Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October 1995

Grouse Creek Watershed- Regional Setting With National Forest Boundary

ProcIcCed bv Gordon Bon.serfo, the ERO-HSU GIS Group. Septenber 1995. Sc.a6 H.r. tobldtState Ui.e-rsity A c.ta CA 95521 (707) 825-6417 , _By P4,1.5 5 o S 10 1 325 110 02 Grouse Creek Watershed Mark Smith, Geologist, Six Rivers National Analysis Interdisciplinary Forest Team Jan Werren, Geographer, Six Rivers National Jerry Barnes, Fisheries Biologist, Six Rivers Forest National Forest Debbie Whitman, Forester Carolyn Cook, Hydrologist, Six Rivers National Forest Katherihe Worn, Forester

Michael Furniss, Watershed Specialist and Contributing Writers and Technical Editor, Six Rivers National Forest Assistants Kathy Heffner-McC(ellan, Cutural Anthropologist, Six Rivers National Forest Bruce Bryan Greg DeNitto Lisa Hoover, Botanist, Six Rivers National Ann Francis Forest Alan Gallegos Rochelle Herriess Tom Keter, Archaeologist, Six Rivers National Bob Hipp Forest Debbie Horn Ed Hotelan Tom Jimerson, Ecologist, Six Rivers National Harvey Kelsey Forest Fred Levitan Sue Macmeeken John McRae, Botanist, Six Rivers National Mike Martischang Forest Elizabeth McGee Kemset Moore Sam Morrison, Geologist and Geographer, Anthony O'Geen Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Mary Raines Sciences Lab Richard Roland Mike Sanders Cynthia Nelson, Social Assessment Assistant Dominick Tarantino and Assistant Editor, Six Rivers National Forest Stan Thiesen Ken Wright David Lamphear, Geographer, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab

Lance Rieland, Transportation Planner, Six Rivers National Forest

Lucy Salazar, Vegetation and Fuels Specialist, Six Rivers National Forest

Greg Schmidt, Wildlife Biologist, Six Rivers National Forest

Tom Shaw, Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LIST OF PLATES Plate Page 3.1 Location within Kiamath River Basin 3 - 2 3.2 Hayfork AMA and Late-Successional Reserves 3 - 3 3.3 Bedrock Geology 3 - 5 4.1 Geomorphology 4- 3 4.2 Logging History 4 - 7 4.3 Percent Subwatersheds Logged 4 - 9 4.4 Road Network 4 - 10 4.5 Soils Major Categories 4 - 26 4.6 Overstory Vegetation 4 - 34 4.7 Vegetation Seral Stage 4- 3 8 4.8 Fire Spread Rate for August 4 - 80 4.9 Flame Length for August 4 - 81 4.10 Fish Distribution 4- 125 4.11 Land Ownership 4 - 138 4.12 FireStartsbyDecade 4 - 140 6.1 Watershed Rehabilitation Projects 6 - 3 6.2 Unstable Lands: Hazards 6 - 8 6.3 Interim Riparian Reserves 6 - 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Cumulative Amount of Land Logged 4 - 12 4.2 Road Density 4- 12 4.3 Precipitation Depth Frequency Curve 4 - 16 4.4 Vegetation Series Distribution 4 - 37 4.5 Seral Stage Model 4 - 39 4.6 Seral Stage Frequency Comparison 4 - 71 4.7 Patch Frequency Comparison 4 - 71 4.8 Mature Patch Frequency Comparison 4 - 72 4.9 Late Seral Patch Frequency 4 - 72 4.10 Perimeter/Interior Ratio Comparison 4 - 73 4.11 Mature Seral Stage Perimeter/Interior Ratio Comparison4 - 73 4.12 Late Seral Stage Perimeter/interior Ratio Comparison 4 - 74 4.13 Overstory Class Comparison 4 - 74 4.14 Canopy Closure Comparison 4 - 75 4.15 Grouse Creek Landslide Volumes 4 - 120 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Summary of Cutting Prescriptions 4 - 8 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for Geomorphic Categories 4 - 22 4.3 Soil Landscape Map Units 4 - 27 4.4 Taxonomic Table of Soils 4 - 29 4.5 Vegetation Series Extent 4 - 36 4.6 Seral Stage Acres by Vegetation Categories 4 - 41 4.7 Vegetation Acres by Overstory Size Class 4 - 42 4.8 Mean Canopy Closure 4 - 42 4.9 Documented Rare Plants and Potential Rare Plants 4 - 45 4.10 Exotic Plant Species 4 - 47 4.11 Vegetation Sub-series and Acres 4 - 48 4.12 Mean Patch Size 4- 65 4.13 Frequency of Patch Size 4 - 66 4.14 Frequency of Conifer Patches 4 - 67 4.15 Frequency of Perimeter/Interior Ratios 4 - 68 4.16 Historic Range of Variability 4 - 77 4.17 Risk Ratings and Range of Values 4 - 78 4.18 Fuel Model Combinations 4- 79 4.19 Vertebrate Wildlife Species 4 - 85 4.20 Habitat Model Species and Species Assemblages 4 - 93 4.21 Snag Assemblage Model 4 -101 4.22 Sediment Budget 4 - 116 4.23 Relationship of Management to Volume of Sediment 4 - 117 4.24 Proportion of Interim Riparian Reserves 4 - 119 4.25 Percent Sediment in Three Sizes of Spawning Gravels 4 - 122 4.26 Fire Events by Decade and Cause 4 - 139 6.1 Hypothetical Attributes to Consider in Creation of Riparian Reserves 6 - 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Interdisciplinary Team List of Plates List of Figures List of Tables 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1

2. WATERSHED VALUES 2-1 Ecological Values 2 - 1 Key Watershed 2 - 1 Quality of Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 2 - 1 Vegetation Configuration 2 - 1 Conservation of Biological Diversity 2 - 2 Fuel Loading and Fire Risk 2 - 2 Public Use Values 2 - 3 Road Maintenance 2 - 3 Access to Private Property 2 - 3 Access to the Interior of the Watershed 2 - 3 Off-Highway Vehicle Management 2 - 3 Adaptive Management Area Expectations and Opportunities 2 - 3

3. CHARACTER OF THE WATERSHED 3-1 Geography 3- 1 Land Status and Allocations 3-1 General Geology 3 - 4 Climate 3 - 6 Aquatic Habitats and Organisms 3 - 6 Terrestrial Habitats and Organisms 3 - 7 Human Uses 3 - 7

4. PAST AND CURRENT CONDITIONS 4 -1 Agents of Change 4 -1 Long-term Changes 4-1 Tectonics, Uplift, and Earthquakes 4-1 Climactic Variation and Fire Regime 4 - 1 Geomorphic Processes 4-1 Soil Development 4-1 Short-term Changes 4 - 6 Earthquakes 4 - 6 Weather Extremes 4 - 6 Logging and Road Development 4 - 6 Storm/Flood Events and Landsliding 4 - 11 Forest Vegetation Pathogens and Insects 4 - 14 Minor Agents 4 - 15 Interaction Between Agents 4 - 16 Physical Landscape Composition 4 - 17 Geology 4 - 17 Geomorphology 4 - 20 Soils 4 - 25 Vegetation 4 - 33 Landscape Composition 4 - 33 Vegetation Composition 4 - 35 Plant Community Richness 4 - 37 Seral Stages 4 - 39 Ownership Comparison 4 -40 Age Class Comparison 4 - 40 Overstory Tree Size Class 4 - 42 Canopy Closure 4 - 42 Rare Plant Species/Survey and Manage Species 4 - 44 Composite Analysis 4 - 47 Conifer Forest: Tanoak, Douglas fir, White fir, Red fir, Ponderosa pine, Incense cedar 4 - 50 Oak Woodlands: Black oak, White Oak 4 - 59 Hardwood Forests: Canyon Live Oak, Alder 4 - 61 Grasslands 4 - 62 Landscape Configuration 4 - 62 Patch Size 4 - 64 Patch Frequency 4 - 67 Patch Shape 4 - 67 Patch Density 4 - 68 Edge Density 4 - 69 Large Scale Analysis 4 - 69 Seral Stage Frequency 4 - 69 Patch Size and Distribution 4 - 69 Patch Shape 4 - 70 Patch Characteristics 4 - 76 HRV and RMR Comparison 4 - 76 Fire 4 - 78 Future Risk 4 - 78 Fire Hazard 4 - 78 Wildlife 4 - 82 Past Conditions 4 - 82 Prehistoric 4 - 82 Effects of Climate on Wildlife 4 - 82 Native Americans and Wildlife 4 - 82 Historic (1865 to Present) 4 - 82 Current Conditions 4 - 83 Status of Vertebrate Species 4 - 83 Suitability of Habitat for Wildlife 4 - 88 General Assessment of Habitat Suitability 4 - 88 Late Seral Coniferous Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity 4 - 89 Special Habitats 4 - 90 Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modeling 4 - 92 Introduction and Methods 4 - 92 Results of Model Runs 4 - 95 Riparian and Aquatic Past and Current Conditions 4- 103 Introduction 4 - 103 Past Riparian and Aquatic Conditions 4 - 103 Nutrient Cycling 4 - 104 Solar Radiation and Temperature 4 - 104 Large Woody Debris 4 - 105 Role of Fluvial Geomorphic Processes and Disturbances 4 - 106 Estimating Historic Benchmark Conditions 4 - 108 Geologic and Geomorphic 4 - 109 Riparian/Aquatic 4 - 109 Optimal Habitats for Selected Aquatic and Riparian Species 4 - 111 Salmonids 4 - 111 Riparian-dependent Vertebrate Species 4 - 111 Alteration of Riparian and Aquatic Processes and Functions 4 - 113 Riparian Habitat: Consequences of Riparian Habitat Modification 4 - 113 Consequences for Selected Riparian-dependent Vertebrate Species 4 - 114 Current Riparian and Aquatic Conditions 4 - 115 Recent Erosional History 4 - 115 Condition of Riparian Vegetation 4 - 118 Riparian Species Occurrence and Distribution 4 - 119 Instream Habitat 4 - 119 Sediment 4 - 120 Aquatic Macro invertebrates 4 - 123 Fish Stocks 4 - 124 Fish Density 4- 124 Relationship of Grouse Creek Fish Populations to the South Fork Trinity River Anadromous Fish Populations. 4 - 126 Current Fish Habitat Condition by Reach 4 - 127 Influence of Roads on Riparian and Aquatic Systems 4 - 131 Responsibilities for Roads. 4 - 131 Road Stream Crossings 4- 133 Storm proofing 4- 133 Human Uses and Values 4 - 135 Prehistoric/Historic 4 - 135 Prehistoric 4 - 135 Historic 4 - 136 Private Land Acquisition and Forest Service Management 4 - 137 Fire History 4 - 139 Access and Use 4 - 141 Commodity Values/Resource Extraction 4 - 142 Timber Management 4 - 142 Grazing 4 - 143 Utility Line 4 - 143 Human Ecological Uses and Values 4 - 143 Subsistence Activities 4 - 143 Link to Communities4 - 144 Hyampom 4 - 144 Willow Creek-Salyer 4 - 144 Northcoast Cities 4 - 144 Mad River 4 - 145 Spiritual Activities 4 - 145 Recreational Activities 4 - 145 Environmental Values 4 - 145

5. ECOSYSTEM TRENDS AND INTERPRETATIONS 5- 1 Terrestrial Habitats 5- 1 Riparian Habitats and Aquatic Systems 5 - 2 Human Uses and Values 5 - 8

6. KEY FINDINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES 6 - 1 Ecological Values 6 - 1 Key Watershed and Quality of Riparian and Aquatic Habitats 6 - 1 Vegetation Configuration and Conservation of Biological Diversity 6 - 13 Fuel Loading and Fire Risk 6 - 19 Public Use Values 6 - 22 Road Maintenance 6 - 22 OHV Management 6 - 24 AMA Expectations and Management 6 - 25

7. REFERENCES 7-1

8. APPENDICES 8 - 1 Chapter 1. Introduction

Our purpose is to document our current information about, and understanding of, the ecosystems in the Grouse Creek watershed, focusing on things that people care about, and to help guide our quest to understand more, as we endeavor to manage these lands. We have tried to identify those things that people care about in the Grouse Creek watershed, and then to describe the ecosystem conditions that influence those things. We have described conditions in considerable detail, and we've tried to identify how different parts of the system interact with each other, and how those interactions respond to both human and non-human disturbances. The process of doing the analysis has benefits beyond what you might find in this document. Team members have had a chance to learn from each other, and to peer beyond their disciplinary boundaries, creating new, more integrated ways of thinking about ecosystems. Team members acquire respect for the types of inquiry and findings that other disciplines bring to ecosystem analysis. New capabilities are created that cannot be gained by independent or mono-disciplinary inquiry. Often this type of interaction is difficult, and it sometimes it just doesn't go. When it happens, the gains are the most important for understanding ecosystems. We hope we have brought some coherence and connectivity to the information we have collected over the years in the Grouse Creek watershed, and brought some focus to what matters in this place, in the context of other scales of consideration. This analysis provides information that is relevant at the scale of a watershed, and is specific to Grouse Creek. However, appropriate analysis scales vary by resource and the issues and questions at hand. Analysis at larger scales, such as a river basin, section, province, the natural range of a particular species, air basin, bioregion and other units are appropriate for specific resources and types of questions. Conducting analysis at the watershed scale involves bringing all relevant analyses together, in multi-scale contexts, recognizing the limitations of a single scale, particularly for resources that are most meaningfully examined at larger or smaller scales. Future project planning in Grouse Creek will hopefully benefit from this and ongoing efforts to learn about this place. It's extremely important to recognize that this analysis is not intended to provide all of the information needed to design any particular projects at any particular sites at any particular times. Good project planning and design always requires site-scale analysis, including field observations of the conditions actually present at the site. Watershed analysis will improve site analysis by describing the broad-scale

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October 1995 Page 1-1 patterns and interactions in the watershed and identifying those that can affect site-scale planning. Ideally, a river basin assessment would be completed before analysis began on the basin's tributary watersheds. The basin analysis would identify the environmental concerns and socio-economic constraints that are evident at a scale larger than that of individual watersheds. This information would help ensure that major issues are not overlooked by watershed analyses. The assessment has not yet been completed for the South Fork Trinity River Basin. However, fisheries issues have been examined in considerable detail at the basin scale during the past decade, and are adequate to identify what matters about Grouse Creek in terms of the fisheries resources and issues in the basin. Most information on what individuals care about in the Grouse Creek area has been gained through interviewing a cross-section of users. Earlier public scoping sessions held for other reasons have contributed additional information about issues and concerns. Analysis provides an opportunity to make interdisciplinary sense of the large amounts of existing information available for the Grouse Creek watershed. Yet, real interdisciplinary cooperation is difficult in the best circumstances because each discipline has its own world view, jargon, obsessions, and institutional turf. We see no way that these barriers can be overcome without having all team members working in the same place so that ideas can be worked out by the appropriate array of disciplines as they occur. Weekly meetings are useful for informing others of one's progress, but not for creating a team that works as a unit. We made this same observation during the Pilot Creek watershed analysis. Our experience with Grouse Creek confirms this. We spent lots of time discussing and devising how the analysis was to be organized. Our intention was to foster interdisciplinary cooperation, and an interdisciplinary presentation of findings. We are not confident that we succeeded in this, but we learned a lot in the process. Future analyses should fix the document organization early on, and then concentrate on finding the connections, rather than dwelling on how they might be structured verbally. Three recent documents were used extensively in the analysis, and form much of the supporting information base from which the analysis was completed. Readers who are interested in more detail, documentation and derivation should consult these (listed below). There are also extensive files related to watershed and fisheries investigations conducted in recent years. A listing of these is in the appendix and they are on file at the Watershed Analysis Center in McKinleyville, California. Jimerson, T.J., S. Thiesen, M. Smith, [and others]. 1995. Ecological Unit Inventory and Terrestrial Analysis of the Grouse Creek Watershed. Six Rivers National Forest. Internal Draft Document. 129 pp.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October 1995 Page 1-2 Keter, Tom 1995. An Environmental and Cultural History of the Grouse Creek Watershed. Document on file, Six Rivers National Forest. Raines, M.A., Kelsey, H.M., 1991. Sediment Budget for the Grouse Creek Basin, Humboldt County, California. Bureau for Faculty Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 11 0 p.

The organization of the document is as follows: Chapter 2 introduces the environmental values that people care about in Grouse Creek, and how these relate to larger scales. The issues that are introduced in this chapter will reoccur through the next four chapters. Chapters 3 presents an overview of the watershed, with brief descriptions of important components of the environment and how they relate to the values. Chapter 4 is a detailed description of the watershed. It probably ought to be an appendix or file report, and duplicates to a large degree the Ecological Unit Inventory report that was prepared concurrently. Chapter 5 describes ecosystem trends and interpretations. Here we use what we know about the various systems to guess where they are headed, and what we can surmise about their condition relative to desirable conditions. Chapter 6 presents the findings of the analysis in terms of the environmental values and the opportunities that are available to manage the ecosystems in Grouse Creek, as well as monitoring needs and information gaps that should be addressed as we proceed with ecosystem management in this place. Finally, this analysis in not complete, rather it is just begun. This document is a first approximation. We have opened the file on this watershed, and will not close it. One may reasonably question whether an agency or collection of individuals can "manage" ecosystems. It is clear, however, that the multiple- use missions of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management require that we strive to understand ecosystems as best we can; and keep learning, incrementally filling in the many gaps in our knowledge, especially where we need to know more about how to conserve species while using the public lands to meet the needs and desires of people.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October 7995 Page 1-3 Chapter 2. Watershed Values

This section is about the values and questions that team members believe are most important at this time in the Grouse Creek watershed. Some were identified by the interdisciplinary team. Additional values and uses were discovered by public contact, especially one-to-one interviews. Awareness of the full range of values, uses, and expectations associated with a watershed is fundamental to the analysis. The President's Northwest Forest Plan aims primarily to conserve species and provide commodity outputs to sustain local communities. The FEMAT report lists eight categories of "Forest Values": commodity, amenity, environmental quality, ecological, public use, spiritual, health, and security. These were used here to help frame the values that focussed the analysis. Ecological Values Key Watershed: Grouse Creek is a part of the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed. Key watersheds are so designated because of their value as habitat refugia for anadromous and resident salmonids. These refugia are watersheds that either provide, or are expected to provide, high quality habitat for anadromous fish populations that are at some risk of extinction.They are expected to secure the existence of stocks that can anchor the recovery of larger-scale populations. This refugia includes degraded watersheds which were thought to have a high potential for restoration. Quality of Riparian and Aquatic Habitat: Past land disturbances within the watershed, both upslope and within the riparian corridor, have removed or changed vegetation components, increased sediment loads, and increased water temperatures. Water temperature, turbidity, sedimentation, water quantity in terms of seasonal flow, and a functioning riparian corridor (shade, canopy, large woody debris recruitment) are critical habitat variables for many species of vertebrates. The altered conditions within the watershed have impacted the quality of habitat for riparian and aquatic dependent species. The current degraded riparian and aquatic habitat within the Grouse Creek watershed and its potential to respond to restoration efforts is of key interest to concerned publics and land management agencies. Key questions: * What is the value of Grouse Creek to the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed given its current habitat condition? * Can this value be increased through restoration efforts? If so, what kinds of restoration treatments might be effective?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 2-1 Vegetation Configuration: Timber harvesting during the last three decades has reduced the amount and distribution of late-successional coniferous vegetation in the watershed. The removal of late-successional coniferous vegetation has been particularly extensive on private lands in the watershed, but many plantations (planted clearcuts) exist on the National Forest lands as well. The loss of this habitat may have reduced the diversity, abundance, and distribution of wildlife species which rely on it (including threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive species). Further, the fragmentation of late-successional habitat might have affected the long-term viability of plant and animal populations by hampering dispersal and movements between adjacent watersheds and by reducing forest interior habitat. Key questions: * Does the amount and distribution of remaining late-successional coniferous vegetation in the watershed fall within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV -also known as Reference Variability) or within the Recommended Management Range (RMR) of the Central Zone as described in the Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) Land Management Plan? * What is the contribution of the late-successional coniferous vegetation in the Grouse Creek watershed to the viability of late-successional dependent species (especially threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive species)? * Does the configuration of the habitat provide adequate corridors for movement and dispersal and adequate interior habitat for the species? Conservation of Biological Diversity: The Grouse Creek watershed supports a high plant community richness and species diversity. The orientation of the surrounding ridges, variation in elevation, precipitation, parent material, geomorphology, disturbance, and land-use history contribute to the significant diversity. Nested in the broader vegetation categories are unique habitats of limited distribution such as Jeffrey pine communities, wet meadows, and the largest black oak stand known to occur on the Six Rivers National Forest. These habitats also represent occupied and potential habitat for rare plants. Based on the high vegetative diversity in the watershed, there is probably a correspondingly high diversity of wildlife species. Only 93 vertebrate species are known to occur in the Grouse Creek watershed, yet this is undoubtedly fewer than actually exists.The geologic diversity of Grouse Creek results in a high diversity of "special" habitats and structures (e.g., seeps, cliffs, wet meadows, caves, rock outcrops, vernal pools) in the watershed. Key Question: How do management activities influence plant and wildlife species and community diversity in the watershed?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 2-2 Fuel Loading and Fire Risk: An issue raised by both the interdisciplinary team and community members concerned fuel loading in the watershed and the increased risk of catastrophic fire. Accessibility and communication limitations have contributed to fire suppression difficulties in the past, and will challenge future fire suppression efforts here. Key Question: What is the potential for catastrophic fire, and can this be reduced by management treatments? Public Use Values Road Maintenance: Funding for road maintenance on public lands has steadily declined over the years. Current funding is insufficient to adequately maintain the existing system. Use of the road system by a variety of publics is expected to increase. The potential exists for unsafe conditions and road-related resource damage. Key Question: How can the Forest Service fulfill user expectations of safe access and resource protection? Access to Private Property: There is a large percentage of private property in the watershed. Many private landowners depend on roads across National Forest to access their property. They are concerned that closing of National Forest roads will eliminate access to their property and may increase trespassing and vandalism by other forest users. Key Question: What can be done to alleviate the concerns of landowners regarding access? Access to the Interior of the Watershed: The public is concerned about access to the interior of the watershed for recreational purposes. Access to this portion of the watershed is currently limited by the use of gates. One gate is on National Forest land, and the other is managed by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on private land. PG&E is concerned about protecting their investments in road maintenance, line shacks, and the transmission line from vandalism. Key Question: What approach should be taken to resolve this access conflict? Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) Management: Both public and private lands in the southern portion of the watershed are utilized by local OHV groups. These users are going further off the main travel routes to obtain a quality experience. Conflicts will increase as the OHV-users continue to use both designated and un-designated loop trails that cross private property. Key Question: What can be done to reduce the potential for conflict?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 2-3 Chapter 3. Character of the Watershed

Geography The Grouse Creek watershed is located in eastern Humboldt County, California at the southern end of the Lower Trinity Ranger District of Six Rivers National Forest (Plate 3.1). The watershed includes approximately 36,300 acres and measures about 1 2 miles north-to-south and nine miles east-to-west. It is bounded by South Fork Mountain, Whiting Ridge and Last Chance Ridge on the south;Pilot and Kinsey Ridges on the west; Ammon Ridge on the north; and unnamed ridges on the east. Grouse Creek flows northward from its headwaters, then turns eastward near the center of the watershed and flows to its confluence with the South Fork Trinity River. It is in the northwest part of the South Fork Trinity Basin, and joins the South Fork approximately 13 miles south of its confluence with the mainstem Trinity River at Salyer. Grouse Creek has several major subdrainages including White Oak, Cow, Mosquito, Bear, and Sims Creeks. Elevations range from 880 feet at the mouth to nearly 5,800 feet on South Fork Mountain. The terrain is moderately to very steep with deeply incised stream channels and few floodplains. The watershed forms an anomalous westward protrusion from the generally linear western boundary of the South Fork Trinity River watershed. This is probably a result of its geologic setting, as explained below. The unusual shape of the Grouse Creek watershed has implications for some of the ecological patterns observed there. Grouse Creek lies within two overlapping descriptive hierarchies. The watershed is split between two sections of the National Hierarchy of Ecological Units (USDA 1 993); the Klamath Mountains Section and the North Coast Mountains Section. This hierarchy is used to classify land based on a combination of similar climate, physiography, and vegetation, and is used within this document for terrestrial analysis. The watershed also lies within the California Klamath Mountains Province, as described in the Record of Decision for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS ROD). This physiographic province is intended to reflect similarities in geology and climate and also incorporates state boundaries. Land Status and Allocations The South Fork Trinity River encompasses approximately 620,000 acres, and is one of four large tributaries to the Trinity River. The South Fork can be divided into three smaller units: the Upper South Fork, Hayfork Creek, and the Lower South Fork. Grouse Creek is the largest watershed flowing into the Lower South Fork, which has been designated as a Key Watershed (FSEIS ROD and FEMAT).

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 3-1 Location Within Klamath River Basin Grouse Cr,eek Watershed USDA I orest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center Legend

Mk~M Klamath River Basin in California S\''\''9'\', Trinity River Watershed \\ , \1 South Fork Trinity River Watershed Grouse Creek Watershed

California Border

I Page 3-2 I Hayfork AMA and Late Successional Reserves Grouse Creek Watershed USDA I -orest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center Legend

,'lX, M,15K,"I Hayfork AMA Late Successional Reserves

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

V

F41s-

N Scale 1:400,000

Page 3-3 The South Fork Trinity River is classified as a Wild and Scenic River in both the State and Federal Systems. The mouth of Grouse Creek is within a wild section of the river corridor. A small portion of the watershed, primarily private land, is actually within the wild river corridor. However, the Wild and Scenic River Management Plan for theincludes objectives and standards and guidelines for the entire watershed, including its tributaries. Currently, approximately 39 percent of the watershed (14,330 acres) is in private ownership, and the remaining 61 percent are public lands. Nearly all of the public lands in Grouse Creek are managed by the Six Rivers National Forest. There is an 80-acre parcel managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the southwest corner of the watershed. Private land ownership includes both small local holdings and large commercial properties. There are 238 miles of roads within the watershed, of which 57 percent are on private land. Forest Service arterial routes 1 and 6 cross the watershed and have attracted both recreational and local traffic. The watershed is divided near its center by a major powerline running east- west, which provides power to the Eureka area. The transmission line, access roads, and line shacks are managed under special use permit. Approximately 4,500 acres of the watershed are located along the western edge of the 488,500-acre Hayfork Adaptive Management Area (AMA) (Plate 3.2). The Hayfork AMA is the largest of ten AMAs identified in the FSEIS ROD, which sets several specific objectives for each AMA. The emphasis for the Hayfork AMA is the development, testing and application of forest management practices (including partial cutting, prescribed burning and low-impact approaches to harvest) which will provide a broad range of forest values, including commercial timber production and retention of late-successional and high quality riparian habitat (FEMAT). The watershed also contains 17,321 acres of Late-Successional Reserve (LSR). The LSRs, in combination with the other allocations and standards and guidelines in the FSEIS ROD, are designed to maintain a functional, interactive, late- successional forest ecosystem. General Geology The Grouse Creek watershed is underlain by a variety of bedrock types that are distributed in three belts trending northwest-to-southeast and separated by regional faults. The oldest (approximately 200 million years) is the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane that underlies 16 percent of the northeast part of the watershed. It contains a variety of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks. The section within Grouse Creek has a serpentinite matrix surrounding blocks of metamorphosed limestone, chert, and volcanic rocks. The younger Western Jurassic Terrane (approximately 145 million years) lies to the west and underlies 28 percent of the watershed. It includes Galice metasedimentary rocks (chiefly slate and phyllite with some semi-schist), Ammon Ridge igneous

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 3-4 Plate # 3.3 Bedrock Geology Grouse Creek Watershed USDA I:'orest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend k/L Franciscan sedimentary South Fork Mtn. schist HHE Ga/ice metasedimentary Ga/ice hornfels Rattlesnake Creek terrane Mesozoic intrusives Ultramafics, serpentinite Co/luvium

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

N I

EMKMrnath Rvr Basin, CA EZ rrinity River Wshed Map Scale in Miles 0 S Fk Trinity Rvr Wshed P-l ------, I , Grouse Creek Wshed 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 IL ._ I

Page 3-5 rocks on the west side of Mosquito Creek, and a thermally-metamorphosed zone of Galice rocks between them. These two terranes are part of the Klamath Mountains Section (National Hierarchy of Ecological Units). The Coast Range Mountains Section lies to the west. This youngest terrane (120 million years or less) is the Franciscan Assemblage and underlies 56 percent of the watershed. It is composed primarily of greywacke sandstone with varying amounts of interbedded shale, plus minor inclusions of chert and volcanic rocks. The eastern 1 6 percent of the Franciscan terrane in Grouse Creek is South Fork Mountain schist, a highly-crenulated unit thought to have resulted from the crushing and shearing of Franciscan sedimentary rocks during emplacement. The distribution of these rock units is shown on the Bedrock Geology Map (Plate 3.3). They are described in more detail in Chapter 4 under Physical Landscape Composition. The unusual physiography of the Grouse Creek watershed may reflect its coincidence with a large-scale bend in the underlying geologic structure that is apparent on the map. The bedrock units as well as the main ridges are slightly misaligned north and south of Grouse Creek. The watershed essentially interrupts the otherwise unbroken ridge line from Horse Mountain to the Yolla Bolly. This may reflect some cross-shearing and weakening of the rocks through which Grouse Creek has downcut to join the South Fork Trinity, rather than being part of the Mad River or Redwood Creek drainages. Grouse Creek's complex geology has important implications for the spatial distribution of other ecological conditions and processes in the watershed, as discussed in later sections. Grouse Creek also contains a wide variety of landforms, due in part to its complex geology and geomorphic history. Most of the landscape is geologically young (probably less than 1 0,000 years), having been formed by rapid erosion and considerable mass wasting (landsliding). Approximately one-third of the watershed is occupied by landslide features from a fraction to several hundred acres in size. The remaining two-thirds is occupied by eroding hillslopes that are deeply incised by stream channels with associated small-scale mass wasting processes. Hillslope processes are strongly associated with bedrock geology, as discussed at greater length in Chapter 4. Climate Grouse Creek lies within a transition between coastal Mediterranean climate and an inland mountain climate. Both are characterized by an October to March rainy season and an April to September dry season. The rainy season typically has periods of intense rainfall (up to 2 inches per hour). Rain is often mixed with snow between about 1,500 and 4,000 feet elevations (referred to as the transitional snow zone). Snow typically persists above 4,000 feet. Average precipitation ranges from 60 to 85 inches per year. Temperature is also strongly seasonal, ranging from about 100 to 55TF during the rainy season, and from about 45° to over 100° F during the dry season.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 3-6 The shape and location of Grouse Creek tends to funnel and trap cooler coastal air masses from the Redwood Creek drainage, producing remarkably cool and wet conditions, especially in the headwaters of Grouse Creek. The orientation of ridges provides topographic shading and a bowl effect that traps the moist air and retards drying air flows. As a result, summer fog periodically occurs in Grouse Creek and its tributaries above the Mosquito Creek confluence. Aquatic Habitats and Organisms There are approximately 25 miles of salmonid habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed. Only 1.6 miles of habitat is available to anadromous fish because of a barrier formed by a large landslide, appropriately named Devastation Slide. The reach below the barrier is occupied by steelhead. It has been heavily impacted by the large quantities of sediment yielded through the years by the slide. Terrestrial Habitats and Organisms The Grouse Creek watershed contains a tremendous variety of vegetation. Conifer forests are the most abundant. They include the tanoak, Douglas-fir, and white fir series, as well as serpentine communities in the Jeffrey pine and gray pine series. There are also less extensive areas of hardwood forest, oak woodlands dominated by black oak, and grasslands. About one-third of the watershed is in the old-growth seral stage. The largest contiguous areas of old- growth black oak found to date on the Six Rivers National Forest are located within Grouse Creek. There are few documented occurrences of rare plants in the Grouse Creek watershed, due in part to limited surveys and the small areal extent of potential habitats. Several rare species may occur in Grouse Creek, based upon the presence of appropriate habitat elements and documented occurrences in nearby watersheds. The watershed provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including many threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species. Several northern spotted owl territories, as well as goshawk and fisher, are known to exist within the watershed. The watershed lies between 25 and 33 miles from the ocean and is within marbled murrelet Zones 1 and 2 (FSEIS ROD). Part of a peregrine falcon feeding and primary disturbance zone is also located within the watershed boundaries. Human Uses Humans have used the Grouse Creek watershed for at least 5,000 years. The earliest inhabitants left few permanent marks on the landscape because their foraging activities were dispersed and had low impact. As the Native American population grew, more intensive procurement strategies were used and probably began to affect the distribution of plants and animals across the landscape. European settlement of the region in the 1800s resulted in increasingly intensive use of the watershed, including trails, homesteads, powerlines, roads, and logging. Today, there are no year-round residents within the watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 3-7 Chapter 4. Past and Current Conditions

Agents of Change Disturbances are the forces that produce ecosystem changes. They may be characterized according to type, magnitude, intensity, frequency, duration, and spatial extent. Some types of disturbance occur at much larger scales than a watershed, but they are discussed here with respect to Grouse Creek. In the following section, disturbance agents are subdivided in terms of long-term or short-term, which are loosely defined as more or less than a few hundred years ago. Some parts of the long-term discussion are fairly speculative. This section is further subdivided by major categories of disturbance. Human and natural disturbances are discussed together in the short-term section. Long-term Changes Tectonics, Uplift, and Earthquakes: Northwestern California has been a very active tectonic setting for several million years. A major subduction zone extends under the continent from offshore, and the active Mendocino and San Andreas fault systems intersect near Cape Mendocino. Eastward under- thrusting of the oceanic plate has uplifted the continent at an estimated rate of a foot per century at the coast, probably decreasing gradually inland. This rate of sustained uplift has maintained high local relief as streams have continued to cut down to local and regional base levels. The uplift has provided the driving energy for the intense erosional and mass wasting environment of the California Coast Ranges and Klamath Mountains. Evidence also suggests that plate movement along the subduction zone has generated very large earthquakes (Richter magnitude 8.5+) every 300 to 600 years, probably throughout the Holocene Epoch (the last 10,000 years) and possibly much farther back in the geologic past (Gary Carver, personal communication). Major seismicity (magnitude 6-7.5+) associated with other related fault systems (as well as their likely predecessors that lie inland and are now inactive) probably occurred more frequently, perhaps every 60-1 20 years. Overall, the seismic environment was probably more intense through the Pleistocene Era (approx. 2,000,000 to 1 0,000 years ago) than at present. This long-term seismic and fault history had profound effects on the development of the landscape, as well as its response to other short-term disturbances, primarily in terms of slope stability (discussed below under Geomorphic Processes). Climatic Variation and Fire Regime: Regional pollen data collected from archeological sites on Pilot Ridge indicate that profound climatic shifts have occurred over varying time scales in the Grouse Creek watershed (from hundreds to tens of thousands of years). In addition, soil horizons known as mollic epipedons have been found on some upland sites that indicate an earlier period of grassland dominance where white fir forests now thrive. These data indicate shifts from relatively wetter/colder intervals to warmer/drier ones, which have most likely had different effects on the landscape in terms of frequency and intensity of other disturbance processes. Intervals that were wetter and colder probably increased both the magnitude and frequency of

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 storms, floods, and landslide processes. Hotter and drier periods would have experienced more frequent droughts with more severe fire regimes as well as pest infestations and disease in stressed vegetation. These climatic variations have left only scattered evidence on the modern landscape, such as very large landslide complexes of probable pre- to early Holocene age (based on their subdued topographic expression) that probably formed under a wetter cihmate than did most modern features. There is little direct evidence of fire regimes that may have existed in the distant past, but regional dendrochronology also indicates substantial variation in climate that would most likely have been reflected in prevailing fire regimes. Natural fire regimes in the distant past may have been quite similar to conditions experienced in the 19th and 20th centuries, varying with the prevailing climate as described above (i.e, more intense, larger fires during hotter, drier intervals). Scattered, infrequent, stand-replacing fires probably occurred, but small, low-intensity fires were likely the norm. Burning by Native Americans was also a more important disturbance element in the distant past than it is now. It is generally thought that their practice was to burn understory vegetation at low intensity rather than to cause stand-replacing events. Prehistoric climatic extremes also have implications for aquatic and riparian systems. Essentially no data exist on riparian and aquatic conditions before the late Holocene. During the past few thousand years, however, the prevailing climate has placed Grouse Creek generally within the transitional snow zone where rain-on-snow conditions can produce large floods. Therefore, the watershed probably has been exposed to high flows similar to the 1861 and 1964 floods (discussed in the short-term section below) on a fairly regular basis during the late Holocene. These events would have created a legacy of prehistoric channel conditions that have persisted into the modern era. Large elevated terraces and very large, re-vegetated debris slide scars along the mainstem of Grouse Creek and the lower reaches of other tributaries are probably evidence of this prehistory. Periods of greater-than-average snow accumulation also would have resulted in conditions of higher soil moisture and groundwater baseflow persisting longer into the summer, which could have affected riparian plant community composition and vigor. On the other hand, periods of drier winters would have caused extreme low flows that could have seriously stressed both aquatic and riparian species. In a variety of ways, these climatic extremes have helped to create a complex landscape on which present- day natural and human-induced processes have continued to operate. Geomorphic Processes: The landscape within the Grouse Creek watershed has been formed primarily by mass wasting (landsliding) and erosion in response to geologically-recent uplift and rapid stream downcutting, strong earthquakes and climatic extremes, as described above. Uplift has created and maintained high local relief and steep slopes. The climate has produced seasonally-intense precipitation, floods and elevated pore pressures in weak slope materials; and, earthquakes have provided a powerful triggering agent for large-scale landsliding.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-2 .iI t Geomorphology Grouse Cre,ek Wa tershed USDA Fores t Service Six Rivers / IVationaI Forest Humboldt In teiragency Watershed Air7alysis Cen ter

Legend

'__1 Alluvial Deposits V ., //, /I, -ErodingHi//slopes Deep-Seated Landslides Shallow Landslides and Deposits Valley Inner Gorge

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

I Page 4-3 Landsliding is a relatively sporadic process and varies considerably across this landscape. Landslide occurrences and rates depend on many factors including: competence of underlying bedrock (a function of its mineral composition, degree of hardening, and arrangement of structural weaknesses), texture, depth and degree of weathering of the overburden, density of vegetative cover, slope, and presence of older landslide features. Landsliding actually results from a combination of threshold phenomena. The strength of a particular slope tends to weaken progressively over time due to weathering and the formation of clay minerals. When it reaches a point at which seasonal pore pressures are high enough and the driving gravity forces (including earthquakes) exceed that strength, the slope fails along the weakest surface. Because of the complex geology, the resulting failure surfaces are generally complex, as are the landslide deposits that result. Some landslides are relatively shallow, displacing only a few feet of weathered soil above the bedrock (Plate 4.1). Others are quite deep where the bedrock is deeply weathered or where failure occurs within the rock mass itself. All of these varieties are present in Grouse Creek; deep-seated coherent slides cover the most area, but shallow debris slides are the most common type. The distribution of geomorphic types is discussed in greater detail in the Physical Landscape Composition section. Grouse Creek appears to contain three main landscape components in terms of relative age. Regional studies suggest that the northwest California landscape was relatively subdued (with low to moderate slopes and low relief) and graded to sea level in the late Tertiary period (about 5 million years ago) when the present accelerated uplift is thought to have begun. Relics of this old erosion surface are present in broad upland areas that contain some of the more developed soils in this otherwise young landscape. Most of the Grouse Creek landscape is much younger than the uplands, having been formed by repeated episodes of mass wasting and accelerated erosion as streams cut down into the older, subdued landscape. The late Pleistocene and early Holocene landscape is represented by present-day midslopes, many of which are mantled by very large landslide masses. The headscarps of these prehistoric features are still visible on aerial photos (but less so in the field) as subtle breaks in slope. Because of their steepness and the relatively fresh parent material exposed in them, these older scarps tend to support distinctly different vegetation from the adjacent, un-failed slopes or the down-dropped landslide masses themselves. They also tend to have different present-day erosion and mass wasting regimes. The landslide benches often support the most robust vegetation due to their deeper, well-developed soils and lower-slope positions which tend to have more soil moisture. This midslope, "middle-aged" landscape is characterized by moderately steep slope-and-bench topography that has been exposed to long weathering and surface erosion and has been incised by modern streams. The youngest part of the landscape includes most of the lower slopes, valley inner gorges, and alluvial/terrace areas. There are also headwall/debris-slide basins (particularly in the Mosquito Creek sub-drainage) that are probably late Pleistocene landforms, but have continued to fail by mass wasting and thus constitute relatively young surfaces. The primary implications of this complex

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-4 pattern of landscape development involve present-day slope stability and patterns of soil development. The bedrock geology of Grouse Creek was described briefly in Chapter Three. Taken together, the geology and geomorphology of the watershed can be thought of as its underlying architecture on which the soils, plants, and animals have developed and interacted. Although these geologic processes appear static from the relatively short human perspective, it is important to see them as dynamic elements in the evolution of the ecosystems that exist in Grouse Creek. Erosion varies considerably across the landscape in Grouse Creek, and is also strongly seasonal because it is much more intense during the wet season. Erosion rates depend on slope, texture of surface materials, density of vegetative cover, and competence of the underlying bedrock. All but the last are related to the geomorphic history of different parts of the landscape. There is only very indirect information about long-term erosion rates of the basin - that is, most of the basin volume has been removed by erosional processes (including landsliding) during the past five million years. This is based on the presumption that the present ridgetops approximate the old Tertiary erosion surface. The erosion rate has certainly not been constant, however, and would have been lower at first when local relief was relatively small. Present erosion in today's fairly wet climate with high watershed relief may actually be among the highest that the watershed has experienced over this long time frame. Soil Development: Although soil development is not an actual disturbance agent, it is an important ecological change process that influences most other ecosystem functions. Soil is at the heart of all ecosystem processes and the productivity which ecosystem elements and habitats support. Soil formation and removal processes play against each other over time to produce the soils we find today. All of the five basic factors of soil development (climate, parent material, local topography, surface age, and biologic activity) vary considerably across the Grouse Creek landscape, and the soils reflect this variability. It was noted earlier that this dynamic landscape contains a complex of landforms that are distributed somewhat systematically over the upper, middle, and lower slope areas. Most of the hillslopes are mantled by either residual or colluvial regolith, from which the soils have been derived. In general, these soils are relatively immature and poorly developed because much of the landscape is geomorphically young due to periodic mass wasting or persistent erosion. The main exceptions are soils on old landslide benches at the base of slopes and some stable upland areas. There do not appear to be extensive deposits of fluvially transported soil still present in the basin except for modern alluvium and a few stream terraces. Because of the active geomorphic environment, the streams appear capable of transporting most products of erosion out of the watershed. We do not have reliable data on which to base estimates of typical rates of soil development in this region, although it could be inferred from present and past climatic conditions. Soil profile development varies with parent material and its degree of weathering, slope position, and availability of soil water for chemical breakdown and leaching. Most of the exposed parent material in Grouse

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-5 Creek has been moderately to intensely-weathered, and there is ample precipitation to promote chemical weathering and leaching. These processes would tend to be more intense on the lower two-thirds of slopes. There is also ample biological activity to promote soil development. Therefore, it is likely that soils have formed in the Grouse Creek area at a comparatively high rate, and it is only the equally high rate of geologic erosion that has countered this potential and left relatively poorly developed soils across most of the landscape. Short-Term Changes Earthquakes: The present controlling seismic structure for the Grouse Creek area is probably the Cascadia subduction zone which has produced large, historic earthquakes (M. 7+) and prehistoric, great earthquakes (M. 8.5+) determined on the basis of geologic and anthropologic evidence (Gary Carver, personal communication). The general effects of this seismicity are probably limited to prolonged ground shaking and possibly localized surface rupture associated with major slope failures. These effects would tend to be brought about by rapid rises in local pore pressures if the ground were saturated. Possibly some very large, new, deep-seated landslides (similar to the older features in Grouse Creek) would be initiated by a major subduction-zone earthquake. Effects on slope stability could be aggravated to some extent in areas that had experienced severe human disturbance in the past 30 years or so. This conclusion is based on the premise that many slopes in the watershed are probably near threshold stability, given the active uplift of the landscape and recent effects of the 1964 flood. Other seismicity of lesser magnitude near the coast (associated with the San Andreas, Mendocino or Mad River Fault Zones) is probably not important as a present-day disturbance agent in the Grouse Creek watershed. Weather Extremes: Recurrent winter storms and resultant floods are a permanent disturbance agent in the Grouse Creek landscape. Since it lies within the transitional snow zone between 1,000 and 4,000 feet elevation, Grouse Creek is susceptible to rain-on-snow events (such as the 1964 flood) which can have particularly severe effects on landslide incidence and resultant sedimentation of riparian and aquatic systems. The previous flood of this magnitude in the region occurred in 1861. Other major floods were recorded in 1890, 1915, and 1955, and significant high flows occurred recently in 1972, 1975, 1986, and 1995. These major floods produced profound effects on the Grouse Creek landscape, including widespread landsliding and surface erosion (especially gullying of landslide scars and steep, logged areas), delivery of large quantities of sediment to the stream network, removal of large areas of riparian vegetation, and deposition of alluvium, colluvium and organic debris in lower-gradient, mainstem channels. Less severe flood events probably produced some landsliding and erosion, as well as redistribution by streambank erosion of sediment and debris already in the stream system. Figure 4.3 shows the precipitation depth - frequency relationship developed for the Grouse Creek Area. Other climatic agents that have affected this landscape include high W'inds and ice storms that can break vegetation and may alter successional processes in

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-6 localized areas. Wind has also probably been an aggravating factor in fire behavior, especially on the upper-slopes and ridgetops. Logging and Road Development: Disturbance, in the form of logging and road building, began in this watershed around 1949 and has continued to the present day. Total acres logged within the watershed on private and public lands are depicted in Table 4.1 and illustrated in Plate 4.2. District records were used to determine harvest acres and prescriptions for public lands. Harvest activities on private lands were determined from aerial photo interpretation.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-7 Logging History Grouse Cr,eek Watershed USDA / Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

~,/ z~////'/A Harvested in 1960s Harvested in 1970s Harvested in 1980s Harvested in 1990s

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

Page 4-8 M

Table 4.1 Summary of cutting prescriptions, acres logged, and percent of watershed impacted by timber harvest.

Prescription National Forest Public Total Acres % Acres % Acres %

Clearcut 2,044 6% 4,252 12% 6,296 18%

Partial Cut 1/ 841 2% 6,238 17% 7,079 20%

Salvage & 1,429 4% 1,429 4% 1,429 3% Sanitation 2/

Total 4,314 12% 10,490 29% 14,804 41%

1/ Partial cut units include shelterwoods, selection harvests, and thinnings. 2/ For the most part, units which were salvaged or sanitation-logged had very few trees removed. Disturbance in many of these units is not discernable on aerial photos. On public lands, approximately 87 percent of the regeneration units are adequately stocked with conifer trees. Ninety-four percent of these plantations are now within the Late-Successional Reserve. Conifer and hardwood growth in the majority of plantations is limited by severe competition between conifers, hardwoods and brush. Very few of these plantations have been pre-commercially thinned. Where thinning has occurred, the objective was to accelerate conifer growth by evenly-spacing conifers and removing the majority of hardwoods. The present condition of privately-logged lands is unknown.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-9 Pl11ate # 4.3 Percentage of Sub watersheds Logged Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers National/Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Mvosquito Creek 28.6 % Cow Creek 42.0 White Oak 87.1 Upper Grouse 24.0

eI Upper Mid-Grouse 26.4 Lower Mid-Grouse 59.1 4 Bear Creek 67.1 Lower Grouse 17.4

Klamath Rvr Basih, C4 Trinity River V'Mhed Map Scale in Mils S Fk Trinity Rvr Wshed Grouse Creek Wshed 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

IL

Page 4-1 0 Road Network Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

F1---- - -I---- I Sho ws in 1960s Air Photos Sho ws in 1970s Air Photos Shows in 1980s Air Photos Sho ws in 1990s Air Photos

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

Page 4-1 1 Storm/Flood Events and Landsliding: The storm events and changing logging practices of the last 30 years have played a dominant role in the erosional history of the watershed. The unusually high levels of erosion, mass wasting and sedimentation have had substantial and long-lasting effects. Logging and road building began in the late 1950s and early 1 960s. Ninety-three percent of all sediment volumes were generated during the 1 5-year period from 1960 to 1 975 that included three major storm events (1 964, 1972 and 1975), the completion of 74 percent of basin logging activity, and 80 percent of the road building. The winter floods of 1955, and especially December 1964, triggered mass wasting events that initiated profound channel adjustments that have yet to recover fully. Most of the timber harvest between 1950 and 1975 occurred on private lands, predominantly by tractor-logging which frequently occurred on slopes greater than 70 percent. These activities tended to compact soils and alter fluvial hillslope processes. Plate 4.3 shows the current percent land base logged by subwatershed, and Figure 4.1 shows the cumulative amount of land logged since 1960. The extensive construction of roads caused additional alteration of fluvial hillslope processes. Of all human activities that affect a watershed, most scientists agree that roads are the major contributor of accelerated erosion. Within the Grouse Creek watershed, mass wasting is the dominant, natural, erosional process and roads appear to have been a major causative factor in landslide initiation. In addition to causing landslides, roads are the largest contributor per acre to rill and gully erosion. Roads can affect streams directly by accelerating erosion, increasing sediment loads, altering channel morphology, and changing the runoff characteristics of watersheds (Furniss et. al., 1 991). Studies over the past 25 years have documented that adverse changes often occur in streams as a result of building forest roads. Roads modify natural drainage networks and can lead to alteration of physical processes such as sediment transport and storage, channel bank and bed configurations, substrate composition, and slope stability. In the coastal northwest where forest roads and landings are located on steep terrain, landslides and debris torrents are the most common methods of erosion and sediment delivery to streams. The sediment input into streams from such failures can be both long-lasting and catastrophic to riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Within Grouse Creek, there are approximately 238 miles of road, of which 57 percent are located on private lands. Figure 4.2 and Plate 4.4 show the cumulative road density in Grouse Creek since 1960. The majority of the private roads were built before more stringent forest practice rules were in place. In general, compared to Forest Service standards, private roads were left in very poor condition, with culverts and other drainage structures abandoned and un-maintained. Some of these roads developed severe gullies or have

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 2 partially blown-out channel crossings or plugged culverts that will eventually fail and deliver sediment to the stream system. In many places, roads are located close to Grouse Creek and other tributaries, increasing the chances of future erosion and that sediment will be delivered to the mainstem, fish- bearing channel.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 3 100 I I I~~~

90 -o %of Private Land Logged -- %of FS Lana Locced -A-- % of Watersne2 Logged a 0 -, O' 0- - --a ! ci 70 - I 0, I A- I -'C 60 - o- v/ i

I- -5 / a) 40 -4 jar rU 0- I 30 - za

20 -1

- a- - -]a-- DF- -a- O0- / ~~~~M- 0_- _ 955 19c,0 G65 1970 1975 I9s0 1985 19gO ^9 5 Year

Figure 4.1 Cumulative amount of land logged in the Grouse Creek watershed.

7

-0 P'vate Lancs 6 - F-aS Lanos °0 --- All Lanos I 0 5 i

0-a ~ ~ ~ --

0~~~ Co! C 2 3- / __ - Ea) 2

0 ! / /

Er- o/ // /- - M I / ~ ~ ~~~~a a 0 ,- 11 A-

- 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1920 i965 1990 1995 Year

Figure 4.2 Road density in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October 7995 Page 4-1l 4 In 1988, these cumulative effects led to a moratorium of logging activities on Federal lands. An investigation of the sources and causes of apparent sedimentation problems was conducted (Raines and Kelsey, 1991) which revealed that the watershed had produced approximately 1 ,750 tonnes/km2/yr over a 29-year period. This is one of the highest published sediment output rates within the Pacific Northwest. Most landslides were either initiated or enlarged between 1960 and 1966. Landslides prior to 1960 tended to occur in areas of inherent geologic instability. The December 1964 storm and flood was the single event most responsible for the notable increase and growth of landslides. Slides during this period account for 71 percent of the total slide volume and 62 percent of all sediment produced during the budget period. An estimated 27 percent of introduced sediment is still stored in the stream system. The sediment budget study found that streamside landsliding accounted for 86 percent of the sediment produced; most of this volume was generated by the 1964 flood. The remaining 14 percent was produced from erosion of stream banks, bare hillslopes, and roads (Table 4.22). While the bulk of sediment was derived from streamside landslides, approximately 40 percent of the streamside landslides were judged to be associated with roads, landings, and other management activities. (See Table 4.23). Of the total sediment produced during the budget period, approximately 41 percent was associated with land management activities. Many slides were initiated in roaded/logged areas in the upper watershed. Downstream from the logged areas, stream channels aggraded as a result of the increased sediment input, and additional slides probably occurred as aggradation caused channel migration on lower gradient reaches resulting in the lateral scour of unstable streamside slopes. Bear Creek best exemplifies the impact to channels from the 1 964 landsliding. An estimated 30 percent of the Bear Creek subwatershed was logged prior to the storm. During the storm, landsliding was initiated in logged and roaded areas in the upper watershed, a debris flow occurred, and the spatial relationship between landsliding and channel scour suggests that a dam-burst flood traveled down the channel. As a result, a 6m high debris fan was built at the mouth of Bear Creek. Landsliding in old-growth near the mouth of the creek was caused by the extreme channel-widening and stream bank scour. The sediment budget study determined that sediment production is dominated by mass wasting and is concentrated in areas of geologic instability and logging. Terranes that are intensely faulted and sheared, such as the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane and South Fork Mountain schist, have experienced the greatest frequency of mass wasting. Debris slides are the predominant mass movement feature (81 percent of the total number of slides inventoried) and account for 69 percent of the sediment delivered. Over longer time frames, however, deep- seated landslides (especially slump-earthflows) probably deliver a substantial fraction of the total sediment load to the main channels.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 5 Erosion processes were found to differ by stream order. Debris torrents and stream bank erosion dominate in second- and third-order channels, whereas streamside landsliding was more frequent in fourth- through sixth-order streams. While hillslope erosion processes (rilling, sheetwash, gullying, and midslope landsliding) were not a significant part of the total budget of the hillslope erosional processes, gullying was determined to be a significant erosion process (80 percent of all sediment from hillslope processes) on most tractor-yarded slopes because water is concentrated by skid roads. No gullies were found to occur within the old-growth forest. Direct road-related surface erosion (excluding road-related mass failures) was not found to contribute significant amounts of sediment. However, this estimate is probably conservative since past failures are corrected through road maintenance, thereby obliterating evidence of past failures. Forest Vegetation Pathogens and Insects: The structure and species composition of forest vegetation is affected by pathogens and insects which attack, weaken, and sometimes kill vegetation. The vast majority of organisms that exist in the Grouse Creek watershed are native. The activity of these organisms fluctuate in conjunction with environmental and human-caused stress or other biotic factors. The impacts on vegetation from these organisms can be widespread, causing major changes in plant and stand diversity, or they can be less significant resulting in reduced rates of tree growth, increased decay, and low levels of mortality. Virtually no information exists on the incidence of pathogens and insects prior to European settlement. In the last several decades, insects and pathogens have not caused major disturbances at the landscape level in the Grouse Creek watershed. Damage and mortality resulting from these organisms is primarily present as isolated dead and dying trees or small pockets of dead trees which create canopy gaps, increase decadence, and add diversity within stands. Increased activity of these organisms is normally associated with periods of drought, poor site quality, overstocking, and a shift toward shade-tolerant species. In the Grouse Creek watershed, only a few pathogens and insects are of specific concern.

Several species of dwarf mistletoe (Arccuthobium spp.) can be found on different species of pine and on the true firs. They are relatively host-specific with a long life cycle and slow rate and distance of spread. Two story stands with the same species in both layers are ideal for the spread and intensification of dwarf mistletoes. Single- story, mixed species stands are not affected as dramatically. Stands that have been selectively harvested and have not had periodic ground fires may have had, or will build up, high levels of dwarf mistletoe. Periodic ground fires help to keep dwarf mistletoe at low levels by killing heavily infected trees and killing witches' brooms that grow close to the ground. Stands that are overstocked and develop high levels of dwarf mistletoe and witches' brooms are more predisposed to stand-replacing fires.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 6 Organisms causing root disease have not been observed in the watershed but likely are to be present. Black stain root disease (Leptographium wageneri) is known to be present in many areas on the Lower Trinity Ranger District. It primarily kills trees in small groups. Probable sites of infection are in association with areas of significant disturbance, especially roads and skid trails. One nonnative pathogen is present in the Grouse Creek watershed, Cronartium ribicola, the cause of white pine blister rust. It infects sugar pines and various species of Ribes. It has minimal effect on the Ribes, sometimes causing premature defoliation in the summer. It has a devastating effect on sugar pines, killing small trees within a few years to a few decades. On larger trees, there is not as significant an effect - in many cases due to the limited number of infections and the location of the infections on the long limbs. In some situations, however, even large trees become susceptible to successful insect attack. Observations indicate that trees in the 10-20 inches d.b.h. range are now showing signs of infection from the 1 970s as tops and entire trees dies. Regeneration of sugar pine is becoming increasingly difficult in California, especially in areas that are moist in the fall. Resistance to successful infection has been identified in sugar pine, but no resistant trees have currently been identified in this watershed or the in the breeding zone in which it resides. Insects which cause damage and mortality to trees also occur in Grouse Creek watershed. The species of most concern are the bark beetles and woodborers. In the past few years, continued drought has resulted in increased conifer mortality from these insects. In particular, bark beetles in the genus Dendroctonus are well-adapted to exploit drought-stressed pines for breeding habitat. In densely stocked pine stands, an attack by Dendroctonus bark beetles may result in a group-kill of dozens of trees. Minor Agents There are various other minor types of disturbances that have occurred in Grouse Creek which have little effect by themselves but which may collectively alter watershed processes. Firewood Gathering: Firewood is collected both by individuals and commercial operations. The former generally involves dead and down material whose removal could be a minor loss to terrestrial habitats. The latter generally involves the removal of standing hardwoods at a much smaller scale than conventional conifer timber sales and rarely involves road construction or modification. Gathering: This involves the dispersed collecting of a variety of small forest products such as ferns, grasses, berries, cones, and others. It is often an incidental activity to recreational use of the watershed and probably has a negligible effect on the ecosystem.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 7 Homesteading and Recreational Development: There has been relatively little historic homestead use in the Grouse Creek watershed. However, there is a potential trend for subdivision of private lands in the watershed for second home development. Disturbance to ecosystem processes could involve some additional road construction for access, as well as maintenance effects on existing roads to bring them to a higher standard. Other Recreational Uses: The major disturbance agent is probably hunting, affecting both the physical landscape and the wildlife populations. It is a fairly seasonal use (autumn) and tends to be concentrated along the road system. There is some related use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs), both four-wheel drive trucks and other recreational vehicles, away from the road system. This use can, and probably does, affect erosional processes by removing vegetation and concentrating winter runoff in heavily-traversed areas. Grazing: Grazing use is probably moderate-to-light in this watershed, given the general density of forested and brushy areas. Grazing impacts tend to be concentrated in riparian zones and wet areas where localized erosion and water quality degradation can occur. However, this is not a major concern in Grouse Creek at this time. Rainfall: Figure 4.3 provides an indication of the intensity and frequency of precipitation for a six-hour duration, which suggests a peak-flow disturbance regime for the watershed.

