Ancestor Creek Habitat Improvement Project

EA # DOI-BLM-CA-N030-2021-0008

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Arcata Field Office Arcata, CA

Prepared By: ______/___/___ Zane Ruddy, Fish Biologist

Reviewed By: ______/___/___ Dan Wooden, Assistant Field Manager

1. Introduction

Background and Setting Ancestor Creek is a one square mile tributary to the upper Mattole River in northern Mendocino County (Figure 1). The BLM manages one 40-acre parcel in the watershed, and the remainder of the watershed is managed by the California State Parks and private landowners. The watershed is primarily second growth conifer and hardwood-dominated forest.

Ancestor Creek has been identified as a priority tributary for habitat restoration for Endangered Species Act threatened coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch), Chinook salmon

(O. tshawytscha), and steelhead (O. mykiss) in the Mattole River (MRRP 2011, NMFS 2014, NMFS 2016) and recent spawner and juvenile surveys have identified it as one of the only streams where coho salmon persist in the watershed (MRRP 2011). Landscape disturbance in the Mattole River watershed, primarily logging and road building during the 1950s – 1980s, and wood removal during the early-mid 1980s, vastly decreased salmonid rearing habitat by disconnecting floodplains from the main channel and increasing channel incision. Juveniles rely on slower velocity habitats for shelter during the winter months, deep pools for protection from predators and increasing temperatures during the summer, and off-channel habitats that support macroinvertebrates. The lack of channel complexity in Ancestor Creek has created a “bowling alley” effect (Figure 2) in which water travels through the channel at high velocity causing incision and bank undercuts therefore reducing habitat and depositing fine sediment into the system. The addition of instream wood would change the release and residence time of water in the system, consequently increasing off-channel rearing and summer refugia habitat for salmonids, slowing channel incision and providing an overall resiliency to disturbance, specifically high flow events (Beaver Restoration Guidebook Pollock et al. 2017). The reach of Ancestor Creek within the BLM-managed parcel provides an ideal setting for addressing several of these limiting factors in one of the few remaining areas utilized by coho salmon in the Mattole River watershed.

Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made As part of a comprehensive effort to recover threatened salmonids in the Mattole River, a need exists to improve and increase juvenile rearing habitat for these fish in the watershed. The purpose of this project is to improve aquatic habitat conditions by installing small wood structures in strategic locations to influence physical processes in ways that improve fish habitat. The decision to be made is whether or not to restore habitat in Ancestor Creek to benefit native fish populations in the Mattole River.

Conformance with Land Use Plan This proposed action is subject to conformance with the Arcata Planning Area Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Decision Record (1996), and the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994), as amended. These plans have been reviewed to determine if the proposed action conforms with applicable land use plan terms and conditions as required by 43 CFR 1610.5 Management actions would comply with the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The Mattole River watershed is designated as a Tier 1 Key Watershed. Since most of the project area lies within Riparian Reserves, standards and guidelines for Riparian Reserves prohibit or regulate activities that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (USDA and USDI 1994).

1

Figure 1. Map of the project area. All activities would occur in Ancestor Creek (dashed blue line) on the 40-acre BLM parcel (shaded yellow).

2

Figure 2. Reach of Ancestor Creek exhibiting the low habitat value “bowling alley” channel form typical throughout the proposed project area. Discharge represented is winter baseflow.

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans The proposed action requires consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act because three listed fish species are present in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed action would require permitting under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed action is consistent with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. The Project meets Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, Case No.04-844 (W.D. Wash. Oct.10, 2006) Pechman Exemption c: “Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions” as well as the 2011 Settlement Agreement Conservation Northwest v. Sherman Case No. 08-CV-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.) fish and wildlife project exemption, Section IV.A.2.c. “Snag and down log creation when treatments retain 60% canopy cover. On any given acre, not more than 20% of any stand dominant or co-dominant cohort may be used to create snags and down wood”. The BLM is required to evaluate wilderness character of all areas subject to project- related activities. The project is in a non-contiguous 40-acre tract of public land. Due to its small size, the area does not contain wilderness characteristics. It has not been

3

demonstrated that this area is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.

