Post on 25-Jun-2020
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January2017
Environmental Assessment
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Domain 16
Research in the Wind River Experimental Forest, and T.T. Munger Research Natural Area, and Martha Creek
Gifford Pinchot National Forest Mt. Adams Ranger District Skamania County, Washington Legal Land Description: T4N, R6E, Sections 12, 13 T4N, R7E, Sections 7, 8, 19, 21, 24, 30, PB 48, PB 51, PB 52, Willamette Meridian
For Information Contact: Erin Black, Planning Team Leader
2455 Hwy 141, Trout Lake, WA 98650 (509) 395-3411, ekblack@fs.fed.us
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all
prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil
Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an
equal opportunity provider and employer.
Environmental Assessment NEON Research Domain 16
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4
Need for the Proposal ................................................................................................... 6 Existing Condition ...................................................................................................................... 6 Desired Condition ....................................................................................................................... 6 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 7 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation .............................................................................. 7 Federal and State Regulatory Consultation ................................................................................. 8
Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................... 9 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 9 No Action .................................................................................................................................. 24
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................... 24 Botanical Species ...................................................................................................................... 24 Wildlife Species ........................................................................................................................ 29 Water Resources, Soils and Fisheries ....................................................................................... 48 Other Disclosures Required by Law, Policy, and Regulation ................................................... 54 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 55
References ................................................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX A. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................... 65
4
INTRODUCTION
The Mt. Adams District Ranger is analyzing a proposal to issue a special use permit to Battelle
Memorial Institutefor new research on the Forest. The National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON) is a nationwide research effort to investigate the impacts of climate change, land-use
change, and invasive species on ecology. The NEON will gather instrumental and observational
data over 30 years that will permit the study of ecological responses of the biosphere to
environmental change and resulting feedbacks to the hydrosphere and atmosphere. The project is
fully supported and funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The Forest Service is conducting environmental analysis according to the National
Environmental Policy Act to meet the requirements for both the Forest Service and the National
Science Foundation. If the research proposal is approved to occur on National Forest System
lands, the Forest will issue a 30-year, special-use permit for the activities.
The research would predominantly occur within the Wind River Experimental Forest (WREF),
including the Thornton T. Munger Research Natural Area (RNA).
There are three components to the research: a soil and atmospheric study (on and around the
Wind River Tower—formerly Canopy Crane), a terrestrial array with 30-50 study plots in open
areas within the WREF, and an aquatic study site in Martha Creek. Each component is detailed
below.
The pre-existing Wind River Tower will be retrofitted and used to mount sensors that measure a
suite of atmospheric variables. An instrument hut will be placed at the base of the tower andused
to house instruments and other equipment. The hut will also contain communications and control
hardware that transmits data back to the NEON central repository. A weather station will also be
constructed within the open fields on the edge of the WREF (known as the PNW Fields) and
power run to the site from an existing power supply nearby.
Throughout the site, there will be approximately 30-50 sampling plots that are identified for
biological sampling. Plot markers will be established for the collection of beetles, ticks, and
mosquitos, and grids to study mammals and birds. The latter will include ground placement or
the hanging or fixing of collection traps to vegetation and/or trees. Small mammals (mice, voles,
shrews, squirrels, chipmunks) will also be trapped and tagged. These traps will be placed on the
ground. Birds will not be trapped. Vegetation will also be studied at various study plots
throughout the general project area.
At the Martha Creek site a suite of continuous water quality instruments would be placed near
the creek to measure multiple facets of water quality (pH, conductivity, turbidity, water level,
water temperature, nitrate and in-stream photosynthetically active radiation). A suite of eight
shallow groundwater wells will be located along the aquatic stream reach and instrumented with
water pressure (level), conductivity and temperature sensors.
Page 5 of 72
Figure 1. Map of Proposed Action
6
NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL
Existing Condition
Battelle Memorial Instituteapproached the Forest with an interest in conducting the research in
the T. T. Munger Research Natural Area and the Wind River Experimental Forest. This site,
together with other southwest Washington and western Oregon locations would make up Domain
16 of a national study. Domain 16 will complement 20 different ecoregion domains, all
comprising various seral stages that will replicate data collection across the country.
Desired Condition
This EA tiers to the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement that informed the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 1990).
Management direction on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest comes from the Forest Plan, as
amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest
Forest Plan, 1994). These two documents guide planning on the forest through the
categorization of land allocation, the description of desired future conditions, and the
prescription of standards and guidelines that must be adhered to in each of those land allocations
as well as across the forest as a whole. Land allocations and management area categories that
occur in the project area are explained in detail below. Where management area categories from
the Forest Plan overlap with land allocations from the Northwest Forest Plan, the more restrictive
standards and guidelines apply, unless otherwise noted.
Late Successional Reserve
The objective for Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-
successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and
old growth related species, including the northern spotted owl (NWFP ROD, p. C-9). Desired
late-successional and old-growth characteristics that are created as younger stands change
through successional development include: 1) multi-species and multi-layered assemblages of
trees, 2) moderate to high accumulations of large logs and snags, 3) moderate to high canopy
closure, 4) imperfections such as accumulations of large cavities, broken tops, and large
deformed limbs, and 5) moderate to high accumulations of fungi, lichen, and bryophytes.
Habitat improvement projects designed to improve conditions for fish, wildlife, or watersheds
are consistent and should be considered (NWFP ROD, p. C-17).
Riparian Reserves
Riparian reserves were established in the Northwest Forest Plan to protect and highlight the
importance of riparian areas as one of four components comprising the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The main purpose of the riparian reserves is to protect the health of the aquatic system
and its dependent species; the reserves also provide incidental benefits to upland species. The
reserves help maintain and restore riparian structures and functions, benefit fish and riparian-
7
dependent non-fish species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms dependent on the
transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for
terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of late-successional forest
habitat (NWFP ROD, p. 7).
ResearchNatural Areas
Management and protection of the Thornton T. Munger RNA is directed toward maintaining
natural and ecological processes. The goal is to manage Research Natural Areas (RNAs) in a
natural state for research and education, and/or to maintain biological diversity. RNAs provide
opportunities for research, study, observation, monitoring, and those educational activities that
retain undisturbed conditions. In effect, they provide a baseline for biological diversity found on
the Forest.
Experimental Forest
The Experimental Forest is specifically set aside for research essential to managing the Nation‘s
timber and range resources. It is administered by the Pacific Northwest Research Station in
cooperation with the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
Decision Framework
The responsible officialwill review the proposed action and the no action alternativeto determine
which of them best meets the purpose of and need for action.
The final decision would be to either:
select the proposedaction or portions of the proposed action for implementation,
defer action at this time, or
conclude that significant impacts would result from the proposed action which would warrant
the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
PublicInvolvement and Tribal Consultation
On August 22, 2016, a description of the proposalwas sent to the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest‘s publicmailing list, which includes over 100 individuals, organizations, agencies, and
Indian tribes, for comment during scoping.In addition, a Forest Service archeologist conducted
consultation with the Yakama Nation, Nisqually, Cowlitz, and Squaxin Island Indian tribeson the
project.None of the Tribes followed up with any concerns or comments.
During the initial public scoping period, the Forest Service received three email in response to
the proposed action, some with clarifying questions and all supportive of the research project in
general. The Forest also had numerous conversations with representatives from the University of
Washington (who currently own the Canopy Tower) and staff from the Pacific Northwest
Research Station, whose director approves actions in the Experimental Forest and Research
Natural Area.
8
Using these comments, as well as internal input, the interdisciplinary team refined the proposed
action that would be addressed in this analysis. Comments raised during the scoping period were
either used to refine the proposed action through the incorporation of specific design features, or
addressed through application of Standards and Guidelines or best management practices. The
issues raised did not drive development of another action alternative.
The draft Environmental Assessment was released for a 30-day comment period on December 5,
2016. The Forest received one comment letter from the Pacific Crest Trail Association. The
group supports the research proposal in general, but wants to ensure that any development
associated with the research doesn‘t interfere with the Pacific Crest Trail‘s scenic integrity or
diminishes the trail experience. Specifically the group was concerned with increased traffic
where trail crossings occur, any expansion or enhancements to the road or utility systems and the
potential long-term affects to the viewshed if trees (now currently blocking the view of the tower
and instruments) are removed from fire or management.
Mitigation added to the EA to address some of PCTA‘s concerns include: providing signage
emphasizing the speed limit on the access road, better identification of the trail crossings.
Federal and State Regulatory Consultation
The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) is responsible for enforcing the Clean
Water Act of 1972. A Memorandum of Understanding prepared and agreed to by the Forest
Service and ECY states that Best Management Practices, used by the Forest Service to control or
prevent non-point sources of water pollution, would meet or exceed State water quality standards
and other requirements, as outlined in the Washington State Forest Practices Rules. With
appropriate BMPs in place, project activities are consistent with the intent and provisions of the
Act. Details on impacts to water quality are in the hydrology section.
The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for
protection and recovery of terrestrial species and non-anadromous fish species that are threatened
and endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under Section 7 of the Act, the Forest
Service is required to consult with the USFWS any time a project may have an effect on a
species listed under the ESA. For the NEON project it was determined that the projectmay affect
but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls and would have no effect to spotted owl Critical
Habitat. Project activities would have no effect to non-anadromous bull trout so no consultation
with the USFWS for fish species was required. Consultation with the USFWS for spotted owls is
covered in the programmatic agreement between the USFWS and the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest.
The United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
responsible for the protection and recovery of Threatened and Endangered anadromous fish
species. Due to these potential effects to listed fish in Martha Creek, it is determined that that
project activities may affect, are likely to adversely affect Lower Columbia River steelhead trout
and Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead trout. A Fisheries Biological
Assessment details this determination and was sent to NMFS for consultation.
9
All steps in the cultural resource process are coordinated with the Washington State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). A determination was made that ―No Historic Properties Affected‖
(36 CFR 800.4 (d)(1)) and therefore no consultation with the SHPO are required. Cultural
Resource Site Reports are filed with and approved by the Washington State Historic Preservation
Officer.
The permittee will also need to obtain any necessary state and federal permits (from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service
respectively) for mammal handling and aquatic research.
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the NEON research proposal.
It includes a description of the proposed action and the no action. The issues raised did not drive
development of an action alternative other than the Proposed Action.
Proposed Action
The Forest Service is considering authorizing a special use permit to Battelle Memorial Institute
to implement and maintain the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON).
Terrestrial Component
NEON is a continental-scale ecological observatory designed to enable understanding of the
impacts of climate change, land-use change and invasive species on ecology. NEON will gather
instrumental and observational data over 30 years that will permit the study of ecological
responses of the biosphere to environmental change and resulting feedbacks to the hydrosphere
and atmosphere.
NEON will employ distributed sensor networks, field samples and human observations,
coordinated airborne observations, and field experiments to acquire ecological data. The
proposed study site is located in the Wind River Experimental Forest (WREF). NEON plans to
retrofit an already existing tower with related infrastructure including a soil array, instrument hut
and associated paths. Infrastructure includes boardwalks or paths, conduits, fencing, and
equipment. A pre-existing Tower Crane will be retrofitted and used to mount sensors that
measure a suite of atmospheric variables. An instrument hut will be built near the tower to house
gas analyzer instruments and other equipment. The hut will also contain communications and
control hardware that transmits data back to the NEON central repository. An air conditioning
unit will cool the instrument hut during hot weather.
Throughout the site, there will be approximately 50-55 permanent sampling plots that are
identified for biological sampling, to include plots within the tower airshed and those distributed
across major land cover types within sampling boundaries agreed to by WREF. Plot markers will
10
be established in accordance with WREF and RNA policies and procedures. Managers from the
Mt. Adams Ranger District and Pacific Northwest Research Station will approve each site.
Terrestrial sampling will include:
Plant biodiversity
Plant biomass, leaf area, and chemical composition
Plant phenology
Bird composition and abundance through passive observational sampling
Ground beetles abundance and diversity through pitfall trapping
Mosquitos phenology, abundance, and pathogens through CO2 light traps
Small mammal abundance, demography, and pathogens through mark recapture sampling
Tick-borne diseases through drag sampling to collect adult, nymph, and larval samples
Soil microbe abundance, diversity, and function
Soils biogeochemistry
A soil pit will be dug just outside of the RNA. The pit will be approximately 5 feet square and 6
feet deep. Samples of the soil profile will be collected and archived, and the pit filled back in.
An automated weather station will be constructed in the old nursery field near the existing office
buildings and connected to existing power. A power cable will be run underground from the
transformer to the weather station.
Aquatic Component
There will also be an aquatic site in Martha Creek. A one-kilometer reach of Martha Creek
would be instrumented with a suite of continuous water quality instruments at two locations
within the creek. Further, a micrometeorlogical station is located in the riparian zone capturing
near-stream measurements. A suite of eight shallow groundwater wells will be located along the
stream reach and instrumented with water pressure (level), conductivity and temperature sensors.
11
Figure 3. Photo of a Dingo
Figure 2. Martha Creek in the Study Area.
Instream and Near-Stream Infrastructure to be Built and Maintained at Martha Creek
Access Paths
In order for sampling crews to regularly access the one kilometer sampling reach in lower
Martha Creek from the nearest road (the now-decommissioned Forest Road 4101), as well as to
install the wells and monitoring equipment, an existing unimproved trail (approx. 2,500 ft. long)
that accesses the sensor at the downstream portion of the
sampling reach will need to cleared and widened. A new
unimproved trail (2,122 ft. long) that accesses the sensor at the
upstream portion of the sampling reach will need to be cleared.
Additionally, a third unimproved access trail (approx. 3,200 ft.
long) that runs adjacent to the sampling reach at Martha Creek
will need to be cleared but, except where it enters and exits the
creek, this trail will be located approx. 20 ft. from Martha Creek.
All three of these access trails will occasionally need to be
cleared over the next 30 years as trees fall across them. The trail
clearing/equipment installation crew will not use heavy equipment beyond the footprint of the
decommissioned Forest Road 4101 and will minimize clearing to hand felling-and-leaving any
hazard trees adjacent to the trails, hand-lopping any branches or saplings or shrubs, and cutting
sections out of any piece of large downed wood that is lying across the access trails. The access
paths will be no wider than 4 ft. to enable lightweight equipment, such as a Dingo (a small, walk-
behind forklift), to assist with transporting well drilling equipment and instrumentation to Martha
Creek. Photographs of a Dingo can be seen in Figure 3below, an engineering design showing the
access paths can be seen in Figure 4.
12
Figure 4. Engineering design showing the access
paths for the Martha Creek sampling site
On-grade power and communications conduits
Electrical power and communications capabilities are needed at the Martha Creek aquatic
sampling site in order for the instrumentation to function and to relay data. The nearest power
source is at the end of Hemlock Road where there now-blocked entrance to the decommissioned
Forest Road 4101 is located. A below-ground power conduit will be installed along the first part
of the decommissioned road, and then an on-grade power conduit will be utilized from the road
to upstream sensor in Martha Creek. An extension of this on-grade power conduit will run
adjacent to Martha Creek from the upstream sensor to the downstream sensor. Both sections of
the on-grade power conduit will be located within or immediately adjacent to the access trails
and will not require any additional clearing. See Figure 5 below for an example of an on-grade
power conduit.
Device Posts and Portals
Device posts and portals will provide infrastructure to distribute power andcommunications to
the two instream sensors and to the riparian meteorological station at the Martha Creek sampling
site. Device posts will beapprox. 4.3 ft. tall and 1 ft. wide. Portals are approx. 4.3 ft. tall and 3 ft.
wide. The aquatic portal and device posts will be connected to power through the on-
gradeelectrical and communications conduit and will be placed on the streambank. The two
device posts and portals associated with the instream sensors will be located approx. 20 feet from
Martha Creek, and the device post and portal associated with the meteorological station will be
located approx. 30-50 feet from the creek. See Figure 6 for an example of a NEON device post
and portals.
