DOCSLIB.ORG

Six Rivers Aquatic Restoration Project – Draft Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Six Rivers Aquatic Restoration Project – Draft Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Six Rivers Aquatic Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment Forest Pacific Southwest Six Rivers R5-MB-314 Service Region National Forest October 2018 Cover photo: Large wood in Monkey Creek, Smith River National Recreation Area / Gasquet Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest. USDA Forest Service photo. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: US Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Six Rivers Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties, California Responsible Official: Ted O. McArthur, Forest Supervisor Six Rivers National Forest 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 441-3534 [email protected] For Information Contact: Carolyn Cook, Natural Resource Staff Officer c/o Karen Kenfield, Fisheries Biologist Six Rivers National Forest 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 441-3585 [email protected] Acknowledgements The Six Rivers Aquatic Restoration Project exemplifies a shared vision amongst collaborative partners and stakeholders, dedicated to restoring north coast fisheries and their habitats. Today, as the stakes grow ever higher as fisheries populations dwindle, Six Rivers National Forest leadership would like to acknowledge all those who envisioned and championed this pragmatic, science-based project. Forest leadership would like to impart special thanks to the California Coastal Conservancy for providing funding and the Mid Klamath Watershed Council for their efforts in spearheading the Coastal Conservancy grant. Our gratitude to those who provided letters of support to the grantor; namely, the Salmon River Restoration Council, Hayfork Watershed and Training Center, Smith River Alliance and the National Marine Fisheries Service. We would also like to acknowledge additional key contributors including the Blue Lake and Elk Valley Rancherias, Hoopa, Karuk, Tolowa Dee-niʹ Nation, Tsnungwe, Wiyot, and Yurok tribes, as well as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and local stakeholders. Draft Environmental Assessment – i This page intentionally left blank. ii – Six Rivers Aquatic Restoration Project Table of Contents Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ........................................................................................................ 6 Principle Laws and Regulations that Influence the Scope of this EA ...................................................... 7 Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................. 20 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................. 25 Alternative 1 – No Action/No Project .................................................................................................. 25 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Modified) ........................................................................................ 25 Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative .................. 61 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 61 Aquatics ................................................................................................................................................ 62 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................... 86 Botany: Forest Service Sensitive Vascular & Non-Vascular Species .................................................... 93 Port-Orford-Cedar .............................................................................................................................. 100 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 105 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 135 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 144 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 169 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team ................................................................................................ 169 Federal, State, and Local Agencies .................................................................................................... 169 Tribes .................................................................................................................................................. 170 Watershed Restoration Non-Profits, Collaborative Groups, Partners .................................................... 170 References ................................................................................................................................................. 171 Appendix A. Design Criteria for Aquatic Restoration Site-Specific Projects .......................................... 179 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 179 General Aquatic Conservation Measures ........................................................................................... 179 Activity Specific Project Design Criteria ........................................................................................... 185 Project Notification to NMFS Guidance ............................................................................................ 196 Appendix B. Mitigations, Best Management Practices, and Monitoring.................................................. 199 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 199 Mitigations.......................................................................................................................................... 199 Water Quality Best Management Practices ........................................................................................ 200 Invasive Species Best Management Practices .................................................................................... 203 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 205 Appendix C. Project Implementation Process and Checklist .................................................................... 207 Draft Environmental Assessment – iii Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 207 Stages of Project Development .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Distribution of Beavers in California: Implications for Salmonids
