To:
From:
Date:
Re:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries
Dale McCullough, Ph.D. Senior Fishery Scientist for CRITFC
May 12, 2005
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues.
I, DALE A. McCULLOUGH, declare and state as follows:
1.
My name is Dale A. McCullough. I have a B.S. in Zoology from Ohio
University, an M.S. in Biology from Idaho State University, and a Ph.D. in Fisheries
from Oregon State University. I am currently employed as a Senior Fishery Scientist for
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). In this capacity, I have
studied, written, and presented on anadromous fish habitat throughout the Columbia
River basin. In particular, I have focused much of my work on the harmful effects of
temperature on Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead and on the effects of land
management activities on the habitat of salmon and other aquatic species. A true and
correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A
2.
I make the following statements based on my review of the Washington Draft
Environmental Impact Statement For the Proposed Issuance of Multiple Species
Incidental Take Permits or 4(d) Rules Covering the Washington State Forest Practices
Habitat Conservation Plan, Washington Forests and Fish Report (April 29, 1999), Society
for Ecological Restoration, Northwest Chapter, Scientific Review of the Washington
State Forests and Fish Plan (Jan. 31, 2000), National Marine Fisheries Service
Memorandum Re: Statement of how the Forests and Fish Report likely meets Properly
Functioning Condition (June 16, 2000), National Marine Fisheries Service Analysis of
Riparian Conservation Measures (March 1999), Washington Forest Practice Association,
Review of the Scientific Foundations of the Forests and Fish Report (April 20, 2000),
EPA, NMFS, USFWS, Review of December 2001 Draft Sufficiency Analysis: Stream
Temperature (Feb. 2001), EPA’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents (Feb. 23, 2001), Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitats: Riparian
(1997), EPA’s (2001) Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal
Temperature Water Quality Standards, USFWS bull trout conservation guidance, my own
“Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water Temperature Regime on
Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference to Chinook Salmon,”
prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Feb. 22, 1999), my
knowledge of the scientific literature, and my own professional knowledge and
experience. I previously critiqued the Washington Forests and Fish Report in comments
sent to the Washington Department of Natural Resources—Forest Practices Division.
3. I submit the following comments to detail what I see as the considerable shortcomings
of the Forests and Fish Report in properly addressing fish habitat protection and
cumulative effects in Washington’s forests, especially as it pertains to protection and
restoration of water quality and water temperature. These failures, if implemented over
the course of the next 50 years, will present a significant threat to the viability and
recovery of listed fish species in Washington. These failures will not permit water
quality standards to be met.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
1
4. I reviewed the Forests and Fish Report (FFR) in its recently released edition. This
review was done with a fresh look at the documents without influence by re-reading
comments submitted in April 2001. These new comments are presented below. After
then re-reading previous comments I find that the FFR has the same flaws that it had 4
years ago. Consequently, my previous comments are still highly relevant and if
duplicative in any way, merely re-emphasize some of the serious weaknesses. These
previous comments are appended to my current comments.
Application of the shade rule under FFR
The shade rule is alluded to throughout the FFR DEIS. Given that the shade rule has
such broad consequences, it is peculiar that the terms of this rule are not directly
presented in the DEIS along with a full documentation of its effectiveness. Rather, one is
asked to take this overriding methodology not even presented in the DEIS as an accurate
means to meet water quality standards. Further, this methodology is expected to be so
reliable that even a violation of water quality standards would probably not invalidate the
model for the foreseeable future because of auxiliary assumptions that the FFR had
simply not been applied long enough yet to see its benefits. Adoption of forest practices
based on unvalidated methods that offer options to undertake actions known from the
best available science not to be in the interest of meeting water quality standards or
protecting fish and wildlife presents a high risk to near-term and long-term survival of
these fish and wildlife.
The shade rule (WDNR 2000) offers methods for measuring riparian shade using a
densiometer combined with nomographs describing the required shading at elevation on
westside and eastside forests to meet either 16°C or 18°C. This methodology is fraught
with procedural ambiguity, statistical uncertainty, unknown overall accuracy, and
numerous means of removing trees from the buffer that could either provide solar
screening currently or in the future if allowed to grow.
The FPA Board Manual for determination of “adequate shade requirements on streams”
(WDNR 2000) specifies that in eastern Washington in the bull trout habitat overlay zone
one would be required to retain “all available shade,” which “would be equivalent to the
existing pre-harvest canopy closure, which is measured with the densiometer…”
This requirement, which is supposed to be protective of bull trout habitat, has little
connection to the requirement to provide adequate temperatures for bull trout rearing
(i.e., 12°C) as recommended by EPA. The FPA Board Manual specifies only retaining
shade from that which is currently available. If, by use of the densiometer, it can be
argued that a tree present within 75 ft of the bankfull channel does not provide shade to
the stream, that tree can be removed. If that tree were currently too short to provide
shade, but had the potential to provide shade in the future, that would make no difference.
If the tree is located behind another tree that obviously provides shade, it is questionable
whether the densiometer method would identify that tree as providing additional light
screening if it cannot be seen from the densiometer. In this way, it is very likely that
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
2
important canopy density is lost simply by use of the densiometer as a tool. The rule
does not promote the recovery of shade needed to restore natural thermal characteristics
of the stream. It does not even refer to a temperature standard for protection of bull trout.
In eastern Washington, by using the nomograph for percentage canopy cover to retain, if
one determines the shade requirement for 3000 ft elevation, for example, one finds that to
maintain 16°C, a canopy cover of 60% is required, but for 18°C, a canopy cover of 40%
is required. One would then determine the average pre-harvest canopy closure using a
densiometer for the stream reach at 75-ft intervals, using a minimum of 5 sample plots.
No discussion is given to the statistical accuracy of defining the canopy closure from 5
sampling points. To make matters even more tenuous, the post harvest canopy closure is
estimated by trying to subtract the portion of the canopy to be removed from the total
canopy intersection on the densiometer. The ability to do this with any degree of
accuracy is not discussed. If one is trying to remove canopy down to the limit specified
by the shade rule, but one wants to remove >25% of the canopy cover, it is also
permissible to apply the model TFWTEMP (approved by the FPA Board) to determine if
the maximum allowable temperature increase will be exceeded. No mention is made of
the accuracy of this model. The model apparently does not attempt to predict the
temperatures that would result, but only whether the allowable increase results. The
manual does not reveal whether it takes the allowable increase to be 2.8°C or 0.3°C. In
addition, no discussion is given to the cumulative effects resulting from increasing
temperatures up to the limit (e.g., increasing by 2.8°C or up to the temperature criterion +
0.3°C, whichever is greater) on any managed reach, combined with all other impacts to
the thermal regime that have occurred both upstream and downstream. Certainly, given
the FFR there is no impediment to making further canopy removal along any stream that
currently is on the 303-d list or is otherwise not meeting the temperature standard. If a
stream already exceeds the standard due to upstream management activity, the BMPs for
shade removal do not place any restriction on further removal of shade. In fact, there is
every likelihood that the rules would permit each individual action to have a 2.8°C
impact. The 2.8°C limit is mentioned, but there is no mechanism in place to monitor this
cumulative impact or limit all combined actions to only 2.8ºC. It is not clear in FFR that
the 2.8ºC increase it refers to is above any current baseline (no matter how much the
current temperature has already increased) or whether it is above natural background.
The “shade rule” (WDNR 2000) allows canopy cover to be measured either from the
center of the stream, when flows are low, or from the bankfull edge. This ability to select
the favorable location to measure canopy cover permits an observed to choose whichever
location provides the highest measured canopy cover. This calls into question whether a
specified level of stream shading would even be provided by application of the “shade
rule” with its options to stand either in the channel or on the bank and the ability to select
only 5 sampling points to represent the management area. Canopy cover measured in this
manner would not correspond to the actual average degree of solar shading to the entire
stream but could easily be biased toward values at the stream margin under short canopy
or could be biased toward the portions of the managed reach that are most dense. Canopy
provided by streambank young trees when measured on the streambank rather than in the
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
3
channel can give a false impression of cover that does not extend to the entire stream.
Once the stream shading screen is passed, it is feasible to remove even more canopy from
the inner zone.
Shade rule methodology: use of the densitometer
The use of a densiometer to estimate canopy cover is a crude method for estimating the
ability of a riparian zone to protect the thermal characteristics of the stream. The method
specifies measuring the crowns of individual trees from waist height. If only tree crowns
are valued, there is no penalty applied for removal of all undergrowth that can provide
additional stream shading and maintain the nearstream microclimate. Further, cover to a
stream can be produced by the combination of canopy cover from tree, shrub, and forb
layers, thereby a potential 300% canopy cover. To describe adequate cover as only that
produced by a dominant tree layer (even discounting trees that do not currently shade the
stream) does not provide the solar screening that is needed to maintain stream
temperatures. Brazier and Brown (1973)(as cited by Bartholow 1989) noted that angular
canopy density (ACD) measured visually does not adequately measure true shading due
to the fact that various canopy types have different levels of solar screening. Identical
ACD values could then have substantially different degrees of shading. Also, Bartholow
(1989) recommended a solarimeter for making accurate assessments of actual light levels
in riparian shade measurements.
Beschta et al. (1987) expressed angular canopy density (%) (i.e., ACD %) in relation to
buffer-strip width in western Oregon, using data from Brazier and Brown (1973) and
Steinblums et al. (1984). They take ACD (%) as a direct estimate of shading. FFR
shade rules call for the use of a densiometer to estimate shade. Allen and Dent (2001)
studied the use of the densiometer compared with hemispherical photographs to estimate
level of shading. They found that the densiometer overpredicted shade, especially at
higher cover levels (>70%). Shade values, expressed by use of the hemispherical
photographs averaged 69% for all sites, but using the densiometer, average “cover”
estimated by the densiometer was 80%. Further, the hemispherical photographs and
densiometer record only one layer of canopy. Old growth riparian vegetation typically
has multiple layers, which can increase the filtering of incident solar radiation.
Consequently, it is not necessarily accurate to use densiometer readings as a true measure
of the ability to reduce solar radiation. A measure of canopy density along the path of
incoming solar radiation requires data on crown morphology, height, relative dominance,
species, density, and spatial arrangement. This can be modeled given the above data
(Cross 2002) but the use of a densiometer to provide relevant data on this is unacceptable.