Figure 5. Example of an on-grade power conduit
13
Instream Sensor Suites
The instream infrastructure will consist of two sensor suites containing water quality
sensorsmounted on a unistrut structure
with a height of 112 in. and with a basket
base of 32 x 36 in. The sensor
suiteincludes the ability to measure
temperature, conductivity, pH,
chlorophyll, fDOm, dissolved oxygen,
nitrateand pressure level. In addition, a
photosynthetically active radiation
(PAR) sensor is located at the top of
theunistrut structure. The instream
sensors would be removed during the
high-flow winter season and then
replaced the following late spring, and this would
occur for the next 30 years. During the spring, summer, and fall seasons, crew access to the
sensors and infrastructure would be required every 2 weeks to perform maintenanceprocedures.
See Figures 7 and 8 below for examples of NEON instream sensor suites.
Figure 6. Example of a NEON device post
and portals
14
Figure 7. Example of a sensor suite with staff gauge and
on-bank camera
Figure 8. Close-up view of an instream sensor suite (S1/S2 sensor post with instruments)
Meteorological Station
A meteorological station will be located in the
near-stream (inner riparian) environment in
order to capture local climate that is
representative of the stream. The meteorological
sensors include temperature,relative humidity,
barometricpressure, 2D wind speed and
direction, net radiometer and PAR.The sensor
suite will be mounted on atripod frame that will
have three anchors to providestability to the
structure. The sensors will be located at aheight
of 112 in. from the ground, including a further
36 in. in height for the lightning rod. The total
width of themeteorological station is 90 in. This
station will be placed approx. 100 ft. from
Martha Creek. See Figure 9 below for an
example of a NEON meteorological station.
Figure 9. Example of a NEON meteorological
station
15
Groundwater wells
A set of groundwater wells will be installed in the stream riparian corridor and concentrated near
the two instream sensor suites within the 1 km sampling reach in lower Martha Creek.This work
is tentatively scheduled to begin in summer 2017. The groundwater well locations are selected
to provide a spatialgeometry suitablefor the examination hydrologic exchange processes between
the streamsurface water and surroundinggroundwater. In this array, six of the wells are located
near thestream approx. 20ft.from the stream‘s edge, and two ofthe wells are located further from
the stream approx. 50-100ft. from the stream‘s edge. This allows for observations of both near-
stream (hyporheic) and far-from-the-stream waterchemistry and hydrologic gradients. The plan
is to drill the wells to a few feet below the seasonal low watertable elevation and, depending on
the location of the wells, the anticipated well depths range from 8-15 ft. below the ground
surface. The wells closer to the stream will generally be on the shallower end of the range
andthefurther ones will likely be deeper. Well locations are selected to minimize the potential of
hitting boulders and bedrock. However, due to the rocky nature of this stream,well drilling
crews are likely to encounter obstructions in a few of the borings.When drilling refusal is
encountered due to hitting a buried boulder prior to reaching a sufficient depth, theboring will be
terminated and filled back in unless the boulder can be removed and the boring continued. Anew
boring will be attempted in the vicinity of the previous attempt and, as such, exact final locations
for thegroundwater wells are not possible but will be within 10 m. radially of thecoordinates
provided in Table 1 and in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10. Proposed groundwater well locations adjacent to lower Martha Creek
16
Table 1. Locations of the proposed groundwater wells, as
shown in Figure 10
Well ID Latitude Longitude
D16-MART-OW-01 45.790924° -121.933538°
D16-MART-OW-02 45.790821° -121.933293°
D16-MART-OW-03 45.791172° -121.933414°
D16-MART-OW-04 45.791089° -121.933114°
D16-MART-OW-05 45.791903° -121.930225°
D16-MART-OW-06 45.791807° -121.929718°
D16-MART-OW-07 45.792112° -121.929780°
D16-MART-OW-08 45.792342° -121.929860°
Drilling Equipment:
Access to the stream corridor and along the stream reach is challenging and all drilling
equipment must be hand-carried into the drilling sites. Access from the roadway to the stream
will be along the established unimproved trail. To reach each drilling site, the equipment will be
hand-carried along the stream corridor. A small portable drilling system, the Little Beaver
Drilling System shown in Figure 11 below, is planned for use at this site due to its modular
design and portability.
Figure 11. Little Beaver Drilling System (extensions for the augers allow drilling to deeper
depths)
Well Construction:
The wells will be installed following all State of Washington regulations for installation of
monitoring/observation wells and will include a locking metal outer protective shell, surrounding
the PVC well, set in a small concrete pad. See the well design in Figure 12 below.
17
Figure 12. Well design to be used for groundwater wells along Martha Creek
Groundwater Chemistry:
A subset of 4 of the 8 wells will be sampled for groundwater chemistry twice per year (spring
and fall) to examine seasonal variation. The same wells will be sampled each bout unless a well
becomes damaged or is dry, and then a different well will be selected and sampled during that
bout. In general, both of the far-from-the-stream wells and two of the near-stream wells will be
18
sampled each bout. Groundwater sampling will also occur within a day of surface water
chemistry sampling to provide a snapshot of water chemistry concentrations spanning from the
stream channel, through the hyporheic zone, and out to the groundwater zone. Extraction of
groundwater for obtaining samples will follow low flow methods and total extraction of water
from each well will be around 4-8 gallons total per bout; for a total groundwater extraction of
around 30-60 gallons per year from the full well network.
Sensor System:
Each well will be outfitted with an In-Situ, Inc. AquaTroll 200 sensor to measure groundwater
elevation (pressure), temperature, and specific conductance every 5 minutes. Power and
communications for the sensor is through a small communications box attached to the well
casing which houses a radio and battery capable of supplying power to the system for 2-3 months
between recharges. A small solar panel is attached to the well casing and used to provide
additional power to the battery. Sensor maintenance will occur roughly twice per month for the
first few months and then will likely be reduced to only once per month after the maintenance
frequency (biofouling rate) is established for these wells. See Figure 13 below for an example of
a NEON groundwater well.
Figure 13. Example of a NEON groundwater well with a power and communication system
Sampling Efforts to be Conducted Annually at Martha Creek
NEON will use a combination of instream and riparian sensors, as described in the preceding
section, and field samplingto characterize the chemical, physical, and biological properties at the
19
aquatic sampling site in Martha Creek.The aquatic component of NEON samples organismsand
performs field observations to identify and quantifyindicators of change in the stream ecosystem.
Data will be gathered via in situ sensorsand analyses will be performed on samples collected
through manual field collections.The aquatic sampling suite consists of chemicalmeasurements
of surface and shallow ground water (e.g., dissolved oxygen,pH, conductivity, dissolved organic
matter [DOM], chlorophyll and nutrient levels) physical measurements (e.g. stream morphology,
water and air temperature, wind speed and direction), and the diversity and distribution ofalgae,
microbes, aquatic plants, invertebrates, and fish. All instream sampling occurs within the 1 km.
stream reach in lower Martha Creek and all sampling that occurs in the riparian area within this
same 1 km. reach will be done within 200 m. (656 ft.) of the edge of Martha Creek.
Water Chemistry Sampling
Water Chemistry samples will be collected up to 26 times per year. Water chemistry will be
collected monthly withadditional flow-weighted sampling events to capture peak times ofnutrient
and chemical fluxes. Each 4 liter samplewill be collected as a grab sample. Samples will be
analyzed for general chemistry, anions and cations, dissolved andtotal carbon and nutrients,
stable isotopes of water and particulate carbon and nitrogen, and dissolved gases
(CarbonDioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide).Shallow groundwater chemistry will be collected
up to two times per year for general chemistry, anions and cations,dissolved and total carbon and
nutrients, and stable isotopes of water.
Microbe Sampling
Microbes will be sampled in wadeable streams with water chemistry samples and benthic scrub
samples. Microbewater sampling occurs 12 times per year along with monthly water chemistry
samples. Water samples will becollected from surface water with a 4L bottle. Microbial scrub
samples will occur 3 times per year, roughly spring,summer, and autumn. Depending on the
stream bottom, these samples will be collected by scrubbing a small portionof 3-5 cobbles or
pieces of wood with gloves, collecting 3-5 small grabs of sand or silt sediment, or 3-5 small
grabs ofplant material. NEON technicians will remove any invertebrates from the substrate prior
to scrubbing. Microbes scrubbedfrom the cobble or wood will be collected into a tray and filtered
into a capsule filter, sand/silt samples will be placedin a Falcon tube, and plant grab samples will
be placed in a Whirl-pak®. Microbe samples will be flash-frozen andsent to a lab for analysis.
Reaeration Sampling
Reaeration (i.e., gas exchange) is the movement of oxygen from the atmosphere into the water,
and is measured asthe net rate (i.e. gain and loss of oxygen) at which gas exchanges across the
air-water interface. Reaerationrepresents the net flux of O2 and CO2 into and out of
theatmosphere and, therefore, accurately quantifyingreaeration rates will be important for stream
metabolism modeling, climate change research, and carbon budgetcalculations.Reaeration is
measured approximately 6-12 times per year by a simultaneous and continuous injection of an
inertgas, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Note that, although the project proposal states that propane
gas may be used in place of SF6 in rare instances, propane gas will not be used in Martha Creek.
SF6 is inert, has minimal biological uptake and isdeemed safe for aquatic life. The inert gas
tracer is bubbled into an area of slow-moving water in the stream.Approximate gas injection
rates for SF6 are 100 mL/min for streams with flow ~ 50-200 L/s and 200-300 mL/min forlarge
streams >1000 L/s. To account for dilution due to surface or groundwater inputs, a conservative
20
solute tracersuch as chloride (Cl-) or bromide (Br-) is added to the stream in addition to the inert
gas. Rhodamine may be usedas the conservative tracer in rare cases. The conservative tracer is
added to the stream at a known rate (based ondischarge), aiming to increase the stream
conservative tracer concentration 5-10 mg/L above background (i.e., preaddition)levels. Tracer
addition needs to only be large enough to detect at the most downstream sampling site and will
vary by location, discharge, and background conductivity.Once the conservative tracer reaches a
plateau (i.e., is no longer increasing) at the most downstream sampling site(measured via a
handheld electrical conductivity meter), water and gas samples are collected at three to
fourlocations downstream of the tracer addition, and the injection is stopped. Tracer injections
typically run 1 – 2 hours,and will be completed approx. six times per year.
Discharge Sampling
Stream flow, or discharge, will be studied as it directly affects the physical, chemical, and
thermal attributes of astream‘s ecosystem. NEON will monitor stage (height of water in the
stream) to calculate discharge continuously inall river and stream sites within the Observatory,
including at Martha Creek. The discharge data product will be a crucial input to a number
ofadditional high-level NEON data products, such as stream metabolism and nutrient fluxes.The
NEON approach to obtaining a continuous record of stream discharge is via two complementary
methods usedto generate a stage-discharge rating curve (SDRC). The SDRC is an empirical
relationship (formula) between astream stage and the associated discharge at that stage which
allows automated measurements of stage to beconverted to discharge. NEON staff will collect
several concurrent measurements of stream-level and discharge overa range of stream-levels and
flow rates using an in-stream pressure transducer and collecting measurements with ahand-held
velocity meter during wading surveys. Wading surveys will be conducted biweekly, approx. 26
timesper year.
Sediment Sampling
Sediment samples will be collected up to 3 times per year. Each sediment sample will
becollected with a scoop orhand corer from several deposition zones within the stream. A total
volume of ≤5 liters of sediment will be collectedand analyzed by an external laboratory for trace
elements, major metals, organics, organic contaminants(PAHs/PCBs), and sediment grain size.
Riparian Assessment and Morphology Mapping
Stream riparian assessment and morphology mapping will occur in Martha Creek a maximum of
once per year duringbase flow and at peak greenness. Riparian assessment tasks
includerecording vegetation composition and canopycover estimates. Additionally
morphologicalfeatures, such as stream habitat types, slope, bank angle, bank texture,and water
height will be recorded during morphological mapping.
Aquatic Plant and Algae Sampling
Macroalgae, bryophytes, lichens, and aquatic plants will be sampled three times per year to track
changes inabundance and diversity. Aquatic plants, bryophytes, and lichens will primarily
beidentified in situ along pointtransects and collected in quadrats for biomass
measurements.Additionally, the carbon and nitrogen composition ofplants and bryophytes will
be measured. Biomass samples will be identified and weighed by NEON domain staff atthe
domain lab, any specimens that cannot be positively identified at the domain lab will be sent to
21
externaltaxonomists. NEON will not collect endangered species if present.For the purposes of
analysis, algae can be broken into three distinct groups: macroalgae, benthic
microalgae(periphyton), and sestonic algae (algal cells sampled in the water column).
Macroalgae will be sampled as part of
aquatic plant, bryophyte, lichen, and macroalgae sampling. Periphyton will be sampled from the
benthos of riffles,runs, and pools. The majority of the periphyton community may be colonizing
the leaves of aquatic macrophytes(epiphytes) or woody debris at some sites, thus these substrata
are sampled rather than sampling scarcely populatedsandy substrata. Aquatic plant and algae
sampling occurs three times per year: spring, summer, and autumn.Sampling bouts will always
occur at or near baseflow conditions.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Stream benthic invertebrate communities are strongly affected by disturbance, including shifts in
nutrient andpollutant concentrations, physical disturbances such as floods, scouring, freezing,
drought, and biological disturbancesuch as predation. Benthic invertebrates will be sampledfrom
riffles, runs, snags and pools. Depending on habitattype and substratum, riffles will be sampled
with a surber net, runs will be sampled with a surber net or kicknet, snagswill be sampled with a
snag net, and deep pools will be sampled with a hand corer and/or petite ponar.
Invertebratesampling occurs three times per year: spring, summer, and autumn. Sampling bouts
will always occur at or nearbaseflow conditions. Sampling will not occur directly following a
flood in the stream. Collected specimens will beeuthanized, preserved in plastic sample jars,and
sent to a laboratory for analysis.
Fish Sampling
NEON proposes to collect fish from Martha Creek. The data collected from fish sampling will
provide biodiversityinformation indicating ecosystem health, as well as length and weight which
can indicate fish condition or the healthof the fish population. Fish are sensitive to changes in
their environment and their tolerance levels to these changesare well known for most
species.Consequently, fish community data can provide information on the health of
theecosystem.
DC (direct current) or PDC (pulsed direct current) backpack electrofishing will be used to
sample fish in the stream reach. The stream reach is 1 km in length and will be sampled with
theelectrofisher via a three pass depletion study overthe reach, taking no more than 5 days to
complete all of the fish sampling in Martha Creek. Passes will be separated by no less than 30
minute intermissions. If electrofishing is not effective,minnow traps may be used.Electrofishing-
related injuries should affect < 1% of fish captured. If this number isexceeded at the site, the
technicians will stop sampling and contact the NEON Aquatic Ecologist. Fish will besampled
two times per year, once in the spring (April-May) and again in autumn (September-October).
Upstream and downstream block nets will be installed during the sampling but they will be
checked regularly for fish impingement and they will be removed at the end of each day.
