'l \ j ¥""' a~/'---" r '"'e-r - (/-k 7/1 /o~ Fish Species Review Form and Biological Assessment/Evaluation Mendocino National Forest

Project Name: Pacific Fuels Treatment Project District Name: Grindstone RD

Proposed Action:

Five Strategically Placed Land Area Treatments (SPLATs), covering a total of 1,313 acres, have been placed across the landscape in the Little Stony area (Map#l ). Within these SPLA Ts a combination of activities including commercial thinning, oak release, pruning, pre-commercial thinning, hand and mechanical fuel treatments, and prescribed burning would occur.

Commercial thinning (CT) 1 from below would occur within approximately 240 acres (thirteen units). Six of these units are located within the Blue Slides LSR. In addition, an LSR, oak release treatment would occur within one unit (unit 14). This unit is located in the vicinity of Black Oak Camp. Within this unit, conifers would be removed that have overtopped the black oak, causing the oaks to slowly die out. Commercial timber removed from the CT units would be predominantly small to medium sized Ponderosa Pine, Douglas fir, sugar pine, white fir and incense cedar. The estimated volume of both the CT and oak release units is approximately 4,888 CCF (Table #1).

Within the CT and oak release units, trees will be whole tree yarded, and logs, tops and branches processed at the landings. Once the commercial logs are removed, the remaining tops and branches will be piled and burned, or chipped and removed.

Following the CT and oak release operations, non-commercial trees would be thinned from below and the remnant slash piled and burned. Stands would be pruned to a height of six feet, or 1;3rd the tree height-whichever is less. In addition, these units may be understory burned in areas where slash levels exceed fuel hazard requirements. In general, requirements are to minimize the chance that the flame height during a wildfire is less than 4 feet (for details, refer to fuels specialist report).

In addition to the CT and oak release units, an additional 909 acres exist within the five SPLA Ts. Of these acres, approximately 181 acres would be pre-commercially thinned (PCT). In general, where slopes exceed 35%, activity fuels from the PCT operations would be hand piled and burned. Where slopes are less than 35%, activity fuels would be machine piled and burned, or chipped and removed for biomass if the market allows. Following these treatments, the PCT units may be underbumed to minimize the potential that the flame height during future wildfires would exceed 4 ft. flame lengths.

In addition to the CT, oak release, and PCT treatment acres, there exists approximately 580 acres of land within the SPLA Ts that may be mechanically treated. These acres are on land that generally consists of slopes that are 35 percent or less and are covered with chaparral, brush and other vegetation. Where fuels are too high within these areas to safety implement a broadcast bum, the brush and vegetation may be masticated and/or piled and burned. Once the fuels have been reduced to safe levels, a broadcast bum may occur to meet the fuel reduction goals stated above.

1 See Appendix A for silvicultural Prescriptions Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page l Table #I-Commercial Treatment Units

Unit Total CCFL Acres Silvicultural Fuels treatment Prescribed Volume Prescription burning 1 (LSR) 61 4 Thin from Understory Understory below-variable removal-leave burn thinning tree in opening

Prune to 6' or 1/3 of height

Pile & burn, or utilized for biomass if market allows. Leave fuels if limited.

2 (LSR) 699 41 " " --

3 (LSR) 186 9 " " " -- 4 (LSR) 229 12 " " " 5 (LSR) 124 7 " " " j 6 (LSR) 283 19 " " 7 327 29 " " " =J 8 1554 53 " " " 9 195 15 " " " 10 112 7 ~I " " " - 11 431 27 " " " 12 417 14 " " " 13 50 3 " " " 14 220 54 Oak restoration " " (LSR) (remove conifer)

Total 4888 294 I

Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page 2 Table #2- Non-commercial Treatment Areas

SPLAT Total Pre- Fuels Treatment outside of either Prescribed Number Acres commercial commercial thin or Pre-commercial Burn (acres) (Outside of thinning thin units Com. thin Acres*­ (acres)** units) (does not Include Com. Thin r------+-----+-__A_ c_r_es_ -+------+------_j 20 (LSR) 251 o 221 2s1 I 21 (LSR) 84 22 48 408 2~3 ~~ J

23 174 67 36 174 1· 24 352 66 100 352 ~T_o_t_a_l_s---+--9-0_9_-+---18-1----<------58_0______--+--~~--90-;~ *Acres.from 6-2-09 report-Jesse Rosenquist **Acres determined from Janet Flanagan 614109 calculation.

Connected Actions

To accommodate the above stated treatments, an estimated .33 miles ofroad reconstruction would be required. Hauling would occur on approximately 21 miles of existing road (see Table #3).

