ATTACHMENTS

Salmonids Effects Determination Criteria

Northwest National Fire Plan Project Design and Consultation Process

[Attachment 1](#riparian-area-literature-summary-including-rhcas):
Riparian Area Literature Summary -- Including RHCAs

[Attachment
2](#attachment-2-references-for-the-potential-effects-criteria-and-rationale-in-the-salmonid-criteria-february-2003):
References for the "Potential Effects", "Criteria," and "Rationale"

[Attachment
3](#attachment-3---watershed-condition-and-riparian-management-objectives-rmos-in-the-prescribed-fire-criteria---the-matrix-of-pathways-and-indicators):
Watershed Condition and Riparian Management Objectives in the Prescribed
Fire Criteria

[Attachment 4](#Attach5): Noxious Weed Risk Assessments and Glyphhosate
Herbicide Risk Assessment

[Attachment 5](#Attach5): Water Quality Effects of Three Dust Abatement
Compounds

[Attachment 6](#Attach6): Screen Criteria for Juvenile Fish

[Attachment 7](#attach7): Riparian Road Guide Including Road Surface
Draining Spacing

[Attachment 8](#Attach8): Bridge Relocation

[Attachment 9](#attach9): Culvert Replacement

[Attachment 10](#attach10): Potential Capture of Salmonid Fishes from
Small Lakes and Ponds by Helicopter Bucket Dipping Associated with Fire
Management Activities

[Attachment 11](#Attach11): Road Ditch Maintenance and Traffic Effects

[Attachment 12](#Attach12): Effects of Fire on Fish

[Attachment 13](#Attach13): Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems -- Pathways -
Aspen

[Attachment 14](#Attach14): Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems -- Pathways -
Oak Woodland

[Attachment 15](#attach15): Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following
Removal of Forest Roads

# ATTACHMENT 1

# RIPARIAN AREA LITERATURE SUMMARY -- Including RHCAs

# INTRODUCTION

# "RHCA" (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area), as used in the Conditional Statement is defined in PACFISH(1995) and INFISH(1995): It is similar to "riparian reserve" used in the Northwest Forest Plan, and RCA used in the draft ICBEMP EIS.

"Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas are portions of watersheds where
riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management
activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. Riparian
Habitat Conservation Areas include traditional riparian corridors,
wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the
integrity of aquatic ecosystems by 1). Influencing the delivery of
coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams, 2).
Providing root strength for channel stability, 3). Shading the stream,
and 4) protecting water quality (Naiman et al. 1992)."

Further, RHCA extent is described in PACFISH/INFISH as follows:

"Widths of interim Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas that are adequate
to protect streams from non-channelized sediment inputs should be
sufficient to provide other riparian functions, including delivery of
organic matter and woody debris, stream shading, and bank stability
(Brazier and Brown 1973, Gregory et al. 1987, Steinblums et. Al. 1984,
Beschta et al. 1987, McDade et al. 1990, Sedell and Beschta 1991, Belt
et al. 1992)."

The value and function of riparian vegetation are discussed in The
Interior Columbia Basin Science Assessment (Quigley et al. 1997):

> "Ecological functions provided by riparian vegetation are achieved at
> different distances, depending on the type of function and the width
> of riparian vegetation needed for the function." Examples:
>
> Litter fall and nutrient input and retention in streams (23 to 46
> meters), shade to streams for maintenance of summer stream
> temperatures (23 to 46 meters), woody debris delivery (30 to 46
> meters), stream bank stability (8 to 12 meters), and sediment
> buffering (100 to 170 meters depending on slope and lithology adjacent
> to the stream).

Watershed or stream-specific analysis should be used as the basis for
defining local buffer widths needed to prevent inputs of fine sediment.
Based on the Science Assessment, in the absence of local watershed
analysis, RHCA buffers adequate to prevent delivery of non-channelized
sediment, to both perennial and intermittent streams, should be
according to the following (Quigley et al. 1997- based on the 5%
Exceedance probability -- see Figure 4.26).

Table 1. RHCA buffer widths necessary to avoid delivery of
non-channelized sediment to streams by slope gradient.

# [Slope (%) RHCA buffer width(ft)]{.underline}

\<5 115

10. 165

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
15. 210

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
20. 250

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
25. 300

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
30. 325

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
40. 350

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
50. 400

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
60. 430

\>60 450

**RHCA Widths:**

RHCA widths are defined for fish-bearing streams, permanently flowing
non-fish bearing streams, ponds/lakes/reservoirs greater than 1 acre in
size, wetlands, intermittent streams, landslides, and landslide-prone
areas. See PACFISH (page C8-C9) or INFISH (page E5-E6) for specific
definitions of RHCA widths.

**OVERVIEW**

**The Following was excerpted from :** Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide,
Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol.
(Quigley, Thomas M.,tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project: Scientific Assessment), Volume 3, pp 1365-1369.

**Riparian Area Management**---Four biophysical principles underlie any
evaluation of a riparian management strategy: 1) a stream requires
predictable and near-natural energy and nutrient inputs; 2) many plant
and animal communities rely on streamside forests and vegetation; 3)
small streams are generally more affected by hill-slope activities than
are larger streams; and 4) as adjacent slopes become steeper, the
likelihood of disturbance resulting in discernable in-stream effects
increases.

**[Importance of Energy Inputs to Streams]{.underline}**---First, stream
and riparian organisms need energy (leaves, wood, organic carbon) and
nutritional inputs to sustain their biological functions. An
understanding of the influence of riparian vegetation on streams is
fundamental to understanding the function and effectiveness of RHCAs.
Streams are intricately connected physically, chemically, and
biologically to their riparian zones (Murphy and Meehan 1991; Naiman and
others 1992; Gregory and others 1991). Roots of streamside vegetation
stabilize banks, retard erosion, and affect nutrients in groundwater.
Root systems, in combination with large woody debris, provide channel
roughness elements that not only promote sediment storage but encourage
the hydraulic exchange of streamflow and subsurface flows. Vegetation
and downed woody debris dissipate stream energy during floods and
obstruct movement of sediment and organic matter (Sedell and Bestcha
1991). The combination creates very complex habitats for aquatic
organisms. The canopy provides leaves and other organic materials that
are part of the energy base for the stream ecosystem, and its shade
limits algal production and moderates stream temperature. Trees that
fall into the stream provide the principal structural features that
shape the stream's morphology, linkages to the floodplain, habitat
complexity, streambed materials, and other characteristics (Salo and
Cundy 1987; Meehan 1991; Naiman 1992).

**[Protection for Riparian Dependent Plants and
Animals]{.underline}**---Second, some terrestrial and semi-aquatic plant
and animal communities rely on the forest and shrubs adjacent to streams
(Terrestrial Ecology, Chapter 5). Animals such as beavers, otters,
dippers, and some amphibians are obligate stream and riparian vegetation
dependent organisms. Other bird and mammal species and many bat species
need the riparian management area at crucial life history periods or
seasonally for feeding or breeding. Wildlife has a disproportionally
high use of riparian areas and streamside forests compared with the
overall landscape. RHCAs provide habitat needs such as water; cover;
food; plant community structure, composition, and diversity; increased
humidity; high edge-to-area ratios; and migration routes (Carlson 1991;
O'Connell and others 1993). The Washington Department of Wildlife (1992)
recommended wetland buffer widths for protection of wildlife species in
the state. Roderick and Milner (1991) also prescribe wildlife protection
buffer requirements for wet-lands and riparian habitats in Washington.
These widths vary from 30 to 183 meters depending on species and habitat
usage (FEMAT 1993). The variable widths of riparian areas suggest a
one-size-fits- all approach will not accommodate all organisms. Hence
the community ecology functions of RHCAs will need to be determined both
at the site and throughout a subbasin if the organism is wide ranging.

**[Importance of Small Streams]{.underline}**---Third, small streams are
more affected by hill slope activities than are larger streams because
there are more smaller than larger streams within watersheds, smaller
channels respond more quickly to changes in hydrologic and sediment
regimes, and stream-side vegetation is a more dominant factor in terms
of woody debris inputs and leaf litter and shading. Small perennial and
intermittent non-fish bearing streams are especially important in
routing water, sediment, and nutrients to downstream fish habitats (Reid
and Ziemer 1994). Intermittent streams account for more than one-half
the total channel length in many watersheds in the Basin and therefore
strongly influence the input of materials to the rest of the channel
system. Channelized flow from intermittent and small streams into fish
bearing streams is a primary source of sediment in mountainous regions
(Belt and others 1992). In steep, highly dissected areas, intermittent
streams can move large amounts of sediment hundreds of meters, though
buffer strips, and into fish bearing streams. In-channel sediment flows
are limited primarily by the amount and frequency of flow and by the
storage capacity of the channel. Flows in forested, intermittent streams
are generally insufficient to move the average sized wood piece,
allowing large wood to accumulate in small channels (Bisson and others
1987). These accumulations increase the channel storage capacity and
reduce the likelihood of normal flows moving sediment downstream. Large
Woody Debris (LWD) east of the Cascade Crest is defined as pieces of
wood: " \>12 inch diameter and \> 35 feet in length". West of the
Cascade Crest, LWD is defined as: "\>24 in diameter and \> 50 feet in
length'.

Live vegetation plays an important role in stabilizing granitic
colluvium that accumulates in small headwater basins of the Idaho
batholith. Typically, these draws or hollows show little evidence of
surface flow and contain deep (several meters), unconsolidated granitic
colluvium. Periodically these sites are rejuvenated by floods that flush
some or most of the material until another period of relative stability
results in accumulation of colluvium and filling (Gray and Megahan 1981;
Megahan and others 1995). Gray (1970, 1978) identified four mechanisms
by which vegetation enhances soil stability including: 1). mechanical
reinforcement by roots; 2) regulation of soil moisture content; 3)
buttressing between trunks or stems of plants; and 4) surcharge from the
weight of trees. Gray and Megahan (1981) evaluated these hydromechanical
effects in the batholith and found that the first three are highly
important in stabilizing slopes, hollows, and intermittent streams. Gray
and Megahan (1981) recommended using buffer zones along the margins of
streams and in critical areas such as hollows and intermittent streams.
The direct influence of riparian vegetation on stream and animal and
plant community declines with increasing distance from the channel and
with the height of the dominant tree species (FEMAT 1993). Ecological
functions provided by riparian vegetation are achieved at different
distances, depending on the type of function and the width of riparian
vegetation needed for the function.

The maximum height of dominant trees influences the potential distance
over which riparian vegetation directly affects stream channels. For
instance, tall trees potentially contribute shade, particulate organic
matter, and large woody debris at greater distances from streams than do
short trees. Areas capable of producing large tall trees thus possess
wider functional riparian zones than areas in which trees do not grow as
large. For this reason, FEMAT (1993), PACFISH (1995), and INFISH (1995)
used the height of dominant late-successional tree species that would
naturally grow in a particular riparian zone as the basis for
reconnecting streamside buffers needed to safeguard ecological functions
instead of suggesting a fixed "onesize-fits-all" linear distance. Use of
a fixed distance from the streambank to the outer margin of the buffer
strip would not allow for differences in potential tree growth between
regions. PACFISH (1995) prescribed 90 meter minimum RHCA widths for fish
bearing streams to maintain stream function from sediment inputs from
non-channelized sources. A review of the literature indicates that this
should also be sufficient to provide for other riparian functions with a
margin for error (Gregory and others 1987, Beschta and others 1987,
Brazier and Brown 1973, Steinblums and others 1984, McDade and others
1990, Sedell and Beschta 1991, Belt and others 1992). These functions
include litterfall and nutrient input and retention in streams (23 to 46
meters), shade to streams for maintenance of summer stream temperatures
(23 to 46 meters), woody debris delivery (30 to 46 meters), and stream
bank stability (23 to 46 meters). RHCA widths for intermittent streams
should protect small channels from large volumes of sediment and water
that could be generated by land management activities and be channeled
into fish bearing streams. The effectiveness of riparian buffer strips
in influencing sediment delivery from non-channelized flows is quite
variable. Belt and others (1992), cited numerous studies conducted
throughout the range of anadromous salmonids and reported that sediment
travel-distances and filter strip efficiencies varied considerably from
study to study. Belt and others (1992) concluded, based on studies
conducted in Idaho (Haupt 1959a and 1959b, Ketcheson and Megahan 1990,
Burroughs and King 1985 and 1989) and elsewhere (Trimble and Sartz 1957,
Packer 1967, Swift 1986) that sediment rarely travels more than about 91
meters for non-channelized flow. Therefore, 91-meter filter strips are
generally effective in controlling sediment that is not channelized.
Trimble and Sartz 1957, recommended that where the highest possible
water quality standard was required, this could be maintained with 100
meter buffer strips on 70 percent slopes. Recent work by Ketcheson and
Megahan (1996) indicates that this may not be adequate on some
lithologies and slopes.

**[Importance of Hill Slope Steepness]{.underline}**---Fourth, the
likelihood of disturbance resulting in discernible in-stream effects
increases as adjacent slopes become steeper. Thus, greater preventive
measures to avert or rehabilitate riparian function and structure on
steeper slopes may be required to prevent or reduce in-stream effects.
The designation of default RHCA widths can easily incorporate the major
topographic driver of surface erosion and slope steepness.

Prior research on a variety of wildland and agricultural settings has
demonstrated that surface erosion increases with increasing slope
steepness, although the increase is not linear. The effect of slope has
generally been modeled empirically, and has taken the shape of a power
function where the exponent is less than 1, so that slope effects are
large for gentle slopes, and decline as slopes get steeper (Foster 1982;
Liebenow and others 1990; McCool and others 1987). Megahan and Ketcheson
(1996) found that sediment travel distances from road cross drains in
the Idaho batholith are proportional to slope gradient (in percent)
raised to the 0.5 power. This study was conducted below roads on
forested lands, and includes slope gradients ranging from 9 to 59
percent. Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) and Ketcheson and Megahan (1996)
present equations for estimating sediment travel distance below road
fills and cross drains which incorporate sediment volume, obstructions,
slope angle, and source area as significant explanatory variables. Slope
is a significant predictor of distance, and it is not unreasonable to
adjust an RHCA width to slope when lacking other intensive site variable
information. At slopes greater than 70 percent, other screening tools
that incorporate mass erosion risk are needed (Tang and Montgomery
1995). If risk varied solely as a function of slope, one could use the
exceedence probability equation directly to tune a slope-directed RHCA
model. However, at least three other site variables have been
demonstrated to influence travel distance and therefore affect risk.
Though it is erroneous to assume that the exceedence probability
equations presented by Ketcheson and Megahan (1996) can be used to
assign a general slope-driven risk to the RHCA width equation, at the
subbasin scale a slope-driven default RHCA width is useful. It is also
prudent to use for watershed analysis and planning at the subbasin and
Forest project scales. The research findings of Megahan and Ketcheson
(1996) can be used to parameterize a slope-sensitive default RHCA width
in the following manner: Distance can be made proportional to slope
angle in percent raised to the 0.5 power to provide the proper shape. A
constant can be derived from the exceedence probability function of
Ketcheson and Megahan (1996) by taking the travel distance that is
exceeded only one time in 20 (exceedence p=0.05), a low probability
event from their data. The travel distance of this event for all their
data combined is 480 feet. This distance can then be assigned to a slope
of 70 percent, which results in the equation Distance = 58 X (Slope)0.5
(fig. 4.26). Although this equation is adjusted to the 5 percent travel
distance event, it is not strictly correct to assume that the
relationship defines the 5 percent risk associated with operating on
slopes of a given steepness. Similarly, equations and curves that
represent "10%" and "25%" risk can be derived by using the 10 percent
and 25 percent probability of exceedence distance from Ketcheson and
Megahan (1996; fig. 4.26). For the same reasons stated above, these
equations do not directly represent 10 and 25 percent risk. They are
less conservative than the 5 percent risk equation, but not necessarily
by a factor of 2 and 5. The strongest single variable affecting sediment
travel distance from soil disturbing activities is the volume of
material displaced, or delivered to a point on a slope from a culvert,
drain, etc. Over 78 percent of the variance in sediment travel distance
is explained by volume in the culvert model of Megahan and Ketcheson
(1996). Given the strong influence of this relationship, the probability
density function of sediment volumes from the data set used in
developing their model can be used to define various levels of risk.
This is a subtle difference from defining risk using the probability
exceedence function (equation 4 of Ketcheson and Megahan 1996) as above,
because risk is attributable to a single, measurable attribute ---
sediment volume. In contrast, the probability exceedence function for
travel distance includes the combined effects of all driving variables.
Defining risk by volume alone allows a direct application of the
Megahan-Ketcheson model for tuning travel distance on slope.

This method assumes that travel distance is strongly influenced by slope
in the culvert model. We tested this by regressing the residuals of a
3-variable model \[Distance = f (volume, source area, obstacles) on
slope\]. This regression is significant at P=0.001 and has an r 2 =0.33,
indicating that there is ample variance to be explained by slope
gradient after accounting for the other variables in the multiple model.
A slope-gradient sensitive default RHCA can be estimated directly by
setting the two variables "obstacles" and "source area" equal to their
median values, allowing slope gradient to vary from 0 to 70 percent, and
assigning risk by taking various volumes based on the distribution of
volumes sampled in the Megahan-Ketcheson data set. The following
reconfiguration of the culvert model was used to generate the curves in
fig. 4.27:

D =
3.28•10^(0.393\ +\ 0.554\ x\ log^~10~^Vol\ +\ 0.5\ x\ log^~10~^Slope)^

The variable log 10 Vol was set equal to 1.60, 1.57, and 1.41
corresponding to the 95, 90, and 75 percentile values of sediment volume
sampled; median values of obstructions and source area were used and
slope was allowed to vary from 0 to 70. This procedure results in a
series of three curves that are similar, but somewhat more conservative
than the curves based on the travel distance exceedence curve of
Ketcheson and Megahan (1996).

![](media/image1.png)

> Figure 4.26. Examples of slope sensitive adjustments to RHCA widths
> with associated probabilities of exceedence (.05, 0.10, and 0.25)
> based on model described by Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) and Ketcheson
> and Megahan (1996). (A). Distance=58• (slope)^0.5^ (B). Distance =
> 49•(slope)^0.5^ (C). Distance = 32•(slope)^0.5^

Again, the utility of this second set of curves is that risk is defined
from the single, strongly influential variable of volume, and the effect
of slope is then predicted directly using the Megahan-Ketcheson model.

The width necessary to protect stream and riparian area structure and
function can be determined from watershed and site-specific analysis.
The dimensions of riparian protection areas, particularly if they are to
be used as interim or default standards, should also include safety
factors to allow for natural disturbances, uncertainties about the
riparian ecosystem of interest, and changes in public values (National
Research Council 1996). If an additional margin of error is allowed (not
unlike bridge design accounting for unknown factors and longevity of
structure), the probability of habitat improvement becomes greater and
options for future management decisions are increased (FEMAT 1993). In
general, buffer widths prescribed in FEMAT (1993) and reexamined by
Murphy (1995) and Spence and others (1995) are applicable to detecting
ecological functions whether streams contain fish or not (National
Research Council 1996). In contrast, all national forest plans, PACFISH,
and INFISH maintain a higher level of riparian protection where fish are
present or strongly affected than for non-fish bearing streams.

![](media/image2.png)

Figure 4.27. Examples of volume-driven risk associated with adjustments
to RHCA widths based on models developed and sediment volume sampled by
Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) and Ketcheson and Megahan (1996).

Number range CHAPTERInformation and Literature References Used to
Develop Criteria for National Fire Plan Activities Effects on Salmonids

# 

# 

# 

# From the FEMAT Report Page V-26

# Riparian Processes as a Function of Distance from Stream Channels

**Root Strength: To maintain channel integrity**

"Root strength provided by trees and shrubs contribute to slope
stability; and the loss of root strength following tree death by timber
harvest or other causes may lead to increased incidence of debris slides
and flows (Sidle et al. 1985). The soil stabilizing zone of influence
for vegetation in these sites is the slide scar width plus half a tree
crown diameter (fig. V-12). Half a tree crown diameter is an estimate of
the extent to which root systems of trees adjacent to the slide scar
margin affect soil stability. The contribution of root strength to
maintaining streambank integrity also declines at distances greater than
one-half a crown diameter (Burroughs and Thomas 1977; Wu 1986; and
personal communication F.J. Swanson and T. Spies, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon).

**Shade/Temperature (excluding microclimate)**

"Effectiveness of streamside forest to provide shade varies with
topography, channel orientation, extent of canopy opening above the
channel, and forest structure, particularly the extento f both under-
and overstory. Although any curve depicting this function is by
necessity quite generalized (fig. V-12), buffer width correlates well
with degree of shade (Beschta et al. 1987). 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 (Steinblums 1977).

**Water Quality**

Castelle et al. (1992) provide a thorough literature review of widths of
riparian areas required to protect water quality functions. In general.
The authors found that widths of riparian areas required to protect
water quality ranged from 12-860 feet. Widths varied as a function of
geomorphic characteristics such as slope and soil type and by vegetative
structure and cover. Effectiveness of buffers at improving water quality
adjacent to logging operations was studied by Broderson (1973), Darling
et al. (1982), Lynch et al. (1985), and Corbett and Lynch (1985).
Broderson studied three watersheds in western Washington and found that
200 foot buffers, or about one site-potential tree height, would be
effective to remove sediment in most situations if the buffer were
measured from the edge of the floodplain.

**Large wood delivery to streams**

"The probability that a falling tree with enter the stream is a function
of slope distance from the channel in relation to tree height (VanSickle
and Gregory 1990, McDade et al. 1990, Andrus and Lorenzen 1992, Beschta
et al. 1993). The effectiveness of floodplain riparian forests and
riparian forests along constrained channels to deliver large wood is low
at distances greater than approximately one tree height away from the
channel (fig. V-12)."

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.879861111111111in"
height="4.409722222222222in"}

Figure V-12 from FEMAT (page V-27).

**Buffer components that affect erosion rates**

Pannkuk, C.D., Robichaud, P.R., and R.E. Brown. 2000. Effectiveness of
needle cast from burnt conifer trees on reducing erosion. Proceedings,
2000 A.S.A.E. Annual International Meeting, Paper Number 005018, July
9-12, 2000, Milwaukie, WI. ASAE St. Joseph, MI.

"Surface cover affects soil erosion by decreasing the area susceptible
to raindrop impact as well as reducing transport of runoff (Foster,
1982), and by causing deposition in ponded areas (Laflen, 1983). In
current erosion models such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE) (Renard et al., 1997) or the Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP), cover is the most important factor in controlling erosion."

# ATTACHMENT 2: References for the "Potential Effects", "Criteria," and "Rationale" in the Salmonid Criteria (February 2003)

# Updated with additional references January 2005 

# 

**EROSION:** Long-term effects of fire usually result from erosion.
Erosional processes potentially change channel morphology, sediment
composition and concentration, food availability, and recruitment and
distribution of large woody debris (Minshall and others 1990).

Revegetation of burned areas is influenced by the intensity and duration
of a fire (Knight 1987). The amount and type of new vegetation are
related to changes in water yield and nutrient retention in the
watershed. Erosional effects of fire generally peak within 10 years
following the event (Brown 1989).

See also Wondzell and King 2003; and Robichaud 2000.

**NUTRIENTS:** Eutrophication is indicative of deteriorating water
quality associated with a buildup of nutrients, especially nitrogen and
phosphorus. Increased rates of nutrient loading can be related to
changes and/or disturbances within a watershed (Brugam and Vallarino
1989; Dojlido and Best 1993; Stauffer 1991). Development activities that
contribute to increased nutrient levels include point sources such as
industrial effluents and water-borne sewage systems and nonpoint sources
such as agricultural operations, residential development and septic
systems, road construction, and forest practices (Dojlido and Best 1993;
Spencer 1991).

**LIVESTOCK GRAZING:** Riparian areas maintain stream structure and
function through processes such as water filtration, bank stabilization,
water storage, groundwater recharge, nutrient retention, regulation of
light and temperature, channel shape and pattern (morphology and
micro-topography), and dispersal of plants and animals (Cummins and
others 1984; Gregory and others 1991; Minshall 1967, 1994; Sullivan and
others 1987). Because of the availability of water, forage, and thermal
cover, riparian areas are often overgrazed by livestock. Livestock
grazing can alter the species composition of stream-side vegetation
(Archer and Smeins 1991; Platts 1978; Stebbins 1981; Thurow 1991;
Vollmer and Kozel 1993) and diminish vegetative productivity (Archer and
Smeins 1991; 1994; Meehan and Platts 1978; Platts 1978; Thurow 1991;
Vollmer and Kozel 1993). Grazing alters riparian vegetation by removing
deep rooted plant species and decreasing canopy cover and riparian
vegetation height (Platts 1991). Grazing has been implicated in the
alteration of species composition of vegetative communities and
associated fire regimes (Agee 1993; Leopold 1924). Grazing is a major
nonpoint source of channel sedimentation (Dunne and Leopold 1978;
MacDonald and others 1991; Meehan 1991; Platts 1991).

**SEDIMENTATION:** Sediment loads that exceed natural background levels
can fill pools (reducing over-winter fish survival), silt spawning
gravels (reduce survival of developing and emerging salmonid fry),
decrease channel stability, and modify channel morphology (Burton and
others 1993; Everest and others 1987; MacDonald and others 1991; Meehan
1991; Rhodes and others 1994). As the deposition of fine sediments in
salmonid spawning habitat increases, mortality of fish rises.

Erosion potential is greatly increased by reduction in vegetation,
compaction of soils, and disruption of natural surface and subsurface
drainage patterns (Chamberlain and others 1991; Rhodes and others 1994).
Generally, logged slopes contribute sediment to streams based on the
amount of bare compacted soils that are exposed to rainfall and runoff.
Slope steepness and proximity to channels determine the rate of sediment
delivery

**TIMBER HARVEST:** Soil and site disturbance that inevitably occur
during timber harvest activities are often responsible for increased
rates of erosion and sedimentation (Chamberlain and others 1991; Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team FEMAT 1993; MacDonald and others
1991; Meehan 1991; Reid 1993; Rhodes and others 1994); modification and
destruction of terrestrial and aquatic habitats (FEMAT 1993; van
Kesteren 1986); changes in water quality and quantity (Bjornn and Reiser
1991; Brooks and others 1992; Chamberlain and others 1991; Rhodes and
others 1994); and perturbation of nutrient cycles within aquatic
ecosystems (Rowe and others 1992). Physical changes affect runoff
events, bank stability, sediment supply, large woody debris retention,
and energy relationships involving temperature (Li and Gregory 1995).
All of these changes can eventually culminate in the significant loss of
biodiversity within a watershed (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment
Team-FEMAT 1993; Rowe and others 1992).

Water quality (for example, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
nutrients) can be altered by timber harvest activities (Chamberlain and
others 1991). Stream temperature is affected by eliminating stream-side
shading, disrupted subsurface flows, reduced stream flows, elevated
sediments, and morphological shifts toward wider and shallower channels
with fewer deep pools (Beschta and others 1987; Chamberlain and others
1991; Everest and others 1987; MacDonald and others 1991; Reid 1993;
Rhodes and others 1994). Dissolved oxygen can be reduced by low stream
flows, elevated temperatures, increased fine inorganic and organic
materials that have infiltrated into stream gravels retarding
intergravel flows (Bustard 1986; Chamberlain and others 1991).

Any reduction in the amount of large woody debris within streams, or
within the distance equal to one site-potential tree height from the
stream, can reduce instream complexity (Rainville and others 1985;
Robison and Beschta 1990). Large woody debris increases the quality of
pools, provides hiding cover, slow water refuges, shade, and deep water
areas (Rhodes and others 1994).

**ROADS:** Serious degradation of fish habitat can result from poorly
planned, designed, located, constructed, or maintained roads (Furniss
and others 1991; MacDonald and others 1991; Rhodes and others 1994).
Roads can also affect water quality through applied road chemicals and
toxic spills (Furniss and others 1991; Rhodes and others 1994). The
likelihood of toxic spills has increased with the large number of roads
paralleling streams.