Fish processing will occur after each electrofishing pass ends. Fish will be held in buckets that
have portable aerators, contain cold and clean water, are not overcrowded, and contain similarly-
sized fish of the same species. Fish will be identified, weighed, measured, and thenreleased.Fish
may be anesthetized prior to handling; respiration will be monitored. NEON proposes using
AQUIS20E (10% eugenol) as the anesthetic. After handling, fish will bereturned to the sampling
22
reach once fully recovered from the anesthetic. Handling time per individual will be 10minutes
or less. Non-target species (amphibians, reptiles, etc.) will be identified to the lowest practical
taxonomiclevel, photographed if possible, recorded, and then released without handling. NEON
will voucher unknown orunidentifiable individuals in the field (1-5 individuals per taxon). These
individuals plus any mortally injured individualswill be euthanized using a lethal dose of MS-
222. No MS-222 will be released into the study environment. NEON technicians will either
carry out or dump on the forest floor (at least 200 ft. from any intermittent stream, perennial
stream, wetland, or area with a high water table) any AQUI-S20E solution, and no MS-222 that
is used to sedate or euthanize fish will be released into the study environment. Prior to dumping
any AQUI-S20E solution onto on the forest floor, NEON technicians will do a quick ocular
inspection of the area to ensure that any amphibians or other wildlife are not present. Any fish
that has been exposed to AQUIS20E or MS-222 will be disposed of off-Forest but fish that have
not been exposed to these can be disposed of in the stream. All injured fish and mortalities must
be recorded and reported according to the requirements of the Scientific Collection Permit, as
well as all other fish that are handled. Technicians will ensure thatthey protect all fish and non-
target species while handling them by wearing gloves (e.g nitrile) to prevent exposure ofthese
organisms to chemicals (i.e., insect repellent,sunscreen).
NEON will be seeking a scientific collection permit from NMFS for this fish sampling, as well
as for permission to take tissue samples of O. mykiss for DNA barcode analyses. Tissue samples
will be taken from non ESA-listed fish, such as sculpin species, but will not require consultation
or scientific collection permits. Tissuesampling would require removing a small piece of the
adipose fin (for salmonids) or a small piece of the left pelvic fin (for non-salmonids) while the
fish is sedated and preserving the tissue forDNA analysis. See Figure 14 below for an example
sampling reach. See Appendix A for a detailed proposed protocol for fish sampling at Martha
Creek.
23
Figure 14. A generic wadeable stream site layout. Fish sampling will occur throughout entire
biology and morphology reach
24
No Action
This alternative is included in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, (CFR
1502.14 (d)) and provides a baseline to evaluate any action alternatives. With the No Action
Alternative the Gifford Pinchot National Forest would not authorize the issuance of a permit to
Battelle Memorial Instituteto install a terrestrial, soil and aquatic array and study climactic
changes over time at the T. T. Munger Research Natural Area and Wind River Experimental
Forest.
The opportunity to increase scientific knowledge by collecting long-term ecological and climatic
aquatic data in the Wind River area to enable understanding and forecasting of the impacts of
climate change, land use change and invasive species on continental scale ecologywould be
foregone.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
No alternatives were considered and eliminated from detailed study. Changes were made to the
proposed action to ensure compliance with laws and Forest Plan allocations and to address
ongoing research in the area and concerns from recreationists.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the current environment in the project area. It also displays the potential
impactsof the proposed action and no action. By comparing current conditions of each issue to
future conditions as altered by management activities, the decision-maker and interested persons
can assess the benefits of the alternatives, evaluate trade-offs posed by the environmental
consequences, and determine if the relevant issues and concerns have been adequately addressed.
Botanical Species
A specialist report was completed as part of this analysis. A summary is included below. The full
report can be found in the project file.
Existing Condition
The Wind River Experimental Forest is located in the Wind River 5th
field watershed, in the
southern Washington Cascade Mountains, north of Carson, Washington. The natural
environment is comprised of late-successional/old-growth forest in the Western Hemlock
Potential Natural Vegetation Zone (PNV) (Topik et al. 1986). This zone dominates the lower
elevation, moist forests of the Western Cascades Physiographic Province of the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, and experiences cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers (Franklin and
Dyrness 1973). Martha Creek is located within the northern portion of the Wind River
Experimental Forest, and the riparian zone along Martha Creek hosts a diversity of hardwood
trees, tall shrubs, and understory herbs, with an upper canopy overstory of conifers.
25
Dominant overstory tree species within the study area include Pseudotsuga menziesii, Tsuga
heterophylla, Thuja plicata, and Acer macrophyllum. Taxus brevifolia is also present as a
common understory coniferous tree. Common/dominant tall shrubs include Acer circinatum,
Corylus cornuta, and Holodiscus discolor. Common/dominant undertstory shrubs/herbs include
Polystichum munitum and Mahonia nervosa (upland sites), and in moist (riparian) sites common
herbs include Oxalis oregana, Tolmeia menziesii, Asarum caudatum, Equisetum arvense,
Lactuca muralis, Circaea alpina, Galium triflorum, Athyrium filix-femina, Montia sibirica, and
Dicentra formosa. Epiphytic and woody debris dwelling bryophytes were particularly well
developed and the following species were common: Eurynchium oreganum, Rhytidiadelphis
triquetris and R. loreus, Hylocomium splendens, Antitrichia curtipendula, Isothecium
myosuroides, Metaneckera menziesii, Hypnum subimponens and H. circinale, Tetraphis
pellucida, Neckera douglasii, Dicanum fuscescens and Porella sp. Lichen communities were less
well developed in the lower canopy levels and forest floor, probably due to low light levels and
competition with bryophytes. Species commonly seen included: Hypogymnia imshaugii, H.
physodes and H. enteromorpha, Usnea filipendula, Cladonia ochrochlora cf., Peltigera
membranacea, Evernia prunastri, Platismatia glauca and P. stenophylla, Cetraria chlorophylla,
Alectoria sarmentosa, and Sphaerphorus venerabilis.
In order to determine whether the activities proposed in this project pose a potential threat to
(TEPS) species or their habitat, or other botanical resources of concern, a review of current
information was performed. The Natural Resources Information System – Threatened,
Endangered, Sensitive, Proposed database (NRIS-TESP) was queried based on the 2015
Regional Forester‘s Sensitive Plant list (USDA Forest Service 2015) and the 2003 Survey and
Manage species list (USDA & USDI 2014 – list incorporates the results of the 2001 and 2002
annual species reviews, see Appendix C). A 2016 query of the NRIS- TESP database showed
that no TESP occurrences or Survey and Manage species sites are known to occur within or
directly adjacent to proposed plot or sensor locations or associated with proposed access trail
locations.
Surveys were conducted at the Martha Creek location on July 25, 2016. Surveys of the proposed
soil pit location and soil array plots were conducted on August 8, 2016. No TEPS or S&M
occurrences/sites were detected during surveys. A young tree of Chrysolepis chrysophylla
(golden chinquapin) was encountered during surveys along the proposed Martha Creek access
trail. This species is Sensitive in Washington State, but it is suspected that the specimen
encountered is an ‗escapee‘ from the nearby Wind River Arboretum. Golden chinquapin
specimens from this site were genetically tested and determined to be more closely related to
California genetic lines than Washington genetic lines, confirming that the individuals associated
with the Wind River Arboretum were planted as a part of that experimental effort (Andy Bower,
personal communication 2015). Therefore management of this individual as a Sensitive species
is not recommended as part of this proposal, and it is not included in further discussion of
Sensitive species.
26
Environmental Consequences
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Because there is no habitat for Howellia aquatilis, the only federally listed plant species
suspected to occur on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, there would be no effect to any
federally-listed botanical species as a result of the no action. Analysis of effects for other
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive (TEPS) species and the project was found to
have no effect on Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Speciesunder the no action.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Federally-listed Species
At this time there are no federally listed (proposed, endangered, threatened - TEP) plant species
known to occur on the Forest, however one federally threatened species (Howellia aquatilis) is
suspected. Howellia aquatilis has an extremely narrow habitat tolerance, generally confined to
wetlands with seasonal drawdown. No wetlands occur within the proposed project area. The
NEON research proposal will therefore have no effect on federally listed botanical species.
Forest Service Sensitive Species
For the NEON project, field visits/botanical surveys were conducted for all sites where it was
judged that the scope and extent of habitat disturbance resulting from the project was such that it
could put a TEPS or S&M botanical site, if present, at risk for persistence. No occurrences/sites
were detected during these surveys. The majority of study plots proposed by NEON were judged
to pose little risk to existing botanical species or habitats based on NEON project construction
and sampling designs which emphasize minimizing disturbance to vegetation (see more
discussion in description of analysis methodology and Appendix A of the Botanical Resource
Report). Because the impact of the project is limited in scope at individual sites and spread
across a wide sampling landscape, the current project is judged to contribute little to the
cumulative effects of habitat degradation for Sensitive and Survey and Manage species. In
addition, since NEON research will facilitate understanding of the changing climate and
ecological patterns on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and throughout the forested maritime
Pacific Northwest, the project may be considered beneficial in the long term, because data
generated from the research will likely inform future rare plant and habitat management
decisions.
No Regional Forester‘s Sensitive species are known to occur within the project area. However,
there is suitable habitat for a number of Sensitive species within the project area. For this reason,
the determination was made that the Action alternative may impact Sensitive species individuals
or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listingor cause a loss of
viability to the population or species.
27
Survey and Manage Species
The Survey and Manage standards and guidelines require equivalent-effort surveys for Category
B fungal species (rare, pre-disturbance surveys not practical) when NEPA decisions or decision
documents are to be signed for habitat-disturbing activities in old-growth forest in fiscal year
2011 and beyond if strategic surveys are not completed (USDA & USDI pp 25-26). Habitat-
disturbing activities are defined as those disturbances likely to have a significant negative impact
on the species‘ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements (USDA & USDI
2001 pp 22). The standards and guidelines further direct that this determination be based on an
evaluation of the scale, scope, and intensity of the anticipated negative impact of the disturbing
activity.
NEON project activities with the greatest potential for habitat-disturbance to fungi include:
installation/excavation of a soil pit (2 meters by 1 meter, by 2 meters deep)
installation of 5 soil arrays (5 sq. meters each)
Installation of access path to Martha Creek plots (less than .1 acre total ground
disturbance).
In addition, there are many scattered sampling plots that will cause minimal soil disturbance, and
there will be establishment of infrastructure that will occur in previously disturbed areas, such as
use of the tower pad, and demarcating parking/staging areas. For detailed descriptions of
proposed NEON project activities, refer to Appendix A of the Botanical Resource Report.
The small areas of habitat disturbance are diffuse (spread over a large area, and within a variety
of habitat types). For this reason, we do not feel the activities proposed by NEON, considered
either individually or cumulatively, will cause ―a significant negative impact to . . . species‘
habitat . . . life cycle, microclimate, or life-support requirements‖ for any survey and manage
fungi species. We therefore determined that equivalent effort fungi surveys were not needed.
Cumulative Effects
There are no cumulative effects on Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Botanical Species
because there are no direct or indirect effects, under either the action or the no action
alternatives.
Past, current, and potential future projects and activities considered in the analysis of cumulative
effects on botanical resources include: pre-commercial thinning activities in young stands
(widespread and on-going for decades); commercial thinning and other timber harvest on nearby
federal, state and private lands (historical and future, as far as they are understood, including:
WinThin (~ 2005) and Upper Wind (planned for 2016); annual road maintenance; annual
invasive species treatment (2X annually at the nearby Hemlock Dam restoration site, and
annually at specific sites within the historical nursery fields); and riparian restoration (Trout
Creek and tributaries – ongoing for over a decade).
In summary, no botanical species, including Regional Forester‘s Sensitive, other rare and
uncommon botanical species, or Survey and Manage species that have potential habitat within
the project area, are either so limited in distribution, habitat, or number that project activities
28
(with incorporated design features), in combination with past or reasonably forseeable future
actions on nearby federal land and adjacent private land, are likely to lead to a trend towards
federal listing for these species, or threaten the viability of entire populations or species as a
whole. The NEON study may benefit rare plants and habitats over time, as the study generates
data that may help land managers make wise management decisions in the context of a changing
climate.
Noxious Weed and Invasive Non-Native Species
Non-native plants include those species introduced intentionally or unintentionally to areas
where they do not naturally occur. Invasive non-native plants in the Pacific Northwest most often
originate from Europe and Asia. Problems can arise when theassociated natural predators and
diseases that controlled these species in their native habitats are not present in the habitat where
they are introduced. If a species is unchecked by predators, it may become invasive, dominating
the site and altering ecosystem balance. The results may include changes in biodiversity, fire
frequency, soil erosion and hydrology of a site. Other effects include poisoning of livestock and
reducing the quality of recreational experiences.
Forest Service Manual direction requires that Noxious Weed Risk Assessments be prepared for
all projects involving ground-disturbing activities. For projects that have a moderate to high risk
of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, recent Forest Service policy requires that decision
documents must identify noxious weed control measures that will be undertaken during project
implementation (FSM 2081.03, 11/29/95). The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant
Program Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants(USDA 2005)
provides invasive plant prevention and treatment/restoration standards and direction on
allNational Forest Lands within Region 6.
Class A weeds are non-native species whose distribution within the State of Washington is still
limited. Eradication of Class A weeds is required by law. Class B weeds are non-native species
presently limited to portions of the State. Species are designated for control in regions where
they are not yet widespread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In
regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with
containment as the primary goal. Class C weeds are widespread within the state. Control is
driven by local priorities.
The activities associated with the NEON project have a high risk rating of introduction and
spread. Invasive plant species that were known to occur in areas adjacentto where soil
disturbance will occur as a result of NEON activities are listed below. Determination of priority
for treatment is based on EDRR (Early Detection Rapid Response) principles, as well as
knowledge of life history characteristics of individual species, and their potential for long term
ecological impact if left untreated.
Table 2. Invasive Plant Species known to occur in the vicinity of proposed NEON
ground-disturbing activities
SCIENTIFIC NAME CLASS COMMON NAME Priority for Treatment
29
Table 2. Invasive Plant Species known to occur in the vicinity of proposed NEON
ground-disturbing activities
SCIENTIFIC NAME CLASS COMMON NAME Priority for Treatment
Cirsium arvense C Canada thistle Low
Cirsium vulgare C Bull thistle Low
Cytisus scoparius B Scotch Broom Low
Hieracium caespitosum Caespitose hawkweed Low
Hieracium lachenalii C Common hawkweed Low
Senecio jacobaea B Tansy ragwort Low
Occurrences of the invasive species listed in Table 2 are concentrated along the decomissioned
road used to access Martha Creek and Canada and bull thistle are also found in openings along
Martha Creek. The greatest concern for spread of these species are when access trails are
constructed from the decomissioned Martha Creek road down to the edge of Martha Creek, and
along Martha Creek. Of particular concern are Canada thistle and common hawkweed, which
are generally more shade-tolerant than the other species.
Cat‘s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), St. John‘s wort (Hypericum perforatum) and oxeye daisy
(Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) are also species known to be widely distributed on the south
part of the Gifford Pinchot National forest. Project level data on distribution and abundance are
not generally collected for these species because eradication or containment of these species is
not a practical goal in this area; instead, we focus on prevention of spread, including enforcement
of standards for use of weed free gravel and mulch on National Forest System lands (see Design
Features and Mitigation Measures section).
Wildlife Species
A specialist report was completed as part of this analysis. A summary is included below. The full
report can be found in the project file.
Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences
Table 3.TES species considered in this evaluation, and effects summary.
SPECIES NAME
SPECIES
STATUS Forest-
wide D:Documented
S: suspected
Species
habitat present
within or adjacent to
the analysis area?
Species
documented in
analysis area?