Densiometers are subjective, imprecise, and inaccurate (Ganey and Block 1994, as
reported by Cross 2002). Cross (2002) concludes that “managing buffers for maximum
height yields managers the most control of shade production and recruitment potential.”
Application of the shade rule and temperature screens in the bull trout zone
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
4
It is unclear how the bull trout overlay is actually specified. Map 1.2 is provided in the
FPA Manual showing the eastern Washington bull trout overlay. This broadly covers
Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Okanogan,
Douglas, and Asotin counties plus the mainstem Columbia River within the anadromous
zone of the Columbia River. It is unclear which streams are actually protected, whether
this protection extends only to those reaches designated as critical habitat by the USFWS,
whether it extends to all streams known to support bull trout and reported by WDFW, and
whether it extends to all streams considered to provide potential bull trout habitat if
restored and recolonized. What is clear is that there is no intent to fully protect either the
bull trout stream directly or to fully protect the non-fish bearing streams that enter bull
trout streams.
If a stream is outside the bull trout zone, then a temperature screen is applied (WDNR
2000). It is not clear why no temperature criteria are given for protection of bull trout
streams. The temperature screens for fish-bearing streams outside the bull trout zone are
for either 16°C or 18°C waters. According to current Washington temperature standards,
if the stream temperature is currently at the standard (i.e., 16 or 18°C), then “no
management-related temperature increases over 0.3 degrees C will be allowed.” WDNR
(2000). But “if water quality temperature standards are being met, then no
management-related temperature increase can exceed 2.8°C; however, in no case, can
the temperature go above either 16 or 18 degrees accordingly.” If the stream is
designated as a salmon-bearing stream, but it has the potential to provide waters of 13°C,
and it has a current temperature standard of 16°C, it seems clear from the Board Manual
that the FPA Board would consider it acceptable for any single harvest operation to raise
the temperature from 13°C to 15.8°C. In fact, it would probably be considered no
problem if the single action also caused the temperature to be raised an additional 0.5°C
to 16.3°C. FFR needs to be totally clear what temperature increase it intends to be
acceptable from a single activity and multiple activities and at what spatial scale activities
are evaluated.
A stream with a temperature standard of 16°C does not imply that is acceptable to
increase the temperature to 16°C. A temperature of 16°C is intended to apply to the
downstream end of the zone to which the standard is applied. Also, a stream is expected
to achieve the 16°C criterion at its downstream extent in all years. There is no assurance
that by applying the Board rules that any given temperature will be met in any single year
let alone in all years. FFR has not explained how it would be able to produce cumulative
temperature increases of 2.8ºC throughout the core salmon zone and still meet 16ºC at its
downstream end.
Although the width of riparian zone considered to provide full shade protection based on
FEMAT (1993) is 128 ft on the eastside, the FFR allows a Type F core zone at 2600 ft to
have only 80% canopy cover. If 80% canopy cover in this example is not met, then “all
available shade must be retained within 75 feet of the bankfull width” (WDNR 2000).
All available shade does not mean that trees cannot be harvested in the inner zone. If
trees are present that cannot be viewed by the densiometer (possibly they are screened by
another tree or the intersection points on the densiometer do not happen to fall on the
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
5
image of tree, then the tree can be removed). The shade rule is not based on a percentage
of potential shade for the site. Trees in the inner zone beyond 75 ft (i.e., between 75 and
100 ft from bankfull) could be removed whether or not they provide shade to the stream,
provided that the trees/acre and basal area targets are met after harvest.
Under the bull trout habitat overlay portion of the shade rule, “all available shade would
be equivalent to the pre-harvest canopy closure, which is measured with the
densiometer” at optional locations (i.e., center of channel, edge of channel). This means
that pre-harvest shade is determined with a densiometer and then the post-harvest shade
is estimated by subtracting the canopies of these trees not considered to provide shade.
Again, even in the bull trout zone, harvest in the inner zone is not actually forbidden if it
can be argued that removal of certain trees does not count toward removal of currently
available shade. The fact that these trees could grow to heights capable of providing
significant shade in coming years is irrelevant in this scheme. Maintenance of canopy
cover in bull trout habitat is subject to the same potential abuse in use of the densiometer
and an emphasis on only canopy cover rather than effective reduction in solar radiation
and protection of microclimate.
The FFR response to public comments (Appendix K) states that “As noted in FEMAT
(1993) and Beschta (1987) [sic] buffers of 100 feet or more have been found to provide
as much shade as an old growth stand (i.e., about 90 percent complete shade).” FEMAT
(1993) makes this statement based on Brazier and Brown (1973) and Steinblums et al.
(1984). This statement, however, does not mean that all streams with buffers of 100 ft of
any quality (species, height, orientation, channel width) will provide this level of shade.
FFR makes it unlikely that full shade would be found on any stream. Also, just because
“some buffers of 100 ft” have been found to provide about 90% shade does not mean that
100 ft width of trees with an expectation of only 100-year old height is a good
conservation measure. Spence et al. (1995) say that “similar assessments for eastside
forests as well as arid and semi-arid shrublands have not been published; effective
buffers [sic] widths in these systems may differ substantially.”
Inability of BMPs to substitute for WQS or for TMDL analysis
The failure of Oregon’s forest practices to prevent water quality impairment is a mirror of
the same improbability of the BMPs under FFR in protecting water quality in
Washington. In their review of forest practices’ effects on fish and water quality under
Oregon’s Forest Practices Act, EPA, USFWS, and NMFS (2001) (i.e, EPA and the
Services) concurred that “there are water quality impairments due to forest management
activities even with FPA rules and BMPs.” “The evidence is, however, overwhelming
that forest practices on private lands in Oregon contribute to widespread stream
temperature problems and degraded salmonid habitat conditions. These effects do not
meet the goals of the CWA or ESA. EPA and the Services are committed to working with
ODF and DEQ to ensure that the best available science is used to support the changes to
forest practices that are necessary to protect water quality and fisheries.” In
Washington just as in Oregon, there is the presumption that forest practices rules will
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
6
meet water quality standards and that the best available science is always applied. This
presumption is not warranted in either case.
“Determining whether the Forest Practices Act (FPA) is sufficient to meet the Oregon
WQS for temperature requires examination of the effects of forest practices on stream
temperatures to determine if numeric and narrative criteria are being attained,
designated beneficial uses (e.g., salmonid spawning and rearing, and public water
supply) are being protected, and the antidegradation provisions are being met.” (EPA,
NMFS, and USFWS 2001).
The Washington FFR has done none of these steps. There is no demonstration that any
of its proposed actions will be successful in meeting temperature criteria or protecting
beneficial uses. Protection of spawning areas from effects of temperature or sediment
increases is not evaluated. Ability to provide suitable spawning and incubation
temperatures is not evaluated. The criteria for evaluating whether FFR is working are not
given, nor is a comprehensive monitoring plan for making this evaluation. Headwater
streams are clearly open for significant degradation, removing the source areas for
creation of coldwater refuge habitat and increasing the downstream transport of sediment
into spawning areas. FFR treats water temperature regulation as merely a site specific
opportunity to remove excess riparian canopy where it does exist and ignore the
predominance of cases where canopy is lacking. It does no cumulative analysis of
temperature control based on the multiple linked processes in the watersheds. EPA and
the Services (2001) noted the same deficiencies earlier in Oregon’s FPA.
Cumulative effects of all factors controlling water temperature are not evaluated
EPA and the Services (2001) have reviewed the suitability of forest practices to protect
water quality standards already in Oregon. In their review of the ODF/DEQ Sufficiency
Analysis, EPA and the Services (2001) concluded that
“Throughout most of this analysis, shade appears to be generally assumed as the
only important factor concerning stream temperatures and attaining WQS.”
In Washington’s FFR, the same problem arises. There are numerous mechanisms that
result in temperature increases in streams. Temperature increases result from the
following types of alterations to a watershed: (1) reduction in total canopy cover
(dominant and subdominant tree, shrub, forb), (2) increased coarse and fine sediment
delivery to stream channels, which can lead to channel widening and loss of pools, (3)
reduction in LWD, which results in reduction of primary pools, a reduced channel
capacity, and loss of thermal buffering and coldwater refugia, (4) increased heating of
riparian soils, (5) interception of shallow groundwater by road systems that route runoff
to surface flows, which become heated, (6) increased air temperature over streams by loss
of microclimate buffering, (7) riparian roads, which reduce the interaction of the
floodplain with the channel and impose permanent losses in riparian cover while the road
exists, (8) loss of off-channel wetlands due to reduction in shading and increased drying
of these habitats, (9) loss of streambank stability due to streamside harvest, leading to
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
7
increased sediment delivery and channel widening, (10) increase in basin-wide sediment
delivery due to forest-related road systems, leading to pool loss and channel widening,
(11) reduction in streamflow via irrigation, resulting in stream heating. The combined
effects of these types of ongoing actions relative to heating of stream water was not
described, nor was it described in relation to the current level of habitat degradation. The
extent of “analysis” was to attempt to provide a relative index to degree of support to a
process, such as LWD recruitment as a function of an alternative that is highly nonprotective. By arguing that Alternative 2 (the HCP alternative) is better than the current
system, there is no claim that practices under the HCP are sufficient to result in meeting
or improving water temperatures. Improvements in practices themselves are not
necessarily sufficient to result in improvement in conditions if the existing practices were
overwhelming the ability of a stream to begin recovery.
Even if WDNR wants to argue that it not within the responsibilities of the state forest
practices to concern itself with instream flows, the reduction of water flows in streams
will have a significant impact on maintenance of water temperatures. To the extent that
flows are limited, there is increased emphasis placed on maintenance of all other
processes that interact in determining water temperature. This would place greater
importance in maintaining potential levels of riparian cover rather than trying to
determine the limits to riparian thinning that result in maximum allowable levels of
stream heating.
While EPA and the Services (2001) criticize Oregon for relying exclusively on 28
monitoring sites along 7 streams in western Oregon to show that forestry activities
increase stream temperatures and therefore are not sufficient to meet water quality
standards, the FFR presents no evidence that its forestry practices are sufficient.