Mean annual precipitation 70 inches, 6-hour storm

6 | ~ y = 1 9274 + 1.55911og(x) R= 0.99793 5 a) c .' 4

0) 3

2

l

0o I . I 1 ~~ 0 ~ ~~1 1COf to Return period (years)

Figure 4.3 Precipitation Depth-Frequency Curve for the Grouse Creek watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 8 Interactions Between Agents Disturbance agents interact in complex ways that effect important changes in ecosystem processes, structures and functions. The coincidence of extremes in time or space can produce especially distinct changes. For example, a drought period in the middle to late 1800s produced extensive tree mortality and a resultant accumulation of fuels. Between 1870 and 1920, high intensity, stand-replacing fires were widespread in the Grouse Creek watershed and surrounding areas. As a result, many stands were converted to early seral stages. The interaction of land use changes with climatic extremes (particularly flooding) has probably been the most important influence by humans in the Grouse Creek watershed. It has removed soils over large areas and led to large accumulations of sediment in stream channels. Interactions may be simple, as in the above examples, or subtle but pervasive. The resulting landscapes and ecological elements cannot be explained by examining a single category or type of change or the disturbances that caused them. The interaction of a hard-to-predict influence, such as climatic regime, with an easier-to-predict one, such as fuels generated by different types of vegetation, results in a hard-to-predict influence overall.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 9 iysical Landscape Composition Geology The Grouse Creek watershed is underlain by three distinct belts of rock that trend northwest to southeast and are separated by regional thrust faults. From northeast to southwest, the belts include the Western Paleozoic and Triassic Belt (of which the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, a tectonic melange, is present in Grouse Creek), the Western Jurassic Belt (principally Galice Formation), and the Franciscan Complex. These belts or terranes represent successive accretion of new continental crust to western North America along east-dipping subduction zones. The most prominent boundary is the Coast Range Thrust Fault which separates Jurassic and older rocks to the east from Cretaceous and younger rocks to the west. This structural discontinuity is the boundary between the Klamath Mountains province to the east and the Coast Range province to the west. Movement along the fault produced zones of tectonic mixing in which serpentine is common. This is best displayed near Spike Buck Mountain in the northwest corner of the watershed. An intrusive body, composed primarily of diorite, occupies much of this part of the watershed also. It appears to be wholly within the Western Jurassic Belt and was intruded about the same time as the Galice rocks were accreted to the older continent. Several other thrust faults are mapped in the watershed which appear to be related to accretion of the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane. These faults mark the contact between fine-grained Galice metasediments to the west and the oceanic crustal blocks of the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane to the east. These major episodes of thrust faulting affected the bedrock units of Grouse Creek prior to the Cenozoic Era (65 million years ago). Kelsey and Carver (1 988) suggest that the Grogan fault, which crosses the southwestern edge of the watershed, may have experienced some right lateral movement in the Quaternary Period (last 5 million years), but there does not appear to be any evidence of movement during the Holocene Epoch (last 1 0,000 years). Even so, erosion and mass wasting probably would have eliminated scarps and other physical evidence associated with fault movement relatively quickly. Bedrock units present in the Grouse Creek watershed are described in the following section. They have been grouped under the three major terranes in decreasing order of areal extent. The mineralogy, texture, competence, and weathering characteristics of the different rock types vary widely. Rattlesnake Creek Terrane Rattlesnake Creek Terrane (TRpz) This is a tectonically mixed unit of fine- to medium-grained greywacke sandstone, siliceous argillite, metavolcanics (greenstone), serpentinite, with blocks of chert, limestone and conglomerate. This unit is the eastern terrane of

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-20 the three distinguished by Irwin (1960) in his Western Paleozoic and Triassic Belt. Ultramafic (serpentinized) in the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane (um) This is primarily a massive, fractured, greenish-black serpentinized peridotite and sheared serpentinite within the TRpz unit. Recent studies by Wright and Wyld (1 994) suggest that the serpentinite formed in an offshore fracture zone. There are five mapped zones within it that are pure enough serpentine to show strong vegetative associations. Mesozoic Igneous Blocks (Mi) There are two of these blocks mapped in Grouse. They are medium to coarse grained intrusive rocks of intermediate composition within the Rattlesnake Creek terrane. These intrusions may be the unroofed magma chambers that were the source of volcanic rocks deposited in the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane (Wright and Wyld, 1994). Limestone Block (Is) There are small limestone blocks in the Rattlesnake Creek terrane. Some of these are moderately metamorphosed and siliceous. Western Jurassic Galice Metasedimentary (Jg) These rocks are typically light greenish-gray to buff, phyllites, semischists, and occasional slates. The dominant rock is a well-foliated phyllite, but original texture has been preserved in a few locations and reveals distinct graded bedding associated with turbidites. Geomorphically, this unit is relatively resistant to deep seated failures and is most subject to the formation of debris slide basins. Galice Hornfels (Jgh) This unit was thermally-metamorphosed by the intrusion of the Ammon Ridge diorite. It is typically a medium to dark gray-brown hornfels with occasional chiastolite and kyanite crystals. At locations near the diorite, it has been metamorphosed to a very hard, resistant rock that is not prone to mass wasting processes. Because of the gradational and interfingered nature of the contact, this unit covers a range of metamorphic grades. Ammon Ridge Diorite (Ja) This unit is typically a light- to medium-gray diorite with locally strong gruss-ification. Petrographic studies by Young (1 978) gave the following mineralogy: 60-70 percent feldspar, 5-35 percent hornblende, 1-8 percent quartz, and small amounts of augite, biotite, and magnetite. It typically

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-21 weathers to a coarse texture and is relatively resistant to mass wasting processes. Ammon Ridge Ultramafic (Jum) This is a dark gray to black, hornblende rich portion of the Ammon diorite which contains inclusions of the diorite and is in gradational contact with the pluton. There are areas within this unit that have a high enough hornblende content to be classified as hornblendite. Granitic Intrusive (gr) This unit was delineated by Young (1 978) and is a light-gray to tan quartz diorite with white feldspar and light-gray quartz. These rocks may be the silica-rich end member of the Ammon Ridge pluton. Tectonically Mixed Zone (tm) This unit was also defined by Young and consists of foliated greenstone, metagreywacke, serpentinite, and diorite, intermingled in the Coast Range Thrust zone. Franciscan Terrane Franciscan Sandstone (KJfs) The Franciscan sandstones exposed in the Grouse Creek watershed are predominantly massive, light-tan to gray, fine- to coarse-grained greywackes with some interbedded shale and conglomerate. There are also local outcrops of pillow basalt and bedded chert. Petrographic examination by Young (1978) of Franciscan greywackes gave the following mineralogy: lithic fragments 30 to 70 percent, sodic plagioclase 15 to 40 percent, quartz 10 to 20 percent, chlorite and sercite three to 15 percent, calcite trace to 15 percent, and opaque minerals one to three percent. No potassium feldspar was observed. South Fork Mountain Schist (KJsfm) This unit is the eastern-most component of the Franciscan Assemblage and trends northwest to southeast through the center of the watershed, roughly dividing it in half. The eastern boundary is mapped as the Coast Range Thrust Fault which has been interpreted as a subduction zone thrust (Suppe, 1 972). It is recognized in the field as a strongly foliated and crenulated, blue-gray mica schist, with subordinate quartz and plagioclase. In some localities there are well developed quartz stringers. There are also resistant, craggy blocks that outcrop along ridges and occasionally further downslope. Suppe (1 972) gave the metamorphism an age of 120-1 40 million years. Franciscan Sandstone and Shale (KJfsh) This unit is similar to the Franciscan sandstone except that it contains a higher percentage of fine grained sediments which makes it softer and prone to deep seated failures. It was defined as a unit primarily because of this softer texture.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-22 I

This is probably a result of periodic changes in the influx of fine and coarse sediment during the formation of this unit. There are blocks of the more competent KJfs mapped within its boundaries. Franciscan Sandstone with Chert and Metavolcanics (KJfsb) This unit contains numerous chert and metavolcanic blocks that are smaller than those mapped as separate units. This unit was defined by the presence of these blocks, two of which were large enough to map from the aerial photos. The smaller blocks were identified by field mapping but were too small and scattered to map on the photos. Serpentinite (sp) This unit outcrops along the Coast Range Thrust Fault and in the ultramafic unit of the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane. It is light- to dark-green with foliations and crenulations. It generally weathers to a soft clay rich soil but occasionally forms craggy outcrops. The high magnesium content of soils developed on this unit support a unique vegetation of Jeffrey pine and incense cedar. Chert Block (ch) These are primarily red- and green-bedded radiolarian cherts that occur as blocks in the Franciscan sandstone. Individual beds generally range from 1"-3" (2.5-7.5cm) and are highly resistant to weathering. They probably represent blocks that were transported by plate motion to within the range of continentally-derived sediment. Metavolcanic Block (mv) This unit is primarily composed of fine-grained metamorphosed basalts (greenstone) that outcrop as lenticular bodies. They are typically prominent, resistant knobs that probably originated as pillow basalts created by undersea volcanic eruptions. Geomorphology The geomorphic processes operating in the Grouse Creek watershed are diverse and dynamic. Geomorphic features are strongly associated with bedrock type and tend to be controlled by geologic structure as well. Structural elements in bedrock are usually a significant factor affecting landscape development. Movement along faults can pulverize rock and produce zones of weakness that are susceptible to slope failures. The orientation of compositional layering and foliation can also have a strong effect on slope stability, especially where these structural elements are nearly parallel to the hillslope. Structure appears to have been a factor for some of the slides along the mainstem of Grouse Creek where a combination of oversteepened slopes and fault-weakened rock led to slope failure. Geomorphic features in Grouse Creek range from recent debris slides as small as a fraction of an acre to large, colluvial complexes, rotational-translational

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-23 .slides, and debris slide basins that cover more than 100 acres. Approximately 64 percent of the watershed is classified as eroding hillslope, although there may be small mass wasting features within these areas (Table 4.2). There are two other types of mass wasting slopes that tend to be associated with the competence of underlying bedrock. The first are comprised of steep headwall cavities (debris slide basins) below fairly sharp ridges. These were formed by shallow debris sliding, rockfall and raveling of the underlying resistant soil and rock. Much of the colluvial debris in the northern part of the watershed lies in the "throats" of these headwall basins through which steep tributary streams have cut and continue gradually to carry sediment and debris to the main stream channels. The second group includes areas of extensive deep-seated landslide deposits. This terrain is generally less steep, more hummocky, and may have poorly-integrated drainage, including closed depressions with sag ponds. Large landslides tend to form in the less competent bedrock materials, particularly in the south and west parts of the watershed. Most of the larger landslide masses are quite old (thousands of years), but some are historic or have been active in the last few hundred years. Devastation Slide, the largest ldcslide feature in the watershed, is an active slump- earthflow and is somewhat atypical of the basin. It has acted as a major source of fine sediment to the lower mainstem and has created a periodic barrier to anadromous fish reaching the upper basin. It has also stored a large volume of sediment in the reach immediately upstream. Colluvial deposits are included as an overprint on the bedrock geology map (Plate 4.3). These are materials that have been transported from upslope sources over thousands of years and have experienced varying degrees of mixing and weathering. They differ in significant ways from the underlying bedrock with respect to shear strength, susceptibility to weathering, and hydraulic properties. Colluvium comprises an important part of the soil parent material in this landscape.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-24 Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics for geomorphic categories in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Geomorphic Unit Acres % of Watershed

Alluvial: Floodplain deposits 283 0.8 Stream terrace deposits 100 0.3 Subtotal 383 1.1 Eroding Hillslopes:

Gentle, <35 % 5,310 14.6 Steep, >35 % 1 7,747 48.9 Rock outcrop areas 152 0.5 Subtotal 23,209 64.0 Deep-seated Features:

Block slides 151 0.4 Rotational-translational slides 2,868 7.9

Scarps 188 0.5 Slump-earthflows 897 2.5

Colluvial complexes 2,532 7.0

Subtotal 6,636 18.3 Shallow-seated Features:

Debris slides 638 1.8 Headwall debris slide basin 2,654 7.3

Shallow colluvial deposit 994 2.7

Valley inner gorge 1,424 3.9 Rockslide/rockfall 273 0.8 Debris avalanche 62 0.2 Debris flow deposits 13 <0.1

Subtotal 6,058 16.7 TOTAL ACRES 36,286 100.0

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-25 Geomorphic Unit Descriptions (ranked in descending order of areal extent) Eroding Hillslope/Steep (EH/S): Eroding hillslopes with slopes greater than 35 percent are the most extensive geomorphic feature in the Grouse Creek watershed. They typically extend from the inner gorge up to gentler ridgelines. This unit is fairly evenly distributed in the watershed but is more prominent in bedrock units that are less prone to mass wasting, such as the Ammon Ridge diorite and Galice hornfels. Eroding Hillslope/Gentle (EH/G): Eroding hillslopes with slopes less than 35 percent are the second most extensive geomorphic feature in the watershed. They occur primarily on ridgetops above the break-in-slope that defines the transition to steep eroding hillslopes. They commonly occur in the softer bedrock units of the Franciscan. Rotational-Translational Slides (C/RT): Rotational-translational slides are deep seated, mass wasting features that fail along a curving or planar surface on a gradual to rapid time scale. There are a total of 1 35 of this type of slide, ranging from 0.9 to 1 60 acres. Recent failures of this type have fairly prominent scarps at the upper end and display classic hummocky topography and disrupted drainage. Most of these failures occur in the softer parts of the Franciscan. Debris Slide Basin (C/DB): Debris slide basins are shallow-seated, mass wasting features that are formed by recurrent debris slides of surficial material that appear to be the dominant factor in creating them. They range in size from 3.3 to 1 38 acres. On aerial photos, they show prominent, arcuate headwall areas and a concave longitudinal profile. Some of them have recently- active debris slides within their boundaries. Colluvial Complex (C/CP): These features are landslide complexes that are probably several thousands of years old. They are primarily rotational-translational slides that have indistinct boundaries which range in size from 22.3 to 817 acres. They may be relict features from the wetter climate that existed prior to the Holocene (10,000 years ago). Valley Inner Gorge (C/G): The inner gorge is defined by the "oversteepened" slopes on both sides of stream channels. This unit is the most frequently disturbed geomorphic feature and is subject to significant annual and periodic disturbances from high peak flows. In some areas of Grouse Creek it includes numerous small debris slides along stream channels that would have been difficult to map individually. Colluvial Wedge Deposits (T/CW): Colluvial wedge deposits are shallow features that range from 0.2 to 93 acres. They represent accumulation of material, often at the base of slopes and at the lower end of debris slide basins. They may have small debris slides where they are undercut by streams.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-26 Slump/Earthflows (CS/E): These are deep-seated, mass wasting features that range in size from 0.2 to 1 54 acres. Slump/Earthflows tend to undergo extreme internal disruption because of their finer-grained texture. They typically occur in finer-grained materials such as shale rich areas of the Franciscan and in the South Fork Mountain schist. Debris Slides (T/D): There are a total of 226 debris slides mapped in the Grouse Creek watershed, making it the most common unit by number of occurrence. They are shallow features that range in size from 0.1 to 31 acres with a median size of 1.5 acres. They are clustered along inner gorges and are often activated by channel downcutting and subsequent "over-steepening." They may be the primary agent in the formation of debris slide basins. Alluvium (FP): This unit is composed of unconsolidated stream deposits located in active stream channels that represent accumulations of material that are primarily transported during the highest peak flow. Most of these deposits in the Grouse Creek watershed were last significantly reworked by the 1964 flood. Rock Slide/Fall (C/SF): This unit is defined as an area of periodic rock ravel and erosion with little or no soil development. Individual polygons range in size from 0.8 to 129 acres and are concentrated in the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane. Deep-Seated Slide Scarp (C/RT/S): Slide scarps are deep-seated, erosional features formed at the head of slumps, slides, and flow avalanches. Most slide scarps in the watershed were mapped at the upper ends of rotational-translational slides. They become increasingly difficult to distinguish over time as they degrade and as vegetation encroaches. Rock Outcrop (X): Rock outcrops range from 0.7 to 20 acres and are defined as areas with little or no soil development or significant vegetation. They occur almost exclusively in the Rattlesnake Creek terrane. Block Slide (T/BL): Block slides are translational landslides that experience minimal internal disruption. They range in size from 3.3 to 22 acres and are characterized by a planar failure surface that may be related to bedrock structural features such as bedding or faults. Stream Terrace (ST): This feature is the same as Alluvium (FP) except that stream terraces are isolated from stream channel disturbance. They range in size from 1 .2 to 42 acres with a median size of 2.1 acres. The largest stream terrace is 42 acres and is located near the confluence of Grouse Creek and the South Fork Trinity River. Debris Avalanche (F/A): There were 17 debris avalanches mapped in the Grouse Creek watershed, ranging in size from 0.8 to 9 acres. They represent a rapid slope failure that is probably caused by saturation of fine-grained material. Debris from the scarp and upper end of the avalanches is deposited

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-27 along the channel sides and in the area where the slope flattens sufficiently to prevent movement. Debris Flow Deposits (F/D/D): This unit represents the depositional area of debris avalanches and ranges in size from 0.6 to 4 acres. They are characterized by a lobate, hummocky topography. A total of six debris flow deposits were mapped in the Grouse Creek watershed making it the least common mass wasting feature by frequency as well as by area.SOiIS

Soil is essential to virtually all of the values associated with the Grouse Creek watershed. It is a finite and basically non-renewable resource (in human time frames) on which all biologic and human activities ultimately depend. The soils of the Grouse Creek watershed were mapped using 63 map units indexed in Table 4.3. The map units are composed of some soil consociations, but are mainly complexes of soil series and miscellaneous areas; they are mainly divided into phases according to slope. The soils fell mainly into the Inceptisol (71 percent) and Alfisol (25 percent) soil orders according to the Soil Taxonomy, with less than four percent falling in the Entisol, Mollisol, and Ultisol orders. For the purposes of analysis and discussion, the map units were grouped into eight soil landscape units which are identified by the dominant soil order or other defining soil property. Plate 4.4 is a map of the eight soil landscape units. These units, their acreage, and percent coverage are in Table 4.3. The composition of these units in terms of soil map units is in Table 4.4.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-28 Soils - Major Categories Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

Shallow Dystric Xerochrepts

Serpentinitic

Xerorthents end Xerafluvents

Deep Dystric Xerochrepts

Ultic Haploxeralfs

////g/ Moderately Deep Xerumbrepts

| 1||g XI 1 Moderately Deep Dystric Xerochrepts

High Organic Matter U/tic Haplaxeref6

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

't I

Page 4-29 Table 4.3 Soil landscape map units, composition, and acreage in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Map Unit Acres % of Watershed

- Shallow Dystric Xerochrepts Deadwood-Rock 65-90% 1,472 4.0 Deadwood-Doerock-Rock 1,080 2.9 Doerock-Deadwood 50-80% 3,228 8.7 Doerock-Doerock Scree 135 0.4 Meadheath Scree-Deadwood 341 0.9 Rock 132 0.4 Lithic Haploxerolls-Hapoxeroll 117 0.3 Skyrock-Rock 18 0.1 Lithic Haploxerolls-Rock 55 0.2 Lithic Xeroythents-Skyrock-Rock 7 0.0 Xerothents and Xerofluvents Xerothents 351 1.0 Landslide 342 0.9 Riverwash 250 0.7 Lithic Xerothents-Typic Xerotherents 84 0.2 Serpentinitic Mollic Haploxeralfs-Typic Xerochrept 120 0.3 Weitchpec 0-35% 84 0.2 Weitchpec 35-70% 1 1 0.0 Fine Loamy Serpentinitic-Typic Xerochrept 7 0.0 Moderately Deep Dystric Xerochrepts Blakespring-Jayfork 5-35% 1,888 5.1 Blakespring-Jayfork 35-70% 668 1.8 Tatouche Var.-Haploxeralf 355 1.0 Hurlbut-Doerock 0-35% 286 0.8 Hurlbut-Doerock 3 5-70% 2,921 7.9 Hurlbut-Doerock > 70% 20 0.1 Hurlbut-Doerock Moaist 175 0.5 Hurlbut-Jayfork 0-35% 223 0.6 Hurlbut-Jayfork 35-70% 227 0.6 Hurlbut-Jayfork Hummock 130 0.4 Hurlbut-Jayfork Moist 61 0.2 Chaix-Doerock Var. Hummocky 54 0.2

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-30 - Map Unit Acres % of Watershe Deep Dystric Xerochrepts Meadheath-Deadwood 50-80% 1,323 3.6 Meadheath-Doerock 10-45% 809 2.2 Meadheath-Doerock 35-80% 2,51 5 6.8 Hurlbut-Bentpeak 35-70% 198 0.5 Bentpeak-Doerock 10-35% 2,618 7.1 Bentpeak-Doerock 35-65% 1,230 3.3 Bentpeak-Meadheath 35-69% 1,408 3.8 Ultic Haploxeralfs Lese-Deadwood 25-55% 114 0.3 Lese-Roseam 5-35% 1,034 2.8 Roseam-Lese-Rock 35-70% 20 0.1 Roseam xstl-Roseam 35-70% 616 1.7 Mad-Roseam 10-35% 854 2.3 Mad-Roseam 35-70% 750 2.0 Mad-Meadheath-Lese 25-55% 2,075 5.6 Pelletreau 30-50% 482 1.3 Mad Var.-Hurlbut 0-35% 423 1.1 Mad-Bentpeak 35-70% 848 2.3 Moderately Deep Xerumbrepts Deadman-Rogue 0-30% 275 0.7 Deadman-Rogue 0-30% Moist 5 0.0 Deadman-Rogue 35-70% 634 1.7 Deadman-Rogue 35-70% Moist 31 0.1 Deadman-Rogue >70% 170 0.5 Bins Freezout 0-35 % 156 0.4 Deadman Var-Freezout 35-70% 500 1.4 Frigid Ultic Haploxeroll 0-35% 174 0.5 Bins-Hult 35-70% 316 0.9 Ultic Haploxeroll 0-35% 143 0.4 Ultic Haploxeroll 35-70% 1 50 0.4 Ultic Haploxeralfs High in Organic Matter Grout-Roseam 35-70% 78 0.2 Grout-Hecker 5-35% 830 2.2 Yorkville-Hecker 35-70% 676 1.8

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-31 Table 4.4 Taxonomic Table of Soils.

Order Great Group J Subgroup [ Family Soil Name

Alfisols Haploxeralfs Mollic loamy-skeletal, Grout* Haploxeralfs mixed, mesic

loamy-skeletal, H-ecker mixed, mesic

Ultic fine, mixed, frigid Tatouche Variant Haplo xeralIfs

fine-loamy, mixed, Mad* mesic

loamy-skeletal, Lese * mixed, mesic

loamy-skeletal, Roseam * mixed, mesic

Entisols Xerorthents Lithic loamy-skeletal, Lithic Xerorthents Xerorthents serpentinitic, mesic

Inceptisois Xerochrepts Dystric Lithic loamy-skeletal, Skyrock Xerochrepts mixed, frigid

loamy-skeletal, Deadwood mixed, mesic

Dystric coarse-loamy, Rogue Xerochrepts mixed, frigid

coarse-loamy, Chaix mixed, mesic

fine-loamy, mixed, Bentpeak mesic

fine-loamy, mixed, Hurlbut mesic

loamy-skeletal, Blakespring mixed, frigid

loamy-skeletal, Jayfork mixed, frigid

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1. 0 October, 7995Pae43 Page 4-32 Order ]Great Group Subgroup [ Family Soi Name loamy-skeletal, Doerock mixed, mesic

loamy-skeletal, Meadheath* mixed, mesic

Inceptisols Xerochrepts Typic fine-loamy, Typic Xerochrept (cont.) (cont.) Xerochrepts serpentinitic, mesic

loamy-skeletal, Vleitchpec serpentinitic, mesic

Xerumbrepts Pachic coarse-loamy, Deadman Xerumbrepts mixed, frigid

Typic fine-loamy, mixed, Bins Xerumbrepts frigid

fine-loamy, mixed, Hult mesic

loamy-skeletal, Freezout mixed, frigid

Mollisols Argixerolls Typic fine, mixed, thermic Yorkville Arg ixe rolls

Haploxerolls Lithic loamy-skeletal, Lithic Haploxerolls Haploxerolls mixed, mesic

Ultic loamy-skeletal, Ultic Haploxerolls Haploxerolls mixed, mesic

Ultisols Haplohumults Xeric fine-loamy, mixed, Pelletreau Haplohumults mesic

*Proposed series.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995Pae43 Page 4-33 Soil Taxonomic Unit Descriptions (ranked in descending order of areal extent) Deep Dystric Xerochrepts (10,101 acres) (27.8%): These soils are relatively young but deep and moderately deep Xerochrepts, usually with a depth of over 40 inches. They may be fine-loamy to loamy-skeletal, and will have low pH and low soil organic matter content. They have a comparatively high available water capacity. They may occur in colluvial complexes, toe slopes, foot slopes, or on less steep, eroding hillslopes of the Franciscan and South Fork Mountain schist formation. These landscapes are highly productive due to their depth, available water capacity, and nutrient availability. The dominant vegetation types are white fir, Douglas-fir, tanoak, and chinquapin. Ultic Haploxeralf (7,216 acres) (19.9%): These are more developed soils located in the more stable areas of the watershed, and include, along with the Ultic Haploxeralfs, some Dystric Xerochrepts. They are deep to moderately deep, fine-loamy to loamy-skeletal, moderate pH, and have a high available water capacity. The Xeralfs have weathered to develop argillic horizons. These soils occur on ridgetops, colluvial complexes, rotational-translational slides, block slides, and are generally on more stable surfaces. The landscape is highly productive with good available water capacity and nutrient status. The dominant vegetation includes tanoak, white fir, Douglas-fir, white oak, black oak, and incense cedar. Moderately Deep Dystric Xerochrepts (7,008 acres) (1 9.3%): These soils have a depth of around 40 inches. They have a low pH, moderate available water capacity, low organic matter content, and are fine-loamy to loamy-skeletal. They occur on eroding hillslopes and debris slide basins. Their limited depth affects their available water capacity so that they are only moderately productive sites. The vegetation is mainly Douglas-fir, black oak, tanoak, incense cedar, and white fir at higher elevations. Shallow Dystric Xerochrepts (6,585 acres) (18.1%): These are soils with generally less than 20 inches of soil depth and most are skeletal, containing greater than 35 percent coarse fragments, including gravels and larger rock fragments. Rock outcrops and Lithic Haploxerolls are included. Both the shallowness and the content of coarse fragments limits the available water capacity, and they are low productivity soils. These soils tend to occur on eroding ridge tops, steep, eroding hillslides, and debris slide basins of the Galice formation and on the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, the more resistant geologic materials of the watershed. The vegetation is mainly canyon live oak, tanoak, and Douglas-fir. Deep and Moderately Deep Xerumbrepts (2,554 acres) (7.0%): These soils have dark, umbric epipedons which are high in organic matter. They are deep to moderately deep, fine-loamy to coarse- loamy, and have a moderate available water capacity. They are found at the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-34 higher elevations of the watershed where cooler temperatures inhibit organic matter decomposition. These soils are found mainly on the eroding hillslopes of the Ammon Ridge pluton. The combination of good available water capacity in the deeper soils and lower water demands with lower temperatures make these highly productive sites. White fir is the dominant vegetation. Ultic Haploxeralfs High in Organic Matter (1 ,584 acres) (4.4%): These soils have a high amount of organic matter incorporated in the soil and an argillic horizon. They are deep, clayey, have a moderate pH, high organic matter content, and high available water capacity. They tend to occur on colluvial complexes, slump earth flows, rotational- translational slides, and block slides. The dominant vegetation includes grasses, Douglas-fir, black oak, and white oak. Xerorthents and Xerofluvents (1,027 acres) (2.8%): These are young alluvial and colluvial soils in depositional environments. Soil development is limited. Soil characteristics are quite variable, but they are often subject to flooding or a shallow ground water table. They may be subjected to frequent disturbance and the addition of alluvial or colluvial materials. They occur primarily in valley inner gorges.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-35 Vegetation The following definitions of vegetation elements are used throughout the Pacific Southwest Region to standardize the approach to its hierarchical vegetation classification. At the top of the vegetation hierarchy is the series. Series are identified by the presence of the dominant species throughout the structural layers present in late seral stage stands. Series are followed in the hierarchy by the sub-series. Here, the series name is modified by the addition of a second species which has an indicator value across multiple plant associations. At the bottom of the classification hierarchy, the finest vegetation units described are plant associations. They are the potential natural community with uniform appearance and definite floristic composition. Series: A vegetation series is an aggregation of taxonomically-related plant associations which take the name of the climax species that dominate (or have the potential to dominate) the principal vegetation layer in a time frame appropriate to the vegetation or taxonomic group under consideration. Sub-series: A vegetation sub-series is an aggregation of taxonomically-related plant associations within a series that takes the name of that series followed by related species that have dominance, or that have an indicator value across multiple plant associations. Plant Association: A potential natural plant community of definite floristic composition and uniform appearance that takes the name of the projected climax type. Landscape Composition Landscape composition is described by using information gathered during ecology plot sampling and mapping efforts. Landscape composition refers to the number of landscape element types and the distribution among these types (Li, 1989). The elements include vegetation types and seral stages. The characteristics include stand age distribution, overstory size class, and canopy closure. Elements of landscape composition will also be compared to adjacent areas using a community richness analysis. This comparison is the number of plant associations per thousand acres and is a way of describing community richness standardized by area. Landscape composition is described by vegetation category (i.e., conifer forest, oak woodland), vegetation series (white fir, black oak, etc.), vegetation sub-series (Douglas-fir-black oak), seral stage (shrub/forb, old-growth), tree size class (0-5.9", 21-35.9"), and canopy closure (40-69 percent, >70 percent). Descriptions of how the vegetation series were arranged on the landscape are also provided.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-36 0Overstory Vegetation Grouse Cre,ek Wa tershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers i Va tional Fores t Humboldt In teragency Watershed A rialysis Cen ter

Legend

Douglas-Fir, Tan Oak MMM Red Fir White Fir Ponderosa Pine

E/M ~ Oak Woodlands Grasslands, Riparian, Non- Veg

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

i I L I

Page 4-37 ME I -

Vegetation Composition

The vegetation of the Grouse Creek watershed is extremely diverse; it includes 102 plant associations. This high diversity is due to the orientation of the surrounding ridge systems which trap moisture in the watershed, as well as complex environment gradients including elevation, soil moisture, and parent material. Elevation ranges from 880 to 5,732 feet and is reflected in the vegetation series distribution. This includes tanoak on low elevation sites, Douglas-fir on upland sites, white fir at upper elevations, and red fir at high elevation (Figure 4.4).

Soil moisture effects are displayed throughout the watershed due to aspect, soil depth, and high soil coarse fragments. One example is the relationship of the tanoak and Douglas-fir series to aspect. The tanoak series has mesic soil moisture requirements and is found primarily on north-facing slopes or areas with topographic shading. The Douglas-fir series tolerates much drier sites and is found on exposed, south-facing slopes in the same elevation band as tanoak. A second example is the comparison of the canyon live oak series to the tanoak series. The canyon live oak series is found primarily on shallow, rocky sites with low soil water holding capacity, while the tanoak series is mainly found on deep to extremely deep soils with high available water-holding capacity. The parent material gradient is reflected in the rock types that range from sandstone to schist to ultramafic. The vegetation reflects this relationship in the Jeffrey pine and gray pine series found on soils derived from ultramafic parent rock.

The vegetation of Grouse Creek is composed of four general categories including conifer forest, oak woodlands, hardwood forests, and grasslands (Table 4.5). The conifer forest category dominates the landscape of Grouse Creek. It includes 32,922 acres and makes up 91 percent of the watershed. The conifer category includes eight vegetation series; three of these series account for most of the area in the watershed. The tanoak series has the largest extent in Grouse Creek, followed by the Douglas-fir series and the white fir series.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-38 Table 4.5 Vegetation series extent within the Grouse Creek watershed.

Series Total Acres in Watershed % of Vegetation Series Conifer Forest Tanoak 13,273 37 Douglas-fir 10,356 29 White fir 8,729 24 Red fir 238 1 Incense cedar 125 <1 Gray pine 45 <1 Jeffrey pine 119 <1 Ponderosa pine 36 <1 Subtotal 32,921 91 Oak Woodlands Black oak 940 3 White oak 631 2 Subtotal 1,571 5 Hardwood Forests Canyon live oak 1,304 4 Alder 221 1 Subtotal 1,525 5 Grasslands 146 <1 Non-vegetation 137 <1 Subtotal 283 1 TOTAL 36,300

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-39 T

Red Fir

'\White Fir

, u gDIuas-fir

__Fa n o a k

Alder

Figure 4.4 Vegetation series distribution by landscape position in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Plant Community Richness The landscape composition analysis above, describes Grouse Creek as highly diverse. In order to compare Grouse Creek to the adjacent Pilot Creek and Boardcamp Mountain areas, a numerical analysis is needed. The literature (Romme, 1982) utilizes percentage comparisons based on total possible versus present community richness. This method fails to recognize extent as an important determinant in community richness. For this study, community richness analysis standardizes the three areas of comparison by an index of the number of plant associations by 1,000 acre increments. Pilot Creek covers 25,615 acres, and includes eight vegetation series, 25 sub-series, and 40 plant associations. Boardcamp Mountain covers 7,590 acres, and includes five vegetation series, seven sub-series, and 12 plant associations. Grouse Creek covers 36,300 acres, and includes 12 vegetation series, 44 sub-series, and 102 plant associations. Using community richness analysis as a method for comparison, it is found that both Pilot Creek and Boardcamp Mountain have a 1.6 community richness index. This means that the average number of plant associations was 1.6 per thousand acres and was equal for the two areas. Grouse Creek, in comparison, had a community richness index of 2.8, almost twice as high as Pilot Creek and Boardcamp Mountain.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-40 I Vegetation Seral Stage Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Fo rest Service Six Rivers I Vatio,nal Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed AA!7alysis Center

Legend

Shrub EM Pole Early Mature Mid-Mature Late Mature Old Gro wth

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

I

Page 4-41 Seral Stages Seral stage models based on ecological classifications of vegetation series have been developed. They describe stand development over time and include general descriptions of the characteristics of each seral stage and their temporal nature (Jimerson and Preisler, in preparation). The controversy associated with the management of old- growth forests has made these models particularly important. A seral stage model for Douglas-fir in northern California is presented in Figure 4.5. There is a progression of stand development from the shrub/forb to old-growth seral stage as a function of stand volume over time. Important discoveries made during development of the model include the ecological implications of culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). CMAI in Douglas-fir stands occurs during the early-mature seral stage. In Figure 4.5, CMAI is depicted as a plateau of stand development followed by a reduction in standing volume and a return to rapid volume production. In terms of stand development, CMAI occurs when mature tree crowns overlap and stands move into the zone of eminent competition induced mortality (Drew and Flewelling, 1979) which leads to a pulse of tree mortality. This pulse of mortality is particularly important to wildlife since it leads to the production of large snags (> 20" d.b.h.) which are capable of supporting cavity-nesting birds. A second important finding is the return of stand development following CMAI, to the exponential portion of the growth curve. A third discovery was the cyclic nature of stand development during the old-growth seral stage. Stand volume appears to maximize in the old-growth seral stage and is followed by periods of intense competition leading to mortality (snag and large woody debris production) followed by regrowth. This cycle leads to the heterogeneous appearance of old-growth, particularly in the horizontal and vertical structural components.

140 CDG V

120 1-0 ~LATE MAT U REE

-7 100

80 ICOMATURE

50 O ~~CMAJ ALMATURE w~ > 40

20 LE HRUEIFORS 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 STAND AGE (Years)

Figure 4.5 Seral stage model for Douglas-fir stands in northern California.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-42 The vegetation seral stages of Grouse Creek include six vegetation elements (Table 4.6 and Plate 4.7). Further subdivisions result from natural disturbances and those caused by, or resulting from, timber harvesting. All of the stands in the shrub/forb and pole seral stages are the result of clearcut timber harvesting. In the early-mature stage, some of the acreage has experienced harvesting. Both the early- and mid-mature stands are the result of widespread stand-replacing wildfires which swept the area between 1870 and 1920. These stands are primarily found in the upslope positions, such as ridgetops, and upper one-third slopes. Late-mature and old-growth seral stages are found primarily on moist, lower one-third slopes where stand-replacing fires had their lowest frequency. The highest frequency of old-growth is in the tanoak series, with Douglas-fir and white fir also contributing a significant amount. Regeneration within these stages accounts for most of the vegetation within the shrub/forb and pole seral stages. This implies that, prior to intensive forest management, the old-growth conifer forest in the Grouse Creek watershed exceeded 50 percent. All of the old-growth oak woodlands are included in the black oak series. This is thought to be the largest amount of black oak old-growth to be found on the Six Rivers National Forest. The alder series is represented mainly in the pole seral stage, while the canyon live oak series has its highest frequency in the early- mature, mid-mature, and old-growth stages. All of the vegetation in the grassland category is contained in the shrub/forb seral stage. Ownership Comparison The Grouse Creek watershed is divided between National Forest ownership (61 percent) and private ownership (39 percent). This split ownership manifests itself in the seral stage distribution in the watershed as a result of different management objectives. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the shrub/harvest, pole harvest, and old-growth seral stages. Clearcut harvest units in the shrub/harvest and pole/harvest seral stages account for 11 percent of the Forest Service lands, compared to 40 percent of the private lands. The old-growth seral stage appears to have suffered the highest impacts of harvesting on private lands. Here it has been reduced to 16 percent of the lands under private ownership. This is significantly less than the amount of old-growth on Forest Service lands (48 percent). Intermediate harvests, such as thinning in the mature seral stages, also occur at higher frequencies on private lands. Here, eight percent of the early-mature seral stage and six percent of the mid-mature seral stage have had some form of intermediate harvest. In contrast, on Forest Service lands, less than one percent of the early-mature seral stage and two percent of the mid-mature seral stage have been subjected to intermediate harvests. Age Class Comparison The age class distribution for conifer stands in the Grouse Creek watershed follows a series and landscape position gradient. It is dominated by old-growth

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-43 stands between 200 and 400 years stand age. The oldest stands are found in the tanoak series, followed by the Douglas-fir and white fir series. They are found primarily in the lower and middle one-third slopes where stand-replacing wildfires occurred with lowest frequency. Stands between 111 and 150 years had the second highest frequency (1 8 percent) followed by those between 71 and 1 10 years (1 1 percent). A combination of ecology plots and stand exams show that the majority of these stands were between 100 and 120 years stand age. They resulted from the extensive wildfires that swept the area between 1 870 and 1920. They were highest in frequency in series found in upslope positions such as white fir and Douglas-fir. Young stands between one and seventy years stand age had the next highest frequency (22 percent). They were primarily the result of intensive forest management and are included in the tanoak, Douglas-fir, and white fir series.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-44 Table 4.6 Seral stage acres by vegetation categories in the Grouse Creek watershed. Conifer Oak Woodland Hardwoods Grassland

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres Shrub/Forb

Harvested 4,053 11 6 <1 23 <1 0 0 Natural 70 <1 5 <1 186 <1 145 <1 Pole

Harvested 3,751 10 7 <1 150 <1 0 0

Natural 92 <1 111 <1 61 <1 0 0 Early-mature

Harvested 1,198 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Natural 2,896 8 62 2 357 1 0 0 Mid-mature Harvested 1,225 3 0 0 16 <1 0 0 Natural 5,264 12 245 1 263 1 0 0 Late-mature Harvested 118 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural 1,891 5 126 <1 2 <1 0 0

Old-growth

Harvested 24 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Natural 1 2,34 34 444 1 464 1 0 0 TOTAL 3 2,92 91 1,571 4 1,521 4 145 <1

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-45 Overstory Tree Size Class Results of the overstory size class analysis are shown in Table 4.7. As reflected in the seral stage distribution, most of the large trees are found in lower one- third slope positions (Figure 4.4) and are included in the tanoak, Douglas-fir, and white fir series. The analysis also demonstrates the connection between overstory diameter and the physiological capabilities of each vegetation category. For instance, the two largest size classes have their highest frequency in the conifer category.

Table 4.7 Vegetation acres by overstory size class and vegetation category in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Overstory ITotal Acres by Vegetation Category

Size Class Conifers Oak Woodland Hardwoods Grassland

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Class 1

(0-5.9") 4,1 23 11 10 <1 210 1 145 <1

Class 2

(6-1 0.9 ") 4,308 12 327 1 616 2 0 0 Class 3

(1 1-20.9") 4,946 14 539 1 399 1 0 0

Class 4

(21-35.9") 7,905 22 694 2 221 1 0 0

Class 5

(>36") 11,641 32 0 0 76 <1 0 0

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-46 Canopy Closure With the exception of the shrub harvest and natural seral stages, the results of the canopy closure analysis (Table 4.8) display the dense nature of canopy closure in the Grouse Creek watershed. Average total canopy closure in the conifer category was 83 percent. This includes a mean of 53 percent conifer canopy closure and 34 percent hardwood canopy closure. Conifer stands >70 percent total canopy closure accounted for 65 percent of the watershed, while those between 40-69.9 percent total canopy closure included an additional 12 percent. The dense canopy closure is thought to result from the moist conditions present throughout much of the watershed. Also apparent in the analysis is the reduction in canopy closure associated with intermediate harvesting in the early-mature through old-growth seral stages. The oak woodlands category demonstrates the shift from conifer dominance to hardwood dominance in its mean canopy closure of 20 percent conifers and 60 percent hardwoods. Most of its stands are included in the >70 percent total canopy closure category. The hardwood category follows the oak woodlands category with a mean canopy closure of 19 percent in conifers and 59 percent in hardwoods. It also has its highest frequency of stands in the 70 percent total canopy closure category. In addition to vegetation category, seral stage influences canopy closure. The shrub/forb seral stages have the lowest total canopy closure, while the old- growth seral stage has the highest. The pole seral stage has the highest hardwood canopy closure of 37 and 40 percent. Total canopy closure in untreated stands appears to level off at about 80 percent once the early-mature seral stage is reached.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-47 Table 4.8 Mean canopy closure by vegetation seral stage and vegetation category in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Seral Stace Mean Canopv Closure by Vegetation Category

Conifers Oak Woodlands Hardwoods

conf0 /o hdwd% conf% hdwd% conf0 /o hdwd%

Shrub/Forb

Harvested 13 22 0 10 11 29

Natural 4 13 0 17 2 37

Pole

Harvested 42 37 20 40 22 72

Natural 46 40 9 81 17 74

Early-Mature

Harvested 39 20 0 0 0 0

Natural 46 34 23 60 25 65

Mid-Mature

Harvested 38 10 0 0 25 30

Natural 55 29 36 49 20 66

Late-Mature

Harvested 54 1 0 0 0 0

Natural 69 15 12 70 25 70

Old-growth

Harvested 24 8 0 0 0 0

Natural 55 34 9 66 20 61

TOTAL 49 29 20 60 19 59

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-48 Rare Plant Species/Survey and Manage Species Data for this analysis was compiled from a variety of sources including rare plant locations recorded on USGS 15 minute quad maps, the California Diversity Database (CDDB, 1994), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) electronic inventory (CNPS, 1994) and the Specimen Label Information Directory (SLID) (Muth, 1 994). Similar queries were conducted for ROD Survey and Manage plant species (FEIS ROD, 1994). Sitings listed in most of the respective databases were relatively dated. SLID is a compilation of plot data taken in 1 979 and 1980. There was little or no data available for the private land within the watershed. Table 4.9 is a summary of rare plants known to occur in the watershed or that have the potential to occur, based upon habitat within the watershed and proximal occurrences. As the table indicates, there are very few documented occurrences of rare plants in the Grouse Creek watershed. Those taxa with no known location (0cc. No.=N/A) have the potential to occur based upon the presence of certain habitats and the proximity of an occurrence to the Grouse Creek watershed.

Sedum laxum ssp.flavidum (SELAF) is the only Forest sensitive species known to occur in Grouse Creek. The plants grow in the crevaces of outcrops, primarily of serpentine origin. Given the localization of outcrops, SELAF occurrences are isolated from one another. Reproduction in SELAF is primarily a function of rhizome production. Rhizome production enables the plant to cover the face of outcrops, setting roots in the shallow soil of the crevices. Although SELAF reproduces primarily by asexual means, sexual reproduction does occur. Bumblebees and honeybees are the typical pollen vectors (Denton, 1979). SELAF occurrences can include plants numbering from less than 50 to hundred. Since SELAF is rhizomatous, discerning individuals and occurrence size can be difficult. The Grouse Creek watershed supports potential habitat for another sensitive species- Sanicula tracyi (SATR). It inhabits oak woodlands and, to date, is only known to occupy woodlands to the south of the Grouse Creek watershed. The lack of known SATR occurrences in the watershed could be a function of subtle differences in the nature of the oak woodlands on either side of the ridge separating the Pilot Creek drainage from the Grouse Creek drainage or merely due to the lack of census work conducted in Grouse Creek. If future surveys discover SATR in the watershed, the discovery will represent the northernmost occurrence of this species.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-49 e 4.9 List of documented rare plants and potential rare plants in the Grouse Creek .rshed. Species Common Name Habitat Status, No. of Occurrences 2 DOCUMENTED PLANTS Forest Sensitive Plants Lewisia cotyledon var. Howell's lewisia outcrops of granitic or metasedimentary ongin FSS, CNPS 3 howellii Sedum laxum ssp. flavidum pale yellow stonecrop outcrops of serpentine or sandstone origin FSS, CNPS 4 9 CNPS Rare plants Antennaria suffrutescensevergreen everlasting gravelly serpentine CNPS 4 Collomia tracyi Tracy's collomia serpentine outcrops CNPS 4 2 Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's slipper forest, forest openings CNPS 4, S&M Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillaria chaparral, serpentine CNPS 4 S Penstemon purpusii Snow Mtn. beard-tongue serpentine outcrops CNPS 4 Pityopus californicus California pinefoot mixed evergreen forest CNPS 4 5 Tauschia glauca glaucous tauschia gravelly serpentine CNPS 4 2 Wyethia longicaulis Humboldt Co. wyethia chaparral CNPS 4 A POTENTIAL HABITAT EXISTS Arctostaphylos canescens Sonoma manzanita chaparral, serpentine CNPS 1B N/A3 ssp sonomensis cernua serpentine arnica gravelly serpentine CNPS 4 N/A iiella oregana bensoniella streambanks, meadows FSS, 1B, C2, S&M N/A Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's slipper forest, serpentine seeps CNPS 4, S&M N/A Lewisia cotyledon Heckner's stonecrop outcrops FSS, 1B, C2 N/A var. heckneri Lilium rubescens redwood lily chaparral, serpentine CNPS 4 N/A Lomatium howellii Howell's lomatium gravelly serpentine CNPS 4 N/A Lomatium tracyi Tracy's lomatium gravelly serpentine CNPS 4 N/A Sanguisorba officinalis great burnet streambanks, meadows, often serpentine CNPS 2 N/A Sanicula tracyi Tracy's sanicle oak woodlands FSS, CNPS 1B N Sedum laxum ssp. heckneri Heckner's stonecrop serpentine outcrops CNPS 4 N/A

1 Status FSS = Forest Sensitive Species CNPS list 1B=Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in CA and elsewhere CNPS list 2= Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in CA, common outside CA CNPS list 3= Plants about which we need more information CNPS list 4= Plants of limited distribution, watch list S&M= Survey and Manage species listed in Table C-3 of the Record of Decision (1994), species associated with late seral stage forests C2= Taxa for which FWS has information to propose listing 2 No. of Occurrences = documented occurrences in the watershed 3 "'\= no known occurrence but potential habitat exists in the watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-50 Meadows, seeps, and streambanks in the watershed constitute potential habitat for Bensoniella oregana (BEOR), a forest sensitive species and a member of the Survey and Manage Vascular Plant List (FEIS/ROD, 1994). BEOR occurs in Oregon, But there are less than five known occurrences of this species in California - all located in within a six mile radius of Snow Camp Mountain in Humboldt County. Population sizes in the county are relatively small. BEOR reproduces both asexually (through the production of rhizomes) and sexually. The former is the primary method of reproduction, in fact, very few seedlings have ever been observed over the last four years (personal observation, L. Hoover). Genetic studies on both the Oregon (Soltis, 1992) and Humboldt County populations (Mesler, 1993) show that BEOR displays very little genetic variation which has significant implications for the conservation of the species. Survey and Manage taxa are plant species (vascular and nonvascular) listed in Table C-3 of the Record of Decision (ROD, 1994) and are deemed to be associated with late seral stage forests. The table above lists one known location of Cypripedium montanum in the Grouse Creek watershed and the potential for Cypripediumfasciculatum and Bensoniella oregona to occur. The ROD directs the Forest to manage for known sites of C-3 plant species by developing appropriate provisions for protection. To date, there are no known locations for any nonvascular species (fungi, mosses and lichens) in the watershed. Invasive Exotic Plant Species Data on the presence of exotic plant species in the Grouse Creek watershed was compiled from the SLID (Muth, 1994) and from ecosystem plot card data. SLID data was collected in the early 1980s. Ecosystem plot card data is a ongoing effort, begun in the early 1980s, to collect ecological vegetative data. The intent of these databases is not to serve as an inventory for exotic plant species. Neither database serves as a comprehensive compilation of exotic species that occur within the watershed. Additional exotic species are likely to occur within the watershed and surveys should be performed during project level planning and analysis to determine their extent and what effect project activities will have on their spread.

Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and scotch broom (Cytisus scopar-ius) are invasive exotic plants thought to occur in the watershed. Diffuse knapweed, which invades cattle-grazed grasslands, has been documented on South Fork Mountain, due south of Grouse Creek watershed (personal communication, R. Spadoni, 3/95). Scotch broom is also an extremely aggressive species which produces abundant, long-lived seed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-51 Table 4.10 List of exotic plant species that occur in the Grouse Creek watershed. The most aggressive exotic species appear in bold type.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Aira caryophyllea Silver Hairgrass Bromus japonicus Hairy Chess Centaurea solsitialis Yellow Star Thistle Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Cynosurus echinatus Hedgehog Dogtail Grass Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace Gastridium ventricosum Nit Grass Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanu Mediterranean Barley Poa pratensis Kentucky Blue Grass Torilis arvensis None Vulpia myuros None

Composite Analysis The physical environment (elevation, aspect, slope position, geology, geomorphology, and soils) is combined with vegetation sub-series in a composite analysis below. Vegetation series and subseries (Table 4.11 ) are used as the focus of the analysis. They are categorized by life form (conifer, oak woodland, hardwood forest, and grassland) and described by series and sub- series. Species composition, site index, and site class, Dunning base age 300 years (Dunning, 1942) are described.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-52 Table 4.11 Vegetation sub-series and acres in the Grouse Creek watershed. Vegetation Subseries Total Acres

Tanoak-shrub 5,483

Tanoak-Black oak 251 Tanoak-Incense cedar 385

Tanoak-Canyon live oak 4 ,901

Tanoak-Chinquapin 1,286

Tanoak-maple 967

White fir-Tanoak 610

White fir-shrub 456

White fir-Red fir 326

White fir-Douglas fir 3,495

White fir-White oak 265

White fir-Incense cedar 1,552

White fir-Canyon live oak 724

White fir-Chinquapin 1,221 White fir-Ponderosa pine 80

Red fir-White fir 210

Red fir-Incense cedar 28

Jeffrey pine-Idaho fescue 27

Jeffrey pine-Buckbrush 52

Jeffrey pine-Douglas fir 18

Jeffrey pine-Incense cedar 22

Douglas fir-Tanoak 359

Douglas fir-Jeffrey pine 44

Douglas fir-shrub 387

Douglas fir-Ponderosa pine 102

Douglas fir-White oak 1,494

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-53 Douglas fir-Black oak 2,241

Douglas fir-Incense cedar 165

Douglas fir-Canyon live oak 4,924

Douglas fir-Chinquapin 653

Ponderosa pine series 36 Alder series 218

Grasslands 146

White oak-Brewer oak 17

White oak-Douglas fir 432 White oak-Black oak 76

White oak-Canyon live oak 105

Black oak-Maple 462

Black oak-Douglas fir 245

Black oak-Canyon live oak 233

Incense cedar series 125

Canyon live oak-Canyon live oak 836

Canyon live oak-Douglas fir 468

Gray pine series 45

Riparian 3

Non-veg 137

TOTAL 36,300

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-54 Conifer Forest Conifer forests dominated Grouse Creek where they made up 91 percent of the watershed (Table 4.7). Conifer forests included the tanoak, Douglas-fir, white fir, red fir, incense cedar, gray pine, and Jeffrey pine series. The tanoak series is included in the conifer category due to its overstory dominance by Douglas- fir. It is split from the Douglas-fir series due to the dominance of tanoak in the mid and regeneration layers and the implications of this to forest management. Tanoak Series: The tanoak series is the most extensive series in the Grouse Creek watershed (37 percent). It dominates mesic, lower elevation sites on north-facing aspects or areas of topographic shading. It includes six sub-series described below. The tanoak/shrub sub-series is found between 1,400-4,400 feet elevation, on all aspects in all slope positions. Soils are included in the Hurlbut-Doerock, Pelletreau, Bentpeak-Doerock, and Mad-Meadheath series, derived from Galice, Galice-Hornfels, and South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on debris slide basins, steep (>35 percent), eroding hillslopes, rotational- translational slides, and colluvial complexes. This sub-series includes eight plant association which cover 5,483 acres and makes up 15 percent of the watershed. The tanoak/Oregon-grape and tanoak/hazelnut are the dominant plant associations. Dominant tree species include tanoak and Douglas-fir. Dominant shrub species include dwarf Oregon- grape, hazelnut, evergreen huckleberry, salal, and Pacific rhododendron. Productivity is high with a site index range of 150-200 and site class range of 1A-2. The tanoak-maple sub-series is found between 1,800-3,600 feet elevation, on all aspects, in mesic lower and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Riverwash, Hurlbut-Doerock, and Mad-Meadheath-Leese series, derived from Galice, Galice-Hornfels, Franciscan sandstone and shale, and Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on inner gorges, slump earthflows, steep, eroding hillslopes, and rotational-translational slides. This sub-series includes two plant associations which cover 968 acres and makes up three percent of the watershed. The tanoak maple/swordfern and tanoak- maple/evergreen huckleberry are the dominant plant associations. Dominant tree species include tanoak, Douglas-fir, and bigleaf maple. Evergreen huckleberry is the dominant shrub species; swordfern dominates the herb layer. Productivity is high with site indices of 150-200 and site classes from 1A-2. The tanoak-black oak sub-series is found between 2,400-3,800 feet elevation, on warm, east, southeast, southwest, and south aspects in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Hurlbut-Doerock, Doerock- Deadwood, and Deadman-Rogue series, derived from Galice and Galice-Hornfels parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-55 This sub-series includes one plant association, the tanoak-black oak/wild rose It covers 251 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include tanoak, Douglas-fir, and black oak; wild rose is the dominant shrub species. These sites are highly productive with site index range of 175- 200 and site classes of 1A-1. The tanoak-canvon live oak sub-series is found between 2,400-3,800 feet elevation, on dry south, east, and north aspects, in upper, middle, and lower one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Doerock-Deadwood, Mad var.-Hurlbut, Hurlbut-Doerock, and Meadheath-Doerock series, derived from Galice, Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, Galice-Hornfels, South Fork Mountain schist, and Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, debris slide basins, and rotational-translational slides. This sub-series includes seven plant associations which cover 4,901 acres and makes up 13 percent of the watershed. The tanoak-canyon live oak/dwarf Oregon-grape, tanoak-canyon live oak/poison oak, and tanoak-canyon live oak/rockpile are the dominant plant associations. Dominant tree species include tanoak, Douglas-fir, and canyon live oak. The dominant shrub species are evergreen huckleberry, poison oak, and dwarf Oregon-grape. Productivity is high to low depending on plant association, with site index range of 100-1 75 and site classes from 1-4. The tanoak-chinquapin sub-series is found between 2,600-4,000 feet elevation, on north and northeast aspects, in middle and upper one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Hurlbut-Doerock and Bentpeak-Doerock series, derived from Galice, South Fork Mountain schist, and Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, colluvial complexes, and debris slide basins. This sub-series includes two plant associations, the tanoak-chinquapin/salal and tanoak-chinquapin/dwarf Oregon-grape. They cover 1,286 acres and make up four percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include tanoak, Douglas-fir, and chinquapin. The dominant shrub species are salal and dwarf Oregon-grape. Productivity is high with site index range of 175-200 and site classes from 1A-1.

The tanoak-incense cedar sub-series is found between 2,400-3,800 feet elevation, on east and north aspects, in middle, and lower one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Mad-Meadheath-Leese, Hurlbut-Doerock and Doerock-Deadwood series, derived from Franciscan shale and sandstone and Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, rotational-translational slides, and debris slide basins. This sub-series includes one plant association, the tanoak-incense cedar/California fescue type. It covers 385 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. Dominant trees included tanoak, Douglas-fir, and incense cedar. The shrub layer is depauperate; the herb layer is dominated by the grass species California fescue. Productivity is low with site index range of 100-1 25 and site classes from 3-4.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-56 All vegetation seral stages are represented in the tanoak series. The dominant seral stage is old-growth, accounting for 17 percent of the watershed. This is probably related to the moist lower one-third slope position of this series. It also indicates that the tanoak series has the lowest frequency of stand-replacing fires of all the prominent series in Grouse Creek. Next in seral stage extent are the shrub/forb harvest and pole harvest categories. They account for six and seven percent of the watershed, respectively. They result from clearcut regeneration harvest and show that the tanoak series has the highest frequency of harvest of all series in the watershed. The tanoak series displays a well-distributed array of overstory size classes. It is dominated by overstory trees in the size class 5 (>36.0") category (1 6 percent). The smaller size classes 1 (0-5.9") and 2 (6-1 0.9") are next in dominance, they include six and eight percent of the acres in the watershed. Douglas-fir Series: The Douglas-fir series has the second highest extent in the watershed (29 percent). It dominates the lower elevation drier sites with south-facing aspects and upland drier sites. The Douglas-fir-chinquapin sub-series is found between 3,310-4,400 feet elevation, on northeast- and north-facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Bentpeak-Doerock and Hurlbut- Doerock series, derived from Franciscan sandstone and South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, colluvial complexes, and rotational slides. This sub-series includes three plant associations, the Douglas-fir-chinquapin- tanoak/dwarf Oregon-grape, Douglas-fir-chinquapin-tanoak, and Douglas-fir- chinquapin/beargrass. It covers 642 acres and makes up two percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir, chinquapin, and tanoak. The shrub layer is dominated by dwarf Oregon-grape, while the herb layer often includes beargrass as the dominant species. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 1 50-200 and site classes from 1A-2. The Douglas-fir-shrub sub-series is found between 2,400-4,400 feet elevation, on south-, east- and west-facing slopes in upper and middle one- third slope positions. Soils are included in the Doerock-Deadwood, Mad- Roseam, Leese-Roseam, and Meadheath-Doerock series, derived from Franciscan sandstone and South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on rotational slides, slump earthflows, and steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes two plant associations, the Douglas-fir/hazelnut and Douglas-fir-California bay/poison oak types. They cover 387 acres and make up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species is Douglas- fir. The shrub layer is dominated by hazelnut and poison oak, while the herb layer often includes swordfern. Productivity is moderate and high depending on plant association. The Douglas-fir/hazelnut type has high productivity with a site index range of 175-200 and site classes of 1A-1. The Douglas-fir- California bay/poison oak type has moderate productivity, with a site index range of 125-1 50 and site classes of 2-3.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-57 The Douglas-fir-tanoak sub-series is found between 2,800-4,000 feet elevation, on north-, northeast- and northwest-facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Meadheath-Doerock and Mad-Roseam series, derived from Franciscan sandstone, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes. Management implications here are similar to the tanoak series due to the site dominance by tanoak in early seral stages following regeneration harvest or stand-replacing wildfire. Late seral stages differ considerably between the series due to tanoak assuming shrub form in this series. This sub-series includes one plant association, the Douglas-fir- tanoak/western modesty type. It covers 327 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant overstory tree species is Douglas-fir with tanoak in the middle and shrub layer. The shrub layer is depauperate, while the herb layer includes western modesty. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 1 50-200 and site classes from 1A-2. The Douglas-fir-Ponderosa pine sub-series is found between 3,700-4,000 feet elevation, on warm, south-facing slopes in ridgetop and upper one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Bentpeak-Doerock and Hurlbut- Doerock series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent niaterial, and found on steep and gentle eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the Douglas-fir-Ponderosa pine type. It covers 102 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine. The shrub and herb layers are depauperate. Productivity is high with a site index range of 175-200 and site classes from lA-1. The Douglas-fir-Jeffrey pine sub-series is found between 2,800-3,400 feet elevation, on east-facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are classified as mollic haploxeralfs, derived from serpentine parent material of the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, and found on rock outcrops and steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the Douglas-fir-Jeffrey pine/California fescue type. It covers 44 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir and Jeffrey pine. The shrub layer was depauperate, while the herb layer is dominated by the grass species California fescue. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 1 25-1 50 and site classes from 2-3. The Douglas-fir-incense cedar sub-series is found between 3,600-4,400 feet elevation, on warm southeast facing slopes in middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Mad-Roseam series, derived from Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the Douglas-fir-incense cedar/California fescue type. It covers 1 65 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir and incense

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-58 cedar. The shrub layer is depauperate, while the herb layer is dominated by the grass species California fescue. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 1 25-1 50 and site classes from 2-3. The Douglas-fir-canyon live oak sub-series is found between 1,200-4,000 feet elevation, on steep slopes, on all aspects, and in all slope positions. Soils are included in the Doerock-Deadwood, Mad-Meadheath-Leese, Deadwood-Rock, Hurlbut-Doerock, Bentpeak-Meadheath, and Meadheath-Doerock series, derived from Franciscan sandstone, Galice formation, Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, and Ammon Ridge Ultramafic parent material, and found on rotational slides, debris slide basins, and steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes three plant associations, the Douglas-fir-canyon live oak-tanoak, Douglas-fir-canyon live oak-madrone/poison oak, and Douglas-fir-canyon live oak/rockpile types. They are were highest in extent within the Douglas-fir sub-series, covering 4,956 acres, and make up 1 3 percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir, canyon live oak, Pacific madrone, and tanoak. The shrub layer is dominated by poison oak while the herb layer includes a variety of species. Productivity is moderate to low depending on plant association. The Douglas-fir-canyon live oak-tanoak and Douglas-fir-canyon live oak-madrone/poison oak types display moderate productivity with a site index range of 125-1 75 and site classes from 1-3. The Douglas-fir-white oak sub-series is found between 2,000-4,400 feet elevation, on south-, southwest-, and west-facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Doerock-Deadwood, Grout- Hecker, Meadheath-Doerock, and Mad-Meadheath-Leese series, derived from Franciscan sandstone and Franciscan sandstone and shale parent material, and found on rotational slides, slump earthflows, and steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes two plant associations, the Douglas-fir-white oak/Brewer oak and Douglas-fir-white oak/California fescue. It is third in extent within the Douglas-fir sub-series and covers 1,494 acres, making up four percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir and white oak. The shrub layer is depauperate while the herb layer is dominated by the grass species California fescue. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 150-175 and site classes from 1-2. The Douglas-fir-black oak sub-series is found between 2,000-4,400 feet elevation, on all aspects and slope positions. Soils are included in the Hurlbut- Doerock, Deadman var.-Freezout, Chiax-Doerock, Yorkville-Hecker, Grout- Hecker, and Mad-Roseam series, derived from Franciscan sandstone, Franciscan sandstone and shale, South Fork Mountain schist, Galice Formation, and Rattlesnake Creek Terrane parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, slump earthflows, and colluvial complexes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the Douglas-fir-black oak type. It covers 2,241 acres and makes up six percent of the watershed. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir and black oak. The shrub layer often contains poison

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-59 oak, while the herb layer often includes a variety of grass species. Productivity is high with a site index range of 175-200 and site classes from 1A-1. Fire suppression appears to be affecting species composition in the Douglas- fir-white oak and Douglas-fir-Ponderosa pine sub-series. In both of these communities, the secondary species can dominate portions of the successional sere. The duration of this dominance is effected by climate and fire frequency. Due to fire suppression, many of these stands appear to have higher stocking than past stands. This tends to favor the development of Douglas-fir and hence reduces the cover of both white oak and Ponderosa pine. All vegetation seral stages are represented in the Douglas-fir series. The dominant seral stages are old-growth and mid-mature, each accounting for nine percent of the watershed. Next in prominence is the early-mature seral stage, accounting for four percent of the watershed. The shrub/forb harvest and pole harvest categories combined account for four percent of the watershed. These stands are the result of clearcut regeneration harvest. The Douglas-fir series also displays a well-distributed array of overstory size classes. It is dominated by overstory trees in the size class 4 (21-35.9") category (11 percent), followed by size class 5 (> 36.0") (eight percent), and size class 3 (11-20.9") (five percent). The smaller size classes 1 (0-5.9") and 2 (6-1 0.9") include three and two percent of the acres in the Douglas-fir series.

White Fir Series: The white fir series is the third highest contributor in the watershed (24 percent). It replaces the Douglas-fir series on cooler upslope sites. The white fir-tanoak sub-series is found between 3,200-4,000 feet elevation, on cool north-facing slopes in middle, one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Meadheath-Deadwood, Leese-Roseam, and Meadheath-Doerock series, derived from Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, colluvial complexes, and rotational slides. This sub-series includes one plant association, the white fir-tanoak/dwarf Oregon- grape type. It covers 609 acres and makes up two percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir and tanoak. The shrub layer is dominated by dwarf Oregon-grape and wild rose, while the herb layer includes a variety of species. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 150-1 75 and site classes from 1-2.

The white fir/shrub sub-series includes two plant associations, the white fir/trailing blackberry and white fir/wild rose-snowberry types. It covers 456 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species is white fir. The shrub layer is dominated by wild rose and snowberry; the herb layer includes a variety of species. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 1 50-200 and site classes from 1-2.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-60 This sub-series is found between 3,200-4,400 feet elevation, on cool east-, south-, southeast-, and southwest-facing slopes in ridgetop, lower, and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Meadheath-Doerock, and Meadheath-Deadwood series, derived from Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes. The white fir-canyon live oak sub-series includes three plant associations, the white fir-canyon live oak/tall Oregon-grape, white fir-canyon live oak/hawkweed-grass, and white fir-canyon live oak/wintergreen types. It covers 724 acres and makes up two percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir, Douglas-fir, and canyon live oak. The shrub layer is dominated by tall Oregon-grape, while the herb layer includes wintergreen, white hawkweed, and a variety of grass species. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 1 25-1 75 and site classes from 1-3. This sub-series is found between 3,600-4,800 feet elevation, on east- and northeast- facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Deadman-Rogue, Hurlbut-Doerock, Blakespring-Jayfork, and Bentpeak-Doerock series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist and Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on colluvial complexes and gentle, eroding hillslopes. The white fir-chinquapin sub-series includes two plant associations, white fir-chinquapin/pinemat manzanita and white fir-chinquapin/dwarf Oregon- grape/vanilla leaf types. They have the third highest extent in the white fir series, cover 1,221 acres, and make up three percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir, Douglas-fir, and chinquapin. The shrub layer is dominated by dwarf Oregon-grape, hazelnut, wild rose and snowberry, while the herb layer is dominated by prince's pine and vanilla leaf. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 150-200 and site classes from 1A-2. This sub-series is found between 4,400-5,000 feet elevation, on cool northeast- and southeast-facing slopes in upper one-third and ridgetop slope positions. Soils are included in the Yorkville-Hecker and Tatouche var. Haploxeralf series, derived from Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on steep and gentle eroding hillslopes. The white fir-white oak sub-series includes two plant associations, the white fir-white oak and white fir/Brewer oak/California fescue types. It covers 265 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir, white oak, and Douglas-fir. The shrub layer is dominated by Brewer oak, while the herb layer is dominated by the grass species California fescue. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 125-1 50 and site classes from 2-3. The white fir-incense cedar sub-series is found between 4,000-5,200 feet elevation, on all aspects, in ridgetop to middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Deadman-Rogue, Blakespring-Jayfork, Meadheath-

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-61 Deadwood, and Hurlbut-Jayfork series, derived from Franciscan sandstone, Ammon Ridge Diorite, and South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on steep and gentle eroding hillslopes and rotational slides. This sub-series included four plant associations, the white fir-incense cedar/snowberry, white fir-incense cedar-black oak, white fir-incense cedar/wintergreen, and white fir-incense cedar-Ponderosa pine types. They cover 1,552 acres and make up four percent of the watershed, second highest in the white fir series. The dominant tree species were white fir, incense cedar, Douglas-fir, and black oak. The shrub layer is dominated by snowberry, while the herb layer includes a variety of species, including wintergreen. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 150-200 and site classes from 1A-2. The white fir-Douglas-fir sub-series is found between 3,200-5,200 feet elevation, on cool northeast-, east-, and north-facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Bins, Hult, Hurlbut- Jayfork, Hurlbut-Doerock, Mad-Meadheath-Leese, and Bentpeak-Meadheath series, derived from Franciscan sandstone, Ammon Ridge Diorite, and South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes, rotational slides, and slump earthflows. This sub-series includes ten plant associations; white fir-Douglas-fir/wild rose, white fir-Douglas-fir/grass, white fir-Douglas-fir/beargrass, white fir-Douglas-fir/wild rose-snowberry, white fir-Douglas-fir/hazelnut, white fir-Douglas-fir-bigleaf maple, white fir-Douglas-fir/vine maple, white fir- Douglas-fir-black oak, white fir-Douglas-fir/western modesty, and white- fir-Douglas-fir/vanilla leaf types. It is the most extensive sub-series in the white fir series, covers 3,495 acres, and makes up 10 percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir, Douglas-fir, black oak, and bigleaf maple. The shrub layer is dominated by wild rose, snowberry, hazelnut, and vine maple. The herb layer included beargrass, vanilla leaf, western modesty, and a variety of grass species. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 1 50-200 and site classes from 1A-2. The white fir-red fir sub-series is found between 4,400-5,300 feet elevation, on cool northeast-facing slopes in upper one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Blakespring and Jayfork series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the white fir-red fir/white vein wintergreen type. It covers 326 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir and red fir. The shrub layer includes wild rose and snowberry, while the herb layer includes white vein wintergreen and a host of other species. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 125-175 and site classes from 1-3. The white fir-Ponderosa pine sub-series is found between 3,400-4,000 feet elevation, on warm southeast-facing slopes in upper one-third slope positions.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-62 Soils are included in the Blakespring and Jayfork series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the white fir-Ponderosa pine type. It covers 80 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white fir and Ponderosa pine. The shrub and herb layers are depauperate. Productivity is high with a site index range of 1 75- 200 and site classes from 1-l A. All seral stages are represented in the white fir series due to its extent within the Grouse Creek watershed. Seral stage acres are mainly concentrated in the old-growth, mid-mature, and early-mature seral stages where they account for seven, five, and four percent of the watershed respectively The shrub/forb harvest and pole/harvest seral stages are also prominent. They each include two percent of the watershed and are primarily the result of clearcut logging. The white fir series displayed a dominance by the larger overstory size classes 5 (>36") (eight percent), 4 (21-35.9") (seven percent) and 3 (11-20.9") (five percent). Size class 2 (6-10.9") (two percent), 1 (0-5.9") (two percent) are next in dominance. Red Fir Series: The red fir series is of limited extent (one percent) and found only on the highest elevation sites on South Fork Mountain. The red fir-white fir sub-series is found between 4,900-5,700 feet elevation on cool, northeast-facing slopes in ridgetop and upper one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Blakespring-Jayfork series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on gentle and steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes two plant associations, the red fir- white fir/pinemat manzanita and red fir-white fir/sadler oak types. They cover 210 acres and make up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are red fir and white fir. The shrub layer is dominated by pinemat manzanita and Sadler oak, while the herb layer includes a variety of species. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 125-1 75 and site classes from 1-3. The red fir-incense cedar sub-series is found between 5,300-5,500 feet elevation, on cool, northeast-facing slopes in upper one-third and ridgetop slope positions. Soils are included in the Blakespring and Jayfork series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on gentle, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series includes one plant association, the red fir-incense cedar type. It covers 28 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are red fir, white fir, and incense cedar. The shrub layer is dominated by snowberry and wild rose, while the herb layer includes one- sided wintergreen and prince's pine. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 1 50-1 75 and site classes from 1-2.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-63 Red fir seral stages are limited to small amounts in the early-mature through old-growth seral stages. No representatives of the pole red fir seral stage are found in the Grouse Creek watershed. The red fir series is dominated by trees in the size class 3 (11-20.9") category. No representatives of size classes two and four were found. Ponderosa Pine Series: The Ponderosa pine series is a minor component within the watershed, contributing less than one percent of the acres of conifer forests. It is found on east and northeast aspects, between 4,200-4,900 feet elevation in ridgetop positions. Soil series include: Deadman var. Freezout and Deadman-Rogue series derived from Ammon Ridge Diorite, and Galice-Hornfels formations on gentle, eroding hillslopes. These stands are included in the early- mature through old-growth seral stages. Overstory size classes range from 3 (1 1-20.9") to 5 (> 36.0"). No plant associations have been identified within the Ponderosa pine series to date. The series covered 36 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Productivity is moderate to high with a site index range of 150-1 75 and site classes from 1-2. Incense Cedar Series: The incense cedar series is also a minor component of Grouse Creek. It is found between 4,000-5,300 feet elevation, on south-facing slopes in upper one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Blakespring-Jayfork and Tatouche var. Haploxerall series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and found on rotational landslides and gentle, eroding hillslopes. No plant associations have been identified within the incense cedar series to date. The series covered 1 25 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are incense cedar and Douglas-fir. Productivity is moderate with a site index range of 125-1 50 and site classes from 2-3. Gray Pine Series: The gray pine series is also of limited extent in Grouse Creek. It is found between 2,000-2,400 feet elevation, on south- to west- facing slopes in upper and lower one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Grout-Roseam and Deadwood-Rock series, derived from limestone and ultramafic rocks of the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, and found on colluvial complexes, older landslides, and gentle, eroding hillslopes. The highest frequency of seral stage acres is found in the old-growth seral stage and in overstory size class four. No plant associations have been identified to date within the gray pine series. The series covers 45 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are gray pine, Jeffrey pine and Douglas-fir. Productivity is low with a site index range of 1 00-1 25 and site classes from 3 -4.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-64 Jeffrey Pine Series: The Jeffrey pine series is found in small, isolated stands between 3,200-5,300 feet elevation, on southwest-facing slopes, in ridgetop and upper one-third slope positions. Soils are derived from serpentine parent rocks, mostly within the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, on gentle, eroding hillslopes. It is represented in the early-mature through old-growth seral stages, with its highest overstory size class frequency in size classes three and four. Due to its limited extent and small patch sizes, the Jeffrey pine series is described by plant association: the Jeffrey pine/Idaho fescue, Jeffrey pine/buckbrush, Jeffrey pine-incense cedar, and Jeffrey pine-Douglas- fir/huckleberry oak/California fescue types. They cover 11 9 acres and make up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir. Productivity is low with a site index range of 75-1 25 and site classes from 3-5. Given their occurrence on serpentine parent material, associations within the Jeffrey pine series often support rare plants such as pale yellow stonecrop, glaucous tauschia, and pearly everlasting. Oak Woodlands Oak woodlands are the next highest contributor, making up four percent of the vegetation in the Grouse Creek watershed. They are dominated by the black oak and white oak series.