Scoping and Issues The project was scoped with BLM specialists on March 16, 2021. Aquatic species and essential fish habitat, riparian, water quality, floodplains, and wildlife were identified as resources that would need to be included in the environmental assessment.

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Action The proposed project would place up to 20 small instream wood structures and up to 20 trees (up to 20 inches diameter at breast height (DBH)) over a 2,000-foot section of Ancestor Creek (Figure 3) over a five-year period (2021-2025). Project implementation would occur between June 15th and November 1st of each year. Structure maintenance (e.g., adding weaving material) would occur as needed throughout the year and would be limited to handwork. Design of the structures is informed by the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2017) and restoration projects on Baker Creek and Lost River in the Mattole River headwaters. The project would follow measures outlined in the NOAA Restoration Center/Army Corps’ programmatic Biological Opinion (NFMS 2012) to minimize potential effects to listed fish species. The 20 proposed wood structures would consist of a series of small-diameter (<6-inches DBH) untreated conifer posts sourced from a nearby forest fuels reduction project or lumber supplier, and weaving material (e.g., redwood and huckleberry branches) sourced near the project area. Posts would either be driven into the channel using a gas-powered pounder or manually with a post pounder or sledge hammer. Each structure would be approximately one to two feet deep. Once installed, channel-spanning structures would not exceed one foot above the existing streambed, and all other structures would be partial-spanning and would not exceed two feet in height. The maximum width of structures would be 15 feet. The structures would be semi-permeable, allowing for fish passage, and are designed to direct water to a naturally occurring side channels during high flow events. Example illustrations of the proposed structures can be seen in Appendix A. Up to 20 understory trees would be felled into the channel to increase habitat complexity and disperse stream energy. Trees would have a maximum DBH of 20 inches and would be selected to maintain instream shade and ensure streambank integrity. Trees would be dropped using a gas-powered chainsaw or a hand saw. After being felled, trees may be shifted into more suitable locations within the channel using a winch or grip hoist. Trees that exhibit high vigor, a good crown ratio and dominance in the stand would not be removed. Trees that may be of high wildlife value would also be retained. Wildlife trees include trees with broken or damaged tops, cavities, or other unusual growth that may be used by northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, or other cavity utilizing animals. Tree stumps would be cut or re-cut as low to the ground as possible.

4

Figure 3. Example locations of wood structures (red lines) and trees felled into channel (tree icon). Actual locations will be dictated by on-the-ground conditions each year. Fish are not anticipated in the proposed work areas due to the shallow (or completely dry) and exposed nature of the existing habitat during the low flow work season. As an added protective measure, all proposed work areas would be surveyed by a biologist prior to project implementation and any areas with fish present would be avoided. Therefore, fish would not need to be relocated or excluded from work areas. Sediment fencing would be placed immediately downstream of work areas to prevent disturbed sediment from traveling downstream. Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines prohibit timber harvest in Riparian Reserves except as needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (USDA USDI 1994). The proposed tree harvest would be conducted to maintain and restore numerous riparian, aquatic, and wetland functions. On-site identification of specific trees would occur in consultation with a BLM forester, fish biologist, and wildlife biologist to ensure that Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are being met. All motorized equipment used would be checked for leaks daily prior to the start of work and would not be used until any leaks are repaired or the leaking equipment is replaced, and a chemical spill emergency kit would be on hand at all times.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, no instream structures would be installed and no trees would be felled into Ancestor Creek.

