a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...united states department of...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

June 2017

Aquatic Resources Report

Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Jon Grunbaum 63822 State Highway 96, P.O. Box 377

(530) 493-2243 http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50586

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

https://www.ascr.usda.gov/how-file-program-discrimination-complaint

mailto:[email protected]

Aquatic Resources Report Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

i

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. i

Aquatic Resources Report............................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Actions and Alternatives Analyzed........................................................................... 1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 1

Special Status Aquatic Species Considered in this Analysis .............................................. 1

Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on Management Indicator Species ................................................................................................................................ 3

Status and Habitat Requirements of Threatened, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species ................................................................................................................................ 3

Direct Effects Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4

Analysis Indicators for Aquatic and Riparian Habitat ........................................................ 4

Intensity of Effects .............................................................................................................. 9

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ................................................................. 10 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 10

Middle Klamath River (within the Horse Creek project area) .......................................... 13

Horse Creek 6th-field watershed ....................................................................................... 15

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 22

Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................................... 22

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 ..................................................................................................... 26

Alternative 2...................................................................................................................... 27

Alternative 3...................................................................................................................... 32

Alternative 4 ...................................................................................................................... 34

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 36

Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................... 36

Effects Determination ....................................................................................................... 38

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ............................................... 38 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A – Maps ...................................................................................................................... 44

List of Tables Table 1. Special status species in project area. ............................................................................................. 2


ii

Table 2: Measurement indicators for fisheries habitat quality (from the Klamath National Forest tributaries matrix: Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use on the Klamath National Forest..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3: The Gap Fire 5th-, 6th-, and 7th-field watersheds and miles of anadromous and fish bearing stream. All of the Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds are included even if not in project area. ........... 11

Table 4: 303(d) Clean Water Act listed reaches of the Middle Klamath River (NCRWQCB 2008). ........ 15

Table 5: Road density, road density within stream-course riparian reserves, and hydrologic connectivity in Horse Creek watersheds where actions are proposed. ........................................................................ 16

Table 6: Average surface fines, average sub-surface fines, and average volume of fine sediment filling pools in lower Horse Creek, compared to reference conditions. Metrics over 85th percentile of reference streams are bolded. .............................................................................................................. 17

Table 7: Cumulative Watershed Effects models current conditions (risk ratios) by 7th- and 6th-field watershed. Model results that are near, at, or above the threshold of concern are noted by an asterisk (*). ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 8: Likelihood and consequences of a landslide event in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds where actions are proposed (from Geology Report). ..................................................................................... 18

Table 9: Acres and percentage of riparian areas affected by moderate and high burn intensity in the 2016 Gap Fire in Horse Creek by 7th-field watershed. ............................................................................... 19

Table 10: Recent Water Temperature Monitoring Results for Mainstem Horse Creek at river mile 2.4 ... 21

Table 11: Project elements and sub-elements in project area 7th-field watersheds for action Alternatives 2/3/4. ................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 12: Increases in modeled cumulative watershed effects over existing condition for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. ................................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 13: Summary of comparison of effects of alternatives for aquatic resource analysis indicators and special status aquatic species. ............................................................................................................. 38

List of Figures

Figure 1: Alternative 2 Fisheries Range Map ............................................................................................. 44

Figure 2: Alternative 3 Fisheries Range Map. ............................................................................................ 45

Figure 3: Alternative 4 Fisheries Range Map. ............................................................................................ 46


1

Aquatic Resources Report

Introduction The Horse Creek Project Area is 40,834 acres including 25,596 acres of national forest and 15,238 acres of private land (see project maps in Appendix A) located in the Middle Klamath River Hydrologic Area (NCRWQCB, 2010). Proposed alternatives for the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project (project) are analyzed for potential effects on special status aquatic species that are listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act; listed as Forest Service Region 5 sensitive; and/or listed as a management indicator species in the Klamath National Forest (Forest) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA-USFS 1995 Forest Plan, as amended). The Aquatic Resources Report analysis area is the 5th-, 6th- and 7th-field watersheds that were affected by the fires and have activities proposed that have potential to effect special status aquatic species. The Aquatic Resources Report provides a description of the affected environment, including special status aquatic species and their habitat, and the environmental consequences or anticipated effects of the project on these species and their habitat. Special status aquatic species includes fish and aquatic-associated species that require aquatic habitats for successful completion of all or a portion of their life history. Aquatic-associated species use both aquatic and riparian habitats. The term ‘aquatic’ in this report refers to fish and aquatic-associated amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird species. Special status aquatic species considered in this analysis are shown in Table 1.

Proposed Actions and Alternatives Analyzed Proposed action alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Methodology This analysis has five components: (1) a review of existing information, (2) post-fire field review of watershed conditions, particularly riparian and aquatic habitat, (3) field review of selected treatment areas, (4) cumulative watershed effects modeling, and (5) evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of project alternatives on special status aquatic species and their habitat.

Special Status Aquatic Species Considered in this Analysis

Special status aquatic species includes fish and aquatic-associated species that require aquatic habitats for successful completion of all or a portion of their life history. Aquatic-associated species primarily use aquatic and riparian habitats. The term ‘aquatic’ in this report refers to fish and aquatic-associated amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird species. Special status aquatic species considered in this analysis are shown in Table 1. A list of threatened, endangered, and candidate fish and aquatic-associated species was obtained online from the US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC website (USFWS 2017) accessed on March 26, 2017. Fish and aquatic-associated species designated Forest Service sensitive were obtained from the Region 5 Regional Forester’s 2013 Sensitive Animals Species List (USDA 2017) via website accessed on March 26, 2017. Management indicator species (MIS) were obtained from Table 3-13 on page 55 of the Forest Plan. Range for each of these species was determined by Forest fish census over the last eight


2

years or by range maps accessed from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database (CDFW 2017) website accessed on March 26, 2017. There are seventeen fish and aquatic-associated species on the lists as follows: one threatened; ten sensitive; and nine management indicator species. Three of the species are both sensitive and management indicator species. According to the range maps in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database, the following three species do not have range in the analysis area and are therefore not included in the analysis: western brook lamprey, northern red-legged frog, and Cascades frog.

Table 1. Special status species in project area.

Special Status Aquatic Species

Enda

nger

ed

Thre

aten

ed

Sens

itive

Man

agem

ent I

ndic

ator

Crit

ical

Hab

itat

Esse

ntia

l Fis

h H

abita

t

Salmonids Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch X X X Upper Klamath/Trinity Rivers Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha X X Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X X Klamath Mountains Province Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X

Lamprey Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus X Klamath River Lamprey Entosphenus similus X Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni 1

Amphibian Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii X Northern Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora 1 1 Cascades Frog Rana cascadae 1 1 Tailed-Frog Ascaphus truei X Siskiyou Mountains Salamander Plethodon stormi X Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus X

Reptile Western Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata X X

Mammal Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris X Long-Tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus X

Bird American dipper Cinclus mexicanus X

1 Western brook lamprey, northern red-legged frog and Cascades frog are not present in analyses areas (CDFW 2017) and will not be further addressed in this analysis.


3

Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on Management Indicator Species

Two MIS ‘species associations’ are analyzed in this document. The River/Stream Species Association includes rainbow trout, steelhead trout, tailed-frog, Cascades frog, American dipper, northern water shrew, and long-tailed vole. The Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association includes northern red-legged frog and western pond turtle.

Project-level MIS effects analyses are informed by project and landscape-scale habitat analyses alone. This involves first assessing ‘habitat status’ and ‘habitat trends’ for MIS habitat components at the project and landscape level, then assessing how impacts of proposed actions will be likely to affect habitat status and habitat trend. “Habitat status” is the current amount of habitat available to a population. “Habitat trend” is the direction of change in the amount of habitat over a given time period of time to the present. The Forest Plan does not require population monitoring for any MIS except for rainbow trout and steelhead trout. Besides steelhead and rainbow trout, there has been annual census for adult and juvenile Chinook and Coho salmon in recent years. The Forest Plan analysis requirements for MIS are summarized in Part I of the MIS Report (Appendix B). Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS involves the following steps:

• Identifying which MIS have habitat that will be either directly or indirectly affected by the project alternatives. This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report (Appendix B).

• Analyzing project and landscape-level effects on habitats for which the MIS was selected to indicate in the Forest Plan.

• Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to population trends of MIS.

Status and Habitat Requirements of Threatened, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species

This section summarizes the status of threatened, sensitive and management indicator species and their habitat that could potentially be affected by the project.

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon (threatened)

The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal (SONCC) Coho salmon evolutionary significant unit (ESU) includes all naturally spawned populations of Coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon and Punta Gorda, California, as well as Coho salmon produced by three hatcheries: Iron Gate, Cole Rivers, and Trinity River. An ESU is comprised of groups of populations with geographic and evolutionary similarities that are considered a “species” under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service originally listed SONCC Coho salmon as threatened under the ESA in 1997 (62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997) and Critical Habitat (CH) was subsequently designated (64 FR 24049). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) was designated for SONCC Coho salmon by the Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1999. On the Klamath National Forest, EFH for Coho salmon is identical to the distribution of Coho salmon Critical Habitat. The distribution of salmonid fish species and SONCC Coho salmon critical habitat in the project area is shown on the project maps in Appendix A.


4

Little information exists to provide insight on the historical abundance of Coho salmon within the middle Klamath River and tributaries. Population estimates mostly arose from fishing and canning records within the Lower Klamath River and estuary. Historic reach-specific estimates for upstream sub-basins do not exist. Snyder (1931) reported the first commercial gill net catch of 11,162 Coho salmon in the lower reaches of the Klamath River in 1919 and was the first author to report a concern for declining salmon populations in California, due to commercial fishing, forestry and agricultural practices. Long-term monitoring data from the lower river and ocean fisheries suggests a marked decrease in abundance of adult Coho salmon by the 1950s (Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (USDI 1991), Weitkamp et al. 1995). WeitKamp et al. 1995 estimated that Klamath River Coho salmon population could be less than six percent of the abundance in the 1940s.

NMFS 2014 describes the ‘Upper Klamath River SONCC Coho salmon population’ in the project area as being at high risk of extinction. The key limiting stresses adversely affecting salmonids populations in the mid-Klamath River are impaired water quality, lack of floodplain function and channel structure, passage barriers, altered flow regime, and lack of quality summer and winter rearing habitat that is protected from warm temperatures in summer and high flows in winter. Key limiting threats are high severity fire, dams, diversions, and roads. The Upper Klamath River population is highly influenced by Iron Gate Dam and Hatchery, and has likely experienced a loss of life history diversity due to environmental conditions and loss of habitat (NMFS 2014).

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho are critically vulnerable to extinction as wild fish within the next 50 to 100 years. There has likely been 95 percent or more decline in numbers since the 1960s in California due to dam construction and habitat degradation from various land use practices. Level of concern for SONCC Coho salmon is “critical” (Moyle et al. 2017).

A full description of SONCC Coho salmon including life history, habitat requirements, distribution, abundance, factors affecting status, population trends and status can be found in Moyle et al. 2008. Desired and properly functioning habitat conditions for Coho salmon on the Klamath National Forest is given in the Table of Population and Habitat Indicators in Appendix C.

Coho salmon spawn and rear in the mainstem Klamath River. Horse and Seiad creeks are the only tributaries in the project area where Coho salmon spawn and rear, however, other perennial tributaries in the project area are critical for providing cool clear water so that Coho salmon parr and smolts can survive high water temperatures and poor water quality common in the mainstem Klamath River from mid-summer to early-fall. Table 3 provides the number of miles of habitat used by Coho salmon in each 7th-field watershed.

Upper Klamath-Trinity River Chinook Salmon (sensitive)

The Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers (UKTR) Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit (ESU) includes Chinook salmon in all streams in the Klamath River watershed upstream from the Trinity River confluence. UKTR Chinook salmon are a Forest Service sensitive species because the spring run is considerably reduced in population size and range compared to historical condition. Essential Fish Habitat was designated for UKTR Chinook salmon by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The distribution of EFH for Chinook salmon is identical to the distribution of Coho salmon critical habitat. See project maps in Appendix A for the distribution


5

of salmonid fish species and Coho salmon critical habitat (Chinook salmon EFH) in the project area.

UKTR Chinook salmon is a Forest Service sensitive species because the spring-run is much reduced in range and remaining populations have low numbers of adult fish returning. Chinook salmon exhibiting spring run timing are likely to disappear in the next 50 years. Small, self-sustaining populations remain primarily in the Salmon and South Fork Trinity rivers, where they are highly vulnerable to climate change, hybridization with hatchery-origin fish, and other stressors. Level of concern for spring-run Chinook salmon is “critical” (Moyle et al. 2017).

Historic numbers of wild UKTR fall-run Chinook probably ranged between 125,000 and 250,000 fish per year. While numbers over the past 25 years have sometimes reached into that range, much lower numbers are typical and many fish are of hatchery origin (Moyle et al. 2015). Of particular concern is the increasing trend of the proportion of basin-wide escapement made up of hatchery returns (Quiñones et al. 2014). UKTR fall-run Chinook are not in immediate danger of extinction, although their numbers have declined in recent decades. There appears to be an increasing reliance on hatcheries to maintain fisheries, and returns of hatchery-origin fish may be masking a decline of wild production in the Klamath-Trinity Basin. Level of concern for fall-run Chinook salmon is “moderate” (Moyle et al. 2017). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers the spring-run of UKTR Chinook salmon as “endangered” and the Fall-run as “near threatened.” The Chinook salmon fishery along the west coast was severely restricted for several years between 2006 and 2016 due to low production numbers in the Klamath basin. The fall 2017 run of Chinook salmon is projected to be the lowest on record (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2017).

A full description of UKTR Chinook salmon including life history, habitat requirements, distribution, abundance, factors affecting status, population trends and status can be found in Moyle et al. 2008. Properly functioning habitat conditions for Chinook salmon on the Klamath National Forest is given in Appendix C.

Chinook salmon spawn and rear in the mainstem Klamath River. Horse and Seiad creeks are the only tributaries in the project area where Chinook salmon spawn and rear, however, other perennial tributaries in the project area are critical for providing cool clear water so that salmon parr and smolts can survive high water temperatures and poor water quality common in the mainstem Klamath River from mid-summer to early-fall. Table 3 provides the number of miles of habitat used by Chinook salmon in each 7th-field watershed.

Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead and Resident Rainbow Trout (sensitive and management indicator species)

The Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead trout ESU includes all steelhead trout and rainbow trout sub-populations in the Klamath River basin. The distinction between anadromous steelhead trout and resident rainbow trout is a topic of recent research and both life history types are currently classified as the same species. Anadromy and residency appear to reflect interactions among genetics, individual condition, and environmental influences (Sloat and Reeves 2014; Kendall et al., 2015).

KMP steelhead/rainbow trout is a Forest Service sensitive species because the summer run is much reduced in range and remaining populations have low numbers of adult fish returning. KMP steelhead appear to be in long-term decline (Moyle et al. 2015). Stream-maturing KMP


6

summer steelhead face a high likelihood of extinction in California in the next 50 years. Level of concern for summer-run steelhead trout is “critical” (Moyle et al. 2017). Ocean-maturing winter steelhead are in a state of decline from historical numbers in the Klamath Basin. These ocean-maturing fish are relatively more widespread than the stream-maturing summer-run fish, yet still face an uncertain future due to reductions in suitable habitat. Level of concern for winter-run KMP steelhead trout is “moderate” (Moyle et al. 2017). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers KMP steelhead to be “vulnerable.”