Black Oak Series: The black oak series has a greater extent than the white oak series. This scenario is a result of the moist conditions in the Grouse Creek watershed and is reversed to the south in the Pilot Creek watershed as a result of drier conditions there. The black oak-bigleaf maple sub-series is found between 2,200-3,800 feet elevation, on southwest-facing slopes in all slope positions. Soils are included in the Mad-Bentpeak series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist parent material, and are found on slump earthflows and steep, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series contains one plant association. It covers 462 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are black oak and bigleaf maple. Shrubs are lacking in this type and grasses dominate the herb layer. The black oak-Douglas-fir sub-series is found between 2,900-5,100 feet elevation, on south- and east-facing slopes in the middle and upper one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Yorkville-Hecker and Deadwood-Rock series. They are derived from South Fork Mountain schist and galice-hornfels parent material, and are found on slump earthflows and colluvial complexes. This sub-series contains two plant associations. They cover 244 acres and make up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are black

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-65 oak, Douglas-fir, and bigleaf maple. Shrubs are lacking in this type and grasses dominate the herb layer. The black oak-canyon live oak sub-series is found between 3,200-4,600 feet elevation, on south- and southeast-facing slopes in the middle and upper one- third slope positions. Soils are included in the Doerock-Deadwood series, derived from galice-hornfels, galice and Ammon Ridge diorite parent material, and are found on steep, eroding hillslopes and debris flow basins. This sub-series contains one plant association. It covers 233 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are black oak, canyon live oak, and Douglas-fir. Shrubs are lacking in this type and grasses dominate the herb layer. The seral stage distribution in the black oak series indicates a tendency toward older stands. The largest stands of old-growth black oak found on the Six Rivers National Forest were mapped in the Grouse Creek watershed. Here, the early- mature and old-growth seral stages dominate the series. No stands are found in the shrub/forb and pole seral stages. This points toward a low stand-replacing fire frequency on black oak sites. The overstory size class analysis shows its highest frequency of stands in the size class four category (21-35.9" diameter). This also supports the argument of a low stand- replacing fire frequency in the black oak series. White Oak Series: The white oak series is of lesser extent in Grouse Creek than the black oak series. It is found in small stands in ridgetop positions, primarily in the drier, western part of the watershed. This area is included in the North Coast Mountains Section and found on sandstone parent materials. The white oak-Douglas-fir sub-series is found between 1,200-4,560 feet elevation, on south-facing slopes in upper and middle one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Hurlbut-Doerock, Grout-Hecker, and Doerock- Deadwood series, derived from Franciscan sandstone and Rattlesnake Creek Terrane parent material, and found on gentle, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series contains one plant association, the white oak-Douglas- fir/California fescue. It covers 431 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white oak and Douglas-fir. Shrubs are of low cover and include poison oak and snowberry. California fescue and blue wild rye dominate the herb layer. The white oak-black oak sub-series is found between 4,000-4,700 feet elevation, on south- and southwest-facing slopes in middle and lower one-third slope positions. Soils are included in the Mad-Roseam series, derived from Franciscan sandstone, and found on slump earthflows and steep, eroding hillslopes. It covers 76 acres and is dominated by white oak, black oak, and a mixture of grass species.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-66 The white oak-canyon live oak sub-series is found between 4,200-4,700 feet elevation, on south-facing slopes in ridgetop slope positions. Soils are included in the Doerock-rock, Doerock-Deadwood series, Mad-Meadheath series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist and Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on gentle, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series contains one plant association. It covers 105 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species are white oak and canyon live oak. Shrubs and herbs are of low cover in this type. The white oak-Brewer oak sub-series is found between 4,400-4,600 feet elevation, on north-facing slopes in ridgetop slope positions. Soils are shallow and rocky. They are included in the Tatouche variant series, derived from Franciscan sandstone parent material, and found on gentle, eroding hillslopes. This sub-series is found on particularly harsh sites which appear to be subjected to frequent, high-intensity fire which prevents it from reaching later seral stages. This sub-series contains one plant association, the white oak/Brewer oak/California fescue. It covers 17 acres and makes up less than one percent of the watershed. The dominant tree species is white oak. The shrub layer is dominated by Brewer oak, while the herb layer contains California fescue. The white oak series has its highest frequency of vegetation in early seral stages. They are found primarily in the pole through mid-mature seral stages. The white oak series is dominated by overstory trees in the size class 2 (6- 10.9") (48 percent) and size class 1 (0-5.9") (29 percent) categories. Stands are occasionally found with overstory diameters in the size class 3 (11- 20.9") (20 percent) and size class 4 (21-35.9") (three percent) categories. Hardwood Forests The hardwood forest category includes the canyon live oak and alder series. Canyon Live Oak Series: The canyon live oak series is the dominant representative of hardwood forests. It contributes four percent of the vegetation in the Grouse Creek watershed. It is found between 1,200 and 4,400 feet elevation on harsh, rocky sites. The canyon live oak-canyon live oak sub-series is found between 1,200-4,400 feet elevation, on warm southeast- and west-facing slopes in all slope positions. Soils are shallow and rocky and are included in the Deadwood-Rock and Meadheath-Deadwood series, derived from chert and ultramafic parent rocks within the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, on rock outcrops, and debris slide basins. It covers 836 acres and makes up two percent of the watershed. These very harsh sites are covered by almost-pure stands of canyon live oak.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-67 The canyon live oak-Douglas-fir sub-series is found between 1,800-4,400 feet elevation, on warm south- and west-facing slopes in all slope positions. Soils are shallow to moderately deep and rocky and included in the Deadwood- Doerock-Rock and Doerock-Deadwood series, derived from hornfels or ultramafic parent rocks within the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, on rock outcrops, steep , eroding hillslopes, and debris slide basins. It includes 468 acres and makes up one percent of the watershed. Site conditions here are moderated from those on the Canyon live oak-canyon live oak sub-series. This is expressed by the presence of Douglas-fir as an associate of canyon live oak on these harsh sites. The canyon live oak series is represented in all seral stages, with its highest frequencies in the old-growth, early-mature, and mid-mature seral stages, each with one percent of the watershed. The majority of its stands have overstory diameters in size class 1 (0-5.9"), 2 (6-10.9") and 3 (11- 20.9"). Alder Series: The alder series is found between 1,600-3,200 feet elevation, on wet, north slopes, in streamside positions. Soil types include riverwash and Bentpeak-Doerock series, derived from galice formation parent material, on steep, eroding hillslopes, alluvial deposits, debris slides, and flow avalanches. These young stands include 218 acres and make up less than one percent of the watershed. They are dominated by white alder, and occasionally mountain maple, on upland sites. The alder series is mainly found in the pole seral stage. This is an indication of the high frequency of natural disturbance events, such as floods, that operate in these slope positions. It also tends to indicate the seral nature of many of these plant communities. Grasslands

Grassland Series: Grassland series include 146 acres and make up less than one percent of the Grouse Creek watershed. They are found in small patches, between 4,000-5,400 feet elevation, on south-facing slopes in upper one- third and ridgetop positions. Soils are included in the Hurlbut-Jayfork, frigid ultic haploxeralf, and Mad-Roseam series, derived from South Fork Mountain schist and found on gradual, eroding hillslopes, and slump earthflows. Annual grasses, such as dogtail grass, and a variety of herbs dominate these sites. Because of the nature of grassland vegetation, all sites are included in the shrub/forb natural seral stage. Landscape Configuration The choice of scale, including both grain and extent, will affect the outcome of an analysis. For instance, the grain of vegetation could be analyzed at the gross scale such as conifer forest, oak woodlands, etc., or at the fine scale such as plant associations. Obviously, these two scales will yield very different results.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-68 The extent of the analysis area could also determine the results of the analysis. For example, if one were studying natural disturbance within the white fir series, a large scale would be required to off-set the effects of individual disturbance events, while an analysis of meadow dynamics would be analyzed at a small scale. Obviously then, the choice of scale is dependent on the question being asked. Since many of the questions related to management of vegetation deal with the amount and configuration of old-growth forests, the intermediate grain of the vegetation series was selected for analysis. The extent of the analysis area, the Grouse Creek watershed, may be too small for the question of old-growth forest variability, particularly if it is analyzed at the vegetation series level. For example, examining the frequency of old-growth red fir would require a much larger analysis area than Grouse Creek, due to the limited extent of red fir. However, when Grouse Creek is described in the context of the central forest zone, a variety of comparisons can be made. These comparisons include the importance of the contribution of old-growth forests in the Grouse Creek watershed to the central forest zone. Landscape configuration will be used here to describe landscape fragmentation based on seral stages (stages of vegetation development) using a variety of landscape indices. Landscape indices are used to quantify landscape patterns so that relationships between landscape structure and landscape functions and processes can be established (O'Neil et. al., 1988). This analysis will allow for the description of the Grouse Creek watershed in the context of the next larger scale, the central forest zone, and allow for comparison to adjacent areas with differing levels of disturbance and landscape fragmentation. The objective of the analysis is to better understand the relationship of various landscape components to environment, landscape processes, and functions. This will allow for management of the watershed at the landscape and ecosystem levels. The mapping information was used to analyze landscape configuration. Landscape configuration is the spatial pattern of patches in the landscape mosaic (Li, 1989). It was used in Grouse Creek to describe fragmentation. It included patch size, patch shape, patch density, and edge density indices. Patch size is described by mean patch size by vegetation category and frequency of patches by patch size categories. These descriptives allow for an assessment of watershed fragmentation and wildlife habitat suitability. Landscape configuration results from a combination of factors including climate, physiography, natural disturbance, and human disturbance. Climate and physiography combine to influence the frequency of natural disturbance. For instance, wildfires occur with highest frequency in upslope positions which tend to be drier due to exposure to air flow and lack of topographic shading. Natural disturbance within the Grouse Creek watershed is mainly related to wildfire and flooding. Human disturbance within the watershed, and its effect on vegetation, is related to past Native American use, recent timber harvests, firewood gathering, and livestock grazing. The effects of these factors is

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-69 quantified below using a variety of landscape metrics; patch size, frequency, shape, and edge density. Patch Size Patch size is described by mean patch size and the frequency of patches by size class. In the conifer category, mean patch size varies little by seral stage, with the exception of the old-growth stage. It has the largest mean patch size of 65.1 acres (Table 4.1 2). This is probably due to the high number of acres of harvest units dispersed throughout the watershed. The seral stages in the oak woodland category in general display an increase in patch size with stand development. The shrub/forb seral stage has the smallest mean patch sizes, while the old-growth seral stage has the largest mean patch size. This is also the largest mean patch size of all categories in the watershed. The hardwood forest category has very little variation in mean patch size by seral stage. The grassland category had all of its vegetation in the shrub/forb seral stage.lt had the smallest mean patch size of all categories.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-70 Table 4.12 Mean patch size (acres) and standard error of the mean by vegetation category and seral stage in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Vegetation Number Total Mean Patch Std. Category Patches Acres Size Error Conifer shrub/forb 174 4,123 23.7 3.2 pole 71 3,843 54.1 12.8 early-mature 1 53 4,095 26.8 5.5 mid-mature 218 6,490 29.8 4.1 late-mature 79 2,008 25.4 4.6 old-growth 190 12,363 65.1 11.0 subtotal 885 32,922 37.2 41.2 Oak Woodland shrub/forb 4 10 2.6 1.1 pole 6 118 1 9.6 5.3 early-mature 20 627 31.4 6.4 mid-mature 17 244 14.4 3.2 late-mature 3 127 42.2 30.3 old-growth 3 444 147.9 122.7 subtotal 53 1,270 29.6 7.7 Hardwood Forest shrub/forb 16 211 13.1 3.4 pole 9 211 23.4 7.8 early-mature 16 358 22.3 6.9 mid-mature 15 279 18.5 5.0 late-mature 1 2 2.0 0.0 old-growth 24 464 19.3 6.9 subtotal 81 1,525 18.8 2.8 Grassland shrub/forb 16 146 9.1 3.3

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-71 Table 4.13. Frequency of patch sizes (acres) by vegetation category in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Vegetation Patch Number Total Percent of Category Size Patches Acres Watershed Conifer 0-50 739 9,087 25 51-1 00 75 5,273 15 101-200 43 6,323 17 201-500 17 5,21 7 14 501 -1 000 9 5,81 5 16 >1000 1 1,206 3 Oak Woodland 0-50 46 714 2 5 1-1 00 4 252 2 101-200 2 212 1 201-500 1 392 1 501-1 000 0 0 0 >1000 0 0 0 Hardwood Forest 0-50 119 873 4 51-100 10 409 2 1 01-200 2 243 1 201-500 0 0 1 501-1 000 0 0 0 >1 000 0 0 0 Grassland 0-50 15 91 <1 51-1 00 1 54 <1

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-72 Patch Frequency Patch size frequency is perhaps best displayed by seral stage, due to the importance of stand structure and patch size in wildlife habitat assessments. In Table 4.1 4, it is shown that the old-growth seral stage in the conifer category dominates the large patch categories. It includes 23 percent of the watershed in patches >200 acres in size and 14 percent in patches >500 acres in size. The early-mature and mid-mature seral stages also have significant representation in the watershed, with three percent and five percent of the watershed included in patches >200 acres in size. However, noted in the previous analysis, the Grouse Creek watershed is dominated by patches <1 00 acres in size. They include 30 percent of the watershed.

Table 4.14 Frequency of conifer patches (acres) by patch size category and seral stage in the Grouse Creek watershed Patch Early- Mid- Late- Old- Size Categorv Mature Mature Mature Growth 0-50 1,389 (4%) 2,247 (7%) 652 (2%) 1,850 (6%) 51-1 00 737 (2%) 1,192 (4%) 658 (2%) 919 (3%) 101-200 919 (3%) 1,592 (5%) 698 (2%) 1,960 (6%) 201-500 400 (1%) 854 (3%) 0 3,042 (9%) 501-1000 649 (2%) 604 (2%) 0 3,336 (10% ) >1000 0 0 0 1.206 (4%) I--- I -1

Patch Shape Perimeter/interior ratio (PI ratio) is used to describe patch shape. It is easy to interpret and closely related to interior acres. PI ratios of less than 1 are close to circular and usually have high interior acres. Those patches between one and two have greater amounts of edge and lower interior acres, while patches greater than two are composed mainly of edge and have low amounts of interior acres. Within the Grouse Creek watershed, 20 percent of the watershed is included in patches with PI ratio's of less than one (Table 4.1 5). The conifer category contributes 19 percent while the oak woodland category contributed the other one percent. These patches were included within the early-mature, mid- mature, and old-growth seral stages, with the highest frequency in old-growth. Patches with PI ratio's between one and two contribute the highest frequency in the watershed. The conifer category accounts for 50 percent of the area, with oak woodlands and hardwood categories contributing an additional four percent. The old-growth seral stage dominated in this PI category with 23 percent, along with early- mature and mid-mature.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-73 Surprisingly, the shrub/forb and pole seral stages accounted for 17 percent of the watershed in perimeter interior ratios less than two. This is primarily due to the large size of clearcuts on private lands within the watershed.

Table 4.15 Frequency of perimeter/interior ratios by vegetation category in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Vegetation P/A Number Total Percent of Category Ratio Patches Acres Watershed Conifer <1 20 7,04 1 9 1-2 1 84 18,020 50 2-5 409 7,31 3 20 >5 272 548 2 Oak Woodland <1 2 501 1 1-2 12 618 2 2-5 28 433 1 >5 1 1 18 <1 Hardwood Forest <1 0 0 0 1-2 12 82 2 2-5 40 608 2 >5 29 90 <1 Grassland <1 0 0 0 1-2 1 54 <1 2-5 7 69 <1 >5 8 22 <1 Patches with Pi ratios above two accounted for 25 percent of the watershed. They include patches within all seral stages.

Patch Density

Patch density describes the number of patches by watershed area and is expressed as number patches/1 00 acres. Low patch density indicates a low level of fragmentation while high patch density indicates a high level of fragmentation. The overall density of patches in the Grouse Creek watershed was 2.9 per/1 00 acres. It varies by vegetation category. The conifer category has the lowest patch density of 2.7 patches/1 00 acres. The oak woodland category also has a low density of patches, with 3.4 patches/1 00 acres. The hardwood forest and grassland categories both have high patch densities of 5.3 patches/1 00 acres and 1 .0 patches/1 00 acres respectively.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-74 Edge Density Edge density is also a good indicator of fragmentation. It is expressed as feet/acre. The overall edge density in the Grouse Creek watershed is 169 feet/acre. The conifer category has the lowest edge density with 165 feet/acre. It is followed by the oak woodland category with an edge density of 173 feet/acre. The hardwood forest and grassland categories have the highest density of edge with 249 feet/acre and 350 feet/acre respectively. Large Scale Analysis The Grouse Creek watershed has been described above by landscape composition and configuration. In order to understand the importance of Grouse Creek, it is necessary to place it in the context of the next larger scale. This scale is the central forest zone of the Six Rivers National Forest. The central forest zone is described as intermediate in moisture between the wet north zone and dry south zone. This moisture difference affects the natural disturbance regime within the zone. Grouse Creek will be compared to the central zone emphasizing the conifer category since it has the highest extent within Grouse Creek and the central zone. Elements compared below include; seral stage frequency, mean patch size, patch distribution, patch shape (perimeter/interior ratio), patch characteristics (overstory size, class frequency, and canopy closure), patch density and edge density. In addition, Grouse Creek is compared to the historic range of variability (HRV) and recommended management range (RMR) for vegetation types and seral stages for the central forest zone. These ranges of seral stage frequency are management direction for the Six Rivers National Forest described in the Land Management Plan. Seral Stage Frequency The comparison of seral stage frequency of the Grouse Creek watershed to the central zone shows significant differences in seral stage distribution (Figure 4.6). The watershed has a significantly higher frequency of conifer old-growth than the central zone. This is probably due to a lower rate of stand-replacing fires. It also has significantly less of the late-mature conifer stage compared to the central zone. The early-mature stage also displays differences in frequency. It has a lower frequency in Grouse Creek than the central zone. All other seral stages are similar in frequency. Patch Size and Distribution The comparison of mean conifer patch size by seral stage shows no significant differences for all seral stages. A general trend toward larger patches in the central zone is observed. This trend is clearer when the conifer patch size distribution analysis was completed (Figure 4.7). Here, with all seral stages combined, the frequency of large patches (>1000 acres) was almost twice as high in the central zone than in the Grouse Creek watershed. Refinements of the analysis to mature and late seral stands (Figures 4.8 and 4.9) further

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-75 demonstrates the differences between the Grouse Creek watershed and the central zone. The mature seral stages within the central zone has significantly higher frequencies of large patches >200 acres in size than the Grouse Creek watershed. The results are reversed when late seral (late-mature and old-growth) stand frequency are compared. Here, the Grouse Creek watershed has almost twice the frequency of large patches than the central zone. This disparity increases to almost three-fold (14 percent Grouse Creek, 5 percent central zone) when patch sizes >500 acres are compared. Patch Shape Patch shape is compared using perimeter/interior ratio. No significant differences in the frequency of perimeter/interior ratios are identified in the comparison of all seral stages when Grouse Creek was compared to the Central Forest Zone (Figure 4.1 0). However, when the mature and late seral stage comparisons are made, a different result is achieved (Figures 4.11 and 4.1 2).The Grouse Creek watershed displays significantly higher amounts of acres in patches with shapes closer to circular. These patches have perimeter/interior ratios of <1 and 1-2 (Figure 4.11 ).The Grouse Creek watershed also displays significantly higher frequencies of late seral vegetation in perimeter/interior categories of <1 and 1-2. The Grouse Creek watershed displays a 3:1 ratio of near circular patches with perimeter/interior ratios of <1, and a 2:1 ratio of patches with perimeter/interior ratios 1-2.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-76 Table 4.16 Historic range of variabliity (HRV) and recommended management range (RMR) by seral stage, for the primary types in the central forest zone.

Seral Stage HRV RMR Existing Series Zone % Zone % Zone % Grouse Tanoak shrub/forb 4-20 4- 10 16 16 pole 2-18 2-8 24 20 early-mature 11 - 18 11 - 14 11 8 mid-mature 11 - 19 12- 17 19 8 late-mature 9 - 19 14- 19 11 8 old-growth 22-50 36-50 19 46 Douglas-fir

shrub/ forb 2 - 21 2 - 10 9 11 pole 2-21 2-10 5 3 early-mature 13-23 13 - 1 22 13 mid-mature 10-27 12-20 7 32 late-mature 9 - 14 12- 14 11 8 old-growth 22-34 28-34 26 33 White fir

shrub/forb 1 - 17 1 - 9 6 8 pole 1 -16 1 -8 5 10 early-mature 15 - 23 15 - 19 23 19 mid-mature 11 -20 14- 18 20 22 late-mature 8 - 16 12- 16 15 10 old-growth 30-41 35-41 31 31

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-77 Fire Fire has been a major ecological player in the formation of western ecosystems, including those typified by the Grouse Creek watershed. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1994) designates this area as an intermediate to dry terrestrial physiographic province. This means that fire has been the dominant natural disturbance factor. Fire frequencies have been highly variable, and wildfires did not always result in complete stand mortality. Adams and Sawyer (1980) found fire-free intervals in Douglas-fir-dominated mixed evergreen forests to be 16.2 years for the Lower Trinity District and 12.7 years for the Mad River District. They concluded that the all-aged nature of these stands, infrequent scarring of trees, and frequency of fires strongly suggested that ground fires, as opposed to crown fires, were the common mode of burning. Fire suppression has allowed fuel to accumulate and forest types that are less fire resistant to become more widely distributed (FEIS, 1994). Aggressive fire suppression efforts in this drainage, especially since the mid-1930s, have increased fuel loadings of both brush species and down/dead material. The stand structure now includes more ladder fuels, which creates the potential for crown fires and increased mortality. Future Risk To make a projection of expected future fire occurrence a risk assessment is made using a standard formula. The formula is based on historical fire information. Only considering fires that fell within the Grouse watershed (89 total: 29 human-caused, 60 lightning-caused) the risk rating is 0.38. This can be interpreted as a low risk, projecting at least one fire every 20 or more years per thousand acres (Table 4.17). Table 4.17 Risk ratings and ranges of values. Risk Values Interpretation

Low 0 - .49 At least one fire expected every 20 or more years per thousand acres Moderate .5 - .99 At least one fire expected in 11-20 years per thousand acres High > 1.0 At least one fire expected in 0-10 years per thousand acres

Fire Hazard The risk assessment determined that at least one fire would typically occur every 20 years or more per thousand acres. This section on hazard will discuss what would be the response of a wildfire, given one of these fire starts. For the Grouse Creek

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-78 PF

watershed analysis, we have expressed hazard in terms of Fire Behavior fuel models (Anderson, 1982), which were in turn used in the BEHAVE fire model [v. 4.1] (Andrews, 1986) to calculate fire behavior parameters of rates-of-spread and flame lengths. Rates-of-spread are a critical factor in determining suppression effectiveness and can also be related to resource effects that are related to the amount of time that a fire might be spreading over an area. Flame lengths are also related to suppression effectiveness, in terms of whether hand crews, equipment, or aerial attack can successfully suppress a wildfire. Fires that require aerial attack would be associated with the greatest potential for larger, more destructive wildfires. Fuel models were designated for Grouse Creek based on an EUI subseries/seral stage to fuel model conversion (see Fire Appendix). A two-fuel model concept was used for the majority of the conversions, resulting in a more comprehensive representation of the fuels occurring within this watershed.

Separate rates of spread and flame lengths were calculated for each of these individual fuel models and fuel model combinations. Then the rate of spread, weighted by percent cover, was calculated. The fire speeds up and slows down as it burns through the two fuel models. Flame lengths were not averaged, since part of the area has one flame length and the rest of the area has another flame length. Flame lengths corresponding to the fuel model with the greatest proportion were used for this analysis. Both a June and an August weather scenario were used, to typify average and severe conditions (Table 4.1 8).

Table 4.18 Fuel model combinations for the Grouse Creek watershed. June August Midflame windspeed (mi/hr) 5% 7% 1-hr fuel moisture 6 2 10-hr fuel moisture 8 4 100-hr fuel moisture 14 8 Live herbaceous fuel moisture 133 75

Fuel moistures are designated by "hour" categories, which correspond to diameter size classes. 1-hr, 10-hr, and 100-hr correspond to 0-.25 inch, .26-1.0 inch, and 1.1-3.0 inches diameter, respectively. The fire behavior results are shown in the Appendix. Plates 4.8 and 4.9 show the results of the model run for fire behavior.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-79 I

Plate # 4.8 Fire Spread Rate for August Grouse Creek Watershed USDA I Corest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

Low Moderate High Very High Extreme

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

i me 1W

I

N I I rll

IN no-SM Rvr cAb, Ca M rofy ivw mds

Map Scale in Ml/es M S F* TIl Rw Wyhed ML &mm Qe Wawd 0,5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

I Page 4-80 Plate # 4.9 Flame Length for August Grouse Crewek Watershed USDA Fowrest Service Six Rivers I Vational Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed A rialysis Center

Legend

Low EEO Moderate High Very High Extreme

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

11

: S

Kkhfan Rvr 8i, C4 EzM rinity ROr mWued Map Scale in Miles M S F*' Thrinty RAw Wshsd M Grous Cryt VWshd 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Page 4-81 Patch Characteristics Patch characteristics such as overstory size class and canopy closure also show differences between the Grouse Creek watershed and the central forest zone. Grouse Creek had 32 percent of its acres in size class 5, compared to 21 percent in the central zone (Figure 4.1 3). In comparison, the central zone had a higher frequency of size class 4 (27 percent) and size class 3 (20 percent), in comparison to Grouse Creek (22 percent and 14 percent respectively). The small size class categories show no significant differences between the Grouse Creek watershed and the central zone. The canopy closure analysis points towards the dense nature of overstory canopy closure in both areas. Slightly higher frequencies of dense stands (>70 percent canopy closure) are found in the central forest zone when compared to the Grouse Creek watershed (Figure 4.14). The reverse situation is found in the intermediate canopy closure category (40-69.9 percent). Here, Grouse Creek has a frequency of 15 percent, compared to the central zone's eight percent. HRV and RMR Comparison Ecosystem management seeks to balance the desires for various products, resource values, and services with the maintenance of sustainable, diverse, and healthy ecosystems. This requires the utilization of ecological knowledge at various scales. A suggested approach to the management of forest vegetation is the utilization of the historic range of variability (HRV) and the recommended management range (RMR). The HRV is the calculation of the historic change of vegetation seral stage frequencies by vegetation type over a specified time period (Jimerson, 1 994). In the Six Rivers National Forest LMP (USDA, 1 995), HRV were calculated for the primary vegetation series over a 200 year period. From this range, a subset was selected that represented the current set of climatic conditions and our best professional judgement of what is sustainable. It is thought that managing within the RMR will maintain ecosystem process and function and hence its biodiversity. The HRV and RMR for the central forest zone are displayed in Table 4.1 6. The first conclusion is that, within the zone, all of the major vegetation types are outside of the RMR for the old-growth seral stage. The tanoak series is outside of the HRV as well, a result of five decades of intensive forest management being concentrated in this series. Both the Douglas-fir and white fir series are within the HRV and just below the low end of the RMR range. Natural succession over the next two to four decades, without widespread stand replacing wildfires, should bring them back within the RMR. The tanoak series is so far out of balance that it will require assistance to move within the RMR within a reasonable amount of time.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-82 Table 4.1 6 Historic range of variability (HRV) and recommended management range(RMR) by seral stage, for the primary types in the central forest zone.

Seral Stage HRV RMR Existing Series Zone % Zone % Zone % Grouse Tanoak shrub/forb 4-20 4-1 0 1 6 1 6 pole 2-18 2-8 24 20 early-mature 11-18 11-14 11 8 mid-mature 1-19 12-17 19 8 late-mature 9-1 9 1 4-1 9 11 8 old-growth 2 2 - 5 0 3 6 - 5 0 19 46 Douglas-fir shrub/ forb 2-21 2-10 9 11 pole 2-21 2-10 5 3 early-mature 13 - 2 3 1 3 - 1 22 13 mid-mature 1 0-2 7 12- 2 0 7 32 late-mature 9-1 4 12-1 4 11 8 old-growth 2 2 - 3 4 2 8 - 3 4 2 6 33 White fir shrub/forb 1-1 7 1 -9 6 8 pole 1 -16 1-8 5 10 early-mature 15 - 2 3 15 -19 23 19 mid-mature 1 1-20 14-18 20 22 late-mature 8-1 6 1 2-1 6 1 5 1 0 old-growth 30-41 35-41 31 31

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-83 . ire Fire has been a major ecological player in the formation of western ecosystems, including those typified by the Grouse Creek watershed. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1 994) designates this area as an intermediate to dry terrestrial physiographic province. This means that fire has been the dominant natural disturbance factor. Fire frequencies have been highly variable, and wildfires did not always result in complete stand mortality. Adams and Sawyer (1 980) found fire-free intervals in Douglas- fir-dominated mixed evergreen forests to be 16.2 years for the Lower Trinity District and 12.7 years for the Mad River District. They concluded that the all- aged nature of these stands, infrequent scarring of trees, and frequency of fires strongly suggested that ground fires, as opposed to crown fires, were the common mode of burning. Fire suppression has allowed fuel to accumulate and forest types that are less fire resistant to become more widely distributed (FEIS, 1994). Aggressive fire suppression efforts in this drainage, especially since the mid-1 930s, have increased fuel loadings of both brush species and down/dead material. The stand structure now includes more ladder fuels, which creates the potential for crown fires and increased mortality. Future Risk To make a projection of expected future fire occurrence a risk assessment is made using a standard formula. The formula is based on historical fire information. Only considering fires that fell within the Grouse watershed (89 total: 29 human-caused, 60 lightning-caused) the risk rating is 0.38. This can be interpreted as a low risk, projecting at least one fire every 20 or more years per thousand acres (Table 4.17). Table 4.17 Risk ratings and ranges of values. Risk Values Interpretation

Low 0 - .49 At least one fire expected every 20 or more years per thousand acres Moderate .5 - .99 At least one fire expected in 11-20 years per thousand acres High > 1.0 At least one fire expected in 0-1 0 years per thousand acres

Fire Hazard The risk assessment determined that at least one fire would typically occur every 20 years or more per thousand acres. This section on hazard will discuss what would be the response of a wildfire, given one of these fire starts. For the Grouse Creek

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-84 watershed analysis, we have expressed hazard in terms of Fire Behavior fuel models (Anderson, 1982), which were in turn used in the BEHAVE fire model [v. 4.1 1 (Andrews, 1986) to calculate fire behavior parameters of rates-of-spread and flame lengths. Rates-of-spread are a critical factor in determining suppression effectiveness and can also be related to resource effects that are related to the amount of time that a fire might be spreading over an area. Flame lengths are also related to suppression effectiveness, in terms of whether hand crews, equipment, or aerial attack can successfully suppress a wildfire. Fires that require aerial attack would be associated with the greatest potential for larger, more destructive wildfires. Fuel models were designated for Grouse Creek based on an EUI subseries/seral stage to fuel model conversion (see Fire Appendix). A two-fuel model concept was used for the majority of the conversions, resulting in a more comprehensive representation of the fuels occurring within this watershed. Separate rates of spread and flame lengths were calculated for each of these individual fuel models and fuel model combinations. Then the rate of spread, weighted by percent cover, was calculated. The fire speeds up and slows down as it burns through the two fuel models. Flame lengths were not averaged, since part of the area has one flame length and the rest of the area has another flame length. Flame lengths corresponding to the fuel model with the greatest proportion were used for this analysis. Both a June and an August weather scenario were used, to typify average and severe conditions (Table 4.1 8). Table 4.18 Fuel model combinations for the Grouse Creek watershed. June August Midflame windspeed (mi/hr) 5% 7% 1-hr fuel moisture 6 2 10-hr fuel moisture 8 4 100-hr fuel moisture 14 8 Live herbaceous fuel moisture 133 75

Fuel moistures are designated by "hour" categories, which correspond to diameter size classes. 1-hr, 10-hr, and 100-hr correspond to 0-.25 inch, .26-1 .0 inch, and 1.1-3.0 inches diameter, respectively. The fire behavior results are shown in the Appendix. Plates 4.8 and 4.9 show the results of the model run for fire behavior.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-85 Fire Spread Rate for August Grouse Cr,eek Watershed USDA I Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

Low Moderate nml High Very High Extreme

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

pI

Page 4-86 Flame Length for August Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Ainalvsis Center I

Legend

Low Moderate MM High Very High Extreme

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

Page 4-87 Wildlife Past Conditions Prehistoric (10,000 years B.P. to 1865) Effects of Climate on Wildlife Prehistoric status of wildlife species (i.e., species diversity, abundance, and distribution) in the Grouse Creek watershed is poorly understood due to the lack of fossil evidence. Estimates of species diversity, abundance, and distribution can only be inferred from known changes in climate and associated probable changes in vegetation composition and structure. Paleoclimatic and pollen core data for the region indicate that within the past 10,000 years the climate in the region has changed several times (Hildebrandt and Hayes, 1983). Changes in vegetation composition, structure, and distribution within the watershed due to climatic changes would probably affect certain wildlife species differently. For example, mobile, wide-ranging bird and mammal species which are habitat generalists (e.g., golden eagles, mountain lions, black bears, deer) probably could have moved to suitable areas as the climate gradually changed. Conversely, less mobile species with specific habitat requirements (especially many species of reptiles and amphibians) may have been temporarily or permanently isolated or extirpated from the watershed with even gradual climatic shifts. Again, the lack of animal fossil evidence within the watershed prevents an accurate assessment of changes in wildlife species diversity, abundance, and distribution during the past 10,000 years. Native Americans and Wildlife The first humans entered the area approximately 5,000 years ago (Keter, 1994). Between 3,000 and 1,500 years ago, Indian population density supposedly increased and they began to rely on a wider range of resources. This prompted the use of fire to promote productivity of the land, especially for acorns and grass seeds. It is unknown whether the land use practices of the Indians seriously impacted any wildlife populations, yet it is unlikely because of the relatively low number of individuals which inhabited the area and because the seasonal movements of the Indians probably allowed local animal populations to recover. However, the use of fire probably altered the landscape to the point where certain species of wildlife (such as black bears, deer, band- tailed pigeons, and other acorn and grass consuming species) benefitted from their activities. Conversely, species which relied on ground cover dominated by shrubs may have been negatively affected by fire (e.g., rabbits, grouse, quail, woodrats). Historic (1865 to Present) The earliest use of the watershed by white Europeans (about 1865) was for the grazing of cattle and sheep (Keter, 1994). Grazing decreased the abundance and

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-88 distribution of the native bunch grasses and promoted the spread of exotic grasses which were more pervasive and less nutritious than the native grasses. The deterioration of the native grasslands probably negatively affected the wildlife species which relied on the native grasses (e.g., mice, pocket gophers, ground-nesting birds, ground squirrels, black bears, deer, and many predators of these species). However, the Grouse Creek watershed has relatively little grassland habitat, thus, the effects may have been minimal when one considers the range of the grassland dependent species. Also during this period, deer populations were exploited by hide hunters and other mammal species were undoubtedly trapped for their pelts. Trappers probably focused on different species at different times depending on fluctuations in the fur market. They probably captured several species of medium-sized terrestrial mammals (e.g., fishers, bobcats, raccoons, ringtails, skunks, foxes), but the number of species and the number of individuals from each species taken during this period is unknown. The lack of access to the watershed prior to 1949 probably limited trapping to a few local individuals. Even when trapping of certain species became illegal (as with fishers in 1945, martens in 1954, and ringtails around the mid-1 900s), incidental take of these species (through poaching or from accidental death from being trapped) probably occurred which could still have negatively affected the populations in the watershed. Hopefully, the use of padded leg-hold traps for terrestrial carnivores (now a statewide requirement) has reduced the mortality of non- target mammals. Prior to large-scale timber extraction, the removal of vegetative resources from coniferous habitats in the watershed was limited to the harvesting of trees for building and fuel by local homesteaders. It is unlikely that this small scale removal of vegetation negatively affected any wildlife population dependent on coniferous habitat. When the Forest Service began administering the land in 1 905, use by the public was suddenly limited and the suppression of wildfires began. Roads began appearing in the watershed as early as 1949. The roads allowed access into a previously inaccessible watershed which greatly increased hunting, trapping, and timber harvesting. Timber harvesting (primarily on private land) has removed large amounts of late-mature and old-growth (hereafter referred to as late seral) coniferous habitat which may have reduced the abundance and distribution of late seral dependent wildlife species in the watershed (e.g., spotted owls, fishers, several neotropical migrant bird species). Roads also act as a barrier to dispersal for many wildlife species (especially small, relatively immobile species such as amphibians and reptiles) and are a source of potential accidental death for any individual animal that attempts a crossing. Other more mobile species are physically able to cross a road, yet they may have a "psychological" aversion to crossing a road, which may effectively limit the amount of suitable habitat available to the animal.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-89 Current Conditions Status of Vertebrate Wildlife Species in the Watershed

Current wildlife species diversity, abundance, and distribution in the Grouse Creek watershed is poorly understood due to the lack of data from comprehensive, systematic surveys. Most of what we know about species presence in the watershed is derived from sighting records (point locations) from the Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) wildlife sighting database. However, the majority of sightings in the database are incidental detections recorded over many years, by many individuals with varied levels of experience. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate accurately species abundance and distribution from this data source. There are presently two long-term studies being conducted in portions of the watershed that provide systematic data on two wildlife species,spotted owls and Pacific fishers. The southern edge of the Willow Creek [Spotted Owl] Demographic Study Area (Humboldt State University) is located in the northern half of the watershed and has been a source of long-term demographic data on spotted owls for about a decade. Between the spotted owl demographic study, Six Rivers National Forest spotted owl surveys, and surveys for spotted owls on private timber land by private consultants, nearly the entire watershed has been surveyed for spotted owls.

The Six Rivers National Forest Fisher Study (PSW and Six Rivers National Forest) has three radio-collared fishers in the southern half of the watershed and is providing data on vegetation characteristics at fisher rest and foraging locations. The Fisher Study field crew also records point locations of fisher prey species (by visual and auditory observations) and other forest carnivores (using sooted track plates).

In addition to the two long-term studies, three one-time surveys (or sampling units of more extensive surveys) have been conducted in small portions of the watershed; two by PSW-Redwood Sciences Laboratory (RSL) and one by the Six Rivers National Forest Fisheries Department. In 1985 RSL surveyed a portion of Barney Creek (in the Mosquito Creek subwatershed) for tailed frogs and pacific giant salamanders and found both species, and in 1994 they conducted bird point count censuses and mist-netting along Grouse Creek, and recorded observations for 30 bird species. In 1994, as part of an Integrated Stream Inventory, the SRNF collected physical and biological data from a 1 GOOm section of Grouse Creek (near the confluence with Mosquito Creek) and detected one amphibian species (foothill yellow-legged frog) and two reptile species (northern alligator lizard and western aquatic garter snake). From the sources listed above, a total of 93 vertebrate species have been detected in the watershed; these include 18 mammals, six reptiles, four amphibians, and 65 birds (Table 4.1 9).

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-90 The Humboldt County Breeding Bird Atlas Project (BBA), which began in March 1995, will provide data on breeding birds within the Grouse Creek watershed and will undoubtedly add to the number of bird species known to occur in the watershed. In addition to information on birds, the BBA volunteers will be asked to record occurrences of other vertebrate species, which should add to our knowledge of vertebrate diversity in the watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-91 Table 4.1 9 List of vertebrate wildlife species observed in the Grouse Creek watershed. Data sources include wildlife surveys (listed above), the Six Rivers National Forest wildlife sighting database, and observations by Forest wildlife biologists. The legal status of each species is included (FE = Federally Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, C = Candidate for federal listing, FSS = Forest Service Sensitive, SM = ROD Survey and Manage species, SL = State- Listed as endangered, threatened, or "species of special concern", HS = Harvest Species (i.e., hunted or trapped). See Appendix for scientific names.

MAMMALS

Striped skunk

Black-tailed deer - HS Golden-mantled ground squirrel

Mountain Lion California ground squirrel

Bobcat - HS Chipmunk

Pacific fisher - C, FSS Northern flying squirrel

Coyote - HS Douglas' squirrel

Gray fox - HS Western gray squirrel - HS

Ringtail Botta's pocket gopher

Spotted skunk Dusky-footed woodrat

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Northwestern pond turtle - C, FSS Sharp-tailed snake

Northern alligator lizard Western terrestrial garter snake

Tailed frog Pacific giant salamander

Rubber boa Ensatina salamander

Foothill yellow-legged frog - C Western aquatic garter snake

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-92 BIRDSa

Turkey vulture Brown creeper

Osprey - SL Winter wren

Northern Goshawk - C, FSS Golden-crowned kinglet

Red-tailed hawk Swainson's thrush

Bald eagle - FE Townsend's solitaire

Peregrine falcon - FE Hermit thrush

Blue grouse - HS American robin

Ruffed grouse - HS Varied thrush

Mountain quail - HS Wrentit

Rock pigeon Cedar waxwing

Band-tailed pigeon - HS Solitary vireo

Flammulated owl Warbling vireo

Great horned owl Hutton's vireo

Northern pygmy owl Orange-crowned warbler

Northern spotted owl - FT Nashville warbler

Common poorwill Yellow-rumped warbler

Rufous Hummingbird Black-throated gray warbler

Red-breasted sapsucker Hermit warbler

Hairy woodpecker MacGillivray's warbler

White-headed woodpecker Western tanager

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-93 Northern flicker Black-headed grosbeak

Pileated woodpecker Lazuli bunting

Olive-sided flycatcher Rufous-sided (spotted) towhee

Hammond's flycatcher Chipping sparrow

Dusky flycatcher Fox sparrow

Pacific-slope flycatcher Song sparrow

Gray jay White-crowned sparrow

Steller's jay Dark-eyed junco

Scrub jay Purple finch

Common raven Cassin's finch

Mountain chickadee Red crossbill

Chestnut-backed chickadee Pine siskin

Red-breasted nuthatch

a Treaties between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia, provide basic legal protection for all North American birds. No birds, except those for which there are designated hunting seasons, can be legally killed, trapped, harassed, or possessed (including birds found dead) without a permit.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-94 Suitability of Habitat for Wildlife As mentioned above, only 93 vertebrate species have been detected in the Grouse Creek watershed. With additional surveys, it is likely that many more vertebrate species will be detected in the watershed. With few exceptions (e.g., with large, highly visible raptors such as bald eagles or peregrine falcons), it is generally not possible to make accurate estimates of wildlife species diversity, abundance, and distribution without systematic surveys. However, estimates can be made based on available biotic and abiotic data and the known or presumed relationship between a species and these data. In this section we make estimates of the suitability of habitat for wildlife (i.e., habitat capable of maintaining viable populations of vertebrate wildlife species over time) within the watershed, based primarily on existing vegetation data. The section presents an assessment of the suitability of the habitat for wildlife based on very general relationships between wildlife and habitat present in the watershed, followed by a discussion on late seral habitat fragmentation and connectivity, and a brief discussion of special habitats in the watershed, and finally, results of suitable habitat analyses, using digital vegetation data coupled with wildlife habitat suitability models. General Assessment of Habitat Suitability The vegetation of the Grouse Creek watershed is extremely diverse. Thus, it is likely that there is a correspondingly high diversity of wildlife species in the watershed. The watershed is dominated by coniferous forest (91 percent of the total area) with nearly 40 percent (14,373 acres) of the watershed consisting of late-mature and old-growth coniferous habitat. The amount and distribution of late seral coniferous habitat in northwest California has decreased dramatically in the past century. Therefore, the relatively large amount of late seral coniferous habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed probably makes a substantial contribution to the maintenance of local populations of many late seral dependent wildlife species. Moreover, the late seral coniferous habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed combined with that in the adjacent Pilot Creek watershed to the south, forms a relatively large block of contiguous habitat which may be a source of juveniles (of late seral dependent wildlife species) which disperse to and colonize adjacent watersheds. Extensive logging on the majority of private timber land in the watershed has converted much late seral coniferous habitat to early seral stages. The openings created by clearcuts provide habitat for many wildlife species (e.g., red-tailed hawks, coyotes, brown-headed cowbirds) which are usually confined to open habitat. The presence of these open country species may negatively impact populations of late seral species as they are not adapted to dealing with these species and may be out competed or preyed upon disproportionally. In contrast, however, the early seral vegetation (primarily composed of flowering plants) provides flowers, fruit, and excellent forage for many nectivorous, omnivorous, and herbivorous wildlife species (e.g., hummingbirds, black bears, deer, ground squirrels and other small mammals, and many bird

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-95 species) and carnivorous late seral species (such as fishers, martens, spotted owls, goshawks) may patrol the edges of these openings in search of prey. As the planted conifers in these cutover areas mature, the flowering plants are shaded out, resulting in relatively sterile (i.e., supports relatively few wildlife and plant species) stands of small conifers. Late Seral Coniferous Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity This section focuses on late seral coniferous habitat patch size, shape, and distribution in the Grouse Creek watershed and the presumed effects on late seral-dependent wildlife species. Because little is known about the present status of these species, it was important to keep this discussion very general. For large, wide-ranging wildlife species, analysis at the watershed scale is probably inappropriate. Indeed, the issue of late seral habitat fragmentation and connectivity was thoroughly addressed by the FEIS and ROD (USDA, USDI, 1994). Past forest management (primarily clearcut harvesting and road building) in the Grouse Creek watershed, especially on private land, has reduced the amount and patch size of late seral coniferous vegetation. The amount and patch size of late seral coniferous habitat affects the diversity, abundance, and distribution of late seral dependent wildlife species. For the most part, these species prefer large, contiguous patches with little forest edge (i.e., with more forest interior). Reduction and fragmentation of this habitat can ultimately lead to local extinctions of these species due to a reduction in available food and cover, increased mortality by predation (by predators which occupy forest edge) and accidental death (from roads), and from competition with invasive edge species. When compared to the private lands in the watershed, late seral coniferous habitat within Forest Service lands has been relatively untouched. Thus, the bulk of remaining late seral coniferous vegetation is found on Forest Service land. Further, when compared with the remainder of the central zone (of the Six Rivers National Forest), the Grouse Creek watershed has a higher percentage of late seral coniferous habitat (39 percent vs. 28 percent). Patch size requirements vary greatly between late seral dependent species. In general, however, larger patches are preferred as they usually contain more interior habitat and therefore less edge. Patch shape is also important, with a nearly circular patch containing more interior (less edge) per unit area than a long, narrow patch. Indeed, a long narrow patch may contain no effective interior habitat. Therefore, the optimum habitat configuration, to maintain populations of late seral-dependent interior forest species, would be large patches of late seral coniferous habitat that have a low perimeter to interior ratio. In the Grouse Creek watershed, the old-growth seral stage has the highest mean patch size (65.1 acres) within the coniferous vegetation type. In addition, approximately 21 percent of the watershed consists of late seral coniferous habitat in patches greater than 200 acres and 12.5 percent is in patches

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-96 greater than 500 acres. Compared to the entire central zone, the Grouse Creek watershed has nearly twice the percentage of its total area (21 percent vs. 12 percent) in late seral coniferous habitat in patches greater than 200 acres. Further, when compared to the central zone, the Grouse Creek watershed has nearly twice the percentage of its total area (approximately 14 percent vs. 7 percent) in late seral coniferous habitat in patches with low perimeter to interior ratios (i.e., less edge). Habitat patch size and shape are important for the maintenance of animal populations within a watershed, but the distribution and connectivity of late seral coniferous habitat patches across the landscape affects the daily and seasonal movements (migration) of adult animals and dispersal of juvenile animals between adjacent watersheds. Between the various ROD land allocations (i.e., AMAs, LSRs, Riparian Reserves, MLSRs), the majority of late seral coniferous habitat in the Forest Service portion of the Grouse Creek watershed is protected from large-scale manipulation. In contrast, the majority of land along the southeastern and western edges of the watershed is owned by private timber companies and has been intensively managed with clearcut harvests. The distribution of late seral coniferous habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed appears to provide good habitat connectivity for wildlife dispersing or migrating to and from adjacent watersheds to the north, south, and northeast, but movements to the southeast and west may be hampered by the highly fragmented habitat on the private timber land. The private timber land may contain enough small habitat connectors to provide safe travel corridors for the largest, most mobile animals (e.g., black bears, deer, mountain lions). However, it is unlikely that there is enough forested cover left to provide for medium-sized animals which require continuous forest cover for dispersal (e.g., fishers, martens), or for small, less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, amphibians, reptiles) to survive without high mortality due to predation, starvation, accidental death, or roadkill. Human disturbances such as roads and clearcuts can act as "filters" which allow some species to move through the habitat while other species may avoid the same habitat. The paved road (Forest Highway 6N01 ) along the ridgelines connecting the Grouse Creek watershed to the Pilot Creek watershed to the south and the Mad River Basin to the west, may act as a barrier to movements by small animals attempting to cross due to the potentially high mortality rates from roadkill and predation. In addition, as mentioned earlier, a road may not be a physical barrier to a particular animal, but it may act as a "psychological" barrier. Either way, if an animal is unwilling or unable to cross a road, the suitable habitat on the opposite side is essentially unavailable. Special Habitats The high geologic diversity (and correspondingly high plant diversity) in the Grouse Creek watershed may translate into a high probability of "special"

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-97 habitats (e.g., ponds, lakes, caves, seeps, cliffs, bogs, wet meadows, vernal pools) occurring in the watershed. The presence of special wildlife habitats may suggest that particular endemic or rare wildlife species reside in the watershed. However, the mere presence of special habitat does not mean that a species will be present. Many microhabitat variables (e.g., temperature, pH, plant composition, moisture) interact to create very specific conditions and if any one variable or combination of variables are not at the appropriate level for a sensitive species then it will not survive. Moreover, if the special habitat is far from similar habitat and the species is fairly immobile (as are many small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles) the species may never colonize the suitable special habitat. The lack of systematic surveys to first, locate special habitat areas, and second, to survey for the presence of associated wildlife precludes an accurate estimate of the presence and status of these areas and possible associated wildlife species. In 1991, the Six Rivers National Forest wildlife department recorded the locations of all lakes, ponds, springs, wet meadows, and vernal pools for the entire Forest, which were discernible from 1:1 5,840 scale aerial photographs. Of course, many small areas were probably blocked by the forest canopy and no ground-truthing was done, but these data may still be used to compare the relative abundance and distribution of wet areas between watersheds. From these data only six wet areas were recorded for the Grouse Creek watershed two ponds, two wet meadows, and two springs. Several ponds and lakes are located just north and east of the watershed and may be used by wildlife inhabiting the Grouse Creek watershed. Many wet meadows (most of which contain a bear wallow or two) are known to occur along the east side of the South Fork Mountain (southeast portion of the watershed), yet the majority of this area is owned by private timber companies and has been logged. The remaining wet meadows, however, contain high-quality herbaceous and woody vegetation, which are important food sources for many herbivores (e.g., small mammals, gallinaceous birds, deer, black bears, and even cows). They also provide a year-round source of drinking water even at the higher (and usually drier) elevations. Many passerine birds also seem to be attracted to the wet meadows, probably for the available surface water, fruits and seeds, and insects. The surface water also provides breeding sites for herpetofauna and aquatic insects. Four large limestone outcrops (one at least 100 feet high) have been found in the vicinity of the Wise Station in the Lower Grouse Creek subwatershed, but they have not been checked for possible cavities or caves large enough to house colonies of bats. However, the mesic nature of the watershed would suggest that such cavities or caves have probably formed in these outcrops. Any attempt to survey the outcrops for evidence of bats should be carefully thought-out as wintering colonies of bats are extremely sensitive to any disturbance. In addition, other human-made structures (e.g., bridges, mine shafts, old wooden structures) should be surveyed for bats prior to any activity which may disturb the site (e.g., removal of a bridge or old shack, closing or re-opening a

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-98 mine shaft, sealing of vents to an attic). A local salamander species (the arboreal salamander) is known to occupy damp caves and mine shafts during dry summer months and should be considered during any surveys of these structures. The largest stands of old-growth black oak habitat on the Six Rivers National Forest are found in the Grouse Creek watershed. These stands may also be the northern-most pure stands of black oak habitat found on the Forest. With this in mind, these stands may also represent the northern-most extension of wildlife species which rely on pure stands of black oak, yet this possibility has not been investigated and it is unknown whether there are any local wildlife species which rely solely on black oak habitat. The large black oaks undoubtedly contain numerous cavities for wildlife and the grass-dominated herb layer is probably used by many herbivores. Wildlife Habitat Suitability Modeling Introduction and Methods In lieu of actual data on wildlife species diversity, abundance, and distribution in the watershed for comparison with existing vegetation data, models describing the habitat requirements of wildlife species were used to assess potential suitable wildlife habitat. These habitat suitability models were developed by the Six Rivers National Forest (using current scientific literature and consultation with researchers) for use in landscape and project-level planning (refer to the SRNF Land and Resource Management Plan - 1995). The models describe the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat needed to maintain viable populations of a species or a species assemblage (group of species with similar habitat requirements). Models were developed for 15 individual species (primarily Federally endangered or threatened or Forest Service sensitive species) and seven multi-species assemblages (six were considered here) (Table 4.20). The species and species assemblages vary in the types of habitat and habitat elements with which they are associated, and were chosen in an attempt to represent, to the maximum extent possible, the diversity of habitats occurring on the Forest. Vegetation data used to run the models included data from ecology plots (for snags and logs), stand exams, and ecological unit inventories (vegetation series and seral stage). However, proper assessment of suitable wildlife habitat depends not only on a detailed description of the vegetation (both qualitative and quantitative), but also on data on special habitats and the physical composition of the environment (especially for riparian areas). The incompatibility between the available data and the variables required for the models to be properly run made it necessary to resort to estimates of potential suitable habitat based only on variables such as vegetation series and seral stage. Efforts should be made to re-examine the species and species assemblages used in this analysis to determine whether they are appropriate for analysis at the watershed scale. The FEIS and ROD (USDA, USDI, 1994) focused on late seral

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-99 dependent species and at a large scale. Therefore, it may be more effective for an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale, to focus on those species which were not addressed by the ROD and FEIS. Future habitat analyses should be run for a particular watershed and for the next larger scale (e.g., the forest zone scale) to make comparisons based on percent suitable habitat and to estimate the relative contribution the watershed makes to maintaining viable populations of the species or species assemblage in question. Finally, this effort is not a replacement for site-specific data collection prior to any ground-disturbing activity; it does provide preliminary information and some guidance and direction. In addition, efforts should be made in the future to collect data on those habitat elements that match the variable lists in the models rather than trying to fit existing incompatible habitat data into the models.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 00 Table 4.20 List of species and species assemblages for which habitat models were developed and run for the Grouse Creek watershed analysis. The legal status of each species is included (FE = Federally Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, C = Candidate for federal listing, FSS = Forest Service Sensitive, SM = ROD Survey and Manage species, SL = State-Listed as endangered, threatened, or "species of special concern", HS = Harvest Species (i.e., hunted or trapped). See appendix for scientific names.

INDIVIDUAL SPECIES

Northern spotted owl - FT Willow flycatcher - FSS

Pileated woodpecker Northwestern pond turtle- C, FSS

Black bear - HS Northern red-legged frog

American marten - FSS Tailed frog

Pacific fisher - C, FSS Bald eagle - FE

Black-tailed deer - HS Peregrine falcon - FE

Northern goshawk - C, FSS Marbled murrelet - FT

Great gray owl - FSS

SPECIES ASSEMBLAGES

Bog/Seep/Spring/Wet Meadow/Talus River/Stream/Creek

Del Norte salamander - C, SM Tailed frog

Southern seep (torrent) salamander Common merganser

Ruffed grouse - HS

Marsh/Lake/Pond Winter wren

Northern red-legged frog American dipper

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4- 10 1 Wood duck - HS Yellow-breasted chat - SL

Northwestern pond turtle - C, FSS Cutthroat trout - HS

Western gray squirrel - HS Rainbow/steelhead trout - FSS, HS

Snag

Flammulated owl Down Woody Material

Western screech owl Clouded salamander

Red-breasted sapsucker Arboreal salamander

Downy woodpecker Dusky-footed woodrat

Hairy woodpecker

White-headed woodpecker Black Oak/White Oak

Vaux's swift Acorn woodpecker

Brown creeper Scrub jay

Western bluebird Lazuli bunting

Douglas' squirrel Western gray squirrel - HS

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 02 Results of Model Runs The results of each model run are an estimate of the amount of potential suitable habitat present in the watershed and should, therefore, be used with caution. Determining the actual amounts of preferred habitat for each species or species assemblage (i.e., the quality of the habitat based on a multitude of habitat variables) would require more detailed habitat data than the models and the databases in their current state provide. To improve this kind of analysis, updating and refining the habitat suitability models (including field research to determine species habitat requirements) and tailoring vegetation (and abiotic variables) data collection to better fit the model variables, is required. No estimates of population size, distribution, or density were made based on estimates of potential suitable habitat from these model runs. The status of the species or species assemblage in the watershed is also included. Recommendations for future model runs and management of the species or species assemblage, can be found in the Key Findings and Management Recommendations section of this document Bald Eagle Status in watershed: Unknown. There are several detections of bald eagles in the watershed, but no known surveys have been conducted. The bird(s) observed are probably part of the nearby (>3 air miles) Todd Ranch territory on the South Fork of the Trinity River. Results: There are approximately 762 acres (2 percent of watershed) of potential foraging habitat in the watershed, based on tree size class (4 or 5; >21 " d.b.h. ) and canopy closure (<40 percent). The number of foraging acres is low because very little habitat with size class 4 or 5 trees has <40 percent canopy closure. There are approximately 25,603 acres (70 percent of watershed) of potential winter roost habitat in the watershed, based on tree size class (3-5; >11" d.b.h.) and canopy closure (>40 percent). However, very little or none of this habitat is near a suitable body of water. The lack of large bodies of water in the watershed make it unsuitable for nesting eagles. The majority of the watershed is far from suitable foraging habitat, thus, only a small portion of the watershed (near the confluence of Grouse Creek with the South Fork of the Trinity River) appears to be suitable for bald eagles. Black Bear Status in watershed: Unknown. Black bears have been observed throughout the watershed, from the higher elevations to riparian areas along Grouse Creek, including a female with cubs. Results: There are approximately 24,974 acres (69 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation (any types with oak in the overstory or understory) and canopy closure (>30 percent). There are approximately 20,905 acres (58 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed that meet the log requirements of the model. The log requirements

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 03 are similar to those for the down woody material assemblage (see the results of this assemblage run for details). Black Oak/White Oak Assemblage Status in watershed: Only 1 ,569 acres (4 percent of watershed) of black or white oak habitat exists in the watershed. However, the largest patch of old- growth black oak on the SRNF is found in the watershed. The large amount of tanoak habitat in the watershed augments the supply of acorns from black and white oak stands which are needed by species dependent on them as a winter food source.

Results: There are approximately 613 acres (1.7 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation type (any series or subseries with black oak or white oak), seral stage (mature to old-growth), tree size class (3-5; >11" d.b.h.), total canopy closure (<70 percent) and hardwood canopy closure (>25 percent). A mixture of age classes is required to provide for recruitment of acorn-producing oaks over time. There are no available data on basal area, snag density, diameter, or height for oak stands within the watershed. Black-Tailed Deer Status in watershed: Deer of all ages, including does with fawns, have been observed in the watershed. Deer hunters frequent the watershed, but their level of success is unknown. However, lack of access to a large portion of the watershed may provide the deer with a refuge during the hunting season. Results: There are many facets to this model (probably due to the voluminous data on deer) including foraging habitat which varies by season, resting habitat, hiding cover, thermal cover, breeding/fawning habitat and other variables related to forage quality. However, only the following portions of the model were run due to incompatible or incomplete vegetation data (especially spatial configuration of vegetation relative to abiotic variables). There are approximately 19,600 acres (54 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed meeting thermal cover requirements (i.e., mid- mature to old- growth seral stages and canopy closure >70 percent), 1,71 6 acres (4.7 percent of watershed) of habitat meeting herbaceous forage and cover requirements (i.e., grassland and black and white oak vegetation series), and 9,877 acres (27 percent of watershed) of tree stand forage (tree size class 1; 0-5" d.b.h.). Bog/Seep/Talus Assemblage Results of model runs for this assemblage are presented separately for each of the two member species, as detailed habitat models were available for each (Welsh and Lind, 1995).

