United States Department of Agriculture

USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations in the Mt. Hood Wilderness Preliminary Assessment

Forest Mt. Hood National Zigzag and Hood River July 2016 Service Forest Ranger Districts

For More Information Contact:

MaryEllen Fitzgerald, Special Uses Program Manager Mt. Hood National Forest 16400 Champion Way Sandy, OR 97055 (503) 668-1429

Cover photo: Proposed location for gas instrumentation on the north side of Crater Rock, Mt. Hood

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Preliminary Assessment

Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 1 1-1 Document Structure ...... 1 1-2 Location of the Proposed Project Area ...... 3 1-3 Background ...... 3 1-4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1-5 Management Direction ...... 4 National Forest Management Act ...... 4 Stafford Act ...... 5 Wilderness Act ...... 5 1-6 Decision Framework ...... 5 1-7 Public Involvement ...... 6 1-8 Issues ...... 6 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 7 2-1 No-action Alternative ...... 7 2-2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 7 Proposed Locations ...... 8 Proposed Equipment and Installation ...... 15 Forest Plan Amendment #20 ...... 18 Wilderness Act Consistency ...... 19 2-3 Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures ...... 21 2-4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 21 Locating Monitoring Stations Outside of Wilderness ...... 21 Installing Fewer Monitoring Stations in Wilderness ...... 22 Chapter 3 – Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 23 3-1 Wilderness, Recreation and Visual Quality ...... 23 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 24 Existing Conditions ...... 25 Effects Analysis ...... 33 Consistency Determination ...... 39 3-2 Wildlife ...... 41 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 42 Existing Conditions ...... 42 Effects Analysis for All Alternatives...... 42 Consistency Determination ...... 56 3-3 Water Quality ...... 56 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 56 Existing Conditions ...... 58 Effects Analysis ...... 63 Consistency Determination ...... 70 3-4 Fisheries ...... 77 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 78 Existing Conditions ...... 79 Affected Environment/Action Area ...... 79 Effects Analysis for All Alternatives...... 84 Effects Determination/Summary of Effects ...... 85 Consistency Determination ...... 87 3-5 Botany ...... 87 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 87

Mt. Hood National Forest i USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Existing Conditions ...... 91 Effects Analysis ...... 94 Effects Determination ...... 96 Consistency Determination ...... 96 3-6 Invasive Plant Species ...... 98 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 98 Existing Conditions ...... 99 Effects Analysis ...... 100 Noxious Weed Risk Assessment ...... 101 Consistency Determination ...... 102 3-7 Heritage Resources ...... 103 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology ...... 103 Existing Conditions ...... 104 Effects Analysis ...... 106 Consistency Determination ...... 107 3-8 Other Required Disclosures ...... 108 Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions ...... 108 Climate Change ...... 108 Floodplains and Wetlands ...... 109 Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands ...... 109 Potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy ...... 109 Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas and Unroaded Areas ...... 109 Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, Women, and Environmental Justice ...... 109 Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 110 4-1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 110 Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 110 Consultation with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office ...... 110 Coordination with U.S. Geological Survey...... 110 4-2 Tribes ...... 111 4-3 List of Preparers ...... 111 References ...... 113

List of Tables Table 1. Proposed USGS volcanic monitoring and communication stations ...... 8 Table 2. Weight of materials to be transported to the monitoring stations ...... 20 Table 3. Weight of materials to be transported to the volcanic gas monitoring stations ...... 20 Table 4. Ground disturbance associated with USGS monitoring station designs ...... 20 Table 5. Proposed volcanic monitoring sites ...... 25 Table 6. Visual quality objectives per distance zones for trails within wilderness ...... 33 Table 7. Cumulative effects for wilderness ...... 37 Table 8. Cumulative effects for recreation ...... 38 Table 9. Cumulative effects for visual quality ...... 38 Table 10. Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wilderness ...... 39 Table 11. Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for recreation ...... 41 Table 12. Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for visual quality ...... 41 Table 13. Disruption and disturbance distances from helicopters for northern spotted owls ...... 43 Table 14. Region 6 sensitive species on the Mt. Hood National Forest ...... 46 Table 15. Summary of determinations for R6 sensitive species in the project area for the proposed action ...... 51 Table 16. Mt. Hood National Forest management indicator species ...... 52

Mt. Hood National Forest ii Preliminary Assessment

Table 17. Survey and manage species within Oregon Western Cascades Geographic Area ...... 53 Table 18. Methods and data used for the effects analysis and their characteristics ...... 58 Table 19. Scoring system for watershed conditions ...... 59 Table 20. Project sites with overall watershed conditions score and process indicator scores ...... 59 Table 21. Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed streams in the project area ...... 62 Table 22. Assessment of compliance with forest plan standards for water quality and water quantity71 Table 23. 2011 Analysis of watershed condition at the 6th field level for those watersheds inclusive of the USGS installation sites ...... 79 Table 24. Comparison of salmonid management indicator species occupied habitat within the Mt. Hood National Forest (total) and the action area ...... 81 Table 25. Region 6 (R6) special status species either documented (D) or suspected (S) to occur within the Mt. Hood National Forest and within the action area (Yes, No, Unknown)...... 82 Table 26. The USGS seismic equipment installation project effects determination summary for ESA listed species, designated critical habitat, and Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species .. 86 Table 27. Effects determination summary ...... 96 Table 28. Risk rating factors and vectors ...... 102 Table 29. Sites within 1 mile of the project boundary ...... 104

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map ...... 2 Figure 2. Proposed action map for USGS volcanic monitoring sites ...... 9 Figure 3. Map of existing monitoring stations near Mt. Hood Volcano ...... 10 Figure 4. Barrett Spur monitoring location ...... 12 Figure 5. Topographic map of Barrett Spur monitoring location ...... 12 Figure 6. Lamberson Butte monitoring location ...... 13 Figure 7. Topographic map of Lamberson Butte monitoring location ...... 13 Figure 8. Yocum Ridge monitoring location ...... 14 Figure 9. Topographic map of Yocum Ridge monitoring location ...... 14 Figure 10. Mt. Hood continuous gas monitoring site ...... 15 Figure 11. Example of fiberglass enclosure station with external GPS antenna ...... 16 Figure 12. Approximate size and shape of continuous volcanic gas monitoring station to be installed on Mt. Hood. Yard stick shown for scale...... 17 Figure 13. Example of a continuous volcanic gas monitoring station installed at Mt. Redoubt Volcano, Alaska ...... 17 Figure 14. View of Lamberson Butte with subject pointing south toward Mt. Hood Meadows ...... 26 Figure 15. View of outcropping from below. The equipment would be installed near the location where the subject is standing. This would obscure the equipment from most views, except for individuals on the ridge or above the equipment. This would be the minority of people...... 27 Figure 16. View of swale at proposed Yocum Ridge site. The equipment would be placed along the ridgeline near the vegetation on the right-hand side of the photo...... 28 Figure 17. Crater Rock. The box would be placed near the subject in the photo...... 29 Figure 18. Proposed helispot for transporting materials to the installation sites ...... 43 Figure 19. Spotted owl disruption buffers in relation to the proposed helicopter loading site ...... 44 Figure 20. Overall upslope/riparian condition is based on the combination of 5 process indicators, which were in turn derived from a number of finer grained metrics (Miller et al. 2014)...... 57 Figure 21. Project sites and associated subwatersheds ...... 58 Figure 22. Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed streams ...... 63 Figure 23. Proposed Yocum Ridge co-located seismic and GPS station with LiDAR Hillshade Background ...... 64

Mt. Hood National Forest iii USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 24. Proposed Yocum Ridge site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery from August 4, 2015 ...... 64 Figure 25. Proposed Barrett Spur co-located seismic and GPS station with LiDAR Hillshade Background ...... 65 Figure 26. Proposed Barrett Spur site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery August 4, 2015...... 65 Figure 27. Proposed Lamberson Butte co-located seismic and GPS station with LiDAR Hillshade Background ...... 66 Figure 28. Proposed Lamberson Butte site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery August 4, 2015...... 66 Figure 29. Crater Rock continuous volcanic gas monitoring station with LiDAR Hillshade Background ...... 67 Figure 30. Proposed Crater Rock site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery August 4, 2015...... 67 Figure 31. Proposed Crater Rock Site ...... 68

Mt. Hood National Forest iv Preliminary Assessment

Chapter 1 – Introduction Mt. Hood is a potentially active volcano close to popular recreation areas as well as the growing communities of Mt. Hood, Sandy, and the Portland metropolitan area. As a potentially active volcano, Mt. Hood poses significant volcano, landslide, flood, channel migration, and earthquake hazards to nearby communities and community assets. The Mt. Hood National Forest (Forest), therefore, is proposing to install monitoring stations in the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The stations would be assembled and maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey–Cascades Volcano Observatory (USGS–CVO). The data gathered at these new stations and from similar stations on and around Mt. Hood would be used to assess volcanic activity and as a basis for communications regarding volcanic hazards and public safety.

We prepared this preliminary assessment to determine whether effects of the proposed activities may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing this preliminary assessment, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 1-1 Document Structure This preliminary assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the no-action (baseline) and proposed action alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

• Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal and the purpose and need for action. This section also details how the Forest Service and USGS informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a description of the no- action and proposed action alternatives. This discussion also includes project design criteria and mitigation measures that were added as a result of environmental analysis.

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of no action as well as the trade-offs and effects of implementing the proposed action. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the existing environment is described first, followed by the estimated effects of no action that provides a baseline for evaluation, and finally, the estimated effects of the action alternatives.

• Consultation and Coordination: This section provides agencies consulted during the development of the preliminary assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Mt. Hood National Forest 1 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 1. Vicinity map

Mt. Hood National Forest 2 Preliminary Assessment

1-2 Location of the Proposed Project Area The project area is located within the Mt. Hood Wilderness in Clackamas and Hood River Counties. The legal description of the monitoring stations is: T2S, R8E and R9E, Sections 18, 20, 27 and 29.

Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the project area.

The Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) land use allocation is A-1: Wilderness. The goal of these lands is to “promote, perpetuate and preserve the wilderness character of the land; protect watersheds and wildlife habitat; preserve scenic and historic resources; and promote scientific research, primitive recreation, solitude, physical and mental challenge, and inspiration” (Forest Plan, page 4-136). Similarly, Section(4)(3)(b) of the Wilderness Act (1964) states that “wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which amended the Forest Plan in 1994, contains separate land use allocation for all lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. The Northwest Forest Plan allocation for these lands is Congressionally Designated.

The primary Forest Plan land use allocation for the helicopter landings is A-11: Winter Recreation Areas for Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort and Timberline Resort. The only area within the permit areas that would be temporarily impacted are two parking lotsHood River Meadows parking lot (T2S, R9E, Section 3) and Timberline parking lot (T3S, R8E, Section 24). Both of these locations are within the Northwest Forest Plan allocation of Administratively Withdrawn. Administratively Withdrawn areas are identified in current Forest and District Plans and include recreation and visual areas, back country, and other areas where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest (NWFP, page A-4). 1-3 Background Mt. Hood is an active volcano in the Cascade Range. It is located about 50 miles east of the Portland metropolitan area. Mt. Hood is a long-lived volcanic center that has erupted recurrently during the past 500,000 years. In the recent past, the volcano has produced two significant eruptive periodsone about 1,500 years ago and the other during the 1780s to 1790s. Today, Mt. Hood continues to show signs that it is a functioning active volcano. While not erupting, Mt. Hood produces frequent earthquakes and earthquake swarms. Also, steam and volcanic gases are emitted in the area around Crater Rock near the summit.

Mt. Hood’s primary eruptive style has alternated between lava flows that have traveled as far as 7 miles and lava dome building. On the steep upper slopes of Mt. Hood, growing lava domes have repeatedly collapsed to form hot, fast-moving pyroclastic flows and volcanic ash clouds. The extreme heat and scouring effect from such flows can swiftly melt significant quantities of snow and ice to produce lahars (mudflow on the slopes of a volcano) that surge down river valleys, typically far beyond the flanks of the volcano. In the past, large lahars have reached the Columbia River via the Sandy and Hood Rivers.

Given the well-documented hazards posed by volcanoes to both ground-based populations and aviation, continuous robust monitoring is critical for public safety and hazard mitigation. Volcanoes in the Cascades are monitored using a network of scientific instruments distributed throughout the area. These instruments include seismometers, tiltmeters, cameras, gas sensors, and global positioning system (GPS) devices. The monitoring instruments are capable of detecting small movements of rising magma as it breaks rocks, which causes detectable earthquakes, deforms the

Mt. Hood National Forest 3 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

land surface, and releases gases. Data from these instruments are transmitted back to USGS–CVO for review and analysis.

The USGS–CVO’s mission is to give timely warning to officials and the public regarding volcanic activity in the Cascade Range. To accomplish this mission, USGS–CVO monitors Cascade volcanoes; studies their eruptive histories (frequency, style, and magnitude); assesses hazards; conducts basic research into how volcanoes work to understand physical processes and monitoring signals; and, provides information to communities for land use planning and emergency response.

Effective monitoring requires a geographically distributed network of instruments located on the upper flanks and around the volcano to be in place before significant unrest occurs to catch the earliest subtle signals of rising magma. Once heightened volcanic unrest is detected, it is often too late for scientists to install the instruments required for adequate monitoring without compromising the safety of workers. With adequate monitoring systems in place, volcano observatories can provide accurate and timely forecasts and early alerts of possible eruptive activity. 1-4 Purpose and Need for Action To address the hazards posed by Mt. Hood, the USGS-CVO, as part of its mandate to mitigate volcanic hazards, proposes installing and maintaining four new volcanic monitoring stations on the flanks of Mt. Hood, all located within the Mt. Hood Wilderness boundary. The proposed monitoring stations are intended to provide USGS scientists with real-time early and adequate warnings of any changes in seismicity, gas emissions, and ground deformation that may signal an increase in volcanic activity on Mt. Hood. The USGS designated Mt. Hood as a very high threat volcano in the 2005 National Volcanic Early Warning System assessment of volcanic threat and monitoring abilities in the United States (Ewert et al. 2005).

As such, the primary purpose of the project is to fill gaps in the monitoring network at Mt. Hood, particularly on the upper flanks and near the summit area. These stations enhance the ability to detect subtle signals beneath the volcano that indicate unrest, earlier and with greater confidence than current capabilities outside of wilderness allow. Another purpose is to gather the data needed to help ensure the safety of both the adjacent communities as well as recreationists using the wilderness and the Forest.

To meet these purposes, there are the underlying needs to:

• Establish new volcanic monitoring sites on Mt. Hood volcano; and, • Build resiliency into the existing monitoring network to maintain continuous, real-time monitoring. 1-5 Management Direction This preliminary assessment was completed in accordance with direction contained in the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, Wilderness Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other applicable laws, policies and regulations.

National Forest Management Act This project follows goals and objectives of the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA Forest Service 1990a), including direction on management activities within designated wilderness areas. This preliminary assessment is tiered to the Mt. Hood National Forest

Mt. Hood National Forest 4 Preliminary Assessment

Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 1990b) and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1990c), and incorporates by reference the accompanying Forest Plan. The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. We discuss goals, objectives, and desired future conditions of the management areas within the project area below in the description of land allocations. In addition, management direction for the area is provided in three major Forest Plan amendments:

• The Northwest Forest Plan − Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old- Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994); • Survey and Manage – Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001); and, • Invasive Plants – Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (2005) and Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for the Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16 (2008).

Stafford Act This project is proposed to respond to the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (known as the Stafford Act). The Stafford Act of 1988 designated the USGS as the lead Federal agency with responsibility to provide notification for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides to enhance public safety and to reduce losses through effective forecasts and warnings based on scientific information. The USGS directs the Volcano Hazards Program (under the Stafford Act), which includes monitoring active and potentially active volcanoes, assessing volcanic hazards, responding to volcanic crises, and conducting research on how volcanoes work. Under this authority, USGS proposed installing monitoring stations on the Forest, including within the Mt. Hood Wilderness.

Wilderness Act The Wilderness Act also governs the management actions proposed with this project. Congress enacted the Wilderness Act of 1964 to secure an enduring resource of wilderness for the enjoyment of present and future generations (Section 2(a)). Section 2(c) of this act defines wilderness as areas untrammeled by people that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and directs agencies to manage wilderness to preserve natural ecological conditions. Section 4(b) states that “wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” This project meets this goal of the Wilderness Act as a scientific research project. 1-6 Decision Framework The need for the proposal outlined earlier sets the scope of the project and analysis to be completed. Based on the analysis, the forest supervisor for Mt. Hood National Forest will determine whether the proposed project and alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the forest supervisor will select an alternative deciding:

♦ Whether to install four volcanic monitoring stations within Mt. Hood Wilderness;

Mt. Hood National Forest 5 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

♦ What specific project design criteria or mitigation measures are needed; and, ♦ Whether to amend the Forest Plan for visual quality objectives within wilderness (as explained in the proposed action).

The decision will be based on: ♦ How well the selected alternative achieves the need; ♦ How well the selected alternative protects the environment and addresses issues and concerns; and, ♦ How well the selected alternative complies with relevant policies, laws, and regulations. 1-7 Public Involvement Proposed USGS volcanic monitoring stations in the Mt. Hood Wilderness project were listed in the Mt. Hood National Forest quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning in April 2015. Information on the proposal was posted on a project website (http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/mthood/landmanagement/projects).

The Forest Service conducted public scoping to identify any concerns with the proposed activities. In May 2015, we distributed a scoping letter to approximately 172 individuals and organizations, including local, State, tribal, and Federal governmental agencies; environmental groups; and local non-profit organizations. USGS also emailed notification of this project to approximately 100 people, including many members of the scientific and research community. Finally, the Forest Service and the USGS sent press releases to television, radio, and news media outlets, resulting in three news broadcasts and six news articles.

We received 23 scoping comments from Wilderness Watch, Portland Mountain Rescue, Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals Industries, Clackamas County Emergency Management, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Portland State University, Action Mining Services, and individuals. The majority of comments received were supportive of the project. Scoping comments, mailing lists, and news articles are available in the project file located in the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon. 1-8 Issues Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the responsible official and public to understand. Issues are best identified during scoping early in the process to help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider; but, due to the iterative nature of the NEPA process, additional issues may come to light at any time. Issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental effects to actions, including the proposed action (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 12.4). Issues are used to generate additional action alternatives to the proposed action.

Several commenters raised wilderness character as an issue during the scoping period. Wilderness characters include: untrammeled, undeveloped, natural, and outstanding opportunities (solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation). The commenters are concerned because the monitoring equipment (manmade structures) would be installed in wilderness and helicopters would be used for both the installation and battery replacement in the future. The monitoring equipment could

Mt. Hood National Forest 6 Preliminary Assessment potentially impact the undeveloped character of the Mt. Hood Wilderness and the helicopter use could potentially impact the outstanding opportunity of solitude.

To address this issue, we considered two alternatives that would reduce the impact to wilderness character: (1) locating monitoring stations outside of wilderness; and, (2) installing fewer monitoring stations in wilderness. We considered both alternatives, but we eliminated them from detailed study, as discussed in section 2-5. We also addressed this issue by minimizing the impacts to wilderness characters as described in the description of the proposed action (section 2-2) and project design criteria/mitigation measures (section 2-3). Lastly, impacts to wilderness character are analyzed and disclosed in section 3-1, wilderness, and recreation.

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 2 describes and compares the alternatives considered for installing volcanic monitoring stations to fill gaps in the monitoring network at Mt. Hood, particularly on the upper flanks and near the summit area. This chapter also includes project design criteria/mitigation measures and alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study. The responsible official for this project is the forest supervisor of the Mt. Hood National Forest. 2-1 No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, no monitoring stations would be installed in the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The wilderness area would remain in its current condition and the wilderness characters would remain unchanged. Under this alternative, the mitigation of volcano, landslide, flood, channel migration, and earthquake hazards to the nearby communities and community assets associated with an eruption of Mt. Hood would be greatly reduced. The eruptions would have widespread and hazardous consequences. It is likely that lahars would sweep down the Sandy and White River valleys, deposit debris on top of older lahar deposits and within existing streams, causing severe damage to infrastructure and property along the river banks (Scott et al. 1997). Without these monitoring stations, volcanic activity at Mt. Hood would be monitored at existing monitoring stations located outside of wilderness.

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would not meet the recommendations provided by the USGS and the USGS would not meet its obligations under the Stafford Act. Mt. Hood was designated as a “very high threat volcano” by the Consortium of U.S. Volcano Observatories in the 2005 National Volcanic Early Warning System (Ewert et al. 2005) assessment of volcanic threat and monitoring abilities in the United States. This was based on many factors including the number of eruptions, lahars, and debris flows generated by Mt. Hood in the last 10,000 years, as well as, by exposure factors such as the size of the population downslope of the volcano, aviation exposure to commercial and military aircraft that fly in the vicinity of the volcano, threat to transportation services, and the proximity to major developments and sensitive areas within the flowage hazard zones. 2-2 Proposed Action Alternative Recent reports assessed the level of monitoring in the Cascades and concluded that most Cascade volcanoes are under-monitored, given the threats they pose to communities downstream and downwind (Ewert et al. 2005 and Moran et al. 2008). This includes the Mt. Hood volcano. It has been determined that the number and type of monitoring stations close to the summit is inadequate.

Mt. Hood National Forest 7 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Based on this classification and existing circumstances, the USGS recommends that Mt. Hood be monitored at the highest of four monitoring levels. The USGS–CVO proposes to install a total of four new volcano monitoring stations in areas of minimal human use on the flanks of Mt. Hood volcano in the Mt. Hood Wilderness on the Zigzag and Hood River Ranger Districts (figure 2).The four proposed stations are within 3 miles of the summit of Mt. Hood, and would complement existing USGS-operated stations. USGS–CVO and its partners currently operate 10 monitoring stations near Mt. Hood volcano on National Forest System lands (figure 3). This would greatly increase the ability of USGS–CVO to carry out its delegated Federal responsibility to provide notification and warnings of volcanic activity.

Proposed Locations The new monitoring stations would consist of three co-located seismic and GPS stations, and one ground-based continuous volcanic gas monitoring station. The legal descriptions for each station are listed in table 1. The seismometers detect background and elevated seismic activity on the volcano. Having sufficient seismometers strategically located on and around the volcano allows for the detection and accurate location of small magnitude earthquakes and other seismic signals. Analysis of this data is used to determine if a volcano is reawakening while magma is still several miles below the summit. Additionally, seismic data aid in forecasting the likely onset time and style of eruptive activity. The main purpose of the gas monitoring station would be to measure the ratios of volcanic gases at Mt. Hood and the temperature of the active fumaroles.

Table 1. Proposed USGS volcanic monitoring and communication stations Site Name Type Township District BRSP Barrett Spur Combined 2S, 9E, Section 18 Hood River Seismic/GPS LAMB Lamberson Butte Combined 2S, 9E, Section 27 Hood River Seismic/GPS YOCR Yocum Ridge Combined 2S, 8.5E, Section 20 Zigzag Seismic/GPS MHGS Mt. Hood Gas Gas 2S, 9E, Section 29 Hood River

Mt. Hood National Forest 8 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 2. Proposed action map for USGS volcanic monitoring sites

Mt. Hood National Forest 9 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 3. Map of existing monitoring stations near Mt. Hood Volcano

Mt. Hood National Forest 10 Preliminary Assessment

Barrett Spur This proposed site is located northwest of Barrett Spur on a moderately angled debris slope, near the western edge of the slope in a non-vegetated area that consists mostly of large boulders, sand, and gravel. This site is approximately 3 miles from the junction of the Timberline Trail (Forest Service Trail #600) and the Vista Ridge Trail (Forest Service Trail #626). No site modifications would be needed at this location as there is little to no vegetation on site. The USGS would paint all exposed metal and fiberglass surfaces to reduce visual impact and to make every attempt to camouflage all equipment on site. Figure 4 is an overview photo of the site and figure 5 is a topographic map of the proposed monitoring site.

Lamberson Butte This proposed site is located in an open area that has a sky view to the east, south, and west. Geology of the site consists of highly weathered and fractured andesite and the ground is vegetated with small shrubs and alpine grasses. The site is fairly exposed to the south and east and is likely to remain snow free in the winter due to high exposure to winds. This site is off the Gnarl Ridge Trail (Forest Service Trail #652) on a talus slope. No site modifications would be needed at this location as there is little to no vegetation. The USGS would paint all exposed metal and fiberglass surfaces to reduce visual impact and to make every attempt to camouflage all equipment on site. Figure 6 is an overview photo of the site and figure 7 is a topographic map of the proposed monitoring site.

Yocum Ridge This proposed site is located on the edge of small swale on the south side of Yocum Ridge, about one-half mile northwest of the end of the maintained trail (Forest Service Trail #771). The site is mostly overgrown with low-lying shrubs and grasses. No site modifications to the vegetation would be needed at this location. The USGS would paint all exposed metal and fiberglass surfaces to reduce visual impact and to make every attempt to camouflage all equipment on site. Figure 8 is an overview photo of the site and figure 9 is a topographic map of the proposed monitoring site.

Mt. Hood Gas Station The continuous gas monitoring site is located on the north-northwest margin of Crater Rock where it meets a small ridge of actively degassing warm ground. The site is composed of highly altered volcanic rock and clay. This site is located near the summit of Mt. Hood. It is not on or adjacent to any existing climbing routes that lead to the summit; rather, it is located to the west to the base of “Old Chute” and then south approximately 300 feet to the northern edge of Crater Rock. The USGS would make every effort to place the equipment in a suitable location to reduce the chances that it would be seen by visitors, yet maintain its ability to effectively collect and monitor gas emissions on site. Site modifications would be minimal and would consist of digging a small footprint (approximately 3 feet by 2 feet) for the instrumentation enclosure. The USGS would paint all exposed metal and fiberglass surfaces to reduce visual impact and to make every attempt to camouflage all equipment on site. Figure 10 is an overview photo of the site.

Mt. Hood National Forest 11 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 4. Barrett Spur monitoring location

Figure 5. Topographic map of Barrett Spur monitoring location

Mt. Hood National Forest 12 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 6. Lamberson Butte monitoring location

Figure 7. Topographic map of Lamberson Butte monitoring location

Mt. Hood National Forest 13 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 8. Yocum Ridge monitoring location

Figure 9. Topographic map of Yocum Ridge monitoring location

Mt. Hood National Forest 14 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 10. Mt. Hood continuous gas monitoring site

Proposed Equipment and Installation Each station is designed to last for decades and allow for new generation monitoring equipment to be installed without further modification of the stations or an increase in size or footprint. The USGS intends to monitor these sites for a minimum of 30 years.

The combined seismic and GPS stations enclosure type is fiberglass (figure 11). All electronics and batteries would be located inside the water-tight enclosure. Solar panels are mounted to an angled side of the enclosure and the stand-alone GPS antenna mast is located a few feet away. The GPS mast typically extends 5 to 6 feet above the ground surface. A small amount of cement is used to anchor the GPS mast and the corners of the enclosure to the ground. It is critical that the GPS antenna mast be well coupled to bedrock to best detect ground deformation. For GPS mounts where there is no bedrock at or near the surface, a 3-foot-diameter hole is dug by hand to a depth of approximately 4 feet and the mast is placed in the center of the hole. Once the cement dries, dirt and sand excavated from the hole are placed over the top of the cement and graded by hand to match the preconstruction ground surface. A small trench (6-inches wide x 3-inches deep x approximately 5-feet long) would be used to bury a cable extending from the GPS antenna to the fiberglass enclosure.