5

3. Affected Environment

Aquatic Species and Essential Fish Habitat Ancestor Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the California Coastal Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon ESU, and the Northern California steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). These species are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Essential Fish Habitat is designated in Ancestor Creek within the range of Chinook salmon and coho salmon, and the creek is also designated critical habitat for all three salmonid species. Historical population structure studies of Pacific salmon species in this region identified the Mattole River populations as “Functionally Independent” and thus important components for recovery efforts within the ESUs and DPS (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005, Williams et al. 2006). Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), a BLM sensitive species and federal species of concern also occupies Ancestor Creek. Historical accounts indicate that the upper Mattole River, including Ancestor Creek, supported healthy populations of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead (MRRP 2011). Recent surveys indicate that the upper Mattole River continues to have the highest fish productivity in the Mattole Basin (MRRP 2011, MSG 2018). However, it appears that salmonid populations are currently limited by low summer stream flows, reduced habitat complexity, high sediment levels, degraded riparian forest conditions, and an impaired estuary (NMFS 2014). Little is known regarding the status of the Mattole River Pacific lamprey population, but regular observations of lamprey redds (i.e., nests) by BLM monitoring crews suggest their population is stable.

Floodplains Floodplains in the project area are connected in some reaches and disconnected in others. Channel entrenchment from a variety of natural and human-related causes has disconnected former floodplain surfaces from routine flooding associated with winter storms. The result is that habitats normally associated with floodplains have been lost in many areas within the project reach.

Water Quality Historic timber harvest and associated road networks resulted in excess sediment entering stream channels. The regrowth of dense, hardwood dominated stands consume more water than older forests and likely play a dominant role in reduced stream flows in the upper watershed (Jassal et al. 2009). Furthermore, deeply incised channels dramatically reduce the volume of seasonal groundwater stored within the alluvial terraces. The reduced capacity for groundwater storage coupled with dense regrowth of vegetation following timber harvest are two major factors that have resulted in reduced late summer stream flows. Water temperature data collected by the Mattole Salmon Group and Sanctuary Forest from the 2000-2010 suggest summer water temperatures are fully suitable for salmonids (MRRP 2011).

6

Riparian Much of the watershed is composed of second growth conifer and hardwood-dominated forest, with remnant old-growth redwood and Douglas-fir. Ancestor Creek is a narrow stream and receives full shade across its width from riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation consists of redwood, Douglas-fir, red alder, (Alnus rubra) and other hardwood species. The understory is composed of a diverse array of shrub and herbaceous plants. According to the Mattole River Watershed Assessment (Downie et al. 2003), the upper Mattole, including Ancestor Creek, has the highest percentage of tree vegetation in the riparian zone in the watershed.

Terrestrial Wildlife Including Threatened and Endangered Species The project area follows Ancestor Creek through approximately 2,000 feet of public lands. The project area was subjected to timber harvest prior to public ownership. Most of the redwood trees found in the project area are clusters of stems that are re-growing from the stump after a tree was cut down. The second growth trees are not yet suitable for nesting northern spotted owls (NSO) or marbled murrelet (MAMU) as they have a typical diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 12–20 inches. The project area has been evaluated and surveyed for NSO during 2021. The habitat is suitable for dispersal and foraging, but there is little potential for NSO nesting due to the small tree sizes and lack of trees with suitable cavities or structures to support a nest. Timbered, un-harvested properties in the vicinity are occupied NSO habitat. MAMU are not known to occupy the area and the subject property does not contain trees with suitable limb structure to support MAMU nest platforms. Extensive surveys throughout the KING Range NCA in the 1990’s failed to detect any occupied MAMU habitat. The Ancestor Creek parcel does not contain designated critical habitat for NSO or MAMU. The second growth redwood along the creek channel and floodplain transitions to mixed hardwoods upslope, which is habitat for wildlife typical of the area. Large mammals in the area include black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans). Medium and small mammals found in the area include grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus). A herd of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) roams to the west along the coast and occasionally visits the area. Bird species found in the area include varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), chestnut backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), and dark-eyed Oregon junco (Junco hyemalis), California quail (Callipepla californica). Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are now well established in nearby private lands and are occasionally observed on BLM in the area.

7

4. Environmental Effects – Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Aquatic Species and Essential Fish Habitat The proposed action would take place outside of the spawning and egg/alevin incubation period of salmonids; therefore, the only effects to salmonids would occur to juveniles during placement of wood structures and when trees are felled into the channel. All work would begin after June 15, allowing time for young-of-year salmonids to grow to a size that makes them capable of avoiding the work area. In addition, the location of the wood structures would be in shallow habitat not suitable for juvenile fish during low flow conditions. All fish are expected to be in isolated pools outside of the proposed work areas. To prevent harm to fish from tree felling, the in-channel destination for each tree would be surveyed by a biologist and the area would be avoided if fish are present.

