activities in RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with limited activity buffers. Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat.

Proposed thinning activities will not result in a (2) Freshwater rearing sites with: Changes in measureable increase in water yield because (i) Water quality and forage Peak/Base Flows thinning activities will primarily be in the supporting juvenile Water Quantity Flow/Hydrology understory. No increase in drainage network is development; and Increase in Drainage anticipated because no new roads will be (ii) Natural cover such as shade, Network constructed and temporary roads will be submerged and overhanging obliterated after use. large wood, log jams and Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Mtn Temperature beaver dams, aquatic PDCs. All soil disturbing activities will occur vegetation, large rocks and outside of RHCAs. No machinery will be boulders, side channels, and Sediment/Turbidity operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree undercut banks mitigation activities where machinery will be restricted to FR 8250. Thinning activities in Water Quality Water Quality RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with limited Chemical activity buffers. Fueling will not occur within Contamination/ RHCAs. Spill kits will be required to be present at Nutrients fueling sites. Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat.

PCE Habitat PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature The Lostine River floodplain is encompassed within the RHCA. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree Floodplain Channel Condition Floodplain mitigation activities where machinery will be Connectivity and Dynamics Connectivity restricted to FR 8250. Mechanized equipment used for hazard tree mitigation activities will be restricted to the road prism. Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Substrate Mtn PDCs. All soil disturbing activities will Embeddedness occur outside of RHCAs. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard Large Woody Debris tree mitigation activities where machinery will be restricted to FR 8250. Thinning Pool Frequency activities in RHCAs are limited to hand Habitat Elements thinning with limited activity buffers. Hazard Pool Quality trees within 200ft of the Lostine River will be Forage felled and left on site. Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with Off-Channel Habitat PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic Refugia habitat. Watershed Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Mtn Condition PDCs. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree mitigation activities Riparian Reserves where machinery will be restricted to FR 8250. Thinning activities in RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with limited activity buffers. Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Substrate Mtn PDCs. All soil disturbing activities will occur outside of RHCAs. No machinery will Natural Cover Habitat Elements Large Woody Debris be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree mitigation activities where machinery Pool Frequency will be restricted to FR 8250. Thinning

PCE Habitat PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature activities in RHCAs are limited to hand Pool Quality thinning with limited activity buffers. Hazard trees within 200ft of the Lostine River will be Off-Channel Habitat felled and left on site. Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will incorporate Refugia National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat. Watershed Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Condition Mtn PDCs. No machinery will be operated in RHCAs except during hazard tree mitigation Riparian Reserves activities where machinery will be restricted to FR 8250. Thinning activities in RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with limited activity buffers.

(3) Freshwater migration No activities within stream channels are corridors free of proposed. obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged Migration and overhanging large Corridors Free Habitat Access Physical Barriers wood, aquatic vegetation, of Obstruction large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival;

Crosswalk Displaying Relationship between Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat (USDI 2010) and Habitat Indicators from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for Bull Trout (USDI 1998) for the Lostine Corridor project. PCE Habitat Baseline PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Condition Refer to baseline

condition in matrix The Lostine River floodplain is encompassed within the RHCA. Mechanized equipment Floodplain Channel Condition Floodplain FA during thinning activities will be excluded 1) Springs, seeps, Connectivity and Dynamics connectivity from RHCAs. Mechanized equipment used groundwater sources, and for hazard tree mitigation activities will be subsurface water connectivity restricted to the road prism. (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity Change in peak/base FAR Proposed thinning activities will not result in and provide thermal refugia. Water Quantity Flow/Hydrology flows a measureable increase in water yield because thinning activities will primarily be in the understory. Determination: No Effect Fueling will not occur within RHCAs. Spill kits will be required to be present at fueling 2) Migration habitats with Chemical minimal physical, biological, FA sites. Water Quality contaminants/ or water quality impediments nutrients, temperature between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater Obstruction and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to FAR Proposed thinning activities will not result in a measureable increase in water yield because permanent, partial, Change in peak/base Flow/Hydrology thinning activities will primarily be in the intermittent, or seasonal flows barriers. understory.

