Attached please find notes from the July 20-21, 2004 Northwest Forest Plan, Inter-governmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting held in Florence, Oregon. Detailed notes regarding the events and presentations are attached for your information. Additional photos and follow-up information will be posted on the Regional Ecosystem Office website (www.reo.gov/iac).

Thanks to all of you who took time to critique the various activities. It is our goal to make each meeting as efficient and effective as possible. A lot of work went into planning and executing the field trip, dinner, and meeting. We appreciate the very positive feedback that we received and the constructive comments for future field trips. A summary of the critique comments has been included in the attached notes.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 2004, and will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel, near Lloyd Center, at 1000 NE Multnomah, Portland, Oregon. In addition, there was a request for a conference call in late August to provide input into the Monitoring Synthesis report. The conference call for non-Federal IAC members has been set for September 1, 2004 at 2 p.m. Additional details regarding the conference call, and the upcoming November meeting will be sent to you under separate cover.

If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact your REO Representative, Kath Collier (503-808-2179), or me (503-808-2165). I look forward to seeing you at the next meeting.

Enclosures:

1 – July 20-21, 2004 Notes (9p)
2 – Recommendations from the Tribes regarding riparian reserves (9p)

cc: Presenters, REO Staff, & PAC DFOs

Federal land managers have proposed modification of riparian buffers on intermittent streams. The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Record of Decision (ROD, 1994) established riparian buffers as an element of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), but allowed for future modifications to buffers on intermittent streams. This memo provides comments from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Intertribal Timber Council Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) representatives on the proposal to modify intermittent stream buffers.

We recommend that three components be incorporated into buffer modification procedures:

1. an analytical framework to evaluate buffer width modifications and treatments in relation to ACS objectives;
2. a detailed description of the methods employed to identify the break point between intermittent and perennial streams; and,
3. monitoring programs to evaluate the impacts of modifications and treatments so that information can be obtained to inform future buffer modification decisions.

The NFP ROD describes perennial streams as "permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams". It does not appear that there is a more specific definition in the ROD. The ROD establishes a 150 foot buffer (300 feet total including both sides of the stream channel) on perennial streams, or a buffer equal to the distance of one site potential tree, whichever is greater.

Intermittent streams are defined as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. This includes what are sometimes referred to as ephemeral streams if they meet these two physical criteria. (ROD, page B-14)

The ROD states that:

The width of Riparian Reserves necessary to protect the ecological integrity of intermittent streams varies with the slope and rock type. Figure B-1 shows the estimated size of Riparian Reserves necessary to protect the ecological values of intermittent streams with different slope and rock types… These distances are consistent with the height of one site-potential tree used to define Riparian Reserve widths.

Watershed analysis provides the ecological and geomorphic basis for changing the size and location of riparian reserves. (ROD, page B-15)

Riparian Reserve widths for the various stream categories are discussed on page C-30 and 31. For intermittent streams and unstable areas, the ROD states that, at a minimum, Riparian Reserves must include:

• The extent of unstable and potentially unstable area,
• The stream channel and extend to the top of the inner gorge
• The stream channel or wetland and the area from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer areas of the riparian vegetation, and
• Extension from the edges of the stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is largest.

Figure B-1 indicates that the buffer for intermittent streams with no mass movement can vary from 50 to 200 feet in width, measured as slope distance, depending on the slope class and rock type. Figure B-1 also notes that, in determining these widths:

…Protection needs included surface erosion of streamside slopes, fluvial erosion of the stream channel, soil productivity, habitat for riparian dependent species, the ability of streams to transmit damage downstream, and the role of streams in the distribution of large wood to downstream fish-bearing streams.(Page B-15)

Finally, the ROD states that:

The prescribed widths for Riparian Reserves apply… until a watershed analysis is completed. Watershed analysis is expected to yield the contextual information needed to define ecologically and geomorphically appropriate Riparian Reserves. Analysis of site specific characteristics may warrant Riparian Reserves that are narrower or wider than the prescribed widths. Thus it is possible to meet the objectives of at least the Aquatic Conservation Strategy portion of these standards and guidelines with post-watershed analysis boundaries for intermittent streams that are quite different from those conforming to the prescribed widths. Regardless of stream type, changes to Riparian Reserves must be based on scientifically sound reasoning, and be fully justified and documented. (ROD, page B-16)