Uncritical use of weak evidence/failure to apply best available science
“Some of the SAST [Sufficiency Analysis: Stream Temperature] determinations are
misleading, leaving the reviewer with the impression that there really is not “conclusive”
evidence regarding whether the FPA rules and BMPs increase stream temperatures or
fully protect designated beneficial uses at the statewide level.” (EPA, NMFS, and
USFWS 2001). The same criticism can be made of the FFR. The report uncritically
adopts the conclusions of the Caldwell et al. (1991) report that claims that after Type N
streams are substantially heated via canopy removal to the stream edge in harvest
operations, they cool down within a short buffer prior to entering a Type F stream and
thereby cause no perceptible temperature increase in the Type F stream. This conclusion
is based on a study of a very limited number of very small streams, and no examination
of potential cumulative effects. The authors indicated that a 1-hour travel time through a
150-m buffered reach would result in the water reaching equilibrium with air
temperature. EPA, NMFS, and USFWS (2001) state that “Even if their assumption were
correct, further assumptions that there are sufficient groundwater inputs and substantial
hyporrheic interactions would be necessary to bring down the water temperature.” FFR
(p. 4-66) attempts to bolster the conclusions of Caldwell et al. (1991) with a more recent
by Zwienecki and Newton (1999) that argues that the heating effects caused by single
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
8
riparian harvest activities are eliminated by flow through a 500-ft buffer, but this study
has numerous design flaws that make its conclusions inappropriate (Poole et al. 2001).
Among the flaws detailed, the Zwieniecki and Newton (1999) study applied a
temperature nomograph that was designed only as a rough tool to indicate probable
temperature changes (Sullivan et al. 1990, as cited by Poole et al. 2001). It was too
inaccurate as a method to estimate what the pre-harvest temperatures were, given that no
direct measures of pre-harvest temperatures were made. The study also attempted to
claim that there were no cumulative effects, but the effects considered were only of an
estimated rate (without even establishing pre-harvest conditions) of cooling of surface
water from a single opening and did not consider impact of multiple harvests interspersed
within riparian stream reaches.
Even the Caldwell et al. (1991) report itself is more circumspect about the utility of its
conclusions than the FFR is in extolling its universality. It states “This study was not
geographically comprehensive and the number of streams is too small to fully
characterize the range of temperature regimes within Washington’s Type 4 waters.” The
study was confined to the Olympic Peninsula. This study attempted to make inferences
about water temperature, but to its credit also mentioned that numerous other factors,
such as downstream transport of fine sediment, must be evaluated too.
Poole et al. (2001) detailed some of the cumulative effects that are discounted by studies
such as that of Caldwell et al. (1991). They stated that if 10% of a stream’s length is
affected by a given land use, that 10% of the stream can be affected by localized effects.
If this percentage increases to 50%, the cumulative impact of localized effects is greater
and 50% is then affected. This is an additive cumulative effect. Many studies of effects
of timber harvest on streams have shown very substantial increases in stream
temperatures (Beschta et al. 1987). For localized impacts alone on temperature sensitive
species (e.g., bull trout, tailed frogs), the lethal limits can be easily exceeded. The FFR
does not consider thermal impacts to any other aquatic species than fish. The cumulative
effects of numerous small streams (Type N) being harvested and contributing water to
downstream fish habitat is a second mechanism for cumulative effects (Poole et al. 2001).
In addition, the combined impacts of harvest on the fish habitat system attributable to
increased sedimentation, channel widening, bank destabilization, etc. also lead to
degraded thermal regimes in streams. These are multiplicative cumulative effects to the
thermal regime. Poole and Berman (2001) detail the synergistic cumulative effects on
temperature caused from impacts of logging to the flow regime, groundwater temperature
and flow, sediment load/channel morphology, and large wood dynamics. None of these
cumulative effects are properly considered in the FFR. And despite the many years that
have passed since the foundation of FFR was created, there has been no study done to
evaluate the generality of the Caldwell et al. (1991) study upon which the riparian
management of Type N streams largely rests.
The critique by EPA and the Services (2001) goes on to say “Just as importantly,
Caldwell et al. (1991) looked at water temperatures downstream of unshaded reaches
which entered reaches whose riparian zones were already degraded. The downstream
comparison to a mature forest that contained some conifers was only done in one case.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
9
Measurements of re-equilibration were made along “control” reaches having artificially
high stream and air temperatures. Heat energy that is quickly gained by a stream is
retained and then gradually released back to the surrounding environment because water
has a relatively high heat capacity. Given the forest conditions and flawed assumptions
described above, Caldwell et al. (1991) provides little insight into the temperature
regimes and dynamics provided by undisturbed forests.” It is not equilibration to air
temperature that is necessarily desirable for fish protection, it is the maintenance of
temperatures colder than air temperature for as long as possible in the downstream flow,
aided by a dense riparian canopy. Also, management that results in increased air
temperature above the stream via canopy removal, thinning, and alteration of
microclimate should not be assumed to have no effect in setting a new, higher
equilibration point. [see Brosofske et al. 1997, Chen et al. 1995, Dong et al. 1998)].
Ledwith (1996) showed that there was a 6.5°C increase in mean air temperature in a
stream riparian zone as the buffer width decreased from 150 m to 0 m. In addition, the
mean relative humidity increased from 26-36% to 47-51% for sites in which buffers
ranged from 0m to 150 m, respectively.
Despite the excessive extrapolation of the limited conclusions from the Caldwell et al.
(1991) report, numerous other studies that are much more thoroughly substantiated are
relegated to a status of being too preliminary and uncertain to use for even taking
precautions with water quality and the fish resource. For instance, heating of shallow
groundwater in logged riparian zones, transport of LWD from upslope and upstream to
Type F streams, and the control of riparian cover on microclimate are all considered too
speculative and will require more years of study (assuming any funds are ever provided),
years of attempting to get a hearing on the evidence and arguing the evidence, and
resistance to mounting evidence until the evidence is overwhelming.
The need to manage water temperature holistically at a watershed scale
In a study by Hatten and Conrad (1995) on the Olympic Peninsula, it was indicated that
“the proportion of late-seral stage forest in a sub-basin could represent a surrogate for
the cumulative effects of logging activities within a sub-basin. The study concludes that
stream temperatures cannot be successfully managed at the reach level unless basin-wide
harvest activities are carefully considered.” (EPA, NMFS, and USFWS 2001). Despite
elevation or shade differences, the best indicator of stream temperatures was the
proportion of the basin in late seral forest vegetation. In the FFR, every stream reach is
proposed to be managed as an individual entity, regardless what the condition of the rest
of the watershed is.
EPA, NMFS, and USFWS (2001) highlighted statements made by Spence et al. (1995)
about the linkage between upslope and upstream forestry actions on maintenance of
habitat quality in fish-bearing (Type F) streams. Unfortunately, the FFR by its stream
typing system has relegated Type N streams, which tend to be high gradient streams with
high gradient side-slopes, to a much lower level of protection. This essentially makes the
assumption that Type N streams are not part of the stream network and have no influence
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
10
on downstream conditions in terms of heat, sediment, or LWD transport. This
perspective is not consistent with predominant views in watershed science about linkages
within watersheds supported by the stream network. FFR, in this stance, ignores the
recommendations made by WDFW in its “Management recommendations for
Washington’s priority habitats: riparian.” (see www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ripxsum.htm).
These recommendations call for Type 4 and 5 streams (i.e., both Type Np and Ns) to
have 46 m buffers or 69 m buffers depending upon the risk of mass wasting.
The importance of maintaining the high quality of headwater streams was recently noted
by Fischer et al. (2000):
Although buffer strips are important along all river and stream reaches, those in
headwater streams (i.e., those adjacent to first, second, and third order systems) often
have much greater influences on overall water quality within a watershed than those
buffers occurring in downstream reaches. Downstream buffer strips have
proportionally less impact on polluted water already in the stream. Even the best
buffer strips along larger rivers and streams cannot significantly improve water that
has been degraded by improper buffer practices higher in the watershed. However,
buffer strips along larger systems tend to be longer and wider than those along
smaller systems, thus potentially providing better wildlife habitat and movement
corridors (Lock and Naiman 1998).
Although riparian buffers are commonly assumed to be important only during summer to
prevent temperature extremes, they also function during the winter to prevent streams
from freezing
During winter, temperature can be several degrees warmer under forest canopies
at night (Reifsnyder and Lull 1965, Parker and Gillingham 1990) due to longwave radiation emitted from the forest canopy (Moen 1968, Beall 1974, Grace
and Easterbee 1979). Cook et al. (2004)
The thermal cover that forest canopies provide to streams during the summer likewise
protects streams from freezing in the winter, incurring high fish mortalities. Small
streams can be important overwinter habitat for fish. However, the overwinter survival
of fish in small streams is dependent upon the ability of the stream to maintain an
insulating canopy. Regulation of winter stream temperatures, especially in eastside
streams, was not considered in FFR.
Preponderance of scientific evidence argues for water temperature increases from
riparian vegetation removal
Oregon’s Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, set up by the governor to review
available science under Oregon’s salmon recovery planning extensively reviewed the
available literature on management impacts to stream system water temperature and
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
11
found no doubt about the causes. They also recognized that temperature is perturbed by
four major types of human impact.
Of the 48 studies we found, 45 showed that when you removed riparian
vegetation, stream temperatures increased. In these 44 studies, the stream
temperatures increased from as little as 1.09 ºC [2 ºF] to as much as 12.7 ºC
[22.9 ºF] after vegetation was removed. (IMST 2004).
The IMST concludes that only four major factors that influence stream
temperature–riparian shade, channel morphology, discharge, and subsurface
exchange– are modified by human actions. IMST has found that the vast majority
of published studies document that riparian shade has a significant effect on
stream temperature. Additionally, riparian vegetation also plays a major role in
influencing other factors that, in turn, affect stream temperature. For example,
plant roots are important because they keep stream banks from eroding and
channels from becoming wide and shallow. The scientific literature reviewed by
the IMST indicates that removal of vegetation along small- to medium-sized
streams usually results in increased surface water temperature. In addition, most
scientists agree that riparian vegetation provides many benefits to stream and
terrestrial ecosystems, in addition to shading streams (IMST 2000). Therefore,
despite the level of public controversy, the IMST does not find substantial
scientific disagreement on the topic of the importance of riparian vegetation to
maintaining stream temperatures. (IMST 2004).