Determination: Not Likely to Affect for potential impacts to

chemical contaminants

PCE Habitat Baseline PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Condition FAR Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Mtn PDCs. No mechanized equipment will be operated in RHCAs. Thinning activities in RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with limited activity buffers. Hazard trees within 200ft of the Lostine River will be felled and Water Quality, 3) An abundant food base, left on site. Habitat Elements, All 13 associated including terrestrial organisms Forage Channel Condition with these 4 of riparian origin, aquatic Road operations (haul and maintenance) will and Dynamics, pathways macroinvertebrates, and forage be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will Habitat Access fish. incorporate National BMPs to minimize effects to aquatic habitat.

Determination: NLAA for potential impacts to LWD and

sediment/substrate FA: LWD, Proposed activities are consistent with Blue 4) Complex river, stream, Large woody debris lake, reservoir, and marine OC Mtn PDCs. No mechanized equipment will shoreline aquatic Habitat, be operated in RHCAs. Thinning activities in Pool frequency and environments, and processes Refugia. RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with quality, that establish and maintain FAR: Pool limited activity buffers. Hazard trees within these aquatic environments, Habitat 200ft of the Lostine River will be felled and Complex Large pools left on site with features such as large Condition Habitat Elements wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and Off channel habitat unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and Refugia structure. Determination: NLAA for potential impacts to LWD

PCE Habitat Baseline PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Condition

5). Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this Proposed activities are consistent with Blue range. Specific temperatures Mtn PDCs. No mechanized equipment will within this range will depend Water Quality Flow/Hydrology Temperature FAR be operated in RHCAs. Thinning activities in on bull trout life-history stage RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with and form; geography; limited activity buffers. elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local groundwater influence.

Determination: No Effect FAR, all Proposed activities are consistent with Blue 6). In spawning and rearing areas, Mtn PDCs. All soil disturbing activities will substrate of sufficient amount, occur outside of RHCAs. No mechanized size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo Water Quality Sediment equipment will be operated in RHCAs. overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will and juvenile survival. A minimal Suitable amount of fine sediment, incorporate National BMPs to minimize Substrate generally ranging in size from silt effects to aquatic habitat. to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic Substrate of these conditions. The size and Habitat Elements embeddedness amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system.

PCE Habitat Baseline PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Condition Determination: NLAA for potential impacts to

sediment/substrate 7). A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and Proposed thinning activities will not result in base flows within historic and Change in peak/base a measureable increase in water yield because seasonal ranges or, if flows are Water Quantity Flow/Hydrology FAR controlled, minimal flow flows thinning activities will primarily be in the departure from a natural understory. hydrograph. Determination: No Effect Temperature FAR Proposed activities are consistent with Blue Sediment FAR Mtn PDCs. No mechanized equipment will Water Quality Water Quality Chem. Contam./ FA be operated in RHCAs. Thinning activities in Nutrients RHCAs are limited to hand thinning with Change in Peak/Base limited activity buffers. Flows Road operations (haul and maintenance) will be consistent with PACFISH S&Gs and will 8). Sufficient water quality and incorporate National BMPs to minimize quantity such that normal FAR effects to aquatic habitat. reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. Water Quantity Flow/Hydrology Fueling will not occur within RHCAs. Spill kits will be required to be present at fueling sites.

Proposed thinning activities will not result in a measureable increase in water yield because thinning activities will primarily be in the understory. Determination: NLAA for potential impacts to

sediment/substrate

PCE Habitat Baseline PCE Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Rationale Feature Condition 9). Sufficiently low levels of The Lostine Corridor project does not include occurrence of nonnnative the introduction, spread, or augmentation of predatory (e.g., lake trout, brook trout or other nonnative species. The walleye, northern pike, project will not result in changes in aquatic smallmouth bass); habitat that would favor brook trout over bull Subpopulation Persistence and interbreeding (e.g., brook Species FAR trout. characteristics Genetic Integrity trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. Determination: No Effect

References: U.S. Department of Interior. 1998. A framework to assist in making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States; Final Rule. Federal Register 75:63897

Appendix 1 – Locations of Temporary Roads