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 04 Del Norte Salamander Status in watershed: Unknown. There are no known detections in the watershed and no known surveys have been conducted. The watershed is within the known range of the species. The salamander inhabits rocky substrates or talus, closely tied to late seral mixed conifer/hardwood forests with a closed canopy and cool, moist microclimate (Welsh, 1993). Results: There are approximately 2,399 acres (6.6 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed. All of the habitat variables from the model were compatible with the vegetation database: vegetation series (tanoak or Douglas-fir), rock content (>10 percent), canopy closure (>40 percent), and seral stage (mature and old-growth stands). Southern Seep (Torrent) Salamander Status in watershed: Unknown. There are no known detections and no known surveys have been conducted. The salamander is found in springs, seeps, and 1st- to 3rd-order streams with abundant cobble and fine sediments in late seral, mixed conifer-hardwood forests with a closed canopy and moist microclimate (Welsh and Lind, 1995). Results: There are approximately 13,1 50 acres (36 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on four of the five macrohabitat variables: vegetation series (tanoak or Douglas-fir), seral stage (mature to old-growth), tree size class (4 or 5; >21" d.b.h.), and canopy closure (>70 percent). There are no available data on the riparian microhabitat variables of the model (e.g., stream temperature, amount of cobble and cementedness of the streams). Therefore, results of this model run should be used with caution. If data were available for all variables in the model, the number of suitable acres would doubtless decrease. Down Woody Material Assemblage Status in watershed: Unknown. There are no known detections and no known surveys for clouded or arboreal salamanders in the watershed. However, many large Douglas-fir logs, with intact bark, are present in suitable habitat; thus, clouded salamanders probably occur in the watershed. Oak habitat (for the arboreal salamander) in the watershed is limited (1,571 acres), but much of it is in mature to old-growth seral stages (92 percent) and has not been surveyed for the salamander. Dusky-footed woodrats do occur in the watershed, based on nests found by the Fisher Study field crew in 1993 and 1994. Results: This assemblage model considers size and density of down woody material (i.e., logs) in two different decay classes (for all species in the assemblage), as well as vegetation series and seral stage (for the dusky-footed woodrat). There are approximately 20,905 acres (58 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed that meets the downed log requirements of the model: decay class 1 or 2, with >2 logs/ac.(>20" bottom diameter (BTOD) and

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 05 >30 foot length) or decay class 3-5, with >1 log/ac. (>1 2" BTOD and >20 foot length). The number of acres meeting both criteria is unknown, but is surely less than the 20,905 acres. In addition, there are approximately 3,977 acres (11 percent of watershed) of potential habitat for the dusky-footed woodrat (i.e., shrub/forb habitat in all vegetation series). Pacific Fisher Status in watershed: Fishers are known to occupy the watershed. One male and two female radio-collared fishers (as part of the Six Rivers National Forest Fisher Study) are known to use the watershed and several rest and foraging sites have been located. Evidence from the Fisher Study indicates that one of the female fishers probably produced one or more kits during the 1994 breeding season (Zielinski et. al., 1994). Preliminary radio-tracking data from 1995 indicates that the same female may again be with kits. The female's home range is believed to be in the roadless portion of the watershed (south-central) in mature and old-growth coniferous stands. The male has been found resting on only a few occasions and seems to have a much larger home range and occupies ( or at least forages) in more varied habitat types and seral stages. Theother female has only been found in the watershed on a single occasion and is known to use the adjacent Pilot Creek watershed as well. Attempts will be made during the 1995 field season to trap additional fishers in the watershed and to continue collecting data on the three collared animals. Results: There are approximately 17,304 acres (48 percent of watershed) of potential denning/resting habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (all), seral stage (mature to old-growth), canopy closure (>60 percent) and snag criteria ( >1 snag/ac., >30" d.b.h.). There are approximately 19,621 acres (54 percent of watershed) of potential foraging habitat in the watershed, based on the same criteria above, but with >2 snags/ac. (>20" d.b.h.). These numbers are not mutually exclusive because of the overlap in the range of the variables used for each run. Proximity of denning/resting habitat to riparian areas or wet meadows was not considered. Northern Goshawk Status in watershed: Goshawks are known to occupy the watershed. There are more than 20 detections in the SRNF wildlife sighting database. No known surveys (at least to USDA-Forest Service, Region 5 protocol) have been conducted in the watershed. There is at least one reproductive territory in the watershed, but its present status is unknown. Results: There are approximately 16,385 acres (45 percent of watershed) of nesting habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (coniferous), seral stage (primarily mature and old-growth), canopy closure (>60 percent), and snag (>2/ac., >20" d.b.h.) and log (>3/ac., >20" BTOD and >10 foot length) criteria. Foraging habitat should consist primarily of open, unfragmented mature stands, small forest openings, and meadows. This type of information

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 06 was not available, but suitable foraging habitat appears to be present in the watershed, based on observations by Forest wildlife biologists. Great Gray Owl Status in watershed: Unknown. There are no known detections and no known surveys have been conducted. It is doubtful that the species occupies the watershed as their habit of foraging in open meadows makes them highly visible and no local bird watcher or Forest wildlife biologist has observed the species in the vicinity. Individual owls may occupy the watershed at the higher elevations very irregularly (during population irruptions) or during the winter when observers are few. Only two detections of the species have been reported for northwestern California (Harris, 1991 ).Results: Great gray owls require large meadows (>12 acres) above 4,600 feet. Approximately 2,500 acres of the watershed is above 4,600 feet, most of which does not contain meadow habitat. However, a few large meadows do occur on the west edge of the watershed (Pilot and Kinsey Ridges) and are near the 4,600 foot cutoff. There are approximately 2,721 acres of potential habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (white fir and red fir), seral stage (old-growth only), and canopy closure (>40 percent). However, only 35.5 acres are in the red fir series and much of the old-growth white fir habitat is probably below 4,600 feet. Marbled Murrelet Status in watershed: Unknown. There are no known detections of murrelets within the watershed. In 1992, surveys for marbled murrelets were conducted by the Lower Trinity Ranger District (SRNF) for the Wildcat Timber Sale, in a small portion of the watershed, but for only a single season and, therefore, not to 1994 Pacific Seabird Group protocol. No murrelets were detected. Results: There are approximately 15,428 acres (43 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (Douglas-fir, tanoak, and white fir) and seral stage (late-mature, old-growth, and early- and mid-mature with predominant trees). Marsh/Lake/Pond Assemblage Status in watershed: Unknown. Only western pond turtles have been observed in the watershed (two records in the SRNF wildlife sighting database). No known surveys for the three species have been conducted. There are at least two ponds in the watershed, but their size and condition is unknown. It is unknown whether the ponds have been surveyed for species in this assemblage. Results: There are approximately 1,110 acres (3 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on log criteria (decay class 1 or 2: >1/ac. and decay class 3-5: >3/ac.), snag criteria (>1.5/ac., >20" d.b.h. and >6 feet tall), and canopy closure (>50 percent). The combination of the snag and log criteria was fairly strict and obviously limited the number of acres suitable

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 07 for the members of the assemblage. It is important to note that information on riparian deciduous vegetation, water depth and velocity, and emergent riparian herbaceous vegetation was not available. Further, data on the locations of suitable bodies of water (e.g., lakes, ponds, slow stretches of stream) relative to the location of suitable terrestrial habitats were unavailable.] American Marten Status in watershed: Unknown. Track plate surveys in 1 992-1 995 and live- trapping efforts in 1993 and 1994 within suitable habitat detected no martens. Pacific fishers are known to occupy the suitable marten habitat. Results: There are approximately 5,41 3 acres (1 5 percent of watershed) of potential denning/resting habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (red and white fir), seral stage (mature and old-growth), canopy closure (>40 percent), and snag size and density (>2/ac., >24" d.b.h.). There are approximately 6,931 acres (19 percent of watershed) of potential foraging habitat, based on vegetation series, seral stage, and canopy closure (all same as above), but with snag size and density >3/ac., >1 5" d.b.h. Riparian/wet meadow proximity to closed canopy stands was not considered as the appropriate data were not available. Peregrine Falcon Status in watershed: Unknown, but probably does not nest in the watershed as only a single detection has been recorded for the watershed. There have been no known surveys within the watershed. Peregrines may forage along the South Fork of the Trinity River at the extreme east-central edge of the watershed. Results: There are no known cliff sites suitable for nesting in the Grouse Creek watershed. One large limestone cliff near Grouse Creek at about the Wise Station may be suitable for nesting, but has not been surveyed for peregrines. Pileated Woodpecker Status in watershed: Unknown. There have been no known surveys in the watershed. There are about 15 detections in the SRNF wildlife sighting database and the Six Rivers National Forest Fisher Study field crew regularly observed individuals in 1993 and 1 994. Results: There are approximately 21,939 acres (60 percent of watershed) of potential habitat within the watershed, based on vegetation series (coniferous), canopy closure (>60 percent), and snag and log size and density: for snags; >3.2/ac., >20 percent of snags present >20" d.b.h. and >25 feet tall, and for logs; >40/ac. in decay class 4 or 5, with >1 5" BTOD. Northwestern Pond Turtle Status in watershed: Unknown. There have been no known surveys in the watershed. However, there are two detections in the SRNF wildlife sighting

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 08 database. Pond turtles probably can be found in the vicinity of the confluence of Grouse Creek with the South Fork of the Trinity River. Results: Riparian habitats are important for basking adults and hatchlings and upland terrestrial habitats are important for nesting and over-wintering. Data were available for seven of the 21 model variables, but not in the proper form to fit the model. There are approximately 146 acres (0.4 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on only two variables: dominant upland vegetation in the grassland series with <20 percent canopy closure. Northern Red-Legged Frog Status in watershed: Unknown. There are no known detections in the watershed. No red-legged frogs were observed during either of the surveys along short stream segments in the watershed, as described earlier in the section on the status of vertebrate wildlife species in the watershed. Results: There are approximately 7,484 acres (21 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (tanoak, Douglas- fir, white fir, and red fir), canopy closure (>50 percent), and log criteria (>1 /ac. in decay class 1 or 2 and >3/ac. in decay class 3 and 4). Of course, it is unknown whether this suitable habitat contains, or is adjacent to, a suitable body of water; these results should be used with caution. There was no information available on pond or stream depth, pond or stream diameter, water temperature, or riparian and emergent vegetation cover. River/Stream/Creek Assemblage Status in watershed: See the Riparian and Aquatic discussions in this document for details on the quality and quantity of streams in the watershed. Results: There are approximately 3,792 acres (10 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on canopy closure (>50 percent), and log criteria (logs >1 7" BTOD and >20 foot length with >2/ac. in decay class 1 or 2, and >5/ac. in decay class 3 or 4). Snag criteria were not included in the analysis because very few vegetation series and seral stages could meet both the snag and log criteria. Only the terrestrial component of this model could be accommodated by the available data. Information on riparian deciduous vegetation, water temperature, and percent canopy closure for riparian shrubs and trees was not available. Snag Assemblage Status in watershed: Unknown. All species in the assemblage, except the western screech owl, are known to occur in the watershed, but it is highly likely that screech owls are also found in the watershed. There have been no known surveys in the watershed for species in this assemblage. Results: This model considered the snag requirements (snags of a minimum diameter for nesting, roosting, and foraging) of nine bird and one mammal

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 09 species. For ease of analysis, the model was split into four snag diameter classes (>10", >1 5", >20", and >25" d.b.h.) in decay class 1 or 2 (i.e., hard snags) with a minimum height of 10 feet. It was assumed that, if hard snag densities were adequate, recruitment over time to soft snags would also be adequate. A minimum density of snags in each size class was considered essential to maintain populations of these 10 snag-dependent species at 60 percent of the maximum population size. The following are the results of the computer runs for each of the four snag size class: Table 4.21 Snag assemblage model for the Grouse Creek watershed.

Snag Density Potential Habitat Snag Size Class Requirement (acres % of (#/ac.) watershed) >10" d.b.h. >0.06 23,427 (65%) >15" d.b.h. >1.66 20,640 (57%) >20" d.b.h. >1.54 18,473 (51%) >25" d.b.h. >0.04 23,434 (6 5%)

Northern Spotted Owl Status in watershed: There are 22 spotted owl territories in the watershed. For details on the status of this species in the watershed see Appendix. Results: There are approximately 13,614 acres (38 percent of watershed) of potential nesting/roosting habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (tanoak and Douglas-fir), canopy closure (>60 percent), and tree size class (4 or 5; >21" d.b.h.). When white fir is included in the analysis, there are approximately 18,182 acres (50 percent of watershed) of potential nesting/roosting habitat. A similar amount of potential foraging habitat (for both cases above) was found in the watershed, based on the same criteria used above except with canopy closure >40 percent. Tailed Frog Status in watershed: Unknown. The only systematic survey for tailed frogs in the watershed (conducted by H. Welsh and A. Lind, PSW-Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA) occurred in 1 985 within three sampling reaches in a portion of Barney Creek (a tributary of the Mosquito Creek sub-watershed). Adults and tadpoles were found within all three sampling reaches. Results: There are approximately 23,574 acres (65 percent of watershed) of potential habitat in the watershed, based on vegetation series (coniferous), canopy closure (>70 percent), and seral stage (all but shrub/forb). This

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 10 model could be run because no data were available for any of the aquatic microhabitat variables in the model (e.g., stream temperature and speed, percent cementedness). Willow Flycatcher Status in watershed: Unknown. There have been no known detections in the watershed and no known surveys have been conducted. Willow flycatchers probably migrate through the watershed in spring and fall, especially along the South Fork of the Trinity River in the extreme east central portion of the watershed. In northwestern California, the species is considered to be a rare migrant and summer resident and a possible breeder, with 95 percent of detections from coastal lowland habitat (Harris, 1991). Results: Willow flycatcher habitat in California is characterized by wet meadows or streamside riparian zones with willow and possibly alder growing in low, patchy clumps. Openings are important for foraging, with a preference towards meadows greater than five acres. Since there is minimal information on riparian vegetation in the database, this model could not be run. However, the watershed does not seem to contain any wet meadows or suitable riparian strips large enough to maintain a population of willow flycatchers.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 1 1 Riparian and Aquatic Past and Current Conditions Introduction Riparian conditions are considered by many to reflect the ecological condition of a watershed. Ecologically productive and resilient watersheds require the influence of riparian forests on streams, especially in controlling the light and temperature regimes, providing nutrients for stream biota, and as a source of structural influences on stream channel habitats. The riparian forest is influenced by channel geomorphology, hydrologic pattern, spatial position of the channel in the drainage network, and its inherent disturbance regimes. Riparian forest influences are profound and varied. Past Riparian and Aquatic Conditions Past conditions are difficult to discover for riparian/aquatic environments. Because large floods so thoroughly modify these areas, most historic evidence is obliterated. Some guesses can be made based on combining the limited known historic information and current evidence with ecological theory of riparian and aquatic system dynamics. This section will review riparian and aquatic ecosystem principles and use these as a means of describing and highlighting what are believed to be important historic ecosystem processes and functions. The ecological health of streams and rivers is inherently linked to the surrounding landscape through the biotic and physicochemical properties of the riparian zone and its upland terrestrial habitat. The riparian zone extends from the edge of the average high water mark of the wetted channel toward the uplands. This zone includes terrestrial areas where vegetation and microclimate are influenced by perennial or intermittent water associated with high water tables, and by the ability of soils to hold water (Naiman, 1992). Beyond this is the riparian "zone of influence." This is a transition area between the riparian zone and the upland forest where the stream is predominantly influenced by the physical processes of the adjacent hillslopes but where vegetation may still exert control under some conditions (Gregory, 1991 from Naiman, 1991). In Grouse Creek, this zone varies tremendously in width and importance, depending on stream type and the character of the adjacent hillslopes. Riparian vegetation exerts important influences on riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the most important biological and physical effects of riparian vegetation on the functioning of aquatic and riparian ecosystems are the following: *Provide organic material that can be used as food sources for aquatic and terrestrial organisms;

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 1 2 *Supply large woody debris which alters sediment storage, influences channel morphology, and enhances fish production; -Shade the stream and reduce temperature fluctuations within the stream and under the riparian canopy; 'Anchor streamside soils in place against fluvial erosion; and, *Provide habitat and cover for both aquatic and riparian organisms. Nutrient Cycling Riparian forests add large amounts of leaves, cones, wood, and dissolved nutrients to low-and mid-order streams. This input, together with the growth of aquatic plants, provides the nutrient capital that sustains aquatic systems. Deciduous riparian tree and brush species provide large amounts of leaves and other organic material, which are generally higher in nitrogen than coniferous debris, and are thus more readily broken down by invertebrates. More rapid breakdown leads to more rapid utilization and higher productivity. Organic inputs originate as particles falling directly from the forest into the stream channel (or moving downslope along the forest floor by wind and water driven erosion) and as dissolved material in subsurface water flowing from upslope soils and the hyporheic zone. Solar Radiation and Temperature Riparian vegetation is often crucial in regulation of solar radiation (through shading) which affects the air and water temperature of riparian areas. Water temperature affects the rate of chemical and biological processes which affects the metabolism, development, and activity of stream organisms. Air temperature, along with other physical factors, influences the microclimate of riparian areas. The amount of solar radiation reaching a stream is primarily a function of local topography and orientation of the water surface, vegetation height and density, stream channel width (i.e., surface to volume ratio of the stream), and the slope of the stream bank (for example, a high, vertical stream bank would probably block more light than a relatively flat stream bank). Both coniferous and deciduous vegetation are effective in shading a stream. Such shading can become very important to aquatic organisms during the summer months when flows are lowest and solar insolation is greatest. Thus, riparian vegetation is important for maintaining a cool, moist microclimate which is essential for many riparian-dependent invertebrate and vertebrate species. Both moisture and temperature are physical parameters that are vitally important for forest herpetofauna (e.g., Feder, 1983, Huey and Stevenson, 1979). A closed canopy around riparian areas helps to maintain low water temperatures within the narrow limits required by the aquatic larval stages of some herpetofauna species (e.g., tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) and southern seep (torrent) salamanders (Rhyacotriton variegatus),fish and invertebrate species, for

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-11 3 the timing of reproduction and emergence, and for proper egg development. In addition, maintenance of a closed canopy around riparian areas provides a suitable microclimate for foraging adult herpetofauna and may reduce predation (by providing adequate cover). Removal of the riparian canopy may rapidly decimate populations of organisms which have evolved to function in riparian areas with low light and low air and water temperatures. Large Woody Debris Another important function of riparian areas for both riparian and aquatic ecosystems is in providing a supply large woody debris (LWD) to the riparian and fluvial systems. Grouse Creek is no exception - the influence of large wood in riparian and aquatic habitats is profound in many parts of the watershed. Riparian zones are the primary source of LWD for aquatic and riparian communities. LWD increases the structural diversity and productivity of riparian zones and is an important habitat component for many invertebrate and vertebrate species, providing food, shelter, and reproduction sites for both predators and prey. For example, western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata), wood ducks (Aix sponsa), and northern red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) require numerous partially-submerged logs within shallow margins of streams or ponds for basking, roosting, and cover. In aquatic communities, large wood influences the routing and storage of sediment, wood, and water. It also influences the formation and distribution of pools, riffles, and cover and acts as a substrate for biological activity. Large woody debris makes up approximately 40 percent of the obstructions that trap sediment in forest streams (Bilby and Ward, 1989). Unfilled storage capacity serves to buffer potential sedimentation impacts on downstream areas when pulses of sediment from the uplands enter stream channels. Scattered LWD in channels reduces the rate of sediment movement downstream, routing sediment through the stream ecosystem slowly, except in cases of catastrophic flushing events or when the storage capacity is filled. Large wood has a major impact on channel form in smaller streams. The location and orientation of LWD can influence channel meandering and bank stability. LWD also forms and stabilizes gravel bars. It is often the most important structural agent, forming pools in small streams. While the relative importance of LWD in pool formation decreases with increasing channel width, wood in large rivers forms pools along the channel margins or in secondary channels. These pools may be very important for fish populations. Another way in which wood affects channel shape is by forming waterfalls. Waterfalls form plunge pools and also influence sediment transport in streams. The greater the proportion of the drop in elevation of a stream caused by waterfalls the less efficient the system is at moving sediment downslope. Wood- formed waterfalls are common in small streams in the watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 14 One of the key functions of LWD with regard to fish production is to increase habitat complexity which helps ensure that cover and suitable habitat can be found over a wide range of flow and climatic conditions. Large woody debris may also allow a finer partitioning of the available habitat. Pools formed by LWD, for example, are favored habitat by certain species and age groups of salmonids (Bission et. al., 1982). More complex wood structures, such as rootwads or small debris jams, attract more fish than single logs. Woody debris jams can account for the majority of energy loss of flowing water in steep, low-order channels resulting in less erosive energy. As a result, woody debris is essential to maintaining dynamic equilibrium in both small and large stream channels. Role of Fluvial Geomorphic Processes and Disturbance in Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems Stream channels and riparian areas are frequently disturbed by events such as large floods, fires, and landslides. A disturbance regime might be defined by characterizing the type, frequency, magnitude, and spatial distribution of disturbances of potential consequence to biological resources. Before exploring the biological significance of disturbance events on riparian and aquatic systems, the seasonal and annual fluvial geomorphic processes, such as runoff timing and pattern, will first be explored. Runoff processes influence quantity, quality, and time of surface and subsurface flow. Water routing influences riparian vegetation, nutrient inputs, and stream productivity. Any changes to runoff timing and patterns will influences these elements. In the heavily forested Pacific coastal eco-region, overland flow is usually not an important process on undisturbed soils because infiltration capacities usually exceed precipitation intensity. Lateral subsurface flow is the dominant runoff process. Subsurface flow may occur as matrix flow or through macropores such as root channels, animal burrows, and even larger soil pipes. This process can be altered to varying degrees through soil compaction which can, in turn, increase overland flow and possibly the peak flow responses in stream channels. The wetted area of riparian areas, particularly low-order channels, expands and contracts seasonally in response to precipitation, local topography, and soil characteristics (Swistock et. al., 1989). This variable source area concept may explain other processes such as nutrient cycling and characteristics of riparian forests which are important to the stream ecosystem (Rhodes et. al., 1986). The dynamics of the variable source area are important where runoff timing and duration influence ecological processes. For example, during summer drought, source areas contract as drainage from hillslopes decreases (O'Loughlin, 1986). As soil temperature rises, biological activity increases in the shallow soil mantle until it is eventually reduced by low moisture availability. In autumn, precipitation increases and the variable source area expands. Water levels rise and the groundwater recharge phase begins. Increased water contact within the soil enhances the capture of carbon and nutrients (Rhodes et. al., 1986, Wolock et. al., 1989).

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 4-11 5 At high elevations, the variable source area for lower-order streams expands substantially during snowmelt as soil layers become saturated. When soil is fully saturated, overland flow is generated by continued snowmelt. Overland flow is important for providing additional nutrients to the stream. For example, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are higher in overland flow than in groundwater flow, with the highest concentrations occurring during peak discharge (Rhodes et. al., 1 986). This nitrogen pulse is important for providing nutrients to the nitrogen-limited streams of the coastal eco-region. Riparian and aquatic ecosystems are heavily influenced by processes occurring in headwater upland areas (low-order stream channels and adjacent areas). These processes can be altered by disturbance events that occur locally (e.g., landslides) or over large scale areas such as fires and floods. In the Pacific northwest, low-order (first- and second-order) stream segments represent greater than 70 percent of the cumulative channel length in typical mountain watersheds (Benda et. al., 1992). Hence, low-order channels are the primary conduits for water, sediment, and vegetative material routed from hillslopes to higher-order rivers. Any changes to low-order channels are translated downslope to higher-order channels where the bulk of riparian and aquatic organisms reside. When fluvial geomorphic processes are altered, in many instances they result in a change in the sediment regime of riparian areas and/or stream channels. In other words, the routing (inputs and outputs) of sediment is altered until the riparian and aquatic systems reach a new dynamic equilibrium. Depending upon the degree in which the fluvial geomorphic processes have been altered, reaching a new dynamic equilibrium may take years to hundreds of years for the channel adjustment to be complete. These channel adjustments typically involve the routing of sediment which can have numerous biological implications to aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Increased levels of sediment can have adverse effects on stream fishes and their habitat. Developing eggs and embryos of anadromous salmonids generally require gravel with less than 20 percent fines. Survival of developing eggs and alevins decreases as the levels of fines increase. Also, fine sediment that is deposited or in suspension can reduce primary production and benthic invertebrate (bottom bugs) abundance, thus reducing aquatic food abundance for fish.

While erosion and sedimentation are often viewed negatively from a biological point of view, they are essential to the ecological functioning of aquatic and riparian communities because they provide the sources and the surfaces necessary for habitat. In mountain regions in particular, erosion and sedimentation are often violent (e.g., disturbances such as landslides, debris flows, landslide/dam-break floods, and snow avalanches) and produce mortality in riparian, terrestrial, and aquatic organisms. Geomorphic surfaces in streams or on land in the wake of these powerful processes often evolve into productive and biologically attractive sites because of the revitalization of geochemical cycles, introduction of buried and unburied organic debris, and the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4- 11 6 opening of forest canopies which increases sunlight. In ecologically healthy watersheds of the Pacific northwest, these disturbance processes vary considerably in the extent and frequency of their impact on riparian areas. Little is known about frequencies, magnitudes, and spatial distributions of historic disturbances. We do know, however, that erosion in mountainous terrains of the coastal ecoregion, such as Grouse Creek, is dominated by mass wasting processes. Landslides occur on steep slopes during large rainstorms or rain-on-snow events. Furthermore, wildfires sometimes kill vegetation, and loss of root strength may result in landslide and debris flows whenever large rainstorms follow wildfires. A wildfire followed by large storms has the potential of inducing erosion over large areas for several years which can result in sedimentation and large channel disturbance over stream reaches to entire drainage networks (Benda, 1 990). Wildfires can affect stream habitat within riparian areas through decreased vegetation cover, increased storm runoff, and increased sediment and debris. In a wildfire, vegetation cover and root system loss can reduce infiltration and storage functions and can cause "hydrophobic" soils. Surface runoff is accelerated, peak runoff events may-be increased, and low summer flows decreased. The net effect is stronger peaks of flood water (in the spring) and not as much water in the summer. Loss of summer flow increases summer stream temperatures and decreases stream habitat area and pool depth. All species and ecological processes and functions within riparian areas and stream systems are affected to varying degrees by annual or extreme disturbance events. The composition, and to some degree the behavior, of species inhabiting a place is a function of exposure to these events over its evolutionary history. Nevertheless, some high intensity disturbances occur so infrequently, with respect to life spans of dominant species, that these organisms are not adapted. When the frequency, magnitude and intensity of disturbances occur beyond the range that systems have evolved under and adapted to, the stability and resiliency of the ecosystem may be risk.

Unfortunately, knowledge of natural disturbance regimes is limited because of the length of time required for the processes to operate - some important processes take hundreds or thousands of years to be observable. Recent land use has altered the disturbance regimes and types in ways not yet well understood. Knowledge and understanding of how a given system is currently responding within the larger context of historic disturbances is of intense interest to land managers. Our minimal understanding of the functioning of ecologically healthy watersheds over long periods and large spatial scales precludes accurate environmental assessments of the long-term effects of land use in watersheds of the Klamath Basin, particularly within the context of their inherent disturbance regimes. An important question that is difficult to address is whether or not a given system within a watershed is operating outside the bounds of its natural fluvial geomorphic processes and disturbance regime.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 1 7 Estimating Historic Benchmark Conditions The ROD and the Region 5 Sustaining Ecosystems: Conceptual Framework (R5 Ecosystem Management Guide) both emphasize describing ecosystem condition, process, and function within the context of historic or benchmark conditions and the range of natural variability under which these ecosystems have evolved. The R5 Conceptual Framework refers to this variability as "Reference Variability." Reference Variability is described in terms of the range of conditions for key environmental indicators. However, little information exists regarding Reference Variability or the range of natural variability for key riparian and aquatic environmental indicators within the Grouse Creek watershed. Only general extrapolations as to historic range or benchmark conditions within the watershed can be made. However, within these historic ranges, sufficient knowledge of ecosystem process and function exists to be able to identify the conditions under which riparian and aquatic ecosystems are optimized. The ranges of historic conditions and the subset where aquatic and riparian ecosystems are optimized will be described in the sections below. These descriptions will set the stage where the current existing condition within the Grouse Creek watershed can be examined within the context of the spectrum of possible historic ecosystem conditions. Geologic and Geomorphic Benchmark or Historic Conditions The Coast Ranges and western Klamath Mountains have evolved over the last several thousand years within a dynamic geologic and geomorphic environment. Both large and small scale physical disturbances have been an integral part of this evolution, and the various flora and fauna have adapted to these circumstances. Our short historical window provides a limited sample of the full spectrum and consequences of these disturbances. Two catastrophic, landslide-producing floods have occurred during the last 150 years; in 1955 and 1964. Other major flood events are know to have occurred in Grouse Creek in 1860, 1750 and 1 600. It is likely that even greater floods have occurred, although less frequently in the prehistoric period. Therefore, Grouse Creek watershed experienced a "natural" condition in which landsliding and sedimentation were periodically widespread and caused drastic changes in riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Devastation Slide is a long-lasting feature of the watershed and has probably been a barrier to anadromous fish off and on for centuries.

Prehistoric conditions also would have included long intervals (from decades to several centuries perhaps) characterized by relatively less active geomorphic processes. This would have been accompanied by relatively low sedimentation rates from landslides and erosion, and therefore would have provided long periods for riparian and aquatic systems to stabilize after these occasional catastrophic events. This pattern of disturbance and recovery was most likely distributed in the watershed according to geologic and geomorphic sensitivity.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-11 8 Millsi "' '' -"- " _-

That is, different bedrock units and landforms would have responded differently to catastrophic storms. These varied areas would recover at different rates leaving a mosaic of recently disturbed to senescent within the watershed. This presumption is borne out by the fact that today, some parts of the watershed are in a more recovered state than others. Riparian/Aquatic Benchmark or Historic Conditions The condition of riparian and aquatic habitat in Grouse Creek has varied through time, primarily as a result of channel changes caused by sedimentation and mass wasting following major floods, as in 1 964. In the first few decades after a major flood, there would be numerous landslides adjacent to channels, considerable secondary erosion from landslide scars, widespread accumulation of sediment and debris in high-order channels, and increased exposure of the channel from loss of riparian cover. This would have resulted in elevated water temperatures, reduced aquatic habitat quality, and reduced productivity in all phases of the salmonid life cycle. During more stable recovery periods, riparian areas would have been dominated by large conifers, providing dense shade and occasional inputs of large woody debris to the channel. The aquatic habitat would have been characterized by cool water temperatures highly suitable for salmonids and complex instream structure, providing abundant cover. Erosion, sedimentation and sediment transport would have generally been in an imbalance over the watershed, providing clean substrate for spawning and rearing of salmonids. The primary source of energy in the aquatic system would have been organic detritus. Devastation Slide was probably active and maintained the barrier to anadromous fish even during recovery periods between catastrophic floods. The habitat below the slide was subject to high levels of sedimentation and had sparse riparian canopy with only minimal recovery between major floods. A lake has formed at various times by damming above the slide for periods typically less than a decade. The lake has impacted downstream aquatic organisms because of temperature increases caused by the increased solar radiation on the lake. With respect to riparian habitat, conditions would have varied based on climatic regimes through flooding and fire events. Riparian systems are inherently dynamic and subject to frequent change, both large and small. Nevertheless, upland riparian sources would only infrequently be affected by catastrophic wildfire and mass wasting events. Only in the most rare of circumstances is it postulated that entire riparian areas (upland as well as along mainstem areas) ever were completely devastated within an entire watershed. If these events did occur, they were undoubtedly interspersed with long periods of recovery where the riparian species could gradually recover. In summary, little information exists regarding historic conditions for environmental indicators and the processes and functions under which the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 1 9 riparian and aquatic ecosystems in Grouse Creek developed. However, general extrapolations can be made based on limited existing information. Aerial photographs dating back to the 1 940s reveal a watershed with extensive vegetative cover, much of it in old-growth. Riparian areas, both along the mainstem Grouse Creek as well as its subbasins and headwater tributaries, were characterized by narrow, riparian canopy openings, extensive conifer riparian canopies, and apparently relatively few streamside landslides. A few slides were visible on the mainstem Grouse Creek, including Devastation Slide, indicating that mass wasting at some magnitude and frequency was a characteristic feature of the aquatic and riparian system within the Grouse Creek watershed.

Evidence of past floods - chiefly abandoned terraces - indicates that the watershed has experienced episodic floods. Given the inherent geological instability characterized by the Franciscan and South Fork Mountain schists, and Rattlesnake Terrane formations, as well as the thrust faults found within the watershed, we can confidently conclude that the watershed periodically experienced episodes of high sediment loading associated with floods and fires. How frequently these occurred, and over what spatial extent, is not known. Knowing that mass wasting features, as well as their effect on adjacent riparian and stream systems, take decades or even centuries to recover, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Grouse Creek watershed (based on aerial photos from 1940s) had not experienced extensive and widespread disturbance for perhaps centuries. The following sections will describe the optimum range of conditions necessary for riparian- and aquatic-dependent communities. These optimum habitat conditions, within the context of the larger range of possible historic conditions, will be the means by which the current conditions within the Grouse Creek watershed will be evaluated and compared. Optimal Habitats for Selected Aquatic and Riparian Species Salmonids All salmonids require high quality water for spawning, rearing, and migration. An abundance of cool (generally <68° F), well-oxygenated water, free of excessive amounts of suspended sediment and other pollutants, is required at all times of the year. Water temperatures must be within the range that synchronize the time of migration and emergence of fish and other aquatic organisms. The most productive stream systems for mixed salmonid assemblages have gradients less than five percent. They are comprised of constrained (i.e., ratio of valley width/active channel width <3) reaches, and unconstrained (>3) reaches, which contain a broad diversity and complexity of habitat features. Constrained reaches generally have fewer juvenile fish and less diverse assemblages than unconstrained areas. Constrained reaches are important, however, as sources of cool water, holding areas for adult salmonids. As well,

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 20 they are avenues of transport for sediment, wood, and other materials to unconstrained reaches. Unconstrained reaches are generally sites of high fish densities. They are also sites of sediment, organic material, and nutrient storage and processing. High quality habitats maintain a balance between high quality pools, riffles, glides, and side channels. Cover features such as large woody debris, boulders, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, deep water, and surface turbulence, are abundant in high quality habitats. Substrates consist of a variety of particle sizes ranging from silts to boulders, accommodating the spawning and rearing percentages of fine sediment, generally less than twenty percent. Channels are free of obstructions that may interfere with the upstream or downstream migration of adult or juvenile salmonids. Riparian-Dependent Vertebrate Wildlife Species Many species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are known to rely fully or partially on riparian habitat during all or part of their life cycles. However, this section will focus on the habitat requirements of the southern seep (torrent) salamander, tailed frog, northern red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylei), and western pond turtle, as they are the believed to be the most sensitive, riparian-dependent vertebrate species which may occur in the watershed. As such, they can be used as indicators of the overall suitability of the habitat for many other riparian-dependent species. Southern Seep (Torrent) Salamander

This species requires the shallow, cool water (43.70 to 590 F) habitats found in springs, seeps, and small- to moderate-sized intermittent streams and may be found in very small perennial streams, dominated by relatively loose cobble, in late seral, mixed conifer-hardwood forests with a closed canopy (72 to 1 00 percent) and a moist microclimate. They also require low amounts of deep riffles and pool habitats with low sand content in the substrate, but higher amounts of the smallest organic particles (Welsh and Lind, 1 995). Tailed Frog This species is found in old (>200 years), coniferous forests in clear, cold, fast-flowing streams with coarse substrates, little fine sediment, and large amounts of nonfilamentous algae and invertebrates (Welsh et. al., in preparation). The tailed frog has the narrowest range of thermal tolerance of any other frog (Brown, 1 975). This species cannot tolerate water temperatures above (64.4°-73.4° F), depending on life stage. The thermal tolerance range for adults is 32°-73.4° F, for larvae 32°-71.60 F, and for eggs 41°-64.4° F (Hawkins et. al., 1988). The optimum water temperature range is 50°-60.8° F (Brown, 1975). Adults are more intolerant to desiccation than any other frog, and survival and reproduction may depend on the availability of a cool, moist, terrestrial environment (Hawkins et. al.,1 988).

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 21 Northern Red-Legged Frog and Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Both the red-legged and yellow-legged frog spend the majority of their lives in or adjacent to water, rarely venturing away from it. The red-legged frog requires ponds, pools in slow streams, marshes, or reservoirs with submergent vegetation for egg attachment, whereas the yellow-legged frog inhabits rocky, higher gradient, shallower streams. For red-legged frogs, the water body must be >1 meter deep to accommodate singing males underwater, and with a minimum stream width or pond diameter of >2 meters. Stream and pond edges must contain dense vegetation (>25 percent cover) for protective cover and to maintain cool water temperatures. They are found in coniferous/mixed hardwood forests with >50 percent canopy closure with downed logs in and out of the water. Yellow-legged frogs require less vegetative streamside cover,yet they prefer streams with high canopy cover. Both species require numerous,partially-submerged rocks and logs for basking and cover. Western Pond Turtle This species inhabits a wide range of fresh or brackish, permanent and intermittent water bodies from sea level to 4,500 feet. Adult turtles are habitat generalists, whereas hatchlings and juveniles have relatively specific habitat requirements. The microhabitat used by these age groups is often very limited and susceptible to disturbance (Jennings et. al., 1992). For thermal regulation (basking), they require protruding or floating woody debris, protruding rocks, emergent vegetation, overhanging vegetation that touches the water, and banks. Young turtles will also bask on algae or small surface debris (Reese, 1993). They also require underwater cover in the form of logs, debris piles, aquatic vegetation, rock crevices, or boulders. For nesting and over-wintering they require an adjacent terrestrial area (within 500m of the watercourse) with un-compacted soil (high clay and silt content) and a deep organic (duff) layer. Alteration of Riparian and Aquatic Processes and Functions The Grouse Creek watershed and its associated riparian and aquatic ecosystem processes and functions have been dramatically altered in recent history through a combination of land management activities and storm events. We believe that these events have brought about significant changes in the abundance and distribution of riparian- and aquatic-dependent species and have resulted in a decline in quality of habitat. Riparian Habitat: Consequences of Riparian Habitat Modification Abundant moisture makes riparian zones exceptionally diverse and productive. Early logging practices were much higher impact than current practices. Streamside buffer zones and large and small streams were usually either absent

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 22 or inadequate because they had been too narrow and were vulnerable to windstorms and floods. Salvage logging operations in buffer zones have further impacted the integrity and functioning of the riparian areas within many of the tributaries on early-logged lands within the Grouse Creek watershed. The impacts and consequences of these activities are complex and not well understood (at least by us). Outlined below are the types of changes that can occur with alteration of riparian canopy cover. Details as to where these changes have occurred within the watershed is discussed in the current condition analysis. Removal or alteration of the riparian vegetation alters the canopy cover. This in turn can lead to an increase in the amount of light reaching the riparian area which both increases the ambient temperatures of the riparian area and the water temperature within the adjacent stream channel. An increase in the width of the riparian canopy opening will allow more direct radiation to reach the stream and raise peak summer water temperatures. Less shading also will result in greater temperature fluctuations on both a seasonal and a daily basis. In light-limited forest streams, an increase in the width of the riparian canopy opening can increase primary production. This may induce a corresponding increase in invertebrate and fish production. However, increased primary productivity may be offset by decreased inputs of detrital food subsidies, leaves, and other organic material from the riparian zone. The net balance between the increased primary production and the decreased detrital inputs will depend on the size of the stream and the presence or absence of other limiting factors, such as plant-available nutrients. Changes in the size and structure of the riparian canopy will adversely affect a wide range of animal species dependent on riparian habitats. A reduction in the width of the riparian zone will also reduce the ability of the riparian zone to trap excess nutrients and sediments coming from upslope. Harvest of the trees in the riparian zone not only removes the shading effect of the canopy and cover for habitat, it also alters the primary source for potential large woody debris recruitment. This results in a gradual decrease in wood over time, for both riparian and instream habitat, which lose LWD over time through decomposition and flushing flows. Although the amount of LWD in riparian areas and streams may increase immediately after harvest owing to the introduction of logging slash, much of this material is rapidly decomposed or flushed from the system by high flows. Recent research indicates that the decrease in LWD following removal of riparian vegetation may occur much more rapidly than previously thought. The length of time needed for riparian areas to produce LWD after harvest depends upon the size of the stream. Measurable contributions of wood from second-growth riparian areas did not occur until 60 years after harvest for third-order channels on the Olympic Peninsula (Grette, 1985). Grouse Creek is located in a much drier climate where it may take longer for the riparian canopy to mature and again function in terms of LWD introduction.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4- 12 3 Consequences for Selected Riparian-dependent Vertebrate Species Southern Seep (Torrent) Salamander This species reproduces in headwaters, springs, seeps, and 1st- to 3rd-order streams, hence their populations are particularly vulnerable to alterations in these usually small and sensitive aquatic habitats (Welsh and Lind, 1995). Any management activity within or near these habitats could affect the reproduction of this species. For example, removal of riparian vegetation (logging) could increase stream temperatures above tolerance limits and could decrease stream clarity, severely impairing the ability of the stream to provide for the salamander. Tailed Frog This species is adversely affected by any management activity that increases water temperature, streambed scour, siltation, and loss of riparian vegetation (Hawkins et. al., 1988; Bury et. al., 1991; Welsh and Ollivier, 1992). Recolonization of affected areas, if possible, could take several decades because of their low reproductive rate and high site fidelity (Hawkins et. al., 1 988). Tailed frogs can survive in unforested segments of a stream, provided that a low stream temperature is maintained. They have been found in streams within unforested areas with undisturbed forests upstream (Corn and Bury 1 989, Hawkins et. al., 1988). However, they are generally found in forests with at least 45 percent canopy closure (Welsh and Ollivier, 1992). Northern Red-Legged Frog and Foothill Yellow- Legged Frog Non-native fishes and bullfrogs may exclude the red-legged frog from permanent water and should be eliminated whenever possible. Livestock should be excluded from riparian areas as they destroy riparian vegetation and stream and pond edges leading to wider, shallower stream channels which in turn increases water temperatures. The loss of cover may also lead to increased predation by both terrestrial and aquatic predators. Logging around riparian areas would probably lead to problems similar to grazing. Western Pond Turtle Livestock trample riparian vegetation and hatchlings and should be excluded from areas with turtles, especially where turtles are known to be nesting. Logging and other soil-compacting activities should be eliminated in areas with suitable nesting habitat and humans should not visit known nesting areas from May to July to avoid disturbance. Any management activity which may lead to a reduction in the amount of aquatic vegetation or large woody debris in a watercourse should be avoided.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 24 Current Riparian and Aquatic Conditions The current landscape is a result of storm events and land management activities that have left riparian and aquatic habitats throughout the Grouse Creek watershed in varying overall condition, from very poor to good. Before describing the riparian and aquatic habitat conditions throughout the watershed, a brief description of the erosional history of the watershed and the events and processes that resulted in today's landscape will be provided. Recent Erosional History In 1988, the cumulative effects of storm events and land use practices culminated in a moratorium on logging activities on Federal lands. An investigation of the sources and causes of the sedimentation problems was conducted, revealing that the watershed had produced approximately 1,750 tonnes/km2/yr over a 29-year period. This is one of the highest published sediment output rates within the Pacific Northwest (Raines and Kelsey, 1991). Most landslides were either initiated or enlarged between 1 960 and 1966. Landslides prior to 1960 are concentrated in areas of geologic instability where traces of several thrust faults cut through the region. The December 1964 flood was the single event most responsible for the notable increase and growth of landslides. Slides during this period account for 71 percent of the total slide volume and 62 percent of all sediment produced during the budget period. An estimated 27 percent of introduced sediment is still stored in the stream system.

The sediment budget investigation found that streamside landsliding accounts for 86 percent of the sediment produced. Many of these landslides were initiated by the 1964 flood. The remaining 14 percent was produced from erosion of streambanks, bare hilislopes, and roads (Table 4.22). While the bulk of sediment was derived from streamside landslides, approximately 40 percent of the streamside landslides were judged to be associated with roads, landings, and other management activities (Table 4.23). Of the total sediment produced during the budget period, approximately 41 percent was associated with land management activities. Many slides were initiated in roaded/logged areas in the upper watershed. Downstream from the logged areas, stream channels aggraded as a result of the increased sediment input, and additional slides probably occurred as aggradation caused channel migration on lower gradient reaches, causing lateral scour of unstable streamside slopes.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4 -12 5 Table 4.22. Grouse Creek sediment budget, 1960-1989.

SEDIMENT BUDGET COMPONENT Tonnes of Percent of Total Total sediment total < 2 mm > 2 mm

SEDIMENT PRODUCTION

STREAMSIDE LANDSLIDING * Debris slides 4,448,000 Complex slides 672,100 Rockfalls 182,600 Debris torrents 710,100 Slump/earthflows 430,600 Subtotal 6,443,000 86.7 2,255,000 4,188,000 STREAMBANK EROSION ** First-order streams 11 8,400 Second-order streams 276,600 Third-order streams 86,800 Fourth-order streams 5,800 Fifth-order streams 4,700 Sixth-order streams 6,500 Subtotal 499,000 6.7 259,400 239,400 HILLSLOPE EROSION * Logged areas Sheetwash and rilling 60,000 60,000 Gullying 272,100 141,500 1 30,600 Mid-slope landsliding 9,000 3,150 5,860 Subtotal 341,000 4.6 Grass and oak woodlands Sheetwash and rilling 1 20 120 Gullying 1,280 960 320 Mid-slope landsliding 4,350 2,780 1,570 Subtotal 5,800 0.08 Old-growth forest Sheetwash and rilling 0 0.0 ROAD-RELATED EROSION **** Sheetwash and rilling of road surfaces 45,100 45,100 Sheetwash and landsliding of cutbanks 47,400 47,400 Road crossing failures ***** 45,200 23,500 21,700 Subtotal 138,000 1.9

TOTAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION 7,427,000 100.0 2,839,000 4,588,000 SEDIMENT STORAGE 2,01 8,000 644,000 1,374,000

SEDIMENT DISCHARGE 5,409,000 2,195,000 3,213,000

* density conversion factor of 1.83 t/mA3 * * density conversion factor of 1.3 t/mA3 * * * see table 16 for density conversion factors * * * * exclusive of landslides * * * * * density conversion factor of 1.8 t/mA3

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4- 1 26 Table 4.23. Relationship of management to volume of sediment produced by streamside landslides (1960

Land use Land use classification Number of Sediment Percent classification description of landslide site landslides delivered to of total number * channels (mA3)

1 Unmanaged land - not road related 192 1,721,700 49 2 Unmanaged land - landing or road related 16 199,600 6 1,2 Initiated in unmanaged land, enlarged after logging ** 43 551,800 15 3 Managed land - not road related 61 344,500 10 4 Managed land - road or landing related 57 434,300 12 5 Unmanaged land - clearly related to upslope managed land 8 238,200 7 6 Both managed and unmanaged land 8 30,700 1

TOTAL 385 3,521,000 100

* number classification used in landslide inventory (Appendix A). ** landslides separated out of classifications 1 & 2 after aerial photograph analysis.

Bear Creek best exemplifies the impact to channels from the 1964 landsliding. An estimated 30 percent of the Bear Creek subwatershed was logged prior to the 1 964 storm. During the storm, a large debris flow scoured the channel and removed all riparian vegetation for 100+ feet upslope on each side. The spatial relationship between landsliding and channel scour suggests that a damburst flood traveled down the channel, probably a result of road stream crossing failure. As a result, a 6m high debris fan was deposited at the mouth of Bear Creek. Landsliding in old-growth near the mouth of the creek was caused by the extreme channel widening and streambank scour. The sediment budget study determined that sediment production is dominated by mass wasting and is concentrated in areas of geologic instability and logging. Areas with frequent faulting and geologic contacts, or "tectonized" areas, have by far the greatest frequency of mass wasting. Debris slides are the predominant mass movement feature (81 percent of the total number of slides inventoried) and account for 69 percent of the sediment delivered. Erosion processes were found to differ by stream order. Debris torrents and streambank erosion dominate in second- and third-order channels, whereas streamside landsliding was more frequent in fourth through sixth-order streams. While hillslope erosion (rilling,

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 2 7 sheetwash, gullying, and midslope landsliding) were not a significant part of the total budget, of the hillslope erosional processes, gullying was determined to be a significant erosion process (80 percent of all sediment from hillslope processes) on most tractor-yarded slopes because water is concentrated by skid roads. No gullies were found to occur within the old-growth forest. Direct road-related surface erosion (excluding road-related mass failures) was not found to contribute significant amounts of sediment. This estimate is probably low because past failures are corrected through road maintenance, which obliterates evidence of surface erosion and does not allow the accumulation of effects that can be sampled. Condition of Riparian Vegetation The current condition of the riparian corridors within Grouse Creek and its tributaries varies considerably. Generally speaking, riparian corridors on private lands have the least riparian coverage (in terms of stand diversity and age), and are most likely to be outside the range of natural conditions under which they have adapted and evolved. Riparian corridors within National Forest lands are in better condition in terms of riparian diversity and age (as well as cover and shade) but, like the private lands, have extensive areas that are actively eroding within the riparian corridors. Without having extensive field-verified data, the percent of old-growth within riparian reserves can be a proxy for addressing riparian condition. The percent old-growth component within riparian corridors may yield insight into the status of habitat condition and key ecological processes and functions necessary for optimum habitat. One of the key processes reflected in percent old-growth is the potential for future large woody debris recruitment. The potential for LWD recruitment is an indicator of how rapidly riparian and aquatic ecosystems may recover from a disturbance and return to the range of conditions under which these systems evolved. It also is a potential indirect indicator of the condition (shade, canopy, temperature, nutrient sources, habitat) of riparian habitat for riparian-dependent species. Based on aerial photo and GIS analysis, an estimate was made of the old-growth component remaining within Interim Riparian Reserves within the Grouse Creek watershed and its subwatersheds. This estimate is not field-verified and could vary considerably. The White Oak subwatershed has the smallest old-growth component of all the sub-watersheds within Grouse Creek. Only 2.5 percent of the Riparian Reserve was in an old-growth seral stage. This is reflected by the extensive logging on private lands with insufficient or sometimes no riparian conifer buffer along intermittent, ephemeral streams. In some instances, this occurs along perennial streams. The lower Mid-Grouse subwatershed (Panther/Devil Canyon) had the second lowest old-growth component for the Riparian Reserve (11 percent). The Upper Mid-Grouse subwatershed had the highest old-growth

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 28 component at 64 percent. This area is publicly owned and has experienced little or no management influences. The remaining subwatersheds have a moderate percentage of old-growth within the Riparian Reserves, ranging from 22 percent to 48 percent (Table 4.24). Many of these values reflect the extent of bare, exposed inner gorge associated with inner gorge landsliding. Overall, when compared to a visual estimate of the amount of old-growth coverage in the riparian corridors as represented in the 1 948 aerial photos, one can see the clear trend of decline in the integrity of riparian condition. Table 4.24 Proportion of Interim Riparian Reserves in old-growth stage (includes private lands). Subwatershed % Old-growth Mosquito Creek 3 3 Cow Creek 2 2 Lower Grouse Creek 48 White Oak Creek 2.5 Upper Mid-Grouse 64 Lower Mid-Grouse 11 Upper Grouse Creek 43 Bear Creek 42

Riparian Species Occurrence and Distribution There have been no systematic surveys of the entire Grouse Creek watershed conducted to assess the presence, abundance, and distribution of riparian- dependent vertebrate species. However, suitable riparian habitat is known to exist in the watershed and there are a few sight records for several species from the Six Rivers National Forest wildlife sighting database, from herpetofaunal surveys in one subwatershed, and from bird point counts and mist-netting in a small portion of the watershed. However, it is not possible to accurately estimate the abundance and distribution of these species based on the few point data from the above sources. Further, it is not possible to compare species abundance and distribution within the Grouse Creek watershed with that for similar watersheds or with the remainder of the South Fork Trinity River Basin.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4- 1 29 F_

Instream Habitat Quantitative relationships between long-term trends in the abundance of fish, the quality of fish habitat, and the effects of forest management practices have been difficult to establish. Despite the lack of strong quantitative relationships between forest management activities, a primary consequence of these activities has been the simplification of fish habitat. Simplification of stream channels involves a decrease in the range and variability of stream flow velocities and depths, reductions in the amount of large wood and other structural elements, elimination of physical and biological interactions between a stream and its floodplain, and a decrease in the frequency and diversity of habitat types and substrates. The consequence of these changes has been a reduction in the diversity and quality of habitats available to fish. These cumulative effects are apparent upon examination of the current conditions of instream habitat, in terms of both sediment and temperature, within Grouse Creek and its adjacent tributaries. Sediment Based upon the findings of the sediment budget and other studies (DWR, 1991, Raines and Kelsey, 1 990), Grouse Creek has high quantities of sediment and is one of the largest tributary contributors of sediment to the South Fork Trinity River. Figure 4.1 5 illustrates the total sediment volume contributed over a 29-year period from each of the tributaries to the mainstem of Grouse Creek.

Grouse Creek Landslide Volumes Volumes Delivered to Channel 1960-1988*

Thousands (cu yds) 700 Ib.Lo O.k Cr D-T' Cr Br Cr IL IcqL. C. 600 - . _ | ~~~~~~L-stCh-e |

;00 1 urC vs~ hd

200 Brd- Op.e.ng Cr|

100|[ F / I\ A

0 10 20 30 40 5 0 60 70 so Distance from Headwaters (X 1000 ft)

Vol to Channei

FinClude4 major tobusare s louintoe t Figure 4.1 5 Grouse Creek landslide volumes in the Grouse Creek wvatershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1l3 0 The conditions resulting in the mainstem of Grouse Creek from these sediment inputs is described below. In a comparison of fine sediment levels among 11 streams on Six Rivers National Forest (Fuller, 1990), it was found that Grouse Creek had 32 percent, compared with a range of 10 to 24 percent for the other 10 streams. V* sampling (a measure of the amount of fine sediment in the scoured pool volume) was conducted in several locations and its average value was determined to be the highest of non-granitic watersheds within the Trinity River basin (Lisle and Hilton, 1992). During October 12-1 3, 1 994, V* sampling was conducted in four pools in the approximate 0.5 mile reach immediately downstream of Devastation Slide. Erosion at the toe of the slide contributed an estimated 100,000 cubic yards or more of sediment to Grouse Creek in the winter of 1 993-1 994. The resulting V* values approximated the highest levels found in the Trinity River basin by Lisle and Hilton. The excessive sedimentation is not apparent more than one-half mile below the Slide where channel confinement and gradient increase, causing greater sediment transport capability. The results, beginning approximately 1,500 feet below the slide, were as follows: Pool One 0.43. Pool Two 0.59 Pool Three 0.56 Pool Four 0.26

At Pool Four, the furthest downstream site, the sediment deposit was obviously much less. About 1,000 feet downstream of this site, the channel confinement, gradient increases, and excessive sedimentation is no longer apparent. Devastation Slide is the largest single source of sediment in Grouse Creek, and the estimated volume accounts for six percent of the total slide volume and five percent of the total sediment produced in the watershed during the analysis period. The sediment input from this feature is the primary limiting factor in the quality of 1.6 miles of anadromous habitat occurring downstream of the slide. Spawning gravel assessments were taken at the tails of five main channel pools in gravels that were potentially suitable for spawning by steelhead. The amounts by percent of the three smaller size-fractions (less than 6.3mm, less than 3.35mm, and less than 0.85mm) are shown in Table 4.25 for each year. Only the smaller size fractions are reported because finer sediment is the primary concern when evaluating the potential survival of salmonid embryos.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 31 Table 4.25 Mean percent sediment in three size classes of suitable spawning gravels at five sites in Grouse Creek.

Sample sites

A B C D E Sizes

1988 samples <6.30 mm NA 38.8 30.8 30.7 35.6

<3.35 NA 27.3 27.0 20.5 27.7

<0.85 NA 12.2 10.6 9.0 10.2

1989 samples

<6.30 33.9 18.6 27.5 18.9 34.9

<3.35 18.8 1 5.6 19.5 1 3.9 27.4

<0.85 7.0 10.3 9.8 1 1.2 11.2

1994 samples <6.30 66.0 21.1 33.0 25.9 36.3

<3.35 49.2 18.5 25.2 19.6 27.1

<0.85 24.1 1 5.6 1 1.0 11.3 12.2

The sites sampled were as follows:

Site A 1/4 mile downstream of Devastation Slide

Site B First pool above P.G.& E. bridge

Site C Pool at mouth of Mosquito Creek

Site D Pool at mouth of Cow Creek

Site E Pool immediately upstream of mouth of White Oak

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-132 Inspection of the data shown in Table 4.25 indicates no reduction of the fine sediment content at these sites since 1989. In fact, all three size fractions show slight to moderate increases at Sites B-E. In 1994, Site A, which is one- quarter mile downstream of Devastation Slide, had the highest fine sediment content measured to date in Grouse Creek, as a result of 1993-1 994 erosion at the toe as discussed above. Grouse Creek was turbid from the Slide to the mouth for much of the summer and fall. Several conclusions can be made with respect to the fish habitat in Grouse Creek, based upon the gravel sampling data. Kondolf (1 988) has reviewed many gravel studies and concluded that a sediment content of no more than 30 percent is "acceptable" for the size-fraction of less than 6.3 mm with respect to spawning suitability for anadromous fish. The 1994 Grouse Creek samples for sites upstream of Devastation Slide average 29.1 percent. The same "acceptable" limit for the less than 0.85mm fraction is 14 percent. The 1994 average for Grouse Creek is 12.5 percent for this fraction. A consensus of several studies indicates that the threshold for any reduced emergence of salmonids is 10-1 5 percent for sediment less than 1mm. The habitat quality as indicated by fine sediment content at the sampled sites has shown no improvement between 1989 and 1994. The segment of stream from Devastation Slide to about 0.6 miles downstream has been heavily impacted by the increased erosion from the slide. This reach is the primary, possibly the only, site of steelhead spawning, therefore reproduction of these fish will be significantly reduced as long as sediment levels remain high. Aquatic Macroinvertibrates Aquatic insect populations were sampled in pool and riffle habitats in Grouse, Willow, and Horse Linto Creeks in 1989. The two latter streams are tributaries to the Trinity River, approximately 21 and 26 river miles respectively, from Grouse Creek. The Willow Creek watershed has a moderately high level of sedimentation from landslides and timber harvest areas. Horse Linto Creek has the lowest apparent sediment yield and over one-half of the watershed is unroaded. It should be considered as the standard for comparison. The 56 samples were analyzed by the Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Laboratory in Utah. This analysis uses water chemistry, insect biomass, species assemblage, and substrate to derive a Biotic Condition Index (BCI), a Diversity Index (DAT), and standing crop (grams/meter squared). The BCI for the three streams indicated no significant difference, all being rated in the "good" range. The DAT for Grouse and Willow Creeks is significantly below Horse Linto, but all are within the "good" range. Interestingly, the standing crop in Horse Linto Creek is 19 to 35 percent less than Grouse and Willow Creeks. Other studies have shown that biomass of aquatic insects may increase when the number of species is reduced by an environmental change such as ambient water temperature. The analysis of aquatic insect data for the three streams yields no clear indication of degraded aquatic habitat in Grouse

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 33 Creek. However, an analysis of the data by Ken Roby (personal communication) indicates the lowest Shannon Diversity (a measure of the diversity of species in a sample or collection of samples) is to be found in Grouse Creek as compared with several hundred other streams in California.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-13 4 Fish Stocks Fish Density The density of juvenile (age-1 year and older) rainbow trout and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Grouse Creek was assessed in 1992 and 1994 by snorkel counts. The 1992 data for the anadromous reach was 0.14 juveniles per 10 sq.m. (square meter) and 0.1 5 for the resident salmonids in the reach from Devastation Slide to White Oak Creek. In the 1994 survey, five 500m. reaches were sampled from the mouth to Cow Creek and one 500m. reach in Mosquito Creek. Only pools were sampled because of the greater visibility of fish in pool habitat compared to other habitats, such as riffles and cascades. The survey was limited to older age classes of fish for reliability of counts and also for being the product of one or more years in the creek. The density in the anadromous reach was 0.63 juvenile steelhead per 10 sq.m. and averaged 0.1 3 in the resident trout habitat. The highest density was in Mosquito Creek (1 .42) which was more than twice that of any reach in mainstem Grouse Creek. The above densities are in the range of those reported for 11 other tributaries of the South Fork Trinity River (SFTR), which range from 0.021 juvenile steelhead/1 0 sq. m. (Pacific Watershed Associates, 1993). It is notable that Mosquito Creek had a higher density than any other SFTR tributary. The average density for mainstem Grouse Creek was 0.23, which means that there is on the average only one juvenile trout for each 40 sq.m. of pool habitat. This density is low by any standard. The reported density in a dominantly wilderness tributary to the Trinity River was 1.29 age one-year and older trout per 10 sq.m. or 5.2/40 sq.m. (Pacific Watershed Associates, 1993). Densities of stream-living fish can vary widely, being dependent upon annual variability of many environmental factors such as stream flow, water temperature, and aquatic insect production. In addition, the number of returning anadromous adults can vary widely each year, causing variation in production of age-0 fish. The above comparison with the SFTR tributaries is useful, if only to show that Grouse Creek is not that atypical. Many streams in the SFTR are reported to have moderate to severe sedimentation problems (PWA, 1 993). Plate 4.10 shows the fish distribution within the Grouse Creek mainstem and tributaries for anadromous and resident fish populations.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-13 5 --- I I Fish Distribution Grouse Cr,eek Watershed USDA I Forest Service Six Rivers Natio,Anal Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

o Devastation Slide Barrier

>"-' No Fish /~/ Resident Fish Anadromous Fish

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

I

Page 4-1 36 Relationship of Grouse Creek Fish Populations to the South Fork Trinity River Anadromous Fish Populations There are several anadromous fish populations currently reproducing in the South Fork Trinity River. The populations are at generally at low levels. Each population is discussed below, with emphasis on those populations that utilize the habitat downstream of the mouth of Grouse Creek. Fall chinook spawn in the lower SFTR dominantly in October and November, primarily downstream of Hyampom, some seven miles upstream of Grouse Creek. Population estimates have been done by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for 1964, 1985-1 990 and 1993. The highest population was 3,337 in 1964. In later years, the population has ranged from 345 in 1990 to 2,640 in 1985. In 1993 it was 1,407. The population has had significant amounts of hatchery strays, varying from five percent in 1990 to 24 percent in 1985. Only occasional chinook salmon juveniles have been observed in Grouse Creek below the barrier at Devastation Slide. Grouse Creek contributes little to the production of fall chinook in the SFTR, because most chinook juveniles emigrate prior to the high summer water temperatures when cooler inflow from Grouse Creek would be important. Spring chinook populations in the SFTR are very low compared with the 1964 estimate of 11,600. Summer counts of adult fish since 1 970 have ranged from seven in 1 989 to 698 in 1993. The estimated population in 1994 was 472. Spring chinook enter the river in the spring and early summer and reside in deeper pools until spawning in September and October. The population resides primarily above Hyampom. Only occasional spring chinook have been observed holding downstream of Grouse Creek, probably because of the higher summer water temperatures in the lower river. No spring chinook have been observed in Grouse Creek. Spring chinook in the SFTR have been listed by the Humboldt Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) as being at high risk of extinction. Very limited data is available on the summer steelhead population of the Trinity River. The average annual population is probably 100-200 steelhead, based upon data from weir and snorkel counts (CDFG, 1995). As is the case with spring chinook, summer steelhead hold during the summer in the cooler headwater area of the SFTR. One summer steelhead adult has been observed in Grouse Creek, but no population is thought to exist. The SFTR population is listed by the Humboldt AFS as being at high risk of extinction. Winter steelhead are the most abundant anadromous population in the SFTR. CDFG estimated the population at 2,326, 3,500, and 3,1 86 during the winters of 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94, respectively. Historical counts of spawning in selected tributaries indicate that the population in the early 1960s

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 37 was much higher. Winter steelhead comprise the bulk of the salmonid population in the anadromous habitat section of Grouse Creek. The juvenile steelhead are able to reside in Grouse Creek because of summer water temperatures that seldom exceed 70'F. In the lower SFTR, which often exceeds 80'F, juvenile steelhead are observed in mid-summer only in the plumes of cooler tributaries. Coho salmon are present in low numbers in the SFTR. Only two population estimates have been done. The population was 127 in 1985 and 99 in 1990. No data is available on historical numbers in the SFTR. No adult or juvenile coho have been observed in Grouse Creek.