Steelhead and rainbow trout were selected to be a management indicator species for water quality, in-stream woody debris, bottom substrate, flows, and channel condition. Steelhead/rainbow trout are common in cool, clear, fast-flowing perennial tributaries to the mid-Klamath River where suitable habitat is present, including: flows necessary to provide dissolved oxygen close to saturation; cool summer water temperatures (optimum 15-18 degrees C); and diverse and abundant invertebrate life. Coarse gravels in riffles or pools are used for spawning. Ample and complex cover from riparian vegetation, large woody debris, boulders, deep pools, or undercut banks reduces exposure to predators, high flows, and excessive energy expenditure. A full description of KMP steelhead trout including life history, habitat requirements, distribution, abundance, population trends and status, and factors affecting status can be found in Moyle et al. 2008. Properly functioning habitat conditions for steelhead/rainbow trout on the Klamath National Forest is given in Appendix C.

KMP steelhead/rainbow trout spawn and rear in the mainstem Klamath River. KMP steelhead/rainbow trout spawn and rear in Horse and Seiad creeks and likely other tributaries to the Klamath River within the project area. Table 3 provides the number of miles of habitat used by Chinook salmon in each 7th-field watershed.

Pacific Lamprey (sensitive species)

Pacific lamprey occupy Klamath River streams that have relatively stable flow conditions. Adult lamprey spend up to a year in streams maturing before spawning and require a mix of deep pools with good hiding cover such as boulders, cobble, and large wood. Lampreys spawn in areas with gravel and cobbles. As with salmon spawning areas, well-oxygenated water flowing through relatively clean substrates is critical to egg survival. After hatching and spending a short amount of time in the nest gravel, ammocoetes move downstream to areas of soft sand or mud where they burrow in and live as filter feeders for up to seven years, sucking organic matter and algae off the substrate surface (Moyle 2002). Ammocoetes are particularly vulnerable to irrigation diversions and therefore designs of diversions or water withdrawal must provide lamprey protection features such as fish screens. For diversions that are not screened, ammocoetes trapped in ditches will perish when ditches are drained or run dry.

Currently, Pacific lamprey are seldom seen in Klamath River tributaries. In the mid to late 1990s Pacific lamprey were more commonly seen (J. Grunbaum, personal observation). The lack of formal monitoring of adult migrations makes quantification of population trends impossible. The presence of a long-term tribal fishery in the North Coast with living recollections of past lamprey runs allows a qualitative sense of declining numbers. Anecdotal and empirical information suggests that Pacific lamprey populations have declined or been locally extirpated in parts of California (Moyle et al. 2009). Tribal fishermen who fished in the 1970 to 80's recollect much larger runs and suggest declines of at least 90 percent, and remark that runs have been consistently low since the mid 1980's with continued decline (Goodman and Reid, 2012).


7

Klamath River Lamprey (sensitive species)

This species was described from the upper Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake in Southern Oregon (Moyle 2002). However, it appears to be widespread in the Lower Klamath and Trinity Rivers and tributaries (Josh Boyce, Humboldt State University, personal communication, 2001). As with other Klamath basin lampreys, abundance estimates for Klamath River lamprey do not exist.

Little is known about the habitat requirements of Klamath River lamprey. The environmental tolerances of adult Klamath River lamprey have not been documented but they are likely similar to those of Pacific lamprey. If this is the case, then Klamath River lamprey need cold, clear water for spawning and incubation. They will also require a diverse range of habitats to complete their life cycle. Presumably, ammocoete larvae have the same basic requirements as those of Pacific lamprey, living in backwaters with soft substrates.

Klamath River lamprey are commonly observed attached to salmonid fishes in the lower reaches of mid-Klamath River tributaries (J.Grunbaum, personal observation). It is likely that Klamath River lamprey spawn and rear in the lower reaches of many of the perennial tributaries to the Klamath River within the project area.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (sensitive species)

Foothill yellow-legged frogs occur throughout the north and south coasts ranges of California as far south as the Transverse Range, across northern California to the west slope of the Cascade Range, and south through the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to Tehachapi Creek, Kern County. It occurs up to 6,000 feet elevation in the northern Sierra Nevada. It inhabits forest streams and rivers with sunny, sandy, and rocky banks, deep pools, and shallow riffles (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). Habitat requirements can be divided into three main categories: breeding and rearing habitat, non-breeding habitat, and overwintering habitat. Breeding and rearing habitat is generally located in gently flowing, low-gradient stream sections, with variable substrate predominated by cobble and boulder (Kupferberg 1996). Lind et al. (2016) observed that egg mass relative abundances were negatively associated with water depth and positively associated with distance from the shoreline, suggesting that breeding areas with high egg mass relative abundances generally occurred in wide shallow areas. Egg masses are typically attached to cobble, boulder, or bedrock substrate near river margins in shallow and relatively slow habitat (Kupferberg 1996, Lind and Yarnell, 2008). Larvae are found in the same habitat and require protection from scouring flows (Kupferberg et al. 2011). Adults remain in terrestrial riparian and riverine habitat adjacent to the wetted channel during the non-breeding season (Kupferberg 1996, Zweifel 1955). Van Wagner (1996) observed overwintering adults both in the water and along stream-edge habitat beneath rocks, leaf litter, and grasses. Kupferberg (1996) observed that frogs may move into smaller tributaries to avoid risk of scouring flows, or move into adjacent terrestrial habitat to avoid winter peak flow events altogether.

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are rare in the Klamath Basin (Fellers, 2005). The species has disappeared from more than half of its historically occupied locations throughout its range in California and Oregon (Lind 2005). According to the range map in CDFW 2017 and the presence of suitable habitat, yellow-legged frog could occur in the project area.

https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/wildlife/herp/rana_boylii/citations.shtml#Kupferberg1996


1

Tailed-Frog (management indicator species)

Tailed frogs were selected to be a management indicator species for water quality, in-stream woody debris, bottom substrate, flows and channel conditions. Tailed-frogs inhabit the north coast range of California from the vicinity of Elk, Mendocino County, northward. The inland extent of its range is the McCloud River basin, Shasta County (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). The tailed-frog is a uniquely adapted species associated with fast-flowing water. Components of suitable tailed-frog habitat include clean, cold water, gravel and cobble substrates, and lush riparian vegetation. Good water quality is an important habitat component because of the absorbent nature of the frogs’ skin. Tailed-frog tadpoles have adapted a unique ability to survive in a fast flowing stream environment by clinging to rocks with its large sucker like mouth, making the presence of silt-free gravel and cobble habitat essential. Adults seek cover primarily under submerged rocks, logs, and vegetation within the stream or under similar objects close to the stream. Adults are aquatic, occupying the streams needed by their eggs and tadpoles. After heavy rains or dews, adults may be found in moist woods (Nussbaum et al., 1983). The population status of this species is unknown. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature classifies the tailed frog as a species of “least concern”.

Locally, this species is seen most commonly in and adjacent to cold, rocky, fast-flowing perennial tributaries to the Klamath River in humid riparian forest environments. Tailed frogs likely occur in many of the perennial tributaries to the Klamath River in the project area.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (sensitive species)

The historical range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander is unknown and it is currently found only in the Siskiyou Mountains of northern California in the Seiad and Horse creek drainages (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). However, the range map in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database shows the range extending further west to Thompson Ridge (CDFW 2017). These salamanders live in the driest habitats occupied by any western plethodon species. They have been found in old clear-cuts, moss covered road cuts near seepages, and along streams. The preservation of rock outcrop, talus slope, and seep areas is especially important (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). The Siskiyou Mountains salamander is active above ground only during spring and fall rains (Brodie 1971).

For this analysis it is assumed that Siskiyou Mountains salamanders are present in the project area in suitable habitat types.

Southern Torrent Salamander (sensitive species)

In California, this species occurs in the humid forests of the North Coast Range from the vicinity of Point Arena, Mendocino County, and north to northern coastal Oregon. There is also a population in the upper McCloud drainage, Siskiyou County (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). Welsh and Lind (1996) found that this species is associated with cold, clear headwater to low-order streams with loose, coarse substrates in humid forest habitats with large conifers, abundant moss, and greater than 80 percent canopy cover. According to Welsh and Lind (1996), suitable habitat has the following characteristics: (1) conifer dominated forests associated with mature to old growth structural attributes; 15 to 130 conifers per acre greater than 21 inches diameter-breast-height; 72 to 100 percent canopy closure; low numbers of cut stumps; low percent cover of grass, and high percent cover of moss; (2) seep or other shallow, slow flowing habitats with


2

cold, clear water in first to third order streams; 15 to 46 percent of the substrate in cobble in a mix of coarse substrates (cobble, pebble, and gravel) with 3 to 47 percent substrate cementedness, and sand and fine organic particles present; and (3) water temperature from 43.7 to 59.0 °F.

The Horse Creek project area is slightly to the east of the range of southern torrent salamanders (CDFW 2017) so it is unlikely that there are any southern torrent salamanders in the project area. However, presence in suitable habitats will be assumed for the analysis of effects.

Western Pond Turtle (sensitive and management indicator species)

Western pond turtles have an extensive range from Washington south through the Cascade Range, north and south coastal ranges of California, and the western Sierra Nevada foothills (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). The western pond turtle is a fully aquatic species that centers its activities around relatively quiet water habitats such as ponds, lakes, marshes, broad rivers, backwaters, and irrigation ditches with some aquatic vegetation. It may also be occasionally found in deep-pool areas of rapidly flowing streams. The terrestrial habitats surrounding these sites range from grassland and cropland to open forest (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). Western pond turtles are listed as Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive because of declining populations throughout their range. Western pond turtle populations are thought to be declining due to habitat alteration and loss, population fragmentation, past and possibly present day exploitation, predation, illegal collection, and pollution (Holland 1994), and competition with introduced non-native turtles (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). Western pond turtles were selected to be a management indicator species for standing open water and associated vegetation, and chosen for sensitivity to physical aquatic conditions and coarse woody debris.

During the spring and summer (the active season) western pond turtles often concentrate in low gradient and low velocity sections of creeks and rivers, especially in sloughs, side channels, and backwater areas. They require emergent basking sites (Nussbaum et al.1983; Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012), which are important for thermoregulation and growth (Grayson and Dorcas 2004; Koper and Brooks 2000). Western pond turtles are omnivores, with foods ranging from aquatic vascular plants, earthworms, and insects to amphibian eggs and larvae, crayfish, and carrion (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012). In many areas, this turtle hibernates during much of the cool winter season. Hibernation most often takes place in the soft bottom substrate of aquatic habitats. At sites where aquatic substrate is not appropriate for hibernation this turtle utilizes the burrows of the California ground squirrel (Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012) or burrows in duff or soils on the slopes above the high water zone. Reese and Welsh (1997) reported that individuals can overwinter on land up to 500 meters from the nearest watercourse. In spring, the turtles that hibernated on land migrate back down slope toward the rivers. Female turtles migrate to alluvial nesting benches to lay eggs. Nesting benches are usually located on flat benches on the banks of rivers in close proximity to rearing habitat (shallow water and riparian vegetation). Females lay their eggs in soil and have been recorded nesting up to 300 feet from water (Holland 1994). When the juvenile turtles hatch they migrate to the nearest rearing habitat. Rearing habitat consists of shallow edge water areas with minimal current and lush vegetation, including ponds, springs, and vernal pools.

Western pond turtles are commonly seen basking on boulders, bedrock and large woody debris in the channel and on streambanks of the mainstem Klamath River. Turtles are occasionally seen in the lowest reaches of larger Klamath River tributaries, particularly in reaches that are low


3

gradient with wide valley floors and adjacent south-facing slopes. Western pond turtles are seldom seen far away from the Klamath River in tributaries (J. Grunbaum, personal observation).

It is likely that there are western pond turtles in the project area. Pond turtles are most likely to occur along the Klamath River corridor and within the lower stream corridor of Horse and Seiad creeks where the valley is wide and the stream gradient low.

Northern Water Shrew (management indicator species)

The water shrew is common to abundant in montane riparian habitats of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada from Siskiyou and Modoc counties south to Tulare and Inyo counties (CDFW 2017). Northern water shrew were selected to be a management indicator species of riparian vegetation including canopy, deciduous vegetation, and grasses/forbes. Water shrews are closely associated with streams, marshes, lakes, and ponds and may also be found in riparian or other wet areas with thick vegetation and in coniferous forests immediately adjacent to riparian areas (Csuti et al. 1997). This species uses logs, streamside vegetation, and rocky stream bottoms for cover and nest very close to water in moss or other soft material in a protected bank or hollow or decaying log (Conaway 1952).

According to the habitat and range description above, there could be northern water shrew in the project area.

Long-Tailed Vole (management indicator species)

In California, the long-tailed vole is found in the coastal zone from Mendocino County north to the Oregon border; inland it occurs in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains. Long-tail vole were selected to be a management indicator species of riparian vegetation including canopy, deciduous vegetation, and grasses/forbes. Common resident of herbaceous understories of many forest habitats. Feeds on a variety of herbaceous and woody plant parts including grasses, sedges, bulbs, and bark of shrubs. Major food items also have included flowers, seeds, roots, and insects. Most foraging is done on ground beneath shrubs. Outside the nest, seeks cover in dense herbaceous vegetation or beneath shrubs. Burrows are constructed in soft soils, or within or beneath logs. Individuals may be found several hundred meters from water (Cahalane 1947).

According to the habitat and range description above, long-tailed voles could be in the project area.

American Dipper (management indicator species)

American Dippers are common within the proper habitat in Northern California – here they occur along streams from the Oregon border south through the Klamath Mountains; through the north coast range as far south as Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. American dipper were selected to be a management indicator species of water quality, instream woody debris, bottom substrate and flows. American dippers are very partial to swift, cold, permanent streams, preferably those with large boulders, tumbling waterfalls, steep cliffs, and ledges which can be used as sheltered nest sites. Structure of stream bank is important; cliffs, large rocks, and boulders, especially those with overhanging ledges and crevices, provide nest sites. Rocks, fallen trees, and driftwood provide cover for escape from predators and serve as refuges for molting. Fallen logs and tree roots are sometimes used for nesting and roosting. Forages in streams, principally in fast-flowing water, in breeding season. Outside breeding season, also in estuaries, lakeshores, ponds. In all these locations, may forage by flipping small stones and probing into


4

packs of leaf litter, in addition to gleaning rocks and cobbles. Feeds almost exclusively in water by walking, swimming, and diving; occasionally picks food from ice, snow, or streamside vegetation, sometimes fly-catches. Diet includes aquatic insects and their larvae, including mayflies, mosquitoes, and midges. (Cornell Lab of Ornithology website accessed April 2017).

In the mid-Klamath region, American dippers are commonly seen along fast-flowing Klamath River tributaries. There is suitable habitat for the American dipper in Klamath River tributaries in the project area.

Direct Effects Analysis

Direct effects on fish populations is assessed by examining what activities will occur in-stream and the probable effects of those in-stream activities on fish. Direct effects on special status aquatic species that are not fish, and on habitat for management indicator species, is assessed by examining what activities will occur in-stream and within riparian habitats, and the probable direct effects of in-stream and riparian activities on those species and habitats. Direct effects to species are described in terms of estimated number individuals of each species that could be injured or killed in the course of project implementation. Direct effects to management indicator species habitat is described in terms of length of stream and area of stream course riparian reserve habitat that will be removed, degraded, or restored in the course of project implementation.