Roads directly affect natural sediment and hydrologic regimes by
altering streamflow, sediment loading, sediment transport and
deposition, channel morphology, channel stability, substrate
composition, stream temperatures, water quality, and riparian conditions
within a watershed. For example, interruption of hill-slope drainage
patterns alters the timing and magnitude of peak flows and changes base
stream discharge (Furniss and others 1991; Harr and others 1975) and
sub-surface flows (Furniss and others 1991; Megahan 1972).

Road/stream crossings can also be a major source of sediment to streams
resulting from channel fill around culverts and subsequent road crossing
failures (Furniss and others 1991). Plugged culverts and fill slope
failures are frequent and often lead to catastrophic increases in stream
channel sediment, especially on old abandoned or unmaintained roads
(Weaver and others 1987).

Roads can also increase human access that can lead to illegal fishing
and/or harassment of sensitive or federally listed species. Increased
access makes it more difficult to manage fish populations that are
sensitive to harvest, such as small, isolated populations of resident
cutthroat trout.

See also Castro 2003; Gucinski et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2000; Luce and
Black 2001; and Trombulak and Frissell 2000.

**RECREATION/CAMPING:** Where visitor use is high, trampling associated
with foot traffic can affect vegetation along lakes and streams through
direct mechanical action and indirectly through changes in soil
structure (Liddle 1975). Resistance to trampling depends on plant life
form; large and broad-leaved plants are most susceptible, and grasses
generally are most resistant (Burden and Randerson 1972). Loss of
vegetation from shorelines, wetlands, or steep slopes can cause erosion
and pollution problems (Burden and Randerson 1972; Gilliom and others
1980).

The following was taken from: US Fish and Wildlife Service (1998)

> "Mortality from incidental catch and release angling of bull trout and
> harvest as a result of misidentification still continues under
> existing fishing regulations. For example, about half or fewer of
> anglers surveyed were able to correctly identify bull trout from other
> salmonids in west-central Montana (Kelly et al. 1996; M. Long and S.P.
> Whalen, MFWP, *in litt.* 1997). Poaching of bull trout likely
> continues and can be especially detrimental to small, isolated
> subpopulations of migratory fish (WDFW 1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993;
> Pratt and Huston 1993; Long 1997). "
>
> "According to the BA (USDA and USDI 1998a), recreation use has the
> potential to affect salmonid habitat by: 1) altering upland and
> riparian soil and vegetation conditions that may lead to increased
> erosion and runoff, loss of cover and food resources and reductions in
> water quality; and 2) instream changes that affect stream morphology,
> water quality, streamflow, substrate and debris. Angling as a result
> of recreational develop and trail maintenance and construction may
> lead to direct angling mortality (USDA and USDI 1998a). "
>
> "The Service expects that recreation impacts will be most severe where
> dispersed or developed facilities are located in RHCAs that are
> non-functional. Recreation management is considered to present a
> moderate risk to bull trout under conditions identified above. The
> Service expects a low risk to bull trout where RHCAs are properly
> functioning and management is documented as sufficient to maintain
> riparian conditions."

**FERTILIZERS** (Spence et al. 1996)

"Fertilizers are used in forest settings to replace nutrients lost
during and after timber harvest and to accelerate growth of conifers.
Application of fertilizers to catchments typically results in increased
concentrations of nutrients, particularly nitrogen,. A recent review of
effects of forest fertilization on water quality and aquatic biota
indicates that urea application typically leads to elevated levels of
urea-N, ammonia-N, and nitrate-N in surface waters (Bisson et al.
1992a). Urea-N usually dissipates within a few days, whereas ammonia-N
may be elevated for months and nitrate-N for a year or more. The
concentration of nitrogen within the stream depends on a number of
factors, including the percentage of the watershed fertilized, the
application rate, the drainage density (stream km relative to total
watershed area), the width of unfertilized buffers along streams, and
whether or not precipitation occurs following application. Although
drinking water and aquatic standards are typically not exceeded with
most applications, the elevation of nitrogen has the potential to
promote growth of periphyton, which in turn may influence production of
invertebrates and fishes. However, Bisson et al. (1992a) concluded that
enhanced fish production because of forest fertilization has not been
demonstrated in the Pacific Northwest. An indirect benefit of fertilizer
applications is more rapid growth of vegetation within the catchment,
which in turn accelerates the recovery of natural hydrologic regimes and
sediment delivery rates. "

**HERBICIDES** (Spence et al. 1996)

"In forest plantations, a wide variety of herbicides are used to control
the invading hardwoods, herbaceous plants, and grasses to enhance the
suitability of the area for re-establishment of desired tree species.
Ten herbicides commonly used in forestry are 2,4-D, picloram,
hexazinone, atrazine, imazapyr, triclopyr, forsamine, glyphosate,
dalapon, and dinoseb . The behavior and toxicity of these substances is
reviewed in detail in Norris et al. (1991) and Beschta et al. (1995),
from whom much of the information below was excerpted."

"The risk of toxicological effects of herbicides on salmonids is
greatest when herbicides are directly applied to surface waters or reach
surface waters by wind drift. Whether herbicides applied to upland
forests will reach surface waters depends on their volatility, mobility
in the soil, and persistence in the environment . Of the herbicides
commonly used in forest applications, hexazinone, atrazine, imazapyr,
and triclopyr are generally the most persistent, with soil half-lives of
2-6 months or more, depending on soil type. The half-lives of most other
forest herbicides are generally from 2-5 weeks. Although there is
substantial literature on the toxicity of various herbicides to
salmonids, most of the available information comes from laboratory
studies rather than the field. These laboratory studies focus on acute
lethal doses (Reid 1993). Sub lethal effects of herbicides on salmonids
include reduced growth, decreased reproductive success, altered
behavior, and reduced resistance to stress (reviewed in Beschta et al.
1995). Sub lethal exposures of picloram were found to increase mortality
by 70% in yearling coho exposed to seawater (Lorz et al. 1979).
Information on effects of herbicides in aquatic invertebrates is also
scarce. Hartman and Scrivener (1990) reported a 42% reduction in the
density of aquatic macro invertebrates for 1.5 years following
application of Roundup. These reductions were attributed to
herbicide-induced irritation and drift of invertebrates coupled with
high flows and decreases in substrate stability. "

"Herbicides used to release conifers from competing vegetation can
accelerate the long-term recovery of upland and riparian areas. Over the
short term, the elimination of deciduous vegetation can affect streams
in several ways, both positive and negative. Herbicide applications in
upland areas slow the recovery of vegetation, prolonging disruption to
hydrologic and sediment delivery processes. Within the riparian zone,
removal of deciduous vegetation increases solar radiation reaching
streams, which stimulates algal production, potentially increasing the
food base for invertebrates and fish. Delayed production of deciduous
trees and accelerated growth of conifers reduces the delivery of leaves
and intermediate-sized wood to streams over the short term, but
increases the potential for recruitment of large coniferous wood over
longer periods. Depending on whether temperature, spawning sites, cover,
or food is limiting, these changes may initially hinder or aid salmonid
production."

See also Tu et al. 2001.

**INSECTICIDES** (Spence et al. 1996)

"Insecticides are used both to prevent insect infestations and to
control insect outbreaks once they have occurred. In general,
insecticides are more toxic to fish and other aquatic biota than
herbicides; however, they usually are applied at lower rates (Beschta et
al. 1995). The greatest effect of insecticide on fish probably arises
from effects on terrestrial and aquatic insects that form the
salmonids\' food base. Forest insecticides cause direct mortality to
these insects or may stimulate catastrophic drift of aquatic
invertebrates out of the affected stream reach. In addition, benthic
algal communities in streams are frequently controlled by grazing
invertebrates; consequently, the loss of invertebrates may release
primary production, causing fundamental shifts in the trophic structure
of streams. Norris et al. (1991) concluded that insecticides generally
have shorter term effects on stream ecosystems than herbicides but that
the effects may be more dramatic. Populations of invertebrates may take
months to recover following insecticide applications, and full recovery
of the invertebrate assemblage may take several years (Norris et al.

1991). Because salmonids in some forest streams may be food-limited,
reductions in aquatic insect biomass and altered assemblage composition
may result in reduced growth and numbers of salmonids. For example,
Kingsbury (1983 in Norris et al. 1991) reported a decline in the growth
rate of Atlantic salmon parr immediately following treatment with an
insecticide; however, by the end of summer, fish in treated and
untreated reaches were of similar size. Direct toxic effects

may occur if salmonids consume drifting, pesticide-laden, aquatic
organisms or terrestrial insects that fall into streams. Other indirect
effects of insecticides on salmonid habitats are not well documented;
however, protection of trees from insect pests may reduce the number of
trees that die and fall into streams, thereby reducing recruitment of
large woody debris."

### Fish Toxicity

Fish toxicity is determined by adding toxic substances to a water tank
until concentrations and exposures for 96 hours reach levels adequate to
result in mortality of 50% of the fish (LC50). This test is used to
simulate spills or accidental application to water. High LC50 values
indicate that a lot of material was needed to be toxic , or "low
toxicity", while low LC50 values indicate "high toxicity". LC50 values
over 150 mg/liter are usually considered "practically non-toxic". The
following summarizes EPA's ratings for several commonly used Forest
Herbicides:

Accord Practically non-toxic

Arsenal A.C. Practically non-toxic

Atrazine Toxic

Escort Practically non-toxic

Garlon 3A Practically non-toxic

Garlon 4 Highly toxic

Hexazinone Practically non-toxic

Transline Practically non-toxic

Oust Practically non-toxic

2,4-D Ester Toxic

**FIRE RETARDANTS** (Spence et al. 1996)

"The use of chemical fire retardants plays and important role in the
suppression of wildfires in the west. Historically, a variety of
chemicals have been used to suppress fires; however, ammonium-based
retardants account for nearly all chemical retardants used today (Norris
and Webb 1989). Although documentation of adverse effects of fire
retardants on salmonids is scarce, quantities of retardant dropped
during fires may be significant, and cases of fish mortality caused by
retardants have been reported. For example, approximately 5.3 million
liters of retardant were used to fight the Yellowstone fire of 1988, and
at least two small fish kills (approximately 100 fish each) were
reported (Schullery 1989). Fire retardant killed approximately 700 adult
salmon, as well as a large number of juveniles, in an Alaskan stream
(Hakala et al. 1971 in Norris and Webb 1989). Potential indirect effects
of fire retardants on salmonids include mortality of invertebrates and

eutrophication of downstream reaches (from phosphates). The extent of
effects of retardants on aquatic ecosystems is influenced by application
procedures (quantity applied, line of flight of aircraft relative to the
stream), site characteristics (stream width-depth ratio, degree of
canopy cover), and streamflow."

**EXTENT OF EFFECT FOR STREAM SIDE DISTURBANCES:**

***ROOT STRENGTH*:** The contribution of root strength to maintaining
streambank integrity declines at one-half crown diameter distance from
the streambank (Burroughs and Thomas 1977, Wu 1986, F.J. Swanson and T.
Spies, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR in Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team ,FEMAT-Thomas and others 1993).
"Root strength provided by trees and shrubs contribute to slope
stability; and the loss of root strength following tree death by timber
harvest or other causes may lead to increased incidence of debris slides
and flows (Sidle et al. 1985). The soil stabilizing zone of influence
for vegetation in these sites is the slide scar width plus half a tree
crown diameter (fig. V-12). Half a tree crown diameter is an estimate of
the extent to which root systems of trees adjacent to the slide scar
margin affect soil stability. The contribution of root strength to
maintaining streambank integrity also declines at distances greater than
one-half a crown diameter (Burroughs and Thomas 1977; Wu 1986; and
personal communication F.J. Swanson and T. Spies, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon).

***LWD RECRUITMENT:*** The effectiveness of riparian forests along
channels to deliver LWD is low at distances greater than one tree height
away from the channel (VanSickle and Gregory 1990, McDade and others
1990, Andrus and Lorenzen 1992, Beschta and others 1995). "The
probability that a falling tree with enter the stream is a function of
slope distance from the channel in relation to tree height . The
effectiveness of floodplain riparian forests and riparian forests along
constrained channels to deliver large wood is low at distances greater
than approximately one tree height away from the channel (fig. V-12)."

***RECRUITMENT OF DETRITUS:*** The effectiveness of riparian forests to
provide leaf and other particulate organic matter declines at distances
greater than one-half tree height away from the channel (FEMAT-Thomas
and others 1993).

***SHADE:*** The effectiveness of riparian forests along channels to
shade water surfaces is low at distances greater than one tree height
away from the channel (FEMAT-Thomas and others 1993). "Effectiveness of
streamside forest to provide shade varies with topography, channel
orientation, extent of canopy opening above the channel, and forest
structure, particularly the extent of both under- and overstory.
Although any curve depicting this function is by necessity quite
generalized (fig. V-12), buffer width correlates well with degree of
shade (Beschta et al. 1987). 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 (Steinblums 1977).

Vegetative buffer effects on microclimate are mostly unaffected at
distances greater than one tree height away from the stand edge (Chen
1991).

***SEDIMENT FILTERING:*** About one site-potential tree height would be
effective to remove sediment (filter) in most situations if the buffer
were measured from the edge of the floodplain (Broderson 1973).

**EFFECTS OF FIRE (This section presented separately in Attachment
12):**

Wildfires may result in improved and rejuvenated habitat for salmonids
and increased productivity increasing fish populations over the
long-term (Minshall G.W. and J.T. Brock 1991, Burton 2000).

In the case of high-intensity wildfires, local extirpation of fishes is
patchy and recolonization is rapid. Lasting detrimental effects have
been limited to areas where native populations have declined and become
isolated from anthropogenic activities (Gresswell 1999).

Use of cool burns in spring when the ground is moist, providing an
unburned buffer along stream channels, maintaining integrity of the soil
surface, and leaving and protecting snags during burning, should help
prevent or limit undesirable impacts to fish and wildlife. Staggering
prescribed fires over time, and spacing of burns across the landscape
will minimize impacts... (McMahon and deCalesta 1990).

The following was extracted from Rieman 1995:

> "The potential for wildfire to impact aquatic ecosystems and their
> associated threatened, endangered, or sensitive species is of
> increasing concern. Recent (since 1988) large-scale fires followed by
> dramatic hydrologic disturbances spark much of this interest. Broad
> swaths of western forest lands, where fire suppression and past
> silvicultural activities have radically altered vegetation structure
> and fuel loads, are ripe for high-intensity fires. The potential seems
> greatest in warm/dry habitat types that historically were dominated by
> frequent, but low intensity burns. Interconnected, fuel-laden stands
> may now link areas that historically burned less frequently or
> uniformly into large, homogeneous areas that are vulnerable to
> high-intensity, stand replacing events (Agee 1993; Henjum et al.
> 1994). Recent fires in the Pacific Northwest seem to confirm these
> expectations."
>
> "Wildfires influence aquatic ecosystems both directly and indirectly.
> Direct effects include heating or abrupt changes in water chemistry
> (Minshall et al. 1989; McMahon and de Calesta 1990). Indirect effects
> include changes in hydrologic regime, erosion, debris flows, woody
> debris loading and riparian cover (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978; Brown
> 1989; Megahan 1991; Bozek and Young 1994). Intense fires and related
> events have killed fish (Bozek and Young 1994) and even caused local
> extinctions (Propst et al. 1992; Rinne 1996). Conceivably, large and
> intense fires could threaten populations of sensitive salmonids such
> as bull trout, chinook salmon, steelhead, and others that are
> depressed from other causes. Historical fires, however, were a natural
> and potentially important part of the disturbance regime for
> terrestrial and aquatic systems (Reeves et al. 1995). Large fires
> supplied woody debris and triggered hydrologic events and debris flows
> that transported coarse substrates to stream channels. These processes
> may well have provided the materials that maintained productive
> habitats for fish and other organisms (Swanson et al. 1990; Reeves et
> al. 1995)."
>
> "The magnitude and intensity of recent fires heighten concerns
> regarding forest/ecosystem health, the potential loss of valuable wood
> fiber and private property, and the apparent threat to sensitive
> species. Such concerns have galvanized new efforts to reduce fuel
> loads and stand densities through mechanical treatment and the use of
> prescribed fire. These efforts create a quandary for biologists and
> managers working with aquatic systems. The long-term negative effects
> of timber harvest activities on aquatic ecosystems are well documented
> (see papers in Meehan 1991 and Salo and Cundy 1987; Henjum et al.
> 1994) The effects of fire on fish are more equivocal. Do large fires
> really threaten extinction for many existing salmonid populations?
> What influences the risk?"
>
> "Large fires in the Boise River basin on the Boise National Forest in
> 1992 and 1994 provided an opportunity to examine these questions
> relative to populations of two sensitive salmonids. Bull Trout
> (*Salvelinus confluentus*) is a category-one species under the
> Endangered Species Act (ESA), and redband or interior rainbow trout
> (*Oncorhynchus mykiss*) is recognized as a species of special concern
> by the Idaho Department Fish and Game. Some isolated redband
> populations have been petitioned for formal listing under ESA. Both
> species inhabit streams caught within fires described as among the
> most destructive ever observed on the Forest. We initiated work on the
> responses of these fishes to wildfire and related effects in 1992. The
> work was planned as long term and much is incomplete. Our preliminary
> results and the body of literature regarding the disturbance and
> recovery of aquatic communities provide a base, however, to initiate
> the discussion."

Some more recent literature includes Korb et al. 2004; Schoennagel et
al. 2004; and Stephens and Finney 2002. Also, *Conservation Biology*
published a special section on Wildfire and Conservation in the Western
United States in 2004 (Backer et al.; Beschta et al.; Beyers; Brown et
al.; Dombeck et al.; Kauffman; McKenzie et al.; and Perry et al.).

**REFERENCES**

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. 1993.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Andrus, C.W. and T. Lorenzen. 1992. Water Classification and Protection
Project: Draft Report. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Backer, D.M., S.E. Jensen, and G.R. McPherson. 2004. Impacts of
fire-suppression activities on natural communities. Conservation Biology
18(4): 937-946.

Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W. \[and others\]. 1987. Stream
temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions.
In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: Forestry and
fishery interactions. Contribution 57. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 191-232.

Beschta, R.; Frissell, C.; Gresswell, R.; Hauer, R.; Karr, J.; Minshall,
W.; Perry, D.; and J. Rhodes. 1995. Wildfire and Salvage Logging:
Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Salvage Logging and
Other Post-Fire Treatments on Federal Lands in the West. Corvallis, OR;
Oregon State University. 14p.

Beschta, R.L., J.J. Rhodes, J.B. Kauffman, R.E. Gresswell, G.W.
Minshall, J.R. Karr, D.A. Perry, F.R. Hauer, C.A. Frissell. 2004.
Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United
States. Conservation Biology 18(4): 957-967.

Beyers, J.L. 2004. Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness
and impacts on native plant communities. Conservation Biology 18(4):
947-956.

Bjornn, T.C.; Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in
streams: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid
fishes and their habitats. W.R. Meehan, ed. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138.

Bozek, M.A.; Young, M.K. 1994. Fish mortality resulting from delayed
effects of fire in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Great Basin
Naturalist. 54: 91-95.

Brooks, K.; Gregersen, H.; Folliott, P.; Tejwani, K.G. 1992. Watershed
management: A key to sustainability. In: Sharma, N.P., ed. Managing the
world's forests: Looking for balance between conservation and
development. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt publishing: 455-487.

Brown, J.K. 1989. Effects of fire on streams. In: Richardson, F.; Hamre,
R.H., eds. Wild trout IV: Proceedings of the symposium. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office: 106-110.

Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and
fire: principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology 18(4):
903-912.

Brugam, R.B.; Vallarino, J. 1989. Paleolimnological investigations of
human disturbance in western Washington lakes. Archives of Hydrobiology.
116: 129-159.

Burden, R.F.; Randerson, P.F. 1972. Quantitative studies of the effects
of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the management of
semi-natural areas. Journal of Applied Ecology. 9(2): 439-457.

Burroughs, E.R. Jr.; Thomas, B.R. 1977. Declining root strength in
Douglas-fir after felling as a factor in slope stability. USDA Forest
Service Research Paper INT-190. Ogden, Utah. 27 p. Byers, H.R. 1953.
Coast redwoods and fog drip. Ecology. 34(1): 192-193.

Burton, T.A. 2000. Effects of uncharacteristically large and intense
wildfires on native fish: 14 years of observations - Boise National
Forest, USDA Forest Service, Boise, ID

Bustard, D.R. 1986. Some differences between coastal and interior
streams and the implications to juvenile fish production. Canadian
Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1483: 117-126.

Castro, J. 2003. Geomorphic impacts of culvert replacement and removal:
avoiding channel incision. Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon.

Chamberlain, T.W.; Harr, R.D.; Everest, F.H. 1991. Timber harvest,
silviculture and watershed process. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of
forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat.
Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society:
181-206.

Cummins, K.W.; Minshall, G.W.; Sedell, J.R. \[and others\]. 1984. Stream
ecosystem theory. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für
Theoretisch und Angewante Limnologie. 22(3): 1818-1827.

Debano, L.F., Neary, D.G., Ffolliott, P.F. 1998. Fire's Effects On
Ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, c1998, 333p

Dojlido, J.R.; Best, G.A. 1993. Chemistry of water and water pollution.
\[Place of publication unknown\]: Ellis Horwood Limited. 363 pp.

Dombeck, M. P., J. E. Williams, and C. A. Wood. 2004. Wildfire policy
and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social
concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology 18(4): 883-889.

Everest, F.H.; Beschta, R.L.; Scrivener, J.S. \[and others\]. 1987. Fine
sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy,
T.W., eds. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions.
Contribution No. 57. Seattle, WA: Institute of Forest Resources,
University of Washington: 98-142.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest
ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the
Interior \[and others\].

Furniss, M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and
maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-323.

Gilliom, R.J.; Dethier, D.P.; Safioles, S.A.; Heller, P.L. 1980.
Preliminary evaluation of lake susceptibility to water-quality
degradation by recreational use, Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area,
Washington. Water-Resources Investigations Open File Report. Map
80-1124. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1:100,000.

Gregory, S.V.; Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A. \[and others\]. 1991. An
ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience. 41(8): 540-551.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems in Forested Biomes of
North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 128,
Number 2. pp 193 -- 218.

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest
Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-509. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland,
Oregon.

Henjum, M.G.; Karr, J.R.; Bottom, D.L. \[and others\]. 1994. In: Karr,
J.R.; Chu, E.W., eds. Interim protection for late-successional forests,
fisheries, and watersheds. National Forests East of the Cascade Crest,
Oregon and Washington, Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel.
Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society: 129-168.

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U. Snyder. 2000. Effects
of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream
networks. Conservation Biology 14: 76-85.

Kauffman, J. B. 2004. Death rides the forest: perceptions of fire, land
use, and ecological restoration of western forests. Conservation Biology
18(4): 872-882.

Knight, D. H. 1987. Parasites, lightning, and the vegetation mosaic in
wilderness landscapes. In: Turner, M.G., ed. Landscape heterogeneity and
disturbance. New York: Springer-Verlag: 59-83.

Korb, J.E., N.C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning
effects on soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment:
recommendations for amelioration. Restoration Ecology 12: 52-62.

Li, J.L.; Gregory. 1995. Effects of forest practices on aquatic biota.
In: Beschta, R.L.; Boyle, J.R \[and others\], eds. Cumulative effects of
forest practices in Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University:
chapter 8. Report prepared for Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR.

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human
trampling on natural ecosystems. Biological Conservation. 7: 17-36.

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch
maintenance on forest road sediment production. In Proceedings of the
Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29, 2001,
Reno, Nevada. Pp. V67-V74.

MacDonald, L.H.; Smart, A.W.; Wissmar, R.C. 1991. Monitoring guidelines
to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. EPA/910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and University of Washington. 166 p.

McDade, M.H.; Swanson, F.J.; \[and others\]. 1990. Source distances for
coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and
Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 20: 326-330.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic
change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology 18(4): 890-902.

McMahon, T.E.; deCalista, D.S. 1990. Effects of fire on fish and
wildlife. In: Walstad, J.D.; Radosvich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds.
Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University Press.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on
salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda,
MD: American Fisheries Society. 751 pp.

Megahan, W.F. 1991. Erosion and site productivity in western-montane
forest ecosystems. In: Harvey, A.E.; Neuenschwander, L.F., eds.
Proceedings of the symposium on management and productivity of western
montane forest soils. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-280. 1990 April 10-12; Boise,
ID. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 146-150.

Minshall, G.W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic
structure of a woodland springbrook community. Ecology. 48: 139-149.

Minshall, G.W. 1994. Stream-riparian ecosystems: rationale and methods
for basin-level assessments of management effects. In: Jensen, M.E.;
Bourgeron, P.S., tech. eds. Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles
and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 376 p.

Minshall, G.W.; Andrews, D.A.; Brock, J.T. \[and others\]. 1990. Changes
in wild trout habitat following forest fire. In: Richardson, F; Hamre,
R.H., eds., Wild Trout IV: Proceedings of the symposium. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office: 174-177.

Minshall G.W. and J.T. Brock 1991: Observed and anticipated effects of
forest fire on Yellowstone stream ecosystems. Pages 123-125 in R.B.
Keiter and M.S. Boyce, editors. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem:
redefining America's wilderness heritage. Yale Univ Press. New Haven,
CT.;

Minshall, G.W., J.T. Brock, and J.D. Varley. 1989. Wildfires and
Yellowstone\'s stream ecosystems. BioScience 39:707-715.

Perry, D.A., H. Jing, A. Youngblood, and D.R. Oetter. 2004. Forest
structure and fires susceptibility in volcanic landscapes of the eastern
high Cascades, Oregon. Conservation Biology 18(4): 913-926.

Propst, D.L.; Stefferud, J.A.; Turner, P.R. 1992. Conservation and
status of Gila trout, *Oncorhynchus gila*e.Southwestern Naturalist. 37:
117-125.

Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment
of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of
the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M.,tech. ed.; The Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment),
Volume 3

Rainville, R.C.; Rainville, S.C.; Linder, E.L. 1985. Riparian
silvicultural strategies for fish habitat emphasis-sis. In: Proceedings
of 1985 technical session of the Wildlife and Fish Ecology Working
Group, Society of American Foresters national convention. SAF86-07.
Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PSW-GTR-141. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 118 p.

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M. \[and others\]. 1995. A
disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring
freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous
salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Nielson, J., ed. Evolution and
the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation.
Symposium 17. \[Bethesda, MD\]: American Fisheries Society. \[not
paged\].

Rhodes, J. J.; McCullough, D. A.; Espinosa, F. A., Jr. 1994. A coarse
screening process for potential application in ESA consultations.
Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. \[Place of publication
unknown\]: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Columbia River Intertribal Fish
Commission. Prepared under NMFS/BIA inter-agency agreement 40ABNF3.
December. \[SS/X.B.\]

Rieman, B.D. 1995. Proceedings- Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered
Species and Habitats Conference, Nov 13-16, 1995. Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
IAWF, 1997.

Rinne, J.N. 1996. Southwestern wildfires: effects on fishes and aquatic
macroinvertebrates and management implications. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management. 16:653-658.

Robichaud, P.R. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after
prescribed fire in Northern

Rocky Mountain forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology 231-232 (2000)
220-229.

Robison, G.E.; Beschta, R.L. 1990. Identifying trees in riparian areas
that can provide coarse woody debris to streams. Forest Science: 36:
790-801.

Rowe, R, N.P. Sharma, and J. Browder. 1992. Deforestation: problems,
causes and concerns. In: Managing the world\'s forests, edited by Sharma
N P, pp. 33-46. Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

Salo, E. O.; Cundy, T.W.; eds. 1987. Streamside management: forestry and
fishery interactions. Contribution 57. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Institute of Forest Resources.

Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, and W.H. Romme. 2004. The interaction of
fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience
54(7): 661-676.

Sidle, R.C.; Pearce, A.J.; O'Loughlin, C.L. 1985. Hillslope stability
and land use. Water Resources Monograph, Series 11(No. 12). \[Place of
publication unknown\]: American Geophysical Union. 140 p.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An
Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation.

Spencer, C.N. 1991. Evaluation of historical sediment deposition related
to land use through analysis of lake sediments. Flathead Basin Forest
Practices Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative Program Final Report,
June 1991. Kalispell, MT: Flathead Basin Commission: 19-39.

Stauffer, R.E. 1991. Effects of citrus agriculture on ridge lakes in
central Florida. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 59: 125-144.

