B I O L O G I C A L A SSESSMENT
FOR
T HREATENED , E NDANGERED , A N D P R O P O S E D F I S H S P E C I E S T H A T M A Y B E A FFECTED
B Y T H E
T R I N I T Y P O S T F I R E H A Z A R D R EDUCTION AND S A L V A G E P ROJECT
Trinity River Management Unit and South Fork Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest
January 6, 2017
Prepared and Finalized by: Brenda Olson, Environmental Coordinator Date
Approved by: Date
William A. Brock, Fish Program Manager
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
PROJECT NAME: Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT: Shasta-Trinity National Forest; Trinity River Management Unit, South Fork Management Unit FOURTH FIELD South Fork Trinity River and Trinity River WATERSHED: FIFTH FIELD Browns Creek WATERSHEDS: Canyon Creek New River Burnt Ranch Upper South Fork Trinity River Middle South Fork Trinity River Lower South Fork Trinity River Upper Hayfork Creek Lower Hayfork Creek Lower Trinity River
SEVENTH FIELD Appendix C WATERSHEDS:
WATERSHED ANALYSES: See list in Section VI. Environmental Baseline and Biological Requirements of the Species NEPA DOCUMENTATION: Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project DEIS (STNF, in progress)
ESA SPECIES Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho CONSIDERED: Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Effects of the project on Essential Fish Habitat will be ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: immeasurable and will not adversely affect (and may have long- term positive effects through sediment source reduction) on coho salmon and Chinook salmon EFH.
ESA DETERMINATIONS: May Affect and is Not Likely to Adversely Affect SONCC coho salmon or its designated CH
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Contents
Section Page I. Introduction ...... 1 II. Consultation to Date ...... 1 III. Proposed Action ...... 2 IV. Description of the Action area ...... 10 V. Analysis Methods ...... 11 VI. Environmental Baseline ...... 17 VII. Effects of the Action ...... 43 VIII. Cumulative Effects ...... 67 IX. Species and Habitat Effects Summary ...... 68 X. ESA Effects Determination ...... 71 XI. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 71 XII. References ...... 72
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
List of Tables Table 1. Roadside Vegetation Treatment Acres by Watershed...... 2 Table 2. Riparian Reserve Widths for the Action Area...... 9 Table 3. CWE Risk Matrix (Mai, 2015)...... 15 Table 4. Watershed Burn Severity (2015 Wildfires)...... 20 Table 5. STNF CWE Risk Matrix Criteria...... 22 Table 6. Browns Creek CWE Model Results Summary...... 22 Table 7. Browns Creek Water Temperatures at Smith Lane Bridge...... 23 Table 8. River Complex Burn Severity from 2015 Wildfires ...... 25 Table 9. River Complex Fire Pre- and Post-fire Runoff...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 10. New River and Burnt Ranch CWE Model Results Summary...... 26 Table 11. New River and Burnt Ranch Subwatersheds - Stream Temperatures...... 28 Table 12. Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary...... 29 Table 13. Middle South Fork Trinity River - Water Temperatures...... 31 Table 14. Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary...... 32 Table 15. Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 - Water Temperatures...... 34 Table 16. Upper Hayfork Creek HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary...... 35 Table 17. Upper Hayfork Creek - Water Temperatures...... 37 Table 18. Lower Hayfork Creek HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary...... 39 Table 19. Lower Hayfork Creek HUC 5 - Water Temperatures...... 40 Table 20. Acres of RRs Proposed for Vegetation Treatments by HUC 5 Watershed...... 47 Table 21. Legacy Sediment Site Locations, Fill Volumes and Distance to CH...... 54 Table 22. Road Restoration and Stream Crossing Information...... 55 Table 23. Summary of Indirect Adverse Effects to Habitat Indicators...... 69
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Maps Appendix B: STNF Table of Population and Habitat Indicators Appendix C: Environmental Baseline and Effects Checklists for HUC 7 Watersheds Appendix D: Project Design Features, Best Management Practices and Wet Weather Operation Standards Appendix E: Species and Habitat Information
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project I. Introduction The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to determine effects of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest’s (STNF) Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project (the Project) on Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). SONCC coho salmon occur within the action area as well as designated Critical Habitat (CH) for SONCC coho salmon. Species status and general life history information is provided in Appendix E. A determination of effects to coho and Chinook salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) is also included in the BA. The Project Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) includes five action alternatives and a no action alternative that all focus on roadside treatments to mitigate hazard trees and reduce hazardous fuel loading within six areas that were burned by wildfires in 2015. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and was designed to meet the purpose and need for action and will treat a total of approximately 8,100 acres along 233 miles of open public roads. Alternative 1 is the action analyzed in this BA and is referred to as the Project. This BA has been prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code [USC] 1531 et. seq.; 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 402), EFH consultation under 305(b) (4) (A) of the MSFCMA; and is consistent with standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42; USDA Forest Service 2009).
This BA analyzes effects on the following: Endangered: None Threatened: SONCC coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (NOAA, 1999b) and their designated CH (NOAA, 1999a) Proposed: None Candidate: None Essential Fish SONCC coho salmon and Upper Klamath-Trinity (UKT) Habitat: Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) Appendices: Supporting documents to this BA are located in the following appendices: Appendix A. Project Maps Appendix B. STNF Table of Population and Habitat Indicators Appendix C. Environmental Baseline and Effects Checklists, HUC 7 watersheds Appendix D. Resource Protection Measures, Best Management Practices and Wet Weather Operation Standards Appendix E. Species Life History and Biological Requirements II. Consultation to Date National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) representative S. Naman attended (by conference call) an initial Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting on October 29, 2015. Both S. Naman and W. Smith (NMFS) attended two additional IDT meetings (by conference call) on February 1, 2016 and February 8, 2016. The IDT meetings discussed Resource Protection Measures (RPMs), Riparian Reserves (RRs), large woody debris 1
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
(LWD), and other topics relevant to coho salmon and their habitat including CH and EFH. Phone conversations and emails were exchanged between Eric Wiseman (STNF Fish Biologist) and S. Naman between October 2015 and February 2016. An additional phone call between S. Naman, W. Smith, David Schmerge (STNF Hydrologist) and Brenda Olson (STNF Environmental Coordinator) occurred on April 5, 2016 to discuss the RPMs for the Project. Two field reviews occurred with NMFS in attendance. The first field review was with Eric Wiseman (STNF Fish Biologist), S. Naman, and W. Smith on November 5, 2015. A second field review was held April 20, 2016 with S. Naman, W. Smith, B. Olson, D. Schmerge, Sally Cousins (FS Sale Administrator), Keli McElroy (FS Silviculturist), and Jim Gonzalez (FS Fuels Specialist). A draft BA was submitted to S. Naman, W. Smith, and Justin Ly on 11/16/16. Verbal comments from W. Smith and J. Ly were received during a conference call on 11/18/16. A second draft BA was submitted to S. Naman, W. Smith and J. Ly on 1/6/17. Comments were reviewed and discussed together on x/xx/17. The BA was finalized on x/x/17 and informal consultation initiated.
III. Proposed Action
The Project is described in the DEIS (STNF, in progress) and includes two primary Project Elements (PEs): PE 1 Roadside Vegetation Management PE 2 Road Management and Legacy Sediment Source Reduction The Project will occur in subwatersheds of the Trinity River (Table 1) that were affected by the 2015 wildfires. A. PE 1 Roadside Vegetation Management Dead trees and vegetation will be treated along 233 miles (approximately 8,000 linear acres) of existing roads within a 300-foot wide buffer (plus the width of road bed) on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Maps in Appendix A show the locations of roadside treatment areas. The treatment roads are open to the public (i.e. open NFS roads, county roads, and state highways) and vegetation management is needed to reduce safety hazards that exist from burned trees, to reduce excessive fuels and to replant burned areas. Road types proposed for vegetation management are as follows: 153 miles of NFS Maintenance Level 2 (accessible with high clearance vehicles) roads; 34 miles of NFS Maintenance Level 3 (accessible with passenger cars) roads; 19 miles of NFS Maintenance Level 4 (paved) roads; and 27 miles of state and county roads.
Table 1. Roadside Vegetation Treatment Acres by Watershed. Miles of Roadside Miles of Roadside Vegetation Vegetation Treatments HUC 5 Treatments HUC 7 HUC 5 Watersheds Watersheds HUC 7 Watersheds Watersheds (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Browns Creek (47,126) 5.82 (211) Midas Gulch-Chanchelulla Creek 5.82 (211) (7,875) Canyon Creek (79,403) 0.41 (15) Dutch Creek (6,080) 0.41 (15) New River (149,364) 84.45 (3,074) Lower East Fork New River (5,625) 1.84 (67) Quinby Creek (5,630) 2.42 (88) Barron Creek-Caraway Creek 13.57 (494) (10,587) Denny-Birdie M Gulch (5,180) 3.99 (145) Lower Devil’s Canyon (8,015) 5.26 (191.5) Upper Big Creek-New River (7,371) 19.13 (696) Lower Big Creek-New River (4,935) 12.67 (461) Panther Creek-New River (3,727) 1.38 (50) China Creek-New River (5,769) 6.26 (228) Shasta-Trinity National Forest 2
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Bell Creek (4,677) 13.48 (491) Dyer Creek-Zeigler Springs (7,455) 4.44 (162) Burnt Ranch (134,460) 9.23 (585) Middle Big French Creek (9,820) 1 (36.4) Lower Big French Creek (9,131) 3.6 (131) Del Loma-Trinity River (7,795) 2.55 (93) Rowdy Bar Creek-Don Juan Creek Upper South Fork Trinity 1.95 (71) Cable Creek-Farley Creek (9,637) 1.95 (71) River (100558) Middle South Fork Trinity 28.08 (1,022) Upper Rattlesnake (7,624) 9.09 (331) River (118,626) Post Creek (9,416) 0.94 (34) Cave Creek-Swift Creek (9,538) 14.37 (523) Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden 2.20 (80) Valley (9,794) Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat (11,793) 1.24 (45) Marcels Ranch-Deep Gulch (4,033) 0.23 (8) Lower South Fork Trinity 29.43 (1,071) Pelletreau Creek (7,577) 5.41 (197) River (129,183) Hyampom Valley (9,175) 2.14 (78) Big Creek-Hyampom (5,292) 2.28 (83) Big Slide Creek-South Fork Trinity 3.17 (115) River (10,173) Upper Eltapom Creek (6,836) 8.36 (304) Lower Eltapom Creek (5,773) 8.07 (294) Upper Hayfork Creek 34.97 (1,273) Halls City Creek-Wilson Creek 9.89 (360) (105,766) (5,877) Chanchelulla Gulch-Shiell Gulch 8.98 (327) (7,730) Lower East Fork Hayfork Creek 2.05 (75) (9,019) Bridge Gulch-Hayfork Creek (4,929) 6.23 (228) Carrier Gulch-Hayfork Creek 6.40 (233) (4,917) Barker Creek (6,522) 1.41 (51) Lower Hayfork Creek 36.9 (1,343) Upper Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.01 (0.36) (142,015) (9,760) Ditch Gulch-Salt Creek (5,077) 0.71 (26) Philpot Creek (6,739) 2.89 (105) Salt Gulch-Salt Creek (5,911) 0.89 (32) Lower Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek 7.19 (262) (9,395) Upper Tule Creek (6,846) 0.03 (1) Lower Tule Creek (8,094) 8.96 (326) Kingsbury Gulch-Kellogg Gulch 3.47 (126) (9,830) Upper Corral Creek (8,634) 3.17 (115) Middle Corral Creek (8,510) 0.03 (1) Miners Creek (8,296) 0.10 (4) Olsen Creek (4,115) 9.45 (344)
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 3
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
PE 1 Vegetation Management includes the following: Hazard Tree Abatement and Salvage of Hazard Trees The STNF utilizes criteria from the Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Roads and Facilities in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin-et-al., 2012) (Hazard Tree Guidelines) to identify hazard trees that will be felled. Hazard trees include dead or dying trees, dead parts of live trees, or unstable live trees (due to structural defects or other factors) that are within striking distance of people or property. Hazard trees have the potential to cause property damage, personal injury or fatality in the event of a failure. The Project will abate roadside hazard trees, dead trees only or hazards to operations, using the following methods: Mechanical or hand felling and removal of hazard trees utilizing ground or cable logging systems. Hazard trees that must be felled for work safety and that occur outside of the 300 foot buffer would be left on site. o Utilize wood products whenever possible. Utilization can include salvage logs, commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal, etc. o Commercial timber sales (sawlogs) are expected to be economically feasible on approximately 128 miles of the roads (approximately 4,100 acres) proposed for treatment. Hazard Tree Salvage Dead trees eventually decay and fall to the ground at varying rates depending on degree of injury, size and species. Felling dead hazard trees expedites the process that would have occurred naturally, redistributing standing snags as coarse woody debris. When coarse woody debris exceeds minimum retention requirements, is not within 150-feet of perennial fish bearing streams (the inner zone of the RR), high value owl conservation areas, or has other characteristics that are protected under RPMs or BMPs, and has commercial value, it will be removed as salvage logs or otherwise utilized (sold as personal or commercial fuelwood, specialty products, etc.). Wood products milled or otherwise utilized, result in reduced costs to the government (and subsequently the taxpayer) to accomplish Project goals, utilization of local timber industry infrastructure, reduction in surface fuels, and serve as an effective sequestration of carbon. This is likely to occur on approximately 4,100 acres (including approximately 700 disaggregated acres of concentrated higher density). Approximately 11 MMBF of hazard trees will be salvage logs. Stumps over 14-inches in diameter are more susceptible to infection by the Heterobasidion root rot fungus. As spores land on exposed stumps, they are transported through the cambium to roots where they can spread Heterobasidion root rot to residual live trees through root contact. To reduce the likelihood of this spread the STNF will hand spot treat conifer stumps over 14-inches with an EPA-registered borate compound (Trade name Sporax), where they exist in close proximity to known sources of spores. Fuels Management The Project includes roadside fuels reduction actions using the following methods and criteria to treat dead vegetation only: Reduce fuel loading to 10-20 tons/acre Reduce dead brush by 50-100% Hand fell trees and brush Masticate trees and boles, pulverize into small particles. This treatment can include mowing, mulching, or chipping. Lop and scatter slash Prune vegetation to remove lower limbs up to 10 feet from the ground
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 4
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Machine pile slash Pile burning Jackpot burning Broadcast burning Chipping fuels and redistribute surface fuels. Maintenance of fuels reduction zones after the initial entry through prescribed burning (broadcast, jackpot, underburn), felling of hazard trees and hand piling excess fuels. Reforestation Reforestation would occur within the roadside vegetation management areas that experienced moderate to high burn severity (and lost overstory trees that provide a source of natural seeds). Reforestation would entail planting tree species that were historically present in each stand including a mixture of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, sugar pine, Jeffery pine and red fir (South Fork Mountain only). Reforestation spacing could vary between 18-feet by 18-feet to 30-feet by 30-feet depending on site condition, terrain and existing vegetation. Within five years after planting, there is an expected mortality rate of approximately 30%, which may vary depending on weather/drought conditions and site. Live planted seedlings would be manually released (removal of competing vegetation by hand, not chemically) to aid in seedling survival within ten years following planting. B. PE 2 Road Management and Sediment Source Reduction Projects The Project includes two types of road management: routine road work; and legacy sediment source reduction projects Routine Road Work Routine road work will occur on existing roads that will be used for the Project and includes grading existing road bed segments, installation of drainage dips, construction of temporary road ramps, use of existing landings, construction of temporary landings and water drafting from existing access sites. Temporary road ramps will be constructed to access landings for vegetation management. Road ramps will not be more than 100 feet in length each and will be off of existing roads to access landings. Temporary road ramps will be constructed outside of RRs. Cumulatively, temporary roads will not exceed 1 mile total across the action area. Temporary road ramps will be restored after use. Restoration of these routes would include installing native material barriers made of log, earth, or rock. Beyond the closure, measures would be implemented as necessary to reduce sediment delivery from the road surface to make it hydrologically neutral. These measures include partial recontouring, loosening compacted soils, and removing all structures such as stream crossing pipes, over-side drains, trash racks, drop inlets, etc. (USDA Forest Service, 2011). Existing landings will be used and up to 60 new temporary landings may be constructed where needed to store dead trees for commercial ground-based salvage along approximately 128 miles of roads. New temporary landings will be less than 0.25 acres in size. Exact sizes will be commensurate with operational safety. Existing landings within RRs may be reused, however, the area of disturbance will not be increased and these features will be tilled and seeded following use where they do not need to be retained as part of the road system. No new temporary landings will be constructed within RRs. No existing landings within an EEZ will be used unless it is connected to a system road.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 5
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Water drafting will occur at existing access sites (see Maps in Appendix A) to abate dust during implementation. New drafting sites will not be developed. NMFS (2001) water drafting specifications and the STNF LRMP standards for water drafting will be implemented when drafting from all fish-bearing streams. Sediment Source Reduction Sediment source reduction projects will be implemented to reduce legacy sediment sources. The Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on NFS Lands in the North Coast Region (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010) (the Waiver) addresses nonpoint source discharges of waste to waters of California from activities associated with specific uses of NFS lands. More detailed descriptions of sediment source reduction work is provided in the Sediment Source Inventory Report prepared for the Project (STNF, 2016b) (SSI Report) and is summarized below. The following actions will be implemented to reduce sediment sources including several stream crossing restoration projects that are also listed in Table 21 (Section VII. Effects of the Action): Lower Hayfork Creek Grassy Flat-Miners Creek. There are numerous high and moderate-high risk features, including eleven corrugated metal pipe (CMP) stream crossings, six connected CMPs, three connected cross drains, three gullies, three ditches, and a spring. These features are located on roads 33N68, 3N05, 4N04, 4N24 and 5N60 (Map 1 SSI Report). On roads 4N24 and 5N60, BAER funds were used after the 2015 fires to improve six of the CMP stream crossings (E29, E30, E32, E45, E47, and E48). Reconstruction of crossings on roads 33N68, 3N05, 4N04, and 4N24 to fix the remaining identified high and moderate-high risk features will occur to comply with the Waiver. Rusch Creek. There are seventeen high and moderate-high risk features, including a stream ford crossing, a stream crossing CMP, two connected CMPs, seven connected cross drains, five gullies, and one erosion feature. These features are all located on roads 31N14 and 31N42 (Map 2 SSI Report). Reconstruction of crossings and fixes on drainage features on roads 31N14 and 31N42 will occur to comply with the Waiver. Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek. There are numerous high and moderate-high risk features on roads 30N27, 30N75, 31N19, 31N38, 31N40, 31N42, 31N48A and 31N64 (SSI Report Map 2). Roads 31N38 and 31N42 were upgraded in 2013 and road 30N75 was upgraded with BAER funds after the 2015 fires. The remaining fourteen features include one stream crossing CMP, one connected CMP, one connected cross drain, four erosion features, and seven gullies. These sites on roads 30N27, 31N19, 31N40, 31N48A, and 31N64 will be reconstructed in compliance with the Waiver. . Tule Creek. There are seventeen high and moderate-high risk features, including two stream crossing CMPs, three connected CMPs, seven connected cross drains, one ditch, two gullies, and two erosion features. These features are located on roads 31N33 and 31N48 (Map 2 SSI Report). These sites will be reconstructed to address the moderate-high risk features in compliance with the Waiver. Lower South Fork Trinity River Eltapom Creek. There are numerous high and moderate-high risk features on roads 4N24, 4N25, 4N41, 4N41A, 4N48A, and 5N50 (SSI Report Map 1). On road 4N24, BAER funds were used to improve three stream crossing CMPs after the 2015 fires. The remaining identified high and moderate-high risk features include: ten stream crossing CMPs, 21 connected CMPs, one connected cross drain, 38 ditches, and one erosion feature. Reconstruction of these roads to fix these remaining features will occur to comply with the Waiver. A watershed analysis has not yet been completed for Eltapom Creek, which is required for RRs prior to determining how proposed land management activities meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. There is no proposed project area within RRs in Eltapom Creek, but there are haul routes within RRs. A focused watershed analysis addressing road construction and repairs in RRs will be completed for Eltapom Creek before the improvements on haul routes in RRs are implemented.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 6
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Hyampom Creek. There are two inventoried high risk features: a connected CMP and a ditch on road 4N24 (SSI Report Map 3). Reconstruction of this road to fix the identified high risk features will occur to comply with the Waiver. Some project roadwork in Hyampom was completed post-fire except for the culvert replacements on road 3N14 at mile 1.0 and 1.7. These two culverts (Map 3, ID tags E50 and E51, SSI Report) will be replaced to comply with the Waiver. In Hyampom, roads that have been identified to be restored, hydrologically disconnected (culverts removed), or upgraded to comply with required Forest Plan mitigation include unauthorized roads, closed roads, and project area roads. Inventoried roads in the action area to be upgraded include 4N04 and 4N24, and road 3N14 at mile 1.0 and 1.7. There are about 2 miles of unauthorized roads to be restored (SSI Report Map 3). There are about 4 miles of closed roads to be restored (SSI Report Map 3); these roads are being analyzed in a separate NEPA project, but will be used as mitigation for the Project. There are about 21 miles of closed roads that will have culverts removed (SSI Report Table 10 and Map 3). Middle South Fork Trinity River Cave Creek-Miller Springs. There are seven high risk features, including five stream crossing CMPs and two connected CMPs. These features are located on roads 1S04, 1S06, 1S20, and 4N12. These sites will be reconstructed to address the moderate-high risk features in compliance with the Waiver. Rattlesnake Creek-Post Mountain. There is one high risk feature: a connected CMP on road 30N29. This feature will be fixed to comply with the Waiver. Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat. There is one high risk feature: a stream crossing CMP on road 4N12. This feature will be fixed to comply with the Waiver. About 3.2 miles of non-system roads will be restored in this subwatershed (SSI Report Map 3). There are other medium risk CMP stream crossings that may be upgraded to address risk including five on road 3N10 located at mile posts 1.190, 1.254, 1.915, 3.671 and 3.708; and three on road 6N01 located at mile posts 44.856, 44.914 and 44.934. Upper Hayfork Creek Dubakella Creek. There are numerous high and moderate-high risk features, including six stream crossing CMPs, five connected CMPs, ten connected cross drains, two erosion features, one spring, six ditches, and eight gullies). These features are located on roads 30N04, 30N04A, 30N15, 30N16, and 30N65 (Map 5 SSI report). These sites will be reconstructed to address the moderate-high risk features in compliance with the Waiver. Duncan Gulch-Barker Creek. There are two moderate-high risk features, including a stream crossing CMP and a connected CMP. These features are located on road 32N25 (Map 6 SSI Report). These sites will be reconstructed to address the moderate-high risk features in compliance with the Waiver. East Fork Hayfork Creek. There are two moderate-high risk features – a stream crossing CMP and a ditch located on road 31N04 (SSI Report Map 5). These sites will be reconstructed to comply with the Waiver. Natural Bridge subwatershed. There are sixteen high and moderate-high risk features, including two stream crossing CMPs, two connected CMPs, two connected cross drains, two erosion features, four ditches, and four gullies. These features are located on roads 31N13, 31N19, 31N20, and 31N49 (Map 2 SSI Report). Except for road 31N49, these sites will be reconstructed to address the moderate-high risk features in compliance with the Waiver. Forest Road 31N49 (located in Natural Bridge subwatershed) lies within the streambed of Carrier Gulch for most of its 1.6 mile length will be closed. Upper South Fork Trinity River Smoky Creek. There is one high risk feature: a stream crossing CMP on road 1S04 at mile post 2.895. Reconstruction of this feature will occur to comply with the Waiver. Browns Creek
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 7
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
East Fork Browns Creek. There are eleven high to moderate-high risk features, including one stream crossing CMP, one connected CMP, one connected cross drain, one erosion feature, a spring, four ditches, and two gullies. These features are located on roads 30N01, 30N16, 30N16E, 30N16F, and 30N47 (Map 5 SSI Report). Reconstruction of these sites will occur to comply with the Waiver. Burnt Ranch Big French Creek. Upgrades were made to roads 5N13, 6N04, and 5N04 with BAER funds after the 2015 fires. No upgrades are proposed. New River High priority roads include 7N03B in Upper New River watershed and 7N03C in Devils Canyon watershed due to undersized pipes. These road crossings will be upgraded to comply with the Waiver. Road Restoration In addition to the above sediment source reduction projects, approximately 4.7 miles of non-system (i.e. unauthorized) routes in Hyampom and Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat watersheds would be restored in order to reduce watershed impacts in these already sensitive watersheds (over Threshold of Concern) that experienced substantial wildfire effects. Restoration of these routes would include installing native material barriers made of log, earth, or rock. Beyond the closure, measures would be implemented as necessary to reduce sediment delivery from the road surface to make it hydrologically neutral. These measures include partial recontouring1, loosening compacted soils, and removing all structures such as stream crossing pipes, over-side drains, trash racks, drop inlets, etc. (USDA Forest Service, 2011). Limited sections may be fully recontoured where it is economically feasible or necessary to camouflage a route where barriers or gates are likely to be ineffective. Cross drain pipes may be left in place (with the inlet crushed). Exceptions may occur where removing a pipe involves adverse effects which outweigh environmental benefits. C. Other Project Elements Riparian Reserve Protection Measures Table 2 below shows RR widths for stream types in the action area. RRs along perennial flowing streams will be Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZs). If any hazard trees are identified within 150 feet of perennial streams, and it is determined that they need to be felled for operational safety, the hazard tree will be felled towards the stream and left onsite. Trees within the outer 150 feet of fish-bearing stream RRs may be removed by endlining to the road if more than 20 tons/acre of LWD occurs. In the outer 150 feet, 20 tons/acre of the largest LWD will be left. In RRs where a road runs parallel to a perennial stream and/or bisects the RRs by winding in and out, trees uphill of the road may be removed until 20 tons/acre of the largest LWD is left. Equipment used to remove trees from the uphill of the road will remain on the existing roadbed. RRs along seasonal streams will be comprised of two zones: the inner EEZ and the outer RR treatment zone. When water is flowing within intermittent streams, the EEZ will be 100 feet on each side of the channel. When the stream is not flowing, the EEZ will be 50 feet on each side of the channel. All heavy equipment is excluded from EEZs, except at designated crossings.