Table 3: Roads Used for This Project ·- Road Number Miles Work Needed tJn•t~ Access~d Pre-haul 8 l6N40 0.56 -- l6N51 2.09 Pre-haul 9 16N51A 0.22 Pre-haul 9

17N02 1.32 Pre-haul 5,6 -- Pre-haul All MS 17.26 --- Existing Unmapped 0.33 Reopen 6

Total estimated road work:

21.45 miles Pre-haul .33 miles - reconstruction

Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page 3 Approximately 5.57 miles of designated OHV trails exist throughout the project area. Most of these trails receive only limited use. The most heavily used area is in the northern portion of the project area along trails #20 (Unit #6) and #03 (Unit #6 and #20). These trails stretch from Trough Springs Ridge to the Miner Ridge area. Non-designated trails are present throughout the project area and continue to be a problem. Under the proposed action, approximately 1.0 miles of non-designated trail, located within SPLAT #20, and #23 would be decommissioned (see Map #1). To protect the existing designated OHV trails, the following would apply: 1. A 25 foot buffer will be applied along both sides of system roads and OHV trails where vegetation treatments are applied. Within those 25 feet, mechanical equipment should be excluded and directional felling applied if overstory trees are removed.

2. Maintain a 10 foot no treatment zone along trails, with no trees removed from that zone. Within the remaining 15 feet of buffer, overstory tree removal is permitted if appropriate to the silvicultural prescription and directional felling is applied. A void falling trees across trails as much as possible. 3. If any trees are skidded across trails, trails need to be restored to pre-operation condition, with brush and slash distributed to keep vehicles from using skid trails to get off the established trail.

4. Keep logging equipment off of trails, except for the lower 300 feet of trail #3, immediately north of Cedar Camp in Unit #2.

Description of Analysis Area: The project lies within the headwaters of the Stony Creek watershed, which is a tributary to the . South Fork Stony Creek and Little Stony Creek are upstream of Black Butte Darn, Stony Gorge Dam, and East Park Dam and thus have only resident fish. The only resident TES fish that is native to these waters and that still exists in portions of the Stony Creek Basin is the hardhead, a member of the minnow family.

The fisheries analysis area ends where potential project effects to fish and fish habitat fade into the ambient background of ongoing watershed processes. The analysis area does not overlap with TES fish or their habitat The rationale is discussed in the Potential for Effects section.

Description of Habitat in Vicinity of Project (on site and downstream): The project is well removed from potential habitat for Sensitive hardhead, which is no closer than 6 miles downstream of the project. The project lies mainly in the headwaters of Little Stony Creek, though some of the work is in South Fork Stony Creek headwaters. Both streams have elevated erosion rates and shallow pools due to pool filling. The large deep pools preferred by hardhead are generally unavailable in either stream, though a few appropriate pools exist in South Fork Stony below Fouts Springs.

A fisheries report from 1952 concerning Stony Creek suggests that an irrigation diversion dam just downstream of the Forest boundary blocked hardhead passage and that the hardhead population on the Forest (in 1952) was already at very low levels. The Stony Creek diversion dam is still in place today. Habitat loss and loss of connectivity of habitat due to darns are cited as one of the key reasons for the hardhead decline in CA (Moyle, 2002).

Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page 4 The downstream habitat in Little Stony and South Fork Stony is of sufficient quality to provide large numbers of certain nongame species. Nongame fishes including Sacramento pike minnow and Sacramento sucker are found in the lower reaches of both Little Stony and SF Stony Creek.

KNOWN OCCURRENCES AND HABITAT

Federally Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Species:

Coho salmon - S. OR/ Occ _N_ Hab _N_ Outside range.

Steelhead - N. CA. ESU Occ _N_ Hab _N_ Outside range.

Steelhead - Central Occ_N_ Hab _N_ Outside range, since project is above Black Butte Res. Valley, CA ESU

Chinook - Occ_N_ Hab _N_ Outside range. CA. Coastal ES U

Chinook - Central Occ _N__ Hab _N__ Outside range, since project is above Black Butte Res. Valley Spring Run ESU

Chinook - Sacramento Occ _N_ Hab N Outside range, since project is above Black Butte Res. River Winter Run ES U

Delta smelt Occ _N__ Hab _N_ Outside range.

Green Sturgeon, Occ__N_ Hab _N__ Outside range, since project is above Black Butte Res. Southern DPS

Critical Habitat

Steelhead- Central Valley Present ~N~_ Chinook - Sacramento River Present ..li._ CA. ESUCH winter run CH

Chinook salmon - Central Present N ~-'----- Va11 e y spring run ESU CH

Coho salmon - S. OR/ Present ------N Chinook - CA Coastal Present ..li._ _N. CA. Coast ESU CH ESU CH

Steelhead- N. CA Present _N ESUCH

Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species:

Chinook - Central Valley Occ _1'.L Hab lL Outside range, since project is above Black Butte Res. fall/late fall run ESU

Clear Lake hitch Occ _1'.L Hab l Outside range.