Analysis Indicators for Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

The analysis uses habitat indicators from the Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (Analytical Process) (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004). The Analytical Process utilizes key indicators of habitat quality (habitat indicators) and was formulated to standardize evaluations of actions and effects for conferencing/consultations under Section (§) 7(a)(2) of the ESA, focusing on salmonid fishes within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Although the key aquatic habitat indicators apply to anadromous fish, they will also be used for other special status aquatic species in this report since these species have over-lapping aquatic habitat requirements that are well represented by the habitat indicators. The information developed through the Analytical Process also satisfies the analysis requirements for essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation for Pacific salmon under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600) when the species is also listed under the ESA.

The Analytical Process includes use of the “USFWS/NOAA Fisheries Table of Population and Habitat Indicators” (Table) which is a tool to characterize baseline habitat conditions for populations of salmonids in the Northwest Forest Plan area (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004). Consistent with the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators the Table provides values and ranges of conditions to determine whether baseline conditions are Properly Functioning, At Risk, or Not Properly Functioning. The Forest has developed criteria for the mid-Klamath region using values from streams that are considered pristine and as supported by the data contained in the environmental impact statement for the Forest Plan. The Klamath tributaries matrix (KNF 2012) serves as the basis to identify relative baseline conditions, including existing conditions, for the project area. The Klamath tributaries matrix in conjunction with watershed assessments, field reviews, and proposed actions are used to evaluate effects of the alternatives.


5

The Forest Plan contains the components, objectives, and standards and guidelines for land management projects. A major provision of the Forest Plan is the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) which specifies nine objectives which each project must satisfy to maintain or restore habitat for aquatic and aquatic/riparian-associated species. The interdisciplinary team evaluated the action alternative that will generate the most ground disturbance for its potential to maintain or restore ACS objectives at site and watershed scales (see ACS analysis report in the project record). A major provision of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is riparian reserves. The ACS allows treatment in riparian reserves only when it is required to attain ACS objectives (“where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting if required to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives”). Whether a proposed treatment in riparian reserves is required in order to achieve ACS objectives is an important part of the Aquatic Resources analysis.

Riparian reserves are established within each watershed around areas that are directly coupled to streams or rivers to protect riparian function, including water temperature regulation. Stream course riparian reserves parallel the stream network but are also established to maintain hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes and, as such, include other areas necessary for maintaining these processes. Stream course (or hydrologic) riparian reserves widths are based on a site potential tree height for the project area which is 150 feet. Fish bearing streams have a stream course riparian reserve buffer on each side of the active channel (bankfull channel) equal in width to the combined length of two site potential tree heights (300 feet). Permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams have a riparian reserve buffer on each side of the active channel equal in width to the length of one site potential tree height (150 feet). Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams have riparian reserve widths equal to the length of one site potential tree height (150 feet) on each side of the active channel or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greater. Stream course riparian reserves extend beyond site potential tree height(s) where there is unstable ground or inner gorge. In these instances, the stream buffer extends to the extent of the unstable or potentially unstable ground and/or to the top of the inner gorge. Geologic riparian reserves are established to protect sensitive ground from excessive disturbance. Geologic riparian reserves include active landslides, toe zones of dormant landslides, inner gorges, and highly dissected granitic terrain. Riparian Reserves are managed under special standards and guidelines that prohibit and regulate forest management activities that will retard or prevent attainment of aquatic conservation strategy objectives and are a key element designed to maintain and restore riparian structure and function and provide biological connectivity corridors among late successional reserves.

A stand-alone Biological Assessment will be prepared for Coho salmon and Coho salmon critical habitat. This document will be the Biological Evaluation for Forest Service sensitive species and the Management Indicator Species analysis for management indicator species. The Biological Assessment will analyze project effects relative to the full suite of habitat indicators included in the Analytical Process: water temperature; turbidity; chemical and nutrient contamination; physical barriers; substrate character; large woody debris; pool frequency and quality; off-channel habitat; refugia; width to depth ratio; streambank condition; floodplain connectivity; change in peak and base flows; increase in drainage network; road density and location; disturbance history; disturbance regime; and riparian reserves.


6

In this report, three key indicators of habitat quality were selected from the Analytical Process, based on the potential for project effects and, in turn, the potential for impacts on aquatic species and their habitat: sediment, water temperature, and large woody debris. Table 2 shows these habitat indicators and their rating criteria relative to Properly Functioning, At Risk, or Not Properly Functioning. The full suite of habitat indicators are assessed in 7th-field watersheds where there is potential for effects to special status aquatic species (see: Checklists for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Actions on Relevant Indicators” in Appendix D).

Table 2: Measurement indicators for fisheries habitat quality (from the Klamath National Forest tributaries matrix: Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use on the Klamath National Forest.

Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

Water Temperature 1st-3rd Order Streams

(Instantaneous Temp. Measurement) ~20.5ºC or less

1st-3rd Order Streams (Instantaneous Temp Measurement)

>20.5 to 21.3ºC

1st-3rd Order Streams (Instantaneous Temp. Measurement)

~21.3ºC or more

4th-5th Order Streams (Maximum Weekly Maximum

Temperature) ~21.4ºC or less


Temperature) >21.4 to 23.1 ºC


Temperature) ~23.0ºC or more

Sediment Substrate Character:

Less than 15 percent fines (less than 2 mm) in spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, low gradient riffles, and glides) and cobble embeddedness less than 20 percent.

Suspended Sediment/Turbidity: Water clarity returns quickly (within 3 days) following peak flows.

Substrate Character:

15 percent or greater fines (less than 2 mm) in spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, low gradient riffles, and glides) and/or cobble embeddedness is 20 percent or greater.

Suspended Sediment/Turbidity: Water clarity slow (four to six days) to return following peak flows; moderate to high fines in substrate; moderate modeled surface erosion and mass wasting; riparian reserves are not fully functioning.

Substrate Character:

Greater than 20 percent fines ( less than 2 mm) in spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, low gradient riffles, and glides) and cobble embeddedness greater than 25 percent.

Suspended Sediment/Turbidity: Water clarity poor for long periods of time (one week or more) following peak flows. Some suspended sediments occur even at low flows or base flow; high fines in substrate, stream buffers in poor condition, high modeled surface erosion and mass wasting; riparian reserves are in poor condition.

Large Woody Debris


7

Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

There is an average of 20 pieces of large wood or more per mile. On the west-side of the Forest large wood is defined as a minimum length of 50 feet and diameter of 24 inches. However, site potential and channel width must be considered rather than using strict numbers – large wood pieces longer than 1.5 times the active channel function as large woody debris. Potential for future recruitment of large woody debris into stream channels from stream buffer is high in both the short- and long-term.

Current levels are being maintained at minimum levels desired for “properly functioning”, but potential for future recruitment of large wood into stream channels from stream buffers is too low to maintain minimum values.

Current levels are not at those desired values for “properly functioning”, and potential sources of woody debris for short and/or long-term recruitment are lacking

Sediment

Wildfire and vegetation management (including roads and landings) within riparian reserves and upslope can result in excessive delivery of course and fine sediment, and adverse impacts, to riparian and aquatic habitats. Excessive sedimentation can reduce the stability of spawning gravel beds. Excessive sedimentation can reduce survival of salmonid embryos and alevins by entombing them in redds, by reducing flow of dissolved oxygen, and by reducing flushing away of metabolites. Excessive sedimentation can reduce habitat suitability for juvenile salmonids by decreasing interstitial hiding places, altering production of macroinvertebrates, and reducing the total volume of pools.

Increased sediment loads and associated changes in channel morphology can affect stream temperature conditions. These effects can manifest at both large (watershed-wide) and small (individual reach) scales. The sizes of sediment that present a temperature concern are those that may result in pool filling, increased width, decreased depth, and/or a reduction of inter-gravel flow. Increases in sediment loads may alter channel morphology, leading to a wider and shallower wetted channel. In a study of stream channel geometry at twelve gauging stations throughout northwest California, Lisle (1982) described channel widths increasing by as much as one hundred percent, bars becoming smaller, and pools filling in response to increases in sediment supply. Debris flow landslides can alter channel morphology often widening and shallowing the channel. Riparian vegetation providing shade may also be removed or buried by sediment, trees, and other debris transported in debris flows. A wider and shallower channel gains and loses heat more readily than a narrow and deep channel. This principal is true for any stream. A stream’s width-to-depth ratio influences stream heating processes by determining the relative proportion of the wetted perimeter in contact with the atmosphere versus the streambed. Water in contact with the streambed exchanges heat via conduction. Conductive heat exchange with the streambed has a moderating influence, reducing daily temperature fluctuations. However, wide and shallow channels have a greater surface area per unit of volume in contact with the atmosphere than a narrower, deeper channel. Water in contact with the atmosphere exchanges heat via evaporation, convection, solar radiation, and long-wave radiation. Heat exchange from solar radiation far outweighs heat exchange from evaporation, convection, and long-wave radiation, unless the stream is significantly shaded.


8

Thus, the analysis of sediment will examine the current sediment regime and the potential for project activities to alter the current regime. In particular, the analysis will focus on potential effects of sediment regime change on aquatic and riparian habitats. The criteria for “properly functioning”; at-risk”; and “not properly functioning” relative to sediment is given in Table 2.

Project effects to sediment supply and delivery are assessed herein at the site- and watershed-scale. The assessment of project effects to sediment supply and delivery at the site-scale relies on field review of the proposed treatment areas, an understanding and prediction of project element effects based on past projects and involvement in research, literature reviews, and discussions with the interdisciplinary team members (geologist, hydrologist, and fire behavior specialist) regarding the potential for disturbance and risk to aquatic resources based on site conditions (including unit-specific slope stability, soil types, disturbance potential, and effects minimization measures that will be implemented). For effects analyses at watershed scales, the Klamath National Forest cumulative watershed effects (cumulative watershed effect) modeling process (USDA 2012) was used to assess effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities as described here and in the Final EIS. Three cumulative watershed effects analysis models were used: the Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) model is used to evaluate watershed disturbance; the Universal Soil Loss Equation model (USLE) is used to evaluate soil erosion; and the Geology model (GEO) is used to evaluate the potential for mass wasting.

Since 2009, the Forest has been actively monitoring stream channel sediment in Klamath River tributaries. One of the objectives of this monitoring program is to compare stream sediment conditions in reference watersheds that have negligible to minor watershed disturbance, to stream sediment conditions in managed watersheds that have various levels of watershed disturbance from past use of national forest and private lands. A total of 20 reference streams were established. Sampling of reference stream sediment indices (filled pool volume, surface fines, subsurface fines) was used to define thresholds (75th percentile of reference condition plus survey error) for evaluation of conditions in managed streams (Laurie and Elder, 2012). Three of the project 7th-field watersheds that are considered ‘managed’ have established sediment monitoring reaches: Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek, and Middle Seiad.

The geologic assessment of sediment involved field review of proposed ground disturbing activities where available GIS information indicated possible slope stability issues, observations and notes made during the 2016 Gap Fire Burned Area Emergency Response work (in project record), and subsequent monitoring of post-fire storms (Geology Report). The Forests cumulative watershed effects geology model (GEO) was used to estimate current landslide risk and predict changes in landslide risk for each project alternative. The model overlays geomorphic features with existing conditions (roads, timber harvests, and wildfire) and anticipated disturbances from future projects, and applies coefficients to estimate landslide sediment volume delivered to the mouth of each 7th field watershed. These volumes are then converted into percent over background rates. Background is defined as the volume of landslide sediment which will be anticipated when a watershed is fully forested, without any roads, or recent vegetation disturbance from timber harvest or fire. The model provides a systematic way of estimating landslide sediment volumes, and uses landslide coefficients developed on Klamath National Forest. The GEO model accounts for effects of temporary roads, landings, and timber harvest, as these activities cause most of the disturbance and can be modeled. The model does not account for roadside hazard tree treatments (including activities in the Special Interest Area),


9

fuel treatments, or site preparation and planting because these activities cause relatively minor disturbance and are not easily modeled.

Water Temperature

Wildfire, vegetation management (including roads and landings) and other disturbances adjacent to streams that alter the forest canopy providing shade and moderating microclimates for streams can increase stream heating and maximum water temperatures. Wildfire, vegetation management (including roads and landings) and other disturbances on unstable ground coupled to streams can increase mass wasting events that alters channels and riparian vegetation in a manner that results in increased rate and magnitude of stream heating and cooling (see discussion in Sediment section above).

Large Woody Debris

Wildfire and vegetation management (including roads and landings) in stream course riparian reserves (hydrological) and in unstable areas (geological) that feed to streams can affect large woody debris loading to streams and large wood available for future recruitment to streams. Large woody debris enters stream channels through a variety of mechanisms, including toppling of dead trees, wind-throw, debris slides, mass soil movements, under cutting streambanks, and redistribution from upstream (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978). The potential for a tree to enter a stream channel by toppling, wind-throw, or undercutting is primarily a function of slope distance from the stream channel in relation to tree height and slope angle (Spence et al. 1996). Consequently, the zone of influence for large wood recruitment is defined by the particular stand characteristics and recruitment process rather than an absolute distance from the stream channel or floodplain. FEMAT (1993) concluded that the probability of wood entering the active stream channel from greater than one tree height is generally low. Riparian reserve widths based on Forest Plan standards (as described in the Analysis Indicators for Aquatic and Riparian Habitats section above) will provide adequate buffer widths to protect large wood recruitment and other important functions of riparian reserves. When removal of trees (e.g. hazard trees, fuels reduction) is proposed within riparian reserves, analysis must show that present and future coarse woody debris needs are met.

Analysts quantified the extent of riparian reserves burned in the 2016 Gap Fire as well as fire severity and associated effects to vegetation. Acres of riparian reserves burned, fire severity, and observed and expected impacts to vegetation are used as a proxy to update the pre-fire baseline conditions for large wood including to update and assess the near- and long-term impacts on wood loading and recruitment potential from streamside sources and via mass wasting.

The area, character, and magnitude of proposed actions in stream-course and geologic riparian reserves will be used to assess affects to the large woody debris indicator for each alternative.

Intensity of Effects

“Intensity” refers to the severity of effects or the degree to which an action may adversely or beneficially affect a resource. The intensity definitions used throughout this analysis are described below.

Effects to habitat indicators are described at the site- and watershed-scale using the following terms:


10

• Neutral (no effect)

• Discountable (effects may occur but they are not to a level that can be meaningfully measured or detected)

• Significant (effects are detectable or effects are reasonably expected to be cumulative with current watershed disturbance).