The radio antenna is mounted outside on the side of the enclosure. Power to all the equipment inside the enclosure is provided by 10 sealed lead-acid batteries inside the enclosure and solar panels mounted on the south-facing side of the enclosure. The batteries, solar panels, and the proposed enclosure and associated components are essential tools needed to accomplish the monitoring goals at Mt. Hood.

Mt. Hood National Forest 15 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 11. Example of fiberglass enclosure station with external GPS antenna

The seismometers would detect background and elevated seismic activity on the volcano. A small approximately 2-foot diameter hole would be dug to a depth of 3 to 4 feet to bury the seismometer, and a small trench (6-inches wide x 3-inches deep x approximately 5-feet long) would be dug at the surface to bury the cable that would run from the seismometer to the nearby fiberglass enclosure. Seismometers strategically located on and around the volcano would allow for the detection and accurate location of small magnitude earthquakes and other seismic signals. This analysis is used to determine if a volcano is reawakening several miles below the summit, and to aid in forecasting the likely onset time and style of eruptive activity.

The GPS equipment would measure subtle ground deformation of the volcano in response to magma entering or leaving the magma reservoir. Multiple high-precision receivers located on the volcano flanks would allow the distance between receivers to be determined to within less than a centimeter before, during, and after an eruption. Additionally, GPS data can help determine whether local earthquakes are caused by intrusion of magma or are of tectonic origin.

The continuous volcanic gas monitoring station (figure 12 and figure 13) would consist of a rectangular aluminum box placed directly on the ground that would not exceed 3 feet x 5 feet x 3 feet. The aluminum box would enclose 10 air cell batteries and 2 to 3 waterproof plastic boxes that would house the volcanic gas measuring systems and satellite communications devices. The aluminum enclosure would be painted to minimize visibility.

Mt. Hood National Forest 16 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 12. Approximate size and shape of continuous volcanic gas monitoring station to be installed on Mt. Hood. Yard stick shown for scale.

Figure 13. Example of a continuous volcanic gas monitoring station installed at Mt. Redoubt Volcano, Alaska

Mt. Hood National Forest 17 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

The main purpose of the gas monitoring station would be to measure the ratios of volcanic gases at Mt. Hood and the temperature of the active fumaroles. Currently, Mt. Hood emits a mixture mainly composed of water vapor (approximately 95 percent), carbon dioxide (CO2; approximately 3 percent) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S; approximately 0.3 percent) from boiling- point fumaroles (approximately 90 degrees Celsius). If the relative proportion of carbon dioxide were to change, or if hydrogen sulfide were to be detected, it would give clues to changes in the hydrothermal system and volcanic unrest.

All proposed sites are accessible by existing roads and trails. After driving to the nearest trailhead, the sites would be reached by foot travel. A helicopter would be needed during installation and battery replacement, given the unit size and weight. Where and when necessary, a helicopter would deliver external sling loads of equipment, tools, and materials to and from each site during construction and occasional maintenance operations to replace batteries after their service life (approximately every 5 years). The number of trips with the helicopters would be minimized as much as possible. It is anticipated that remaining routine maintenance activities could be completed without the use of a helicopter. If a helicopter is needed, its use would be reviewed in the context of the minimum requirements for wilderness.

The helicopter landing would be located in the Hood River Meadows Parking Lot within the Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort permit area (T2S, R9E, Section 3, Hood River County). The Timberline Parking Lot (T3S, R8E, Section 24, Clackamas County) within the Timberline permit area would serve as the back-up location. Use of these parking lots would be coordinated with the permittees.

The USGS is responsible for installing and maintaining all equipment. Construction is typically completed in two to three days per site, but could last as long as one week depending on site conditions and weather. It is anticipated that the gas station installation would take no longer than one day to complete. If this project moves forward, the Forest Service would amend the USGS’s special use permit to incorporate these additional sites and develop an operating plan for the volcanic monitoring sites within Mt. Hood Wilderness. A Forest Service special use permit administrator would monitor implementation of the project along with compliance with all permit terms and conditions.

Forest Plan Amendment #20 This project is not consistent with the wilderness standard that states: “All management activities within the wilderness boundary shall meet the Preservation visual quality objective (VQO) as viewed from within wilderness” (Forest Plan, page 4-141). Preservation is defined as: “A visual quality objective that allows only ecological changes to take place” (Forest Plan, Glossary-23).

Visual impacts would be minimized as much as possible by adjusting the locations of the monitoring equipment and by requiring design criteria (i.e., painting) so the equipment would blend into the surroundings. The equipment may still be visible by wilderness users, particularly backcountry skiers and climbers. As such, this project includes a Forest Plan amendment to change the VQO requirements for this project to retention. Retention is defined as “a visual quality objective where human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor” (Forest Plan, Glossary-26).

As such, the site-specific Forest Plan amendment would remove the preservation standard and replace it with retention for the monitoring sites in this project. This amendment would not be applicable to any other projects or management activities in wilderness on the Forest.

Mt. Hood National Forest 18 Preliminary Assessment

Wilderness Act Consistency As discussed in section 1-5, this project meets the goals of the Wilderness Act as a scientific research project. This research and monitoring data are needed because it is important to have monitoring instrumentation in place before the start of volcanic unrest. As soon as unrest starts at Mt. Hood, a major question will be whether magma is rising and, if so, what sector of the volcano will be the likely point where magma breeches the surface. The goal of the proposed monitoring stations is to provide the data needed to significantly reduce the uncertainty. Answers to these questions would play a significant role in determining mitigation efforts to protect the safety of wilderness users and the surrounding communities. An eruption at Mt. Hood in our lifetimes is not far-fetched. The most recent Mt. Hood eruption was in the 1790s, and it is the third most seismically active volcano in the Cascades behind Mount St. Helens and Lassen Peak, both of which have experienced eruptions in the last 100 years. Mt. Hood experienced several significant swarms in the early 2000s that included several events large enough to be felt by the people at Timberline and in the community of Government Camp. As such, these monitoring stations would help protect wilderness users and the surrounding communities, as well as conducting scientific research on an active volcano.

Although the project meets the goals of the Wilderness Act, this project includes monitoring stations in wilderness (installations) and motorized equipment (helicopters) for installations. The Act prohibits motorized equipment, structures, installations, roads, commercial enterprises, aircraft landings, and mechanical transport (Section 4(c)) with certain exceptions. This monitoring data cannot be collected from non-wilderness sites; owing to the small magnitude of volcanic earthquakes and the localized nature of pre-eruptive deformation and gas emissions, the data must be collected from the flanks of the Mt. Hood volcano. These monitoring stations are part of the monitoring network designed to move beyond a reactive mode of mitigating volcanic risk and toward a proactive, fully integrated approach. Therefore, the monitoring stations fall under an exemption for installations in the Act. Section 4(d)(1) of the Act includes special provision where “such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.” While these special provisions are not specific to volcanic eruptions, the Act contemplated natural events occurring within the area that could have detrimental effects on life or property outside the wilderness boundary and authorized the necessary measures for their control. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2323.37 states that “enclosures or exclosures essential for management studies may be approved on a case-by-case basis.”

Similarly, the use of helicopters falls into a condition under which use of aircraft may be approved. FSM 2326.1(5) states that use may be approved “to meet minimum needs for protection and administration of the area as wilderness.” This is an essential activity needed to protect wilderness users and the surrounding communities that “is impossible to accomplish by non-motorized means because of such factors as time or season limitations, safety, or other material restrictions.” The batteries and other supplies needed to install the monitoring stations are too heavy to carry to the site via non-motorized means. Helicopters would only be used during maintenance activities to replace the batteries or other heavy equipment. The overall weight of the materials needed for installing the monitoring sites is approximately 2,900 pounds (see table 2) and the weight of the replacement batteries ranges from 350 to 1,400 pounds. The overall weight of the materials needed for installing the gas monitoring sites is approximately 400 pounds (see table 3) and the weight of the replacement batteries is 100 pounds. Non-motorized means of travel would be used whenever heavy equipment is not being transported.

Mt. Hood National Forest 19 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 2. Weight of materials to be transported to the monitoring stations Materials Weight in pounds Fiberglass hut mounted with 4 solar panels to recharge the batteries 500 50 feet of cable and hand tools 80 Electronic equipment, including a dual frequency GPS, a broadband seismometer, 80 and a digital radio 20 lead acid batteries, 70 pounds each 1,400 Galvanized antenna mast 60 GPS and digital antennas 30 Concrete 500 Water for concrete 250 Total weight for installation 2,900

Table 3. Weight of materials to be transported to the volcanic gas monitoring stations Materials Weight in pounds Aluminum box 100 Earth anchors, cable and hand tools 100 Electronic equipment 100 5 air cell batteries, 20 pounds 100 Total weight for installation 400

Further, the impacts to wilderness area would be minimized as much as possible, including ground disturbance, motorized equipment, and visual quality impacts. The overall disturbance associated with these sites is summarized in table 4. This project would impact approximately 105 square feet (less than 0.01 acre) at four separate sites, which represents a very small fraction of the designated Mt. Hood Wilderness (65,610 acres).

Table 4. Ground disturbance associated with USGS monitoring station designs Type of Structure Long-term Impact Area Enclosure Dimensions (square feet) (Feet) (LxWxH) Fiberglass 5x5x5 30 Enclosure (Includes GPS mast and seismometer buried in the ground.) Gas Enclosure 3x5x3 15 (No external GPS mast or seismometer to be installed at site.)

The Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) further discusses consistency with the Wilderness Act. The draft MRDG workbook for installing and maintaining these stations has been completed and is available on the project website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/mthood/landmanagement/projects. The MRDG is designed to assist the responsible official for this project in making appropriate decisions in wilderness. The MRDG analyzed three alternatives: (1) no action – no monitoring stations within the Mt. Hood Wilderness; (2) installation of three volcanic monitoring stations and one gas monitoring station using non-mechanical transportation, hand tools and/or motorized and battery-powered tools; and, (3) installation of monitoring equipment using assistance of a helicopter to transport material and equipment, and use of motorized and battery-powered tools.

Mt. Hood National Forest 20 Preliminary Assessment

2-3 Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures The NEPA defines “mitigation” as avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating project impacts. The following project design criteria and mitigation measures are an integral part of this project and would be carried out if the project is implemented. In most cases, the effects analysis in chapter 3 is based on these project design criteria and mitigation measures being implemented effectively.

• Helicopters must remain at least one-quarter mile from the known owl nest patch (6100P93) located near the Hood River Meadows parking lot at latitude 45 19.657, longitude 121 38.164 from March 1 to July 15. • All waste materials (including excess concrete) used in the constructing the sites would be removed to a site approved by the Forest Service permit administrator or designee. Containers and instruments used to mix concrete would not be washed with water at the project sites. • The materials brought to the construction site would be minimized as much as possible. For example, packaging would be removed whenever possible before materials are brought to the site. • Avoid impacts to live white bark pine trees. If impacts cannot be avoided, the live white bark pine trees would be transplanted. If it is not feasible to transplant the impacted white bark pine, a new rust-resistant seedling would be planted. A Forest Service botanist would be contacted to determine the best action and proper location for a transplant, if necessary. • To prevent the spread of invasive plants, all equipment would be cleaned of dirt and weeds before entering National Forest System lands. This practice would not apply to service vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that would remain on the roadway. • If using straw, hay or mulch for restoration in any areas, use only wood straw. 2-4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study NEPA requires Federal agencies to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received as well as the preliminary effects analysis conducted by the interdisciplinary team suggested alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may be outside the scope of this analysis, may not meet the purpose and need for action, may not be reasonably feasible or viable, may be duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or may be determined to cause unnecessary environmental harm. The following two alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed study as part of this project.

Locating Monitoring Stations Outside of Wilderness Wilderness Watch and others suggested that the Forest Service analyze an alternative that installs monitoring stations outside of designated wilderness areas. This alternative would install any additional equipment needed to complement the sites already located on the Forest (see figure 2) outside of the wilderness areas on National Forest System lands or other ownerships.

Mt. Hood National Forest 21 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Typically, volcanic earthquakes are centralized around the magma chamber beneath the summit and are quite small in magnitude (less than 1.0 magnitude). These smaller quakes would not be felt by a person standing directly above them, even if they occurred at a very shallow depth. The goal of the new monitoring stations is to detect the very small quakes that occur beneath the summit of the volcano during a volcanic eruption or prior to an eruption when magma is migrating toward the surface. The existing USGS monitoring stations are greater than 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the summit and do not detect these small volcanic earthquakes because the energy released dissipates as the waves travel out from the epicenter.

These small quakes are also very difficult to detect and locate when the monitoring stations are more than 10 kilometers away from the summit. The majority of this area is within the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, except for Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort and Timberline. Monitoring stations are currently located within the permit areas for both Mt. Hood Meadows and Timberline. These sites, however, detect a lot of cultural noise, such as ski lifts and snow plows, which makes it difficult to locate the small quakes occurring beneath the summit. No other locations are outside of designated wilderness within a 10-kilometer radius.

To measure these volcanic eruptions or earthquakes, additional monitoring stations are needed within 0 to 5 kilometers (0 to 3 miles) range of the summit. On the seismic side, the USGS would not be able to capture or detect the needed data without placing the stations within the proposed distance. On the GPS side, the existing GPS stations are too far away to detect the very subtle ground deformation that would occur as the magma chamber inflates as new magma moves into the system. During the 2004 and 2008 Mount St. Helens eruption, only those monitoring stations closest to the crater detected subtle ground deformation occurring at the summit and in the crater; those monitoring stations at distances of 10 kilometers or greater showed little to no detectable deformation.

As such, this alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed study because it is not technically feasible and does not meet the purpose and need for action. The primary purpose for this project is “to fill gaps in the monitoring network at Mt. Hood, particularly on the upper flanks and near the summit area” (see section 1-4).

Installing Fewer Monitoring Stations in Wilderness The original proposal consisted of six monitoring stations within Mt. Hood Wilderness, including two gas monitoring stations close to the summit. The Forest Service and USGS worked collaboratively to design the minimum network of monitoring stations that could meet the research and monitoring needs while minimizing the impacts to the wilderness characters and other resources.

To accurately locate volcanic earthquakes, a minimum of four monitoring stations are needed. Earthquakes have four variables (x, y, z, and time) that need to be measured at the same time. This would allow the monitoring stations to detect the ground motion and seismic waves associated with the volcanic earthquakes. The gas station is needed, as one of these four monitoring stations, to detect the low concentrations of volcanic gases emitted from fumaroles at the summit of Mt. Hood. These gases would be nearly impossible to detect by gas sensors located at the other proposed seismic/GPS stations because the gas could be less concentrated or highly dissipated in the air by the time they reached by the stations. For larger emissions of gas, it would be critical to detect rapid changes in gas concentrations before the gases descended down the flanks of the volcano to reach the stations.

Mt. Hood National Forest 22 Preliminary Assessment

As such, the proposed network of monitoring stations within the Mt. Hood Wilderness represents the minimum number necessary to meet the purpose and need for action. An alternative with fewer monitoring stations was not considered in detail because it is not technologically feasible.

Chapter 3 – Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This chapter presents information on the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected project area, and the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to those environments due to the implementation of the alternatives. Each resource area discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

NEPA defines these as:

• Direct: Effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place • Indirect: Effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable • Cumulative: Impacts that result from the incremental impact of an action, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions The preliminary assessment hereby incorporates by reference the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project record contains specialist reports, biological evaluations, and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this preliminary assessment. Specialist reports were completed for wildlife, water quality, fisheries, botany, invasive plants, recreation, visual quality, and heritage resources. Separate biological evaluations were completed for botanical species, aquatic species, and terrestrial wildlife species. Full versions of these reports are available in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters office in Sandy, Oregon.

Each of the specialist reports and biological evaluations conduct an analysis of cumulative effects resulting from this project. The following is a list of projects that the interdisciplinary team considered in their analysis.

• Past Activities: Implementation of volcanic monitoring stations in the Bull Run Watershed, Palmer Lift, Hood River Ranger Station Office, and Shell Rock Mountain. • Present/Ongoing Activities: Recreational use in wilderness, especially climbing and trail maintenance. • Reasonable Foreseeable Activities: Implementation of the Twilight Parking Lot at Mt. Hood Meadows. 3-1 Wilderness, Recreation and Visual Quality More information is available in the project record including the full recreation and visual quality analysis file, as part of the Recreation Specialist Report. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Mt. Hood National Forest 23 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology The proposal recommends the installation of volcanic monitoring stations in four locations within the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The sites will be referred to as Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, Yocum Ridge, and Crater Rock. Detailed descriptions of their locations and the surrounding environment are provided in the Wildlife and Recreation Existing Condition and Effects Analysis sections.

Wilderness The following wilderness characteristics will be analyzed in the context of the proposed sites: (1) Untrammeled – has the area been primarily affected by forces of nature with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) Natural – is the area protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions; (3) Undeveloped – is the area without permanent improvement or human habitation; (4) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – does the area provide opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation including remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside and outside of wilderness; and (5) Other Features of Value – does the area contain ecological, geological , or other features; or scientific, educational, scenic or historical value. These wilderness characteristics are defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (see section 1-5 for more information on the act). Impacts to these variables have been reviewed on a case-by-case basis and described in more detail in the following sections.

The items identified in the Forest Plan under “Wilderness (A2) B. Wilderness Coordination and Use Administration” will be discussed in more detail to determine whether or not the proposal would have a significant impact on these factors. The wilderness analysis will focus solely on the proposed actions within the Wilderness (A2) land allocation as all of the proposed monitoring sites would occur within the Mt. Hood Wilderness and these activities would have negligible impact to any other land allocation.

Recreation The recreation portion of this section will describe the existing condition and potential impacts of the proposal on recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), dispersed recreation, and trails. Impacts to these factors have been reviewed and are described in the following sections. The recreation analysis will focus on the proposed monitoring sites within the Wilderness (A2) land allocation as the proposed activities will not have a measurable impact on recreation outside of the Mt. Hood Wilderness.

The ROS assists with the planning and management of recreation by arranging possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, and probable experiences and opportunities along a spectrum or continuum. The six classes along the continuum have been used in the Forest Plan to provide a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire as well as the types of recreation opportunities the Forest may be able to provide.

The seven possible ROS classes or settings:

1) Primitive 2) Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 3) Semi-Primitive Motorized 4) Roaded Modified 5) Roaded Natural 6) Rural 7) Urban

Mt. Hood National Forest 24 Preliminary Assessment

The Primitive class was the only ROS class evaluated because all of the proposed sites are located within wilderness and this is the setting prescribed for wilderness. In the context of this analysis, the ROS settings within the planning area are examined to: (1) identify the specific management objectives for each ROS setting, and (2) determine whether the goals and objectives for each setting would be impacted by the proposed action (USDA Forest Service 1982).

Dispersed recreation and trails were evaluated based on Forest Plan direction, professional judgement, and site visits. Professional judgement was also used based on field experience and knowledge of the proposed sites. The Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, and Yocum Ridge sites were visited in August 2015.

Visual Quality Impacts to visual quality within the affected environment have been reviewed on a case-by-case basis and described in more detail in the Effects Analysis and Environmental Consequences section below. Visual impacts will be described in relation to the four proposed project locations.

The Forest Plan recognizes the Visual Management System (USDA Forest Service 1974) to protect and enhance scenic resources. This analysis utilizes the Visual Management System which uses visual quality objectives (VQOs) to provide measurable standards or objectives for the visual management of National Forest System lands. The balance between social (human) and ecological (natural) needs within the planning area are also taken into consideration in this analysis.

The visual quality analysis will focus on Wilderness (A2), as the entire project would occur within the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The size and design of the proposed structures would not have a measurable impact to resources in other land use allocations, so are not discussed further.

The visual dominance of management activities varies depending on the VQO prescribed for each land use allocation. Typically, the visual quality objective for wilderness is preservation, which allows for ecological changes only. This objective applies to wilderness areas, primitive areas, and other special classified areas awaiting designation. A Forest Plan amendment has been included in the project proposal to allow for minor changes in scenery to occur within the affected area of the Mt. Hood Wilderness. Visual Resource Management for the area impacted by the proposed structures would be changed to partial retention in the proposed action is selected. Partial retention is defined as “a visual quality objective where man's activities may be evident but subordinate to the characteristic landscape” (Forest Plan, Glossary-22). See section 1-5 for more information on the Forest Plan amendment.

Existing Conditions The USGS has proposed four locations for installation of volcanic monitoring stations. All of these sites are located within the Mt. Hood Wilderness, as described in table 5.

Table 5. Proposed volcanic monitoring sites Name Type of Site Legal Description Latitude Longitude Lamberson Butte Seismic T2S R9E Sec 27 45.35980 -121.64755 Barrett Spur Seismic T2S R9E Sec 18 45.40155 -121.70843 Yocum Ridge Seismic T2S R8E Sec 20 45.37891 -121.74355 Crater Rock Gas T2S R9E Sec 29 45.37107 -121.69979

Mt. Hood National Forest 25 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

To meet the intent of this analysis, the existing condition of the site locations, wilderness, recreation, and visual quality will be described at each of these locations.

Site Locations

Lamberson Butte Lamberson Butte is a steep, rocky butte on the southeast side of Mt. Hood. There are trees up to about 16 feet in height and rocks leading up to and along the top of the butte. It is located just north of the Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Permit Area Boundary. The ski area and Heather and Clark Canyons can be seen from Lamberson Butte. Lamberson Butte is not far from the Timberline Trail #600, which circumnavigates Mt. Hood. A footpath can be followed from the Timberline Trail to the top of Lamberson Butte. See figure 14.

Figure 14. View of Lamberson Butte with subject pointing south toward Mt. Hood Meadows

Barrett Spur Barrett Spur is a steep screed slope on the north side of Mt. Hood. The proposed project location is not on Barrett Spur itself, but on top of a ridge just northeast of Barrett Spur. The area is very rocky and sparsely vegetated. It is about a half mile above the point where Vista Ridge Trail intersects with the Timberline Trail. There are many user-created footpaths in this area. Most of these footpaths lead to Barrett Spur itself and not toward the proposed project location. See figure 15.

Mt. Hood National Forest 26 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 15. View of outcropping from below. The equipment would be installed near the location where the subject is standing. This would obscure the equipment from most views, except for individuals on the ridge or above the equipment. This would be the minority of people.

Yocum Ridge Yocum Ridge is on the west side of Mt. Hood. The proposed site for the station on Yocum Ridge is located in a grassy swale. The site is situated out of view from any system trails. It is likely that people have camped in the swale, as it is flat and provides an interesting view of the surrounding valley. Mount Jefferson and Tom, Dick and Harry can be seen from this location. See figure 16.

Mt. Hood National Forest 27 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 16. View of swale at proposed Yocum Ridge site. The equipment would be placed along the ridgeline near the vegetation on the right-hand side of the photo.

Crater Rock This site is adjacent to the popular south climbing route on Mt. Hood, although the station itself would be on the west side of Crater Rock, while the south climbing route is on the east side of Crater Rock. The less popular west crater climbing route passes closer to the proposed site. The site is often covered by snow, but can be bare rock when the snow melts in low-snow years. From the proposed site on the west side of Crater Rock one would see a cirque and the Pearly Gates below the summit. Looking down and to the south, one could possibly see a limited view of Timberline and a limited view of the White River Glacier beyond the Steel Cliffs during low snow. To the north, one could see down toward the Zigzag Glacier. In general, views are somewhat limited in this location by the topography of the volcano. See figure 17.

Mt. Hood National Forest 28 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 17. Crater Rock. The box would be placed near the subject in the photo.

Wilderness Characteristics

Untrammeled The four locations described above appear to be untrammeled per the intent of the Wilderness Act. It does not appear that any intentional actions have had an effect on the untrammeled nature of the sites. Each site itself appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, although indicators of humans are present near all of the sites. See the Solitude or Primitive Unconfined Recreation section for a description on human use of the sites.

Natural The natural condition the Wilderness Act is intended to protect is largely intact at these locations. They are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization although modern civilization can be seen from all of the sites and haze from Portland can be viewed from all of the sites except for Lamberson Butte. At a smaller scale, on site, there has been minimal impact to the sites themselves including any existing vegetation.

Undeveloped There are no developments at any of the sites. While there is evidence that humans have traveled to and around all of the sites, there is no indication of human occupation at any site. In addition, there are no permanent improvements at any site. All of the sites are near trails or climbing routes. Crater Rock is heavily traveled, as the south route is the most popular climbing route on Mt. Hood. However, the route itself is not a permanent improvement.

Mt. Hood National Forest 29 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Solitude or Primitive Unconfined Recreation Dispersed recreation is evident at all of the sites. Lamberson Butte is adjacent to the Timberline Trail and is a vantage point of the surrounding valley. The Timberline Trail is heavily traveled during the summer. As a result, individuals have scrambled to the top of the butte to look at the surrounding area. This use, however, is somewhat incidental as the footpath is evident, but not overly well-defined. Human impacts on the butte itself are relatively minimal.

Vista Ridge and Timberline Trails are in the vicinity of Barrett Spur and are very popular, receiving a lot of use during the summer months. While individuals have traveled all over this area, human-caused impacts are not evident at or adjacent to the site itself.

During the summer, especially on weekends, opportunities for solitude can be limited at Lamberson Butte and Barrett Spur as the Timberline Trail is in view and is heavily used. Vista Ridge is also heavily used. If an individual traveled to Lamberson Butte in the winter and looked south, they would see the operations of Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort, which often has thousands of skier visits per day. During the shoulder season, a visitor may not encounter anyone at Lamberson Butte.

The vicinity of Crater Rock is heavily traveled during the climbing season. A climber could see many people on a busy day on this route. On less favorable days or midweek during the shoulder season, there may be no one in the area.

The Yocum Ridge trail receives use and is in the vicinity of the Yocum Ridge site, although the trail is not in view of the site and the site cannot be viewed from the trail. The trail is known as one of the longer, more difficult trails on the Mt. Hood and is traveled less frequently than more popular trails. Individuals have used the vicinity of the site to camp in the past. It is possible that an individual would encounter another party trying to camp at the proposed site.

There are no management restrictions at any of the sites outside of existing wilderness restrictions. Individuals may camp, hike, and explore at all of the proposed sites.

Other Features of Value Wilderness is intended to preserve features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. All of the sites provide beautiful vistas of both the summit of Mt. Hood and the surrounding valleys.

Lamberson Butte is a geologic feature with steep sides and a small, flat top. It provides a nice viewpoint for those interested in hiking to the top. There are many similar vistas surrounding Mt. Hood providing views from the mountain and of the mountain in every direction. Similar to Lamberson Butte, the proposed site and area surrounding Barrett Spur provide vistas of the north side of Mt. Hood as well as the surrounding valleys. The Yocum Ridge site provides a vista of Mount Jefferson, Portland to the west, and an interesting view of the Reid Glacier.

Crater Rock is a famous feature on the mountain. Many climbers pass by this location along the south climbing route. This is an important landmark for many people who are familiar with Mt. Hood.

Recreation The existing conditions of the following factors will be discussed below: recreation opportunity spectrum, dispersed recreation, and trails.