Steinblums, I.J. 1977. Streamside Buffer Strips: Survival,
Effectiveness, and Design. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR. 181 pp.

Stephens, S.L. and M.A. Finney. 2002. Prescribed fire mortality of
Sierra Nevada mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and
forest floor combustion. Forest Ecology and Management 162:261-271.

Sullivan, K.; Lisle, T.E.; Dolloff, C.A. \[and others\]. 1987. Stream
channels: the link between forests and fishes. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy,
T.W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions.
Contribution 57. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Institute of
Forest Resources: 39-97.

Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Sedell, J.R. 1990. Landscape patterns,
disturbance and management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. In Zonneveld,
I.S.; Foreman, R.T. eds. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective.
New York: Springer-Verlag: 191-213.

Swanson, F.J.; Lienkaemper, G.W. 1978. Physical consequences of large
organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-69.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. \[not paged\].

Swanson, F.J., and T. Spies. 1993. Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Corvallis, OR in FEMAT-Thomas and others.

Swanson F.J. and T. Spies, personal communication, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of
roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:
18-30.

Tu, M., C. Hurd and J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook.
The Nature Conservancy.
[http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu](http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/), version:
April 2001.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Biological Opinion for the effects
to bull trout from continued implementation of Land and Resource
Management Plans and Resource Management Plans as amended by The Interim
Strategy for Native Fish Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and
Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH), and
The Interim Strategy for Anadromous Fish Producing Watersheds in Eastern
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH) US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR.

van Kesteren, A.R. 1986. A method for assessing the environmental
sensitivity of land to forest harvesting in central and western
Newfoundland. Information Report N-X-250. \[Place of publication
unknown\]: Canadian Forestry Service, Newfoundland Forestry Centre. 24
p.

Van Sickle, J.; Gregory, S.V. 1990. Modelling inputs of large wooding
debris to streams from falling trees. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research. 20: 1593-1601.

Weaver, W.; Hagans, D.; Madej, M.A. 1987. Managing forest roads to
control cumulative erosion and sedimentation effects. In: Proceedings,
California watershed management conference. Wildland Resources Center
Report 11. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Wondzell, S.M. and J.G. King. 2003. Postfire erosional processes in the
Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and
Management 6238 (2003) 1-13.

Wu, T.H. 1986. Root geometry model and simulation. Unpublished final
report. National Science Foundation Grant CEE-811253. USDA Forest
Service Grant PNW-83-317. Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State
University. 62 p.

# ATTACHMENT 3 - WATERSHED CONDITION AND RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES (RMO's) IN THE PRESCRIBED FIRE CRITERIA - THE MATRIX OF PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS: 

# Introduction

Watershed disruption has played a role in the decline of salmonids.
Changes in or disruptions of watershed processes likely to influence
characteristics of stream channels are also likely to influence the
dynamics and persistence of bull trout populations. Bull trout have been
more strongly associated with pristine or only lightly disturbed basins
(Brown 1992; Clancy 1993; Cross and Everest 1995; Dambacher and others,
in press; Huntington 1995; Ratliff and Howell 1992).

Patterns of stream flow and the frequency of extreme flow events that
influence substrates are anticipated to be important factors in
population dynamics (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). With overwinter
incubation and a close tie to the substrate, embryos and juveniles may
be particularly vulnerable to flooding and channel scour associated with
the rain-on-snow events common in some parts of the range within the
belt geography of northern Idaho and northwestern Montana (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993). Channel dewatering tied to low flows and bed aggradation
has also blocked access for spawning fish resulting in year class
failures (Weaver 1992).

Changes in sediment delivery, aggradation and scour, wood loading,
riparian canopy and shading or other factors influencing stream
temperatures, and the hydrologic regime (winter flooding and summer low
flow) are all likely to affect some, if not most, populations.
Significant changes in any of these characteristics or processes
represent important risks for fish populations. Populations are likely
to be most sensitive to changes that occur in headwater areas
encompassing critical spawning and rearing habitat and remnant resident
populations. Severity of watershed disturbance correlates to watershed
size, with smaller headwater systems having a greater probability of
disruption following disturbance.

According to CRITFC (1994), Salmon survival and production depend upon
substrate fine sediment and embeddedness, channel morphology (pool
frequency and quality), streambank stability, and water quantity and
timing, factors all of which are influenced by watershed condition.

# Matrix of Pathways and Indicators 

This section describes the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NOAA
Fisheries, 1996 and USF&WS 1998). Indicators are provided to describe
the condition of 1). Fish Populations, 2). Habitats, 3). Water Quality,
4). Channel and Hydrologic variables, and 5). Watershed Condition. The
objective of the \"Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators\"
(Tables 1 and 2) is to arrive at a determination of the potential affect
of land management activities on a species. This matrix is divided into
diagnostics/pathways (major rows in the matrix).

The diagnostics and pathways are broken down into "indicators.
**[Numeric values are not presented as absolutes nor to define data
standards]{.underline}.** They are presented as diagnostic tools to
promote discussion of differences between local data or findings and
values suggested in the matrix. If local data relating to a specific
indicator is not available for comparison and verification, then
proposed management activities should be designed to minimize impacts to
that indicator. If a numeric indicator suggested in the matrix is not
functionally attainable given the inherent characteristics of the
watershed being considered or if an equivalent value is available using
a different field technique, Level 1 and Interdisciplinary teams should
replace the numeric value with local data and professional judgement.
When this occurs, changes must be accompanied by rigorous discussion
within the team, which is integrated into adequate documentation
complete with supportive local data and the technique used to compile
the data, and/or scientifically supported reasoning, logic, or
professional judgement for the change.

The columns in the matrix correspond to levels of condition of the
indicator. There are three condition levels: \"functioning
appropriately,\" \"functioning at risk,\" and \"functioning at
unacceptable risk.\" These three categories of function are defined for
each indicator in the "Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators".

**Watershed Condition**: In concept, watershed condition indicators in
the Matrix (road density, disturbance history, RHCA's, and disturbance
regime) are usually "functioning appropriately" when the watershed has
not been disturbed by high road density, reduced overstory cover, or
have not been disrupted by disturbance events, such as catastrophic
flood and/or fire, as described in the matrix. In the prescribed fire
criteria, this portion of the matrix is used to define watershed
condition (functionality). ***Use Table 1*** to determine if the
watershed condition is functioning appropriately.

**Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs):** The channel, water quality,
and channel/hydrologic indicators in the Matrix are used to describe the
condition of RMOs as applied to the Salmonid Criteria for prescribed
fire. All of the indicators relevant to the aquatic ecosystem associated
with the project should be applied. Large woody debris, for example,
would not be a relevant indicator in a non-forested stream. Most
indicators, however, are applicable in most situations. ***Use Table
2*** to determine if the project would not prevent or retard attainment
of RMO condition.

**Scales:** US Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) recommends that the
matrix be applied to individual actions or grouped similar activities at
the 5^th^ or 6^th^ field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed scale.
This is consistent with the watershed size identified in the Conditional
Statements associated with the Salmonid Criteria. Therefore, watershed
condition indicators are to be applied at the same scale. Habitat
indicators, however, may be applied at a finer scale. As stated in
PACFISH and INFISH, RMO's should reflect conditions of a specific stream
reach based on local geology, topography, climate, and potential
vegetation. Thus RMO's are normally applicable to a specific stream or
stream reach, and there may be multiples of these in the same HUC.

# Table 1. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators -- Watershed Condition

+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           | **I         | *            | **          | **          |
| *DIAGNOSTIC | NDICATORS** | *FUNCTIONING | FUNCTIONING | FUNCTIONING |
| OR**        |             | APP          | AT RISK**   | AT          |
|             |             | ROPRIATELY** |             | U           |
| **PATHWAY** |             |              |             | NACCEPTABLE |
|             |             |              |             | RISK**      |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Watershed   | Road        | \<1mi/mi     | 1 - 2.4     | \>2.4 mi/mi |
|             | Density &   | ^13^; no     | mi/mi ^13^; | ^13^; many  |
| Conditions: |             | valley       | some valley | valley      |
|             | Location    | bottom roads | bottom      | bottom      |
|             |             |              | roads       | roads       |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Disturbance | \<15% ECA of | \<15% ECA   | \>15% ECA   |
|             |             | entire       | of entire   | of entire   |
|             | History     | watershed    | watershed   | watershed   |
|             |             | with no      | but         | and         |
|             |             | c            | disturbance | disturbance |
|             |             | oncentration | c           | c           |
|             |             | of           | oncentrated | oncentrated |
|             |             | disturbance  | in unstable | in unstable |
|             |             | in unstable  | or          | or          |
|             |             | or           | potentially | potentially |
|             |             | potentially  | unstable    | unstable    |
|             |             | unstable     | areas,      | areas,      |
|             |             | areas,       | and/or      | and/or      |
|             |             | and/or       | refugia,    | refugia,    |
|             |             | refugia,     | and/or      | and/or      |
|             |             | and/or       | riparian    | riparian    |
|             |             | riparian     | area; and   | area; does  |
|             |             | area; and    | for NWFP    | not meet    |
|             |             | for NWFP     | area there  | NWFP        |
|             |             | area there   | is an       | standard    |
|             |             | is an        | additional  | for LSOG    |
|             |             | additional   | criteria of |             |
|             |             | criteria of  | 15% LSOG   |             |
|             |             | 15% LSOG in | in          |             |
|             |             | wa           | wat         |             |
|             |             | tersheds^14^ | ersheds^14^ |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Riparian    | the riparian | moderate    | riparian    |
|             | C           | conservation | loss of     | c           |
|             | onservation | areas        | c           | onservation |
|             | Areas       | provide      | onnectivity | areas are   |
|             |             | adequate     | or function | fragmented, |
|             | (RHCA -     | shade, large | (shade, LWD | poorly      |
|             | PACFISH and | woody debris | r           | connected,  |
|             | INFISH)     | recruitment, | ecruitment, | or provides |
|             |             | and habitat  | etc.) of    | inadequate  |
|             | (Riparian   | protection   | riparian    | protection  |
|             | Reserves -  | and          | c           | of habitats |
|             | Northwest   | connectivity | onservation | for         |
|             | Forest      | in           | areas, or   | sensitive   |
|             | Plan)       | su           | incomplete  | aquatic     |
|             |             | bwatersheds, | protection  | species     |
|             |             | and buffers  | of habitats | (\<70%      |
|             |             | or includes  | and refugia | intact,     |
|             |             | known        | for         | refugia     |
|             |             | refugia for  | sensitive   | does not    |
|             |             | sensitive    | aquatic     | occur), and |
|             |             | aquatic      | species     | adequately  |
|             |             | species      | (70-80%    | buffer      |
|             |             | (\>80%       | intact),    | impacts on  |
|             |             | intact), and | and         | rangelands  |
|             |             | adequately   | adequately  | : percent   |
|             |             | buffer       | buffer      | similarity  |
|             |             | impacts on   | impacts on  | of riparian |
|             |             | rangelands:  | rangelands  | vegetation  |
|             |             | percent      | : percent   | to the      |
|             |             | similarity   | similarity  | potential   |
|             |             | of riparian  | of riparian | natural     |
|             |             | vegetation   | vegetation  | community/  |
|             |             | to the       | to the      | composition |
|             |             | potential    | potential   | \<25%^15^   |
|             |             | natural      | natural     |             |
|             |             | community/   | community/  |             |
|             |             | composition  | composition |             |
|             |             | \>50%^15^    | 25-50% or   |             |
|             |             |              | better^15^  |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Disturbance | E            | Scour       | Frequent    |
|             | Regime      | nvironmental | events,     | flood or    |
|             |             | disturbance  | debris      | drought     |
|             |             | is short     | torrents,   | producing   |
|             |             | lived;       | or          | highly      |
|             |             | predictable  | c           | variable    |
|             |             | hydrograph,  | atastrophic | and         |
|             |             | high quality | fire are    | un          |
|             |             | habitat and  | localized   | predictable |
|             |             | watershed    | events that | flows,      |
|             |             | complexity   | occur in    | scour       |
|             |             | providing    | several     | events,     |
|             |             | refuge and   | minor parts | debris      |
|             |             | rearing      | of the      | torrents,   |
|             |             | space for    | watershed.  | or high     |
|             |             | all life     | Resiliency  | probability |
|             |             | stages or    | of habitat  | of          |
|             |             | multiple     | to recover  | c           |
|             |             | life-history | from        | atastrophic |
|             |             | forms. ^1^   | en          | fire exists |
|             |             | Natural      | vironmental | throughout  |
|             |             | processes    | d           | a major     |
|             |             | are stable.  | isturbances | part of the |
|             |             |              | is          | watershed.  |
|             |             |              | moderate.   | The channel |
|             |             |              |             | is          |
|             |             |              |             | simplified, |
|             |             |              |             | providing   |
|             |             |              |             | little      |
|             |             |              |             | hydraulic   |
|             |             |              |             | complexity  |
|             |             |              |             | in the form |
|             |             |              |             | of pools or |
|             |             |              |             | side        |
|             |             |              |             | channels.   |
|             |             |              |             | ^1^ Natural |
|             |             |              |             | processes   |
|             |             |              |             | are         |
|             |             |              |             | unstable.   |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+

1\. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat
requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station, Boise, ID.

13\. Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams and
others. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and
Habitats. *In* T.M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide eds An Assessment of
Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the
Klamath and Great Basins Volume III. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-405.

14\. Northwest Forest Plan, 1994. Standards and Guidelines for
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest
Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA
Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Table 2. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators -- Riparian Management
Objectives - Fish Habitat

+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           | **I         | *            | **          | **          |
| *DIAGNOSTIC | NDICATORS** | *FUNCTIONING | FUNCTIONING | FUNCTIONING |
| OR**        |             | APP          | AT RISK**   | AT          |
|             |             | ROPRIATELY** |             | U           |
| **PATHWAY** |             |              |             | NACCEPTABLE |
|             |             |              |             | RISK**      |
+=============+=============+==============+=============+=============+
| HABITAT:    |             |              |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Water       | Temperature | 7 day        | 7 day       | 7 day       |
| Quality:    |             | average      | average     | average     |
|             |             | maximum      | maximum     | maximum     |
|             |             | temperature  | temperature | temperature |
|             |             | in a reach   | in a reach  | in a reach  |
|             |             | during the   | during the  | during the  |
|             |             | following    | following   | following   |
|             |             | life history | life        | life        |
|             |             | stages:      | history     | history     |
|             |             | ^1,\ 3^      | stages:     | stages:     |
|             |             |              | ^1,\ 3^     | ^1,\ 3^     |
|             |             | incubation   |             |             |
|             |             | 2 - 5°C      | incubation  | incubation  |
|             |             |              | \<2°C or    | \<1°C or    |
|             |             | rearing 4 -  | 6°C         | \>6°C       |
|             |             | 12 °C        |             |             |
|             |             |              | rearing     | rearing     |
|             |             | spawning 4 - | \<4°C or    | \>15 °C     |
|             |             | 9°C          | 13 - 15 °C  |             |
|             |             |              |             | spawning    |
|             |             | also         | spawning    | \<4 °C or   |
|             |             | temperatures | \<4°C or    | \> 10°C     |
|             |             | do not       | 10°C        |             |
|             |             | exceed 15C  |             | also        |
|             |             | in areas     | also        | t           |
|             |             | used by      | t           | emperatures |
|             |             | adults       | emperatures | in areas    |
|             |             | during       | in areas    | used by     |
|             |             | migration    | used by     | adults      |
|             |             | (no thermal  | adults      | during      |
|             |             | barriers)    | during      | migration   |
|             |             |              | migration   | regularly   |
|             |             |              | sometimes   | exceed 15°C |
|             |             |              | exceeds     | (thermal    |
|             |             |              | 15°C        | barriers    |
|             |             |              |             | present)    |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Sediment    | Similar to   | Similar to  | Similar to  |
|             | (in areas   | chinook      | chinook     | chinook     |
|             | of spawning | salmon ^1^:  | salmon ^1^: | salmon ^1^: |
|             | and         |              |             | e.g. \>17%  |
|             | incubation; | for example  | e.g. 12-17% | fines       |
|             | rearing     | (e.g.): \<   | fines       | (\<0.85mm)  |
|             | areas will  | 12% fines    | (\<0.85mm)  | in          |
|             | be          | (\<0.85mm)   | in          | gravel^4^;  |
|             | addressed   | in           | gravel^4^;  |             |
|             | under       | gravel^4^;   |             | e.g. \>20%  |
|             | substrate  |              | e.g. 12-20% | fines at    |
|             | emb         | e.g.         | surface     | surface or  |
|             | eddedness) | [\<]{.u      | fines ^7^   | depth in    |
|             |             | nderline}20% |             | spawning    |
|             |             | surface      |             | habitat^7^  |
|             |             | fines of     |             |             |
|             |             | [\           |             |             |
|             |             | <]{.underlin |             |             |
|             |             | e}6mm^5,\ 6^ |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Chemical    | low levels   | moderate    | high levels |
|             | Con         | of chemical  | levels of   | of chemical |
|             | tamination/ | c            | chemical    | co          |
|             |             | ontamination | co          | ntamination |
|             | Nutrients   | from         | ntamination | from        |
|             |             | a            | from        | ag          |
|             |             | gricultural, | ag          | ricultural, |
|             |             | industrial   | ricultural, | industrial  |
|             |             | and other    | industrial  | and other   |
|             |             | sources, no  | and other   | sources,    |
|             |             | excess       | sources,    | high levels |
|             |             | nutrients,   | some excess | of excess   |
|             |             | no CWA 303d  | nutrients,  | nutrients,  |
|             |             | designated   | one CWA     | more than   |
|             |             | reaches^8^   | 303d        | one CWA     |
|             |             |              | designated  | 303d        |
|             |             |              | reach^8^    | designated  |
|             |             |              |             | reach^8^    |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Habitat     | Physical    | man-made     | man-made    | man-made    |
| Access:     | Barriers    | barriers     | barriers    | barriers    |
|             |             | present in   | present in  | present in  |
|             | (address    | watershed    | watershed   | watershed   |
|             | subsurface  | allow        | do not      | do not      |
|             | flows       | upstream and | allow       | allow       |
|             | impeding    | downstream   | upstream    | upstream    |
|             | fish        | fish passage | and/or      | and/or      |
|             | passage     | at all flows | downstream  | downstream  |
|             | under the   |              | fish        | fish        |
|             | pathway     |              | passage at  | passage at  |
|             | flow/      |              | base/low    | a range of  |
|             | hydrology) |              | flows       | flows       |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |              |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Habitat     | Substrate   | reach        | reach       | reach       |
| Elements:   | E           | embeddedness | e           | e           |
|             | mbeddedness | \            | mbeddedness | mbeddedness |
|             | in rearing  | <20%^9,\ 10^ | 20-30%      | \>30%^4,10^ |
|             | areas       |              | ^9,10^      |             |
|             | (spawning   |              |             |             |
|             | an1d        |              |             |             |
|             | incubation  |              |             |             |
|             | areas were  |              |             |             |
|             | addressed   |              |             |             |
|             | under the   |              |             |             |
|             | indicator   |              |             |             |
|             | sediment)   |              |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Large Woody | current      | current     | current     |
|             | Debris      | values are   | levels are  | levels are  |
|             |             | being        | being       | not at      |
|             |             | maintained   | maintained  | those       |
|             |             | at greater   | at minimum  | desired     |
|             |             | than 80      | levels      | values for  |
|             |             | pieces/mile  | desired for |            |
|             |             | that are     |            | functioning |
|             |             | \>           | functioning | appr        |
|             |             | 24\"diameter | appr        | opriately, |
|             |             | and \>50 ft  | opriately, | and         |
|             |             | length on    | but         | potential   |
|             |             | the Coast    | potential   | sources of  |
|             |             | ^9^, or \>20 | sources for | woody       |
|             |             | pieces/ mile | long term   | debris for  |
|             |             | \>           | woody       | short       |
|             |             | 12\"diameter | debris      | and/or long |
|             |             | \>35 ft      | recruitment | term        |
|             |             | length on    | are lacking | recruitment |
|             |             | the          | to maintain | are lacking |
|             |             | Eastside^11^ | these       |             |
|             |             | ; also       | minimum     |             |
|             |             | adequate     | values      |             |
|             |             | sources of   |             |             |
|             |             | woody debris |             |             |
|             |             | are          |             |             |
|             |             | available    |             |             |
|             |             | for both     |             |             |
|             |             | long and     |             |             |
|             |             | short-term   |             |             |
|             |             | recruitment  |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Pool        | pool         | pool        | pool        |
|             | Frequency   | frequency in | frequency   | frequency   |
|             | and Quality | a reach      | is similar  | is          |
|             |             | closely      | to values   | c           |
|             |             | approximates | in          | onsiderably |
|             |             | ^5^:         |            | lower than  |
|             |             |              | functioning | values      |
|             |             | [Wetted      | appr        | desired for |
|             |             | width        | opriately, |            |
|             |             | (ft)]        | but pools   | functioning |
|             |             | {.underline} | have        | appr        |
|             |             | [            | inadequate  | opriately; |
|             |             | #pools/mile] | cover/temp  | also        |
|             |             | {.underline} | erature^4^, | cover/      |
|             |             |              | and/or      | temperature |
|             |             | 0-5 39       | there has   | is          |
|             |             |              | been a      | ina         |
|             |             | 5-10 60      | moderate    | dequate^4^, |
|             |             |              | reduction   | and there   |
|             |             | 10-15 48     | of pool     | has been a  |
|             |             |              | volume by   | major       |
|             |             | 15-20 39     | fine        | reduction   |
|             |             |              | sediment    | of pool     |
|             |             | 20-30 23     |             | volume by   |
|             |             |              |             | fine        |
|             |             | 30-35 18     |             | sediment    |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | 35-40 10     |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | 40-65 9      |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | 65-100 4     |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | (can use     |             |             |
|             |             | formula:     |             |             |
|             |             | pools/mi =   |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | [            |             |             |
|             |             | 5,280/wetted |             |             |
|             |             | channel      |             |             |
|             |             | width]       |             |             |
|             |             | {.underline} |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | #channel     |             |             |
|             |             | widths per   |             |             |
|             |             | pool );      |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             |             | also, pools  |             |             |
|             |             | have good    |             |             |
|             |             | cover and    |             |             |
|             |             | cool         |             |             |
|             |             | water^4^,    |             |             |
|             |             | and only     |             |             |
|             |             | minor        |             |             |
|             |             | reduction of |             |             |
|             |             | pool volume  |             |             |
|             |             | by fine      |             |             |
|             |             | sediment     |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Large Pools | each reach   | reaches     | reaches     |
|             |             | has many     | have few    | have no     |
|             | (in adult   | large pools  | large pools | deep pools  |
|             | holding,    | \>1 meter    | (\>1 meter) | (\>1        |
|             | juvenile    | deep^4^      | present^4^  | meter)^4^   |
|             | rearing,    |              |             |             |
|             | and         |              |             |             |
|             | ov          |              |             |             |
|             | erwintering |              |             |             |
|             | reaches     |              |             |             |
|             | where       |              |             |             |
|             | streams are |              |             |             |
|             | \>3m in     |              |             |             |
|             | wetted      |              |             |             |
|             | width at    |              |             |             |
|             | baseflow)   |              |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Off-channel | watershed    | watershed   | watershed   |
|             | Habitat     | has many     | has some    | has few or  |
|             |             | ponds,       | ponds,      | no ponds,   |
|             | (see        | oxbows,      | oxbows,     | oxbows,     |
|             | reference   | backwaters,  | backwaters, | backwaters, |
|             | 18 for      | and other    | and other   | or other    |
|             | ide         | off-channel  | off-channel | off-channel |
|             | ntification | areas with   | areas with  | areas^4^    |
|             | of these    | cover; and   | cover; but  |             |
|             | chara       | s            | si          |             |
|             | cteristics) | ide-channels | de-channels |             |
|             |             | are low      | are         |             |
|             |             | energy       | generally   |             |
|             |             | areas^4^     | high energy |             |
|             |             |              | areas^4^    |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Refugia     | habitats     | habitats    | adequate    |
|             |             | capable of   | capable of  | habitat     |
|             | (see        | supporting   | supporting  | refugia do  |
|             | Checklist   | strong and   | strong and  | not         |
|             | footnotes   | significant  | significant | exist^12^   |
|             | for         | populations  | populations |             |
|             | definition  | are          | are         |             |
|             | of this     | protected    | i           |             |
|             | indicator)  | and are well | nsufficient |             |
|             |             | distributed  | in size,    |             |
|             |             | and          | number and  |             |
|             |             | connected    | c           |             |
|             |             | for all life | onnectivity |             |
|             |             | stages and   | to maintain |             |
|             |             | forms of the | all life    |             |
|             |             | species      | stages and  |             |
|             |             | ^12,\ 13^    | forms of    |             |
|             |             |              | the         |             |
|             |             |              | speci       |             |
|             |             |              | es^12,\ 13^ |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Channel     | Average     | [            | 11 - 20^5^  | \>20^5^     |
| Condition & | Wetted      | \<]{.underli |             |             |
|             | Width/      | ne}10^7,\ 5^ |             |             |
| Dynamics:   | Maximum     |              |             |             |
|             | Depth       |              |             |             |
|             |             |              |             |             |
|             | Ratio in    |              |             |             |
|             | scour pools |              |             |             |
|             | in a reach  |              |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Streambank  | \>80% of any | 50 - 80% of | \<50% of    |
|             |             | stream reach | any stream  | any stream  |
|             | Condition   | has          | reach has   | reach has   |
|             |             | [\>]{.u      | [\>]{.un    | [\>]{.un    |
|             |             | nderline}90% | derline}90% | derline}90% |
|             |             | stability^5^ | s           | s           |
|             |             |              | tability^5^ | tability^5^ |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Floodplain  | off-channel  | reduced     | severe      |
|             |             | areas are    | linkage of  | reduction   |
|             | C           | frequently   | wetland,    | in          |
|             | onnectivity | hy           | floodplains | hydrologic  |
|             |             | drologically | and         | c           |
|             |             | linked to    | riparian    | onnectivity |
|             |             | main         | areas to    | between     |
|             |             | channel;     | main        | o           |
|             |             | overbank     | channel;    | ff-channel, |
|             |             | flows occur  | overbank    | wetland,    |
|             |             | and maintain | flows are   | floodplain  |
|             |             | wetland      | reduced     | and         |
|             |             | functions,   | relative to | riparian    |
|             |             | riparian     | historic    | areas;      |
|             |             | vegetation   | frequency,  | wetland     |
|             |             | and          | as          | extent      |
|             |             | succession   | evidenced   | drastically |
|             |             |              | by moderate | reduced and |
|             |             |              | degradation | riparian    |
|             |             |              | of wetland  | vegetation  |
|             |             |              | function,   | /succession |
|             |             |              | riparian    | altered     |
|             |             |              | vegetation  | si          |
|             |             |              | /succession | gnificantly |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flow        | Change in   | watershed    | some        | pronounced  |
| /Hydrology: | Peak/       | hydrograph   | evidence of | changes in  |
|             |             | indicates    | altered     | peak flow,  |
|             | Base Flows  | peak flow,   | peak flow,  | baseflow    |
|             |             | base flow    | baseflow    | and/or flow |
|             |             | and flow     | and/or flow | timing      |
|             |             | timing       | timing      | relative to |
|             |             | cha          | relative to | an          |
|             |             | racteristics | an          | undisturbed |
|             |             | comparable   | undisturbed | watershed   |
|             |             | to an        | watershed   | of similar  |
|             |             | undisturbed  | of similar  | size,       |
|             |             | watershed of | size,       | geology and |
|             |             | similar      | geology and | geography   |
|             |             | size,        | geography   |             |
|             |             | geology and  |             |             |
|             |             | geography    |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | Increase in | zero or      | low to      | greater     |
|             |             | minimum      | moderate    | than        |
|             | Drainage    | increases in | increase in | moderate    |
|             | Network     | active       | active      | increase in |
|             |             | channel      | channel     | active      |
|             |             | length       | length      | channel     |
|             |             | correlated   | correlated  | length      |
|             |             | with human   | with human  | correlated  |
|             |             | caused       | caused      | with human  |
|             |             | disturbance  | disturbance | caused      |
|             |             |              |             | disturbance |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat
requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station, Boise, ID.

