final hydrology resource...

Algoma Vegetation Management Project Final Hydrology Resource Report, April 11, 2012

Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Shasta McCloud Management Unit - 1

Final Hydrology Resource Report ALGOMA VEGETATION AND ROAD MANAGEMENT PROJECT USDA FOREST SERVICE, SHASTA-MCCLOUD MANAGEMENT UNIT SHASTA-TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST, REGION 5

Prepared by: [Stephen Bachmann]

Hydrologist Date



Report Summary: This report evaluates the effects of proposed activities on water quality and aquatic and riparian environments within the Algoma Vegetation and Road Management Project area. The proposed action and alternatives are described in the context of the Upper McCloud River hydrologic setting. The environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives as they pertain to water resources are described within the context of direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures are identified for project activities; BMP objectives and implementation methods are described.

1. Regulatory Framework

1a. Forest Plan Direction for Water Resources Management The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) directs management of water resources on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.1 Plan direction for water resources is provided in the context of Forest Goals, Standards and Guidelines, and more specific Management Area direction, as well as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)2, Watershed Analysis3 and guidelines for Riparian Reserve Management.4 These topics are discussed where applicable in this report.

Guidelines for Water Resource Management are described in Chapter 4 – Management Prescriptions under Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds.5 All of the guidelines in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan are based on the Standards and Guidelines from the Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.6 The 1994-ROD was amended in 2004 in order to clarify provisions related to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.7 The 2004-ROD automatically amended the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan. In May 2007 further direction on how to implement the Aquatic Conservation Strategy was provided in a memo entitled “Compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.”8 This direction specifies that each project must be analyzed at the project level for potential effects on the nine ACS objectives.

1 USDA Forest Service, 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan, Shasta-Trinity National Forests. (LRMP) 2 LRMP, p. 4-53. 3 LRMP, p. 4-53. 4 LRMP, p. 4-53 – 4-60. 5 LRMP, p. 4-53 – 4-60. 6 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, including Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Related Species. 7 USDA-FS; USDI-BLM, Record of Decision Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, March 2004). 8 USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2007. Memorandum - Compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 3 p.



Applicable Forest Goals Water

• Maintain or improve water quality and quantity to meet fish habitat requirements and domestic use needs (LRMP 4-6).

• Maintain water quality to meet or exceed applicable standards and regulations (LRMP 4-6).

Riparian Areas

• Maintain or improve riparian habitat (LRMP 4-5).

Applicable Standards and Guidelines Riparian Areas

• The Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines, found in the Management Prescription section under Riparian Reserves, apply to all 2.1 million acres of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (LRMP 4-24).

• Maintain riparian area values, particularly when locating and constructing new roads

and trails (LRMP 4-25). • Identify and treat riparian areas that are in a degraded condition (LRMP 4-25).

Water

• Analyze each land disturbing project for its effect on the appropriate 2nd or 3rd order watershed to prevent excessive cumulative impacts on stream channel condition and water quality (LRMP 4-25). The ‘order’ watershed system has been replaced by the HUC (hydrologic unit code system). 2nd and 3rd order watersheds are roughly analogous to 8th field HUCs.

• Implement Best Management Practices for protection or improvement of water quality,

as described in “Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California,”9 for applicable management activities. Determine specific practices or techniques during project level planning using information obtained from on-site soil, water, and geology investigations (LRMP 4-25).

9 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Fourth Edition, the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin river Basin, 2004. All amendments through 11-30-2007 incorporated. Ch. IV-3.00.



• Identify and treat areas with a degraded watershed condition in a cost-effective manner and according to beneficial use priorities. High priority items include domestic use, anadromous fish habitat, and sensitive species habitat. Improvement activities will be designed to meet Management Area objectives (LRMP 4-25).

• Give full recognition to the tendency for erosion, mass land movement, and severe

watershed damage potential when implementing vegetation management and related land management activities (LRMP 4-25).

• Assess the potential impacts of vegetation management, road construction, and related

activities on slope stability and watershed condition for areas identified as moderately or highly unstable (LRMP 4-25).

• When watering roads for dust abatement, follow the following rules (LRMP 4-25):

1. Allow drafting from fishery streams only where immediate downstream discharge is

maintained at 1.5 cubic feet per second or greater. 2. Allow drafting from ephemeral streams, intermittent streams, wetlands or

constructed ponds provided that sufficient water quantity and quality remains to support associated wildlife species and riparian values.

3. Never allow drafting to remove more than 50 percent of any stream discharge or 75 percent of constructed pond water.

Management Area Direction The Algoma Assessment Area is located within Management Area 2 (McCloud Flats)10 and Management Area 10 (McCloud River).11 The LRMP does not contain any supplemental management direction pertaining to water resources that could affect development of the proposed action or alternatives for either management area.

1b. State and Federal Direction for Water Resources Management – Best Management Practices

Management direction comes from the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as well as State of California Water Quality Control Board, both of which have best management practices to guide implementation of activities to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act.12,13 The State of California has agreements with the U.S. Forest Service to control non-point source discharges by implementing control actions certified by the state Water Board as Best Management Practices (BMPs).

10 LRMP, p. 4-79 – 4-82. 11 LRMP, p. 4-121 – 4-123. 12 LRMP. 13 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Fourth Edition, the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin river Basin, 2011. Ch. IV-3.00. (Basin Plan)



The Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) is the designated Water Quality Management Agency (WQMA) for National Forest System lands in California. The agency has developed and is implementing its Water Quality Management Plan, entitled Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California.14 This plan, which is part of the State of California's Non-point Source Management Plan, outlines Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been certified by the State Water Quality Control Board and approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It is through the proper application, monitoring, and revision of these BMPs that the agency meets requirements of various provisions of the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and fulfills its obligations as a WQMA. Implementation of BMPs for the Algoma Project is described in Part 5 of this report.

Best Management Practices are designed to protect the beneficial uses of water and will be implemented for each management practice. Because of these measures, no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to water quality are expected to occur, thus meeting Clean Water Act requirements. The Regional Water Board enforces compliance with BMP implementation and may impose control actions above and beyond what is specified in the agreements if the practices are not applied correctly or do not protect water quality.15

Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives Within and Downstream of Project Area: Designated beneficial uses for streams within and downstream of the project area are established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region and are listed below:16

McCloud River

• Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) • Hydropower Generation (POW) • Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) • Canoeing and Rafting (Proposed) (REC-1) • Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2) • Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) • Cold Water Spawning Habitat (SPWN) • Wildlife Habitat (WILD)

14 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sept. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California Best Management Practices. 15 Basin Plan, Ch. IV-3.00. 16 Basin Plan, Ch. II.



The following is a list of the water quality parameters for inland surface waters that apply to the tributaries draining the Algoma Vegetation Management Project Area:

• Bacteria • Biostimulatory Substances • Chemical Constituents • Color • Dissolved Oxygen • Floating Material • Oil and Grease • pH • Pesticides

• Radioactivity • Salinity • Sediment • Settleable Material • Suspended Material • Tastes and Odors • Temperature • Toxicity • Turbidity

These parameters must be maintained within acceptable ranges as specified in the basin plan.17 As a Water Quality Management Agency the Forest Service must demonstrate that the Algoma Vegetation and Road Management Project will not further degrade local and regional water quality.

Water Quality Concerns (Limiting Factor Analysis): The water quality parameters specified for the basin in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region were reviewed in the context of the project area to identify the dominant water quality concern, or limiting factor, for aquatic and riparian resources in the project area most critical to beneficial uses and water quality uses. Based on a review of aquatic and riparian habitats in the project area, sediment is the limiting factor for the project area. More specifically, the Forest Service must address the potential of the project to affect coarse sediment delivery to riparian and aquatic habitats and the risk of coarse sediment being delivered to fish-bearing streams outside of the project area. In relative terms the potential for sediment movement into streams is greatest for drainages located south of the McCloud River. The potential for sediment to enter the McCloud River from the north is considerably less due to limited surface flow hydrology in this area. Another naturally limiting factor for riparian and aquatic species in the assessment area is water quantity. Many fish bearing streams in the assessment area dry out for a period of 2-5 months during the summer and fall and surface water is naturally scarce in the northern half of the project area. This factor is not discussed further because the proposed management activities should not have a measurable effect on water quantity. The proposed action and each alternative comply with the Clean Water Act by following the best Management Practices outlined in the management agency agreement with the State of California.18 All timber sales resulting from the actions planned in this environmental assessment will be certified by the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board under Resolution No. R5-2010-0022 (or future version) that provides for a conditional waiver of the requirement to file a report of waste discharge and obtain waste discharge requirements for timber harvest activities on U.S. Forest Service lands within the Central Valley Region.19 17 Basin Plan, Ch. III. 18 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sept. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. 19 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. R5-2010-0022, Renewal of Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges Related to Timber Harvest Activities, 2010.