Grouse Creek also supports small populations of suckers (Catostomus rimiculus) and speckled dace (Rhynichthys osculus). Current Fish Habitat Condition by Reach Mouth to Devastation Slide (1 .6 miles) This reach is within the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane which is relatively susceptible to landsliding and erosion. The first 0.8 miles above the mouth has a confined and stable channel with boulder-to-cobble substrate. It contains small pools interspersed with short runs. The average gradient is approximately three percent. There is moderate shade canopy with a significant amount of topographic shading due to the east-west channel alignment. Habitat quality is moderate. Water temperature at the mouth of Grouse Creek is its most valuable characteristic. The maximum 1 994 summer temperature exceeded 70'F for only 1 2 days, as compared with the SFTR in which daily maximum temperatures ranged from 73° to 800 from late June through early September. The section of stream from mile 0.8 to Devastation Slide has common depositional segments with high fine sediment content in gravel samples and extensive infilling of pools (indicated by high V* measurements noted previously). Large boulders delivered by Devastation Slide form the barrier to steelhead migration. During the summer of 1994, colloidal sediment from the slide caused significant turbidity in Grouse Creek and the SFTR. Shade canopy in this reach is sparse, varying from zero to 20 percent, provided primarily by alders. Devastation Slide and Barrier This complex slide is a very large prehistoric feature (over a mile long and up to one-quarter mile wide) at mile 1 .6 on the north side of Grouse Creek; this has significant implications for aquatic values in the watershed. The slide has developed within a weak serpentinized zone of the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane. The feature is composed of an upper source area, a central narrow transportational zone, and a lower depositional area. Parts of the toe zone of the slide have been progressively failing into the Grouse Creek channel for decades (probably centuries), delivering large quantities of fine-grained sediment to

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 3 8 the lower reach as well as the South Fork Trinity River. Slide movement has also created and maintained a persistent barrier to anadromous fish migration by carrying large serpentinite boulders into the constricted channel. Eyewitnesses report that large-scale movements have completely blocked the channel at least three times since 1950; these landslide dams have persisted for several weeks. The channel was again partially blocked during the winter of 1994, creating a large lake upstream. Recent slope failure modes in the head (source) area and the toe zone include slumping, earthflow, debris sliding and seasonal creep. There has been little mass movement of material from the source area to the toe zone during the past 45 years based on aerial photo evidence. Slope failure in the 50-acre toe zone is very complex with many fissures that promote entrainment of water. Field and aerial photo monitoring of slide movement indicates typical annual delivery of sediment ranges from a few thousand to tens of thousands of cubic yards. Delivery from the 1 964 flood event was probably 25-50 times greater than that. Significant toe zone failure occurred in the 1993-94 wet season; the lower toe zone moved 20-25 feet into Grouse Creek, delivering upwards of 100,000 cubic yards. The barrier itself was modified substantially by this new influx of coarse and fine debris. The present channel obstruction is about 300 feet long with a total vertical drop of about 60 feet. The main barrier has changed somewhat in recent years, but generally is a very constricted chute with several near-vertical drops. Older aerial photos give the appearance of a less dramatic or extreme constriction and vertical offset in the past (prior to 1964 flood). Devastation Slide to PG&E Bridge (approx. 0.4 miles) This reach also lies within the relatively unstable and erodible Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, and is primarily depositional. It includes a small lake, about 1,500 feet in length, that formed behind landslide debris deposited by Devastation Slide in 1994. A similar lake has reportedly persisted for extended periods from the 1940s to 1964 when the landslide dam (but not the obstruction to fish passage) was washed out. This depositional reach accumulates much of the sediment yielded from the upper watershed. The lake is totally exposed to solar radiation which very likely increases the water temperature in Grouse Creek in summer. Habitat for trout is marginal. PG&E Bridge to Bear Creek (1 .6 miles) This reach also lies within the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, but the channel flows within a steep inner gorge dominated by very large boulder substrate, which provides the predominant pool-forming features. All of the pools in this reach have residual depths greater than three feet. This usually indicates better quality habitat, but a 1 994 snorkel survey of a 500-meter section found only two juvenile trout. The shade canopy is moderate, contributed to by both alders and topography. There is an active landslide in this reach that has contributed a major amount of sediment to the channel.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1139 Bear Creek There is a barrier 1,800 feet from the mouth of Bear Creek which limits the fish to this section. The resident trout density is low. The channel has experienced major aggradation and has wide alluvial terraces resulting from the 1964 flood. The stream was heavily impacted by debris torrents associated with logging and is still adjusting to these impacts. The mainstem of Bear Creek lies within Galice metasedimentary rocks, and is in a high to very high hazard class with respect to slope, geology, and geomorphological attributes. Bear Creek to Mosquito Creek (2.2 miles) This reach lies within Galice Formation metasediments and is characterized by high landslide frequency within the inner gorge which is in large part attributable to private logging of unstable slopes. Pool frequency is low, and only 12 of the 37 pools in the reach have residual depths over three feet. The low pool quantity and quality is probably attributable to high sedimentation rates resulting from widespread and persistent mass wasting and erosion. The reach generally has low shade canopy with 80 percent of the stream area having less than 20 percent shade as sampled in 1988. Mosquito Creek Mosquito Creek has had very high historic sediment yields, second only to White Oak Creek. The greatest mass wasting occurred in 1964 from inner gorge landslides on private land in the lower watershed and from debris torrents originating on National Forest lands. Sedimentation today is generally low with only infrequent landslides adjacent to the channel. Mosquito Creek has the greatest amount of area in the high and very high landslide hazard class, based on slope, geology and geomorphic features, of any sub-basin in Grouse Creek. Nevertheless, it remains in good condition. Most of the subwatershed is still in old-growth and has been relatively undisturbed by management activities. The lower 4.1 miles of Mosquito Creek has the highest quality fish habitat within the Grouse Creek watershed. The average shade canopy is over 65 percent, comprised of both deciduous and coniferous vegetation. Pools with depths greater than three feet are common, as is large woody debris. Mosquito Creek contributes the majority of flow downstream of its junction with Grouse Creek and is significantly cooler. Several small tributaries typically contribute summer inflow at temperatures less than 60'F. Mosquito Creek to Brays Opening Creek (7.9 miles) This portion of the mainstem is characterized by extensive inner gorge landsliding. It is comprised of several geologically sensitive terranes, including South Fork Mountain schist and Franciscan sandstones and shale. Inner gorge landsliding is particularly common between White Oak and Brays Opening Creeks, and is dominantly of natural origin.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 40 Sedimentation is moderate to high based on visual observation. Shade canopy ranges from 30 to 65 percent and is comprised of both alders and conifers. Large accumulations of large woody debris are common. There is extensive channel aggradation above many of these debris jams. The section of this reach between Mosquito and Cow Creeks has large boulder substrate with 65 percent of pools greater than three feet deep. Only 20 percent of the pools are greater than three feet deep between Cow and White Oak Creeks. There is no private ownership within this reach except for lands near the mouth of Mosquito Creek. The reach contains a good potential for future LWD recruitment given the large component of old-growth conifers remaining. Cow Creek Cow Creek is characterized by numerous active inner gorge landslides, particularly in the headwaters on private lands which are located on inherently unstable geologic and geomorphic terrane including Franciscan sandstones. Cow Creek is approximately one-half within private ownership, where portions of the creek have been impacted by roads and landings that were built within the active channel. The channel has frequent bank erosion. The stream has 2.7 miles of resident trout habitat of low to moderate quality. The value to Grouse Creek fish habitat is minimal because of the very low summer inflow. White Oak Creek White Oak Creek is almost wholly within private ownership and is the largest historic sediment producer of all the tributaries within Grouse Creek. Approximately 600,000 cubic yards of sediment were delivered to the mainstem between 1960 and 1989. Most of the logging and mass wasting is old, and the watershed is presently recovering. Most of the landslides in this subwatershed occurred along Greenwood Creek, the southern tributary to White Oak, in response to the 1972 and 1975 storms, after the slopes had been logged. Roughly 84 percent of landslides occurred on logged land and 58 percent of those were attributable to roads or landings. In contrast, the upper White Oak drainage showed little landslide activity, although the timing and aerial extent of logging is similar to the Greenwood drainage. The contrast in landsliding between the two drainages may be ascribed to differences in competency of different Franciscan rock types. It is notable that the White Oak subwatershed is not within the highest landslide hazard class, but land management activities combined with storm events have resulted in the highest sedimentation rates within the Grouse Creek watershed. Most of the sediment appears to have been moved out of the channel. White Oak Creek contains many debris jams. It is dominated by large boulders and bedrock within the channel. Shade canopy is good but is mostly composed of even-aged alder stands and willow. The potential for future LWD is the lowest in the watershed, with only 2.5 percent of the riparian reserves having old-growth conifer component. The resident fish density is low as the stream provides only minor fish habitat, primarily because of the low summer flow.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 4-1 41 Brays Opening Creek Brays Opening subwatershed was predominantly logged by 1975 and has had little logging activity since. The drainage appears to be recovering. It did not have high historic levels of mass wasting or erosion and appears to be relatively stable. This subwatershed is principally underlain by competent Franciscan sandstones. There is a minor resident trout population within the first mile of the stream channel. The shade canopy is moderately dense, maintaining summer water temperatures below 680F. The volume of inflow is small but it is significant to the trout habitat in Grouse Creek. Upper Grouse Creek (3.4 miles) This reach lies almost entirely within Franciscan sandstone. The inner gorge of this reach lies within a high landslide hazard class. There are many colluvial deposits on the east side of the mainstem with active inner gorge failures. More than one-half of the upper watershed is within private ownership where extensive logging has occurred since 1980. The inner gorge and channel of Grouse Creek is predominately within private land and has been heavily impacted by landsliding and erosion from the parallel road system. The shade canopy within this reach is light, mostly due to extensive private harvesting within the inner gorge. The riparian canopy is good on National Forest lands and has good potential for LWD recruitment. The channel has common small log jams and is dominated by riffles and runs with a low gradient and small boulder-to-cobble substrate. Many debris slides of natural origin occurred within the downstream half of the reach during the 1964 flood. Fish density is low, primarily as a result of the small summer flow. Influences of Roads on Riparian and Aquatic Systems Roads are widely recognized as the major land management activity having the greatest influence on accelerating erosion and sedimentation. The most common causes of road related failures are: 1/ poor locations with respect to geologic hazards or steep hillslopes; 2/ improper placement and construction of road fills; 3/ insufficient culvert sizes; and, 4/ inadequate road maintenance. Road maintenance on Forest Service roads has declined dramatically as both appropriated and traffic-generated funds for maintenance and timber purchaser- conducted maintenance have been reduced. Without an active program to identify and correct road problems, habitat damage from road related sources could continue for decades.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 42 The fact that approximately 41 percent of the sediment budget can be directly linked to roads, landings, and logging practices (i.e. tractor-yarding and skid trails on slopes >70 percent) indicates that restoring the remaining "loaded guns" has significant importance in anchoring the recovery of a more normal or historic sediment disturbance regime within Grouse Creek. Responsibilities for Roads The entire road network (both Federal and private) within the Grouse Creek watershed has been inventoried and assessed for condition and restoration opportunities. There are approximately 238 miles of road in the watershed with 57 percent of those miles located on private lands. The condition of these roads will be described in terms of the potential for rehabilitation efforts and the gains that can be achieved through their implementation. Private Roads: The majority of private roads were built between the 1950s and 1970s before more stringent forest practice rules were in place. In general, compared to Forest Service standards, private roads were left in very poor condition, with culverts and other drainage structures in place on abandoned roads, without surface drainage control, and without road maintenance. Some of these roads have developed severe gullies, partially blown-out channel crossings, or plugged culverts which will eventually fail and deliver sediment to the stream system. The private road network is often close to Grouse Creek and other major tributaries, thereby increasing the chances that future erosion and sediment will be delivered to the main fish-bearing channel. Most drainage structures, especially stream crossings built in the 1950s to 1 970s, either are not sized for a 100-year flood event, were poorly or improperly constructed, or exhibit a high potential for plugging and stream diversion which could lead to extensive erosion and sediment yield during a large storm and flood event. Humboldt log crossings built during the 1960s and 1970s are still a common type of drainage structure found on private lands. Many of these old log crossings show signs of deterioration and imminent failure. In many of these subwatersheds (White Oak, Cow Creek, Upper Grouse Creek, Lower-Mid Grouse, mouth of Mosquito Creek), failure of these unstable sites could produce significant cumulative effects during the next large storm. While direct road-related sediment production (sheetwash, rill, and gully erosion) is smaller than sediment input from landslides, road-related failures are more likely to deliver sediment directly to streams. The resultant mixture may produce debris torrents that add additional amounts of sediment to the channel. Therefore, potential sediment input from road-related failures can be highly significant. In summary, abandoned and un-maintained roads on private lands threaten to seriously worsen sedimentation problems and stall the recovery of streams in the Grouse Creek watershed, as well as the South Fork Trinity River. Restoration of the "loaded guns" on private lands is of critical importance, and

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7.995 Page 4-1 43 significant restoration efforts are currently underway on private lands within the White Oak and Upper Grouse subwatersheds. Activities currently being implemented include: removal of culverts or other drainage structures and associated fills, reshaping a stable channel, and ripping and partially outsloping the roadbed. Approximately 1.65 miles of private road are scheduled for decommissioning and another 3.5 miles are being upgraded and flood-proofed by correcting stream diversion potentials, water-barring, and road realignments. Approximately two miles of private road have already been decommissioned and 7.5 miles upgraded. Forest Service Roads: Forest Service system roads within the watershed have also been inventoried for their condition and potential impact on aquatic ecosystems. Some Forest Service roads have plugged or partially plugged culverts, rilling and gullying problems, and cutbank or hillslope failures. To date, 2.6 miles of road have been decommissioned, and 4.7 miles have been upgraded, principally by stormproofing through culvert upgrades and diversion potential corrections. An additional 23 miles are scheduled to be reviewed for potential decommissioning and/or upgrading. Road Stream Crossings The highest density of stream crossings where streams intersect with roads occurs on private lands, particularly in the White Oak, lower Mid-Grouse (Devil's Canyon), Cow and Bear Creek subwatersheds. Culvert density reflects the extent of the riparian system that has been modified through road building and the potential risk associated with failure and subsequent sediment input. Of these subwatersheds with high culvert density, White Oak and Bear Creek are underlain by relatively erodible potentially unstable geology (i.e., Franciscan sandstone and shale), and have fairly high seasonal baseflows. This indicates a high capacity to transport sediments downstream. The riparian areas in these subwatersheds have been heavily impacted by past logging and contain large amounts of woody debris. They also have steep gradients that, combined with large woody debris and potential culvert failure, could create a relatively high debris torrent potential in a large storm event. This suggests that maintenance, stormproofing, or decommissioning are high priorities in these areas. Storm proofing Stormproofing is the upgrading of a road so that it can withstand large storm events without appreciable on-site or off-site damage. Stormproofing can be accomplished in several ways. The most common methods are upgrading culvert sizes to accommodate larger flows and correcting stream diversion potential that may lead to off-site gullying and landsliding. Culverts may plug during storm events and pose a risk of introducing large quantities of sediment to stream channels. Culvert failure within riparian corridors may set in motion a series of events, the worst being sudden massive failure of the fill, resulting in debris torrents that in turn may devastate the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 44 stream and adjacent riparian corridor. Even minor failures may introduce sufficient sediment volumes to exceed the transport capacity of the channel, causing the channel to aggrade and widen, followed by fluvial adjustments that may take many years to complete. Culvert diversions also pose significant risks in terms of off-site sedimentation. Diversions occur when a culvert plugs and the streamflow follows the roadbed instead of crossing the road and returning to its original channel. At a low point along the road, the streamflow crosses the road and begins to create a new channel on the hillslope, which may set a series of hillslope adjustments in motion including gullying and slope failure. Recognizing the probable consequences of such failures, Six Rivers National Forest initiated a comprehensive culvert inventory of the public and private roads within the watershed. Approximately 49 percent (nine percent public, 40 percent private) of the stream crossings inventoried do not meet the 100- year storm design standard in the FEIS ROD. If a 100-year storm occurred and these culverts failed, approximately 14,450 cubic yards of fill could be mobilized (2,480 cubic yards on Forest Service roads and 11,970 cubic yards on private roads). This is a conservative value because it excludes cross drains (culverts that do not carry stream flow). The analysis also does not include erosion that could result from culvert diversions, nor does it address the additional potential volume of material that could be mobilized from mass wasting events (debris slides and torrents). The inventory estimates that 61 percent of the inventoried culverts (both public and private lands) would probably result in streamflow diversion if the culvert failed. The resultant amount of erosion was not estimated but is assumed to be high, particularly in the event of a large storm. In summary, a high priority for road rehabilitation would be to eliminate the "loaded guns," decommission un-needed roads and landings, and upgrade and stormproof stream crossings that presently are not designed for a 100-year storm event. These measures would dramatically reduce the risk of adverse sedimentation of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, and increase the long-term sustainability of aquatic and riparian populations and habitats.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 4 5 Human Uses and Values Prehistoric/Historic Prehistoric The archaeological record suggests that humans first entered this region about 5,000 years ago. During the Early Period (5,000 - 3,000 BP), the region was inhabited by peoples living in small, highly mobile bands utilizing a "foraging" resource procurement strategy focusing on big game (elk and deer) and the collection of hard seeds that require little processing time. As climatic conditions changed during the Middle Period (3,000 B.P. - 1,500 BP), land use patterns also changed. It appears that there was a decline in the intensity of use of upland regions and the peoples inhabiting the area shifted to a "collector- based" subsistence strategy emphasizing sedentary or semi-sedentary villages, procurement of a wider range of resources, and storage of foods for at least part of the year. During the Late Period (after 1,500 BP) the population continued to increase and there was a further intensification in the collection of lowland subsistence resources (fish, acorns). Given the relatively large aboriginal population of the region that developed during the Late Period, it is likely that the land use activities of the local aboriginal groups were a significant factor influencing the distribution of plants and animals across the landscape. A review of the limited ethnographic data for the watershed suggests that several groups (Hupa, Wintu, Nongtl, and Whilkut) claimed at least a portion of the watershed. There were a variety of resources available for procurement by the local groups. Grouse Creek had runs of both salmon and steelhead and the upper ridges were a major summering area for deer and perhaps elk. There were tanoak acorns, lesser amounts of white oak and black oak acorns, grass seeds and other plant resources. Because of resource-richness, it can be assumed that the watershed was regularly visited, at least on a seasonal basis. Several archaeological sites have been located on ridges surrounding the watershed (Kinsey, Pilot, Whiting, and Last Chance Ridges). These sites have been determined to be eligible for the National Register for Historic Places as part of the Pilot Ridge Archaeological and Historic District. Most of the sites are task-specific seasonal camps used for hunting or butchering. Some are more complex. The evidence suggests that they were multi-functional, which infers seasonal family encampments. The sites within the District contain Early, Middle, and Late Period materials, including Borax Lake, Trinity side notch, and Gunther barbed projectile points. This archaeological evidence is outlined in the heritage resources management section of the Pilot Ridge Watershed Report (Keter, 1994). There are no known village sites located within the watershed. However, historic Army records refer to an attack upon a "ranch" of Indians in 1864 in the Grouse Creek watershed. (Indian villages were commonly called ranches or rancherias in California). The nearest known site is the South Fork Hupa

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4- 14 6 village of tah-chooch-tung. It is located along the South Fork of the Trinity River, approximately two miles downstream of the mouth of Grouse Creek. Historic The first significant Euro-American development in the watershed occurred in the early 1850s when a trail was constructed to connect the gold mines on the Trinity River to the seaport at Eureka-Arcata. This trail became known as the Humboldt-Hyampom Trail, connecting Humboldt Bay with Hyampom Valley and continuing on to Weaverville. The trail continued east, dropping to the future location of Wise Station and then on to Hyampom Valley. As contact between the Euro-Americans and the local Indian population increased, conflicts arose and numerous violent confrontations occurred. The Board Camp Mountain area and Pilot Creek watershed were used as refuges by the local Indians who would hide there to avoid parties of armed civilians who were searching for Indian encampments. By 1865 the violent conflicts, which had escalated into the "Two Years War" ended, opening the interior sections of Humboldt Count (including the Grouse Creek watershed) to development and settlement. The grasslands and oak woodlands of these interior regions were immediately recognized for their potential for cattle grazing, and later grazed by sheep. In the Grouse Creek watershed, the best grazing lands were along the ridgelines stretching from Grouse Mountain in the northwest, south along Kinsey and Pilot Ridges, and along Whiting and Last Chance Ridges. The Grouse Creek area did not contain as rich a rangeland environment as the) Pilot Creek watershed to the south, or the other watersheds to the west. It is likely that this is the reason that the Grouse Creek watershed was only minimally used, as compared with other watersheds, for homesteading or other activities. Throughout the 1 870s and 1 880s, sheep grazing was the primary land use activity within the watershed. During this era, a few parcels of land were acquired by ranchers in order to control the springs. Control of the water in a region often meant control of the nearby rangelands as well. One of the earliest parcels to be acquired was that of rancher Joe Russ in 1886. Perhaps the most important, and certainly the best-known, homestead established within the watershed was that belonging to George Monroe. A homestead patent granted to Monroe in 1 903 was conveyed to E. J. Wise in 1904, who then built the cabin that is known today as Wise Station. It had year-round residents. It was used as a stopping place for pack trains on the Humboldt-Hyampom Trail and also as a line station for the Mountain Power Company. At the turn of the century, the Mountain Power Company constructed power lines from a hydroelectric dam on Canyon Creek in Trinity County to Eureka. In 1 906, the transmission line was sold to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Much of the original route was located along the current PG&E right-of-way. Wise worked for the power company and maintained the line within the Grouse Creek drainage and west to Snow Camp. Around 1 950, a PG&E line cabin was built to

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1147 the west of Wise Station, replacing it as the maintenance center for the power lines crossing the watershed. This line is known as the Cottonwood-Humboldt Line and is the major power source for the City of Eureka and its vicinity. Private Land Acquisition and Forest Service Management From 1868 though 1898, there were a few parcels of land on the western side of the watershed that had been acquired by private individuals under the Homestead Act of 1862. Much of the watershed consisted of heavy timber and steep ground which limited access for homesteading activity. Most private lands in the watershed were acquired between 1901 and 1904 under the provisions of the Timber and Stone Act of 1878, just prior to the establishment of the Forest Service. Lands acquired under the Act had to be for personal use, contain mature timber, and be deemed unfit for agriculture. In 1905, legislation was enacted establishing the Trinity Reserve, which included the public lands within the Grouse Creek watershed. These public lands came under the management of the newly-formed Forest Service. In the early years of the 1900s, management was limited to a few special use permits for grazing and for the utility lines managed by the Mountain Power Company, and later Pacific Gas and Electric. Over the years, much of the land acquired under the Homestead or the Timber and Stone Acts were sold to one of three large companies who managed these lands for timber production. They were Sierra Pacific, Champion International, and Louisiana Pacific. The commercial ownership which still exists is that of Sierra Pacific, Simpson Timber, and Louisiana Pacific. Additionally, the Russ family continues to graze cattle on lands acquired in 1886. The majority of the private land on the western side of the watershed is owned by local individuals who live in surrounding communities (i.e., Eureka, Ferndale, Trinidad, and Arcata). Currently, thirty-nine percent of the watershed is privately owned (Plate 4.1 1). The private land is primarily located in the central, southeastern, and western portions of the watershed. None of the private landowners maintain a year-round residence on their property. Most use their land for summer recreation experiences, to gather fuelwood, growing and harvesting timber, hunting, fishing, and camping. They often use their property as a jumping-off place for fishing and hunting on National Forest land in other parts of the watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 48 F Land O wnership Grouse Cr,eek Watershed USDA IForest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

_~ Six Rivers National Forest Not Forest Service Lands

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

Page 4-149 Fire History Available fire records for the Grouse Creek area go back to 1930. A total of 11 8 fires occurred within the Grouse watershed and a one mile buffer around the watershed between 1 930 and 1993. The distribution is shown in Table 4.26 below.

Table 4.26 Fire events by decade and cause in the Grouse IlCreek watershed.

Decade Human-caused Lightning Total Total Area (Acres) 1930 11 (85%) 2 (15%) 13 1,716 1940 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 5 <1 1950 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 11 2 1960 5 (16%) 26 (84%) 31 331 1 970 10(38%) 16 (62%) 26 80 1980 9 (41%) 13 (59%) 22 33 1 990-93 1 (10%) 9 (90%) 10 4 TOTALS 39 (33%) 79 (60%) 118 2,184

During this 64-year period, only seven fires were greater than 10 acres, with six of these fires being human-caused. The largest fire was the Cow Creek Fire which occurred in 1934 and grew to 1,557 acres. The next largest fire was the Grouse Fire of 1969, which grew to 281 acres. The Grouse fires of the early 1930s which grew to be large (1,551 acres, 57 acres, 30 acres) were the results of multiple fire starts (up to 13) and are often attributed to ranchers. The ground cover at points of origin was typically grass or brush. Limited equipment was used because of the steepness or roughness of the area or due to having insufficient water available. The Cow Creek Fire occurred between September 19th and September 24, 1934. The fire was 15 acres when reached by the first suppression crews, with 50 minutes between discovery and first arrival. Only backpack pumps were used because the roughness of the country, surface rocks and roots prevented the use of plows or tractors. The large fire size was also attributed to the loss of 75 "fresh men and leaders" to a second string of incendiary fires in the drainage in the Pilot Creek area, to the south of Cow Creek.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 50 Fire Starts b y Decade Grouse Creek Watershed USDA I orest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed A)oalysis Cen ter

Legend

L1ihhiu~-Ii~ Fire Area 1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1995 11 I I Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary 1 1 ii; I ii I i i

i ! I i I

. I ! 4 i I 1!i! I; i 11 I ! I i :

Page 4-1 51 The Cow Creek Fire was initially a ground fire, burning in oak leaves, grass, and needles. It subsequently turned into a ground and crown fire. It was started by a rancher with eight fire sets along Cow Creek, which grew upslope to the ridge. The area had been grazed at a moderate level. Acres burned by vegetation type were noted as follows:

Yellow Pine 65 ac. (5 acres of complete kill) Douglas-fir 205 ac. Woodland 1.211 ac. Total 1,481 ac. Un-designated 76 ac. Grand Total 1,557 acres

This burned area corresponds with the black oak stand mapped in the Ecological Unit Inventory process. Due to a lack of burning since 1 934, encroachment on the woodland area has occurred. The Grouse Fire of 1969 grew to 281 acres, the result of a lightning storm on July 23 which ignited fir snags and spike top trees. According to the narrative for this fire: "The fire became active on one flank, and the five Forest Service people were in position to control it. However, three of the fire people had no fire experience; just the basic Fire Training. Within ten minutes of the accelerated attack on this section of the line, the three new Forest Service people became exhausted and became ineffective. This, I believe, would be the most important reason the fire escaped initial control. Other items affecting the loss of the fire were no communications on the fire for the crew foreman to advise the district of needs at the time the fire became active on the lower end; remoteness of the fire from available crews (approximately 1.5 hours travel); the lightning storm was dry, with a fire load index of 18 for the day; and the possibility of one or two other fires from the storm in the fire area." Some of these same problems could also occur today, especially those related to communications and arrival times. Access and Use The mixture of private, commercial, and public land ownership within the Grouse Creek watershed has resulted in a vast array of roads built by various entities for various different reasons. The first major access road was constructed in about 1 949 to facilitate the installation of a new high-voltage power line. During the 1950s, this road was used to haul timber harvested from private lands. Also in the 1950s, the Forest Service began issuing permits for road construction across public lands to access private property. Many of these access roads were used for timber harvesting on private land. Timber management on public lands began in the early 1 960s. The first road to access timber on public land was built in 1963.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 52 Today there are approximately 238 miles of road in the watershed, fifty-seven percent on private land. The primary arterial roads are Route 1 on the western side of the watershed, Route 6 on the eastern side, and Ammon Ridge Road (5N 1 ) which runs east-west connecting the other two routes. Route 1 was completed in 1984. This paved road connects Highway 299 to State Highway 36. Route 6 is a high-standard road that begins at Highway 299 and extends to the communities of Hyampom and Hayfork. There is an increasing dependency on these two routes by the communities of Mad River and Hyampom to access Highway 299 during non-winter seasons. With the advent of motorized vehicle access, recreational use of the watershed was initiated. Jeep trails provided access for hunters and for dispersed camping experiences associated with hunting and fishing. Construction of higher- standard roads in the watershed has increased drive-through recreation traffic and destination recreation users. The use of Route 1 for scenic driving is increasing. This route is often referred to as a "nice Sunday drive." Users note the view from the Grouse Creek watershed, not the one into the watershed. Many users traverse the loop consisting of Highway 36, Route 1, and Highway 299. There is moderately high use by organized off-highway vehicle (OHV) groups on roads throughout the watershed, but particularly in the southern half. Snow Camp and Grouse Mountain are popular OHV staging areas. An OHV organization based in Eureka holds an annual 4x4 holiday tree-cutting event, staged from the Grouse Mountain area. The arterial roads in the watershed were built for a variety of uses, including the removal of timber. Most of the interior roads are low-standard, local access roads which were designed to facilitate the removal of commodities. Over the years, many of these roads have taken on a different value to their many users: OHV use, access to private property, favorite hunting areas, and favorite camp sites. Commodity Values/Resource Extraction Timber Management Timber harvest began in the watershed on private lands in the 1950s. Tractor- yarded clearcuts and partial cuts have been the most common practice on private lands. Harvesting on public lands began in 1963 with a relatively small. harvest of 88,000 board feet. Cable-yarded clearcuts and partial cuts have been the most common practice on National Forest lands. Over this 29-year period, 1 06.249 MMBF of timber taken from National Forest lands in the Grouse Creek watershed which generated an estimated 660 jobs. This type of data was not available to us regarding the economic contributions from the commercial private lands. On public lands, 87 percent of the regeneration units are well-stocked with at least 100 conifer trees per acre scattered over at least 60 percent of the unit

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 53 area. The remaining 13 percent are below theses levels, because of either harsh conditions or reforestation failure. Nearly all (94 percent) of these plantations are now located within the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR). Conifer and hardwood growth in most plantations is limited by severe competition between conifers, hardwoods, and brush. Very few of the plantations in the Grouse Creek watershed have been pre-commercially thinned. Where thinning has occurred, the objective was to accelerate conifer growth by evenly spacing conifers and reducing competition by removing the hardwoods. The present condition of privately-logged lands is unknown. Estimates of timber volume currently existing in the watershed were calculated by stratifying stands by vegetation type, size class, and canopy cover. These strata were grouped into similar timber types. Timber volumes were calculated through compartment inventory analysis (CIA) and the Forest LMP timber inventory. Timber volumes calculated for individual strata on public lands were applied to similar strata on private lands. These methods have resulted in a very rough estimate of timber volumes on both private and public lands within the watershed. An estimated 700 to 1,000 MMBF of timber remains in the Grouse Creek watershed. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of this volume is on National Forest lands, with the vast majority within the LSR. Timber management is not an objective within the LSR. Harvest activities must benefit late-successional species, including reducing the risk of large-scale disturbance. An estimated 100 to 200 MMBF is on public lands outside of the LSR. The amount actually available for harvest is restricted by standards and guidelines in the Forest Land Management Plan. Grazing Cattle grazing in the watershed has been occurring since the late 1800s but it has been minimal. Permitted grazing started in 1937. This grazing allotment still exists; the last permit was issued in 1987. The Russ Cattle Company owns property within the watershed on the western edge, and grazes about 100-head of cattle each year on both private and public lands. Utility Line The transmission line which traverses the watershed delivers 11 5,00 watts of power to the Eureka area. PG&E has a major investment in roads, line shacks, and the transmission line, all of which are under special use permit. The company has identified a need to upgrade the line so it can support future cable-optic technologies which will be important to the development of Humboldt Bay and Humboldt County regions. They also state that other companies, such as Sprint, may use the transmission lines for cable optics in the future.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 54 Human Ecological Uses and Values Subsistence Activities There is some subsistence activity within the Grouse Creek watershed. There is quite a bit of fuelwood gathering, particularly around Sims Mountain, by Willow Creek and Salyer residents. This activity involves about 202 acres of National Forest lands in oak woodland and hardwood stands. The primary subsistence use by American Indians is the gathering of dead manzanita wood for use in ceremonial or prayer fires. There is low use of subsistence gathering by American Indians of tanoak acorns, various berries, and medicinal herbs. Link To Communities There are three primary communities or areas which utilize the watershed. The Hyampom community relates to and uses the eastern area of the watershed. Willow Creek-Salyer residents seem to utilize the northeastern area, and coastal cities in the Humboldt Bay Region utilize the western area. Hyamporn In recent years, Hyampom's population (approximately 200 people) has declined to half of past levels. Most of the population is dependent on government in some way; either employed by the government or receiving social security or welfare. There is very little economic diversity. A few people earn a living in timber production, and others in providing services to the town. They do not see their economic situation getting any better or any worse, but they do fear losing their one small store and gas station. Hyampom is a small, isolated community. However, it is the only community in Trinity County to have its own community hall. Community residents believe that the ability to take care of themselves is a necessary attribute. The nearest larger town is Hayfork, which is 45 minutes away. Today, the Grouse Creek watershed is not used as much by Hyampom residents as it was historically. Current use includes a small amount of recreating and subsistence hunting. In their view, the 1 964 flood devastated the watershed. The qualities that made the watershed popular for fishing and hunting have been severely impacted. Hyampom residents believe that their economic future is associated with a viable fish population on the South Fork of the Trinity River, to which Grouse Creek should contribute. As one resident explained, "The social health of the community is directly related to the South Fork Trinity watershed. The river is the single biggest indicator of the general health of the community and now the river fisheries is dead. This has a spiritual impact on the community."

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 55 Willow Creek-Salyer Willow Creek-Salyer residents use the northeastern end of the watershed primarily for fuel wood gathering and Christmas tree cutting. Recreational use is mostly related to hunting. These communities do not seem to have the same specific connection with Grouse Creek as Hyampom, but they are connected by the economic activities that occur. Fisheries and the health of the South Fork Trinity River are also of concern to these communities. Northcoast Cities The largest use of the watershed is for recreation, and most of the recreationists are residents of coastal cities around Humboldt Bay. As mentioned previously, private land ownership is greatest on the western edge of the watershed and 79 percent of these owners live in the Northcoast cities. The Grouse Creek watershed is the closest National Forest land to the coast and is easily accessed for a few days of camping or hunting. Mad River Some community residents are utilizing Route 1 as an access to Highway 299 during the summer months. Recreationists use Route 1 as a scenic alternate, accessing Ruth Lake or Highway 36 east. Spiritual Activities There are historic and contemporary spiritual locations within this watershed that are utilized by local American Indians. In addition, Christmas trees are gathered in the northern end of the watershed. Recreation Activities The primary recreational use in the watershed is hunting by coastal residents.The northern end of the range of the Mad River deer herd extends into Grouse Creek. It is a very popular area for bow and rifle hunting, especially along Route 1. There is a limited amount of bear hunting occurring. Most of the bear hunters seem to come out of the Hyampom area, but the use is decreasing due to a decrease in the number of bear hunters. The watershed contains numerous undeveloped hunter camps. There is also a hunting club operated by a private property owner within the watershed. Other recreational uses include OHV use, a minor amount of cold water fishing, swimming, camping, and picnicking occurs below Grouse Creek bridge and the confluence of Mosquito Creek and Grouse Creek. During the winter there is high use of the extreme northern end for snow play and cross country skiing by coastal residents. As was discussed earlier, there is an increasing use of the area for scenic driving. This use is concentrated on the western side of the watershed along Route 1 and Ammon Ridge Road.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 56 Environmental Values In addition to the uses and commodities that can be provided by the Grouse Creek watershed, society also values the mere existence of a healthy, functioning ecosystem. The perception of many is that Grouse Creek is currently a degraded watershed in need of restoration. Opinions vary on the types, kinds, and timing of restoration activities that may be needed to achieve a viable, diverse ecosystem in the Grouse Creek area and in the larger ecosystem of the South Fork of the Trinity River.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysls Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 4-1 57 Chapter 5. Ecosystem Trends and Interpretations

Terrestrial Habitats As shown in the large-scale analysis, all of the major vegetation types in the central zone are outside the RMR for the old-growth seral stage. The tanoak series is outside of the HRV as well. Unlike the Douglas-fir and white fir series, which should move back within the RMR by natural succession within two to four decades, the tanoak series is so out of balance that it will require assistance to move within the RMR within a reasonable period of time. A significant change in the distribution of seral stages in the Grouse Creek watershed is predicted based on natural succession: the amount of early seral stage vegetation is expected to decrease, and the amount of late seral coniferous vegetation is expected to increase. Clearly, stand replacing fires or intensive forest management would alter this predicted change and private land owners will probably continue to harvest their land using short rotation ages. An increase in mean forest patch size, the number of large patches, and the density of snags (>20" d.b.h. and >10 feet tall) and logs is also expected. In addition, it is likely that continued fire suppression will allow a further shift of oak woodlands to Douglas-fir dominated stands, reduce the amount of oaks and pines in the understory, and will favor the regeneration of fire-intolerant species such as white fir. These expected changes in vegetation structure and composition can be used to make general estimates of possible changes in wildlife species diversity, abundance, and distribution. However, the accuracy of such predictions would be limited by our understanding of wildlife-habitat relationships, as well as our lack of adequate information about the present status of wildlife populations in the watershed. Populations of the following wildlife species and species assemblages used in the suitable habitat analyses (see Wildlife Past and Current Conditions section) will probably benefit from the expected changes in vegetation (i.e., an increase in late-seral coniferous vegetation, an increase in snags and logs, and an increase in white fir abundance and distribution): northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten, Pacific fisher, northern goshawk, tailed frog, marbled murrelet, Del Norte salamander, southern seep (torrent) salamander, the Down Woody material assemblage, the Marsh/Lake/Pond assemblage, and all other species requiring snags for reproduction, resting, or foraging (i.e., all species within the Snag assemblage). Species within the River/Stream/Creek assemblage may benefit from an increase in overstory cover, snags, and logs which would lower water temperatures and increase the availability of woody material for stream structure.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 5-1 Conversely, populations of the following species and species assemblages will probably not benefit from, or may be negatively affected by, the expected changes in vegetation for the same reasons mentioned above, but especially because of the predicted loss of oak woodland habitat and early seral stages on Forest Service land: black bear, deer, and species within the Black Oak/White Oak assemblage (acorn woodpecker, scrub jay, lazuli bunting, and western gray squirrel). The northwestern pond turtle may also be negatively affected by the loss of oak woodland/grassland habitat near rivers and streams, yet the improved riparian conditions (increase in canopy closure, snags, and logs) may offset the loss of upland habitat. The dusky-footed woodrat may lose shrub/forb cover necessary for nesting and foraging. We do not know how several other species would be affected by changes in vegetation because of lack of knowledge of their habitat requirements, lack of available biotic and abiotic data, or because preliminary analysis indicates that suitable habitat is absent within the watershed for the species. These species include the arboreal salamander, great gray owl, willow flycatcher, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. The predictions presented above assume that changes in vegetation would have a net positive or negative impact on a species or assemblage. It is possible that a loss of habitat in the shrub/forb seral stage, for example, may be predicted as a negative impact on a species which forages in this seral stage. However, if at the same time an increase in snags provides a greater number of nesting cavities, the loss of foraging habitat could be offset, resulting in no net change or even a positive change. Our cursory understanding of wildlife-habitat relationships precludes us from making accurate predictions of which habitat element or combination of elements are critical for the viability of a given species or assemblage versus those which can be replaced by similar elements. Finally, proposed restoration projects (e.g., road removal, riparian vegetation restoration, slide stabilization) will likely benefit populations of many aquatic and riparian-dependent wildlife species. Riparian and Aquatic Systems The purpose of this section is to compare existing, historical, and reference conditions and to explain significant differences, similarities, or trends and their causes. Where possible, interpretations as to the implications of watershed changes and trends, including the capability of the watershed to achieve objectives will be discussed. Also included in this analysis will be a discussion of the value of Grouse Creek to the Lower South Fork Key Watershed and the role of restoration in meeting management objectives. Trends and Interpretations Based on the assessment of past and current conditions, the Grouse Creek watershed is still under the influence of cumulative watershed effects but the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 5-2 riparian and aquatic habitats appear to be slowly recovering. This trend is based on the fact that few large mass wasting events have occurred since the storms in the 1 970s. The 1986 storm reactivated some of the old erosional features and deposited additional sediment into the mainstem and tributaries but did not derail the recovery process. This storm is characteristic of the events that will mold the recovery of the watershed. Recovery is rarely linear but is rather characterized by gradual recovery interspersed by episodic set-backs attributable to occasional storm events. In this manner, the Grouse Creek watershed will slowly recover. The type and extent of recovery, however, can vary considerably depending upon the resource or feature being examined. For example, landslides may stabilize in certain terrain more quickly than similar features in different geologies, slope, and aspect. Landslides may stabilize more quickly than instream conditions. For this reason, recovery is difficult to generalize or quantify. Our best estimate is that Grouse Creek is within the early- to mid-stages of recovery, depending upon the watershed feature being examined. Recovery of instream conditions is estimated to be lagging behind hillslope conditions. Active erosion is still very characteristic of the Grouse Creek watershed, however the sediment input rates are subsiding as evidenced by vegetative reestablishment on past flood terraces and eroding slide surfaces. Streamside landsliding is the predominant erosional mechanism within the watershed. Sedimentation from mass wasting within the watershed (including secondary erosion from these features) will continue despite restoration treatment of some of these sources. Sedimentation from existing inner gorge slides will continue to have off-site impacts, but this is expected to decrease over time as these sites stabilize. Grouse Creek is one of the more unstable watersheds within the South Fork Trinity basin. Its current high erosion rates are attributed to inherent instability, poor land management practices, and its geographic location that intercepts coastal storm events. Unstable lands within the watershed are not exactly correlated with factors of slope, geology and landform; therefore, implications for management are not precisely delineated. Instability should be confirmed with site- specific visits and not based exclusively on hazard classifications.Level of instability within similar geologic terranes seems to vary with landownership; for example, both Bear and Mosquito Creeks are underlain by Galice metasediments and TRpz, but there is considerably more private ownership in Bear Creek which has more frequent landsliding and a more degraded channel than Mosquito Creek. With respect to Devastation Slide, the kind and degree of progressive slide failure observed over the past 45 years and measured during the past nine (50-1 50 thousand tons per year) will likely continue into the foreseeable future (50-1 00 years). This would include annual creep and collapse of the toe zone into the channel, periodic failure of larger quantities of mostly fine- grained colluvium, and occasional major enlargements during extreme hydrologic events or earthquakes during the wet season. Sediment production might taper off gradually over several centuries as the toe zone is depleted and reaches a temporary equilibrium condition. This would mean diminishing

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 5-3 delivery of both fine sediment and boulders to the channel, enabling the stream to create a more moderate gradient through the obstruction. It is more likely, though, that the barrier will persist for several centuries. Eventually, catastrophic failure in the source area will probably reload the toe and rejuvenate the various failure mechanisms; therefore, the slide is unlikely to ever fully "stabilize". These sediment inputs will limit the ability of the anadromous reach to recover. This trend has major implications in the value of Grouse Creek as a component of the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed system: the lower 1.6 miles is not likely to have better than fair habitat quality, and the main anadromous value will continue to be the cold water found in Grouse Creek. Value of Grouse Creek to the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed The lower South Fork Trinity River (SFTR) below Hayfork Creek is designated as a Key Watershed (FEMAT and ROD). Key Watersheds are designated primarily for their value as refugia for anadromous and resident salmonids. Refugia are watersheds that now provide, or are expected to provide, high quality habitat for anadromous fish populations that are at some risk of extinction. Steelhead in the Klamath Province, which includes the Trinity River, have been recently proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Refugia primarily are designated for existing high quality habitat, but can include degraded habitat if they have a high potential for restoration. In addition, Key Watersheds are expected to provide aquatic and riparian habitat essential to the maintenance, recovery or enhancement of identified anadromous fish populations (Forest Plan). The primary value of Grouse Creek is its contribution of cooler inflow to the South Fork Trinity River. The temperatures in the lower South Fork Trinity River often exceed 80° and are too high to provide significant refuge for adult steelhead. During the summer months, the juvenile steelhead in the lower South Fork Trinity River occupy only the plumes of cooler tributaries such as Grouse Creek. In 1994, water temperature at the mouth of Grouse Creek exceeded 700 for only 12 days (with a maximum of 720), while the South Fork Trinity River at Underwood Creek exceeded 70° every day from June 25 to September 8. In low water years, Grouse Creek may significantly lower the temperature of the lower South Fork Trinity River, because of their relative flow volumes. The daily mean flow in August in the South Fork Trinity River at Hyampom has been below 30 cfs for five of the last 10 years. Inflow from Grouse Creek in low water years probably comprises up to 30 percent of the flow in the South Fork Trinity River. Based on a weighted average calculation for typical summer baseflows, Grouse Creek's 68° water may lower the temperature of the South Fork by as much as five degrees (which can mean the difference between death and survival). These calculations however, need to be field-verified. In any

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 5-4 case, Grouse Creek has substantially colder water than many reaches within the upper South Fork Trinity River. The primary value of the colder waters in Grouse Creek is for summer steelhead. During the summer months, juvenile steelhead in the lower South Fork Trinity River occupy only the plumes of cooler tributaries such as Grouse Creek. Grouse Creek is very important to the marginal summer habitat in the lower South Fork Trinity River, where inflow from tributaries provides the only refuge for juvenile steelhead. Due to the high temperatures within the lower South Fork Trinity River, the summer steelhead of the South Fork Trinity River primarily depend on the watershed above Hyampom, residing in main river pools through the summer. The temperatures in the lower South Fork Trinity often exceed 80° and are too high to provide significant refuge for adult steelhead. Therefore, Grouse Creek provides important cool water refuge for steelhead, however, the refuge is limited to the 1.6 miles of habitat below Devastation Slide. This slide yielded over 100,000 cubic yards of sediment in the winter of 1993-94, degrading habitat for at least 0.5 miles downstream. Given the high solar exposure and low summer flows, it is doubtful that summer temperatures can be reduced significantly in the lower South Fork Trinity River even in the long term. However, the value of Grouse Creek to salmonid habitat in the lower South Fork Trinity River will increase through time as riparian canopy expands and the temperature regime within Grouse Creek declines. While Grouse Creek provides the benefit of cooler water to the South Fork Trinity River, it also provides detrimental sediment loads that impact the productivity of chinook salmon within the Lower South Fork Trinity River. The primary value of the lower SFTR Key Watershed is the habitat it provides for the fall chinook population, which spawns exclusively from the mouth to Hyampom, which is about eight miles upstream of Grouse Creek. The spawning habitat in the Lower South Fork Trinity is reduced in quality and amount by sedimentation, but is sufficient to support a population that has varied from 345 to 2,640 from 1985 to 1993 (CDFG). The high sediment levels are a legacy from the estimated 11 3 million tons delivered from the entire SFTR basin from 1961 to 1990 (California DWR), a substantial portion of which remains in the lower SFTR channel. The high sedimentation in the lower SFTR limits fall chinook salmon production. The high summer water temperatures do not impact the chinook juveniles as they emigrate in spring and early summer. Reducing sediment yield from Grouse Creek will also benefit the downstream salmon production in the South Fork Trinity River. The scale of this benefit depends on the amount of sediment yielded from the Hyampom Valley reach and inputs from inner gorge slides downstream of Grouse Creek. In summary, the current value of Grouse Creek as a component of the Lower SFTR Key Watershed habitat refugia is mixed. The high sedimentation rates

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 5-5 from landslides result in conditions ranging from poor to fair within the limited anadromous reach, and yet the watershed provides very important cool water habitat refuge from the warm South Fork Trinity River. As defined in FEMAT and the ROD, the refugia value of the anadromous habitat downstream of Devastation Slide is moderately low; it has been and will continue to be heavily impacted by sedimentation, thereby limiting its spawning capability. Even if the 1.6 miles of anadromous fish habitat were at optimum conditions, it would comprise less than one percent of such habitat in the SFTR, further reinforcing Grouse Creek's questionable role as a habitat refuge. Nevertheless, despite the poor conditions associated with excessive sedimentation within its anadromous reach, Grouse Creek is an important part of the Lower SFTR Key Watershed because of its contribution of cooler water to the South Fork Trinity River. For these reasons, the value of Grouse Creek to the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed is rated as moderate. If it were feasible or desirable to make the 23.5 miles of stream above Devastation slide accessible to anadromous fish, the value of Grouse Creek to the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed would have to be reevaluated. The 23.5 miles of stream above the barrier, if accessible, would translate to Grouse Creek being approximately 10 percent of the total anadromous habitat within the South Fork Trinity River: a very substantial increase in the existing anadromous habitat within the South Fork Trinity River that could have important bearing on stocks at risk. For Grouse Creek to become fully productive for anadromous fish the 23.5 miles of salmonid habitat above the barrier at Devastation Slide would need to become accessible to anadromous fish. The 23.5 miles of resident trout habitat above the Devastation Slide barrier has been recovering since the 1964 flood, but it still has generally sparse canopy and high sedimentation. Its condition ranges from poor to good and will probably take decades to achieve good quality habitat throughout the entire 23.5 miles. Establishing fish passage at the barrier needs to be further analyzed, however it may not be practical given the cost and technical difficulty of maintaining passage through a major active landslide (see Recommendations and Opportunities Section, Key Finding A). The Role of Aquatic and Riparian Restoration A principal focus of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. The intent of that strategy is to maintain and restore the distribution, diversity and complexity of species, populations and communities, as well as the natural processes and habitats to which they are uniquely adapted. Specifically, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy stresses the need to restore diverse, functioning riparian zones and the sediment regimes under which their aquatic systems have evolved. The objectives of the Grouse Creek Riparian and Aquatic Restoration strategy are to: 1/maintain or improve current cool water temperatures within the mainstem and tributaries and 2/prevent further erosion and sedimentation that might slow the natural recovery of the watershed. By achieving these

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 5-6 objectives, it is hoped that Grouse Creek will return to the sediment and disturbance regimes under which its riparian systems evolved. The assessment of past and current conditions of riparian and aquatic ecosystems within Grouse Creek indicates that many riparian areas and instream habitats are in poor to fair condition and are suffering from active erosion and cumulative sediment loads, despite the slow recovery of the watershed. Essentially, the immediate prognosis for Grouse Creek to provide good quality habitat for anadromous fish is low. Full recovery, barring any large storm or flood event, may take decades. Once riparian and aquatic habitats have been altered by erosion and sedimentation, there are few opportunities to alter these trends directly within the systems; essentially, nature must take its course in slowly healing the disturbed habitats. The best influence management can have is to prevent further degradation from occurring that might slow natural recovery. However, there are various options to help rehabilitate degraded systems indirectly, and these will be explored in subsequent discussions. The first and most important action to take in assisting the natural recovery of riparian and aquatic ecosystems is to prevent further damage or degradation. The sediment budget study revealed that while approximately 59 percent of the erosion and sediment generated was from natural causes, 41 percent was directly and indirectly attributable to land management activities. If the riparian and aquatic ecosystems are to continue their gradual recovery, preventing the remaining "loaded guns" from triggering additional sediment and perhaps mass wasting is of primary importance. This is the essence of sound resource stewardship. While the riparian and aquatic habitat within Grouse Creek will not immediately or directly respond to these preventative measures, they will allow the system to remain on the recovery trend, barring any large or catastrophic storm events. Allowing Grouse Creek to recover has direct influence on the quality of instream habitat on the lower South Fork Trinity River, both in terms of sediment and temperature. Given the high value of Grouse Creek's cold water, and detrimental downstream impacts associated with high sedimentation, efforts to rehabilitate Grouse Creek are potentially very important to the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed refugia and its steelhead and chinook salmon populations. Therefore, restoration efforts in Grouse Creek may warrant a higher priority than its present restoration ranking within the South Fork basin. A watershed study prepared by Pacific Watershed Associates (1 994) for the Trinity River Task Force and the Bureau of Reclamation evaluated restoration priorities within the South Fork Trinity River basin. The report ranked Grouse Creek as a 3rd priority watershed; this should be reevaluated with respect to other watershed analyses when they are completed to determine their relative value to anadromous fish stocks at risk. The value of Grouse Creek as an anadromous fish refuge (Key Watershed) is expected to slowly increase over time as the watershed gradually recovers.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 5-7 While the trend is that of slow improvement, recovery in terms of sedimentation, shade canopy and potential woody debris recruitment cannot be greatly influenced by restoration efforts in the short-term. Our ability to decrease summer water temperature in the mainstem of Grouse Creek by either upslope or in-channel remedial measures is minimal, but should still be pursued. Riparian silvicultural projects may initiate recovery processes, but their benefits will not be visible for years due to the time it takes for trees to mature. Nevertheless, opportunities for riparian silvicultural treatment should be also pursued. Plate 6.1 illustrates the kinds of restoration activities that have occurred to date in the watershed. It also includes potential upslope restoration (roads) that need to be field-verified and run through the full NEPA process, including public involvement (see Chapter 6 Recommendations & Opportunities for more details). Considerable land disturbance has occurred since the 1 964 flood and the floods of the 1970s which is likely to have additional impact on instream and riparian function and processes when a similar storm event recurs. Any further sedimentation and damage to riparian zones may slow the recovery of the watershed. It is therefore prudent to address the potential erosional problems before they occur through restoration activities and kick start the recovery of other erosional features in the hope of accelerating the recovery trend. Given our limited ability to reduce the total existing sediment input to Grouse Creek, the value of upslope road restoration could be questioned. Road restoration is both time consuming and costly. Nevertheless, fixing existing and potential upslope erosional problems is generally more effective than trying to mitigate off-site habitat degradation. The value of preventive work is difficult to measure because in theory, the problem is removed if the treatment is successful. However, the recovery of the watershed could be retarded or reversed unless these existing "loaded guns" are treated. And their effects would be cumulative to the South Fork Trinity River. The Devastation Slide fish barrier has unresolved implications to the value of Grouse Creek as part of the SFTR refugia. Until the options for its remediation or modification are further explored, the true potential value of Grouse Creek as an anadromous fish refuge remain uncertain. Under present conditions, its value is principally as a cold water refuge from the South Fork's high summer temperaturesl In summary, any watershed restoration program will take considerable time and money. Direct benefits from upslope restoration will not immediately translate into healthy streams and viable aquatic communities. Aquatic and riparian communities will take considerable time to adjust and recover despite considerable investment in restoration. The intent of watershed restoration is to halt additional damaging activities and accelerate natural recovery process. Monitoring restoration projects and relevant management activities will be essential to measure our degree of success in realizing these goals.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 5-8 Human Uses and Values Public Use Values There is a high density of roads in the watershed, which are managed from different perspectives, objectives, and legal authorities. Access is a common theme in each of the public use values that were identified for the Grouse Creek watershed. Access for private landowners, PG&E, general recreationists, OHV enthusiasts, and local residents will continue to be an issue and a source of increasing conflict. Conflicts have emerged in the areas of user expectations, resource effects, existing rights, landowners impacts, and program administration. Public users will continue to expect the Forest Service to maintain all National Forest roads to a standard that allows safe passage. Due to increasingly limited resources, the Forest Service will not be able to meet these expectations on all existing roads. This could result in unsafe conditions and possible environmental damage. The Grouse Creek watershed is the closest National Forest land to the coastal communities. The recreational use of Route 1 for scenic viewing is expected to increase. Public expectation is that this route will continue to be maintained to a standard that will allow it to be traversed safely by a family sedan. Residents of Hyampom and Mad River will continue to use Route 1 and Route 6 as alternate routes to access Highway 299. Hyampom residents are particularly concerned about the current condition of Route 6. These communities see their economic future tied to eco-tourism. High-standard access to these isolated areas will be important to the development of the tourist industry. The number of private property owners is expected to increase as the larger holdings continue to split their property into smaller portions to sell. Additional roads will be built in the watershed to access these smaller parcels, and an increase in users will cause greater demands on the existing transportation system. Several property owners have indicated that they expect to harvest timber from their lands before the turn of the century. Some expressed the need for special use permits to use National Forest roads for log- hauling. The extensive amount of private lands in the watershed presents a unique fire situation. A large percentage of the private lands were logged in the 1950s, 1970s, and early 1980s. Little, if any, treatment of the logging residue took place. Most of the fine fuels, which burn longer and hotter, still exist. Due to the fuel-loading, suppression of a wildfire on the private lands would be difficult and would likely result in greater resource damage. Also, as the number of private landowners increases, more and more structures will likely be built in the watershed. Initial attack resources could become totally involved with structure protection, leaving fewer resources for wildland protection.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 5-9 Additionally, the growing number of private landowners in the watershed increases the potential for human-caused fire. Some private property owners believe that they have existing rights and interests in roads across National Forest lands that access their property. These owners are concerned with restoration projects and other management activities that would close roads, thus limiting their ability to access their property. They are also concerned that closing access to public lands will increase trespassing on private lands, resulting in environmental impacts to their property and the potential for conflicts with other public users. Private property owners and the public have expressed concern about the lack of access to and through the interior of the watershed for recreational purposes. There are two gates on Forest Roads 4N1 3 and 4N06, which access both private and National Forest lands in the interior of the watershed. One gate is on the National Forest and the other is managed by PG&E, located on their private land. The Forest Service does not have a right-of-way across all private lands located between the gates. The powerline which traverses the watershed has been under special use permit by PG&E since 1905. PG&E also has a road right-of-way and a few line shacks under special use permit.s. The importance of this line to the development of Humboldt County regions will increase as the line is upgraded to support cable- optic technologies. In the company's view, limiting access through gating is necessary to protect their investments from vandalism. The public criticism comes from this gating of National Forest lands and the belief that PG&E allows their employees and retired employees access during the hunting season, while keeping the public locked out. The scenic beauty of the area attracts OHV enthusiasts, who are looking for a quality experience which includes well-marked, circular routes. There are a few loop trails in the watershed, and most cross private as well as public lands. OHV users have expressed frustration with locked gates, closed trails, incorrect maps, and poor signing. They are going further off of the main travel routes to get a quality experience. Conflicts will increase as the OHV users continue to use both designated and un-designated loop trails that cross private property. The expectations of the OHV user is that the Forest Service should develop legitimate loop routes and staging areas through cooperative agreements with the private landowners. AMA Expectations and Opportunities The AMAs are intended to contribute substantially to the objectives of the President's Plan, which includes restoration, maintenance of healthy forests, development of partnerships, and providing a stable supply of outputs. Despite the timber produced from the watershed in the past, none of the local communities viewed themselves as economically connected to the Grouse Creek watershed. It appears to have limited direct impact on the stability and

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 5-10 sustainability of these local communities. Due to what is termed as the devastation of the 1964 Flood, many local residents have written off the watershed. The flood changed not only the watershed but also the use and perception of the watershed by the local communities. They do not consider it to be a viable fisheries stream. Recreation use and subsistence hunting have also decreased due to access problems and the condition of the watershed. Their main tie to this watershed is the contribution of Grouse Creek to the to the fisheries resource in the South Fork of the Trinity River. The local rural communities will continue to disregard this watershed as contributing to their economic base because of their perception if the current ecological condition of the watershed. Small communities, such as Hyampom, Willow Creek, and Mad River are trying to build the infrastructure needed to support tourism. What attracts the tourist to these areas is scenic value and fishing. In order to develop a tourist industry, the communities have identified several needs: access into Grouse Creek itself, high-standard roads, and improved water quality as related to fishing. Grouse Creek's current condition is considered to be contributing to the degraded fisheries resource in the South Fork of the Trinity River. Development of quality fishing in the South Fork Trinity River and Grouse Creek's opportunity to contribute to water quality will continue to be an expectation of these rural, riverine communities. The perception of many is that Grouse Creek is a degraded watershed in need of restoration. Opinions vary on the methods and timing of restoration activities. Some believe that although Grouse Creek is in need of restoration, there is a need to prioritize all watersheds based on their restoration need and potential benefits. With limited restoration funds, they view that there may be other watersheds that would benefit more from restoration than would Grouse Creek. Many people feel that restoration activities should be primarily focused on maintaining and improving the cool water that Grouse Creek provides to the South Fork Trinity River to improve fish habitat in the larger system. Others feel that fish population numbers are not a measure of success. Returning Grouse Creek to a healthy, functioning ecosystem would result in improved fish habitat as well as provide habitat for other species. In the opinion of some, access for human use of the watershed is not as important as overall forest health. They believe that restoration activities should be focused on reducing the road system.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 5-1 1 Chapter 6. Key Findings And Opportunities

Introduction: In this section we revisit the Values and Key Questions defined in Chapter Two. The objective of this chapter is to provide managers with the interpretations and Findings associated with Key Questions. Recommendations and Opportunities are identified for each Finding/Interpretation. This chapter is designed to provide managers with some on-the-ground specificity for project implementation.

Detailed discussion pertaining to the implementation of AMA goals and objectives are threaded through this chapter via Key Findings and their associated Recommendations and Opportunities. Each plays a role in the management of the Grouse Creek portion of the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area.