Mt. Hood National Forest 30 Preliminary Assessment

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The ROS class for all wilderness under the Forest Plan is primitive. The ROS setting for wilderness areas is described in the Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. The primitive ROS setting provides for the following types of recreation:

• Areas characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of a fairly large size; • Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal; • The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-introduced restrictions and controls; and, • Motorized use within the area is not permitted. (ROS Users Guide, USDA Forest Service 1982) All four sites are located within the Mt. Hood Wilderness and fall under the primitive ROS class. While the entire Mt. Hood Wilderness should be managed to be consistent with this ROS class, user interaction within some areas is considered high, and therefore, inconsistent with the primitive ROS class. Three of the proposed locations are likely inconsistent with the primitive ROS settings on weekends and holidays during certain times of the year: Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, and Crater Rock. Individuals visiting these sites are likely to encounter many parties along their way during the summer months. Visitors are likely to see fewer visitors within the vicinity of the Yocum Ridge sSite; although depending on their route, they could see many people below the site, near Ramona Falls.

Dispersed Recreation Dispersed recreation occurs throughout the Mt. Hood Wilderness. Visitors can walk most places they can access with few restrictions. There is evidence of dispersed recreation near all of the sites. People wander up to the proposed site on Lamberson Butte from the Timberline Trail. The butte is a good vantage point of the mountain and the surrounding valley. A footpath is faintly visible leading up to the butte for this reason.

There are also user-created paths leading up to and around Barrett Spur. The site itself is to the west of Barrett Spur. There are no footpaths to the site, but the area is frequently accessed by hikers during the summer and skiers during the winter; it is likely that visitors have been to the site or nearby.

The Yocum Ridge site is adjacent to a spot that has been used by campers in the past. This is evidenced by some bare ground in an otherwise grassy swale and some wood that appears to have been brought to the site. There is no rock ring for a campfire on site or other evidence of use.

Crater Rock, is along the south climbing route of Mt. Hood. Climbers pass the site regularly during climbing season. Others likely hike to the site itself and do not go farther for various reasons. For example, skiers may decide to hike to the rock before skiing back down toward Timberline.

Trails Trails can be seen from the Lamberson Butte and Barrett Spur sites. The Timberline Trail can be seen from both of these sites and Vista Ridge Trail can be seen from Barrett Spur, as well. These trails receive heavy use during the summer months, especially on the weekends. The Timberline Trail is popular regionally as the trail that circumnavigates Mt. Hood. Vista Ridge Trail is a

Mt. Hood National Forest 31 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations popular access point for the Timberline Trail. More information on the Timberline Trail is available in the Heritage Specialist Report.

Yocum Ridge Trail is less than one-quarter mile from the proposed site, but is not visible from the site. It would be the easiest access point to the proposed site. This is a challenging trail and receives less use than many of the trails in the Mt. Hood Wilderness for this reason.

Crater Rock is adjacent to a climbing route, which is not considered a trail.

Visual Quality Since all four proposed sites are within the Mt. Hood Wilderness, they fall under the VQO of preservation. With the site-specific Forest Plan amendment, these sites would fall under the VQO of partial retention. Forest Service direction provides the following definitions of the VQO categories (Agriculture Handbook 462) relevant to this project:

• Preservation (P) – This VQO allows ecological changes only. This objective applies to wilderness areas, primitive areas, and other special classified areas awaiting designation. • Partial Retention (PR) – Management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat or introduce form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape but may change in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., so long as they remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Distance zones are classified as foreground, middleground, and background:

• Foreground – 0 to 1/2 mile from viewpoint • Middleground – 1/2 mile to 5 miles from viewpoint • Background – Beyond 5 miles from viewpoint The Forest Plan indicates that wilderness areas on the Mt. Hood National Forest should have a VQO of preservation for the foreground, middleground, and background.

For the most part, within the foreground and middleground, the VQOs at the proposed sites are consistent with the Forest Plan designation of preservation. Only ecological changes to the landscape are present. There are several exceptions. Trails are visible from the Lamberson Butte and Barrett Spur sites, and two ski areas are visible from the middleground of the Lamberson Butte and Crater Rock sites.

Typically, activities are not proposed within wilderness, but outside of wilderness. When this occurs, the goal of the Forest Service is to design these projects so that management activities are not visible from wilderness. Due to the elevation of the Mt. Hood Wilderness (a large portion is above tree line) and the difference in relief between Mt. Hood and the surrounding area, visitors can often see well past foreground and middleground. On a clear day, visitors can see beyond 5 miles from each of the proposed sites, except possibly Crater Rock due to the topography in that location that could block one’s view, depending on where they are standing. Human activity is visible in the background of all of the sites. Many of these activities do not occur on National Forest System lands, but on other jurisdictions. Evidence of human activity visible from the sites includes: Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Area, Timberline Ski Area, roads, and buildings.

Mt. Hood National Forest 32 Preliminary Assessment

Trails have specific VQOs. All trails within wilderness are considered Sensitivity Class I. The Forest Plan direction for these trails is displayed in table 6.

Table 6. Visual quality objectives per distance zones for trails within wilderness Sensitivity Near- Foreground (660 Far-Foreground Middleground (From Trail Name Level feet both sides of Trail) (Second 660 feet) 1,320 feet to 5 miles) Timberline I Retention (R) Partial Retention (PR) Modification (M) Vista Ridge I Retention (R) Partial Retention (PR) Modification (M)

Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects The existing condition portion of this section describes the current condition of wilderness, recreation, and visual quality at the proposed monitoring sites. The current condition would continue to be present for each of these resources under alternative 1, the no-action alternative.

Wilderness Under the no-action alternative, the four monitoring sites would not be developed. There would be no direct or indirect effects to wilderness. The no-action alternative would have no impact on the wilderness characteristics that were described for Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, Yocum Ridge, and Crater Rock.

Recreation There would be no direct or indirect effects from the no-action alternative. Taking no action would not create any impact to the ROS spectrum, dispersed recreation use, or trails.

Visual Quality Objectives The no-action alternative would have no direct or indirect impacts on the VQOs for wilderness or the Timberline or Vista Ridge trails. VQOs for the sites would remain the same (Preservation) in the short and long term. No Forest Plan amendment would be needed.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects The seismic monitoring sites at Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, and Yocum Ridge would have several components. The seismic and GPS stations along with the required electronics and batteries would be enclosed in a fiberglass structure. Solar panels would be mounted at an angle to one side of the enclosure. A stand-alone GPS antenna would be located a few feet away from the enclosure. The antenna would rise about 5 to 6 feet above the surface of the ground. Some cement would be used to secure the GPS mast and the corners of the fiberglass enclosure to the ground. Excavated dirt and sand would be placed on top of the cement and graded by hand so that the area adjacent to the enclosure matches the surrounding ground cover.

The gas monitoring station at Crater Rock would include a rectangular aluminum box for storing batteries and boxes with volcanic gas measuring systems and satellite communication devices.

The following project design criteria would be used to minimize any impacts from the installation of the stations or their presence within the Mt. Hood Wilderness:

Mt. Hood National Forest 33 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

• The equipment would be painted a matte color to blend in with the surroundings and so that it does not reflect light • Solar panels would be oriented away from major view points within the Mt. Hood Wilderness • Equipment would be located so that its view is strategically blocked by topography and vegetation • The Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, and Yocum Ridge sites would be installed with the help of a helicopter. Helicopter use in wilderness would be the minimal amount necessary to safely deliver materials to the sites. Installation would not occur on a weekend. • Installation crews would follow wilderness guidelines. There would be less than 12 crew members per group. More details on the structure and a full list of the project design criteria and mitigation measures can be found in section 2-3.

Wilderness

Untrammeled Installing monitoring sites within the Mt. Hood Wilderness would impact the untrammeled nature of the specific sites, as installation would be an intentional action. These actions would be taken to provide USGS scientists with real-time, early, and adequate warnings of any changes in seismicity, gas emissions, and ground deformation that may signal an increase in volcanic activity on Mt. Hood. Such activity is a specific threat to Mt. Hood and the surrounding area. An eruption would likely impact a large area, much larger than the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The untrammeled character of the Wilderness Act would be compromised in a limited manner for the scientific value of the monitoring systems. The area occupied by a station would not exceed 30 square feet. As a result, the scale of the resulting trammeling should be considered minimal in impact.

Natural There would be a limited, site-specific impact to the natural characteristics at each site. The foot print of the stations at Lamberson Butte, Barrett Spur, and Yocum Ridge would be limited to 30 square feet and the footprint at Crater Rock would be 15 square feet and buried under snow for part of the year. In total, the monitoring stations would have an impact of up to 105 square feet within the Mt. Hood Wilderness, which totals 65,610 acres. The installments are an indicator of modern civilization, however, as mentioned above, they would provide a benefit to society due to their scientific value.

Undeveloped The installations would be a permanent development on 105 square feet of the Mt. Hood Wilderness, which is in conflict with the undeveloped character of wilderness. The Wilderness Act calls for areas of undeveloped land without permanent improvements. The installations would conflict with this portion of the Wilderness Act. However, the opportunity for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation in the larger setting would not be impacted. Stations would be painted to reduce their visibility and placed to minimize being detected by the casual visitor. Hikers and climbers could have short-term encounters with pack stock and USGS porters along trail access points during installation or periodic maintenance.

Mt. Hood National Forest 34 Preliminary Assessment

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation The structures would not have an impact on solitude or unconfined recreation. It is possible that some individuals could seek out the sites if they happen to see them or hear about them, but this would be incidental and would not have a measurable impact on the amount of people in the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The presence of the monitoring stations would compromise the primitive nature of wilderness. Individuals who found themselves at or near a site would find themselves reminded of human activity. Also, there may be obtrusive encounters with people during the construction and maintenance of the stations. However, as described under existing condition, the Mt. Hood Wilderness and surrounding area gets a lot of human use, which compromises the ability to find solitude and escape the visibility of human activity. That would not change as a result of this project. And, as described under the natural and undeveloped characteristics, stations would be painted to reduce their visibility and placed to minimize being detected by the casual visitor.

Other Features of Value The proposal meets the intent of the Wilderness Act as a scientific research project. Research and monitoring data are needed in this case because it is important to have monitoring instrumentation in place before the start of volcanic unrest. As soon as unrest starts at Mt. Hood, a major question will be whether magma is rising and, if so, what sector of the volcano will be the likely point where magma breeches the surface. The goal of the proposed monitoring stations is to provide the data needed to significantly reduce the uncertainty. Answers to these questions would play a significant role in determining mitigation efforts to protect the safety of wilderness users and the surrounding communities. This safety improvement could have a positive impact on many people. At the same time, the scenic views from the proposed locations would be impacted, but not obstructed. Visitors would be able to see the instruments, but views of the summit of Mt. Hood, the adjacent mountains and the valleys below each site would remain visible. The other features of value as described under Existing Condition would continue to be present.

Recreation

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) The ROS setting of the Mt. Hood Wilderness is characterized as Primitive. Installation of monitoring stations at the four sites, would not have a measurable impact to the ROS Setting. User interaction would not change. Some individuals could seek out the sites if they hear about them or see them, but this is likely to be incidental and very site-specific. The sites would impact a total of 105 square feet within the 65,610-acre wilderness.

Dispersed Recreation Installation of monitoring sites within the Mt. Hood Wilderness would not have a measurable impact on dispersed recreation. As described under Existing Condition, dispersed recreation at the sites is occurring, but in a limited capacity. The impact of the monitoring stations would be minimal and infrequent.

At the Lamberson Butte site, individuals would see the instruments as they approached the butte and as they stood on top of the butte. The monitoring station would not obstruct their view of the surrounding area, nor would it displace any use; it would be close to existing vegetation and its footprint would be small. Individuals would still be able to access the site.

The Barrett Spur site would be visible to individuals who wandered off of any developed trail and up to Barrett Spur or over to the site itself. The proposed site is behind a rock outcropping on a

Mt. Hood National Forest 35 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations wide ridge. A monitoring station in this location would not displace anyone, but it would be noticeable to individuals who happened to be nearby.

The site near Yocum Ridge would be visible to recreationists who wonder off of the beaten path in search of a campsite, as well as those who have camped in this location previously. Due to the remoteness of this location and the fact that it is not at all visible from Yocum Ridge Trail, few individuals would detect its presence. Those who visited the adjacent campsite would notice the station, but it would not have an impact on the campsite itself or block any views from the campsite.

The monitoring station would be on the west side of Crater Rock, so it would not be visible to many climbers as they ascend Mt. Hood. It would be visible as climbers descend from the summit when the snow is low. It is likely that the station would be visible during a portion of each year. This duration would vary depending on snow levels. The station would not impede travel to and from Crater Rock or displace climbers.

Trails The proposed sites would not have an impact on any trails, as they would not be located on or directly adjacent to any system trail.

Visual Quality The existing VQO for each site is preservation, which only allows for ecological changes at all site distances. If monitoring stations were installed at the four proposed sites, visual impacts to these sites would be minimized to the extent possible to prevent the stations from being visible (see project design criteria section). However, it would be impossible to make the stations entirely invisible to dispersed recreationists. For this reason, a project-specific Forest Plan amendment is part of the proposed action to change the VQO to partial retention for any viewpoint from which the stations would be visible. In contrast to preservation, the partial retention VQO is defined as a VQO where “management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat or introduce form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape and may change in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., so long as they remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape” (USDA Forest Service 1974). The partial retention VQO would apply since project design criteria would make the stations minimally visible to individuals unless they were looking for the sites specifically or standing next to them.

The monitoring stations would not have an impact on the VQOs of viewpoints from wilderness, as their footprint is small and they would not conflict with the existing VQOs outside of wilderness looking toward the stations.

If installed, the proposed sites would meet the VQOs for trails within wilderness. The proposed Lamberson Butte site is the closest to a system trail. The site is between 660 feet and 1,320 feet from the Timberline Trail. As such, the VQO would be partial retention. The site would meet this VQO using the proposed project design criteria.

The Barrett Spur site could also potentially be visible from either the Timberline or the Vista Ridge trails. All viewpoints from both trails are over 1,320 feet away, giving them a VQO of modification, as discussed in the Existing Conditions. Implementing the proposed project design criteria, the station would not be visible to most hikers on system trails. The proposed stations would easily meet the modification VQO at Barrett Spur.

Mt. Hood National Forest 36 Preliminary Assessment

The Yocum Ridge and Crater Rock sites are not visible from system trails.

Cumulative Effects The items documented in table 7 through table 9 were considered when analyzing cumulative effects for wilderness, recreation, and visual quality. These items were analyzed as a result of their proximity to the proposed sites and their potential to have an effect on wilderness characteristics, recreation, and visual quality in the area adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed sites. The spatial context of the cumulative effects analysis lies at the proposed sites and extends within viewing distance of each proposed monitoring station.

Table 7. Cumulative effects for wilderness Measurable Overlap Overlap Extent, Project Potential Effects Cumulative in Time in Space Detectable? Effect? Ongoing Trail Untrammeled No No No No cumulative effects Maintenance Natural No No No would occur. Trail maintenance would Undeveloped No No No continue to occur within Solitude or No No No the Mt. Hood Wilderness Primitive as it has in the past. Trail Recreation maintenance would not have an impact on the Other Features of No No No proposed sites. Value Installation of Untrammeled No No No There would be no other volcanic Natural No No No overlap in installation or monitoring location of the sites. Since sites outside of Undeveloped No No No the sites are so small and wilderness Solitude or No No No contained there would be Primitive no cumulative impact. Recreation Other features of No No No value Recreation Untrammeled No No No No cumulative effects Use in Natural No No No would occur. Recreation Wilderness use in wilderness is Undeveloped No No No expected to increase, Solitude or No No No however, the installations Primitive would not have an impact Recreation on the increased volume of visitors, nor should Other features of No No No more visitors have an value impact on the monitoring stations. Twilight Untrammeled No No No The construction of a Parking Lot Natural No No No parking lot at Mt. Hood Meadows Ski area would Undeveloped No No No not have an impact on the Solitude or No No No sites. One of the parking Primitive lots at Meadows would be Recreation used to stage a helicopter

Mt. Hood National Forest 37 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Measurable Overlap Overlap Extent, Project Potential Effects Cumulative in Time in Space Detectable? Effect? Other features of No No No for installation of the value devices. This would occur for a very short period of time and have no cumulative impact on the sites.

Table 8. Cumulative effects for recreation Measurable Potential Overlap Overlap Extent, Project Cumulative Effects in Time in Space Detectable? Effect? Ongoing Trail ROS No No No No cumulative effects would Maintenance Dispersed Yes No No occur. Trail maintenance would Recreation continue to occur within the Mt. Hood Wilderness as it has in the Trails Yes No No past. Trail maintenance would not have an impact on the proposed sites. Installation of ROS No No No No cumulative effects would other volcanic occur. Installation of additional monitoring sites Dispersed Yes No No monitoring sites would not have outside of Recreation a measurable impact on wilderness recreation although it could Trails No No No impact dispersed recreation depending on where it was installed. Recreation Use ROS No No No No cumulative effects would in Wilderness occur. While recreation use is Dispersed No No No expected to increase in the Recreation wilderness over time, the installation of the monitoring sites Trails No No No would not have an impact on recreation use. Twilight ROS No No No The Twilight Parking Lot at Mt. Parking Lot Hood Meadows would not have Dispersed No No No an impact on recreation within Recreation the Mt. Hood Wilderness. There Trails No No No would be no cumulative effects.

Table 9. Cumulative effects for visual quality Measurable Potential Overlap Overlap Extent, Project Cumulative in Time in Space Detectable? Effects Effect? Ongoing Trail FS System Yes No No No cumulative effects would Maintenance Trails VQO occur. Trail maintenance would Land VQO Yes No No continue to occur within the Mt. as Hood Wilderness as it has in the Amended past. Trail maintenance would not have an impact on the in Forest proposed sites. Plan

Mt. Hood National Forest 38 Preliminary Assessment

Measurable Potential Overlap Overlap Extent, Project Cumulative in Time in Space Detectable? Effects Effect? Installation of FS System No No No No cumulative effects would other volcanic Trails VQO occur. Installation of other monitoring volcanic monitoring stations, if stations outside proposed, would not have an of wilderness effect due to the limit in size and Land VQO No No No mitigation measures in place to as make the sites as minimal and Amended unobtrusive as possible. in Forest Plan Recreation Use FS System No No No Recreation use in wilderness in Wilderness Trails VQO would not have an impact on the prescribed VQOs. No cumulative effects would occur.

Land VQO No No No as Amended in Forest Plan Twilight Parking FS System No No No No cumulative effects would Lot Trails VQO occur. The Twilight Parking Lot would not have a large impact on VQOs as it would not be visible from any of the proposed Land VQO No No No sites. as Amended in Forest Plan

Consistency Determination Table 10 through table 12 list the wilderness, recreation, and visual quality standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan that pertain to alternative 2.

Table 10. Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wilderness Relevant Element Does Alternative 2 Data Used for Standards and Guidelines of Proposed Meet Standard as Analysis Action currently designed? A2-001: Permanent Installation of Yes Permanent structures structures or facilities shall permanent seismic would be installed, but not be allowed unless monitoring stations their footprint would be determined to be historically and gas monitoring minimal (total of 105 sq significant, essential to station at four sites ft) and they have preserve a national historic within the Mt. Hood important scientific site, or otherwise Wilderness. value which is permitted authorized by provision of in the Forest Plan and the Wilderness Act (1964), Wilderness Act (as Oregon Wilderness Act discussed in the EA). (1984) or other legislation

Mt. Hood National Forest 39 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Relevant Element Does Alternative 2 Data Used for Standards and Guidelines of Proposed Meet Standard as Analysis Action currently designed? A2-039: Scientific studies, Installation of Yes Mt. Hood is considered research and educational research and an active volcano. The programs may occur within monitoring data are monitoring stations wilderness provided they do needed because it would be designed to not degrade wilderness is important to have move beyond a reactive values monitoring mode of mitigating instrumentation in volcanic risk and toward place before the a proactive, fully start of volcanic integrated approach. unrest. The seismic data system is needed to ensure the safety of both the adjacent communities as well as recreationists using the wilderness and Forest. A2-095: Special uses, The proposed Yes A Special Use Permit permits, licenses, monitoring stations would be consistent easements, patent would fall under a with the Wilderness Act applications, and rights-of- special use permit as a feature of scientific way applications for uses with the USGS. value (see the EA for shall not be approved, or more details). reissued, except for those consistent with the Wilderness Act (1964 and 1984) and/or CFR A2-102: Roads shall not be Roads would not be Yes No roads would be constructed A2-102 constructed to constructed in order to access the implement this proposed sites for proposal. installation. A2-106: Landing of aircraft, A helicopter would Yes The helicopter would or dropping or picking up of be used to sling stage from the Mt. Hood any material, supplies or load materials to the Meadows parking lot. It person from aircraft, shall Lamberson Butte, would make the minimal be prohibited unless Barrett Spur, and number of trips specifically authorized by Yocum Ridge sites. necessary to deliver the the Forest Service materials and it would not land within the Mt. Hood Wilderness. This activity would be authorized by the Forest Service in a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide.

Mt. Hood National Forest 40 Preliminary Assessment

Table 11. Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for recreation Relevant Element Does Alternative 2 Standards and Guidelines of Proposed Meet Standard as Data Used for Analysis Action currently designed? FW-451/458: Forest Installation of Yes The installation of Management activities with monitoring stations monitoring stations at the the potential to adversely at four locations four proposed locations impact trails and associated within the Mt. Hood would not displace any facilities and dispersed Wilderness. recreational use. In recreation sites shall addition, the footprint of include measures to the proposed installations minimize impacts and is negligible (105 sq. ft. or provide for protection < 0.01 acre) in context of and/or restoration of the the size of the Mt. Hood impacted trails, sites, Wilderness (65,610 facilities, and structures. acres) FW-452/463: Designated Proposed Yes Installation of monitoring trails, trailheads, associated installation of four sites within the Mt. Hood facilities, and dispersed monitoring sites Wilderness would not recreation sites impacted within the Mt. Hood impact trails, trailheads, and/or adversely affected Wilderness. or associated facilities. by management activities, There would be no shall be rehabilitated, measurable impact on restored, and/or relocated. dispersed recreation.

Table 12. Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for visual quality Relevant Element Does Alternative 2 Meet Data Used for Standards and Guidelines of Proposed Plan Standards as Analysis Action currently designed? FW-552: The visual quality VQOs for Yes The four proposed objectives prescribed in Wilderness are monitoring sites would management direction Preservation. A meet the Partial represent the minimum project specific Retention VQO level that shall be achieved amendment to utilizing the proposed in long term visual resource make the 4 sites design criteria. management. Partial Retention is a component of alternative 2 FW-585: Sensitivity Level I The Timberline Trail Yes The proposed sites trails shall have prescribed is within viewing would be within the VQOs of Retention, Partial distance of the appropriate distances Retention and Modification Lamberson Butte to meet the prescribed in near foreground, far and Barrett Spur VQOs for both trail. foreground and site and the Vista middleground distance Ridge Trail is within zones, respectively. viewing distance of the proposed Barrett Spur Site.

3-2 Wildlife The potential effects to federally threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; management indicator species; survey and manage species; migratory landbirds; and snags and downed wood habitat are evaluated in this section. Based on the proposed action, there is very little if any impact on wildlife species. The project footprint is small and does not require the removal of any large vegetation and there are no habitat-disturbing activities. The only potential impact would be

Mt. Hood National Forest 41 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations from disturbance to wildlife from transporting materials to and installing the monitoring equipment at the sites.

More information is available in the project record including the full wildlife analysis file, and biological evaluation as part of the Wildlife Specialist Report. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology The project was reviewed in GIS due to the low amount of perceived impact resulting from the extremely small footprint and lack of habitat manipulation. No surveys were completed because of the lack of habitat loss. Disturbance was the key factor and the only species that required additional analysis was the northern spotted owl due to the use of helicopter transport of materials to one or more sites. Disturbance was analyzed by comparing the helicopter loading area to the two nearest spotted owl activity centers or potential nest patches. A 400-meter disruption buffer was created in GIS and that was used to determine the risk of disruption to the owls.

Existing Conditions The impacts to wildlife are independent of the land use allocation of the project. The fact that this project is in Wilderness (A-1 land use allocation) does not influence the analysis on wildlife species. No habitat is proposed to be removed or significantly altered, and wildlife would habituate to the seismic monitoring equipment. Northern spotted owl nest sites or activity centers are based on 1990s data and their presence is assumed.

Effects Analysis for All Alternatives

Transporting the Equipment to the Sites Helicopters would be needed for installation and battery replacement, given the unit size and weight. The helicopter landing would be located within the Hood River Meadows Parking Lot (see figure 18) within the Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort permit area (T2S, R9E, Section 3, Hood River County). The Timberline parking lot (T3S, R8E, Section 24, Clackamas County) within the Timberline permit area would serve as the back-up location. Project design criteria are proposed to remove any potential impacts to nesting northern spotted owls that are located southeast of the loading zone.

Mt. Hood National Forest 42 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 18. Proposed helispot for transporting materials to the installation sites

The helicopter disruption distances for northern spotted owls as determined by the Willamette Province Level One Team and displayed in the biological evaluation for may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) projects (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 2014) are provided in table 13. The disruption distance is the distance that a spotted owl could experience harm in the form of nest abandonment, juvenile death, flushing that could result in predation, or loss of reproduction.

Table 13. Disruption and disturbance distances from helicopters for northern spotted owls Disturbance Distance Disturbance Disturbance Distance Entire Breeding Distance Later Disturbance Source Critical Breeding Period Period Breeding Period (March 1 – July 15) (March 1 – Sept. 30) (July 16 – Sept. 30) Helicopter: Chinook 0.5 mile 265 yards 100 yards 47D (hovering only) Helicopter: Boeing 0.25 mile 150 yards 50 yards Vertol 107, Sikorsky S- (hovering only) 64 (SkyCrane) Helicopter: K-MAX, Bell 0.25 mile 110 yards 50 yards 206 L4, Hughes 500 (hovering only)

Threatened and Endangered Species

Northern Spotted Owl

Habitat There is no proposed habitat removal under either alternative 1, no-action alternative, or alternative 2, proposed action. Therefore, there is no effect to northern spotted owl habitat or critical habitat.

Mt. Hood National Forest 43 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Disturbance The helicopter disruption distances for northern spotted owls as determined by the Willamette Province Level One Team and displayed in the Biological Evaluation for NLAA projects (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 2014) are provided in table 13.

The disruption distance is the distance that a spotted owl could experience harm in the form of nest abandonment, juvenile death, flushing that could result in predation, or loss of reproduction. If the nest has not been surveyed to determine presence, a 328-yard (300-meter) circle around the nest was added to the disruption distance. In this case, the disruption buffer would be 437 yards (400 meters) or a no fly zone around the two nests. See figure 19.

Figure 19. Spotted owl disruption buffers in relation to the proposed helicopter loading site

To eliminate the potential for harm to spotted owls, the following project design criterion is incorporated into the proposed action.

• Avoid the use of the loading zone from March 1 to September 30. If that is not possible, helicopters must remain at least one-quarter mile plus 300 meters from the known owl nest patch (6100P93) located near the Hood River Meadows parking lot at latitude 45 19.657, longitude 121 38.164 from March 1 to July 15.