Quigley and Arbelbide (1997) also recognized the multiple controls on water
temperature. Again, FFR only recognizes the role of riparian cover, yet somehow
discounts the importance of maintaining all potential shade.
Stream temperature is affected by eliminating stream-side shading, disrupted
subsurface flows, reduced stream flows, elevated sediments, and morphological
shifts toward wider and shallower channels with fewer deep pools (Beschta and
others 1987; Chamberlain and others 1991; Everest and others 1985;
MacDonald and others 1991; Reid 1993; Rhodes and others 1994). Quigley and
Arbelbide (1997).
A TMDL analysis on Navarro Creek, California showed clearly the linkage between
stream temperature and buffer width between 0 and 150 m width.
For both 1995 and 1996, MWAT[i.e., maximum weekly average temperature)
values show a good correlation with reach-averaged effective shade (r2 =0.762
and r2=0.707 for 1995 and 1996, respectively, where r2 is the proportion of
variation explained by the model). These results appear to be consistent with
observations made by Cafferata (1990) in a study conducted on the North Fork
Caspar Creek. (CRWQCB 2000).
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
12
The regression noted in this TMDL for Navarro Creek indicated a decline in MWAT
from 22.6 to 17.8°C as the reach average effective shade increased from 10 to 95%.
Temperature reductions of this magnitude attributable to effective shade are highly
significant biologically. The effective shade measurements in this TMDL work were
made using the solar pathfinder to evaluate only that shade value that is responsible for
eliminating direct solar radiation rather than a densiometer.
Failure to use best available science
In May 2000 Washington’s Independent Science Panel reviewed Washington’s
“Statewide Strategy to Recovery Salmon.” (ISP 2000). This independent panel revealed
many disturbing elements of the state plan for salmon and the relationship of FFR to this
state plan. For instance, “The SSRS aims to use the “best available science ... to inform
related public policy decisions” (III.42), but to our knowledge no independent scientific
input or evaluation was solicited on the negotiation of the Forests and Fish Report,
which by reference forms a major component of the proposed strategy.”
Also, the FFR is merely “a series of prescriptive actions that are agreed upon up front as
adequate not to recover salmonids, but to constitute an adequate attempt to do so.”
These aspects to the plan highlight that it is simply a negotiated agreement with only a
light basis in science that attempts only to be somewhat better than past management. It
does not justify its effectiveness and proposes no substantial or sustainable monitoring
program that would be the basis for adaptive management. An adaptive management
module is offered, but it is “precluded from triggering more restrictive conditions than
those in the HCP.” (ISP 2000). The FFR and Washington’s salmon plan propose to
“avoid doing further harm to listed species” as a means to address the ESA, but still do
not explicitly preclude further habitat degradation (ISP 2000).
Under FFR, rather than apply buffer widths that the best available science would dictate
to provide a high level of protection to the most sensitive riparian processes, buffers were
derived by an overriding political sense of the limits to what is acceptable by the public,
which led from 250-yr old buffers to 100-yr buffers as a means of rationalizing reduced
site potential tree height, to percentages of full function of a few processes that should
cause only moderate impairment.
On the eastside of Washington, Site class II riparian areas are considered to be common.
The FFR considers the merits of a 100-year vs. a 250-year site potential tree height
(SPTH) as the standard against which to compare RMZ widths and percentage protection.
FEMAT (1993) concluded that 0.75 x SPTH provided nearly full shading protection to
streams. However, its conclusion was based on SPTH as a 250-yr riparian stand. FFR
makes the assumption that a 100-yr stand could also provide near full protection and then
multiplied this by 0.75 to derive a close approximation of full protection. It then argues
that if the true Site Class II SPTH were 100-year vs. 250-year, then the full SPTH width
would be 110 vs. 170 ft. Then the 75% width values would be either 83 ft vs. 128 ft. By
an unsubstantiated assumption that a 100-year stand provides full protection equivalent to
a 250-year stand, FFR exploits the uncertainty that it creates in deciding between the two
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
13
alternative widths (83 ft or 128 ft, respectively). Then it further weakens this protection
by allowing impact in the inner zone. Creation of uncertainty typically becomes a
rationale for not taking action until absolute proof of harm is established, at which point it
may be impossible to reverse the damage. Any degree of uncertainty can be exploited to
justify launching years of study before taking action to prevent avoidable damage. It is
also common to avoid answering key uncertainties but to simply conduct seemingly
quantitative risk assessments that permit minimal actions to appear reasonable (Tickner et
al. 1994). FFR has created a framework of great uncertainty in the values of having
significant buffers as a means to make lesser buffers seem sufficient.
FFR (p. 4-94) states that a 250-year stand is just beginning to display old-growth
characteristics (Franklin and Spies 1991). But it is clear that the selection of a 100-year
stand is more based on silvicultural preference than it is in resource protection.
“Forests and Fish Agreement stakeholders agreed to a site potential tree height
projected at a stand age of 100 years to represent the site potential tree height for
a mature riparian stand. However, old-growth stand characteristics may be a
more appropriate baseline from which to define adequate riparian effectiveness.”
(FFR, p. 4-94).
The selection of a 100-year stand represents only the average height at a pre-selected age
(i.e., 100 years) and reveals nothing about the ability to produce effective shade.
“A site potential tree height is sometimes defined as the average maximum height
of the tallest dominant trees that can grow on a certain site (FEMAT 1993).
However, to maintain consistency with Washington Forest Practices Rules, site
potential tree height in this DEIS is defined as the average height of a stand at a
given age (more commonly referred to as site index).” (FFR, p. 4-93).
If we restrict our discussion initially to the fate of streams from eastside Type Np, Type
Ns, downstream to Type F in stream order 2 streams in the bull trout zone and outside the
bull trout zone, one can see clearly a lack of stream protection that will lead to further
decline in fish populations.
In Type F streams in this region, no harvest would occur in the core zone (i.e., the first 30
ft). (FFR, p. 4-124, line 36). However, road crossings and harvest corridors would be
allowed through all riparian areas, including core zones (FFR, p. 4-111, line 13). The
equivalent buffer area index (EBAI), which is used as a measure of riparian effectiveness,
does not account for losses in the yarding corridors (FFR, p.4-105, line 36).
For streams <15 ft wide, the inner zone would be 45 ft wide. For streams >15 ft wide,
the inner zone would be 70 ft wide. For core + inner zone widths, their widths vary from
45 to 100 ft wide for streams of <15 ft and >15 ft wide, respectively. (FFR, p. 4-124, line
42). Selective harvest is allowed within the inner zone. After harvest, there should be 21
trees/acre remaining that are selected from the largest trees available and 29 trees that are
at least 10 in dbh. Basal area must also be ≥ 90 ft2/acre, made up by trees >10 in dbh.
(FFR, p. 2-16).
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
14
Allen and Dent (2001, p. 42) found that in the Blue Mountains (eastside forest of Oregon,
also representative of Washington Blue Mountains) that sites with low shade (20-40%)
averaged 71 ft2/acre basal area out to 100 ft; sites with moderate shade (40-60%)
averaged 120 ft2/acre; sites with high shade (80-100%) averaged 189 ft2/acre. Their
study showed that a combination of increasing basal area and increasing trees/acre
resulted in higher shade levels. Unfortunately, FFR requires much lower levels of basal
area remaining after harvest (i.e., only 50% of the basal area shown to Allen and Dent
2001 to be needed on eastside forests to produce high shade).
Failure to prevent cumulative temperature increases on the river continuum from
headwater streams through the bull trout and salmon zones due to the failure to
protect natural thermal potential of headwater streams
The N.F. Teanaway River in the upper Yakima basin illustrates a case where a 303(d)
listed stream for temperature supports chinook spawning and rearing but has inadequate
protection of its tributaries and significant options for further reduction in cover even in
the salmon zone. The shade rule for 2600 ft elevation within the North Fork Teanaway in
the upper Yakima River system specifies approximately 80% canopy cover to result in
16°C. At 3000 ft, the required shade would be only 60%. For protection of spawning
and incubation in the mainstem N.F. Teanaway from February 15 to June 15 (EPA
2005c), a temperature standard of 13°C must be met based solely on the designation as a
chinook spawning zone. No mention is made of any data supporting the ability of a
stream to provide these temperatures by maintaining various levels of shade. It is also
not demonstrated empirically or by modeling that if all streams had these specified levels
of shade at all elevations that temperature criteria for all seasons, life stages, and species
(bull trout and salmon; spawning and incubation, rearing) would be met. It is not
explained how a river not meeting temperature standards is going to achieve these
standards by allowing further canopy reduction on any reach with high enough quality so
that it has cover greater than the average specified in the nomograph. Reaches with cover
less than the average target will not recover soon but those with cover exceeding the
target can be rapidly opened to allow increased warming.
Maps of bull trout habitat and the temperature criteria that apply to them were recently
released by WDOE. The upper portion of the North Fork Teanaway River was indicated
as 12°C (7DADM). The WDFW SASSI report for Mid-Columbia River bull trout
indicates that the West and Middle Forks of the Teanaway River appear suitable for bull
trout, even though surveys have not detected them. Only 54 bull trout were observed in
the N.F. Teanaway in 1994 and a total of 10 bull trout in 1997 (SASSI 1998).
Such low numbers indicate that the ability to detect fish even when they are present
would be poor. This is a significant problem when assigning higher quality stream
protection only to those stream reaches confirmed to support fish and relegating “nonfish” streams to a lower level care. It is far preferable to fully protect all headwater
streams, whether or not fish are present. Also, if additional care is to be taken, streams
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
15
with potential for fish or wildlife habitat should be identified via extrapolation from
characteristics of other inhabited streams (see Dunham et al. 2001). Many currently valid
fish-bearing streams are never properly categorized because of issues in detectability of
fish at low abundance, fish with crepuscular habits, fish in habitat with high complexity
and hiding cover, fish with seasonal or periodic use of habitats (Dunham et al. 2001,
Thurow et al. 2001, Bayley and Peterson 2001). Stream typing based on confirmed
sightings of fish also lead to making irreversible management decisions, allowing
excessive impact and habitat degradation, that terminate the potential of a stream as
future habitat that can be colonized. Such actions lead to seriously weakening an already
weak habitat system and threatening the future viability of listed fish and wildlife
populations.