Effect/Impact
summary
Mammals
Gray Wolf
Canis lupus
Threatened
(D)
No No No Effect
Grizzly Bear
Ursus arctos
Threatened
(S)
No No No Effect
Townsend‘s Big-eared Bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
Yes (old buildings in
the area)
No No Impact
California Wolverine USFS No No No Impact
30
Gulo gulo Sensitive (D)
Keen‘s Myotis
Myotis keenii
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Mountain Goat
Oreamnos americanus
USFS
Sensitive, MIS (D)
No No No Impact
Cascade Red Fox
Vulpes vulpes cascadensis
USFS Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Birds
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Threatened
(D)
No No No Effect
Critical Habitat for the
Marbled Murrelet
Designated No No No Effect
Northern Spotted Owl
Strix occidentalis caurina
Threatened MIS
(D)
Yes Yes NLAA
Critical Habitat for the
Northern Spotted Owl
Designated Yes Yes No Effect
American Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
USFS
Sensitive MIS
(D)
No No No Impact
Common Loon
Gavia immer
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
USFS
Sensitive MIS
(D)
No
No No Impact
Northern Goshawk
Accipiter gentilis
USFS Sensitive
MIS (D)
Yes Yes MIIH
Harlequin Duck
Histrionicus histrionicus
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No
No No Impact
Great Gray Owl
Strix nebulosa
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Mountain Quail
Oreortyx pictus
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Amphibians
Larch Mountain Salamander
Plethodon larselli
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(D)
Yes Yes MIIH
VanDyke‘s Salamander
Plethodon vandykei
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(D)
Yes No MIIH
Oregon Spotted Frog
Rana pretiosa
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Cascade Torrent Salamander
Rhyacotriton cascadae
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
Yes Yes MIIH
Butterflies & Dragonflies
Barry‘s Hairstreak
Callophrys gryneus barryi
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Johnson‘s hairstreak USFS Yes Yes No Impact
31
Callophrys johnsoni Sensitive
(D)
Golden Hairstreak
Habrodais grunus
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Mardon Skipper
Polites mardon
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Great Basin Fritillary
Speyeria egleis
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Zig Zag Darner
Aeshna sitchensis
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Subarctic Darner
Aeshna subarctica
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Western Bumblebee
Bombus occidentalis
USFS Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Mollusks
Puget Oregonian
Cryptomastix devia
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(D)
Yes No MIIH
Columbia Gorge Oregonian
Cryptomastix hendersoni
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Western Ridged Mussel
Gonidea angulata
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
Yes No No Impact
Warty Jumping Slug
Hemphillia glandulosa
S&M
(D)
Yes Yes MIIH
Malone's Jumping Slug
Hemphillia malonei
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(D)
Yes Yes MIIH
Keeled Jumping Slug
Hemphillia burringtoni
S&M
(D)
Yes Yes MIIH
Panther Jumping Slug
Hemphillia pantherina
S&M
(S)
Yes* No No Impact
Columbia Dusky Snail
Lyogyrus n. sp. 1
S&M
(S)
No No No Impact
Dalles Sideband
Monadenia fidelis minor
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(S)
No No No Impact
Shiny Tightcoil
Pristiloma wascoense
USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
Broadwhorl Tightcoil
Pristiloma johnsonii
USFS
Sensitive
(S)
Yes No MIIH
Blue-gray Taildropper
Prophysaon coeruleum
S&M USFS
Sensitive
(D)
No No No Impact
32
*The panther jumping slug type specimen was documented from a site near FR 90 at Miller Creek in
1975. That area has been researched several times, and it has not been relocated at that site, or anywhere
else since.
LAA – Likely to adversely affect.
NLAA – May Affect, Not likely to adversely affect.
MIIH - May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or
cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Species Dropped from Further Analysis
Only the species shown in Table 3 as having suitable habitat or as having been documented in
the project vicinity, and based on the species needs, have a potential to be affected will be
discussed further in this biological evaluation.
Northern Spotted Owl
The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was listed as a threatened species
throughout its range in Washington, Oregon and northern California effective July 23, 1990
(USDI, 1990a). Loss of late-successional forest habitat from timber harvest was the primary
reason for the listing.
There is mapped suitable spotted owl nesting/roosting/foraging habitat polygons, as well as
foraging habitat and dispersal habitat throughout the study area. There are historic activity
centers in the immediate vicinity of the study area (see Figure 15).
The historic activity centers were established during spotted owl surveys in the 1980s and 1990s,
and although there is very little current survey data, historic activity centers can be indicators of
current or future spotted owl occupancy.
Spotted owl monitoring has indicated that established spotted owl territories are fairly stable, and
that some territories may be occupied by different pairs of spotted owls over many years
(Forsman et al. 1984, p. 19). The actual nest-tree used within a territory may change from year
to year, but alternate nest trees are usually located within the same general core area (equal to a
0.7-mile radius around an established activity center) (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 32).
The historic activity centers represent core areas around nest sites, and it‘s likely that if there are
still spotted owls nesting in the analysis area, they would be within 0.5 to 0.7 mile of an historic
nest site. However, there is also a significant amount of nesting habitat in the project vicinity
outside of the core areas where spotted owls may be nesting or foraging.
The use of motorized equipment that generates noise above ambient levels near spotted owl nest
trees or unsurveyed suitable nesting habitat has the potential to harass or harm spotted owls.
The threshold distance for no effect for noise disturbance to spotted owls caused by motorized
equipment is one-quarter mile. Any such activity between one-quarter mile and 65 yards from a
nest tree or suitable habitat would not likely affect spotted owls if the activity is conducted after
July 15.
33
Very few aspects to the proposed study have the potential to generate noise above ambient
levels. Log sampling could be done with a chainsaw or handsaw. Chainsaw use within 65 yards
of suitable habitat would not be allowed between March 1 and July 15 to minimize noise
disturbance during the early nesting season. Drilling observation wells along Martha Creek will
require use of a small motorized backpack drill or auger. The location of this activity is not near
suitable nesting habitat.
The study sites are located in Late-Successional Reserve, and in designated Critical Habitat.
34
Figure 15. Spotted owl habitat in the project area
35
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The construction/installation of the proposed study infrastructure wouldnot reduce the amount of
suitable spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat. The installation work for the terrestrial parts of the
study area planned for the fall of 2016. The only heavy equipment operation during construction
would be motor vehicle and ATV use from the field staging area to the tower site, and possibly
use of a small excavator to dig the soil pit. It is anticipated that this work will occur in the late
summer and fall of 2016. As such, it would occur outside of the spotted owl nesting season or
very late in the season, and have minimal noise effects.
Drilling the wells for the aquatic portion would likely take place during the late spring of 2017,
and would require use of a small motorized drill. The habitat in the vicinity of the aquatic study
site is dispersal habitat, so the noise generated by this activity would not affect nesting spotted
owls.
Mitigations that are part of the study would restrict chainsaw use for log sampling within the 65-
yard disturbance threshold from suitable nesting habitat during the early nesting season.
However the noise disturbance impacts during the later nesting season would have the potential
of causing adult and juvenile spotted owls to move away from the disturbance, possibly
eliminating the opportunity for owls to roost in the area while the activity in ongoing. The
project would not likely disrupt night time foraging by spotted owls.
The noise generated by the study activity, primarily the down wood sampling, has the potential
for minimal noise disturbance to spotted owls. For this reason, this project may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect spotted owls.
Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
The project site is located in designated Critical Habitat. There would be negligible impacts to
large logs with the log sampling protocol which requires disks to be removed for analysis offsite.
The logs to be sampled are widely distributed throughout the study area, and the remainder of the
logs not collected for study would be left in place. The project would have no effect to Critical
Habitat.
The proposed action and the likely effects to Threatened and Endangered species and Critical
Habitat are consistent with projects relating to fish habitat improvement that were analyzed in the
Programmatic Biological Assessment for Forest Management (August 2001). Additional
consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for terrestrial species is not required.
Cumulative Effects
The noise effects described for this alternative would be cumulative to other noise-generating
activities that may be occurring in the vicinity of the experimental forest. The noise created by
36
this proposal is minimal however, and would occur during the latter part of the nesting season.
For these reasons, the cumulative effects would be minimal.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
With the no action, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest wouldnot authorize the issuance of a
permit to Battelle permission to install the aquatic infrastructure in Martha Creek. There would
be no potential for noise effects to spotted owls near Martha Creek. There would be no
cumulative effects.
The effects resulting from the terrestrial component would be the same as described in the
proposed action.
Northern Goshawk
Goshawk nesting habitat would be the same as spotted owl nesting or foraging habitat (Figure
15). Goshawks would also likely forage in the study area in mature stands that are not shown as
suitable spotted owl habitat. The Forest Service Wildlife Database (NRIS) contains data
showing several older documented sightings of goshawks dating from the 1980s and early 1990s.
Although there are no recent documented sightings, it is likely that goshawks still inhabit the
area.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The study would not cause any reduction in the amount of nesting or foraging habitat available to
goshawks. There would be a potential for minor impacts due to the presence people at the
various distributed plots if any were near an active nest. Some plots would be visited several
times over the course of the nesting season. Human activity occurring too close to an active nest
could cause adults to miss feeding the juveniles as they attempt to drive the intruders away.
The impact would be short-term and widely distributed across the study area. For these reasons,
the project may impact individual goshawks, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards
federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. There would be no
impacts to habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Due to the widespread nature of goshawk nests it is not likely that many if any would be
impacted by human activity near a nest. The potential cumulative effects of this proposal would
be negligible.
37
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
With the No Action Alternative the Gifford Pinchot NF wouldnot authorize the issuance of a
permit to Bechtel Corporation permission to install the aquatic infrastructure in Martha Creek.
There would be no potential for noise effects to goshawks near Martha Creek. There would be
no cumulative effects.
The effects resulting from the terrestrial component would be the same as described in the
Proposed Action above.
Larch Mountain Salamander
Larch Mountain salamanders occur in a wide array of habitat types including: 1) old-growth
forests; 2) younger naturally regenerated forests in gravelly/cobble soils with residual late
successional features (snags and large down logs); 3) scree and talus (forested and un-forested);
and 4) lava tube entrances where debris (e.g., pieces of lava, wood, fine organic and inorganic
particles) has accumulated. In a large portion of the species range, late-seral forest conditions
appear to be crucial to the species existence. In other areas, combinations of rocky substrates,
soils, and vegetation provide suitable cool, moist microhabitat conditions necessary for Larch
Mountain salamanders to exist.
There is also a strong association between the number of animals found and percent slope of site,
with 90% of all animals found on slopes >40% (Crisafulli et al. 2008).
There are several documented sightings of Larch Mountain salamandersin the vicinity of the
experimental forest units. They were found during surveys done for other projects, and are all
located on steep slopes. The closest documented site to the experimental forest is about one-
quarter mile from the Trout Creek Hill unit. Late-successional and old-growth stands on Trout
Creek Hill itself appear to be good habitat for this species.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The study impacts do not meet the definition of a habitat disturbing activity under Survey and
Manage. A habitat disturbing activity is defined as those disturbances likely to have a significant
negative impact on the species‘ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements.
There would be negligible effects to habitat at small discrete spots associated with the soil pit,
and the soil array plots. These surface disturbances would affect about 100 square feet total
distributed on flat ground not likely to be occupied by Larch Mountain salamanders.
The biggest potential to impact this species comes with the pitfall traps used for the ground
beetle study, in which salamanders could trapped and killed.
Salamanders are only likely to be trapped during the time of the year that they are active on the
surface. This activity period would overlap the study season most years during the months of
April through June. Mitigation to not place pitfall trap plots on slopes greater than or equal to
40% will help to minimize the chance of capturing Larch Mountain salamanders. In addition,
38
the protocol includes mitigation to prevent significant impacts to non-target species. For
instance, if more than 15 individuals of a non-target animal are captured additional mitigationis
considered, such as suspending sampling until surface conditions change.
Mitigations that are a part of this study are expected to minimize the potential to impact Larch
Mountain salamanders. Since steep slopes would be avoided in the placement of the pitfall trap
arrays, the probability that this species would be present is low, and there would be negligible
impact to habitat. For these reasons the study may impact individuals, but would not likely
contribute to a trend toward federal listing, or a loss of viability of the species or population.
Cumulative Effects
Little to no suitable Larch Mountain habitat is anticipated to be impacted by other projects in the
Wind River watershed. For this reason, there would be no cumulative effects with this proposal.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Since the aquatic component would not result in any potential impacts to Larch Mountain
salamanders, the impacts of this alternative would be the same as with the Proposed Action.
Van Dyke’s Salamander, Cascade Torrent Salamander (aquatic)
Cascade torrent salamanders require cool, wet environments. Both larvae and metamorphosed
individuals occur along high-gradient, cold, rock-dominated stream courses and near seeps. The
aquatic larvae are associated with valley and headwall seeps and spray zones at the base of
waterfalls and cascades, where gravel and cobble are present with shallow (<1 cm), low-velocity
flows. Adults are often interspersed among the larvae or on streambanks under rocks or wood.
They are usually within 1 meter of the water, but during prolonged rain they may be found more
than 10 meters away. This species has persisted in streams impacted by the 1980 eruption of
Mount St. Helens, suggesting that forest cover may not be a critical habitat feature at higher
elevations (Jones et al. 2005).
Van Dyke‘s salamanders are often associated with rocky, steep-walled stream valleys. In the
Cascade Range, they are usually found under cobble and sometimes wood, within a few meters
of a stream. They are most often in loose rock piles, seeps in the valley wall with loose rock or
gravel, splash zones at the base of waterfalls, or adjacent to chutes and cascades. In addition,
this species can be found in upland talus sites.Van Dyke‘s salamanders have persisted at
numerous locations that were severely disturbed by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
(Jones et al. 2005).
In addition to mitigations included for Larch Mountain salamanders, there is also a mitigation to
avoid placing pitfall traps closer than 50 feet from perennial or intermittent streams.
There are no known Van Dyke‘s salamander sites in the vicinity of the experimental forest.
Cascade torrent salamanders have been documented in tributaries to Trout Creek, in Martha
Creek, Planting Creek, and in smaller tributaries to Panther Creek. It‘s likely that they are
relatively common in the area.
39
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Surveys have not been done for this project, and are not required for Survey and Manage species
for projects where there is a low probability of the species being present at the site, as well as a
low probability that the project would cause a significant negative effects on the species habitat,
or the persistence of the species at the site.
Mitigation to avoid placing pitfall traps closer than 50 feet from streams and mitigation included
in the beetle protocol would reduce the potential to capture/kill these species during the
terrestrial portion of the study.
Installation of the instrumentation in Martha Creek could directly potentially cause short-term
impacts Cascade torrent salamanders due to people working in the creek, and drilling the eight
wells. This work would impact a very small portion of the stream, and once the instrumentation
is in place, the impacts associated with recording data would be negligible.
Since these species are not likely to be impacted by the terrestrial portion of the study, and
impacts to Martha Creek would be short-term and involve only a small portion of the stream, this
alternative may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal
listing, or a loss of viability of the species or population.
Cumulative Effects
The potential impacts of this alternative would be cumulative to other projects that impact
streams in the watershed, including various culvert replacement or removal projects, and the
Tyee Springs pipeline replacement project. These projects have short-term impacts to small
sections of stream habitat, similar to this alternative. The impacts of this alternative would have
minimal cumulative effects.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
With the No Action Alternative the Gifford Pinchot NF wouldnot authorize the issuance of a
permit to Bechtel Corporation permission to install the aquatic infrastructure in Martha Creek.
There would be no potential for short-term direct impacts at Martha Creek. There would be no
cumulative effects.