Floodplains The proposed action would increase the extent of active floodplain connections in the project reach. The project would increase the area that is inundated during “bankfull” flows — the flow expected to occur, on average, every 1.5 years. At the project site, this would encompass several low-lying benches along the channel margins. The project is intended to improve floodplain function; therefore, no negative effects to floodplains are anticipated.

Water Quality The proposed action is unlikely to result in a measurable change in stream temperature because streamside shade would not be reduced by a quantifiable extent. Only suppressed, intermediate, and co-dominant trees would be felled. Installation of the 20 individual wood structures would result in small, localized areas of ground disturbance where posts are driven. The disturbance has the potential to deliver fine sediment into the stream channel and the sediment may be mobilized if surface flow is present. However, a temporary silt fence would be installed immediately below each work site to prevent sediment from leaving the area and affecting downstream water quality. Following the first winter storms, the disturbed sediment would result in a minor, short-term increase in turbidity, and travel short distances downstream before being stored in the channel. Use of gas-powered post pounders and chainsaws near and in stream channels allows for the possibility that toxic materials such as fuel and lubricants could leak into a watercourse and degrade water quality. All equipment would be checked for leaks daily prior to the start of work and would not be used until any leaks are repaired or the leaking equipment is replaced. Absorbent pads would be on site and would be deployed in case any toxic materials are spilled near water. All equipment to be used near streams would be required to have a chemical spill emergency kit to reduce the potential for

8

contamination from accidental spills. These measures are expected to significantly reduce the probability of introduction of chemical contaminants to Ancestor Creek. Given the timing of the project and the minimization measures descried above, effects on water quality would be insignificant.

Riparian Up to 20 riparian trees up to 20-inches DBH would be felled into the stream channel. The trees would be felled throughout the project area and only a few trees would be dropped in a single area. Only suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees would be felled. Removing some of the trees may reduce the competition in the stand and maintain the vigor and growth rate of the dominant trees. Conifers located adjacent to the channel and contributing to bank stability or providing overhead cover to the stream would not be felled. On-site identification of specific trees would occur in consultation with a BLM forester, fish biologist, and wildlife biologist to ensure that Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives are being met, including wildlife habitat and streamside shading functions. Given the existing dense riparian canopy cover and the careful selection of trees to be felled, any impacts associated with riparian tree removal would be insignificant.

Terrestrial Wildlife Including Threatened and Endangered Species The proposed action would result in the removal of 20 trees with a maximum dbh of 20 inches. The trees would be primarily harvested from the multi stem candelabra second growth trees and several stems from each tree will be left to mature. Since there are no nest trees in the project area we do not anticipate disrupting nesting NSO. Do to the lack of suitable nesting/roosting habitat, absence of NSO response during surveys, limited range of the noise, and short duration of the project there will be no effect to NSO. We measured the decibel levels (db) from the post pounding activity to guage the potential for noise disturbance. At the post the db level was a maximum of 97db and at a distance of 25 meters the noise peaked at 67 db. The db level testing results are below in Table 1. Table 1. Decibel levels of the post pounding equipment Distance from Ambient dB Idle engine dB Pounding max dB pounder At post site 47 73 97 10-m 47 58 80 15-m 47 55 76 25-m 47 52 67

The dense vegetation and topography limit the distance noise travels through the project site. However, resident terrestrial wildlife would be subjected to noise disturbance during the project from small engines during post pounding and tree falling operations. However, the increase in noise would be limited to a small area and short in duration. There would be no long-term negative impacts to terrestrial wildlife.

9

The project will be implemented at the end of the migratory bird breeding. We will evaluate each tree to ensure there are no nest present before cutting it down. Due to the limited range of the project noise and short duration of the project we do not expect negative impacts to migratory birds.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the effects of this project considered in the context of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the assessment area, regardless of who is implementing the other projects.