1 Partial recontouring retains a portion of the old roadbed in a gently outsloped condition. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 8
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 2. Riparian Reserve Widths for the Action Area. Stream Seasonally Fish-bearing Perennial non-fish-bearing streams and wetlands > and/or flowing or perennial 1 acre Waterbody intermittent streams and Category streams or lakes or natural wetlands < 1 ponds acre or unstable or potentially unstable areas Extent of A distance A distance equal A distance equal to the height of 1 site potential tree Riparian equal to the to the height of 2 on each side of the channel or edge of the wetland, or Reserve height of 1 site site potential 150 feet on either side of the channel or edge of the Width potential tree on trees on each side wetland (300 feet total), whichever is greatest. each side of the of the channel or channel, or 100 edge of the lake feet on each or pond, or 300 side of the feet on each side channel, of the channel or wetland or edge of the lake unstable area or pond (600 feet (200 feet total), total), whichever whichever is is greatest. greatest.
Project Timing The Project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017. The Project duration for hazard tree reduction and salvage harvest is anticipated to be two years (2017-2019). Fuels treatments would occur concurrently with salvage and hazard tree reduction and continue for up to 5 years after the Decision is signed for the Project. Because burning activities are dependent upon weather conditions and staff availability, it may continue for several years. The legacy sediment source reduction projects are projected to start in 2017 and will continue on a schedule determined through consultation with the North Coast Water Quality Control Board and funding availability. As described above, after the initial entry, vegetation will continue to grow, and trees will continue to succumb to fire damage and subsequent insect and disease and fall to the ground. These processes contribute to increasing fuel loading along roads once the initial implementation is complete. In order to sustain the desired condition as it relates to hazard mitigation, follow-up treatments may be necessary to maintain fuel loading levels between 10-20 tons/acre. Conditions will be evaluated and prescribed 10-15 years following implementation. Maintenance treatments could include: Prescribed burning (broadcast, jackpot, underburn, piles); Felling of hazard trees Hand piling excess fuels Mastication Resource Protection Measures RPMs (Appendix D) have been included in the proposed action and are designed to avoid and/or minimize potential effects to habitat indicators, coho salmon, CH and EFH. Fisheries biologists and other watershed
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 9
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project specialists developed RPMs specifically for watershed protection, and implementation of these measures is critical in avoiding adverse effects to aquatic habitat and coho salmon in both the short and long term. The STNF LRMP (STNF, 1995) (pages 4-25) directs that when watersheds are over Threshold of Concern (TOC), regardless of ownership or source of impacts (e.g. from non-federal lands), watersheds will not be further impacted unless they can be improved with appropriate mitigation measures. Approximately 4.7 miles of non-system (i.e. unauthorized) routes in Hyampom and Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat watersheds will be restored in order to reduce watershed impacts in these already sensitive watersheds (over TOC) that experienced substantial wildfire effects. Best Management Practices BMPs are required to control nonpoint source pollution related to all management actions with the potential to affect water quality on NFS lands (FSM 2532), and all NEPA decisions are to incorporate site-specific BMPs for protecting water quality (FSH 2509.22). BMPs from the Forest Service National BMPs (USDA, 2012) have been selected for the Project (Appendix D). Additionally, project specific RPMs have been developed for the protection of water quality and RRs (Appendix D). Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all identified BMPs and RPMs apply to all watersheds. Weather Restrictions Operational restrictions are included within BMPs and RPMs and will be used to guide implementation during periods of wet weather (see Appendix D). Key Watersheds Key Watersheds are a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and includes two designations: Tier 1 (Aquatic Conservation Emphasis) and Tier 2 (other). Tier 1 Key Watersheds contribute directly to conservation of at-risk anadromous salmonids and have a high potential of being restored as part of a watershed restoration program. Tier 2 Key Watersheds may not contain at-risk fish stocks, but are important sources of high quality water. There are four Tier 1 Key Watersheds in the analysis area: Upper South Fork Trinity River (Hayfork Creek to Headwaters) New River (Mouth to Virgin Creek) North Fork Trinity River (Mouth to Headwaters) Long-term management within Key Watersheds requires Watershed Analysis (WA) be completed prior to further resource management activity. Timber harvest, including salvage, cannot occur in Key Watersheds without a WA. WA is a procedure for conducting analyses that evaluate geomorphic and ecologic processes operating in specific watersheds and can enable watershed planning that achieves ACS objectives. Currently, WAs have been completed for the Key Watersheds and commercial use of RR hazard trees removed by the Project is allowed. All WAs completed for the action area are listed below in Section IV. Environmental Baseline. IV. Description of the Action area Analysis Area The Project Analysis Area for the DEIS includes the ~144,000 acres of STNF lands that burned in the following 2015 fires: The Fork Complex near the communities of Hayfork, Post Mountain, and Wildwood; The South Complex north and east of the community of Hyampom; The Mad River Complex near the communities of Mad River, Ruth, and Forest Glen;
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 10
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
The Route Complex near the communities of Mad River and Hyampom; The River Complex near the Hoopa Reservation, the communities of Burnt Ranch and Denny, and within the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area; and The Saddle Fire northwest of the town of Hyampom. ESA Action area The ESA action area (action area) is the subject of the BA and includes the following HUC 5 watersheds (and associated HUC 7 subwatersheds) that provide habitat for coho and/or Chinook salmon and have proposed activities: Browns Creek Canyon Creek New River Burnt Ranch Upper South Fork Trinity River Middle South Fork Trinity River Lower South Fork Trinity River Upper Hayfork Creek Lower Hayfork Creek Lower Trinity River The ESA action area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02).” V. Analysis Methods The list of Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate anadromous fish species was obtained online from the NMFS website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#fish and, at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steelhead_listings/sa lmon_and_steelhead_listings.html (list updated August 2016). Habitat information was obtained from the STNF LRMP (STNF, 1995), watershed analyses conducted by the STNF (listed below in Section VI. Environmental Baseline and Biological Requirements), and HUC 7 watershed checklists (Appendix C) that are based on existing fisheries, habitat and watershed data. The Analytical Process The BA analysis uses habitat indicators from the Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (USDA-USDOC-USDI, 2004; AP). The AP utilizes key indicators of habitat quality (habitat indicators) and was formulated to standardize evaluations of actions and effects for conferencing/consultations under Section (§) 7(a)(2) of the ESA, focusing on salmonid fishes within the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) area. The information developed through the AP generally also satisfies the information requirements for EFH consultation for Pacific salmon under the MSFCMA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600). The AP involves several steps including assembling and presenting the best available scientific and commercial information (from a variety of sources, including watershed analyses, NEPA analysis, and other analyses used to implement land and resource management plans) and, developing a BA using analytical procedures that are based upon requirements specified in 50 CFR § 402.12(f) and described in the ESA consultation handbook (USFWS-NMFS, 1998).
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 11
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
The AP includes use of the “USFWS/NMFS Table of Population and Habitat Indicators” (the Table; Appendix B), which is a tool to characterize baseline habitat and populations for salmonids in the NFP (NMFS, 1996). Habitat indicators are evaluated in the Table, and the AP allows for criteria values to be adjusted for local watershed conditions given supportive documentation. Consistent with the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS, 1996) the Table provides values and ranges of conditions to determine whether baseline conditions are Properly Functioning, At Risk, or Not Properly Functioning. The STNF has developed criteria for the South Fork Trinity River and Trinity River regions using values from streams that are considered pristine and as supported by the data contained in the environmental impact statement for the STNF LRMP. The STNF tributaries matrix (Appendix B) serves as the basis to identify relative baseline conditions, including existing conditions for the Project. This information, as well as watershed assessments, reports, and field reviews were used to rate and describe existing conditions, and to evaluate effects. The environmental baseline for the full suite of AP habitat indicators, by HUC 5 and HUC 7 watershed, are included as part of this analysis via summary in “Checklists for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on Relevant Indicators” (see Appendix D). The condition of each habitat indicator is provided at the watershed and drainage scale, including the pre-project (Appendix D), post-fire environmental baseline (Section VI. Below) and effects (Section VII. Below) of the Project. Habitat Indicators, Critical Habitat and Effects to Species Determining the effects of actions to listed fish species and critical habitat can more readily be determined when the input is provided in the format of the indicators provided by the AP (USDA-USDOC-USDI, 2004). For CH, NMFS’ focus is on the known physical and biological features (PBFs, formerly called primary constituent elements or PCEs) within designated CH that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Within the PBFs, the following essential features of SONCC coho salmon CH include adequate: Substrate Water quality Water quantity Water temperature Water velocity Cover/shelter Food Riparian vegetation Space Safe passage conditions Section VII. (Effects of the Action) of the BA is organized around anticipated effects on SONCC coho salmon habitat indicators from the AP, which encompass the PBFs of CH. Use of AP habitat indicators has been approved (USDA-USDOC-USDI, 2004) for use in determining effects to CH. The BA does not consider effects from changes to an indicator to result in more than insignificant negative effects unless SONCC coho salmon or their CH would be adversely affected. The analysis also considers effects to both SONCC coho salmon and their CH simultaneously because the mechanisms that result in adverse effects are the same for both. The BA groups habitat indicators into three categories (Sediment, Turbidity and Substrate) since they are affected similarly by PEs. For example, changes in sediment supply may affect Turbidity, which is used as an indicator of fine sediment suspended in the water, while Substrate is an indicator of fine sediment that settles onto the streambed. Grouping AP habitat indicators is an appropriate AP streamlining measure, and will be used to analyze the effects of the action on individual habitat indicators as a group simultaneously. The BA addresses the AP habitat indicators via the following three major groups based on pathways for potential effects:
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 12
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
1) Sediment • Suspended sediment and turbidity (including intergravel dissolved oxygen/turbidity) • Physical barriers • Substrate character and embeddedness • Pools (includes frequency, quality, large pools, average wetted width/maximum depth ratio in scour pools in a reach) • Off-channel habitat • Change in peak/base flows • Increase in drainage network – roads 2) Water Quality • Water Temperature (includes temperature barriers) • Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients • Refugia/Temperature 3) Riparian Function • Stream Shade • LWD (includes effects to pool quality) • Off-channel Habitat, Streambanks & Floodplains Effects of the Project are analyzed herein within the context of the above key habitat indicators for coho salmon and other anadromous salmonids and are summarized using the AP factors of Proximity, Probability and Magnitude. Consistent with the AP, actions with insignificant, discountable, or no effects will not receive further factor analysis (Distribution, Frequency, Duration, Timing, and Nature). The extent of CH is shown on maps Appendix A and is a conservative over-estimate of extent because the distribution of steelhead was used as a surrogate to identify and map CH. The STNF recognizes that coho and Chinook salmon may not occupy the same waters as steelhead because of the difference in their jumping abilities. The maximum jumping height for coho salmon is 2.2 meters, Chinook salmon maximum jumping height is 2.4 meters, and steelhead maximum jumping height is 3.4 meters (Meehan, 1991). Therefore, steelhead can occupy more stream reaches than coho or Chinook salmon. The use of the STNF steelhead distribution layer to define CH is recognized as a conservative approach for assessment of effects to SONCC coho salmon CH. All fish and habitat distribution information is based on existing survey information collected by or verified by STNF fisheries biologists. A habitat analysis is used herein to assess effects to SONCC coho salmon. The habitat analysis considers the effects on coho salmon habitat requirements through use of the AP habitat indicators. A habitat-based analysis is especially useful for actions that alter the physical condition of the landscape because, while many cause and effect relationships between habitat quality and population viability are well known, they do not necessarily lend themselves to meaningful quantification of fish killed or injured. Consequently, while the habitat analysis does not directly assess the effects on population condition, the analysis indirectly considers this topic by evaluating existing conditions, habitat conditions known to be conducive to coho salmon survival and effects of the Project. The BA uses the results of the habitat-based analysis and evaluates the potential for exposure of coho salmon, CH and EFH (i.e. the proximity, probability and magnitude of effects) to expected habitat changes to then make the BA’s effects determination for SONCC coho salmon, CH and EFH. Equivalent Roaded Area, Indirect Effects to Sediment and Cumulative Watershed Effects Watershed Condition Indicators (including road density, road location, peak flows, disturbance history and disturbance regime) were assessed by STNF physical scientists for the Project through integration of watershed disturbance information into models used to analyze effects of the Project. This information, as well as effects to soils and geology, is reported in a Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 13
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) were assessed by STNF hydrologists using the methods adopted by the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region including use of the equivalent roaded area (ERA) model (Haskins, 1983). This model makes a preliminary assessment of watershed conditions by comparing the effects of past, existing, and reasonably foreseeable actions to a watershed threshold of concern (TOC). ERA disturbance factors used by the STNF were developed using the coefficients described by Haskins (1986), surrounding forests, and scientific literature. The total amount of sediment produced by the Project was estimated for each HUC. The ERA was calculated and converted to a total in tons based on an estimated 13.6 tons/road mile calculated from the Water Erosion Prediction Project model (USDA, 1995; WEPP model). Finally, based on the connectivity of roads and proposed activities to stream courses, it was assumed that about 30% of the total sediment produced would eventually enter a stream (Christine Mai, STNF Hydrologist, personal communication in STNF 2016a). However, stream buffers and other resource protection measures greatly reduce the amount of sediment entering a stream resulting in uncertainty with regard to assessing just how much sediment could enter streams from the Project (STNF, 2016a). To account for poorly understood exogenous effects, larger scale indicators of habitat condition (watershed condition indicators - CWEs, road density, disturbance regimes, etc.) must be used in conjunction with individual indicators of habitat condition (e.g. sediment, water quality, riparian function). In many instances, the larger scale indicators (i.e., watershed condition indicators) alone may not sufficiently demonstrate a significant aquatic effect (i.e., magnitude), though they may indicate a possible effect (i.e., probability). That is to say, the probability to affect a watershed condition indicator may be more than discountable (e.g., road density will increase), but a significant effect to the indicator may not reflect a significant effect on the aquatic resource if none of the non-watershed condition indicators were significantly affected. This is because the direct correlation between the watershed condition indicators and aquatic effect is not as strong as is the correlation for the non-watershed indicators. Thus, the BA’s effects analysis builds on the modeled results provided in the Physical Sciences Report prepared for the project (i.e. the CWE model results) through assessing the potential site-scale impacts from the Project. In particular, the BA assesses potential effects on sediment with a focus on changes to sediment supply in RRs, since these buffers play a crucial role in sediment retention. CWE were analyzed by estimating the ERA within each hydrologic unit (HUC 5 to 8). The results were compared against the TOC established for each watershed that range from 12 to 18 percent ERA (Appendix H of USDA Forest Service, 1995b). The cumulative watershed effects in the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) are shown as a risk ratio of the ERA disturbance relative to the TOC2 (STNF, 2016). A risk ratio greater than 1 means the hydrologic unit is over the TOC (Table 16 below). Risks are reported for each watershed in Section VI. Environmental Baseline and factored in the effects of fire severity, fire suppression/fire lines, and proposed salvage units that were forecast out for a five year period. All other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the affected hydrologic units that can be accounted for were also modeled. Past disturbances include: urban development, agricultural crops and grazing, road construction, railroad and powerline development, mines, timber harvest (including private Timber Harvest Plans), fuels treatments, and wildfires (including the 2015 fires). Present and future foreseeable projects that have been modelled include: Kellogg Fuels Reduction, Burnt Ranch, Sims Fire Restoration, PG&E Transmission Line Salvage, Gemmill, Westside Plantation, and Rattlesnake.
2 TOC is developed only for HUC5s and HUC6s. Therefore, for HUC7s and HUC8s, the HUC6 TOC is used to calculate the risk ratio. Shasta-Trinity National Forest 14
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 3. CWE Risk Matrix (Mai, 2015).