1, The Need for an Analysis

If intermittent stream buffers are modified, ACS Standards and Guidelines will no longer apply to the areas excluded from the buffer. However the underlined ROD passage cited above (ROD, page B-16) seems to imply that activities in the excluded areas still must be consistent with ACS objectives. The impact of changes in land classification will need to be described in an analysis document in order to satisfy NEPA and the ESA. This analysis probably cannot be a regional analysis but instead would have to be performed at a smaller scale to withstand legal challenge.

Therefore the REO or the federal land management agencies should develop a process to analyze the potential impacts of modification of intermittent stream buffers and subsequent activities in the excluded areas. The analysis would have to satisfy the ROD requirement that;

… changes to Riparian Reserves must be based on scientifically sound reasoning, and be fully justified and documented.

First, in general, there needs to be a scientifically credible procedure to evaluate proposals for stream buffer modifications. Modification analysis must demonstrate that adverse impacts to riparian ecological conditions will not occur. Buffer widths should be modified only if it can be clearly shown that ecological, biological and geomorphic functions will be improved with the action or will not retard attainment of ACS objectives. The primary objective of modifications should be the improvement of stream and riparian conditions. Land managers need to demonstrate and justify how this overarching objective will be met by buffer modification.

The analysis should show how a proposed buffer modification will help achieve ACS objectives. Three ACS objectives that could be impacted by intermittent stream buffer modification include the following:

• Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system;
• Maintain and restore water quality; and,
• Maintain and restore the sediment regime. (page B-11)

Buffer modification analysis should specifically discuss how buffer modification may impact these three objectives.

Watershed analysis alone will not provide a sufficient analysis to support buffer modification. The federal watershed analysis process typically provides a coarse overview of conditions in a relatively large watershed. Often times these watershed analyses lack the detail or specificity to make determinations at a stream reach or segment level. In addition, watershed analyses frequently spend little time identifying or evaluating the conditions on non-fish bearing streams, especially intermittent streams.

2. Existing Guidance

The Riparian Reserve Evaluation guidance document provides a recommended analysis process for buffer modifications on intermittent streams. (REO, 1997) The module states:

The designation of interim Riparian reserves in the NFP intentionally shifted the burden of having to prove that an activity proposed in a riparian areas would harm riparian dependent-resources to having to demonstrate that the proposed activity would not retard attainment of the ACS objectives and the intended benefits for terrestrial species (p. RR-3)

The module also notes that, in order to address the cumulative effects of buffer modifications, larger scale assessments may be necessary.

Measures of cumulative effects should be identified and included in a risk assessment. Some measures to include are: changes in hydrologic processes (e.g. peak flows and sedimentation rates), … (p. RR-4)

The module recommends that risk assessments be performed. These assessments should provide the decision maker with:

…the degree of risk associated with the actions (including proposed modifications to interim Riparian Reserves), and the uncertainty associated with the analysis. Decision makers should be aware of the risks involved, take them into account when designing Riparian reserves, and document the though process so that the public can understand how risks were considered (p. RR-5).

This guidance therefore indicates that, in addition to a watershed analysis, a separate risk analysis should be performed to support buffer modifications. Since buffer modification will open the excluded areas to a range of new activities, the risk analysis should describe and assess the impacts of the new activities. The analysis should describe how removal of ACS standards and guidelines will change constraints on management activities and how proposed management actions in the excluded areas will be consistent with ACS objectives.