This chapter is organized as follows:

Ecological Values

Key Watershed Quality of Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Vegetation Configuration and Conservation of Biological Diversity Conservation of Biodiversity Fuel Loading and Fire Risk Public Use Values Road Maintenance Access to Private Property Access to the Interior of the Watershed OHV Management AMA Expectations and Management

Ecological Values Key Watershed and Quality of Riparian and Aquatic Habitat

Key Question: What is the value of Grouse Creek to the Lower South Fork Trinity River Key Watershed given its current condition? Can this value be increased through restoration efforts? What kinds of efforts?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 Finding: Grouse Creek has value as a part of the South Fork Trinity Key Watershed Refuge, primarily because of its relatively cool water temperatures. The primary value of Grouse Creek to the South Fork Trinity River (SFTR) anadromous fish refuge is the cool, summer streamflow that it provides to the relatively warm river. This water provides a refuge for summer steelhead both in the lower portion of Grouse Creek and in the plume of cooler water as it merges with the South Fork Trinity River. Average maximum summer temperatures in Grouse Creek are generally less than 70' F., in contrast to extended periods of temperatures up to 800 in the South Fork. In low-water years, Grouse Creek base flow is a significant component - estimated to be up to 30 percent - of the base flow in the South Fork. This has an important biological effect in terms of the low temperature plume this produces locally in the SFTR near the mouth of Grouse Creek, but its overall effect on temperature in the South Fork is not known. Analysis has also shown a downward trend in both sediment production and sediment storage in the fish-bearing channels in the watershed. Few landslides and a lower intensity of sediment-producing land uses have occurred since the mid-i 970s. Watershed rehabilitation projects have been conducted in the Grouse Creek watershed during the past eight years. Plate 6.1 shows the locations and types of work accomplished thus far. Recommendations: * Determine the effect on SFTR due to mixing of Grouse Creek cooler waters (see Monitoring section) * Maintain or lower water temperatures within Grouse Creek. Opportunities to Increase the Value of the Refuge: * Ensure that the present trend of recovery is not set back. This may be accomplished through pro-active restoration: the treating of potential erosion sources before problems originate. * Lake above Devastation Slide: The lake above the barrier at Devastation Slide has been identified as a potential heat sink that may elevate stream temperature. This potential impact may reduce the value of Grouse Creek as a source of a cool water in the SFTR refuge. The actual effect of the lake on summer water temperature should be evaluated. If the lake causes a measurable increase in stream temperature, a feasibility study should be conducted to assess means and impacts of draining the lake. This would involve some degree of barrier modification. The study should carefully evaluate the risk of re-mobilizing the upstream sediment presently impounded by the barrier.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-2 t I Watershed Rehabilitation Projects Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt In teragency Watershed Analysis Center Legend

A In-Stream Revegetation

Road Work Completed

- X / Road Work - Upgrade Road Work Proposed Major Streams Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

I Page 6-3 * Increase the number of accessible anadromous miles within Grouse Creek by improving fish passage at the toe of Devastation Slide. Grouse Creek currently provides less than one percent of the anadromous habitat in the SFTR basin. The potential exists to increase this contribution to roughly 10 percent by making habitat upstream of Devastation Slide available to steelhead, but it would involve considerable expenditure and risk in dealing with the landslide barrier. The ability of Grouse Creek to support an anadromous fish population is directly limited by the Devastation Slide barrier. A total of 23.5 miles of anadromous habitat within Grouse Creek and its main tributaries would be available if the barrier were modified or removed. A watershed-level restoration program should take into account this real constraint on the degree of improvement that could result from restoration measures. Opportunities and risks associated with increasing anadromous miles are:: Fishery Considerations: Devastation Slide has persisted as a barrier to steelhead and salmon migration for most of the past 50 years, and probably longer. An important consideration for re-establishing fish passage is the current and potential value of the habitat above the slide. Fish habitat in the mainstem above the slide is currently in poor-to- fair condition. The poorer segments lack riparian shade canopy and are subject to high sedimentation levels. The Mosquito Creek tributary is an exception, with about four miles of moderate-to good-quality rearing habitat for salmonids. In the long-term, the total 23.5 miles of potential habitat above the slide could provide a significant amount of good quality habitat, but it may take decades to achieve. Geomorphic and Logistical Criteria: Any consideration of modifying or bypassing the Devastation Slide fish barrier should consider the following criteria, (as described in the 1990 Feasibility Study): probable effectiveness, relative cost, risk of adverse consequences, expected longevity, ability to accommodate continued slide movement and sediment delivery, and flexibility. The preferred alternatives from the 1990 study included the following: * Partially reshape existing channel: The goal would be to re- establish a relatively stable channel configuration adjacent to the toe zone with hydraulic characteristics which would allow fish passage. Channel boulders and imported rock would be rearranged to fill in the stream profile below the existing barrier and widen the flow area somewhat to reduce velocities. The primary criteria would be to avoid undercutting the unstable toe zone while creating enough channel roughness to dissipate stream energy in a short distance. Sediment input to Grouse Creek would probably not be affected appreciably. This alternative would have moderately high cost, intermediate longevity, and fair flexibility to maintain or repair. * Tunnel & fish ladder: This could be the most effective solution to the barrier if a tunnel inlet and outlet could be maintained; given the recent

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 6-4 history of channel instability in the area of the slide, it is not very likely that this could be achieved in the long-term. This alternative's possible inflexibility to site changes and its very high cost are its major limitations. It could also be very costly to maintain with continued high levels of sediment delivery from upstream sources. However, it is probably feasible from an engineering standpoint, and has the least risk of de-stabilizing the slide mass. Both of these alternatives represent a sizeable investment of limited restoration funds in an uncertain endeavor. Additional detailed engineering feasibility studies would be essential before proceeding with either plan. Given the current condition and amount of potential habitat upstream of the barrier, it is questionable whether the probable high cost of providing fish passage is warranted at this time. Anticipated restoration work in the upper watershed could significantly improve the upstream habitat in the long-term to the point that removing the fish barrier would be more economical, but this may take a number of years. Key Questions: Can restoration efforts significantly improve the riparian and aquatic habitat both in the short and long-term? If so, what kind of activities will improve the condition (riparian and aquatic) of the watershed? Finding: Restoration efforts, in the short-term, will not significantly improve the instream aquatic habitat on the mainstem, fish-bearing channels. Smaller-order streams in the headwaters near the source of the erosion problems may benefit in the short-term from restoration efforts. However, in the long-term, restoration projects could be very important because they would treat problem areas which might derail the natural (albeit slow) recovery trend. The degree by which restoration may influence long-term recovery is not known; the large natural background sediment levels may mask any sediment saved from restoration efforts. The watershed is especially unstable, and a variety of land-use related sedimentation is set up but has not yet occurred. The potential for instream sediment remobilization in the mainstem and tributaries is high, given the volume of material that remains within the channels. Raines and Kelsey (1991 ) estimated that 27 percent of the sediment produced in the past 29 years still remained in channel. Stream channels are still adjusting with substantial slugs of sediment moving episodically in the channel. A sediment "equilibrium" in which sediment output roughly matches sediment input, is probably rare or non-existent in Grouse Creek because of periodic large storms and inherently unstable slopes which overwhelm the channel and store large amounts of sediment that is slowly remobilized during regular winter-flow regimes. Restoration efforts designed to improve stream channel condition, such as adding woody debris and building weirs, are not expected to be effective in a high sediment movement channel like Grouse Creek. Erosion control efforts could solve localized problems and benefit small streams near the treatments, and doing such would be basic good land stewardship; but affecting the mainstem channel sediment situation by doing

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-5 erosion control is simply infeasible. Enhancing riparian vegetation to lower and maintain cold water could be effective, if funding is available, subject to more inventory and evaluation of site conditions. Recommendations and Opportunities Instream structures specifically designed to improve aquatic fish habitat will not be installed any time in the near future due to the relatively low value of the stream for anadromous fish resulting from the Devastation Slide barrier, and the unstable nature of the channel upstream and downstream of the barrier. Assessments of channel conditions indicate that instream structures are not a practical way of improving instream habitat (e.g., spawning gravels, pools) given the current sediment load. Unless sediment input rates are more in balance with sediment transport rates (which could take decades, if ever), channel restoration will be focused on bank stabilization to reduce sediment input to the channel. Whether an erosion control project of any sort should occur in the watershed is a question of land management philosophy, the resource and scale of landscape being targeted for improvement, available funding, and relative priorities. Erosion and sediment control projects could be regarded as futile in terms of effecting tangible improvement of fish habitat in the mainstem of Grouse Creek or the South Fork Trinity River. However, failing roads tend to destroy local habitats and impact local ecological integrity of the land/water systems. Good land stewardship would include readily preventing road failures by simple treatment, although this effort might have negligible effects several miles downstream. If funding is provided only for fish habitat improvement, then the choice is clear. If we take a ecological view that values local habitats, then readily preventable failures might be judged worthwhile. Future erosion control projects in the watershed must be critically evaluated against the findings and specific objectives for whatever funding may be available. A discussion of erosion control/road decommissioning opportunities that may be considered is included below. Inclusion of this discussion is not meant to imply that such treatments should go forward without watershed-scale consideration of their expected efficacy in meeting objectives. Stabilization of toe zones of inner gorge landslides has been judged to be the only instream restoration opportunity with potential value to the stream. Two active landslides on the mainstem of Grouse Creek were selected for a landslide toe stabilization project using tetrahedron flow retards. Both slides have deposited large amounts of sediment within the active channel of Grouse Creek and are subject to erosion at high flow. This erosion adds coarse and fine sediment to Grouse Creek and also undercuts the slide, thereby accelerating movement into the creek. In order to retard this erosional process, steel tetrahedra were anchored at the edge of annual high water along the toe zones. They were expected to collect woody debris and sediment by which to elevate the margin of the stream channel and form a protective barrier to deflect streamflow away from the toe zone. The slides were selected because of their high sediment yield

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-6 potential and low risk of flow deflection into other erosional hazards on the opposite stream banks. At both sites, the structures diverted high flows into established active or high water channels or against bedrock walls. The tetrahedron structures produced mixed results: one survived the first winter flows while the other lost its structural integrity. Further field- verification is needed to see if the remaining structure is intact and functioning. If intact, this technique should be considered for other implementation opportunities, especially given the importance of streamside landsliding in the overall sediment budget of Grouse Creek. Finding: Management-related sedimentation accounts for approximately 41 percent of the sediment volume produced within the 29-year study period. Because management activities have been strongly implicated in recent erosional and sedimentation processes in Grouse Creek, good land stewardship suggests that the remaining "loaded guns" (e.g., roads, culverts, landings, landslides, etc.) associated with management actions be addressed so that natural recovery is not jeopardized. The trend within Grouse Creek is that of slow natural recovery. Restoration efforts will mostly assist in the recovery trend through reducing the risk of conditions getting worse. Natural recovery will most likely take many decades. Recommendations and Opportunities Most importantly, avoid land use practices that trigger or accelerate landslides. Most importantly, roads should be located in geologically stable areas only, and road drainage should be designed to avoid diverting streams, thus changing the watershed area of small streams and concentrating flows onto erodible or unstable slopes. All land uses, especially road construction must be reviewed by qualified earth scientists for their potential to affect slope stability, and suitable measures taken to avoid triggering or accelerating landsliding in this watershed. Plate 6.2 shows the broad-scale landslide hazards in the watershed. Site scale analysis is also necessary to ascertain if any particular slope is susceptible to landsliding under a particular land use. Where possible and if funding is available, treat potential problems (roads, landings, incipient landslides) before the environmental damage occurs (eg. erosion, sedimentation). Roads are the most pervasive management imprint on the landscape that are not only a high resource risk but are also treatable and effective. A high priority for rehabilitation would be to decommission un-needed roads and landings that have the potential to deliver substantial sediment and to upgrade and stormproof stream crossings that presently are not designed for a 1 00-year storm event. These measures would reduce the risk of adverse sedimentation of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, and increase the long-term sustainability of aquatic and riparian populations and habitats.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-7 I Unstable Lands: Hazard Grouse Creek Watershed USDA Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend ILi I Low Emm Moderate High Very High

Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

Page 6-8 Restoring and upgrading roads can be one of the most cost-effective watershed restoration treatments, particularly if the erosional problems are treated before sediment reaches a watercourse or before potential road-related landslides occur. Cost-effective road treatments range from full decommissioning (closing and stabilizing a road to eliminate potential for storm damage and the need for maintenance) to simple road upgrading which leaves the road open. Upgrading can involve practices such as removing soil from locations where there is a high potential of triggering landslides, modifying road drainage systems to reduce the extent to which the road functions as an extension of the stream network, and reconstructing stream crossings to reduce the risk and consequences of road failure. The benefit from such restoration is immediate and long-term, and may either reduce or eliminate maintenance needs (depending upon the treatment). Correcting existing and potential road-related sedimentation is a major step in bringing the landscape closer to natural erosion rates and processes. Within the Grouse Creek watershed, and the National Forest in general, maintenance funding is insufficient to maintain existing road infrastructure. Without road maintenance, potential risk for resource damage is increased. Within Key Watersheds such as Grouse Creek, The ROD states that there will be no net increase in roads. Outlined in the public use values section on Page 6-1 9 is an Access and Travel Management Strategy for Grouse Creek. Some specific suggestions for road management are given below. Roads Proposed for Decommissioning: The following is a list of potential roads to be decommissioned. They have been identified, using GIS analysis, as occurring on high and very high stability hazard class lands. Any proposed projects would be analyzed through the Grouse Creek Access and Travel Management Strategy and the NEPA process. * 5N04 * six non-system roads off of 5N04 * 5N05 * SNOS A spur and 2-3 non-system spurs * 6N06L * 4N31 A & B spurs * 4N40B * 4N40 end portion * Jeep tie road between 4N36 and 4N1 3 * 4N32 C & B * 4N1 1 B spur, including 2 non-system spurs

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-9 * seven non-system roads in the south east corner of Bear Creek access from private property * Non-system roads within Wildcat area; access off of private east of 4N1 5 A spur * 4N20 A, B, D spurs non-system roads on Pilot/Whiting Ridge * 4N06A non-system road off of 4N06 accessing private land via White Oak * 6NO1 V headwaters of Cow Creek * 5N18 E spur; represents 23 miles of road. Grouse Creek Roads Proposed As Needing Upgrading/Stormproofing: * 4N20 * 4N18 * 4N13 * 4N06 Finding: Mosquito Creek is the dominant source of cool summer base flows into the mainstem. The aquatic habitat in this tributary has recovered more than the mainstem and provides a vision of the potential quality of aquatic habitat that could be achieved in the rest of the watershed. This is partly attributed to fairly resistant geologic substrate (although the combination of slope, bedrock, and geomorphology make this drainage in the highest hazard class for management) and partly to the lower percentage of management disturbance in this subwatershed. Mosquito Creek had the highest reported juvenile salmonid density of any tributary in the SFTR basin. Recommendations and Opportunities Protect the integrity of the Mosquito Creek subwatershed such that the ecological function (cover, canopy, shade, woody debris recruitment) is not fundamentally altered. This would entail activities such as fire suppression and protection of Riparian Reserves. Where possible, assist in the recovery of disturbed riparian zones through riparian silvicultural treatments. Accelerating the development of riparian cover and canopy though riparian planting could help in maintaining the cool water temperatures that are vital to Grouse Creek and the South Fork Trinity River. However, riparian silvicultural restoration efforts are long-term strategies which will take decades for benefits to translate to better instream conditions.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-1 0 The area within Mosquito Creek having the greatest disturbed riparian zone is in the lower portion of the subwatershed on the private lands. The large conifer component is almost completely missing within the riparian zone. Finding: The riparian zone, particularly the old-growth component in certain reaches and tributaries, has been altered based on GIS analysis and visual qualitative assessments from historic aerial photos. This is a result of timber harvest and increased incidence of inner gorge streamside landsliding. With a decline of old-growth within riparian areas, key riparian processes and functions may be altered for decades (e.g., large woody debris recruitment, channel configuration and stability, routing of sediment, habitat complexity, nutrient cycling, shade, canopy, etc.). Recommendations and Opportunities The objectives for restoring degraded riparian areas are twofold: 1/ provide cover to help minimize surface erosion of bare ground (landslides and gullies), and 2/ restore the large conifer component (or other species) that will ensure long-term functionality of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Key components include large woody debris recruitment, shade, and microhabitats. Opportunities for riparian restoration include the following: planting and culturing native species of vegetation, thinning and interplanting existing stands of riparian vegetation, controlling grazing, correcting de-watered and gullied meadows, removing or upgrading inappropriate recreational developments, and removing or upgrading roads in riparian areas. Examples of riparian restoration also include the follow categories: * Planting streamside landslides * Planting on flood deposits * Planting or seeding disturbed areas in Riparian Reserves * Interplanting appropriate species to achieve vegetative diversity * Fencing sensitive riparian areas * Collecting local native seeds for out-year planting * Fuels reduction within riparian areas * Hardwood thinning to release conifers. Based on aerial photo analysis, field inventory, and experience with this type of work, the following priority of riparian restoration treatments are recommended in the Grouse Creek watershed: streamside landslide and flood terrace planting, interplanting appropriate species to achieve vegetative diversity, hardwood thinning to release conifers, and collection of local native seed for future planting.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 1 The first priority is to plant native species on streamside landslides and flood deposits that are contributing adverse amounts of sediment to streams. Within Grouse Creek, landslides are the major point source of sediment and influence the quality of downstream aquatic habitat of both Grouse Creek and the South Fork Trinity River. The 1991 Grouse Creek sediment budget revealed that sediment produced from streamside landsliding accounted for approximately 87 percent of the total sediment volume produced. A comprehensive aerial photo and field inventory of these slides has been conducted to determine suitability for planting. Some of these slides have been planted with native species either by hand or aerial seeding. Approximately 64 acres of landslides within Grouse Creek have been hand-planted and 100 acres aerially seeded. The treatments were monitored within the first two years after treatment and survival appeared good. Periodic monitoring is planned to determine if replanting is needed. Revegetation treatments are fairly inexpensive, but benefits may not be visible for decades given the time that it takes for effective vegetative cover to be established. Often revegetation sites are very harsh and re-establishing cover can be difficult. Treating landslide sites through vegetative re-establishment also only superficially treats a sedimentation problem when perhaps most of the erosional damage to downstream beneficial uses has already occurred. Despite these constraints, it is an easy and inexpensive treatment of surface erosion. Revegetation of bare areas within smaller tributary streams with willow or other riparian species is also an inexpensive silvicultural treatment that will yield relatively quick returns in increased cover complexity and shade. The second riparian zone restoration priority is the re-establishment of a functioning riparian corridor in terms of shade canopy and the potential for large woody debris recruitment. Appropriate silivicultural practices identified in the ROD include: planting unstable areas along streams and flood terraces, thinning densely-stocked young stands to encourage development of large conifers, releasing young conifers from overtopping hardwoods, and reforesting shrub and hardwood-dominated stands with conifers. These restoration options still need to be explored within the Grouse Creek watershed. Planting riparian corridors denuded of vegetation will be a long-term benefit for stream bank stability, shade cover, and large woody debris recruitment. Many tributaries within the watershed would benefit from replanting conifers that were lost during the 1964 flood. In many reaches, even-aged alders have suppressed the growth of larger alders and conifer succession; thinning some of these alder stands would provide a long-term benefit to riparian corridor function. Denuded reaches such as old flood deposits would benefit from additional planting. Such reaches could provide cover and future woody debris that would replace the woody debris that was washed away by past flooding events. Based upon the amount of old-growth remaining in the Interim Riparian Reserves, many tributaries and reaches within Grouse Creek may have low potential for large woody debris recruitment. Regaining the historic levels of shade, canopy, and cover, as well as developing the potential for large woody debris recruitment, will take many decades. Actions now to begin re-

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 2 establishing the riparian conifer component may speed up natural recovery processes. Further evaluation of restoration opportunities for increasing shade, cover, and large woody debris recruitment within riparian areas in the Grouse Creek watershed is needed. Possible areas to begin this inventory are in the White Oak, Lower Mid-Grouse, Cow Creek, and Bear Creek subwatersheds, as these were the areas having low components of old-growth within the Interim Riparian Reserves. These areas need to be field-verified for needs and opportunities. Partnerships with private landowners that would enable riparian enhancement would be needed to work on private lands. Vegetation Configuration and Conservation of Biological Diversity Key Questions: Does the amount and distribution of remaining late- successional coniferous vegetation in the watershed fall within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV - also known as Reference Variability) or within the Recommended Management Range (RMR) of the Central Zone as described in the Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) Land Management Plan? What is the contribution of the late-successional coniferous vegetation in the Grouse Creek watershed to the viability of late-successional dependent species (especially threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive species)? Does the configuration of the habitat provide adequate corridors for movement and dispersal and adequate interior habitat for the species? How do management activities influence plant and wildlife species and community diversity in the watershed? Findings: Grouse Creek is a significant contributor of old-growth and the large tree category to the central forest zone due to the moist conditions identified in the watershed. Forest Service lands are particularly important in their contribution due to the high frequency of old-growth. Private lands within the watershed had significantly higher amounts of cutover lands than the interweaved Forest Service lands. This interweaving of private and Forest Service lands is an obstacle to integrated land management due to different management objectives. All of the major vegetation types in the central zone are outside of the RMR for the old-growth seral stage. The tanoak series is outside of the HRV as well. This series is so far beyond the RMR that it will require assistance to move within the RMR over a reasonable period of time. Implementation of silvicultural prescriptions designed to accelerate stand development toward late-seral conditions (Jimerson and Jones, 1994) could move the tanoak series within the RMR sooner than would occur under natural succession. These prescriptions are designed to treat stands within the early- mature and mid-mature seral stages. In the central zone, these stages are at or

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-1 3 near the high end of the HRV range. The opportunity exists in Grouse Creek to help move the central zone back into balance by treating early-mature and mid-mature stands, including those within the LSR, with prescriptions designed to accelerate the development of late-seral characteristics without negatively affecting the balance of seral stages in the central zone. The ROD allows silvicultural activities in younger stands within the LSR if the objective is to accelerate development of late-successional stand conditions, while making the future stand less susceptible to fire and insect damage. Landscape composition and configuration data such as collected in Grouse Creek can be used to select stands for future treatment to meet management objectives. It can also be used as a monitoring tool to assess natural or human disturbance and to compare against ecological criteria designed to assess the significance of the disturbance, such as the Forest's Land Management Plan. The relatively large amount of late-seral coniferous habitat in the watershed probably makes a substantial contribution to the maintenance of local populations of many late-seral dependent wildlife species. Further, the Grouse Creek watershed has nearly twice the frequency (21 percent vs. 12 percent) of large (>200 acres) late-seral coniferous patches than the remainder of the central forest zone (Six Rivers National Forest). The Grouse Creek watershed also has a much greater amount of late-seral coniferous habitat in patches with a low perimeter to interior ratio (i.e., more forest interior and less edge). Larger patches with less forest edge would benefit those species which evolved in late-seral coniferous forests (e.g., spotted owls, fishers, several species of passerine birds) by lowering the incidence of interactions with predators adapted to open country and forest edge. The large clearcuts on private timber lands provide habitat (primarily in the shrub/forb seral stage) for these edge species, which reduces the suitability of the adjacent late-seral patches for late-seral dependent wildlife. The amount and distribution of late-seral coniferous habitat and habitat with high canopy closure in the watershed appears adequate for dispersal and movements of late-seral dependent species between watersheds to the north, south, and northeast, but not to the west or the southeast (because of highly- fragmented private timber land). The relative effectiveness of the habitat for dispersal and movements varies between species, based primarily on degree of mobility. Dispersal and movements of wildlife will probably be enhanced by the proposed road removals. Late-seral dependent wildlife species are expected to benefit from expected changes in vegetation over time (i.e., primarily an increase in the amount and distribution of late-seral coniferous habitat and large snags and logs). In addition, road, stream, and associated riparian vegetation restoration will undoubtedly benefit many riparian-dependent wildlife species (e.g., herpetofauna, some neotropical migrant birds).

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 4 The lack of road access to large portions of the watershed may provide a refuge for many wildlife species (e.g., deer, bears, grouse, quail, carnivorous mammals) from hunters and trappers. Recommendations Manipulation of early-seral coniferous stands to accelerate the development of late-seral characteristics (i.e., greater horizontal and vertical diversity, large trees, snags and logs, cooler microclimate), especially in those stands adjacent to existing late-seral stands, will increase the amount and patch size of late- seral coniferous vegetation. Besides the obvious increase in available late-seral habitat, it would also improve connectivity between late-seral patches, aiding in dispersal and movements between watersheds. Land exchange actions should be considered in areas identified as critical links between late-seral habitat islands. Even if relatively narrow strips of vegetation (e.g., a few hundred feet wide) were allowed to mature, the effectiveness of the area as a habitat connector would probably be increased. One such critical link occurs in the central portion of the watershed, where a large patch of early-seral vegetation (private lands) separates late-seral patches on all sides (public lands). Dispersal and movements of wildlife between the late- seral patches would be enhanced if the private patch was allowed to mature and clearcut harvesting was no longer practiced. A similar approach to the management of private lands on much of the western and southeastern portions of the watershed would also benefit animal dispersal and movements. The role of fire in the management of habitat for wildlife needs to be assessed by a multidisciplinary planning team. The removal of fire from the landscape may result in an overall homogenization of the vegetation (i.e., to fire-intolerant species) which reduces the diversity of habitat available to different wildlife species. Support for the two long-term wildlife studies presently being conducted in the watershed (the Six Rivers National Forest Fisher Study and the Willow Creek Spotted Owl Demographic Study) should be maintained. These studies are providing systematic data on many aspects of the biology of the two species and are also providing insight into the biology of several associated species (i.e., predators, prey, and competitors). Valuable habitat management recommendations are also provided by the data generated from these studies. In addition, the comparison of habitat use patterns between two late-seral dependent species from different vertebrate classes may provide insight into the management of late-seral habitat for all taxa.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 5 Recommendations for future wildlife suitable habitat analyses and management of the wildlife species and species assemblages used in the suitable habitat analyses Note: Refer to the SRNF Land Management Plan (1 995) for more information on management recommendations for the species and species assemblages below. Bald Eagle Sighting data should continue to be collected, however, given the lack of suitable foraging habitat within the watershed, surveys are probably not warranted. Black Bear Considerations for black bear in the Grouse Creek watershed should focus on the maintenance of mast (acorn) production and down woody material. Changes in the amount of oak woodland habitat, perhaps due to fire suppression, should be monitored. The numerous roads in the watershed may alter the daily movements of the bears and may increase mortality. However, there is a fair amount of suitable habitat that is roadless. Black Oak/White Oak Assemblage Controlled burns, as well as conifer removal, may be options for the future to maintain this habitat type within the watershed. Additional analysis is needed to determine what course of action would be appropriate. Additional data are needed on snags and basal area of hardwood stands. Black-Tailed Deer As with the black bear, the amount of oak woodland habitat should be monitored for changes, since mast production is also important for deer. Limited controlled burns should be considered to increase mast production in critical wintering areas. Bog/Seep/Talus assemblage, Del Norte salamander The Del Norte salamander is a federal candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. It has specific habitat requirements, low mobility, and restricted geographic range. Surveys (during the appropriate season) should be conducted prior to any project which could disturb suitable habitat (even if it may only change the microclimate within suitable habitat). Management guidelines also include no- cut buffers around known sites sufficient to assure microclimate stability. The ROD (USDI and USDA, 1994) requires a buffer of 100 feet or one site- potential tree height, with at least 40 percent canopy closure. Southern Seep (Torrent) Salamander Southern seep salamanders are very susceptible to water loss and have a narrow thermal-tolerance range, which limits their use of upland habitat and their dispersal capabilities (Welsh, 1 993). This species should be surveyed for if any reduction of Riparian Reserves or impacts to riparian areas is being considered. Data for the microhabitat variables mentioned above need to be collected. Down Woody Material Assemblage Data on slope and moisture gradient needs to be added to the database. Baseline surveys for all three species are

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 6 needed, at least prior to any ground-disturbing activities. The large limestone outcrops in the watershed should be surveyed during the summer months for arboreal salamanders. Possible relation- ships between vegetation series and seral stage and the amount of downed woody debris present should be investigated. It may be possible to use existing log plot data to see whether any clear relationships exist. Pacific Fisher The Six Rivers National Forest Fisher Study should continue as it is providing valuable data on habitat use patterns of the Pacific fisher. Removal of late-seral habitat and overstory canopy cover within fisher home ranges could negatively affect the fisher. Also, any carnivore trapping in the area could incidentally capture and injure or kill the few fishers which occupy the watershed. Project level work should consider the preliminary results of the Fisher Study (i.e., habitat use) prior to any ground-disturbing activity. Northern Goshawk Goshawks are a Forest Service sensitive species, and are known to exist and reproduce within the watershed; therefore, surveys to regional protocol should be done prior to any management activity which may alter suitable goshawk habitat. The SRNF Land Management Plan goshawk standards and guidelines include the protection of habitat around each active nest and restricted management activities within a post-fledgling family area. In 1995, SRNF wildlife biologists plan to visit each known goshawk territory within the Klamath Province (within SRNF) and will sample the vegetation around each active nest site. The Grouse Creek watershed will be included in this study as it makes up the southern boundary of the province. Great Gray Owl Although the current information does not indicate the need for surveys for this Forest Service sensitive species, additional data on meadow habitat components above 4,600 feet would be helpful. Any management activities that would affect meadows above 4,600 feet or surrounding late- seral, mixed-conifer or true fir forests should consider the habitat needs of the great gray owl. Marbled Murrelet To refine estimates of suitable marbled murrelet habitat (as per the model), information on such variables as nesting platforms (branch size) per tree, nesting platform density, moss cover, mistletoe, and canopy layers is needed. The SRNF recently (mid-1 994) began a marbled murrelet range and distribution study within suitable habitat between about 25 and 50 miles of the coast (within the North Coast Province). However, the Grouse Creek watershed forms the southern boundary of the adjacent Klamath Province and will not be included in the study. Marsh/Lake/Pond Assemblage Additional data on marshes, ponds, and lakes in the watershed need to be collected. Refer to the Riparian and Aquatic section of this document for management recommendations for these species. American Marten The track plate surveys in the high elevation true fir zone should be continued to determine presence/absence. Any modification of the small amounts of true fir habitat within the watershed may effect its ability to provide movement corridors or foraging habitat for marten.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 6-1 7 nest and restricted management activities within a post-fledgling family area. In 1995, SRNF wildlife biologists plan to visit each known goshawk territory within the Klamath Province (within SRNF) and will sample the vegetation around each active nest site. The Grouse Creek watershed will be included in this study as it makes up the southern boundary of the province. Great Gray Owl Although the current information does not indicate the need for surveys for this Forest Service sensitive species, additional data on meadow habitat components above 4,600 feet would be helpful. Any management activities that would affect meadows above 4,600 feet or surrounding late- seral, mixed-conifer or true fir forests should consider the habitat needs of the great gray owl. Marbled Murrelet To refine estimates of suitable marbled murrelet habitat (as per the model), information on such variables as nesting platforms (branch size) per tree, nesting platform density, moss cover, mistletoe, and canopy layers is needed. The SRNF recently (mid-i 994) began a marbled murrelet range and distribution study within suitable habitat between about 25 and 50 miles of the coast (within the North Coast Province). However, the Grouse Creek watershed forms the southern boundary of the adjacent Klamath Province and will not be included in the study. Marsh/Lake/Pond Assemblage Additional data on marshes, ponds, and lakes in the watershed need to be collected. Refer to the Riparian and Aquatic section of this document for management recommendations for these species. American Marten The track plate surveys in the high elevation true fir zone should be continued to determine presence/absence. Any modification of the small amounts of true fir habitat within the watershed may effect its ability to provide movement corridors or foraging habitat for marten. Peregrine Falcon Sighting data should continue to be collected, however, given the probable lack of suitable nest sites (excepting, possibly, the large limestone outcrop near Wise Station) within the watershed, intensive surveys may be not warranted. Pileated Woodpecker It is important that an adequate number of snags and down woody material in the appropriate size classes and densities, remain in foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat after any management activity. Also, a closed canopy (>60 percent) needs to be maintained within any nesting zone. Results of a recent pileated woodpecker habitat-use study (Christgau, 1994) on the SRNF should be incorporated into the existing habitat suitability model. Northwestern Pond Turtle This species is a federal candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Aquatic habitat data need to be collected in order to properly run the model. Coordination with ongoing fishery surveys could be helpful for this data collection. Surveys for habitat or individuals should be done before any alteration of Riparian Reserves or wetland buffers is considered.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-1 8 Northern Red-Legged Frog No alteration of Riparian Reserves, or impact to riparian areas, should occur without first surveying for red-legged frogs. Data on riparian and emergent vegetation data and on the other aquatic habitat variables listed above need to be collected. River/Stream/Creek Assemblage Data on riparian vegetation, water temperature, and pools need to be collected. Riparian Reserves will undoubtedly maintain or improve stream habitat for the species in this assemblage. Snag Assemblage The relationship between vegetation series and seral stage and the quality and quantity of snags present must be investigated in order to better estimate the amount of habitat which meets the minimum requirements for snag-dependent species. Northern Spotted Owl Any activities within the watershed that could impact the northern spotted owl will have to conform to the Interagency Consultation Guidelines, developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Tailed Frog This species has a narrow range of thermal-tolerance, and cannot tolerate water temperatures above 18-23° Celsius (depending on life stage), and is particularly sensitive to siltation. Tailed frogs are adversely affected by any management activity that increases water temperature, streambed scour, siltation, and loss of riparian vegetation (Hawkins et. al., 1988; Bury et. al., 1991; Welsh and Ollivier, 1992). The tailed frog may be a good "indicator species" for healthy riparian systems, and should be surveyed for if any reduction of Riparian Reserves or alteration of riparian areas is being considered. Microhabitat data (riffle habitat, substrate diameter, percent course and fine sediments, water velocity, water temperature, and amount of nonfilamentous algae) need to be collected. Willow Flycatcher Before any management activity within a riparian area, riparian vegetation should be surveyed to determine whether it is suitable for willow flycatchers. If suitable habitat is found, surveys for this Forest Service sensitive species should be conducted during the breeding season. In general, there is a lack of available data on riparian vegetation that needs to be addressed before future watershed analyses. Fuel Loading and Fire Risk Key Question: What is the potential for catastrophic fire, and can this be reduced by management treatments? Finding: Based on preliminary analysis, the fuels situation in the Grouse Creek watershed presents the possibility of high-to-extreme fire behavior, especially under typical late summer conditions. Ladder fuels frequently exist, creating the potential for crown fires and resulting tree mortality and habitat destruction. Devastating wildfires could be one of the major risks to habitat for late-successional forest associated species in the LSR and to the riparian ecosystem, either through the removal of overstory vegetation (and the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 6-1 9 resulting increase in water temperature) or through increased sediment from resulting erosion. In particular, a catastrophic fire in Mosquito Creek could mean a loss of cool water for the South Fork Trinity River and a loss of terrestrial habitats in the LSR. The Grouse Creek drainage has an unusual weather pattern. The positioning of Grouse and Mosquito Creeks prevents the exposure to the up-canyon winds normally experienced along the South Fork Trinity River. The open, south slopes with grass and areas of rock and shale slopes seem to intensify the ground-heating and air temperatures of the drainage. This weather condition, combined with the fuel condition, increases the possibility of severe fire behavior, especially in the upslope, drier positions of the watershed. Opportunity Vegetative management and/or natural fuels reduction needs to be considered throughout the watershed, taking into consideration potential risk and hazard. Removing ladder fuels, through thinning, mechanical treatment, or understory burning, could reduce the potential for crown fires. Strategically placed shaded fuelbreaks could also be used to anchor underburning and fire suppression efforts. The AMA could be used to explore alternative fuel treatment methods and strategies that could result in long-term ecological benefits to the ecosystem. Finding: The extensive amounts of private land in this watershed also presents an unusual fire situation. According to Keter (1995), there was a major logging boom in this area starting in the early 1950s. A good percentage of these logged areas had little or no fuel treatment. Since much of this logging took place in the late 1970s or early 1980s, most of the fine fuels have naturally broken down. However, the larger fuels still exist, presenting possible suppression problems and resource damage. Also, the growing number of private landowners in the Grouse Creek area could result in increased fire starts, either intentional or accidental. Given a fire start on private land, Plates 4.8 and 4.9 show that a large part of the private land in the watershed has the potential for high and extreme fire behavior under late summer weather conditions. Also, development of private lands directly west of the Grouse Creek watershed has increased the fire risk. Opportunity Cooperative fuels treatment, involving private landowners and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, should be investigated in areas of potentially high hazard and risk. Prevention efforts could also be increased in these areas. To deal with the urban intermix to the west of the watershed, a fuelbreak could provide defensible locations to stop wildfires from entering the National Forest from fire starts on private lands, and reduce the threat to private lands from fires originating on National Forest lands. This fuelbreak could reduce the need to construct wide dozer firelines typically utilized for suppressing large fires. This could also reduce potential impacts to resources from heavy equipment and

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-20 the need for intensive rehabilitation efforts. Fuelbreak construction would entail manipulation of live vegetation by the thinning of young conifers, limbing larger trees and cutting brush. Heavy fuel concentrations could be hand-piled and lighter fuels could be understory burned. Finding: Travel times by the Lower Trinity Ranger District's initial attack forces to the drainage are quite lengthy, with a typical arrival time to Grouse Mountain of 30 to 40 minutes. Roads to the area are steep and windy which could further increase arrival times. Private lands to the south and southeast of Grouse Mountain have numerous roads associated with past logging operations. But these roads have had little or no maintenance, resulting in extremely rutted and impassable roads for initial attack fire equipment. If a wildfire occurs on private land within the watershed, initial attack resources could become totally involved with structure protection, rather than wildland protection. A major wildfire that involves the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) powerline could result in the shutdown of power to the Humboldt Bay Area. Opportunity Due to road conditions, travel times, scattered home sites, and the area's high potential for extreme fire behavior, some alternative suppression strategies need to be considered. These could include: 1) using an automatic dispatch of air attack for wildfires occurring on days with a specified fire danger rating; 2) specifying the Kneeland Helicopter with crew as an automatic dispatch for wildfires occurring on days with a specified fire danger rating; 3) considering smokejumpers on automatic dispatch for areas with little or no vehicle accessibility; and, 4) using confine/contain strategies in conjunction with Prescribed Natural Fires (especially with early season wildfires or fires with low intensities). These alternative suppression strategies are currently being analyzed and developed as part of the Forest's Fire Management Action Plan. This document will include area- specific and landscape-level analysis, to determine the possible effects on adjoining wildlands and other suppression agencies (especially CDF). Finding: Exotic plants can displace native plants and alter or transform their habitat. Many aggressive exotic species are opportunistic invaders of openings, including those caused by fire or mechanical soil disturbance. When fires or machinery used in burning create openings, they can provide opportunities for the spread of exotic plant species from external seed sources or from a latent on-site seed bank. Exotic grass species which are fire-conducting have been known to alter fire regimes by increasing fire frequency and, consequently, the composition of plant and animal communities adapted to less frequent fires.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 6-21 Opportunity

Pre-burn planning in the Grouse Creek watershed should assess the potential for the spread of Yellow Star Thistle and Scotch Broom from off-site and on-site sources. Repetitive burning may eliminate these species, but at the same time the repetitive burning might also remove preferable plant species from the seed bank. The AMA could provide the opportunity for testing the effects of different burn prescriptions on the encouragement of natives and/or the removal of exotics.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-22 Public Use Values Road Maintenance Finding: The Forest Service no longer has the capability to maintain all roads in the watershed to a standard that will allow for safe public use. Recommendations and Opportunities Reduce the number of roads to be maintained.ln collaboration with private property owners and other key interested groups identify Level I & 11roads, non-system roads, and possibly private roads that could be decommissioned. Meet individually with private landowners to develop challenge cost share, stewardship, or other cooperative road maintenance agreements for roads used to access private property. Pursue agreements with local communities and user groups to share road maintenance responsibilities. Grouse Creek Access and Travel Management Strategy (Note: This is included here because it was developed during the watershed analysis process and is relevant to land management in the watershed). Goals To have a manageable and functional road system consistent with maintaining watershed/ecosystem health. Reduce the Grouse Creek watershed road infrastructure by 15 to 30 miles within the next 5 to 10 years. Objectives * Reduce road-related erosion through the removal of active sources as well as potentially risky sources given large storm events; * Reduce un-needed road miles to allow for future flexibility in transportation system development (i.e., future road building); and, * Reduce road maintenance needs and costs. Considerations for Prioritization of Upgrading and Decommissioning Roads: Is there a large existing or potential risk to resources (High, Medium, Low)? Why? What are the indicators? What are the road maintenance needs and costs (H,M,L)? Is access needed for administrative purposes (fire, wildlife, law enforcement, silviculture), recreation, commercial-hauling, or for private access? If needed, for how long? When can it be decommissioned?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-23 Listed below are criteria for evaluating roads for either decommissioning or upgrading: Abandoned roads (not used or maintained): These are good candidates for decommissioning, particularly if there are existing or potential risks for resource damage; especially if there are culverts on the road. Non-system roads (used but not maintained): These are good candidate for upgrading if for Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. If not used by OHVs, they are good candidates for decommissioning, particularly if there are existing or potential risks for resource damage. Maintenance Level 1 roads (presently closed): These are good candidates for decommissioning, particularly if culverts are present. Degrees of decommissioning should be explored based on resource risk. Options can range from full outsloping to minor culvert pulling. Maintenance Level 1 roads (presently open): If level 1 is needed, then these are good candidates for upgrading to level 2. If not needed, possible candidates for decommissioning. Level 2 through level 5: These roads should all be examined to determine if they are needed and if so, if they need to be upgraded for stormproofing. Opportunities and Strategies to Pursue * Create a forum for open dialogue between the Forest Service and the public regarding future transportation system within Grouse Creek. * Foster cooperative agreements between Forest Service and private landowners that: * encourages closing private roads in exchange for building new Forest Service roads; and, * encourages closing private roads in exchange for keeping un-needed Forest Service roads open for private landowner access. * Encourage cost-share agreements between landowners/user groups who wish to utilize un-needed Forest Service roads as opposed to closing the roads. Strategies for Reducing Maintenance Needs and Costs * Reduce road miles maintained through decommissioning * Leave low-risk roads (no culverts or inboard ditches) in a maintenance- free configuration (can be left open but will not be maintained and will be allowed to "brush-in" and close naturally) * Remove shallow road crossings and stream crossings yet maintain access

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-24 * Form cost-share partnerships with landowners using Forest Service roads for private access * Place selected maintenance level 2 roads in a level 1 maintenance status(Note: Some site-specific suggestions for a watershed restoration considerations and road-specific decommissioning candidates for Grouse Creek are included in the "Key Watershed" discussion found on page six.) Finding: The use of Routes 1 and 6 for scenic viewing and as an alternate route to 299 for the communities of Hyampom and Mad River will increase. These small communities will continue to see their economic future tied to the tourist industry. High-standard access to these communities will continue to be important to the development of eco-tourism. Recommendations and Opportunities Since road maintenance funds are limited, consider decreasing the number of interior roads in order to provide more services to the arterial routes. There is also a need to develop a road management plan for the entire Forest that considers infrastructure needs to support local community economic diversification. Recognize the ongoing efforts and work with the local communities to develop a strategic plan for rural development. Finding: Travel management strategies for National Forest roads could have an effect on private landowners. They are concerned that closing of National Forest roads will eliminate access to their property and may increase trespassing and vandalism by other forest users. Recommendations and Opportunities Due to the high proportion of private land and the wide variety of user expectations, a collaborative approach to travel management is needed. The Forest Service must work with the private landowners to develop a travel management strategy that considers their needs and concerns. During public contact, inform public users of the presence of private property and promote the good neighbor ethic. Finding: Access into the interior of the watershed will continue to be an issue and a source of increasing conflict. Recommendations and Opportunities In collaboration with PG&E and public users, determine the appropriateness of gates restricting access into the interior of the watershed. Consider the needs of both groups when making the decision. Develop a strategy that incorporates PG&E as a partner to communicate the decision rationale to interested publics. If public access is warranted, pursue right-of-way across private lands in the interior of the watershed.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-2S OHV Management Finding: OHV users will continue to use both designated and un-designated loop trails that cross private property. The potential exists for increasing conflicts with private property owners and environmental damage. Recommendations and Opportunities Work collaboratively with OHV users and private landowners to develop an OHV management strategy for the watershed and surrounding area. Properly sign and develop accurate maps for the designated routes. When decommissioning roads, consider low-cost crossings which would facilitate OHV use. Pursue "Adopt-a- Road" cooperative agreements with OHV groups where they would champion road maintenance on both public and private lands. AMA Expectations Key Question: What is the potential of Grouse Creek to meet some of the expectations and opportunities for the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area? Finding: Grouse Creek does have the potential to help meet the AMA objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. Opportunities Timber Harvest Vegetation management within regenerated stands on National Forest lands has been limited. It was assumed that, when these plantations were established, a series of release and pre-commercial thinning treatments would occur to accelerate conifer growth and maintain full conifer stocking. Although the objective for these stands is no longer timber management, stand development is still greatly reduced by excessive numbers of conifers and hardwoods competing for water, nutrients, and sunlight. The opportunity exists within this watershed to thin all or portions of these stands. Within the Late-successional Reserve, silvicultural treatment of these early- seral stands could help to accelerate the development of habitat characteristics desirable for late-successional wildlife species. Without treatment, development of larger overstory trees will take longer, and where conifer numbers are high, understory hardwoods will eventually be lost from competition by conifers. In stands that have been previously pre-commercially thinned, additional thinning to create openings could help to reduce the uniformity of the current stand and accelerate hardwood development. Pole stands in the tanoak series are far in excess of the Recommended Management Range. Thinning these stands would help accelerate development into the early- mature seral stage. Estimates of timber volume currently existing in Grouse Creek watershed were calculated by stratifying stands by vegetation type, size class, and canopy cover. These strata were grouped into similar timber types and timber volumes calculated through compartment inventory analysis (CIA) and the Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) timber inventory. Timber volumes calculated for

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 6-26 individual strata on public lands were applied to similar strata on private lands. The resulting estimated timber volumes are very rough estimates only. An estimated 700 to 1,000 MMBF of timber remains in the Grouse Creek watershed. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of this volume is on National Forest lands, with the vast majority within the Late-Successional Reserve. Timber management is not an objective within the LSR. Harvest activities must benefit late-successional species. Estimated timber volume outside of the LSR is between 100 and 200 MMBF. However, the amount actually available for harvest is restricted by Standards and Guidelines from the ROD and the Forest LMP. On Forest Service lands, the vast majority of timber is within the Late- successional Reserve. Outside the LSR, there is an estimated 100 to 200 MMBF of standing timber. An estimated 60 percent of this volume is within Interim Riparian Reserves. If timber harvest occurs outside of the Riparian Reserves and is restricted to thinning early-mature and mid-mature stands, an estimated one to four MMBF could be available for harvest. Thinning some of the early- and mid-mature (stands up to 140 years of age), if conducted using silvicultural techniques that would benefit the structure and resilience of stands within the LSR, could yield an estimated 5 to 13 MMBF of timber. These volumes are rough estimates only. Potential harvest stands in and outside the LSR were not confirmed on vegetation maps or on the ground. These estimates assume that harvest occurs outside of Riparian Reserves and potential harvest stands available for harvest are accessible. Employment All ecosystem management projects proposed for the watershed including restoration, wildlife improvement, fuel treatment, vegetation management, and research have the potential to provide local jobs. Consideration of the opportunity for providing local jobs should be included as a design criteria for all projects. Research Grouse Creek provides some notable research opportunities within the context of the Hayfork AMA. Attributes of the watershed that may make it suitable for experimental sites include the high biodiversity, large blocks of late seral-stage vegetation, a lack of any human settlement in most parts of the watershed, long-term spotted owl demographic data, and relatively large amounts and high quality fisheries and watershed condition data; as well, there is relatively advanced GIS preparation. There may be good research opportunities in the area of silvicultural treatment to better meet the goals and objectives of the AMA, LSR, cultural landscapes, and spotted owl demographic study area, and that could support local economic opportunities. Research that investigates how modern silvicultural practices affect key wildlife species such as the spotted owl, and also if and how silvicultural treatments can increase the value of these lands for wildlife habitat while producing timber would address the most germane adaptive management needs in this area. Partnerships There are many opportunities to develop effective partnerships. Local communities have intense interest in improvement of water quality and enhancement of the fisheries resource. The Sierra Club and other organizations are interested in wildlife habitat improvement and the

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-27 development of wildlife corridors. The opportunity exists to develop cooperative partnerships for adaptive management projects involving these resources with local communities, researchers, and interest groups. Due to the large number of private landowners in the watershed, numerous opportunities exist for a cooperative approach to land management. There is the need and opportunity to develop cooperative fuel treatment agreements and projects with CDF, PG&E, and adjacent landowners.. Fuel Treatment There is the need and opportunity to develop cooperative fuel treatment agreements and projects with CDF, PG&E, and adjacent landowners. The Forest Service may need to start the collaborative process in order to bring all appropriate parties together. Viewshed Those out for a Sunday drive in the family sedan or those seeking an OHV experience expressed that they sought such activities for the scenic beauty of this area: the viewsheds from it. The viewsheds they describe are in the upper portions of the watershed. Grouse Mountain was mentioned consistently as a specific spot from where one could see the whole country. Suggestions were made that the Forest Service could expand upon the Grouse Mountain view, making it more accessible by sedan as well as providing some interpretive signing at that point. Tourism Opportunities exist to support the local communities in the development of an eco-tourism industry. What these communities have to offer is fishing and scenic beauty. Restoration activities will result in improved fisheries habitat conditions in Grouse Creek and the South Fork Trinity River. Current users comment on the spectacular views available from the upper portions of the watershed, particularly from Grouse Mountain. The potential exists to develop a destination viewpoint at Grouse Mountain. This would require road upgrading to allow access by a family sedan and installation of interpretive signing.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-28 Considerations for the Design of Riparian Reserves Appropriate Riparian Reserves cannot be delineated at a watershed scale for Grouse Creek because site-scale analysis and information about proposed actions must be considered in almost any design. Due to large spatial variability and the wide range of possible land treatments, many crucial conditions and functions can only be broadly generalized or guessed at for areas where on-site observations have not been made. Although some people might expect that modification to Interim Riparian Reserves will come from watershed analysis, their appropriate design requires detailed on-site investigation and knowledge of conditions which vary greatly along the channel and throughout the watershed. In addition, the ROD specifies that Interim Riparian Reserves will exist only until both watershed analysis and site assessment are completed and a more appropriate Riparian Reserve can be designed to fit the ecological setting and proposed land management treatment. The considerations for designing Riparian Reserves for the Grouse Creek watershed will be discussed below. In addition, the ecological functions that Riparian Reserves are intended to protect, as specified in the ROD, will be highlighted. Lastly, management considerations for delineation of Riparian Reserves will be recommended. Interim Riparian Reserves Plate 6.3 shows the approximate extent of Interim Riparian Reserves for the Grouse Creek watershed. Two attributes determined these Reserves: the height of site-potential trees, and unstable and potentially unstable lands (See Plate 6.2). Interim Riparian Reserves encompass a substantial part of the Grouse Creek watershed: 58 percent of the entire land base (including private lands) and 61 percent of the National Forest land base (or 13,350 out of 21,938 acres of National Forest lands). Unstable or potentially unstable lands account for 28 percent of the Reserve acreage, the site-potential tree height accounts for 76 percent of the acreage (10,201 acres), or 47 percent of the National Forest land base. These delineations are approximate for two important reasons: 1) Streams were delineated from topographic maps and may not be an accurate representation of all stream channels. Field experience suggests that the actual extent of streams within the watershed is probably greater. However, although the stream network may be more extensive, Interim Riparian Reserve widths for intermittent or ephemeral streams for some site locations may exceed the actual aquatic or riparian protection needed. For example, small streams often do not have riparian plant communities that would support special populations required by some animals, and erosion and sediment control often need only 25 or 50 feet of "buffer" to protect local channel conditions and prevent damage that could be transmitted downstream to important aquatic habitats.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 7995 Page 6-29 2) Lands were identified as unstable or potentially unstable on the basis of aerial photo interpretation that was not extensively field-checked and may be somewhat inaccurate. Slope stability needs to be determined by a combination of aerial photo interpretation and field examination; this could result in fairly different delineations of unstable lands from those shown in Plate 6.2. Unstable and potentially unstable lands are a landscape element of interest to many parts of the Grouse Creek watershed analysis. Part of the current working definition in the Interim Watershed Analysis Handbook relates to evidence of slope movement in the past 400 years, something that can only be determined on-site, not from reconnaissance data. It is also generally difficult, if not impossible, to determine the exact causes of a particular landslide; generally it can only be surmised what the contributing factors were. Thus, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to predict specifically and reliably where landslides will occur (i.e., potentially unstable areas). Only a small fraction of any landscape is involved in active or recent instability at any one time. Therefore, recurrence interval within a whole landscape is not meaningful. It can become meaningful if applied to stratifications within the landscape, such as valley inner gorge, intermediate hillslope, older landslide terrain, and headwall basins, because different parts of the landscape have very different relative susceptibilities to landsliding over long time frames. However, recurrence interval data of this kind is presently not available, therefore, recurrence intervals cannot be projected. In a tectonically active landscape like northwest California, different parts of the landscape are evolving from relatively stable to relatively unstable condition at various rates, depending on the nature of the slope, its proximity to downcutting streams or scarps, competence of the substrate, groundwater conditions, and so on. All slopes are "potentially unstable" in some sense, given sufficient time, but for practical purposes, "unstable lands" are those that provide evidence of current or fairly recent ongoing slope failure. "Potentially unstable lands" do not provide such evidence, but exhibit characteristics that indicate susceptibility to landslide processes in the future which could be aggravated by human disturbance. Evidence of movement in past 400 years (or whatever) is not considered a good criterion for evaluating landslide potential. The most reliable information we have for delineating unstable and potentially unstable lands is the existing historic landslide data. In most cases, it is not really known what the cause(s) was/were, except that it was a case of driving forces exceeding resisting forces. A hunch is that, in most cases, the immediate cause was a sudden or progressive reduction in resisting forces (removal of lateral support, increased pore pressure that reduced effective strength, etc.) rather than some imposed load.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-30 In terim Riparian Reserves Grouse Creek Watershed USDA / :orest Service Six Rivers National Forest Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center

Legend

Tree Height Zone

I -- 14 I I 7-- - - High Landslide Hazard Extreme Landslide Hazard

Administrative Boundaries Grouse Creek Watershed Boundary

1i i

Page 6-31 Management Considerations in Delineating Riparian Reserves The most important factor in designing Riparian Reserves is the deployment of an interdisciplinary team to review the site in the field with the proposed management in mind. The team should be composed of well-qualified people with knowledge appropriate to the issues expected for the area. A reasonable consensus among an ID team in the field is the best practical approach to achieving ecologically and geomorphically appropriate Riparian Reserve design. The appropriateness of a particular design cannot be "proven" and documentation of reasoning can only be an incomplete description of the thought process of the group. Yet it is the deliberations of the ID team that will integrate the necessary considerations, build a picture of sensitivities and risks, and critically evaluate options. The considerations that should go into any recommendation for Riparian Reserves are described below. Wildlife Riparian Reserves are expected to enhance the conservation of riparian species other than fish, including rare species of plants and animals, particularly amphibians, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, fungi, arthropods, and vascular plants. Vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions in riparian areas provide distinct microclimates, plant community structure and diversity, and important habitat components which are crucial to the survival of some species. Wildlife use of riparian zones is high because they provide more ecological niches than any other type of habitat. Habitat characteristics that are created by or depend of surface or near-surface water must exist for these special wildlife habitats to exist. Simply a declivity in the landscape, or a place where sediment movement has occurred to create a recognizable channel does not necessarily constitute a "riparian" habitat. Microhabitats Habitats that are localized to riparian areas depend upon the presence of surface or near-surface water. The combination of water and the vegetation it supports, creates microhabitats which are unique to seasonally or perennially wet locations. Some springs found in Grouse Creek are derived from deep groundwater and have nearly constant temperature. Places with stable temperature throughout the year are rare in temperate forest environments and provide special habitats. Riparian Reserves should be wide enough to maintain low summer surface and ground water temperatures, high water clarity year-round, and provide a stable streamside microclimate (Chen et. al., 1993). Extending some Riparian Reserves over intervening ridges will provide habitat for gene flow among large basins, such as the Mad and Trinity Rivers (Craig and Carlson, 1 993). Large Wood Recruitment Terrain in which landslides are likely to occur over decades or centuries have been included in Riparian Reserves as "unstable and potentially unstable lands." Sources of large pieces of wood on such lands should be retained if it appears that they are likely to accompany landslide debris into fish-bearing streams. If these lands are included in Riparian Reserves, the rate of large wood input from landslide processes should not be substantially changed as adjoining lands are managed for timber.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-32 Soil Erosion Erosion rates are likely to remain at natural or background levels if soils are not compacted or excavated and if soil cover remains mostly in place. Streamside slopes should be carefully evaluated for erodibility. Localized occurrences of mass instability, which undoubtedly exist, can in many cases only be detected by on-site evaluations. In general, soils derived from finer-grained parent material such as phyllite or schist are more erodible than those derived from Franciscan sandstone or other relatively competent rock types, but local variation makes generalizations of this type of little utility. Experience suggests that streamside buffers of 50-1 00 feet slope distance (for typical slopes of 50-70 percent) are generally adequate in Grouse Creek to prevent the introduction of eroded sediment into the stream system if ground disturbance is prevented or restricted to only small patches of bare ground with no soil excavation or compaction. Some streams are bordered by inner gorge slopes that are subject to shallow mass movements, as well as accelerated erosional processes due to very steep slopes and emergent groundwater. For these reasons, the inner gorge and some adjoining ground (to be determined on-site) should remain completely undisturbed. Streambed and Bank Erosion The streambed and banks of some channels are controlled or stabilized by a combination of large woody debris, roots and bedrock. It is very important to preserve these components. Where large woody debris provides either bed or bank stability, the source of large wood should be preserved. Where roots play a substantial role, the plants attached to the roots should be retained. Root extent varies by species and is difficult to ascertain. Tree roots typically extend as far as the crown spread, which can be as much as 25 feet for large trees. Therefore, retaining trees within 25 feet of root-controlled channels is usually adequate, subject to site-specific analysis. A few channels are controlled strictly by bedrock on both bed and banks. Vegetation is not important for the control of bed and bank erosion in these channels. Streams in schist or phyllite terrains are generally more unstable and more commonly depend on roots and large wood for stability than those in competent terrain. Therefore, they will probably require wider Riparian Reserves and tolerate less vegetation removal than channels in more competent terrain. Intermittent Streams Intermittent and ephemeral streams having short flow duration and little or no riparian vegetation are ecologically distinct from streams and riparian areas downstream; they support only a subset of the functions important for larger streams. These headwater streams are often numerous and in areas proposed for timber harvest and road construction. Except where springs and wet areas occur, intermittent and ephemeral streams frequently do not support true "riparian areas" with dependent aquatic or riparian biota. This is because they do not provide flow of sufficient duration to have riparian-dependent vegetation, and thus may not create habitat for riparian animals. However, our knowledge of habitats for herpetofauna, soil arthropods, and certain types of insects is very limited and it is conceivable that such organisms specialize in very short-flow duration intermittent stream habitats. If so, the immediate area of intermittent flow can be protected with a

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-33 small, exclusionary buffer (10-20 feet in most cases) where any direct disturbance would be prevented. Since intermittent or ephemeral streams are connected with downstream habitats, they can transmit damage downstream during heavy winter rainfall and spring snowmelt. These channels may have value as travel corridors for some fauna, and might also provide subtle microclimatic differences on the local hillslope. Except where faunal travel corridors are desired, protection may need focus only on slope and channel stability and maintaining natural or background erosion and sediment delivery rates. It is not feasible to define the locations and extent of these types of streams at the watershed scale. We think that the uppermost 500 to 3000 feet of the stream channel network are in this category, except where springs and wet areas occur. Some of these streams are located on unstable lands. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy requires that the instability of such areas not be exacerbated, and this consideration will control the width of the Riparian Reserve. To prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation that could damage downstream habitats, experience has shown that the width of an area where ground disturbance and tree removal must be limited or avoided, varies from zero to about 100 feet, depending on considerations of landslide potential. Evaluations of necessary buffers must be made on the ground because the conditions and resource risks vary greatly. Table 6.1 shows riparian attributes to consider in site-scale design of Riparian Reserves. The following is a short list of things to consider when evaluating streamside and riparian areas on-site at the project planning scale: * Is the channel pristine? If it appears pristine, are there similar channels in the area that have been subjected to management? Can you discern effects of management and their causes? * Is there evidence of management-related impacts? What appears to have caused the impacts? Do any previous evaluations or monitoring exist? * How steep are the sideslopes? Is there an inner gorge or active mass wasting of the channel margin? What landform(s) extend further upslope (i.e., the toe zone of an old landslide)? Do the slopes appear unstable? If so, what are the indicators? What components of the vegetation (e.g., roots, litterfall, evapotranspiration) contribute to these functions, and how important is each? How might vegetation removal influence these functions? For how long? * Do the sideslopes contribute LWD to the channel? Does this LWD function to stabilize the channel or route sediment? Can this LWD be transported downstream? * Is the channel actively eroding? Are the banks unstable? Does it appear that increased peakflows could lead to increased bed and bank erosion?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-34 * What controls the downcutting and lateral cutting of the channel: wood, roots, rock, or some combination? * What are the local habitat values? What attributes, functions, and processes create and maintain them? Are these habitats unique to the stream and streamside areas? To springs or wet areas? To the organisms that rely on these habitats require connectivity to other habitats? What constitutes connectivity? * What kind of management is proposed? What kinds of effects can occur from this, both short-term and long-term? Are these effects likely here? What kind of controls can be placed to limit or prevent the effects? Are such controls practical and reliable (i.e., have they been consistently implemented and effective in similar situations?) * Is proposed management compatible with Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves? If not, how close can the activity come to the Riparian Reserve and still protect the values in the Riparian Reserve? How detailed a prescription is needed, given the proposed management and variability in important site characteristics? For example, can protections be tailored for each 1 00 feet of streamside? Each acre? Each 10 acres?

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-35 T1'a ble (-l. Grouse Cr cek Watce-slied Aialysis: lryjotlhetic:al alit il bltes lo cut sidel ill 1lie sitc-sclle dcsigll of r iparl inll I eserves.