Disturbance Duration and Magnitude Geographic Extent Level Rating Frequency Low Risk ratio Effect: not measurable Negligible Effects Negligible Effects < 0.4 Effect: Potential for small Impacts are minor locally Short-term, one- Moderate Risk sediment increase; no impact to and result in minimal offsite time effect ratio < 0.8 fish or water quality impacts Effect: Potential for moderate Impacts are moderate Moderate; High Risk ratio increase in sediment– minor immediately offsite but do intermittent effect < 1.0 stress on fish and minor increase not translate to watershed in turbidity scale impacts Effect: Potential for substantial Impacts are large Long-term, increase in sediment; major immediately offsite and may potentially Very High Risk stress on fish and large increase translate to watershed scale chronic effect ratio > 1.0 in turbidity and degraded water impacts & degraded quality fisheries habitat
In addition to the CWE analysis conducted for the Project by STNF hydrologists, the STNF geologist identified unstable areas, areas that are suspected of instabilities and areas with a high probability of mass wasting to integrate this information into design of the Project to avoid and minimize adverse effects to sediment associated with ground disturbing activities. Planning and design included surveys for potential geologic impacts in treatment areas along roads and avoidance of unstable areas. The effects of the Project on soil resources were assessed using the Soil Quality Standards (SQS; STNF LRMP Appendix O) and reported in the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project. Soil quality standards provide threshold values to identify when changes in soil properties or conditions become detrimental, which would result in significant change or impairment of the productive capacity, hydrologic function or environmental health of the soil. Soil resources were reviewed using soil survey data, data in STNF’s GIS data, and field reconnaissance (a total of 78 soil descriptions were examined and categorized in the field to verify soil mapping). Most of the treatment units were field reviewed by the STNF soil scientist to verify mapping, identify areas where soil productivity may be affected by proposed actions, examine current disturbance on site and develop RPMs to minimize effects to soils. Effects Terminology Effects to CH and EFH are described using the following terms: Neutral Effect. The action has no effect on CH or EFH. Beneficial Effect. Effect is contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effect to CH or EFH. Discountable Effect. Effect to CH or EFH is extremely unlikely to occur and based on best judgment, a person would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects. Insignificant Effect. Effect to CH or EFH may occur but is not to a level that can be meaningfully measured or detected. Significant Effect. Effect to CH or EFH is detectable, and may be meaningfully measured. Effects to SONCC coho salmon are described using the following terms: Neutral Effect. The action has no effect.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 15
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Minor Effect. Effects would result in detectable effects to an individual/s, but they would not be expected to result in substantial population fluctuations and would not be expected to have any measurable long-term effects on species. Minor effects equate with a “May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination. Moderate Effect. Effects would result in detectable impacts on individuals or population of a listed species. Moderate level adverse effects would equate with a “May Affect/Likely to Adversely Affect” determination. Major Effect. Individuals or population of a listed species would be measurably affected and key ecosystem processes might be permanently altered resulting in long-term changes in population numbers and permanently modifying CH; major effects may result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a population unit, ESU, or species. The BA’s analysis of effects is organized by direct effects (direct or immediate effects of the Project on the species or its habitat) and indirect effects (effects caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur). The spatial bounding for the BA’s effects analysis is the ESA action area (the HUC 5 watersheds of the South Fork Trinity River, Trinity River, and their HUC 7 subwatersheds that provide habitat for coho or Chinook salmon that were affected by the 2015 fires and have proposed activities; Table 1). The upstream extent of the action area is defined as Upper Browns Creek in the Trinity River, Farley Creek in the South Fork Trinity River, and Barron Creek in the New River. Downstream the action area extends to the confluence of the Trinity and South Fork Trinity Rivers. The temporal bounding for the BA’s effects analysis includes both the short-term effects (defined as effects that may occur during implementation and within one year of implementation) and long-term effects (defined as chronic effects that persists longer than one year after implementation). Essential Fish Habitat EFH is defined by those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity for species managed in Fishery Management Plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). EFH is the habitat necessary for managed fish to complete their life cycle, thus contributing to a fishery that can be harvested sustainably. Different life stages of the same species often use different habitats. NMFS has interpreted through regulation that EFH must be described and identified for each federally managed species at all life stages for which information is available. There are no set guidelines clearly defining appropriate language to be used when writing an ESA effects determination for EFH. Other than an adverse effects determination to EFH, effects to EFH are framed as either unlikely, immeasurable, or undetectable. Effects to EFH would never be entirely beneficial, since such instances would not require EFH consultation. Coho and Chinook salmon EFH occurs within the action area, and is identical to the distribution of coho salmon CH as shown on maps in Appendix A. The extent of EFH is a conservative over-estimate of extent because the distribution of steelhead was used as a surrogate to identify and map EFH (and CH). The STNF recognizes that coho and Chinook salmon may not occupy the same waters as steelhead because of the difference in their jumping abilities. The maximum jumping height for coho salmon is 2.2 meters, Chinook salmon maximum jumping height is 2.4 meters, and steelhead maximum jumping height is 3.4 meters (Meehan, 1991). Therefore, steelhead can occupy more stream reaches than coho or Chinook salmon. The use of the STNF steelhead distribution layer to define EFH (and CH) is recognized as a conservative approach for assessment of effects to coho and Chinook salmon EFH. All fish and habitat distribution information is based on existing survey information collected by or verified by STNF fisheries biologists.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 16
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
VI. Environmental Baseline The action area provides habitat for SONCC coho salmon (O. kisutch), listed as Threatened under the ESA, and their designated CH. EFH for coho and Chinook salmon occur within the action area, and is considered identical to the distribution of coho salmon CH in this BA. Appendix E provides species and habitat information for the action area including biological requirements of coho and Chinook salmon, critical habitat and EFH information, as well as stresses and threats to coho salmon in the action area. More detailed information on the status of coho salmon, including in the action area, is contained in the recovery plan for SONCC coho salmon (NMFS, 2014). SONCC Coho Salmon Distribution The current North American range of coho salmon extends from Point Hope, Alaska, south to streams in Santa Cruz County, California. Within this coastal area, NMFS designated seven ESUs of coho salmon, each with its own distinct geographic range. The coho salmon in the action area belong to the SONCC coho salmon ESU, which includes 40 populations of coho salmon in coastal streams from the Elk River near Cape Blanco, Oregon, through and including the Mattole River near Punta Gorda, California. Spanning Oregon and California, SONCC coho salmon can be found in 13 counties: Coos, Douglas, Curry, Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Del Norte, Siskiyou, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Lake, and Glen. Threats to SONCC Coho Salmon NMFS (2014) contains detailed information on key stresses and threats to SONCC coho salmon. Appendix E summarizes key stresses and threats in the Upper Trinity River and South Fork Trinity River watersheds. NMFS listed the SONCC ESU of coho salmon as a threatened species in 1997 (62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997), and this status was reaffirmed in 2005 (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). The decision to list the SONCC coho salmon ESU was based on information regarding decreased abundance, reduced distribution, and degraded habitat. There are far fewer streams and rivers supporting coho salmon in this ESU now compared to historical conditions, and numerous basin-specific extirpations of coho salmon have been documented (Brown et al. 1994, CDFG 2004a, Good et al. 2005, Gustafson et al. 2007, NMFS 2014). At the time of listing, the major factors in the decline of the species were thought to originate from long-standing, human induced actions (e.g., habitat degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial propagation), combined with natural environmental variability (62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997). The most recent status review concluded the ESU remains threatened (NMFS 2011). In August, 2002 the California Fish and Game Commission issued a finding that coho salmon warranted listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as a threatened species from the Oregon border south to Punta Gorda and as an endangered species from Punta Gorda south to San Francisco including the Bay. The environmental baseline for the action area is refined to the following anadromous watersheds where proposed actions will occur: Trinity River Watershed Browns Creek Canyon Creek New River Burnt Ranch Upper South Fork Trinity River Middle South Fork Trinity River Lower South Fork Trinity River Upper Hayfork Creek Lower Hayfork Creek Lower Trinity River
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 17
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
The BA is based on the best available information and data from several existing studies and reports including but not limited to: Trinity River Mainstem Trinity River Watershed Analysis (BLM, 1995) Upper Trinity River Watershed Analysis (STNF, 2005) Canyon Creek North Fork Trinity River, East Fork North Fork Trinity River, and Canyon Creek Watershed Assessment (STNF, 2003) New River New River Watershed Assessment (STNF, 2001b) Burnt Ranch Creek Watershed Analysis Burnt Ranch and Soldier Creek Planning Watersheds (STNF, 2009) Upper South Fork Trinity River Upper South Fork Trinity River-Happy Camp Creek Watershed Analysis (STNF, 1999) Middle South Fork Trinity River Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Assessment (STNF, 2001a) Upper Hayfork Creek Upper Hayfork Creek Watershed Assessment (STNF, 1998) Middle Hayfork and Salt Creek Watershed Assessment (STNF, 2000) Lower Hayfork Creek Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Assessment (STNF, 1996) Middle Hayfork and Salt Creek Watershed Assessment (STNF, 2000) In addition, information on existing conditions for sediment and water temperature in the action area is contained in the following and are incorporated herein by reference: Trinity River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment (EPA, 2001) South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads (EPA, 1998) Stream Temperatures in the South Fork Trinity River Watershed 1989-2015 DRAFT (J. E. Asarian, 2016) The BA incorporates the above information by reference as the environmental baseline. The information below provides information regarding effects of the 2015 wildfires to update the existing baseline information referenced above and provided in Appendix C, for the habitat indicators used in the BA effects analysis (Sediment, Water Quality and Riparian Function). The 2015 Wildfires The 2015 wildfires burned ~161,000 acres in subwatersheds of the Trinity River (Figure 1) with variable burn severity (Table 4). Overall, water quality in the Trinity River is impaired and is on the 303(d) Clean Water Act list due to sediment. The South Fork Trinity River is also listed on the 303(d) Clean Water Act list due to temperature impairment, in addition to sediment impairment.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 18
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Figure 1. Watersheds affected by the 2015 wildfires.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 19
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 4. Watershed Burn Severity (2015 Wildfires).
Severity HUC HUC HUC Very Low or Fire Watershed (HUC Area Area Low Moderate High Area Unburned Complex 5) Burned Burned (Acres) % % % % % % % % (Acres) (%) Acres HUC Fire Acres HUC Fire Acres HUC Fire Acres HUC Fire 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area 5 Area River New River 149364 65530 43.9 24406 16.3 37.2 29707 19.9 45.3 9660 6.5 14.7 1757 1.2 2.7
Fork Canyon Creek 79403 411 0.5 4 0 1.0 223 0.3 54.3 184 0.2 44.8 0 0 0.0
Fork Browns Creek 47126 2953 6.3 86 0.2 2.9 1182 2.5 40.0 1649 3.5 55.8 36 0.1 1.2 River and Burnt Ranch 134460 6125 4.6 2569 1.9 41.9 2603 1.9 42.5 803 0.6 13.1 150 0.1 2.4 South Fork and Lower Hayfork Creek 142015 24439 17.2 3754 2.6 15.4 11000 7.7 45.0 9605 6.8 39.3 80 0.1 0.3 South Fork Upper Hayfork Creek 105766 19723 18.6 342 0.3 1.7 7467 7.1 37.9 11506 10.9 58.3 408 0.4 2.1 Route and Lower South Fork 129183 29333 22.7 7639 5.9 26.0 12598 9.8 42.9 6633 5.1 22.6 2463 1.9 8.4 South Trinity River Route, Mad Middle South Fork River and 118626 13144 11.1 3450 2.9 26.2 6246 5.3 47.5 3282 2.8 25.0 166 0.1 1.3 Trinity River Fork Upper South Fork Mad River 100558 305 0.3 234 0.2 76.7 65 0.1 21.3 6 0 2.0 0 0 0.0 Trinity River
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 20
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Browns Creek Coho Salmon Anadromous fish, including coho salmon, use Browns Creek for spawning and rearing. Surveys for juvenile salmonids have found coho salmon in upper Browns Creek in 2013, 2014, and 2015 (USFS data). CH is designated up into Chanchelulla Creek and approximately 1.75 miles up Browns Creek upstream of Chanchelulla Creek within the Midas Gulch-Chanchelulla Creek 7th- field watershed. Although the Fisheries BAER Report has the designated CH as downstream of the Fork Complex fire perimeter, from maps it appears CH is adjacent to the perimeter in the upper Browns Creek segment. The Shiell Fire burned over Stone Creek and several unnamed tributaries to Browns Creek at low to moderate intensity and severity. Unburned vegetation remains along a substantial portion of Stone Creek and one of the unnamed Browns Creek tributaries. Perennial flow was noted in the headwaters of Stone Creek and several other Browns Creek tributaries well above the perennial delineations in NHD. The BAER Team Geologist indicated that the upper-slope manifestations of perennial flow in this area are associated with a contact zone between meta-sedimentary and meta-volcanic rock. Young-of-the-year resident rainbow trout/steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) were observed during BAER reconnaissance at the confluence of Stone Creek and Browns Creek (Fisheries BAER Report 2015). Sediment The Equivalent Roaded Acreage (ERA) model was used for the physical sciences analyses (STNF, 2016a) to compare the effects of past, existing, and reasonably foreseeable actions to a watershed threshold of concern (TOC). The ERA/TOC model is not intended to be a process- based flow or sediment model, however it does provide an indicator of watershed conditions. This model compares the current level of disturbance within a given watershed (expressed as % ERA) with the theoretical maximum disturbance level acceptable (expressed as % TOC). ERA/TOC (or “risk ratio”) estimates the level of hydrological disturbance or relative risk of increased peak flows and consequent potential for channel alteration and general adverse watershed impacts. TOC is calculated based on channel sensitivity, beneficial uses, soil erodibility, hydrologic response, and slope stability. An ERA/TOC ratio approaching or greater than 1.00 serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed. Susceptibility of CWE generally increases from low to high as the level of land disturbing activities increase towards or past an ERA/TOC value of 1.00 (USFS, 1988). For the STNF TOCs do not exist at the HUC 7 scale. Instead the ERA levels at this scale are compared to the thresholds established at the larger scales and this is used to express a level of disturbance for the drainages and sub drainages. CWE were analyzed by estimating the ERA within each hydrologic unit (HUC 5 to 7). The results were compared against the TOC established for each watershed that range from 12 to 18 percent ERA (Appendix H of USDA Forest Service, 1995b). Table 9 below identifies the matrix of ERA/TOC ratios and how the effects are interpreted on the STNF.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 21
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 5. STNF CWE Risk Matrix Criteria. Disturbance Duration and Magnitude Geographic Extent Level Rating Frequency
Low Risk ratio < Effect: not measurable Negligible Effects Negligible Effects 0.4 Effect: Potential for small sediment Impacts are minor locally and Short-term, one-time Moderate Risk increase; no impact to fish or water result in minimal offsite impacts effect ratio < 0.8 quality
Effect: Potential for moderate Impacts are moderate Moderate; High Risk ratio < increase in sediment– minor stress immediately offsite but do not intermittent effect 1.0 on fish and minor increase in turbidity translate to watershed scale impacts Effect: Potential for substantial Impacts are large immediately Long-term, Very High Risk increase in sediment; major stress on offsite and may translate to potentially chronic ratio > 1.0 fish and large increase in turbidity watershed scale impacts & effect and degraded water quality degraded fisheries habitat
Table 6 provides a summary CWE modeling results for current condition from the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project. In addition, recovery values are also shown for years 2018 and 2020. Recovery is if no future actions occur. The risk of cumulative watershed effects in Browns Creek HUC 5 watershed is moderate. Roads and past harvest on private lands are driving the Moderate rating for the Brown’s Creek HUC 5 watershed.
Table 6. Browns Creek CWE Model Results Summary. HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020 Browns Creek 0.44 0.42 0.41 Moderate East Fork Browns Creek 0.42 0.39 0.37 Moderate to Low Midas Gulch-Chanchelulla Creek 0.35 0.28 0.24 Low
For the physical sciences analysis, Browns Creek was lumped in with the Fork Complex fire effects. No infrastructure was threatened as no analyses were done on the roads and/or crossings found within the fire perimeter in Browns Creek. The fire burned 2,953 acres in the 47,126 acre HUC 5 watershed; 1,268 acres were low to unburned severity, 1,649 at moderate severity, and 36 at high severity. Water Quality Table 7 displays water temperature monitoring data for Browns Creek HUC 5 watershed. Water temperatures further upstream are likely cooler as juvenile coho salmon and other salmonids have been observed 2013 through 2015, during drought years.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 22
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 7. Browns Creek Water Temperatures at Smith Lane Bridge. Maximum Maximum Maximum Weekly Weekly Daily Location Year Maximum Average Maximum Temp °C Temp °C Temp °C (MWMT) (MWAT) (MDMT) 2012 20.24 19.19 20.89 Browns Creek 2014 21.80 20.65 23.23
Riparian Function The riparian condition in this watershed is classified as Functioning at Risk. This rating is primarily due to water temperatures impacts to riparian function from the road that parallels the creek for a great distance, and other impacts from residences along the creek, historic logging and mining. Canyon Creek The headwaters of Dutch Creek 7th-field burned in the Barker Fire within the Fork Complex. Within the 6,080 acre Dutch Creek basin, 411 acres are within the fire perimeter. 233 acres burned at low soil burn severity, 184 burned at moderate severity, and 4 acres were classified as very low to unburned. The Project will occur along only 0.41 miles of road in Dutch Creek, a HUC 7 watershed within the Canyon Creek 5th-field watershed. There are no stream crossings involved in the action, and the action is approximately 2.5 miles from the upper extent of CH in Dutch Creek.
New River Coho Salmon New River is a 149,364 acre undammed HUC 5 watershed that drains to the Trinity River. Approximately 44% of the watershed was burned in 2015 and was limited to the middle and lower portions of the watershed. The majority of the fire burned at very low to low severity due to an atmospheric inversion that moderated fire behavior. This resulted in generally positive ecological and long-term forest health effects (USFS 2015 – Draft Fire Assessment). Unburned vegetation (including canopy) remains along the majority of the streams within the River Complex (USFS 2015 – BAER Fisheries Report). The New River watershed is identified as a Tier 1 Key Watershed in the Northwest Forest Plan. Tier 1 watersheds serve as refugia for maintaining and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids and resident fish species and provide high quality water. Fishes of the New River include Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) summer, fall, and winter–run steelhead; resident rainbow trout; speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus); Klamath small-scale sucker (Catostomus rimiculus); Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus); Upper Klamath Trinity River (UKTR) spring and fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and SONCC coho salmon. Summer steelhead are the primary anadromous fish resource in the New River. There are also smaller populations of spring and fall Chinook found within the New River. Annual summer snorkel surveys for adult summer steelhead and spring Chinook have been performed here since 1990. Surveys for fall Chinook are not performed in New River due to logistics.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 23
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
SONCC coho salmon are rarely found in the New River. The steep nature of the surrounding terrain likely limits the amount of high quality habitat available to coho salmon and the majority of habitat is of moderate value to coho salmon here (NMFS, 2014). However, in 2013, juvenile coho were observed throughout the upper 5 miles of the New River during the annual snorkel survey (S. Naman, pers. comm., 2016). There are approximately 47 miles of accessible habitat to anadromous fish within the New River Watershed. This is also the extent of SONCC coho CH within the New River watershed. The majority of the SONCC coho CH as well as coho and Chinook EFH occurs within the mainstem New River and, to a lesser degree, in the following tributaries; Virgin Creek, Slide Creek, East Fork New River and Devils Canyon Creek. Other New River tributary streams are too steep, too small, or have impassable barriers that prevent access for anadromous fish. NMFS (2014) provided the following information: It is likely that many watersheds within the Burnt Ranch and New River hydrologic subarea (HSA) are properly functioning with regard to aquatic habitat and watershed conditions. These streams have a large portion of their watersheds in the Trinity Alps Wilderness and remain in a relatively undisturbed state. Most of these streams remain accessible to coho salmon. Although these streams currently support small populations of anadromous steelhead and some coho salmon, they may not have historically supported robust populations of coho salmon because of their high gradient.
Sediment Within New River, Devil’s Canyon, Quinby, Big, and Bell Creeks had greater than 75 percent (%) of their area burned. Devil’s Canyon Creek was hardest hit with 93% of its area burned and it also contains the most acres that burned at high and moderate severities (6% and 14% respectively). There have been multiple large wildfires over the past 30 years in the New River HUC 5 watershed. Almost all the past burn areas were burned during the 1999 Onion and Megram Fires. Smaller amounts were burned in 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2013. In all, 64% of the River Complex burned in the last 30 years. Fires from 2006 through 2013 appear to have slowed the spread of the River Complex. Devil’s Canyon, the most impacted drainage, had only 3% burned within the past 30 years. Although a large extent Devil’s Canyon Creek burned, the 8.2 miles of CH within the fire perimeter burned over at low severity and intensity leaving the riparian corridor intact. As was seen throughout the 2015 fires, the headwaters burned at moderate to high severity. These impacts are expected to result in increased peak discharges with sediment and ash deliver to Devil’s Canyon Creek at least downstream to the New River confluence. The BAER report concluded the probability for damage to some aquatic and riparian habitat is likely, particularly for aquatic/riparian channel networks that are located within and downstream of high and moderate severity burn areas but overall risk to the entire channel network is low. The potential for impact is greatest in the headwater channel network where intermittent and ephemeral streams burned at higher severities.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 24
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Field observations in 2016 verify the minimal impact in New River. Some pool filling has occurred however it is believed to be within the natural range of variability. Additional wood was also observed in New River. The dam in Quinby Creek blew out the winter of 2015/2016 however it was not known how much bedload was built up behind the dam. (Eric Wiseman, pers. comm., 2016) Riparian Function Approximately 1.4 miles of CH in Bell Creek was within the fire perimeter and burned at low severity leaving the riparian corridor intact. Several patches in the headwaters burned at moderate and high severity and intensity but it is not anticipated to result in increased discharge. Sediment, turbidity, and ash may be delivered to Bell Creek downstream to New River (Fisheries BAER Report 2015). Perennial channels generally experienced low severity burns that affected the understory vegetation but left most of the overstory vegetation intact (Table 8). Mainstem New River (a Wild and Scenic Corridor) mostly burned at low to low/unburned severities, 4260 ac (97%), with 136 ac (3%) burning at moderate severity. Less than one acre was classified as burning at high severity.
Table 8. River Complex Burn Severity from 2015 Wildfires. Burn Severity Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Total Low/Low-Unburned 134.1 193.4 35.7 363 Moderate 6.4 34.4 5.7 46.5 High 0.1 5.9 1 7.2 NMFS (2014) reported that “The Willow Creek HSA appears to have fair riparian conditions, while the Burnt Ranch and New River HSAs have very good riparian conditions.”
Burnt Ranch Coho Salmon Burnt Ranch is a 134,460 acre HUC 5 watershed. This watershed covers many smaller Trinity River tributaries that occur in the middle Trinity River region. The primary fisheries stream in the Burnt Ranch watershed is the Big French Creek 6th field watershed. Many watersheds within the Burnt Ranch and New River watersheds are likely properly functioning with regard to aquatic habitat and watershed conditions. These streams have a large portion of their watersheds in the Trinity Alps Wilderness and remain in a relatively undisturbed state (NMFS, 2014). Sediment Portions of Big French Creek and Del Loma 7th-field were burned in the River Complex. Swede Creek and Italian Creek were the affected drainages within the Del Loma 7th-field. Coho salmon presence was documented in Big French Creek in 2010 but have not been observed in subsequent surveys. No coho salmon have been observed in Swede or Italian Creeks however O. mykiss have been observed in Big French, Swede, and Italian Creeks. Chinook salmon have only been observed in Big French Creek.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 25
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Approximately 1.8 miles of CH in Swede Creek were within the fire perimeter. The fire burned at low severity leaving the riparian corridor intact. The headwaters of Swede Creek burned at moderate to high severity. The substantial amount of vegetation mortality and moderate to high soil burn severity within this subwatershed is expected to result in increased temperatures and peak discharges with sediment, turbidity and ash delivery to Swede Creek downstream to the Trinity River. However the modeled erosion rates are expected to recover quickly after year-2 post-fire and should return to near pre-fire conditions by year-5 (River Complex BAER Report 2015).
Table 9. River Complex Fire Pre- and Post-fire Runoff. Post ‘2- Post ‘10- Post ‘2- Pre ’10- Post ’10- 6th-Field HUC Watershed Pre ‘2-yr yr Peak yr Peak yr Qp yr Qp yr Qp Subwatershed Area (mi2.) Qp (cfs) Increase Increase (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) x normal x normal Virgin Creek 37.6 2815 2998 6405 6763 1.06 1.06 East Fork New 41.2 2375 2504 5802 6082 1.05 1.05 River Devil’s Canyon 27.6 1663 3238 4095 7482 1.95 1.83 Quinby Creek-New 33.4 2123 3699 5098 8484 1.74 1.66 River Big Creek 19.2 1403 2412 3328 5514 1.72 1.66 Bell Creek-New 33.9 2220 3848 5281 8801 1.73 1.67 River Big French Creek 38.6 2170 2389 5359 5832 1.10 1.09
Table 10 provides summary CWE modeling results for current condition from the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project. In addition, recovery values are also shown for years 2018 and 2020. Recovery is if no future actions occur.