The risk analysis should also consider how activities higher in the watershed are coupled to responses lower in the watershed. This analysis would describe the causal linkages between activities in the former headwater buffers and potential impacts on the fish lower in the watershed. Headwater streams are the connectors between hillslope and the river system because of their pervasiveness and hillslope couling. In the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest of Oregon, 66 percent of the area drains into first-order headwater streams and only four percent drains into fourth and higher streams (Wondzell, 1994), which means that the intermittent reaches of the first-order streams are the likely recipients of much of the sediment and water delivery resulting from changes in buffer geometry (see Gomi and others, 2002). Moreover, headwater streams are not buffered by valley floors as are the higher order streams located downstream (McGlynn and Seibert, 2003), which further increases the likelihood that slope-derived fine sediment will enter the river system. The effectiveness of headwater riparian buffers as screens to harvest-derived sediment is demonstrated by the recently completed study by Jackson and others, (2003), which found that sediment in channels increased from 12 to 44 percent in channels without buffers.

Another recent draft report suggests that analysis of temperature impacts from timber harvest should be based on the concept of a Fluvial System Structure. This conceptual model views the fluvial system as including more than the stream channel that transports water through the stream network. It is a complex landform that includes alluvial aquifers and the riparian zone.

The watershed landscape is a mosaic of topographic elements of different sizes in an intricate and integrated fit. To understand one piece of this integrated mosaic, one must identify and understand the larger and smaller pieces that surround it and the connections between them. (Palmquist and Bakke, 2004, p. 5))

System level risk analyses allow much broader consideration of the coupling of higher watershed impacts to conditions in areas lower in the watershed that are occupied by fish. A system perspective may be able to differentiate between those stream networks that may buffer impacts from higher in the watershed and other stream networks that may amplify those impacts.

A risk analysis should also address the following issues:

• The analysis should describe the specifics of the treatments that will be allowed in the areas that are removed from the buffer. The analysis should focus on what is left after treatment and not what is taken. The following conditions should apply to treatments:
  • Treatment should not be linked to harvest volume. Instead treatment should be linked to specific ecological goals.
  • One of the ecological goals should be maintenance of tree species diversity. Private landowners will not be addressing this concern in their harvests and replanting strategies so federal lands should provide for this need.
  • This means that there may be no need for hardwood conversion in some areas
  • The analysis should identify the benefits that are supported by the proposed treatments. Treatment in some circumstances can improve ecological conditions. There also could be benefits that offset impacts. Improvement to the ecological effect of the road network could be a benefit that offsets impacts. In order to access the timber, some road work might need to be done. This work should avoid increasing road miles and focus instead on decreasing or improving the road system to reduce sediment and other effects.
  • There are areas where harvesting could be useful. Therefore criteria should be developed to prioritize areas that will be subject to buffer modification. For instance, dry sites and fire prone sites could be prioritized for thinning or habitat improvement projects.

1. Interpretation of Figure B-1

If Figure B-1 was intended to describe minimum buffer widths after watershed analysis, then watershed analysis would merely determine site specific slope and lithology. Based on those two determinations, the buffer widths in Figure B-1 would be applied to delineate the modified buffers.

The underlined sentence in the ROD passage, quoted above (ROD, page B-16), can be interpreted to mean that modified buffers could be less than the widths described in Figure B-1. It is likely that the interpretation of Figure B-1 will be a topic of debate in litigation that challenges any buffer modification procedure that is developed by the REO. Therefore, the underlined phrase needs be interpreted to clarify its original intent, preferably by the scientists involved in drafting the language.

If this passage allows minimum buffers that differ significantly from the default buffers described in Figure B-1, then the location of break points between intermittent and perennial stream segments becomes more important.

2. Identification of the Break Point

It is unclear from the ROD where the intermittent stream break point is located, though we have learned that it makes a difference. Some interpretation will be needed to clarify how this break point will be located on the ground. The tribes have recent experience and have uncovered difficulties with the delineation process.

A. Discontinuous or Continuous?

It appears that the REO, BLM and the Forest Service have not issued formal guidance on the question of whether the perennial stream segment must be continuous. One BLM District has developed a document entitled Field Criteria for Distinguishing Intermittent Streams in Western Oregon Based on the Northwest Forest Plan (Carpenter). This BLM document defines two ROD phrases:

• "nonpermanent flowing feature" is defined to mean duration of streamflow is less than 80% of the time; and,
• "definable channel" is defined to be continuous in a downstream direction.