^2^ Rieman, B.E. and D.L. Meyers. 1997. Use of redd counts to detect
trends in bull trout (*Salvelinus confluentus)* populations.
Conservation Biology 11(4): 1015-1018.

^3^ Buchanan, D.V. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water
temperature standards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and
other cold water species in Oregon. *In* W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and
M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. P8.

^4^ Washington Timber/Fish Wildlife Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation
and Research Committee, 1993. Watershed Analysis Manual (Version 2.0).
Washington Department of Natural Resources.

^5^ Overton, C.K., J.D. McIntyre, R. Armstrong, S.L. Whitewell, and K.A.
Duncan. 1995. Users guide to fish habitat: descriptions that represent
natural conditions in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen Tech.
Rep. INT-GTR-322.

^6^ Overton, C.K., S.P. Wollrab, B.C. Roberts, and M.A. Radko. 1997.
R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard
Inventory Procedures Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-346.

^7^ Biological Opinion on Land and Resource Management Plans for the:
Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and
Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. March 1, 1995.

^8^ A Federal Agency Guide for Pilot Watershed Analysis (Version 1.2),
1994.

^9^ Biological Opinion on Implementation of Interim Strategies for
Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and
Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, January 23, 1995.

^10^ Shepard, B.B., K.L. Pratt, and P.J. Graham. 1984. Life histories of
westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the Upper Flathead River Basin,
MT. Environmental Protection Agency Rep. Contract No. R008224-01-5.

^11^ Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices.

^12^ Frissell, C.A., Liss, W.J., and David Bayles, 1993. An Integrated
Biophysical Strategy for Ecological Restoration of Large Watersheds.
Proceedings from the Symposium on Changing Roles in Water Resources
Management and Policy, June 27-30, 1993 (American Water Resources
Association), p. 449-456.

^13^ Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams and
others. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and
Habitats. *In* T.M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide eds An Assessment of
Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the
Klamath and Great Basins Volume III. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-405.

^14^ Northwest Forest Plan, 1994. Standards and Guidelines for
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest
Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA
Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

^16^ Winward, A.H., 1989 Ecological Status of Vegetation as a base for
Multiple Product Management. Abstracts 42nd annual meeting, Society for
Range Management, Billings MT, Denver CO: Society For Range Management:
p277.

**References:**

Brown, C. J. D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. The Endowment and Research
Foundation, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and Distribution of the Bull Trout,
*Salvelinus confluentus* (Suckley), from the American Northwest.
California Fish and Game 64(3): 139-174.

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1994. A coarse Screening
Process For Potential Application in ESA Consultations. Available from
NOAA Fisheries, Portland, Oregon.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams and
others. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and
Habitats. *In* T.M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide eds "An Assessment of
Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the
Klamath and Great Basins Volume III". U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-405). For complete citations, refer to
that document.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the
Watershed Scale. NOAA Fisheries, Environmental Technical Services,
Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. Portland, OR.

Simpson, J. C. and R. L White 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University Press of
Idaho, Moscow, ID.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making
Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or
Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale.

ATTACHMENT 4

**NOXIOUS WEED RISK ASSESSMENTS**

**AND**

**GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE RISK ASSESSMENT**

**NOXIOUS WEEDS -- AQUATIC RESOURCE RISKS**

**ABSTRACT**

Noxious weeds, by definition, exert substantial negative environmental
impacts. The following exotic plants have the greatest impacts on
stream/riparian areas in the Northwest: spotted knapweed, oxeye daisey,
Canada thistle, bull thistle, musk thistle, cheat grass, Scotch thistle,
leafy spurge, yellow hawkweed, yellow toadflax, purple loosestrife, salt
cedar (tamarisk), and sulfur cinquefoil (An Assessment of Ecosystem
Components in the Interior Columbia Basin, 1997). These plants may
colonize or invade riparian communities, displacing native plants within
the wetlands adjacent to streams. Many of these species have the ability
to reproduce vigorously in the riparian zone. Their rapid rate of growth
allows them to out-compete more desirable riparian vegetation such as
cottonwoods, willows, and sedges. The resultant loss of functional
riparian communities, loss of rooting strength and protection against
erosion, can lead to destruction of salmonid habitat. Purple loosestrife
can invade, replace and crowd out native riparian communities within
whole wetlands in just a few seasons. Adverse effects of noxious weeds
in riparian areas can be summarized within 4 major areas:

> 1). Replacement of native vegetation communities by invaders which
> simply out-compete the native plants.
>
> 2). One species may replace several to numerous species significantly
> reducing biodiversity.
>
> 3). Replacement of native vegetation alters co-evolved relationships
> to wildlife and fish. As native species are crowded out, alterations
> in habitat result from reduced streambank protection, loss of undercut
> bank cover, loss of overhanging vegetation cover, reduced pool depth
> and volume, increased erosion and fine sediment deposition on the
> substrate, increased stream width and thermal relationships, and
> decreased detrital and nutrient inputs to the stream.
>
> 4). Altered natural ecosystem processes may result from the conversion
> of native to exotic plant communities. Tamarisk, for example, alters
> the natural hydrologic cycle increasing transpiration, decreasing
> streamflow, and lowering water tables below the reach of
> water-dependant vegetation communities.

In the uplands, cheat grass invasion can result in vegetative cover
inadequate to provide suitable watershed protection. Although studies
concerning the effects of noxious weeds on hydrologic systems are
generally lacking, there is growing evidence that invasions of exotic
plants into native plant communities can result in increased surface
runoff and sediment yield (An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the
Interior Columbia Basin, 1997).

**Journal Articles**

In the 2003 version of Attachment 4, copies of the following literature
appeared here in PDF format in the order presented. For the full
articles, visit the archived version of the Salmonid Criteria, available
online at
[www.or.blm.gov/fcp/FCP-Home.htm](http://www.or.blm.gov/fcp/FCP-Home.htm).
An abstract of the last article appears below.

Quigley, T. M., and S.J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of
ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the
Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M.,tech. ed.; The Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment),
Volume 2, pages 783-801, 944, 958 in Landscape Dynamics (Exotic
Plants-Noxious Weeds Section).

Donaldson, S.G. 1997. Flood-borne noxious weeds: impacts on riparian
areas and wetlands. 1997 Symposium Proceedings of California Exotic Pest
Plant Council.

Sheley, R.L., B.H. Mullin, and P.K. Fay. 1995. Managing riparian weeds.
Rangelands 17(5):154-157.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates and Syracuse Research
Corporation. 1996. Selected Commercial Formulations of Glyphosate --
Accord, Rodeo, Roundup and Roundup Pro: Risk Assessment, Final Report.
Prepared for U.S. Forest Service, Task No. 2, USDA Contract No.
53-3187-5-12, USDA Order No. 43-3187-6-0085. June 30. Section 2, 4, 5
and Appendix A.

**GLYPHOSATE (Accord, Rodeo, Roundup) HERBICIDE -- AQUATIC RESOURCE
RISKS**

**ABSTRACT**

The three commonly used commercial formulations of isopropylamine salt
of glyphosate are Accord, Rodeo, and Roundup. Two of these, Accord and
Rodeo are basically isopropylamine salt of glyphosate with no enert
ingredients. Roundup includes additionally a polyethoxylated tallow
amine surfactant.

Glyphosate is readily soluble in water and strongly sorbed to most
soils. The most common methods of application are: backpack (selective)
foliar, hack and squirt, and roadside spraying (boom). Toxicity of
glyphosate to aquatic species is influenced by water acidity. It is 10
times more toxic in highly acidic water (pH 6 and lower) than in
alkaline water (pH 10), thus the LC50 's are variable (can be as low as
10 mg/l in acid water). The surfactant used in Roundup (POEA) is much
more toxic than glyphosate, and toxicity increases in alkaline waters.
Glyphosate is not effective as a herbicide on submerged aquatic plants.
Most species of algae and macrophytes are less sensitive than fish or
aquatic macroinvertebrates.

Glyphosate concentrations in water are reduced rapidly by microbial
degradation, dispertion, and binding to particulates. The surfactant
POEA acts similarly to glyphosate and has relatively short life in
water.

The following summarizes the available risk data for aquatic resources
(see appendices 23, 2-4, and 2-5):

  ----------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Compound**      **Species/Group**   **Lethal          **Sublethal
                                        effects**         effects**

  Glyphosate only   Rainbow trout,      LC50              Behavioral
  --                                                      

  Rodeo and Accord                                        observations --
                                                          see

                                                          page A-30

                    Chinook salmon      LC50              None

                    Coho salmon         LC50              Behavioral

                                                          observations see

                                                          page A-29

                    Sockeye             LC50              None

                    Flathead minnow     LC50              None

                    Channel catfish     LC50              None

                    Bluegill            LC50              None

                    Aquatic             LC50              Biochemical

                    invertebrates                         alterations --
                                                          see

                                                          page A-35

                    Aquatic plants      EC50              Growth inhibition
                                                          --

                                                          see page A-37
  ----------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ----------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Compound**      **Species/Group**   **Lethal          **Sublethal
                                        effects**         effects**

  Roundup/POEA      Rainbow trout       LC50              Behavioral
                                                          observations --
                                                          see page A-24

                    Sunfish, minnow,    LC50              None
                    catfish, bluegill,                    
                    bleak                                 

                    Chinook salmon      LC50              None

                    Coho salmon         LC50              Growth and other
                                                          sublethal
                                                          parameters -- see
                                                          page A-25

                    Sockeye salmon      LC50              Some weight
                                                          averages -- See
                                                          page A-25

                    Pink salmon         LC50              None

                    Aquatic             LC50              None
                    Invertebrates                         

                    Aquatic plants      EC50              Inhibition of
                                                          photosynthesis:
                                                          see page A-37
  ----------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------

[]{#Attach5 .anchor}**ATTACHMENT 5: Water Quality Effects of Three Dust
Abatement Compounds**

**By Kathy Heffner**

**Fisheries Biologist**

**Idaho Panhandle National Forests**

**Sandpoint Ranger District**

**May 15, 1996**

\[Note some conversion errors resulted in conversion between document
formats\]

**Abstract**

Dust abatement compounds are applied occasionally and annually to
National Forest roads to control dust and for surface stabilization.
However, little is known about the effects to water quality and fishes
from using these compounds on a limited basis. A literature review
concluded that the use of calcium and magnesium chloride is not without
some environmental effects. The chloride ion stays in solution and it is
the chloride that exhibits toxicity towards plants and animals. In areas
where high concentrations of salts are used for winter time deicing and
dust abatement, typically in the northeastern United Sates, is where
cumulative effects are most noticeable. For the purposes that the agency
uses these compounds, little environmental effects are anticipated
ligninsulfonate is highly stable in the environment, however it is also
water soluble. Fish have high tolerance to ligninsulfonates. The
greatest concern in using this product is that it increases the
biochemical oxygen demand to receiving waters which may result in
reduced productivity and even fish kills.

**Calcium and Magnesium**

**Chloride Chemical Properties**

Calcium and magnesium chloride are simple salts that can be found in
natural brine deposits within the earth. Their chemical formulas are
CaCl and MgCl respectively. Calcium chloride is available commercially
as a solid (flakes or pellets) and calcium and magnesium chloride are
available as a colorless, odorless liquid. Calcium chloride is a
by-product of soda-ash manufacturing and magnesium chloride is produced
from natural sea water. They are both able to adsorb moisture from the
air (deliquescence) and hold this moisture as a liquid for a long period
of time by resisting evaporation (hydroscopicity). Calcium and magnesium
chloride cease to adsorb moisture from the air when the humidity falls
below 30 to 40 percent (Langdon et al. 1980). However, magnesium
chloride appears to work better in desert regions, whereas calcium
chloride may work better in higher attitudes with more rain (Idaho
Department of environmental Quality Fact Sheet). Calcium and magnesium
chloride will completely dissociate in excess water into its constituent
ions of Ca2+, Mg2+ and CI-.

**Movement through the Soil**

Calcium and magnesium chloride move through the soil with water. In
other words, they are highly soluble. Their movement is largely
dependent upon the rate and frequency of rainfall, the drainage
characteristics of the area of application and chemical and physical
nature of the soil.

In periods of light rainfall, calcium and magnesium chloride remain as
hydrated complexes and move vertically with soil surface moisture.
During wet periods, they will move deeper into the soil strata, whereas
during periods of evaporation they will again move towards the surface.
Because of their deliquescence, calcium and magnesium chloride remain as
a liquid under these conditions and stay dispersed within the top few
inches of the soil.

Lateral movement of calcium and magnesium chloride does occur but at
much slower rate. One study, using an unpaved sandy clay test road,
showed that after a 55 month weathering period, calcium chloride was
detected at 24 inches from the edge of the road section, only 4.1
percent of the original amount that was applied to the road surface.
Another study, using a course-textured base and fine-textured subgrade,
found it 12 inches away from the edge of the road section after a 2.5
month weathering period. The application concentrations used for the
previous studies is unknown and no information for rainfall conditions
was presented. Although, chloride solutions tend to move through soils
at virtually the same speed as the wetting front (Martin 1989). Based on
the above information, it could be expected for calcium chloride to move
laterally about 6 inches a year.

However, with rainfalls of higher duration and/or intensity, or in areas
with exceptionally high drainage rates (rapid change in topographical
elevation, impervious soil-or low cation binding capacity soil), calcium
and magnesium chloride can move considerable distances either as surface
runoff or as soil leachate. Surface runoff typically drains into
streams, rivers, ponds or lakes, whereas leachates feed ground-water
aquifers. Under these conditions, it is principally the constituent
ions, Ca2+, Mg2+ and CI-, that migrate through the environment.

The Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions are readily adsorbed by soil panicles because
most soil colloids carry a net negative charge on their surface and
under normal conditions this electrical charge is neutralized by an
equivalent amount of oppositely charged cations. Since most soils
display a net negative charge, they are quite limited in the anion
adsorption capacity. Therefore, CI- must compete with the exchangeable
anions and cannot effectively displace the bound anions in neutral
soils, except at extremely high levels. Chlorides, therefore, will tend
to remain in solution and can potentially infiltrate and enter the
ground water or drain as runoff into surface waters.

**Effects on the Environment**

As discussed previously, it is the dissociated calcium, magnesium and
chloride Ions that migrate through the environment rather than the
hydrated calcium and magnesium chloride. Because of *its* widespread
occurrence in rocks, and soils and *its* ready solubility, calcium and
are present in nearly all waters. Calcium is more abundant than any of
the other alkaline-earth metals. The addition of calcium and magnesium
from a dust suppressant probably would be insignificant when compared to
the amount already present in the environment. Since calcium and
magnesium generally will not migrate far from its site of application,
except in rare circumstances, its toxicity only pertains to the
immediate area around the application site. Chloride is present in all
natural waters, although in many areas the amounts are less than 50
parts per million (ppm). Chlorides are also basically unaffected by ion
exchange reactions in the soil and thus are capable of widespread
movement. Chloride is a common component of both dust suppressants and
road deicers. Many studies have been documented about chloride
groundwater pollution, mainly from the northeastern United States. Most
studies found that concentrations vary from season to season and year to
year because more salt is used in the winter and use depends on the
severity of the winter. Also, the closer the sampling site was to the
highway, the higher the concentrations. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) uses 250 ppm as an upper limit for chloride in drinking
water in their secondary regulations. Kunkle (1972) found that peak
chloride concentrations occurred during the summer dry period, which
indicates that some of the road salt found its way into soils, then into
subsurface flows, and finally emerged in summer\'s ground water inputs
into the stream. Chloride levels in the streams did not exceed 100 ppm
and the mean levels were below 50 ppm. No regulation exists which limits
the concentrations of calcium and magnesium found in drinking water,
although these ions cause hardness in water (Schwendeman 1981).

Pond and lake contamination has not been extensively studied. However,
because of its higher density, the salt will sink to the bottom and
stratification could result if little mixing occurs. These bodies of
water also, tend to vary in concentration from year to year. The
chloride could then leach into the bottom muds and enter the
groundwater, contaminating local aquifers. Chloride pollution could also
produce anaerobic conditions which could ultimately result in fish kills
and interrupt the lake food chain because the bottom feeders are most
likely to be affected by chloride contamination.

**Toxicity of Chloride to Plants and Fish**

The potential toxicity to plants from the use of salts is based on the
type of plant and on the amount of exposure to the salt solution.
Exposure could occur through direct contact to leaves and stems or by
indirect contact via the plant root zone. Direct contact of plant leaves
with the salt adversely affects plants by creating an osmotic imbalance
and subsequent dehydration, resulting ultimately in defoliation of the
plant. Indirect contact could result in chloride toxicities. Excessive
levels of chloride in plant tissues may lead to necrosis, bum of leaf
tips and margins and eventual death. Generally, irrigation and runoff
waters containing less than 70 ppm chlorides are safe for most plants.
Predicted worst-case chloride levels in runoff from areas receiving
calcium or magnesium chloride applications would probably drop to less
than 70 ppm within 5 to 30 feet of the application area (Martin 1989).

Some freshwater fish exhibit a great deal of tolerance to salts in
general and chloride in particular. One studied showed that pike, bass
and perch can tolerate chloride levels exceeding 4,000 ppm. Trout,
however, could only withstand chloride levels of 400 ppm. Salt
concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm place all freshwater species of
bacteria, algae, invertebrates, fish and higher plants in immediate
jeopardy (Schwendeman 1981).

**Conclusions**

Based on the literature review it was recognized that calcium and
magnesium chloride does have some harmful environmental effects,
especially to roadside vegetation. Possible damages can occur on a
yearly and cumulative basis is also recognized. Martin (1989) reported
that concentrations of magnesium chloride in a loam soil, after 50 years
of consecutive applications at a rate of 1.0 gallon per square yard,
would be estimated at 24,609 ppm to a depth of 7 feet. This implies that
a water table with an average depth of 20 feet would have a chloride
concentration of approximately 197 ppm after 50 years of application.
Therefore, the quantity of soluble salts which may enter a shallow water
table (less than 25 feet) beneath the area of application after years of
repeated treatment may be significant (Martin 1989). Most studies
focused on winter time deicing practices where large quantities of salt
were used. One study reported that wells that were contaminated with
chloride (in excess of 250 ppm} were on average 24 feet away from the
highway. Martin (1989) showed that a worst case scenario for a 20 cubic
feet per second (cfs) stream results In a chloride concentration of
274.5 ppm in a 24-hour period. which is slightly above the drinking
water standard and below the tolerable limits for trout Typical dust
abatement application rate of calcium chloride flake is anywhere from 5
to 7 tons/mile/year at 1.51bs per square yard, depending on width of the
treated road surface (Langdon et. al. 1980; Schwendeman 1981; Moses
1981; Singer et al. 1982). Typical application rate of magnesium
chloride, in a brine solution, is usually 0.5 gallons per square yard or
3500 gallons per mile, equating to 18 tons/mile/year (Schwendeman 1981;
Martin 1989).

Please keep in mind that the 18 tons/mile/year includes the weight of
the water. Since magnesium chloride is in a brine solution and is
further diluted with water, a conversion factor was needed in order to
make a comparison; 1.5 lbs per square yard of calcium chloride equals
0.4 gallons per square yard of magnesium chloride (Tom Oxford. personal
communication). Using this conversion factor and the usual application
rate of magnesium chloride, it was determined that 7.5 to9
tons/mile/year of actual magnesium chloride is applied for dust control
purposes.

Typical application rate of sodium chloride, as a road deicer and a
solid, is 20 tons/mile/year. More runoff to the shoulder of the road and
higher concentrations in drainage areas would be expected when applied
to paved roads. At 20 tons/mile/year, the chloride concentrations start
to rise above 250 ppm. Usually dust abatement solutions are applied once
or twice a year. If applied a second time, the concentration is less
than the first application. Singer et al. (1982) noted that the
environmental effects following the use of calcium; chloride as a dust
suppressant should be considerably less than those observed from its use
as a road - deicer. Therefore, it is unlikely that receiving waters
could have concentrations high enough to cause growth \-- or survival
problems for fishes. However, avoidance of areas where the treated road
segment is within 25, feet of the creek would be expected. The
influences from using these dust abatement compounds could be reduced by
restricting the use of these compounds within 25 feet of a water body.
Martin (1989) found that in areas of shallow ground water (less than 25
feet) there could be a potential for the chloride to move through the
soil and encounter the groundwater. Martin (1989) also found that
vegetation greater than 25 feet away from the treatment area did not
show any signs of stunting.

**Ligninsulfonates**

**Chemical Properties**

All tree species are comprised of three major chemical components:
cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Lignin encompasses a complex group
of high molecular weight polymers. As a group, the lignins are second
only to cellulose in abundance as natural polymers. Since very few
biological agents can degrade the lignin molecule (bacteria can only
desulfonate and degrade the smaller aromatic groups in lignin), the
molecule is extremely stable environmentally. Fungi seem to be the most
active at biodegrading ligninsulfonates.

Pulp and paper mills generate lignin as waste byproduct. Of the four
major pulping processes used in the United States (\[krart\], sulfite,
semi-chemical and groundwood), only the sulfite (or acid process)
generates ligninsulfonates. Wood chips are cooked with salts of
sulfurous acid to remove the lignin. In this process, lignin is
solubilized through degradation and sulfonation. The dark solutions
containing the degraded ligninsulfonate called spent sulfite liquors
(SSL) and the solubilized lignin derivatives are called
ligninsulfonates. The SSL also contain appreciable quantities of the
naturally occurring wood sugars. Approximately 55 percent of the liquor
consists of these polymers, with the remainder composed of sulfurous
acid and either Cabisuffite, Na-bisulfite, NH4-bisuIfite or Mg-bisulfite
and humic acid. If these liquors are to be utilized as dust
suppressants, f the concentrate is normally available in a 50 percent
solid and 50 percent water mixture (Langdon et al. 1980: Schwendeman
1981). Application rates for dust suppression vary, but the most
recommended rate; was 0.5 gal/yd2 of road surface using the 5050
solution (Van Belle 1977; Langdon et al. 1980; Schwendeman 1981). This
equates to about 2.5 Ibs/yd2, which equals about 10.3 tons/mile.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently allows for the use of
ammonium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium \-- ligninsulfonates in animal
feeds. They may used as pelleting aids, binding aids or as metabolizable
energy, with the provision that the amount does not exceed four percent
of the finished product. Liquid ligninsulfonates may also be used as
surfactant in molasses for feeds, with the provision that the amount
does not exceed 11 percent of the molasses. The FDA also allows for the
use of ligninsulfonates and its calcium, potassium and sodium salts as
components in paper or paperboard which comes into direct contact with
aqueous or fatty foods.

**Movement through the Soil**

Unlike lignin, ligninsulfonates are considered water soluble. Like
calcium chloride, ligninsulfonates move through the environment with
water. With increasing amounts of rainfall, ligninsulfonates are easily
washed away. Clay holds the ligninsulfonates more tightly than other
soil particles, but not tightly enough to hold them in the presence of
passing water flow. Even in regions where annual rainfall is relatively
high (60-80 inches) there is good evidence that leaching of
ligninsulfonates from stabilized road soils is minor, providing such
soils contain enough clay (10-20 percent) to absorb the lignin material
(ITT Rayonier Inc. 1973). Schwendeman (1981) reports that soils best
suited for ligninsulfonate treatment are those where 70 to 100 percent
of the particles pass through a 3/4 inch sieve and 20 to 50 percent are
silt or clay. He also reported that in some circumstances the road could
become slippery when wet.

**Effects on the Environment**

Due to their low penetrability through soils, ligninsulfonates pose
little, if any, threat to ground water aquifers when applied on the
surface. The same would be true for plants. Probably for this reason,
little or no studies have been conducted addressing these topics. There
are several studies that show where lignin and ligninsulfonates were
discharges into water bodies resulted in pollution problems. Receiving
waters exhibited excessive foaming and discoloration with the
introduction of ligninsulfonates. This discoloration is theorized to be
responsible for reducing the biological activity in the polluted water.

**Toxicity of Ligninsulfonates to Fish**

When used as a dust suppressant, ligninsulfonate will primarily affect
the area in or around the area of application. The exception being the
aquatic biota, when introduced into a waterway, ligninsulfonate will
increase the biochemical oxygen demand of the water and could impart a
light yellow tint to the water (Schwendeman 1981).

A number of studies have been conducted on the toxic effects of pulp
effluents. One study reported toxic effects of sulfite effluents on fish
and aquatic organism. As stated earlier, ligninsulfonates only
constitutes approximately 55 percent of the waste effluent with the
remainder consisting of such materials as acids and bisulfites.

Ligninsulfonates have been shown to exhibit direct toxic effects on
rainbow trout. The LC50 at 48 hours (concentration of ligninsulfonates
which would be lethal to 50% of the test population within 48 hours) was
calculated to be 71500 ppm. Other studies for various types of
ligninsulfonates calculated the LC50 at 96 hours ranging between 2, 125
to 7,300 ppm (Adams 1988). A retarding effect on growth was observed at
sublethal concentrations as low as 160 ppm because ligninsulfonates seem
to impair the activities of several digestive enzymes.

With respect to other aquatic organisms, biota living in the lower
levels of lakes and rivers are likely to be at greater risk from
ligninsulfonate pollution. The reasons for this are the effects that
they exert on the availability of oxygen. First, the color resulting
from the presence of lignin reduces the penetrability of light which
subsequently inhibits the photosynthetic activity of algae. Thus, the
supply of oxygen to the system is diminished by this reduced activity.
Second, due to their negative surface charge, ligninsulfonates adsorb
other materials such as proteins that are in the water. The heavier
particle that is formed is insoluble and settles to the bottom where it
adds to the oxygen demand. If the oxygen demand exceeds the supply, a
die-off of those organisms which require oxygen to sustain life may
occur.

**Conclusions**

Except for trout, ligninsulfonates seem to pose little direct systemic
toxicity problems in aquatic organisms, animals and humans or any
problem with local vegetation. Because of associated microbial slime
growths, problems with potable water treatment and unpleasant
environmental conditions might occur downstream from an application
site. It is recommended to determine if significant migration (water
drainage) of ligninsulfonates might occur from the area to be treated
into local streams, ponds and lake prior to application. To achieve the
most effectiveness from treatment, specific soil aggregate surface is
required

**Summary**

Singer el al. (1982) noted that because there is a greater volume of
information on the use and effects of calcium chloride than there is on
ligninsulfonates, the use of calcium chloride would be preferred. As
most, of the environmental problems appear to be associated with pulp
and paper mill effluents generally and not with ligninsulfonates
specifically, they would not recommend using waste sulfite liquors as
dusts suppressants. However, Schwendeman (1981) reported that the most
environmentally compatible dust palliative is ligninsulfonate, although,
he recommended the use of either calcium or magnesium chloride because
of their lower cost.

The British Columbia Ministry of Environment (1990) conducted a study on
several road dust abatement chemicals. The results are listed in
Table 1. The results Of this lest indicate that all of the dust
abatement compounds evaluated, with the exception of emulsion oil, were
in the range of practically non-toxic to non-toxic Oe: LC50 of \>1,000
ppm to \>10,000 ppm). The Ministry of Environment has no objections to
the continued use of these products.

**Table 1. Rainbow Trout 96 hour LC80 Dust Suppressant Results.**

**Name PPM**

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------
  25% Calcium Chloride                         52,000

  35% Calcium Chloride                         45,000

  77% Calcium Chloride Flake                   11,000

  35% Magnesium Chloride                       9,000

  Sodium Ligninsulfonate                       6,400

  Calcium Ligninsulfonate                      5,200

  Emulsion Oil                                 200

  Sunlight Laundry Detergent                   10
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------

**References**

The majority of the discussion on calcium chloride and ligninsulfonates
was taken from Singer et al. (1982). Martin (1989) contributed most of
the discussion on magnesium chloride.

Adams, J.W. 1988. Environmental Effects of Applying Ligninsulfonates to
Roads. Reed Lignin, Research and Development.

ITT Rayonier Inc. 1973. Rayobinder Application Guide for Dirt Road
Stabilization and Dust Abatement. New York, NY.

Kunkle, S.H. 1972. Effects of Road Salt on a Vermont Stream. Journal of
AWWA, Water Technology/Resources, p290-294.