Hardhead Occ ....N_ Hab ...Y.. Hardhead were historically found in lower Little Stony Creek and Stony Creek. Little Stony Creek, and other small Stony watershed tributary creeks are not suitable summer habitat for adult hardhead since they are so shallow; but the lower reaches of these streams could provide habitat for juvenile hardhead (though no hardhead were identified in 2007 and 2008 surveys). South Fork Stony Creek has a limited amount of suitable adult habitat downstream of the South Fork CG.

Adult hardhead are relatively easy to differentiate from pike minnow or suckers, but surveys in 2007 and 2008 failed to locate hardhead in either stream. It is possible that some hardhead do persist in the system and that juvenile hardhead rear in these streams, but that appears unlikely. The only Stony Creek tributary known to contain hardhead is Grindstone Creek, which is downstream of both East Park Reservoir and Stony Gorge Reservoir.

Hardhead prefer cool to wam1 summer stream temperatures and adults congregate in large, deep pools with low velocities, such as are found in the larger streams on the eastern edge of the Mendocino National Forest. Lower Thomes Creek is probably the best example of good hardhead habitat on the Forest. Hardhead spawn over gravel beds in riffles, runs, or the heads of pools, mainly in April and May. They do not excavate redds as salmonids do. Spawning fish may run upstream 30 to 75 kilometers in a river or large streams to spawn in a suitable ttibutary, but spawning runs may be much shorter for fish already residing in smaller streams (Moyle, 2002). They have relatively poor swimming ability at low temperatures, which appears to keep them from moving upstream through velocity barriers. This means that hardhead generally do not disperse well through higher gradient habitat or even most fish ladders that trout can ascend. The state of used to use Rotenone and other pesticides to remove hardhead and other nongame species from marginal trout habitat to increase total trout production in Grindstone and Stony Creeks.

Historic CDFG rotenone treatments of nongame fish combined with the irrigation dam may have eliminated hardhead from Stony Creek on the Forest; but we don't know this to be a 100% certainty. Low numbers would be difficult to detect, but surveys in summer 2007 and 2008 failed to locate any hardhead in lower Stony, Middle Fork Stony, South Fork Stony, and North Fork Stony.

Surveys Needed: Yes No X If yes what species: Surveys were conducted for hardhead and suitable hardhead habitat in the Little Stony Creek and South Fork Stony Creek watersheds in 2007 and 2008.

Habitat Assessment Methodology:

Aerial Photo _x_ Field Verification X General Familiarity _x_ GIS __ Map _2L

Protocol Survey Results: NA

Other (CEA process, etc.): NA

Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page 6 Potential for Effects:

Only one species listed above (hardhead) could be present and needs to be considered in this analysis. The project takes place in: 1. the headwaters of Little Stony Creek about 6 to 10 miles upstream of potential hardhead habitat. 2. the headwaters of SF Stony Creek about 6 to 9 miles upstream of potential hardhead habitat. It appears unlikely that this potential habitat on Forest is occupied, but it is possible that some hardhead persist in these watersheds.

Hardhead are more tolerant of higher water temperatures and sediment than trout. Neither hardhead spawning areas nor hardhead eggs are impaired as readily by sediment as are salmonids. However projects that resulted in significantly increased sediment that limited aquatic insect production would reduce available food for juvenile hardhead. Similarly, projects that resulted in mass wasting, and thus resulted in pool filling within hardhead habitat, would be adverse for the hardhead. However such negative impacts are not anticipated.

It is the opinion of the project physical scientist that the project design will ensure that any minor effects caused by the pro.iect will fade into the ambient background of ongoing watershed within 'l4 mile of such work; this is well prior to reaching potential hardhead habitat.

Therefore there should be no negative effects to the hardhead from this project.

Management Requirements: None, except what was built into the proposed action, BMPs, etc.

Determination (check one):

1. Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation is needed for the subset of species identified above. __

2. Further Biological Analysis is not needed. This memo documents completion of the steps outlined in the 2670 section of USFS Manual regarding Biological Assessments for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and for a Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species for this project. XX

3. Biological Assessment needed, but the memo documents the information for dete1mining effects for Forest Service Sensitive species and serves as the Biological Evaluation _ _ _

4. Biological Evaluation is needed for the subset of species identified above, but the memo documents the information for determining effects for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed species and serves as the Biological Assessment. l~.01~~1~ Prepared by: -'-'/ ~"-='~=M=.'-'M-'-"=o""'rg""a=n ______Date: ----07/01/09 Forest Fisheries Biologist

Pacific Fuels Treatment Fisheries Review and BE/BA Page 7