1c. Other Policy and Direction Portions of the Upper McCloud River within the assessment area are located within an area covered under a Cooperative Resource Management Plan (CRMP).20 The McCloud CRMP was established in 1991 for the purpose of coordinating management activities with principle landowners and public agencies in the McCloud River Watershed. The Forest Service is a member of the CRMP and signatory to an MOU that describes the purpose and plan area objectives for those reaches of the McCloud River located within the CRMP boundary. The McCloud CRMP was established in 1991 as an alternative to including the McCloud River in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The CRMP recognizes the outstandingly remarkable fisheries, geology, scenery, cultural, and historic resource values (ORVs) associated with the McCloud River and coordinates management activities to protect and preserve these ORVs. The Algoma assessment area is also located within the refugium boundary for the McCloud River Redband Trout. Redband trout are managed under a Conservation Agreement. The 1998 version of this agreement is in the process of being revised. The Conservation Agreement for the Upper McCloud River Redband Trout is the result of a collaborative effort between private and public stakeholders who continue to work towards improving redband trout habitat.21 The agreement responds to concerns for the health and viability of redband trout populations in the Upper McCloud River Basin and provides recommendations for protection and maintenance of redband trout habitat. The Conservation Agreement includes direction to maintain and enhance habitat for McCloud redband trout. Prior to the Conservation Agreement, the redband trout was recognized as a candidate species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.22

20 McCloud River Coordinated Resource Management Plan (“McCloud River CRMP”), 1991. 29 p. 21 California Department of Fish and Game, 1998. Redband Trout Conservation Agreement, 82 p. 22 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules p. 63045.



2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives Project Summary: The Shasta-McCloud Management Unit of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is proposing to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, such as the northern spotted owl, by thinning forest stands and reducing fuel loads on approximately 4-6,000 acres of National Forest System Lands (dependent on alternative). The preferred action (Alternative 5) is summarized in Table 1. For a complete description of the proposed action, alternatives and purpose and need refer to Chapters 1 and 2 in the FEIS for the Algoma Vegetation and Roads Management Project (hereon referred to as the Algoma FEIS). The Algoma FEIS provides 5 alternatives for the assessment area. The actions proposed for each alternative are summarized in Table 2. Alternative 1: Proposed Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action – Modified to eliminate new road construction Alternative 3: Proposed Action – Modified to eliminate sanitation treatments Alternative 4: No Action Alternative 5: Preferred Action The environmental consequences to hydrologic resources that could result from implementation of each alternative are assessed in Part 4 of this report.



Summary of Preferred Action Treatments

Alternative 5 Need for Action

Reduce the risk of large-scale habitat loss and increase stand resiliency by decreasing crown continuity, fuel ladders, and intertree competition for resources with the following actions:

Develop late-successional and old-growth habitat stand characteristics with the following actions:

Assess and manage project area roads with the following actions:

Thinning on approximately 2,487 acres of overly dense natural stands.

√ √

Thinning with sanitation on approximately 930 acres of overly dense, diseased and insect-infested stands.

√ √

Thinning by single-tree-selection (uneven-aged management) on approximately 179 acres of overly dense stands.

√ √

Thinning on approximately 1,070 acres of overly dense plantations.

√ √

Thinning overly dense stands and reducing excess fuel loads on approximately 420 acres of Riparian Reserve.

√ √

Mechanical fuels treatment including some underburning of approximately 1300 acres to reduce natural and activity fuels.

√

Releasing hardwoods, particularly black oaks, throughout the project area by removing competing conifers.

√

Closing 21.7 miles of road to lessen environmental impacts and reduce maintenance.

√

Decommissioning 14.4 miles of road to lessen environmental impacts and reduce maintenance.

√

Reconstructing approximately 10.2 miles of road to lessen environmental impacts and implement present and future vegetation management.

√

Construct approximately 1.3 miles of temporary road needed to implement current vegetation management activities.

√

Add 4.0 miles of nonsystem road to system. √

Maintain 41 miles of road. √

Table 1: Preferred action summary (Alternative 5).



Activity Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Thinning of Natural Stands 3340 3290 4270 0 2487 Thinning with Sanitation 930 870 0 0 930

Thinning by Single Tree Selection 260 260 260 0 179 Thinning of Older Plantations 1070 950 1070 0 1070

Total Treatment Acres 5600 5370 5600 0 4666

Hardwood Management23 throughout treatment units 0

throughout treatment

units Riparian Reserves Management24 640 600 640 0 420

Post-Harvest Fuel Treatments - Acres25 1300 1250 1300 0 1300

Road Closure Miles 21.7 21.7 21.7 0 21.7 Road Decommissioning Miles 14.4 14.4 14.4 0 14.4

Road Reconstruction Miles 10.4 10.4 10.4 0 10.2 Road Maintenance Miles 46 46 46 0 41

Temporary Road Construction Miles 1.6 0 1.6 0 1.3 Roads Added to System Miles 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 4.0

Table 2: Summary of actions and acres or miles listed for each alternative.

23 Enhancement of hardwoods would occur in any treatment unit where it is determined to be beneficial and feasible. 24 Enhancement of Riparian Reserves would occur in any treatment unit where it is determined to be beneficial and feasible. 25 May include mastication, removal and utilization, and/or piling and burning.



3. Affected Environment Location and Geographic Boundary: The Algoma assessment area is located in T40N, R1W & R1E, Mount Diablo Meridian and T39N, R1W & R1E, Mount Diablo Meridian, about 10 miles east of the town of McCloud, California. California State Highway 89 and the McCloud River pass through the center of the project area in an east-west orientation. The northern boundary of the assessment area is located approximately 2 miles south of Black Fox Mountain and the southern boundary is located below the slopes of the Mushroom Rock – Bartle Gap Ridgeline. Elevations in the assessment area range from approximately 3700 feet near Cattle Camp Campground to 6000 feet at the northern extent and 4200 feet at the southern extent of the assessment area.

Land Management Allocations: The Algoma assessment area is located within the Algoma Late-Successional Reserve. The area includes about 11,057 acres of Prescription VII (late-successional Reserve) and about 3,023 acres of Prescription IX (Riparian Reserve) lands. The entire project area is within critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Watershed Physiography: The entire assessment area lies within two fifth field watersheds, Ash Creek Watershed (5th Field HUC = 1802000401) and the Upper McCloud River Basin (5th Field HUC = 1802000402). Channels in the assessment area within the Ash Creek HUC are intermittent and do not contain fish. Channels in the assessment area within the Upper McCloud River Basin HUC are both perennial and intermittent with some channels containing fish, including McCloud River redband trout. The Algoma assessment area includes all or portions of 15 HUC 8 watersheds. These HUC 8 watersheds drain an area of 31,845 acres (49.8 mi2). Climate: The project area is located in the northern end of the Mediterranean Highland Climate Region and is characterized by warm dry summers and cool wet winters. Average annual precipitation is 40 inches with the majority of precipitation falling between October and May. Winter precipitation generally falls as snow but rain events are also common. Nearly all of the Algoma project area lies between elevations of 3000-6500 feet and is susceptible to flooding from rain-on-snow precipitation events. Geology and Geomorphology: The Algoma Project area is located on the southern end of the Cascade Range Geologic Province. First identified by Powers (1932)26 as the “Massive Basalt” group and later mapped by Gardner (1964)27 as the Algoma basalts, these rocks appear to have emanated from fissures or from cones located in an arc from Black Fox Mountain in the west to Bear Mountain in the east. These Quaternary (Pleistocene) basaltic-andesite lavas flowed south, entering the channel of the antecedent McCloud River (Gardner, 1964)28 and continued to flow in a westerly direction to

26 Powers, H.P., (1932) The Lavas of the Modoc Lava-Bed Quadrangle, California: American Mineralogist; v.17, No.7. 27 Gardner, Murray C., (1964) Cenozoic Volcanism in the High cascade and Modoc Plateau Provinces of Northeast California; University of Arizona Ph.D. thesis. 28 Gardner, Murray C., (1964) Cenozoic Volcanism in the High cascade and Modoc Plateau Provinces of Northeast California; University of Arizona Ph.D. thesis.