Bull trout/Dolly Varden have been observed only in the North Fork Teanaway and
small tributary streams (i.e., Jungle, Jack, and DeRoux creeks). SASSI (1998).
Despite the SASSI report discussion of the presence of bull trout in Jungle, Jack, and
DeRoux creeks, these streams were omitted from the mapping of bull trout core waters.
In fact, Jungle, Jack, and DeRoux creeks were designated as non-core (i.e., 18°C), even
though they are bull trout habitat. Mouths of these streams are at 2600 ft, as high or
higher in elevation than other core bull trout streams in the upper Yakima. Ecology also
designated the majority of West Fork Teanaway as non-core salmon rearing (i.e., 18°C)
and the M.F. Teanaway as core salmon rearing, despite their potentials as bull trout
habitat. In addition, Indian and Middle Creeks were mapped by WDFW in their
SalmonScape interactive mapper1 as potential bull trout habitat but these were also
omitted from WDOE’s map of core bull trout habitat. This mapper indicates DeRoux
Creek as current spawning habitat. In this case, the fault of non-protection of thermal
regimes on a basin-wide level is not solely attributable to FFR rules. Ecology is also to
blame here for promoting rules that attempt to apply non-core salmon designations to
everything outside national forests (i.e., to private land), ignoring the natural thermal
potential of streams.
WDOE recently recommended a temperature designation in the upper Yakima River as
“non-Core for all waters outside of National Forest, including Yakima River from mouth
to Cle Elum River (river mile 185.6).” (EPA 2005a). “In its 2003 WQS revisions,
Ecology designated the waters that were designated ….“Class A” to the “salmon and
trout spawning, noncore rearing, and migration” use.” (EPA 2005b). The noncore
salmon rearing habitat then has a temperature standard of 18°C applied to it.
Ecology also promoted rules that ignored known bull trout distribution in many instances,
ignored recommendations of WDFW, and definitely ignored the potential distributions of
bull trout. The net effect is, despite the N.F., W.F., and M.F. Teanaway being listed on
Ecology’s 303(d) list for 1998 (see
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/1998/wrias/wria39.pdf), Ecology has
promoted unprotective temperature standards for this drainage. This is only a single
example of the problems with temperature criteria. EPA’s Regional Temperature criteria
1
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
16
development process (EPA 2003) thoroughly evaluated the biological requirements of
salmonids for water temperature. Standards for bull trout were refined from 13°C to
12°C, recognizing their special requirements for cold waters. Ecology is able to negate
much of this knowledge of bull trout requirements by simply assigning warm
temperatures to streams when they have the natural potential of being significantly colder
and not considering known or potential bull trout distribution. By allowing the
headwaters to be heated from 12°C (the bull trout core designation) to either 16°C or
18°C (non-core salmon rearing) simply by labeling a potential bull trout stream as noncore salmon rearing, Ecology is insuring that all three forks of the Teanaway will remain
on the 303(d) list. FFR is supposed to provide rules consistent with Ecology’s criteria.
There has been no demonstration that the rules promoted under FFR are capable of
achieving Ecology’s criteria. Also, the combination of Ecology criteria and FFR, as an
inadequate management implementation response to even the most satisfactory parts of
Ecology’s standards, will result in a continued warming of streams starting in the
headwaters. Specifically, even where Ecology has properly designated 12°C to apply to a
bull trout stream, FFR allows significant impacts to all tributaries to this stream.
Irrigation withdrawals have dewatered bull trout habitat extensively in the N.F.
Teanaway. In addition, timber harvests in riparian corridors and high road densities have
contributed to excessive stream temperatures and sediment loads, increasing stressful
conditions for bull trout. Similar land use effects have seriously limited the distribution
of bull trout throughout the mid-Columbia basin. These streams need restoration in order
to protect existing salmon/steelhead populations and also to restore and protect bull trout
populations.
High temperatures in many areas (e.g., Yakima mainstem and Naches, Teanaway
Rivers) have contributed to limited spawning and rearing in the system (DEIS
Appendix A). Consequently, improvements to the Washington Forest Practices
Rules under No Action Alternative 1-Scenario 1 and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could
have a moderate effect on the recovery of listed or potentially listed species.
(FFR, p. 4-218).
High temperatures are already a significant problem in the Teanaway River. Despite this,
WDFW has not designated all potential bull trout streams in the Teanaway headwaters as
needing protection to bull trout standards. This stream system might fall under the bull
trout overlay in a general way, but if FFR rules are carried out with respect to the most
recent DOE mapping, which is supposed to make use of WDFW information (see EPA
2005c), it appears likely that streams that have potential as bull trout habitat that have
already been warmed or that still have cold waters but have lost bull trout due to
declining populations, could be assigned 16ºC instead of 12ºC as the summer rearing
temperature. This situation, where natural thermal potential temperatures recommended
by EPA are ignored and cumulative temperature increases to naturally cold streams are
permitted in potential bull trout waters that can be ≥ 4ºC, can easily cause a systemwide
ratcheting upward of water temperatures that affect the combined bull trout/Chinook zone
and the Chinook zone downstream. Although FFR claims only a moderate effect (see
FFR, p. 4-218, cited above) in applying improved forest practices (i.e., the HCP instead
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
17
of old rules) in recovering listed species, this claim is very misleading. Resident bull
trout are wholly dependent upon reconnection and recovery of habitat quality in their
headwater streams. Migratory bull trout depend upon cold stream temperatures extending
further downstream. It is a valid point that other land use practices also need to
significantly improve before recovery of listed species can be a reality, but the potential
for further damage and impairment to recovery due to application of FFR to headwater
streams is also apparent.
FFR has no linkage to natural thermal potential and is a BMP substituted for both
water temperature standards and real TMDL analysis
Allen and Dent (2002) state:
“The DEQ is required to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for streams
that do not meet the WQS. A key component of DEQ's approach for meeting the
temperature standard is developing TMDL allocations for non-point sources to
reduce solar loading. Temperature TMDLs are often based on predicted levels of
“effective shade” that, in turn, are derived from a prediction of “system
potential” vegetation and channel morphology. The DEQ defines system potential
vegetation and effective shade in the following manner: System potential, as
defined in the TMDL, is the combination of potential nearstream vegetation
condition and potential channel morphology conditions. Potential near-stream
vegetation is that which can grow and reproduce on a site, given: elevation, soil
properties, plant biology and hydrologic processes. A maximum height is
predicted for that vegetation type and used, in turn, to predict shade provided to
the stream. This, combined with topographic shade, is used to predict the effective
shade provided to the stream channel.”
The FFR is not based on system potential. Rather it takes site potential, but instead of
assessing the maximum tree height and shade potential, it limits shading to a maximum
of that which can be provided by 100-year old trees. Washington DOE temperature
standards state that by default, if a landowner is obeying FFR, it is in compliance with
water temperature standards. This unnecessarily disconnects temperature standards from
forest management impacts. Even if a stream is currently not meeting temperature
standards and is on a 303(d) list, WDOE and FFR require nothing but compliance with its
rules. TMDLs have recently been written for basins in Washington where the FFR has
also been claimed to be sufficient to result in appropriate load allocations that will meet
temperature standards. This is done without even applying a state-of-the-art temperature
model or evaluating cumulative effects of all foreseeable levels of harvest on an annual
basis. FFR never reveals the accuracy that its shade rule has in providing desired
temperatures. By attempting to harvest all excess trees above the threshold values set up
by the rules, FFR would seem to claim that it can precisely balance streams exactly at the
state standards at all points on a downstream course. If the shade models underpredict
the effects of riparian alteration (see Allen and Dent 2002) and ignore the combined
actions of all activities that are know to lead to water temperature elevation, it is very
likely that the impacts due to historic perturbations will be considered a baseline and
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
18
further impacts could easily overshoot stream temperatures by 2 to 4ºC. That is, because
the shade model has no connection to natural thermal potential, it offers no means of
ensuring that temperature increases cumulatively only by so much above a natural
background level. Rather all increases will be allowed above an already elevated
background. The biological effects to productivity and survival of listed fish populations
could be very significant and seriously threaten the continued persistence of the species
(McCullough 1999, McCullough et al. 2001). In light of uncertainty it is always far more
prudent to err on the side of the resource needing protection than to take actions that are
irreversible in the near term or long term.
An example is the Wind River Temperature TMDL (WDOE 2002).
Load allocations are included in this TMDL for forest lands in the Wind River
Basin in accordance with the section of Forests and Fish entitled “TMDLs
produced prior to 2009 in mixed use watersheds”. Also consistent with the
Forests and Fish agreement, implementation of the load allocations established in
this TMDL for private and state forestlands will be accomplished via
implementation of the revised forest practice regulations. The effectiveness of the
Forests and Fish rules will be measured through the adaptive management
process and monitoring of streams in the watershed. If shade is not moving on a
path toward the TMDL load allocation by 2009, Ecology will suggest changes to
the Forest Practices Board.
Rather than doing any analysis, the Wind River TMDL adopts the rules of the FFR as
sufficient and relies on the adaptive management process to cover its mistakes in the
future. There is no description of the evidence that would be required to demonstrate that
‘shade is moving on a path toward the TMDL load allocations’ desired. Consequently,
there appears to be no method for escaping the circular thinking whereby it is assumed at
the outset that FFR implementation produces the allocations desired, no matter what the
future rate of timber harvest or the current exceedance of temperature standards.