Langdon, B., R.G. Hicks, and R. Williamson. 1980. A Guide for Selecting
and Using Dust Palliatives. Transportation Research Institute,
Department of Civil Engineering, Transportation Research Report 80:13.
Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Martin, H. 1989. Dust-Off Environmental Safety Report for Leslie Salt
Company. McLaren Environmental Engineering, Regulatory Affairs. Rancho
Cordova, California.

Ministry of Environment, 1990. Toxicity Evaluation of Road Dust
Abatement Chemicals. Province of British Columbia Environmental
Protection Division.

Moses, P.J. 1981. An Environmental Review of Calcium Chloride in Road
Dust Control and Stabilization Applications. Dow Chemical Company.

Oxford, Tom. Oxford Inc. P.O. Box 764, Moyie Springs, Idaho, 83845.
Local Distributor.

Schwendeman, T. 1981. Dust Control Study, Gallatin National Forest. USDA
Forest Service Region 1.

Singer, R.D., J.B. Stevens, J.R. Gleason, D.A. Baker, T.M. Baker and
A.V. McEmber. 1982. An Environmental Evaluation of Dust Suppressants:
Calcium Chloride and Ligninsulfonates. United States Department of
Interior, Bureau of Mines, PB83-171967.

Van Belle, J. 1977. A report on the Use of Lignin Sulfonate as a Dust
Abative Material. Yakima County Public Works Department. Yakima,
Washington.

[]{#Attach6 .anchor}ATTACHMENT 6

SCREEN CRITERIA FOR JUVENILE FISH

**JUVENILE FISH SCREEN CRITERIA**

**Developed by**

**National Marine Fisheries Service**

**Environmental & Technical Services Division**

**Portland, Oregon**

**Revised February 16, 1995**

**[I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:]{.underline}**

This document provides guidelines and criteria to be utilized in the
development of functional designs of downstream migrant fish passage
facilities for hydroelectric, irrigation, and other water withdrawal
projects. This material has been prepared by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a direct result of responsibilities for
prescribing fishways (including fish screen and bypass systems) under
Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, administered by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). This material is also applicable for
projects that are undergoing consultation with the NMFS, pursuant to
responsibilities for protecting fish under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).

Since these guidelines and criteria are general in nature, there may be
cases where site constraints or extenuating circumstances dictate that
certain criteria be waived or modified. Conversely, where there is a
need to provide additional protection for fish, site-specific criteria
may be added. These circumstances will be considered by NMFS on a
project-by-project basis.

In designing an effective fish screen facility, the swimming ability of
the fish is a primary consideration. Research has shown that swimming
ability of fish varies and may depend upon a number of factors relating
to the physiology of the fish, including species, size, duration of
swimming time required, behavioral aspects, migrational stage, physical
condition and others, in addition to water quality parameters such as
dissolved oxygen concentrations, water temperature, lighting conditions,
and others. For this reason, screen criteria must be expressed in
general terms.

To minimize risks to anadromous fish at some locations, the NMFS may
require investigation (by the project sponsors) of important and poorly
defined site-specific variables that are deemed critical to development
of the screen and bypass design. This investigation may include factors
such as fish behavioral response to hydraulic conditions, weather
conditions (ice, wind, flooding, etc.), river stage-discharge
relationships, seasonal operational variability, potential for sediment
and debris problems, resident fish populations, potential for creating
predation opportunity, and other information. The size of salmonids
present at a potential screen site usually is not known, and can change
from year to year based on flow and temperature conditions. Thus,
adequate data to describe the size-time relationship requires
substantial sampling efforts over a number of years. The NMFS will
assume that fry-sized salmonids and low water temperatures are present
at all sites and apply the appropriate criteria listed below, unless
adequate biological investigation proves otherwise. The burden-of-proof
is the responsibility of the owner of the screen facility.

Proposed facilities which could have particularly significant impacts on
fish, and new unproven juvenile fish protection designs, frequently
require: 1) development of a biological basis for the concept; 2)
demonstration of favorable fish behavioral response in a laboratory
setting; 3) an acceptable plan for evaluating the prototype
installation; and 4) an acceptable alternate plan developed concurrently
for a screen and bypass system satisfying these criteria, should the
prototype not adequately protect fish. Additional information on
unproven juvenile fish protection devices can be found in
\"[Experimental Fish Guidance Devices]{.underline},\" Position Statement
of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, January 6,
1995.

Screen and bypass criteria for juvenile salmonids are provided below.
Specific exceptions to these criteria occur in the design of small
screen and bypass systems (less than 25 cubic feet per second). These
are listed in Section K, Modified Criteria for Small Screens.

Striped bass, herring, shad, and other anadromous fish species may have
eggs and/or very small fry which are moved with any water current
(tides, streamflows, etc.). Installations where these species are
present may require special screen and/or bypass facilities, including
micro-screens and require individual evaluation of the proposed project.
In instances where local regulatory agencies require more stringent
screening requirements for species of resident or anadromous fish, the
NMFS will generally defer to the more conservative criteria.

**[II. GENERAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES]{.underline}**

A functional design should be developed that defines type, location,
size, hydraulic capacity, method of operation, and other pertinent
juvenile fish screen facility characteristics. In the case of
applications to be submitted to the FERC and consultations under the
ESA, a functional design for juvenile (and adult) fish passage
facilities must be developed and submitted as part of the application.
It must reflect the NMFS input and design criteria and be acceptable to
the NMFS. Functional design drawings must show all pertinent hydraulic
information, including water surface elevations and flows through
various areas of the structures. Functional design drawings must show
general structural sizes, cross-sectional shapes, and elevations. Types
of materials must be identified where they will directly affect fish.
The final detailed design shall be based on the functional design,
unless changes are agreed to by the NMFS.

All juvenile passage facilities shall be designed to function properly
through the full range of hydraulic conditions in the lake, tidal area,
or stream and in the diversion, and shall account for debris and
sedimentation conditions which may occur.

**[III. SCREEN CRITERIA FOR JUVENILE SALMONIDS]{.underline}**

**A. Structure Placement**

1\. **Streams and Rivers:**

a\. **Where physically practical and biologically desirable, the screen
shall be constructed at the diversion entrance** with the screen face
generally parallel to river flow. Physical factors that may preclude
screen construction at the diversion entrance include excess river
gradient, potential for damage by large debris, and potential for heavy
sedimentation. For screens constructed at the bankline, the screen face
shall be aligned with the adjacent bankline and the bankline shall be
shaped to smoothly match the face of the screen structure to prevent
eddies in front, upstream, and downstream of the screen. If trash racks
are used, sufficient hydraulic gradient is required to route juvenile
fish from between the trash rack and screens to safety.

b\. **Where installation of fish screens at the diversion entrance is
not desirable or impractical**, the screens may be installed in the
canal downstream of the entrance at a suitable location. All screens
installed downstream from the diversion entrance shall be provided with
an effective bypass system approved by NMFS, designed to collect
juvenile fish and safely transport them back to the river with minimum
delay. The angle of the screen to flow should be adequate to effectively
guide fish to the bypass (see Section F, Bypass Layout).

2\. **Lakes, Reservoirs and Tidal areas:**

a\. **Intakes shall be located offshore** where feasible to minimize
fish contact with the facility. Water velocity from any direction toward
the screen shall not exceed allowable approach velocities (see Section
B, Approach Velocity). When possible, intakes shall be located in areas
with sufficient sweeping velocity to minimize sediment accumulation in
or around the screen and to facilitate debris removal and fish movement
away from the screen face (see Section C, Sweeping Velocity).

b\. If a **screened intake is used to route fish past a dam**, the
intake shall be designed to withdraw water from the most appropriate
elevation based on providing the best juvenile fish attraction and
appropriate water temperature control downstream of the project. The
entire range of forebay fluctuation shall be accommodated in design,
unless otherwise approved by the NMFS.

**B. Approach Velocity** - Definition: Approach velocity is the water
velocity component perpendicular to and approximately three inches in
front of the screen face.

1\. **Salmonid fry** \[less than 2.36 inches {60.0 millimeters (mm)} in
length\]: The approach velocity shall not exceed 0.40 feet per second
(fps) {0.12 meters per second (mps)}.

2\. **Salmonid fingerling** {2.36 inches (60.0 mm) and longer}: The
approach velocity shall not exceed 0.80 fps (0.24 mps).

3\. The **total submerged screen area required** (excluding area
affected by structural components) is calculated by dividing the maximum
diverted flow by the allowable approach velocity (also see Section K,
Modified Criteria for Small Screens).

4\. The screen design must provide for **uniform flow distribution**
over the screen surface, thereby minimizing approach velocity. This may
be accomplished by providing **adjustable porosity control** on the
downstream side of screens, unless it can be shown unequivocally (such
as with a physical hydraulic model study) that localized areas of high
velocity can be avoided at all flows.

**C. Sweeping Velocity** - Definition: Sweeping velocity is the water
velocity component parallel and adjacent to the screen face.

1\. Sweeping velocity shall be **greater than the approach velocity**.
This is accomplished by angling the screen face at less than 45
relative to flow (also see Section K, Modified Criteria for Small
Screens). This angle may be dictated by site specific canal geometry,
hydraulic, and sediment conditions.

**D. Screen Face Material**

1\. **Fry criteria** - If biological justification can not be provided
to demonstrate the absence of fry-sized salmonids {less than 2.36 inches
(60.0 mm)} in the vicinity of the diversion intake leading to the
screen, fry will be assumed present and the following criteria apply for
screen material:

> a\. **Perforated plate:** Screen openings shall not exceed **3/32 or
> 0.0938 inches** (2.38 mm).
>
> b\. **Profile bar screen:** The narrowest dimension in the screen
> openings shall not exceed **0.0689 inches** (1.75 mm) in the narrow
> direction.
>
> c\. **Woven wire screen:** Screen openings shall not exceed **3/32 or
> 0.0938 inches** (2.38 mm) in the narrow direction (example: 6-14
> mesh).
>
> d\. Screen material shall provide a minimum of **27% open area**.

2\. **Fingerling criteria** - If biological justification can be
provided to demonstrate the absence of fry-sized salmonids {less than
2.36 inches (60.0 mm)} in the vicinity of the diversion intake leading
to the screen, the following criteria apply for screen material:

> a\. **Perforated plate:** Screen openings shall not exceed **1/4 or
> 0.25 inches** (6.35 mm).
>
> b\. **Profile bar screen:** The narrowest dimension in the screen
> openings shall not exceed **1/4 or 0.25 inches** (6.35 mm) in the
> narrow direction.
>
> c\. **Woven wire screen:** Screen openings shall not exceed **1/4 or
> 0.25 inches** (6.35 mm) in the narrow direction.
>
> d\. Screen material shall provide a minimum of **40% open area**.

3\. The screen material shall be **corrosion resistant** and
sufficiently durable to maintain a smooth uniform surface with long term
use.

**E. Civil Works and Structural Features**

1\. The face of all **screen surfaces shall be placed flush** (to the
extent possible) with any adjacent screen bay, pier noses, and walls to
allow fish unimpeded movement parallel to the screen face and ready
access to bypass routes.

2\. Structural features shall be provided to **protect the integrity of
the fish screens** from large debris. Provision of a **trash rack, log
boom, sediment sluice**, and other measures may be needed. A reliable,
ongoing **preventative maintenance and repair program** is necessary to
assure facilities are kept free of debris and that screen mesh, seals,
drive units, and other components are functioning correctly.

3\. Screen surfaces shall be constructed at an angle to the approaching
flow, with the downstream end of the **screen terminating at the
entrance to the bypass system**.

4\. The civil works shall be designed in a manner that **eliminates
undesirable hydraulic effects** (such as eddies and stagnant flow zones)
that may delay or injure fish or provide predator habitat or predator
access. **Upstream training wall(s)**, or some acceptable variation
thereof, shall be utilized to control hydraulic conditions and define
the angle of flow to the screen face. Large facilities **may require
hydraulic modeling** to identify and correct areas of concern.

**F. Bypass Layout**

1\. The **screen and bypass shall work in tandem** to move out-migrating
salmonids (including adults) to the bypass outfall with a minimum of
injury or delay. The bypass entrance shall be located so that it can
easily be located by out-migrants. Screens placed in diversions shall be
constructed with the downstream end of the **screen terminating at a
bypass entrance**. **Multiple bypass entrances** (intermediate bypasses)
shall be employed if the sweeping velocity will not move fish to the
bypass within 60 seconds, assuming fish are transported at this
velocity.

2\. The bypass entrance and all components of the bypass system shall be
of **sufficient size and hydraulic capacity to minimize the potential
for debris blockage**.

3\. In order to improve bypass collection efficiency for a single bank
of vertically-oriented screens, a **bypass training wall** shall be
located at an angle to the screens, with the bypass entrance at the apex
and downstream-most point. This will aid fish movement into the bypass
by creating hydraulic conditions that conform to observed fish behavior.
For single or multiple vee screen configurations, training walls are not
required, unless a intermediate bypass is used (see Section F, Bypass
Layout, Part 1).

4\. In cases where there is insufficient flow available to satisfy
hydraulic requirements at the bypass entrance (entrances) for the main
screens, a **secondary screen** may be required. This is a screen
located in the main screen bypass which allows the prescribed bypass
flow to be used to effectively attract fish into the bypass entrance(s)
and then allow for all but a reduced residual bypass flow to be routed
back (by pump or gravity) for the primary diversion use. The residual
bypass flow (not passing through the secondary screen) would then convey
fish to the bypass outfall location or other destination.

5\. **Access is required** at locations in the bypass system where
debris accumulations may occur.

6\. The **screen civil works floor** shall be designed to allow fish to
be routed back to the river safely, if the canal is dewatered. This may
entail a sumped drain with a small gate and drain pipe, or similar
provisions.

**G. Bypass Entrance**

1\. Each bypass entrance shall be provided with **independent
flow-control capability**, acceptable to NMFS.

2\. The **minimum bypass entrance flow velocity** must be greater than
or equal to the maximum flow velocity vector resultant upstream of the
screens. A gradual and efficient acceleration of flow into the bypass
entrance is required to minimize delay by out-migrants.

3\. **Ambient lighting conditions** are required at, and inside of, the
bypass entrance and should extend downstream to the bypass flow control.

4\. The **bypass entrance** must extend from the floor to the canal
water surface.

**H. Bypass Conduit Design**

1\. Bypass pipes shall have **smooth surfaces** and be designed to
provide conditions that minimize turbulence. Bypass conduits shall have
a **smooth joint design** to minimize turbulence and the potential for
fish injury and shall be satisfactory to the NMFS.

2\. Fish shall **not be pumped** within the bypass system.

3\. Fish shall **not be allowed to free-fall within a confined shaft**
in a bypass system.

4\. **Pressures in the bypass pipe** shall be equal to or above
atmospheric pressures.

5\. **Bends shall be avoided** in the layout of bypass pipes due to the
potential for debris clogging. **Bypass pipe center-line radius of
curvature** (R/D) shall be greater than or equal to 5. Greater R/D may
be required for super-critical velocities.

6\. Bypass pipes or open channels shall be designed to **minimize debris
clogging and sediment deposition** and to facilitate cleaning as
necessary. Therefore, the required pipe diameter shall be greater than
or equal to 24 inches {0.610 meters (m)}, and pipe velocity shall be
greater than 2.0 fps (0.610 mps), unless otherwise approved by the NMFS,
for the entire operational range (also see Section K, Modified Criteria
for Small Screens, Part 4).

7\. **Closure valves** of any type are not allowed within the bypass
pipe, unless approved by NMFS.

8\. The **minimum depth** of open-channel flow in a bypass conduit shall
be greater than or equal to 0.75 feet (0.23 m), unless otherwise
approved by the NMFS (also see Section K, Modified Criteria for Small
Screens, Part 5).

9\. **Sampling facilities** installed in the bypass conduit shall not
impair normal operation of the facility.

10\. The bypass pipe hydraulics should not produce a **hydraulic jump**
within the pipe.

**I. Bypass Outfall**

1\. Bypass outfalls should be located such that **ambient river
velocities** are greater than 4.0 fps (1.2 mps).

2\. Bypass outfalls shall be **located to minimize avian and aquatic
predation** in areas free of eddies, reverse flow, or known predator
habitat.

3\. Bypass outfalls shall be **located where the receiving water is of
sufficient depth** (depending on the impact velocity and quantity of
bypass flow) to ensure that fish injuries are avoided at all river and
bypass flows.

4\. Maximum bypass outfall **impact velocity** (including vertical and
horizontal velocity components) shall be less than 25.0 fps (7.6 mps).

5\. The bypass outfall discharge into tailrace shall be designed to
**avoid adult attraction or jumping injuries**.

**J. Operations and Maintenance**

1\. Fish screens shall be **automatically cleaned** as frequently as
necessary to prevent accumulation of debris. The cleaning system and
protocol must be effective, reliable, and satisfactory to the NMFS.
Proven cleaning technologies are preferred.

2\. Open channel intakes shall include a trash rack in the screen
facility design which shall be kept free of debris. In certain cases, a
satisfactory profile bar screen design can substitute for a trash rack.

3\. The head differential to trigger screen cleaning for intermittent
type cleaning systems shall be a maximum of 0.1 feet (0.03 m) or as
agreed to by the NMFS.

4\. The completed screen and bypass facility shall be made available for
inspection by NMFS, to verify compliance with the design and operational
criteria.

5\. Screen and bypass facilities shall be evaluated for biological
effectiveness and to verify that hydraulic design objectives are
achieved.

**K. Modified Criteria for Small Screens (Diversion flow less than 25
cfs)**

The following criteria vary from the criteria listed above and apply to
smaller screens. Twenty-five cfs is an approximate cutoff; however, some
smaller diversions may be required to apply more universal criteria
listed above, while some larger diversions may be allowed to use the
\"small screen\" criteria listed below. This will depend on site
constraints.

1\. The **screen area required** is shown in Section B, Approach
Velocity, Parts 1, 2 and 3. Note that \"maximum\" applies to the
greatest flow diverted, not necessarily the water right.

2\. **Screen orientation**:

> a\. For **screen lengths less than or equal to 4 feet**, screen
> orientation may be angled or perpendicular relative to flow.
>
> b\. For **screen lengths greater than 4 feet**, screen-to-flow angles
> must be **less than or equal to 45 degrees** (see Section C, Sweeping
> Velocity, Part 1).
>
> c\. For drum screens, the **design submergence shall be 75%** of drum
> diameter. Submergence shall not exceed 85%, nor be less than 65% of
> drum diameter.

3\. The **minimum bypass pipe diameter shall be 10 inches**, unless
otherwise approved by NMFS.

4\. The **minimum allowable pipe depth is 0.15 feet** (1.8 inches or 4.6
cm) and is controlled by designing the pipe gradient for minimum bypass
flow.

Questions concerning this document can be directed to NMFS Environmental
and Technical Services Division Engineering staff, at 503-230-5400.

Adopted,

(original on file)

William Stelle, Jr. Date [3-23-95]{.underline}

Regional Director

**ADDENDUM**

**JUVENILE FISH SCREEN CRITERIA FOR PUMP INTAKES**

**Developed by**

**National Marine Fisheries Service**

**Environmental & Technical Services Division**

**Portland, Oregon**

**May 9, 1996**

The following criteria serve as an addendum to current National Marine
Fisheries Service gravity intake juvenile fish screen criteria. These
criteria apply to new pump intake screens and existing inadequate pump
intake screens, as determined by fisheries agencies with project
jurisdiction.

**[Definitions used in pump intake screen criteria]{.underline}**

**Pump intake screens** are defined as screening devices attached
directly to a pressurized diversion intake pipe. **Effective screen
area** is calculated by subtracting screen area occluded by structural
members from the total screen area. **Screen mesh opening** is the
narrowest opening in screen mesh. **Approach velocity** is the
calculated velocity component perpendicular to the screen face.
**Sweeping velocity** is the flow velocity component parallel to the
screen face with the pump turned off.

**Active** pump intake screens are equipped with a cleaning system with
proven cleaning capability, and are cleaned as frequently as necessary
to keep the screens clean. **Passive** pump intake screens have no
cleaning system and should only be used when the debris load is expected
to be low, and

> 1\) if a small screen (less than 1 CFS pump) is over-sized to
> eliminate debris impingement, and
>
> 2\) where sufficient sweeping velocity exists to eliminate debris
> build‑up on the screen surface, and
>
> 3\) if the maximum diverted flow is less than .01% of the total
> minimum streamflow, or
>
> 4\) the intake is deep in a reservoir, away from the shoreline.

**[Pump Intake Screen Flow Criteria]{.underline}**

The **minimum effective screen area** in square feet for an **active**
pump intake screen is calculated by dividing the maximum flow rate in
cubic feet per second (CFS) by an approach velocity of **0.4 feet per
second (FPS)**. The **minimum effective screen area** in square feet for
a **passive** pump intake screen is calculated by dividing the maximum
flow rate in CFS by an approach velocity of **0.2 FPS.** Certain site
conditions may allow for a waiver of the 0.2 FPS approach velocity
criteria and allow a passive screen to be installed using 0.4 FPS as
design criteria. These cases will be considered on a site-by-site basis
by the fisheries agencies.

If fry-sized salmonids (i.e. less than 60 millimeter fork length) are
not ever present at the site and larger juvenile salmonids are present
(as determined by agency biologists), approach velocity shall not exceed
0.8 FPS for active pump intake screens, or 0.4 FPS for passive pump
intake screens. The allowable flow should be distributed to achieve
uniform approach velocity (plus or minus 10%) over the entire screen
area. Additional screen area or flow baffling may be required to account
for designs with non-uniform approach velocity.

**[Pump Intake Screen Mesh Material]{.underline}**

**Screen mesh** openings shall not exceed **3/32 inch** (2.38 mm) for
woven wire or perforated plate screens, or 0.0689 inch (**1.75 mm**) for
profile wire screens, with a minimum **27% open area**. If fry-sized
salmonids are never present at the site (by determination of agency
biologists) screen mesh openings shall not exceed **1/4 inch** (6.35 mm)
for woven wire, perforated plate screens, or profile wire screens, with
a minimum of **40% open area.**

Screen mesh material and support structure shall work in tandem to be
sufficiently durable to withstand the rigors of the installation site.
No gaps greater than 3/32 inch shall exist in any type screen mesh or at
points of mesh attachment. Special mesh materials that inhibit aquatic
growth may be required at some sites.

**[Pump Intake Screen Location]{.underline}**

When possible, pump intake screens shall be placed in locations with
**sufficient sweeping velocity** to sweep away debris removed from the
screen face. Pump intake screens **shall be submerged** to a depth of at
least one screen radius below the minimum water surface, with a minimum
of one screen radius clearance between screen surfaces and adjacent
natural or constructed features. A **clear escape route** should exist
for fish that approach the intake volitionally or otherwise. For
example, if a pump intake is located off of the river (such as in an
intake lagoon), a conventional open channel screen should be considered,
placed in the channel or at the edge of the river. Intakes in reservoirs
should be as deep as practical, to reduce the numbers of juvenile
salmonids that approach the intake. Adverse alterations to riverine
habitat shall be minimized.

**[Pump Intake Screen Protection]{.underline}**

Pump intake screens **shall be protected** from heavy debris, icing and
other conditions that may compromise screen integrity. Protection can be
provided by using log booms, trash racks or mechanisms for removing the
intake from the river during adverse conditions. An **inspection and
maintenance plan** for the pump intake screen is required, to ensure
that the screen is operating as designed per these criteria.

**ATTACHMENT 7**

[]{#attach7 .anchor}**RIPARIAN ROAD GUIDE**

**INCLUDING:**

**ROAD SURFACE DRAINAGE SPACING**

In the 2003 version of Attachment 7, a page was inserted here with
information about the following document. The Terrece Institute is no
longer in operation and the article may no longer be in print.

Terrece Institute. Riparian Road Guide: Managing Roads to Enhance
Riparian Areas. 1994. 32 pp.

The following description was included as well: This guide provides a
step-by-step, cost-effective and practical approach to road building and
repair that results in both clean water and safe roads. Includes
photographs and charts that clearly explain new and emerging techniques.
Written for local governments and road designers and contractors, this
guide is also of interest to environmentalists and travelers.

**Criteria for Cross-Drain Spacings**

**Table 2. Cross-drain spacings required to prevent rill or gully
erosion deeper than 1 inch on secondary logging roads built in the upper
topographic position\* of north-facing slopes\*\* having a gradient of
80%\*\*\*.**

+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *       | **Cros  |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Road** | s-drain |         |         |         |         |         |
|         | sp      |         |         |         |         |         |
| **grade | acing** |         |         |         |         |         |
| (per    |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| cent)** |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|         | **Hard  | **B     | **Gra   | **      | **And   | **      |
|         | sed     | asalt** | nitic** | Glacial | esite** | Loess** |
|         | iment** |         |         | silt**  |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2       | 161     | 154     | 137     | 135     | 105     | 95      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 4       | 151     | 139     | 122     | 120     | 90      | 80      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 6       | 141     | 131     | 114     | 112     | 82      | 72      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 8       | 131     | 124     | 107     | 105     | 75      | 65      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 10      | 121     | 115     | 98      | 96      | 66      | 57      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 12      | 111     | 106     | 89      | 87      | 57      | 48      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 14      | 105     | 95      | 78      | 76      | 46      | 37      |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

**\* On middle topographic position, reduce spacings 18 feet on lower
topographic position, reduce spacings 36 feet.**

**\*\* On South aspects, reduce spacing 15 feet.**

**\*\*\* For each 10 percent decrease in slope steepness below 80%,
reduce spacing 5 feet.**

[]{#Attach8 .anchor}**ATTACHMENT 8\
**

**BRIDGE RELOCATION**

**BURGDORF BRIDGE RELOCATION**

***PURPOSE AND NEED***: The Burgdorf Bridge, crossing Lake Creek on FDR
50251, is currently the only access to Burgdorf Guard Station and
Burgdorf Campground. It also accesses sheep loading and unloading
facilities used by a permittee of the National Forest. The federal
action included all activities associated with relocating the bridge,
until they are completed.

This bridge, built in 1958, was determined in 1992 to be in disrepair.
Most of the structure was showing signs of age, and rot was present in
many of the components (as seen in the cores recovered during the last
bridge inspection). Original plans in 1993 called for relocating the
bridge about 128 feet downstream of its current location. Due to
structural concerns and continuing deterioration, the existing
superstructure, deck, and sills were replaced in 1998. These measures
were intended to be temporary to keep access open until the bridge could
be relocated and replaced. Continuing deterioration of the abutments,
erosion of the adjacent streambank due to channel meandering, and
availability of engineering funds have resulted in scheduling the full
replacement of this bridge in 2001. Construction of the approach road is
scheduled to begin after July 4. Construction of the new bridge is
scheduled to begin after Labor Day due to fisheries concerns and to
minimize conflicts with the public wishing to access Burgdorf
campground.

***LOCATION***: The site is in the Secesh River subwatershed at T23N R4E
Sec 1. Burgdorf Bridge crosses Lake Creek at this location. See map in
Current CD:\\support documents\\roads\\SFSR Burgdorf Bridge.pdf.

***DESCRIPTION***: The existing 55-foot long bridge will be replaced
with an 80-foot long self-weathering steel superstructure on retaining
wall abutments with timber fascia. The increased bridge span will leave
more of the floodplain in an undisturbed state, decreasing flow
constriction and allowing the channel additional room to meander
naturally. The new bridge will provide a 100-year flow of 1554
ft^2^/second and an additional 2.4 feet of clearance for debris passage.
It will also provide adequate stream bank clearance on either side so
that no in-stream work will be required, and the natural shoreline can
be restored and retained. (See plans in Current CD:\\support
documents\\roads\\SFSR Burgdorf Bridge.pdf).

The crossing location will be moved downstream about 128 feet.
Relocation, as well as the increased length, will accomplish a number of
objectives:

-   The new location removes the bridge from the vicinity of an
    unstable, undercutting bend just upstream of the existing site and
    places it across a straight reach with less sinuosity and a lower
    gradient. The new site is an improvement over the old one because of
    the lower gradient, less sinuosity, larger channel substrate, and a
    lack of active erosion of streambanks (pers. comm., Jim Fitzgerald,
    McCall District hydrologist).

