Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Volume 2 Thomas A. Spies, Peter A. Stine, Rebecca Gravenmier, Jonathan W. Long, and Matthew J. Reilly, Technical Coordinators U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-966 Vol. 2 June 2018 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Chapter 7: The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan—A Review of the Relevant Science After 23 Years Gordon H. Reeves, Deanna H. Olson, Steven M. Wondzell, to develop a network of functioning watersheds that supports Peter A. Bisson, Sean Gordon, Stephanie A. Miller, populations of fish and other aquatic and riparian-dependent Jonathan W. Long, and Michael J. Furniss1 organisms across the NWFP area (USDA and USDI 1994a). The ACS is based on preserving and restoring key ecological Introduction processes, including the natural disturbance regimes (USDA The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is a regional and USDI 1994a) that create and maintain habitat for native strategy applied to aquatic and riparian ecosystems across aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms, and it recognizes the area covered by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, that periodic natural disturbances may be required to sustain or Plan), encompassing broad landscapes of public lands ecological productivity. As a result, the ACS does not expect administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest that all watersheds will be in favorable condition (highly Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of productive for the same aquatic organisms) at any point in Land Management (BLM) (USDA and USDI 1994a). The time, nor does it expect that any particular watershed will ACS was developed during the analysis (FEMAT 1993) that remain in a certain condition through time. If the ACS and led to the NWFP, but its foundation was a refinement of the NWFP are effective, the proportion of watersheds in earlier strategies: the Scientific Panel on Late-Successional better condition (for native organisms) is expected to remain Forest Ecosystems (“The Gang of Four”) (Johnson et al. the same or increase over time (Reeves et al. 2004). 1991), PacFish (USDA and USDI 1994b), and the Scientific The primary objective of the ACS is to maintain Analysis Team (Thomas et al. 1993). and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of The ACS uses an ecosystem approach to management of watershed-level features and processes to which aquatic and riparian and aquatic habitats (Everest and Reeves 2007) and riparian species are uniquely adapted. Programs and actions was designed to (1) protect watersheds that had good-quality under the ACS are to maintain, not prevent, attainment of habitat and strong fish populations at the time the Plan was this goal. The ACS designates watershed analysis as the tool drafted, and (2) halt further declines in watershed condition for developing baseline conditions against which to assess and restore ecological processes that create and maintain maintenance and restoration conditions, and improvements favorable conditions in aquatic ecosystems in degraded eco- in biological and physical processes are to be evaluated systems (FEMAT 1993). The long-term goal (100+ years) is relative to the natural range of variability (USDA and USDI 1994a). ACS objectives address (1) diversity and complexity of watershed features; (2) spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds; (3) physical integrity; (4) 1 Gordon H. Reeves is a research fish ecologist, Deanna H. Olson is a research aquatic ecologist, and Steven M. Wondzell water quality; (5) sediment input, storage, and transport; (6) is a research geologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson instream flows (e.g., both peak and low flows); (7) floodplain Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Jonathan W. Long is a research inundation; (8) riparian plant-species composition and ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park, Davis, CA structural diversity; and (9) habitat to support well-distrib- 95618; Peter A. Bisson is a research fish ecologist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest uted populations of native, aquatic and riparian-dependent rd Research Station, 3625 93 Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512; species of plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Michael J. Furniss is a hydrologist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, The ACS sets out five components to meet its goals: 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 95521-6013; Sean Gordon is a research assistant professor, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, • Riparian reserves: Riparian reserves are specif- Portland State University, 1600 SW Fourth Avenue, Portland, OR ically designated portions of the watershed most 97204; Stephanie A. Miller is the Riparian Program lead, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M tightly coupled with streams and rivers that provide Street SE, Washington, DC 20001. 461 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966 Appendix 1: Aquatic-Riparian Invasive Species of the Northwest Forest Plan Area Deanna H. Olson and Rebecca L. Flitcroft1 the program’s annual monitoring efforts. Herein, we provide Invasive species are generally considered novel species that an overview of ARIS that are priorities for natural resource are not native to established systems, and their introductions managers in the NWFP area, highlight key science findings are harmful ecologically (Vitousek et al. 1997) or econom- of recent research, and describe the development of invasive ically (Pimentel et al. 2000). Nuisance-species lists have species monitoring programs. been developed for various jurisdictions, including species that both have been or potentially could be introduced to an Priority Aquatic Invasive Species area with subsequent adverse effects. Priority aquatic-ri- Overall, across the Plan area, we identified 63 species and parian invasive species (ARIS) include those that have the species groups as top regional aquatic-riparian invasive or potential to greatly alter food webs or ecosystem structure, nuisance-species priorities (table 7-10). Of these, 31 (49 economic interests such as fisheries, and recreation oppor- percent) species or species groups were designated as “high tunities or human safety—for example, by fouling water- concern” and inventoried by AREMP in 2016. Our broader ways or affecting water transportation. Priority invasive top-priority list of 63 taxa was derived from lists compiled species include pathogens that can trigger disease die-offs, by state government departments in the region, interagency predators that may restructure native communities via collaborative groups such as state invasive species councils, trophic cascades, ecosystem engineers that alter physical regional U.S. Forest Service personnel, or other entities or biological habitat conditions, and macroinvertebrates identifying nuisance species or emerging infectious and plants that may produce population booms in systems, diseases. Specifically, our 63 priority taxa include those altering their ecosystem structure or function. aquatic-riparian species on Oregon’s “100 Worst List” ARIS were not raised as a priority concern during (OISC 2015), Washington’s “50 Priority Species” list (WISP development of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 2009), a focal species list for U.S. Forest Service Pacific (ACS) for the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) in Northwest Region (Region 6) lands (Flitcroft et al. 2016b; S. 1993–1994. As described in the 10 ACS objectives (USDA Bautista, pers. comm.2), and the AREMP list (Raggon and USDI 1994a), the focus at the time was to maintain and 2017). We recognize that top priorities identified by Califor- restore watershed, landscape, riparian, and aquatic habitat nia and the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region conditions to which species, populations, and communities include other aquatic-riparian taxa, but upon inspection, are uniquely adapted—hence emphasis was placed on species identified only in California and not by these other native species. More explicitly, ACS objective 10 refers sources appeared to be of lesser immediate concern in to the maintenance and restoration of habitat to support northwestern California forests in the Plan area. We well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, acknowledge that some other important California invasive and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Since 1994, species may merit consideration if our list were to be refined ARIS concerns have intensified, and several state and further. Lastly, some pathogens were included here because federal agency groups with species jurisdictions overlapping of their national and international priority status from other the range of the NWFP have been addressing ARIS. In par- entities (Auliya et al. 2016, Bern Convention 2015, Conser- ticular, modifications to the Aquatic-Riparian Effectiveness vation Institute 2013, OIE 2017, Schloegel et al. 2010, Monitoring Program (AREMP) now address ARIS during USFWS 2016). Note that priority species differ between 1 Deanna H. Olson is a research ecologist and Rebecca L. Flitcroft is a research fish biologist, U.S. Department of Agricul- 2 Bautista, S. 2017. Personal communication. Pesticide