Effects to aquatic species are described using the following terms:

• Neutral (no effect to individuals or species)

• Beneficial (contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species)

• Discountable (effects to individuals or Critical Habitat may reasonably occur but may not be measureable or detectable)

• Minor (effects to individuals of a listed species or Critical Habitat is detectable but will not be expected to result in substantial population fluctuations and will not be expected to have any measurable long-term effects on species, habitats, or natural processes sustaining them; minor effects equate with a May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination)

• Moderate (the action will result in detectable impacts on individuals or population of a listed species, its critical habitat, or the natural processes sustaining them and key ecosystem processes may experience disruptions that may result in population or habitat condition fluctuations that will be outside the range of natural variation, but will return to natural conditions; moderate level adverse effects will equate with a “May Affect/Likely to Adversely Affect determination

• Major Effect (individuals or population of a listed species, its critical habitat, or the natural processes sustaining them will be measurably affected and key ecosystem processes might be permanently altered resulting in long-term changes in population numbers and permanently modifying critical habitat; major adverse effects will equate with a “Jeopardy/Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat” determination.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area Project effects are analyzed at three spatial scales: the site-scale is the treatment areas and the lands and/or waters 300 feet downslope and/or downstream from treatment areas; the 6th-field watershed scale; and the 5th-field watershed scale. Individual watershed checklists in Appendix D provide a summary of current conditions and project effects for the full suite of habitat indicators in 7th-field watersheds where there is potential to effect special status aquatic species.

The temporal bounding of the analysis includes effects during implementation, short-term effects expected to occur within the first five years following implementation, and long-term effects that are expected to last beyond five years. Five years was chosen because vegetative cover on burned or otherwise disturbed ground is largely recovered after five years.

Affected Environment The Horse Creek project area is on the west side of the Forest in the Klamath Mountains of northern California. The Klamath Mountains are extremely rugged with total relief in excess of


11

7,500 feet and hillslopes commonly steeper than 65 percent (Cover et al, 2010). The Klamath Mountains are also characterized by steep ecological gradients and high vegetation, wildlife, and fish diversity, with numerous special-status species. Annual precipitation ranges from approximately 10 inches in eastern valleys to over 70 inches in the highest elevations (Cover et al, 2010). Climate is essentially Mediterranean and watershed hydrology is characterized by dry summer and fall months followed by significant winter and early spring precipitation. Morphology and function of tributaries in the Klamath Mountains is largely determined by large floods such as those in 1997, 1974, 1964, and 1955 (Stewart and LaMarche, 1967; de la Fuente and Elder, 1998) with associated landslides and debris flows. Riparian vegetation is primarily hardwood although valley bottom mixed-conifer vegetation with large Douglas fir was historically significant (Mondry, 2004).

The Horse Creek project area is 40,834 acres including 25,596 acres of National Forest and 15,238 acres of private land (see project maps in Appendix A) located in the Middle Klamath River Hydrologic Area (NCRWQCB, 2010). The project area includes about 12 miles of the middle Klamath River and numerous Klamath River tributaries. The 2016 Gap Fire burned in a mosaic of fire severities across the landscape. Fifteen percent (or 5,922 acres) of the 40,834-acre project area experienced moderate to high severity fire. High severity burned patches ranged in size from less than one acre to 1,050 acres with numerous patches of over 100 acres.

The Klamath River and three of the tributaries (Horse, Seiad, and Tom Martin Creeks) in the project area support salmon, steelhead, resident rainbow trout, lamprey, and other native fish species. The Aquatic Resources Report analysis area is the 5th-, 6th- and 7th-field watersheds located in the Middle Klamath HA that were affected by the fires and have activities proposed. Table 3 lists the watersheds included in the project area and miles of anadromous and resident fish habitat in each 7th-field watershed.

Table 3: The Gap Fire 5th-, 6th-, and 7th-field watersheds and miles of anadromous and fish bearing stream. All of the Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds are included even if not in project area.

5th-Field Watershed

6th-Field Watershed

7th-Field Watershed

Area in Acres

Total Miles of Anadromous

Salmonid Habitat

Miles of Fish

Bearing Streams

Horse Creek-Klamath River

Horse Creek Buckhorn Creek 9,088 1.4 1.4


Horse Creek Lower Horse Creek 7,979 6.2 6.2


Horse Creek Middle Creek 8,064 1.5 1.5


Horse Creek Middle Horse Creek 3,328 3.1 3.1


Horse Creek East Fork Horse Creek

4,710 0 3.4


Horse Creek Salt Gulch 2,432 1 2.9


Horse Creek West Fork Horse Creek

3,352 0 2.3


Kohl Creek – Klamath River

Collins Creek-Klamath River

7,872 0 0


12

5th-Field Watershed

6th-Field Watershed

7th-Field Watershed

Area in Acres

Total Miles of Anadromous

Salmonid Habitat

Miles of Fish

Bearing Streams



Kohl Creek 3,537 0 0



Sambo Gulch-Klamath River

6,400 0 0



Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River

10,688 0.2 0.2

Seiad Creek-Klamath River

Seiad Creek Middle Seiad Creek 5,712 2.8 2.8


Bittenbender Creek-Klamath

River Negro Creek 2,112 0 0


Bittenbender Creek-Klamath

River

Schutts Gulch-Klamath River

6,720 0 0

The analysis area in this report includes only the 38,912 acre Horse Creek 6th-field true watershed and the reach of the middle Klamath River within the Horse Creek project area. The Middle Klamath River is discussed because it is hydrologically linked to upslope/upstream areas where actions are proposed. The Seiad Creek-Klamath River 5th-field watershed and face drainages to the Klamath River in the Horse Creek-Klamath River 5th-field watershed are not included in the analysis beyond this point because: very little treatment is proposed in these 7th-field watershed areas (see Table 11); what is proposed is primarily site preparation and fuels reduction that will cause minor ground disturbance; what is proposed is on or near ridges; what is proposed is generally not near or in stream course riparian reserves or near perennial stream channels, and what is proposed is proposed is a long distance (over a mile) from fish-bearing streams (see project maps in Appendix A). Exceptions to this are salvage and reforestation on 15 acres in the McCollins-Klamath River watershed and on 17 acres in the Sambo Gulch-Klamath River watershed where the receiving water will be the Klamath River, which is a quarter mile or more distance from proposed salvage/reforestation units and is not hydrologically connected via surface flows. Therefore, the Horse Creek project will have no effect on special status aquatic species in these excluded watershed areas.

The current condition of aquatic habitats and watersheds in the analysis area provides context for assessing the impacts of the proposed action with regard to the impacts of past human activities and natural disturbances that are or could be affecting special status aquatic species and their habitats. Current condition is based on the best available information from the following sources:

• Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 2002). • Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan including the

Environmental Impact Statement (USFS 1995) • Klamath National Forest water temperature monitoring from 1989 to 2015 (USDA 2015) • Klamath National Forest road sediment source inventory and risk assessment (USDA

2016a) • Klamath National Forest stream sediment monitoring in 2009 and 2012 (USDA 2016b)


13

• Burned Area Emergency Recovery report (USDA 2016c) • Klamath National Forest fish passage barrier inventory (USDA 2003) • Klamath National Forest - 1997 Flood Assessment (de la Fuente and Elder, 1998) • Klamath National Forest GIS data layers needed to run the three Klamath National Forest

cumulative watershed effects (cumulative watershed effect) models. Cumulative watershed effects were analyzed using the Klamath National Forest cumulative watershed effect modeling process (USDA 2012).

• Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (USDA 2017a) • Hydrology Specialist Report (USDA 2017b) • Geology Specialist Report (USDA 2017c) • Professional judgment and personal observation of fish populations, aquatic habitat

condition, and watershed processes from 22 years working in the mid-Klamath sub-basin as fisheries biologist.

The watershed team (fishery biologist, hydrologist and geologist) worked together to integrate assessment of upslope watershed features that have the potential to impact habitat for special status aquatic species. The team worked together to identify sensitive watershed areas such as active landslides, active surface erosion, severely burned areas, riparian reserves, and stream channels to develop effective project design features (PDFs) for the protection and restoration of aquatic and riparian resources. The watershed team review included these elements:

• Field review of sensitive watershed areas within, downslope, and downstream from proposed treatment areas. The objective was to determine if and where watershed processes, and aquatic and riparian habitats, will be particularly susceptible to impacts from proposed actions

• Field review of selected stream reaches of Horse Creek to get an idea of current (Spring 2017) aquatic and riparian conditions (i.e. post-2016 Gap Fire followed by a very wet winter with high peak flows)

• Office review of the application of the Forests’ Cumulative Watershed Effects (cumulative watershed effect) model to the alternatives. The cumulative watershed effect model tracks watershed disturbances and management activities to gauge the relative risk to watershed function, aquatic habitats, and other beneficial uses of water.

Middle Klamath River (within the Horse Creek project area)

Aquatic Resources

The Middle Klamath River (mid-Klamath) and tributaries in the Horse Creek-Klamath River 5th-field watershed (mid-Klamath) provide habitat for SONCC Coho salmon, UKTR Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead, resident rainbow trout, lamprey and other native fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal, and bird species. Past human activities have impacted the numbers and distribution of anadromous salmonids and other special status aquatic species in the Klamath Basin including dams, historic large-scale mining, timber harvest, road construction, agriculture, grazing, water diversion, floodplain alteration, channelization, artificial propagation (hatcheries), and over-fishing. Since the early 1900s, water has been diverted from the Klamath River for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project. This diversion has altered the historic hydrologic


14

regime of the mainstem Klamath River, as well as reduced the total volume of water available for instream flows. The key limiting stresses adversely affecting salmonids populations in the mid-Klamath River are impaired water quality, lack of floodplain function and channel structure, barriers, altered flow regime, and lack of quality summer and winter rearing habitat that is protected from warm temperatures and high winter flows. Key limiting threats are high severity fire, dams, diversions, and roads (NMFS 2014).

Sediment

Sediment delivery to the mid-Klamath River is increased over the range of natural variability primarily due recent large wildfires, timber harvest, and an extensive road network prone to chronic surface erosion and mass-wasting failures (J. Grunbaum, personal observation). Morphological changes associated with increased sediment loads eliminate or result in a decreased volume of thermal refugia and impede access to thermal refugia provided by tributaries. Refugial volume is reduced or eliminated when deep pools fill with sediment, when side channels are buried, or when cold tributary flows percolate into aggraded tributary deltas or gravel bars before entering the river. Access to refugia or spawning areas in tributaries is restricted or eliminated when sediment loads result in aggradation at tributary mouths.

Alterations in flow in the Klamath River basin have contributed to the degradation of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. Principal factors affecting anadromous fish production in the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam to Weitchpec include impaired flow in some tributaries (particularly the Shasta and Scott Rivers), impaired flows in the mainstem, and alterations to the timing and magnitude of mainstem flows. These impacts have contributed to the degradation of available spawning gravel from sedimentation (Hardy et al 2006, p.20).

Water Temperature

Water quality in the mid-Klamath River is impaired and is on the 303(d) Clean Water Act list due to temperature and other constituents (Table 4). Increased water temperatures, elevated nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated pH, potential ammonia toxicity, increased incidence of fish disease, an abundance of aquatic plant growth, high chlorophyll-a levels (both planktonic and periphytic algae), and high concentrations of potentially toxinogenic blue-green algae decrease the quality and quantity of suitable habitat for fish and aquatic life (NCRWQCB, 2010). Hydromodification, channelization, dam construction, flow regulation/modification, water diversions, stream channel and riparian modification, wetland loss, and natural and non-point sources are implicated for the high water temperature problem (NCRWQCB, 2010).

Use of mainstem habitat and disease prevalence is most limited by water quality during the summer months (June through September) when water temperatures are high throughout the day. In warm periods, juveniles must utilize tributaries and other off-channel areas where cooler water thermal refugia can be found. In general, mainstem habitat in the Klamath River is not suitable for summer or winter rearing, making tributary habitats highly valuable for growth and survival of Coho salmon (NMFS and USFWS 2013).


15

Table 4: 303(d) Clean Water Act listed reaches of the Middle Klamath River (NCRWQCB 2008). Waterbody Pollutant

Middle Klamath River HA, Iron Gate Dam to Scott River Reach

Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature

Middle Klamath River HA, Iron Gate Dam to Scott River Reach, mainstem Klamath

Microcystin

Middle Klamath River HA, Beaver Creek, Cow Creek, Deer Creek, Hungry Creek, West Fork

Beaver Creek

Sediment

Middle & Lower Klamath River HAs, Scott River to Trinity River Reach

Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature

Middle & Lower Klamath River HAs, Scott River to Trinity River Reach, mainstem Klamath River

Microcystin

Middle & Lower Klamath River HAs, China Creek, Fort Goff Creek, Grider Creek, Portuguese Creek,

Thompson Creek, Walker Creek

Sediment

Salmon River HA Temperature Scott River HA Sedimentation/Siltation, Temperature

Large Woody Debris

Although large wood and complex floodplain habitat were not dominant features of the historic mainstem Klamath River channel, degraded riparian forest conditions pose a stress for salmonids (NMFS 2014). The potential for future recruitment of large woody debris to the river from stream buffers has been significantly reduced because: (1) there is a high density of roads constructed within stream buffers where trees used to grow, (2) trees that will otherwise recruit to the river are removed during road construction and maintenance, (3) trees within stream buffers are made accessible to the public and agencies via the Klamath River Highway, via river accesses and other public and private roads, and (4) trees are often cleared from private lands bordering the river and its tributaries. Large wood recruitment from Klamath River face drainages and tributaries is reduced due to past timber harvest, past industrial-scale mining, and wildfires. Many riparian areas along the mid-Klamath River that used to be forested remain barren or partially barren as a result of historic placer and hydraulic mining activities that washed away fertile soils and disconnected the river from its floodplain.

Horse Creek 6th-field watershed

Aquatic Resources

The Horse Creek 6th-field true watershed (mid-Klamath) provides habitat for SONCC Coho salmon, UKTR Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead, resident rainbow trout, lamprey and other native fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal, and bird species. Past human activities have impacted the numbers and distribution of anadromous salmonids and other special status aquatic species in the Klamath Basin including historic large-scale mining, channel constraint due to berming, timber harvest, roads, agriculture, grazing, and water diversion. The Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis (USFS 1996) contains more detailed watershed information.

Sediment


16

Based on high degree of hillslope and inner gorge disturbance from roads, and hillslope disturbance from past stand-replacement forestry, it is assumed that current sediment production and delivery to streams is much greater than pre-European settlement rate (2002 Horse Creek WA). The Gap Fire followed by a wetter than average winter likely added to that excessive sediment delivery to streams. The wet winter of 2016-17 triggered landslides and road failures all across northern California including within Horse Creek watershed. The extent of last winters’ landsliding and road failures in the Horse Creek watershed is not fully known as of this writing because a full reconnaissance of Horse Creek watershed has not been completed. Field observations indicate that large quantities of sediment from had been transported through and/or deposited in stream channels. Where sediment had been deposited there was a high percentage of fines.

Roads are the major contributor to excessive sedimentation to streams and impacts to watershed function in the Horse Creek watershed (Horse Creek WA). Road density is high in the Horse Creek 6th-field watershed and moderate to very high in the 7th-field sub-watersheds, including within stream course riparian reserves. Eight percent of this very extensive road system is hydrologically connected to the stream network (Table 5). Much of the road system in lower Horse Creek and throughout the Horse Creek watershed was constructed on dormant landslide deposits that are highly susceptible to chronic and acute surface erosion and mass-wasting from road drainage and road drainage structure failures. Roads in the Horse Creek watershed have increased sediment production from surface erosion, mass wasting, and culvert failures and will continue to do so at a high rate until stormproofed, decommissioned, and/or maintained (Horse Creek WA).