The effects resulting from the terrestrial component would be the same as described in the
Proposed Action above.
Terrestrial Mollusks
Mollusk surveys have not been conducted in the project area, and are not required for Survey and
Manage species for projects where there is a low probability of the species being present at the
site, as well as a low probability that the project would cause a significant negative effects on the
species habitat, or the persistence of the species at the site.
40
Surveys were done in the past just west of the Trout Creek Hill unit for a timber sale project.
Malone‘s jumping slugs and keeled jumping slugs were found. In addition, habitat in the area is
suitable for warty jumping slugs, and Puget Oregonian. The jumping slugs are usually found
near large well-decayed logs or bark piles in areas that have a diversity of shrub and forb
vegetation. Puget Oregonian is only found where there are large old big-leaf maple trees.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
There would be negligible direct effects to habitat for mollusk species at small discrete spots
associated with the soil pit, and the soil array plots. These surface disturbances would affect
only about 100 square feet total and it is not likely that large down wood would be disturbed. An
additional habitat disturbance would come with the log sampling protocol where large logs are
cut to remove pieces for analysis offsite. This would have the effect of reducing large logs into
small pieces. This could increase drying of the surface below the log and of the log itself.
Mitigation to minimize moving the remaining pieces would reduce the impacts. A total of 75 to
150 logs that are at least 10 cm in diameter, and 1.5 meters long would be sampled 5 to 6 years
apart.
Another potential to directly impact this species comes with the pitfall traps used for the ground
beetle study, in which mollusks could trapped and killed. This potential impact would only
occur during the time that mollusks are active at the surface in the spring, April through June in
most years. Bycatch mortality in pitfall traps is less likely than with the salamanders however,
since the mollusks would have the ability to crawl down and then back up the sides of the trap
without necessarily falling in to the liquid.
For the aquatic portion of the study at Martha Creek, a small low-maintenance trail will be
created through a second growth Douglas-fir stand to provide foot access to the creek. The trail
is not expected to be wide enough to constitute a barrier to mollusks during the times that they
are active at the surface (i.e. during the wetter times of the year).
Because to the relatively small scale of the area that would be impacted by the project compared
to amount of suitable habitat available in the area where mollusks would not be impacted, it is
unlikely that any species will be extirpated from the study area or even from the vicinity of the
plots being sampled.
Since there is a potential to impact individual mollusks, this project may impact individuals or
habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing, or a loss of viability of
the species or population.
Cumulative Effects
Impacts of this alternative would be cumulative to other projects in the watershed that directly or
indirectly impact mollusks or habitat, such as the Tyee Springs pipeline replacement. None of
the recent projects have had long-term impacts to habitat, and generally the impacts have been
41
limited in scope. Since this alternative would be expected to have minimal impacts to terrestrial
mollusks, there would be minimal cumulative effects.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Since the activities at Martha Creek would not result in any impacts to terrestrial mollusks, the
potential impacts of this alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action.
Aquatic Mollusks
Western ridged mussel is known entirely from within Pacific drainages from southern California
to British Columbia, east to Idaho and Nevada. It has limited distribution west of the Cascades
in Washington and Oregon, but includes sites in the Rogue, Umpqua, and Willamette Rivers. It
seems to be most common in large tributaries of the Snake and ColumbiaRivers in Washington,
Idaho, and Oregon (http://web.or.blm.gov/mollusks/).
They are found in streams of all sizes in low to mid-elevation watersheds. They inhabit mud,
sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but
are usually absent from streams with highly unstable or very soft substrates. The life cycle of
mussels includes a juvenile stage when they parasitize fish. Fish such as native or non-native
trout need to be present in a stream for this species to occur.
Columbia dusky snail is found in perennial springs and spring outflows, in cold well-oxygenated
water. It occurs on soft substrates in shallow, slow flowing areas.This species is a Columbia
Gorge endemic, found on both side from east and south of Portland to Hood River, Oregon.
Most sites are in Gorge tributaries; a few other sites occur in drainages originating near Mt.
Hood to Mount St. Helens. Its distribution is very sporadic in the central and eastern Columbia
Gorge. Threats include activities that increase water temperature or reduce oxygen levels,
increased sedimentation, and water diversions that reduce the outflows from the springs.
There are no recorded detections of either of these species in the NRIS Wildlife database for the
Gifford Pinchot NF. Western ridged mussels were not observed during field visits to Martha
Creek for this and another project. If they did exist in Martha Creek, they are likely at small
widely spaced sites.
It is not expected that any spring outflows that might support Columbia dusky snail would be
impacted by the study plots.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The potential impacts to these species within of the project area would be negligible. Habitat
likely to support Columbia dusky snail would not be impacted. It is unlikely western ridged
mussel exists in the reach of Martha Creek that is in the aquatic portion of the study. The
instrumentation that would be placed in Martha Creek could easily be positioned to avoid
harming mussels that would be visible clinging to the cobble at the bottom of the creek.
42
For these reasons there would be no impact to aquatic mollusks, and there would be no
cumulative effects.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The impacts of this alternative would be the same as with the Proposed Action.
Management Indicator Species
Table 4 below lists the Forest Plan Management Indicator Species, the habitats that they
represent, and whether or not the species has been documented in the project area.
Table 4. Management Indicator Species MIS Species and Rank
and Status*
Habitat Description Habitat Present in the
Analysis Area?
Species Documented or
Suspected in the
Analysis Area?
Spotted Owl
G3, S1, E, LT
Represents species
requiring large areas
(2,200 ac.) of mature
and old-growth forest.
Yes Documented
Pileated Woodpecker
G5, S4, C, --
Represents species
requiring moderate-
sized areas (300 ac.) of
mature and old-growth
forest.
Yes Documented
American Marten
G5, S4, -- --
Represents species
requiring smaller areas
(160 ac.) of mature and
old-growth forest.
Yes Not Documented
Cavity Excavators Represents species
which use or require
dead tree and down log
habitat.
Yes Documented
Roosevelt elk
G5T4, SNR, -- --
There is a high level of
demand for viewing or
hunting.
Yes Documented
Black-tailed deer
G5, S5, -- --
There is a high level of
demand for viewing or
hunting.
Yes Documented
Mountain Goat
G5, S2S3, -- --
Popular species for
viewing or hunting.
Populations are small
and were thought to be
decreasing. Sensitive to
timber and fire
management, and
disturbance from roads,
recreation, and illegal
hunting.
No Not Suspected
43
Wood Duck
G5, S3N S4B, -- --
Indicator of mature
riparian hardwood
habitat.
No Not Suspected
Goldeneye Duck
G5, S5N, -- --
Indicator of mature and
old-growth coniferous
riparian habitat.
No Not Suspected
Bald Eagle
G5, S4B S4N, S, SC
Federally-listed
Threatened and
Endangered species at
the time of the Plan.
Sensitive to
management activities
near nests or roost sites.
Yes Not Documented
Peregrine Falcon
G4, S2B S3N, S, SC
Federally-listed
Threatened and
Endangered species at
the time of the Plan.
Sensitive to
management activities
near nest cliffs.
No Not Suspected
*Global Rank (GRank)
Global Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the element world-wide. Two codes (e.g. G1G2)
represent an intermediate rank.
G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences).
G4 = Apparently secure globally.
G5 = Demonstrably secure globally.
Tn = Rarity of an infraspecific taxon. Numbers similar to those for Gn ranks above.
State Rank (SRank)
State Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment within the state of Washington. Two codes (e.g. S1S2)
represents an intermediate rank.
S1 = Critically imperiled (5 or fewer occurrences).
S2 = Imperiled (6 to 20 occurrences), very vulnerable to extirpation.
S3 = Rare or uncommon (21 to 100 occurrences).
S4 = Apparently secure, with many occurrences.
S5 = Demonstrably secure in state.
SNR = Not yet ranked.
"B" and "N" qualifiers are used to indicate breeding and nonbreeding status, respectively, of migrant species whose
nonbreeding status (rank) may be quite different from their breeding status in the state (e.g. S1B,S4N for a very rare
breeder that is a common winter resident).
State Status (StStat)
State Status of the species is determined by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Factors considered
include abundance, occurrence patterns, vulnerability, threats, existing protection, and taxonomic distinctness.
Values include:
E = Endangered. In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington.
T = Threatened. Likely to become Endangered in Washington.
S = Sensitive. Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state.
C = Candidate Animal. Under review for listing.
Federal Status (USESA)
Federal Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA) as published in the Federal Register:
LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered.
SC = Species of Concern. An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to
support listing.
44
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential impacts to spotted owls are shown above. For spotted owls, the proposed project
would create short-term noise disturbance effects. The disturbance would be minimal at the
local as well as the Forest scale. There would be no impacts to habitat for spotted owls,
including Critical spotted owl habitat.
The project would not impact habitat for pileated woodpecker, pine marten, cavity excavators,
deer, elk, peregrine falcon, or mountain goat. There would be minor noise disturbance that may
temporarily displace these species while the study plots and soil pit are constructed, and while
the plots are revisited over the course of the study, but the disturbance would be short-term and
the effects would be negligible.
Goldeneye and wood ducks breed on lakes, ponds, flooded rivers and other slow moving waters.
There would be no impacts to suitable habitat for these species.
This alternative will not affect any of the Management Indicator Species that have been
documented or suspected to occur in the study area. Therefore, the NEON study project will not
contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for these
species.
Cumulative Effects
Since impacts would be negligible or nonexistent, there would be no cumulative effects.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The potential impacts to Management Indicator Species with that alternative would be the same
as with the Proposed Action.
Neotropical Migratory Birds and Birds of Conservation Concern
The Forest Service Authorities Related to Bird Management:
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) This act implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico
and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful
to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16
U.S.C. 703-704). The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export,
transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds,
including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing
regulations (Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that
live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their
annual life cycle.
45
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and
conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all
other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and
the habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the Forest Service has implemented
management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA process when
actions have the potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species of concern.
Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001)
“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”
This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their
actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This
Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings
(MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat,
prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into
agency planning processes whenever possible.
The Birds of Conservation Concern 2008
In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds of Conservation
Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and
resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent highest
conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions.
While the bird species included in BCC 2008 are priorities for conservation action, this list
makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for Endangered Species Act
(ESA) listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by
implementing proactive management and conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists
be consulted in accordance with Executive Order 13186, ―Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds.‖ In the BLM and FWS MOU, both parties shall: Work
collaboratively to identify and address issues that affect species of concern, such as migratory
bird species listed in the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and FWS’s Focal Species
initiative. (BLM and FWSMOU, 2012, Section VI, page 4).
Table 5.Bird Conservation Region 5 (Northern Pacific Forest U.S. portions only). Yellow-billed
Loon (nb)
Western Grebe
(nb)
Laysan Albatross
(nb)
Black-footed
Albatross (nb)
Pink-footed
Shearwater (nb)
Red-faced
Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
(pelagicus ssp.)
Bald Eagle (b) Northern Goshawk
(laingi ssp.)
Peregrine Falcon
(b)
Black
Oystercatcher
Solitary Sandpiper
(nb)
Lesser Yellowlegs
(nb)
Whimbrel (nb) Long-billed
Curlew (nb)
Hudsonian Godwit
(nb)
Marbled Godwit
(nb)
Red Knot
(roselaari ssp.)
(nb)
Short-billed
Dowitcher (nb)
Aleutian Tern
Caspian Tern Arctic Tern Marbled Murrelet
(c)
Kittlitz's Murrelet
(a)
Black Swift
Rufous
Hummingbird
Allen's
Hummingbird
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
(c)
Horned Lark
(strigata ssp.) (a)
Oregon Vesper
Sparrow (affinis
ssp.)
Purple Finch
46
(a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of Tor E species, (d) MBTA
protection uncertain or lacking, (nb) non-breeding in this BCR.
The appropriate Birds of Conservation Concern species list for the project area was reviewed.
Those species and habitats that are within the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed
in this analysis. Table 6displays a list of Birds of Conservation Concern in the vicinity of the
project area that are known or likely to be present based on the presence of suitable habitat, and
could be affected by the proposed action.
Table 6. Birds of Conservation Concern that may occur in the project area based on the
presence of suitable habitat.
Rufous Hummingbird Found in a variety of habitats, most likely in brushy areas
with flowers and forests with a well-developed understory.
Willow Flycatcher
(c) non-listed subspecies or
population of T or E species.
Associated with riparian shrub dominated habitats,
especially brushy/willow thickets. In SE WA also found in
xeric brushy uplands.
Northern Goshawk
(laingi ssp.)
A habitat generalist that prefers to nest in mature forests with
large trees on moderate slopes with open understories.
Additionally, the second version of a conservation strategy for land birds in coniferous forests in
western Oregon and Washington was prepared in 2012 by Bob Altman of American Bird
Conservancy for the Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight (PIF). The strategy is designed to
achieve functioning ecosystems for land birds by addressing the habitat requirements of 25
―focal species‖. By managing for a group of species representative of important components in a
functioning coniferous forest ecosystem, many other species and elements of biodiversity also
will be conserved. Executive Order 13186 and the MOUs signed by the FS and BLM with the
FWS require agencies to incorporate migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes
whenever practicable. The PIF plans assist federal agencies in achieving this direction.
Table 7displays the 19 PIF focal species found in the western Washington Cascades that could
potentially positively or negatively affected by changes in habitat, and the forest conditions and
habitat attributes they represent.
Table 7. Focal Bird Species
FOREST
CONDITIONS
HABITAT ATTRIBUTE FOCAL SPECIES
Old-Growth/Mature Large trees Brown creeper*
Old-Growth/Mature Large snags Pileated woodpecker
Old-Growth/Mature Mid-story tree layers Varied thrush*
Old-Growth/Mature Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope flycatcher*
Mature/Young Closed canopy Hermit warbler
Mature/Young Open mid-story Hammond‘s flycatcher
47
Mature/Young Deciduous understory Wilson‘s warbler*
Mature/Young Forest floor complexity Winter wren
Young/Pole Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated gray warbler
Sapling/Seedling Residual canopy trees Olive-sided flycatcher
Sapling/Seedling Snags Northern Flicker
Sapling/Seedling Deciduous vegetation Orange-crowned warbler
Unique Nectar-producing plants Rufous hummingbird*
Unique Large hollow snags Vaux‘s swift
Unique Mineral springs/seeps Band-tailed pigeon
Unique Montane wet meadows Lincoln‘s sparrow
Unique Alpine grasslands American pipit
Unique Waterfalls Black swift
Unique Landscape mosaic forest Blue grouse * Significantly declining population trends in the Cascade Mountains physiographic areas based on analysis of
breeding bird survey data (1966-2007).
The project area contains habitat that is suitable for the focal species that are associated with old-
growth and younger conifer habitat, deciduous tree overstory and understory habitat.
Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementing the long-term study would have no impacts to habitat for any neotropical
migratory birds or PIF focal bird species.
The Martha Creek instrumentation would be installed in the spring of 2017. It‘s possible that
some bird species may be nesting in the vicinity of the project area, and could be disturbed by
the noise generated by the activity. This disturbance would be short-term, and limited to a small
part of the available habitat. It‘s unlikely that nests would be abandoned or fledglings leave the
nest early. The impacts to birds listed in Tables 6 and 7 would be negligible.
The NEON study includes breeding bird surveys done by documenting all the bird species seen
or heard from plots along a survey route. The surveys will be done annually for the duration of
the 30-year study. The study will increase the knowledge of breeding birds in the area by
documenting species presence and population trends over time.
There would be no or negligible impacts to breeding birds in the study area, and the population
viability of these species would be maintained across the Forest.