Tire following Riparian Reserve Attributes are charaelrislics (properties) t1at nre nr function (Icsill) of wralcishied initeraclions Tlese atIlibuies are affected by lie identified processes. Features (clures) to the attributes are preserted lieie to provide identificalion and insight to hbe rlunclionsaud plrocesses All attributes are influenced by spatial andl temporal interrelbtiorrshlips, as well as tIre tinrirrg, fleiruenicy, dulnltiorr llnI irricirsity of iirfl)eraIHNl processes. Influential distiibances lo the Pilot Creek watersihed include fire, droughit, flood, earrliqrrakes, intenrse piecipilatiuir, wind slolris, anid Ilnaiageinieilt activities (including historic rrrariagerilerit) Whether a process Is direel, indirect or cuirilaiative plays a significanit role i tihe overall circigerit piopeilies ofa ji ipadairreselve

1A ronrtionu Or: I Pi-rner's' I lientirres (Idemntiflabrle In Ille field) Stream Chiannrielt v f . . . . . discharge (surrininer low flow, winter base flow, bankfull, 50 year peak Morphology floweosioi/rlrositiorifow) quantity an(i character of tre seilirriert transport delivery/trimrspoil/storage of large woody debris widtb charamer/corniposltionr of clisiret bredt,bank rlrer i:ils. floortirg depth ditirillring channel conriol (nick points, ripariart vegetation, obstmuctions) lanrlstirliiig/hillslope processes sedrirerrt load sedimeirt size water surrfrce slope roughiiress of carnrel materials root pennealiori of charrirel beil and banks Crannirel stability geology stormi event (fre(lireicy and miagrnitudle) discharge upslope/upstreaim land use activities sediireirt slorageltranIsport channel gradient vegetation rylriologic characteristics (iinterceltioir, Irarticle size (generally, stability decreases as t[ie particle size vgaoiiltlrtiorl, tianspirlrtioll, storrge and derivery) decreases) so.ls rind-rise activities degree of channiel constriction (by bedrock. miass mioverirents, valley bland-use activilies soils walls, or resistant bank iraterial) direct inipact of riass movemerits (i e debris slides, debris flows, eartliflows) ripariahi vegetation rnd associated large uwoody debris aggradatiorr/degradationr, erosioii/deposition billslope position/aspect particle size/sortiing channel annouiring Sedirniirt Streaul power dischtarge par ticde size, sorting and aigularity topography bed trnanspolt woody debris (scour and storage) geology ruiloff storage (bedforrr) charnrrel miorpihology laild-rise acrivitics rirbidity vegetation eroston silts dIclively (e g lrmnrlslihes) ctariel stability iarinspoit weatlliering

PIping geology piecipilrlior Intensity exposed/collarpsed pipes soils triterceptioll zero order basin channel inittatton drainage trer Infiltratiort Ireadculting nler quality geology erosion bloctrernical oxygen demnand/dissolved oxygen Illenal regime sedirrenit delivery lemperature lind use activities rit roff herbicide test soils/ion exchange capacity logging activities suspenident an(tdissolved solids (organic and inorganic) )Iotosyllillesis

Grouse Creek Watershted Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 Page 6-36 A flinictionl Or: pr'locesses IF-calsires (identifiable in the field) Species ricliiss iid habitat type coilpelitlOI conllectivity (Iniglatioli coridors) Ifiversi ty lIbl)itmlt flagileentatllio/Isoltionlii lililligi itliiii/Ciilililglltl(l speciCs rlalge seasonality pmelllioi aSpeCCt qujantity and quality of nitrienit resources disimiibanIice divelsirty/abunidanice iuidicies (eg ShIalinnon -WVeicr lest)

dynam ic equillbin ii (altemtiloi of distiirha lice anrid siccessi stream depll, width, yelocity. temperature stability) slope exposure leploluctive sl alegies physical structures (woody debirs, boulders, outcrops) flow duration and magiiituade behavior (tel ito[0 lilty) shad inig (tioni topography anil vegelation) species range and distribution migratory barriers ehimate/i1nicrochni rate species inventory substrate (type ar(i stability) Habitat complexity available area succession physical featuues. presence of nees, roots, boulderls. sand, sit, silulde. sunlilughti, liarge woody itetils topograpily lriil-uusc cllivitics corirililirily irvelitoly niltrieli) ravailabiliry decomplnosillo (i G of yoisily dcliiis) cliiiate presence of conibols age/seral stage/canopy tices species composilioll soil/subs iale type fie(q uic cy/d iiilloii/velocuiy ofrllov wareernir teriipei atuire Hydrologic characteristics seditriiei t delively/exspoit vegetative biomass/deuusity estilimates quality and quantity of solar insollatioi nilutrient cycling nitrogen/phiosphorus levels precipitation subsurnface seepage degree of shading halitat condition enutrophlication ______presence of lierbicides tiparian Vegetatlie hat characteristics.00.i. species compositioli, structure age, distribution, abundaice, growth Commriility I ates and spatial distribiltiol climate desiccation canopy tier distance from streamli successioui ioot exposure species range and distributioli scour canopy cover aspect depositroit LWD nutrient resources quality un(iqriariltity insolation geology climuate soils succession Carhon cycliig (i.e. energy) degree of allochtilioiouis Input decomi position teipelatilie topographly orgalic delively aspect cliniate/seasonuality Ieaching presence/aurinount of woody matei al type iniil abunduiance oif iriclotial coIliIIlirlity alternalting wets/iy consdil lis detintal layer fi -e I iliiff comIpositioni anil iiiioiilt of oi garlic nltrici Illorguillic Nulriemut Cyliiig type ariil abiluindance of 1iiicuoluial cOliliClloliity 11iillcuuizilloi ierpcrtiaurc seaisonabty iuuiuuobuituzaiol Soil gleyiirg/nioirtlig/iioii oxire geology teachilig ahiliritoice of lichen comirr lnity file clulopthi ca loll soils altcuraiuoui of ielt/iliy conditllrlOus

Ni crud iihnaIte species comiipositioll anill age sIIccesslII eIII c rlatIII e canopy density west icr Ilrriiiiirtty climate fog drip/precd)pitatiori topogiaphy slhadle/caropy closure

Grou 3k Watershed Analysis Version 7.0 October, 1995 P -3 7 11

Comparison of 50-11-40 with Riparian Reserves for dispersal of spotted owls The 50-1 1-40 rule (i.e., at least 50 percent of the land in each quarter township must have trees with mean d.b.h. >11 inches and mean canopy closure >40 percent ) was designed to provide adequate foraging habitat and protective cover for dispersing spotted owls (Thomas et. al., 1990). Under the ROD (USDA and USDI, 1994), dispersal habitat for spotted owls and other late-seral- dependent species will be provided primarily by Riparian Reserves; the other large Reserves (e.g., LSRs, Congressionally Reserved Areas) are intended to provide habitat for all other life requisites of late-seral-dependent species. The habitat within Riparian Reserves is expected to be suitable for the dispersal of late-seral dependent species between the larger reserve areas. However, the relatively narrow strips of Riparian Reserves would probably not be sufficient to maintain populations of most of these species, especially if adjacent upland habitat was disturbed, because of the negative impacts associated with forest edge (i.e., primarily increased mortality of interior forest species from predation by and competition with edge and open-country species). The effectiveness of these two strategies for the dispersal of late-seral-dependent species can be assessed by comparing the amount and distribution of suitable dispersal habitat provided. Currently, approximately 73 percent of the watershed (26,499 acres) has stands of trees with mean d.b.h. >11 inches and about 80 percent of the watershed (29,040 acres) has stands with mean canopy closure >40 percent. The watershed appears to exceed the requirements of the 50-1 1-40 rule, yet the suitable dispersal habitat is not evenly distributed across the watershed. Forest Service land contributes the majority of habitat meeting 50-1 1-40 as most of the private timber land has been harvested. Visual observations of the private timber land indicate that the majority of this land is not suitable for dispersing spotted owls (or other late-seral-dependent species). Riparian Reserves make up over 58 percent (21,187 acres) of the watershed, with about 53 percent of the acreage (about 11,289 acres) in late- mature or old-growth seral stages and about another 40 percent (about 8,560 acres) in early- and mid-mature seral stages. With about 93 percent of the Riparian Reserve acres in mature or late-seral stages, it appears that the Reserves contain an adequate amount of habitat suitable for dispersing spotted owls. In addition, the Reserves provide well-distributed dispersal habitat (i.e., along nearly every streamcourse) which will be maintained or enhanced for the benefit of aquatic and riparian-dependent terrestrial wildlife species. Whereas the habitat that contributes to acreage meeting 50-1 1-40 may or may not be maintained or enhanced, depending on whether or not the land falls within an area where the habitat will be converted to early-seral stages (i.e., harvested). Based on the information presented above, the 50-1 1-40 rule and the Riparian Reserve strategy both appear to provide adequate dispersal habitat for spotted owls moving between the Grouse Creek watershed and watersheds to the north, south, and northeast, but not to the west and southeast (because of the unsuitable private timber land). Over time, the National Forest land in the watershed will probably become more suitable for dispersal as the stands

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-38 M

mature naturally or are manipulated to accelerated the development of late- seral characteristics. In fact, the amount of suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for spotted owls may actually increase. Conversely, unless private timber companies change their present management strategy, the suitable dispersal habitat within their boundaries will probably be reduced or eliminated, leaving the National Forest lands to provide fully for dispersal requirements. Considering that juvenile spotted owls probably disperse randomly, a disproportionate percentage of individuals which attempt to disperse to the west or southeast may not survive (i.e., juvenile mortality rates higher than in suitable habitat) to establish themselves in suitable habitat beyond the unsuitable private land through which they must pass.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-39 MI

Monitoring and Data Gaps Aquatic/Riparian Monitoring Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource management because it provides information on the relative success of management strategies. Crucial data and information gaps are filled by monitoring. Monitoring provides information to determine if agency objectives are being followed (implementation monitoring), verifies if they are achieving the desired results (effectiveness monitoring), and determines if underlying assumptions are sound (validation monitoring). Some effectiveness, and most validation monitoring, will be accomplished by formal research. Monitoring results will provide managers with the information needed to determine whether a goal has been met, and whether to continue or to modify the management direction. Findings obtained through monitoring, together with research and other new information, will provide a basis for adaptive management changes to the selected alternative. The ROD states that monitoring needs to be conducted at multiple spatial and temporal scales. In other words, monitoring conducted at the watershed scale should be tailed to individual watershed needs but also have links with monitoring efforts at the Forest and basin scale. As such, the Grouse Creek monitoring plan will be tailored to specific needs as identified by the watershed analysis but will also tie to the Forest Land Management Plan monitoring program. As monitoring needs at higher scales are developed, the monitoring within Grouse Creek must remain flexible to fit within the larger- scale monitoring plans due to time and fiscal limitations. Outlined below are the monitoring needs as identified from the Grouse Creek watershed analysis and the Forest LMP. A description as to the level, intensity, or frequency of monitoring will also be discussed where possible. Purposes and Needs for Grouse Creek Riparian And Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring * Determine if properly implemented BMPs and related standards and guidelines are effective in (a) maintaining/enhancing water quality for dependent beneficial uses, and (b) ensuring compliance with State-mandated water quality objectives for the Klamath/Trinity and other Northcoast basins. * Evaluate the adequacy of BMPs to minimize adverse cumulative watershed effects on stream channel conditions, water quality, and beneficial uses. Examples of these effects include channel aggradation, loss of riparian vegetation and streambank stability, and reduction in fish habitat quality or diversity. * Determine if the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem is being maintained in order to ensure the quality of spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-40 N

* Determine if the structure and function of the riparian ecosystem is being maintained in order to ensure quality of riparian habitat for riparian dependent species. * Ensure that stream temperatures are being maintained or decreased to meet desired levels. * Determine if levels of fine sediment are affecting habitat condition or the diversity of macro-invertebrate communities. Thresholds of Concern Ideally, a monitoring program should be able to identify when conditions reach a critical stage when certain ecological processes and functions are altered such that the integrity of the ecosystem is threatened. Outlined below are several indicators of thresholds of concern that should be tracked within a monitoring program. * Failure to implement or improper implementation of any BMPs. * Water quality parameters or channel conditions not satisfactory to maintaining existing beneficial uses. * Any measurable, management-related loss of favorable conditions of stream flow, including adverse cumulative effects. * Detectable cumulative effects on stream beneficial uses or conditions of stream flow off-Forest that can be reasonable attributed to Forest management activities. * Measurable increase in the frequency or magnitude of mass wasting events (principally landslides) that can be reasonably attributed to Forest management activities. * Anadromous population trends: a three-year or longer declining trend in the juvenile steelhead population. Any increase in abundance of coexisting populations of fishes adapted to a warmer environment. * Large woody debris (LWD): amounts of LWD are consistent with instream habitat needs and recruitment potential from the Riparian Reserve. * Stream temperature: water temperature at the mouth should not exceed 69° F for more than five continuous days. * Fine sediment: An increase of 20 percent or more in index reaches. Data Collection Implementation and effectiveness of BMPs will be monitored and evaluated through the use of the Region Five Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. This program uses comprehensive project reviews, individual site/forest practice evaluations and in-channel monitoring. Data collection

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-41 methods include visual observations and measurements, water sampling, and qualitative assessment of beneficial uses. Baseline conditions will be sampled in both Reserve areas and project areas prior to proposed management disturbances. Aerial photo inventories will be used to estimate frequency and magnitude of mass wasting associated with management, and to evaluate downstream effects of Forest practices on stream channels. Selected stream reaches will be re-evaluated every five years. Cumulative watershed effects monitoring data will be evaluated and summarized periodically. In addition, index reaches will be established to monitor thresholds of concern through the use of environmental indicators. Possible environmental indicators that can track concerns highlighted in the Grouse Creek watershed analysis are discussed below. Environmental Indicators Environmental indicators for tracking fine sediment could include: the frequency and magnitude of landslides; both initiations, enlargements and existing feature recovery, measured periodically and/or after large storms, and including attribution of each initiation or enlargement to land use or as natural, as best as can be determined; V* (pool sedimentation), Riffle Stability Index, or surface fines (pebble counts). These indicators could be tracked in the anadromous reaches and in the reaches above the barrier to determine quality of habitat. Environmental indicators need to be identified to establish baseline data for aquatic insect population diversity. Stream temperature is an important and relevant environmental indicator for determining quality of instream habitat. Stream temperatures could be continuously measured from mid-June through September. Potential monitoring sites include: above and below Mosquito Creek, at the lake above the barrier, the mouth of Grouse Creek, and the mainstem South Fork Trinity River above and below Grouse Creek. Summer base flow is another potential environmental indicator to track, as it relates to quantity of cool water temperatures contributed to the South Fork Trinity River. Summer base flow from August through September could be periodically measured. Environmental indicators for determining status of riparian corridors (process and function) need to be developed. Possible indicators could include: percent shade/canopy, age class and species composition, and potential for LWD recruitment. The intensive module of the new Region 5 Integrated Stream Condition Inventory could be used to gather information on some of these indicators. These indicators could be tracked every 5 to 10 years or after a 10- year storm event. Environmental indicators to determine aquatic species occurrence and distribution could be monitored seasonally. Juvenile steelhead population levels will be assessed by snorkel counts of age-one and age-two fish in summer. The abundance of associated species, such as suckers and dace, could also be assessed. Environmental indicators need to be developed to track hillslope disturbance processes such as mass wasting. Possible indicators of hillslope disturbance are: percent bare/eroding ground, number of active landslides, and area of eroding ground (landslides, landings, roads). These indicators could be proxies for disturbance. These indicators would be tracked every five-to-ten years to determine trend and current

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-42 condition or after every 10 year storm event. The watershed analysis has revealed areas where information is lacking. The monitoring program may provide information for some of these data gaps but should not be confused with basic inventory or information gathering. Aquatic and riparian data gaps are outlined below: * Feasibility assessment of barrier treatment/removal; * Quantitative assessment of miles of "usable" fish habitat above the barrier; * Accurate baseline data on the influence of the lake on the downstream summer water temperatures; * Accurate assessment of Grouse Creek summer base flows with respect to the South Fork Trinity River and its influence of summer temperatures within the river; * Riparian corridor condition assessment in terms of percent eroding banks and potential for LWD recruitment * Identification of index reaches within Grouse Creek and index reaches beyond the watershed scale that would link Grouse Creek to the larger scale * Reference Variability for magnitude and frequency of mass wasting disturbance events for Grouse Creek. This analysis would most likely be derived at a larger scale that would include the Grouse Creek watershed. Botany Information Gaps Rare Plants Extensive rare plant surveys are lacking in the Grouse Creek watershed. Plant occurrences have not been validated or surveyed in many years. Potential habitat does not exist in the watershed. Survey efforts will focus on these habitats with sub-sampling in other habitats throughout the watershed. Depending on the taxa, watershed-level surveys may be required. Survey and Manage All of the Survey and Manage vascular plant taxa which could occur in the Grouse Creek watershed are also rare; therefore, information gaps are the same as those above. If Survey and Manage vascular taxa are found as a result of future surveys, management prescriptions will be employed to ensure protection of known sites. There has been no work conducted relative to the non-vascular species (fungi, lichen, and mosses). Collation of existing information is scheduled to occur in 1995. If non-vascular plants are determined to exist in the watershed, sites are to be protected. Furthermore, and depending on the taxa, additional surveys of potential habitat will be needed and will fall under two strategies: I/ strategy two requires surveys before

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-43 0

project implementation in FY 1999 and later, and 2/ strategy three requires extensive surveys to be underway by 1996 (ROD, 1994). Habitat Characteristics In order to manage rare taxa, more detail is needed on habitat characteristics. Typical information that is lacking includes: details about reproduction biology, soil characteristics, mycorrhizal relationships, nutrient cycling, taxonomic clarification, the role of fire and other disturbance variables, plant and animal interactions, breeding systems, and genetics. Fire and Fuels Information Gaps Wildfires respect neither watershed nor administrative boundaries. Therefore, further analysis and discussion with cooperating agencies and adjacent landowners would be necessary to determine effective fire suppression and fuel treatment strategies for the Grouse Creek watershed. This analysis and discussion will be an integral part of the ongoing development of the Forest's Fire Management Action Plan. Our data on fire regimes (distribution, intensity, and frequency) is somewhat limited for this watershed. Prior to our fire reporting period from the 1930s, our only other "fire data" is reflected in the ages of our stands, which mainly show stand-replacing events. Further data analysis would be necessary to determine the fire regime for this watershed. We are currently cooperating with Humboldt State University on a white fir fire frequency study that will help determine the number of years between historic wildfires in the white fir series. Fire effects data are also lacking, including effects on native and exotic plant and animal species. The AMA provides opportunities for experimentation with burning prescriptions which affect fire intensities and burning duration. Pertaining to bird species is the effect of smoke on nesting birds and their young. A smoke study to determine the dispersion of smoke at certain distances from prescribed burns is being initiated in cooperation with the local Air Quality Management District. Monitoring Fire monitoring plots should be initiated in the watershed in selected vegetation types to assess the short- and long-term effects of fire on the ecosystem. The Western Region of the National Park Service has developed a protocol for fire monitoring, which includes data to document basic information, to detect identified fire effects trends, and to ensure that fire and resource management objectives are met (National Park Service, 1992). Different levels of monitoring activity exist, with monitoring being more extensive and complex at each successive level. Level 1 covers reporting for all fires, and levels 2, 3, and 4 call for monitoring of fire conditions, short-term effects, and long-term change, respectively. The levels are cumulative, with requirements including all levels below the highest specified. The National Park Service requires monitoring at all four levels for prescribed burns. For levels 1 to 3, minimum

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 1995 Page 6-44 Nil

acceptable standard variables to be monitored exist, including fire conditions and vegetation parameters. Depending on the cost and resulting information, these minimum acceptable standard variable should be assessed to determine if they would meet our long-term resource monitoring needs. Combining these plots with smoke monitoring devices could help analyze the effect of different conditions (e.g., weather, time of year) on the amount of smoke produced by prescribed burns.

Grouse Creek Watershed Analysis Version 1.0 October, 7995 Page 6-4S 'PENDIX A

Literature Cited

Aalto, K.R. and Irwin, W.P., Kelsey.H.M., 1 988. Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the Pilot Creek Quadrangle, Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California, scale 1 :62,500, Open-File Report 88-363, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.

Adams, Steven and J.O. Sawyer, 1980. Fire incidence in mixed evergreen forests of northwest California. Document on file, Six Rivers National Forest.

Anderson, Hal E., 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1 22, 22 p. Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah

Andrews, Patricia L. 1986. BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system - BURN Subsystem, part 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1 94. 1 30 p. Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah

Applied Earth Sciences, Inc. 1 980. Report, Geologic Resources Inventory Six Rivers National Forest California, For U.S. Forest Service. Sebastopol, CA. 36 p.

Bilby R.E. and G.E Likens, 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61:1107-1113.

Bilby and Ward, 1987. Changes in large organic degris characteristics and function with increasing stream size in western Washington. Weyerhaeuser Co. Tech Rep.

Bisson et. al., 1992. A system of anming habitat types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflows. Pgs 62-73. In. Aquistion and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information, Western Division. Am. Fish. Soc.

Brown, H.A. 1975. Temperature and development of the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Vol. 50:397-405.

Bury, R.B., P.S., Corn, K.B. Aubry, F.F. Gilbert, and L.L.C. Jones, 1991. Aquatic amphibian communities in Oregon and Washington. Pp. 353-362, in Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, B.B. Carey, M.H. Huff (technical coordinators). General Technical Report PNW-GTR- 285. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Oregon.

Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1 989. Logging in western Oregon: Responses of headwater habitats and streams. For. Ecol. and Manage. vol. 29:39-57

Clarke, S.H.; Carver, G.A., 1992. Late Holocene Tectonics and Paleoseismicity, Southern Cascadia Subduction Zone. Science v. 255, p. 188-192.

Christgau, P. C., 1 994. Final Report: Pileated Woodpecker Habitat Use Study On Six Rivers National Forest, CA. USDA-Forest Service; Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA and PSW, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 59 pp. CNDDB 1 994. California Natural Diversity Database. Natural Heritage Division of the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

CNPS 1 994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California-Electronic Inventory. Sacramento, CA.

Copeland, W., 1980. Bensoniella oregona: Field study and status report. Final summary. USDA, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA.

Crow, T.R., 1991. Landscape ecology--principles and practices for forested landscapes. pp. 1 6-21. In: Proceedings of the ?? annual forest vegetation conference. Redding, CA.

Davy, J.B. 1 902. Stock ranges of northwestern California: notes on the grasses and forage plants and range conditions. Bureau of Plant Industry-Bulletin No. 12. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 78 pp.

Denton, M.F. 1979. Factors contributing to the evolutionary divergence andendemism in Sedum section of Gormania (Crassulaceae). Taxon 28 (1,2/3) 49-155.

Diller, J.S., 1902. Topographic Development of the Klamath Mountains. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 196, 69 p.

Drew, J.T., J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science 25:51 8-532.

Dunning, D. 1942. A site classification for the mixed-conifer selection forests of the Sierra Nevada. Res. Note 28. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 25 p.

Feder, M.E.,1 983. Integrating the ecology and physiology of plethodontid salamanders. Herpetologica 39(3):291 -310. FSEIS 1 994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

Forman, R.T.T.; Godron, M. 1 986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY. 619 pp.

Harris, S.W. 1991. Northwestern California Birds. Humboldt State University Press, Arcata, CA. 257 pp.

Hawkins, C.P., L.J. Gottshalk, and S.S. Brown. 1988. Densities and habitat of tailed frog tadpoles in small streams near Mt. St. Helens following the 1980 eruption. Jour. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. Vol. 7(3):246-252.

Huey, R.B. and R.D. Stevenson, 1979. Integrating thermal physiology and ecology of ectotherms. a discussion of approaches. Amer. Zool. 19:357-366.

Heady, Harold, F. 1988. Valley grassland .Pp. 491-514. In: Terrestrial vegetation of California. M.G. Barbour and J. Major. editors. Special Publication Number 9. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Hildebrandt, W.R.; Hayes, J.F., 1983. Archeological investigations on Pilot Ridge, Six Rivers National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA. 200 pp.

Hopkins, N.A. 1986. Mycorrhizae in a California serpentine grassland community. Canadian Journal of Botany, 65:485-487.

Hunter, Malcolm L. 1991. Coping with ignorance the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. pp. 292-317. In: W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn (eds). Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 491 pp.

Irwin, W.P., 1966. Geology of the Klamath Mountains Province, in Bailey, E.H., editor, Geology of Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 190, p. 19-38.

Irwin, W.P., 1981. Tectonic Accretion of the Klamath Mountains, in Geotectonic Development of California, W.G. Ernst & W.W. Ruby, eds., Prentice Hall, 706 p.

Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and D.C. Holland. 1993. Petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog and the western pond turtle on the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 21 pp.

Jimerson, T.M., 1 990. A seral stage and successional pathway model for the Tanoak-Canyon Live Oak/Evergreen Huckleberry ecological type on the Gasquet Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 193 p.

Jimerson, T. M., 1 993. Preliminary plant associations of the Klamath Province: Six Rivers and Klamath National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. 550 pp.

Jimerson, T. M., 1994. Terrestrial vegetation analysis of the Pilot Creek watershed. USDA Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA. 37 pp.

Jimerson, T.M. 1 994. Changes in vegetation pattern in northwest California as a result of natural and human caused disturbance. Presented at: The 9th annual U.S. Landscape Ecology Symposium, "Spatial and temporal models for analyzing pattern and process in landscapes," March 23-26, 1994, Tucson, AZ.

Jimerson, T.M., L.D. Hoover, 1991. Old-growth forest fragmentation: Changes in amount, patch size and edge as a result of logging. In: "Symposium on biodiversity of northwestern California", R.R. Harris, D.C. Erman, H.M. Kerner, Technical Coordinators, October 28-30, 1991, Santa Rosa, CA. Wildland Resource Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 306 p.

Jimerson, T.M., D.W. Jones, 1 993. Combining ecological classification and silviculture prescriptions to achieve desired future forest conditions. pp. 99-11 2. In: "Silviculture: From the cradle of forestry to ecosystem management," Louise H. Foley, Editor. GTR SE-88, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 258 p.

Jimerson, T.M., H.K. Preisler,ln Prep. A seral stage classification for Douglas-fir stands in northern California.

Jimerson, T.M. 1 994. A field guide to Port Orford cedar plant associations in northwest California. RS- ECOL-TP-002, Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 109 p.

Jimerson, Thomas M.; Matthews S.; Bransom, M. 1988. Preliminary vegetation classification and soils inventory for Board Camp Mountain, California and vicinity. USDA Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA. 65 pp.

Jimerson, T.J., S. Thiesen, M. Smith, [and others]. 1 995. Ecological Unit Inventory and Terrestrial Analysis of the Grouse Creek Watershed. Six Rivers National Forest. Internal Draft Document. 129 pp.

Kelsey, H.M.; Carver, G.A., 1 988. Late Neogene and Quaternary Tectonics Associated with Northward Growth of the San Andreas Transform Fault, Northern California. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, no. B5, p 4797-4819.

Keter, Tom, 1995. An environmental and cultural history of the Grouse Creek Watershed. Document on file, Six Rivers National Forest.

Kruckeberg, A.R. 1992. Plant life of western North American ultramafics. B.A. Roberts and J. Proctor (eds), The ecology of areas with serpentinized rocks. A world view, 31-73. Luwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

Lang, F.A., 1988. Species Management Guide for Bensoniella oregona (Abrams & Bacig.) Morton. USDA, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, OR.

Lisle, T.E. and S .Hilton, 1992. The volume of fine sediment in pools: an index of sediment supply in gravel- bed streams. Water Resource Bulletin. Vol. 28. No. 2.

Li, Habin. 1989. Spatio-temporal pattern analysis of managed forest landscapes: a simulation approach. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Dissertation. 1 66 pp.

Lord, Janice M.; Norton, David A., 1 990. Scale and the spatial concept of fragmentation. Conservation Biology 4: 197-202.

Manley, P.N.; G.E. Brogan; T.M. Jimerson; and others. 1995. Sustaining Ecosystems: A Conceptual Framework Version 1. R5-EM-TP-001 , Pacific Southwest Region and Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 21 6 p.

McNab, H.W. and P.E. Avers, 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: Section descriptions. WO- WSA-5. Washington, DC. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Menges, E.S. 1991. Seed germination percentage increases with population size in a fragmented prairie species. Conservation Biology 5(2), pp. 1 58-1 64.

Mesler, M.R. 1993. Allozyme comparison of Oregon and California populations of Bensoniella oregona (Saxifragaceae). Report submitted to Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA

Miles et. al., 1 993. USDA Forest Service Soil Survey Six Rivers National Forest, California.

Millar, C.]. and W.J. Libby, 1989. Restoration: Disneyland or a Native Ecosystem? A question of genetics. Fremontia 17(2), pp. 3-10.

Munz, Phillip A.; Keck, David D., 1 968. A California flora. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1681 pp.

Muth, G.J. 1994. SLID: Specimen Label Information Directory. Pacific Union College, Angwin, CA.

Naiman et. al., 1 992. Fundamental Elements of Ecologically Healthy Watersheds in the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion. In. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York. Norusis, Marija J., 1988. SPSS/PC+ V2.0 Base Manual for IBM PC/XT/AT and PS/2. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. 606 pp.

Noss, Reed F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience 33: 700-706.

Noss, Reed F., 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41 (1):11-37.

O'Neil, R.V.; Krummel, J.R.; Gardner, R.H.; Sugihara, G.; Jackson, B.; DeAngelis, D.B.; Milne, B.T.; Turner, M.G.; Zygmunt, B.; Christensen, S.W.; Dale, V.H.; Graham, R.L. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1(3): 1 53-1 62.

Parsons, Annette M.; Knox, E.G. 1 984. Soils of the Six Rivers National Forest. Eureka, CA. Under the direction of S. R. Miles. Copy on file at Six Rivers National Forest. 302 pp.

Picton, H.D., 1 979. The application of insular biogeographic theory to the conservation of large mammals in the northern Rocky Mountains. Biological Conservation 1 5:73-79.

R-6 Manuscripting Guide Team 1991. Guidelines for map manuscript preparation for digitizing. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR. 130 pp. Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 32 pp.

Reed, M.J.; Powell, R.W.; Bal, B.B., 1 963. Electronic data processing codes for California wildland plants. Res. Note PSW-N20. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 314 p.

Raines, M.A.; Kelsey, H.M., 1991. Sediment Budget for the Grouse Creek Basin, Humboldt County, California. Bureau for Faculty Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 11 0 p.

Reese, D.A., 1993. Western pond turtle survey techniques. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA.

Resh, V.H. et al. (1988). The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal ofb Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(4):433-455.

Romme, W.H. 1982. Fire and Landscape Diversity in Subalpine Forests of Yellowstone National Park. Pp. 1 99-221. Ecological Monographs Vol. 52. No. 2.

Rowland, R.E., 1966. Geology of the Grouse Creek Area, South Fork Mountains, CA. University of California at Los Angeles, unpublished M.S. thesis, 106 p.

Soil Conservation Service, 1983. National Soils Handbook. U.S. Government Print. Office, Washington, D.C.

Soil Survey Staff, 1 984. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Fifth edition. SMSS technical monograph no. 19 Blacksburg, Virginia.

Soltis, P.S. and D.E. Soltis, T.L. Tucker, F.A. Lang 1992. Allozyme variability is absent in the narrow endemic Bensoniella oregona (Saxifragaceae). Conservation Biology 6 (1), pp. 131-134.

St. John, T.V., 1 986. Mineral acquisition in native plants. In Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants, Ed. T.S. Elias, Proceedings from a Conference of the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. pp. 529-536. State of California, 1979. South Fork Trinity River Watershed Erosion Investigation, Department of Water Resources, Northern District, 83 p.

Thomas, J. W., E .D. Forsman, J B. Lint, 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. 427 pp.

Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20 171-197.

USDA, 1987. DWRIS (Distributed Wildland Resource Information System). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA.

USDA, 1992. Strategy for implementing ecosystem management. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 17 pp.

USDA, 1993. Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late- Sucessional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest.

USDA, 1994. Pilot Creek Watershed Analysis. Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka CA.

USDA, 1 994. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

Welsh, H.H., Jr. and L.M. Ollivier. 1992. Effects of sediment from the Redwood National Park bypass project (Caltrans) on the amphibian communities in streams in Prairie Creek State Park. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. 69pp.

Welsh, H.H., Jr., A.J. Lind, L.M. Ollivier, and D.L. Waters, In prep. A hierarchical analysis of the habitat associations of the tailed frog (Ascapus truei) in mixed coniferous/hardwood forests of northwestern California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. 56pp.

Welsh, H. H., and A. Lind, 1995. Optimum Habitat Models for the Southern Seep (Torrent) Salamander (Rhyacotriton varlegatus) and the Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongatus). USDA-Forest Service, PSW, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 4pp.

Wright, J.E.; Wyld, S.J., 1994. The Rattlesnake Creek terrane, Klamath Mountains, California: An Early Mesozoic Volcanic Arc and its Basement of Tectonically Disrupted Oceanic crust. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 106, p. 1033-1056.

Young, J.C., 1978. Geology of the Willow Creek Quadrangle, Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California, scale 1:62,500, Map sheet 31, California Division of Mines and Geology, 16 p.

Zielinski, W.J., G. A. Schmidt, and K. N. Schmidt. 1994. Progress Report: Six Rivers National Forest Fisher Study. USDA-Forest Service; Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA and PSW, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 20pp. APPENDIX B

Acronyms

AMA Adaptive Management Area.

BLM Bureau of Land Management.

EUI Ecological Unit Inventory.

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. July 1 993. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Team.

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

HRV Historic Range of Variability.

LMP Land Management Plan.

LSOG Late-Successional Old-Growth. Mapped as significant old-growth by the "Gang-of- Four" (see the Scientific Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems, Johnson et al., 1991).

LSR Late-Successional Reserve. President's Plan land allocation.

LWD Large Woody Debris: Portion of a tree that has fallen or been cut and left in the woods or stream. Usually refers to pieces at least 20 inches in diameter.

OHV Off-highway Vehicle.

PSW-RSL Pacific Southwest - Redwood Sciences Lab. Arcata, California.

R5 Region 5.

RMR Recommended Management Range.

ROD Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 1994. Commonly referred to as the President's Plan.

SFTR South Fork Trinity River.

SRNF Six Rivers National Forest.

USDA United States Department of Agriculture. APPENDIX C

Appendix List of Common and Scientific Names used in this Document Wildlife

Common Name Scientific Name

Fish Cutthroat trout OnCO7rIyn7ChuZS ciirkii Rainbow/steelhead trout Oncorhynchits inyk-lss

Reptiles Nor-thern alligator lizard Gerrhonot7012s COerztlUS Sharp-tailed snake Contia tenuis Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnnophis elegans Western aquatic garter snake T7arninphis couchi Rubber boa Charina bottae Northwestern pond turtle Clemnmys m~armorata marmorata

Amphibians Southern seep (torrent) salamander RJhyacorri-ion variegatus Pacific giant salamander Diccinplodon ensalus A-rboreal salamander A neides higubris Clouded salamander A neidesferrieus Del Norte salamander Peie hodon elongaius Ensatina salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana bovlei Northern red-legged frog, Rana auroraaurora Tailed frog,.. Ascaphus truei

Mammals Doug~las' squirrel Tanfiasciurus douglasii Northern flying squirrel Glaucomnys sabrinus Chipmunk Tam ias spp. Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus Golden-mantled ground squirrel Sperniophilus lateralis II

Common Name Scientific Name California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Dusk-y-footed woodrat Neotomafuscipes Spotted skunk Spilogale putorius Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Rinstail Bassariscusastutus Coyote Canis latrans Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Black bear Ursus americanus Pacific fisher Martes pennantipacifica American marten Martes americana Mountain Lion Felis concolor Black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus

Birds Wood duck A ix sponsa Common merganser Mergus merganser Marbled murrelet Brachyramphusmarmoratus Turkey vulture Catharnesaura Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern ooshawk Accipiter gentilis Red-tailed hawk Buteojamaicensis Osprey Pandion haliaetus Peregrine falcon Falcoperegrinus Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Band-tailed pigeon Columbafasciata Rock pioeon Columba livia Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Great gray owl Strix nebulosa Northern spotted owl Strix occidentaliscaurina Western screech owl Ous kennicottii NEEEWNEW

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Flammulated owl Otusflaninieoluis Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium g77onoa Common poorwill Phalaenoptulusnuttali Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi Rufous Hurnmingbird Selasphorus rufus Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Acorn woodpecker Melaneipesformicivorus White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolar-vatus Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Downy woodpecker Picoidespubescens Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

Hammond's flycatcher Enipidonax hammnondii Willow flycatcher Empidonax trazllii Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Scrub jay Aphelocoz7a coeruilescens Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis Common raven Corvus corax Wrentit Chanmaeafasciata Mountain chickadee Parus ganmbeli Chestnut-backed chickadee Parus rufescens Brown creeper Certhia americana Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Golden-crowned kinglet Reguilus calendula Western bluebird Sialia nmexicana Townsend's solitaire AMIyadestes townsendi Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus Hermit thrush CatharusgullatuS Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius Common Name Scientific Name American robin Turdus migralorius American dipper Cinclus mexicanus Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorunm Hutton's vireo Vireo huttoni Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius Warbling vireo Vireo philadelphicus Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Black-throated gray warbler Dendroicanigrescens Hermit warbler Dendroica occidentalis MacGillivray's warbler Oporornis tolmiei Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus nmelanocephalus Lazuli bunting Passerinaciris Rufous-sided (spotted) towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Dark-eyed junco Junco hyernalis White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia Zeucophiys Fox sparrow Passerellailiaca Western tanaaer Pirangaludoviciana Pine siskin Carduelispinus Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra Purple finch CarpodacuspuZpureus Cassin's finch Carpodacuscassinii r

SPECIES COMMnN WAM-F. rnp SPECIES COM1AOW uairJ wnp Abies concolor white f ir ABCO Abies grandis grand fir ABGR Abies magnifica shastensis red f ir AB MA S Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple ACMA Alnus rhornbifolia white alder ALRH Alnus rubra red alder ALRU Arbutus rnenziesii madrone ARME 3 Castanopsis chrysophylla chinquapin CACH2 Chamraecyparis nootkatensis Alaska yellow cedar CHNO Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Port Orford cedar CHLA Cornus nuttallii Pacific dogwood CONU Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FRLA Juniperus occidentalis western juniper JUOC Libocedrus decurrens incense cedar LIDE3 Lithocarpus densiflora tan oak LIDE2 Picea breweriana Brewer Spruce PIBR Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce PIS' Pinus attenuata knobcone pine PIAT Pinus contorta lodgepole pine PICO Pinus jeffreyii Jeffrey pine PIJE Pinus larnbertiana sugar pine PI LA Pinus monticola white pine PIM03 Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine PIPO Pinus sabiniana grey pine PISA Populus tremuloides quaking aspen POTR Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood POTR Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas fir P SMLE Quercus chrysolepis canyon live oak QUCH2 Quercus garryana Oregon white oak QUGA2 Quercus keiloggii black oak QUKE Rhamnus purshiana cascara buckthorn P.HPU Salix Sp. willow SAL Sequoia sempervirens redwood SESE Taxus brevifolia yew TABR Thuja plicata western red cedar THPL Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock TS HE Tsuga mertensiana mountain hemlock TSME Umbellularia californica California Bay UMCAl SHRUB SPECIES cOMMON NAME EDP Acer circinatum vine maple ACCI Acer glabrum var. Torreyi Rocky Mountain maple ACGLT Alnus sinuata Sitka alder ALSI2 Alnus tenuifolia mountain alder ALTE Amelanchier alnifolia western serviceberry AMAL Amelanchier florida Pacific serviceberry AMFL Amelanchier pallida pallid serviceberry AMPA2 Arctostaphylos canescens hoary manzanita ARCA5 Arctostaphylos columbiana hairy manzanita ARC06 Arctostaphylos nevadensis pinemat manzanita ARNE2 Arctostaphylos patula greenleaf manzanita ARPA9 Arctostaphylos sp. manzanita ARC5 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi kinnikinnik ARUVC Arctostaphylos viscida whiteleaf manzanita ARVI3 Baccharis pilularis consanguinea coyote brush BAPIC Berberis aquifolium tall Oregon-grape BEAQ Berberis nervosa dwarf Oregon-grape BENE1 Berberis pumila pygmy hollygrape BEPU Berberis repens creeping Oregon-grape BERE Betula glandulosa bog birch BEGL Ceanothus cordulatus whitethorn CEC02 Ceanothus cuneatus buckbrush CECU Ceanothus integerrimus ca. deer brush CEINC Ceanothus prostratus squaw carpet CEPR Ceanothus sanguineus red stem ceanothus CESA2 Ceanothus thrysiflorus blue blossom CETH Ceanothus velutinus snow brush CEVE3 Cercocarpus betuloides birchleaf mtn.mahogany CEBE2 Cercocarpus ledifolius curlleaf mtn. mahogany CELE3 Cornus occidentalis creek dogwood COOC2 Cornus sessilis sessile dogwood COSE3 Corylus cornuta var. californica California hazel COCOC Crataegus douglasii black hawthorn CRDO Cytisus scoparius scotch broom CYSC2 Eriodictyon californicum yerba santa ERCA6 Euonymus occidentalis western burning brush EUOC3 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FRLA2 Garrya buxifolia box-leaved silktassel GABU2 Garrya elliptica tree silktassel GAEL Garrya fremontii Fremont's silktassel GAFR Gaultheria ovatifolia slender salal GAOV Gaultheria shallon salal GASH Holodiscus discolor ocean spray HODI Holodiscus discolor delnortensis Del Norte oceanspray HODID Holodiscus microphyllus glabres. glandular ocean spray HOMIG Juniperus communis creeping juniper JOCO Ledum glandulosum labrador-tea LEGL1 Lithocarpus densiflora echinoides dwarf tanbark LIDEE Lonicera conjugialis purple honeysuckle LOC03 Lonicera hispidula vacillans hairy honeysuckle LOHIV Lonicera involucrata black twinberry LOIN4 Malus fusca (diversifolia) Oregon crab-apple MAFU Menziesia ferruginea rusty menziesia MEFE Myrica californica wax-myrtle MYCA Oplopanax horridum devil's club OPHO Osmaronia cerasiformis 090 berry OSCE laxistima myrsinites Oregon boxwood PAMY £'hiladelphus Lewisii gordonianus Gordon mock-orange PHLEG Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark PHCA8 Prunus emarginata bitter cherry PREM Prunus subcordata Klamath plum PRSU2 Prunus viginiana common chokecherry PRVI Quercus sadleriana. Sadler oak QUSA Quercus vaccinifolia huckleberry oak QUJVA Rhamnus californica coffeeberry RH CA 2 Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododendron Rhododendron occidentale western azalea RHOC Rhus diversiloba poison oak RHD I Ribes binominatum Siskiyou gooseberry RIBI Ribes bracteosum stink current RIBR Ribes cereum wax current RICE Ribes lobbii Lobb's gooseberry RILO Ribes marshallii Applegate gooseberry RI MA2 Ribes sanguineum red-flowering current RISA Ribes sp. current, gooseberry RIB Ribes veluntinum glandiferum dessert gooseberry RIVEG Ribes viscosissimum sticky current RIVI3 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust ROPS Rosa gymnocarpa baldhip rose ROGY Rosa pisacarpa cluster rose ROPI Rosa rubiginosa sweetbriar rose RORU Rosa sp. rose ROS .ubus laciniatus evergreen blackberry RULA3 Rubus lasiococcus dwarf blackberry RULA Rubus leucodermis western rasberry RULE Rubus nivalis snow bramble RUN I Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry RUPA2 Rubus procerus (thyrsanthus) Hi-malaya berry RUPR Rubus sp. blackberry, rasberry RUB2 Rubus spectabilis salmon berry RUS P2 Rubus ursinus Pacific blackberry RUUR Rubus vitifolius wild blackberry RUV 12 Salix sp. willow SAL 11 Sambucus caerulea blue elderberry SACA4 Sarnbucus callicarpa red elderberry SACA3 Smilax californica greenbriar SMCA Sorbus californicus California mtn. ash SOCA3 Sorbus cascadensis cascade mountain-ash SOCA4 Spirea densiflora spirea. SPDE Spirea douglasii Douglas' spirea S PDO Symphoricarpus mollis spreading snowberry SYMO Symphoricarpus riv-ularis streamside snowberry SYRI Ulex europaeus gorse ULEU Vaccinium membranaceum thinleaf huckleberry VA-ME Vacciniurm ovatum evergreen huckleberry VAOV Vaccinium parvifolium red huckleberry VAPA Vaccinium scoparium grouse huckleberry VASC Viburnum ellipticumn western wayfaring tree VIEL HERB SPECIES COMMON NAME EDP Achillea sp. yarrow ACH1 %chillea lanulusa mountain yarrow ACLA2 Achillea millefoliumm common yarrow ACMI Achlys triphylla vanilla leaf ACTR Aconitum columbianum monkshood ACCO2 Actea rubra var. arguta baneberry ACRUA Adenocaulon bicolor trailplant ADBI Adiatum pedatum var. aleuticum five-finger fern ADPEA Agastache urticifolia nettle-leaf giant-hyssop AGUR Allium sp. onion ALL2 Allium facifolium onion ALFA Allium validum bog onion ALVA Allophyllum divaricatum pink false gilia ALDI2 Allotropa virgata candystick ALVI2 Anaphalis Margaritacea pearly everlasting ANMA1 Anemone deltoidea threeleaf anemone ANDE Anemone quinequefolia var. minor wind flower ANQUM Angelica arguta sharp=toothed angelica ANAR3 Apocynum androsaemifolium spreading dogbane APAN Apocynum pumilum mountain dogbane APPU Aquilegia formosa red columbine AQFO Arabis sp. rock cress ARA81 Aralia californica California spikenard ARCA2 Arenaria sp. sandwort ARE81 Arenaria macrophylla bigleaf sndwort ARMAl Arnica sp. arnica ARN80 Arnica cordifolia heart-leafed arnica ARCO3 Arnica discoidea rayless arnica ARD I3 Arnica latifolia broad-leaved arnica ARLA2 Artemesia sp. sagevrush ART 3 Asarum sp. ginger ASA Asarum caudatum wild ginger ASCA2 Asarum hartwegii marbled ginger ASHA Asclepias sp. milkweed ASCl Asclepias fascicularis narrow leaf milkweed ASFA Aspedotis californica California lace fern ASCA1 Aster sp. aster AST81 Aster ledophyllus aster ASLE7 Athyrium filix-femina californic. lady fern ATFIC Blechnum spicant deer fern BLSP Boschniakia strobilacea ground=cone BOST2 Boykinia major mountain boykinia BOMA2 Brodiaea ida-maia firecracker flower BRID Cacaliopsis nardosmia silver-crown CANA1 Calochortus sp. tulip CAL5 Calochortus tolmiei Tolmie's star tulip CATO Caltha howellii marsh marigold CAHO2 Calypso bulbosa fairy-slipper CABU2 Calyptridium umbellatum pussy paws CAUM2 Calystegia sp. morning glory CAL14 Campanula prenanthoides California harebell CAPR6 Campanula scouleri Scouler's harebell CASC4 Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepard's purse CABUP \rdamine sp. bittercress CAR4 irdamine breweri Brewer's bittercress CABR8 Cardamine oligosperma western bittercress CAOL Castilleja sp. Indian paintbrush CAS83 Centaurea solstitalis star thistle CESO1 Cerastium sp. chickweed CER3 Cerastium arvense field chickweed CEAR1 Cerastium glomeratum mouse ear chickweed CEGL2 Chaenactis sp. pincushion CHA81 Cheilanthes gracillima lace fern CHGR1 Chimaphila menziesii little prince's pine CHME2 Chimaphila umbellata occidentalis western prince's pine CHUMO Chlorogalum pomeridiatum soap plant CHP01 Dicentra formosa bleeding-heart DIFO Cicuta douglasii Douglas' water hemlock CIDO Cirsium sp. thistle CIR4 Cirsium occidentale western thistle CIOCO Cirsium vulgare bull thistel CIVW Clarkia amoena herald of summer CLAM Clarkia gracilis slender clarkia CLGR Clintonia uniflora queen's cup CLUN2 Collomia heterophylla varied=leaved collomia COHE2 Convolvulus sp. morning glory CON6 Convolvulus polynorphus variable mouning glory COPO Coptis laciniata cutleaf goldthread COLA2 Corallorhiza maculata spotted coral-root COMA4 'orallorhiza mertensiana western coral-root COME Corallorhiza sp. coral-root COR2 Corallorhiza striata striped coral-root COSTQ Cryptantha intermedia common cryptantha CRIN4 Cynoglossum grande Pacific hounds-tongue CYGR Cynoglossum occidentale western hound's tongue CYOC Cypripedium californica California lady-slipper CYCAW Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper CYFA Darlingtonia californica California pitcher-plant DACA Daucus carota queen Ann's lace DACA3 Delphinium sp. delphinium DEL81 Dentaria sp. toothwort DENI Dentaria califoornica California toothwort DECA4 Dentaria californica cardiophylla toothwort DECAC Dicentra pauciflora short-horned steers head DIPAl Dichlostemma pulchellum blue dicks DIPU2 Disporum hookeri Hooker's fairy-bell DIH02 Disporum smithii Smith's fairy-bell DISM Dodecatheon alpinum alpine shooting star DOAL Drosera rotundifolia roundleaf sundew DRRO Eburophyton austinae phantom orchid EBAU Epilobium sp. fireweed EPI81 Epilobium angustifolium fireweed EPAN2 Epilobium glabernimum fireweed EPGL1 Epilobium minutum small-flowered willow herb EPMI Equisetum sp. horsetail EQU Equisetum arvense common horsetail EQAR Equisetum telmateia var. braunii giant horsetail EQTEB Eriogonum sp. buckwheat ERI84 Eriogonum latifolia ssp. nudum naked-stemmed eriogonum ERLAN Eriogonum nudumm buckwheat ERNU3 Erodium botrys storksbill ERBO Erysimum sp. wallflower ERY4 Erysimum capitatum Douglas' wallflower ERCA3 Erythronium sp. adder's tongue, fawn-lily ERY5 Erythronium californicum California fawn-lily ERCA4 Erythronium grandiflorum pallidum large-flowered fawn-lily ERGRP Fragaria californica California strawberry FRCA1 Fraser speciosa monument plant FRSP Frasera umpquaensis green gentian FRUM Fritillaria lanceolata checker-lily FRLA1 Galium sp. bedstraw GAL81 Galium ambiguum obscure bedstraw GAAM Galium ambiguum siskiyouense Siskiyou bedstraw GAAMS Galium aparine catchweed bedstraw GAAP Galium bolanderi Bolander's bedstraw GABOQ Galium triflorum fragrant bedstraw GATR2 Gnaphalium sp. cudweed,everlasting GNA3 Gayophytum nuttallii Nuttall's gayophytum GANU1 Gentiana setigeria gentain GESE Githopis specularioides common bluecup GISP2 Gnaphalium sp. cudweed, everlasting GNA1 Gnaphalium purpureum everlasting GNPU Goodyera oblongifolia rattlesnake-plantain GOOB Habenaria sp. rein-orchid HAB Habeneria dilata bog orchid HADI Habeneria unalascensis Alaska bog-orchid HAUN1 Helenium Bigelowii Bigelow's sneezeweed HEBI Helianthus sp. sunflower HEL83 Hemitomes congestum gnome-plant HECO1 Hemizonia sp. tarweed HEM80 Hesperolinon micranthum dwarf flax HEMI3 Heuchera micrantha v. erubescens smallflower alumroot HEMIE Hieracium albiflorum white-flowered hawkweed HIAL Hollisteria lanata hollisteria HOLA2 Hydrophyllum fendleri v. albif. Fendler's waterleaf HYFEA

Hydrophyllum sp. waterleaf - HYD2 Hydrophyllum tenuipes Pacific waterleafiris HYTE Hypericum anagalloides tinkers penny HYAN Hypericum perforatum Klamath weed HYPE Hypochoreris radicata false dandelion HYRA2 Iris chrysophylla slender-tubed iris IRCH Iris douglasiana Douglas' iris IRDO Iris innominata golden iris IRIN Iris sp. iris IRI Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce LASE1 Lagophylla hareleaf LAG Lasthenia chrystoma goldfields LACH3 Lastrea oregana lastrea LAOR Lathyrus sp. pea LAT3 Lathyrus delnorticus Del Norte pea LADE -.athyrus nevadensis Sierra Nevada pea LANE -epidium pepper grass LEP81 Lepidium nitidum peppergrass LENI Ligusticum apufolium hitchiker bur LIAP Lilium sp. lily LIL2 Lilium bolanderi Bolander's lily LIBO1 Lilium columbianum Columbia lily LICO1 Lilium pardilinum leopard lily LIPA1 Lilium Volmeri Volmer's lily LIVO Lilium washingtonianum purp. Washington lily LIWAP Lilium Wigginsii Wiggin's lily LIWI Limnanthes sp. meadow foam LIM1 Limnanthes Douglasii Douglas' meadow foam LIDO Linanthus sp. linanthus LIN80 Ling-usticum californicum lovage LICAl Linnaea borealis western twinflower LIBOL Listera caurina western twayblade LICA4 Listera convallarioides broad-lipped twayblade LICO4 Lithophragma heterophylla woodland star LIHE Lithophragma parviflora prairie star LIPA5 Lomatium sp. lomatium LOM80 Lomatium dissectum fernleaf lomatium LOD I Lonicera hispidula vacillans hairy honeysuckle LOHIV Lotus sp. lotus LOT81 Lotus crassifolius big deervetch LOCR Lotus pinnatus lotus LOPI2 'ruina hypoleuca little luina LUHY2 Lupinus sp. lupine LUP81 Lupinus tracyii Tracy's lupine LUTR2 Madia sp. tarweed MAD 3 Madia madioides woodland tarweed MAMA1 Maianthemum dilatatum false lily-of-the-valley MAD I1 Malva sp. cheeseweed MAL3 Marah fabaceus wild cucumber MAFAl Mentha pulegium penneyroyal MEPU1 Microsteris slender phlox MIC6 Mimulus sp. monkeyflower MIM81 Mimulus alsinoides chickweed monkey flower MIAL Mimulus gutteus seep spring monkeyflower MIGU Mimulus primuloides primrose monkey flower MIPR Mitell trifida three-toothed mitrewort MITR3 Mitella sp. bishop's-cap MIT Mitella caulescens mitrewort MICA4 Mitella diversifolia varied-leaf mitrewort MITR3 Mitella ovalis coastal mitrewort MIOV Monardella odoratisima mountain pennyroyal MOOD Moneses uniflora var. reticulata moneses MOUNR Monitropa uniflora Indian-pipe MOUN2 Monotropa hypopithys pinesap MOHY1 Montia perfoliata miner's lettuce MOPE2 Montia siberica candyflower MOS I Montia spathulata common montia MASP2 Navarretia sp. navarretia NAV Navarretia intertexta needle navarretia NAIN Navarretia pubescens downy navarretia NAPU2 Nemophila sp. nemophila NEM3 Nemophila parviflora small-flowered nemophila NEPA Nemophila peduncularis meadow nemophila NEPE Oenothera sp. evening primrose OEN81 Onchium densum cliff-brake ONDE Orthocarpus luteus owl clover ORLU Osmorhiza sp. sweet-cicely OSM Osmorhiza chilensis mountain sweet-cicely OSCH Oxalis oregana redwood sorrel OXORl Oxypolis occidentalis oxypolis OXIC Pedicularis recemosa leafy pedicularis PERA1 Peltiphyllum peltatum indian rhubarb PEPE3 Penstenom abquineus tongue-leaved penstenom PEAN Penstenom deustus hot-rock penstenom PEDE2 Penstenom nemorosus woodland penstenom PINE1 Penstenom Newberryi Newberry's penstenom PENE3 Perideridia sp. yampah PER2 Perideridia gairdneri Gairdner's yampah PEGA Petasites palmatus western coltsfoot PEPA2 Phacelia sp. phacelia PHA81 Phlox sp. phlox PHL80 Phlox adsurgens wodland phlox PHAD 2 Pityopus californicus pine-foot PICA Plantago lanceolata plantain PLLA Platystemon californicus cream cups PLCA4 Plectritus congesta sea blush PLCO Pleuricospora fimbriolata pinesap PLFI Polygala californica California milkwort POCA8 Polygala cornuta Sierra milkwort POC06 Polygonum sp. knotweed POL84 Polygonum bistortoides western bistort POBI3 Polygonum phytolaccaefolium Alpine knotweed POPH Polypodium californicum licorice-fern POCAl Polypodium glycyrrhiza licorice-fern POGL1 Polypodium scouleri leather fern POSC1 Polystichum munitum swordfern POMUl Polystichum munitum imbricans imbricate swordfern POMUI Potentilla sp. cinquifoil POT4 Potentilla pacifica silverweed POPA Prunella vulgaris self-heal PRVU Psoralea californica California tea PSCA1 Psoralea physodes California tea PSPH Pteridium aquilinum v. lanuginos. bracken fern PTAQL Pterospora andromedea pinedrops PTAN Pyrola asarifolia var. bracteata large wintergreen PYASB Pyrola picta white-vein wintergreen PYPI Pyrola picta formma aphylla leafless wintergreen PYPIA Pyrola picta ssp. dentata Nootka wintergreen PYPID Pyrola secunda one-side wintergreen PYSE Ranunculus sp. buttercup RAN3 Ranunculus occidentalis buttercup RAOC Rumex sp. dock RUM3 Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel RUAC Rumex crispus curly dock RUCR2 Sanicula sp. sanicle SAN4 Sanicula bipinnatifida puple sanicle SABI3 Sanicula Traceyi Tracey's sanicle SATRl Sanicula tuberosa turkey pea SATU Sarcodes sanquinea snowplant SASA3 Satureja Douglasii yerba buena SADO1 Saxifraga sp. saxifraga SAX3 Sedum sp. stonecrop SED Sedum laxum ssp. flavidum Trinity stonecrop SELAF Sedum obrusatum ssp. retusum stonecrop SEOBR Sedum spathulifolium spatula-leaf stonecrop SEOBR Sedum stenopetalum ssp. radiatum narrow-petaled stonecrop SESP2 Senecio triangularis arrowleaf groundsel SETR Sidalcea malvaeflora mallow-leafed checker SIMA1 Silene sp. catchfly SIL3 Silene californica California catchfly SICAl Silene campanulata slender catchfly SICA3 Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass SIBE Smilacena stellata starry Solomon-seal SMST Smilacina racemosa amplexicaulis western Solomon-seal SMRAA Smilacina stellata star Solomon's seal SMST Solidago californica goldenrod SOCA2 Stachys sp. hedge nettle STA3 Stachys rigida var. lanata hedge-nettle STRIL Stellaria sp. starwort STE4 Stellaria jamesiana sticky starwort STJA Stellaria media chickweed STME Strepopus amplexifolius dent. twisted stalk STAMID Synthyris reniformis cordata snow-queen SYREC Taraxacum sp. dandelion TAR Taraxacum officianale dandelion TAOF Tellima grandiflora Alaska fringecup TEGE Thelypodium lasiophyllum mustard THLA2 Thermopsis macrophylla false-lupine THMA Thysanocarpus curvipes fringe pod THCU Tiarella trifoliata coolwort foamflower TITR Tiarella unifoliata sugar-scoop TIUN Tofieldia glutinsa occidentalis tofieldia TOGLO Tolmiea menziesii tolmiea TOME Trientalis latifolia western starflower TRLA3 Trifolium sp. clover TRI11 Trifolium howelii Howell's clover TRHO Trifolium longpipes long-stalked clover TRLO Trifollium fucatum bull clover TRFU Trifolium tridentatum tomcat clover TRTR Trillium ovatum white trillium TROV2 Trillium rivale Oregon trillium TRRI Trillium sp. trillium TRI? Triteleia sp. triteleia TRI18 Triteleia hyacinthina white hyacinth TRHY2 Triteleia laxa wally basket TRLA Valeriana sitchensis mountain valerian VASI Vancouveria chrysantha yellow inside-out flower VACH Vancouveria hexandra western voncouveria VAHE Vancouveria planipetala small inside-out flower VAPL Veratrum sp. false hellebore VERi Veratrum calefornicum California falsehellebore VECCA1 Veratrum veride green false hellebore VEVE1 Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein VETH Verbena lasiostachys western verbena VELA Veronica americana brooklime VEAM Veronica cusickii cusick's speedwell VECU Vicia sp. vetch VIC3 Vicia Americana var. occidentalis American vetch VIAMO Vicia californica California vetch VICAl Viola sp. violet VI03 Viola glabella stream violet VIGL Viola lobata pine violet VILO Viola sempervirens redwood violet VISE Viola sheltonii Shelton's violet VISH Whipplea modesta western modesty WHMO Woodwardia fimbriata giant chain-fern WOFI Wyethia angustifolia mules ears WYAN Xerophyllum tenax beargrass XETE t-_-m 4mn-- A e4 - n s: ------~-I----- common name EDP bgropyron trichophorum(Elytriga int.) pubescent wheatgrass AGTR2 igrostis alba redtop AGAL Agrostis exarata AGEX1 Agrostis oregonensis AGOR Agrostis pallens AGPA2 Aira caryophylla Hairgrass AIRA Arrhenatherum elatus tall oargrass AREL1 Avena barbata slender wild oat AVBA Avena fatua wild oats AVFA Briza minor little quakinggrass BRMI1 Bromus vulgaris Columbia brome BRVU Bromus breviaristatus brome BRBR1 Bromus carinatus California brome BRCA1 Bromus madritensis( Rubens) BRMA2 Bromus marginatus large mountain brome BRMA3 Bromus mollis(hordeaeus) soft chess BRM02 Bromus pacificus Pacific brome BRPA Bromus rigidus (diandrus) ripgut grass BRRI2 Bromus secalinus BRSE Bromus sp. brome BRO3 Bromus suksdorfii Suksdoff's brome BRSU Bromus tectorum cheatgrass BRTE Calamagrostis brewerii CABR1 Calamagrostis koelerioides fire reedgrass CAKO Carex bolanderi Bolander's sedge CABO2 Carex densa CADE2 Carex jonesii CAJO Carex lemmonii CALE2 Carex multicostata CAMU2 Carex ormantha western stellate sedge CAOR Carex scopulorum v. bracteosa CASCB Carex sp. sedge CAR1 Carex vesicaria CAVE2 Cynosurus echinatus dogtail grass CYEC Cyperaceae CYPERA Dactylis glomerata orchard grass DAGL1 Danthonia californica var. americana American oatgrass DACAA Danthonia californica var. californica DECAC Danthonia unispicata one-spiked oatgrass DAUN Deschampsia caespitosa tufted hairgrass DECAH Deschampsia caespitosa var.caespitosa DECAC Deschampsia elongata slender oatgrass DEEL Eleochar~is parishii ELPA4 Eleocharis pauciflora ELPA6 Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head ELCA2 Elymus glaucus blue wild rye ELGL Elymus glaucus glaucus ELGLG Festuca californica Califounia fescue FECA Festuca dertonensis FEDE Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue FEID Festuca megalura(Vulpia myuros FEME Festuca occidentalis western fescue FEOC1 Festuca pratensis FEPR istuca sp. fescue FES3 .astuca subuliflora cinklelawn fescue FESU2 Festuca subulata bearded fescue FESU1 Glyceria elata GLEL Glyceria striata GLST Graminoid sp. grass GRAM Hierochloe occidentalis California sweetgrass HIOC Holcus lanatus velvet grass HOLA1 Hordeum geniculatum HOGE Hordeum leporinum foxtail HOLE Juncus balticus JUBA Juncus confusus JUCOl Juncus effusus JUEF Juncus effusus var. gracilis common rush JUEFG Juncus patens JUPA2 Juncus phaeocephalus JUPH Juncus saximontanus JUSA Juncus sp. wiregrass, rush JUN2 Luzula comosa woodrush LUCO1 Luzula parviflora woodrush LUPA1 Luzula sp. woodrush LUZ Luzula subcongesta LUSU1 Melica aristata bearded oniongrass MEAR1 Melica fugax small oniongrass MEFU Melica harfordii Harford's oniongrass MEHA Melica sp. oniongrass MEL1 alica subulata Alaska oniongrass MErSU .uhlenbergia filiformis MUFI Phalaris tuberosa phalaris PHTU Phleum alpinum Alpine Timothy PHAL Phleum pratense Timothy PHPR1 Poa nervosa Wheeler bluegrss PONE1 Poa piperi timber bluegrass POPI Poa palustris POPA1 Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass POPR1 Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass POSE1 Poa sp. bluegrass POA3 Poa trivialis rough bluegrass POTR1 Scirpus congdoni SCCO Scirpus criniger ( Eriophorum c.) SCCR Scirpus microcarpus SCMI Scirpus sp. SCIl Sitanion hystrix(Elymus elamoides) squirreltail SIHY Stipa lemmonii lemon stipa STLE1 Trisetum cernuum c. TRCEC Vulpia microstachys v. ciliata VUMIC1 Vulpia microstachys v. pauciflora VUMIP Vulpia sp. VUL APPENDIX D

Table 1. Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FM Number and Distribution) by Vegetation Series/Subseries and Seral Stage

SERAL STAGE VEGETATION SERIES | SF| PP| EM MM LM I OGl (EUI Code)

Tanoak-Shrub (000000) 6-1.0|6-1.0|8-.6 19-.55 8-.6 9-.8 i -.,-.4 11-.5 11-.4 11-.21

Tanoak Unknown (000099) 6-1.0 6-1.0 8-.6 9-.5 18-.6 9-.8 6-.4 11-.5111-.4 11-.21 Tanoak - Black Oak 6-1.0 6-1.0 6-.4 9-.51 8-.6 9-.8 (001300) 8-.6 11-.49111-.4111-.2

Tancak - Incense Cedar 2-.4912-.4 8-1.0|8-.8 8-.6 8-.8 (001600) 15-. 518-. 6 111-. 211-. 411-.2

Tanoak - Canyon Live Oak 5-1.018-1.0|8-1.019-.6 9-.7 9-.8 (001700) 11-.4111-.31911-.21

Tanoak - Chinquapin 6-1.018-1.019-.8 9-.8 9-.8 5-.8 (001900) l 5-.2 111-.21911-.21 11-.21

Tanoak - Maple (002300) |5-1.0I5-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|

Port Orford Cedar (01) |5-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|10-1.|10-.|

White Fir (02) 5-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|8-1.0|10-.|10-1.|

White Fir Plantation 5-1.0|8-1.0|8-.51 8-.3 8-.6 8-.8 (02) 10-.49 10-.7110-.4110-.21

White Fir - Tanoak 6-1.0|8-1.0|8-.8 |8-.5 |9-.51 19-.3 (020000) l1 l1 11l-.2 11-.5 10-.49 10-.71

White Fir - White Fir 5-1.0|8-1.0|8-.51 |8-.3 8-.6 8-.8 (020200) I 10-.49 10-.7110-.421-0-.21

White Fir - Red Fir 5-1.0|8-1.0|8-.51 |8-.3 18-.6 8-.8 (020300) 1 10-.49 10-.7 10-.41180-.21

White Fir - Douglas Fir 5-1.018-1.018-1.018-.6 8-.4 |8-.51 (020500) l 10-.4110-. 610-.491

White Fir - White Oak 2-1.0|2-.49|2-.2 9-.8 9- .51|9-.8 (021200) 1 9-.51 9-.8 110-.2110-.491910-.2

White Fir - Incense Cedarl2-1.012-.5118-1.018-.6 8.8 8-1.0 (021600) ~~~1 15-.491 111- lo1-.21

White Fir-Canyon Live Oak 5-.5 18-.6 8-1.0 8-.8 |8-.6 8-.8 (021700) 12-.5 2-.44 1 111-.2 11-.4 11-.2 SEPAL STAGE VEGETATION SERIES SF _ PP L EM I MM _ LM! OGD (EUI Code)

White Fir - Chinquapin 5-1.0 8-.5 8-.8 18-.6 18-.7 8-.8 (021900) 5-. 5 11l-.2 1ll-.110-.3310-.21

Red Fir (03) I5-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0I10-1. 110-1.1

Red Fir - White Fir 5-1.048-1.0 8-.51 8-.3 l8-.6 l8-.8 (030200) I 1 110-.49 10-.71810-.41 10-.2

Red Fir Incense Cedar 2-1.0 2-.5118-1.018-.6 8-.8 8-1.0 (031600) 5-.49 1l-.41l0-.2

Jeffrey Pine (04) 1-1.011-.5112-1.012-.5112-.8 12-1.01 1 12-.49 8-.49 8-.2

Jeffrey Pine - Idaho Fescue 11-1.011-1.011-1.011-1.011-1.011-1.01 (040002)

Jeffrey Pine - Buckbrush 2-.4 12-.6 12-.5112-.5112-.5112-.6 1 (040003) 8-.6 8-.4 8-.49 9-.49 8-.49 8-.4

Jeffrey Pine - Douglas Fir 2-1.012-.51 9-.8 (040500) 9-. 49 2-.2

Jeffrey Pine - Incense 2-1.012-.5112-.2 Cedar (041600) 9-.49 9-.8 lo-.611 1

Douglas Fir - Plantation 2-.5118-.6 18-1.0 18-.8 8-.6 8-.8 (05) 5-. 49 2-. 4 11-_.2111-.4j111-.2j

Douglas Fir - Tanoak 6-1.016-.6 16-.4 6-.2 15-.2 5-.8 (050000) 8-. 4 8-. 6 8-.8 8-.8 10-.2

Douglas Fir - Jeffrey 2-1.012-.5112-.2 18-1. 18-.4 110-1I Pine (050400) 9-.49 9-.8

Douglas Fir - Shrub 6-1.016-.6 16-.4 6-.2 15-.2 5-.8 (050500) 8-.4 8-.6 8-.8 8-.8 l10-.2

Douglas Fir - Ponderosa 2-1.012-.S112-.2 8-1. 18-.4 110-1.01 Pine (050700) 9-.49 9-.8 1 110-.611 1

Douglas fir - White Oak 2-1.012-.5112-.2 9-.8 9-.51 9-.8 (051200) 1 19-.49 9-.8 10-.2110-.49110-.2

Douglas fir - Black Oak 2-.8 12-.2 15-.8 8-.8 10-. 89-.8 (051300) 5-.2 5-.8 8-.2 10- .218-.2 10-.2

Douglas Fir - Incense 2-1.012-.5112-.2 18-1. 18-.4 10-1 Cedar (051600) 1 19-.49 9-.8 10-.61 1 SERAL STAGE VEGETATION SERIES SF PP EM MM LM 0 l (EUI Code)

Douglas fir - Canyon Live 2-.5118-.6 18-1.018-. 8 18-.6 8-.8 Oak (051700) 5-.49 2-.4 11-.2 ll-.41l1-.2

Douglas Fir - Chinquapin 5-1.015-.49 8-.8 8-.6 18-.7 8-.8 (051900) 8-.51 11-.2 11-.4 10-.3 10-.2

Lodgepole Pine (06) 5 8 I 8 1 10 I 10

Ponderosa Pine (07) 1-1.011-.51 2-1.012-.5112-.8 12-1.01 2-.49 8-.49 8-.2

Mountain Hemlock (08) 15-1.018-1.018-1.0 18-1.018-1.018-1.0 Alder (10) 5-1.015-1.018-1.0 18-1.018-1.018-1.01

Grassland-Annuals (11) I1-1.011-1.011-1.011-1.011-1.011-1.01

White Oak (12) 1-1.011-.5112-1.012-.5 12-.8 12-1.0l 2-.49 8-.5 8-.2

White Oak - Brewer Oak 2-1.012-.4 16-.6 16-.5116-.5116-.51 (120001) 6-.6 8-.4 9-.49 9-. 49 9-. 49

White Oak - Douglas Fir 1-1.011-.5112-1.012-.5112-.8 12-1.01 (120500) 1 12-.49 8-.49 8-.2

White Oak - Black Oak 1-1.011-.5112-1.012-.5112-.8 12-1.0l (121300) 2-.49 8-.49 8-.2

White Oak - Live Oak 2-.49 2-.4 18-1.0 8-.8 8-.6 8-.8 (121700) 5-.51 8-.6 ll-.2j11-.4 11- .2