Holistic measures recommended for protection of bull trout habitat
In the bull trout zone holistic habitat conservation guidance was prepared by the USFWS
(2000) that highlight numerous interacting processes that any adequate forest
management plan must address to protect the species. The USFWS (2000) guidance was
blind peer reviewed by a nine reviewers. Their report adopts a caution zone equal to the
100-year floodplain plus one site-potential tree height distance (horizontal) on both sides
of the stream. On the Westside 1 SPTH is 150 ft; on the eastside it is 90-150 ft
depending upon potential vegetation. Reasons given for making this recommendation
were to filter most sediment from non-channeled surface runoff, provide some
microclimate and shallow groundwater thermal buffering, and to provide a margin of
error for unanticipated channel movement, hillslope and soil stability, blowdown,
wildfire, operator error, disease. An additional reason that should have been included is
to have a margin of safety to allow for predictable global air temperature increases that
have actually become increasingly apparent. According to USFWS (2000) bull trout
have optimal rearing temperatures of 4-10°C and spawn at temperatures of <8-10°C.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
19
Migratory bull trout prefer temperatures of 10-12°C. USFWS (2000) recommends many
actions that are needed to protect temperature sensitive bull trout:
(1) reduce actions that lead to increased sediment
(2) maintain or restore optimal and preferred water temperatures by retaining
adequate canopy and streamside vegetation through restricting harvest or
management activities that reduce shade below 100% or below the level of shade
necessary for maintaining cold water in both fish bearing and non-fish bearing
streams, including headwaters
(3) protect groundwater sources by limiting new withdrawals and maintaining or
restoring historic groundwater flows in both the floodplain and deep aquifer.
(4) avoid all management activities that may alter groundwater input to spawning and
rearing streams, such as draining of filling wetlands, placing roads in sensitive
sites such as seeps and springs.
(5) discontinue or modify water diversions that result in thermal barriers to passage
or increased water temperatures above optimal or preferred levels.
(6) because air temperature and relative humidity can influence stream temperature,
seek to maintain or restore riparian conditions at a level that approaches the
natural microclimate of undisturbed systems.
(7) maintain pool frequency and depth
(8) avoid land management activities that do not promote the full array and
expression of riparian functions over time (e.g., shade, LWD, litter inputs, root
strength and bank stability, microclimate, etc.).
(9) maintain or improve connectivity among
The FFR fails to meet any of these recommendations. It opts for a low maximum
riparian tree height rather than supporting restoration of potential vegetation; permits
extensive warming of headwater streams by canopy removal; permits extensive removal
of LWD potential; permits filling of small wetlands and timber harvest on wetlands
connected hydraulically to streams; does not address water withdrawal; allows substantial
soil displacement in riparian zones of Type N streams; does not address cumulative
effects of impacts to all these factors. For example, the FFR does not provide buffers on
significant portions of Type N streams, the buffers that will exist are too narrow to meet
soil retention guidelines provided in key references such as Knutson and Naef (1997) or
FEMAT (1993).
Holistic measures recommended for protection of bull trout/salmon habitat through
the salmon zone
Protection of bull trout habitat, in terms of water temperature protection, is also well
prescribed by EPA (2003).
EPA recommends that the spatial extent of this use include: (1) waters with
degraded habitat where high and low density juvenile bull trout rearing currently
occurs or is suspected to currently occur during the period of maximum summer
temperatures, except for isolated patches of a few fish that are spatially
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
20
disconnected from more continuous upstream low density use; (2) waters with
minimally-degraded habitat where moderate to high density bull trout rearing
currently occurs or is suspected to currently occur during the period of maximum
summer temperatures; (3) waters where bull trout spawning currently occurs; (4)
waters where juvenile rearing may occur and the current 7DADM temperature is
12°C or lower; and (5) waters where other information indicates the potential for
moderate to high density bull trout rearing use during the period of maximum
summer temperatures (e.g., recovery plans, bull trout spawning and rearing
critical habitat designations, historical distributions, current distribution in
reference streams, studies showing suitable rearing habitat that is currently
blocked by barriers that can reasonably be modified to allow passage, or
temperature modeling).
EPA (2003) in this paragraph and elsewhere, recommends full protection of all current
and potential bull trout habitat, maintaining waters that are currently colder than the
recommended standard for protection of bull trout rearing (i.e., 12ºC), and reconnecting
bull trout habitat by restoration of currently degraded stream linkages. That is, 12ºC is
the standard that applies to the downstream extent of habitat that is designated as bull
trout core rearing. It is not acceptable to increase temperatures of waters that are
currently colder than this due to the downstream impacts on other bull trout habitat.
Likewise, it is not acceptable to warm the headwaters of bull trout habitat—i.e., those
waters contributing to bull trout habitat. Only by maintaining temperature in core bull
trout habitat to ≤ 12°C at the downstream extent of its distribution will there also be a
chance of meeting salmon habitat temperature criteria downstream.
WDFW (1993) recognizes the intimate linkage between bull trout, having a 12ºC rearing
criterion, and salmon/steelhead populations, which have a 16ºC core rearing temperature
standard.
Generally, in drainages colonized by wild anadromous salmon and steelhead, bull
trout/Dolly Varden have successfully co-existed by occupying a slightly different
ecological niche. However, in many areas where bull trout/Dolly Varden exist,
habitat conditions have deteriorated, and natural predator/prey balances have
been upset. Bull trout/Dolly Varden populations are at or near critically low
levels in many areas of the basin.
Bull trout and salmon populations overlap extensively, especially in the temperature
ranges where temperatures are between 12 and 16ºC (7DADM). This alone emphasizes
the need for protection of both bull trout and salmon/steelhead that the streams of the
salmon/steelhead core zone cannot be heated to 16ºC, especially when their natural
thermal potential is 12ºC, for example. If a stream is not designated for bull trout
protection, but has a natural thermal potential for 11ºC (7DADM), allowing this stream to
then take on the full temperature of the next applicable standard downstream weakens the
viability of the salmon/steelhead populations downstream from this location and also
reduces the suitability of this stream to ever support a recolonization by bull trout.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
21
EPA (2003) is clear on the need to protect temperatures throughout a drainage on a
holistic basis:
Because the temperatures of many waters in the Pacific Northwest are currently
higher than the summer maximum criteria recommended in this guidance, the
high quality, thermally optimal waters that do exist are likely vital for the survival
of ESA-listed salmonids. Additional warming of these waters will likely cause
harm by further limiting the availability of thermally optimal waters. Further,
protection of these cold water segments in the upper part of a river basin likely
plays a critical role in maintaining temperatures downstream. Thus, in situations
where downstream temperatures currently exceed numeric criteria, upstream
temperature increases to waters currently colder than the criteria may further
contribute to the non-attainment downstream, especially where there are
insufficient fully functioning river miles to allow the river to return to equilibrium
temperatures (Issue Paper 3).
In a similar manner, EPA (2003) emphasizes restoration and recovery of populations
based on a holistic view of habitat from headwater stream protection to the downstream
reaches:
The following are three important ways that temperature WQS, and measures to
meet WQS, can protect salmonid populations and thereby aid in the recovery of
these species. The first is to protect existing high quality waters (i.e., waters that
currently are colder than the numeric criteria) and prevent any further thermal
degradation in these areas. The second is to reduce maximum temperatures in
thermally degraded stream and river reaches immediately downstream of the
existing high quality habitat (e.g., downstream of wilderness areas and
unimpaired forest lands), thereby expanding the habitat that is suitable for
coldwater salmonid rearing and spawning. The third is to lower maximum
temperatures and protect and restore the natural thermal regime in lower river
reaches in order to improve thermal conditions for migration.
Best available science on buffer widths for protection of all riparian functions
In addition to the excellent guidance provided by EPA, NMFS, and USFWS in various
documents reviewed here concerning protection of water quality on a systemic basis,
there are many good reviews available on the riparian buffer widths needed to provide
high levels of function of the numerous processes that riparian zones control. Among the
best are USFS, NMFS, USBLM, USFWS, USNPS, USEPA (1993) (i.e., FEMAT 1993),
Spence et al. (1995), and Rhodes et al. (1994). More recent reviews have encompassed
these reviews and other sources (e.g., Kindig and Cedarock Consultants 2003). Appendix
A of Kindig and Cedarock Consultants (2003) provides tables of citations for riparian
widths that provide the following functions: LWD recruitment, bank stability/erosion
control, organic litter, water quality, nutrient removal, sediment filtration, microclimate,
and temperature control. Probably the most extensive review available on buffer widths
needed to provide for these various functions was compiled by Knutson and Naef (1997).
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
22
Appendix B and C of Knutson and Naef (1997) provide extensive detail on required
buffers for various percentages of function (perpendicular distance from the stream in
meters). Although this reference was available to FFR, it was cited only for the most
general information about the ecological values of riparian zones in the DEIS.
Full consideration of providing a high level of protection that encompasses all these
functions would require at a bare minimum meeting the buffer widths suggested by
FEMAT (1993). Adding in the wildlife protection values of riparian buffers, a buffer of
100 m can be expected to offer 80% sediment retention while providing “good”
protection of wildlife; excellent wildlife values are protected by buffers of 200 m (Pentec
2001).
Open and hidden risks of FFR
“There is a moderate to high likelihood of elevated water temperatures in Type S
and F streams. There is a moderate to high likelihood of elevated water
temperatures in Type N streams. The effect of temperature increases in non-fishbearing streams on downstream fish-bearing streams is uncertain, and could be
important in watersheds with a high degree of past harvest or already elevated
stream temperature.” (FFR, p. 4-65).
That there is a high likelihood of temperature increases in Type N streams, as expressed
in FFR, is a major understatement. That it is uncertain that increases will occur in Type F
streams downstream of them is merely wishful thinking based on a single TFW study that
is very limited in its applicability to all Type N streams across the state. Rather than take
precautions against irreversible impact, FFR intends to place all streams at risk while
debating the suitability of this study for at least 10 to 20 years. In this time period there is
ample time for all irreversible impacts that could occur to actually take place. The
preceding paragraph also forewarns that current habitat degradation and exceedance of
temperature standards, though highly risky situations, will not actually have any bearing
on intent to simply proceed with standard rules for all streams. This process is reckless.
The 20-acre exemption rule provides a potentially high impact to various watersheds. It
is claimed that on a regional basis that 0.5 to 5% of forestlands would be subject to the
exemptions provided in the 20-acre exemption. (FFR, p. 4-118). However, the variation
among individual watersheds supporting various listed species could be much greater. In
addition, this percentage could easily increase in various basins over the course of the
HCP as forestland is developed. The 1999 shade rules instead of the 2000 shade rules are
permitted. Although this is revealed, the exact changes are not specified. This then
becomes an investigational challenge to determine what this really allows. This
information and its consequences should be revealed in the DEIS. It is also feasible for
all landowners qualifying under this exception to harvest their properties simultaneously.