There would be no cumulative effects.
No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
With this alternative there would be no potential to disturb breeding birds along Martha Creek
during installation of the aquatic instrumentation. The impacts with the terrestrial component
would be the same as with the Proposed Action.
48
Water Resources, Soils and Fisheries
A hydrology specialist reportand a Fisheries Biological Evaluation were completed as part of this
analysis. A summary of both is included below. The full reports can be found in the project file.
The affected environment and effects described are concentrated around the aquatic array. There
are no project impacts to aquatic or fisheries resources for the terrestrial and soil arrays.
Existing Condition
Subwatershed Description
The aquatic array is located within the Trout Creek subwatershed (HUC# 170701051005) on
Martha Creek. Trout Creek is the subwatershed of the Wind River watershed (HUC#
1707010510). The Wind River watershed is designated a Tier I Key Watershed in the Northwest
Forest Plan because it supports native Lower Columbia River steelhead, a fish listed as
Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, Tier I Key
Watersheds are the highest priority areas on national forest lands for aquatic habitat protection
and restoration. Within the Wind River watershed, Trout Creek has been identified as the most
important tributary supporting native Lower Columbia River steelhead.
Hydrology
Martha Creek is a perennial, fish-bearing stream tributary to Trout Creek. It drains
approximately 2,400 acres into Trout Creek. Trout Creek is tributary to the Wind River, a major
tributary to the Columbia River. Martha Creek lies primarily on the Wind River Experimental
Forest/Gifford Pinchot National Forest but the lowermost reach (approximately 0.2 miles)
crosses private lands before emptying into Trout Creek. Martha Creek is a third order stream
with a mainstem length of approximately 2.3 miles with several tributaries connecting to the
creek. The stream has a moderate gradient, averaging 3% to 4% throughout the lower reaches.
In 1924, a concrete dam (40 feet wide and 7 feet high) was constructed on Martha Creek to pipe
in water to nearby Wind River Tree Nursey. It was located approximately 1.5 miles from the
mouth of Martha Creek. The use of the Martha Creek dam was abandoned sometime in the
1950s. The dam was dismantled in August of 2012. The accumulated rocks and sediment behind
the dam were eventually distributed downstream over the years since 2012. The stream channel
continues towards its natural state. Martha Creek is accessed by following the decommissioned
Forest Service Road 4101 and by foot to get to Martha Creek.
Riparian Reserves
Riparian Reserves define the outer boundaries of a riparian ecosystem and are portions of a
watershed most tightly connected with perennial water sources or bodies of water such as
streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands or marshes. Riparian Reserves occur at the margins of
standing and flowing water, intermittent stream channels, ephemeral ponds and wetlands; and
that Riparian Reserves generally parallel the stream network but also include other areas
necessary for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes. (Forest Land
Resource Management Plan, 1995). The aquatic array is located within the riparian reserves on
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
49
Impaired Streams
Martha Creek is a Category 4A impaired stream for water temperature exceedance according to
the 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment report in accordance to the Clean Water
Act. A Category 4A is defined as having an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan
in place (i.e. waters that have pollution problems that are being solved) and is actively being
implemented. TMDL plan for the Wind River Total Maximum Daily Load was approved on
August 8, 2002 by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Climate
The nearest location of similar elevation on precipitation data would be the Carson National Fish
Hatchery near Carson, Washington (~700 feet elevation). It is located approximately 23 miles to
the south/south-east. Based on data from 1977 through 2016, precipitation on average was 86.1
inches of rain with 72.2 inches of snow The transient snow zone that is subject to rain-on-snow
events which can trigger major flood events usually occurs between the elevation of 1000 and
3,300 feet (Heeswijk et al, 1996). In the Cascade Mountains elevation below 3,500 feet is
recognized to be the rain dominated zone. It is not unusual to have rain-on-snow events on
elevation greater than 4,000 feet. Most precipitation occurs during a well-defined winter rainy
season which begins about October and peaks around December or January, and moderates into
spring. Precipitation is usually light to moderate intensity rain, rather than heavy rain which can
exacerbate a rain-on-snow event. The driest months and low flow season occur in July, August,
and September.
Nearest available historical precipitation data would be the Carson National Fish Hatchery in
Carson, Washington. Average rainfall monthly amounts: June (2.18), July (0.65), August (0.89)
and September (2.64).
Fisheries
Terrestrial and Soil Array
At the Wind River site, there is only one intermittent stream and the nearest fish presence is
approximately ¾ mile downstream in Trout Creek. There are rainbow trout, sculpin species, and
Lower Columbia River steelhead trout (federally-listed as ―threatened‖) present in Trout Creek,
and Trout Creek is designated as Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead trout.
Martha Creek
Fish present in Martha Creek include lower Columbia River steelhead trout and Critical Habitat
for lower Columbia River steelhead trout.
A full Fisheries Biological Assessment was conducted and can be found in the project file. The
Biological Assessment contains thorough information about species present, limiting factors for
each species and a detailed effects analysis from this project, and is used to consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service as part of requirements under the Endangered Species Act.
50
Environmental Consequences
No Action
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
With the no action, we wouldcontinue to see normal stream dynamics and sediment movement in
Martha Creek as it continues to improve from a dam removal in 2012. Normal seasonal flows
will continue
Proposed Action
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Water Quality
Initial disturbances alongside Martha Creek through drilling, digging and moving rocks out of
the way will likely but temporarily introduce sediment into the creek. The amount of erosion, if
any, and movement of sediment is expected to be minimal to the point being negligible in its
overall sediment contribution when compared to the overall drainage size of the Martha Creek.
Effects from erosion and sediment runoffs should be minimal due to the location, slope
characteristic, ample ground vegetation, type of work done, timing of work, and amount of space
to work with on the ground. The 6 drilled holes to be used as groundwater monitoring wells will
not affect groundwater – surface water interactions or the hyphorheic zone due to the limited
number of wells drilled, depth of the monitoring wells, distance between wells and distance from
Martha Creek.
There should be no adverse cumulative effects from the implementation of this proposed project
relating to the function of hydrology (stream dynamics) and riparian reserves into the foreseeable
future.
Soils
Soil disturbance would be associated mainly with the soil pit and soil array plots, which would
affect about 100 square feet total distributed on flat ground.
Under the proposed action, there would be minor impacts to the soil resource, but these would
not affect soil productivity. Soils are moderately susceptible to topsoil displacement by traffic,
but not likely to erode on flat terrain.
There would be no losses in soil productivity due to compaction, puddling, displacement,
erosion, or severe burning. There would be no adverse effects to soil organisms due to
compaction, puddling, displacement, erosion, severe burning, or changes in canopy cover. Mass
wasting, biological soil crusts, and soil nutrient cycling are not issues of concern with this
proposal.
51
Fisheries
Terrestrial and Soil Array
There is no effect expected to the fisheries resource from the terrestrial and soil array.
The only ground disturbing activities that will occur in or near this intermittent stream are: the
clearing of a 2.5 foot wide unimproved pathway on either side of this creek, the ensuing
intermittent foot traffic of researchers over the next 30 years, the placement of an elevated
boardwalk over the stream, the digging of the nearest soil array pit (5 meters long x 5 meters
wide) approx. 200 feet from the stream, and the replacement of a fence and installation of a small
instrument hut approx. 100 feet from the stream.
At the Martha Creek site, terrestrial sampling plots will be placed in the riparian areas along
lower Martha Creek, Planting Creek, Trout Creek, and some of their smaller tributaries and these
will be seasonally monitored for 30 years. Most of the perennial streams in this area are fish-
bearing and contain rainbow trout, sculpin species, and Lower Columbia River steelhead trout
(federally-listed as ―threatened‖), as well as Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead
trout. However, there would be no effect expected to fish or fish habitat because the ground-
disturbance associated with these terrestrial sampling plots is minimal and is limited to digging
and collecting a small amount of soil and roots, as well as embedding pitfall traps in the ground
(each is 7 cm deep and 11 cm in diameter), and their locations are far enough from fish habitat.
Because of these factors, there are no changes expected to the levels of stream temperature,
turbidity, and fine sediments in the stream substrate from the implementation of this project, nor
will there be any direct ―take‖ of fish (e.g., harassment, disturbance of feeding or spawning
behaviors, injury, death). Therefore, there is no effect expected to any resident fish, federally-
listed fish, Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, or Management Indicator Species from the
implementation of this project. Martha Creek
There are no indirect or cumulative effects expected from the proposed project activities to LCR
steelhead and Critical Habitat for LCR steelhead, but there are some direct effects expected that
would be long-term (30 years). However, these negative direct effects are expected to be
intermittent (from twice per year to 1-2 times per month, depending on the activity) and localized
(within the 1 km sampling reach in lower Martha Creek). These direct negative effects would
result from:
Electrofishing, particularly when there are all life stages of LCR steelhead present, which
may result in behavioral effects, increased stress levels, decreased spawning success,
decreased egg-to-alevin and alevin-to-parr survival, injury, and mortality,
Fin clipping for DNA barcode analysis which may result in behavioral effects, increased
stress levels, increased susceptibility to infection (i.e. by viruses, bacteria, and parasites),
injury, and mortality,
Instream substrate disturbance during annual instream sensor installation and removal
and during instream sampling, particularly when there is spawning, egg incubation, and
alevin rearing occurring, which may result in behavioral effects, decreased spawning
success, and decreased egg-to-alevin and alevin-to-parr survival,
52
Slightly elevated levels of instream turbidity and substrate embeddedness resulting from
the installation, maintenance, and removal of the two instream sensors, as well as from
the instream sampling activities, which may result in behavioral effects,
Temporary migration barriers affecting steelhead movement within lower Martha Creek
during the day when block nets are set up during fish sampling activities twice per year
(once in the spring and once in the fall) for a maximum of 5 days each time.
Due to these potential negative effects, it is determined that these proposed activities May Affect,
Likely to Adversely Affect Lower Columbia River steelhead trout and Critical Habitat for Lower
Columbia River steelhead trout.
Cutthroat/steelhead and bull trout are categories of species considered Management Indicator
Species. Neither cutthroat nor bull trout are present in Martha Creek. While there would be short-
term, localized effects to steelhead, the NEON study project will not contribute to a negative trend
in viability on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for this species.A full description of the
rationale for this determination can be found in the Fisheries Biological Assessment in the
project file.
Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.
The Martha Creek NEON project proposal will not prevent attainment the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (ACS) Objectives. The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) requires projects on federal
lands be consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives. A finding would
require the project either ―meets‖ or ―does not prevent attainment‖ of the ACS objectives. There
are nine objectives that must satisfy the ACS.
Objective 1: Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and
landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species,
populations and communities are uniquely adapted.
Impact to the project site would be minimal. There would be numerous monitoring
instruments installed near and alongside Martha Creek. Activities will not prevent the
attainment of the ACS objectives on aquatic and ecologic diversity in a watershed.
Objective 2: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between
watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include flood plains,
wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections
must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life
history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.
The aquatic array will not alterthe spatial and temporal network connectivity of Martha
Creek. The footprint activity would be minimal by accessing a decommissioned road and
designated foot path to the project site.
Objective 3: Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including
shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.
The installation of monitoring instruments will be minimally invasive. The physical
integrity of the aquatic system will still be maintained.
53
Objective 4: Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic,
and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the
biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth,
reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.
Water quality will continue to be maintained in Martha Creek. Project activities will not
affect water quality as long as appropriate mitigation measures are followed. Activities
near and around Martha Creek will be minimally invasive.
Objective 5: Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved.
Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment
input, storage, and transport.
Project activities will have a negligible effect to the sediment regime in Martha Creek.
Minor ground disturbances may likely occur while providing a path from a Forest Service
decommissioned road to Martha Creek. A 3 to 4 foot wide path and approximately 1,200
feet long will be used to bring a small transport walker to carry materials, sensors and
monitoring equipment to Marth Creek. A small drilling equipment or hand auger will be
used to drill holes to help mount install and place monitoring equipment in a few
locations around Martha Creek. Holes drilled to a depth of 10 to 20 feet will be used as
near surface groundwater observation wells.
Objective 6: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian,
aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The
timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be
protected
Project activities will not impact in-stream flows due to the nature of work and equipment
used. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low
flows will not be altered by this project.
Objective 7: Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of flood plain inundation
and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.
This project willnot affect Martha Creek the timing, variability and duration of floodplain
inundation and water table. No wetland features nearby would be affected.
Objective 8: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant
communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal
regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel
migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain
physical complexity and stability.
Drilling and soil disturbance for the placement of monitoring equipment may result in
localized removal of some native plants. Project will not alter the stream dynamics in
Martha Creek. Species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in
riparian areas will continue to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation,
nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel
migration and to supply amounts of distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to
sustain physical complexity and stability.
54
Objective 9: Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant,
invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.
The aquatic array will have a small footprint near and alongside Martha Creek. Access to
the site and implementation of several monitoring equipment and electrical line hookup
will essentially have negligible impact to native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate
riparian-dependent species. Objective 9 will continued to be maintained as is.
Other Disclosures Required by Law, Policy, and Regulation
National Historic Preservation Act Compliance
A heritage resource report was completed and a Forest Service archeologist made a
determination of ―No Historic Properties Affected‖ (36 CFR 800.4 (d)(1)). Consultation with the
Washington State Historic Preservation Officer was competed on August 30, 2016.
Effects on Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs federal agencies to focus attention on the
human health and environmental condition in minority and low-income communities. The
purpose of the Executive Order is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
The principle behind Environmental Justice is that people should not suffer disproportionately
because of their ethnicity or income level.
The work activities associated with the proposed action would create or sustain timber
industryjobs; however the proposed action would not have a disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations.
Clean Water Act Compliance
All requirements associated with the Federal Clean Water Act and Washington State water
quality regulations will be met through planning, application, monitoring and adjustment of Best
Management Practices in conformance with the CWA and following guidance in USDA
National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System
Lands (USDA 2012).
Wetlands and Floodplains
Executive Order 11988 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and
modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as, ―. . . the lowland and
relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters are including flood prone areas of
offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence]
or greater chance of flooding in any one year.‖This project is in compliance with this direction.
Mitigation measures are to be applied in accordance to project design.
Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification
of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, ―. . . areas inundated by surface or ground
water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would
support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated
soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
55
and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural
ponds.‖This project is in compliance with this direction and will not adversely impact any
wetlands. There are no nearby wetlands within the project area.
Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land
There are no prime farm lands or prime range lands within the project footprint. Prime forest
land is aterm used only for non-public lands and does not apply to any land within the planning
area.
Potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy
There would be no potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy with this project. The proposed
actiondoes not involve any forms of energy expenditure.
Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or other Jurisdictions
There would be no conflicts with plans, policies or other jurisdictions with the proposed action.
Alloverlapping plans and policies have been evaluated for consistency. The Forest works with
regulatoryagencies in development of the proposal including the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
the National MarineFisheries Service, Washington State Department of Ecology and the State
Historic Preservation Officer.
Consistency with the Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan, as Amended
The proposed action was designed to be consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines,
andstipulations from the Northwest Forest Plan. The Management Direction section lists the
managementarea categories for the Forest Plan and land allocations from the Northwest Forest
Plan and how theproject fit within those allocations. Individual specialist reports werecompleted
for this project and incorporated by reference throughout the EA. These reports also
detailspecific Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines that apply to this
project.
Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, and Women
The activities in the proposed action do not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse
effect onconsumers, minorities or women. The project would not have any effect on the civil
rights of any humanbeing.