beyond Big Springs. A portion of these flows were split, however, before they reached the McCloud River, and these flowed instead southeast to the Colby Meadow, Big Bear Flat area. The aforementioned authors believed that the basement rocks consisted of Klamath province rocks, probably of meta-sedimentary composition. A fenster of Klamath rocks can be found west of the project area at a borrow pit just east of Mud Creek. The topographic areas that form the present headwaters of the creeks that bisect the project area show relict glaciation from Pleistocene times. The degree of glaciation is low level however. Fluvial and rock debris flow deposits presently characterize the fluvial channels of Bull, Raccoon, Tate and Whiskey creeks. Hydrologic Features: Hydrologic features within the Algoma Assessment Area are almost exclusively composed of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams, some of which harbor residential fish populations including redband trout. Stream channels within the assessment area can be grouped into two distinct categories: 1) Streams draining the Black Fox Uplands north of the McCloud River, and 2) The McCloud River and its southern tributaries. Streams draining the Black Fox uplands are all intermittent (flowing for at least several weeks per year) or ephemeral (flowing only in response to peak snowmelt and direct precipitation) and do not contain fish. Surface flow in these streams is very limited, only occurring during unusually large precipitation events or during peak snowmelt. There are no named streams north of the McCloud River within the assessment area. The McCloud River and its southern tributaries have a greater surface flow component when compared to streams draining the Black Fox Uplands. The McCloud River is perennial in most years throughout the assessment area although during very dry years portions of the river have been known to dry out. Fish bearing tributaries to the McCloud River in the southern half of the assessment area include Raccoon, Shady Gulch, Bull and Tate Creeks. All of the perennial tributaries to the McCloud are located south of the river. The linear extent and duration of streamflow in these tributaries can be highly variable from year to year (see Table 3).29 For example, Raccoon Creek has approximately 4 miles of perennial habitat in normal runoff years, however 3.5 miles of this habitat have been observed to dry out during drought years. Streams within the assessment area have a dendritic drainage pattern, and an average drainage density of 1.9 mi/mi2. Channel gradients within the assessment area are very low averaging 1-3 percent. Reaches with steeper gradients (>3%) are effective transport reaches while reaches with channel gradients less than 2% often exhibit extensive aggradation of sediment which is a characteristic of response reaches. Field reviews of channels draining the Black Fox uplands indicate that these channels do not transport large quantities of coarse sediment. This lack of observable deposition and transport is due to limited discharge and low channel gradients. Sediment transport and deposition is much more active in the McCloud River and its southern tributaries. Channel beds in the southern tributaries are predominantly composed of gravel and cobble and generally lack structural bedrock controls. The upper reaches of Bull, Shady Gulch, Raccoon and Tate Creeks are much steeper than in the assessment area. As a consequence sediment originating in the

29USDA Forest Service, Unpublished data, 2008.



upper reaches of these streams is transported through the headwater reaches to the low gradient reaches within the assessment area where it is often deposited within the channels. Channel aggradation is particularly active on the lower reaches of Bull Creek.

Stream Miles of Habitat

Intermittent Perennial Normal Year Total Dry Year Total Unknown

McCloud River Above Tate Creek

0.0 14.9 14.9 2 0.0

Tate Creek 0.0 6.2 6.2 5 1.3

Raccoon Creek 3.8 0.2 4.0 0 0.5

Shady Gulch Creek

1.2 2.2 3.3 1 0.0

Bull Creek 3.3 2.8 6.2 1.5 0.6

Whiskey Creek 0.1 0.0 0.01 0 0.0 Total 8.3 34.6 33.9 9.5 2.4

Table 3: Miles of redband trout habitat: McCloud River and selected tributaries. Normal year habitat represents the amount of habitat that would be available from runoff following an average year of precipitation. Dry year habitat is based on the best estimates of habitat at the lowest flow conditions observed during drought years. Stream condition inventories (SCI) were conducted on selected reaches of Raccoon, Bull, and Shady Gulch Creeks in order to characterize the current conditions of aquatic and riparian habitats for these streams. Selected habitat parameters for SCI reaches are shown in Table 4. The SCI information was used in conjunction with habitat typing surveys completed on Whiskey, Bull, Tate and Shady Gulch Creeks to characterize the condition of each creek within the assessment area. Additional stream survey work occurred on selected reaches of Shady Gulch, Raccoon and Bull Creeks during the summer of 2009 in order to assess stream and floodplain conditions and identify opportunities to restore riparian and aquatic habitats. The assessment noted opportunities to reduce sediment sources and improve habitat condition for selected reaches of the aforementioned creeks (USDA Forest Service, 2010).30 Bull Creek is an intermittent stream within the assessment area. The creek has a drainage area of 3,671 acres. Bull Creek originates at an elevation of 5,640 feet and flows approximately 6.5 miles to its confluence with the McCloud River at 3,760 feet elevation. Bull Creek is moderately entrenched within the project area and exhibits a B2 channel type. Channel gradients within the assessment area were 2.2 and 1.7 percent for the lower and upper SCI reaches respectively. Bankfull widths for lower and upper Bull Creek were variable, ranging between 6-12 meters. Cobble was the dominant channel substrate in both reaches surveyed. Canopy cover for Bull Creek is generally good averaging 84 and 71 percent for the lower and upper SCI reaches, respectively. Bank stability on Bull Creek was variable; averaging 87 to 58 percent on the lower and upper SCI reaches, respectively.

30 USDA Forest Service, 2010. Algoma Stream Restoration Assessment, Conditions and Restoration Needs on Bull Creek, Raccoon Creek and Shady Gulch.



Raccoon Creek is an intermittent stream within the assessment area. Raccoon Creek has a drainage area of 3,705 acres. The creek originates at an elevation of 4,520 feet and flows approximately 4.7 miles to its confluence with the McCloud River at an elevation of 3,720 feet. The channel gradient averaged 1.3 percent within the SCI reach (located in the assessment area). Bankfull widths ranged between 5.9-7.1 meters. Gravel and cobble were the dominant channel substrates in the SCI reach. Canopy cover was very good, averaging 85 percent within the SCI reach. The banks within the SCI reach were stable with very few signs of erosion observed. SCI Summary Data Raccoon

Creek Shady Gulch Lower Bull

Creek Upper Bull Creek

Reach Length (m) 542 155 159 437 Mean Channel Gradient 1.3 % n=2 0.9 % n=3 2.2 % n=3 1.7 % n=3 Mean Width/Depth Ratio 20.5 n=6 13.8 n=4 43.1 n=3 34.4 n=5 Mean Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 n=6 1.6 n=4 1.3 n=3 1.6 n=4 Bankfull Width Range (m) 5.9-7.1 n=6 2.1-3.7 n=4 7.2-12.3 n=3 6.5-12.1 n=5 Mean Bankfull Width (m) 6.4 n=6 3.0 n=4 9.4 n=3 10.3 n=5 Mean Bankfull Max. Depth (m) 0.4 n=3 0.2 n=4 0.2 n=3 0.3 n=5 Substrate Composition Percent Silt/Clay 0 0 0 0 Percent Sand 1 8 0 0 Percent Gravel 54 81 34 37 Percent Cobble 40 11 60 60 Percent Boulder 0 0 6 0 Percent Bedrock 5 0 0 3 D50 (mm) 57 26 86 77 D84 (mm) 175 55 179 148 Pool Tail Fines 3.0 % 2.0 % 2.3 % M Number of Pools 16 5 8 M % Reach With Pools 36 33 28 M Canopy Cover 85 % 38 % 84 % 71 % Max 100 % 94 % 100 % 100 % Min 58 % 0 % 64 % 26 % Bank Stability 98 % 46 % 87 % 58 % Table 4: Stream condition inventory data for streams in the Algoma assessment area. Shady Gulch is an intermittent stream within the assessment area. The gulch drains an area of 2,315 acres. Shady Gulch originates at an elevation of 5,600 feet and flows approximately 5.7 miles to its confluence with the McCloud River at 3,700 feet elevation. Within the assessment area Shady Gulch exhibits a C3 channel type, characterized by its low gradient, meandering, alluvial channels with a broad, well defined floodplain and cobble substrate. The channel gradient averages less than 1 percent within the SCI reach. Bankfull widths ranged between 2.1-3.7 meters within the SCI reach. Gravel was the dominate substrate in the channel occupying 80 percent of the channel bed within the SCI reach. Canopy cover was poor to fair, averaging 38 percent within the SCI reach. The lower canopy cover values reflect the influence of past wildfire activity which likely removed the canopy around the lower reaches of Shady Gulch Creek. This area appears as a brushfield in the 1944 air photos and has been converted to plantations. The stability of the channel in the SCI reach was also poor to fair, averaging 46