-   Relocating the bridge to an area less likely to be affected by
    natural meandering will reduce sedimentation potential due to
    river/structure interactions and will allow reclamation and
    restoration of the old road location and stream site.

-   Effects to the wetland area, upper reach and feeder stream adjacent
    to the existing site will be reduced.

-   Potential road washout and stream sedimentation, which could occur
    associated with the undercutting bank just upstream of the existing
    site, will be reduced. The stream will be allowed to meander
    naturally in this area.

-   The existing bridge would serve as the detour for the duration of
    the project, eliminating the need to ford the river by those wanting
    access to the guard station or campground.

-   Removing the existing bridge will result in less use of an existing
    ford adjacent to it, resulting in less impact to a spawning area.

-   Better road alignment will increase sight distance, reducing the
    chance of accidents and potential fuel spills.

-   The wetland vegetation at the existing bridge approaches can be
    restored.

***REQUIRED MITIGATION:***

1\. General

-   All equipment refueling will occur outside of RHCAs (more than 300
    feet from water). Fuel for equipment will be transported in US DOT
    approved containers of less than 100 gallons in size. No fuel will
    be stored within RHCAs, and all vehicles transporting fuel will be
    parked outside of RHCAs. The fuel storage area will be determined by
    the contracting officer's representative and a journey level
    fisheries biologist. This minimizes the likelihood of fuel entering
    the stream, potentially causing mortality to eggs, juveniles or to
    adults.

-   Work at the construction site will occur during late fall, during
    low flow periods and after chinook spawning.

-   A journey level fishery biologist will survey the stream near the
    construction site for redds prior to any construction or demolition.
    Any identified redds will be protected from disturbance.

-   Fish found spawning near the project after the start of construction
    will be observed for effects (disturbance) by project activities. If
    activities are causing the fish to move away from redds,
    construction will be stopped until redds are completed, and the fish
    have left the area.

-   No personnel, vehicles, or equipment will be allowed to ford or work
    within the stream at any time except as necessary for restoration
    work. This reduces the likelihood of harassment of spawners, the
    potential of accidental 'take' of eggs in a redd by trampling, and
    sediment delivery.

-   Drafting of water for dust abatement and road compacting will be
    restricted to an area identified by a fishery biologist and/or
    hydrologist to reduce the potential for "take" of fish.

-   Any draft suction hose used will be equipped with a screen of 3/32
    inch mesh or less and will have an intake flow of less than 1
    foot/second to reduce the potential for entraining juvenile fish.

2\. Detour (Existing bridge)

-   The existing bridge will act as a detour during the construction of
    the new bridge. It will be removed once the new bridge is ready for
    use. Removal will occur during low water periods.

-   The remainder of the old roadbed will be removed and the roadbed
    recontoured to approximate the pre-project landscape.

-   A Revegetation Plan is being prepared by a journey level
    hydrologist. The plan will outline measures to re-establish/restore
    the shoreline and wetland area. The plan will provide for
    stabilization for up to three years, to protect the bank and
    vegetation during high flows until vegetation is well established.
    This plan will include incorporating willow wads at the bankfull
    elevation, planting sedge plugs throughout the reclaimed wetland
    area, and hydro mulching and tackifying all remaining unvegetated
    areas. The hydrologist will determine the sources for willow and
    sedge plug removal, as well as their placement. Holes created from
    source removal will be filled using salvaged topsoil. Fencing may be
    needed to protect the area from elk and sheep. The old road will be
    blockaded using large riprap.

-   The old roadbed and approaches will be revegetated using measures
    described above.

-   Best Management Practices (BMPs) using sediment mats, silt fences
    and/or straw bales, etc shall be included in the contract and will
    be in place prior to the final removal of the abutments and roadbed
    to control erosion.

-   Removal of the abutments will require working within bankfull
    perimeters. This work will occur during low flow periods to avoid
    entry into the active waterway. Erosion control materials identified
    above (silt fence, straw bales, etc.) will be used to reduce
    potential sediment delivery.

-   Riverbanks will be restored as much as possible once the old bridge
    is removed, with agreement from a journey level hydrologist and
    fisheries biologist.

-   No in-stream work will occur, except for restoration of the channel
    near the old bridge location.

-   A journey level hydrologist will remove erosion control structures
    when the site has revegetated.

-   Waste/excess excavation material will be hauled off site.

3\. New bridge site

-   The length of the superstructure will enable the bridge to be
    constructed with no instream work. Natural banks will be maintained.

-   Vegetation removed will be conserved for revegetation of the old
    road.

-   BMPs using silt fences, straw bales and other measures will be
    included in the contract and applied prior to construction to
    minimize sediment delivery to the stream from the construction site
    and from possible severe thunderstorm events.

-   The bridge will be paved with asphalt.

4\. New road

-   The vegetation removed will be conserved for the revegetation of the
    old road. · The minimum number of trees necessary will be felled to
    accommodate the new road. Trees felled will be left on site, or used
    in rehabilitation at the old bridge site.

-   The roadway will be paved for 75 feet on both sides of the bridge,
    and aggregate placed for approximately 500 feet beyond the pavement
    to reduce sediment delivery from the road.

-   All disturbed areas outside of the new road surface will be planted
    with sedge plugs to reduce sediment movement during the appropriate
    time of the year.

-   Approaches may incorporate geotextile to assist in roadbed
    stabilization.

-   Ditch armor of large granite cobble will be placed on the approaches
    to reduce direct sediment delivery to the stream from the road.

-   Permanent erosion control, such as seeding and application of mulch
    will be applied to all exposed, disturbed, unvegetated areas caused
    by this project including road slopes. This reduces cut and fill
    slope erosion, and reduces the likelihood of sediment delivery to
    the stream.

Relocating the bridge to an area less likely to be affected by natural
meandering will reduce sedimentation potential due to river/structure
interactions and will allow reclamation and restoration of the old road
location and stream site. The wetland vegetation at this site can be
restored. Effects to the wetland area, upper reach and feeder stream
adjacent to the existing site will be reduced by removing human impacts
in this area. Potential road washout and stream sedimentation, which
could occur associated with the undercutting bank just upstream of the
existing site, will be reduced. The stream will be allowed to meander
naturally in this area. Removing the existing bridge will result in less
use of an existing ford adjacent to it, resulting in less impact to a
spawning area. Better road alignment will increase sight distance,
reducing the chance of accidents and potential fuel spills.

The new bridge replaces the decayed existing structure, maintains the
current use of the road in a safer manner, removes the risk of collapse
of the existing bridge, and removes the potential for a fuel spill.
Revegetating and restoring the disturbed area near the existing bridge
will improve riparian conditions. The proposed project is not expected
to affect the following PACFISH RMO\'s: 1) pool frequency, 2) water
temperature, 3) large woody debris, and 4) width: depth ratio.

The risk of sediment delivery from the proposed project is reduced
through project design and mitigation measures added to address erosion
control. The project is not expected to negatively affect habitat
indicators relating to sediment (e.g.,pool depths, number of pools,
width: depth ratios).

Trees felled for new road alignment will be left as potential sources of
future wood recruitment, or used to restore the old bridge site.

In the short term, the project design, including BMPs and other
mitigation will reduce potential sediment production and will begin
restoration of vegetation at the old crossing location. In the long
term, benefits will be realized from restoring conditions at the old
crossing site, and providing access in an area less likely to experience
erosion and subsequent sediment delivery from bridge structure/stream
interactions.

Activities will be scheduled at times to avoid spawning fish. Chinook
salmon spawning peaks in mid to late August with some redds found in
September. In 1998, 23 (out of 39) redds were counted between the
present bridge location upstream to Threemile Creek. Eleven redds were
counted downstream of the bridge (J. Hansen, Nez Perce tribal fishery
biologist, pers. comm.).

Sediment delivery, especially to Lake Creek would be minimized by use of
BMP's including straw bales, silt fences, and the prohibition of
fording. In the long term, road prism erosion and delivery potential
will decrease due to the relocation of the bridge to a more stable
reach. The new bridge will meet the PACFISH 100 year flood design. This
will allow passage of additional spring flows and will reduce the eddy
effect and potential stream bank scour on the downstream side, as well
as scour from the existing narrow abutments. The replacement of the
existing bridge reduces the probability of a bridge failure and
subsequent effects on listed fish. Harassment of adult or juvenile fish
is not expected because fording of equipment and personnel wading will
be prohibited.

[]{#attach9 .anchor}**ATTACHMENT 9\
**

**CULVERT REPLACEMENT**

**GOAT CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT**

The Goat Creek crossing currently has a large culvert that is perched
above the SFSR under typical flow conditions and acts as a migration
barrier to the listed species. All listed species are present in some
life stage in the SFSR near Goat Creek (Krassel District files). The
existing culvert acts as a small dam and causes sediment to accumulate
on its upstream end. Detailed descriptions, plans, and maps for the Goat
Creek culvert replacement are at the end of this document and in Current
CD:\\support documents\\roads\\SFSR Goat Cr Bridge.

***REQUIRED MITIGATION***

All mitigation is incorporated as part of the federal action. For the
Goat Creek culvert replacement, this includes the following items. Many
project design features, BMPs, and erosion control measures will be
similar to those used during the Fourmile culvert replacement (Appendix
4 of Faurot & Burns 1999). These items will be captured through the
project plans, project design, and contract package. If monitoring of
activities associated with this project should identify unanticipated
effects to fish or fish habitat, the activity will be suspended by the
District Ranger until corrections are made.

-   Prior to construction, Goat Creek will be diverted well above the
    project area because of concerns regarding the volume of seepage in
    the construction area and ability to adequately dewater the site and
    maintain stable conditions during excavation.

-   The creek will be conveyed around the construction area via a rigid
    pipe or some other means capable of containing both the flow
    anticipated during the operating season and higher flows in the
    event of a storm.

-   Silt fences, straw bales, and other erosion control materials will
    be in place prior to the start of any ground disturbance
    (excavation).

-   Fill areas will be covered with a geotextile to protect vegetation
    in areas along the creek to be covered with fill (if any are
    necessary).

-   Sediment retaining materials will be placed at the end of the new
    channel immediately upstream of the confluence with the SFSR to
    reduce delivery of sediment to the river.

-   Excavation will begin of the upstream (Goat Creek) side of the fill,
    after the installation of erosion control materials.

-   Excavation at the confluence with the SFSR will occur after
    installation erosion control materials.

-   Sediment collected by straw bales, etc. will be removed from the
    channel to the extent possible without causing resource damage, as
    determined by a journey-level fishery biologist or hydrologist.

-   A settling basin will be constructed, or portable one used, that is
    able to handle the volume of water anticipated, and that provides
    filtering capability. Dewatering of the excavation site (of ground
    water from the excavation) will be done by pumping water to the
    settling basin and the basin cleaned out when full of sediments.
    Sediment will be transferred to one of two waste sites (see next
    item).

-   Waste and excavated material will be hauled to the lower landing on
    the 474E road, about 1 mile south of the project site, or to the
    Reed Ranch borrow site, about 12 miles north of the project site.

-   All fill will be removed back to the natural vegetation (where
    protected).

-   The new channel and flood-prone area will be constructed and tied
    into Goat Creek at a location identified by a journey level
    hydrologist or soil scientist.

-   The new channel will be built to the general depth, width, and
    sinuosity specifications for an A-type channel (Rosgen 1994).
    Specifications are identified in *Goat Creek Channel Dimensions*
    document by Tom Crawford (Appendix 3). The new channel will be
    excavated and washed to remove any excess fine material prior to
    introducing flow.

-   All large wood encountered during excavation will be retained and
    incorporated into the new channel, unless a journey-level fishery
    biologist or hydrologist directs otherwise.

-   Once Goat Creek is diverted into the new channel, a stable bank and
    channel at the point of diversion will be constructed. The bank will
    be constructed adequate to withstand high stream energy associated
    with a bend in the channel that will result at the diversion point.
    The channel will have adequate dimensions and profile (including
    gradient control structures, log/rock vein, etc.). The original Goat
    Creek channel will be plugged to ensure this stream is not
    recaptured during high flows.

-   Because of the large volume of material to be excavated on the river
    side of the fill (between the outlet/wing walls and the SFSR), a
    high level of mitigation will be needed to reduce sediment delivery
    because of the close proximity to the river. Excavation is
    anticipated to be completed from underneath, because of the tunnel,
    but if this changes, a journey level hydrologist/soil scientist and
    the engineering staff will jointly develop an erosion/sediment
    control plan to be incorporated into the final contract package.

-   All disturbed areas will receive mulch and seeding during the
    appropriate time of year for successful results, including the waste
    repositories.

-   Erosion control materials will be removed by a journey level
    hydrologist or soil scientist when sites have revegetated.

-   Journey level hydrologists/soil scientists will provide on-site
    implementation and effectiveness monitoring during project
    implementation.

-   To the extent feasible, use any excavated plants in the
    stabilization of the new channel and banks. Stockpile such material
    in a cool, shaded site and keep moist. Retain as much of the root
    mass as possible during excavation and transport. If possible,
    locate an additional source of plant material and root wads to
    supplement vegetation needs no available on site.

-   The new road surface at the crossing will be paved to a width of 14
    feet (3 inches deep), with a ¾ inch aggregate base 18 feet wide (8
    inches deep).

-   The contract package for the Goat Creek culvert replacement will be
    reviewed by a journey level fishery biologist or hydrologist or soil
    scientist prior to it being awarded to ensure all mitigation items
    that are not being implemented by Forest force account crews are
    included in the contract package.

Sediment that has accumulated at the culvert will be removed during
culvert replacement. Replacement of the culvert with an arch bridge will
restore access to Goat Creek spawning and rearing habitat by eliminating
the present barrier (NMFS 1993). In addition, the crossing area will be
increased, and the hydraulic capacity increased from 1000 to 4000 cfs
(Draft project plans, Charlie Showers, Appendix 3).

A review of the draft project plans noted several concerns and
recommendations (D.Gordon, watershed specialist, Goat Creek Culvert
Replacement comments below). These related to stream and groundwater
management during construction, activities near the SFSR that may
deliver sediment, and plant sources for revegetation of disturbed areas.
These are addressed in the federal action description for the project in
this BA, in the mitigation section.

During project implementation, sediment could be delivered to the SFSR.
Use of effective, extensive BMPs (Appendix 4 of Faurot & Burns 1999),
pre- approved by a journey level hydrologist or fish biologist, will
minimize the amount of sediment mobilized during activities and avoid
effects to listed fish and critical habitat. Mitigation measures
developed in previous consultations with NMFS avoided short-term
sediment loading associated with other sediment-disturbing activities on
the SFSR Road (NMFS 1993). These measures have been proven in other
studies to reduce sedimentation (Burroughs and King 1989, Megahan et al.
1992, and Swift 1986), and will help avoid potential sediment delivery
to stream channels.

Replacement of the culvert with an arch bridge will restore natural
sediment transport in the Goat Creek system, eliminating the current
sediment accumulation. Removal of road fill at the culvert would also
reduce the existing mass failure risk (Burns 1992). Restoration of fish
passage to Goat Creek, removing road fill and accumulated sediment in
the culvert area, and restoration of natural sediment transportation
patterns are provisions in the overall SFSR Road Reconstruction Project
(Burns 1992).

In general, culvert removal, even with associated risk of short-term
downstream sediment mobilization, is the best remedy for restoring fish
passage (Reeves et al. 1991). Removal of culverts at Cabin Creek on the
SFSR was completed in 1993 as part of the original SFSR Road
Reconstruction Project. Fifty to seventy-five chinook salmon were
observed migrating upstream in the mouth of Cabin Creek during August
1998 (N. Hershenow, hydrological technician, Payette NF, pers. comm.).
Some of the fish continued upstream to spawn in Cabin Creek. Similar
results are anticipated at Goat Creek.

Sediment reduction and very little sediment movement have been
associated with other culvert removal activities and associated
excavation and removal of fill material at Cabin Creek on the SFSR Road
(USFS 1992-1998, Appendix 4 of Faurot & Burns 1999). Site visits during
the Fourmile culvert replacement found sediment --control mitigation
items in place and project activities being carried out as planned. To
date the new channel is functioning as expected, however the new arch
has not gone through a high flow period, so its performance under such
conditions hasn't been evaluated (D. Gordon, soil scientist, Krassel
Ranger District, pers. comm.).

**Attachment 10**

[]{#attach10 .anchor}**Potential Capture of Salmonid Fishes from Small
Lakes and Ponds by Helicopter Bucket Dipping Associated with Fire
Management Activities**

**MANAGEMENT BRIEF\
**

**Potential Capture of Salmonid Fishes from Small Lakes and Ponds by
Helicopter Bucket Dipping Associated with Fire Management Activities**

Justin Jimenez and Timothy A. Burton

> *USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest, 1249 Vinnell Way, Suite
> 200, Boise, Idaho 83709*

**Introduction**

The potential for fire management activities to impact threatened and
endangered fishes is of increasing concern to natural resource managers.
Fire management tactics may have a direct impact on threatened and
endangered fish species that is of greater concern than the ecological
impacts of the fire itself. Fire management activities are implemented
over a broad range of habitats where these species may be distributed.

Fire management activities such as dipping water from lakes and ponds
using a helicopter with an attached bucket occurs every fire season
throughout North America. Helicopter bucket dipping and dropping of
water from rivers, streams, lakes and ponds is an effective fire
management tool. However, dipping water from lakes and ponds with a
helicopter bucket may result in individual fish being entrained within
the bucket.

State and federal agencies implementing fire suppression activities are
required to meet the intent of the Endangered Species Act, and to
consult with appropriate regulatory agencies (US Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) to assess the potential
impacts of fire management activities on threatened, endangered, or
sensitive species. This prompted the Boise National Forest to attempt to
investigate whether helicopter bucket dipping from small, high elevation
lakes and ponds results in capture and removal of at-risk fishes.

**Study Area**

The project area is located on the Boise National Forest, Payette River
Basin, Idaho in the Warm Spring Creek Watershed, a tributary to the
South Fork of the Payette River. Three high elevation (\~2133m) mountain
lakes typical of those used by bull trout (*Salvelinus confluentus*) and
cutthroat trout (*Oncorhynchus clarki*), were selected for this
evaluation. Bull Trout Lake is approximately 40 ha in size, Martin Lake
is approximately 4 ha, and one unnamed "pothole" lake surveyed is
approximately 0.2 ha in size. There are no inflow or outflow tributaries
to Martin Lake or the "pothole" lake. The inflow tributary to Bull Trout
Lake is Spring Creek, a salmonid spawning stream and the outflow is Warm
Spring Creek.

Recent creel surveys identify primarily brook trout (*S. fontinalis*)
inhabiting Bull Trout Lake, stocked rainbow trout (*O. mykiss)*
inhabiting Martin Lake and the "pothole" lake (Allen 1999). Hatchery
rainbow trout, which were 20 to 30 cm in size, were stocked from July
through August with approximately 4,000 in Bull Trout Lake,
approximately 2,600 in Martin Lake and over 500 in the "pothole" lake
(Alsager, 1999). All age classes of fish were found in Bull Trout Lake
and only stocked hatchery trout 20 to 30 cm were found in Martin and the
"pothole" lake. These lakes contain no threatened or endangered fish
species, and were purposefully selected to avoid a "taking" under the
Endangered Species Act.

**Methods**

The test was implemented on September 21, 1999, from 1000 to 1500 hours.
Boise National Forest Service personnel included the Forest and District
Fisheries Biologists, Forest Fuels Planner, and members of the Lucky
Peak Helitac Crew. The crew installed a 5625 L fold-a-tank storage
facility located near the inlet to Bull Trout Lake.

Prior to conducting the helicopter dipping tests a snorkel survey was
completed to identify fish presence, distribution and species
composition and abundance.

The helicopter used to conduct the dip test was a type two helicopter
(Bell 212) and carried a 1230 L bucket extended from a "long line", 30 m
in length. We also tested the use of a short line, 4.6 m in length. A
1.2 m by 1.2 m bucket was attached and used to draw water from the
surface of the waterbody. The bucket is weighted on one side to allow
dragging and capturing of water. The water was then released from the
bottom of the bucket into a 5625 L storage tank. Helicopter lift
necessitated obtaining just 984 L of water at 2133 m elevation;
therefore the bucket size was decreased to this capacity.

Water was dipped three times from within 30 m of the inlet and three
times from within 9 m of the inlet on Bull Trout Lake. Three dips were
taken near the lake center, and three near the outlet. In Martin Lake
three dips were made at various locations, including center and off
shore. Three additional dips were taken from the "pothole" lake, which
contained approximately 200 hatchery rainbow trout. The final dip
occurred near the inlet of Bull Trout Lake to demonstrate the use of the
short line or belly bucket and associated rotor wash (see Figure 1).

**Results**

Snorkel surveys identified fish near the inlet to Bull Trout Lake
feeding throughout the water column. Species identification and counts
were difficult because the fish were wary of the snorkeler. Numerous
brook trout juveniles and fry were observed in the inlet channels just
upstream of their entrance to the lake. Two recreational fishermen
caught rainbow trout near the inlet from 1130 to 1230 hours, just prior
to the dipping test. Visual observations at Martin Lake identified
little surface feeding. Species identification and counts were difficult
because fish fled from the snorkeler and used aquatic plants for cover.
We also snorkeled the "small pothole" lake located northeast of Bull
Trout Lake, which contained approximately 200 hatchery rainbow trout.
These fish ranged in size from 20 to 30 cm long. The maximum depth of
the pond was approximately one meter; average depth was approximately
0.4 m. Fish could easily be seen from the shore.

No fish were captured in any of the tests. Midges were found in mud and
algae from the helicopter bucket dipping near the outlet of Bull Trout
Lake. Flatworms were captured at Martin Lake.

Minimal rotor wash was observed with the use of the long line.
Significant rotor wash was observed with the use of the short line or
belly bucket (see Figure 1).

**Discussion**

During fire suppression water is dipped by helicopters from lakes,
rivers, and streams that are within five minutes flying time from the
fire. A suitable dip site is located according to specific criteria,
which include safety considerations for the helicopter, water depth, and
water surface area. Pilots typically dip at least 45 m from shore and
utilize the deepest part of the water body to obtain water, but may dip
from shallower areas if safe. In this test we attempted to sample
typical helicopter dipping sites, as well as areas where fish were seen
or expected to be in higher densities.

Fish appeared to avoid helicopter bucket dipping activity. The
helicopter pilot reported seeing fish from the air in the "pothole" lake
that he tried to capture. As the bucket approached the water surface,
fish dispersed away from it. The fish dispersal appeared to be related
to the shadow of the helicopter and dropping of the bucket since the
long line was used and there was minimal rotor wash. In the last dip of
the "pothole" lake, the pilot tried three times to capture fish by
dragging the bucket toward a corner of the lake and was not successful.

The study sites primarily contained brook trout and hatchery rainbow
trout, which were used as a surrogate for threatened, endangered, or
sensitive salmonids in determining the potential for these species to be
captured in these lakes by helicopter bucket dipping. Threatened and
endangered fish are not found within the lakes sampled and the
experiment assumed that non-listed salmonids would be at least as
vulnerable to capture as listed species. It is not likely that wild
native fish, such as bull trout, chinook salmon

(O. tshawytscha), and steelhead trout would have lower avoidance
behavior.

**Conclusions**

Fish appear to avoid helicopter bucket dipping activity from short line
most likely due to rotor wash and from the long line most likely due to
the shadow of helicopter hovering overhead dropping a bucket.

Our experiment was limited by sample size, location and fish species but
we can reasonably conclude that there is a minimal potential of capture
of salmonid fishes in lakes, reservoirs and ponds by helicopter bucket
dipping. The results of this experiment identify that no fish were
captured and visual observations identified fish avoidance and
dispersing behaviors. This experiment was performed in small high
elevation lakes and ponds, however fish avoidance behaviors are likely
similar in streams and rivers. Based on the results of this experiment,
fish dispersal behavior and the lack of fish captured, it appears that
there is a low likelihood that fish would be entrained in helicopter
buckets dipped from rivers and streams. However, flow conditions in
rivers and streams could affect potential drift of fish into buckets or
the ability for fish to disperse. Therefore, extrapolation of the
results to rivers and streams is not recommended and further experiments
are necessary for rivers and streams.

**References**

Allen, D.B. 1999. Bull Trout Lake Area Creel Surveys. Idaho Department
of Fish and Game. Nampa, Idaho.

Alsager, R.D. 1999. Personal Communication. Idaho Department of Fish and
Game. Nampa, Idaho.

**Figure 1.** Helicopter bucket dipping with short line and dip tank.
Rotor wash from helicopter is evident with the use of the short line.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.875in" height="4.788194444444445in"}

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.733333333333333in"
height="2.3652777777777776in"}

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.733333333333333in"
height="2.3652777777777776in"}

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="6.733333333333333in"
height="2.3652777777777776in"}

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="6.733333333333333in"
height="2.3652777777777776in"}

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="3.1333333333333333in"
height="2.3652777777777776in"}

[]{#Attach11 .anchor}**ATTACHMENT 11\
ROAD DITCH MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC EFFECTS**

**EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC AND DITCH MAINTENANCE ON FOREST ROAD SEDIMENT
PRODUCTION**[^1]

> **Charles H. Luce, Research Hydrologist, and Thomas A. Black,
> Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
> Boise, Idaho**

316 E. Myrtle St., Boise, ID, 83702, cluce@fs.fed.us, 208-373-4382.

**Abstract:** Observations of sediment yield from road segments in the
Oregon Coast Range show that either heavy traffic during rainfall or
blading the road ditch will increase erosion from forest roads. For the
fine soils and high quality aggregate surfacing on the study plots,
ditch blading increased sediment yield more than traffic equivalent to
12 log trucks per day. The combination of ditch blading and heavy
traffic did not produce significantly more sediment than simply blading
the ditch, a finding with important implications for sediment modeling
and erosion control design. Increases in sediment production caused by
traffic persisted after traffic ceased.

**INTRODUCTION**

Road maintenance and traffic are two of the primary activities affecting
sediment production from forest roads. Given the large base of existing
roads in forestlands, it is important that we understand how these
activities affect sediment yield from road systems. While it is
generally agreed that either traffic or ditch maintenance increase
sediment production, observations showing the combined effects relative
to individual effects are lacking.

Maintenance keeps roads in a condition suitable for travel and prevents
severe erosion from failure of the drainage system. Unfortunately, road
grading can break up armor layers on the road surface or the ditch and
temporarily increase road surface erosion (Burroughs and King, 1989;
Black and Luce, 1999; Luce and Black, 1999). Burroughs and King (1989)
noted increased erodibility of the traveledway following road grading
operations. However, Luce and Black (1999) noted that blading of only
the traveledway on an aggregate surfaced road with well vegetated
ditches yielded no increase in sediment production from a complete road
segment, while blading of the ditch, cutslope, and traveledway
substantially increased sediment yield from road segments. The recovery
from ditch blading occurs rapidly during the first three years (Luce and
Black, 2001) in an exponential pattern similar to that found by Megahan
(1974) for new roads. Observations of vegetation and ditch particle size
suggest that much of the reduction over time is due to armoring rather
than revegetation (Black and Luce, 1999).

The role of traffic in increasing road sediment production is likewise
well recognized and has had attention from several researchers (Reid and
Dunne, 1984; Swift, 1984; Bilby et al., 1989; Burroughs and King, 1989;
Coker et al., 1993; Foltz, 1999; Ziegler et al., 2001), who report a
range from doubled sediment production to 30 times as much. Results are
commonly reported as ratios between yields from roads with and without
traffic, conceptually normalizing for precipitation and allowing
generalization of the results beyond the particular events studied. Many
of the studies are from rainfall simulation; some experiments were on
the entire road prism, and some isolated sediment from the traveledway.
Those studies where concentration samples were taken show a relatively
brief effect from traffic passing during a storm, with significant
recovery occurring on a time scale of tens of minutes. The postulated
processes for the increase in sediment yield are through an increased
availability of fines caused by crushing the road surfacing and by
pressing larger particles down through a matrix of finer sediment.