The importance of the full package of exemptions is downplayed based on a sampling of
37 parcels (representativeness uncertain) for which it was concluded that RMZ harvest
had not occurred. (FFR, p. 4-118). It is inconclusive whether this is supposed to mean
that these RMZs were still mature second growth or old growth or whether the stands
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
23
were not harvested within some specified preceding time period (e.g., whether they were
uniform 20-year old stands). Harvest timing likely varies by region and by economic
conditions. If economic conditions change and make harvest desirable, the exemptions
permitted on these 20-acre parcels occurring simultaneously under the FFR could be very
significant as a mortality factor for localized populations due to significant increases in
sediment, temperature, and peak flow.
Even worse, the 20-acre exemption has no restrictions placed on harvest on any Type N
stream, perennial or seasonal. Consequently, there would appear to be no restriction
placed on the amount by which state temperature standards could be exceeded due to
impact of Type N heated waters on Type F. It cannot be claimed that state temperature
standards would be met on Type F streams when there is no restriction to elevating
temperatures on tributary streams.
The potential for significant problems is even acknowledged in the FFR:
In watersheds with high proportions of exempt 20-acre parcels, the lack of RMZs
on all Type 4 and 5 streams required under No Action Alternative 1-Scenario 1
and Alternatives 2 and 3, would increase the likelihood of adverse temperature
effects. These effects on Type N streams could also be transferred to downstream
fish-bearing streams until stream temperatures equilibrated with local
environmental conditions. (FFR, p. 4-137).
Even on Type F streams within exempt 20-acre parcels, riparian buffers on gravel-bed
streams need only be 35 ft width and of the leave trees required, they need be only 4 inch
dbh at 155 TPA (FFR, p. 2-21). If even 10% of the harvest unit is located in the RMZ,
then only 50% of this number of trees per acre (TPA) need be left. A harvest unit can
always be selected so that at least 10% of the area is comprised of RMZ, making it easy
to get by with a minimum leave tree requirement.
Temperature criteria are defined for stream classes in WAC 173-201A (FFR, p. 2-22).
Despite the fact that Washington’s temperature criteria will soon be changed to be in
compliance with EPA’s new guidelines and will include temperature criteria for bull trout
rearing and spawning, the FFR will guarantee landowners that it will be protected from
any new temperature criteria for the next 50 years.
While exempt 20-acre parcels would have less protective RMZ requirements, they
would be required to follow the shade rule. [even though this rule is downgraded
to the 1999 rule]. Therefore, RMZs on exempt parcels would be required to
include enough trees to meet the minimum shade requirements for achieving
State water temperature standards. (FFR 4-135).
From the above paragraph, it is obvious that no matter how restricted the RMZ width is
in the 20-acre parcels, no matter how many more trees can be harvested than under
standard rules, though leave tree requirements can be 50% of standard rules if 10% or
more of the harvest unit is in an RMZ, and even though all Type N streams can be
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
24
harvested down to the stream edge, there is still the pretense that near full function of
LWD recruitment can be had and also that state temperature standards will be met. As
with all forestry BMPs, they are by default considered to meet standards, despite the
successive diminishment in protection, stepping down from 250-year old, full riparian
stands of 1 SPTH, to 100-year mature, full stands, to FFR stands where the inner zone is
partially harvested, the core zone can have yarding corridors and removal of trees not
believed to provide shade currently, plus the non-fish tributaries can be heavily logged, to
20-acre exempt parcels, where there are no restrictions on logging of Type N streams.
All these variants are argued in the DEIS to meet state temperature standards.
FFR/TFW science does not support the assumption that WQS can be met
In tests of the shade screening tool, Rashin and Graber (1992) found that the
screening tool was effective at seven of the nine sites examined (excluding those
with flow loss within the reach). These results suggest that some streams may not
be fully protected from increases in temperature even with implementation of the
shade rule guidelines. The results from Rashin and Graber (1992) also suggested
that prior to implementation of the shade rule, low elevation streams less than
1,640 feet were at higher risk of exceeding water quality standards than higher
elevation streams. It is not known to what degree the shade rule has been effective
at protecting these low elevation streams. FFR (p. 4-132 to 4-133).
Rashin and Graber (1992) was used by FFR as a significant justification for the BMPs
being effective in meeting temperature standards. However, a closer look at this report
shows far different conclusions than are reported in FFR. First, the accuracy of
TFWTEMP was reported as  2ºC for 62% of the cases. For an additional 15% of the
cases the error was  2 to 3ºC. For the remaining 23% of the cases the error of this model
was > 3ºC. Error of this magnitude is highly significant in terms of the biological
impact (McCullough 1999).
There were 13 sites monitored by Rashin and Graber (1992). The BMPs were considered
effective only at 5 of these sites; 2 were considered unknown, and the remaining 6 were
considered ineffective. At 3 of the 5 sites where BMPs were considered to be effective,
the monitoring was done entirely in the September to October period. Of the 5 sites
where BMPs were considered effective, the maximum temperature differential was
>0.3ºC. One site had a differential of 2.4ºC.
The site with a 2.4ºC differential was considered to be a BMP success because the buffer
width was >26 m, even though there was riparian harvest allowed. Even though the
monitoring timing was August 19 to September 5, considered by the authors not to be
representative of the air temperatures normally experienced at the site, this site exceeded
18.3ºC eight times during the sampling period. If the problem is due to poor canopy
upstream, one would have to wonder how TFW rules can allow further timber harvest
downstream.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
25
On North Fork Rabbit Creek the daily temperature differential due to riparian harvest
under TFW rules was as high as 5.2ºC and was consistently >3ºC. This site had
streamflow loss through the harvest area and due to this the authors concluded that the
only way to prevent this temperature increase would have been to retain full shade
instead of applying TFW harvest rules. FFR (p. 4-132 to 4-133) thought it proper to
exclude sites that would have streamflow loss.
On South Fork Ohop Creek monitoring was done between August 24 and September 12,
also not likely to be the most extreme climatic conditions to express the effectiveness of
BMPs. The maximum daily temperature differential due to harvest was 1.9ºC over only
315 m of stream reach. It was stated by Rashin and Graber (1992) that “The observed
average hourly temperature increase between upstream and downstream monitoring sites
was within lºC of the 2.8ºC criterion on four of 19 days.” In what way would a
temperature increase of anything approaching 2.8ºC be considered a criterion for a single
harvest activity under TFW rules? This stream was a Type AA stream with a standard of
16ºC. Its average shade level measured by approved TFW densiometer methods was
82%. Elevation at the downstream end was 1362 ft. Given that South Fork Ohop Creek
is a Westside creek with a 16ºC standard, it is supposed to have only about 63% cover
based on the shade rule at 1361 ft. because Westside streams are supposed to be more
resistant to temperature increases than eastside streams. If 82% average cover was not
sufficient to maintain this stream’s temperature below the standard, how would a
reduction to the TFW approved cover of 63% result in achieving the standard, even if it is
late August to mid-September? The daily maximum temperature was 16.9ºC during this
time period and the authors considered it only a “possibility” that temperature standards
were not met. Such a temperature tool gives no consideration to the effects of upstream
activities, current or future. It gives no consideration to protection against known annual
and seasonal extremes in air temperature and solar radiation. It does not allow a margin
of safety for what are highly probable climatic warming trends. It represents a blind, rote
application of a tool (BMP) that would simply continue to aggravate already
unacceptable temperatures.
For the factors that climate models can simulate with some confidence, however,
the prospects for many PNW salmon stocks look bleak. The general picture of
increased winter flooding and decreased summer and fall streamflows, along with
elevated stream and estuary temperatures, would be especially problematic for
in-stream and estuarine salmon habitat in the PNW. For salmon runs that are
already under stress from degraded freshwater and estuarine habitat, these
changes may cause more severe problems than for more robust salmon runs that
utilize healthy streams and estuaries (some of which still exist in the PNW, and
many of which still exist in Alaska). Mote et al. (2002).
Failure to consider current condition and rate of recovery while allowing further
degradation
Although there is a professed intent to avoid harm to listed species, this does not take a
holistic view. There is no effort to provide protection to the most sensitive species (fish
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
26
or wildlife). There is little concern for the upstream-downstream connectivity to streams
and the influence of headwater streams on downstream habitats. The precautionary
principle is not in place to prevent avoidable harm (Tickner et al. 1994). Rather, relevant
science that calls for caution or would suggest cautionary action is discounted and weak
science is put in place to supercede it. The ISP (2000) recommends a recovery strategy
that is based on recognizing watershed condition and trend as well as its potential. The
FFR ignores current watershed condition and assumes that untested BMPs (not linked to
meeting natural thermal potential of streams and not proven to meet even temperature
criteria at face value-- i.e., without regard to the natural downstream heating trends and
the applicability of the standard to only the downstream of the designated reach), if
applied for a long enough period of time will eventually succeed in bringing about
adequate conditions. Near-term (years to decades) habitat degradation is basically
ignored in favor of what is assumed to be a long-term, unspecified level of improvement.
The near-term degradation will be widespread given the reach of the FFR. The longterm, anticipated improvement is only a refinement in management practices relative to
previous practice but does not necessarily translate to an improvement in habitat
condition and does not significantly increase the probability of survival and recovery of
listed populations.
Recovery times and irreversibility of actions relative to rate of response to problems
via adaptive management
Table 4.7-2 (FFR, p. 4-104) shows recovery times for various functions of riparian zones.
“Although current Washington Forest Practices Rules require large trees within riparian
areas to be retained, the majority of forested riparian areas in western Washington are in
an early seral stage with only 2 percent estimated in late seral stage.” (FFR, p. 3-128).
“[S]ubject to Washington Forest Practices Rules up to 2001, approximately 78 percent
of western Washington stream miles and 61 percent of eastern Washington stream miles
flow through early seral stage riparian areas.” (FFR, p. 3-70). Given that so little
riparian vegetation is late seral, the impact of requiring maintenance of a certain number
of trees/acre among the tallest trees in riparian zones over time will mean that riparian
forests will trend toward 100-year old at best. The FFR acknowledges that functional
LWD on large Type F streams can only be provided by the largest trees, but even under
the most conservative part of FFR, which addresses Type F streams, the long-term view
of riparian function is one of impoverishment. The FFR admits much greater rates of
blowdown on the narrow buffers provided, which will have the effect of significantly
reducing the future incidence of the current 2% late seral vegetation.