Mt. Hood National Forest 44 Preliminary Assessment

The effect determination by adhering to one of the two project design criteria would be no effect to northern spotted owl from disturbance. If only the disruption distance shown in solid color (on figure 19) is avoided, the effects determination would be may affect and not likely to adversely affect.

Region 6 Sensitive Species Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by:

a. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; and/or

b. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).

Management of sensitive species “must not result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing” (FSM 2670.32).

Species Considered and Evaluated The most recent Region 6 sensitive species wildlife list was effective July 21, 2015. It was reviewed and 22 species that may occur in or near the Mt. Hood National Forest were identified (table 14). Although each of these species are known to or could potentially occur in or near the Mt. Hood National Forest, not all of them have potential to occur in the volcanic monitoring project area. A pre-field wildlife review of the project area was conducted for all Region 6 sensitive species based on the Forest wildlife biologist’s knowledge of the species presence in the project area. Table 14 lists the species and whether the species or their habitat might occur in the project area. Nineteen of the species listed in table 14 have neither habitat nor documented occurrences within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have “no impact” upon them. No further analysis is provided for these species. The remaining species have potential habitat at least in portions of the project area and require further analysis.

Mt. Hood National Forest 45 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 14. Region 6 sensitive species on the Mt. Hood National Forest Known Habitat Analysis Species Present Included in Habitat and Rationale for not Presence Within R6 Sensitive Species NEPA carrying species forward into Within Project Project document? NEPA document Area? Area? (X = yes) (X = yes) (X = yes) Birds American Peregrine X Open habitat with cliffs present; Falcon optimal cliffs dominate the (Falco peregrinus surrounding landscape and are anatum) within 1 mile of some form of water (Pagel 1992). Habitat not present in the project area. Occurs in the project area during migration. No nesting habitat at these elevations. Bald Eagle Usually found near open water (Haliaeetus (Buehler 2000) which is not found leucocephalus) within a ½ mile of the project area. White-headed Strongly associated with open Woodpecker ponderosa pine or dry mixed- (Picoides conifer forests dominated by albolarvatus) ponderosa pine (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). Will also use recently burned ponderosa pine stands. Habitat not present in the project area. Lewis’s Woodpecker Open burned areas with large (Melanerpes lewis) snags; oak and cottonwood forests, and open, park-like ponderosa pine forests (Tobalske 1997). Habitat not present in the project area. Bufflehead Breeds near ponds and lakes in (Bucephala albeola) conifer forest and aspen parkland and nests almost exclusively in holes excavated by Northern Flickers and Pileated Woodpeckers (Marshall et al. 2003). Habitat not present in the project area. Harlequin Duck Nests along fast-moving, turbulent (Histrionicus rivers and mountain streams on histrionicus) rocky islands or banks and winters along rocky coastlines in the surf (Wiggins 2005). Habitat not present in the project area.

Mt. Hood National Forest 46 Preliminary Assessment

Known Habitat Analysis Species Present Included in Habitat and Rationale for not Presence Within R6 Sensitive Species NEPA carrying species forward into Within Project Project document? NEPA document Area? Area? (X = yes) (X = yes) (X = yes) Mammals California Wolverine Primarily in tundra, taiga, and (Gulo luteus) subalpine environments where snow cover persists through the spring season. In the western mountains, historical wolverine records generally occurred in or near alpine vegetation (Aubry et al. 2007). Wolverines favored high elevations in nearly all of Copeland et al. (2007) models; 83% of all wolverine use points occurred in the 7,200 – 8,500 feet elevation zone. Habitat not present in the project area. Townsend’s Big-eared Can occur in a wide variety of Bat habitats. Its presence is strongly (Corynorhinus correlated with the availability of townsendii) caves or cave-like roosting habitat, such as old mines, bridges, buildings and other man- made structures and rarely in tree cavities (Hayes and Wiles 2013). Habitat not present in the project area. Fringed Myotis Inhabits a variety of plant (Myotis thysanodes) communities including desert scrub, dry grasslands, shrub- steppe, drier forest, coastal conifer forest, and riparian forest, but drier woodlands (e.g., oak, pinyon-juniper, and ponderosa pine) are often preferred. Roosts in a variety of structures including caves, mines, tunnels, large snags and buildings (Hayes and Wiles 2013). Habitat not present in the project area. Sierra Nevada Red X X X Occurs in various habitats (e.g., Fox forest openings, meadows, and Vulpes necator barren rocky areas) in alpine and subalpine zones and is rarely found below 4,900 feet in elevation (Perrine et al. 2010). Refer to effects analysis.

Mt. Hood National Forest 47 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Known Habitat Analysis Species Present Included in Habitat and Rationale for not Presence Within R6 Sensitive Species NEPA carrying species forward into Within Project Project document? NEPA document Area? Area? (X = yes) (X = yes) (X = yes) Amphibians Larch Mountain Occurs in a wide array of habitat Salamander types including: old-growth (Plethodon larselli) forests; younger naturally regenerated forests in gravelly/cobble soils with residual late successional features (snags and large down logs); scree and talus (forested and un-forested); and lava tube entrances where debris has accumulated (Crisafulli et al. 2008). Habitat not present in the project area. Cope’s Giant Stream-dwelling and reliant on Salamander cool, perennial streams with (Dicamptodon copei) coarse substrates, often occurring in small streams with high gradients in forested uplands. Often found in its larval or paedomorphic adult forms (sexually mature adult with juvenile characteristics); both forms have gills and are restricted to aquatic environments. Also known to transform into terrestrial adults, and have been found in riparian areas close to surface waters (Foster and Olson 2014). Habitat not present in the project area. Reptiles Western Pond Turtle Occurs in rivers, streams, lakes, (Actinemys ponds, reservoirs, stock ponds, marmorata) and permanent and ephemeral wetland habitats (Bury et al. 2001). Habitat not present in the project area. Invertebrates Johnson’s Hairstreak Coniferous forests which contain (Callophrys johnsoni) the mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium, commonly referred to as dwarf mistletoe. Old-growth and late successional second growth forests provide the best habitat for this butterfly (Larsen et al. 1995). Habitat not present in the project area. Mardon Skipper Dependent on grasslands and (Polites mardon) meadows with adequate nectar sources for adults (Kerwin and Huff 2011). Habitat not present in the project area.

Mt. Hood National Forest 48 Preliminary Assessment

Known Habitat Analysis Species Present Included in Habitat and Rationale for not Presence Within R6 Sensitive Species NEPA carrying species forward into Within Project Project document? NEPA document Area? Area? (X = yes) (X = yes) (X = yes) Western Bumblebee X Inhabits a wide variety of natural, (Bombus occidentalis) agricultural, urban, and rural habitats, although species occurrence tends to peak in flower-rich meadows of forests and subalpine zones (Goulson 2003). Project does not alter habitat. No impact. Puget Oregonian Inhabits moist, mature to old- (Cryptomastix devia) growth forests associated with bigleaf maple growing among conifers (usually Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western redcedar). Often occurring within riparian areas, and possibly confined to the riparian zone (Kogut and Duncan 2005). Habitat not present in the project area. Columbia sideband Specific habitat for this (Monadenia fidelis subspecies has not been Columbiana) described (Stone and Huff 2011). However, the parent species, Monadenia fidelis, is found in mesic forest habitats or near springs or other water sources in forest situations, generally with rock substrates or large woody debris and logs for refugia (Frest and Johannes 2000). The subspecies is primarily found in the Lower Columbia River drainage. ). Habitat not present in the project area. Dalles Sideband Associated with talus habitat and (Monadenia fidelis seasonally moist rocky areas, minor) especially around seeps and springs (Duncan 2005). Habitat not present in the project area. Crater Lake Tightcoil Perennially moist areas in mature (Pristiloma arcticum conifer forests and meadows crateris) among surface vegetation, rocks, and woody debris within 10 meters of open water in wetlands, springs, seeps and streams (Duncan 2004). Habitat not present in the project area. Crowned Tightcoil Associated with very moist (Pristiloma pilsbryi) floodplain forest in riparian and old growth habitat (Frest and Johannes 2000). Habitat not present in the project area.

Mt. Hood National Forest 49 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Known Habitat Analysis Species Present Included in Habitat and Rationale for not Presence Within R6 Sensitive Species NEPA carrying species forward into Within Project Project document? NEPA document Area? Area? (X = yes) (X = yes) (X = yes) Shiny tightcoil Most known sites for this species (Pristiloma are in ponderosa pine and wascoense) Douglas-fir forests at moderate to high elevations (Frest and Johannes 1995). Burke (2013) describes the habitat as primarily under deciduous trees, particularly quaking aspen and red alder. Habitat not present in the project area.

Analysis Methods The analysis of potential effects on sensitive species was conducted using data gathered in the pre-field review and field reconnaissance on the habitat requirements for each species. Habitat requirements for each species were reviewed to determine the effects of the alternatives on each Region 6 sensitive species. The habitat impacts and risks to species on the Forest were estimated based on the best available science and data. The overall conclusions were derived from anticipated trends, probable risks, and degree of uncertainty under each alternative.

Effects Analysis A review of the project indicates that there is no suitable habitat for any of the species, except for one, that were analyzed. Therefore, there are no effects from the project and there would be no impacts of the sites to any sensitive species. Sierra Nevada red fox is the only species that occurs in the project area that would have a potential impact. This species is addressed below.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox The Sierra Nevada red fox is a native subspecies of red fox that occurs at elevations above 4,900 feet on the Mt. Hood National Forest. The species utilizes both meadow and forested habitats at this elevation (Perrine et al. 2010). Therefore, the project would occur in habitat for this species.

Alternative 1 - No Action There would be no direct or indirect effects to Sierra Nevada red fox from this alternative because there would be no change from the current condition.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The direct effect on Sierra Nevada red fox would be from short-term disturbance during the establishment of the sites. The presence of humans or helicopter flights could cause individuals to flee the area and avoid using the area during the transport and installation of the seismic monitoring equipment. This would be a short-term disturbance and would not result in harm to the individual or the species. An indirect effect to the species would be the monitoring equipment stations’ presence in the habitat. In the experience of the Forest Wildlife Biologist, fox are quickly habituated to new inanimate objects as evidenced by the fact that they do not avoid the remote camera stations used to record their presence. Therefore, there would be no impact to Sierra Nevada red fox.

Mt. Hood National Forest 50 Preliminary Assessment

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects to sensitive species, as there are no project-level effects.

Summary of Determinations Determinations for each species (table 15) were made as a result of the information gathered during the pre-field review, field reconnaissance, and effects analysis conducted. The basis for each determination is potential habitat, expected occurrence, distribution, effects from proposed activities, and project design criteria to alleviate the potential effects that could result from Forest-management activities. All species determinations consider all elements of the proposed action, including proposed project design criteria.

Table 15. Summary of determinations for R6 sensitive species in the project area for the proposed action Species May Impact Individuals No Impact Peregrine Falcon X Sierra Nevada Red Fox X Western Bumblebee X

Management Indicator Species This section describes the link between habitat within the project area and populations of management indicator species (MIS) on the Mt. Hood National Forest.

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

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to manage wildlife habitat to “maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species on the Forest. Because it is difficult to monitor all species at the same time, NFMA requires the Forest Service to identify MIS through the planning process, and to establish objectives to maintain and improve the habitat of indicator species. The primary assumption of this process is that indicator species represent the habitat needs of other species that have similar habitat requirements. Spotted owls, for example, indicate the needs of a variety of species that use old-growth forest (USDA Forest Service 1990a Page III-55).

There is no requirement in the Forest Plan to survey for or gather site-specific, project-scale population data regarding the project implementation’s effects to the viability of the population of MIS. Rather, the Forest Plan directs that habitat be used as a proxy for population monitoring (USDA Forest Service 1990a Page III- 55).

Although each of these species is known to occur on the Mt. Hood National Forest, not all of them have potential to occur in the volcanic monitoring project area or helicopter loading area. Table 16 lists each species and whether the species or their habitat occurs in the project area. If an MIS or its habitat is not found in the project area, it was not identified for further analysis.

Mt. Hood National Forest 51 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 16. Mt. Hood National Forest management indicator species Management Habitat Description Habitat Present in Species Present in Indicator Species Analysis Area? Analysis Area? Northern Spotted Old Growth Yes Documented Owl Deer Early Forest Succession and Yes Documented Mature/Old Growth Elk Early Forest Succession and Yes Documented Mature/Old Growth Pileated Mature/Over-Mature Marginal Unlikely Woodpecker American Marten Mature/Over-Mature Yes Documented Salmonids Aquatic (see Fisheries No No Specialist Report) Western Gray Pine-Oak No No Squirrel Merriam’s Turkey Pine-Oak No No

Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 - No Action There would be no direct or indirect effects to any MIS from this alternative because there would be no change from the current condition.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Northern spotted owls were addressed in the Threatened and Endangered Species above. Deer, elk, American marten, and potentially pileated woodpeckers could occur in the project area; however, no habitat changes would occur that would create a direct effect to the species. There could be some temporary disturbance of the species during installation or transport of the materials to the project monitoring sites. This, however, would not cause harm due to the short- term nature of the disturbance. The monitoring equipment would not affect the species, as they would habituate to the equipment and resume using the area after installation. There would be no direct or indirect effects of the project on MIS species.

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects because no project-level effects would result.

Survey and Manage Species In January 2001, a Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 amendment) was signed. This decision amended the Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage and related standards and guidelines to add clarity, remove duplication, increase or decrease levels of management for specific species based on new information, and established a process for making changes to management for individual species in the future (USDA Forest Service 2001).

The 2001 amendment put into place a review process that would allow for adding or deleting species, based on new information. The 2001 amendment also grouped the species into six categories (A through F) based on level of relative rarity, ability to reasonably and consistently locate occupied sites during surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, and the level of

Mt. Hood National Forest 52 Preliminary Assessment information known about the species or group of species. A complete description of the categories is available in the 2001 amendment standards and guidelines, pages 6 through 14.

This project applies the survey and manage species list published in December 2003, under direction resulting in legal action and a district court’s remedy order issued on February 18, 2014 (Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C08-1067-JCC). Therefore, the project analysis meets the provisions of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, as modified by the 2014 court order. The species listed in table 17 are current Survey and Manage species whose known or suspected range includes the Mt. Hood National Forest. Field reconnaissance, consultation with the recreation specialists, and GIS analysis were used to determine habitats that were present in the project area. Pre-disturbance surveys and management of known sites required by protocol standards were not required for the project.

Table 17. Survey and manage species within Oregon Western Cascades Geographic Area December 2003 species list (May 2014 Direction) Additional Potential Habitat Within Category1 Species Potential Effects? Analysis the Project Sites? Needed? Amphibians

A Larch Mountain No; occurs on shady, No; habitat not No salamander moss-covered talus present within the (Plethodon larselli) slopes and cave project area. entrances at low to mid- elevations in late seral forests and moist forest where soils are derived from pumice. Bird

A Great gray owl No; associated with No; not associated No (Strix nebulosa) conifer and mixed forest, with Alpine habitat of ponderosa pine, and dead lodgepole pine. lodgepole, most Project will not affect frequently in old-growth potential nesting or on north-facing slopes; foraging habitat. No adjacent to large open records of great gray meadows. owls on the Forest. Mammals

C Red tree vole No; optimal habitat No; above the No (Arborimus occurs in old-growth elevation zone for longicaudis) conifer forest, but also this species associated with younger stands containing large, live old-growth trees. Above the elevation zone for this species.

Mt. Hood National Forest 53 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Additional Potential Habitat Within Category1 Species Potential Effects? Analysis the Project Sites? Needed? Mollusks

A Columbia No; associated with No; habitat not No oregonian moist areas under present within the (Cryptomastix closed-canopy western project area. hendersoni) hemlock forest and moist microclimates in semiarid habitat along the Columbia River. A Crater Lake No; occurs in wetlands in No; habitat not No tightcoil moist forest, often in fens present within the (Pristiloma or sedge habitats near project area. arcticum crateris) open water that experience long periods of snow cover. A Dalles sideband No; usually found in No; habitat not No (Monadenia fidelis moist rock talus near present within the minor) streams or springs and project area. under moist woody debris or other litter near riparian corridors. B Evening fieldslug No; typically inhabits low- No; habitat not No (Deroceras elevation, perennially wet present within the hesperium) meadows in forested project area. habitats. B Panther jumping No; found under and No; habitat not No slug inside logs and other present within the (Hemphillia forest litter and in talus in project area. pantherina) moist forest and riparian areas. A Puget oregonian No; associated with No; habitat not No (Cryptomastix forests where big-leaf present within the devia) maples occur within project area. conifer overstory; often found on or under hardwood logs or leaf litter or rocks. 1 Survey and manage category definitions: Category A = Manage all known sites; pre-disturbance surveys practical, strategic surveys Category B = Manage all known sites; pre-disturbance surveys not practical and not applicable; strategic surveys Category C = Manage high-priority sites; pre-disturbance surveys practical; strategic surveys Category F = Known site management and pre-disturbance surveys not applicable; strategic surveys

Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 - No Action There would be no direct or indirect effects to any survey and manage species because there would be no change from the current condition.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action There would be no direct or indirect effects to any survey and manage species because there is no habitat for these species at the project sites.

Mt. Hood National Forest 54 Preliminary Assessment

Cumulative Effects There would be no effects from the project, therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.

Migratory Landbirds Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” directs Federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was developed between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve birds. This includes taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. The Forest Service has implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA process when actions have the potential to impact migratory bird species of concern.

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

Bird species of concern applicable to project-level conservation are identified by many sources including the Endangered Species Act; the Region 6 Sensitive Species list; the Mt. Hood National Forest MIS list; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 publication (USFWS 2008); and the Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight Plan titled, “Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Version 2” (Altman and Alexander 2012).

Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 - No Action. There would be no direct or indirect effects to any migratory bird species from this alternative because there would be no change from the current condition.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action There would be no direct or indirect effects to any migratory bird species from this alternative because there is no habitat for these species at the project sites. There could be a temporary disturbance of an individual bird from the installation of the monitoring equipment, but due to the short time frame, it would not harm any species.

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects because there are no project-level effects.

Snags and Downed Wood Habitat There would be no effects to snags or downed wood from this project because no habitat alteration would occur.

Mt. Hood National Forest 55 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Consistency Determination The effects to the northern spotted owl for the project were included in a programmatic informal consultation submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on October 21, 2014: Biological Assessment of NLAA Projects with the Potential to Modify the Habitat or Critical Habitat of Northern Spotted owls or Oregon spotted frogs and its Proposed Critical Habitat, Willamette Planning Province – FY2015. A Letter of Concurrence was signed on April 9, 2015: Letter of Concurrence Regarding the Effects of Habitat Modification Activities within the Willamette Planning Province, FY 2015, proposed by the Eugene District, Bureau of Land Management; Salem District, Bureau of Land Management; the Mt. Hood National Forest; the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; and the Willamette National Forest; on the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and its Critical Habitat, and the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) and its Proposed Critical Habitat (USFWS 2015, FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2015- 0147).

This project is consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan including Amendments for Survey and Manage Species. This project is also consistent with the Revised Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) and the Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, November 2012:

• Known spotted owl activity centers within the project area would be protected (ROD Standards and Guidelines pp C-10). One hundred acres of the best spotted owl habitat would be retained as close to the nest site or owl activity center as possible for all known spotted owl activity centers (as of January 1, 1994) located on Federal lands. The Following Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and Guidelines that apply to the proposed action alternatives and would be met:

• FW-174: Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species has been identified and managed in accordance with the ESA (1973), the Oregon ESA (1987), and FSM 2670. • FW-175: Habitat for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species shall be protected and/or improved. • FW -176: A Biological Evaluation has been prepared. 3-3 Water Quality More information is available in the project record including the full water quality analysis file, as part of the Water Quality Specialist Report. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology The existing condition is based on datasets associated with the Northwest Forest Plan–The First 20 Years (1994-2013) Watershed Condition Status and Trend Report (Miller et al. 2014). The watershed monitoring module (also known as the Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program or AREMP) determines if the Northwest Forest Plan aquatic conservation strategy is achieving the goals of maintaining and restoring the condition of watersheds. AREMP determined the status and trend of upslope/riparian watershed condition for sixth-field watersheds within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Upslope and riparian condition is based on mapped data (e.g., road

Mt. Hood National Forest 56 Preliminary Assessment

density, vegetation) representing the years 1993 and 2012 for all watersheds with 5 percent or more Federal ownership (Miller 2015). Watersheds were scored from 0 to 100 for stream condition and upslope/riparian condition, separately. Scores for upslope/riparian conditions were normalized to fall between 0 (poor) and 100 (good) (Miller et al. 2014). Scores closer to zero signify a watershed has adversely deviated from expectation; 100 denotes above expectation (Miller 2015).

The assessment was based on factors affecting five major aquatic processes: sediment production and delivery (mass wasting), wood production and delivery, riparian habitat, hydrologic processes (specifically peak flows), and fish passage. The status of each process was estimated based on impacts of road densities and vegetation conditions derived from mapped data, including road metrics from U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management geographic information system road layers and vegetation metrics derived from satellite imagery (Miller et al. 2014).

The AREMP approach applies expert-derived criteria to regionally-available datasets (Lanigan and Gordon 2012).

Figure 20. Overall upslope/riparian condition is based on the combination of 5 process indicators, which were in turn derived from a number of finer grained metrics (Miller et al. 2014)

Mt. Hood National Forest 57 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 18. Methods and data used for the effects analysis and their characteristics

Method/Data Utility Limitation

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

Existing Conditions As stated earlier, the existing condition is based on datasets associated with the Northwest Forest Plan–The First 20 Years (1994-2013) Watershed Condition Status and Trend Report (Miller et al. 2014).

Figure 21. Project sites and associated subwatersheds

Watersheds were scored from 0 to 100 for stream condition and upslope/riparian condition, separately. Scores for upslope/riparian conditions were normalized to fall between 0 (poor) and 100 (good) (Miller et al. 2014). Scores closer to zero signify a watershed has adversely deviated from expectation; 100 denotes above expectation (Miller 2015). Table 19 explains the scoring

Mt. Hood National Forest 58 Preliminary Assessment system for watershed conditions, and table 20 is a summary of the watershed conditions for this project area.

Table 19. Scoring system for watershed conditions 80-100 Very high

60-80 High

40-60 Moderate

20-40 Low

0-20 Very low

Table 20. Project sites with overall watershed conditions score and process indicator scores

Watershed Monitoring Site Sub-watershed Sediment Riparian Wood Hydrology Passage Condition

Middle East Fork Lamberson Butte 45 8 64 48 89 58 Hood River

Upper West Fork Barrett Spur 62 42 74 69 92 61 Hood River

Yocum Ridge Headwaters 56 0 84 67 100 66 and Crater Rock Sandy River

This analysis is focusing on project impacts to water quality and water quantity; therefore, the overall watershed condition, riparian condition, sediment condition, and hydrology condition are the most relevant. All of the subwatersheds are in the moderate category for the overall upslope/riparian condition.

Sediment Production and Delivery (mass wasting) High rates of sediment delivery to streams from episodic mass wasting events, such as landslides and erosion, have been shown to have detrimental effects on salmonids and other aquatic biota. Natural rates for these processes are determined by a variety of factors, including slope, concavity, soils, geology, geomorphology, and precipitation. Within the range of the northern spotted owl, Federal forest management affects these rates primarily through road and vegetation disturbances. To evaluate the process of sedimentation production and transport, the AREMP model used the difference between an estimated background rate of sediment delivery and the rate estimated, given the status of road and vegetation disturbances (Miller et al. 2014).

In Oregon and Washington, background risk was based on slope steepness and convergence, as calculated in the Netmap model (Shallow Landslide Delivery (LSDEL parameter), and adjusted using multipliers for geology, landform associations, and three precipitation factors (winter rainfall, storm maxima, and rain-on-snow areas). All were based on expert judgment of agency soil scientists and geologists (Miller et al. 2014).

Mt. Hood National Forest 59 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

The Headwaters Sandy River and Middle East Fork sub-watersheds are in the very low condition score category, closer to a score of zero, signifying poor conditions. The Upper West Fork sub- watershed is in the moderate condition.

Riparian Shading and Habitat Riparian conditions play a key role in a number of aquatic processes, including the effect of shading on stream temperatures; roots on bank stability; and the provision of habitat for a number of species. The AREMP model rates the condition of these processes using the average of two indicators: riparian vegetation condition and riparian road density. Riparian vegetation condition was measured as the departure of riparian vegetation from less than 10 percent disturbed vegetation conditions. For each Northwest Forest Plan vegetation zone, a reference distribution for mean tree diameter and canopy cover from areas with less than 10 percent disturbance, based on historical data was established. Each attribute score was based on the departure from the mean of this reference distribution, with a less than -5 percent departure receiving an undisturbed score of 100 and a greater than -45 percent departure receiving a score of 0. The minimum of the size and cover scores was taken as a vegetation indicator score because reference condition departures may be indicated by either metric alone (e.g., early and late seral may share the same cover metric but will differ by size) (Miller et al. 2014).

Riparian road density was measured as road miles in the riparian area per stream mile. Evaluation thresholds were derived as an average of values used by different provinces in the 15-year assessment (Miller et al. 2014).

The Headwaters Sandy River sub-watershed is in the very high category with score of 84. Middle East Fork Hood River and Upper West Fork Hood River are in the high category with scores of 64 and 74, respectively.

Hydrology Upslope/riparian conditions affect the quantity and timing of water reaching the stream system and, consequently, the habitat of aquatic and riparian biota. No consistent regional data were available on dams and diversions, so this analysis was limited to the influences of road and vegetation changes on peak flows. Grant et al. (2008) attempted to synthesize a diverse set of studies on the effects of forest practices on peak flows. Results showed considerable variability among watersheds in the hydrologic response of streams to the same changes in forest cover or road densities. However, most of the drivers for these differences are not yet well understood or quantified, so we have based this indicator on average response values. One driver addressed in Grant's synthesis was that mid-elevation “rain-on-snow” zones have been found to be particularly sensitive because of the potential fast release of water from accumulated snowpack. They divided their results by two zones: rain-on-snow and rain-dominated (and additionally reasoned that snow-dominated zones would behave similarly to rain-dominated areas). In the rain-on-snow zone, their linear estimate shows a +10 percent change in peak flow at 15 percent area harvested. It reaches a +15 percent change in peak flow at a 50 percent harvest level, and culminates at a 25 percent flow change at 100 percent harvested. These effects were expected to double in watersheds with a high percentage of road area (greater than 2 percent) (Grant et al. 2008). For rain-dominated zones, their linear estimate showed a possible effect on peak flow at 15 percent area harvested. It reaches a +10 percent change in peak flow at a 50 percent harvest level, and culminated at a 30 percent flow change at 100 percent harvested. All studies in the rain zones contained roads. Additionally, Grant et al. (2008) noted that only low gradient streams were likely to be susceptible to peak flow effects (Miller et al. 2014).