An important question left unanswered by these studies is the combined
effect of ditch maintenance and traffic. One hypothesis is that the
effects are cumulative. Some models use the ratios from the studies to
estimate the effect, one factor is applied for the time since
construction or disturbance of the ditch and another is applied for the
traffic level (e.g. Cline et al., 1984; and Washington Forest Practices
Board, 1995). Another way to model the effect is through addition, where
the traveledway and ditch contributions are calculated separately based
on their individual treatments and then added. A third alternative would
suggest that there might be tradeoffs, that the total effect may be less
than the sum of the parts. Increasing the availability of sediment in
the ditch and on the traveledway may be somewhat redundant. If the
sediment transport capacity of the ditch is fully sated by material
easily detached in the ditch, the additional available fine material on
the traveledway may have little effect on the segment sediment yield.

Consideration of the flowpath is important in estimating the effects of
treatments to roads. Burroughs and King (1989) showed an effect on
traveledway sediment yield from blading, but Luce and Black (1999) found
nearly no effect on sediment yield from an entire road segment given the
same treatment. One explanation may be that sediment from the road
surface was trapped in the well vegetated ditch, implying that grading
the ditch would not only allow ditch erosion, but also allow passage of
the traveledway sediment. This logic would support the idea that there
is a positive non-linear interaction (e.g. multiplicative) between road
surface treatments and ditch treatments on sediment yield.
Alternatively, Burroughs and King (1989) noted that substantial
reductions in traveledway sediment production by placing rock aggregate
(\~80%) did not reduce total plot sediment production as much (\~30%)
because of increased sediment detachment in the unprotected ditch. This
observation suggests that high sediment yields can come from either
unprotected ditches or unprotected (or heavily traveled) traveledways,
supporting the tradeoff hypothesis. Another observation is that traffic
forms ruts, causing sediment produced on the road surface to travel on
the road surface independently of ditch sediments, supporting a simple
additive model. Some would be quick to point out, however, that this
also robs the ditch of much of its water as well, and if the road
surface is constructed with material that is less erodible than the
ditch, traffic could conceivably reduce sediment yields on roads with
freshly cleaned ditches.

Because the earlier studies on the individual effects of traffic and
maintenance are used as the basis of sediment yield models, forest
practice regulations, and best management practice design, it is
important that some of the uncertainty associated with the question of
combined effects be reduced. Unfortunately, the question cannot be
answered with physically based models, because any of the three
hypotheses can be generated using different choices of parameter values
and flowpath. Observations showing the individual and combined effects
of traffic and maintenance are needed to understand the interaction.

**METHODS**

The effects of traffic and ditch maintenance were examined on twelve
road segments in the Oregon Coast range about 20 km northwest of Eugene,
Oregon. The twelve plots were broken into four categories, those with no
traffic and no ditch grading (NTNG), those with traffic and no ditch
grading (TNG), those with no traffic but with a graded ditch (NTG) and
those with both traffic and a graded ditch (TG). Traffic was applied to
one contiguous set of six road segments for practical reasons, and the
grading treatment was assigned randomly.

The road segments all had similar characteristics otherwise. All had
lengths of 80 m and were isolated by ditch dams and rubber-flap/wood-box
water bars and runoff was diverted into sediment traps. Road gradient
was between 9 and 10 percent, and cutslope heights were approximately 2
m on all road segments. The roads were constructed on a silty clay loam
soil over weathered sandstone. The roads were surfaced with high quality
basalt aggregate and had inboard ditches. The traveledway was freshly
bladed on all plots. All ditches and cutslopes were seeded with grass
during the previous spring, and the ditches were bladed on October 14,
1999 for the segments with that treatment. The reader is referred to
Luce and Black (1999) for more details on plot construction and soil
attributes.

Traffic was provided by a short log truck and, later, a dump truck. Both
vehicles had similar wheel arrangements, with two axles in the rear with
dual tires and a front steering axle. The rear sets of duals carried
15,840 kg (33,850 lbs.) and the front axle carried 5,610 kg (12,340
lbs.). These weights are similar to those on full sized log trucks. The
trucks made 10 round trips per weekday over the 6 traffic plots during
the period November 15 to December 14. During this period traffic
occurred on both rainy and dry days and on saturated and dry road
surfaces. The traffic was roughly equivalent to 12 loaded full-length
log trucks per day. On each day of traffic, 5 round trips (10 passes)
were made over a 1 hr period with a 30-minute break followed by another
5 round trips.

Sediment was collected from the tanks on January 11th and again on June
13th. Tanks with the greatest amounts of sediment were weighed with
sediment and water, emptied and weighed again filled only with water to
obtain the submerged weight of sediment (see Luce and Black, 1999 for
details). For tanks with little sediment, we decanted the clean water
off of the tanks using a siphon (avoiding disturbance of the sediment).
The sediment was transferred to small steel buckets for weighing on a
more precise scale, allowing a more precise determination for the small
sediment amounts. Precipitation between Nov 15 and Dec 14 was 351 mm.
151 mm fell between Dec 14 and Jan 11. 589 mm fell between Jan 11 and
Jun 13. Average precipitation depths for these periods in Eugene, Oregon
are 218, 170, and 551 mm respectively.

During one day of traffic, water samples were collected from the wheel
ruts immediately following a vehicle pass to capture the peak sediment
concentration. An additional sample was taken 20 minutes into the break
between sets of passes, and three samples were taken at 20 minute
intervals following cessation of traffic to see how concentration in the
wheel rut at the base of the plot changed with time. In addition,
concentration samples were taken from the plot outflow (ditch plus
tread) at the same time.

We used t-tests on the log transformed sediment yields to test the
statistical significance of specific contrasts. The transformation was
used because earlier research has suggested that erosion is log-normally
distributed (Megahan et al., 2001).

**RESULTS AND DISCUSSION**

Mean sediment yield during the first sample period, Nov. 15 to Jan. 11,
was least for the plots with no traffic and no ditch grading, followed
by the plots with traffic but no grading, and the plots with grading but
no traffic, and the mean sediment yield was the greatest for segments
with both traffic and a graded ditch (Figure 1). All contrasts were
statistically significant except for the difference between the traffic
and no traffic plots given a graded ditch (Table 1). These results
suggest that blading the ditch has a greater effect than traffic on the
sediment yield. This particular result may differ given a different soil
texture in the ditch or poorer aggregate quality. More significant is
the result that the traffic effect depends on whether the ditch is
graded. Given that the statistical tests were for log transformed data
and the low power inherent in a design with three samples per treatment,
we can reject the multiplicative cumulative effect hypothesis, but we
cannot statistically discern between the simple additive cumulative
effect and the tradeoff hypothesis. Looking at the pattern of the
scatter from the No-Traffic-Graded (NTG) plots, we can see that the mean
and scatter are strongly influenced by one plot with low sediment yield
(Figure 1). The other two NTG plots actually produced more sediment than
any of the plots with both traffic and grading. It is worth noting that
the sediment production of the one plot is uncharacteristically low for
a graded plot given earlier observations (Black and Luce, 1999; Luce and
Black, 1999, 2001) and concurrent observations from similarly treated
plots. For example three shorter plots (42 m, 42 m, and 60 m) with
slightly steeper, 10%, slopes, graded ditches, and no traffic measured
during the same period produced 2467, 4533, and 2970 kg/km respectively.
Armed with this additional information, removing some weight from the
low observation, there is greater support for the tradeoff hypothesis
than for the simple additive effect hypothesis.

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="4.88125in" height="3.063888888888889in"}

Figure 1: Sediment yield from road segments during the traffic period,
November 15, 1999 to January 11, 2000. Bar graphs show mean and data
points show specific observations.

Table 1: Statistical Significance of specific contrasts.

> p value\
> Effect of Given Nov\--Dec Jan-Jun

  -------------------------- ----------- -------- ------------------------
  Grading                    No Traffic  0.02     0.02

  Grading                    Traffic     0.03     0.02

  Traffic                    No Grading  0.02     0.04

  Traffic                    Grading     0.49     0.53
  -------------------------- ----------- -------- ------------------------

These results underscore the importance of collecting observations of
sediment yield from the entire portion of road prism that is
contributing water and sediment when evaluating the effects of
treatments, an idea also suggested by Burroughs and King (1989).
Observations of individual parts of the road prism can be misleading if
there is potential for interaction of water and sediment from different
parts of the road prism. It is also important to recognize the condition
of the ditch and the cutslope/ditch contribution to the road segment
sediment yield when interpreting results from studies. For example, it
is useful to know that the results of Reid and Dunne (1984) showing
substantial effect from traffic had little contribution from ditch and
cutslope erosion.

Implications for modeling are fairly clear; independent factors applied
for ditch maintenance and traffic are not appropriate. Nor would it
appear that separate calculation of traveledway and ditch/cutslope
contributions is the best option. The stronger support for the tradeoff
hypothesis implies that sediment yield increases modeled to result from
traffic must consider the condition of the ditch.

There are important implications for the design of BMPs or forest
practice regulations. Ditch grading can increase sediment yields on a
level comparable to or greater than wet weather hauling. Ditch grading
is an important and necessary step in the maintenance of roads when
significant sediment inputs (e.g. from a slump or upslope gully) block
the ditch, however indiscriminate ditch grading to clean ditches may not
be the best use of equipment time. The practice of placing rock in
ditches and design criteria for ditch rocking were proposed by Burroughs
and King (1989), and our results support their suggestion. The question
of whether wet weather haul increases sediment yields on recently
constructed or reconstructed roads is important for BMP design. Wet
weather haul restrictions provide little and uncertain benefit on roads
with recently bladed ditches. Sediment delivery control through
crossdrain placement is probably the preferred design, but at locations
where delivery is likely (e.g. stream crossings), thorough control of
sediment would require protection of both the ditch and the traveledway.
Note that the roads in this study were built well enough that the
subgrade showed through the aggregate surfacing in only a few places,
and the deepest ruts were about 90 mm. The results of this study do not
apply to roads where the integrity of the surfacing may be severely
damaged by traffic.

For the post traffic period, January 11 to June 13, rankings are similar
to those seen in the traffic period, although there was less erosion
(Figure 2). The reduced erosion is due in part to armoring during the
previous months. The contrasts are similar in statistical significance
(Table 1). The difference in graded versus ungraded plots is expected
because we know that the effect of grading persists for more than one
year in the increased availability from ditch grading (Luce and Black,
2001). The fact that the pattern of differences is maintained suggest
that traffic effects may persist beyond the time scale of a few events.
Reid and Dunne (1984) noted some persistence beyond the event time scale
in their "temporary non-use" segments.

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="4.8805555555555555in"
height="2.959722222222222in"}

Not Graded Graded

> Figure 2: Sediment yield from road segments during the post-traffic
> period, January 11 to June 13, 2000. Bar graphs show mean and data
> points show individual observations.

Examination of sediment concentrations during an event showed a rise in
concentration as several passes were made, and a rapid drop to lower
concentrations after the traffic stopped (Figure 3). Plot runoff showed
substantially lower concentrations than the peaks measured by the rut
sampling because of dilution from cutslope runoff areas of the road
surface where the truck had not recently passed. These patterns agree
with other observations of event scale variations in

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="5.177083333333333in"
height="2.2576388888888888in"}

> 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 Time

Figure 3: Concentration of sediment over time during one set of passes
by a heavy vehicle.

sediment availability (e.g. Reid and Dunne, 1984; Ziegler et al., 2000,
2001). As the vehicle passed, fines were pressed into the tread of the
tire while the lugs pressed larger pieces of gravel into the matrix of
fines and gravel comprising the road bed. The treaded pattern of fine
material was quickly dissipated by precipitation and flowing water.
During the course of the traffic, wheel ruts developed varying in depth
from 10 mm to 90 mm, and exposure of the subgrade through the aggregate
was rare.

Some persistence in availability of fines would be expected on traffic
plots, as the supply of fines from the road over the traffic period
would reduce the degree of armoring during that period, and the
composition of the material in the ditch beds and wheel ruts should be
finer at the end of the traffic period. It is not necessary that the
increased availability of fine sediments persist into June for the
observed differences in Figure 2. A brief period of increased erosion
followed by a long period of essentially equivalent availability could
account for the observations. A more likely scenario is an exponential
decline in the availability of fine sediment as the finer sediments are
selectively removed from the plot (e.g. Megahan, 1974).

**CONCLUSIONS**

Traffic and maintenance operations are activities normally experienced
by forest roads at one time or another during their useful life. Both
activities increase the susceptibility of a road to erosion. In order to
better manage the spatial and temporal distribution of sediment inputs
to streams, it is important to understand how maintenance and traffic
affect sediment yield from forest roads.

Grading of the ditch increased sediment yields more than heavy traffic
on a road built in a fine-grained parent material with high quality
basalt aggregate. The combination of both traffic and ditch grading
produced on average more sediment than either treatment alone, however
the difference between grading-only and grading-with-traffic was not
statistically significant with 3 samples in each treatment. A closer
examination of the individual data points and results from similar plots
in this year and earlier years provides support to the hypothesis that
there is little difference in sediment yields between traffic and
no-traffic plots given a graded ditch.

These results suggests that the multiplicative interaction model
commonly used to estimate effects of multiple treatments on roads
overestimates the effect of traffic on new roads or recently graded
roads. A model of traffic effects that is conditional on ditch condition
(e.g. time since construction or ditch grading) seems more appropriate.
Although the ditch grading effect is much larger, its effect is seldom
accounted for in road sediment yield modeling whereas traffic effects
generally are, if only as a traffic regime. For roads with regularly
scheduled maintenance, it may be desirable to model the effect of a
maintenance regime.

Proscription of wet weather haul is an increasingly common best
management practice that is effective in reducing sediment production
from existing roads. Proscription of wet weather haul on roads with high
quality aggregate and recently disturbed ditches may have little
benefit. Reducing the amount of road with unnecessary ditch grading is
unequivocally effective in reducing sediment production.

Observations in this study and in previous work show that sediment
concentrations in runoff and, consequently, sediment yields varied on a
time scale of 10s of minutes following traffic. Longer term observations
in this study revealed that traffic effects may persist for longer
periods, as armoring of the flow paths is prevented by the abundant fine
sediment supply. This indicates that a traffic regime model may be
appropriate as opposed to needing knowledge of each vehicle pass. It
further indicates that any mitigations designed to trap traffic-enhanced
sediment yields must be maintained after the traffic ends.

**REFERENCES**

> Bilby, R. E., Sullivan, K., Duncan, S. H., 1989, The Generation and
> Fate of Road-Surface Sediment in Forested Watersheds in Southwestern
> Washington. Forest Science 35, 453-468.
>
> Black, T. A., Luce, C. H., 1999, Changes in erosion from gravel
> surfaced forest roads though time. *in* Proceedings of the
> International Mountain Logging and 10th Pacific Northwest Skyline
> Symposium, Corvallis, Oregon,Sessions, J. and Chung, W., editors.
> International Union of Forestry Research Organizations and Oregon
> State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 204-218.
>
> Burroughs, E. R., Jr., King, J. G., 1989, Reduction of soil erosion on
> forest roads, General Technical Report INT-264. U.S. Department of
> Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,
> Utah, 21 pp.
>
> Cline, R. G., Cole, G., Megahan, W. F., Patten, R., Potyondy, J.,
> 1984, Guide for Predicting Sediment Yield from Forested Watersheds.
> USDA Forest Service Northern Region and Intermountain Region,
> Missoula, Montana and Ogden, Utah. 42 pp.
>
> Coker, R. J., Fahey, B. D., Payne, J. J., 1993, Fine Sediment
> Production from Truck Traffic, Queen Charlotte Forest, Marlborough
> Sounds, New Zealand. Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 31, 56-64.
>
> Foltz, R. B., 1999, Traffic and no-traffic on an aggregate surfaced
> road: sediment production - differences. *in* Proceedings of the
> Seminar on environmentally sound forest roads and wood transport,
> Sinaia, Romania, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.
> 195-204.
>
> Luce, C. H., Black, T. A., 1999, Sediment Production from Forest Roads
> in Western Oregon. Water Resources Research 35, 2561-2570.
>
> Luce, C. H., Black, T. A., 2001, Spatial and Temporal Patterns in
> Erosion from Forest Roads, in Wigmosta, M. W. and Burges, S. J.,
> editors, Influence of Urban and Forest Land Uses on the
> Hydrologic-Geomorphic Responses of Watersheds. American Geophysical
> Union, Washington, DC. in press.
>
> Megahan, W. F., 1974, Erosion over Time on Severely Disturbed Granitic
> Soils: A Model, USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-156. USDA
> Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 14 pp.
>
> Megahan, W. F., Wilson, M., Monsen, S. B., 2001, Sediment Production
> from Granitic Cut Slopes on Forest Roads in Idaho, USA. Earth Surface
> Processes and Landforms 26, in press.
>
> Reid, L. M., Dunne, T., 1984, Sediment Production from Forest Road
> Surfaces. Water Resources Research 20, 1753-1761.
>
> Swift, L. W., Jr., 1984, Gravel and Grass Surfacing Reduces Soil Loss
> from Mountain Roads. Forest Science 30, 657-670.
>
> Washington Forest Practices Board, 1995, Standard methodology for
> conducting watershed analysis, Version 3.0, November 1995. Washington
> State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.
>
> Ziegler, A. D., Sutherland, R. A., Giambelluca, T. W., 2000,
> Partitioning Total Erosion on Unpaved Roads into Splash and Hydraulic
> Components: The Roles of Interstorm Surface Preparation and Dynamic
> Erodibility. Water Resources Research 36, 2787-2792.
>
> Ziegler, A. D., Sutherland, R. A., Giambelluca, T. W., 2001,
> Interstorm Surface Preparation and Sediment Detatchment by Vehicle
> Traffic on Unpaved Mountain Roads. Earth Surface Processes and
> Landforms 26, in press.

[]{#Attach12 .anchor}**ATTACHMENT 12 --**

**EFFECTS OF FIRE ON FISH:**

**Important Links:**

**A.** The Workshop: Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems was held April 22-24,
2002 in Boise, Idaho. The purpose of the workshop was to synthesize new
information and current knowledge of the role for fire in, and effects
of fire on, aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Papers from this workshop
are available at the following Site:

<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/teams/fisheries/fire/firehome.htm>

B.  An excellent paper summarizing fire retardant effects on fish is
    available at the following URL:

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/fchem/fchem.html>

**Literature Summary:**

Wildfires may result in improved and rejuvenated habitat for salmonids
and increased productivity increasing fish populations over the
long-term (Minshall and Brock 1991; Burton 2000).

In the case of high-intensity wildfires, local extirpation of fishes is
patchy and recolonization is rapid. Lasting detrimental effects have
been limited to areas where native populations have declined and become
isolated from anthropogenic activities (Gresswell 1999).

Use of cool burns in spring when the ground is moist, providing an
unburned buffer along stream channels, maintaining integrity of the soil
surface, and leaving and protecting snags during burning, should help
prevent or limit undesirable impacts to fish and wildlife. Staggering
prescribed fires over time, and spacing of burns across the landscape
will minimize impacts (McMahon and deCalesta 1990).

The following was extracted from Rieman 1995:

> "The potential for wildfire to impact aquatic ecosystems and their
> associated threatened, endangered, or sensitive species is of
> increasing concern. Recent (since 1988) large-scale fires followed by
> dramatic hydrologic disturbances spark much of this interest. Broad
> swaths of western forest lands, where fire suppression and past
> silvicultural activities have radically altered vegetation structure
> and fuel loads, are ripe for high-intensity fires. The potential seems
> greatest in warm/dry habitat types that historically were dominated by
> frequent, but low intensity burns. Interconnected, fuel-laden stands
> may now link areas that historically burned less frequently or
> uniformly into large, homogeneous areas that are vulnerable to
> high-intensity, stand replacing events (Agee 1993; Henjum et al.
> 1994). Recent fires in the Pacific Northwest seem to confirm these
> expectations."
>
> "Wildfires influence aquatic ecosystems both directly and indirectly.
> Direct effects include heating or abrupt changes in water chemistry
> (Minshall et al. 1989; McMahon and de Calesta 1990). Indirect effects
> include changes in hydrologic regime, erosion, debris flows, woody
> debris loading and riparian cover (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978; Brown
> 1989; Megahan 1991; Bozek and Young 1994). Intense fires and related
> events have killed fish (Bozek and Young 1994) and even caused local
> extinctions (Propst et al. 1992; Rinne 1996). Conceivably, large and
> intense fires could threaten populations of sensitive salmonids such
> as bull trout, chinook salmon, steelhead, and others that are
> depressed from other causes. Historical fires, however, were a natural
> and potentially important part of the disturbance regime for
> terrestrial and aquatic systems (Reeves et al. 1995). Large fires
> supplied woody debris and triggered hydrologic events and debris flows
> that transported coarse substrates to stream channels. These processes
> may well have provided the materials that maintained productive
> habitats for fish and other organisms (Swanson et al. 1990; Reeves et
> al. 1995)."
>
> "The magnitude and intensity of recent fires heighten concerns
> regarding forest/ecosystem health, the potential loss of valuable wood
> fiber and private property, and the apparent threat to sensitive
> species. Such concerns have galvanized new efforts to reduce fuel
> loads and stand densities through mechanical treatment and the use of
> prescribed fire. These efforts create a quandary for biologists and
> managers working with aquatic systems. The long-term negative effects
> of timber harvest activities on aquatic ecosystems are well documented
> (see papers in Meehan 1991 and Salo and Cundy 1987; Henjum et al.
> 1994) The effects of fire on fish are more equivocal. Do large fires
> really threaten extinction for many existing salmonid populations?
> What influences the risk?"
>
> "Large fires in the Boise River basin on the Boise National Forest in
> 1992 and 1994 provided an opportunity to examine these questions
> relative to populations of two sensitive salmonids. Bull Trout
> (*Salvelinus confluentus*) is a category-one species under the
> Endangered Species Act (ESA), and redband or interior rainbow trout
> (*Oncorhynchus mykiss*) is recognized as a species of special concern
> by the Idaho Department Fish and Game. Some isolated redband
> populations have been petitioned for formal listing under ESA. Both
> species inhabit streams caught within fires described as among the
> most destructive ever observed on the Forest. We initiated work on the
> responses of these fishes to wildfire and related effects in 1992. The
> work was planned as long term and much is incomplete. Our preliminary
> results and the body of literature regarding the disturbance and
> recovery of aquatic communities provide a base, however, to initiate
> the discussion."

**[PRESCRIBED FIRE]{.underline}**: The following was developed with the
Salmonid Species Team and the Prescribed Fire Activity Coordinators at
the National Fire Plan workshop in Portland, OR the week of March 12,
2001.

**[Not Likely to Adversely Affect Criteria for Effects
Pathways]{.underline}** (Salmonids):

1.  Fire intensity/severity does not result in death or injury to
    individual fish. (Severity/Intensity)

2.  Fire does not expose or disturb land areas sufficient to elevate
    sediment delivery such that habitat/fish are not harmed.
    (Soil/Vegetation Effects)

3.  Fire does not consume (size or amount) large Woody debris to affect
    stream function. (Intensity/Vegetation Effects)

4.  Fire does not cause mortality to overstory or other vegetation such
    that stream temperatures and water yield are significantly affected.
    (Intensity/Vegetation Effects)

5.  Rangelands and meadows - Maintain or improve ecological (potential
    natural condition) conditions in riparian area. (Effective riparian
    area, not necessarily the RHCA.)

    II. **[Assumption set]{.underline}:**

Criteria for Prescribed Fire in RHCAs to result in Not Likely to
Adversely Affect Determination:

**Within the RHCA, but [outside]{.underline} "zone of riparian
influence" and outside one site tree height from the stream channel:**
(includes dry forest, moist forest, and cold forests Potential
Vegetation Groups (Quigley et al., PNW-GTR 405, June 1997, pg 969)**:**

A.  In most forested ecosystems, [non-lethal]{.underline} fire severity
    (PNW-GTR 405 ICBEMP, P. Morgan et al) within the RHCA but outside
    the zone of riparian influence and outside one site tree height from
    the stream channel would have the following results:

    1.  Does not result in death or injury to individual fish.

    2.  Fire does not expose or disturb land areas sufficient to elevate
        sediment delivery such that habitat/fish are not harmed.

    3.  Does not consume (size or amount) large Woody debris to a level
        that would affect stream function.

    4.  Does not cause mortality to overstory or other vegetation such
        that stream temperatures and water yield are significantly
        affected.

    5.  Does not impact the ecological (potential natural condition)
        conditions in riparian area.

B.  In most rangeland ecosystems, lethal fire severity (to shrub
    overstory) (PNW-GTR 405 ICBEMP, P. Morgan et al) within the RHCA but
    outside the zone of riparian influence:

    1.  Does not result in death or injury to individual fish.

    2.  Does not consume (size or amount) large woody debris to a level
        that would affect stream function.

    3.  Does not cause mortality to overstory or other vegetation such
        that stream temperatures and water yield are significantly
        affected.

**Prescribed fire criteria to be used for fires within the RHCA, and
inside the "zone of riparian influence" and within one site tree height
from the stream channel:** (includes dry forest, moist forest, and cold
forests Potential Vegetation Groups (PNW-GTR 405, June 1997, pg
969)**:**

C.  If the Riparian Prescribed Fire Criteria are met, then individual
    fish protection will be accomplished and Riparian Management
    Objectives will be met. Specifically prescribed fire within these
    portions of the RHCA will:

    1.  Not result in death or injury to individual fish.

    2.  Not expose or disturb land areas sufficient to elevate sediment
        delivery such that habitat/fish are not harmed.

    3.  Not consume (size or amount) large Woody debris to affect stream
        function.

    4.  Not cause mortality to tree overstory or other vegetation such
        that stream temperatures and water yield are significantly
        affected.

**Riparian Area Prescribed Fire Rationale:**

> The following prescribed fire rationale and criteria were used to
> ensure that a NLAA determination is appropriate in riparian zones of
> influence (Quigley et al., PNW-GTR 405, June 1997, pg 969):
>
> **Mortality of trees**: Fire severity in forested RHCAs will be kept
> within the **[nonlethal severity]{.underline}** for 90% or more of the
> affected RHCA, and no more than 5% in a lethal fire severity fire
> effects. Non-lethal severity is defined as:

1.  More than 90% of the canopy cover or more than 70% of the basal area
    that existed prior to the burn is alive after the burn (Quigley, et
    al., PNW-GTR 405 ICBEMP, P. Morgan et al).

2.  It is recommended that **monitoring** of fire severity effects
    related to tree mortality should be based on basal area due to ease
    of measuring and established and accepted methodology that currently
    exists in forest inventory manuals.

3.  **Large woody debris and duff consumption**: Fire intensity effects
    should not exceed a rating of **[low]{.underline}** for 90% of the
    affected RHCA and no more than 10% of the affected RHCA in a
    **[moderate]{.underline}** intensity rating (see BAER intensity
    rating system). Fire intensity ratings are as follows:

> [Low Fire Intensity]{.underline}. A zone may be rated as a
> low-intensity burn if the site factors indicate a moderate or
> low-intensity on the entire area. Areas of low burn intensity often do
> not contribute to an emergency watershed condition but they may act as
> buffer areas to moderate flood hazards that originate on more
> intensively burned-areas. For this reason it is important to inventory
> the low-intensity areas. In addition, the information may be useful
> later in developing treatment strategies.
>
> [Moderate Fire Intensity]{.underline}. A zone may be rated as a
> moderate-intensity burn area if the site factors indicating
> high-intensity burn are found on less than 40 percent of the area. The
> rating of moderate fire intensity alerts the team to the possibility
> that the designated zone may be a potential flood source area. The
> zone should be further surveyed for water-repellent soils or other
> indications that it may yield abnormally high overland runoff.
>
> [High Fire Intensity]{.underline}. A zone should be rated as a
> high-intensity burn area if the site factors indicating high-intensity
> burn are found on 40 percent or more of the area. This would also
> designate the area as a potential flood source area for further
> investigation by the team.