    Current Distribution of Beavers in California: Implications for Salmonids Eli Asarian Riverbend Sciences Presented at: Salmon Restoration Federation Conference Riverbend Sciences 3/19/2014 Presentation Outline • Beaver Mapper • Current beaver distribution – Interactions with salmonids – Recent expansion Eli Asarian Cheryl Reynolds / Worth A Dam What is the Beaver Mapper? • Web-based map system for entering, displaying, and sharing information on beaver distribution Live Demo http://www.riverbendsci.com/projects/beavers How Can You Help? • Contribute data – Via website – Contact me: • [email protected] • 707.832.4206 • Bulk update for large datasets • Funding – New data – System improvements Current and Historic Beaver Distribution in California Beaver Range Current range Historic range Outside confirmed historic range Drainage divide of Sacramento/San Joaquin and South Coast Rivers Lakes Lanman et al. 2013 County Boundaries Current Beaver Distribution in CA Smith River Beaver Range Current range Historic range Outside confirmed historic range Drainage divide of Sacramento/San Joaquin and South Coast Rivers Lakes County Boundaries Beaver Bank Lodge Smith River Marisa Parish, (Humboldt State Univ. MS thesis) Lower Klamath River Middle Beaver Range Klamath Current range River Historic range Outside confirmed historic range Drainage divide of Sacramento/San Joaquin and South Coast Rivers Lakes County Boundaries Beaver Pond on W.F. McGarvey Creek (Trib to Lower Klamath River) from: Sarah Beesley & Scott Silloway, (Yurok Tribe Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • After a Sleepless Full Moon Night With
    Restoring Coho Salmon in the Klamath River, One Beaver At A Time By Will Harling, Executive Director, Mid Klamath Watershed Council After a sleepless full moon night with our 18 month old daughter, Rory, (a night where my wife bore the brunt of her midnight antics and our guests sleeping in the living room must have been guessing who was torturing who), I bundled our girl onto my back and walked down to the Klamath River in the pre-dawn light. To say I altruistically wanted everyone to sleep in would be a half-truth given the fishing pole in one hand, balancing out the diaper bag in the other. I had a spot in mind, just downstream of the Orleans Bar River Access, where the river slides over a broad riffle so shallow the fish are forced into a narrow slot that one could cast across, even with a groggy, grumpy, sleep-deprived toddler strapped to their back. The relatively wide Orleans Valley gives the river a chance to meander a little here, reclaiming its sinuousity stolen over the past six million years as the Klamath Mountains began to rise from underneath, forcing it into steep sided canyons tracing fault lines in the uplifted bedrock just upstream and downstream of the valley. Fall chinook salmon moving upstream to spawn left wakes in the glassy water as they navigated up through the shallows, and the Klamath’s famed half-pounder steelhead run was coming in with them. Across the river, I noticed a furry head moving slowly upstream. The light brown tuft of hair visible above the water looked like what I thought a beaver would look like, but couldn’t be sure.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Klamath Salmon: Dams Fish and Fire
    Klamath Fisheries Restoration in the Era of Climate Change, Dam Removal and Megafires Will Harling - Director Mid Klamath Watershed Council Mid Klamath Watershed Council • MKWC employed 74 people in 2018: 13 Full-time employees, 28 Part-time employees, 23 Seasonal employees, and 10 Interns. Clean audits 2014-2018. • MKWC plays a major role in building a restoration-based economy in the Western Klamath Mountains. We are results oriented and work through developed partnerships to plan and implement projects based on traditional cultural knowledge and the best available western science. Presentation Outline • Klamath River: Press Disturbances – Dying From a Thousand Cuts – Legacy of Roads, Logging, Mining, Dams, and Fire Exclusion/Suppression • Why Solving the Fire Crisis is Essential to Fish Restoration – Implications of Recent Studies, and Solutions for Restoring Fire Processes • Coho Habitat Restoration on the Klamath River – Lessons Learned from a Decade of Off-channel in In-channel Habitat Restoration • Report Out on Recent Mid Klamath Fish Habitat Restoration – Boise Beaver Dam Analogues – Six Rivers NF Aquatics Ecosystem Analysis and Aquatic Restoration Action Plan – Middle Klamath River Floodplain Enhancement & Mine Tailing Remediation Plan Mike Hentz Mike Hentz Toz Soto Mike Hentz Somes Peak Looking Towards the Trinity Alps – Pyrodiversity Begets Conifer Diversity NF Salmon River After 1987 Fires 2014 Whites Fire (Re-defining Spot Fires) Lightning Fires from Whites Fire Pyrocumulus Lightning Strikes 08/11/14 Started 2014 Happy Camp
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Freshwater Productivity, Overwinter Survival, and Migration Patterns of Klamath River Coho Salmon
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-33 Estimating Freshwater Productivity, Overwinter Survival, and Migration Patterns of Klamath River Coho Salmon Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Russell W. Perry, Jimmy R. Faukner and Toz Soto U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 February 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources, including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office and the Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.D.A. Forest Service