percent, and this was also a reflection of the past harvest history and the influence of road related impacts to the channel within the SCI reach. Tate Creek is a perennial fish-bearing stream within the assessment area that drains an area of 1,951 acres. Tate Creek’s headwaters originate below Grizzly Peak at an elevation of 5,800 feet. The creek flows for a distance of approximately 7.3 miles before entering the McCloud River at an elevation of 3,660 feet. No stream habitat data were available for Tate Creek however the lower reaches of the creek underwent extensive restoration following the 1997 Flood. The lower reaches of the creek within the Algoma assessment area exhibit a B channel type that flows through a broad floodplain and wetland complex that is maintained by beavers. Restoration activities were successful in reconnecting the creek to its floodplain and restoring fish habitat and hydrologic processes throughout the reach that was impacted by the 1997 Flood. Approximately 5.4 miles of the McCloud River are located within the assessment area. The McCloud River is a perennial fish-bearing river throughout the assessment area. The river is characterized by a gentle gradient and broad and densely vegetated floodplain. The river was observed in several locations during field reconnaissance in 2007. Channel stability along the river was good and no eroding banks were observed. Vegetation commonly associated with riparian areas on the McCloud River and its tributaries includes white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), American dogwood (Cornus sericea), and willows (Salix spp.).31 The surrounding forests are mainly composed of conifers including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), white fir (Abies concolor), incense cedar (Calocerus decurrens), hardwoods including aspen (Populus tremuloides) and cottonwoods (Populus spp.); and shrubs such as manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and whitethorn (Ceanothus spp.).32 The abundance and distribution of riparian vegetation varies by stream type and location in the project area. Riparian vegetation is largely absent along stream channels north of Highway 89. Perennial and intermittent streams south of Highway 89 have relatively narrow bands of riparian vegetation extending between 1-20 feet away from the channels where riparian vegetation is present. The McCloud River has the largest band of riparian vegetation which can extend over 100 feet from the channel banks along low gradient, unconfined reaches of the river. Inspection of 1944 aerial photography indicates that harvest activities occurred over much of the assessment area in the late-1800s and early 1900s. Timber harvest activities occurring in the early 1900s were accomplished primarily by railroad logging. Field inspections of stream channels throughout the project area indicate that drainage patterns may have been altered as a result of railroad logging activities particularly south of Highway 89. Altered drainage patterns appear to have occurred due to the construction of railroad grades throughout the assessment area. The effects on the channel network from historic logging activities are difficult to ascertain, however it is apparent that some channels have gullied due to increased runoff presumably caused by flow redirection from roads, railroad grades and compacted surfaces. 31 State of California, Department of Fish and Game, 1995. Habitat typing report for Bull Creek, Tributary to the McCloud River, Siskiyou County. 34 p. (Bull Creek Report, DFG) 32 Bull Creek Report, DFG.



Conversely it is possible that runoff has been reduced in some channels due to diversions created by roads and railroad grades. In either case the impacts to the channels appear to have been initiated decades ago. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities being planned in this assessment will improve drainage and should reduce legacy impacts to the channel network. Water Temperature: Summer water temperatures have been monitored for over a decade at two locations in the Algoma Assessment area. Mean monthly temperatures from 2001-2005 for lower Tate Creek and the McCloud River at Algoma Campground are shown in Table 5. Summer water temperatures in both streams are cool due to spring flow accretions.

McCloud River at Algoma Campground Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

June 11.2 11.0 9.6 10.1 8.0 July 13.1 13.1 11.4 12.1 11.9

August 12.7 11.9 10.6 11.7 11.5 September 10.8 10.0 9.7 9.6 8.9

Lower Tate Creek Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

June 10.1 10.7 10.5 10.2 8.7 July 9.8 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.9

August 8.9 9.2 9.4 9.2 9.5 September 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.2 8.1 Table 5: Summer water temperatures (degrees Celsius) for two locations in the Algoma Assessment Area.33

Riparian Reserves: There are three primary types of Riparian Reserves within the Algoma Assessment Area (Table 6). Some wetland areas also occur within the boundaries of streamside Riparian Reserves. The site-potential tree height for Riparian Reserves is based on the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or older) for a given site class (Shasta-Trinity LMP, 4-54). Site potential tree heights were determined to be 200 feet and were uniform throughout the assessment area. Site index and site class (based on stand inventory data) were used to determine the site-potential tree heights for each unit. Stream channels within the Algoma assessment area were ground verified in the summer of 2007 and 2009. Unmapped channels showing discernable evidence of annual scour were mapped using a GPS system and are included on the assessment area map. A conservative approach was taken in the identification of intermittent stream Riparian Reserves. Channels that displayed little or even no evidence of annual scour were still categorized as Riparian Reserves if they had attributes (e.g. steep draws) that required protection. This conservative approach was also taken in part because stream verification activities occurred after an abnormally dry winter (2007) and the channels in question did not run water as they may have in a normal or wetter year. These channels were revisited in 2009 to verify Riparian Reserves.

33 Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 2001-2005. Water temperature data.



Riparian Reserve Buffer Width (feet)

Source Definition

Intermittent or Ephemeral Channels

200

Shasta-Trinity NF Forest Plan

Varies by site- potential tree height

Riparian Reserves consist of the stream and an extension from the edges of the stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 200 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Perennial and Intermittent Fish Bearing Streams

400

Shasta-Trinity NF Forest Plan

Varies by site-potential tree height

Riparian Reserves consist of the stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 400 feet slope distance (800 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Unstable Areas None Shasta-Trinity NF Forest Plan

The Riparian Reserve includes the extent of the unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows).

Table 6: Riparian Reserves for the Algoma Assessment Area. Riparian Reserves accounted for approximately 3,072 acres or approximately 21 percent of the area located within the assessment area boundary (14,780 acres). Unstable areas account for 554 acres and the remaining acreage is composed of intermittent and perennial streams, some of which are fish-bearing. Vegetation management activities are proposed for 640 acres of Riparian Reserves for Alternatives 1 and 3, 600 acres of Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2, and 420 acres for Alternative 5. Treatment needs and protection needs for Riparian Reserves in the project area are highly variable. Protection needs consider risk to water quality and beneficial uses while treatment needs are largely dictated by the need to move stand conditions in Riparian Reserves towards late-successional habitat. The rationale for treating Riparian Reserves is described in the purpose and need for action for this proposed project. Currently 90% of the assessment area is vegetated in early and mid-successional habitat. The transition from early and mid-successional stands to late-successional habitat is limited by the high stocking levels. Forest stand stocking control is needed to encourage the development of future late-successional habitat in the Algoma assessment area.34 Proposed silvicultural treatments would promote the development of late-successional habitat and reduce the risk of habitat loss due to disease, insects and catastrophic wildfires. Treatments are proposed for portions of Riparian Reserves within the assessment area because in almost every case the Riparian Reserves include substantial areas of terrestrial vegetation. For example riparian vegetation is almost completely absent from many intermittent stream channels in the assessment area located north of Highway 89, but the Riparian Reserve extends for a distance of 200 feet on either side of ephemeral channels. In many cases these channels displayed minimal evidence of annual scour and some channel haven’t carried surface runoff in the past 3-5 years. Stands within these Riparian Reserves have the same characteristics and

34 LSR Assessment. 1999. Chapter 2-78.



treatment needs as the adjacent stands outside of the Riparian Reserves and would benefit from proposed silvicultural treatments. Because all treatment prescriptions for the project area are based on enhancing late-successional or developing late-successional habitats all of the treatment prescriptions should be applicable to Riparian Reserves provided that water quality and associated beneficial use protections are considered when determining protective buffers around streams and springs. The following protective buffers were developed based on the Riparian Reserve type, treatment prescription and field observations in the Algoma project area.

1. McCloud River – (RR = 400 feet). Exclude vegetation management activities for all units adjacent to McCloud River at one site potential tree or 200 feet on either side of the channel. Treatments are permitted outside the first 200 feet to the outer Riparian Reserve boundary (within the 200-400 foot outer Riparian Reserve) on either side of the channel when necessary to accomplish stand management objectives for late-successional reserves.