Table 5: Road density, road density within stream-course riparian reserves, and hydrologic connectivity in Horse Creek watersheds where actions are proposed.

Watershed Watershed

Drainage Area (mile2)

Road Density (miles/mile2)

Relative Road Density in

Stream-course RRs

(mile/mile2)

Hydrologic Connectivity1

(percent)

7th-Field Buckhorn Creek 14.2 3.4 2.2 2

East Fork 7.4 Lower Horse Creek 12.5 2.9 3.6 8

Middle Creek 12.6 3.3 2.0 5 Middle Horse Creek 5.2 5.0 3.9 14

Salt Gulch 3.8 5.2 5.1 22 6th-Field

Horse Creek 60.8 3.3 2.6 8

Substrate quality was evaluated in mainstem Horse Creek in 2010 and 2013 by comparing four sediment indicators in lower mainstem Horse Creek (a managed watershed) to the 85th percentile value plus survey error for reference streams that have minor to negligble management-related watershed disturbance. Managed watersheds exceeding the 85 percent percentile of reference streams may be impaired. In both 2010 and 2013 assessments, three of four sediment indices exceeded reference values as shown in Table 6.


17

Table 6: Average surface fines, average sub-surface fines, and average volume of fine sediment filling pools in lower Horse Creek, compared to reference conditions. Metrics over 85th percentile of reference streams are bolded.

Sediment Index

2010 Lower Horse

average percent

2013 Lower Horse

average percent

Reference Condition average percent

Surface Fines less than 2mm 4.3 11 6.4 Sub-surface fines less than 0.85mm 20 16.4 16.2 Sub-surface fines less than 6.38mm 46.6 45.2 46.1

Fraction of pools filled with fine sediment less than 2mm (V*) 0.237 0.220 0.108

Cumulative watershed effects modeling results suggest that watershed function may be adversely impacted by high levels of watershed disturbance. Cumulative watershed effects model risk ratios greater than 1.00 indicate an elevated risk (“yellow flag” warning) of adverse impacts to watershed function including altered flow and sediment regimes. Results of cumulative watershed effects analysis show that Buckhorn, Lower Horse, Middle Creek, and Middle Horse 7th-field watersheds are near, at, or over the threshold of concern in one to all three cumulative watershed effect models (Table 7).

Table 7: Cumulative Watershed Effects models current conditions (risk ratios) by 7th- and 6th-field watershed. Model results that are near, at, or above the threshold of concern are noted by an asterisk (*).

7th – Field Watershed Name Current Risk Ratio

USLE GEO ERA

7th-Field Buckhorn Creek 0.98* 0.84 1.95*

East Fork 0.50 0.53 0.38 Lower Horse Creek 0.98* 1.02* 1.51*

Middle Creek 0.92 1.06* 1.97* Middle Horse Creek 0.72 0.70 1.25*

Salt Gulch 0.66 0.85 0.83 West Fork 0.40 0.42 0.25

6th-Field Horse Creek 0.84 0.89 1.66*

In the Geology Report, the geology (GEO) cumulative watershed effects model risk ratio is used as a measure to track changes in the likelihood that a landslide event will occur. The measure used to track changes in consequences of a landslide is a categorical ranking based on qualitative discussion of values at risk and key physical characteristics within 7th field watersheds. These measures are used based on professional expertise and judgment. Each of these measures is described in more detail below:

Risk Ratio is defined above, and was used to track the likelihood that a landslide event could occur under each alternative. Five categories, ranging from very high to very low were defined, and are listed below.

• Very High Likelihood: Risk Ratio greater than 1.5


18

• High Likelihood: Risk Ratio 1.0 to 1.5

• Moderate Likelihood: Risk Ratio 0.5 to 1.0

• Low Likelihood: Risk Ratio 0.25 to 0.5

• Very Low Likelihood: Risk Ratio less than 0.25 Consequences are defined by the following descriptive classes:

• Very High Consequences- This category ranking is limited to situations where human health and safety is susceptible to landslide events. The presence of occupied structures (homes, businesses, and work areas), campgrounds, or heavily used roads that are vulnerable to (in the path of) a potential landslide event meets the criteria for this category.

• High Consequences– In this category essential infrastructure such as main National Forest Transportation System roads or utility corridors are susceptible to damage from landslide events. The category also indicates vulnerability of anadromous fish habitat to landslide events that lead to multi-year damage to the habitat due to sedimentation or scour of streams or damage to riparian vegetation over a large portion of late flowing intermittent or perennial streams.

• Moderate Consequences- In this category only secondary roads and system trails are susceptible to damage. Blockage to roads and damage to anadromous habitat generally lasts no longer than a year. This category also applies to a small portion of late-flowing intermittent and perennial streams which could experience short term aggradation, degradation, or damage to riparian vegetation.

• Low Consequences- In this category infrastructure is vulnerable to generally minor damage, and landslide effects on streams are very localized and short lived (less than a year).

• Very Low Consequences- In this category there is no infrastructure, fish habitat or stream shade vulnerable to landslide events.

The results of the likelihood and consequences matrix from the Geology Report is shown in Table 8. In all 7th-field watersheds the likelihood of landsliding is moderate to high and the consequences of landsliding are moderate or very high. Moderate consequences correlate to minor short-term adverse effects on aquatic and riparian habitats. High and very high consequences correlate to multi-year adverse impacts to habitat for special status aquatic species due to sedimentation, scour of streams, and damage to riparian vegetation over a large portion of late flowing intermittent or perennial streams.

Table 8: Likelihood and consequences of a landslide event in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds where actions are proposed (from Geology Report).

Watershed Current Risk Ratio (GEO)

Risk Ratio Likelihood Consequences

7th-field Buckhorn Creek 0.84 Moderate Very High

East Fork 0.53 Moderate Moderate


19

Watershed Current Risk Ratio (GEO)

Risk Ratio Likelihood Consequences

Lower Horse Creek 1.02* High Very High Middle Creek 1.06* High Very High

Middle Horse Creek 0.70 Moderate Moderate Salt Gulch 0.85 Moderate Moderate West Fork 0.42 Not reported Not reported

Fire intensity and extent of watershed area burned is an indicator of the potential for sedimentation to streams and adverse effects to riparian function and aquatic habitats, particularly moderate to high severity fire occurring within stream course riparian reserves (Table 9). Approximately fifteen percent of the Horse Creek watershed burned at moderate to high severity. Based on remote sensing data, area of riparian vegetation that burned at moderate and high severity in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds ranged from zero to 23 percent of total. Four of the 7th-field watersheds were not burned or had no moderate or high severity burn. Approximately eight percent of the stream course riparian reserves in the Horse Creek watershed burned at moderate to high severity. The capacity for stream course riparian reserves to filter and trap sediment from upslope sources is significantly diminished in areas of stream course riparian reserves that burned at moderate to high severity. Sediment production is expected to have increased from stream course riparian reserves that burned at moderate to high severity due to the very wet winter of 2016-17. Lower reaches of mainstem Horse Creek were observed to be aggraded.

The sediment habitat indicator in the Horse Creek watershed was considered “not properly functioning” before the Gap Fire. The Gap Fire and the wet winter of 2016-17 further adversely altered the sediment regime in the Horse Creek watershed, increasing the risk of adverse impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats.

Loss of shade and microclimate due to the Gap Fire could increase the rate of stream heating and cooling, resulting in lower lows and higher highs in water temperatures, and larger daily swings in temperature, until vegetation and shade recovers. The percent of riparian vegetation (stream course riparian reserves) burned is used herein as indication of the impacts from the Gap Fire to shade, microclimates, and water temperature. High burn severity areas will provide little to no shade to stream channels immediately post-fire. Moderate severity burn areas provide greatly reduced shade. Eight percent of the total riparian area in the Horse Creek 6th-field watershed burned at moderate and high severity (Table 9). This much reduction in shade and/or cool microclimate, coupled with excess sedimentation from high rates of surface erosion and mass wasting during the very wet winter of 2016-17, might result in a small and possibly detectable increase in rate and magnitude of stream heating and cooling.

Table 9: Acres and percentage of riparian areas affected by moderate and high burn intensity in the 2016 Gap Fire in Horse Creek by 7th-field watershed.

7th-Field Watershed Moderate to High Burn Severity

Percent of Total Riparian

Vegetation Buckhorn Creek 314 12

Lower Horse Creek 487 23


20

7th-Field Watershed Moderate to High Burn Severity

Percent of Total Riparian

Vegetation Middle Creek 70 3

Middle Horse Creek 0 0

East Fork Horse Creek 0 0

Salt Gulch 0 0

West Fork 0 0

Total Acres 871 8

Increased sediment loads may alter channel morphology, leading to a wider and shallower wetted channel. The sizes of sediment that present a temperature concern are those that may result in pool filling, increased width, decreased depth, and/or a reduction of inter-gravel flow. A wider and shallower channel caused by aggradation or scour by debris flows gains and loses heat more readily than a narrow and deep channel. Debris flows often remove or bury riparian vegetation that was providing shade. Based on past experiences with large storm events on large burned areas it is reasonable to expect an increase in the rate of mass wasting during future wet weather events (Geology Report, de la Fuente and Elder, 1998) (see sediment indicator discussion above).

Based on percentage of riparian area burned at moderate to high severity, slight increase in risk of mass wasting, and pre-Gap Fire water temperature monitoring information showing Horse and Middle creeks are well within the properly functioning range for water temperature, it is my professional judgment that the rate of heating and cooling of water in Horse and Middle Creeks is likely to be slightly increased over pre-Gap Fire condition but is likely to remain within the properly functioning range (at least as far downstream as the current monitoring location at river mile 2.4). The increase in rate and magnitude of heating and cooling due to the Gap Fire is likely to last several years or longer. The increase will likely be too small too small to ‘detect’ in that making a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the Gap Fire and water temperature will be difficult to do unless post-fire temperature metrics were markedly different than pre-fire temperature metrics (which is not anticipated).

Water Temperature Pre Gap Fire: Summer water temperature of lower mainstem Horse Creek was monitored from 2010 to 2015 (see Table 10) at the Forest Service Road 46N60 stream crossing at approximately river mile 2.4. During this period of record the maximum instantaneous water temperature ranged from 16.1oC to 18.2oC and averaged 17.4oC; and the maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT) ranged from 15.8oC to 17.7oC and averaged 16.9oC. In 2015, Middle Creek reached a maximum instantaneous temperature of 17.9oC and had an MWMT of 17.6oC. Mainstem Horse Creek has relatively cool summer water temperatures for a large watershed with southerly aspect and significant watershed disturbance from roads and landings, stand-replacement forestry and salvage harvest on private timberlands; grazing; and agriculture. Properly Functioning.


21

Table 10: Recent Water Temperature Monitoring Results for Mainstem Horse Creek at river mile 2.4

Start End

Max Daily Max Temp C

(Temp F)

Max Average

Daily Temp C

(Temp F)

Max Diurnal

Variation Temp C

(Temp F)

Maximum Weekly Average Temp C

(Temp F)

Maximum Weekly Maximum Temp C

(Temp F)

7/8/2010 10/25/2010 17.1 16.1 3.5 15.8 16.8 6/9/2011 10/14/2011 16.1 15.1 3.9 14.8 15.8

6/16/2012 10/31/2012 17.0 16.2 3.8 15.7 16.6 6/6/2013 10/31/2013 18.2 17.1 3.3 16.5 17.6

5/29/2014 10/1/2014 18.2 17.2 3.3 16.7 17.7 5/27/2015 10/13/2015 18.0 17.0 3.2 16.8 17.0

Average 17.4 (63.3) 16.5 (61.7) 3.5 16.1 (61.0) 16.9 (62.4)

Large Woody Debris Pre Gap Fire: In the last stream survey of lower mainstem Horse Creek in July 2002, there was zero pieces of large woody debris (large woody debris) in the 1.15 mile section of stream that was surveyed, however, there were over 57 trees growing adjacent to that reach that were big enough to qualify as large woody debris. This survey was on National Forest lands at the upper reach of lower mainstem Horse Creek that is within the Lower Horse Creek HUC 7 watershed. Based on qualitative dashboard observations and/or observations made during fish population censuses there is an extreme lack of large woody debris in the stream channel and few large conifers growing adjacent to the creek that could provide future large woody debris. The 1989-90 stream surveys showed there was a lack of large woody debris along most of mainstem Horse Creek (Horse Creek WA). Large woody debris and large woody debris recruitment potential throughout most of the watershed has been significantly reduced by past timber harvest and a high density of roads and landings. Not Properly Functioning.

Post Gap-Fire: Large swathes of forest burned at high severity areas along mainstem Horse Creek in the Special Interest Area and up Fish Gulch. Stream reaches within these areas had a fair amount of large woody debris before the Gap Fire but are now experiencing a large increase in large woody debris loading as dead trees begin to fall into the stream channel. These reaches will soon reach desired condition for large woody debris loading and, in fact, may eventually exceed what is desirable at least in terms of fuel loading and wood jams. An increase in large wood loading into channels is expected in the near term in other areas where the stream buffer burned at moderate to high severity. Thus, in the moderate and high severity burned stream course riparian reserves on National Forest lands, an increase in large wood loading is expected in the near term, and a reduction in large wood available for future recruitment is expected over the long-term until these areas recover with conifers. There will still be a lack of large woody debris in lower mainstem Horse Creek on private property because: (1) there were few or no large conifers pre-fire, (2) transport of large woody debris into lower Horse Creek is hindered by a tightly constrained canyon just upstream from private property that tends to hold up large woody debris in jams, and (3) large woody debris from Buckhorn and Middle Creeks is unlikely to reach mainstem Horse Creek due to low gradient reaches on private property where the large woody debris is likely to hold up. The Gap Fire will not change large woody debris amounts in streams throughout most of the watershed where large woody debris and large woody debris recruitment potential has been significantly reduced by past timber harvest and a high density of roads and landings. Although the fire caused some significant


22

recruitment of large woody debris to several miles of stream channels the large woody debris habitat indicator is still considered Not Properly Functioning.

Environmental Consequences The section of the report analyzes and compares the project alternatives. Table 11 below provides a summary of actions that will occur in each 7th-field watershed under the action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Table 11: Project elements and sub-elements in project area 7th-field watersheds for action Alternatives 2/3/4.

7th-Field Watershed

Project Elements and Sub-Elements (approximate miles and acres)

Hazard Tree

(miles)

Road-side

Fuels (miles)

Existing Temporary

Road (miles)

New Temporary

Road (miles)

Salvage and Planting

(acres)

Site Prep and

Planting (acres)

SIA (acres)

Fuels Private Buffer (acres)

Fuels Mgmt Zone (acres)

Buckhorn Creek 18 1 2.5/0/1.8 0.9/0/0.8 742/275/676 327 0 381 45

East Fork Horse Creek <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

Lower Horse Creek 27/27/24 7 0 0 742/742/631 29 184 487 172

Middle Creek 23/23/19 4 0.5/0/0.2 0.4/0/0.4 525/144/341 59 0 230 100

Middle Horse Creek 8/8/5 1 0 0 0 0 0 39 34

Salt Gulch 4/4/1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 20/20/11

West Fork Horse Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Collins Creek-Klamath River 2 0 0 0 15 0 0 108 0

Kohl Creek <1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Sambo Gulch-Klamath River 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 122 40

Middle Seiad Creek <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36/36/26

Negro Creek 8/8/6 3 0 0 0 42 0 0 98/98/87

Schutts Gulch-Klamath River 8/8/7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 50

Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, there will be no action taken to meet the purpose and need for the project and desired future conditions within the project area (see Chapter 1, Final EIS). The no action alternative is not a baseline condition, but rather a description of future circumstances without implementation of the Horse Creek project. The no-action alternative is a continuation of the current level of management including road maintenance, hazard tree removal, dispersed recreation, mining, watershed restoration, appropriate management and fire suppression against the back-drop of ~33,000 acres of burned national forest and private lands within the assessment area. No direct effects will occur under Alternative 1 since no activities will be implemented as a result of the project.