Aquatic Species and Essential Fish Habitat Only short-term, negligible impacts are projected for aquatic species and EFH in the project area. Instream habitat quality will be unaffected during project implementation, and only insignificant sediment delivery to Ancestor Creek following the first rains is anticipated. No other soil-disturbance activities in Ancestor Creek are expected to occur within the same work seasons. Therefore, no cumulative effects on aquatic species and EFH are anticipated from the project.

Floodplains Legacy land use practices have resulted in floodplain disconnection throughout the Mattole River. The proposed action would result in cumulative improvements to floodplain function.

Water Quality Legacy land use practices have led to poor water quality conditions in the Mattole River. The proposed action would result in cumulative improvements to the sediment transport regime and potentially summer stream flows.

Riparian The Mattole River watershed has experienced extensive timber harvesting and extensive alterations of riparian areas. Many of these disturbances have led to a loss in wood recruitment to streams and instream shade. However, the proposed action would occur in a very small portion of the riparian habitat in the watershed, would not remove shade producing trees, and would accelerate the recruitment of understory trees into the stream channel. Therefore, no cumulative effects on riparian areas are anticipated.

Terrestrial Wildlife Including Threatened and Endangered Species The upper Mattole River likely has only remnant patches of NSO or MAMU habitat due to past timber harvest activities. It will take decades for the habitat to recover assuming modern forestry techniques are properly applied which have the potential to accelerate the development of key habitat characteristics. Nearby landowners sporadically implement forest, fisher, or habitat restoration. The projects are completed in an uncoordinated fashion and at very small scales. There is very little commercial logging activity at this time. We do not expect the proposed project to impact the terrestrial wildlife habitat at a micro or macro level.

10

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Aquatic Species and Essential Fish Habitat Under the No Action alternative no in-stream placement of wood would occur. Current natural wood recruitment levels are unlikely to improve habitat conditions for listed species for decades.

Floodplains Under the No Action alternative, existing floodplains in the project reach would remain limited in extent.

Water Quality Under the No Action alternative, current water quality conditions and trends would continue. No wood would be placed into the stream channel. Current low levels of in- channel wood and poor sediment storage would persist.

Riparian Under the No Action alternative there would be no change in riparian conditions.

Terrestrial Wildlife Including Threatened and Endangered Species Under the No Action alternative habitat for wildlife would be unchanged and wildlife would not be subject to short-term noise disturbance. Cumulative Effects Under the No Action alternative, no cumulative effects are expected to occur. 5.0 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations and Agencies Consulted The following persons, organizations, and agencies were consulted during preparation of this analysis. Inclusion of an organization or individual’s name below should not be interpreted as their endorsement of the analysis or conclusions. Nathan Queener, Biologist, Mattole Salmon Group Tasha McKee, Water Program Director, Sanctuary Forest

6.0 References

Downie, S.T., Davenport, C.W., Dudik, E., Yee, F. and and J. Clements (multi- disciplinary team leads). 2003. Mattole River Watershed Assessment Report. California Resources Agency, and California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California. 441 p. plus apps.

11

Jassal, R, Black, T.A., Spittlehouse, D.L., Brümmer, C., and Z. Nesic. 2009. Evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in different-aged Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir stands. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology: 140(6/7) pp. 1168-1178.

Mattole River and Range Partnership. 2011. Mattole Coho Recovery Strategy. Petrolia, California.

Mattole Salmon Group. 2018. Mattole River Juvenile Coho Salmon Summer Spatial Structure Monitoring Report -2017.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Santa Rosa, California.

Pollock, M.M., G.M. Lewallen, K. Woodruff, C.E. Jordan and J.M. Castro (Editors) 2017. The Beaver Restoration Guidebook: Working with Beaver to Restore Streams, Wetlands, and Floodplains. Version 2.0. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 219 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Arcata Planning Area Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Decision Record. Decision Record, Environmental Assessment. Arcata, CA.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Arcata Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, Arcata, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. January 2001. Portland, OR.

12

Appendix A. Proposed Instream Treatment Types

1

2