2. Shady Gulch, Raccoon, Tate and Bull Creeks (Intermittent and Perennial Reaches) – (RR =

400 feet). For portions of creeks adjacent to plantations and thinning units – Exclude vegetation management activities for a distance of 75 feet on either side of channels unless otherwise noted below. Where slopes are greater than 30% buffer channels at 100 feet. Allow treatments within 75 foot buffer in Units 44, 56, and 58 where necessary to restore Cottonwood stands.

3. Intermittent streams (including Ash Creek) – (RR = 200 feet). Allow thinning activities to

occur within Riparian Reserves when necessary to accomplish management objectives for late-successional reserves. Exclude equipment within 20 feet of intermittent steams. Allow equipment to reach in to remove conifers where needed to accomplish vegetation management objectives for late-successional reserves. Where slopes are greater than 30% provide a 75 foot channel buffer.

4. Unstable Areas – Buffer to the full extent of all unstable and potentially unstable areas

(including earthflows). No treatments will occur in this Riparian Reserve type. All management activities proposed for Riparian Reserves are consistent with management opportunities provided in the Bartle and Edson Watershed Analyses, and the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.35, 36, 37 The Shasta-Trinity Land Management Plan Standards and Guidelines for timber management in Riparian Reserves allow for the application of salvage and silvicultural practices in Riparian Reserves when they are needed to control catastrophic events, control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.38 The Bartle Watershed Analysis recommends thinning in Riparian Reserves when necessary to accomplish the following objectives:39

35 USDA Forest Service, Bartle Watershed Analysis, 1997. 36 USDA Forest Service, Edson Watershed Analysis, 2011. 37 LRMP, p. 4-53 – 4-60. 38 LRMP, p. 4-54. 39 USDA Forest Service, Bartle Watershed Analysis, 1997, pg. 6-6.



• Reduce fuel loads in Riparian Reserves • Maintain a long-term source of large woody debris to streams • Maintain conditions favorable to good water quality • Open up dense understory vegetation to improve forage, access and travel for wildlife • Stop encroachment of young conifers into existing meadow areas.

The Edson Watershed Analysis notes there is an opportunity to develop management strategies designed to improve stand condition and reduce fuel loading in Riparian Reserves.40 To determine if the proposed Riparian Reserve treatments were acceptable the Forest Service reviewed the current conditions of Riparian Reserves and the proposed treatments in Riparian Reserves with an internal ID team on October 1, 2008 and with representatives from the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Game on October 17, 2008. Both reviews focused on treatment buffers for intermittent non-fish bearing and intermittent fish bearing reaches and supported the proposed treatments and buffers. Fuel Treatments and Riparian Reserves: Fuels management activities will be occurring in portions of Riparian Reserves where necessary to reduce fuel loading following timber harvest activities. Potential fuels treatments include mechanical piling, hand piling in sensitive areas, mastication and prescribed burning. The need for post-harvest fuels reduction will be evaluated on a unit by unit basis following timber harvest activities. The type of fuels treatment chosen for areas where fuels reduction is required will be dependent on the amount of fuel and the sensitivity of the site. Fuels will be hand piled in sensitive areas within Riparian Reserves. No equipment piling will occur within 20 feet of any intermittent stream, within 75 feet of Shady Gulch, Bull, Tate and Raccoon Creeks and within 200 feet of the McCloud River. Equipment piling may be permitted within 75 feet of Bull Creek in Units 44, 56, and 58 within in Cottonwood restoration areas depending on the treatment needs following harvest. Roads and Riparian Reserves: All action alternatives for the Algoma Project include road actions. Road actions include decommissioning, closure, reconstruction, maintenance, temporary road construction and additions of non-system roads to the transportation system (see Table 2). A summary of road actions for each road in the assessment area can be found in Appendix C of the FEIS. Table 7 shows the road miles within Riparian Reserves.

Activity Alternative

1 and 3 2 4 5

Road Closure Miles 5.3 5.3 0 5.3 Road Decommissioning Miles 5.4 5.4 0 5.4 Road Reconstruction Miles 2.0 2.0 0 1.9 Temporary Road Construction Miles 0.1 0 0 0.1 Roads Added to System Miles 0.1 0.1 0 0.1

Table 7: Proposed actions within Riparian Reserves (Data source: Forest Transportation GIS Coverage).

40 USDA Forest Service, Edson Watershed Analysis, 2011, pg. 124.



Opportunities to reduce and eliminate road sediment sources to streams occur primarily in areas where road actions are proposed within or adjacent to Riparian Reserves. A sediment source inventory was completed for the southern half of the Algoma assessment area in 2009. The inventory identified existing and potential sediment producing sites within the southern half of the Algoma assessment area. Existing and potential erosion sites identified in the inventory were assessed and incorporated into proposed the action alternatives. Road Closures: Road closures are planned to reduce open road density in the LSR to benefit wildlife and protect sensitive features. The closures will restrict access to 21.7 miles of road for all action alternatives. A total of 5.3 miles of roads will be closed within Riparian Reserves. Roads would be closed through a variety of methods based on future management needs in the area, the size of the area accessed, the need for quick access during fires, and the current condition of each road. Roads will likely be closed with guardrail barricades. Other closure methods may also be used if resource concerns are present upon implementation (see Appendix C in the FEIS for a list of closure types planned by road). Road Decommissioning: Road decommissioning activities are planned to reduce road density, reduce habitat fragmentation and to restore habitat in Riparian Reserves. Decommissioned roads will be blocked, abandoned and restored to a more natural state (e.g. all culverts removed). Road decommissioning activities will result in a net loss of 5.4 miles of road in Riparian Reserves. Forty percent of all road decommissioning will be occurring within Riparian Reserves. Considered collectively open road mileage within Riparian Reserves will be reduced by about 11 miles as a result of closures and decommissioning activities. Road Reconstruction: Road reconstruction activities are planned to facilitate stand treatments and to fix existing drainage problems associated with undersized culverts or poorly drained road segments. Road reconstruction activities are planned for segments of road that will require more than normal maintenance activities to make them accessible and correct drainage issues. Examples of activities that place a road in the ‘reconstruction’ category include culvert replacements, modification of drainage features (e.g. drainage dips), ripping existing roads to reconstruct road prisms and extensive clearing on roads that have revegetated. It is important to note that almost all of the roads that are proposed for reconstruction are currently open and driveable and are not being ‘reopened’ by reconstruction activities. Road reconstruction activities are planned for 10.4 miles of road for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and 10.2 miles of road in Alternative 5. Impacts associated with road actions as they pertain to water quality and riparian/aquatic habitats are discussed in the environmental consequences section of this report. Temporary Road Construction: At the beginning of planning for this project several areas were identified as having excessively long skidding distances for silvicultural treatments which would potentially require some limited, low standard road construction. The terrain is relatively flat and road construction will be low impact. This project would result in the construction of approximately 1.6 miles of temporary roads for alternatives 1 and 3 and 1.3 miles of temporary road for Alternative 5. These temporary roads would be decommissioned after use. Road actions proposed for Alternatives 1 and 3 include constructing an additional 0.5 miles of temporary road in the vicinity of lower Shady Gulch Creek. The temporary road spur is needed



to access a plantation and to allow for decommissioning of 1.1 miles of Road 39N11Y which closely parallels Shady Gulch and has contributed to channel stability problems and degradation of redband trout habitat in the past. The impacts that this segment of Road 39N11Y had on Shady Gulch Creek were great enough to warrant decommissioning of this segment under all action alternatives. The segment proposed for decommissioning is currently overgrown and impassible to vehicles. A review of the segment indicates that no further action will need to be taken to decommission the segment and that reopening the road would increase sedimentation in the redband trout reach of Shady Gulch Creek. The temporary road will be located on the upper slopes outside of the Shady Gulch Riparian Reserve and will allow the Forest Service to maintain the plantation so that the stand continues to trend towards late-successional conditions. Roads Added To System: Approximately 4.0 miles of existing unauthorized routes will be added to the road system to improve management of the Algoma area. All of these roads currently exist and are driveable. One-tenth mile of existing road located in the Tate Creek Riparian Reserve is proposed for addition to the system to facilitate access to an existing water drafting location on Tate Creek. Road Maintenance: Road maintenance activities will occur on 46 miles of road for Alternative 1, 2 and 3 and 41 miles of road in Alternative 5. Road maintenance activities could include grading, resurfacing, culvert cleaning, hazard tree removal, snow plowing, clearing roadside brush and slide removal within the existing roadway corridor. Stream Crossing Upgrades: Crossing upgrades are planned for 9 locations on the Algoma project. A description of the work planned for the road crossings is shown in Table 8. Road Description of Proposed Work 39N06 Upsize culverts at Raccoon Creek crossing to allow crossing to provide passage for water and

debris from 100-year flood event. Improve fish passage, reduce sedimentation, improve water quality.