## OR

> **Large woody debris and duff consumption**: Fire severity effects
> should not exceed a rating of **[low]{.underline}** for 90% of the
> affected RHCA and no more than 10% of the affected RHCA in a
> **[moderate]{.underline}** severity rating. Fire severity ratings are
> as follows (Debano, L.F., Neary, D.G., Ffolliott, P.F. 1998. Fire's
> Effects On Ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, c1998, 333p.):

## [Low Fire Severity]{.underline}: Low soil heating, or light ground char, occurs where litter is scorched, charred, or consumed, but the duff is left largely intact, although it can be charred on the surface. Woody debris accumulation are partially consumed or charred. Mineral soil is not changed. Fire severity in forest ecosystems is low if the litter and duff layers are scorched but not altered over the entire depth. 

## [Moderate Fire Severity:]{.underline} Moderate soil heating, or moderate ground char, occurs where the litter on forest sites is consumed and the duff is deeply charred or consumed, but the underlying mineral soil surface is not visibly altered. Light colored ash is present. Woody debris is mostly consumed, except for logs, which are deeply charred. 

## [High Fire Severity:]{.underline} High soil heating, or deep ground char, occurs, where the duff is completely consumed and the top of the mineral soils is visibly reddish or orange on severely burned sites. Color of the soil below 1 cm is darker or charred form organic material. The char layer can extend to a depth of 10 cm or more. Logs can be consumed or deeply charred, and deep ground char can occur under slash concentrations or burned our logs. Soil textures in the surface layers is changed and fusion evidenced by clinkers can be observed locally. 

## OR

If 1000 hour fuels (fuels greater than 3" in diameter) inside the zone
of riparian influence are less than 18 to 25% moisture by weight, then
mitigation measures, such as pretreatment of fuels (wetting, scattering,
etc) should be done to ensure that concerns for large woody debris
consumption and mineral soil exposure are mitigated. (Percent moisture s
should be based upon local sampling and/or NFDRS modeling.)

**Additional Information:**

Some more recent literature includes Korb et al. 2004; Schoennagel et
al. 2004; and Stephens and Finney 2002. Also, *Conservation Biology*
published a special section on Wildfire and Conservation in the Western
United States in 2004 (Backer et al.; Beschta et al.; Beyers; Brown et
al.; Dombeck et al.; Kauffman; McKenzie et al.; and Perry et al.).

### References

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. 1993.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Backer, D.M., S.E. Jensen, and G.R. McPherson. 2004. Impacts of
fire-suppression activities on natural communities. Conservation Biology
18(4): 937-946.

Beschta, R.L., J.J. Rhodes, J.B. Kauffman, R.E. Gresswell, G.W.
Minshall, J.R. Karr, D.A. Perry, F.R. Hauer, C.A. Frissell. 2004.
Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United
States. Conservation Biology 18(4): 957-967.

Beyers, J.L. 2004. Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness
and impacts on native plant communities. Conservation Biology 18(4):
947-956.

Bozek, M.A.; Young, M.K. 1994. Fish mortality resulting from delayed
effects of fire in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Great Basin
Naturalist. 54: 91-95.

Brown, J.K. 1989. Effects of fire on streams. In: Richardson, F.; Hamre,
R.H., eds. Wild trout IV: Proceedings of the symposium. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office: 106-110.

Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and
fire: principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology 18(4):
903-912.

Burton, T.A. 2000. Effects of uncharacteristically large and intense
wildfires on native fish: 14 years of observation -- Boise National
Forest. Boise, ID.

Dombeck, M. P., J. E. Williams, and C. A. Wood. 2004. Wildfire policy
and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social
concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology 18(4): 883-889.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems in Forested Biomes of
North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 128,
Number 2. pp 193 -- 218.

Henjum, M.G.; Karr, J.R.; Bottom, D.L. \[and others\]. 1994. In: Karr,
J.R.; Chu, E.W., eds. Interim protection for late-successional forests,
fisheries, and watersheds. National Forests East of the Cascade Crest,
Oregon and Washington, Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel.
Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society: 129-168.

Kauffman, J. B. 2004. Death rides the forest: perceptions of fire, land
use, and ecological restoration of western forests. Conservation Biology
18(4): 872-882.

Korb, J.E., N.C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning
effects on soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment:
recommendations for amelioration. Restoration Ecology 12: 52-62.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic
change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology 18(4): 890-902.

McMahon, T.E.; deCalista, D.S. 1990. Effects of fire on fish and
wildlife. In: Walstad, J.D.; Radosvich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds.
Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University Press.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on
salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda,
MD: American Fisheries Society. 751 pp.

Megahan, W.F. 1991. Erosion and site productivity in western-montane
forest ecosystems. In: Harvey, A.E.; Neuenschwander, L.F., eds.
Proceedings of the symposium on management and productivity of western
montane forest soils. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-280. 1990 April 10-12; Boise,
ID. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 146-150.

Minshall, G.W., and J.T. Brock. 1991. Observed and anticipated effects
of forest fire on Yellowstone Stream Ecosystems. Reprints from the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America's Wilderness Heritage.
Robert B. Keiter and Mark S. Boyce (eds). Yale University Press.

Minshall, G.W., J.T. Brock, and J.D. Varley. 1989. Wildfires and
Yellowstone\'s stream ecosystems. BioScience 39:707-715.

Perry, D.A., H. Jing, A. Youngblood, and D.R. Oetter. 2004. Forest
structure and fires susceptibility in volcanic landscapes of the eastern
high Cascades, Oregon. Conservation Biology 18(4): 913-926.

Propst, D.L.; Stefferud, J.A.; Turner, P.R. 1992. Conservation and
status of Gila trout, *Oncorhynchus gila*e.Southwestern Naturalist. 37:
117-125.

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M. \[and others\]. 1995. A
disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring
freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous
salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Nielson, J., ed. Evolution and
the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation.
Symposium 17. \[Bethesda, MD\]: American Fisheries Society. \[not
paged\].

Rieman, B.D. 1995. Proceedings- Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered
Species and Habitats Conference, Nov 13-16, 1995. Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
IAWF, 1997.

Rinne, J.N. 1996. Southwestern wildfires: effects on fishes and aquatic
macroinvertebrates and management implications. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management. 16:653-658.

Salo, E. O.; Cundy, T.W.; eds. 1987. Streamside management: forestry and
fishery interactions. Contribution 57. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington, Institute of Forest Resources.

Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, and W.H. Romme. 2004. The interaction of
fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience
54(7): 661-676.

Stephens, S.L. and M.A. Finney. 2002. Prescribed fire mortality of
Sierra Nevada mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and
forest floor combustion. Forest Ecology and Management 162:261-271.

Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Sedell, J.R. 1990. Landscape patterns,
disturbance and management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. In Zonneveld,
I.S.; Foreman, R.T. eds. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective.
New York: Springer-Verlag: 191-213.

Swanson, F.J.; Lienkaemper, G.W. 1978. Physical consequences of large
organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-69.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. \[not paged\].

# ATTACHMENT 13

[]{#Attach13 .anchor}

**Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems -- Pathways (from the literature 2002) -
ASPEN**

# FIRE ECOLOGY 

Light burning on heavily cut areas increases the number of suckers and
stimulates their initial growth. Very light fires can kill aspen because
the bark is thin. Aspen is shade intolerant. As it approaches maturity,
conifer invasions are common, significantly increasing fuel loads. In
nature these conditions favor wildfire that ultimately rejuvenates the
aspen clone. However, hot slash fires (pile and burn) diminish sucker
vigor. Repeated burning increases stand density because it stimulates
sucker numbers and prepares mineral soil seedbeds for seedling
establishment; however, it reduces stand growth. Surface fires in
established aspen stands are not common because of aspen\'s inherently
low flammability and high moisture regime. Thus aspen can be used as a
fuel break. Fire is a useful tool to stimulate regeneration and to
reduce competition if clearcutting is not practiced. It is especially
valuable for regenerating deteriorated stands and for maintaining
wildlife habitat. Disking stimulates suckering, but sucker growth and
survival are usually diminished because of injury to their sustaining
parent roots. Rows of suckers often appear along furrows prepared for
planting conifers.

Herbicides have been used to kill residual trees and to increase
suckering without affecting sucker growth or vigor.

Dormant season cutting generally produces vigorous suckers the next
growing season. Summer cutting produces a sparse stand initially, but
the number of suckers after 2 years is usually the same regardless of
cutting season (15). Suckering sometimes fails inexplicably after
hay-vesting aspen on fine-textured soils during the growing season. The
number of suckers following cutting increases as stocking density of the
parent stand increases up to full site utilization. The effect of age
and site index on aspen suckering is not clear.

Cattle and sheep browsing is a serious problem in many areas of the
Rockies because livestock are allowed to range through recent aspen
clearcuts. Mature aspen stands adjacent to livestock concentrations
(water holes, salt blocks, isolated stands in large open areas) often
have root damage, are declining, and have few if any suckers present.
Excessive use and vandalism by recreationists has caused aspen to
deteriorate in many campsites.

INFISH/PACFISH emphasizes designing fuel treatments and prescribed burns
to perpetuate "long-term ecosystem function" and to attain the riparian
management objectives. The riparian management objectives are partly
defined in INFISH/PACISH as: streamside conditions that serve as
indicators of the attainment of INFISH/PACFISH goals. The INFISH/PACFISH
goals emphasize diverse and productive riparian vegetation
characteristic of natural ecosystems, or characteristic of conditions
under which the riparian communities developed. Therefore prescribed
fires should be designed to move natural, seral aspen communities, from
their present condition dominated by conifers and shrubs, back to their
historic natural condition of even-aged stands reflective of fire
disturbance regimes under which they developed.

# EFFECTS PATHWAYS - ASPEN

Gemomorphic and hydrologic influences -- channel disturbance -- channel
width, ground water, riparian condition (sediment regime, pool
frequency, width-depth ratio) -- See terrestrial vegetation influences
below. Aspen treatments in large stands comprising most of the
subwatershed could significantly alter streamflow regimes during a short
time period (3 to 10 years) following fire. If coincident with wetter
climate, such changes could re-structure or disturb the channel system
having a temporary adverse effect on habitat condition. Because aspen
evapotranspire much less than conifers, the ECA standard for increased
flood regime is higher (25%) (West 2000).

**Riparian Vegetative Influences** -- (sediment regime, temperature,
nutrients LWD/microhabitat, microclimate): Fire is one of the natural
disturbances shaping riparian stream ecosystems. This suggests a total
fire exclusion policy in these areas (riparian zones) is unwise and
unnecessary. It was recognized that the unique vegetation, microclimate,
and topographic features of riparian zones function to affect fire
behavior and spread. In many cases riparian zones have been effectively
used in fire control and use (Kaufmann, 2001). In addition, it was
recognized that fire is a natural disturbance process in riparian zones.
As such, fire has a role in riparian zones and a total exclusion policy
of fire is discouraged. It was recognized that other natural
disturbances shape the composition and structure of riparian/stream
ecosystems. In particular, floods or high flows are significant
disturbances. Diversions which influence these processes also affect
riparian structure and function. Alterations in structure and function
could also affect the fire properties of the riparian zone(Kaufmann,
2001). Comparing riparian zones to uplands, the unique presence of
surface water, composition, fuel moisture, fuel chemistry, microclimate,
and topography combine to affect fire behavior. There is a limit to the
degree in which riparian zones affect fire behavior. Under conditions
where fuel moisture is low (near or below the moisture of extinction)
and under severe fire weather conditions (high winds, low relative
humidity and high temperatures) riparian zones may burn with similar
behavior as the uplands (Kaufmann, 2001).

***Intermittent RHCAs: "Riparian zones/streams in steep first order high
elevation streams have little, if any influence on fire behavior because
of few differences in the upland vs. riparian environment."***

There was less agreement in this statement than the others. In headwater
streams, the species composition may not differ from that of the
uplands. These are small areas that are limited in their effectiveness
as a fire break (i.e. the fire can easily spot over the small riparian
zone).

However, some disagreement was expressed with this statement because of
the unique position of headwaters on the landscape. In headwater streams
topographic shade and microclimate are often different enough to slow
the rate of fuel moisture loss relative to rates in more exposed uplands
(especially south slopes and ridgelines). Differences in microclimate,
fuel moisture content, and presence of surface water, could influence
fire behavior even in small headwater streams under certain seasonal and
weather conditions (Kaufmann, 2001).

**Terrestrial vegetation influences** -- (streamflow regime, landslide):
Aspen forests allow more water or ground water recharge and streamflow
than do conifer forests. This is primarily due to lower seasonal water
losses to interception and transpiration by aspen compared to conifers
(34). Clearcutting the aspen type may increase streamflow by as much as
60 percent during the first year. Subsequently, wateryields gradually
decline to preharvest levels and stabilize when maximum leaf area is
attained at about age 10 to 25. Aspen use 3 to 7 inches less water per
year than conifers. The period of non-use coincides with the dormant
season -- fall, winter, and early spring. Conifers transpire during fall
-- the base flow period for streams. Thus aspen replacement would have a
positive effect on base flows, and a neutral affect on late
spring/summer flood flows (West 2000). Aspen often provides the best
possible protection for unstable mountain slopes (landslide prone RHCAs)
because it was one of only a few species that can tolerate such
instability and still occupy the site, providing some soil water
drainage and roots to hold surface soils in place.

**Human disturbances** -- (fish passage barriers, press disturbances,
fire exclusion): Existing evidence suggests fires and disturbance in
general can pose greater threats to fishes when habitats become
fragmented and otherwise altered by human activities (Dunham 2002).
There has been a significant reduction in fire rejuvenation of aspen
during this century. Historically, aspen burned about once each decade.
Few fire scars are typically seen in aspen stands of the latter half of
this century. The greater the degree of departure from intact conditions
as a result of land and water use activities, the greater the
probability of extreme fire events. Perturbations that would result in
curves such as this include fire exclusion in low severity regimes,
logging, and the long-term effects of livestock grazing. In addition,
water diversions and channel incision would increase fire severity on
the landscape through a loss or decrease of the riparian zone width,
alterations in microclimate, and the loss of surface water for
suppression activities (Kaufmann, 2001). Detenbeck et al., (1992 -- In
Dunham 2002) found that population recovery time was substantially
longer (5 - \>52 yr) for press disturbances, in comparison to pulse
disturbances (\~30d-6 yr).

**Direct effects of fire** - (stream heating/deoxygenation, ash/nutrient
flow)

**Site characteristics** -- (habitat characteristics) - There are
conditions where fire and fire-related disturbance can pose short- term
risks to fish populations. Over longer time scales, habitats generated
by such events may be more productive than those where natural
disturbance has been suppressed or altered by human influences (Reeves
et al., 1995; Matthews 1998 in Dunham 2002). The traditional approach to
managing disturbance focused on static ecosystem and landscape
conditions, and "command and control" management to minimize their
influences (Callicott and Mumford 1997). More recent emphasis has been
placed on restoration and preservation of natural processes and
variability in aquatic ecosystems (Dunham 2002. In larger interconnected
systems, fish populations appear to be more resilient to the effects of
fire. The importance of connectivity was evident in studies of salmonid
responses to fires (Dunham 2002).

+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| *          | **SHORT-TERM EFFECTS**      | **LONG-TERM EFFECTS**    |
| *ASPEN\*** |                             |                          |
|            |                             |                          |
| **EFFECT** |                             |                          |
|            |                             |                          |
| *          |                             |                          |
| *PATHWAY** |                             |                          |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| T          | **Adverse effect, 0 to 5    | **Neutral/beneficial 20+ |
| emperature | years in the understory and | years:** Factors         |
|            | 0 to 20 years in the        | affecting stream         |
|            | overstory**: Understory and | temperature (shade)      |
|            | overstory riparian shade    | should remain similar or |
|            | will be decreased. The      | slightly improved as     |
|            | magnitude of shade decrease | compared to current      |
|            | and subsequent temperature  | conditions. A slight     |
|            | alteration will depend on   | increase in shade may    |
|            | the amount of riparian      | result from healthier    |
|            | vegetation affected along   | aspen and riparian       |
|            | perennial streams.          | communities.             |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Large Wood | **Beneficial effect, 0-40   | **Adverse 40-50 years    |
| Debris     | years**: LWD should         | post-fire, beneficial    |
|            | initially show a marked     | 50+ years:** Regenerated |
|            | increase due to recruitment | stands of aspen would    |
|            | of fire killed trees to the | not begin producing      |
|            | stream channel. Most dead   | large wood debris until  |
|            | trees should fall within    | at least 50 years. There |
|            | the first 20 years. LWD     | may be an approximate 10 |
|            | recruited post-fire are     | year period (40 to 50    |
|            | expected to decompose       | years post-fire) where   |
|            | within approximately 40     | LWD in stream channels   |
|            | years.                      | may be limited.          |
|            |                             |                          |
|            |                             | Rejuvenated aspen stands |
|            |                             | would likely produce     |
|            |                             | larger and more LWD for  |
|            |                             | future recruitment than  |
|            |                             | existing degraded        |
|            |                             | stands.                  |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Pool       | **Neutral/beneficial 0-5    | **Beneficial 5-40 years, |
| Frequency  | years:** See LWD and        | neutral 40-50 years,     |
|            | sediment regime.            | beneficial 50+ years:**  |
|            |                             | See LWD and sediment     |
|            | Pool frequency would be     | regime.                  |
|            | affected by an alteration   |                          |
|            | in sediment regime and LWD. | 5 to 40 years -- Pool    |
|            |                             | frequency would be       |
|            | Increased LWD and increased | improved. Sediment       |
|            | sediment delivery would     | delivery would be        |
|            | likely result in similar or | reduced and LWD          |
|            | slightly improved pool      | recruitment would        |
|            | frequency. Increased LWD    | continue to increase.    |
|            | would likely have a greater |                          |
|            | influence of pool formation | 40 to 50 years -- Pool   |
|            | than increased sediment     | frequency could be       |
|            | yield would have on pool    | reduced, potentially     |
|            | filling.                    | less than current        |
|            |                             | condition, due to        |
|            |                             | decomposition of LWD     |
|            |                             | already in the channel   |
|            |                             | and the lack of new      |
|            |                             | recruitment from the     |
|            |                             | immature riparian        |
|            |                             | forest.                  |
|            |                             |                          |
|            |                             | 50 years and beyond --   |
|            |                             | Pool frequency would     |
|            |                             | improve over existing    |
|            |                             | condition because the    |
|            |                             | rejuvenated riparian     |
|            |                             | stand would be           |
|            |                             | recruiting new and       |
|            |                             | larger LWD to stream     |
|            |                             | channels.                |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| W          | **Adverse 0-5 years:**      | **Neutral 5-20 years,    |
| idth/depth | Localized channel widening  | Beneficial 20+ years:**  |
| ratio      | in intermittent and small   | Water yield would        |
|            | perennial streams nay occur | continue to be elevated, |
|            | due to streambank erosion,  | but riparian vegetation  |
|            | an increase in water yield, | and ground cover would   |
|            | and an alteration in the    | provide improved         |
|            | timing of runoff. Effects   | streambank protection    |
|            | would decrease as riparian  | and improved runoff      |
|            | vegetation and ground cover | timing.                  |
|            | reestablish. The effect to  |                          |
|            | width/depth ratio is        | Vigorous riparian        |
|            | dependent on the magnitude  | vegetation and healthy   |
|            | of runoff events and the    | aspen stands would       |
|            | amount of streambank        | improve bank stability   |
|            | vulnerable to               | over existing condition  |
|            | destabilization.            | and would result in a    |
|            |                             | reduction (improvement)  |
|            |                             | in width/depth ratio.    |
|            |                             |                          |
|            |                             | Effects from increased   |
|            |                             | water yield should not   |
|            |                             | effect w/d ratio in the  |
|            |                             | long-term. Peak flows    |
|            |                             | are channel-forming      |
|            |                             | flows and have the       |
|            |                             | greatest impact on w/d   |
|            |                             | ratio. Peak flows would  |
|            |                             | not be altered because   |
|            |                             | aspen would transpire at |
|            |                             | a similar rate to        |
|            |                             | conifer during late      |
|            |                             | spring when              |
|            |                             | channel-forming flows    |
|            |                             | occur.                   |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Sediment   | **Adverse 0-5 years:** High | **Beneficial 5+ years:** |
| regime     | intensity prescribed fire   | Vigorous rejuvenated     |
|            | in riparian areas would     | aspen stands and         |
|            | result in bare soil         | riparian vegetation      |
|            | directly adjacent to stream | should provide improved  |
|            | channels. The amount of     | bank stability and       |
|            | sediment delivered is       | improved ground cover as |
|            | dependent on the magnitude  | compared to current      |
|            | of precipitation and        | condition.               |
|            | snow-melt events. Regrowth  |                          |
|            | of ground cover and bank    |                          |
|            | stabilizing vegetation      |                          |
|            | should occur within 5 years |                          |
|            | of fire. The greatest risk  |                          |
|            | of increased sediment       |                          |
|            | delivery is during the      |                          |
|            | first two years after fire. |                          |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Water      | **Adverse 0-10 years:**     | **Beneficial 10+         |
| quantity   | Burned areas devoid of or   | years:** After           |
|            | with reduced live           | rejuvenated aspen stands |
|            | vegetation would transpire  | become established and   |
|            | less water than current     | begin transpiring water  |
|            | conditions. An increased    | at a similar rate to the |
|            | volume of water would be    | parent stand (ten to 20  |
|            | made available to ground    | years post-fire --       |
|            | water sources and stream    | DeByle and Winokur       |
|            | channels.                   | 1985), there will be an  |
|            |                             | excess amount of water   |
|            |                             | as compared to existing  |
|            |                             | condition. Aspen use     |
|            |                             | three to seven inches    |
|            |                             | less water per year than |
|            |                             | conifers (Gifford et al. |
|            |                             | 1983). In addition,      |
|            |                             | conifers are currently   |
|            |                             | encroaching and          |
|            |                             | replacing existing aspen |
|            |                             | stands. The period of    |
|            |                             | non-use for aspen        |
|            |                             | coincides with the       |
|            |                             | dormant season: fall,    |
|            |                             | winter, and early        |
|            |                             | spring. Conifers         |
|            |                             | transpire in the fall,   |
|            |                             | the base flow period for |
|            |                             | streams. The increase in |
|            |                             | base flow may result in  |
|            |                             | minor increases in       |
|            |                             | perennial stream length. |
|            |                             | The increased water      |
|            |                             | yield is likely to be    |
|            |                             | similar to historical    |
|            |                             | conditions when aspen    |
|            |                             | communities were         |
|            |                             | healthy.                 |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Stream     | See RMOs above.             |                          |
| channel    |                             |                          |
| processes  | Stream channel processes    |                          |
|            | are influenced by factors   |                          |
|            | covered by RMOs above.      |                          |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Nutrients  | **Neutral 0-20 years:** A   | **Beneficial 20+         |
|            | reduction in shade would    | years:** Improved        |
|            | result in increased solar   | riparian aspen stand     |
|            | input and subsequent        | health would result in   |
|            | increased primary           | increased nutrient       |
|            | productivity (McMahon et    | loading to stream        |
|            | al. 1990). Fish populations | channels as compared to  |
|            | would likely also increase  | existing condition.      |
|            | if nutrients were the       |                          |
|            | limiting factor for the     |                          |
|            | population. However, the    |                          |
|            | subsequent alteration in    |                          |
|            | winter and spring           |                          |
|            | temperatures which also     |                          |
|            | occur may offset the        |                          |
|            | potential productivity      |                          |
|            | increases by altering the   |                          |
|            | timing of critical life     |                          |
|            | history stage such as       |                          |
|            | emergence of fry from       |                          |
|            | spawning gravels (Ringler   |                          |
|            | and Hall 1988).             |                          |
+------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+

*\*Reighn 2002*

**References**

Perala, D.A. 2002. *Populus tremuloides* Michx. Quaking Aspen Ecology.
Silvics Manual
<http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_2/populus/tremuloides.htm>.

West, H. 2000. Hydrologic Assessment of Watershed Indicators for Lime
Creek Aspen Treatment. Mountain Home RD, Boise National Forest. Boise,
ID.

Reighn, C. 2000. Prescribed fire effects to fish habitat and riparian
features -- Aspen. Mountain Home RD, Boise National Forest. Boise, ID.

# Burton, T.A. 2000. INFISH consistency - Prescribed fire in Aspen. Boise National Forest. Boise, ID. 

Ringler and Hall 1988

DeByle and Winokur 1985

Gifford et al. 1983

McMahon, T.E. and D.S. deCalesta. 1990. Effects of Fire on Fish and
Wildlife. *In:* Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Nothwest Forests.
J.D. Walstad, S.R. Radoswich, and D.V. Sandb erg (eds). Oregon State
University Press.

Callicott and Mumford 1997

# ATTACHMENT 14

[]{#Attach14 .anchor}

Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems -- Pathways (from the literature 2002)

Oak Woodland

**FIRE ECOLOGY** - Burns hot. In small headwater streams oak comes down
to the stream channel. Temperature and sediment effects result.
Exclusion of RHCA is difficult, particularly in the headlands. In steep
terrain burning logs can roll back into the RHCA and torch the RHCA. A
prescribed fire that escaped into wildfire extirpated cutthroat trout in
southern Utah. Need to pay attention to the entire drainage network,
including the zero order channels.

# EFFECTS PATHWAYS -- Oak Woodland

**Gemomorphic and hydrologic influences** -- channel disturbance --
channel width, ground water, riparian condition (sediment regime, pool
frequency, width-depth ratio) - Don't know if it affects streamflow
regime. Need to apply the sediment buffers to all drainages including
zero order drainages.

**Riparian Vegetative Influences** -- (sediment regime, temperature,
nutrients LWD/microhabitat, microclimate) - Oak is predominantly in
lower elevations and the green riparian zone is very small, with Oak
within just a few feet of the streambank. Can occur adjacent to 2^nd^
order and 3^rd^ order streams.

**Terrestrial vegetation influences** -- (streamflow regime,
landslide) - No known ECA standard.

**Human disturbances** -- (fish passage barriers, press disturbances,
fire exclusion) -

**Direct effects of fire** - (stream heating/deoxygenation, ash/nutrient
flow) - Given that it burns hot adjacent to riparian zones, direct
effects are likely.

**Site characteristics** -- (habitat characteristics) - Occurs at lower
elevations.

**ATTACHMENT 15**

[]{#attach15 .anchor}**Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal
of Forest Roads**

Mary Ann Madej

U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center

In the 2003 version of Attachment 15, a full copy of the article
appeared here in PDF format. For the full article, visit the archived
version of the Salmonid Criteria, available online at
[www.or.blm.gov/fcp/FCP-Home.htm](http://www.or.blm.gov/fcp/FCP-Home.htm).
An abstract of the last article appears below.

**Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads**

Mary Ann Madej

U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center1655 Heindon
Road Arcata, CA 95521 USA

707-825-5148 707-822-8904 (Fax) mary_ann_madej@usgs.gov

**ABSTRACT**

Erosion control treatments were applied to abandoned logging roads in
California, with the goal of reducing road-related sediment input to
streams and restoring natural hydrologic patterns on the landscape.
Treatment of stream crossings involved excavating culverts and
associated road fill and reshaping streambanks. A variety of techniques
were applied to road benches, which included decompacting the road
surface, placing unstable road fill in more stable locations, and
reestablishing natural surface drainage patterns. Following treatment
and a 12year recurrence-interval storm, some road reaches and excavated
stream crossings showed evidence of mass movement failures, gullying,
bank erosion and channel incision. Posttreatment erosion from excavated
stream crossings was related to two variables: a surrogate for stream
power (drainage area \* channel gradient) and the volume of fill
excavated from the channel. Post-treatment erosion on road reaches was
related to four explanatory variables: method of treatment, hillslope
position (upper, mid-slope or lower), date of treatment, and an
interaction term (hillslope position \* method of treatment). Sediment
delivery from treated roads in upper, middle and lower hillslope
positions was 10, 135, and 550 m of sediment/kilometer of treated roads,
respectively. In contrast, inventories of almost 500 km of forest roads
in adjacent catchments indicate that untreated roads produced 1500 to
4700 m of sediment/km of road length. Erosion from 300 km of treated
roads contributed less than 2 percent of the total sediment load of
Redwood Creek during the period 1978 to 1998. Although road removal
treatments do not completely eliminate erosion associated with forest
roads, they do substantially reduce sediment yields from abandoned
logging roads.

[^1]: Preprint of Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black, 2001, Effects of Traffic
    and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Production. In
    Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation
    Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. pp. V67--V74.