This definition seems to take the position that the perennial stream network ends at the point where the flow becomes discontinuous. The document notes that organic material lying in the channel and at times hiding the channel does not disqualify the feature as a definable channel and:

Downstream streams and rivers receive inputs of water sediment, organic material including large wood, leaf litter and nutrients from upslope segments. If intervening areas of non-stream truncate this pathway, then the stream segment under review is not really part of the stream continuum. In other words the channel should be mostly continuous to count as a definable channel.

In Washington State, private timber industry, the federal ESA regulatory agencies and the tribes negotiated conservation standards for private forest industry activities adjacent to headwater streams in the Forests and Fish Report (FFR). FFR distinguished seasonal from perennial portions of stream networks. The regulatory break between perennial and intermittent stream segments was interpreted in FFR as the highest extent of perennial water, whether continuous to lower reaches or not.

If discontinuous perennial water is considered seasonal, the breakpoint will be lower in the stream network and a significant pertion of the stream network may be excluded from perennial buffer protection. One recent study found that virtually all the stream channels at a study site disappeared at the bottom of the valley, immediately before their confluence with the valley bottom mainstream. (Jaeger, 2004) Another study found that, in 23 surveyed streams, 12 subsurface habitat units existed where woody debris had stabilized so much sediment on the valley floor that the channel flowed essentially in tunnels beneath a vegetated ground surface. (Jackson, 2003)

Preliminary FFR studies indicate that the upper extent of continuous perennial flow is highly variable seasonally and between sites. Finding the highest point of discontinuous perennial flow is more stable and easier to locate. We believe the NFP should adopt a definition that is similar to the definitions in FFR and in Washington State Forest Practice Rules. This will lessen confusion. Of course, a protection strategy should consider whether there are physical and biological processes in these patchy reaches that require buffering. (Palmquist, 20003 and Pleus, 2003)

B. How Will the Breakpoint be Located?

The next question is whether the hydrologic transition point should be identified on the ground or whether modeling or default standards can be developed that will avoid the high labor costs of field delineation.

USGS research indicates that map based determinations may be inaccurate. Generally a far larger number of actual channels can be identified on the ground than are visible on a published map, Local conditions for small headwater streams are extremely variable such that it is difficult to determine intermittent to perennial points based on drainage default standards. (Paybins 2003).

FFR studies found that default basin area standards do not accurately reflect actual transition points. (Palmquist, 2003, and Pleus, 2003) Another recent study in western Washington concluded that there was no apparent area-slope relationship that could be used to establish the headward extent of a channel network. (Jaeger, 2004)

The REO Riparian Reserve Analysis guidance document does not clarify where the break point should be located. (REO,1997). Table 3 in the document notes that determination of the extent of the stream network could be based remote techniques such as contour map crenellation. Table 3 acknowledges that this technique is also highly error prone (+-25%) if performed at the watershed scale. Table 3 notes that flow duration (perennial or intermittent) could be determined by local knowledge, data, professional judgment, sampling of strata or hydrologic modeling, but also acknowledges that, if this determination is done at the watershed scale, it is speculative and error prone. The table notes that the reliability of these techniques is good if done at the site scale. (p. RR-10) However, it is likely that the agencies do not have map or other data that is accurate enough to allow remote delineation at the site scale.

One of the BLM Districts has pioneered a Bio-Indicator approach. (Christensen) T his protocol calls for site specific surveys. If any one of six selected species is located, the uppermost distribution of the species is marked as the perennial/intermittent breakpoint. However, participants in this process have cautioned that it needs to be field tested in other areas before its usefulness can be evaluated.

Once specific physical criteria for the break point are established, location of hydrologic transition points by site specific surveys that identify those physical criteria is a labor intensive approach. However this approach also has problems. The transition point can move around, depending on the time of the year when field work is done, and precipitation in the period prior to the field work. Some streams have continuous flows in the spring when salmonids are spawning. Then intermediate portions of the stream dry up or become intermittent during summer months until rains reestablish connectivity in the fall. As a result salmonids could be rearing above the apparent hydrologic break point in wet years.

C. Recommendation

If a site specific survey approach is adopted, survey teams should survey the entire stream network. Protocols should be developed to address changes in the transition point depending on precipitation..