39N11Y Dip and rock crossing. Monitor crossing for 5 years to determine need for replacement of existing Humboldt structure with a culvert.

39N11Y Upsize culvert to provide passage for water and debris from 100-year flood event. Reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.

39N28YA Upsize culvert to provide passage for water and debris from 100-year flood event. Reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.

39N28YB Upsize culvert or replace with rocked ford to provide for passage of water and debris from 100-year flood event. Reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.

40N63Y Upsize culvert or replace with rocked ford to provide for passage of water and debris from 100-year flood event. Reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.

40N91 Rock road segments located in swales to reduce sedimentation and rutting and improve water quality (3 locations).

Table 8: Proposed crossing upgrades under all action alternatives.



4. Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives are discussed within the context of direct effects, indirect effects and cumulative watershed effects for each alternative. Effects are also discussed within the context of water quality and Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

4a. Direct and Indirect Effects

a) Direct Effects to Water Quality and Riparian/Aquatic Habitats Proposed Action (Alternative 1):

• Trampled understory vegetation in Riparian Reserves would occur from mechanical tree removal, whole tree yarding, and mechanical piling of fuels. Based on field observations very little understory vegetation is present in the proposed treatment areas due to relatively dense overstory canopies which inhibit sunlight from reaching the forest floor. While equipment would be present within Riparian Reserves it is important to note that impacts to riparian vegetation would be minimal because little to no riparian vegetation was observed to be present outside of the equipment exclusion zones designated for Alternative 1. Where understory vegetation is present impacts would be greatest on designated skid trails. Effects would be of short duration with most understory vegetation recovering within 1-5 seasons following thinning activities. The effects would be limited in scope. Vegetation management activities are planned for 640 acres of Riparian Reserves leaving about 2,430 acres or 79 percent of the Riparian Reserves in the assessment area untreated.

• Units 44, 56, 58 contain isolated, remnant Cottonwood stands. Harvest activities will be occurring within 75 feet of Bull Creek in portions of these units for the purpose of restoring isolated Cottonwood 41stands. Resource protection measures for water quality have been developed in order to mitigate effects to hydrologic resources (see 5a). For the Cottonwood restoration units trees would be directionally felled away from the channel and equipment turning would be minimized. No equipment will operate within 20 feet of the channel banks. The skid trail network would be designed so that equipment enters the Cottonwood restoration areas perpendicular to the channel (i.e. no skid trails will parallel Bull Creek). The stand cards for units 44, 56 and 58 will advise consultation with the unit hydrologist when laying out Cottonwood stand treatment areas in Units 44 and 56.

• Disturbance to intermittent stream channels would occur at designated temporary equipment crossings. Effects would be of short duration and include localized trampling of vegetation at the crossing and short term channel disturbance from the placement of temporary pipes and fills. All of the channels that may have temporary crossings are

41 Stand cards contain past treatment information for a unit (if previously treated), stand age, species composition, current stocking/basal areas, any project-related stand exam data, prescriptions and resource protection measures for specific treatment units.



intermittent. All temporary crossings would be removed during periods of seasonal flow. Temporary crossings may be required for Units 30, 38, 231, 47, 48, 49, and 60.

• Temporary loss of understory vegetation would occur where underburning occurs in close proximity to Riparian Reserves. Prescribed fire will be allowed to back into Riparian Reserves which may result in short term loss of some understory vegetation.

• Ground disturbance and vegetation removal on roads would occur within Riparian Reserves. Ground disturbance will be greatest at locations where stream crossing upgrades are occurring and will include removal and replacement of fills. The largest crossing improvement on Road 39N06 at Raccoon Creek will involve channel excavation needed to insert a new culvert that will provide for fish passage. In addition to the Raccoon Creek crossing there are 8 other stream crossings where reconstruction activities are proposed (see Table 8).

• Ground disturbance associated with reconstruction and maintenance activities would occur. Disturbance would include curve widening, road rocking and paving, and soil disturbance in and adjacent to the road prisms from blading and brushing activities and cleansing accumulated debris from culvert inlets.

• Ground disturbance associated with decommissioning of Road 40N92 in Unit 30 would occur (impacts limited to the one intermittent stream crossing and include ripping of roadbed). Ground disturbance associated with decommissioning Road 39N68 in Raccoon Creek Riparian Reserve would occur. Disturbance would occur as the result of pulling two culverts and associated fills at two intermittent stream crossings.

• Ground disturbance associated with road closure device installation would occur including the installation of earth berms and log posts for guardrail barricades.

Proposed Action - No New Roads (Alternative 2): Effects would be identical to Alternative 1 with following exceptions:

• One temporary crossing of an intermittent channel on the north side of Highway 89 would be required in Alternative 1 (Unit 38). This temporary crossing would not be constructed under Alternative 2 so there would be no ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the temporary crossing in Unit 38. Vegetation management activities would occur in only 600 acres of Riparian Reserve as opposed to 640 acres in Alternatives 1 and 3. Eighty percent of the 3,072 acres of Riparian Reserves would not be treated in Alternative 2. Excepting the above changes, the effects on a HUC 8 scale would be similar to Alternative 1. More temporary crossings could possibly be required in some units if temporary roads are not constructed.

Proposed Action - No Sanitation (Alternative 3):

• Effects are the same as Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3 units that were originally proposed for sanitation will be thinned using prescriptions developed for natural stands. While less conifer removal will occur, the impacts from ground disturbance will be similar.

No Action (Alternative 4):

• Risk levels of stand replacing wildfire and high severity fires in Riparian Reserves remain relatively static except in areas where stands are deteriorating due to insects and diseases, where wildfire risk increases.

• Continued instream sedimentation from sediment source areas associated with roads.



Preferred Action (Alternative 5)

• Effects are the same as Alternative 1 except where noted below. • Vegetation management activities are planned for 420 acres of Riparian Reserves

leaving about 2650 acres or 86 percent of the Riparian Reserves in the assessment area untreated. Alternative 5 would treat 220 fewer acres of Riparian Reserve than Alternative 1.

• The number of temporary crossings required to implement Alternative 5 would be less than Alternative 1. Alternative 1 specifies that temporary crossings may be required for Units 30, 38, 231, 47, 48, 49 and 60. Units 47, 48, 49 and 60 are dropped from Alternative 5 leaving only 3 units with temporary crossing needs.

• Road actions would be reduced from levels planned in Alternative 1. Because less road work would be taking place there would be commensurately less ground disturbance associated with reconstruction and maintenance (see Table 2 for alternative comparisons).

• Unit 58 is not included in Alternative 5 so no Cottonwood stand restoration activities would occur at this location.

b) Indirect Effects to Water Quality and Riparian/Aquatic Habitats Proposed Action (Alternative 1):

• Localized increases in turbidity would occur at temporary crossing sites. The effects would be minimal, only occurring at and for a short distance (approximately 100 feet) downstream of former temporary crossing sites. Past observations of temporary crossings for projects on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest indicate that increases in stream turbidity originating from temporary crossing locations will not occur in most cases. Where sediment is mobilized the duration of increased turbidity will normally be limited to the first runoff event. These short term increases in turbidity will not negatively impact aquatic or riparian habitats.

• Negative impacts to water quality and aquatic/riparian habitats associated with decommissioning roads would be very minor and of short duration lasting for no longer than 1 winter season following decommissioning activities. The potential for decommissioning activities to impact water quality only exists in Unit 30 where Road 40N92 crosses an intermittent stream and on segments of Road 39N68. Potential impacts could include some erosion from ripped road surfaces in this area; however this should be minimal due to increased infiltration capacity from ripping activities. Ripping of old roadbed surfaces will increase infiltration and eliminate surface runoff and sediment movement from the road prism. Benefits of increased infiltration and reduced sedimentation to streams would occur progressively over a period of 1-5 years with the establishment of vegetation on the former road prism. Two small pipes (24-inch diameter) will be removed and small fills will be pulled at two intermittent stream crossing locations on Road 39N68. Crossing removal will occur when all channels are dry. The condition of riparian and aquatic habitats will improve due to the establishment of vegetation on the decommissioned road prisms located within Riparian Reserves. It is also important to note that no ground disturbing activities are planned for decommissioning activities on Road 39N11Y. This road is located in close proximity to a reach of Shady Gulch Creek that contains redband trout and vegetation is



already well established on the segment of road targeted for decommissioning. Forty percent of all road decommissioning will be occurring within Riparian Reserves. The act of decommissioning will simply remove the road from the Forest Service transportation system. Considered collectively open road mileage within Riparian Reserves will be reduced by about 11 miles as a result of closures and decommissioning activities.