The potential for indirect effects to habitat indicators and aquatic species under the No Action Alternative is framed herein relative to the following proposed project elements that will occur under the Horse Creek project action alternatives:


23

• Hazard Tree Treatments (including treatments in SIA)

• Roads and Landings

• Salvage and Reforestation

• Fuels Treatment

• Water Drafting Alternative 1 will not remove burned trees or restore forests through reforestation including in moderate and high fire intensity areas. Re-establishment of conifers may only occur around the edges of the fire where a good seed source is still available. Dead trees remaining from the Gap Fire will pose a fire hazard to the community and hinder efforts to expand options for managing future fires for resource benefit, including protection and restoration of riparian and aquatic conditions.

Hazard Tree Removal

Sediment Felling and moving hazard trees in stream course riparian reserves will cause minor localized ground disturbance and mobilize small amounts of sediment towards or into stream channels. Effects of felling and moving hazard trees with concomitant risk of sediment delivery to streams will be greatest where burn severity and hillslope is the greatest, which is within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch. None of this disturbance will occur under the no action alternative. Under the no action alternative, felled hazard trees will not be re-positioned to improve aquatic habitat.

Water Temperature Removing hazard trees from stream course riparian reserves will slightly reduce stream shading which could leading to increased stream heating and higher water temperatures. However, to experience a measureable increase in temperature, relatively large contiguous segments of stream must experience significant reduction in shade canopy which will not occur under the action alternatives. Not treating hazard trees will result in retaining slightly more stream shading than if hazard trees are felled.

Large Woody Debris There will be greater large woody debris wood loading into riparian areas and stream channels in the short and long term under the no action alternative because hazard trees will be left on site to naturally recruit into streams over time. However, in some areas wood loading will become excessive creating conditions for high severity fire that could burn up the large woody debris and adversely impact riparian function. (This will be even more likely to occur since roadside fuels reduction along many of the same roads will not be implemented either).

Roads and Landings

Sediment Salvage harvest and reforestation require temporary road construction and use of existing landings or construction of new landings. The relative risk of erosion and sedimentation associated with temporary road and landing construction or reconstruction varies with location, site conditions, and proximity of disturbances to stream channels. These activities cause ground


24

and watershed disturbance even though these activities may occur on previously disturbed areas. Soil displacement increases as a result of these activities, and there is potential for sediment to move off-site and into stream channels, especially when these actions occur within stream course riparian reserves. Soil productivity is reduced and erosion potential increases on reconstructed roads and landings in the short and long-term. Potential effects to the sediment regime and soil productivity will not occur under the no action alternative because there will be no road and landing construction.

Water Temperature None of the alternatives for roads and landings will directly affect stream shading or microclimates because no road and landing construction will occur within riparian reserves in any alternative. Under the no action alternative there is no short or long term risk of increased mass wasting from road construction that could impact water temperature by altering stream channels and removing riparian vegetation.

Large Woody Debris Under Alternative 1, roads and landings will not be constructed or expanded into riparian reserves, thus there will be no reduction in existing amounts or potential future recruitment of large woody debris into riparian and aquatic habitats.

Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment Altered sediment supply poses a stress to salmonids and other aquatic species. Alternative 1 could indirectly affect sediment regimes in the project area if a future wildfire occurs because there will be an increased potential for severe fire effects if fuels are not reduced. Additionally, the abundance of burned trees within the fire areas will make fire suppression difficult if not impossible. Under the no action alternative, there will be no opportunity to move the landscape towards conditions where fire managers will have more options to manage wildland fire safely and for resource benefit, including restoration of sediment regimes closer to desired conditions. On the other hand, there will be no potential for short or long-term project-related increases in surface erosion and mass wasting if no action was taken.

Water Temperature None of the alternatives for salvage and reforestation will directly affect stream shading because no salvage and reforestation will occur within riparian reserves in any alternative. The no action alternative could indirectly affect water temperature in the analysis area if a future wildfire occurs because potential for severe fire effects will be greater than if fuels are reduced, and the high fuel loads will make fire suppression difficult if not impossible in some areas. Under the no action alternative, there will be no opportunity to create conditions where fire managers will have more options to manage wildland fire for resource benefit, including protection and restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats. On the other hand, there will be no potential for short or long term project-related effects to sediment regimes due to implementation of salvage and reforestation if no action was taken.

Large Woody Debris


25

None of the alternatives for salvage and reforestation will directly affect large woody debris (large woody debris) loading in riparian areas and streams because no salvage and reforestation will occur within riparian reserves in any alternative. Not implementing salvage and reforestation will have little indirect effect on large woody debris other than increasing the risk of future high fire severity which could kill live trees and consume large woody debris in riparian areas.

Fuels Treatment

Sediment Alternative 1 could indirectly affect sediment regimes in the project area if a future wildfire occurs because there will be an increased potential for severe fire effects if fuels are not reduced. Additionally, the abundance of burned and green vegetation along roads, and on un-treated fuel breaks, will make fire suppression difficult if not impossible. Under the no action alternative, there will be no opportunity to move the landscape towards conditions where fire managers will have more options to manage wildland fire safely and for resource benefit, including restoration of sediment regimes closer to desired conditions. Proposed fuels treatments cause negligible to minor ground disturbance, therefore, proposed fuel treatments will not significantly affect sediment regime over existing condition with no action.

Water Temperature Alternative 1 could indirectly affect water temperature in the analysis area if a future wildfire occurs because potential for severe fire effects will be greater than if fuels are reduced, and the high fuel loads will make fire suppression difficult if not impossible in some areas. Under the no action alternative, there will be no opportunity to create conditions where fire managers will have more options to manage wildland fire for resource benefit, including protection and restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats. Proposed fuel treatments will have a negligible adverse effect on microclimates and water temperatures because treatments largely target ground fuels, understory vegetation, and limbs so that shade and microclimate is just slightly diminished. Therefore, project-related fuel treatments will not significantly affect water temperature over existing condition with no action.

Large Woody Debris Alternative 1 will have no effect on large woody debris in the next 1 to 5 years as surface fuel loading is low from the 2016 Gap Fire and re-growth of shrubs will be limited. From 5-10 years out, and beyond, the burned areas will become more susceptible to high severity fire as snags fall, shrubs grow, fuel loading increases, and the ability to contain a future fire is reduced. Not implementing fuels treatments will have little short term indirect effect on large woody debris other than increasing the risk of high fire severity which could kill live trees and consume large woody debris in riparian areas. In the long term, implementing fuels treatment will be likely to increase the growth rate of residual trees over taking no action because the residual trees will have greater share of sun, soil and water resources. Faster growing trees will provide large woody debris recruitment sooner.

Water Drafting

Sediment


26

Water drafting will be from existing sites so will not cause significant ground disturbance. Water drafting may cause turbidity but only in the immediate vicinity of the drafting. Water drafting at existing sites will not alter the character of stream substrate beyond the immediate vicinity of drafting. Therefore, there will be no significant difference in effects to the sediment character and regime if there was drafting (action) or no drafting (no action).

Water Temperature Water drafting reduces streamflow and reduced streamflow is more susceptible to stream heating and cooling. However, NMFS water drafting specifications will be followed so that the rate of drafting will not cause significant increase in stream heating or cooling.

Large Woody Debris Existing water drafting sites will be used so that no large or medium sized trees will need to be cleared. Existing large woody debris on site might be re-positioned but will not be removed. Therefore, the no action and action alternatives will not significantly affect existing large woody debris or potential for future recruitment of large woody debris into the stream.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 will not add project-related incremental effects to the effects of past, present/ongoing or future foreseeable projects because no management activities are proposed. However, the burned watersheds will be vulnerable to a wildfire in the next 5 to 10 years and beyond if no action is taken, which could lead to cumulative adverse effects to fish habitat. Aquatic habitat is recovering from past disturbances and fish populations are at low levels. Thus, a severe wildfire, in combination with past, present/ongoing and future actions, could result in cumulative impacts to fish associated with increases in sediment supply, localized increases in water temperature and reduced long-term large woody debris recruitment. The magnitude of impacts is expected to be minor to moderate depending on the spatial pattern of high intensity fire. Under Alternative 1, salvage harvest using various methods, and construction or reconstruction of roads and landings will not add to ongoing adverse cumulative watershed effects in the Horse Creek watershed.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct Effects

The potential for direct effects to special status aquatic species and their habitats is associated with actions that occur within the wetted channel of fish-bearing stream reaches, and within the riparian zone. All action alternatives have potential for direct effects to aquatic resources because all action alternatives call for hazard tree treatment and water drafting. Hazard tree felling and moving has potential to directly affect special status aquatic species within the stream and riparian zone. Water drafting has the potential to directly affect special status species within streams. Potential direct impacts to aquatic resources from hazard tree treatments and water drafting is discussed below:

Hazard Tree Treatments

Special status aquatic species in stream course riparian reserves could be crushed or displaced in the course of felling and moving hazard trees. Much of the stream course riparian reserve area


27

where hazard trees will be felled and moved is within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch where Gap Fire severity was high. It is unlikely that there will be any or many special status aquatic species (except fish and the American dipper) in the severely burned riparian areas because most were probably killed in the fire and none have migrated back because no suitable habitat has grown back yet. Chances of a felled hazard tree crushing a special status aquatic species outside of severely burned riparian reserve is higher. It is conceivable but unlikely that hazard tree felling and moving felled trees in stream course riparian reserves could injure or kill a yellow-legged frog, Siskiyou Mountains salamander, or a southern torrent salamander. Felling and leaving hazard trees is likely to improve habitat for management indicator species unless a nest or den is destroyed in the process. Felling and moving a hazard tree has higher potential to destroy a nest or den and degrade management indicator species habitat than just felling.

Felling hazard trees could conceivably crush fish if the tree lands in the water, but chances of this happening are small. Re-positioning felled hazard trees into the wetted channel is unlikely to adversely affect fish because fish will flee and seek cover in response to the disturbance. It is anticipated that fish temporarily avoiding in-stream disturbance are not likely to experience significantly reduced feeding success or higher probability of exposure to prey.

Alternatives 2 and 3 have approximately the same potential to have adverse direct effects on special status aquatic species and their habitat. Alternative 4 will treat hazard trees on fewer miles of road so potential for adverse effects will be slightly less.

Water Drafting Direct effects to special status aquatic species and their habitat can result from water drafting activities. Established water drafting sites will be used and located within fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing streams. Water drafting sites overlap suitable habitat for special status aquatic species.

Drafting operations can disturb holding or spawning adult fish, as well as impinge or entrain juveniles (USFS 2003). Impingement of will be avoided by requiring the use of specific mesh sizes, pumping rates, and screen areas, as outlined in the NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (NOAA 2001). NOAA water drafting specifications will be implemented when drafting within Coho salmon critical habitat. Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs), which require screening for aquatic species present, will be required at water drafting sites outside of critical habitat. There is a very low probability of fish impingement given that fish will flee and seek cover in response to a water tender operator placing a hose in the water. It is anticipated that fish temporarily avoiding water drafting activities are not likely to experience significantly reduced feeding success or higher probability of exposure to prey. It is unlikely that there will be any adult salmon or steelhead holding in drafting locations before the aquatic Limited Operating Period (October 15 to April 15) when project activities in streams are more restrictive. Spring- and summer-runs of salmon and steelhead are not seen in Horse Creek and will not be in locations that drafting will occur in the Klamath River. Implementation of Forest Service BMPs specific to water drafting minimizes potential impacts to resident and steelhead trout, and other aquatic species that may be present, to minor or insignificant.

Alternative 2

Indirect Effects


28


Sediment Hazard trees will be treated along roads, including through stream course riparian reserves. Felled hazard trees will be left in place if needed to meet Forest Plan standards for course and large woody debris (see Chapter 2 of the EIS) or removed from site if wood standards requirement were met or fuel loading was excessive. Felled hazard trees in the SIA may be re-positioned to improve fish habitat. Felling and moving felled hazard trees in stream course riparian reserves will cause minor localized ground disturbance and mobilize small amounts of sediment towards or into stream channels. Effects of felling and moving hazard trees with concomitant risk of sediment delivery to streams will be greatest where burn severity, hillslope gradient, and density of hazard trees to be felled is the greatest, which is within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch, in the Lower Horse Creek 7th-field watershed. Most of the total sediment delivered to streams during hazard tree operations is expected to occur within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch.

Water Temperature Hazard trees will be treated along roads, including through stream course riparian reserves. Removing hazard trees from stream course riparian reserves will slightly reduce stream shading which could leading to increased stream heating and higher water temperatures. However, to experience a measureable increase in temperature, or have a significant effect on aquatic organisms, relatively large contiguous segments of stream must experience significant reduction in shade canopy which will not occur under the action alternatives. A relatively large contiguous swath of hazard trees will be felled along the main Horse Creek road through the SIA, however, most of those hazard trees are fire-killed snags that provide much less shade and microclimate than live green trees. Felling hazard trees will result in a minor reduction in stream shade and will negligibly increase summer water temperatures.

Large Woody Debris Hazard tree treatments will increase large woody debris loading into stream channels in most locations in the short term because hazard trees felled in stream course riparian reserves will be left on site unless course and large wood debris requirements already meet Forest Plan standards or fuel loading will be excessive. Felling hazard trees will slightly diminish the supply of trees available for longer term recruitment into channels. Infrequently, felled trees that will pose a hazard to people or road drainage structures will be removed from a stream course riparian reserve. Hazard tree treatments will maintain or increase large woody debris loading into streams in most location but reduce the supply of trees that will naturally recruit over time in all locations. Roads and Landings; Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment In the cumulative effects models (cumulative watershed effect) for all action alternatives, increases in modeled watershed disturbance (estimated by ERA model), rate of soil erosion (estimated by USLE model), and potential for mass wasting (estimated by GEO model) was driven primarily by salvage and reforestation and by landing construction work and secondarily by roadside fuel treatments and fuels management zone treatments. Site preparation and planting was a minor component of cumulative watershed effect increases.


29

Existing disturbance levels in the project 7th-field watersheds are large and generally dwarf the effects of Alternative 2 in the cumulative watershed effect models. Alternative 2 resulted in no increase in modeled cumulative watershed effects for many of the 7th-field watersheds but there were significant increases (0.05 or more) in one or more of the cumulative watershed effect models in the Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek, Middle Horse Creek and Negro Creek 7th-field watersheds (Table 12). Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek and Middle Horse Creek were already over the threshold of concern in one or more cumulative watershed effect models prior to Alternative 2 being added (Table 12). Watersheds over threshold of concern may have compromised watershed function including the inability to absorb additional disturbance without adversely affecting aquatic habitats.