Table 5. New River and Burnt Ranch CWE Model Results Summary. HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020 New River 0.33 0.31 0.30 Low Big Creek-New River 0.33 0.28 0.26 Low Lower Big Creek-New River 0.27 0.22 0.20 Low Upper Big Creek-New River 0.27 0.22 0.20 Low Devil’s Canyon Creek 0.20 0.12 0.08 Low Lower Devil’s Canyon Creek 0.20 0.11 0.08 Low Upper Devil’s Canyon Creek 0.23 0.13 0.09 Low Jim Jam Creek 0.25 0.24 0.24 Low Lower East Fork New River 0.28 0.26 0.25 Low Lower New River 0.36 0.31 0.28 Low Bell Creek 0.36 0.31 0.29 Low China Creek-New River 0.50 0.40 0.35 Moderate to Low Dyer Creek-Zeigler Springs 0.23 0.21 0.21 Low Panther Creek-New River 0.30 0.24 0.22 Low Sixmile Creek 0.47 0.46 0.46 Moderate Twomile Creek-Virgin Creek 0.36 0.34 0.33 Low Upper New River 0.41 0.35 0.32 Moderate to Low Barron Creek-Caraway Creek 0.41 0.36 0.34 Moderate to Low Denny-Birdie M gulch 0.35 0.30 0.27 Low Quinby Creek 0.47 0.39 0.35 Moderate to Low
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 26
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020
Burnt Ranch 0.47 0.49 0.48 Moderate Big French Creek 0.40 0.39 0.38 Low Lower Big French Creek 0.28 0.28 0.28 Low Middle Big French Creek 0.50 0.48 0.47 Moderate Upper Big French Creek 0.42 0.41 0.41 Moderate Don Juan Creek 0.53 0.52 0.52 Moderate Del Loma-Trinity River 0.30 0.28 0.27 Low
No 7th-field drainages or HUC 5 watersheds are over a moderate risk ratio. Devil’s Canyon, which was the hardest hit by the fires maintains a low risk ratio. New River HUC 5 is considered “properly functioning” and Burnt Ranch HUC 5 is considered “functioning at risk” based on modeled risk ratios and expected impacts from the 2015 fires. The high and moderate soil burn severity classes have evidence of severe soil heating but is patchy in distribution. Some of these areas had good needle cast potential after the fires. Water repellency was present, though not continuous. Unlike other fire areas, little to no hydrophobicity was observed in unburned areas within the fire perimeter. To assess the potential risk of a given soil to erode an erosion hazard rating (EHR) system was developed in Region 5 (FSH 2505.2). The rating system is based on soil texture, soil depth, clay content, infiltration, amount of rock fragments, effective surface cover, slope gradient, and climate. The River Complex was calculated to have a 3% low, 82% moderate, and 15% high post-fire erosion hazard rating. Quantitative erosion figures were estimated using the Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) that was developed specifically for use with post-fire erosion modelling. The model estimates only sheet and rill erosion. The model does not account for shallow landsliding or gullying, stream-bank erosion, road effects, or fire-line erosion and gullying. The model is based on single hillslopes, single-storm “runoff events”, and post-fire soil burn severity. The stated model accuracy for this particular model run was +/- 50%. The predicted erosion rates and amounts for the River Complex for a 2-yr storm event are 16 tons/acre for a total of 1,235,429 tons. Bell Creek, Quinby Creek, Devil’s Canyon Creek, and Big Creek were modeled as delivering the majority (81%) of sediment (Soils BAER Report, 2015). Post-fire BAER actions were completed in the River Complex. Most of these actions are related to roads and reducing the sediment/erosion potential created by undersized culverts and poor drainage issues. Erosion rates are expected to recover quickly after year two post-fire and should return to near pre-fire conditions by year five.
Water Quality Water temperatures found in the New River HUC 5 and tributaries within the Burnt Ranch HUC 5 are considered properly functioning (Table 11). The temperature monitoring stations identified below are near the wilderness boundary. There are large expanses of wilderness and Late Successional Reserve in the monitored streams with the main disturbance factor being past and current wildfire.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 27
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 6. New River and Burnt Ranch Subwatersheds - Stream Temperatures. Maximum Maximum Maximum Daily Weekly Weekly Maximim Temp Location Year Maximum Average Temp °C Temp °C °C (MWAT) (MDMT) (MWMT) 2013 23.3 20.6 24.4 New River 2014 24.2 21.6 25.0 2015 23.4 21.0 24.3 2013 18.3 17.1 19.1 Lower Devil’s Canyon 2014 19.2 17.9 19.6 Creek 2015 18.4 17.4 19.1 2013 19.7 18.4 20.4 Lower Big French Creek 2014 20.6 19.1 20.6
Riparian Function In the New River Watershed Assessment (STNF, 2001b) riparian function after the 1999 Megram and Onion Fires was determined to be variable due to mosaic of different burn severities in RRs. Some areas were expected to show negative effects as large conifers died, while other areas with light underburn effects would have benefits to vegetation conditions. The same can be said for post-2015 fires. Perennial streams did not experience the high burn intensity that happened in headwater intermittent and ephemeral streams. There are some streams, or stream segments that are at risk due to road location within the RR, such as along Quinby Creek and portions of New River along the Denny Road. Overall, the RRs are determined to be properly functioning. Upper South Fork Trinity River The Mad River Complex burned within a small portion (305 acres or 0.3%) of the Upper South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed affecting the Cable Creek-Farley Creek 7th-Field drainage. Summer and winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon are found within this section of the South Fork Trinity River. Coho salmon have not been observed in the Upper South Fork Trinity River. The WA (STNF, 1999) and NMFS (NMFS, 2014) contain more detailed information on coho salmon and their habitat in this watershed. The area within the Cable Creek-Farley Creek 7th-field drainage that burned was of low severity. The modeled 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year post-fire flow events only changed by one to three cfs from pre-fire modeled flows. The Mad River Complex fires did not change the baseline for Aquatic Resources, Sediment or Water Quality in the Upper South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed or Cable Creek-Farley Creek 7th-field. Middle South Fork Trinity River The Mad River Complex, Route Complex, and Blue Fire of the Fork Complex all burned within the Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed. The Blue Fire and Mad River Complex burned the upstream portion whereas the Route burned in the most downstream portion of this particular HUC 5. The upstream 7th-field drainages impacted include Cave Creek-Swift Creek, Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley, Post Creek, and Upper Rattlesnake Creek. The
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 28
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project downstream 7th-field drainages impacted include Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat and Marcels Ranch- Deep Gulch. Information for the Middle South Fork Trinity HUC 5 watershed is focused on the areas affected by the fires and that will have proposed activities: Coho Salmon Coho inhabit the South Fork Trinity River up to the Hyampom Gorge, downstream of the Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed. The Hyampom Gorge forms a barrier to coho migration due to low flows inhibiting passage in the fall. However, it is possible that a few individuals could enter the analysis area during years when fall streamflows are high enough to permit passage. No information regarding coho presence in the analysis area was found during a search of CDFG and USFS records. NMFS 2014 substantiates this finding and reported that coho have limited distribution in the South Fork Trinity River basin, occurring only in the mainstem up to Butter Creek, including Butter Creek. There are no known barriers to migration upstream of the Butter Creek confluence yet no coho are known to inhabit stream reaches above this point. It is likely that habitat conditions in the mainstem, such as high summer water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen are currently limiting the spatial structure. CH is found not only in the mainstem but also in Rattlesnake Creek, the upper mile of which is in the Blue Fire boundary. CH found within Post Creek is downstream of the Blue Fire boundary. The one tributary coming off of South Fork Mountain that provides CH is Glenn Creek which was entirely within the Route Complex boundary. Sediment Table 12 provides a summary of CWE modeling results for current condition from the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project. In addition, recovery values are also shown for years 2018 and 2020. Recovery is if no future actions occur. The risk of cumulative watershed effects in Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC is moderate. Most of the 7th-field drainages are also rated moderate with the exception of Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 7th-field. This particular 7th-field has a very high risk ratio due to the amount of harvest on private timberlands.
Table 7. Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary.
HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020 Middle South Fork Trinity River 0.60 0.66 0.68 Moderate Cave Creek-Miller Springs 0.47 0.61 0.58 Moderate Cave Creek-Swift Creek 0.69 0.74 0.71 Moderate Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 0.33 0.48 0.44 Low to Moderate Rattlesnake Creek-Post Mountain 0.43 0.40 0.51 Moderate Post Creek 0.35 0.33 0.41 Low to Moderate Upper Rattlesnake Creek 0.40 0.32 0.37 Low Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat 1.21 1.22 1.19 Very High Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 1.54 1.49 1.46 Very High Marcels Ranch-Deep Gulch 0.49 0.45 0.42 Moderate
The Mad River Complex burned both the STNF and the Six Rivers NF. Within the Mad River Complex, 48 miles of perennial streams and 73 miles of intermittent streams were within the fire boundaries. The headwaters of Glenn Creek, within the Cave Creek-Swift Creek 7th-field drainage burned at hot to very hot severity. Of its 1,515 acres, 65 acres burned at high severity,
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 29
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
130 acres burned moderate, and 318 acres burned at low severity. Glenn Creek is likely to experience high erosion rates and transport large quantities of sediment to the South Fork Trinity River. The post-fire modeled discharge was 1.28 for a 2-year storm (entire creek) and 2.36 for the headwater portion above Road 1S04. The modeled sediment delivery downslope from a 2- year event was 4,807 tons with an intermediate risk of being delivered to Glen Creek. The channel downstream of Road 1S04 is densely vegetated and abundant LWD is present which is likely to impede any but a very high energy flow. The debris flow model described an unlikely probability of a debris flow occurring in Glen Creek (Mad River Complex BAER Specialist Reports, 2015) Approximately one mile of Rattlesnake Creek is within the Blue Fire of the Fork Complex. Low to moderate burn severity and intensity were observed leaving the lower half-mile of riparian corridor intact. The headwaters burned at moderate severity and high intensity. The expected result from the fire was an increase in water temperatures and peak discharge with turbidity and ash deliver to Rattlesnake Creek downstream to the South Fork Trinity River confluence (Fork Complex Specialist BAER Reports, 2015). The Route Complex also burned both the STNF and Six Rivers NF. Approximately 70 miles of perennial streams, 56 miles of intermittent, and 112 miles of ephemeral streams are within the Complex perimeter. Much of the high and moderate burn severity areas are along the South Fork Mountain ridgeline and consist of private timberland which was scheduled for immediate post-fire salvage harvest (Route Complex Geologist BAER Report, 2015). Most areas with the highest erosion hazard ratings (EHR) sustained low to unburned/very low burn severity. Strong hydrophobicity was detected in all plots within moderate and high burn severity. Strong hydrophobicity was also detected within unburned fir stands. Baseline erosion rates for NFS lands within the fire perimeter were estimated at 0.2 tons/acre in vegetated forests (D. Young, pers. comm. 2015 in Soils BAER Report 2015). Roads were considered the greatest source of sediment in unburned areas. Streamflow analysis for the Route Complex looked at pre- and post-fire discharges. Increases in runoff were assumed to be due to hydrophobic soils and the loss of vegetation and ground cover. Elevated streamflows were expected to occur in those drainages having a higher percentage of high burn severity. For the Middle South Fork HUC 5 the post-fire/pre-fire ratio for a 2-year event was 1.01, Hitchcock-Oak Flat HUC 7 had a ratio of 1.07, and Marcels Ranch-Deep Gulch HUC 7 had a ratio of 1.10. The increases in both HUC 7s are from smaller drainages having a higher proportion of high and moderate severity burn area. These two HUC 7s have a high to moderate erosion rating and the increase in runoff response to the 2-year event could produce accelerated surface erosion rates and based on their small size, transport low to moderate quantities of sediment to the South Fork Trinity River. (Route Complex BAER hydrology report, 2015). For the Route Complex, the BAER team modeled the 10-year event to estimate erosion potential using ERMiT. Stated model output accuracy was +/- 50%, therefore numbers are best estimates only. Average yield for potential erosion was 27.2 tons/acre. Effective vegetative ground cover is anticipated to recover in high and moderate severity burn areas within three years (R. Butz pers. comm., 2015). Hitchcock Creek has an active debris slide at its confluence with the South Fork Trinity River. Moderate burn severity was documented on both the left and right lateral scarps of the slide, as
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 30
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project well as burned areas at the toe of the slide where it enters the river. This is likely to accelerate landslide activity and reactivate presently dormant portions of the slide. During high river flows, the slide frequently increases the turbidity of the river and this effect is likely to increase as root strength and evapotranspiration decrease from tree mortality (Route Complex Geology BAER report, 2015). Water Quality Water temperatures post-fire are considered to be functioning-at-risk; within natural range of variability but can exceed reference temperatures (Farber-et-al., 1996). Table 13 displays MWMT values for the Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 and some of its 7th-fields. Farber et al. (Farber-et-al., 1996) reported that prior to the 1964 flood instantaneous maximum water temperatures in the South Fork Trinity River near Hyampom ranged from 20 to 25ºC (Foster Wheeler 2001). Water temperatures increased to 28 to 29ºC (82.9 to 84.8ºF) in the three years following the flood. More recently (2011 to 2015) maximum water temperatures have ranged from 23.52 to 27.43 °C covering a good water year (2011) and the fourth year of drought (2015).
Table 8. Middle South Fork Trinity River - Water Temperatures. Maximum Maximum Maximum Weekly Weekly Daily Location Year Maximum Average Maximum Temp °C Temp °C Temp °C (MWMT) (MWAT) (MDMT) 2010 21.07 19.74 21.65 South Fork Trinity River @ Forest Glen 2015 25.57 23.16 26.23 2013 20.47 18.71 21.08 Lower Rattlesnake Creek 2014 20.88 19.22 21.53 2015 21.45 19.82 21.99 2013 17.92 16.2 18.72 Upper Rattlesnake Creek 2014 18.85 17.21 19.79 2015 17.24 16.31 17.72 2013 23.98 20.34 25.28 Post Creek 2014 21.59 19.54 22.54 2015 24.05 20.92 24.65 2011 23.06 21.48 23.52 South Fork Trinity River above Hayfork Creek 2013 25.70 24.24 26.45 confluence 2014 26.68 24.79 27.43 2015 26.76 25.09 27.43
Riparian Function Riparian Function at the HUC 5 scale is considered functioning-at-risk. Mainly the headwater ephemeral and intermittent channels burnt within the three fire complexes overlapping into the Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed. Coarse woody debris in these channel types should increase. Riparian vegetation along perennial streams is still intact and considered functioning at-risk based on prior assessments. Lower South Fork Trinity River The South Fork Trinity River is a Tier 1 Key Watershed and is a designated Wild and Scenic River. The Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 falls on both the Six Rivers NF and the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 31
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
STNF. The Route and South Fire Complexes, and Saddle Fire, occur in the southern (upstream) portion of this HUC 5 watershed. The Hyampom WA (STNF, 2011) contains information on conditions in the western portion of the South Fork Trinity River from Pelletreau Creek downstream to Grapevine Creek including pre-fire conditions. There is no WA for Eltapom Creek or watershed area along the eastern portion of the mainstem South Fork Trinity River from the Forest boundary to the confluence with Hayfork Creek. The Route and South Complexes, as well as the Saddle Fire, burned within the Lower South Fork Trinity HUC 5 watershed. All fire within the Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 occurred in the southern portion from Hyampom downstream to Panther Creek. Pelletreau and Eltapom Creeks were the largest tributaries affected by the fires. For the Lower South Fork Trinity HUC 5 this discussion is focused on the areas affected by the fires and that will have proposed activities. Coho Salmon As stated above, coho salmon are limited in their distribution in the South Fork Trinity River basin and occur only in the mainstem up to Butter Creek within the Lower South Fork HUC 5. Past documentation has them in Eltapom and Pelletreau Creeks, however none have been observed for several years in either stream (Garwood 2012). In the Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5, CH is found in the mainstem, lower Pelletreau Creek, lower Kerlin Creek, and lower Eltapom Creek. Sediment Table 14 provides a summary of CWE modeling results for current conditions from the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project. In addition, recovery values are also shown for years 2018 and 2020. Recovery is if no future actions occur. The risk of cumulative watershed effects in Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 is moderate. Most of the 7th-field drainages have moderate to very high risk ratios, with one exception, Grapevine Creek-South Fork Trinity River.
Table 9. Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary. HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020 Lower South Fork Trinity River 0.56 0.53 0.5 Moderate Eltapom Creek 0.54 0.46 0.41 Moderate Lower Eltapom Creek 0.64 0.46 0.37 Moderate to Low Upper Eltapom Creek 0.46 0.45 0.43 Moderate Hyampom 1.53 1.45 1.40 Very High Big Creek-Hyampom 2.62 2.49 2.43 Very High Big Slide Creek-South Fork Trinity River 0.86 0.87 0.82 High Grapevine Creek-South Fork Trinity River 0.27 0.26 0.25 Low Hyampom Valley 1.35 1.27 1.23 Very High Pelletreau Creek 2.54 2.36 2.26 Very High
Past harvest and roads are the drivers for the high and very high risk ratios. In addition, 2015 salvage harvest on private lands is driving the risk ratios in Peletreau and Big Creek-Hyampom 7th-field drainages. Road density, 5.4 mi/mi2, is driving the Hyampom Valley risk ratio. The Route Complex Aquatics BAER Report (2015) indicated that the greatest risk to aquatic values is in Pelletreau Creek. The headwaters of Pelletreau Creek burned at high and moderate
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 32
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project severity and this creek is largely in private land holdings. Pelletreau had the highest pre-fire to post-fire discharge ratio of 1.83 for the Route Complex. Although Pelletreau Creek has a low to moderate erosion rating it is likely to experience high erosion rates and transport large quantities of sediment to the South Fork Trinity River (Hydrologist Route Complex BAER Report 2015). The modeled average yield for potential erosion in a 10-year event was 28.4 tons/acre. The remaining 7th- fields in the Route Complex modeled at 27.2 tons/acre. Eltapom Creek poses the greatest risk to aquatic values within the South Complex (Aquatics BAER Report, 2015). Only 2.6% of the Complex burned at high intensity, mainly in the Lower Eltapom Creek 7th-field, particularly Buckhorn Creek. For the modeled 2-year storm event, post- fire flow response in Eltapom Creek increased by a factor of 1.35, however Buckhorn Creek increased by a factor of 2.2. The increase in Eltapom Creek is explained by the Buckhorn Creek response. Some headwaters of Eltaphom, Buckhorn, and others are loaded with unsorted, unconsolidated materials that are available for transport. The cumulative risk of various types of slope instability, sediment bulking, channel flushing, and deposition was expected to be moderate to high however would likely only initiate from the upper section of Buckhorn Creek that burned at high intensity. The average sediment delivery potential to the fluvial system over the South Complex was modeled at the 2-year storm event. It was estimated that in year one, 4.2 tons/acre would be delivered and in year two, under the same conditions, 2.6 tons/acre would be delivered. (Hydrologist, Soils, and Geology BAER Reports 2015) Potential threats from the fires include short- and long-term changes to aquatic habitat and riparian areas resulting from increased stream sediment and ash delivery, debris flows, reduction in streamside vegetation, and potential increased water temperature due to reduction in stream shading. For both Eltapom Creek and South Fork Trinity River, impacts would likely be short- term as vegetation is expected to recover within 3-5 years and initial deposits of stream sediments would be flushed out during subsequent storms. Short-term increases in both stream temperature and stream sediment concentrations are likely to occur as a result of the fires. However, the increases would likely be negligible as both stream temperature and sediment concentrations are relatively high before the fire began. (Hydrologist, Soils, and Geology BAER Reports 2015) Water Quality Water temperatures for the Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 are classified as functioning- at-risk, are within the natural range of variability but can exceed reference temperatures of 16.78- 22.44 °C. Few tributaries have temperatures outside the natural range of variability within the South Fork Trinity River (Farber-et-al., 1996). Table 15 displays water temperatures for various creeks within the Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5. Water temperatures remain below thermal thresholds for anadromous fish throughout the critical summer period in most of the tributary streams. The tributary streams share characteristics of relatively short, steep profiles and groundwater sources that maintain cool summer stream temperatures. In contrast, the South Fork Trinity River is above temperature thresholds for adult salmonids for most of the summer and early fall. The cold water tributaries that enter the South Fork Trinity River downstream of the Hyampom Valley provide critical thermal refugia for migrating adult and juvenile salmonids in the South Fork Trinity River. This occurs in areas where deep water is maintained by channel confinement and has large landslide boulders in the channel. However, Pelletreau Creek, the largest tributary in the watershed, is
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 33
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project substantially sediment impaired and aggraded at its confluence with the South Fork Trinity River. The aggraded Hyampom Valley reach of the South Fork Trinity River at the confluence provides no thermal refuge at the Pelletreau Creek confluence or within the valley. Long-term monitoring of response reaches in the watershed demonstrates channel recovery in a downstream direction as sediments continue to move through the mainstem South Fork Trinity River (Cook et al., 1999; Dresser et al., 2001in USFS 2011).
Table 10. Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 - Water Temperatures. Maximum Maximum Maximum Weekly Weekly Daily Location Year Maximum Average Maximum Temp °C Temp °C Temp °C (MWMT) (MWAT) (MDMT) 2013 19.65 17.35 21.10 Pelletreau Creek 2014 17.59 16.40 18.01 2015 20.67 17.77 22.32 2013 15.33 14.00 15.8 Upper Eltapom Creek 2014 17.15 15.44 17.82 2015 16.92 15.38 17.51 2013 18.84 18.29 19.32 Lower Eltapom Creek 2014 18.17 17.93 18.37 2015 19.79 18.88 20.17 South Fork Trinity River downstream of Eltapom 2011 24.32 21.57 24.85 Creek confluence 2013 25.84 23.10 26.43
Riparian Function Riparian Function at the HUC 5 scale is considered functioning-at-risk. Mainly the headwater ephemeral and intermittent channels burnt within the two fire complexes and the Saddle Fire within the Lower South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed. Coarse woody debris in these channel types should increase. Riparian vegetation along perennial streams is still intact and considered functioning at-risk based on prior assessments. Upper Hayfork Creek The Fork Complex burned within the central part of the Upper Hayfork Creek HUC 5 watershed. This area includes Barker Creek, Garden Gulch (a tributary to Carr Creek), and the segment of Upper Hayfork Creek from Wilson Creek downstream to Carrier Gulch. Coho Salmon CH Habitat is found in Hayfork Creek, East Fork Hayfork Creek, Potato Creek, Wilson Creek, Hall City Creek, Bridge Gulch, and Barker Creek. Coho salmon have not been observed in this portion of Hayfork Creek (NMFS, 2014). Approximately 1.5 miles of CH in Wilson Creek is within the Shiell Fire perimeter and burned at low intensity and severity leaving the riparian corridor intact. The headwaters however were burned at moderate to high severity and intensity. The substantial amount of moderate and high soil burn severity within the upper drainage is expected to result in increased water temperatures and peak discharges with sediment and ash delivery to Wilson Creek at least down to the Hayfork Creek confluence. Young-of-year O. mykiss were observed during BAER reconnaissance.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 34
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
The CH in Potato Creek is downstream of the fire perimeter. The majority of Potato Creek drainage that did burn did so at low to moderate intensity and severity. Unburned vegetation remains along a substantial portion of Potato Creek and its tributaries therefore it is not expected to exhibit a marked increase in erosion and sediment delivery post-fire. Abundant young-of-the- year, one and two-year old O. mykiss were observed during BAER reconnaissance. CH in Little Barker Creek is downstream of the Fork Complex fire perimeter. The Barker Fire burned approximately 75% of the Little Barker Creek drainage at moderate to high intensity and severity. Some unburned vegetation remains along a 0.75 mile reach of Little Barker Creek inside the fire perimeter. The substantial amount of vegetation mortality and moderate to high soil burn severity within Little Barker Creek drainage is expected to result in increased water temperature and peak discharges with turbidity and ash delivery to Barker Creek downstream to the Hayfork Creek confluence (Fisheries Resource BAER Report 2015). Sediment The Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project provided CWE modeling results for Upper Hayfork Creek (Table 16). Recovery values are also shown for years 2018 and 2020. Recovery assumes no future action occurs. STNF (2016a) reported that mining and roads appear to be driving the moderate rating for Halls City Creek-Wilson Creek and Carrier Gulch- Hayfork Creek 7th-field drainages.