Mt. Hood National Forest 60 Preliminary Assessment

Using a linear approximation based on the thresholds above, and assuming roads contributed half the total increase, we estimated the percent peak flow increase in the rain-dominant zone from vegetation as 0.14 * [percent of vegetation disturbance]. Increases in the rain-on-snow zone were approximately 50 percent higher or a multiplier of 0.21. As flow with greater than 2 percent of an area in roads approximately doubled, we estimated a separate roads effect using a linear interpolation between the origin (0, 0) and a point equivalent to the 100 percent vegetation loss at 2 percent road density for a multiplier of 2.5 in rain-dominated and 3.8 in rain-on-snow zones. The percent increases from roads and vegetation were then summed to estimate the overall indicator for peak flow change. (Miller et al. 2014)

We found little information in the literature on which to base scoring thresholds; only one indirect estimate of an acceptable or unacceptable level of peak flow was identified. Beamer et al. (2003) rated sub-basins with more than 50 percent watershed area in hydrological immature vegetation due to land use and more than 2 kilometers of road length per square kilometer of watershed area as “very likely impaired.” Based on our multipliers above, this level of impact would result in a 36 percent increase in peak flow. Therefore, the AREMP model uses a 36 percent increase as the poor threshold (score 0) and a minor increase of 5 percent is used as the good threshold (score 100). To adjust the impacts by stream susceptibility, we weighted the overall score against the other processes using the proportion of low gradient stream (less than 4 percent, based on Grant et al. (2008) and input from specialists). A unit with no low-gradient stream was not counted with this indicator, while a unit with 50 percent low-gradient stream was weighted 50 percent compared to the other indicators (Miller et al. 2014).

For the hydrology process indicator, all the sub-watersheds are in the very high category with scores varying from 89 to 100.

Water Quality Rivers, streams, and lakes within and downstream of the project area are used for boating, fishing, swimming, and other water sports. Additionally, the Forest streams provide habitat and clean water for fish and other aquatic biota, each with specific water quality requirements. The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects water quality for all of these uses.

The CWA requires states to set water quality standards to support the beneficial uses of water. The act also requires states to identify the status of all waters and prioritize water bodies whose water quality is limited or impaired. For Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) develops water quality standards and lists water quality limited waters. In addition, Region 6 of the Forest Service has entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Oregon State DEQ to acknowledge the Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency for implementation of the CWA on National Forest land. In an effort to support the CWA, the Forest conducts a variety of monitoring and inventory programs to determine the status of meeting state water quality standards as well as other regulatory and agency requirements.

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

By direction of the CWA, where water quality is limited, DEQ develops Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of water. For water quality limited streams on National Forest System lands, the USDA Forest Service provides

Mt. Hood National Forest 61 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to support state processes to protect and restore water quality.

Table 21 details the water quality status of streams in the project area associated with Oregon's 2012 Integrated Report Assessment Database and 303(d) List. The Oregon DEQ submitted Oregon's 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) list to EPA in November 2014. EPA will review and either approve or disapprove the 2012 303(d) list as submitted. After EPA has taken final action, the 2012 303(d) list will become effective for CWA purposes.

Biological criteria status is based on Oregon DEQ’s PREDictive Assessment Tool for ORegon, or PREDATOR, used to assess the macroinvertebrate communities in Oregon’s perennial, wadeable streams. DEQ developed the models to supply a scientifically rigorous bio-assessment tool that is easy to apply and provides a more complete understanding of the stream conditions across Oregon. PREDATOR analyzes data from reference sites grouped into three regions in Oregon and models the expected assemblage. Information from a sampling site can be compared to the macroinvertebrate assemblage predicted by the model and an assessment made about how different the observed assemblage is from the expected or reference assemblage. Data collected at a sampling site are used to generate a number for the observed versus expected macroinvertebrate taxa. This number represents the “missing” taxa at a site, and can be expressed as “% taxa loss.”

Table 21. Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed streams in the project area Stream Name Pollutant Coe Branch Biological Criteria Cold Spring Creek Biological Criteria East Fork Hood River Iron East Fork Hood River Copper East Fork Hood River Thallium East Fork Hood River Biological Criteria Little Zigzag Canyon Biological Criteria Mitchell Creek Zinc Polallie Creek Tributary Biological Criteria Salmon River Biological Criteria West Fork Hood River Silver West Fork Hood River pH

Mt. Hood National Forest 62 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 22. Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed streams

Effects Analysis Figure 4 through figure 9 as well as figure 23 though figure 31 detail the topography, stream network, and vegetation at the three co-located seismic and GPS stations, and the continuous volcanic gas monitoring station associated with this project.

The WorldView-3 satellite imagery from August 4, 2015, for the co-located seismic and GPS stations is portrayed with a 7, 6, 5 band combination. This “vegetation” band combination covers the area of the spectrum where chlorophyll transitions from absorption to reflection and illustrates some of the characteristics represented in vegetation indices. Conifers appear in brown-green hues, while grass and crops tend to appear in yellow and orange hues. Subtle variations in the vegetation canopy show up well. Bare soils and rock outcrops show up in grayish hues.

The WorldView-3 satellite imagery from August 4, 2015, for the volcanic gas monitoring station is portrayed with a 7, 5, 3 band combination. In this standard, "false color" composite vegetation appears in shades of red, urban areas are cyan blue, and soils vary from dark to light browns. Ice, snow, and clouds are white or light cyan. Coniferous trees will appear darker red than hardwoods. This band combination gives results similar to traditional color infrared aerial photography.

Mt. Hood National Forest 63 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 23. Proposed Yocum Ridge co-located seismic and GPS station with LiDAR Hillshade Background

Figure 24. Proposed Yocum Ridge site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery from August 4, 2015

Mt. Hood National Forest 64 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 25. Proposed Barrett Spur co-located seismic and GPS station with LiDAR Hillshade Background

Figure 26. Proposed Barrett Spur site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery August 4, 2015

Mt. Hood National Forest 65 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 27. Proposed Lamberson Butte co-located seismic and GPS station with LiDAR Hillshade Background

Figure 28. Proposed Lamberson Butte site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery August 4, 2015

Mt. Hood National Forest 66 Preliminary Assessment

Figure 29. Crater Rock continuous volcanic gas monitoring station with LiDAR Hillshade Background

Figure 30. Proposed Crater Rock site with DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 satellite imagery August 4, 2015

Mt. Hood National Forest 67 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Figure 31. Proposed Crater Rock Site

Alternative 1 – No-action Alternative

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

The hydrology indicator associated with the AREMP 20-year assessment addresses the influence of road and vegetation changes on peak flows. This alternative would result in the same condition as the existing condition because there are no vegetation management or road construction, road decommissioning, or road maintenance activities associated with the alternative.

Water Quality

Sediment Production and Delivery (mass wasting) The process of sedimentation production and transport was evaluated by the AREMP model by using the difference between an estimated background rate of sediment delivery and the rate estimated, given the status of road and vegetation disturbances.

Sediment delivery to streams in the project area would remain at current levels under this alternative, because no earth disturbance would result.

Mt. Hood National Forest 68 Preliminary Assessment

Riparian Shading and Habitat Riparian conditions play a key role in a number of aquatic processes, including the effect of shading on stream temperatures, roots on bank stability, and the provision of habitat for a number of species. The AREMP model rates the condition of these processes using the average of two indicators: riparian vegetation condition and riparian road density. Implementation of this alternative would not impact any vegetation, so riparian shading and habitat conditions would remain unchanged from the existing condition.

Water Quality Limited 303(d) Streams The status of the water quality limited streams in the area would remain unchanged under this alternative, because it would cause no earth disturbance or vegetation removal.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quantity No changes in hydrologic processes impacting water quantity associated with implementation of this alternative would occur because: (1) there would be minimal vegetation removal (a potential maximum of 105 square feet of vegetation removal at four separate sites), and (2) no new roads or trails would be developed. Water quantity is expected to remain in the same condition as described for the existing condition.

Water Quality

Sediment There may be exposed soil associated with the installation of the sites as described in the proposed equipment and installation description in section 2-2. A small amount of cement is used to anchor the GPS mast and the corners of the enclosure to the ground. For GPS mounts where there is no bedrock at or near the surface, a 3-foot diameter hole is dug by hand to a depth of approximately 4 feet and the mast is placed in the center of the hole. Once the cement dries, dirt and sand excavated from the hole are placed over the top of the cement and graded by hand to match the preconstruction ground surface.

It has been found that in a forested environment eroded material does not travel far from its source. Burroughs and King (1989) found that 80 percent of sediment reaching streams from roads in the first year after construction came from the fill slope of the road. They also found that transport distances and obstructions between the fill slopes and streams influenced the amount and likelihood of eroded material reaching these streams. They found that windrowed fill slopes would act very similar to unharvested riparian reserves in that there would be obstructions to flow, had an average travel distance of 3.8 feet for eroded material, and a maximum travel distance of 33 feet. Similar results were documented by Packer (1967). He found that “the most important factors that affect the distance that sediment moves are the spacing between down slope obstructions and an interaction between this spacing and the kind of obstruction.” He found that logs, rocks, and trees or stumps were the second, third, and fourth most effective materials in reducing sediment movement distances below roads. Travel distances were similar to those reported by Burroughs and King.

As detailed in figure 4 through figure 15, all of the sites except the Crater Rock site are more than 300 feet away from streams and the Crater Rock site is over 100 feet from the closest stream.

Mt. Hood National Forest 69 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Project design criteria are in place to minimize erosion (dirt and sand excavated from the hole are placed over the top of the cement and graded by hand to match the preconstruction ground surface) and to provide for erosion control. If using straw, hay, or mulch for restoration in any areas, use only wood straw. The small amount of erosion associated with installing the sites would result in no sediment delivery to the stream system. This indicator is expected to remain the same as the existing condition.

Riparian Shading and Habitat The riparian reserves associated with the intermittent or ephemeral streams adjacent to the three co-located seismic and GPS stations, and the continuous volcanic gas monitoring station are 100 feet wide. In the Oregon Coast Range and western Cascade Mountains, riparian buffers of 100 feet or more have been reported to provide as much shade as undisturbed late successional/old-growth forests (USDA Forest Service 1993).

All the sites are outside of the riparian reserves, so implementation of this alternative would not impact riparian shading and habitat. Conditions are expected to remain the same as the existing condition.

Water Quality Limited 303(d) Streams There are two water quality limited streams in the project-associated sub-watersheds directly downstream of the Barrett Spur and Lamberson Butte sites. The water quality limited section of the West Fork Hood River is 6.8 miles downstream from the Barrett Spur site. This section of the West Fork Hood River is listed for pH and silver. The water quality limited section of the East Fork Hood River is 5.4 miles downstream of the Lamberson Butte site. This section of the East Fork Hood River is listed for iron, copper, thallium, and biological criteria. There would be no anticipated impacts to the West Fork Hood River or East Fork Hood River 303(d) list parameters because no impacts are anticipated to either water quality or sediment delivery, so there is no mechanism to deliver pollutants to the stream system; thus, there is no impact to 303(d) list parameters.

Cumulative Effects There are no direct or indirect effects on water quality or water quantity, so cumulative effects were not assessed.

Consistency Determination

Applicable Management Direction Numerous existing plans provide guidance for projects in the form of standards and guidelines and recommended best management practices (BMP). These documents include the Forest Plan, the Northwest Forest Plan, and associated supporting documents.

Applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines:

• BMPs: FW- 54-60

• Analysis considerations: FW- 61-67

• Drinking water protection:FW-75 and 76

Applicable Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines:

Mt. Hood National Forest 70 Preliminary Assessment

• Key Watersheds (NWFP ROD pg. C-7): No net increase of new roads in this Key Watershed

Compliance with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives

Table 22 presents consistency with the Forest Plan and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are discussed following the table.

Table 22. Assessment of compliance with forest plan standards for water quality and water quantity

Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines Plan Number Comments Applicable to Project Consistency

FW-054 Water quality associated with management Yes See assessment in Forest- activities shall be in compliance with Oregon wide Riparian Standards State requirements (Oregon Administrative and Guidelines Rules, Chapter 340-41) established in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act (1977, amended 1987). See Forest-wide Riparian Standards and Guidelines. FW-055, Compliance with State requirements shall be Yes Forest Plan Appendix H 056 met through planning, application, and requirements have been monitoring of Best Management Practices met for this project and are FEIS (Appendix H). Best Management detailed in the project Practices (BMPs) describe the process which record shall be used to implement the State Water Quality Management Plan on lands administered by the USDA-Forest Service. FW-057, Individual, general Best Management Yes Forest Plan Appendix H 058 Practices which may be implemented (i.e., on requirements for assessing a project by project basis) are described in ability to implement and General Water Quality Best Management effectiveness of BMPs Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, 11/88. have been met for this Evaluations of ability to implement and project and are detailed in estimated effectiveness shall be made at the the project record project level. FW-059 The sensitivity of the project shall determine Yes Site specific BMP whether the Site-specific BMP prescriptions prescriptions have been are included in the environmental analysis, the completed for this project project plan, or in the analysis files. FW-060 Management practices causing detrimental Yes See assessment in Forest- changes in water temperature or chemical wide Riparian Standards composition. Blockages of water courses, or and Guidelines deposits of sediment shall not be permitted (36 CFR 219.27 e). See Forest-wide Riparian Area Standards and Guidelines. FW-061 Vegetation management activities on National Yes There are no vegetation Forest System Lands should be disperse in management activities time and space to minimize cumulative associated with watershed effects implementation of this project

Mt. Hood National Forest 71 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines Plan Number Comments Applicable to Project Consistency

FW-062 Not more than 35 percent of an area available Yes There are no vegetation for vegetative manipulation should be in a management activities hydrologically disturbed condition at any one associated with time. implementation of this project so this project does not impact hydrologic recovery FW-063 Within the 15 major drainages on the Forest Yes There are no vegetation (Map Four-2) watershed impact areas shall management activities not exceed 35 percent. associated with implementation of this project so this project does not impact watershed impact area FW-064 Watershed impact areas at the sub-basin or Yes There are no vegetation area analysis level (i.e., typically 3000 to 6000 management activities acres) should not exceed 35 percent. associated with implementation of this project so this project does not impact watershed impact area FW-065 Within selected "Special Emphasis Yes There are no vegetation Watersheds" (Map Four-3), watershed impact management activities areas should not exceed the "thresholds of associated with concern" (TOC) for watershed stability implementation of this displayed in Table Four-12. project so this project does not impact watershed impact area FW-066 Cumulative effects analyses of management Yes There are no vegetation activities on water quality and/or stream management activities channel stability (e.g., watershed impact associated with analyses) shall include lands in all ownerships implementation of this within the watershed. project FW-067 Where land ownerships are intermingled, Yes There are no vegetation timber harvest scheduling should be management activities coordinated to prevent adverse cumulative associated with effects. implementation of this project FW-075 The disposal or accidental discharge of Yes Project design criteria are petroleum products and hazardous materials in place to address on National Forest System lands shall be hazardous materials: All prevented. electronics and batteries would be located inside the water tight enclosure. The lead-acid batteries are sealed units. FW-076 Potentially detrimental materials associated Yes Project design criteria are with management activities (e.g., pesticides, in place to address fertilizers, and road surface treatments) shall hazardous materials: All be prevented from entering water or other electronics and batteries areas not intended for treatment. See Forest- would be located inside the wide Forest Protection Standards and water tight enclosure. The Guidelines regarding Hazardous Materials. lead-acid batteries are sealed units.

Mt. Hood National Forest 72 Preliminary Assessment

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives Forest Service and BLM-administered lands within the range of the northern spotted owl will be managed to:

1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

This project is very limited in size (approximately105 square feet of disturbance at four separate sites), with minimal ground disturbance and vegetation removal so there are no impacts to the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features that protect aquatic systems.

2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quantity or water quality, so the spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds will not be impacted.

3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quantity or water quality, so the physical integrity of the aquatic system will not be impacted.

4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quality.

5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quality including sediment.

6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quantity.

Mt. Hood National Forest 73 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quantity.

8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

This project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to plant communities within riparian areas and wetlands.

9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

This project is very limited in size (approximately105 square feet of disturbance at four separate sites), with minimal ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The project occurs outside the riparian reserves with no direct or indirect effects anticipated to plant communities. There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to water quantity or water quality, so habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species will be maintained.

Key Watersheds (Northwest Forest Plan) Key watersheds are a system of large refugia comprising watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high-quality water. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy includes two designations for key watersheds. Tier 1 (Aquatic Conservation Emphasis) key watersheds contribute directly to conservation of at-risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and resident fish species. They also have a high potential of being restored as part of a watershed restoration program. The network of 143 Tier 1 key watersheds ensures that refugia are widely distributed across the landscape. While 21 Tier 2 (other) key watersheds may not contain at-risk fish stocks, they are important sources of high-quality water.

Standards and guidelines for key watersheds include: Reduce existing system and non-system road mileage. If funding is insufficient to implement reductions, there would be no net increase in the number of roads in key watersheds. Key watersheds are the highest priority for watershed restoration.

The Barrett Spur co-located seismic and GPS station is in the West Fork Hood River Tier 1 watershed. Project activities are consistent with key watershed standards and guidelines because there is no road construction proposed (system or non-system) within the key watershed.

Oregon State Drinking Water Source Areas Amendments made in 1996 to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act provide the means to protect drinking water at its source. In developing the amendments, Congress recognized the need to go beyond traditional emphasis on treatment to address new challenges to provide clean drinking water. The act’s amendments mandated that states conduct “source water assessments” for all public water systems. These assessments include delineating contribution zones or source areas for all groundwater and surface water-supplied public water systems and identifying potential

Mt. Hood National Forest 74 Preliminary Assessment

sources of contamination for drinking water in each state. Source water assessments are required for all systems with at least 15 hookups or that serve more than 25 people year-round.

There are no drinking water source areas within the footprint of the three co-located seismic and GPS stations, and the one ground-based continuous volcanic gas monitoring station

Compliance with the Clean Water Act The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) is the foundation for surface water quality protection in the United States. The objective of the CWA, as articulated in section 101, is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. This law uses a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to control direct pollutant discharges from point sources and manage polluted runoff from nonpoint sources to waters of the United States (USDA Forest Service 2012b).

In the CWA, Congress gave states and tribes the option for taking primary responsibility for water pollution control. (States will be used in the rest of this section to signify both states and those tribes that have received approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for treatment as a state under the CWA). As a result, most states and many tribes have taken on that responsibility and, therefore, water quality standards, procedures, rules, and regulations differ from one state to another. The Forest Service, as an agency of the Federal Government, is required to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements for water pollution control in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity (CWA section 313) (USDA Forest Service 2012b).

The Forest Service strategy for control of nonpoint source pollution is to apply appropriate BMPs using adaptive management principles. This strategy involves applying approved BMPs, monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the BMPs, and using the monitoring results to inform and improve management activities (USDA Forest Service 2012a).

It is the responsibility of the Forest Service as a Federal land management agency through implementation of the CWA, to protect and restore the quality of public waters under their jurisdiction. Protecting water quality is addressed in several sections of the CWA including sections 303, 313, and 319. BMPs are used to meet water quality standards (or water quality goals and objectives) under Section 319 (USDA Forest Service 1999).

In the memorandum of understanding (MOU) finalized in January 2014, between the Regional Forester and the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Director, procedures were identified for agencies to cooperatively implement Federal and State water quality regulations on National Forest System (NFS) lands, meet State water quality standards and support beneficial uses of water (USDA Forest Service 2014).

This MOU documents the Forest Service and DEQ strategy for managing and controlling point and nonpoint source water pollution from Forest Service-managed lands in the State of Oregon. This MOU sets out the procedures for the Forest Service and DEQ to cooperatively implement State and Federal water quality rules and regulations. The physical, chemical, and biological conditions of “Waters of the State” that support beneficial uses (defined in Oregon Revised Statute, Chapter 468B - Water Quality and Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 41) will be protected, restored, and maintained by working in a proactive, collaborative, and adaptive manner through this MOU (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Mt. Hood National Forest 75 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

DEQ recognizes the Forest Service as the designated management agency for water quality management on National Forest System lands. The agreement relies on the national BMP program, Watershed Condition Framework, land and resource management plans, and water quality restoration plans (for impaired waters) as the primary mechanisms for compliance (USDA Forest Service 2014).

The DEQ recognizes the Forest Service as a designated management agency; sets water quality standards; assesses water quality against those standards; coordinates with the Forest Service on collection and interpretation of water quality data and list/de-listing decisions; coordinates with the Forest Service on Total Maximum Daily Loads (maximum amount of pollution that water can receive and still meet standards) and Water Quality Restoration Plans for impaired waters; provides technical assistance, reviews, and comments on Land and Resource Management Plans and projects; requests Forest Service review of new rules; issues permits; and enforces Total Maximum Daily Loads rule requirements (USDA Forest Service 2014).

The Forest Service protects and restores water quality to meet Federal and State water quality standards, implements national BMPs (including associated monitoring and adaptation of BMPs), and the Watershed Condition Framework; reviews national BMPs to determine the need for Regional supplement; provides technical assistance for interpreting data; for impaired waters, participates in TMDL development and implementation (USDA Forest Service 2014).

The Mt. Hood Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990b) contains the following standards and guidelines with respect to the implementation of BMPs:

• Compliance with State requirements shall be met through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices FEIS (Appendix H). Best Management Practices (BMPs) describe the process which shall be used to implement the State Water Quality Management Plan on lands administered by the USDA Forest Service. FW-055, FW-056

• Individual, general Best Management Practices which may be implemented (i.e., on a project-by-project basis) are described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, 11/88. Evaluations of the ability to implement and their estimated effectiveness shall be made at the project level. FW-057, FW-058

• The sensitivity of the project shall determine whether the site-specific BMP prescriptions are included in the environmental analysis, the project plan or the analysis files. FW-059

• Site-specific Water Quality Best Management Practices, with the express purpose of limiting non-point source water pollution, are incorporated into the proposed action and associated project design criteria for this project.

• BMPs were originally compiled from Forest Service manuals, handbooks, contract and permit provisions, and policy statements. BMPs were further refined to address recommendations in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988 (USDA Forest Service 1988). Finally, BMPs were refined to meet National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands - Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012a).

Mt. Hood National Forest 76 Preliminary Assessment

The following is an excerpt from the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012b):

“The National Core BMPs are deliberately general and nonprescriptive. Although some impacts may be thought of as characteristic of a management activity, the actual potential for a land use or management activity to impact water quality depends on:

1. The physical, biologic, meteorological, and hydrologic environment where the activity takes place (e.g., topography, physiography, precipitation, stream type, channel density, soil type, and vegetative cover).

2. The type of activity imposed on a given environment and the proximity of the activity area to surface waters.

3. The magnitude, intensity, duration, and timing of the activity.

4. The State designated beneficial uses of the water in proximity to the management activity and their relative sensitivity to the potential impacts associated with the activity.

These four factors vary throughout the lands administered by the Forest Service. It follows then, that the extent and kind of potential water quality impacts from activities on NFS lands are variable, as are the most appropriate mitigation and pollution control measures. No solution, prescription, method, or technique is best for all circumstances.

The National Core BMPs cannot include all possible practices or techniques to address the range of conditions and situations on all NFS lands. Each BMP has a list of recommended practices that should be used, as appropriate or when required, to meet the objective of the BMP. Not all recommended practices will be applicable in all settings, and there may be other practices not listed in the BMP that would work as well, or better, to meet the BMP objective in a given situation. The specific practices or methods to be applied to a particular project should be determined based on site evaluation, past experience, monitoring results, new techniques based on new research literature, and other requirements. State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plans, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment should be used to develop site-specific BMP prescriptions.”

The interdisciplinary team examined the applicable general National Core BMPs and developed more specific and prescriptive project design criteria to implement the intent of the BMPs.

Some of the project design criteria are standard practices and others were tailored specifically for this project based on site-specific conditions. They were developed based on many years of experience and an understanding of recent research. The team evaluated the project design criteria and rated their “ability to implement” and “effectiveness. 3-4 Fisheries More information is available in the project record including the full fisheries analysis file, as part of the Fisheries Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Mt. Hood National Forest 77 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology The analysis methods utilized to determine potential impact to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and their associated habitat are listed below.

• Determine known and suspected locations of federally listed or proposed aquatic species, designated critical habitat, essential fish habitat, Region 6 Regional Forester’s sensitive species, survey and manage species, and Mt. Hood National Forest management indicator species in relation to proposed project activities. • Assess proposed project activities and determine the aquatic habitat elements potentially impacted and the geographic area where effects could occur (i.e., the action area). • Overlap the species/habitat locations with the action area and determine which species/habitat could be affected by project activities. • When species/habitat overlaps with the action area, predict impacts from proposed project activities to individuals and their associated habitat. Potential effects to aquatic fauna and habitat were determined from the following:

• Direct and/or indirect effects from proposed activities; • Potential reductions in stream shade and subsequent increases in water temperature compared to existing levels; • Potential increases in erosion and fine sediment input to streams and wetlands compared to existing levels; • Potential impacts to existing and future levels of large wood in stream channels and riparian reserves, including any impacts to large wood recruitment; • Potential impacts to the quantity and quality of pool habitat; and, • Cumulative effects associated with ongoing or proposed projects in the action area. Where changes to habitat parameters discussed above result from proposed project activities, the potential impacts to aquatic species/habitat were analyzed and then the effects to the biological resource were determined based on professional experience, applicable surveys and studies, and available literature and research.

Assumptions associated with this methodology are listed below.

• Aquatic faunal and habitat survey data used is the latest available and standard survey protocols were used to collect it. It is assumed that this information represents current conditions unless otherwise noted. • All project design criteria would be fully implemented and effective. • The areas of impact described are the actual areas of disturbance. • A large chemical spill (gas, oil, or other material) would not occur during project implementation • All surface water areas have been identified.

Mt. Hood National Forest 78 Preliminary Assessment

Existing Conditions The project sites are located entirely on the Mt. Hood National Forest. The sites are located in three 6th field sub-watersheds (table 23). A 2011 analysis of watershed condition (USDA Forest Service 2010, 2011) conducted at the 6th field level, determined the overall physical aquatic habitat in the 6th field sub-watersheds of the project area. They were assigned a classification rating of 1.6 to 1.8, which is a rating of “Functioning at Risk.” Watershed condition analysis was not conducted at a finer watershed scale. More details on the existing conditions in these watersheds are available in the Water Quality Specialist Report.

Table 23. 2011 Analysis of watershed condition at the 6th field level for those watersheds inclusive of the USGS installation sites Overall Watershed Overall Installation 6th Field Watershed Watershed Condition Watershed Site Name Condition Rating Class Function Rating Yokum Headwaters Sandy 1.8 2 Functioning at Risk River 170800010101 Crater Rock Headwaters Sandy 1.8 2 Functioning at Risk River 170800010101 Lamberson Newton Creek 1.8 2 Functioning at Risk Butte Upper White River 170703060903 Barrett Spur McGee Creek, Upper 1.6 2 Functioning at Risk West Fork Hood River 170701050601

Affected Environment/Action Area The affected environment, also known as the action area, is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR §402.02]. For the purposes of this analysis, the action area is defined as all areas where ground disturbance would take place for all proposed projects, as well as aquatic habitat areas downstream where potential effects could occur. In this case, the action area for the aquatic fauna and habitat analysis is outlined below.

Each of the four project sites have small footprints (typically 5 feet x 5 feet x 5 feet). These sites are not within riparian reserves and not in close proximity to water (located on ridges or approximately one-quarter mile away from surface water). The action area is therefore defined as the footprint of the building or existing infrastructure and any length of cable being hand dug to place a coffee can size seismometer. Because the infrastructure and installations are not near water bodies, the action area is discrete and not expanded to include downstream potential effects. There is no causal mechanism (surface water) to transport effects away from the installation sites.

