Blue River Landscape Study

Blue River Landscape Study

Aquatic conservation strategy objectives review - 10/22/99

Subteam: Dave K., John P., Ray R., John C.

Tasks:

1. Develop a landscape block and reserve rating system, and develop prescription elements that better integrate management regimes with the aquatic conservation strategy objectives.

2. Complete definition of the road rating system and rank roads in terms of their risks to the aquatic ecosystem.

3. Rewrite the aquatic conservation strategy objectives evaluation to reflect improvements to the landscape plan resulting from the above analyses, to be more quantitative where possible, and to include comparisons with historical disturbance regimes and conditions to the extent feasible.

NOTE: the road restoration strategy will have to be completed, including integration with the human uses component and assignment of road objectives, to be useful in the rewrite of the aquatic conservation strategy objectives evaluation.

Landscape block and reserve rating, and link to prescriptions:

We agreed to the following general process:

1. rate blocks and reserves as to their relative ability to serve as sources for water, nutrients, sediment and large wood

2. rate streams as to their capability to provide habitat and serve as depositional and accumulation zones (response reaches based on stream gradient)

3. develop scheduling criteria, reserve recommendations, and block prescription elements linked to the block and stream ratings

We reviewed the block rating spreadsheet and made the following modifications:

changed the soil stability as influenced by deep-seated earthflow element so that slope steepness was not a factor
added summer baseflow contribution as an element (use algorithm in Augusta GTR)
clarified that the stream gradient rating is for the streams themselves, not a block rating

We identified the following block and reserve ratings to use for each material source:

water -> summer baseflow contribution (proportion of block or reserve in 'high' contribution zone)
nutrients -> wetland area (acres)
sediment and large wood (proportion of block with shallow soils on steep slopes (>70%), proportion of block with deep-seated earthflows, proportion of potentially unstable areas currently occupied by mature or old forests)

Streams will be ranked into five classes of channel gradient (<1%, 1-2%, 2-4%, 4-10%, > 10%)

We will then develop a matrix that links general prescription elements to the block ratings for these source areas, existing conditions, and stream ratings

Draft prescriptions elements:

Riparian and lower slope areas

Class III - a) 1/2 tree height buffer on south side of east/west flowing streams, both sides of north/south flowing streams; b) increased retention to 70% on south side of east/west flowing streams, both sides of north/south flowing streams for 1/2 tree height; c) increased retention to 50% on south side of east/west flowing streams, both sides of north/south flowing streams for 1/2 tree height

Class IV - a) increased retention to 70% on both sides of streams for 1/4 tree height; b) increased retention to 50% on both sides of streams for 1/4 tree height; c) increased retention to 30% on both sides of streams for 1/4 tree height

Potentially unstable areas

a) place in clumps or reserves; b) increase retention to 30%; b) increase retention to 50%; b) increase retention to 70%

Wetlands

requires site-specific evaluation to determine how to maintain functions

Landscape prescriptions

scheduling - will evaluate location of high contribution blocks in relation to stream values and reserves, and develop scheduling criteria specific to individual subwatersheds (i.e., Tidbits Creek, Cook Creek, etc.). The idea is to ensure functions can be maintained through time by evaluating all of the potential source areas in a given subwateshed.

reserves - we will use the criteria developed for the Augusta and initial Blue River landscape plans, and reevaluate reserve locations and boundaries in light of the data developed for the reserve ratings.

Road restoration strategy:

We briefly reviewed the road ratings in the spreadsheet and agreed that we need to meet with Paul Bennett to better understand what went into each criteria and the potential significance of each factor. We will then agree on how to best apply these ratings to rate roads in terms of risks to aquatic ecosystems. We plan to meet with Paul on 11/18/99 (tentative).

Aquatic conservation strategy objectives evaluation

John C. will provide estimates of mean disturbance rates from historical fires based on Pete Weisberg's work. The team will rewrite those evaluations when the above steps have been completed.

Work plan:

1. Finish block and reserve ratings - JC & TT (3 days, independent work)

2. Produce stream gradient map - TT (2 days, independent work)

3. Produce narrative of rationale for block and stream ratings - DK, JP & RR (2 days, independent work)

4. Assign prescription elements to block ratings - DK, JP, RR, JC (1/2 day, meeting (11/10))

5. Develop landscape scheduling criteria and review aquatic reserves - DK, JP, RR, JC (1/2 day, meeting (11/10))

6. Complete historical disturbance rates analysis - JC & JP (1 day, independent work)

7. Develop algorithm for rating roads - DK, JP, RR, JC (1 day, meeting (11/18))

8. Integration with vegetation team - DK, JP, RR, JC (1 day, full team meeting (not yet schjeduled))

9. Complete aquatic conservation strategy objectives evaluation - DK, JP, RR, RS, PF, MH (?) (3 days, independent work)