Table 11. Upper Hayfork Creek HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary. HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020 Upper Hayfork Creek 0.35 0.32 0.29 Low Dubakella Creek 0.37 0.33 0.30 Low Chanchelulla Gulch-Shiell Gulch 0.55 0.36 0.27 Moderate to Low Halls City Creek-Wilson Creek 0.43 0.47 0.45 Moderate Duncan Gulch-Barker Creek 0.34 0.30 0.27 Low Barker Creek 0.42 0.35 0.31 Moderate to Low Duncan Gulch-Hayfork Creek 0.22 0.22 0.21 Low East Fork Hayfork Creek 0.39 0.33 0.30 Low Lower East Fork Hayfork Creek 0.33 0.25 0.22 Low Upper East Fork Hayfork Creek 0.44 0.40 0.38 Moderate to Low Natural Bridge 0.45 0.34 0.29 Moderate to Low Bridge Gulch-Hayfork Creek 0.35 0.23 0.18 Low Carrier Gulch-Hayfork Creek 0.54 0.45 0.40 Moderate
The Fork Complex burned mainly at moderate soil burn severity (22,600 acres or 62%), with the second greatest severity being low (35%). Very low/unburned and high soil burn severity acres were 2% and 1% respectively (459 acres) (Soils BAER Report 2015). The very low/unburned and low severities made up 13,438 acres within the fire perimeter. In areas with low soil burn severity coarse duff is still present. In those areas that burned at moderate severity soil structure and fine roots were still present. In areas duff was partially to completely consumed by fire. In high soil severity areas the duff, and fine roots near the surface, were completely consumed and the soil structure was weakened. Soil observations indicated moderately to strongly hydrophobic soils within the high burn intensity areas and weak hydrophobicity within the low to moderate burn intensity areas. Hydrophobic soils were estimate to be found in 37% of the burn area. Much of the strong water
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 35
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project repellency was found only at the surface with some moderate repellency found up to one inch deep. Erosion potential is expected to be high within the high and moderate soil burn severity areas. Within the low and very low soil burn severity areas low to moderate erosion rates are anticipated however significant erosion can occur in those areas with sparse or lacking vegetative cover during high intensity storms. The ERMiT model was used to assess post-fire sediment response for the Fork Complex. Under a 2-year storm event scenario, erosion rates ranged from 0 tons/acre to 55 tons/acre one year after the fire. By year two, erosion rates were predicted to drop to 0 to 31 tons/acre. After five years, the average erosion rate is predicted to be 4 tons/acre. For comparison, erosion in a mature forest under normal conditions is said to be two tons/acre/year. (Soils BAER Report 2015) The erosion hazard rating was assessed for the Fork Complex. Most of the Complex is rated at high (42%; 15,163 acres) or very high (22%; 7,927 acres), with moderate being 30% or 11,060 acres. The majority of debris flows exacerbated by wildfires usually occur within 1-3 years after the watersheds are burned (Geologist BAER Report 2015). Some channels were choked with sediment that will mobilize during flood events and add significant bulk to flowing water. Other channels, particularly on steep hillsides, were relatively devoid of pre-fire sediment, but are now subject to filling with post-fire colluvial debris and rolling rock. Evidence of past mass wasting was observed throughout much of the Fork Complex burn area. Some of the headwaters of Little Barker Creek, Wilson Creek, and others are loaded with unsorted, unconsolidated materials available for transport. Little Barker Creek is the most affected drainage of the Fork Complex. The majority of the high soil burn severity acreage is within this drainage. The headwaters are extremely steep and are loaded with unconsolidated material available for transport. In an event of a 10-year storm, the Little Barker watershed is predicted to produce debris flows ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 cubic meters with a probability of 60-80% and with a high debris flow hazard rating. The least affected watershed is the East Fork Hayfork Creek. The Hayfork Creek segment between Wilson Creek and Carrier Gulch contains large areas of moderate soil burn severity and some small areas of high soil burn severity, mostly in the headwaters of Wilson Creek and Chanchelulla Gulch. The USGS conducted a debris flow assessment of the Fork Fire Complex under multiple storm events (2 yr., 5 yr., 10 yr., etc.). The 10-year design storm, which has a magnitude of 0.733 inches of rain in a 1-hour duration, was used to evaluate debris flow potential and volumes due to the very likely chance of occurrence in any given year. For comparison, a 2-year storm is 0.458 inches of rain in 1-hour duration. The cumulative risk of various types of slope instability, sediment bulking, and channel flushing and deposition is high following the Fork Complex Fire. The Little Barker basin is the only basin which was modeled to have a combination hazard class of high due to the result of a 60- 80% probability of a potential debris flows with volumes of 10,000 to 100,000 cubic meters (m3). The majority of the Fork Complex within the Upper Hayfork HUC 5 watershed has a combined hazard class of moderate. Although most basins have the potential for producing volumes of 10,000 to 100,000 m3 of sediment, with Potato Creek having a potential of producing
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 36
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project greater than 100,000 m3, the probabilities of debris flows occurring is less than 20% over the majority of the area. During the next 3-5 years, all creeks in and downstream of the Fork Complex will experience excessive amounts of sediments, which in turn will affect water quality. (Geology BAER Report 2015) Post-fire discharges were modeled for 2-year and 5-year storm events. Changes in peak flows were highest in those drainages that had over half their acreage burned at moderate or/and high soil burn severity. The drainages most impacted are Little Barker Creek, Bridge Gulch, and Wilson Creek. For the 2-year storm event, it was predicted Little Barker Creek, Bridge Gulch, and Wilson Creek peak flows will increase by 112%, 68%, and 92% respectively. For the 5-year storm increases in peak flows were 56%, 31%, and 42% respectively. It is anticipated there will be a medium term impact on sediment production as elevated rates of erosion from the fire are expected to recover to pre-fire conditions within 3 to 7 years (MacDonald and Robichaud 2008). Several miles of riparian habitat burned in the fire. Streamside shade will be impacted within these reaches however some shade will recover as vegetation resprouts/grows (Hydrologist BAER Report 2015). Water Quality Table 17 displays water temperature monitoring data for streams within the Upper Hayfork Creek HUC 5 watershed. Prior to the 2015 fires water temperatures within Hayfork Creek were inhospitable to anadromous and cold water dependent species. Wilson Creek had a decent temperature regime however this may change in the near future as 73% of the drainage burned at moderate soil burn severity.
Table 12. Upper Hayfork Creek - Water Temperatures. Maximum Maximum Maximum Weekly Weekly Daily Location Year Maximum Average Maximum Temp °C Temp °C Temp °C (MWMT) (MWAT) (MDMT) 2013 25.19 22.59 25.91 Hayfork Creek @ Arnold Br 2014 24.62 21.99 26.13 2015 24.21 22.26 24.99 2012 20.92 18.17 22.08 East Hayfork Creek 2013 21.62 19.35 23.35 2015 21.25 19.69 21.77 2013 22.18 18.64 22.87 Upper Hayfork Creek 2014 22.49 19.11 23.52 2015 23.31 19.52 24.00 2005 15.27 14.18 15.52 Wilson Creek 2006 17.03 16.03 17.30 2007 17.06 15.98 17.58
Riparian Function Riparian function is at risk in the Upper Hayfork Creek HUC 5 watershed. Due to past disturbances (anthropogenic and natural) loss of riparian vegetation and some channel widening.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 37
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Lower Hayfork Creek The South Complex burned in the northern or downstream portion of the watershed whereas the Fork Complex burned in the southern or upstream portion of the watershed. The Lower Hayfork HUC 5 is analyzed under the Lower Hayfork WA (STNF, 1996) and the Middle Hayfork and Salt Creek WA (STNF, 2000). Coho Salmon CH is found in Olsen, Corral, Miners, East Tule, Salt, Philpot, and Hayfork Creeks, as well as Kingsbury Gulch. Coho have been observed in the past in Olsen and Corral however recent surveys by the STNF have not seen coho salmon in any South Fork Trinity River tributary since surveys began looking for presence in 2010 (Garwood 2012, USFS unpublished data). It is likely that habitat conditions, such as high summer water temperatures and channel aggradation are currently influencing the distribution in Hayfork Creek. Suitable salmonid habitat is present in both lower Hayfork Creek and several tributaries which lie within the lower and middle Hayfork Analysis Areas. The habitat and water quality conditions in the tributaries has generally been reported as good, with resident rainbow trout and anadromous steelhead populations present in all of the effected major tributaries in Lower Hayfork HUC 5 watershed. High stream gradient, shallow pool depths and low summer flows are considered to be the primary factors which limit fish production in the tributaries. Chinook salmon are not found in any of the tributaries. Spring Chinook salmon have been observed in lower Hayfork Creek but numbers are generally low. A high of 85 individuals were observed in 2003, however in the six surveys since, only an average of five have been observed in lower Hayfork Creek (Dive Megatable). Corral and Olsen Creeks were within the Pattison Fire of the South Complex. Only small portions of Upper and Middle Corral Creek 7th-field drainages were burned. The majority of Lower Corral, and all the Corral Creek CH, was within the fire perimeter. The upper portion of the Olsen Creek 7th-field drainage is within the burn perimeter. The CH within Olsen Creek is downstream of the fire perimeter. The riparian vegetation within the fire perimeter on Olsen Creek and the CH reaches of Corral Creek are largely intact with low to very low/unburned severity (South Complex Soils Report maps 2015). Approximately 1.25 miles of Philpot Creek CH is within the Peak Fire boundaries of the Fork Complex. This portion of the Philpot Creek burned at low to moderate intensity and severity leaving the riparian vegetation intact. The headwaters burned at moderate severity and high intensity (Fork Fire Fisheries BAER Report 2015). Approximately 2.9 miles of East Tule Creek CH is within the Shiell Fire perimeter of the Fork Complex and burned at low to moderate intensity and severity, leaving the riparian corridor largely intact (Fork Fire Fisheries BAER Report 2015). Sediment The Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016a) prepared for the Project provides results of the CWE modeling (Table 18). The risk of cumulative watershed effects in Lower Hayfork Creek HUC 5 is moderate to low. Most of the 7th-field drainages have low or moderate risk ratios.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 38
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 13. Lower Hayfork Creek HUC 5 CWE Model Results Summary. HUC Risk Ratio by Year Risk 5 6 7 2016 2018 2020 Lower Hayfork Creek 0.42 0.39 0.38 Moderate to Low Corral Creek 0.50 0.47 0.46 Moderate Lower Corral Creek 0.34 0.30 0.28 Low Middle Corral Creek 0.58 0.57 0.56 Moderate Upper Corral Creek 0.51 0.49 0.48 Moderate Grassy Flat-Miners Creek 0.42 0.40 0.39 Moderate to Low Lower Hayfork Creek Canyon 0.29 0.26 0.25 Low Miners Creek 0.49 0.49 0.49 Moderate Olsen Creek 0.55 0.50 0.47 Moderate Rusch Creek-Little Creek 0.40 0.40 0.39 Low Kingsbury Gulch-Kellogg gulch 0.28 0.26 0.24 Low Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.29 0.24 0.22 Low Ditch gulch-Salt Creek 0.35 0.34 0.34 Low Lower Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.56 0.41 0.35 Moderate to Low Philpot Creek 0.35 0.32 0.30 Low Salt Gulch-Salt Creek 0.23 0.18 0.15 Low Tule Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.34 0.31 0.29 Low Lower Tule Creek 0.38 0.32 0.30 Low Upper Tule Creek 0.25 0.25 0.24 Low
As stated above, Corral and Olsen Creeks were within the Pattison Fire of the South Complex. Only small portions of Upper and Middle Corral Creek 7th-field drainages were burned, the majority of Lower Corral was within the fire perimeter. Thirty-three percent of the Corral Creek 6th-field watershed burned with 14% of the burn being moderate and < 1% being high severity. The upper portion of the Olsen Creek 7th-field drainage is within the burn perimeter. Seventeen percent of the Olsen Creek-Hayfork Creek 6th-field burned with 22.5% of the burn being moderate and less than 1% being high (<1%) severity. In high and moderate soil burn severity areas it is highly likely that increased rates of soil erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels will occur in the first and second year following the fire, particularly on steep slopes. In both Corral and Olsen Creeks the portions of high and moderate burn severities are patchy and spread throughout the drainages. The riparian vegetation along perennial channels was left intact with the high and moderate soil burn intensity occurring on ridges and headwater intermittent and ephemeral streams (South Complex BAER Soils Report 2015). Throughout much of the Pattison Fire, it is evident that mass wasting takes place. In the event of a 10-year storm the probability of debris flow is low with very few short creek segments presenting higher probabilities (South Complex Geology BAER Report 2015). In high and moderate soil burn severity areas, it is highly likely that increased rates of soil erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels will occur in the first and second year following the fire, particularly on steep slopes. Under a 2-year storm event, the average sediment delivery to the fluvial system (intermittent and ephemeral streams) would be 4.2 tons/ac in year one and 2.6 tons/acre in year two (South complex Soils BAER Report 2015). Water repellant soils were observed within and outside the burn areas. The pattern was likely patchy and mosaic. The 2-year storm event modeling showed an increase in Olsen Creek at the Road 3N05 crossing to be 1.19. The pre-fire 2-year event flow for this point was 128 cfs and the post-fire was 148 cfs (South Complex BAER Hydrology Report 2015). Corral Creek was not modeled as there were no infrastructure values at risk. The portion of Corral Creek that burned is unroaded except for that portion that burned in Upper Corral 7th-field.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 39
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
The Fork Complex burned within the Upper Tule Creek, Lower Tule Creek, Kingsbury Gulch- Kellogg Gulch, Lower Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek, Philpot Creek, and the Salt Gulch-Salt Creek 7th-fields. A very small portion of Ditch Gulch-Salt Creek 7th-field headwaters burned. Activities will not occur in Upper Tule Creek 7th-field. The substantial amount of vegetation mortality and moderate soil burn severity in Philpot Creek is expected to result in increased peak flows with turbidity and ash delivery to Philpot Creek downstream to the Salt Creek confluence (Fork Fire Fisheries BAER Report 2015). The ridge to the west of East Tule Creek burned at moderate to high severity and intensity. This small area is not expected to result in increased water temperatures and or peak discharges downstream beyond the Tule Creek confluence (Fork Fire Fisheries BAER Report 2015). Water Quality Water temperatures for the Lower Hayfork Creek HUC 5 are classified as functioning-at-risk, but not-properly functioning in the lower reaches. Elevated water temperatures are known to be a limiting factor for both the resident and anadromous fishery in lower Hayfork Creek. Temperatures in excess of 21.1 °C are typical during the summer months with a high temperature of 29.44 °C recorded in July of 2014. Base flows during these periods are extremely low and are largely responsible for the documented high temperatures. A report from 1994 stated that in September of that year Hayfork Creek was flowing intermittently. (Kearney, 1994, USFS 1996). Table 19 displays recent temperature monitoring within the Lower Hayfork HUC 5.
Table 14. Lower Hayfork Creek HUC 5 - Water Temperatures. Maximum Maximum Maximum Weekly Weekly Daily Location Year Maximum Average Maximum Temp °C Temp °C Temp °C (MWMT) (MWAT) (MDMT) 2011 23.42 21.94 23.98 Lower Hayfork Creek @ Hyampom Bar 2013 28.72 25.35 29.57 2014 28.93 25.49 29.77 1992 18.04 16.86 18.5 Upper Olsen Creek 2001 14.42 13.38 14.85 2002 15.95 15.52 16.38 2014 16.78 15.16 17.37 Upper Corral Creek 2015 16.82 15.19 17.30 2011 22.80 21.85 23.47 Hayfork Creek at Bear Creek 2013 20.59 18.122 20.9 2015 27.73 25.40 28.2 2011 27.50 23.25 28.25 2012 19.83 19.03 20.39 Lower Salt Creek 2013 22.38 20.84 24.73 2015 28.99 26.44 29.57 2012 17.00 16.25 17.63 Lower Tule Creek 2013 18.43 17.67 19.34 2015 19.44 18.72 19.84 2013 21.04 18.32 23.02 Philpot Creek 2014 19.84 17.84 23.79 2015 16.67 16.46 16.89
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 40
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Riparian Function Riparian Function at the HUC 5 scale is considered not functioning due to historic mining, fires, road building, and current agricultural practices on private lands in the lower reaches of streams and particularly in the Hayfork Valley. Mainly the headwater ephemeral and intermittent channels burnt within the three fire complexes overlapping into the Middle South Fork Trinity River HUC 5 watershed. Coarse woody debris in these channel types should increase. Riparian vegetation along perennial streams is still intact and considered functioning at-risk based on prior assessments. Lower Trinity River The Lower Trinity River assessment area is beyond the Shasta-Trinity NF boundary however the ESA analysis boundary is downstream to the confluence of the South Fork Trinity River therefore the baseline of this small section of the River will be assessed.
Coho Salmon NMFS (2014) reported the following: Good spawning habitat exists in a few tributaries in the Lower Trinity. The Burnt Ranch and New River HSAs have some of the best known spawning habitat in the population area. Tributaries known to support coho salmon spawning and/or rearing include Mill Creek, Horse Linto Creek, Tish Tang Creek, and Sharber-Peckham Creek. The presence of juvenile coho salmon has also been confirmed within relatively recent years in Manzanita Creek, Big French Creek, East Fork New River, Cedar, Supply, Campbell, and Hostler creeks, as well as in Willow Creek as far upstream as the Boise Creek confluence (Boberg 2008, Everest 2008). Sharber-Peckham Creek likely supports the highest number of spawning coho salmon (USFS 2001; Boberg 2008). The Six Rivers National Forest indicated that populations in the lower portions of Mill and Horse Linto creeks are extremely low, particularly in Horse Linto Creek since 1995 (USFS 2001). The USFS (2000f) reported that coho salmon are rarely found in the New River although this is one of the largest watersheds with the potential for coho salmon production based on the availability of IP habitat in the sub-basin. Based on this current distribution of coho salmon in the Lower Trinity, most of the historic habitat of the Lower Trinity River remains accessible to coho salmon, though many of the streams are unoccupied, or sporadically occupied. Although not well documented, there appears to be some diversity of life history strategies in the Lower Trinity River. Data on run timing and outmigration indicate that there is some variation in the life history characteristics of the population. Coho salmon enter the Trinity River between September and November and spawning in the river continues into December (CDFG 2009b).
Sediment
Water quality of the Trinity River is listed as impaired for sediment throughout its length by California State Water Resources Control Board under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Increased sediment loading from historic mining, timber harvesting, fires, development, and reduced flows is thought to have filled poos, widened channels, and simplified
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 41
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project stream habitat used for rearing. In many reaches aggradation has reduced surface stream flows, limiting tributary and habitat access to migrating juveniles. The majority of sediment in the Lower Trinity originates from roads and landslides (USEPA 2001). The Road Hazard Potential indicator used by the U.S. Forest Service represents the potential for altered hydrologic regime (changes in runoff response) and stream diversions associate with roads (USFS 2003). USFS (2003) ranked the area from the New River to the South Fork Trinity River as having a high road hazard potential (NMFS 2014).