Presence of Aquatic Species within the Action Area The USGS establishment of GPS and seismic and digital telemetry installation sites occur within three 6th field watersheds (see table 23) that may contain Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species or habitat, Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive species, management indicator species, or Northwest Forest Plan survey and manage species. Although these species may be present within the 6th field watershed, no aquatic species are located within the defined action area of the

Mt. Hood National Forest 79 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations project/installation sites. The following summarizes the presence and habitat of aquatic species within the four action area sites.

Endangered Species Act Listed Fish Species Presence or Absence No ESA listed anadromous fish species or designated critical habitat occur in the action area as defined in the Affected Environment/Action Area section of this document (i.e., there is no aquatic habitat or water at or near the installation sites, nor are the installation sites within Northwest Forest Plan riparian reserve land allocations).

Management Indicator Species Because of their relative sensitivity to change, salmonids were selected as “an indicator species group” for aquatic habitats on the Forest. This group of species is especially important for their commercial and game values and because they occupy the spectrum of aquatic habitats on the forest. These requirements are restricted enough that it is reasonable to assume that if the life history needs of salmonids are met, the needs of other fish species found on the Forest will be met (see FEIS, III-58). Management indicator species (MIS) for the Forest include ESA listed fish species (Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout), coastal cutthroat trout, and resident rainbow trout.

A forest-wide analysis of the status of these species and their habitat was conducted in March 2011 (project record). The State of Oregon, in concert with the regulatory agencies, manages fish populations, while the Forest manages the habitat. For a population to be viable, attributes such as species abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic diversity are needed for the species to maintain its capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions and allow it to sustain itself in the natural environment. All of these attributes are affected by habitat and other environmental conditions that influence species behavior and survival.

The forest-wide analysis also assessed the quantity and quality of habitat available on the Forest, and how much habitat was occupied, for each of the salmonid species. The analysis was performed by calculating the linear distance of stream miles of the intersect between widely available National Hydrography Dataset and StreamNet fish distribution layers of the geo database on file at the Forest headquarters office. Fish distribution was determined by using the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1:24000 data for anadromous fish (which matched StreamNet data), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data for bull trout, and Forest legacy fish distribution data for resident trout distribution. Results of this analysis are summarized below (table 24).

Mt. Hood National Forest 80 Preliminary Assessment

Table 24. Comparison of salmonid management indicator species occupied habitat within the Mt. Hood National Forest (total) and the action area Private land wholly within the Mt. Hood National Forest boundary is included in the “Total Occupied Habitat” column. Total Occupied Habitat Percentage of Total Occupied Habitat in MIS in the Mt. Hood National Occupied Habitat in the the Action Area (mi) Forest (mi) Action Area Chinook salmon 143 0 0% Coho salmon 193 0 0% Steelhead trout 397 0 0% Bull trout 17 0 0% Resident trout1 1,370 0 0%

There are no MIS species within the defined action area of the project, because there is no aquatic habitat or water at or near the installation sites, nor are the installation sites within Northwest Forest Plan riparian reserve land allocations.

Region 6 (R6) special status species Two fish species, three aquatic mollusks, and two caddisflies included on the Region 6 Regional Forester’s 2015 Sensitive Species list are known or suspected to occur on the Forest (table 23). Four additional mollusks and three caddisflies considered strategic species by the Regional Forester are known or suspected to occur on the Forest. Two of the strategic mollusks (basalt juga and Columbia duskysnail) were listed as survey and manage Category A species requiring management of known sites and minimizing inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites (USFS and BLM 2001).

Only sensitive species are required to be addressed in a biological evaluation (Forest Service Manual 2670). Distribution, life history, etc., for many strategic species are poorly understood; thus, when they are found while conducting surveys for other species, the Forest Service requires recording location(s) in corporate databases established by the agency. For the purposes of this biological evaluation, the only two strategic species discussed further are the Columbia duskysnail and basalt juga, because they are Northwest Forest Plan survey and manage species as described above. Because there are no water bodies or streams within the action areas, there is no presence of R6 special status species.

1 Because resident rainbow and cutthroat trout are found in many watersheds across the Mt. Hood National Forest and their distribution often overlaps the MIS analysis lumped their distribution into one category: resident trout. Resident rainbow trout are the most widely distributed salmonid on the forest, occurring in virtually all major watersheds, thus they likely occupy over 90 percent of the total occupied resident trout habitat displayed in Table 24.

Mt. Hood National Forest 81 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 25. Region 6 (R6) special status species either documented (D) or suspected (S) to occur within the Mt. Hood National Forest and within the action area (Yes, No, Unknown). The two species in bold are also survey and manage species as outlined in Forest Service et al. 2001. Scientific Name Common Name Forest Action Area Presence Presence Sensitive Species Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific Lamprey D No Onchorynchus mykiss Redband Trout D No gairdneri Juga hemphilli dallesensis Dalles Juga S No Juga hemphilli Barren Juga D No Juga hemphilli maupinensis Purple-Lipped Juga S No Allomyia scotti Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly D No Namamyia plutonis Caddisfly (no common name) S No Strategic Species Fluminicola sp. nov. Pinhead Pebblesnail S No (Pinhead) Juga sp. nov. (Basalt) Basalt Juga D No Juga sp. nov. (Brown) Brown Juga S No Lyogyrus sp. nov. Columbia Duskysnail D No (Columbia) Lepania cascada Caddisfly (no common name) S No Moselyana comosa Caddisfly (no common name) S No Rhyacophila unipunctata One-Spot Rhyacophilan Caddisfly D No

Pacific Lamprey: Pacific Lamprey occur throughout the Forest in both small and large streams and rivers. They are present throughout the Sandy River Basin and have been documented in Still Creek and the Zigzag River. Pacific lampreys migrate from freshwater streams to the Pacific Ocean, then return upstream to spawn. Typical spawning habitat is similar to that for salmon or steelhead trout, in medium- and large-sized, low-gradient rivers and streams. Lampreys construct a nest (called a redd) in small gravel substrate. Females can lay up to 100,000 eggs, which the male fertilizes externally. Adult lampreys die within 4 days of spawning. Pacific lampreys spend most of their life in freshwater streams before entering the ocean as adults to feed. Young lamprey burrow into the muddy bottoms of backwater pools and eddies, where they filter the mud and water. After a two-month metamorphosis they emerge as adults less than 5 inches long, then migrate downstream to saltwater. In the ocean they grow to 16 to 27 inches before returning after 1 or 2 years to fresh water to spawn and die. The juveniles, called ammocoetes, live in fresh water for up to 5 or 6 years. Juvenile lampreys are filter feeders. Adults are parasitic on other fish, scavenge, or are predators while in the ocean. Pacific lampreys do not feed while traveling to spawn. Pacific lampreys are vulnerable to habitat losses due to reduced river flows, water diversions, dredging, streambed scouring, channelization, inadequate protection of streamside vegetation, chemical pollution and spills, and impeded upstream passage due to dams and poorly designed road culverts.

Redband Trout: Redband/inland rainbow trout (redband trout) occur in the White River and Fifteenmile Watersheds and are suspected in the Upper Sandy River Watershed, but definitive genetic analysis has not been conducted (USDA Forest Service 2005). Rainbow trout with the

Mt. Hood National Forest 82 Preliminary Assessment

body morphology of a redband have been observed in the analysis area, so this species is assumed to be present. Spawning occurs in the spring. Fry normally emerge from the gravel by the middle of July, but it depends on water temperature and exact time of spawning. Redband trout prefer water temperatures from 50 to 57 degrees Fahrenheit, but have been found actively feeding at temperatures up to 77 degrees Fahrenheit in high desert streams of Oregon and have survived in waters up to 82 degrees Fahrenheit. Suitable habitat for Redband trout is present within the project area and the analysis area.

Pinhead pebblesnail: This aquatic snail was recently added to the R6 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. It is associated with springs. No other information exists. Given the fact that no water is within the action area, the pinhead pebblesnail cannot occupy the action area.

Dalles Juga: The Dalles juga has been found in Mill Creek and the central and eastern Columbia River Gorge from Hood River to The Dalles, in Hood River and Wasco Counties, Oregon, and Skamania County, Washington (Frest and Johannes 1995). The Dalles juga is found at low elevation large springs and small to medium-sized streams with a stable gravel substrate and fast- flowing, unpolluted, highly oxygenated cold water. Relatively few macrophytes or epiphytic algal taxa are present, with Rorippa being the most frequently encountered. The species cannot survive long out of water (Frest and Johannes 1995). There is no water within the action area, therefore, the Dalles juga does not occupy the action area.

Barren Juga: This species of aquatic mollusk is found in freshwater habitats in small- to medium- sized highly oxygenated cold water streams at low elevations. The species prefers streams that have moderate velocity level bottoms with stable gravel substrates. The known range of this species is the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington. They have been found in the Forest and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. They are also suspected to occur in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. There is no water within the action area, therefore, the barren juga does not occupy the action area.

Purple-lipped Juga: The purple-lipped juga snail is endemic to Oregon. It is found in large streams at low elevations. These snails prefer riffle habitat with stable gravel substrates, in cold, well oxygenated water. It is more tolerant of silt and slack water than other juga subspecies. The known range of the species is the Lower Deschutes River drainage, below Pelton Dam, and the Warm Springs River in Wasco and Sherman counties, Oregon. Sites where the species are known to occur are located on the Warm Springs Reservation and within the Prineville Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Area. Few locations on the Forest match the above preferred habitat description. These locations are in larger rivers likely near the Forest boundary. There is no water within the action area, therefore, the purple-lipped juga does not occupy the action area.

Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly: Species of Allomyia occur in forested mountain areas below the sub- alpine zone in North America. The larvae inhabit small, cold streams and according to Wiggins (1973) Allomyia scotti may be associated with moss in their habitats. Scott’s Apatanian caddisfly is known to reside in five streams on Mt. Hood: The headwaters of Still Creek and the West Fork Salmon River below Timberline lodge at 4,200 feet elevation in the SW ¼ Sec13 T3S R8E (Wiggins 1973, Wanner and Arendt 2014); the South Fork of Iron Creek in Sec15-16 T3S R9E (Anderson 1976, Wanner and Arendt 2014); from a stream (likely the creek known as “Green Apple Creek” that is a tributary to White River) at the junction of Highway 35 and Forest Road 48 in the SE ¼ Sec16 T3S R9E (Brenner 2005); and in a tributary to the Salmon River (Brenner 2005). The species may occur in other localities on or near Mt. Hood. There is no water is within the action area, therefore, the Scott’s Apatanian caddisfly does not occupy the action area.

Mt. Hood National Forest 83 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Namamyia plutonis: Little is known about the specific life history characteristics of Namamyia plutonis, but it is likely that their life history is similar to other caddisflies in general (including Allomyia scotti) as described by Spellman (2008). They have been found in small streams in densely forested old growth or mature forest watersheds, and larvae have been found in core samples collected from areas of coarse gravel mixed with silt and organic sediments (Anderson 1976). They are known to reside in the Coastal and Cascade Ranges of Oregon and California, including documented occurrences in the Rogue River-Siskiyou, Siuslaw, and Willamette National Forests (Anderson 1976), and a recent occurrence in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (Borgias and Wisseman 1999). Namamyia plutonis has never been documented in the Forest and there is no water within the action area; so Namamyia plutonis does not occupy the action area.

Survey and Manage Aquatic Mollusks There is no aquatic survey and manage mollusk habitat because no springs, wetlands, or streams are present within the action areas. Therefore, this project is consistent with the survey requirements described in the 2001 Record of Decision, and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.

Basalt Juga: The basalt juga has only been found in one survey on the Forest in North Fork Mill Creek. They have not been found in any other stream or water body surveyed since Forest personnel began surveying in 1998. They are not believed to reside in watersheds other than those that drain into the Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon, and thus, are not present within the action area.

Columbia duskysnail: This species of aquatic mollusk has been found across the Forest during surveys conducted during the past several years (Mt. Hood National Forest, unpublished data). Cold, well oxygenated springs, seeps, and small streams, are not within the action area and therefore, the Columbia duskysnail is not present.

Effects Analysis for All Alternatives There is no causal mechanism to affect the aquatic environment, because there is no water or aquatic habitat located at or near the installation sites (action area). These sites are not within riparian reserves and not in close proximity to water (they are located on ridges or approximately one-quarter mile away from streams). At all four installation sites, there is no causal mechanism to directly or indirectly affect listed, sensitive, MIS, or survey and manage aquatic species. Direct or indirect affects to the following aquatic indicators are also not possible, due to the absence of water and aquatic habitat:

• Potential reductions in stream shade and subsequent increases in water temperature compared to existing levels; • Potential increases in erosion and fine sediment input to streams and wetlands compared to existing levels; • Potential impacts to existing and future levels of large wood in stream channels and riparian reserves, including any impacts to large wood recruitment; and, • Potential impacts to the quantity and quality of pool habitat

Mt. Hood National Forest 84 Preliminary Assessment

Direct Effects Direct effects are those that occur during project implementation, in this case, installation of seismic, GPS, other hardware for monitoring. To directly impact aquatic species/habitat, the activity needs to be in close proximity to the water body where species reside, often within the water body itself. From an aquatic perspective, direct effects most often result in disturbance to aquatic organisms—forcing movement or a flight response. Depending on the activity, it is possible that individuals can be injured or killed; this case is almost always a result of people or equipment working directly in water. For example, removal of vegetation directly adjacent to a stream can immediately reduce shade, thus reducing available cover for fish. There are no components of the proposed action that have a risk of direct effects on aquatic organisms or their habitat, as all sites are far removed from surface waters and not within riparian reserves.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those that can result after project implementation and/or as a result of implementation. For example, in the vegetation removal scenario mentioned above in the Direct Effects section, the indirect effect associated with shade reduction could be an increase in water temperature. The magnitude of such an effect, if it occurred, would depend on the amount of vegetation removed, location and elevation of the stream, amount of stream flow, etc. There are no components of the proposed action that have a risk of indirect effects on aquatic organisms or their habitat as all sites are far removed from surface waters and not within riparian reserves.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future State, tribal, local or private actions that overlap in time and space within the action area (affected environment) of the Federal action subject to consultations (50 CFR 402.02). The “reasonably foreseeable” clause is a key factor in assessing and applying cumulative effects and could include actions that are permitted, imminent, have an obligation of venture, or have initiated contracts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998). Only projects that have direct or indirect effects are included in the cumulative effects analysis (if the action has no direct or indirect effects, there is nothing to cumulate). As such, there are no cumulative effects for this project because there are no direct or indirect effects.

Effects Determination/Summary of Effects There would be no effect to ESA listed species or habitat, Region 6 Regional Forester’s sensitive species, MIS, or Northwest Forest Plan survey and manage species. There would be no effect because there is no causal mechanism to affect the aquatic environment. There is no water or aquatic habitat located at or near the installation sites (action area). These sites are not within riparian reserves and not in close proximity to water (they are located on ridges or approximately one-quarter mile away from streams). At all four installation sites, there is no causal mechanism to directly or indirectly affect listed, sensitive, MIS, or survey and manage aquatic species. Direct or indirect affects to aquatic habitat indicators are also not possible, due to the lack of water and aquatic habitat.

Mt. Hood National Forest 85 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 26. The USGS seismic equipment installation project effects determination summary for ESA listed species, designated critical habitat, and Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Listing Suitable Species Effects of Actions and Habitat Present Critical Present Habitat No Proposed Date Action Action Endangered Species Act Listing – All Threatened Lower Columbia River steelhead and 1/06 N N - NE Critical Habitat (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 9/05 Lower Columbia River chinook and Critical 6/05 N N - NE Habitat (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 9/05 Columbia River Bull Trout and Critical 6/98 N N - NE Habitat (Salvelinus confluentus) 11/10 Middle Columbia River steelhead and 1/06 N N - NE Critical Habitat (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 9/05 Upper Willamette River chinook and 6/05 N N - NE Critical Habitat (Oncorhynchus 9/05 tshawytscha) Lower Columbia River coho 6/05 N N - NE (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Pacific Lamprey 7/15 Y N - NI (Entosphenus tridentatus) Redband Trout 7/15 Y N -- NI (Onchorynchus mykiss clarkii) Barren Juga 1/08 N N - NI (Juga hemphilli hemphilli) Purple-lipped Juga 1/08 N N - NI (Juga hemphilli maupinensis) Dalles Juga 12/11 N N - NI (Juga hemphilli dallesensis) Scott’s Apatanian Caddisfly 1/08 N N - NI (Allomyia scotti) Caddisfly (Namamyia plutonis) 12/11 N N - NI Endangered Species Act Abbreviations/ Acronyms: NE No effect NLAA May affect, not likely to adversely affect LAA May affect, not likely to adversely affect Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List Abbreviations/ Acronyms: Unk Species presence unknown but suspected NI No impact MIIH May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species

Proposed project activities will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for barren juga, Scott’s Apatanian caddisfly, and Namamyia plutonis individuals or habitat. The basalt juga and Columbia duskysnail, survey and

Mt. Hood National Forest 86 Preliminary Assessment

manage Category A species, will also not be affected similarly to those aquatic macroinvertebrates described above. Population viability would be maintained as no effect is likely to Columbia duskysnail or basalt juga.

MIS are not present within the action area, nor is their habitat; therefore, the proposed action would have no impact and would not threaten species viability.

Consistency Determination The U.S. Geological Survey Categorical Exclusion and Decision Records for the establishment of GPS, Seismic, and digital telemetry installations within Wilderness areas of the Mt. Hood National Forest is consistent with all applicable fish/aquatic related Federal laws, plans, and guidelines as outlined below.

Law, Regulation, and Policy Numerous existing plans provide guidance for projects in the form of standards and guidelines and recommended BMPs. These documents include the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan. There is significant overlap between aquatics and water quality in terms of applicable standards and guidelines; therefore, those listed below are directly related to fisheries, MIS, or other aquatic special status species.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (pages Four-64, Four-69, Four-257, 258): • Fisheries: FW-137, 138, 139, 145, 147 • Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals: FW-174, 175, 176 • B7 General Riparian Area: B7-028, 030, 031, 032, 033, 037, 038, 059

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines: • Riparian Reserve Standard and Guides and Aquatic Conservation Strategy 3-5 Botany More information is available in the project record including the full botanical analysis file, and biological evaluation as part of the Botany Specialist Report. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology The 2015 Region 6 Regional Forester List of Special Status Species includes sensitive, threatened, endangered, proposed, and strategic species. Strategic species are not considered sensitive under Forest Service Manual 2670 and do not require assessment in biological evaluations; the only management direction for strategic species requires field units to record strategic surveys, and species locality, in the agency's corporate Natural Resource Information System: “The updated Regional Forester List of Special Status Species list (with the exception of Strategic Species) will apply to all projects initiated on or after the date of this letter”2 (Forest Service Memo, 7/21/2015). The most recent project initiation letter to the interdisciplinary team is dated September 8, 2015. Information in this letter includes the most recent project details for effects analysis; therefore, the 2015 Regional Forester List of Special Status Species was used.

2 Transmittal - Regional Forester's Special Status Species List - 2670-1950-final-sss-list-_memo_20150721

Mt. Hood National Forest 87 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Late-successional and old-growth forested habitat (2001 ROD SG-77 and SG-79) for survey and manage species is not present in the proposed project areas. However, there is one survey and manage Category B lichen species (Tholurna dissimilis) known to grow on late-successional or old-growth trees in subalpine-alpine Krummholz plant communities up to tree line, and individual trees above treeline. Tholurna dissimilis is discussed in the following sections and specifically under Consistency Determination - Northwest Forest Plan 2001 Record of Decision Standards and Guidelines below.

Region 6 Special Status Species (excluding strategic species) and their suitable habitats in or adjacent to the proposed project are highlighted in appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation and are discussed in the following sections.

Analysis Assumptions

Project Locations Analysis of Effects and Effects Determination in the biological evaluation are based on the assumption that physical areas of disturbance or impact would be as described under the project description for each of the four geographic locations listed in table 1.

Presence of Suitable Habitat Surveys have not been conducted for 17 species that have potential suitable habitat in the proposed project areas, therefore, it is assumed the species are present because suitable habitat is present. The species are highlighted in appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation and are discussed in the following sections.

Methodology

R6 Special Status Species - The Five-step Biological Evaluation Process The following 5-step methodology for conducting biological evaluations is an expanded explanation of the suggested procedure outlined in Forest Service policy 2672.43:

Step 1 - Prefield review of information and data during preliminary planning phase of the proposed project: 1) If listed species/known sites and habitat are present, modify the project design to avoid impacts/effects; or 2) if sites are not present but suitable habitat is, assume species are present and modify project to avoid impacts/effects; or 3) if prefield review information/data is insufficient, or if known sites and/or potential habitat require field verification, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2 - Field reconnaissance: Conduct field surveys during the appropriate time of year for definitive identification of listed species; if species and habitat are found, proceed to Step 3.

Step 3 - Conflict determination: 1) If negative impacts/effects are not expected, document information in the Effects Analysis and Effects Determination sections of the Botanical Biological Evaluation; or 2) if impacts are expected, modify project design to avoid impacts/effects; document information in the Effects Analysis and Effects Determination sections of the Botanical Biological Evaluation and include mitigations in the Project Design Criteria section; or 3) if project modification is not possible, withdraw the project or proceed to Step 4.

Step 4 - Effects Analysis: Determine significance of potential effects on viability of the species locally and throughout the known range. If information/data is sufficient to assess potential

Mt. Hood National Forest 88 Preliminary Assessment

effects, proceed with Effects Determination based on analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and species conservation objectives. If information/data is insufficient to assess significance of effect, proceed to Step 5.

Step 5 - Botanical Investigation: 1) Sensitive Species: Consult with Regional Botanist for further direction; 2) Species Federally Listed or Proposed for Federal Listing: Follow consultation requirements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and consult with the Regional Botanist.

Effects Analysis The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center State Rank3 is included in the 2015 R6 Regional Forester List of Special Status Species. The State Rank for listed species that are present in the proposed project area, white bark pine (Pinus albicaulis), is included for management consideration in the Effects Analysis section.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center acknowledges the most widely used NatureServe4 rank in the United States are the state ranks, which describe the rarity of a species; Global, National, and State ranks all use the 1 through 5 ranking system summarized below. Rank number for states is preceded by an “S.”

• 1 = Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity or because it is somehow especially vulnerable to extinction or extirpation, typically with 5 or fewer occurrences

• 2 = Imperiled because of rarity or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction (extirpation), typically with 6 to 20 occurrences

• 3 = Rare, uncommon or threatened, but not immediately imperiled, typically with 21 to 100 occurrences

• 4 = Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences

• 5 = Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure

• H = Historical Occurrence, formerly part of the native biota with the implied expectation that it may be rediscovered

• X = Presumed extirpated or extinct

• U = Unknown rank

• ? = Not yet ranked or assigned rank is uncertain.

Effects Determination Forest Service policy directs the biological evaluation process to conclude with a determination of the effects or impacts and summary of the rationale. Region 6 determinations for sensitive species include: No impact (NI); may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH); will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend

3inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic/rare-species/ranking-definitions: Institute for Natural Resources – Oregon Biodiversity Information Center 4NatureServ.org: “An online Encyclopedia of Life”

Mt. Hood National Forest 89 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (WIFV); beneficial impact (BI).

Criteria used to determine effects are listed below:

1) Presence of listed species/suitable habitat in the project area;

2) Rarity of the species locally and throughout known range;

3) Potential for project to have negative impacts/effects on species and habitat in, and within range of the project area; and,

4) Potential for the project to have cumulative long-term effects on the connectivity of habitat and viability of species on the Mt. Hood National Forest and throughout known range.

Survey and Manage Methodology for survey and manage botanical species is essentially the same as steps 1 and 2 of the biological evaluation process. Surveys are conducted according to survey and manage protocols if suitable late-successional and/or old-growth habitat is present and if activities are considered habitat-disturbing. Habitat-disturbance is not necessarily the same as ground- disturbance for survey and manage species. Habitat-disturbing activities are defined as “…those disturbances likely to have a significant negative effect on the species’ habitat, life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements” (ROD SG-22).

A determination of effects is not required for survey and manage species. Species listed under survey and manage Category A, B, C, D (ROD SG pages 6-14) have “Manage Known Sites” requirements intended to prevent habitat-disturbance that might impact the viability of species locally and throughout the known range. Survey and manage categories follow.

• Category A = Pre-disturbance surveys are practical and must be conducted if suitable habitat is present and manage all known sites

• Category B = Equivalent effort surveys are required in old-growth habitat unless strategic surveys have been completed and manage all known sites

• Category C = Pre-disturbance surveys are practical and must be conducted if suitable habitat is present and manage high-priority sites

• Category D = Pre-disturbance surveys are not practical or not necessary and manage all known sites until high-priority sites can be determined

• Category E = Pre-disturbance surveys are not required, status is undetermined, and manage all known sites until a determination is made whether the species meets the basic criteria for survey and manage.

Management of Known Sites Forest Service conservation assessments, conservation strategy reports, species fact sheets, and field guides are used during the development of recommendations for managing known sites. If species are present, modify the project accordingly to prevent habitat disturbance and to provide for persistence of the species at the site and on the Mt. Hood National Forest.

Mt. Hood National Forest 90 Preliminary Assessment

Existing Conditions

Environmental Description Field surveys have not been conducted. Photographs of the proposed project monitoring station sites (appendix B of the Botanical Biological Evaluation), in addition to others from multiple sources, were examined during the prefield review process for this biological evaluation to assess potential habitat for listed subalpine and alpine species within range of Mt. Hood National Forest. The photographs show the conditions in and around each proposed monitoring station location as of October 2015. The results of prefield review for each area are summarized below.

Barrett Spur: The proposed Barrett Spur site is on the north slope of Mt. Hood at 7,300 feet elevation. Photographs of the site location show the area is primarily rocky with exposed volcanic soils and sparse herbaceous vegetation. Two listed lichen species, snow lichen (Stereocaulon spathuliferum) and urn lichen (Tholurna dissimilis), and nine of the listed bryophytes (highlighted in appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation) are known to occur in similar habitat. The Barrett Spur site photograph also shows a wind-pruned bushy white bark pine (Pinus albicaulis) near a rock outcrop. Sedges (Carex species) are present, which indicates suitable habitat might be present for the listed spikenard sedge (Carex nardina). Suitable habitat may also be present for northern cinquefoil (Potentilla villosa), Henderson’s phlox (Phlox hendersonii), and Gorman’s aster (Eucephalus gormanii) in the sheltered areas around rocks.

Crater Rock: The Crater Rock proposed site is located on an apparently barren rock peak on the east face of Mt. Hood at 10,570 feet elevation. Photographs of the site show potential marginal habitat between rock crevices for Henderson’s phlox (Phlox hendersonii) and northern cinquefoil (Potentilla villosa), similar craggy habitat to known sites on the north side of Mt. Hood, but with disparate climatic conditions.