Recovery times are summarized in Table 4.7-2. Given that current riparian vegetation is
predominantly early seral, the table predicts 5 to 40+ years for shade recovery. The FFR
also claims that logging slash is likely to provide shade to logged streams. For larger
Type F streams, 40 years of riparian tree growth is unlikely to provide the shade that
would be typical of late seral vegetation, especially on the eastside streams. “Water
temperature total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) developed for streams and rivers in
Washington have predicted that it will take between 50 and 80 years, depending on
location and type of riparian vegetation, to achieve natural temperature conditions that
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
27
existed prior to timber harvest (Personal Communication, Laurie Mann, Environmental
Protection Agency, September 13, 2004).” (FFR, p. 4-61). Recovery in 5 years to 80
years or more depending upon where in the DEIS one looks appears to vary depending
upon what one terms recovery. When trees older than 100 years are not required in
riparian buffers, large Type F streams will not achieve temperature recovery; when
significant additional harvest to the stream edge is allowed in headwater Type N streams,
temperature recovery will not occur in the Type F streams they flow into.
Starting from the early seral stage, it is claimed that LWD function will be restored in
100+ years, but this conveniently matches the 100-year target set for maximum desired
site condition. There is no indication that the desire future condition of the riparian
buffer would be a 250-year old stand in any portion of the buffer on any stream type.
Starting from early seral condition, microclimate is claimed to be recovered in 10-40+
years. Based on Brosofske et al. (1997), Chen et al. (1995), Ledwith (1996) and others,
narrow buffers of early mid-seral as a maximum tree size would not likely yield
microclimate recovery.
“Due to the time required for streamside trees to grow and mature to potential LWD,
there may be a considerable lag period (e.g., greater than about 50 years and up to 300
years) before additional LWD is contributed to a cleared stream (Gregory and Bisson
1997).” (FFR, p. 3-97). “The recovery of instream LWD loads will take decades to
centuries (Bilby and Ward 1989)”. (FFR, p. 4-183). “However, some streams may
require many years to recover from historical management-related inputs of coarse
sediment (20 to 100 years or more). Similarly, the recovery of LWD recruitment is a
long-term process. Moderate levels of recovery may require 80 years or more in riparian
areas dominated by early-seral stage stands.” (FFR, p. 4-206). Even though LWD
recruitment from an early seral stage is portrayed as approximately 100 years, other
evidence even scattered through the DEIS indicates multiple centuries. Moderate
recovery to full functioning is blurred so that it appears there is no significant difference.
Broad-brush allusions to cumulative effects compliance
Among the cumulative effects discussed was the impact of FFR on the goals of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FFR, p. 5-10). It is
claimed that “implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with these
objectives by furthering protections of salmon habitat on forestlands regulated by the
Washington Forest Practices Act.” Despite the attempt to convince the reader of the
consistency of FFR with Magnuson-Stevens Act, the characteristics of habitat condition
associated with risk to fish populations include: (1) 80-90% of streambanks in a noneroding state, (2) reduced linkage of wetland areas to the main channel, (3) road density
of 2-3 mi/mi2, (4) <15% equivalent clearcut, (5) moderate loss of shade or LWD
recruitment, (6) some evidence of alteration of peak flow, base flow, or flow timing
relative to undisturbed watersheds of similar size, geology, and geography. PFMC
(1999). FFR either meets, exceeds, or totally ignores the conditions that PFMC itemized
as freshwater habitat issues leading to a “risk” rating for Pacific salmon. The FFR
cumulative effects analysis consists primarily of mentioning areas of concern,
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
28
disregarding the impact of additional impacts to an already degraded habitat system and
then claiming consistency.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, M. and L. Dent. 2001. Shade conditions over forested streams in the Blue
Mountain and coast Range georegions of Oregon. ODF Technical Report #13.
Bartholow, J.M. 1989. Stream temperature investigations: field and analytic methods.
Instream Flow Information Paper No. 13. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 89(17). 139
pp.
Bayley, P.B. and J.T. Peterson. 2001. An Approach to Estimate Probability of Presence
and Richness of Fish Species. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:620–
633.
Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream
temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. p. 191-231. In: E.O.
Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside mangement: forestry and fishery interactions.
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. Contribution No. 57.
Proceedings of a Symposium held at University of Washington, February 12-14, 1986.
Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Effects of harvesting on
microclimate from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological
Applications 7:1188-1200.
Caldwell, J.E., K. Doughty, and K. Sullivan. 1991. Evaluation of downstream
temperature effects on type 4/5 waters. T/F/W Report No. WQ5-91-004. Prepared for
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Committee,
Water Quality Steering Committee and Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia, WA. 71 p.
Chen, J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1995. Growing-season microclimatic gradients
from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications
5(1):74-86.
Cook, J. G., L. L. Irwin, L. D. Bryant, R. A. Riggs, and J. W. Thomas. 2004. Thermal
Cover Needs of Large Ungulates: A Review of Hypothesis Tests. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press.
Cross, J. 2002. Measuring the impact of harvest intensity on riparian forest functionality
in terms of shade production and large woody debris recruitment potential: two models.
M.S. thesis. Univ. of Washington, Seattle Washington.
CRWQCB. 2000. Navarro River Watershed Technical Support Document for the Total
Maximum Daily Load for Sediment and Technical Support Document for the Total
Maximum Daily Load for Temperature. California Regional Water Quality Control
Board. North Coast Region. July 28, 2000
Dong, J., J. Chen, K. Brofoske, and R. Naiman. 1998. Modeling air temperature
gradients across managed small streams in western Washington. Journal of
Environmental Management 53:309-321.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
29
Dunham, J., B. Rieman, and G. Chandler. 2001. Development of field-based models of
suitable thermal regimes for interior Columbia basin salmonids. Final Report.
Interagency agreement #00-IA-11222014-521 between the US Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station and the US EPA.
EPA, NMFS, and USFWS. 2001. Review of the December 2001 Draft Sufficiency
Analysis: Stream Temperature (Oregon Departments of Forestry and Environmental
Quality). Attachment 1, to letter to Dick Pedersen, Oregon DEQ and Ted Lorenzen,
Oregon Department of Forestry from Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine
Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
EPA. 2003. EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal
Temperature Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 910B-03-002. Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA.
EPA. 2005a. Table XX -EPA Review of Ecology’s Non-Core Use Designations &
Application of 13°C to Protect Spawning/Incubation. January 13, 2005 Draft.
EPA. 2005b. EPA’s Methodology in its Review of Ecology’s “Non-Core” Use
Designations and Application of 13°C to Protect Salmon Spawning/Egg Incubation
1/13/05 Draft.
EPA. 2005c. Maps of Washington’s proposed temperature criteria for WRIA 39, upper
Yakima basin. Application of 13°C to Protect Spawning & Incubation.
Ganey, J.L. and W.M. Block. 1994. A comparison of two techniques for measuring
canopy closure. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 9(1):21-23.
IMST. 2004. Oregon’s Water Temperature Standard and its Application: Causes,
Consequences, and Controversies Associated with Stream Temperature A report of the
Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.
Technical Report 2004-1, May 7, 2004
Kindig, A.C. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. Best available science literature
review and stream buffer recommendations. Prepared for City of Renton.
Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s
priority habitats: riparian. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 181pp.
Ledwith, T. 1996. The effects of buffer strip width on air temperature and relative
humidity in a stream riparian zone. USFS, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA.
McCullough, D., S. Spalding, D. Sturdevant, and M. Hicks. 2001. Summary of
technical literature examining the physiological effects of temperature. Technical Issue
Paper 5. Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. EPA-910D-01-005. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. Seattle, WA. (available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF).
McCullough, D.A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water
temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to
chinook salmon. EPA 910-R-99-010. Prepared for the USEPA, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington. 279 p. (available at www.critfc.org)
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
30
Mote, P. M. Holmberg, N.J. Mantua. 1999. US National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Region: Pacific NorthwestNational
Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, Office of Global Programs, and JISAO/SMA
Climate Impacts Group, Seattle, WA. 110 pp.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/pnw.pdf
Pentec Environmental. 2001. Use of best available science in City of Everett buffer
regulations.
PFMC. 1999. Appendix A. Essential fish habitat. Description of adverse effects on
Pacific salmon essential fish habitat and actions to encourage the conservation and
enhancement of essential fish habitat.
Poole, G., J. Risley, and M. Hicks. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of stream
temperature (revised). EPA 910-D-01-003. Prepared as Part of Region 10 Environmental
Protection Agency Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project.
31 p.
Poole, G.C. and C. H. Berman. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream
temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal
degradation. Environmental Management. 27: 787-802.
Rashin, E. and C. Graber. 1992. Effectiveness of Washington’s Forest Practice riparian
management zone regulations for protection of stream temperature. Prepared for
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Committee,
Water Quality Steering Committee. TFW-WQ6-92-001. Ecology Publication #92-64. 59
p.
Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough, and F.A. Espinosa, Jr. 1994. A coarse screening process
for evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and
rearing habitat in ESA consultations. Tech. Report 94-4. Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon. 127 pp. + appendices.
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1995. An ecosystem
approach to salmonid conservation. Volume I: Technical foundation. ManTech
Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/ManTech/front.htm
Thurow, R.F. J.T. Peterson, and J.W. Guzevich. 2001. Development of Bull Trout
Sampling Protocols Final Report. USFWS Agreement #134100H002. Prepared for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Aquatic Resources Division, Western Washington Office,
Lacey, WA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Tickner, J., C. Raffensperger, and N. Myers. 1994. The precautionary principle in action
A handbook. First Edition. Science and Environmental Health Network, Lowell, MA. 23
p.
USFS, NMFS, USBLM, USFWS, USNPS, USEPA. 1993. Forest Ecosystem
Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. FEMAT. USFS PNW
Region, Portland, OR.
USFWS. 2000. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey, Washington.
WDFW. 1993. SASSI.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
31
WDFW. 1998. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory. Bull Trout/Dolly Varden.
WDNR. 2000. Section 1. Method for determination of adequate shade requirements on
streams. Board Manual, March 2000.
Failure of the FPHCP to adequately address shade and temperature issues
32