    KRIS edition Lower-Middle Klamath Watershed Analysis United States Department of Agriculture Six Rivers National Forest Forest Service Orleans Ranger District Pacific Version 1.0 Southwest Region R5-MB-011 March 2003 Early Forest Service fire patrol plane. The first plane to land in Orleans, California circa 1920. This page intentionally left blank. Lower-Middle Klamath Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Six Rivers National Forest Orleans Ranger District Located within Humboldt County, Klamath Province, CA March 2003 Cover Photo: This photo was taken during a 4th of July celebration in the town of Orleans at the heart of the Lower-Middle Klamath Analysis area. In showing a group of Karuk elders and other townspeople posed in front of what was then the most modern piece of fire fighting equipment, it depicts several features related to the historical or reference condition of the Lower-Middle Klamath area. Within the photo are individuals who likely knew the time before Europeans arrived in Orleans and who witnessed the start of the modern fire suppression era. For Additional Information Contact: Six Rivers National Forest 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, CA 95501 707-442-1721 Text (TTY) 707-442-1721 Voice http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/sixrivers The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (“Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (Voice and TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Develop and Maintain Fire Regimes
    2 AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Frank K. Lake for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Sciences presented on May 10, 2007. Title: Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Develop and Maintain Fire Regimes in Northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou Bioregion: Management and Restoration of Culturally Significant Habitats Abstract approved: ________________________________________________________ Steve R. Radosevich The use of Native American fire regimes evolved in the Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion over millennia. A mixture of Native American and Euro-American socio- cultural management has developed from adaptations to climate, topography, ecological processes, and land use practices. This research incorporates Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) to partially examine the role of tribal fire uses and ethnobotany. Research methods use an interdisciplinary approach to characterize fuels and fire management issues in culturally significant riparian and terrestrial habitats. Tribal fuels and fire management practices were investigated. Understanding past tribal fire management systems is needed to place contemporary Native American fuels and fire management issues in to context for government agencies and private interest that have altered tribal opportunities to continue fire uses. This study examined fire effects on sandbar willow (Salix exigua) in valley riparian zones along the lower mid-Klamath River. Prescribed fire was used to induce sprouting of sandbar willow and reduce insect populations to improve basket material quantity and quality. Results indicate that flooding had greater affects on the structure, composition, and abundance of vegetation and fuels than prescribed fire. A second 3 experiment to compare the effect of propane burning and pruning sandbar willow indicated that propane burning was less effective than pruning to improve stem morphology for basket weaving.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Klamath Restoration Partnership: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project Lower Middle Klamath River Watershed
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION For Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Anadromous Fish Species That may be affected by: Western Klamath Restoration Partnership: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project Lower Middle Klamath River Watershed * Ukonom Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest and Orleans Ranger District of the Six Rivers National Forest Klamath Province Humboldt and Siskiyou County, California April 20, 2018 Prepared by: _______________________ Date: April 20, 2018 LeRoy Cyr District Fisheries Biologist Reviewed by: ______________________ Date: April 20, 2018 Karen Kenfield Forest Level I Coordinator *Note: The Ukonom Ranger District is administratively managed by the Six Rivers National Forest. Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018 PROJECT NAME: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS: Klamath National Forest - Ukonom Ranger District and Six Rivers National Forest - Orleans Ranger District ANALYSIS WATERSHEDS: 4th field scale - Middle Klamath River: 984,709 acres 6th field scale - Ti Creek: 13,623 acres 6th field scale - Reynolds Creek: 34,611 acres 6th field scale - Boise Creek: 31,343 acres WATERSHED ANALYSES: Ishi-Pishi/Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 1998) NEPA Documentation: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project EA Expected signature date: May 2018 ESA LISTED SPECIES CONSIDERED: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ESA CRITICAL HABITAT: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho salmon CH ESA DETERMINATIONS: The project may affect, not likely to adversely affect Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho or their designated Critical Habitat. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): The project may affect, not likely to adversely affect Chinook and Coho Salmon Essential Fish Habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Rivers National Forest Recreation Fee Highlights, 2017