Lamberson Butte: The proposed Lamberson Butte site is on the east slope of Mt. Hood at 6,575 feet elevation. Site photographs show the area is typical of the high-elevation krummholz landscape on Mt. Hood; stunted wind-cropped whitebark pine, sparse herbaceous cover on exposed volcanic soils, rock fields and bolder patches all with associated microclimates favorable for specialized species. Two listed lichen species, snow lichen (Stereocaulon spathuliferum) and urn lichen (Tholurna dissimilis), and nine of the listed bryophytes (displayed in appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation) are known to occur in similar habitat. Sedges (Carex species) are also visible in the area, which indicates suitable habitat may be present for the listed spikenard sedge (Carex nardina). Suitable habitat may also be present for northern cinquefoil (Potentilla villosa) Henderson’s phlox (Phlox hendersonii), and Gorman’s aster (Eucephalus gormanii) around and between boulder patches.

Yocum Ridge: The Yocum Ridge proposed site is on the northwest side of Mt. Hood around 9,000 feet elevation. The Yocum Ridge overview photograph shows a wide rocky concave area, a late-snowmelt depression that probably fills with water and forms a shallow pool for a short time. Two listed lichen species, snow lichen (Stereocaulon spathuliferum) and urn lichen (Tholurna dissimilis), and 10 of the listed bryophytes (displayed in appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation) are known to occur in similar habitat. Sedges are visible in the photographs, which indicates suitable habitat may be present for the listed Carex nardina. A low-growing aster species with a single flower/seed head can also be seen in the photographs; the listed Gorman’s aster (Eucephalus gormanii) grows in similar habitat and sometimes produces a single apical flower, but plants are taller with multiple stems. Potential habitat for Phlox hendersonii and Potentilla villosa is visible in areas where vegetation grows in mats around rock and boulders.

Mt. Hood National Forest 91 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

R6 Special Status Species The Region 6 Regional Forester List of Special Status species includes 107 vascular and non- vascular taxa within range of the Mt. Hood National Forest (appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation). Suitable habitat is or might be present in the proposed project areas for the following 5 listed vascular plant species, 10 bryophyte species, and 2 lichen species.

Known Sites Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis): Whitebark pine grows in the proposed monitoring station site areas on Barrett Spur, Lamberson Butte, and Yocum Ridge. Whitebark pine is typically associated with Krummholz at tree line and above, and is sparse under mixed conifer forests between 3,500 to 5,000 feet elevation on the southeastern slopes of Mt. Hood. The global range of whitebark pine is western North America.

Suitable Habitat – Species Presence Unknown Field surveys have not been conducted. Prefield review of photographs taken at the proposed monitoring station locations in October 2015 show suitable habitat appears to be present for the following 16 species. It is assumed the species might be present because suitable habitat is present.

Vascular Plant Species Carex nardina (spikenard sedge) grows only in subalpine-alpine rocky-gravelly talus slopes, around cliffs and rock outcrops, often on calcareous rock. In Oregon, it has been documented from high-elevation sites on the Wallowa-Whitman and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests and is suspected to occur in similar habitats on Mt. Hood. Eucephalus gormanii (Gorman’s aster) grows in mid-elevations to subalpine/alpine on open dry rocky slopes, rock outcrops, cliffs, and rocky-gravelly talus slopes, typically above 3,500 feet elevation. This species has been documented on the western side of the Forest and is suspected to occur in similar habitats on Mt. Hood. Phlox hendersonii (Henderson’s phlox) grows on sub-alpine to alpine rock outcrops and scree slopes. A large population (multiple sites) has been documented on the northern side of Mt. Hood from 6,000 to 8,560 feet elevation in the vicinity of the proposed Barrett Spur monitoring station.

Potentilla villosa (northern cinquefoil) is a strictly alpine species that grows on soil and organic debris in crevices of rocky talus slopes, rock outcrops, and craggy peaks. The species has been documented above 6,000 feet elevation on the northern slope of Mt. Hood on Barrett Spur ridge where it was last reported in 1956, southeast of the proposed Barrett Spur monitoring station.

Bryophytes Andreaea schofieldiana (Schofield’s red-black moss) grows in mats on exposed or shaded igneous rock in late snowmelt areas and damp microclimates. The species is a Pacific Northwest disjunct endemic; globally it has only been reported from Curry and Jackson Counties, Upper Klamath and Middle Rogue watersheds in Oregon, and is suspected to occur on Mt. Hood above 4,000 feet elevation.

Barbilophozia lycopodioides (giant four-point maple liverwort) grows in rock crevices and on rock ledges, cliffs, boulder fields in late snowmelt depressions, and on peaty soils or decomposed organic detritus in forested areas with boreal characteristics. The species is unusual to find south

Mt. Hood National Forest 92 Preliminary Assessment

of Canada; and it is suspected to occur on Mt. Hood between approximately 3,400 to 7,500 feet elevation.

Brachydontium olympicum (Olympic moss) grows on rock or soil in rock crevices, cliff ledges, and around edges of shaded basalt boulders near snowmelt areas. The species is endemic to western North America on Mt. Rainer, Mt. St. Helens, and the Olympic Mountains, and it has been documented on Mt. Hood at approximately 6,000 feet elevation.

Bryum calobryoides, (moss) grows on rocks and soil in shaded to exposed cliffs, rock outcrops, boulder fields, and rocky meadows. The species has been documented in the Oregon Coast range and Curry, Grant, Jackson, Josephine, and Lane Counties from approximately 3,000 to 7,000 feet elevation and it is suspected to occur on Mt. Hood.

Conostomum tetragonum (helmet moss) grows on soil in rock crevices, cliff ledges, and around edges of boulders in glacial moraines and late snow melt channels; often associated with Pinus albicaulis, Pacific Silver fir, subalpine fir, Mountain hemlock, and western moss heather. The species has been documented on Mt. Hood at approximately 6,000 feet elevation.

Encalypta brevicollis (extinguisher moss) grows on soil in shaded crevices of rock outcrops and ledges on foggy ridges and moist microsites within exposed windswept areas above 4,000 feet elevation. The species has been documented in the Oregon Coast Range and is suspected to occur on Mt. Hood above 4,000 feet.

Encalypta brevipes (snuffer moss) grows on soil in shaded crevices of rock outcrops and ledges on foggy ridges, in moist microsites within exposed windswept areas coastal montane to inland alpine elevations. The species has been documented in Clatsop, Coos, and Curry Counties and Saddle Mountain in northwestern Oregon, and is suspected to occur on Mt. Hood above 4,000 feet elevation.

Gymnomitrion concinnatum (braided frostwort (liverwort) grows on moist peaty soils tucked in cliffs, rock outcrops, and around edges of boulders (full exposure or shaded); and is sometimes associated with subalpine fir and mountain hemlock forests. The species has been documented on Mt. Hood at approximately 6,000 feet elevation.

Nardia japonica, Pacific Spikewort (liverwort) grows primarily on peaty and soil in open rocky meadows or on soil in rock ledges in open areas without forest canopy. This species has been documented on Mt. Hood between approximately 5,000 to 6,000 feet elevation.

Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. vulcanicum (dwarf rock haircap moss) is a distinctly montane to alpine species that grows on moist or wet volcanic rocks and/or gravelly soils at or above timberline in open or sheltered Krummholz plant communities. The species is often found in late- lying snowbeds or damp screes and/or under dripping rock faces and near sheltered high- elevation pools and springs. Mt. Hood is at the southern end of the species’ range in the Cascade Mountains, where it has been documented on the western side of the mountain around 6,500 feet elevation. It is not suspected to occur on the eastern side of Mt. Hood or east of the Cascade Range.

Lichens Stereocaulon spathuliferum (snow lichen) is a fruticose lichen that grows on mossy shaded- partially exposed basalt blocks, talus slopes in sheltered micro-habitats; often within surrounding forests (Pacific Silver fir, subalpine fir, western and mountain hemlocks, and Douglas-fir). The

Mt. Hood National Forest 93 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations species has been documented from sites near the Western Cascade Crest, approximately 3,000 to 5,500feet or higher, and is suspected to occur on Mt. Hood.

Tholurna dissimilis (urn lichen) grows on branches of Krummholz trees (Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir and less often on whitebark pine and Douglas-fir) on windswept ridges near treeline. In northwestern North America it has been reported on Vancouver Island between 328 feet to 1,312 feet elevation. The Oregon Cascades are at the southern end of the species’ range. On the western side of Mt. Hood, it has been found on branches of wild currant at approximately 6,800 feet elevation. Tholurna dissimilis is also listed in the Northwest Forest Plan 2001 ROD as survey and manage Category B.

The analysis area is primarily each of the proposed monitoring station sites and vicinity. The spatial context is the affected environment described under Existing Conditions. The discussion of cumulative effects considers habitat connectivity in the Mt. Hood Wilderness because the area encompasses similar habitats that are expected to provide for persistence of rare subalpine/alpine species on Mt. Hood National Forest.

The following 17 R6 Special Status species are discussed below: Vascular Plant Species - Carex nardina, Eucephalus gormanii, Phlox hendersonii, Potentilla villosa, and Pinus albicaulis; Bryophytes - Andreaea schofieldiana, Barbilophozia lycopodioides, Brachydontium olympicum, Bryum calobryoides, Conostomum tetragonum, Encalypta brevicollis, Encalypta brevipes, Gymnomitrion concinnatum, Nardia japonica, and Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. vulcanicum; Lichens - Stereocaulon spathuliferum, and Tholurna dissimilis.

Tholurna dissimilis (urn lichen) is also a survey and manage Category B species; see the Consistency Determination - Northwest Forest Plan 2001 Record of Decision Standards and Guidelines section below.

Effects Analysis

No Action Species listed above are expected to evolve or decline with natural ecological processes and the existing environmental and human influences on Mt. Hood.

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Known Sites Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis): Prefield review of photographs taken at each proposed monitoring station location (appendix B of the Botanical Biological Evaluation) show whitebark directly adjacent to proposed station site areas on Barrett Spur, Lamberson Butte, and Yocum Ridge. The general project description does not propose cutting trees. The proposed project activities at each monitoring station site are not expected to have direct and/or indirect effects on whitebark pine.

Species Status: In 2014, whitebark pine was proposed as a Candidate for Federal Listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Oregon State Rank is S4 = Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences.

Mt. Hood National Forest 94 Preliminary Assessment

Suitable Habitat – Species Presence Unknown Field surveys have not been conducted. Suitable habitat is present for the following 16 species, therefore, it is assumed these species might be present: Vascular Plant Species - Carex nardina, Eucephalus gormanii, Phlox hendersonii, Potentilla villosa, and Pinus albicaulis; Bryophytes - Andreaea schofieldiana, Barbilophozia lycopodioides, Brachydontium olympicum, Bryum calobryoides, Conostomum tetragonum, Encalypta brevicollis, Encalypta brevipes, Gymnomitrion concinnatum, Nardia japonica, and Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. vulcanicum; Lichens - Stereocaulon spathuliferum, and Tholurna dissimilis.

The proposed project structures on Barrett Spur, Lamberson Butte, and Yocum Ridge would directly impact a total of approximately 90 square feet of ground. The continuous volcanic gas monitoring station box proposed for Crater Rock would be placed directly on the ground and would be approximately 15 square feet. The proposed project activities at each monitoring station location may directly impact one or more species or individuals (if they are present) growing on or between rocks. Indirect impacts or effects are not expected to occur in suitable habitats surrounding the proposed monitoring station locations.

Cumulative Effects

Known Sites Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis): Cumulative effects are not expected to occur as a result of proposed project activities because whitebark trees are not expected to be directly or indirectly affected by project activities.

Suitable Habitat – Species Presence Unknown Vascular Plant Species - Carex nardina, Eucephalus gormanii, Phlox hendersonii, Potentilla villosa, and Pinus albicaulis; Bryophytes - Andreaea schofieldiana, Barbilophozia lycopodioides, Brachydontium olympicum, Bryum calobryoides, Conostomum tetragonum, Encalypta brevicollis, Encalypta brevipes, Gymnomitrion concinnatum, Nardia japonica, and Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. vulcanicum; Lichens - Stereocaulon spathuliferum, and Tholurna dissimilis.

Proposed project activities are not expected to have cumulative effects on the species listed above (if they are present), because the proposed project impact areas are relatively small (a maximum of approximately 105 square feet of ground) compared to the scale of similar suitable habitat that each species might occupy in the surrounding area and elsewhere in the Mt. Hood Wilderness.

Mt. Hood National Forest 95 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Effects Determination Table 27. Effects determination summary Barrett Crater Lamberson Yocum Species Spur Rock Butte Ridge Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) No No Impact No Impact No Impact Impact Vascular Plants - Carex nardina, Eucephalus MIIH* No Impact MIIH MIIH gormanii, Phlox hendersonii, Potentilla villosa; Bryophytes - Andreaea schofieldiana, MIIH = only Barbilophozia lycopodioides, Brachydontium Phlox olympicum, Bryum calobryoides, Conostomum hendersonii tetragonum, Encalypta brevicollis, Encalypta and brevipes, Gymnomitrion concinnatum, Nardia Potentilla japonica, and Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. villosa) vulcanicum; Lichens - Stereocaulon spathuliferum, Tholurna dissimilis. * May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species throughout their range

Known Sites Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis): Activities associated with installation of the proposed monitoring structures would not require cutting or pruning of whitebark trees to facilitate implementation; therefore, the proposed project would have No Impact/Effect on Whitebark pine.

Suitable Habitat – Species Presence Unknown Based on prefield review, habitat conditions around Crater Rock do not appear to be suitable for species that are suspected to occur in the Barrett Spur, Lamberson Butte, and Yocum Ridge project areas. The proposed project would have No Impact on 10 bryophyte species and 2 lichen species (table 27).

Species discussed in the Botanical Biological Evaluation are known to occur in specific micro- habitats within rocky subalpine and alpine environments near and above treeline throughout their known range. Similar suitable subalpine/alpine habitats, and habitat connectivity, protected in the Mt. Hood Wilderness and reserves around the mountain are expected to provide for long-term persistence of these rare species on the Mt. Hood National Forest. Therefore, the effects determination for 4 vascular plant species, 10 bryophyte species, and 2 lichen species (table 27) is May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species throughout their range and on the Mt. Hood National Forest.

Consistency Determination Activities proposed under the proposed action are consistent with the following Forest Service policy, direction, standards, and guidelines for the following reasons:

1) All potential suitable habitats and known sites for R6 Special Status, including survey and manage species, have been reviewed and identified (appendix A of the Botanical Biological Evaluation);

2) Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts/effects have been identified;

3) Analysis of potential impacts/effects has been conducted; and,

Mt. Hood National Forest 96 Preliminary Assessment

4) The effects determination for all species discussed under Effects Analysis concludes that the proposed project activities are not likely to effect the viability of species locally and throughout their range, or cause a trend toward Federal listing.

Forest Service Policy Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.1 Sensitive Species Management: “Sensitive species of native plant and animal species must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. There must be no impacts to sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of adverse effects on the populations, its habitat, and on the viability of the species as a whole. It is essential to establish population viability objectives when making decisions that would significantly reduce sensitive species numbers.”

FSM 2670.22(2): “Maintain viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.”

FSM 2670.3 – “Assure that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive species or result in an adverse modification of their essential habitat.”

FSM 2670.32 – “Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. Where it is determined that impacts cannot be avoided, the line officer with project approval authority, may make the decision to allow or disallow impact, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing.”

FSM 2672.4 – Biological Evaluations: “Review all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species.”

FSM 2672.42 – Standards for Biological Evaluations include the following: 1) A current list of R6 Sensitive, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed species known or expected to be in or near the proposed project area; 2) an identification and description of all occupied and unoccupied habitat recognized as essential for listed or proposed species recovery, or to meet Forest Service objectives for sensitive species; 3) an analysis of the effects (if any) of the proposed action on species or their occupied habitat or on any unoccupied habitat required for recovery; 4) a discussion of cumulative effects (if any) resulting from the planned project in relationship to existing conditions and other related projects; 5) a determination of No effect, Beneficial Effect, or May Effect on the species (and the process and rationale for the determination); 6) recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for any adverse effects (if any); 7) reference of any informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (if any) as well as a list of contacts, contributors, sources of data, and literature references used in developing the biological evaluation.

FSM 2672.43 – Procedure for Conducting Biological Evaluations. A suggested procedure for conducting and documenting findings of a biological evaluation is outlined in exhibit 01 of FSM 2672.43.

Forest Plan Direction FW-148, 149, 150: “Management activities shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities, including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal species. The

Mt. Hood National Forest 97 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations diversity of plants and animals shall be at least as that which would be expected in a natural forest; the diversity of tree species shall be similar to that existing naturally in the allotment area (36 CFR 219.27) FW-150.”

FW-162: “Habitat management should provide for the maintenance of viable populations of existing native and desired non-native wildlife, fish (36 CFR 219.19) and plant species (USDA Regulation 9500-4) well distributed throughout their current geographic range within the National Forest System.”

FW-174: “Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals shall be identified and managed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Oregon Endangered Species Act (1987), and FSM 2670.”

FW-175: “Habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals shall be protected and/or improved.”

Northwest Forest Plan 2001 Record of Decision Standards and Guidelines The only survey and manage species (within range of the Mt. Hood National Forest) that has potential suitable habitat in the vicinity of the proposed monitoring station areas on Barrett Spur, Lamberson Butte, and Yocum Ridge is survey and manage Category B5 species Tholurna dissimilis (urn lichen). As of 2016, “strategic surveys” (SG-84) have not been completed for Tholurna dissimilis in the Oregon East Cascades Province, and equivalent effort surveys/pre- disturbance surveys (SG-75) have not been conducted in the vicinity of the proposed project areas. The maximum proposed soil disturbance area of 30 square feet for installation of USGS volcanic monitoring stations does not have “a large enough scope to trigger a need to survey” and would not cause “a significant negative effect on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site.” (SG-22) 3-6 Invasive Plant Species More information is available in the project record including the full noxious weed analysis file, as part of the Invasive Plant Specialist Report. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology Invasive plants are plant species that are not native to a particular ecosystem and are likely to cause environmental harm or harm to human health; they include, but are not limited to, species on the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) noxious weed list (appendix A of the Invasive Plant Specialist Report).

There also are invasive plant species not yet included on the Oregon Department of Agriculture list of noxious weeds, but they have been increasingly reported as nuisance invaders in Oregon (table 4 of the Invasive Plant Specialist Report). These species should be watched for and

5 Category B = Equivalent Effort: Surveys are required in old growth habitat unless “strategic Surveys have been completed for the province that encompasses the project area and manage all known sites, or if equivalent effort surveys (i.e., pre-disturbance) have been conducted in the old-growth habitat to be disturbed.” (ROD SG-9).

Mt. Hood National Forest 98 Preliminary Assessment

reported to the Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Mapper website: http://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/weeds/pages/aboutweeds.aspx.

Invasive plants and noxious weeds disrupt natural ecosystems and reduce species diversity by displacing native plants. Noxious weeds are considered to be ecosystem-altering invasive plants because of their ability to out-compete native species for nutrients and moisture. Noxious weeds can be spread directly and indirectly by seed and/or fragmented roots and rhizomes that are dispersed by machinery, equipment, vehicles, people, animals, wind, and water.

Methodology The Forest Service is required to identify measures intended to prevent establishment and spread of invasive plants as a result of Forest Service actions. A finding of risk (table 28) is the basis for identifying appropriate prevention mitigation measures (project design criteria). The risk assessment process is detailed below.

The following criteria are used to determine the potential risk of effects associated with proposed project implementation: (1) Presence of noxious weed species in or around the proposed project area; (2) Presence of vectors; (3) Potential for project to spread or introduce invasive plants; and (4) Potential for project to contribute to a cumulative increase of invasive plants in the analysis area.

Existing Conditions

Environmental Description Field surveys have not been conducted in the proposed monitoring station site locations. Photographs of the proposed sites (figure 14 through Figure 17) were examined during prefield review to assess existing conditions at each site as of October 2015, in addition to review of district historic records. The results of prefield review are summarized below.

Barrett Spur: The proposed Barrett Spur site is on the north slope of Mt. Hood at 7,300 feet elevation. Photographs of the site location show the area is primarily rocky with exposed volcanic soils. The proposed site would be accessed by hiking Vista Ridge Trail (#626) starting at the end of Forest Service Road 1630-660. Invasive plant surveys were conducted in the area during 2012. Species classified by the Oregon Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds were not found in the area during surveys. Sparse herbaceous vegetation can be seen in close-up views of the site photographs and no invasive plant species are visible.

Crater Rock: The Crater Rock proposed site is located on an apparently barren rock peak on the east face of Mt. Hood at 10,570 feet elevation. The proposed site would be accessed by hiking from Timberline Lodge to the site or riding the Magic Mile and Palmer ski lifts to the top of the Palmer lift and continuing on foot. Species classified by the Oregon Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds are not known to occur in the area. Photographs from multiple sources show the proposed site area is primarily glacial till and rock. There are no known invasive plant species within range of the Mt. Hood National Forest that would grow in similar harsh high-elevation environments.

Lamberson Butte: The proposed Lamberson Butte site is on the east slope of Mt. Hood at 6,575 feet elevation. The site would be accessed by hiking from Elk Meadows trailhead (#667C) adjacent to Forest Service Road 3545. Invasive plant surveys were conducted in the area during 2011, and during 2015 monitoring in the vicinity; species classified by the Oregon Department of

Mt. Hood National Forest 99 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Agriculture as noxious weeds were not found in the area. Photographs of the proposed site location show the area is near timberline with rocky soils, boulders, and shrubs, bordered by forest and sparse herbaceous vegetation; invasive plant species are not visible.

Yocum Ridge: The Yocum Ridge proposed site is on the west side of Mt. Hood (south side of Yocum Ridge) around 9,000 feet elevation. Photographs of the proposed monitoring station site location show the area is near timberline with rocky soils, and shrubs. Sparse herbaceous vegetation can be seen in close-up views of the photographs and no invasive plant species are visible. The proposed site would be accessed by hiking from the trailhead at the end of Forest Service Road 1825-024 to Ramona Falls Trail #797, Sandy River Trail #3770 and the Pacific Crest Trail #2000. In the trailhead area, there are no known sites of species classified by the Oregon Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds. However, orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) has been documented along the edges of Forest Service Road 1825 and also in the Mt. Hood Wilderness in a meadow near Burnt Lake Trail on the west side of Mt. Hood. The Oregon Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Forest Service and Bonneville Power Administration, have treated orange hawkweed along the 1825 road and spur roads annually over the past 10 years, and most recently in the meadow near Burnt Lake Trail.

Helicopter Landing Pads and Equipment Staging Locations: The proposed helicopter landing pads and equipment staging areas in the Mt. Hood Meadows parking lot and/or Timberline Ski Area parking lot are both paved; species classified by the Oregon Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds are not present. It is currently unknown if invasive plant species are present in or near the helipad USGS would use before entering the Mt. Hood National Forest.

Vicinity Known Sites The following invasive species of primary concern are known to occur at upper elevations around Mt. Hood, particularly near the northern and western edges of the Mt. Hood Wilderness: Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), yellow meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum, syn. H. pratense), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). Known sites in the Bonneville Powerline corridor and Forest Service roads connected to the1800 and 1600 road systems are treated annually by the Oregon Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Forest Service and Bonneville Power Administration.

Effects Analysis The analysis area encompasses the proposed monitoring station sites, vicinity access points/trailheads and associated roads, and proposed helicopter/equipment staging areas in Hood River Meadows parking lot and Timberline Ski Area parking lot (backup). The spatial context is the affected environment described under Existing Conditions.

Alternative 1 – No-action Alternative The Forest Service has limited influence on weed vectors (humans, vehicles, livestock, wildlife, wind, water, etc.). Vectors contributing to a Low Risk rating will continue to be present throughout the planning area even if proposed project activities are not implemented. The Forest Service and Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed and Pest Control will continue to prioritize annual treatment of known invasive plant populations and new infestations in and adjacent to the Mt. Hood Wilderness.

Mt. Hood National Forest 100 Preliminary Assessment

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Foot Travel and Road Access: The proposed monitoring station sites would be accessed by foot travel from one of the trailheads listed above. Weed seeds could be introduced by vehicular traffic to wilderness trailheads and via foot travel along trails to the proposed sites. Vehicle traffic to trailheads and foot travel along trails are within the current range of existing conditions and influences that occur on a daily basis near the Mt. Hood Wilderness, such as the past introduction of orange hawkweed in a meadow near Burnt Lake Trail and via access road 1825. Direct and indirect effects are not expected to occur as a result of foot travel associated with the proposed action.

Helicopter Transport: A helicopter is proposed to sling-load structures and heavy construction materials to each proposed monitoring station site. There are no known sites of invasive plant species in the proposed landing pads or equipment staging locations in the Hood River Meadows parking lot and/or Timberline Ski Area parking lot. There is a possibility, however, that weed seeds and/or plant propagules might be directly introduced to the proposed helipads and monitoring station sites if they are present in or near the helipad of origin outside the Mt. Hood National Forest. Inspection of the designated helipad that the USGS would use before entering the Mt. Hood National Forest, including treatment of weeds and cleaning of the helipad if weeds are present in the surrounding area, would minimize the risk of introducing invasive plant species to the destination helipad and equipment staging areas and proposed monitoring station sites on Mt. Hood National Forest.

Direct and indirect effects are not expected to occur as a result of helicopter transport and associated sling-load materials because project design criteria to prevent introduction of invasive plants has been included in the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects Proposed project activities are not expected to have cumulative effects, because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2903.3 direction requires the Forest Service to determine the vectors, environmental factors, and pathways that favor the establishment and spread of invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System, and design management practices to reduce or mitigate the risk for introduction or spread of invasive species in those areas. Forest Service policy also requires the Forest Service to determine the risk of introducing, establishing, or spreading invasive species associated with any proposed action, as an integral component of project planning and analysis, and where necessary provide for alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate that risk prior to project approval (2903.4).

The projects (as originally proposed) have a moderate risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds specifically associated with using helicopter(s) to transport materials from and to helipads or equipment staging areas. Noxious weed control measures are identified in the project design criteria to reduce the risk from moderate to low. The process for risk ranking is detailed below.

Mt. Hood National Forest 101 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Table 28. Risk rating factors and vectors USGS 2016 Factors Vectors Risk No Action A 6 Low Proposed Action A 6, 1 (helicopter and associated sling load materials) Moderate

Factors • Invasive plants present in project vicinity and/or associated equipment haul routes. • Proposed project activities within noxious weed population(s). • Any of vectors 1 through 8 in project area.

Vectors 1. Heavy equipment/machinery (on- and off-road) 2. Imported gravel/rock/soil/sand (for roads, culverts, trails, etc.) 3. Imported mulch (straw, hay, wood chips) 4. Nursery plants/tree seedlings (soil material) 5. Grazing (range allotments) 6. Recreationists (hikers, campers, equestrians/pack animals, mountain bikers) and trailers 7. ATVs (all-terrain vehicles) and trailers 8. Forest Service vehicles and trailers, contractor vehicles and trailers

Risk • High Risk = Factors A and C, or B and C. • Moderate Risk = Factor A and any Vectors #1 through 5. • Low Risk = Factor A and any Vectors #6 through 8 or known weeds within or adjacent to the project area, without vector presence.

Consistency Determination Forest Service policy, direction, guidelines, and BMPs are intended to minimize and prevent the introduction and establishment of noxious weed infestations. The proposed project and project design criteria for prevention and control of invasive species are consistent with the following.

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species Directs Federal agencies to: (1) identify actions that may affect status of an invasive species; (2)(a) prevent introduction of such species; (b) detect and control such species; (c) monitor population of such species; (d) provide for restoration of native species; and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to cause the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere, unless the benefits of the action clearly outweigh the harm and the agencies take steps to minimize the harm.