Other Applicable State and Federal Laws
The activities associated with the proposed action are designed to be consistent with all other
applicablestate and federal laws. Applicable laws are listed in the Management Direction section
and throughout theindividual Forest Service specialist reports.
List of Preparers
Member of the interdisciplinary team were:
NAME POSITION
Stephanie Caballero Fisheries Biologist
Erin Black NEPA Specialist
56
Chris Donnermeyer Archaeologist
Andrea Montgomery Botanist
Mike McConnell Hydrologist
Mitch Wainwright Wildlife Biologist
Aldo Aguilar Soil Scientist
57
REFERENCES
Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon
and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 83 pp.
Bower, Andy. 2015. Personal Communication.
Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates – Steelhead. Biological Report 82(11.60) TR EL-82-4.
California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA.
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society,
Monograph 6.
Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers. Portland, Oregon. Contract No. DACW 57-68-C-0086. 425 pp.
Bell, M.C. 1987. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological
Criteria.U.S.Army Corp of Engineers, Fish Passage Development and Evaluation
Program. Portland, Oregon. in Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland
Management. USDA Forest Service, American Fisheries Society Publication 19.
Bjornn,T.C. and D.W. Reiser, 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.
BRT (Biological Review Team). 1997. in FCRPS Biological Opinion, 2000. Status review
update for West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California.
National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Steelhead BRT. Portland, Oregon.
Bryant, F.G. 1949. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries with special reference to
its fishery resources. Washington streams from the mouth of the Columbia River to and
including the Klickitat River (Area 1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Spec. Sci. Rep.
No. 62.
Bryant, M.D. 1983. The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid nursery
streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 3:322-330.
Buckland-Nicks J.A., M. Gillis, T.E. Reimchen. 2011. Neural network detected in presumed
vestigial trait: Ultrastructure of the salmonid adipose fin. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of Biological Sciences. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1009.
Connolly, P.J. et al. 1999. Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Volume I ofIII. Report
for the Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 1990-05400. BPA Report
DOE/BP-09728-1. 91 electronic pages. Portland, Oregon.
58
Connolly, P.J. et al. 2001. Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Segments I-IV. Report
by the U.S. Geological Survey-Western Fisheries Research Center for the Bonneville
Power Administration. Cook, Washington. Available online at:
https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=00004973-1
Connolly, P.J. and I.G. Jezorek. 2001-2003. Juvenile and resident fish populations in the Wind
River Watershed. Report I - Wind River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Annual Report
by the U.S. Geological Survey-Western Fisheries Research Center for the Bonneville
Power Administration. Cook, Washington.
Connolly, P.J., Jezorek, I.G., and K. Martens. 2003. Wind River Watershed Restoration Project,
Segment I. Annual Report by the U.S. Geological Survey-Western Fisheries Research
Center for the Bonneville Power Administration. Cook, Washington.
Connolly, P.J. and I.G. Jezorek. 2007. Wind River Watershed Restoration Project: U.S.
Geological Survey Annual Report, April 2004-March 2005. Report for the Bonneville
Power Administration. Cook, Washington.
Everest, F.H. and W.R. Meehan. 1981. Forest management and anadromous fish habitat
productivity. Pgs. 521-530 in K. Sabol, editor. Transactions of the Forty-sixth North
American Wildlife Conference. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C.
Flury, M. and A. Papritz. 1993. Bromide in the natural environment: Occurrence and toxicity.
Journal of Environmental Quality 22(4): 747-748.
Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted
owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon
State University Press.
Heeswijk, M.V., et al. 1996. Simulation of Water Available for Runoff in Clearcut Forest
Openings During Rain-on-Snow Events in the Western Cascade Range of Oregon and
Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. WRIR No. 95-4219.
Harmon, M.E. et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances
in Ecological Research. 15:133-302.
Howell, P. et al. 1985. FCRPS Biological Opinion, 2000. Stockassessment of Columbia River
anadromous salmonids, 2 volumes. Final Report to Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon (Project 83-335).
Jezorek, I.G., Connolly, P.J., Charrier, J., and C. Munz. 2007. Wind River Watershed
Restoration Project: U.S. Geological Survey Annual Report, April 2005-March 2006.
Report for the Bonneville Power Administration. Cook, Washington.
59
Jobling, M. 1981. Temperature tolerance and final referendum-rapid methods for assessment of
optimum growth temperatures. Journal of Fish Biology 19:439-455 in Salmonid-Habitat
Relationships in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical
Report RM-188.
LCFRB- Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2004. Washington-Lower Columbia Salmon
Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan, Vol. II - Chapter J: Wind River
Subbasin.
LCFRB-Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2010. Washington-Lower Columbia Salmon
Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Volume III - Appendix A: Focal Fish.
McClure, M. M. et al. 2000. in FCRPS Biological Opinion, 2000. A large-scale, multi-species
risk assessment: anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River basin. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington.
McMichael, G.A., A.L. Fritts, and T.N. Pearsons. 1998. Electrofishing injury to
streamsalmonids: Injury assessment at the sample, reach, and stream scales. North
AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management 18:894-904.
Mesa, M.G. et al. 2007. Nutrient Assessment in the Wind River Watershed Report of Phase III
Activities in 2006. Report by the U.S. Geological Survey-Western Fisheries Research
Center for the Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group and the Lower Columbia Fish
Recovery Board. Cook, Washington.
Nagpal, N.A.K., D.A. Levy, and D.D. MacDonald. 2003. Ambient water quality guidelines for
chloride. Overview Report prepared British Columbia Ministry of the Environment,
Environmental Protection Division.
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). 2015. AOS protocol and procedure: Fish
sampling in wadeable streams. Written by B. Jensen for NEON, December 16, 2015,
Revision C. NEON Doc. #: NEON.DOC.001295.
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). 2015. Aquatics site instrumentation: A brief
overview. Written by S. Benhoff and A.C. Beedlow for NEON.
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). 2015. 100% Engineering Designs for the
Domain 16, Pacific Northwest, Martha Creek Aquatic Instrumentation Project Site.
Engineering designs by Leo A. Daly for NEON, dated December 15, 2015. Daly Project
No. 003-10073-416, NEON Project No. 04.08.C.0008.
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). 2016. Project Proposal for Wind River
Experimental Forest Site and Martha Creek Aquatic Site. Project file. Mt. Adams
Ranger District, Trout Lake, Washington.
Natural Resources Information System (NRIS) –Threatened, Engangered, Sensitive (TES)
60
Database. 2016. Spatial Query.
Nehlsen,W.,Williams, J.E., and J.A.Lichatowich.1991.Pacific salmon at the crossroads; Stocks at
risk from California,Oregon,Idaho,and Washington.Fisheries.16(2):4-21.
Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A
synthesis for quantitative assessment or risk and impact. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 16: 693-727.
Parker, G.G. 1973 Tests of rhodamine WT dye for toxicity to oysters and fish. Journal of
Research of the U.S. Geological Survey 1(4): 499.
Patin, S. 1999. Gas Impact on Fish and Other Marine Organisms. EcoMonitor Publishing. East
Northport, New York. www.offshore-environment.com/gasimpact.html
Phelps, S.R., B.M. Baker, P.L. Hulett, and S.A. Leider. 1994. Genetic analysis of Washington
Steelhead: initial electrophoretic analysisof wild and hatchery steelhead and rainbow
trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program Report
96
Portz, D.E. 2007. Fish-holding-associated stress in Sacramento River Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) at South Delta fish salvage operations: Effects on plasma
constituents, swimming performance, and predator avoidance. PHD Dissertation.
University of California, Davis.
Reimchem, T.E. and N.F. Temple. 2004. Hydrodynamic and phylogenetic aspects of the
adipose fin in fishes. Published on NRC Research Press website on August 12, 2004.
http://cjz.nrc.ca
Reiser, D. W. and T. C. Bjorn. 1979. Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on
Anadromous Fish Habitat in Western North America, Habitat Requirements of
Anadromous Salmonids. 54 pgs.
Rogers, K.B. 2007. A suggested protocol for collecting cutthroat trout tissues for subsequent
genetic analysis. Written for Colorado Division of Wildlife, Aquatic Research Division.
Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Smart, P.L. 1984. A review of the toxicity of twelve fluorescent dyes used for water tracing.
National Speleological Society 46(2): 21-33.
Snyder, D.E. 2003. Electrofishing and its harmful effects on fish. Information and
TechnologyReport USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0002. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Denver,Colorado. 149
pgs.http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/21226/21226.pdf .
61
Tyus, H.M., W.C. Starnes, C.A. Karp, and J.F. Saunders. 2011. Effects of invasive tissue
collection on rainbow trout, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 19(3): 848-855.
USDA. Forest Service, 1988. Cumulative Effects Assessment Process, Final Report, Gifford
Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, WA.
USDA. Forest Service, 1990. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan, Vancouver, WA
USDA. Forest Service 1995. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan, Amendment 11. Vancouver, WA.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994. Record of Decision for
Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents
Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and Standards and Guidelines for
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species
Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. April 1994.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. 1992 Wind River Basin Assessment. Wind River Ranger District.
Carson, Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 2001. Wind River Basin Watershed Analysis, 2nd
Reiteration. Mt.
Adams Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Trout Lake, Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper
Columbia River Basin.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Wind River Basin Watershed Analysis. Wind River Ranger
District. Carson, Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 1999. Hemlock Dam Fish Passage Evaluation and Restoration. Wind
River District. Carson, Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 2003. Upper Trout Creek Stream Restoration and Riparian Thinning
Project, Fisheries Biological Evaluation and Analysis Report. Mt. Adams Ranger
District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Trout Lake, Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Win Thin Sale Fisheries Biological Assessment. Project File. Mt.
Adams Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Trout Lake, Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. USFS Draft Stream Survey for Martha Creek. Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, Mt. Adams Ranger District. Trout Lake, Washington.
62
USDA. Forest Service, and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, 2010. Northwest Forest Plan
Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy: Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan
Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream
temperature water quality standards
USDA - U.S. Forest Service, USDC - National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI - Bureau of Land
Management, USDI - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Analytical Process for
Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the
Northwest Forest Plan Area.
USDA Forest Service 2004c. Likelihood of Occurrence Key.
http://www.or.blm.gov/ISSSP/
USDA Forest Service 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of
Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants.
USDA Forest Service 2008. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Forest Plan Amendment #20 Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area (Washington Portion) Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project
and Forest Plan Amendment. March 2008.
USDA Forest Service 2015. Regional Forester‘s Sensitive/Special Status Species List.
December 2011. Accessible at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2014. Table 1-1. Species
Included in Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and Category Assignment
(December 2003, but with January 2001 ROD category assgnment for Red Tree Vole).
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010. Survey and Manage
Category B Fungi Equivalent-Effort Survey Protocol, Version 1.0, May 2010.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001. Record of Decision To
Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range
of the Northern Spotted Owl. January 2001.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001. Standards and Guidelines
for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation
Measures Standards and Measures. Forest Service National Forests in Regions 5 and 6
and the Bureau of Land Management Districts in California, Oregon, and Washington
Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. January 2001.
USDA Forest Service. July 2011. Environmental Assessment. Fish Passage at Martha Creek
Dam. Mt. Adams Ranger District. Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
63
USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality
Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical
Guide.
USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Factors for decline: A supplement to the notice
of determination for west coast steelhead under the Endangered Species Act.
Environmental and Technical Services. Portland, Oregon.
USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making Endangered Species
ActDeterminations of Effect for Individual orGrouped Actions at the Watershed
Scale.Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch.
USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Guidelines for electrofishing waters containing
salmonids listed under theEndangered Species Act. National Marine Fisheries
Service.Portland, Oregon and SantaRosa,
California.http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/sr/Electrofishing_Guidelines.pdf .
USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of
west coast salmon and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs.
Federal Register 70(123): 37160-37204.
USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. August 2016. Web research (December 2010
through January 2011) for salmon life history and listing status information at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1978. Occupational Health Guideline for
Propane. www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0524.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride.
EPA 440/5-88-001.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making EndangeredSpecies
Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull
TroutSubpopulation Watershed Scale.
USDI. 1990a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of threatened
status for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. Vol. 55, No. 23: 26114-26194. June 26,
1990.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Total Maximum Daily Load for Martha Creek.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/map.aspx?CustomMap=y&RT=0&Layers=2
3,29&Filters=n,n,n,n
WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries), Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western
Washington Treaty of Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and
steelhead stock inventory. Olympia, Washington.
64
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. 1995-2009 Smolt Trap Data for
the Wind River and Trout Creek. Unpublished Data.
WDFW – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the USDA Forest Service-
Region 6 Regarding Hydraulic Activities. Vancouver, Washington.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the USDA Forest Service,
Gifford Pinchot National Forest Regarding Hydraulic Activities. Vancouver,
Washington.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010-2015. Wind River adult steelhead
snorkel survey. Unpublished Data.
WDW (Washington Department of Wildlife), Confederated Tribes and Bands, and Washington
Department of Fisheries. 1990. Wind River sub-basin salmon and steelhead production
plan. Columbia Basin System Planning, Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland,
Oregon.
Western Regional Climate Center. Carson Fish Hatchery. Monthly Climate Summary, (1977 –
2016).
Wikipedia. August 2016. Web research for NEON‘s mission and research protocol at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ecological_Observatory_Network.
Wikipedia. August 2016. Web research for effects of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride
65
APPENDIX A. MITIGATION MEASURES
Terrestrial and Soil Array
General
1. Battelle Memorial Institute will place signs on access roads near trails and trailheads to
alert users to increased traffic during staging.
2. If use of the instrument hut and soil array makes use of the existing Trail 199, or if the
trail has to be closed for keeping the site secure, mitigations will be developed for hikers
and hunters to reconnect with the adjoining Whistle Punk Trail.
3. An equipment operating noise level limit on the tower and around the tower base will be
developed and agreed to by the Mt. Adams Ranger District and Pacific Northwest
Research Station before implementation.
4. If it is determined that the footprint around the tower base or ground disturbance is more
than planned for the soil array, additional review will be necessary. The permittee is
required to notify staff at the Mt. Adams Ranger District and Pacific Northwest Research
Station before any work outside of the current footprint is conducted.
5. Battelle Memorial Institutewill work with staff from the Mt. Adams Ranger District and
the Pacific Northwest Research Station in determining final locations for NEON to
ensure that their location does not negatively impact ongoing research, or potentially
completely exclude other research activities on the ground or on the tower over NEON‘s
current 30 year plan.
Species Sampling
1. Avoid collection of, or damage to, all botanical species listed in Appendices B and C of
the Botanical Resource Report.
2. Pitfall traps required for ground beetle sampling will be placed on slopes less than 40%
and more than 50 feet from perennial and intermittent streams to minimize the potential
to capture/kill Larch Mountain salamanders, Van Dyke‘s salamanders, and Cascade
torrent salamanders. Incidental capture of individuals of these species would be reported
to the Forest Service.
Site Preparation
1. To prevent the introduction of noxious weeds into the project area, all heavy equipment,
or other off- road equipment used in the project is to be cleaned to remove soil, seeds,
vegetative matter or other debris that could contain seeds. Cleaning should be done
before entering National Forest Lands, and when equipment moves from or between
project sites or areas known to be infested into other areas, infested or otherwise.
Cleaning of the equipment may include pressure washing. An inspection will be required
to ensure that equipment is clean before work can begin.
2. Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest
Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch is not
available, individual Forests should require sources certified to be weed free using the
North American Weed Fee Forage Program standards or a similar certification process.
Mulch species shall preferably be from native seed sources or annual rye or cereal grain
66
fields. For the most updated sources of weed free mulch, utilize the following website:
http://agr.wa.gov/PlantsInsects/WWHAM/WWHAM.aspx
3. Inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material for invasive
plants before use and transport. Treat or require treatment of infested sources before any
use of pit material. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by
Forest Service weed specialists.