Salvage and reforestation, construction of new road and landing, and re-opening existing landings will not occur within riparian reserves so increases in peak flows, sediment delivery to streams, and risk of landsliding from implementing the actions will be negligible to minor. Approximately 0.1 mile of existing road in stream course riparian reserves will be re-opened in the Buckhorn Creek watershed and approximately 0.06 mile of existing road will be re-opened in stream course riparian reserves in the Middle Creek watershed. Re-opening short segments of existing road will negligibly increase sedimentation in the short term and long term because segments within riparian reserves are short; existing drainage problems will be corrected before road use; and re-opened segments of road will be hydrologically obliterated after use. Many of the Horse Creek watershed areas where actions will occur are particularly vulnerable to disturbance due to post-fire conditions, high road density, and existing cumulative watershed effects over the threshold of concern. Therefore, ground disturbance from salvage logging, and road and landing construction even outside stream course riparian reserves, is likely to slightly elevate peak flows and increase sediment delivery to streams.

In light of the relatively small differences in cumulative watershed effect model outputs for the alternatives, a different way of comparing the alternatives is to simply look at the amount of activities with the highest potential for triggering landslides: those alternatives incorporating the most new and existing roads and landings will have the highest potential for initiating landslides, and those with the fewest will have the lowest potential (Geology Report).

Aquatic habitats in the Lower Horse Creek watershed are degraded due to current high levels of watershed disturbance from excessive sedimentation (USDA 2015). The same could be surmised for aquatic habitats in Buckhorn and Middle Creek where current watershed disturbance is also very high. Additional sedimentation from salvage and reforestation, and from road and landing work, is expected to be non-measureable in fish-bearing reaches but will nevertheless further degrade aquatic habitats given the poor conditions in many of the 7th-field watershed. According to the cumulative watershed effect results and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing roads, Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of increasing peak flows and sediment delivery streams and causing further degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats. Alternative 2 is likely to cause slight but significant short term increase in degradation of aquatic habitats in the Horse Creek watershed due to increased peak flows and sedimentation at the site, 7th-field watershed, and 6th-field watershed scales. Slight additional degradation of aquatic habitats by increased peak flows and sedimentation is likely to slightly reduce carrying capacity for aquatic special status species.


30

Table 12: Increases in modeled cumulative watershed effects over existing condition for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

7th-field watershed

Change in Risk Ratio USLE GEO ERA

alternative alternative alternative 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4

Buckhorn Creek 0.03* 0.01 0.02* 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.12** 0.03 0.08** Collins Creek-Klamath River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Doggett Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 East Fork Horse Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Franklin Gulch-Scott River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jaynes Canyon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kohl Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lower Horse Creek 0.05* 0.02* 0.02* 0.05** 0.03** 0.02** 0.11** 0.07** 0.06**

Middle Creek 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07** 0.03** 0.04** 0.14** 0.04** 0.08** Middle Horse Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09** 0.05** 0.03** Middle Seiad Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Negro Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.04 O'Neil Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salt Gulch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.01

Sambo Gulch-Klamath River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 Schutts Gulch-Klamath River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02

Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 West Fork Horse Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

*Alternative pushed risk-ratio value up to or over the threshold of concern. **risk-ratio was at or over threshold of concern before alternative added.

Water Temperature Salvage and reforestation, construction of new roads and landings, and re-opening existing landings will not directly reduce stream shading or affect microclimates because these activities will not occur within stream course riparian reserves. Approximately 0.1 mile of existing road in stream course riparian reserves will be re-opened in the Buckhorn Creek watershed and approximately 0.06 mile of existing road will be re-opened in stream course riparian reserves in the Middle Creek watershed. Re-opening these short segments of existing road will negligibly reduce stream shading or affect microclimates because only small to medium sized trees and brush will need to be removed. Large overstory trees providing shade rarely occur on existing roadbeds and landings. Large trees often do grow on road fill but are generally not removed during road re-opening unless it is a hazard tree. Therefore, negligible direct effects to water temperature are expected from road and landing construction and re-opening.

Increased rate of landsliding caused by salvage and reforestation, and road and landing actions, could indirectly affect water temperature by removing riparian vegetation that is shading streams and by widening and shallowing stream channels. Increased risk of landsliding associated with salvage and road and landing construction is measureable in the Geology cumulative watershed effects model in three 7th-field watersheds but the increases are small and dwarfed by current landslide risk-ratios.


31

Therefore, any increase in water temperature resulting from proposed actions are expected to be non-measureable, and are not expected to adversely affect aquatic organisms because water temperature in Horse Creek streams is well within the properly functioning range (based on water temperature monitoring in mainstem Horse Creek and Middle Creek from 2010 to 2015).

Large Woody Debris Salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, will not directly alter the amount of large woody debris in channels and stream course riparian reserves because these activities will not occur within stream course riparian reserves. Approximately 0.1 mile of existing road in stream course riparian reserves will be re-opened in the Buckhorn Creek watershed and approximately 0.06 mile of existing road will be re-opened in stream course riparian reserves in the Middle Creek watershed. Re-opening these short segments of existing road will negligibly affect large woody debris because existing large woody debris will be left on site and only small to medium sized trees and brush will need to be removed. Large overstory trees providing shade rarely occur on existing roadbeds and landings. Large trees often do grow on road fill but are generally not removed during road re-opening unless it is a hazard tree. Therefore, direct effects to existing levels of large woody debris and potential for future large woody debris recruitment to stream channels will be negligibly affected by salvage and reforestation and by road and landing actions.

Increased rate of landsliding caused by salvage and reforestation, and road and landing actions, could indirectly affect large woody debris loading in streams by delivering large woody debris to streams via increased mass wasting. According to the GEO model cumulative watershed effect results, and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing road and landing (see sediment indicator discussion), it appears that Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of increasing landslides, however, the absolute likelihood of increased landsliding will not be significantly increased (Geology Report). Therefore, salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, under Alternative 2 will not significantly affect the large woody debris indicator.

Fuels Treatment

Sediment Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments will not significantly increase ground disturbance and consequent sediment delivery to streams because: (1) most fuel treatments will be implemented manually, (2) use of equipment in riparian reserves will be limited to end-lining from outside the riparian reserve or from existing roads and landings, and (3) diameter limits will be 18 inches diameter-breast-height for dead trees and 12 inches diameter breast height for live trees.

Water Temperature Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments will have negligible adverse effect on water temperatures because fuels treatments largely target ground fuels, understory vegetation, and limbs so that shade and microclimate is negligibly diminished. Vegetation on or near streambanks that is likely to provide shade will not be cut.

Large Woody Debris Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments will have no effect on large woody debris in stream channels because no large woody debris will be removed from channels. Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments will have no short term effect on large woody debris recruitment potential


32

because no dead or live trees large enough to qualify as large woody debris will be removed. Proposed fuels treatments are likely to improve long term potential for recruitment of course and large woody debris because reducing live vegetation density will release residual trees allowing them the grow faster, and will reduce the risk of high severity fire that could kill trees before they reach large enough size to qualify as course or large woody debris.

Water Drafting

Sediment Water drafting will be from existing sites so minor to no ground disturbance is expected from accessing and re-opening (if necessary) sites. Ground disturbance could occur at drafting sites that have not been used in a long-time due to activities such as brushing, grading, berm removal, etc. Most water drafting sites in the project area have been used recently in the Gap Fire so will not need much or any re-opening. Re-opening water drafting sites may cause a brief site-scale increase in turbidity, and alterations of substrate at the immediate drafting location. Once an existing site is re-opened, effects to turbidity and substrate character from use are generally negligible. Minor turbidity related to water drafting could occur due to over-drafting or placing intake hose/fish screen setups. Project design features (see Final EIS), such as hardening the access road with gravel and not allowing over-drafting, will minimize or prevent sedimentation from entering the wetted channel. Water drafting will have a discountable adverse effect on the sediment indicator.

Water Temperature Water drafting can affect stream temperature if stream flow is measurably reduced for more than a brief duration. NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (NOAA 2001) and Best Management Practices will be followed so that the rate of drafting will not cause significant increase in stream heating or cooling (see project design standards in Chapter 2 of the EIS). Forest Fisheries Biologists will coordinate with Timber Sale Administrators to determine drafting locations to protect aquatic species during the season as water temperatures increase and flows decrease. Water drafting as regulated by NOAA water Drafting Specifications and Best Management Practices will have discountable negative effect on water temperature at the site scale and neutral effect at larger scales.

Large Woody Debris Existing water drafting sites will be used so that no large or medium sized trees will need to be cleared. Existing large woody debris on site might be re-positioned out of the way but will not be left in the channel. Therefore, water drafting will have negligible effect on the large woody debris indicator.

Alternative 3

Indirect Effects


Sediment Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed action for hazard tree treatment, therefore, effects on the sediment regime and character will be the same.


33

Water Temperature Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed action for hazard tree treatment, therefore, effects on water temperature will be the same.

Large Woody Debris Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed action for hazard tree treatment, therefore, effects on large woody debris will be the same.

Roads and Landings; Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment Alternative 3 proposed considerably less salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, than Alternative 2 and notably less than Alternative 4. In Alternative 3, two of the Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds show a significant increase (0.05 or larger increase in risk-ratio) in cumulative watershed effects compared to four watersheds showing a measureable increase under Alternative 2, and three watersheds showing a measureable increase under Alternative 4. According to the cumulative watershed effect results and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing roads it appears that Alternative 3 poses the lowest risk of increasing peak flows and sediment delivery to streams, and further degradation of aquatic habitats. Alternative 3 is likely to cause slight increase in degradation of aquatic habitats due to sedimentation at the site, 7th-field watershed, and 6th-field watershed scales in the short term which will result in slight decrease in carrying capacity of aquatic habitats. At the 5th-field and larger scales, Alternative 3 is likely to have discountable adverse effects on aquatic habitats and discountable effects on carrying capacity of aquatic habitats.

Water Temperature Risk to water temperature is less under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 and 4 because there will be less ground disturbance and less risk of increased peak flows and sedimentation. As with Alternative 2, there will be no measureable increase in water temperature. Any non-measureable increase in water temperature increase will not be expected to adversely affect aquatic organisms because water temperature in Horse Creek streams is well within the properly functioning range (based on water temperature monitoring in mainstem Horse Creek and Middle Creek).

Large Woody Debris As in Alternative 2, salvage and reforestation, and construction of landings, will not directly alter the amount of large woody debris in channels and stream course riparian reserves because these activities will not occur within stream course riparian reserves. The likelihood of increased landsliding that could deliver large woody debris to a stream channel will be less than for Alternative 2 and 4 in which road construction and re-opening is proposed and in which more salvage and landing construction will occur. Therefore, salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, under Alternative 3 will not significantly affect the large woody debris indicator.

Fuels Treatment

Sediment


34

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds, therefore, effects on sediment regime and character will be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Water Temperature All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds, therefore, effects on water temperature will be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Large Woody Debris All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds, therefore, effects on large woody debris will be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Water Drafting

Sediment Alternative 3 will have less potential to affect turbidity and substrate character than Alternatives 2 and 4 because there will be less salvage, less attendant landing construction, and no road construction or re-opening. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 will have a similar discountable adverse effect on the sediment indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Water Temperature Alternative 3 will have less potential to affect water temperature than Alternatives 2 and 4 because there will be less salvage, less attendant landing construction, and no road construction or re-opening that will need water for dust abatement. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 will have a similar discountable adverse effect on the water temperature indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Large Woody Debris In all action alternatives, existing water drafting sites will be used so that no large or medium sized trees will need to be cleared. Existing large woody debris on site might be re-positioned out of the way but will not be left in the channel. Water drafting will have negligible effect on the large woody debris indicator in all action alternatives at the site and larger scales.

Alternative 4

Indirect Effects


Sediment Alternative 4 has 16 miles less (15 percent) hazard tree treatment proposed than Alternatives 2 and 3. However, Alternative 4 will treat hazard trees in the SIA and lower Fish Gulch the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Most of the sediment reaching streams during hazard tree treatments is expected in the SIA and lower Fish Gulch (see discussion in Alternative 2). Therefore, risk of sediment delivered to stream channels from hazard tree treatments in Alternative 4 actions will not be significantly less than in Alternatives 2 and 3.


35

Water Temperature For the same reasoning as in Alternative 2, hazard tree treatment in Alternative 4 will not measurably affect water temperatures.

Large Woody Debris As with Alternatives 2 and 3, hazard tree treatments will maintain or increase large woody debris loading into streams in most locations but reduce the supply of trees that will naturally recruit over time in all locations.

Salvage and Reforestation; Roads and Landings

Sediment Alternative 4 proposes intermediate intensity of salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. In Alternative 4, three of the Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds show a small measureable increase in the ERA model compared to four watersheds showing a measureable increase in cumulative watershed effects under Alternative 2, and two watersheds showing a measureable increase under Alternative 4 (Table 12). According to the cumulative watershed effect results and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing roads it appears that Alternative 4 poses intermediate risk of increasing sediment delivery to streams and further degrading of riparian and aquatic habitats. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 4 is likely to cause slight but significant short term increase in degradation of aquatic habitats in the Horse Creek watershed due to sedimentation at the site, 7th-field watershed, and 6th-field watershed scales which will have minor adverse effect on the carrying capacity of aquatic habitats.

Water Temperature Risk to water temperature is less under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2 but greater than under Alternative 3 because there will be an intermediate level of ground disturbance and intermediate level of risk of increased peak flows and sedimentation. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, there will be no measureable increase in water temperature. Any non-measureable increase in water temperature will not be expected to adversely affect aquatic organisms because water temperature in Horse Creek streams is well within the properly functioning range (based on water temperature monitoring in mainstem Horse Creek and Middle Creek).

Large Woody Debris As in Alternative 2 and 3, salvage and reforestation, and construction of roads and landings, will not directly alter the amount of large woody debris in channels and stream course riparian reserves because these activities will not occur within stream course riparian reserves. As in Alternative 2 and 3, the likelihood of increased landsliding that could deliver large woody debris to a stream channel will be slightly increased (Geology Report).

Fuels Treatment

Sediment All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on sediment regime and character will be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Water Temperature


36

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on water temperature will be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Large Woody Debris All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on large woody debris will be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Water Drafting

Sediment Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 will have intermediate potential to affect turbidity and substrate character because proposed level of salvage, and road and landing construction, with attendant need for water for dust abatement, is intermediate between the action alternatives. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 will have a similar discountable adverse effect on the sediment indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Water Temperature Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 will have intermediate potential to affect water temperature because proposed level of salvage, and road and landing construction, with attendant need for water for dust abatement, is intermediate between the action alternatives. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 will have a similar discountable adverse effect on the water temperature indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Large Woody Debris In all action alternatives, existing water drafting sites will be used so that no large or medium sized trees will need to be cleared. Existing large woody debris on site might be re-positioned out of the way but will be left in the channel. Water drafting will have negligible effect on the large woody debris indicator.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects includes both ESA Cumulative Effects and NEPA Cumulative Effects. All interrelated and interconnected actions were included in the action alternatives and considered for effects analysis. Current and future foreseeable actions considered for analysis within the project area are provided in the Environmental Impact Statement. The activities listed were accounted for in the project cumulative watershed effect analysis and interpretation. In addition to other current actions, models were updated to incorporate effects of the 2016 Gap Fire fires and road improvements identified in BAER assessments. The modeling provides the fundamental assessment of post-fire existing conditions, as well as an initial assessment of the project No Action Alternative 1. Subsequently, effects of project action alternatives were modeled based on proposed actions. These model results reflect that there will be slight cumulative impact from adding the effects of action alternatives to past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions.