Forest Service Policy FSM 2900 (Invasive Species) directs the Forest Service to: (1) Identify the vectors, environmental factors, and pathways that favor the establishment and spread of invasive species in terrestrial areas in the National Forest System, and design management practices to reduce or mitigate the risk for introduction or spread of invasive species in those areas (FSM 2903.3); (2) Determine the risk of introducing, establishing, or spreading invasive species associated with any proposed action, as an integral component of project planning and analysis, and where necessary provide for alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or

Mt. Hood National Forest 102 Preliminary Assessment

eliminate that risk prior to project approval (FSM 2903.4); and (3) Ensure that all management activities are designed to minimize or eliminate the possibility of establishment or spread of invasive species on the National Forest System, or to adjacent areas (FSM 2903.4).

Forest Plan FW-299: Noxious weed control projects shall comply with invasive species environmental assessments. FW-300: Plants that have been identified as pests by the State Department of Agriculture shall be controlled as described in the Mt. Hood National Forest Noxious Weed Implementation Plan. FW-301: Implementation of control measures should adhere to the following priorities: (1) Prevention, (2) Early detection and treatment, (3) Maintenance, and (4) Correction.

2005 and 2008 Invasive Plant FEIS ROD Direction and Amendments Region 6 completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants in April 2005 (USDA Forest Service 2005). In 2008, the Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area completed an environmental impact statement for Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16. The document authorizes herbicide use and an early detection/rapid response program. Note: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington, and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (July 2013), section 33 Invasive Plant Control, supersedes the aquatic section of the 2008 Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2008). 3-7 Heritage Resources More information is available in the project record including the full cultural analysis file, as part of the Heritage Specialist Report. This information is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

Analysis Assumptions and Methodology

Methodology The heritage resource survey strategy on the Mt. Hood National Forest is designed to locate and document historic and prehistoric resources on these Federal lands. Varying levels of reconnaissance coverage are applied to different parts of the landscape based on the likelihood for locating these resources. A reevaluation of the Mt. Hood inventory methods (Burtchard and Keeler 1994) determined that reconnaissance survey intensity should be dependent on slope, distance to water, and the presence of specific resources or physiographic landforms. The information gained from documenting these resources can be used to determine land use patterns and strategies.

Archival sources such as historic maps, ethnographic reports, aerial photographs, and site records may reveal the presence of significant archaeological resources. Ridges and saddles with slopes less than 20 percent offer a very high likelihood for cultural materials. Elevated areas above or adjacent to streams, stream terraces, and alluvial banks also contain environmental features

Mt. Hood National Forest 103 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations optimal for the presence of archeological properties. Slopes over 20 percent are considered to have a low potential for the presence of cultural materials. All project area sites have slopes greater than 20 percent (they range from 40 to 110 percent).

Pedestrian surveys were not conducted for this project due to the unlikelihood of cultural resource presence at the proposed monitoring station sites. In-depth prefield research was conducted, resulting in a determination that the monitoring sites have a low probability for the occurrence of cultural resources due to the steepness of the slopes upon which they are located, and the otherwise lack of environmental features optimal for the presence of archeological properties.

Prefield Background Research District Site Atlas Reviewed: March 17, 2016

District Inventory Records Reviewed: March 15, 2016

Prior Survey within Project Area: None

Sites within the proposed treatment areas: None

Table 29. Sites within 1 mile of the project boundary Site Number Site Name Type of Site 666EA0013 Upper Camp Historic railroad camp 666NA0023 Blue Ridge Spiri Quest Stacked rock feature

Prior survey within 1 mile of the project boundary: None

Aerial photographs, historic maps, and other documents reviewed:

• 1963 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • 1958 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • 1946 Map Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • 1946 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ¼ inch = 1 mile. • 1939 Map Mt. Hood National Forest Map. • 1934 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • 1931 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ¼ inch = 1 mile. • 1930 Map Mt. Hood South, OR 30’ topographic quadrangle • 1927 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ¼ inch = 1 mile. • 1927 Map Mt. Hood National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • 1916 Map Oregon National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • 1912 Map Oregon National Forest, scale ½ inch = 1 mile. • Aerial Photographs, 1995, 1989 and 1979

Existing Conditions The project is located on the slopes of Mt. Hood. The project elevation ranges from 10,580 feet at the highest monitoring site, to 6,285 feet at the lowest. The project will affect approximately 0.01 acres of Mt. Hood National Forest (the Forest) land, all of which are currently within the Mt. Hood Wilderness. The area of potential effect for the heritage resources study includes all four of the proposed monitoring sites as well as the helipad sites.

Mt. Hood National Forest 104 Preliminary Assessment

The terrain varies from ridges, benches, to steep barren canyons with slopes ranging from 40 to 100 percent. Volcanic activity on Mt. Hood has occurred as recent as 180 to 300 years ago. Steam venting and minor ash eruptions were reported in 1859 and 1865. Fumeroles are currently active, and may occasionally be detected from areas very near the mountain peak. Earthquakes and tremors occur frequently on the mountain. Seismic activity was first recorded in 1896 (Crandell 1980).

Prehistory Relatively little is known about the prehistory of Mt. Hood specifically, although studies of prehistoric use of the Cascades have received increasing emphasis over the past two decades (Burtchard and Keeler 1994). This early period is generally interpreted as representing a relatively uniform cultural adaptation characterized by small, mobile populations with an economy focused on hunting large game. Fishing, shellfish collecting, and plant gathering were probably at least minor elements of the subsistence; however, the archaeological record from this period is very limited and remains of plants and smaller animals have not yet been recovered.

Socio-cultural Description Numerous archaeological investigations have been conducted in the foothills and uplands of the western Cascades and on lands of the Mt. Hood National Forest. Syntheses of these studies, conducted on the Forest and other federally administered lands have resulted in an overview of upland prehistory and models of prehistoric and historic land-use (Bryant et al. 1978; Burtchard 1990 and 1993). Similarly, the general prehistoric context of the Portland Basin lowlands has been explored and interpreted through a variety of investigations (Minor et al. 1994a, 1994b). Together, these studies can provide a general framework for examining the prehistoric nature of the Forest and the Pacific Northwest.

Known ethnographic locations on the Forest have been compiled by French et al. (1995, 64-66). The Warm Springs Tribe is known to have utilized the areas as early as the 1900s. Berry picking at lower elevations and the harvesting of white pine bark nuts at tree line were the major activities in this locale. Evidence today remains in the form of culturally modified trees in the Government Camp area. The majority of the ethnographic data details cultural use areas as much lower in elevation and along U.S. Highway 26. Popular huckleberry grounds on the south side of Mt. Hood were around Government Camp and Summit Meadows; others were at Buzzard Point, High Rock, Zigzag Mountain., Fir Tree, Multorpor, Swim, and Devil’s Half-Acre (French et al. 1995, 50).

Whitebark pine nuts were collected in the timberline area of Mt. Hood, and several other kinds of berries and medicinal plants were also gathered. Cedar bark, beargrass, willow, and other plants were used to make baskets and other items. Cambium, pitch, roots, bark, and wood of other species were also used for food, medicines, construction materials, and fuel.

Today, the Mt. Hood National Forest is one of the most visited land use areas in the Nation with millions of recreationists or visitors annually. There are over 180 developed campgrounds (with restroom facilities and picnic areas), and over 150 lakes for recreational fishing and boating. Hikers, bicyclist, motorcycles, horse riders, and off-highway vehicles can travel on hundreds of miles of trails on National Forest System lands. There are recreation activities year-round on the Mt. Hood National Forest including hunting and climbing. Winter sports are popular activities on the Forest. Despite the large array of visitors to the mountain, very few will ever come into contact with the proposed monitoring site locations.

Mt. Hood National Forest 105 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Contemporary land use in this particular area consists of hiking and camping. There are a few trails in the general vicinity of the proposed project sites. Due to the terrain and geography of the project sites, the monitoring stations are not visible from any of the trails.

Effects Analysis The following summarizes the effects analysis that follows.

Planning Area Acres less than 0.01 acre

Project Impact Acres less than 0.01 acre

Prior Field Survey Acres 0

Current Field Survey Acres 0

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of this no-action alternative would result in no earth disturbance or visual effects. The project area would remain at its current existing condition. There would be no effect to heritage resources other than the natural processes that are already occurring on the landscape.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Monitoring Site Locations The Barrett Spur site sits at an elevation of 6,840 feet with a 30 to 40 percent slope. There are no cultural resource sites within the project area. Site #666EA0003, Cairn Basin Stone Shelter is located within 1 mile of the monitoring station site. The nearest trail is the Barrett Spur Trail that is situated over 250 meters below the proposed monitoring station site. There would be no impacts to the historic site or trail by the implementation of this project.

The Lamberson Butte site sits at an elevation of about 6,633 feet with an 80 to 110 percent slope. There are no cultural resource sites within the project area or within a mile of the monitoring station site. The nearest trail is the Timberline trail. There would be no effects to any cultural resources or to the Timberline trail by the implementation of this monitoring station.

The Yocum Ridge site sits at an elevation of about 6,300 feet with a 40 to 50 percent slope. There are no cultural resource sites within the proposed monitoring station area. McNeil Point Stone Shelter site 669EA0026 is within a mile of the proposed monitoring station area. The nearest trail is the Yocum trail that is situated over 290 meters away from the proposed monitoring station area. There would be no effects to any cultural resources or to the trail by the implementation of this monitoring station.

The Mt. Hood Gas site sits at an elevation of 10,580 feet with a 100 to 120 percent slope. There are no cultural resource sites within the project area. Site #669EA0025, Mt. Hood Summit Lookout Remains are located within 1 mile of the project site. There would be no impacts to the historic site remains by the implementation of this project.

Direct and Indirect Effects This project is very limited in size (less than 105 square feet of disturbance at four separate sites), with minimal ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The minor amount of ground disturbance limits the unanticipated discovery of cultural remains. All of the proposed monitoring

Mt. Hood National Forest 106 Preliminary Assessment

sites are considered to be of low probability for the presence of cultural resources based on the Mt. Hood inventory method (Burtchard and Keeler 1994). All proposed monitoring sites would occur outside of any known cultural resource areas or sites, as described above. Installation of the four monitoring stations would cause no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources. There are no sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the area of potential effect for this project. As a result, this project as proposed would have no effect on any National Register of Historic Places eligible sites.

Cumulative Effects Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources, there can be no cumulative effects.

Effects Determination The overall disturbance associated with these four sites is negligible. Although new ground disturbance would occur, no known cultural resources would be impacted by this project. There is a very low probability that any undiscovered cultural sites are present at the proposed monitoring station locations. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the agency has conducted an assessment of adverse effects (36CFR 800.5) and determined that the proposed project meets the criteria for a “No Historic Properties Affected” determination and is subject to stipulation III.B.2 of the 2004 Cultural Resource Programmatic Agreement.

Consistency Determination This project is consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines listed below.

• FW-609 and FW-610: All proposed projects which could affect a cultural resource shall be assessed for their effect on National Register eligible, or unevaluated properties. Assessments shall use the criteria of “effect and adverse effect” (36 CFR 800.9). Projects that include all federally funded undertakings, and undertakings requiring Federal permits (36 CFR 800.9 (a)(b))

The applicable laws, regulations and policy that provide direction for surveying, protection, consultation, and documentation of heritage resources include the following.

• The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. This act requires Federal agencies to consult with American Indian tribes, and State and local groups before nonrenewable cultural resources, such as archaeological and historic structures, are damaged or destroyed. Section 106 of this act requires Federal agencies to review the effects project proposals may have on the cultural resources in the analysis area.

36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties

800.1 Purposes. (a) Purposes of the section 106 process. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The procedures in this part define how Federal agencies meet these statutory responsibilities. The section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation through consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic

Mt. Hood National Forest 107 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.

800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects. (1) Criteria of adverse effect. An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

When applying the criteria of effect and adverse effect, there are three possible findings:

o No Effect: There is no effect of any kind, neither harmful nor beneficial, on the historic property.

o No Adverse Effect: There could be an effect, but the effect would not be harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register.

o Adverse Effect: There could be an effect, and that effect could harm characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. 3-8 Other Required Disclosures

Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions NEPA at 40 CRF 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with . . . other environmental review lands and executive orders.”

Based on information received during scoping and analysis in the preliminary assessment, none of the alternatives under consideration would conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. Also, this project would not conflict with any other policies and regulations or laws, including the Wilderness Act (sections 3- 1 and 2-2), Clean Water Act (section 3-4), Endangered Species Act (sections 3-3 and 3-4), and National Historic Preservation Act (section 3-7). Other potential conflicts with plans, policies, or other jurisdictions are discussed below.

Climate Change A growing body of scientific evidence and climate modeling indicates that climate change is occurring. While there are no specific projections for the project area, the situation would likely be one where the summers are drier and the snow melts earlier in the spring (Bare et al. 2005, Mote 2003, Mote et al. 2005, Dale et al. 2001). There are some who believe that climate change is not occurring or that it is not human-caused. This document is not intended to present arguments on any of these theories, as they are well-documented elsewhere.

Mt. Hood National Forest 108 Preliminary Assessment

The only project components that would contribute to carbon emissions are the transportation to and from the sites, and the use of helicopters to deliver the equipment to the sites. No vegetation would be removed as a result of this project. The vehicle traffic involves normal travel to and from trailheads by the USGS personnel installing the equipment.

The use of helicopters would be limited to installation and maintenance requiring battery replacements. It is estimated that installation would require 5 hours of helicopter use. Battery replacement is only anticipated every 3 years. Helicopters would use fossil fuel; it is possible for some of this equipment to use biofuels and it is likely to be used where it is available and price competitive. The no-action alternative would not use any fossil fuels. Emissions of greenhouse gases would be small, given the limited use of helicopters.

As such, this project is not likely to have direct localized effects on the climate. By its very nature, the discussion of a project’s effect on climate change is indirect and cumulative because the effects occur at a different time and place, and because the scale of the discussion is global.

Floodplains and Wetlands There are no impacts to wetlands or floodplains because none are located at the proposed monitoring sites. Section 3-4, fisheries and water quality, provides more details on the limited aquatic resources found in the project area.

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands None of the alternatives would have an adverse impact to the productivity of farmland, rangeland, or forestland since none of these lands are located within the project area.

Potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy The no-action alternative would require no expenditure of fuel or energy. The action alternatives would require expenditures of fuel for workers to access the project area and use small power equipment. Jet fuel use for helicopter operations would also occur. Overall, the action alternatives would not result in any unusual expenditure of fuel.

Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas and Unroaded Areas There would be no impacts to inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas as none exist within or near the project area. The project is located within the Mt. Hood Wilderness (an unroaded area). The impacts to the wilderness area, including visual quality objectives, are discussed in sections 2-2, 3-1 and 3-2. Wilderness character was raised as an issue and is discussed in sections 1-8 and 2-4.

Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, Women, and Environmental Justice On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued the Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898). This order directs agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of projects on certain populations. In accordance with this order, the proposed activities have been reviewed to determine if they would result in disproportionately high and adverse human and environmental effects on minorities and low- income populations.

Mt. Hood National Forest 109 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

This project is located within Mt. Hood Wilderness. As such, the project is not located close to any communities and is difficult to access. The project would be implemented by USGS and does not involve the sale of any commercial products. As such, no specific concerns regarding minorities or low-income populations or communities were identified during the planning or public involvement process.

This project would positively impact the communities of Mt. Hood, Sandy, and the Portland metropolitan area, including minorities, low-income populations and women. As a potentially active volcano, Mt. Hood poses significant volcano, landslide, flood, channel migration, and earthquake hazards to nearby communities and community assets. The proposed monitoring stations in the Mt. Hood Wilderness would assess volcanic activity to inform the early warning system regarding volcanic hazards and public safety.

Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this preliminary assessment: 4-1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological evaluations were prepared for threatened or endangered wildlife, fish, and botanical species. These are available in the project record, located at the Mt. Hood National Forest Headquarters in Sandy, Oregon.

This project does not include any critical habitat, nor does it involve any habitat-disturbing activities. There are no federally threatened or endangered aquatic or botanical species in the project area. The primary helicopter landing is located near a northern spotted owl nest patch. The project design criteria/mitigation measure minimizes the impacts to owls: “Helicopters must remain at least ¼ mile from the known owl nest patch (6100P93) located near the Hood River Meadows parking lot at latitude 45 19.657, longitude 121 38.164 from March 1 to July 15.” As such, this project has no effect to northern spotted owls. Consultation is not required for wildlife, aquatic, or botanical species.

Consultation with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office The National Historic Preservation Act requires consideration be given to the potential effect of Federal undertakings on historic resources. This includes historic and precontact cultural resource sites. The guidelines for assessing effects and for consultation are provided in 36 CFR 800. To implement these guidelines, Region 6 of the Forest Service entered an agreement in 2004, with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In accordance with the agreement, surveys of the project area are not required and a no effect determination has been made for this project. Consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office is not required.

Coordination with U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey–Cascades Volcano Observatory (USGS-CVO) began discussions with the Forest in 2012, regarding the network of monitoring stations needed for Mt. Hood. Under the

Mt. Hood National Forest 110 Preliminary Assessment

Stafford Act (P.L. 93–288), the USGS is responsible for issuing timely warnings of potential geologic disasters, among them volcanic eruptions, to the affected populace and civil authorities. The USGS-CVO uses continuously operating seismometers and GPS reference stations to monitor volcanic seismicity and deformation for hazard mitigation. To achieve this goal, USGS- CVO submitted a proposal for six monitoring stations to be installed outside of wilderness and six monitoring stations to be installed within the Mt. Hood Wilderness.

The Forest Service and USGS worked collaboratively to design a network that would meet the research and monitoring needs while minimizing the impacts to the resources and staying within budget. In June 2014, the Forest Service approved the installation of communications and telemetry equipment at the Hood River Ranger District administrative building and radio tower on site. In September 2014, the Forest Service approved the installation of GPS, seismic, and digital telemetry monitoring equipment on and near the Hiyu communications tower in the Bull Run Watershed management area and Upper Palmer ski lift building in the Timberline permit area. Both sites are located on the Zigzag Ranger District. Then, in January 2015, the Forest Service approved the installation of GPS, seismic, and digital telemetry monitoring equipment in the Shellrock area on the Hood River Ranger District. All the non-wilderness sites were implemented in 2014/2015 under a special use permit.

The USGS and Forest Service worked together to refine the proposal for the wilderness sites in December 2014. The revised proposal included three combined GPS, seismic, and digital telemetry monitoring stations and one gas monitoring station. The revised proposal included two possible locations for the gas monitoring station; the final location was selected after all field work was completed. The revised proposal was designed to minimize the impacts to the wilderness areas while meeting the minimum needs for the monitoring network (see section 2-4 for more information).

USGS has coordinated with the Forest Service throughout the NEPA planning process for both the non-wilderness and wilderness sites to ensure that the project is meeting the law, regulations, and policies of both agencies. The monitoring sites within the wilderness would be installed and monitored by USGS under a special use permit. The Forest Service permit administrator would oversee the permit to ensure all the terms and conditions are being met and the NEPA is being implemented correctly. 4-2 Tribes This project is located on usual and accustomed land for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (as is all of the Mt. Hood National Forest). The Treaty of 1855 granted the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs the right of “usual and accustomed” gathering of traditional native plants and “special interest” use. According to the Ethnographic Study of the Mt. Hood National Forest, no traditional use areas have been identified in this planning area. The overall disturbance of the monitoring sites is less than 0.01 acre and removes no vegetation. Also, there are no other known traditional native plant communities within the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposal to implement this project would not have any adverse effects on members of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs nor would the activities preclude any granted rights. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs were consulted on this project and they did not raise any issues. 4-3 List of Preparers The following interdisciplinary team members assisted in developing the preliminary assessment.

Mt. Hood National Forest 111 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Role Team Member Interdisciplinary Team Leader Jennie O’Connor Card, TEAMS Recreation and Wilderness Specialist Clair Pitner Wildlife Biologist Alan Dyck (retired) and Jeff Goldberg Hydrology Todd Parker Fisheries Biologist Kathryn Arendt Botanist Susan Nugent Archeologist Debbie Ortiz GIS Specialist Jill Masters Geophysicist, USGS Benjamin Pauk Environmental Specialist, USGS Donna Seaman Scientist-in-Charge, USGS Seth Moran Special Uses Program Manager MaryEllen Fitzgerald Environmental Coordinator Michelle Lombardo

Mt. Hood National Forest 112 Preliminary Assessment

References Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight (www.orwapif.org) and American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory.

Anderson, N.H. 1976. Distribution and ecology of Oregon trichoptera. Technical Bulletin #134. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 152 pp.

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

Bare, B.B., R. Gustafson, P. Mote, L. Brubaker, and J. Perez-Garcia. 2005. Effect of global climate change on northwest forests. University of Washington. Denman Forestry Issues. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2797

Beamer, E.M., T.J Beechie, B.S. Perkowski, and J.R. Klochak. 2003. Appendix C: Restoration of Habitat-Forming Processes—An Applied Restoration Strategy for the Skagit River. In: Beechie, T.J., E.A. Steel, P. Roni, P. and E. Quimby (Eds.) Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-NWFSC-58).

Borgias, D. and R.W. Wisseman. 1999. Report on the 1998 and 1999 survey for Rhyacophila colonus, in forested torrents near O'Brien, Oregon. The Nature Conservancy of Oregon. Prepared for Diane Perez, Siskiyou National Forest.

Brenner, G. 2005. Scott’s Apatanian Fact Sheet. Prepared for USDA Forest Service and DOI Bureau of Land Management Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species (ISSSSP) Program (www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp). Pacific Analystics, LLC, Albany, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Bryant, R., L. Conton, R. Hurlbett, and J. Nelson. 1978. Cultural resources Overview of the Mt. Hood National Forest, Vol. 1. Pro-Lysts, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Department of agriculture, Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest.

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

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

Burroughs, E.R., Jr., and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 21pp.

Mt. Hood National Forest 113 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Burtchard, G.C. and R.W. Keeler. 1991. Mt. Hood Cultural Resource Reevaluation Project: A Consideration of Prehistoric and Historic Land Use and Cultural Resource Survey Design Reevaluation, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon. Report completed under contract with the Laboratory of Archaeology and Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Portland State University.

Burtchard, G.C. and R.W. Keeler. 1994. Mt. Hood Cultural Resource Reevaluation Project. Laboratory of Archaeology and Anthropology, Portland State University.

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

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

Crandell, D.R. 1980. Recent Eruptive History of Mount Hood, Oregon, and Potential Hazards from Future Eruptions. Geological Survey Bulletin #1492. Department of the Interior. Washington D.C.

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

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.d. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51(9): 723−734.

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

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

Ewert, J.W., M. Guffanti, and T. Murray. 2005. An Assessment of Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for a National Volcano Early Warning System (USGS Open-File Report 2005-1164). U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1164/.

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

Mt. Hood National Forest 114 Preliminary Assessment

French, K. Y. Hajda, R. Moore, and D. Ellis. 1995. An Ethnographic Study of the Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. Report No. 86, Portland, Oregon.

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

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

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

Grant, G.E., S.L Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 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 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mt. Hood National Forest 115 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

Miller, S.A., S.N. Gordon, P. Eldred, R.M. Beloin, S. Wilcox, M. Raggon, H. Andersen, and A. Muldoon. 2014. Northwest Forest Plan - The First 20 Years (1994-2013): Watershed Condition Status and Trend. Portland OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/

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

Minor, R., R. Musil, and K. Toepel. 1994a. An inventory Assessment of Archaeological Resources in the Columbia South Shorefor the City of Portland, Oregon. Report no. 165. Heritage Research Associates, Inc. Prepared for the Bureau of Planning, City of Portland.

Minor, Rick, Robert Musil, Katheryn Toepel. 1994b. A Preliminary Assessment of 45CL422, Sunnyside Meadows subdivision, Clark County, Washington. Report No. 144. Heritage Research Associates, Inc. Prepared for Toivonen Construction.

Moran, S.C, J.T. Freymueller, R.G. LaHusen, K.A. McGee, M.P. Poland, J.A. Power, D.A. Schmidt, D.J. Schneider, G. Stephens, C.A. Werner, and R.A. White. 2008. Instrumentation Recommendations for Volcano Monitoring at U.S. Volcanoes Under the National Volcano Early Warning System (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008– 5114). U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5114/sir2008-5114.pdf.

Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30: 1601.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 86: 39−49.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2013. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. http://orbic.pdx.edu

Oregon Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Control Program. Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System (List of Oregon Noxious Weeds). 2015. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Weeds/NoxiousWeedPolic y Classification.pdf

Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Mapper website. 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/weeds/pages/aboutweeds.aspx

Packer, P.E. 1967. Criteria for designing and locating logging roads to control sediment. Forest Science 13 (1). 18pp.

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

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

Mt. Hood National Forest 116 Preliminary Assessment

Scott, W.E., T.C. Pierson, S.P. Schilling, J.E. Costa, C.A. Gardner, J.W. Vallance, and J.J. Major. 1997. Volcano hazards in the Mount Hood region, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-89. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

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

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

The National Invasives Species Council. Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). 2006. Available online at: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Letter of Concurrence Regarding the Effects of Habitat Modification Activities within the Willamette Province, FY 2015, proposed by the Eugene District, Bureau of Land Management; Salem District, Bureau of Land Management; Mt. Hood National Forest; Willamette National Forest; and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area on the Northern Spotted Owl and its Critical Habitat, and the Oregon Spotted Frog and its Proposed Critical Habitat (FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2015-0147).

USDA Forest Service. 1974. “The Visual Management System.” VQO, USDA –Agricultural Handbook 462, National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 2, Chapter. 1.

USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS Users Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

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

Mt. Hood National Forest 117 USGS Volcanic Monitoring Stations

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1990b. Land and Resource Management Plan: Mt. Hood National Forest. As amended. Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1990c. Record of Decision: Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. As amended. Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Forest ecosystem management; and ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, July 1993. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

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

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNoxWeedPrevPractices _07052001.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Region 6, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3812803.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision. Pacific Northwest Regional Office. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Record of Decision for Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16. Mt. Hood National Forest. Sandy, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C., 20250-0003.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-977, Washington, D.C.

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

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Chapter 10 – Environmental Analysis, Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 [1909.15-2012-3]. National Headquarters (Washington Office), Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Memorandum of Understanding between State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest

Mt. Hood National Forest 118 Preliminary Assessment

Region documenting the USDA Forest Service and DEQ strategy for managing and controlling nonpoint source pollution for US Forest Service managed lands in the State of Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, Oregon.

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

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Category B Species where Strategic Surveys are Considered Complete EMS TRANSMISSION BLM-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2006-FS-Memorandum. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/02- categoryb_lichens_bryophytes.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2011-2016. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) Species Factsheets for Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). 2011-2016. Species Index. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-fungi.shtml

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Biological Assessment of NLAA Projects with the Potential to Modify the Habitat of Northern Spotted Owls or Oregon Spotted Frog and their Proposed Critical Habitat, Willamette Planning Province – FY2015.

Wanner, G. and K. Arendt. 2014. Caddisfly Survey around Mt. Hood: Search for Scott’s apatanian and other sensitive caddisfly species

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

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

Mt. Hood National Forest 119