4. Clean all equipment and personal clothing so that they are clean and free of mud and
seeds in order to minimize introduction of new invasive species or spread of existing ones
as a result of project activities. This includes during the initial establishment of study
plot infrastructure, and during all subsequent years during data collection.
5. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to this project will be
implemented by following recommendations outlined in the USDA National Best
Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands
(2012). Under the Facilities and Nonrecreation Special Uses Management Activities
section on page 47 under FAC-9 ―Nonrecreation Special Uses Authorizations‖ states that
the operator is to ―avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and
riparian resources from physical, chemical, and biological pollutants resulting from
activities under nonrecreation special use authorizations. ― This USDA National Core
BMP technical guide can be found at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2
012.pdf
6. Minimize soil disturbance and displacement, and reduce the risk for any off-site soil
movement from construction activity through the use of filter materials such as straw
bales, wattles or silt fencing.
7. Minimize disturbance of streambanks and stream substrate when placing unistrut support
members and boardwalk over intermittent stream at the Wind River site.
8. Avoid the disposal of dirt and excess waste materials in Riparian Reserves.
9. Time construction work and activity during favorable conditions to help minimize
sediment delivery.
10. Carry approved spill containment plan before operations begin. Containment plan should
include but not limited to: possess a spill containment kit on-site, and pre- identified
containment locations. A spill containment kit will be located where equipment is stored.
Hydraulic/oil/fuel leaks will be repaired prior to operating on National Forest System
lands. Equipment will be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be
completed prior to commencing work activities in or near stream channels. Equipment
storage locations will need to be away from any live streams by at least 100 feet.
Equipment will not be stored adjacent to or in stream channels when not in use to
avoid/minimize any potential effects of vandals, accidents, or natural disasters. Any
accidental spills of a hazardous material (e.g. oil, fuel, transmission fluid) from any
operating equipment or in place of storage on land or in water must be reported to the
Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
11. Service and refueling areas need to be located at least 100 ft. away from any stream
course or waterbody. Refueling or oil change for mechanized equipment or vehicles must
be done at a designated service and refueling area.
67
12. Chainsaw use for log sampling would not be allowed between March 1 and July 15 for
any site that is within 65 yards of suitable spotted owl nesting or foraging habitat (late-
successional or old-growth conifer stands).
13. When cutting disks for log sampling, avoid disturbing to rest of the log as much as
possible. Avoid rolling it or otherwise moving it, or removing more wood than is
necessary.
14. Avoid detrimental soil disturbance, considered visual evidence of:
o surface loss in areas greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width
o ruts six inches or more in depth
o soil compaction or displacement from a single or multiple vehicle passes
15. Organic matter should be maintained in amounts sufficient to prevent nutrient and carbon
cycle deficits and to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions.
16. Soil moisture regime is not measurably changed by induced water table or subsurface
flow changes.
Site Restoration
1. Native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation for restoration and rehabilitation
where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-
native, non-invasive plant species may be used in any of the following situations: 1) when
needed in emergency conditions to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability, water
quality and to help revent the establishment of invasive species), 2) as an interim, non-
persistent measure designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants, 3) if native plant
materials are not available, or 4) in permanently alterned plant communities. Under no
circumstances will non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation. Contact
Forest Service botanist for appropriate seeding and site preparation prescription.
Aquatic Site at Martha Creek
Contaminant Mitigations
1. There will be a written Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) prepared
by NEON in place prior to implementation which describes measures to prevent or reduce
impacts from potential spills. The SPCCP will include measures for containing and
cleaning up any chemicals/fluids associated with the heavy equipment used at the now-
decommissioned Forest Road 4101, hand tools, and sampling instrumentation and methods.
The SPCCP shall contain a description of the hazardous materials that will be used,
including inventory, storage, handling, and monitoring.
2. All equipment used for instream work shall be cleaned and leaks repaired prior to arriving at
the Martha Creek aquatic sampling site. Thereafter, inspect equipment daily for leaks or
accumulations of grease or any other chemicals, and fix any identified problems before
entering Martha Creek or its riparian zone.
3. Hand tools/equipment shall be fueled and serviced in the parking area at the end of Hemlock
Road or, if this is not possible, they will be fueled and serviced in a dry area at least 200 ft.
from Martha Creek or any intermittent tributary, perennial tributary, wetland area, or area
with a high water table (even if no wetland-associated plants are present).
4. If hand tools/equipment used in the stream or in the riparian area require oil, grease, gas,
dessicants, or any other chemicals, then oil absorbing booms and/or absorbent material shall
be available on-site during all phases of construction, as well as heavy-duty plastic trash
68
bags with labels that can be carried out and disposed of in an appropriate hazardous waste
disposal site. Place all of these spill materials in a location that facilitates an immediate
response to potential chemical leakage.
Erosion Mitigations
1. All provisions of the Clean Water Act and provisions for maintenance of water quality
standards, as described by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Washington
National Forests), will be followed.
2.Delineate ground-disturbing impact areas on engineering designs and confine work to the
noted areas. Confine ground-disturbance to the minimum area necessary to complete the
project.
3. Ground-disturbing activities, both instream and in the riparian area, will be conducted in the
late spring to early fall period and, if possible, will be done when there is little or no
precipitation.
4. The removal of hazard trees will be minimized to the greatest extent possible and will be
accomplished by hand-felling or pulling them over manually (i.e. no heavy equipment) and
then leaving them in the riparian area.
5. No heavy equipment will be allowed instream or in the riparian area beyond the now-
decommissioned Forest Road 4101.
6. Avoid detrimental soil disturbance, considered visual evidence of:
o surface loss in areas greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width
o ruts six inches or more in depth
o soil compaction or displacement from a single or multiple vehicle passes
7. Organic matter should be maintained in amounts sufficient to prevent nutrient and carbon
cycle deficits and to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions.
8. Soil moisture regime is not measurably changed by induced water table or subsurface flow
changes.
9. During the 30 year research period, NEON will implement all necessary erosion control
measures within the Martha Creek sampling site that are deemed necessary by USFS
personnel. As long as the site is accessible, erosion control measures will be implemented
within 30 days for non-emergency erosion control and immediately for emergency erosion
control, with the USFS deciding what constitutes ―emergency‖ vs. ―non-emergency‖.
Site Preparation Mitigations
1. Minimize clearing activities associated with the access paths, on-grade conduit, and
sampling instrumentation.
2. Avoid or minimize cutting of down logs for access to the site
3. Equipment will be hand-carried in and out, or it will be taken in and out with the assistance
of a Dingo or similar piece of light equipment, via the now-decommissioned Forest Road
4101 and the access trails. Vegetation disturbance will be minimal and will primarily
consist of a small amount of branch, small shrub, and sapling removal.
4. To prevent the introduction of noxious weeds into the project area, all heavy equipment, or
other off- road equipment used in the project is to be cleaned to remove soil, seeds,
vegetative matter or other debris that could contain seeds. Cleaning should be done before
entering National Forest Lands, and when equipment moves from or between project sites
or areas known to be infested into other areas, infested or otherwise. Cleaning of the
69
equipment may include pressure washing. An inspection will be required to ensure that
equipment is clean before work can begin.
5. Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest
Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch is not
available, individual Forests should require sources certified to be weed free using the
North American Weed Fee Forage Program standards or a similar certification process.
Mulch species shall preferably be from native seed sources or annual rye or cereal grain
fields. For the most updated sources of weed free mulch, utilize the following website:
http://agr.wa.gov/PlantsInsects/WWHAM/WWHAM.aspx
6. Inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material for invasive
plants before use and transport. Treat or require treatment of infested sources before any
use of pit material. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by
Forest Service weed specialists.
7. During the same growing season, and prior to installation of access trail to Martha Creek,
treat occurrences of invasive species listed in Table 2, where they occur along the
decommissioned Martha Creek road, using a Forest Service approved method (USDA 2005
and USDA 2008; consult Forest Service Botanist for specific options). This mitigation is
recommended in order to reduce spread of existing invasive plant infestations into habitat
newly created through ground disturbance resulting from project activities.
8. Clean all equipment and personal clothing so that they are clean and free of mud and seeds
in order to minimize introduction of new invasive species or spread of existing ones as a
result of project activities. This includes during the initial establishment of study plot
infrastructure, and during all subsequent years during data collection.
9. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to this project will be
implemented by following recommendations outlined in the USDA National Best
Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands
(2012). Under the Facilities and Nonrecreation Special Uses Management Activities
section on page 47 under FAC-9 ―Nonrecreation Special Uses Authorizations‖ states that
the operator is to ―avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and
riparian resources from physical, chemical, and biological pollutants resulting from
activities under nonrecreation special use authorizations. ― This USDA National Core
BMP technical guide can be found at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April20
12.pdf
10. Minimize soil disturbance and displacement, and reduce the risk for any off-site soil
movement from construction activity through the use of filter materials such as straw bales,
wattles or silt fencing.
11. Avoid the disposal of dirt and excess waste materials in Riparian Reserves.
12. Time construction work and activity during favorable conditions to help minimize sediment
delivery.
13. Carry approved spill containment plan before operations begin. Containment plan should
include but not limited to: possess a spill containment kit on-site, and pre- identified
containment locations. A spill containment kit will be located where equipment is stored.
Hydraulic/oil/fuel leaks will be repaired prior to operating on National Forest System lands.
Equipment will be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be completed
prior to commencing work activities in or near stream channels. Equipment storage
70
locations will need to be away from any live streams by at least 100 feet. Equipment will
not be stored adjacent to or in stream channels when not in use to avoid/minimize any
potential effects of vandals, accidents, or natural disasters. Any accidental spills of a
hazardous material (e.g. oil, fuel, transmission fluid) from any operating equipments or in
place of storage on land or in water must be reported to the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest.
14. Service and refueling areas need to be located at least 100 ft. away from any stream course
or waterbody. Refueling or oil change for mechanized equipment or vehicles must be done
at a designated service and refueling area.
15. Although not a Forest Service requirement, the State of Washington has several
requirements for construction of groundwater monitoring wells that NEON will either need
to meet or apply for a waiver. State requirements are 1) an acceptable grout to fill the
annular space such as neat cement, bentonite chips, or a bentonite / cement mixture; 2)
surface seal of the well requires a poured concrete or cement slab poured around a steel
outer casing with a locking cap; and 3) a licensed well driller is required to be onsite.
Site Restoration Mitigations
1. Native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation for restoration and rehabilitation
where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-
native, non-invasive plant species may be used in any of the following situations: 1) when
needed in emergency conditions to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability, water
quality and to help revent the establishment of invasive species), 2) as an interim, non-
persistent measure designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants, 3) if native plant
materials are not available, or 4) in permanently alterned plant communities. Under no
circumstances will non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation. Contact
Forest Service botanist for appropriate seeding and site preparation prescription.
2. Rehabilitate all disturbed areas in a manner that results in similar or better than pre-work
conditions through seeding and/or planting with native seed mixes or plants, as well as
mulching with straw that is WA-State certified as weed-free.
3. Complete necessary site restoration activities during the dryer summer months and prior to
the late fall season when heavier precipitation occurs.
4. Upon project completion, remove all instrumentation and infrastructure associated with the
Martha Creek aquatic sampling site off-Forest.
Instream Sampling Mitigations
1. All terms and conditions of the Scientific Collection Permit obtained from NMFS, as well as
all terms and conditions issued by NMFS in their Biological Opinion for this project, will be
followed.
2. Any mitigations/requirements issued by the WDFW for this project will be followed.
3. All provisions of the Clean Water Act and provisions for maintenance of water quality
standards, as described by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Washington
National Forests), will be followed.
4. NEON‘s ―AOS protocol and procedure: Fish sampling in wadeable streams‖ (see Appendix
A) will be followed at all times, unless NMFS and/or WDFW issue terms and
conditions/mitigations that specify a different protocol, in which case the direction from
NMFS and/or WDFW will be followed.
71
5. Fish must be handled with extreme care and kept in water the maximum extent possible.
6. Crew members will be trained in how to do fin clips prior to sampling so that the minimal
size clip can be obtained from the appropriate location in a manner which lessens the
negative impacts to fish.
7. If minnow traps are used, they will be left in the water no longer than 24 hours, will be
checked and emptied regularly, and will not be used if instream temperatures are above
18ºC or are expected to rise above this temperature prior to the next trap check.
8. Block nets will be removed at the end of each sampling day and frequent checks will be
conducted throughout the sampling day to minimize fish impingement.
9. Electrofishing will be conducted by trained crews who will use the lowest possible settings
on the electrofishers while still enabling them to capture fish.
10. Unless approved by NMFS in their Scientific Collection Permit, electrofishing near adult
steelhead trout or their redds during the springtime sampling period will not be allowed.
11. Crews must be trained to recognize steelhead trout and their redds prior to electrofishing,
doing any other aquatic sampling, or installing instream sensors.
12. Crew members will not step on or adjacent to any visible redds during the course of
electrofishing or the other aquatic monitoring.
13. Crews will do an ocular survey for steelhead trout (all life stages) prior to installing,
maintaining, or removing the instream sensors, as well as prior to conducting aquatic
sampling. If spawning adults and/or redds are present, then crews will either move the
location of the sensors (if installing them) and sample in another area or they will postpone
sampling and instream sensor installation or removal.
14. Fish will be held in large buckets (at least 5 gallons) that have portable aerators, contain
cold and clean water, are not overcrowded, and contain similarly-sized fish of the same
species.
15. Fish will be anesthetized prior to handling and respiration will be monitored.
16. As rapidly as possible, but after fish have recovered, release fish.
17. Fish will be released at a safe release site, preferably upstream of ongoing work or sampling
in a pool or other area that provides cover and flow refuge.
18. Reasonable effort should be made to avoid handling fish in warm water temperatures, such
as conducting fish evacuation first thing in the morning, when the water temperature would
likely be coolest. No electrofishing should occur when water temperatures are above 18ºC
or are expected to rise above this temperature prior to concluding the fish capture.
19. All injured fish and mortalities must be recorded and reported according to the requirements
of the Scientific Collection Permit, as well as all other fish that are handled.
20. NEONtechnicians will either carry out or dump on the forest floor (at least 200 ft. from any
intermittent stream, perennial stream, wetland, or area with a high water table) any AQUI-
S20Esolution, and no MS-222 that is used to sedate or euthanize fish will be released into
the study environment. Prior to dumping any AQUI-S20Esolution onto on the forest floor,
NEON technicians will do a quick ocular inspection of the area to ensure that any
amphibians or other wildlife are not present.
Aeration Sampling Mitigations
1. Propane gas will not be utilized in place of SF6 during reaeration sampling.
72
2. Tracer will only be added to Martha Creek when there are no adult steelhead spawners or
redds present. This means tracer cannot be added to the Martha Creek during the March 15-
July 15 time period.
3. Tracer will be added to riffle or glide areas, not pools where the majority of rainbow trout
and steelhead trout are found in Martha Creek.
4. Tracer will be added where there is a moderate to high level of flow for about 50 ft.
downstream of the introduction site so the salt can dissipate to levels that will not negatively
affect fish or other aquatic organisms.
5. Tracer will be added to the stream thalweg in order to avoid overhanging streambanks or
similar areas where fish tend to be present.
6. A visual inspection will be conducted prior to adding tracer to the stream water to determine
if there are rainbow trout or steelhead troutpresent at or within approx. 20 ft. of the
introduction site. If fish are detected in a particular stream reach, choose a different site to
add the tracer.