Black Oak (13) 1-1.011-. 5 12-1.012-.5 12-. 8 12-1.0l 2-. 5 8-. 5 8-. 2

Redwood (14) I5-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0110-1.110-1.1

Western White Pine (15) I5-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0110-1.1

Incense Cedar (16) IS-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0110-1.1

Canyon Live Oak (17) 5-.49 8-1.0 8-1.018-.8 18-.8 18-.821 8-.511 1 1-.2 11- .2 11-.2

Canyon Live Oak - 5-.4918-1.018-1.018-.B 8-.8 8-.8 Douglas Fir (170500) 8-.51l l1-.211-.2111-.21

Brewers Spruce (18) 15-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0110-1.1 SERAL STAGE VEGETATION SERIES I SF I PP I EM I MM I LM I OG I (EUI Code)

Chinquapin (19) 15-1.019-1.019-1.019-1.019-1.019-1.0

Gray Pine (20) IS-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0110-1.1

Knobcone Pine (21) I5-1.08--1.018-l.018-1.0110-1.110-1.I

Western Hemlock (22) I5-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0110-1.I

Bigleaf/Vine Maple (23) I5-1.015-1.019-1.019-1.019-1.019-1.0

Riparian (28) 15-1.015-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.018-1.0 T&Dle 2. June rates-of-spread (ROS) in ft/min and flame lengths (FL) in ft by fuel model(s) and slope class

PERCENT SLOPE FUEL MODEL(S) I 0-25% 1 26-40%1 41-55%1 56+% I (Model No. and proportion)

1 - 1.00 ROS 106 120 1515 196 FL I 4.6 4.9 6.2 5.°5 1 - 0.51 ROS 72 81 131 101 2 - 0.49 FL I 4.6 4.9 6.2

2 - 1.00 ROS 35 40 48 62 FL I 6.0 6.3 6.9 7.7

2 - 0.20 ROS 14 15 19 24 5 - 0.80 FL I 2.3 2.4 2.9 23.6°l 2 - 0.49 ROS 22 24 30 37 5 - 0.51 FL I 2.3 2.4 2.9

2 - 0.51 ROS 22 25 31 38 5 - 0.49 FL I 6.0 6.3 6.39 7.7

2 - 0.80 ROS 30 34 42 53 5 - 0.20 FL I 6.0 6.3 6. 9 7.7

2 - 0.40 ROS 36 41 63 1 7.050 6 0.60 FL I 6.1 6.4 7.8

2 - 0.51 ROS 22 19 262 1 34 8 - 0.49 FL I 6.0 6.3 6.9 7.7

2 - 0.40 ROS 15 18 21 28 3 - 0.60 FL 1.1 1.2 1. 3 1.4

2 - 0.60 ROS 22 25 3.1 38 8 - 0.40 FL 6.0 6.3 6.39 7.7

2 - 0.80 ROS 29 33 40 51 3 - 0.20 FL I 6.0 6.3 6. 9 7.7

2 - 0.20 ROS 15 16 2.1 26 9 - 0.80 FL I 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

2 - 0.51 ROS 23 25 32 40 9 - 0.49 FL I 6.0 6.3 6. 9 7.7

5 - 1.00 ROS 8 8 10 13 FL I 2.3 2.4 2. 6 2.9

5 - 0.20 ROS 4 4 6 8 - 0.80 FL I 1.1 1.2 1. 3 1.4 I

5 - 0.49 ROS 6 7 9 8 - 0.51 1.1 1.3 1.4

FL I 5 - 0.80 ROS 7 8 10 12 8 - 0.20 FL I 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.9 2114 5 - 0.20 ROS 10 13 16 9 - 0.80 FL I 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

5 - 0.80 ROS 8 l 9 l 11 14 10 - 0.20 FL I 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.9

5 - 0.80 ROS 8 l 9 l 11 13 11 - 0.20 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.9

FL I 6 - 1.00 ROS 37 42 51 64 FL I 6.1 6.4 7.0 7.8

6 - 0.20 ROS 9 12 15 8 - 0.80 FL I 1.1 1 0 1.3 1.4

6 - 0.40 ROS 16 22 28 8 - 0.60 FL I 1. 1 1.2 1.3 1.4

6 - 0.60 ROS 23 26 32 40 8 - 0.40 FL I 6.1 6.4 7.0 7.8

6 - 0.51 ROS 24 26 32 41 9 - 0.49 FL I 6.1 6.4 7.0 7.8

8 - 1.00 ROS 2 2 3 4 FL I 1. 1 1.2 1.3 1.4

8 - 0.20 ROS 7 8 9 12 10 - 0.80 FL I 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0

8 - 0.30 ROS 7 7 9 11 10 - 0.70 FL I 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0

8 - 0.40 ROS 6 7 8 10 10 - 0.60 FL I 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0

8 - 0.51 ROS 4 6 7 9 10 - 0.49 FL I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

8 - 0.49 ROS 6 6 7 9 10 - 0.51 FL I 4. 6 4.9 5.4 6.0

8 - 0.60 ROS 4 6 7 8 10 - 0.40 FL I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

8 - 0.70 ROS 4 4 6 7 10 - 0.30 FL I 1.1I 1.2 1.3 1. 4 N

8 - 0.80 ROS 3 | 3 1.4 6 10 - 0.20 FL 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

8 - 0.51 ROS 4 6 7 8 11 - 0.49 FL 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

8 - 0.60 ROS 4 1.4 | 6 8 11 - 0.40 FL 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

8 - 0.80 ROS | 3 | 3 1.4 6 11 - 0.20 FL 1.21 2 1.3 1.4

9 - 1.00 ROS 9 10 12 15 FL 3.09 3.1 | 3.4 3.8

9 - 0.30 ROS 9 10 11 14 10 - 0.70 FL 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0

9 - 0.51 ROS 9 10 12 15 10 - 0.49 FL 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

9 - 0.80 ROS 10 11 13 16 10 - 0.20 FL 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

9 - 0.51 ROS 9 9 11 14 11 - 0.49 FL 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

9 - 0.60 ROS | 9 | 10 | 12 15A 11 - 0.40 FL | 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

9 - 0.70 ROS 9 10 12 15 11 - 0.30 FL 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

9 - 0.80 ROS 9 10 12 15 11 - 0.20 FL 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8

10 - 1.00 ROS 7 | 8 | 10 13 FL 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0 Table 3. August rates-of-spread (ROS) in ft/min and flame lengths (FL) in ft by 4uel model(s) and slope classes

PERCENT SLOPE FUEL MODEL(S) 10-25% 1 26-40% 41-55%1 56+%t (Model No. and Proportion)

1 - 1.00 ROS 305 327 372 440 FL 8.5 8.7 9.3 10. 0

1 - 0.51 ROS 208 222 253 298 2 - 0.49 FL 8.5 8.7 9.3 I10. 0

2 - 1.00 ROS 107 113 129 151 FL 11.1 11.5 12.1 13.1

2 - 0.20 ROS 73 78 89 104 5 - 0.80 FL 10.0 l 10. 4 11.0 11. 9

2 - 0.80 RDS 998 104 119 140 - 0.20 FL 11.1 11.5 12. 1 13.1

2 - 0.49 ROS 85 91 103 121 5 - 0.51 FL 10.0 10.4 11.0 11.9

2 - 0.51 ROS 86 92 104 122 5- 0.49 FL 11.1 11.5 12.1 13.1

2 - 0.40 ROS 58 65 79 99 6 - 0.60 FL 8.4 8.8 9.6 10.7

2 - 0.51 ROS 57 60 69 80 8 - 0.49 FL 11.1 11.5 12. 1 13.1

2 - 0.40 ROS 45 48 55 65 8 - 0.60 FL 1.8 1 1.9 2.0 2.2

2 - 0.60 ROS 37 42 51 65 8 - 0.40 FL 8.5 9.0 9.9 11.0

2 - 0.80 ROS 86 92 104 122 8 - 0.20 FL 11.1 11.5 12. 1 13 . 1

2 - 0.20 ROS 42 44 51 59 9 - 0.80 FL 5.2 5.4 5.7 1 6.2

2 - 0.51 ROS 67 72 80 95 9 - 0.49 FL 11.1 11.5 1 12.1 1 13.1

5 - 1.00 ROS 65 69 1 79 1 94 FL 10.0 10.4 1. 11. 9

5 - 0.20 ROS 11 12 1 15 1 19 8 - 0.80 FL 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 5 - 0.49 ROS 34 137 42 50 8 - 0.51 FL 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2

5 - 0.80 ROS 53 1056 1165 76 8 - 0.20 FL 10.0 10.4 11.0 11.9

5 - 0.20 ROS 33 S35 541 47 9 - 0.80 FL 5.2 5.4 5.7 6.2

5 - 0.80 ROS 36 | 40 | 48 62 10 - 0.20 FL 8.2 8.6 9.4 10.4

5 - 0.80 ROS 54 | 58 1167 79 11 - 0.20 FL 10.0 10.4 11.0 11.9

6 - 1.00 ROS 87 094 107 126 FL 10.2 10.5 11.2 12.1

6 - 0.20 ROS 14 I15 19 24 8 - 0.80 FL 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9

6 - 0.40 ROS 38 141 46 55 8 - 0.60 FL 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2

6 - 0.60 ROS 35 840 947 60 8 - 0.40 FL 8.4 8.8 9.6 10.7

6 - 0.51 ROS 36 841 950 62 9 - 0.49 FL 8.4 8.8 9.6 10.7

8 - 1.00 ROS 6 1.6 | 7 8 FL 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2

8 - 0.20 ROS 19 | 21 923 29 10 - 0.80 FL 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.2

8 - 0.30 ROS 18 819 922 25 10 - 0.70 FL 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.2

8 - 0.40 ROS 15 816 920 23 10 - 0.60 FL 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.2

8 - 0.49 ROS 14 | 15 | 18 21 10 - 0.51 FL 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.2

8 - 0.51 ROS 13 114 16 21 10 - 0.49 FL 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2

8 - 0.60 ROS 12 113 15 19 10 - 0.40 FL 1.8 1.9 2.01 2.2

8 - 0.70 ROS 10 11 13 15 10 - 0.30 FL 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 8 - 0.80 ROS 9 10 11 13 10 - 0.20 FL 1.8 l 11 9° 2.0 2.2 1.9 8 - 0.51 ROS 10 12 14 11 - 0.49 FL 1.8 2.0 2.2

8 - 0.60 ROS 9 l 1190 I 11 12 1 10 11 - 0.40 FL 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.91 8 - 0.80 ROS 7 9 11 11 - 0.20 FL 1.8 2.0 2.2

9 - 1.00 ROS 25 281 31 36 FL 5.2 l 5.4 5.7 6.2

9 - 0.30 ROS 23 25 29 34 10 - 0.70 FL 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.2

9 - 0.51 ROS 24 2 5 30 35 10 - 0.49 FL 5.2 5.7 6.2

9 - 0.80 ROS 25 26 31 35 10 - 0.20 FL 5.2 5.4 5.7 6.2

9 - 0.51 ROS 20 2 1 24 29 11 - 0.49 FL 5.2 5.24 5.7 6.2

9 - 0.60 ROS 21 22 25 31 11 - 0.40 FL 5.2 5.4 5.7 6.2

9 - 0.70 ROS 22 23 2 6 32 11 - 0.30 FL 5.2 l 5.4 5.27 6.2

9 - 0.80 ROS 23 2 5 29 33 11 - 0.20 FL 5.2 5. 4 5.7 6.2

10 - 1. 00 ROS 22 24 28 33 FL 8.4 8.8 9.4 10.2 APPENDIX E

Answers to the TES Questions from the FY 94-96 Watershed Analysis Guidelines

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

1a. Q Are spotted owl activity centers located within the watershed? I a A. Yes. lb. Q If so, how many and in what ROD land allocations are they located? lb. A. There are 23 territories in the watershed; 19 in LSR RC306, 4 in Hayfork A-MA, 0 in Matrix.

I c. Q WXhich of these are currently above "take" thresholds and which are below? I c. A: The USFWS considers an owl territory to be "taken" when the number of suitable neszincJroosting acres drops below the following levels: 500 acres suitable nesting'roosting habitat within a 0.7 mile radius circle around the activity center and 1340 acres within a 1.3 mile radius circle. Based on the criteria above, 16 of the 23 territories meet the mrinimum acreage requirements, seven do not (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of acres of suitable nestinz/roosting habitat within a 0.7 and 1.3 mile radius circle around each spotted owl teritory activity center in the Grouse Creek watershed. Owl territories not meeting miunimum acreage requirements are hiyh-ilihted.

Suitable Spotted Owl Habitat (acres) Owl Territory Number within 0.7 mile within 1.3 miles 164 598 1557 165 575 2056 166 542 1760 167 546 1872 168 611 2092 169 701 2041 1S3 376 1452 1S4 528 1809 191 4S6 1606 192 584 1843 193 517 1398 194 430 1764 195 721 1 S78 196 599 1868 199 767 2160 202 558 1434 279 696 2229 2S2 485 1734 2S3 196 522 284 342 1065 285 619 1935 308 299 1135 343 765 2542

Id. Q: When were the activity centers located? Describe the reproductive history. id. A: See table 2.

Table 2. Summary of reproductive history for all spotted owl territories in the Grouse Creek watershed. Source: Six Rivers National Forest Wildlife Sighting Database.

Owl Territory Reproductive Year First Year Last Last Year Number Statusa Located Located Reproductive

- 164 RP 1979 1994 1989 165 RP 1979 1994 1994 166 P 1980 1994 167 P 1982 1992 168 P 1978 1992 169 RP 1985 1994 1992 183 RP 1980 1994 1994 184 RP 1979 1994 1988 191 RP 1980 1994 1994 192 RP 1983 4994 1988 193 RP 1986 1994 1991 194 P 1989 1992 195 RP 1983 1988 1986 196 P 1979 1991 199 S 1983 1992 202 S 1980 1980 279 RP 1991 1994 1992 2S2 RP 1991 1992 1992 283 T 1991 1991 2S4 RP 1991 1992 1992 285 RP 1991 1994 1992 308 S 1991 1991 343 P 1980 1991 ' RP = Reproductive Pair, P = Pair, T = Territorial Single, S = Non-Territorial Single

2. Q: Has a 100-acre core area been designated around each activity center located in matrix lands? 2. A: Not applicable. No spotted owl territory falls within the matrix lands of the watershed. However, a 100-acre core area has been established around the activity center of territory number 283 (Cow Creek Ridge). The activity center of this territory falls within the Havfork AMA.

3 a. Q: How many acres of nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat are there in the watershed? 3a. A: There are approximately 19,612 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat in the watershed.

3b. Q: What percent of the watershed is this? 3b. A: Fifty four percent.

3c. Q: Which of these stands have been surveyed to protocol? (Protocol requires a 2-year surt.ey of 3 visits each year) 3c. A: Nearly the entire watershed has been surveyed to protocol. The northern one third of the watershed is surveyed each year as part of the Willow Creek Demographnic Study. The remaining portions have been surveyed by the Forest Service or by private biological consultants as part of SOHA (Spotted Owl Habitat Area) management areas, timber sales, special use permits, and burn units. However, all areas surveyed, except the area covered by the Demographic Study, have not been visited for at least two years.

3d. Q: Which have not? 3d. A: Only very small portions of private timber land in the extreme southeastern portion of the watershed may not have been surveyed. However, it is possible that the Demographic Study crews may have surveyed these areas as they are adjacent to owl territories discovered by the crews.

4. Q: What is the amount of NRF habitat in each ROD land allocation within the watershed? 4. A: See table 3.

Table 3. Amount of suitable NRF habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed by ROD land allocation.

ROD Land Suitable NRF Allocation Habitat (acres) LSR 12,452 Matrix 0 A.MA 3,354 PVT 3,785

5a. Q: Does any portion of the watershed contain LSRs? (What percent of the total watershed is this?) 5a. A: Yes. Approximately 17,321 acres (48% of watershed) of LSR RC306 is within the Grouse Creek watershed.

5b. Q: What are the current totals of NRF habitat and "capable" habitat in the LSR? 5b. A: 12,452 acres.

6. Q: What is the amount of dispersal habitat (11-40 and above, depending on site-specific knowledge) in each ROD land allocation within the watershed? 6. A: See Table 4.

Table 4. Amount of dispersal habitat by ROD Land Allocation in the Grouse Creek watershed.

ROD Land Dispersal Habitat Allocation (acres) LSR 14,428 Matrix 0 ALMAN 3,917 PVT 6,591

7a. Q: Is distance between LSRs (those over 10,000 acres) greater than 4 miles? 7a. A: The LSR in the Grouse Creek watershed (i.e., RC306) is less than 4 miles from the nearest LSR to the north (i.e., RC305), but is greater than 4 miles (approximately 11 miles) from the nearest LSR to the south (i.e., RC307).

7b. Q: If so, then what is the amount of dispersal habitat on Federal lands for all 1/4 townships between the LSRs? 7b. A: See Table 5. The Pilot Creek watershed makes up the majority of the land between LSR RC306 and RC307. Nearly the entire Pilot Creek watershed meets spotted owl dispersal requirements; 75 percent of the watershed has mean tree dbh >11 inches and 88 percent has > 40 percent mean canopy closure. In fact, the Pilot Creek watershed is composed primarily of large, contiguous blocks of spotted owl NRF habitat. One of thel/4 townships (02NO5A.EH) between the two LSRs apparently does not meet 11-40 (Table 5), yet field observations seem to contradict the available digital data; It is possibly due to natural fragmentation from a concentration of meadows in the 1/4 township. Table 5. Amount of dispersal habitat on federal land within each 1/4 township between LSR RC306 (Grouse Creek watershed) and RC307. Quarter townships not meeting 50-11-40 are hiahlighted.

Number of Acres Number of Acres not Percent of habitat 1/4 Township meeting 11-40 meeting 11-40 meeting 11-40 03NOSAEH 1,110 486 69.5 03NO5BEH 2,298 1,888 54.9 03NO5CEH 1,246 300 80.6 03NOSDEH 2,000 1,729 53 6 02NO5AEH 1,358 1,908 41.6 02NO5BEH 485 288 62.7 02NO5DEH 1,047 592 63.9 02NO6BEH 1,045 468 69.1 02NO6CEH 1,977 910 68.5

/c Q: What percent of the total federal lands in these 1/4 townships is this? 7c. A: See Table 5.

d. Q: How much (percent and total) of the dispersal habitat is in Riparian Reserves, Admin. Withdrawal (which provide long-term protection), Congressionally Reserved, 100-acre cores, and smaller (<10,000 acres) LSRs? 7d. A: See Table 6. There are approximately 24,976 acres of dispersal habitat in the Grouse Creek wvatershed. Note that the number of dispersal acres in riparian reserves is a rough estimate based on vegetation series only and not mean tree dbh and canopy closure; riparian reserve boundaries were not linked to vegetation polygons in the database. However, the majority of vegetation polygons in the series chosen did meet the tree size and canopy closure criteria.

Table 6. Amount of dispersal habitat by management area in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Management Area Acres of Dispersal Habitat (% of total dispersal acres in watershed) Riparian Reserves - 18,000 (72%) Admin. Withdrawal 0 Congressionally Reserved 41 (<1%) 100-acre core area 153 (<1%) "smaller" LSR 5,081 (20%) 01,

7e. Q: Is this total greater than 50%? 7e. A: Yes. See table 6.

7f. Q: Describe, if present, the natural barriers to dispersal. 7f. A: The highly fragmented private timber lands on the western and southeastern edges of the watershed are probably a barrier to dispersal. There are no known natural barriers.

7g. Q: Is connectivity, or dispersal habitat, sufficient to allow movement? 7a. A: There is sufficient dispersal habitat for movements to the north, south and east. However, the hichly fragmented private timber land on the western and southeastern edges of the watershed is likely not sufficient for dispersal. See the discussion on fragmentation and connectivity of late-seral coniferous habitat in the Past and Current Conditions - Wildlife section of the main document.

8a. Q: How much critical habitat has been designated within the watershed? 8a. A: There are approximately 11,673 acres designated as critical habitat (CHU CA-29) in the Grouse Creek watershed.

Sb. Q: How much of this total overlaps with LSRs? 8b. A: CHU CA-29 overlaps 100% with LSR RC 06.

Sc. Q: For areas that do not overlap, how much is currently SNRF habitat, how much is "capable"? Sc. A: Not applicable.

8d. Q: How many activity centers are located in this "non-overlap" area of CHU7? 8d. A: Not applicable.

8e. Q: How many are currently above "take", how many below? (use acres established by FWA'S for .7 and 1.3 mile radius) 8e. A: Not applicable.

8f. Q: What role does this "non-overlap" critical habitat play in this watershed (and/or larger scale) in relation to the reasons for the designation of the CHU? 8f. A: Not applicable. BALD EAGLE

1a. Q: Are occupied bald eagle activity areas (nesting, foraging, winter roosts, or concentration areas) located within the watershed? la. A: No.

lb. Q: If so, what type, how many, and in what ROD land allocations are they located? l b. A: Not applicable.

Ic. Q: Describe the reproductive history based on monitoring data. I c. A: Not applicable.

Id. Q: Has a final site-specific protection/management assessment been developed for each site? I d. A: Not applicable.

I e. Q: Does this watershed analysis corroborate the findings of the management assessment? I e. A: Not applicable.

2a. Q: Has an assessment been made as to whether there are "potential" bald eagle activity areas (nesting, foraging winter roosts, or concentration areas) located within the watershed? ("Potential" would mean the habitat components appear sufficient, but the area is unoccupied, or has not been surveyed.) 2a. A: Yes. Results of suitable habitat analyses conducted as part of this watershed analysis indicate that little or no suitable bald eagle habitat exists in the watershed (see the section on Past and Current Conditions - Wildlife in the main document for details). There are several detections of bald eagles in the watershed, yet they all appear to be "flyovers" from members of the Todd Ranch territory located approximately three miles to the northeast on the South Fork of the Trinity River. Further, only the lower 1.5 miles of the Grouse Creek contains anadromous fish due to the Devastation Slide which blocks access to the remainder of the watershed. Therefore, only resident fish populations would be available to foraging eagles throughout the majority of the watershed. No known surveys have been conducted in the watershed.

2b. Q: If yes, what type, how many, and in what ROD land allocations are they located? 2b. A: Not applicable.

2c Q: Have these areas been surveyed to protocol to determine they are unoccupied? 2c. A: Only watersheds containing "classic" suitable habitat (i.e., large rivers and lakes) have been surveyed for occupied sites on the Six Rivers National Forest. However, when multiple anecdotal detections are reported in a particular area, the site is surveyed for occupancy The Grouse Creek watershed does not meet the above criteria except near it's mouth where it meets the South Fork of the Trinity River (which meets the "classic" definition of suitable habitat). No surveys have been conducted in the watershed, but many experienced biolomists have worked in the watershed in the past few years and have not reported multiple detections. 3. Q: Describe historical bald eagle occurrence and nesting within the watershed. 3. A: There is no known historic occurrence or nesting in the Grouse Creek watershed. There are only three point locations in the SRNF wildlife sighting database, but these points are widely scattered and do not represent an occupied area.

4a Q: What is the status of the watershed as it relates to the Recovery Plan? (Tar-get Recovery territories, etc. Analyses may need to extend beyond the watershed boundaries.) 4a. A: The Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1995; p. IV - 99) states that: "Bald eagles and their habitat will be managed in accordance with the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (UJSDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986)". A total of four known nest sites, feeding areas, and two suspected wintering sites will be protected and manaced according to the Recovery Plan. However, no portion of the Grouse Creek watershed is included.

4b. Q: Does the watershed and the surrounding area meet objectives of the Recovery Plan? 4b. A: The watershed scale may be too small to address this issue. However, the creeks found in the watershed are not considered to be "classic" foraging habitat, especially since the majority (all but 1.5 miles) of the watershed does not contain anadromous fish because of the Devastation Slide. Refer to the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1995) for details on management of the bald eagle at the Forest scale.

4c. Q: If not, then are there "capable" bald eagle activity areas located within the watershed? ("Capable" would mean that many but not all of the habitat components are present, yet the site could become "potential" through enhancement, restoration, or time). 4c A Possibly. If anadromous fish were allowed to pass the blockade formed by the Devastation Slide perhaps the majority of the larger streams in the watershed (primarily Grouse and Mosquito Creeks) may becomesuitable foraging habitat.

4d. Q: If "capable" activity areas are present, what type are they, how many, and in what ROD land allocations are they located? 4d. A: Not applicable.

4e. Q: What type of project or enhancement could be proposed that could help develop the site into "potential" or "occupied" sites? 4e. A: Removal of the barrier created by the Devastation Slide would allow anadromous fish to access the majority of the watershed instead ofjust the lower 1.5 miles of the Grouse Creek.

5. Q: If present, describe the "significant habitat" within the watershed that is currently not under Federal ownership. 5. A: There is very little suitable habitat in the watershed and the private land is even less suitable than the federal land. PEREGRINE FALCON

1. Q: Are any cliffs located within the watershed as determined by topographic maps, aerial photographs and ground/air reconnaissance? (A cliff is defined as a rock wall or outcrop which has a total height of 60 feet or more.) 1. A: None that appear to be suitable for nesting falcons. There is one large limestone cliff, yet it is not located near a suitable body of water.

2. Q: Are any cliffs within the area of watershed analysis historic (pre-1975) or traditional (post-1975) peregrine falcon eyries? 2. A: No.

3. Q: For past projects near historic cliffs, have mitigation measures for habitat surrounding cliffs been considered, and have surveys to protocol (Pagel 1992) been accomplished for at least two years prior to the activities? 3. A: Not applicable.

4a. Q: For traditional cliffs, have surveys or monitoring been conducted to determine nest site, occupancy, and reproductive success. 4a. A. Not applicable.

4b. Q: Has a draft or final site-specific protection/management plan based on site-specific and PNW sub-population nesting ecology been created? 4b. A. Not applicable

5 Q Have the cliffs located within the watershed been rated/monitored for peregrine falcon potentiaL/presence? 5. A: No. However, there is only a single detection in the SRNF wildlife sighting database for the watershed, despite the fact that many experienced biologists have worked in the watershed for years.

6. Q: If cliffs are un-rated, have surveys to protocol been accomplished? 6. A: No.

7. Q: Describe site-specific habitat variables within a 3-mile radius of historic and traditional nest sites. Habitat variables include: cliff parent material, distance to lacustrine, marine or riparian systems, plant associations and related seral stages; and human-generated activities. Habitat variables should be displayed on GIS using standard methodology among agencies.

7. A: Not applicable. MARBLED MURRELET

The following questions pertain to watersheds in Marbled Murrelet Zone 1 and Zone 2 within all ROD land allocations, including Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, and Matrix.

1. Q: Are marbled murrelet occupied sites located within the watershed? 1. A: There are no known occupied murrelet sites within the Grouse Creek Watershed.

2. Q: Has a 0.5-mile radius management area been delineated for each occupied site? The 0.5-mile radius circle should be centered on either the behavior indicating occupation or within 0.5 miles of the location of the behavior, whichever maximizes interior old-yrowth habitat. When occupied areas are close to each other, the 0.5-mile circles may overlap (see ROD, p. C- IO). 2. A: Not applicable.

3a. Q: Within the 0.5-mile radius management area, what stands are currently murrelet habitat? 3a. A: Not applicable.

3b. Q: What stands are recruitment habitat (i.e., stands that are capable of becoming marbled murrelet habitat within 25 years)? 3b. A: Not applicable.

3c. Q: What stands are non-habitat? 3c. A: Not applicable.

4a Q: Do stands of potential marbled murrelet habitat within the watershed exist? Describe the habitat in terms of acreage, quality, quantity, and spatial relationship to other suitable habitat in and outside the watershed. 4a. A: Yes, there are approximately 15,428 acres (43% of watershed) of potential suitable marbled murrelet habitat within the Grouse Creek watershed. The Grouse Creek watershed and the Board Camp Mountain area immediately to the west (Forest Service land) probably contain the largest amount of relatively unfragmented suitable habitat between the Pacific coast and the Grouse Creek watershed.

4b. Q: Describe past surveys for marbled murrelets in the watershed. 4b. A: Marbled murrelet surveys are limited in the Grouse Creek watershed. In 1992, the Forest initiated first-year surveys in selected areas for proposed timber sales on the Lower Trinity Ranger District. Surveys were conducted for the proposed Wildcat Timber Sale to four visits/stand. No further surveys were conducted in the Grouse Creek watershed in 1993 or 1994. However, the surveys were only for a single year and thus do not meet protocol and the results are inconclusive. 4c. Q: What stands of habitat within the watershed have not been surveyed? All stands within Marbled Murrelet Zone 1 and Zone 2 that meet the definition of potential habitat (as defined by the 1994 survey protocol) are required to be surveyed for two years prior to project implementation. Potential habitat is defined by the protocol as: (1) mature (with or without an old-growth component) and old-growth coniferous forests; and (2) younger coniferous forests that have predominant trees or deformations or structures suitable for nesting. 4c. A: As mentioned above no stands of suitable habitat have been surveyed to regional protocol.

Sa. Q: Is there recruitment habitat (described in the ROD) within the watershed? Sa. A: Yes. Approximately 4,400 acres of potential recruitment habitat is found in the watershed (i.e., mid-mature habitat, some of which will be in the late-mature seral stage within 25 years). It is unknown what percentage of this habitat is within private holdings and therefore may be harvested prior to reaching the late-mature seral stage.

Sb. Q: At various points in the future (e g., 25, 50, 100, 200 years), what will be the percent of the watershed that will be suitable marbled murrelet habitat? Sb. A: See table 7. The following estimates are based on the assumption that no habitat will be harvested during the period in question Harvesting will surely continue on private lands within the watershed, but information on the timing and extent of the harvests is unavailable.

Table 7. Percent suitable marbled murrelet habitat in the Grouse Creek watershed at various points in the future.

Percent of Year Watershed with Suitable Habitat 2020 53 2045 60 2095 85 2195 S9 APPENDIX F

An Environmental and Cultural History of the Grouse Creek Watershed

By Thomas S. Keter Heritage Resources Six Rivers National Forest

Introduction

The environment of the Grouse Creek Watershed had been influenced by human activities for thousands of years. The land-use activities of both the hunter and gathers inhabiting the region during the prehistoric era and the ranchers, homesteaders, hunters, and others from the historic period have all had a profound effect on the environment of the Grouse Creek Watershed. The purpose of this study is to present a brief overview of the prehistory and history of this region with an emphasis on past human land-use aczivities and how these land-use activities influenced and shaped today's environment within the Grouse Creek Watershed.

The Paleoenvironment

Pollen analysis and paleoclimatic data for the interior regions of northwestern California indicate that over the last 10,000 years interior regions of the North Coast Ranges have experienced significant shifts in climate. An overview presenting the paleoclimatic data and pollen studies relevant to this region is presented in the Pilot Ridge Watershed Analysis (Keter 1994c).

It is likely, given the paleoclimatic and pollen core data for this region, that the distribution of plant species across the landscape has varied through time. During the warmer and drier climate of the Xerothemic Period (lasting from about 8,500 B.P. to about 3,800-2,300 B.P.), it is likely that tan oak were either a minor component or not found within the watershed. Paleoclimatic data also suggests that the distribution of Douglas-fir was greatly reduced and that the extent of the oak woodland association of white and black oaks was greater than it is today see Keter 1994a, 1994c). Given the differences in vegetation species as well as their distribution across the watershed it is likely that during the mid-Holocene animal populations would have also been somewhat different in their distributions (and possibly their presence or absence) across the landscape than today.

1 I

Prehistory

The Archaeological Record suggests that humans first entered the Grouse Creek Watershed about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago. Refer to the Pilot Ridge Watershed Analysis for an overview of the prehistoric era in this region (Keter 1994c).

The Ethnographic Period

The Grouse Creek watershed is situated at what might be termed an environmental transition location. To the north the great conifer forests of the northwest increasingly dominate. Stretching to the south from the head of the drainage at Last Chance Ridge and Whiting Ridge, the oak woodlands begin to increasingly eclipse the stands of Douglas-fir. To the west of the Pilot Ridge/Kinsey Ridge divide, the maritime climate results in dense stands of redwood and Douglas-fir as well as tan ok. To the east of the South Fork of the Trinity the precipitation gradient falls steadily and the madrone, tan oak and other mesic species decline in numbers. In some sense then, during the ethnographic period this region was a transition zone environmentally between ecosystems at the province level, and, given the ethnographic record as presented below, the region was also a transition zone culturally with a number of native groups from the surrounding region utilizing at least seasonally some portion of the watershed..

From a cultural perspective, the groups to the north and directly to the west were riverine oriented depending for a large part of their subsistence resource base on anadromous fish. The aboriginal peoples from this region lived in relatively permanent village sites located along the major water courses. Groups living to the south of the watershed in the Pilot Creek region and to the east of the South Fork of the Trinity River were less dependent on fish and depended on a wider array of upland resources. The prehistoric peoples living in these regions were less sedentary and spent at least some portion of each year living in temporary camps away from their winter villages.

EthnouraDhic boundaries within the Grouse Creek Watershed

Ethnographic data specifically covering the cultural use of the Grouse Creek Watershed is essentially non-existent. The ethnographical literature for the aboriginal groups inhabiting the region includes only minor references to the Grouse Creek Watershed. What is clear from a review of the literature is that

2 several ethnographic groups claimed at least some portion of the watershed as being within their territory.

Various ethnographic studies (see Kroeber 1925, Baumhoff 1958, Elsasser 1978, Wallace 1978) have included all or portions of Grouse Creek within the ethnographic territory of several different ethnographic groups. These groups include the Athabascan speaking Hupa (in this region of their territory,the South Fork Hupa), Whilkut, and Nongatl, as well as the Penutian speaking Wintu. In addition, given the proximity of the territory of the Chimariko, whose language was a member of the Hokan stock, and given the lack of ethnographic data on this group, it is possible that portions of the Grouse Creek Watershed may also have been used by this group.

Martin Baumhoff (1958) summarized the ethnogeographic data (primarily the field notes of Pliny Goddard, C. Hart Merriam, and the published ethnographies of Alfred Kroeber) for the Athabascan speaking groups whose territory included portions of the Grouse Creek Watershed. Map 1 presents the ethnographic boundaries of the various groups occupying portions of the Grouse Creek Watershed as outlined by Baumhoff. According to Baumhoff (1958:208) portions of the watershed were claimed by the South Fork Hupa, the Kloki Whikut, and the Nongatl. In addition, although not labeled on the map, Baumhoff infers that the lower portion of the watershed south of Grouse Creek from about Bear Creek east to the South Fork of the Trinity was within the territory of the Hayfork Wintu. Although no specific maps outlining this region as Wintu territory could be located, Kroeber's map of the region (1925:110) suggests that Wintun territory may have extended this far to the north and west. To summarize, it is clear that the tribal boundaries as they are outlined in the ethnographic literature are somewhat conflicting and given the lack of specific ethnogeographic data for the Grouse Creek watershed and the overall paucity of ethnographic research in this region renders these boundaries somewhat questionable.

Part of the problem with defining the territorial boundaries in this region is related to differences in world view and cultures between the anthropologists who documented group boundaries and the Indian people. To the anthropologists working in the area:

defining boundaries was a product of western logic conceived as strict demarcations that were well defined and agreed upon. However, as George Foster (1944:157) noted, "in the minds of the Indians exact boundaries were never known" (Keter 1993:44).

It is likely, therefore, that the territorial boundaries of the peoples living in this region were more complex and ambiguous than the lines drawn on the map by ethnographers. Keter (1993:48) discusses the problem related to delineating ethnographic boundaries in this region:

3 ON I - - -- I

No doubt certain portions of their homelands were well defined. For example, ownership extended to the immediate area surrounding the village. This might change, however, if another, related community was in need of resources controlled by a particular village. In that case cooperation and resource sharing would occur. Also ownership was sometimes claimed and territory defended by a particular extended family or community at a location rich in a particular subsistence resource within what might be termed their core territory... In other instances, territorywas claimed by two or more groups further complicating the efforts of ethnographers.

For the reasons outlined above, in many instances there were no hard and fast "tribal" boundaries especially in more remote areas well away from home villages. Rather, boundaries between groups and communities were dynamic and shifted over time based on the relations between individuals, families, and among communities. It is suggested here that the boundaries delineating the territorial claims of the various ethnographic groups within the Grouse Creek Watershed as outlined by the ethnographers are unreliable. Rather, these ethnographic boundaries should be viewed as indicators that the various groups mentioned knew about the region and utilized it. It is likely that over a period counted in centuries there was an ebb and flow of these frontier boundaries among the various groups and that the ethnographers captured what might be termed a "snapshot" of what was viewed as tribal boundaries by a few elderly informants many decades after the ethnographic era.

No village sites located within the Grouse Creek Watershed have been identified in the ethnographic literature. The nearest village site to the watershed was the South Fork Hupa village of tah-choot-s~tung (Merriam's spelling) located along the South Fork of the Trinity about two miles below the mouth of Grouse Creek.

Whichever ethnographic groups utilized the Grouse Creek Watershed archaeological evidence from the surrounding ridgelines suggests that the use was extensive. This use, however, appears to have been seasonal in nature. Tangible evidence of this use includes numerous ridgeline sites containing Early, Middle, and Late Period materials, including Borax Lake, Trinity side notch, and Gunther barbed projectile points. This archaeological evidence is outlined in the heritage resources management section of the Pilot Ridge Watershed Report (Keter 1994).

Subsistence Activities

Given the fact that almost no ethnographic data exists for the Grouse Creek Watershed it will be necessary to present two

4 III

alternative subsistence based resource procurement strategies. In this region, resource procurement strategies can be divided into two major types. Kroeber (1925;898-899) discussed these types in his Handbook. The more coastal or lower river-oriented groups (the Tolowa, Yurok, Kuruk, Hupa) in northwestern California practiced subsistence strategies and had cultural affinities with the aboriginal groups extending north along the coast into Oregon, Washington, and British Colombia. These groups were dependent on anadromous fish as a major subsistence resource. For this reason, they tended to inhabit permanent village sites located along the major waterways within their territory. To the south of the northwest culture area (about where the Grouse Creek divide with Pilot Creek lies) begins what has been termed the California Culture Area. Here, southern Athabascan territory begins. These groups have cultural characteristics more in common with the aboriginal groups within greater California--including a more generalized subsistence resource procurement strategy.

The southern Athabascan subsistence strategy was referred to as the "seasonal round." This subsistence strategy involves movement through the environment across one's territory in order to secure subsistence resources as they become seasonally available. Under this procurement strategy, people leave their winter villages which are usually located along the major water courses in the spring and spend some portion of each year camping in the higher mountainous country away from the river. It is likely that the Nongatl and the Wintu practiced some form of the seasonal round. A subsistence resource procurement model of the seasonal round has been described for the Nongatl elsewhere (Keter 1994c).

The riverine oriented resource procurement model was that followed by the Hupa and Whilkut was classified by Kroeber as being within the "Northwest Culture Area." As described earlier, this type of resource procurement strategy was utilized by the Hupa (and the South Fork Hupa) as well as Whilkut. The following seasonal resource strategy is that described for the Hupa but should suffice to provide a general model of river-oriented resource procurement strategy used in this region.

HuDa Subsistence Strategy

Hupa territory occupied the lower portion of the Trinity River from just below its confluence with the Klamath, south to Chimariko territory which began on the Trinity River just to the east of the mouth of the South Fork. The South Fork Hupa occupied the lower portion of the South Fork south to Wintu territory. Hupa village sites were located along the Trinity River on river terraces. While most of the major village sites were located within Hoopa Valley there were a number of villages located to the south along the Trinity. On the South Fork, as noted earlier, the most

5 southerly village was only a couple miles to the north of the mouth of Grouse Creek. The Hupa villages were permanent with substantial houses. The rectangular houses were semi-subterranean and were usually made of Cedar planks (Wallace 1978:166).

The principal subsistence resources utilized by the Hupa were anadromous fish and acorns. There were runs of salmon and steelhead several times each year including in the spring and fall. Acorns were collected in the fall. The Hupa preferred tanoak acorns but other species were also collected. Wallace (1978165) writes that "although their land was rich in game, the Hupa did not exploit this source of food extensively." Hunters did occasionally hunt deer and elk as well as other small game. The Hupa were known for the beauty and quality of their baskets and the plant materials needed for their fabrication were secured at various locations within their territory including the higher country (for example beargrass). In general, it appears based on the ethnographic data that the Hupa spent less time in the hills away form their main village sites than those groups located to the south.

Given the two possible subsistence strategies practiced by the ethnographic groups in the Grouse Creek Region, it is likely that the most intensive use of the area would have been undertaken by those practicing a seasonal round. However, due to the lack of ethnographic data this is by no means certain.

Subsistence Resources available in the Grouse Creek Watershed

Regardless of who inhabited the Grouse Creek Watershed there was a significant number of resources available for procurement. Grouse Creek had runs of both salmon and steelhead (GWI#1) and the upper ridges were a major summering area for deer and possibly elk. There were tanoak acorns as well as lesser amounts of Oregon oak and a few black oak acorns, grass seeds and other plant resources. Taken together it is a logical and reasonable assumption that the watershed provided a resource rich habitat for aboriginal groups and was regularly visited at least on a seasonal basis.

Historical Development of the Grouse Creek Watershed

It is not known just when Euro-Americans first entered the Pilot Creek Watershed. It is possible that this may have occurred as early as 1828 when the Jedediah Smith Party passed near here. Max Rowley (Rowley Ms.) who has researched the route of the Smith party and read Smith's diary suggests that Smith traveled south from the

6 p - - -

mouth of the South Fork of the Trinity to Grouse Creek, then near the mouth of Grouse Creek where the river narrows Smith and his men traveled a short distance up Grouse Creek and headed up and over Simms Mountain on an old Indian Trail (the Simms Mountain Trail possibly).

The first development within the watershed occurred in the early 1850s. At this time, the coastal ports of Union (Arcata), Humboldt, Buck's Port and (the soon to be) Eureka were competing for the shipping business which was rapidly expanding to meet the needs of the gold miners in Trinity County. The first inland trail, the Humboldt-Hyampom Trail (see Map 2), connected Humboldt Bay with Hyampom Valley and continued on to Weaverville. It crossed into the Grouse Creek watershed in the northwestern portion of the drainage and crossed the southern slopes of Grouse Mountain. From here, the trail continued east dropping to the future location of Wise Station (see below) and then on to the Hyampom Valley.

During the first decade and a half that the trail was open there were numerous skirmishes with the local Indian population. Many of these confrontations are discussed in Indian Wars of the Northwest (Bledsoe 1885). The violence escalated and between about 1862 and 1864 the "Two Years War" between the settlers and Indians was being waged throughout interior sections of Humboldt and Trinity Counties). During this period the Board Camp Mountain area and the Pilot Creek and Grouse Creek Watersheds were refuge locations where local Indian groups hide out to avoid the Soldiers and parties of armed civilians who were searching for Indian encampments. The conflicts when they occurred were nearly always one-sided with the stone age weapons and lack of organization among the aboriginal groups no match for the firearms of the settlers and the well supplied army troops

By 1865 the last of the violent conflicts with the Interior Indian tribes had ended and this event opened up interior sections of Humboldt County (including Grouse Creek Watershed) to development and settlement. The earliest used of the region by the new inland settlers of Humboldt County was for the grazing of cattle. As economic conditions changed during the early 1870s sheep increasingly replaced cattle on the rangelands of Humboldt County. In the Grouse Creek Watershed the best grazing lands were along the ridgelines stretching from Grouse Mountain in the north west and then south along Kinsey Ridge and Pilot Ridge and along Whiting and Last Chance Ridges that form the southern divide of the watershed. It appears from interview data (GCWI#l, PCWIlr, PCWI#2) and the data collected for the Pilot Ridge Watershed Historical Overview (Keter 1994c) that the Grouse Creek watershed when compared to the Pilot Creek Watershed and regions directly to the west did not contain as rich a rangeland environment for cattle grazing.

It is likely that it was for this reason, that the Grouse Creek Watershed, was not homesteaded nor utilized in any other manner to

7 I

-he extent of the Pilot Creek Watershed and areas of the Mad River drainage directly to the west. Throughout the 1870s and 1880s sheep grazing continued to be the primary land-use activity taking place within the Crouse Creek Watershed. As the number of homesteads increased to the south and west of the watershed the open range needed to run large bands of sheep was rapidly disappearing. This resulted in a reduction in the numbers of livestock grazing on public lands in the Grouse Creek/Pilot Creek Watersheds after the turn of the century. In addition, economic conditions (ending the tariff on wool), bad weather (the winter of 1889-1890 decimated the bands of sheep in interior sections of Humboldt County), and the increasing loss of sheep to predators (principally coyote) was resulting in a change back to the running of cattle. In this area, along Pilot Ridge and the area directly to the south, the Korbel Brothers raised cattle for their many employees who worked in their lumber mills at Blue Lake. The loggers, railroad men and other laborers took meals in large cookhouses and consumed prodigious amounts of beef. (for a more complete overview of the economics of livestock production and homesteading under the Forest Service Homestead Act see Keter 1994c).

During this era, a few parcels of land (see Map3, Table 1) were acquired within the Crouse Creek Watershed. One of the earliest parcels to be acquired was by rancher Joe Russ (1886). Some of the early parcels were claimed by ranchers in order to control the springs since control of the water in a region often meant control of the nearby rangelands which were of little use without a nearby water source for livestock. Several other parcels were claimed before the turn of the century. Most of these parcels were acquired under the Timber and Stone Acr (meaning that they must contain mature timber) and a few under the 1864 Homestead Act. When compared to areas to the west and south there was comparatively little Homestead activity within the C-rouse Creek Watershed prior to the turn of the century. (For a more in-depth overview of the ranching and homesteading activities within an economic and historical context in regions adjacent to Grouse Creek see Keter 1994b, 1994c.)

1900 to 1950 Homesteading and the U.S. Forest Service

In April of 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt signed legislation creating a number of Forest Reserves including the Trinity Reserve which encompassed the public lands within the Grouse Creek Watershed. As noted in the Pilot Creek Watershed Overview (Keter 1994c) , this event signaled a major change in the management of Public lands by the federal Government and increased the regulation of human land-use activities within the watershed. In addition, steps were taken to establish and maintain a trail system, control wildfire, and to establish communications links between the Forest

8 Service Guard stations, lookouts and local homesteads (the Forest Service supplied each homestead with a phone and telephone line--- homesteaders supplied the batteries to operate it).

Subsequent to the establishment of the Forest Service a few more homesteads were settled within the watershed and additional parcels were acquired under the homestead Act. Most of the private lands within the watershed were, however, acquired just prior to establishment of the Forest Service. Most of these parcels (see Map 2 and Table 1) were acquired between 1901 and 1904 under provisions of the Timber and Stone Act (approximately 45 of the 57 private parcels acquired within the watershed).

Perhaps the most important and certainly the best known homestead to be established within the watershed was that of G. Monroe and later the site of Wise Station. A homestead patent was granted to George Monroe in 1903 and was later conveyed to E.J. Wise in 1904. It was at this time that Wise built his cabin that is today known as Wise Station. Wise Station served a dual purpose, that of a stopping place for pack trains on the Humboldt-Hyampom Trail and as a line station for the Mountain Power Company (see site record 05- 10-53-1 on file Six Rivers National Forest).

At the turn of the century, the Mountain Power Company constructed power lines from a hydroelectric dam on Canyon Creek in Trinity County to Eureka. The reason the power was needed was that although Eureka had electricity it did not have enough to power street cars. Much of the route follows the current PG&E right-of- way. Wise worked for the power company and maintained the line within the Grouse Creek drainage and west to Snow Camp. In about 1950, the PG&E line cabin was built to the west of Wise cabin,. It replaced the Wise Cabin as a maintenance center for the powerlines crossing the watershed. The power for PG&E was generated at Shasta Dam.

Other settlers in the Grouse Creek watershed in the early twentieth century included William Michaelson (Homestead entry 8/01/1906), and men named Dickerson (near the mouth of Grouse Creek) , and Greenwood (near Greenwood Creek). There were overall few homesteaders in this watershed due to the lack of good level ground and open prairies on which to settle. One interviewee (GWAIr1) indicated that the reason for lack of homesteads was not only the heavy timber but that many of the south facing slopes are steep and brush and the canyon is very rough terrain.

After 1950--Timber harvesting and Road Building

The first major road in the drainage was constructed in about 1949 (Rowley Ms.) This road was constructed to put in the new high voltage line. Later in the 1950s this road was used as a haul

9 W

route by the logging companies harvesting timber on private lands within the watershed. It was during the later 1950s and 1960s when the majority of timber on private lands was harvested within the watershed. In the early 1980s a paved road replaced the jeep road along the crest of Kinsey, Pilot, Whiting and Last Chance Ridges. This road was a major haul route and a number of Forest Service timber sales were harvested within the Grouse Creek watershed during this decade.

Trails within the Grouse Creek Watershed (see Map 2)

By the 1940s there were numerous trails within the Grouse Creek Watershed. Despite reviewing a number of maps (old USGS maps, county maps, Metsker's County Map, etc.) the names of a number of the trails within the drainage could not be found. These trails are identified on Map 2 as "unnnmaed trails."

Humboldt EyamDom Trail

As noted earlier this is the oldest trail in the watershed. portions of this trail still exist. Parts of the trail, however, have been lost to road construction.

Deadman Ridae Trail

This trail connects Last Chance Ridge with lower portions of the Grouse Creek Watershed. While no date of construction could be found it appears this trail predates the Forest Service.

Pilot Ridae Trail

Along the crest of Pilot Ridge. This trail dates back to the 1850s.

Simms Mountain Trail

Connects from Simms Mountain south and downslope to Grouse Creek near Wise Station.

10 W -

Heritage Resources Management

The following section summarizes the current status of heritage resources management activities within the Grouse Creek Watershed. This information includes:

* The number and kinds of prehistoric sites that have been recorded within the watershed.

* Where, in general terms, archaeological reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken.

* A listing of all properties or districts determined eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

* Current research needs as related to the prehistoric record and heritage resources management.

Compared to other nearby watersheds (for example Pilot Creek), the Grouse Creek Watershed has received only a minor amount of archaeological survey work. For this reason the number of sites located within the watershed is minimal. The principal work accomplished was along Kinsey, Pilot, Whiting, and Las: Chance Ridges was done in conjunction with the construction of Forest Highway 1. In 1980, Glenn Gmoser directed an archaeological field crew which surveyed the above named ridges and identified dozens of sites. These sites were for the most part task-specific seasonal camp locations (such as hunting camps, or butchering sites). Several (such as CA-HUM-546) were more complex and may have been multi-functional sites inferring seasonal family encampments.

The Pilot Ridge'Archaeological and Historical District containing all of these ridgetop sites has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Gmoser and Keter 1963). (See Keter 1993c for a more comprehensive overview the kinds of sites and specific numbers.)

Archaeological Survey

Archaeological reconnaissance of the Grouse Creek Watershed is limited below the major ridgelines. The watershed's private lands have not been surveyed at all except in the right-of-way areas related to the construction of Forest Highway 1. On Forest Service lands only a relatively small percentage of the watershed has been surveyed. At this time approximately ten project related inventories have been undertaken covering about 1,600 acres.

11 Archaeological Sites Recorded within the Grouse Creek Watershed

In addition to the prehistoric and historical sites recorded for the Pilot Ridge survey few sites have been recorded within the watershed. A cursory search of archaeological site records indicates that only three prehistoric and one historic site have been recorded within the watershed. Interview data (GCWI7r) and input from Forest Service employees working within the watershed indicate that some sites do exist along the course of Grouse Creek.

Heritage Resources Management and Archaeological needs

Due to the lack of even baseline data for the Grouse Creek Watershed and recognizing its importance as a transitional region between the Northwestern Culture area and the California Culture Area, the primary need to improve our understanding of the prehistory of this area is to undertake a more comprehensive inventory of the watershed. Once this is complete some inferences can then be made regarding the relationship between the high altitude sites along the ridgelines and the (potential) sites recorded along Grouse Creek and the lower slopes of the watershed.

12 -1

References Cited

Baumhoff 1958 California Athabascan Groups. University of California Anthropological Records 16(5):157-238. Berkeley.

Bledsoe, A.J. 1885 Indian Wars of the Northwest. (Reprint) BioBooks, Oakland.

Elsasser, Albert B. 1978 Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone, Lassik, and Wailaki. In: Handbook of the North American Indians, Volume 8, California. Robert F. Heizer, ed. pp.190-204. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Foster, George 1944 A Summary of Yuki Culture. University of California Anthropological Records 5:3 155-244. Berkeley.

C-moser, Glenn and Thomas S. Keter 1983 Pilot Ridge Archaeological and Historical District National Register Nomination. On file Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka.

Keter, Thomas S. 1993 Territorial and Social Relationships of the Inland Southern Athabascans: Some New Perspectives. In: There There Grows a Green Tree, Greg White et al Editor. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, (11)37-51.

1994a The Environmental History and Cultural Ecology of the North Fork of the Eel River Basin. In press.

1994b The Ranching Period in the North Fork of the Eel River Basin:1865-1905. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Ventura.

1994c An Environmental and Cultural History of the Pilot Creek Watershed. Addendum to the Pilot Creek Watershed Analysis Report. On file Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington: Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin No. 78.

13 Wallace, William J. 1978 Hupa, Chilula, and Whilkut. In Hnadbook of the North American Indians, Volume 8, California. R.F. Heizer, ed. PP. 164-179.

Mans

Government Land Office Maps 1872, 1873, 1897 for T2N and T3N, R5E. on file Six Rivers National Forest

Manuscripts

Rowley, Max History of the Pilot Ridge area. On File Heritage Resources, ix Rivers National Forest, Eureka.

14 I

Grouse Creek Watershed Interview #1

WP file :Gmaxi

Date of Interview: June 7, 1994

Interviewee A: Mman in his 60s (Former Forest Service employee and local historian)

Interviewed by: Thomas S. Keter USFS

Reason for interview: To gather historic information on the Grouse Creek Watershed.

The meeting was held outside on the deck at Cinnabar Sams in Willow Creek. A began by giving some background information on the ethnographic groups living in the Grouse Creek area. From his studies (he is a long time researcher of local history) he concluded that perhaps sevaral Indian grooups may have occuppied various portions of the Grouse Creek drainage. He noted that Kroeber in his Handbook (1925:141) indicated that the head of the drainage was within Whilkut territory but that it is likley that nortions of the area may have been claimed by or used by the Wintun and Chilula and pssibly even the Chimariko. He was not sure about use of the area by the Hupa or South Fork Hupa and thought that they may not have been in the area but indicated it was possible. He also indicated that if the extreme lower portion of the creek was used by the Wintu that there was a natural divide from the upper portion of the basin as a rugged canyon exists from just upstream from the mouth for a considerable distance before the stream channel widens out.

A indicated that he had seen several prehistoric sites prior to the 1955 and 1964 floods along Grouse Creek. For example, there was a large site at the mouth of Cow Creek wth midden soils and many artifacts including mortars and pestles and other groundstone artifacts (including apparently slab metates). There was also a site at the mouth of Misquito Creek. He noted that the cabin at Wise Station also had artifacts (groundstone) around the proch and that there may have been a site at this location also. From Wise Station to the mouth of Grouse Creek it was steep rough country and the possible locations for sites was limited.

He indicaded that the first white men to visit the area were members of the Jedediah Smith party in early May of 1828. He has studied the diaries of Smith and the descriptions of his route through the area indicate that he traveled downstream on the South Fork of the Trinity to about Grouse Creek--where below this spot the river canyon narrows and is impassible--the party then headed up Grouse Creek a short distance and swung up over Sims Mountian [perhaps on an old Indian trail which predated the historic trail at this location] where they passed the location of the Ammon Ranch and eventually dropped down to the mouth of the South Fork of the Trinity.

The next appearance of whites in this area was related to the gold rush. In about 1850 (or 1851), the first trail from the Humboldt Bay region to the Trinity mines passed into the Grouse Creek Watershed around the southern slope of Grouse Mountan dropping down a long ridge (see Map 1) to Grouse Creek and eventually to Hyampom and then on to the Trinity mines. This trail was named the Humboldt/Hyampom Trial. (There is an old marker, a cedar post sharpened at one end, for this trail probably over 100 years old. it was collected by A off the trail within the Grouse Creek Watershed and is now on display in front of the Lower Trinity Ranger Station.)

There were a number of skimishes within the Grouse Creek Watershed between the miners and the Indians during the 1850s and early 1860s. These were mostly along the trail or at campsites (see for example the story on Buhner SP???). (Bledsoe in Indian Wars of Northwest California see pages 125, 126, 127 only pages Grouse Creek area is mentioned.)

During the time that packers passed through the GCW (Grouse Creek Watershed) there were numberous camp sites. A noted that almost any spot with a spring was probably a camping location two camps that he remembers were Robinson Camp and Maple Camp.

Wise Station and Electric Power

In about 1907 Or 1908 Jessie Wise settled at what is now called Wise Station. This was the location of a "line cabin". The reason it was established at this time was because of the desire in Eureka to have street cars. While the town already had electricity they did not have enough to power street cars. For that reason, power was supplied by the Mountian Power Company. The hydro-electric dam was in Canyon Creek near Jucntion City and the line ran west to Grouse Creek up the creek (roughly the same route as today's PG&E line) and over to Snow Camp and on to Eureka. This line was consturcted in a similar fashion to the phone lines--that is-- insulators were, where possible, attached to trees. A remembers that it was said the line broke often in winter snows and was so low in places that a cowboy would have to bend over to get past the line. The Mountan Power Company supplied power until about 1950 when PG&E took over. There was another line cabin just to the east in Eltapom Creek (check???) and the next one to the west was located at Snow Camp (PG&E still maintains a building at this location). When PG&E came in about 1950 they built a new line on the approximate route of the original. The power for this line came from Shasta Dam. This was a major construction project with a cleared right-of-way and large transmission lines. They also moved the maintenance cabin to a new location known as Ridge Cabin--this station still maintains the line and has a snow cat for winter travel.

Homesteadina and Ranching

The grazing history and homestead history of the area is identical to that of the Pilot Creek Watershed. However the region was more heavily timbered in some areas (for example the headwaters area of C-rouse Creek above Oak Creek) and in some southern oriented slope areas brushy and steep. For that reason, there were somewhat less homesteaders in this area. The main region for grazing was along the upper reaches of the watershed and not so much in the rugged sections of the lower drainage. Ranchers who used this area included those from Hyampom to the east and the Russ Comapny and others with ranches to the west.

A indicated that he did not have many of the names of the early homesteaders in the area but that one of them Michelson was a bachlor and that Greenwood may have had a hunting lodge in the area. Wise settled on what probably had previously been the Sims Place and Sims moved to Montana.

Logaina

Starting in the early 1950s just after completion of the power line there was a major logging boom in the area. A indicated that the numerous private parcels were "butchered, slaughtered, destroyed" by extremelly intensive, abusive, and destructive logging practices from about Owl Creek to the headwaters of Grouse Creek. Much of this logging took place in the late 1970s or early 1980s by the Eastern Logging Company for the largest private landholder in the area--Champion International. From the perspective of an ex-Forest Service employee knowledgeable about logging practices, A indicated that the logging practices were very poor and destructive.

Prior to logging and the 1955 and 1964 floods Grouse Creek was and excellent salmon stream. At one time it was also full of trout--so many in fact you could catch as many as you wanted or needed.

Trails

There were numerous trails in the area in addition to the original Humboldt/Hyampom Trail (which A noted is overlain by a steep jeep trail which still follows much of the original route of the trail). One of the trails dropped down into the watershed from Last Chance Ridge along Deadman Ridge. He also mentioned that the Hardscrabble Trail shown on the historic maps heading north from Grouse Mountain (and just to the north of the watershed) was a very old trail and that parts of it were still there in the 1970s. There was also a trail from around Sugarloaf south past Sims Mountain that dropped down to Wise Station and that Stravation Camp was located up near Sims Mountain probably along or near this trail. _ - ;-,_-'\ ~~Et h nog raph ic B ou nd a ri e s I :.:S \ .- ,4 - ~(After Baumhoff 1958)

k~~~j\X ~~~~ap f1 -,,,s

1 , < ,Sf' 7 i

;v:: ! IYS'+^Fv _>t__.vr~r_. n._-__ '.^: -i' = '...... -...... -... I...I...-.....-...-...-.....-...... ; -_...... -_.e

,^>,, A.,sill wt_ ~~~~~~2 ~~~~~map3X, ' . ,.R

,~ ~~~~~~~~~.~ . ..., ., ...... - t

ff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k,V X AI- Private Lands Within the Grouse , creek Watershed

MAP 3 I, ' '

- 7'

(j 1 1}--"I.- S. /1 X. n ' K A 71F7

, - o ------1 ME.14a,' I 1-

M I . _ . All. . ,- -- ' AI -- 1)-

t '-- / n' 1 < ~ ; ~

I

For Key see Table 1 Table 1

Lands acqjuired in the Grouse Creek Watershed under the Homestead Act, Timber and Stone Act, and Cash Entry. (Source:Land Status Atlas, on file Six Rivers National Forest)

T4N, R5E

Parcel Name entry Date Acreage Remarks 1 Joseph Russ S.P 2/27/8 6 4 0 2 Ernest H. Chambers H. P 3/12/04 80 3 If I1 II H. P. 7/23/0 2 80 4 William D. Miller H. P. 8/05/8 6 12 0 5 William Michaelson H. P 8/01/19 2 0 6 7 George Monroe H. P. 7/ 07/9 6 16 0 8 Aust-in W. Bohall S. P. 2/24/ 0 3 32 0 9 Thomas D. Petch S. P. 3/04/ 03 16 0 10 it II S.P 7/13/0 3 16 0 11 Melissa Doyle Cash 2/08/8 6 1 60 12 James A Doyle Cash 2/08/8 6 16 0 13 IsSac T. Chambers H. P. 7/27/9 8 16 0 14 Oak Park Released aomin site 15 / 16 Wialter F. Doyden T. P. 12 / 12 / 0: 1 60 17 / 18 Thomas H. Young T. P. 1/ 13/0: 12 0 19 Della W. Loveland T. P. 12 / 0 1/9: 1 60 2 0 Nellie C. Libby T. P. 1 0.2 0/0: 1 60 2 1 Phillias Petch T. P. 10/24/0: 2 2 Milo Bohall T. P. 4/2 4/0 1 60 2 3 2 4 Jeno P. Lind T. P. 2/2 3/03 16 0 2 5 Frands W. Anderson T. P. 12/2 3/03 16 0 26 Laura B. Kildale T. P. 10/2 3/02 16 0 2 7 Alfred W. Kildale T. P. 4/2 3/02 160 2 8 Herbert A. Tyrell T. P. 10/2 8/03 16 0 2 9 Ransel S. Tyrell T. P. 10/2 8/03 16 0 3 0 Robert Copland T. P. 11/0 3/02 160 3 1 August Brand T. P. 11/2 3/02 16 0 3 2 Mary L. Coffin T. P. 11/03/0 2 12 0 3 3 Lina H. Hirsh T. P. 12/0 8/03 16 0 3 4 Anna R. Panger T. P. 12/0 3/03 160 3 5 Lillian A. Lyons T. P. 1/ 11/04 4 0 36 /3 7 Emma McPherson T. P. 5/2 5/04 4 0 3 8 Mary L. Coffin T. P. 2/0 3/03 4 0 39 /4 0 Murdock A McLeod T. P. 10/2 1/03 16 0 40 & 120 4 1 Chester I. Young T. P. 7/14/0 3 16 0 4 2 Sidney . Cuthbertson T. P. 10/2 6/03 16 0 4 3 Lillian B. Lever T. P. 12/3 1/03 16 0 4 4 Lizzie B. Smith T. P. 12/31/03 160 4 5 Fannie B. Lincoln T. P. 12/3 1/03 160 4 6 Eurania B. Smith T. P. 12/3 1/03 16 0 4 7 D.E. Cooper S. P. 11/2 7/03 64 0 total 5,740 3N, SE ON

Table I Tabe1(continued)

1 Charles Marsh H. P. 10/2 1/03 16 0 2 Elizabeth M. Marsh Cash 10/2 1/03 16 0 3 Chloe L. Campbell Cash 11/ 2 3/03 4 0 4 Jennie Merrymnan Cash 10/2 2/03 12 0 5 Mabel M~itchel Cash 3/02/04 16 0 6 Oliver c. Mulvaney Cash 10/2 2/03 3 2 7 II If Cash S Chloe L. Campbell Cash 11/2 3/03 13 1 9 Margret Hower Cash 11/ 2 3/03 1 63 10 Lillian A Lyons T. P. 1/ 11/ 04 8 1 11/ 12 Harvey A. Trask T. P. 1 /11/04 16 0 13 Mary E. Perry T. P. 1/11/04 16 2 14 /15 Joseph H. Parker S.P. 2/2 7/05 8 0 17 Nathan E. Yocum Cash 1/04/04 3 0 24 Lelah Worthington T.P. 1 0/2 1/03 16 0 25 Nellie E. Gannett T. P. 12/0 5/05 12 0 4 6 Nathan E. Yokum Cash 3 0 total 2,022

4 N, 6

3 Thomas D. Petch T.P. 1/22/04 40 (80 total) total 40

* Total acres accuired in all townships ---- 7 ,802