Between the New River and Hoopa, the Trinity River is a transport-dominated, bedrock- controlled channel. A review of the 1944 through 1998 aerial photographs shows large gravel point bars and elevated stream terraces in reaches that are not highly confined between steep canyon walls. Alternate bars are present in the steep canyon areas. There are extensive sections, mostly upstream of the South Fork Trinity River, with steep canyon walls that may provide some topographic channel shading. However, the riparian canopy does not, and probably never did, provide much shading of the channel. The mainstem channel has likely had an open riparian canopy for centuries due to its width, the scouring action of floods, shallow soils over a cobble and gravel base, and canyon walls. In addition, LWD would not have had much influence on instream habitat development due to high flows flushing wood from the system. (USFS 2003)
Sediment levels in the mainstem have varied in response to disturbance events such as floods and episodes of widespread landsliding. Most of the sediment has probably originated from unstable terrain along the mainstem corridor, hydraulic mining activities, and areas upstream of the Mainstem Trinity Watershed Assessment Area (MTWAA). The relatively small tributaries that enter the MTWAA, with the exception of the South Fork Trinity River, have probably tended to be of secondary importance as far as sediment input. (USFS 2003)
Water Quality
Stream temperature impacts related to removal of riparian vegetation by flood flow scouring have gradually recovered from the 1964 flood event in the tributaries to the Trinity River because riparian vegetation is sufficient to provide adequate shading. The Trinity River within the MTWAA has not been listed as impaired for stream temperature by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, although elevated stream temperatures that impact beneficial uses associated with aquatic species occur during the low flow summer period. Periodic stream temperature impacts on the Trinity River will likely occur because of the significant modification of the Trinity River flow regime. (USFS 2003)
Riparian
Current conditions of riparian areas in the Mainstem Trinity Watershed Analysis Area have been shaped to a large extent by human disturbance of the landscape through extensive logging and road building as well as recent natural events like the 1964 flood. Landsliding and hillslope erosion triggered by floods and exacerbated by land use activities in the 1960's and 1970's resulted in substantial changes to riparian areas in the main tributaries. However, since the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 42
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project mainstem Trinity River already contained relatively sparse riparian vegetation, the flood effects were more muted and mostly limited to channel aggradation. (USFS 2003)
The most recent aerial photos show that much of the coniferous riparian canopy disrupted by floods and logging between 1960 and 1975 has been replaced by dense deciduous vegetation. Little timber harvesting has occurred on Forest Service land since 1990. While the long-term woody debris recruitment potential may have been set back, the shade component has been re- established through encroachment of alders and other riparian vegetation. (USFS 2003)
The effects of public and private timber harvesting on LWD recruitment processes can be seen in two ways. Harvesting resulted in changes in both tree species composition and size. Tree species composition in riparian areas has shifted from being conifer-dominated prior to the 1940's to one that is predominantly deciduous. Although the deciduous vegetation may generally be in a mature state (being relatively short-lived) and contribute LWD, their size and decay rate result in relatively low instream persistence and functionality. For those areas that have had conifer regeneration, the trees are relatively small, which limits instream functionality and makes them more prone to being flushed through the system. The reduction in instream LWD likely decreased rearing habitat complexity for salmonids and reduced the ability of the streams to route and sort sediment and create pools. (USFS 2003)
VII. Effects of the Action
Direct Effects Direct effects are immediate effects of an action on the species or its habitat. The potential for direct effects on coho salmon and their habitat is associated with actions that occur within CH or EFH. PE 1 Vegetation Management will not occur in or immediately adjacent to CH or EFH and will have neutral direct effects on coho salmon. Potential effects on habitat are discussed below. PE 2 Road Management and Legacy Sediment Source Reduction includes two components that will occur within active stream channels and have the potential for direct effects: water drafting and road stream crossing restoration. Because road stream crossing restoration will not occur within CH or EFH these actions will have no direct effects on coho salmon. Indirect effects are discussed below. Temporary road ramps and landings will not involve stream crossings or any work within CH or EFH. Routine road work is limited to surface grading and installation of rolling dips with no stream crossing installation or upgrades. Water drafting will occur from existing access sites and may occur within CH and EFH. Existing water drafting sites in perennial streams will be used for the Project (see Appendix A maps). New sites will not be developed. Water drafting sources can affect CH and EFH if not properly located and designed. Potential adverse effects include erosion and sediment delivery to streams, streambank and streambed modification, equipment leaks and spills, water temperature
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 43
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project changes, reduced stream flows and riparian vegetation loss. These potential effects are discussed below under Indirect Effects. Water drafting can directly impact coho salmon through injury or harassment associated with drafting operations when drafting in occupied habitat. Proximity and Probability. Drafting will occur from perennial streams, and some drafting sites that may be used are within CH and EFH. The number of sites that will actually be used during implementation is not known. The STNF needs flexibility in choosing the best source during Project implementation. Decisions regarding which drafting sites to use in a given area will be coordinated with STNF fisheries biologists to minimize the potential for drafting from occupied habitat. The timing of water drafting operations limits the potential for direct impacts on coho salmon: drafting will not occur in habitat when coho salmon adults or eggs could be present. Coho egg incubation periods are during the winter period when drafting would not occur. Therefore direct effects on coho salmon adults or eggs will be discountable. Juvenile coho salmon could be present year-round and potential direct effects include injury or harassment if drafting is done in occupied habitat. Coordination with STNF fisheries biologists regarding which sites to use at a given time and place will minimize the potential for direct effects on rearing juveniles. Screening criteria including specific mesh sizes, pumping rates, and screen areas are described in NMFS (2001) drafting specifications and these minimization measures will effectively reduce the probability of impingement and other adverse effects. As a taxonomic group, fish face a diverse arrays of predators. Threats come from below and above, during the day and at night, and at almost all stages of life. Thus, fish (including coho salmon) are skittish. If rearing juvenile coho salmon were present at a drafting site, they would likely flee or hide when a truck approaches or a hose is dropped into the water. Magnitude. As described above, there is a probability of effects in the form of harassment of juveniles if drafting occurred in occupied habitat. The potential for this scenario will be minimized through coordination with STNF fisheries biologists during Project implementation. Direct effects would be limited to individual fish and for a short duration when a truck drafts from a particular site only if it were in occupied habitat. It is expected that the magnitude of potential direct effects will be insignificant because of coordination with STNF fisheries biologists to minimize or avoid occupied habitat and because water drafting will be limited spatially and temporally.
The frequency of effects from water drafting is limited to dry months, during drafting operations that occur within the window of operations, and when operations overlap with rearing habitat that is suitable and utilized by coho salmon. Most water drafting sites are not within occupied habitat. Drafting is not expected to create the likelihood of injury to coho salmon by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (i.e. the definition of harassment). The magnitude, frequency and duration of the potential effects is limited spatially and temporally. Therefore, the effects of water drafting on coho salmon will be minor.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 44
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Indirect Effects Indirect effects are caused by or result from an action but are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur. The following analysis of indirect effects of PE 1 and PE 2 is organized by habitat indicators as described in Section V. Analysis Methods. The BA considers effects to the habitat indicators only as they relate to effects to SONCC coho salmon or their CH. The BA does not consider effects from changes to a habitat indicator to result in more than insignificant negative effects unless SONCC coho salmon or their CH would be adversely affected. This analysis also considers effects to both SONCC coho salmon and their CH simultaneously because the mechanisms that result in adverse effects are the same for both. One of the most important effects minimization measures included in the Project and referred to below, is the protection given to RRs during implementation including the following measures: RRs along perennial flowing streams will be EEZs. If hazard trees are identified in roadside areas that are within 150 feet of streams, they will be felled towards the stream and left onsite. Trees within the outer 150 feet of fish-bearing stream RRs may be removed by endlining to the road if more than 20 tons/acre of LWD occurs. In the outer 150 feet of a RR, 20 tons/acre of the largest LWD will be left during fuels treatment actions. In RRs where a road runs parallel to a perennial stream and/or bisects the RRs by winding in and out, trees uphill of the road may be removed down to 20 tons/acre of the largest LWD which will be left on site. Equipment used to remove trees from uphill of the road will remain on the existing roadbed. RRs along intermittently flowing streams will be comprised of two zones: the inner EEZ and the outer RR where vegetation management is allowed (hazard tree abatement and fuels reduction). When water is flowing within intermittent streams, the EEZ will be 100 feet on each side of the channel. When the stream is not flowing, the EEZ will be 50 feet on each side of the channel. All heavy equipment is excluded from EEZs, except at designated crossings. Sediment Effects are discussed collectively for the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group with the assumption that significant changes in sediment supply can change baseline conditions including suspended sediment/inter-gravel DO/turbidity, physical barriers, substrate quality, pool quality and frequency and off-channel habitat. PE 1 Vegetation Management Hazard Tree Abatement and Salvage The proposed action includes hazard tree abatement along up to 233 miles of roads (~8,000 acres), including Forest Service roads, County Roads, and State Highways to provide for public and Forest worker safety and future fire suppression efforts. Both the mileage and acres of treatment proposed are a maximum; the numbers are representative of the entire lengths of roads and area being evaluated for hazard tree identification and abatement. Hazard trees will be salvage harvested in about half (4,000 acres) the total roadside acreage proposed for vegetation management. Equipment will operate from roadbeds and endlining will be used to remove merchantable hazard trees. RRs will be protected from hazard tree abatement through implementation of BMPs, RPMs, and RR Protection Measures that exclude equipment from
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 45
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project operating in perennial RRs and within the inner zone of intermittent and ephemeral RRs. If a hazard tree within 150 feet of a perennial stream is identified for felling due to operational safety, it will be left on site. At the watershed scale, the Project (including hazard tree abatement) adds only incremental increases in disturbance beyond the 2015 fires (STNF, 2016a) and does not result in changes to baseline risk ratios. Salvage of roadside hazard trees will be accomplished on approximately 4,000 roadside acres using equipment staged from roadbeds. All salvage units will be reforested. Studies in the Entiat burn of 1970 (Wenatchee National Forest), (Klock and others in (USDA-FS, 2000) compared five different log retrieval systems (after hand felling) with respect to soil disturbance and erosion. The mean percent disturbance for tractor skidding over bare ground was 36%, 32% for cable logging without full suspension, 2.8% for cable logging with full suspension and less than 1% for helicopter. Chou and others (1994 in (USDA-FS, 2000) also measured disturbance after salvage logging on the 1987 Stanislaus National Forest fire and reported the mean disturbance in tractor logging units was 35% versus 18% for cable-logged sites. Some studies have argued that salvage logging may reduce post-fire sediment production by breaking up soil water repellency and increasing infiltration rates by disturbing sealed soil surfaces (Bautista et al. 1996). Slash from salvage logging can increase percent cover and surface roughness, thereby reducing overland flow velocities and surface erosion (Shakesby et al. 1996; Poff 2002). At the site-scale, salvage harvest and reforestation effects will be minimized through implementation of the RPMs and BMPs including the following: ground harvest equipment will be limited to 35% slopes; tractors and other equipment will be excluded from perennial RRs, active landslides, inner gorges, and toe zones of dormant landslide deposits; no salvage logging is allowed on toe zones of landslides or active landslides; equipment disturbance will be limited within 20 feet on either side of swales by minimizing equipment crossings and avoiding running trails up the axis of swales except at designated crossings; in salvage units and for subsequent site preparation for planting, skidding equipment will be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent; skid trails that connect benches in dormant landslide terrain can have minor portions of the skid trails on slopes greater than 35 percent; refueling will not take place within RRs; a spill containment kit will be in place where refueling and servicing do occur (away from surface waters); skid trail erosion control work will be kept current during implementation; erosion control and drainage of skid trails will be complete prior to shutting down operations due to wet weather or at completion; use existing skid trails instead of building new skid trails unless using existing skid trails will have greater negative effects; space skid trails at least 75 feet apart; use no skid trails in areas where ground-based mechanical equipment is excluded and in unstable areas, wetlands or meadows; designation of new skid trails will be approved by a Timber Sale Administrator; erosion and sedimentation control structure will be maintained and repaired per the guidance in the Forest Service Handbook 2409.15 R5 Supplement; no full bench skid trails will be constructed; full bench skid trails have the entire skid trail cut into the hillslope; locations where skid trails intersect roads will be obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle access; all ground-based yarding will require one-end suspension on skid trails; where skidding occurs through areas with less than 50 percent soil cover, mulch skid trails of greater than 15 percent slope, to achieve at least 50 percent effective soil cover on skid trails (effective soil cover could include plant litter, woody material in contact with the soil, living vegetation, and rock fragments with a diameter of
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 46
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
½ to 3 inches); use certified weed free materials including straw, wood chips, or mulch where on-site soil cover is insufficient. These measures will effectively minimize effects to sediment. The sediment retention functions of RRs will be maintained through implementation of the following: BMPs, RPMs, and RR Protection Measures that include equipment exclusion from perennial stream RR buffers (300 feet) and within the inner zone of intermittent and ephemeral RR buffers; if a hazard tree is felled within 150 feet of a perennial stream channel it will be left on site. Most of the RRs that bisect treatment roads are in upper slope or ridgetop locations along intermittent or ephemeral drainages. Due to the limited scope of work in RRs and the protection measures proposed, indirect effects of hazard tree abatement on sediment will be discountable and effects on coho salmon will be neutral. Summary of Indirect Effects of Hazard Tree Abatement. RR Protection Measures and RPMs for each action are provided in Appendix D and include key measures that will effectively minimize sediment at the site scale. Based on implementation of the minimization measures, hazard tree abatement will have discountable effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group and neutral effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Maps in Appendix A show that hazard tree abatement will occur along existing roads, including within RRs that are adjacent to roads. However, most of the treatment roads and RRs are in upper slope or ridgetop locations. Table 20 shows that New River has the highest treatment acres in perennial fish-bearing RRs (about 128 acres). The probability of effects is highest in acres adjacent to CH and EFH. However, the probability for indirect effects associated with sediment from the Project is low due to the EEZs proposed for perennial streams, the EEZs proposed for intermittent and ephemeral RRs, RPMs that will minimize site effects and because specific hazard tree guidelines will dictate which few select trees can be felled in roadside RRs.
Table 15. Acres of RRs Proposed for Vegetation Treatments by HUC 5 Watershed.
RR Treatment Acres Adjacent to HUC 5 Watershed CH and EFH
Browns Creek 6.81
Canyon Creek 0.00
New River 128.22
Burnt Ranch 6.02
Lower Trinity River 0.00
Upper South Fork Trinity River 0.00
Middle South Fork Trinity River 20.55
Upper Hayfork Creek 119.80
Lower Hayfork Creek 79.53
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 47
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Lower South Fork Trinity River 1.53
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects on sediment is discountable or neutral
Reforestation Reforestation includes site-preparation, planting, and release over up to 8000 acres in roadside treatment areas to increase the likelihood and speed by which burned areas are reforested. Reforestation could include: manual site preparation, skyline yarding, mastication, mechanical yarding and slash piling of dead trees. Treatments will increase soil cover and sediment retention capacity in burned areas, improve soil productivity, reduce erosion and sedimentation and jump start regrowth in burned areas. Summary of Indirect Effects of Reforestation. Reforestation will restore soil cover and stability in burned areas faster than if no planting occurs. BMPs will be implemented to minimize soil disturbance from planting. Reforestation will have discountable effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group and neutral effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Reforestation will occur in roadside hazard tree abatement areas as shown on Maps in Appendix A. Roadside treatment areas are primarily in upper slope positions or on ridgetops. Table 20 above lists acres of RRs that could be replanted along CH and EFH. Reforestation would help restore vegetation faster than if no action were taken. Due to the minimization measures that will be implemented (Appendix D), and the beneficial effects from reforestation of burned areas, the probability of effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group is discountable and effects on coho salmon will be neutral. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is discountable or neutral.
Fuels Reduction The Project includes treatment of hazardous fuels on about 8,000 acres along existing roads and will include the following: hand work, mechanical thinning, mastication, lop and scattering, chipping, broadcast burning, jackpot burning, and pile burning. Fuels reduction activities near streams can increase the potential for sediment-related impacts on aquatic habitat (assessed below). Mastication using low ground pressure tracked or wheeled machines with a masticator head would be used to grind slash produced from mechanical thinning and existing ground fuels. Masticated material would be left scattered in treatment areas. Secondary treatment is required to dispose of activity-generated ground fuels and existing ground fuels to significantly decrease the potential for stand-replacing fire effects. Secondary treatments would include mastication and prescribed burning, which includes burning piles of slash and underburning. The track-mounted excavator with masticator arm is restricted to slopes of 45% or less and when soil moistures are less than 18% to minimize the potential for rutting. In addition, the 30” track produces ground pressures of up to six psi, therefore chances of any soil compaction occurring is also insignificant. Perennial RRs are EEZs and will not be masticated. The inner zones of intermittent and ephemeral RRs are EEZs and will not be masticated: only outer zones of intermittent and ephemeral roadside RRs will be treated.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 48
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Current soil cover conditions are estimated at 10 to 50% (depending on soil burn severity), and it is expected that the Project will increase effective soil cover through masticating and lop and scatter by 10 to 30%, which would benefit soils, minimize Project impacts, and decrease sedimentation above existing conditions. Indirect effects from mastication on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon and their habitat will be minor. The Project includes burning to reduce fuels. Burning under prescription can result in localized loss of protective soil cover. This effect would occur as a result of unforeseen flare-ups in fuel accumulations. Indirect effects involve the movement of sediment from areas with significantly reduced soil cover to stream channels and then downstream to be deposited in pools and riffles. Such events are expected to be few in number and limited in size by the fact that burn plans will consider retention of cover in burn areas in conformance with LRMP guidance and project- specific effects minimization measures (RPMs, RR Standards and Guidelines, BMPs). Should flare-ups occur, loss of soil cover would be localized and short-term as regrowth and adjacent unburned stands contribute to the rapid re-establishment of soil cover. Project design standards, BMPs and RPMs would be implemented to minimize potential effects at the site-scale: prescribed fire effects will mimic a low intensity backing fire, except for handpiles/windrows where higher intensity may occur to consume pile material; ignition of underburns will generally not occur in RRs; handpile and windrows in RRs will be placed in a checkerboard pattern whenever possible (not piled directly above another); handpiles will be less than 6 feet in diameter and will be more than 15 feet away from intermittent streams and 30 feet away from perennial streams; for underburning, handline construction in riparian vegetation shall be avoided where practical but should farther than 25 feet from the channel if necessary; handlines will be mitigated (waterbarred and covered with organic material) immediately following prescribed burning, when safe to do so; When underburning in RRs, at least 90% of the LWD will not be consumed, both standing and on the ground; tractors and mechanical harvesters will be excluded from all RRs associated with stream channels, active landslides, inner gorges, and toe zones of dormant landslide deposits; and refueling will not take place within the RR. A spill containment kit will be in place where refueling and servicing take place. Indirect effects from burning under prescription on sediment will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon and their habitat will be minor. Summary of Indirect Effects of Fuels Reduction. Handpiling and burning will remove soil cover in some areas and has the potential to increase sedimentation. However, RPMs and BMPs (Appendix D) will be implemented to minimize and mitigate effects including these key effects minimization measures: soil cover retention requirements (ranging from >50 percent of existing surface duff or higher) to maintain sediment retention capacity in treated areas; soil compaction minimization measures and requirements to use low ground pressure equipment; slope limitations for equipment including for machine piling and mastication operations; limitations on the size of piles to limit continuous disturbance and subsequent erosion and sedimentation; layout of burn piles will be interspersed with undisturbed areas in between to provide soil cover in between piles to trap any sediment; and, treatment of fuels in a manner to mimic the effects of a low intensity fire. Due to the effects minimization measures proposed and because of the beneficial effects of fuels reduction (e.g. reducing the potential for adverse effects of a future wildfire in areas treated, restoring soil cover in burned areas, and improving sediment retention capacity of soils through mastication of fuels and lop and scatter of wood pieces) indirect effects
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 49
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Proximity and Probability. Maps in Appendix A show the roadside treatment areas where fuels reduction actions will occur. Roadside treatment areas are primarily in upper slope positions or on ridgetops. Table 20 above lists acres of RRs that could be treated adjacent to CH and EFH. Fuels reduction would help restore vegetation faster than if no action were taken. Due to the minimization measures that will be implemented (Appendix D), and the beneficial effects from fuels reduction (including reduced effects from a future wildfire and restoration of soil cover through mastication and lop and scatter), the probability of effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
PE 2 Road Management and Legacy Sediment Source Reduction Road Management The Project includes two types of road management actions: routine road maintenance (on roads that will be used by the Project) and actions to address sediment sources to comply with the Waiver and the STNF LRMP. Routine road maintenance includes grading existing road segments and installation of rolling dips. These actions will have neutral effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group and neutral effects on coho salmon. Landings and road ramps are discussed below. Proximity and Probability. Routine road maintenance will not include culvert work or occur within CH or EFH. The probability of effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
New Temporary Road Ramps The Project includes construction of temporary road ramps off of existing roads. The total temporary road ramp mileage will be limited to 1 mile or less (across the entire action area) of short segments off of existing roads to access landings. Temporary road ramps will not encroach into RRs and will be hydrologically restored after use. RPMs and BMPs will be implemented to minimize off-site effects from disturbed soils at each site. Because the temporary road ramps will be limited to short segments off of existing roads, will avoid RRs and will be hydrologically restored after use, effects on sediment will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Summary of Indirect Effects of Temporary Road Ramps. Temporary road ramps will be limited in extent, will not occur in CH or EFH, and will be restored after use. Indirect effects to the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group will be insignificant and effects to coho salmon will be minor. Proximity and Probability. Temporary road ramps are not proposed within proximity to CH or EFH, and RRs will be protected to maintain sediment retention functions. The probability of effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 50
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Landings The proposed action includes use of existing landings, wherever available, and construction of new temporary landings. Up to 60 new temporary landings will be constructed along existing roads. New landings will be less than 0.25 acres in size, will be temporary, will not be constructed within RRs, and will be restored after use. Variables that provided for field-surveyed (existing) landings to be approved for use include if they are on stable landforms and slope positions, existing landings in the outer zone of the RR or avoid RRs, or if and existing landing is within an RR it is separated from surface water by a road. Landings will not be approved for use if they would require removal of mature vegetation or significant earthwork or fill. New temporary landings and existing landings used for the Project will be hydrologically stabilized after use. Site-scale effects to sediment from landings depend on landing location, existing condition, and size/use. A new landing within a site-tree distance of coho salmon CH represents a higher risk of effects to aquatic habitat. These effects could be of moderate duration and low to moderate intensity, depending on the volume of unstable material. RPMs and BMPs will be implemented to minimize impacts to sediment from existing and new landings including the following: new landings will not be constructed in RRs associated with stream channels, on toe zones of landslides, active landslides or inner gorges; existing landings will be used to the maximum extent to avoid the need for new landings; existing landings in stream-course RRs will not be expanded, existing landings in RRs will be shaped and treated for erosion control at the end of each season of use and hydrologically restored at project completion (including subsoiling and covering with slash/mulch as needed); existing landings in RRs that will be used for the Project will have site specific erosion control measures to reduce risk of sediment delivery into streams; refueling will not take place on landings in RRs; a spill containment kit will be in place where refueling and servicing take place at landings; at project conclusion, landings will configured for long-term drainage and stability by reestablishing natural runoff patterns; all landings will be covered with at least 50 percent effective soil cover; use of certified weed free materials including straw, wood chips, or mulch may be used where on-site material is insufficient; landings used for the Project will be subsoiled, then covered with at least 50 percent effective soil cover. Based on implementation of these minimization measures, use of existing landings, construction and restoration of new landings will have insignificant effects on sediment and minor effects on coho salmon and their habitat. Summary of Indirect Effects of landings. New temporary landings will occur in areas that are generally open or fire deforested, whenever possible. New temporary landings will not occur in RRs or adjacent to CH or EFH. All landings in RRs will be restored after use. Indirect effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Proximity and Probability. Landings are not proposed for use or construction within RRs adjacent to CH or EFH. Effects to sediment will be limited due to the following minimization measures: use of existing landings wherever possible; new landings will be temporary and will be restored after use; new temporary landings will not be constructed within RRs; and, new
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 51
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project temporary landings will be limited to less than 0.25 acre in size. The probability of effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Water Drafting Water drafting can result in indirect effects through disturbed soils if new drafting sites are developed near streams and through localized increases in turbidity when a water hose is set into and pulled from the water. New drafting sites will not be developed for the Project: only existing access points/water drafting sites (refer to maps in Appendix A) will be used. RPMs will be implemented to minimize the potential for indirect effects of water drafting including the following: draft water only at designated water drafting sites; when drafting from fish-bearing streams, implement NMFS drafting specifications and Forest Service BMPs to minimize reductions in streamflows, to avoid entrainment and to minimize soil disturbance. Turbidity may result during water hose sets and removals, but is expected to be localized, limited to pre- designated sites, and will not occur during the spawning season. Juvenile fish may be present during the drafting season but drafting sites are not located within occupied habitat. If a juvenile were present, it would will likely flee drafting areas once a water truck approaches. A measurable increase in turbidity is not expected beyond the immediate drafting area. This conclusion is based on field observations that indicate turbidity is quickly diluted to background water clarity conditions. Based on use of existing sites and the proposed minimization measures, water drafting is expected to result in insignificant indirect effects on sediment and minor effects on coho salmon. Summary of Indirect Effects of Water Drafting. The potential indirect effects of water drafting include localized increases in turbidity and streamflow reductions. Streamflow reductions are not expected because drafting specifications prohibits taking more than 10% of streamflow at a given site. Increases in disturbance and turbidity will be minimized through use of existing sites and implementation of BMPs and RPMs. Water drafting is expected to result in insignificant indirect effects on sediment and minor effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Drafting sites are within proximity to CH and EFH, but not within occupied habitat. Disturbance to CH and EFH beyond the baseline will not occur because only existing access sites will be used. Turbidity will be localized, limited spatially to the designated sites and temporally to the dry season when the Project is active and water is needed for dust abatement. These minimization measures will result in a low probability of effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group, insignificant effects to habitat and minor effects on coho salmon. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Legacy Sediment Source Reduction Actions to address legacy sediment sources evolved from an inventory of controllable sediment discharge sources and other legacy sites that may affect water quality within the Project analysis area and along appurtenant Forest Service roads as part of the Project planning process. Sites were identified and described in the SSI report (STNF, 2016b) prepared for the Project. Road fixes were identified that will result in compliance with the Waiver (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010) and the STNF LRMP. Actions will include roadbed surface
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 52
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project improvements; construction of drainage dips, crossing fixes, riprap fills or other drainage or stabilization features and realignment. In addition, 4.7 miles of non-system roads will be restored. The locations and extent of the legacy sediment source reduction projects are described in Section III. Proposed Action. The legacy sediment source reduction work will disturb soils on existing roadbeds in the short- term and at stream crossings and will result in indirect effects to sediment at the site scale and for approximately 0.25 miles downstream of work sites in perennial streams. Project design, RPMs and BMPs will be implemented to minimize potential adverse effects at each site during implementation including the following: fill materials generated from road treatments will be reincorporated back into subgrade to the extent possible; all excess fill materials will be spoiled outside of RRs; all project-related temporary structures, materials and debris will be removed from RRs prior to winter shutdown; stream crossing restoration will occur during periods that minimize the potential for effects (when streams are dry or during low-water conditions) and in compliance with spawning and breeding seasonal restrictions; stream crossing work will be done to Forest Plan standards. Stream crossing work will not occur at all sites at one time or in one season but will be spread out across several dry seasons of work. Spreading the work out spatially and temporally minimizes the potential for cumulative effects of this work on downstream habitat while allowing a significant reduction in chronic sediment sources across the Project landscape in the long-term. This work will prevent catastrophic failures at legacy stream crossings; Table 21 lists fill volume for each crossing indicating the magnitude of sediment savings that will be realized as each site is restored. Because the crossing restoration work is not within CH or EFH, and work will be spatially and temporally spread out, and due to the chronic sources of sediment that will be reduced, indirect effects on sediment will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon and CH will be minor. Long-term reductions in chronic sediment sources represents a beneficial outcome of the Project for coho salmon, CH and EFH.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 53
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 16. Legacy Sediment Site Locations, Fill Volumes and Distance to CH.