• Short term increases in turbidity and some mobilization of fine sediments may occur along reconstructed road segments located within Riparian Reserves. Impacts would be of short duration; limited to the first several winter storms. Impacts would be reduced by implementing BMPs for roads. In addition to aforementioned stream crossing effects, areas where some turbidity increases would be expected would include Road 40N13 south of Bear Wallow Spring and all road segments where blading and brushing occur within Riparian Reserves. Reconstruction activities associated with 40N13 will ultimately result in a drop in turbidity due to the correction of chronic drainage problems along this segment of road. Rocking of roads will also reduce erosion of the road prism and reduce water quality impacts in areas where rocking occurs within Riparian Reserves. In the long run all reconstruction activities are expected to result in a net reduction in sediment delivery to stream channels.

• Stream crossings improvements will result in improved flow capacities and reduced risk of crossing failure.

• Elimination of vehicle use and a reduction in habitat fragmentation for wildlife and riparian dependent species would occur in areas where roads are decommissioned and closed. Both closures and road decommissioning activities will reduce open road density in Riparian Reserves by 50% within the assessment area.

• Increased vigor of understory vegetation within Riparian Reserves could result from treatments as a result of increased sunlight. Because the Forest Service is managing for late-successional characteristics these effects should be of short duration, lasting approximately 1-10 years following treatment with the exception of isolated hardwood stands (e.g. Cottonwood stands).

• This alternative reduces the risk of catastrophic and high severity wildfires in Riparian Reserves and adjacent areas due to reduced fuel loads, resulting in increased resiliency of riparian and aquatic habitats.

• Removal of vegetation from proposed harvest units may result in small increases and more prolonged runoff/base flows in stream channels draining the assessment area. Based on post-harvest observations of stream channel Riparian Reserves that have undergone similar treatments to those proposed in the Algoma project changes in runoff and baseflows will not be discernable. The intensity of increased flows will be low (i.e. not measurable) and the effects will be of short duration (< 10 years).

• Removal of timber within Riparian Reserves is expected to have a negligible effect on water temperature. All harvest activities are designed to improve the condition of developing late-successional stands. For thinning and single tree selection units crown canopy cover currently ranges between 55 percent and 75 percent and the stands will be reduced to 40 percent to 55 percent following timber harvest activities. For sanitation treatments within thinning stands crown canopy cover currently ranges between 50 percent and 60 percent. Crown cover in these stands would generally be reduced to less than 40 percent within sanitation areas and 40 percent to 50 percent outside of sanitation areas. Crown canopy cover is expected to recover to pre-harvest levels within 30 years of harvest (see Silviculturist’s report for this project). Water



temperatures are very cool in the Upper McCloud River (see Table 5) and thinning activities occurring in stands adjacent to stream channels are unlikely to have adverse effects on water temperature. Water temperatures may be warmer in intermittent streams during low flow prior to the channels drying up, however this would occur under both treatment and no treatment scenarios due to sunlight heating the channel beds of intermittent streams prior to them drying out. Riparian Reserve equipment exclusion buffers will ameliorate much of the effects related to water temperature.

• Sporax will be applied to stumps following harvest for the purpose of preventing the spread of annosus root disease. Sporax is applied by lightly salting the stumps. Following the sporax material data sheet application instructions will prevent detrimental effects to water quality, aquatic, and riparian habitats. The material data safety sheet for sporax includes the following precautionary statement under environmental hazards that apply to surface waters in the project area: “Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present…. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwater or rinsate…” In addition, actions to be taken in case of a spill are stated under environmental hazards: “Dike to prevent entering drains, sewers or water courses.” Sporax will not be applied within 20 feet of any streamcourse located within the Algoma assessment area.42 Sporax will not be applied within 75 feet of Bull, Shady Gulch, Tate and Raccoon Creeks and within 200 feet of the McCloud River.

Proposed Action - No New Temporary Roads (Alternative 2):

• Effects would be nearly identical to Alternative 1, without the construction of temporary roads. Only 1.6 miles of temporary road were proposed in the project area (maximum case scenario under Alternatives 1 and 3). Zero miles of temporary road would be constructed under this alternative. With the exception of one crossing associated with a planned temporary road in Unit 38 all temporary roads are located outside of Riparian Reserves and will not result in sediment delivery to streams or water quality impacts. More landings would have to be constructed in units where temporary roads were proposed in Alternative 1 in order to facilitate access; however no additional temporary stream crossings should be required and 40 fewer acres of Riparian Reserve would be treated.

Proposed Action - No Sanitation (Alternative 3):

• Under Alternative 3 units that were originally proposed for sanitation will be thinned using prescriptions developed for natural stands. Effects to Riparian Reserves from not implementing sanitation treatments are very similar to Alternative 1. Thinning of these stands and fuels treatments would still occur, however fuel treatments would not be able to treat all areas of high fuel concentrations in Riparian Reserves resulting in an increased risk of extreme fire behavior and high severity fire in untreated locations. While less conifer removal will occur, the impacts from ground disturbance will be similar because most sanitation units would still be thinned and fuels treatments would occur in most areas.

42 Material data safety sheet, Sporax, Wilbur-Ellis.



No Action (Alternative 4):

• An increased risk of stand replacing wildfire within Riparian Reserves would occur under this Alternative particularly in areas that are currently experiencing mortality.

• An increased risk of impacts to water quality and to aquatic and riparian habitats would occur associated with the possibility of fire occurrence. Potential effects would likely be tied to moderate or high severity fires and could include increased water temperatures, loss of vegetation in Riparian Reserves, and short-term increases in sediment inputs originating from areas burned at moderate or high severities.

• This alternative would be associated with continued production of road sediments from chronic source areas and potential entry of road related sediment to streams that would have undergone maintenance, been closed or decommissioned under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

• There would be no ground disturbing activities within Riparian Reserves. Preferred Action (Alternative 5):

• Effects are the same as Alternative 1 except where noted below. • Fewer temporary stream crossings on small intermittent stream channels would be

required for Alternative 5 due to the elimination of Units 47, 48, 49 and 60 which will eliminate indirect effects associated with turbidity at these locations.

• Alternative 5 would reconstruct 9.9 miles of road (0.5 miles less than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3). The potential for short term increases in turbidity and mobilization of fine sediments would be lower for Alternative 5 because less miles of road are proposed for reconstruction.

• Because 220 fewer acres of Riparian Reserve would be treated in Alternative 5 when compared to Alternative 1 less ground disturbing activities would occur within Riparian Reserves.

• Because 220 fewer acres of Riparian Reserve would be treated in Alternative 5 when compared to Alternative 1 the potential benefits to riparian vegetation resulting from increased sunlight would be commensurately less. As noted in Alternative 1 positive benefits to riparian vegetation from thinning activities would be limited to the first 10 years following treatment.

• Because 220 fewer acres of Riparian Reserve would be treated in Alternative 5 when compared to Alternative 1 the reduction of the risk of catastrophic and high severity wildfires would not occur on the untreated acres. The risk of catastrophic fire and high severity wildfires would remain the same in these areas.

c) Cumulative Effects to Water Quality and Riparian/Aquatic Habitats A cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. The direct and indirect effects discussed above when combined with other past, present, and reasonably forseeable actions can be cumulative in nature and have impacts to aquatic resources at varying scales. The ERA model has traditionally been employed by the



Shasta-Trinity National Forest as a method to analyze for the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on the aquatic environment. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4d of this document.

4b. Effects of Proposed Management Activities within the context of the McCloud River CRMP The McCloud River CRMP coordinates management activities among private landowners and public agencies to assure protection of the remarkably outstanding resource values (ORVs) associated with the McCloud River. The ORVs include cultural/historical, fisheries, geology, visual quality/scenery, and wildlife. The CRMP provides direction for logging and road construction activities as follows:43

• Minimize new road construction and locate new roads away from stream courses by designing mid-ridge and ridgeline roads. Locate roads across stream courses only in areas where water quality and fisheries impacts will be minimized. Avoid significant wetlands and wet meadows wherever possible.