    United States Department of Agriculture Six Rivers National Forest Recreation Fee Program Accomplishment Highlights 2017 First Ever YCC Crew Locally Bought and Built The forest Thanks to recreation fee dollars, offered its the forest was able to purchase first ever and place six new concreate residential picnic tables to replace falling Youth apart tables at popular Conservation campgrounds and day use areas. Corps (YCC). The heavy duty tables were manufactured locally and were where members stay on site for the duration of made available two 3-week sessions, rather than returning to through a their homes in the evening. This type of generous discount immersive environment is ideal for personal from a local growth in the areas of team building and business. independence skills. Funded by a combination of appropriations and recreation fees, participants removed brush from serval campgrounds and day use areas across the forest. They also collected trash, sorted recycling repaired signs and built fences. Protecting the Meadow In cooperation with a local building partner, the forest used Recreation Fee Dollars recreation fees to Recreation fee dollars are an investment in outdoor help protect recreation. They support and enhance: Ammon Ranch • Public safety Meadow, which is a popular special use site for • Recreation site maintenance and improvements spiritual gatherings, group camping, live music, • Educational experiences and disc golf. The forest constructed wooden rail • Informational wayside exhibits fence, with the help of a Youth Conservation • Youth programs and partnerships Corps, to prevent unauthorized camping and • Interpretive programs vehicle traffic that was destroying vegetation. All Current and future generations benefit as 80-95% of the materials for the fence were manufactured and funds are reinvested in the facilities and services that purchased locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity River Basin Resource Library
    TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURCE LIBRARY State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME o AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN FOR ADULT FALL CHINOOK SALMON By Paul M. HUDDell and L. B. Boydstun Inland Fisheries Division September 1985 An Assessment of the Current Carrying Capacity of the ~lamath River Basin for Adult Fall Chinook Salmonll by Paul M. Hubbell and L. B. Boydstun Inland Fisheries Division California Department of Fish and Game e In 1970, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) adopted a spawner escapement goal for fall chinook salmon in the Klamath River basin of 115,000 adult fish. That escapement goal ~s based on estimates from the California Fish and Wildlife Plan (1905) of the average annual number of chinook spa~ers occurring in ~he system in the early 1960's. The 115,OOO-fish goal included 97,500 natural spa~ers and 17,500 hatchery spawners. SUbsequent to its adoption by the CDFG, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) adopted the goal for use in regulating ocean salmon fisheries. Since CDFG began developing basin-wide spa~er escapement figures there in 197~, estimates of adult fall chinooK escaping to spawn each year in the Klamath River system ranged from 71,q51 in 197~ to 22,b6b in 19~4. During those years, the average spawning escapement amounted to only 34.9% (QO,125 fish) of the spa~er escapement goal (range: 19.7~-62.1~). Because during this period the spa~er escapements have never approached the 197~ goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Coho Salmon in California
    Status of Coho Salmon in California Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service By: Larry R. Brown and Peter B. Moyle Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1 July 1991 2 Table of Contents Foreward...........................................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................5 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................9 Life History......................................................................................................................................11 Distribution and Status......................................................................................................................12 Hatchery Populations .......................................................................................................................12 Wild Populations..............................................................................................................................16 Smith River..........................................................................................................................17 Klamath River......................................................................................................................18 Redwood Creek..................................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • January 30-31, 1990 Meeting in Brookings, Oregon
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Klamath Field Office P.O. Box 1006 Yreka, CA 96097-1006 February 13, Memorandum TO: Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force FROM: Ron Iverson SUBJECT: Draft minutes of the Task Force meeting held 30-31 January Attached for your review are minutes of the subject meeting held in Brookings, Oregon. I have followed each motion passed, assignment made, or other decision point with a line of asterisks. Attachments cc: Interested parties NOTES ON THE MEETING OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN FISHERIES TASK FORCE HELD 30-31 JANUARY 1990 BROOKINGS, OREGON 30 January The meeting was convened at 9 a.m. Dick Sumner was introduced as the new appointee of the Governor of California to represent sport anglers on the Task Force. A quorum of members was present. National Marine Fisheries Service was not represented (see roster, Attachment 1). Minutes of the previous meeting were approved. The agenda for this meeting (Attachment 2) was approved, with some time changes. Review of revised Operating Procedures The Task Force approved a revised version of Appendix A of the Task Force Operating Procedures, dealing with travel (Attachment 3). Report on planning activities of the Klamath Fishery Management Council (Wilkinson) Keith described the Nominal Group Technique process the Council has used to state, clarify, and prioritize issues and goals relating to harvest and restoration of Klamath anadromous stocks...and the Interpretive Structural Modeling Technique used to show how issues and goals interrelate, and to identify issues and goals as either fundamental or symptomatic. The Task Force has received results of two Council planning meetings held to date.
    [Show full text]