In ID Diameter Fill Vol Coho Distance above HUC 6 Name Route Flow Type Tag (ft.) (yd3) Salmon CH CH E2 2 Dubakella Ck 30N04 3,105 Ephemeral N 1 mi. to Wilson Ck
E3 2 Dubakella Ck 30N04 993 Ephemeral N 1 mi. to Wilson Ck
E4 3 Dubakella Ck 30N04 3,866 Intermittent N 0.5 mi. to Wilson Ck
2.5 mi to CH in E24 1.5 Eltapom Creek 4N24 367 Intermittent N Eltapom Ck 1.8 mi to CH in E26 4.5 Eltapom Creek 4N24 17,474 Perennial N Eltapom Ck 5.75 mi. to CH in E37 2.5 Eltapom Creek 5N60 1,511 Perennial N Eltapom Ck 1.25 mi to South Fork E50 2.5 Hyampom 3N14 300 Intermittent N Trinity River Cave Creek-Miller 0.7 mi. to CH in South E55 2 1S06 1,874 Ephemeral N Springs Fork Trinity River Rattlesnake 3.5 mi. to CH in E59 2.5 Creek-Post 29N55 55 Ephemeral N Rattlesnake Ck Mountain Salt Creek- 2.5 mi to CH in Ditch E60 2 30N28 69 Ephemeral N Hayfork Creek Gl 1.25 mi from CH in A48 1.5 Hyampom 3N14 190 Perennial N South Fork Trinity River Rusch Creek- 0.4 mi upstream of F1 Ford 31N14 Perennial N Little Creek Kingsbury Gl CH
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 54
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 17. Road Restoration and Stream Crossing Information.
Number of Stream HUC6 Road Number Road Activity Stream(s) CH Xings Type Hyampom U4N42 Restore 0 N, 0.6 mi of E U3N51BA/C/D Restore 2 (C & D) + 1.65 mi P to Hyampom Unnamed Ephemeral CH N, approx. 1 mi to CH (0.2 U311A/AA/B Restore 1 (AA) mi upstream of U4N20 Hyampom Unnamed Perennial xing) N, 0.25 mi E + 1.3 mi U3N63C Restore 1 Intermittent to Hyampom Unnamed Ephemeral CH N, 0.8 mi to CH on perennial. U4N20E/F/G/H/J/JA/K Restore 2 0.25 mi E + Ephemeral, 0.25 mi I + .25 Hyampom Unnamed Perennial mi P to CH Hyampom U4N31B/C Restore 0 Hyampom U4N59C Restore 0 Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf U2N36B Restore 0 Flat Sulphur Glade U4N12A/B/C/F/G/GA/H/I/ Creek-Waldorf Restore 0 J/K Flat Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf U3N19F Restore 0 Flat Sulphur Glade N.0.3 mi E + Creek-Waldorf U6N01M/N Restore 1 (M) .25 mi I + 2.5 Flat Unnamed Ephemeral mi P to CH Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf U3N16B. Restore 0 Flat Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf U1N24I/J Restore 0 Flat Hyampom 4N14C HydroClose 0 Hyampom 4N20D HydroClose 0 Hyampom 4N31A/B HydroClose 0 Hyampom 4N34A HydroClose 0 N, 0.25 mi E & 2N36 HydroClose 1 Hyampom Unnamed Ephemeral .8 mi I to CH N, 4 xings: closest is 0.4 mi E + 3.4 mi. 2N62 HydroClose 6 P to CH; 2 xings: .25 mi E + 4.4 mi P Hyampom Unnamed (6) Ephemeral to CH N, both are 3N10A HydroClose 2 approx.. 0.4 Hyampom Unnamed (2) Ephemeral mi E to CH N, all 3N32/A/B HydroClose 11, 2 Unnamed, Eph (11), headwaters Hyampom Mill Cr. Per (2) on South Fork
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 55
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Mountain ridge. 2.2 mi P to CH and 4.4 mi P to CH
3N33 HydroClose 4, 1, 1 Unnamed, Eph (4), Int N, 5.7 mi P to Hyampom Big Cr. (1), Per (1) CH Hyampom 3N36A-F HydroClose 0
3N45/A/B HydroClose 1, 1 Eph (1), Per N,3 mi P to Hyampom Unnamed (1)(A spur) CH N, closest is 0.25 mi E + 3N47 HydroClose 6 0.7 mi I + 1.3 Hyampom Unnamed Ephemeral mi P to CH N, 2 xings upstream of 3N54/A HydroClose 4 3N47, closest is 0.25 E + Hyampom Unnamed Ephemeral 0.25 I to CH N, 0.2 mi E + 3N60 HydroClose 2 0.55 I to CH Hyampom Unnamed Ephemeral for both Hyampom 3N62 HydroClose 0 Hyampom 4N02A HydroClose 0 Hyampom 4N59/A/B HydroClose 0 N, 0.3 mi upstream of 6N01N/P HydroClose 1 (P) Mill Cr. Perennial 3N32 xing; 4.7 Hyampom mi P to CH Summary of Indirect Effects of Legacy Sediment Source Reduction. Legacy sediment source reduction includes stream crossing restoration work that will result in short-term soil disturbance and localized indirect effects on sediment when existing crossings are disturbed to remove fill and when work commences to stabilize these sites. Adverse effects to instream habitat from increased sediment are expected on perennial streams treated, and for a distance of approximately 0.25 miles downstream of work sites. No measurable increases in sediment are expected in CH because work sites are not within proximity to CH. Long-term beneficial effects will result as chronic sediment sources are addressed and the risk of crossing failure is reduced. Road density will be decreased in two subwatersheds as 4.7 miles of road are restored. This work will be spread out spatially and temporally in the action area. Indirect effects of crossing restoration will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Proximity and Probability. Road restoration at stream crossings will disturb sediment in floodplains in the short-term. Table 21 lists the stream types affected and distance to CH. There are four perennial streams that have the highest potential for sediment delivery downstream. The proximity of each work perennial stream work site to CH is key to assessing the probability for sediment delivery to CH. All of the perennial sites with culverts are 1+ miles from CH and have a low probability for sediment delivery to CH. Site F1 is the exception and is 0.4 mile from CH. This site is still greater than 0.25 miles from CH and thus, is not expected to impact CH. Also, site F1 is an existing stream ford (not a culvert) that will be graded and rocked to minimize sediment. Clean rock will be used to line the ford thereby resulting in a net reduction in sediment in the short- and long-term. Disturbance in the floodplain will be limited to placing rock.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 56
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
In addition to legacy sediment site restoration, approximately 4.7 miles of roads would be restored to mitigate for watersheds that are over TOC. Table 22 lists the roads to be restored, stream crossings and distance from CH. None of the proposed road work or stream crossing restoration work is within CH or within 0.25 miles of CH. Because the road work will not be in proximity to CH, there is a low probability of effects to sediment and CH. The 4.7 miles of road restoration is expected to result in insignificant or discountable effects to SONCC coho salmon and their CH.
Stream crossing work is within RRs but not within CH or EFH. Implementation of BMPs and RPMs will minimize effects of the localized and short-term increases in sediment that are expected as a result of crossing restoration. The probability of indirect effects on the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group is moderate in the short-term as sites are restored, however, because crossing work will be spread out spatially and temporally indirect effects on sediment are expected to be insignificant and effects on coho salmon minor. This work will address chronic sediment sources and potential crossing failures and will result in long-term beneficial effects associated with sediment reduction. Reduction in road density represents a substantial watershed benefit.
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Water Quality A water quality evaluation is required for all environmental impact analyses to identify the water quality implications of proposed and alternative land management practices (FSM 2530). This requirement is complied with in the Project DEIS by identifying: (1) designated beneficial uses of the watersheds, (2) pollutants in the watersheds, (3) sources of the pollutants, and (4) causes of the pollutants. Beneficial uses are designated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for each of the waterbodies within its jurisdiction (Cal. EPA North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2011). Whether a waterbody meets the needs of designated beneficial uses is the primary criterion for water quality. Pollutants that are impairing the designated uses are identified in the State of California’s integrated report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (Cal. EPA, State Water Resources Control Board. 2015). General sources and causes of pollution are addressed in the TMDLs developed by the U.S. EPA. Specific sources and causes of pollution are addressed in the Physical Sciences Report (STNF, 2016) prepared for the Project and the SSI report (STNF 2016) prepared for the Project. The BA builds on this information by assessing potential site impacts on sediment and water quality. Effects are discussed below collectively for the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group as effects on water quality with the assumption that changes to water quality would affect water temperature, chemical contamination levels and refugia habitat. PE 1 Vegetation Management Hazard Tree Abatement Hazard trees will be removed from roadside areas including from 1,386 acres of roadside RRs. Ambient air temperature over the stream drives maximum water temperature, along with other factors that influence humidity and other micro-climate conditions (Bartholow, 1989). The width
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 57
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project of RRs, not just shade canopy is key to maintaining micro-climate conditions. The proposed action includes RR widths of two site potential tree height along fish-bearing streams and one site potential tree height along non-fish bearing streams. The effects of hazard tree abatement, including salvage harvest of hazard trees, on stream shade and water temperatures will be discountable because of the following: the majority of RR acres are along intermittent or ephemeral drainages; RR Protection Measures will exclude equipment from inner zones of intermittent and ephemeral drainages to avoid damage to soils and vegetation; equipment will not enter perennial RRs; and because hazard trees that will be removed are dead trees. Removal of individual hazard trees will have no measurable effect on water quality including stream shade, water temperatures or refugia habitat. The effects of hazard tree abatement on chemical contamination will be discountable because the majority of RR acres are along intermittent or ephemeral drainages that will be dry during treatment, and because RR Protection Measures will exclude equipment from inner zones of RRs (no equipment will enter perennial RRs; the inner EEZ will be from 50-100 feet) and BMPs and RPMs minimize the potential for contamination through designating refueling sites and landing locations. Exposure levels of borates associated with stump applications are far below the level of concern for fish and other aquatic organisms (SERA 2016). Boric acid is practically non-toxic to fish. The least sensitive fish species tested was rainbow trout (U.S. EPA/OPP/EFED 2015). Summary of Indirect Effects of Hazard Tree Abatement. Most of the roadside treatment areas are on upper slope locations near ridgetops, and RRs to be treated are all roadside areas and most are along intermittent or ephemeral drainages. RR Protection Measures, BMPs and RPMs will protect water quality during implementation. Few perennial stream RRs will be treated for hazard tree abatement, and only in the outer zone, with equipment exclusions for the entire RR. Hazard Tree Guidelines will ensure that existing stream shade is maintained along perennial streams. Hazard tree abatement along roadside RRs will have insignificant effects on water quality and minor effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Maps in Appendix A show that hazard tree abatement will occur along existing roads, including within RRs that are adjacent to roads. Roads and RRs are primarily in upper slope or ridgetop locations. The probability of effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group is highest where actions occur in RRs along perennial streams. Of the 37,575 acres of RRs within the area burned by the 2015 wildfires, approximately 1,138 acres will be treated. Of the approximately 1,138 acres of roadside RRs that will be treated, approximately 362 acres are adjacent to CH and EFH. While the risk of effects on water quality is highest in RRs, the RPMs (Appendix D) and RR Protection Measures are expected to effectively prevent impacts on water quality. In particular, designating EEZs that require equipment to reach in from existing roads to abate hazard trees in perennial RRs (rather than entering the RR) will avoid effects from equipment. Delineating EEZs within the inner zones of intermittent and ephemeral RRs will protect water quality in RRs on seasonal streams. Use of Hazard Tree Guidelines will limit the type and number of trees that can be removed from RRs and are expected to avoid measurable alterations in stream shade. Based on implementation of the minimization measures provided in Appendix D and above, hazard tree abatement will have insignificant effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group and minor effects on coho salmon. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 58
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Reforestation Reforestation includes site-preparation, planting, and release over up to 8,000 acres along roads to increase the likelihood and speed by which burned areas are reforested and could include: manual site preparation, skyline yarding, mastication, mechanical yarding and slash piling of dead trees. These treatments will help restore canopy in roadside treatment areas including in RRs that bisect roads faster than if no treatment were proposed. Summary of Indirect Effects of Reforestation. Reforestation will restore vegetation in burned areas faster than if no planting occurs. RPMs and BMPs will be implemented to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation from planting activities. Based on the minimization measures proposed and because reforestation will restore burned vegetation, reforestation will have discountable effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group and neutral effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Reforestation will occur in roadside hazard tree abatement areas as shown on Maps in Appendix A. Roadside treatment areas are primarily in upper slope positions or on ridgetops. Appendix F lists the acres of RRs that could be subject to reforestation and Table 20 above lists acres of RRs that could be treated along CH and EFH. Reforestation would help restore vegetation faster than if no action were taken. Due to the minimization measures that will be implemented (Appendix D), and the beneficial effects from reforestation of burned areas, the probability of effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group is discountable and effects on coho salmon will be neutral. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Fuels Reduction The proposed action includes treatment of hazardous fuels on about 8,000 acres along existing roads and will include the following methods: hand work, mechanical thinning, mastication, lop and scattering, chipping, broadcast burning, jackpot burning, and pile burning. Fuels reduction activities near streams can increase the potential for sediment-related impacts on aquatic habitat. Fuels reduction work will occur in up to 1,386 acres of roadside RRs. Most of the roadside treatment areas are on upper slope locations near ridgetops, and RRs that bisect roads are mostly intermittent or ephemeral drainages. RR Protection Measures will protect water quality during implementation. RPMs, BMPs and RR Protection Measures will protect water quality including stream shade (inner zones of RRs are EEZs), understory vegetation and standing and down LWD. For example, within RRs, prescribed fire effects will mimic a low intensity backing fire, except for handpiles/windrows where higher intensity may occur to consume pile material. Refer to the sediment discussion above for a more detailed discussion of effects minimization measures. Summary of Indirect Effects of Fuels Reduction. Handpiling and burning will not remove over story vegetation or alter stream shade. RPMs and BMPs (Appendix D) will be implemented to maintain existing stream shade and healthy vegetation in RRs, prevent fuel spills, keep equipment out of perennial RRs, and exclude equipment from inner zones of intermittent and ephemeral RRs. Due to the minimization measures proposed and because fuels reduction will reduce the potential adverse effects of a future wildfire in areas treated, restore soil cover in burned areas, and improve sediment retention capacity of soils through mastication of fuels and
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 59
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project lop and scatter of wood pieces, indirect effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Proximity and Probability. Maps in Appendix A show the roadside treatment areas where fuels reduction actions will occur. Where roads cross RRs, treatments will occur in RRs. Appendix F shows the extent of RRs that could be treated. The highest risk of effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group exists where treatments occur in RRs, especially in perennial RRs. However, potential effects of fuels reduction treatments will be effectively minimized through the RR Protection Measures, RPMs and BMPs listed in Appendix D and through implementation of the key minimization measures listed above. Fuels reduction actions in perennial RRs will be limited to hand treatments as these RRs are EEZs. The probability of effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
PE 2 Road Management and Legacy Sediment Source Reduction Routine Road Management Routine road maintenance will include grading segments of road and installation of rolling dips to minimize erosion of roadbeds. Effects on water quality will be neutral because these actions will not alter stream shade, water temperatures or refugia and because BMPs will be implemented to prevent fuel spills and other chemical contamination associated with equipment use on roads. Effects of landings and road ramps are discussed below. Summary of Indirect Effects of Routine Road management. Because work will be on existing roadbeds, effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group will be discountable and effects on coho salmon will be neutral.
Proximity and Probability. Routine road work will occur within RRs but on existing roadbeds where they bisect RRs and will reduce erosions from roadbeds. The probability of effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
New Temporary Road Ramps The construction of temporary road ramps off of existing roads to access landings is limited in extent (road ramp mileage will be less than 1 mile total across the action area) and disturbance will be dispersed. Road ramps will not be constructed in RRs. Temporary road ramps will be hydrologically restored after use. BMPs will be implemented to minimize erosion and maintain stability of road ramps. Road ramps will not be constructed in locations that would require removal of riparian vegetation or mature vegetation or if significant earthwork or fill would be required. Based on the minimization measures, the limited extent of temporary road ramps, the dispersed locations off of existing roadbeds, and because the road ramps will be restored after use, effects on water quality will be discountable and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Summary of Indirect Effects of Temporary Road Ramps. Temporary road ramps will be limited in extent and minimization measures will address the potential for indirect effects on water quality. Indirect effects on water quality will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 60
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Proximity and Probability. Temporary road ramps are not proposed within proximity to CH or EFH, and RRs will be avoided. The probability of effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Landings The proposed action includes the use of existing landings where available and construction of new temporary landings outside of RRs. Variables that provided for field-surveyed landings to be approved for use include if they are on stable landforms and slope positions, are outside of or in the outer zone of the RR, or avoid RRs. Landings will not be approved for use if they would require removal of mature vegetation or significant earthwork or fill. Landing size will be commensurate with operational safety but are expected to be ¼ acre or less in size. New landings will be limited to roadside areas and will average one acre in size or less. Both new and existing landings will be hydrologically stabilized after use. Landings located within RRs represents one of the greatest risks to water quality because of landings disturb soils and vegetation in proximity to streams. The potential effects of landings on sediment are discussed above. To minimize the potential indirect effects from landings the following minimization measures will be implemented: landings are not proposed for use or construction within RRs adjacent to CH or EFH; existing landings will be used wherever possible; new landings will be temporary and will be restored after use; new temporary landings will not be constructed within RRs; and, new temporary landings will be limited to less than 0.25 acre in size. Because new landings will not be constructed in RRs, stream shade will not be altered, and effects on water quality from new landings will be insignificant. RPMs will be implemented on all landings to minimize the potential effects of landings on water quality including the following: existing landings in stream-course RRs will not be expanded; refueling in existing landings in RRs will be prohibited; and, landings will be restored post-project. Proximity and Probability. Existing landings in RRs may be re-used for the Project, if they meet specific criteria. Use of existing landings minimizes the need for new landings. New temporary landings will not be in RRs, CH or EFH and will be limited in extent and size. Effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group will be short-term and insignificant and effects to coho salmon will be minor because of the following: 1) new landings will not be constructed in RRs; 2) site effects will be minimized on existing landings through application of BMPs and RPMs; 3) landings in RRs will be hydrologically restored after use; and 4) all temporary landings will be restored after use. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant. Water Drafting Water drafting can result in short-term and localized decreases in streamflow and water quality especially in smaller streams. In addition, short-term spikes in turbidity can occur associated with hose sets and removals. NMFS water drafting specifications limit drafting volumes (drafting cannot exceed 10% of stream flow) within fish-bearing streams, and STNF BMPs limit drafting rates and volumes at all sites. RPMs have been incorporated into the Project to address stream flow reductions and associated changes to water quality. Water drafting will be limited to existing access sites to prevent effects to vegetation and stream shade.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 61
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Summary of Indirect Effects from Water Drafting. Water drafting will occur at existing sites. New sites will not be developed. BMPs will be implemented to maintain site conditions. Drafting can dewater streams. This potential effect will be avoided through implementation of NMFS drafting specifications for screening and drafting. In addition, Forest Plan Guidelines and BMPs will be implemented to prevent dewatering at all sites as well as erosion. Water drafting is expected to result in insignificant indirect effects on water quality and minor effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Drafting sites are in perennial streams (refer to maps in Appendix A). Only existing access sites will be used and vegetation will not be disturbed. Minimization measures will result in a low probability of indirect effects on the Water Quality Habitat Indicator Group. Indirect effects on water quality will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Sediment Source Reduction The potential for indirect effects on water quality from sediment reduction work is at stream crossings where vegetation removal is required. Because perennial stream work sites are distant from CH and EFH and because work will occur on previously disturbed road crossings and road alignments indirect effects on water quality are not expected. The crossing restoration work will likely disturb early seral stage vegetation in work areas, to a limited extent on each side of roads. Disturbance of mature streamside vegetation that provides stream shade will be limited because work would occur on roadbeds and immediately adjacent areas. Road crossing projects will be implemented as funding becomes available. Thus, disturbance will be spread out spatially and temporally. BMPs will be implemented at each site to prevent fuel spills and other chemical contamination during work. Summary of Indirect Effects of Legacy Sediment Source Reduction. Disturbance to streamside vegetation will be minimal because work will occur on existing road alignments and crossings. Sediment reduction actions will result in localized short-term disturbance, however, mature vegetation and stream shade will not be affected because work is on existing road alignments and adjacent areas and because projects will be spread out spatially and temporally. Long-term benefits to coho salmon will result through significant reductions in chronic sediment sources, prevention of crossing failures and reduction in road density (4.7 miles in Hyampom and Sulphur Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat watersheds). The existing crossing failure risks pose a threat to riparian vegetation downstream of these sites as indicated by the fill volumes sitting at each crossing. Proximity and Probability. Road crossing fixes are not within CH or EFH, but are within RRs. Failure of crossings and work on these crossings pose a moderate risk to downstream habitat because they are in RRs. The proposed work at crossings will address the failure risk. Many of these crossings have significant fill volumes that could be mobilized in a catastrophic failure. Thus, the risk of fixing the crossing sites is less than the no action alternative. Because crossings are not within CH or EFH the probability of effects is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 62
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Riparian Function Effects are discussed collectively for the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group as effects on riparian function with the assumption that changes to riparian function would affect LWD, off- channel habitat and floodplain connectivity. A primary function of RRs is as a source for LWD recruitment to streams (as well as shade and sediment retention, discussed above under Sediment and Water Quality). Instream LWD plays a dominant role in forming pools, metering sediment, trapping spawning gravels and creating a more complex stream environment. In general, the larger the size of the wood, the greater its stability in the stream channel. Heavier pieces require higher flows for mobilization and longer pieces are more likely to be caught by the stream bank and its vegetation (Spence-et-al., 1996). LWD is important for forming pools in lower order streams as well (Keller-et-al., 1995) and pieces that span the channel can create dam pools or form complex jams which make excellent cover for aquatic species. Much of the LWD entering stream channels does so through landslides and debris torrents during large storm events. The wood component of debris torrents forms log jams, which may retain sediment for several years, thereby protecting lower reaches of the stream from sediment impacts. Poole and Berman (2001) note that LWD jams can also force stream flows underground and that this connection with the hyporheic zone can help cool stream temperatures. LWD in headwater areas may also prevent headward erosion of gullies and stream channels (Keller et al., 1995). Where effects on LWD are predicted herein, potential effects on stream temperature and erosion are inferred through the aforementioned mechanisms.