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

1. Research and Reconnaissance Should be Performed First.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is developing a research program to evaluate the impact of different timber harvest strategies on intermittent streams as a step in the implementation of its’ Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). DNR hopes rely on this research to develop an intermittent stream management strategy. DNR reports that it is embarking on this research in cooperation with the Forest Service. The study design will test the downstream impacts of different management configurations. The study will try to answer the following questions:

• How does timber harvesting effect Type 5 stream functions?
• What specific Type 5 steam functions should be protected and how will these be measures? And,
• What are the options for protecting Type 5 stream functions within the scope of the HCP.

The study will compare three buffers: variable buffer widths, fixed widths and no buffers.

DNR is also conducting a literature search to address four questions:

• How do Type 5 streams contribute to the riparian conservation strategy?
• What specific Type 5 stream structures or functions should be protected?,
• How do Type 5 streams interact with upland and aquatic ecological functions? And
• What are the options for protecting Type 5 stream functions within the scope of the riparian management strategy?

These are all questions that should also be addressed by REO and the fderal land management agencies before a NFP buffer modification program is implemented. Since the DNR research effort is further along, REO should consider supporting this effort and incorporating the results of the treatment study and literature search into the NFP buffer strategy.

2. Monitoring and Adaptive Management

A buffer modification program should focus on what can be learned from new buffer configurations. This means that AREMP should be maintained and expanded to track the impacts of buffer modification. Monitoring should be required when buffer modifications are implemented. Otherwise it will be unknown or unclear if the modified buffers have met the objective to improve stream and riparian conditions. Monitoring is critical to evaluate whether new intermittent buffer prescriptions work for aquatic resources.

Continued implementation of a buffer modification program should be contingent on implementation of the monitoring program, analysis of monitoring results and the production of reports on impacts. Any protocol for buffer modification should clearly state that, if monitoring is discontinued or inadequately implemented, the buffer modification program will be halted.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management are crucial to evaluating the risks of a buffer modification program. That is because it is unclear how buffer modification will impact habitat conditions for fish. A robust monitoring program will hopefully reveal the extent of negative impacts.

Carpenter, D., Field Criteria for Distinguishing Intermittent Streams in Western Oregon Based on the Northwest Forest Plan, Coos Bay District, BLM.

Christensen, J and Michael Kellett, Perennial/Intermittent Stream Bio-Indicator Survey Protocol, Coos Bay District, BLM.

Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson, 2002, Understanding processes and downstream linkages of Headwater Systems. Bio Science, Vol. 52, p. 905 – 916.

Jackson, C.R., D.P. Batzer, S.S. Cross, ,S.M. Haggerty, and C.A.Sturm, 2003 Final Report: Integrated Headwater Stream Riparian Management Study, FFR CMER Cumulative Effects Steering Committee.

Jackson, C.R, D. P. Batzer, S.S. Cross, S. M. Haggerty, and C. A. Sturm, 2003, Recovery of amphibian and invertebrate communities in recently logged Coastal Range headwater streams: Final Report. Submitted to NCASI, CMER, April 30, 2003.

Jaeger, Kristin, 2004, Channel Initiation and Surface Water Expression in Headwater Streams of Different Lithology, MS Thesis, University of Washington.

McGlynn, B.L., and J. Seibert, J., 2003, Distributed Assessment of contributing area and riparian buffering along stream networks, Water Resources Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1082-1089.

Paybins, K.S., 2003, Flow Origin, Drainage Area, ad Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams in the Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of Southern West Virginia, 2000-01, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation report 0-2-4300.

Palmquist, R., 2003, Type N Stream Demarcation Study Phase I: Pilot Results, FFR Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Committee.

Pleus, A and Pam Goodman, 2003, Type N Stream Demarcation Study: 2002 Tribal Perennial Stream Survey Data Collection Using CMER methods, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

Regional Ecosystem Office, 1997, Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis, Supplement to Section II of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Version 2.2

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994, Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

Wondzell, S.M., 1994, Flux of groundwater and nitrogen through the floodplain of a fourth-order stream, Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.