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 will have no short term direct, indirect, and cumulative effect on listed and sensitive fish and other special status species that use both aquatic and riparian habitats. In the long term, taking no action will increase the risk of adverse effects to aquatic and riparian


37

species because future risk of high severity fire will not be abated and treatments will not be implemented to improve future options for managing fire for resource benefit.

Potential direct effects to aquatic resources from action alternatives are associated with water drafting and hazard tree treatments. Project design features, best management practices, and wet weather operations standards will adequately minimize or prevent adverse effects to species and habitat from water drafting. Felling, removing, and re-positioning hazard trees in stream buffer riparian reserves could crush special status aquatic species and/or adversely affect their habitat in the short-term due to physical disruption of habitat.

Ground disturbance associated with all action alternatives will slightly increase risk of adverse effects to aquatic habitat in mainstem Horse, Buckhorn, and Middle creeks in the short and long term because the entire Horse Creek 6th-field watershed is vulnerable to disturbance due to post-fire conditions and because aquatic habitats in these watersheds are currently degraded due to current high levels of watershed disturbance. Risk of indirect effects to aquatic resources from action alternatives are primarily associated with salvage, landing construction, and hazard tree treatments. Potential impacts will be highest in Horse Creek 7th-field watersheds that are currently over the Threshold of Concern for risk of adverse watershed effects in one or more cumulative watershed effect models (Buckhorn, Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek, and Middle Horse Creek), or where current likelihood of landsliding is high or very high and consequences to aquatic habitat from landsliding is high or very high (Lower Horse Creek and Middle Creek).

In light of the relatively small differences in cumulative watershed effect model outputs for the alternatives, a different way of comparing the alternatives is to simply look at the amount of activities with the highest potential for triggering landslides. Those alternatives incorporating the most new and existing roads and landings will have the highest potential for initiating landslides, and those with the fewest will have the lowest potential (Geology Report). Alternative 3 addresses watershed concerns by not constructing new temporary roads and not re-opening existing non-system roadbeds other than those within the special interest area. Alternative 3 also reduces overall watershed disturbance by salvaging timber on 851 fewer acres than Alternative 2 and 487 fewer acres that Alternative 4 with an attendant reduction in number of landings needed. Therefore, Alternative 3 will pose the least risk to special status aquatic species. Alternative 2 will pose the highest risk to special status aquatic species because this alternative proposes the most activity with highest potential for increase peak flows and sedimentation, and for triggering landslides. Alternative 4 propose less activity with high potential for ground disturbance and triggering landslides than Alternative 2 but more than Alternative 3, so will pose intermediate risk to special status aquatic species between Alternatives 2 and 3.

All action alternatives will cause further degradation of habitat conditions at the 7th-field and 6th-field watershed scales in the Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, and Middle Creek watersheds that are over threshold of concern in current condition and where the alternatives will significantly increase modeled cumulative watershed effects. Impacts are expected in large part due to the vulnerable post fire condition of project area watersheds and streams where project disturbances will occur. Even the Karuk alternative (which was not analyzed in detail for reasons discussed in the FEIS) that would cause the least ground and watershed disturbance would be likely to have an adverse effect on aquatic species given the highly disturbed and vulnerable state of the Horse Creek watershed.


38

Table 13 provides a summary of comparison of effects of alternatives on habitat and species assessed in this report.

Table 13: Summary of comparison of effects of alternatives for aquatic resource analysis indicators and special status aquatic species.

Indicator Spatial Scale Alternative 1

habitat/species Alternative 2



habitat/species

Sediment

Site Neutral/Neutral Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate 7th-field Neutral/Neutral Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate 6th-field Neutral/Neutral Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate 5th-field1 Neutral/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral

Water Temperature

Site Neutral/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral 7th-field Neutral/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral 6th-field Neutral/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral 5th-field1 Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral

Large Woody Debris

Site Neutral/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral 7th-field Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral 6th-field Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral 5th-field1 Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral

1 The mainstem Klamath River within the project area.

Effects Determination The no action determination for listed, sensitive and management indicator species is No Effect. The determination for threatened SONCC Coho salmon for all action alternatives is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. The determination for sensitive species for all action alternatives is may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. The determination for management indicator species for all action alternatives is may affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a decreasing population trend. The determination for Coho and Chinook salmon essential fish habitat is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan Refer to Aquatic Conservation Strategy analysis that was developed together in an interdisciplinary fashion with the project watershed specialists. The Forest Plan consistency checklist reflects how the project meets specific standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan. Interagency consultation under ESA section 7 is currently in progress with National Marine Fisheries Service, and will also include consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.


39

Literature Cited Brodie, E. D., Jr. 1970. Western salamanders of the genus Plethodon: Systematics and geographic

variation. Herpetologica 26: 468-516.

Cahalane, V. H. 1947. Mammals of North America. MacMillan Co., New York. 682pp.

CDFW, 2017. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database (CHWR). California Department of Fish and Game. (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range)

Conaway, C. H. 1952. Life history of the water shrew (Sorex palustris navigator). Am. Midl. Nat. 48:219-248.

Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, A.J., O’Neil, T.A., Shaughnessy, M.M., Gaines, E.P., Huso, M. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology (accessed online). 2017. Birds of North America. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home

Cover, M.R., de la Fuente and V.H. Resh. 2010. Catastrophic disturbances in headwater streams: the long-term ecological effects of debris flows and debris floods in the Klamath Mountains, northern California Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com

de la Fuente, Juan and Don Elder. 1998. The Flood of 1997 Klamath National Forest. Phase I Final Report: November 24, 1998. Klamath National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Yreka, California.

Fellers, G.M. 2005. Rana boylii Baird: Foothill yellow-legged frog. Pp. 117. In: D.M. Green, L.A. Weir, G.S. Casper, M. Lannoo (eds). Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA.

FEMAT (Thomas, J. W. et al. 1993). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Washington, DC: U. S. Govt. Printing Office. Aka FEMAT. 1993. U.S.D.A. Forest Service.Portland, Oregon.http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/nwfpnepa/FEMAT-1993/1993_%20FEMAT- ExecSum.pdf

Goodman, D.H. and S.B. Reid. 2012. Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) Assessment and Template for Conservation Measures in California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California. 117 pp.

Grayson, K. L., and M. E. Dorcas. 2004. Seasonal temperature variation in the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). Herpetologica. 60:325–336.

Hardy TB, Addley RC, Saraeva E. 2006a. Evaluation of instream flow needs in the lower Klamath River – Phase II Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, 229 pp.

Holland, D. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. Final report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Kendall, N.W., J.R. McMillan, M.R. Sloat, T.W. Buehrens, T.P. Quinn, G.R. Pess, K.V. Kuzishchin, M.M. McClure, and R.W. Zabel. 2015. Anadromy and residency in steelhead and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a review of the processes and patterns. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72: 319–342 (2015).

http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/5_6amphibia/?action=names&a_id=6316

http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/5_6amphibia/?action=names&year=1970

http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/5_6amphibia/?action=names&p_id=5

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/nwfpnepa/FEMAT-1993/1993_%20FEMAT-


40

Koper, N., and R. J. Brooks. 2000. Environmental constraints on growth of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Herpetologica. 56:421–432.

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and Geomorphic factors affecting Conservation of a River-Breeding Frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications, 6(4), 1996, pp. 1332-1344. Copyright 1996 by the Ecological Society of America.Kupferberg, S.J., A.J. Lind, V. Thill, and S.M. Yarnell. 2011. Water Velocity Tolerance in Tadpoles of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana Boylii): Swimming Performance, Growth, and Survival. Copeia 2011, no. 1 (2011): 141-52.

Kupferberg, S.J., Lind, A.J., Thill, V., Yarnell, S.M., 2011. Water velocity tolerance in tadpoles of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): swimming performance, growth, and survival. Copeia 1, 141–152. Lal, R., 2004.

Laurie, Greg and Don Elder. 2012. Stream Sediment Monitoring on the Klamath National Forest. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. Yreka, CA.

Lind, A.J. 2005. Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: determining an ecologically feasible approach for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) through analysis of decline factors, genetic structure, and habitat associations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. 169 pp.

Lind, A.J. and S. Yarnell. 2008. Habitat Suitability Criteria For The Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) in the Northern Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of California. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Suitability Criteria Technical Work Group. Prepared for PG&E.

Lind, A.J. Hartwell H. Welsh Jr., and Clara A. Wheeler. 2016. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) Oviposition Site Choice at Multiple Spatial Scales. Journal of Herpetology: June 2016, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 263-270

Lisle, T. E., 1982. Effects of Aggradation and Degradation on Riffle Pool Morphology in Natural Gravel Channels, Northwestern California. Water Resources Research 18(6):1643-1651.

Mondry, Z.J. 2004. 1997 Flooding in Three Northern California Klamath Mountain Streams: Geomorphic Effectiveness and Sediment and Large Wood Budgets. Project File.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and expanded. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Moyle, P.B., J.A. Israel, and S. E. Purdy. 2008. Salmon, steelhead, and trout in California: status of an emblematic fauna. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.

Moyle, P.B., L.B. Brown, S.D. Chase, and R.M. Quiñones. 2009. Status and Conservation of lampreys in California. Pages 279-293 in L.R. Brown, S. D. Chase, M. G. Mesa, R. J. Beamish, and P. B. Moyle, editors. Biology, management, and conservation of lampreys in North America. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 72, Bethesda, Maryland.

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Quiñones, J.V. Katz and J. Weaver. 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. NCRWQCB. 2008. CWA Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments requiring TMDLs. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Accessed at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_303d_reqtm dls.pdf

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_303d_reqtm%20dls.pdf

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_303d_reqtm%20dls.pdf


41

NMFS. 2001b. Water-Drafting Specifications. National Marine Fisheries Service - Southwest Region.

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

NMFS and USFWS, 2013. Biological Opinion on the Effects of Proposed Klamath Project Operations from May 31, 2013 to March 31, 2023, on Five Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species. US Department of Commerce-National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Northern California Office; US Fish and Wildlife Service-Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office.

NCRWQCB. 2010. Final staff report for the Klamath River total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) addressing temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient, and microcystin impairments in California, with the proposed site specific dissolved oxygen objectives for the Klamath River in California and the Klamath River and Lost River Implementation plans. Accessed at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_303d_reqtm dls.pdf

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians & reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho. 332 pp.

Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2017. Press release: West Coast Salmon Season Dates Set for 2017. April 11, 2017.

Quiñones, R.M., M.L. Johnson, and P.B. Moyle. 2014. Hatchery practices may result in replacement of wild salmonids: adult trends in the Klamath basin, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 97:233-246.

Reese, D.A. and H.H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata: Implications for management. Pages 352–357 in Proceedings of the Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society.

Sloat, M.R., and G.H. Reeves. 2014. Individual condition, standard metabolic rate, and rearing temperature influence steelhead and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) life histories. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 71(4): 491–501. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2013-0366.

Snyder, J. O. 1931. "Salmon of the Klamath River, California." California Department of Fish and Game 10(4)

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Funded jointly by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. TR-4501-96-6057. Man Tech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. Accessed at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/ManTech/front.htm#threshold of concern

Stebbins, R.C. and S.M. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition (California Natural History Guides) University of California Press, 2012.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_303d_reqtm

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/ManTech/front.htm#TOC

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/ManTech/front.htm#TOC


42

Stewart, John H., and Valmore C. La Marche Jr. Erosion and Deposition Produced by the Flood of December 1964 on Coffee Creek, Trinity County, California. United States Department of the Interior. Geological Survey.

Swanson, F.J. and G. W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical consequences of large organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station. 12p. Accessed at http://www.fsl.orst.edu/geowater/timemaps/lter/fredzoomify.swf

USDA, USDI, and USDOC, 2004. Interagency Training: Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service; US Department of Commerce-National Marine Fisheries Service; US Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDI. 1991. Long Range Plan for the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program. Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, Prepared with the assistance of William M. Kier Associates, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA.

USDOC 2012. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Restoration Projects within the NOAA Restoration Center’s Northern California Office Jurisdictional Area. National Marine Fisheries Service, March 21, 2012.

USDOC 2014. Final recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). US Department of Commerce-National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/southern_oregon_northern_california_coast/SONCC_recovery_plan.html

USDOC, USFWS, 2013. Biological Opinion on the Effects of Proposed Klamath Project Operations from May 31, 2013 to March 31, 2023, on Five Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species. US Department of Commerce-National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Northern California Office; US Fish and Wildlife Service-Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office.

USFS. 2003. Anadromous Fish Strainers for Use in Wildland Drafting Operations. Lois P. Sicking, Mechanical Engineer. San Dimas Technology and Development Center. San Dimas, CA. March 2003.

USFS, 2017. Region 5 Regional Forester’s 2013 Sensitive Animals Species List. US Forest Service Region Five. (https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals)

USFS, 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and EIS. Accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/forestmanagement/forestplan/.

2001. Klamath National Forest Tributary Matrix-updated in 2001 by KNF Level 1 Team. Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097-9549. Project File.

2002. Klamath National Forest - Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis. Accessed at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5402914.pdf

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/geowater/timemaps/lter/fredzoomify.swf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/projects/forestmanagement/forestplan/


43

2003. Klamath National Forest Fish - Passage Inventory. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office, Yreka, California.

2012. Klamath National Forest - Summary of Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling Process by Angie Bell, Forest Geologist. Yreka, CA.

2015. Klamath National Forest - Stream temperature monitoring on the Klamath National Forest: 2010 to 2015. Data is entered into the National Resources Information System (NRIS) database.

2016a. Klamath National Forest Road Sediment Source Inventory. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.

2016b. Klamath National Forest. Stream Sediment Monitoring 2009 – 2012. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. Yreka, CA.

2016c. Klamath National Forest. Burned Area Emergency Recovery report (Reference FSH 2509.13). Project File.

2017a. Klamath National Forest. Fire and Fuels Specialist Report for the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project. Project File

2017b. Klamath National Forest. Hydrology Specialist Report for the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project. Project File

2017c. Klamath National Forest - Geology Specialist Report for the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project. Project File.

USFWS, 2017. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website. US Fish and Wildlife Service. (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)

Van Wagner, T. J. 1996. Selected life-history and ecological aspects of a population of foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) from Clear Creek, Nevada County, California. Master's Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. 143 pp.

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, Tech. Mem. NMFS- WFSC-24, Seattle, WA.

Welsh, H.H. and A.J. Lind. 1996. Habitat Correlates of the Southern Torrent Salamander, Rhyacotriton variegatus (Caudata: Rhyacotritonidae), in Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 385-398, 1996.

Zweifel, R. G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. University of California Publications in Zoology 54: 207–292.

44

Appendix A – Maps

Figure 1: Alternative 2 Fisheries Range Map


45

Figure 2: Alternative 3 Fisheries Range Map.


46

Figure 3: Alternative 4 Fisheries Range Map.

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...united states department of...

Documents