PE 1 Vegetation Management Hazard Tree Abatement Of the 37,575 acres of RRs that were within the area burned by the 2015 wildfires, approximately 1,138 acres will be treated (Appendix F). Hazard trees will be abated from roadside areas including RRs that are adjacent to roads. FEMAT (1993) called for protection of two site potential tree heights or to the edge of the inner gorge to protect riparian function. The proposed action includes RR widths of two site potential tree height along fish-bearing streams and one site potential tree height along non-fish bearing streams. The effects of hazard tree abatement including salvage harvest of hazard trees on riparian function will be minimized to an insignificant level due to RR Protection Measures that include the following: use of specific hazard tree criteria that limits felling to dead trees only; the majority of RR acres along roads are intermittent or ephemeral RRs; RR Protection Measures will exclude equipment from inner zones of intermittent and ephemeral drainages to avoid damage to trees; equipment will be excluded entirely from perennial RRs; if a hazard tree is identified within the inner zone of RRs and needs to be removed for operational safety purposes, it will be left on site. These measures will avoid damage to large trees in recruitment zones and will maintain existing LWD in these zones. Summary of Effects of Hazard Tree Abatement. Due to the minimization measures described above, especially the hazard tree criteria that will allow felling of only dead trees in roadside areas, and because hazard trees felled within perennial RRs will be left on site, hazard tree abatement will have insignificant effects on LWD and riparian function and minor effects on coho salmon.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 63
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Proximity and Probability. Maps in Appendix A show that hazard tree abatement will occur along existing roads, including within RRs that are adjacent to roads. Roads and RRs are primarily in upper slope or ridgetop locations. The probability of effects to the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is highest where actions occur in RRs, and especially adjacent to perennial streams, CH and EFH that serve as recruitment zones for LWD. While the risk of effects on riparian function is highest in RRs, RPMs and RR Protection Measures that will be implemented will minimize effects on riparian function. Based on implementation of the minimization measures, especially EEZs, hazard tree abatement will have insignificant effects on the Riparian Habitat Indicator Group and minor effects on coho salmon. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Fuels Reduction The proposed action includes treatment of hazardous fuels on about 8,000 acres along existing roads and will include the following methods: hand work, mechanical thinning, mastication, lop and scattering, chipping, broadcast burning, jackpot burning, and pile burning. Fuels reduction activities near streams can impact riparian function. Fuels reduction work will occur on up to 1,386 acres of roadside RRs. Most of the roadside treatment areas are on upper slope locations near ridgetops, and RRs that are adjacent to roads are mostly intermittent or ephemeral drainages. RPMs, BMPs and RR Protection Measures will protect riparian function including stream shade (primarily through the application of Hazard Tree Guidelines and through EEZs that fully protect perennial RRs and the inner zones of seasonal stream RRs), understory vegetation and standing and down LWD. For example, within RRs, prescribed fire effects will mimic a low intensity backing fire (except for handpiles/windrows where higher intensity may occur to consume pile material). Fuels reduction actions will remove brush and smaller trees that represent a fuels hazard or ladder fuels. These actions will improve the growth rate of larger trees left on site, thereby improving riparian function relative to LWD recruitment potential in the long-term. Overstocked and burned conditions prevent or retard the attainment of mature stands and desired conditions within some RRs. RPMs specific to LWD include requirements that prescribed fire retain at least 90% of the down and standing LWD debris in RRs. Some small localized flare ups could occur during underburning in pockets where fuel accumulations are high but overall, prescribed fire actions are designed to mimic the effects of low intensity fire on vegetation and will make stands more resilient to wildfire. Summary of Indirect Effects of Fuels Reduction. Due to the minimization measures proposed and because LWD will not be reduced within the inner zones of all RRs, fuels reduction actions will have insignificant effects on riparian function and LWD and minor effects on coho salmon. Fuels reduction work will help reduce the severity of effects of a future wildfire in areas treated. Proximity and Probability. Maps in Appendix A show the roadside treatment areas where fuels reduction actions will occur. Where roads cross or are adjacent to RRs, treatments will occur in RRs. The potential effects of fuels reduction treatments will be minimized through the RR Protection Measures, RPMs and BMPs for fuels reduction work. Fuels reduction actions in perennial RRs will be limited to hand treatments as these RRs are EEZs. The probability of
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 64
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant. Reforestation Reforestation includes site-preparation, planting, and release over up to 8,000 acres along roads to increase the likelihood and speed by which burned areas are reforested and could include: manual site preparation, skyline yarding, mastication, mechanical yarding and slash piling of dead trees. These treatments will occur in up to 1,138 acres of RRs to help restore burned areas. Summary of Indirect Effects of Reforestation. Reforestation will restore vegetation in burned areas faster than if no planting occurs. RPMs and BMPs will be implemented to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation from planting activities. Based on the minimization measures proposed and because reforestation will restore burned areas, reforestation will have discountable effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group and neutral effects on coho salmon. Proximity and Probability. Reforestation will occur in roadside hazard tree abatement areas as shown on Maps in Appendix A. Roadside treatment areas are primarily in upper slope positions or on ridgetops. Table 20 above lists acres of RRs that could be treated along CH and EFH. Reforestation would help restore vegetation faster than if no action were taken. Due to the minimization measures that will be implemented (Appendix D) and the beneficial effects from reforestation of burned areas, the probability of effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is discountable and effects on coho salmon will be neutral. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
PE 2 Road Management and Legacy Sediment Source Reduction Routine Road Management Routine road maintenance will include grading segments of road and installation of rolling dips to minimize erosion of roadbeds. Summary of Indirect Effects from Routine Road Management. Effects on riparian function will be neutral because these actions will occur on existing roadbeds and will not alter streamside vegetation. Proximity and Probability. Work on roads within RRs will occur on previously disturbed roadbeds and no RR vegetation will be removed as a result of the routine roadwork. Existing LWD will be maintained. The probability of effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is discountable and effects on coho salmon will be neutral. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant. New Temporary Road Ramps The construction of temporary road ramps off of existing roads to access landings is limited in extent (road ramp mileage will be less than 1 mile cumulatively across the action area). Road ramps will not be constructed in RRs. Temporary road ramps will be hydrologically restored after use. BMPs will be implemented to minimize erosion and maintain stability of road ramps. Road ramps will not be constructed in locations that would require removal of riparian vegetation, mature vegetation or LWD. Based on the minimization measures proposed, the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 65
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project limited extent of temporary road ramps, the dispersed locations off of existing roadbeds, and because the road ramps will not remove mature vegetation and will be restored after use, effects on riparian function will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Summary of Indirect Effects of Temporary Road Ramps. Temporary road ramps will be limited in extent and minimization measures will address the potential for indirect effects to LWD and other riparian functions. Indirect effects to riparian function will be insignificant and effects to Coho salmon will be minor. Proximity and Probability. Temporary road ramps are not proposed within RRs or in proximity to CH or EFH. Existing levels of LWD will be maintained. The probability of effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
Landings The proposed action includes the use of existing landings where available and construction of new temporary landings. Variables that provided for existing landings to be approved for use include if they are on stable landforms and slope positions, are outside of or in the outer zone of an RR or avoid RRs. Landings will not be approved for use if they would require removal of mature vegetation or significant earthwork or fill. Landing size will be commensurate with operational safety. New landings will be temporary and will be limited to roadside areas and limited in size (average ¼-½ acre in size). Both new and existing landings will be hydrologically stabilized after use. Landings located within RRs represents one of the greatest risks to riparian function because landings disturb soils and vegetation in proximity to streams. To minimize the potential for indirect effects from landings, new landings will be temporary and will not be constructed in RRs. RPMs will minimize the potential effects of landings on water quality as they prohibit expansion of existing landings and removal of mature vegetation. Existing landings will be used to the maximum extent possible. Proximity and Probability. RRs with existing landings will be protected to maintain RR functions through implementation of BMPs and RPMs, including a prohibition on removal of mature vegetation. Existing LWD levels will be maintained. Because new landings will be temporary and will not be constructed in RRs, and because site effects will be minimized, the probability of effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant. Water Drafting Water drafting will occur at existing access sites within RRs. New sites will not be developed and vegetation will not be removed. Existing levels of LWD will be maintained. RPMs have been incorporated into the Project to address potential disturbance from use of existing sites. Water drafting will be limited to existing access sites to prevent effects to riparian function. Summary of Indirect Effects from Water Drafting. Water drafting will occur at existing sites. New sites will not be developed. BMPs will be implemented to maintain existing site conditions.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 66
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Potential effects will be minimized through implementation of NMFS specifications for screening and drafting. Because water drafting will be limited to existing access sites, indirect effects on riparian function will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Proximity and Probability. Existing LWD will be protected through limiting drafting to existing sites. Minimization measures will result in a low probability of indirect effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group and minor effects on coho salmon. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant. Sediment Source Reduction The potential for indirect effects on riparian function from work at legacy stream crossings is associated with disturbance of vegetation at the crossing restoration sites (effects to sediment and water quality are discussed above). Work will not occur in CH and EFH and work will occur on previously disturbed road crossings/road alignments. The crossing restoration work will likely disturb early seral stage vegetation in work areas, to a limited extent on each side of roads. Disturbance of mature streamside vegetation that provides LWD will be negligible because work would occur on existing roadbeds, crossings and in areas immediately adjacent to crossings. Restoration of 4.7 miles of road will reduce road density and existing sediment sources. Project- related disturbance will be spread out spatially and temporally. BMPs and RPMs will be implemented at each site to minimize on site disturbance. Summary of Indirect Effects of Legacy Sediment Source Reduction. Stream crossing restoration work will occur in RRs but will be limited to existing sites that have been previously disturbed and on existing road alignments. Because sites are on existing roadbeds, disturbance to streamside vegetation will be minimal and mature trees will not be removed. Long-term beneficial effects will result through significant reductions in chronic sediment sources and prevention of crossing failures. The existing crossing failure risks pose a threat to riparian vegetation downstream of these sites as indicated by the fill volumes sitting at each crossing. Indirect effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group will be insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Proximity and Probability. Road crossing fixes are not within CH or EFH, but are within RRs. Mature trees will not be removed. Both crossing failure risk and restoration work pose a risk to downstream habitat because the crossings are in RRs. Comparatively, the restoration work poses much less risk than taking no action. Many of the crossings have significant fill volumes that could be mobilized in a catastrophic failure. Thus, the impacts that are associated with disturbance in RRs is outweighed by the risk of crossing failures if no action is taken. Because crossings are not within CH or EFH the probability of effects on the Riparian Function Habitat Indicator Group is insignificant and effects on coho salmon will be minor. Sediment reduction projects will have long-term benefits on coho salmon. Magnitude: The magnitude of effects is insignificant.
VIII. Cumulative Effects
The ESA defines cumulative effects in 50 CFR 402.02 as “those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation.” Refer to the information below for the future
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 67
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
State and private actions that were factored into the cumulative effects analysis. The Project will have insignificant cumulative effects. Cumulative Watershed Effects CWEs were analyzed by STNF hydrologists (STNF, 2016) by estimating the ERA within each hydrologic unit (HUC 5 to 8). The results were compared against the TOC established for each watershed that range from 12 to 18 percent ERA (Appendix H of USDA Forest Service, 1995b). The CWEs were reported in risk ratio of the ERA disturbance relative to the TOC3 (STNF, 2016). A risk ratio greater than 1 means the HUC is over the TOC. Effects of fire severity, fire line, and proposed salvage units were forecast for a five year period. All other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the affected HUCs that could be accounted for were also modeled. Past disturbances include: urban development, agricultural crops and grazing, road construction, railroad and powerline development, mines, timber harvest (including private Timber Harvest Plans), fuels treatments, and wildfires (including the 2015 fires). Present and future foreseeable projects that were modelled include: Kellogg Fuels Reduction, Burnt Ranch, Sims Fire Restoration, PG&E Transmission Line Salvage, Gemmill, Westside Plantation, and Rattlesnake. Although a change in the risk ratio of a few percent relative to the baseline condition is common (especially at the HUC 7 and 8 scales) these changes are considered to be fairly negligible. Only the changes that have caused a change in the risk description (e.g. moderate in the baseline CWE and high in the Proposed Action CWE) are specifically addressed in the text. HUCs that are over the TOC (very high risk) are discussed in more detail. IX. Species and Habitat Effects Summary Summary of Effects to Habitat The BA has determined that sediment source reduction projects under PE 2 would result in insignificant adverse effects to SONCC coho salmon through impacts to the Sediment Habitat Indicator Group (including turbidity, substrate, and pool frequency and quality). The BA concluded that all PE 1 Vegetation Management, individually and collectively, would result in insignificant or neutral effects to the indicators, and would have insignificant or discountable effects to SONCC coho salmon and their CH. Table 22 lists the key habitat indicators for coho salmon, CH and EFH and a summary of indirect effects.
3 TOC is developed only for HUC5s and HUC6s. Therefore, for HUC7s and HUC8s, the HUC6 TOC is used to calculate the risk ratio.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 68
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Table 18. Summary of Indirect Adverse Effects to Habitat Indicators.
PE 2 PE 1 Vegetation PE 2 Sediment Source Indicator Management Routine Road Work Reduction Sediment Discountable, Insignificant Insignificant Suspended Sediment / Turbidity Insignificant or Neutral Physical Barriers Substrates / Embeddedness Pool Frequency & Quality Disturbance History/Peak Flows/Base Flows Drainage network/roads
Water Quality Discountable, Insignificant Insignificant Temperature Insignificant or Neutral Chemical Contamination / Nutrients Refugia
Riparian Function (RRs) Discountable, Insignificant Insignificant LWD Debris Insignificant or Neutral Stream Shade Refugia Streambanks, Off-channel Habitat and Floodplains
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 69
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
Limiting Stresses and Threats to SONCC Coho Salmon in the Action Area Key stresses and threats identified in NMFS (2014) for the action area are summarized in Appendix E. In the Upper Trinity River watershed, the most dominant factors that limit the viability of SONCC coho salmon in the action area are large-scale dams, reservoirs, and diversions and their effects on hydrologic function. Juvenile life stages are the most limited, and quality summer and winter rearing habitat is lacking for the population. Also, water quality is primarily impacted on a localized basis by fine sediment loading and temperature impairments. Riparian forest conditions present medium to low stresses across all life history stages. Altered sediment supply presents Low to Medium stress across all life history stages. The mainstem has an oversupply of sediments because of hydraulic mining, dredging, timber harvest, and road building. Excessive fine sediment in tributaries and the mainstem have limited coho salmon habitat. Roads are a moderate to high threat across most life history stages. Timber harvest poses a medium threat to the Upper Trinity River population. In the South Fork Trinity River, several factors limit the viability of SONCC coho salmon. The most dominant of these factors stem from the effects of agricultural practices on private land, legacy sediment-related impacts from past floods, fire, and land management. Impaired water quality and altered hydrologic function are the most likely stresses limiting productivity of the South Fork Trinity population. Juveniles are the most likely limited life stage due to the poor summer rearing conditions. Using the AP habitat indicators, the BA determined that PE 1 Vegetation Management would have discountable, insignificant and neutral effects on SONCC coho salmon, CH and EFH. The BA determined that PE 2 Road Management and Sediment Source Reduction would have insignificant and minor effects on SONCC coho salmon, CH and EFH. The highest potential for adverse effects is associated with legacy sediment site reduction including road restoration. However, because this work is not within CH or EFH or in close proximity to CH or EFH, effects were determined to be insignificant. Referring to the South Fork Trinity watershed, NMFS (2014) stated that “Given the sedimentation problems seen in the watershed, roads should be considered for removal or upgrade to reduce sediment delivery.” The Project is consistent with this direction and further contributes to recovery of the species through reducing road density and removing stream crossings that are at risk of failure, while making the treated areas more fire resilient through fuels reduction actions. The following conclusions led to my final determination of effects of the Project on coho salmon, CH and EFH for coho salmon and Chinook salmon: 1. The Project over-all will have insignificant indirect effects on habitat indicators and minor effects on coho salmon. Any effect to habitat indicators has been determined to not reach a level that habitat indicator functions are measurably changed. 2. The minimization measures for each aspect of the Project (RPMs, BMPs and RR Protection Measures) as well as project planning that included input from physical scientists and fisheries biologists result in insignificant effects to habitat indicators, RRs, CH and EFH and minor effects to coho salmon. 3. The AP Indicator analysis outcome supports the determination that effects on habitat indicators and therefore CH and EFH will be insignificant. Because potential direct
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 70
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
effects to coho salmon will be minor, and indirect effects on key habitat indicators will be insignificant, the Project over-all will have minor direct and indirect effects on coho salmon. That is, effects to an individual could occur but would not be expected to result in substantial population fluctuations and would not have any measurable long-term effect on the species resulting in the effects determination provided below. X. ESA Effects Determination The Project May Affect and is Not Likely to Adversely Affect SONCC coho salmon or its designated CH. XI. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A fish distribution map was provided by the STNF and was used to analyze effects on EFH (and CH) for SONCC coho salmon and Chinook salmon within the action area (see maps in Appendix A). The STNF fish distribution maps identify CH and EFH and is the most complete and conservative (some of the CH and EFH is not occupied by coho or Chinook salmon but is accessible to steelhead) information relative to estimating the extent of EFH (and CH) in the ESA action area. The effects analysis considers effects on habitat indicators that are key to both coho salmon and Chinook salmon, and since habitat requirements and effects mechanisms for coho and Chinook salmon are similar or identical in some cases, the effects of the Project analyzed herein apply to EFH (as well as CH). Therefore, it is my determination that effects from the Project on EFH will be immeasurable and the Project will not adversely affect (and may have long-term positive effects through sediment source reduction) on coho salmon and Chinook salmon EFH.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 71
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
XII. References
EndNote References
Angwin-et-al. (2012). Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. Bartholow. (1989). Stream Temperature Investigations: Field and Analytic Methods. BLM. (1995). Mainstem Trinity River Watershed Analysis. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, N. C. R. (2010). Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements For Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands in the North Coast Region EPA. (1998). South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek TMDL. EPA. (2001). Trinity River Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment. Farber-et-al. (1996). Water Temperatures in the South Fork Trinity River Watershed in Northern California. Keller-et-al. (1995). Effects of Large organic Debris on Channel Morphology and Sediment Storage in Selected Tributaries of Redwood Creek, Northwestern California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. NMFS. (1996). Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effects for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. NMFS. (2001). Water Drafting Specifications. NMFS. (2014). Final Recovery Plan for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evoluntionary Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhyncuc kisutch). NOAA. (1999a). 64 FR 24049. NOAA. (1999b). 70 FR 37160. Poole, G. C., & Berman, C. H. (2001). An Ecological Perspective on In-Stream Temperature: Natural Heat Dynamics and Mechanisms of Human-CausedThermal Degradation. Environmental Management, 27(6), 787-802. doi: 10.1007/s002670010188 Spence-et-al. (1996). Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. STNF. (1995). STNF Land and Resource Management Plan. STNF. (1996). Lower Hayfork Watershed Analysis. STNF. (1998). Upper Hayfork Watershed Analysis. . STNF. (1999). Upper South Fork Trinity River - Happy Camp Creek Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2000). Middle Hayfork & Salt Creek Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2001a). Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek & Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2001b). New River Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2003). North Fork Trinity River, East Fork North Fork Trinity River and Canyon Creek Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2005). Upper Trinity River Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2009). Watershed Analysis Burnt Ranch and Soldier Creek Planning Watersheds. STNF. (2011). Hyampom Watershed Analysis. STNF. (2016a). Physical Sciences Report Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage. STNF. (2016b). Trinity Post Fire Salvage Draft Sediment Source Inventory Report. USDA-FS. (2000). Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. USDA-USDOC-USDI. (2004). Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 72
Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Fish Species That May Be Affected by the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project
USFWS-NMFS. (1998). Endangered Species Consultation Handbook.
USDA-FS. 1995. WEPP Model accessed at https://www.ars.usda.gov/midwest-area/west-lafayette-in/national-soil-erosion-research/docs/wepp/wepp- model-documentation/
Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2016. Sporax and Cellu-Treat (Selected Borate Salts) Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. SERA TR-056-15-03c. SRNF. (2003). Mainstem Trinity Watershed Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Preliminary Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts
Shasta-Trinity National Forest 73