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.