• Except for necessary temporary road crossings as noted above, no logging or road

construction will take place within riparian areas. These riparian management zones are defined as 50/100 feet from ephemeral and key intermittent streams, significant wet meadows, and marshes and 100/250 feet from perennial streams, lakes, and reservoirs depending on slope and stability.

• In the remainder of the CRMP area, timber management activities will not be more

intensive than prescription VI (Wildlife Management) of the Shasta-Trinity Forest Plan. Outstandingly remarkable values that are relevant to hydrologic resources and that could be affected by the proposed action include fisheries (McCloud River Redband Trout). The equipment exclusion and no-treatment buffers for the Algoma Project were prescribed on a unit by unit basis and considered risk to water quality and fisheries from proposed management activities for each alternative. Based on field reviews the buffers will be sufficient to prevent impacts to water quality and riparian/aquatic habitats in the Algoma Assessment Area. Riparian areas are located entirely within equipment exclusion zones. There is also one small area (< 0.1 mile) along Bull Creek where harvest activities are proposed adjacent to the stream bank. This reach is located on the CRMP boundary. Treatments within the Riparian Reserve were recommended because they are needed to restore remnant Cottonwood populations. The Cottonwood treatment area is located on terraces on both sides of the channel and access is readily obtainable from Roads 39N28YA and 39N06. Bull Creek in an intermittent stream in this reach.

43 McCloud River Coordinated Resource Management Plan, 1991, p. 23.



4c. Cumulative Watershed Effects A cumulative watershed effects analysis for the Algoma project area was accomplished by using the Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) model to demonstrate that the project will not increase the short and long-term coarse sediment yield to a level that will degrade the water quality of the McCloud River and its tributaries. This section describes the CWE approach, assumptions, core data sources, and analysis steps used to calculate the existing and potential ERA, evaluate the risk of cumulative watershed effects and analyze the potential downstream impacts of the project on water quantity and quality. Cumulative watershed effects are assessed at the HUC 5 and HUC 8 scales through the use of the ERA methodology. Cumulative effects are also discussed qualitatively in the context of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (see 4d). CWE Approach: The CWE model evaluates the potential impacts of land management activities on the balance between rainfall-runoff (i.e., ERA), erosion, and stream channel response. CWEs are defined by Haskins (1983) as the additive or compound effects of land management activities to water quantity and quality and beneficial uses, occurring away from the site of primary development, which are transmitted to the fluvial system.44 Cumulative watershed effects appear to result from the combination of changes in surface and mass failure erosion rates, instream sedimentation rates, and peak streamflows within watersheds in response to management activities (Haskins, 1983).45 Traditionally, Region 5 has used the Haskins (1983) ERA model to evaluate and predict the effects of land use on aquatic and riparian habitats. Advances in computational techniques, Geographical Information Systems, and improved data quality have resulted in a refined approach to cumulative effects modeling using the ERA methodology. This CWE analysis uses Haskins ERA methodology to evaluate the risk of cumulative watershed effects for each HUC 8 and HUC 5 watershed containing proposed treatment units in the Algoma project. GIS data sources for this CWE analysis are shown in Table 9. Cumulative effects analysis boundary: The boundary chosen for the hydrologic cumulative effects analysis represents an area where effects from activities within or adjacent to the project boundary can be analyzed. This analysis analyzes cumulative effects to hydrologic resources at the HUC 8 (project) and HUC 5 (larger watershed) scales. Cumulative effects could occur when direct or indirect impacts arising from the proposed action result in an incremental effect when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of land ownership on which the other actions occur. Field Data: Field extensive data were used to verify present and potential watershed conditions. These data were used to help verify or inventory the following items:

1) Inventory of needed mitigation measures.

44 Haskins, D.M., 1983. An overview of the use of cumulative watershed impact analysis, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, CA, 37 p.

45 Haskins, D.M., 1983.



2) Location, type, and condition of Riparian Reserves. 3) Restoration opportunities.

Public Land Timber Harvest ERA (FACTS )

The FACTS database was used to compile a disturbance layer for all HUC 8 and HUC 5 watersheds in the Algoma Assessment Area. Information queried included all timber sales within the past 30 years as well as plantation maintenance activities that involved ground disturbance.

Private Land Timber Harvest ERA (CDF)

Timber harvest plan data was acquired from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Road ERA (Core Layer and Project Layer)

The road ERA was calculated by querying the transportation layer and converting linear miles of road into acres using an estimated prism width of 20 feet. In addition to the Forest transportation layer data on OHV routes and unclassified roads were also added into the analysis to develop a combined equivalent roaded area for the project area.46 Privately owned, county, and state roads were also included.

Fire ERA (Core Layer)

The fire ERA was calculated using the known wildland and prescribed fire history for the project area. Only landscape scale fires were included in the analysis because the frequent lightning fires typically were not large enough to cause excessive runoff or erosion. No large fires have occurred in the project area in the past 30 years.

Planned ERA (Project Layer)

Units for all management activities were delineated using GPS and input into GIS coverages to develop the proposed treatment map for each alternative.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ERA

Reasonably foreseeable actions that could influence ERA were compiled and included in the analysis for both the HUC 8 and HUC 5 watersheds.

Table 9: Data layers used in the Algoma CWE Analysis. ERA Model Disturbance Factors and Recovery Rates: ERA disturbance factors for the project area were developed using the coefficients described by Haskins (1986) and coefficients developed on surrounding forests. Coefficients for harvest activities on private lands were developed by cross-walking similar treatment types for which coefficients had already been developed. All mechanical ground disturbances resulting from project activities are assumed to be fully recovered after 20 to 30 years. Ground disturbance caused by wildland and/or prescribed fire is assumed to recover in 5 to 10 years. Roads, landings and skid trails do not recover with time unless specific mitigation or restoration occurs.47 Once a road is decommissioned or a landing is rehabilitated they are assumed to have a positive effect on ERA (i.e. reduced ERA) that is realized over a period of time as vegetation recovers on the road prism.

CWE Analysis Results (8th Field Scale): The Algoma Assessment Area was partitioned into 15 HUC 8 watersheds for the HUC 8 Level CWE Analyses (Figure 1). All HUC 8 watersheds where activities were proposed were included within the analysis area. In the case of the Algoma CWE analysis area, all HUC 8 watersheds that contained headwater tributaries to Bull, Tate, Shady

46 USDA Forest Service, 2008. Algoma Roads Analysis. Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 47Haskins, D.M., 1986. A Management model for evaluating cumulative watershed effects. California Watershed Management Conference, November 18-20, 1986, West Sacramento, California. 16 p.



Gulch, and Raccoon Creeks were included because they had the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts such as increased runoff within the downstream HUC 8 watersheds. Similarly HUC 8 watersheds on the north side of the river were included if they had the potential to contribute runoff to the downstream HUC 8 watersheds, however not all watersheds met this criteria. The ERA analysis was conducted for 15 HUC 8 watersheds within the assessment area (Figure 1). Each HUC 8 watershed was analyzed for past cumulative watershed effects. The ERA values were derived from core data layers shown in Table 8. The existing ERA was calculated by summing the combined ERA for existing roads, fire history and all available harvest information for public and private lands for the past 30 years. The aggregated existing ERA for the 15 HUC 8 watersheds is 9%. The existing ERA ranges from a low of 3% to a high of 17% for the HUC8 watersheds (Table 10). The additional ERA resulting from the preferred action and alternatives was determined in order to derive the planned and total ERA for each HUC 8 watershed where activities were proposed (Tables 11, 12 and 13). Of the 15 HUC 8 watersheds analyzed 13 contained proposed units for vegetation management (Figure 1). Post project ERAs that would result from implementation of vegetation management activities ranged from a low of 3% to a high of 18% in the HUC 8 watersheds. Post project ERAs for Alternatives 1 and 3 are shown in Figure 3 and post project ERAs for Alternative 5 are shown in Figure 2. The total post-project ERA (sum of existing and project ERA) for the 15 HUC 8 watersheds is 12.3% for Alternatives 1 and 3, 12.1% for Alternative 2 and 11.7% for Alternative 5. The differences in ERA between alternatives is relatively small and can be attributed to acreage reductions in Alternative 2 as a result of no new and temporary road construction and changes in treatment areas resulting from dropping units in Alternative 5.



Figure 1: Algoma Post-Project Percent ERA for Alternatives 1 and 3.



Figure 2: Algoma Post-Project Percent ERA for Alternative 5.



HUC 8 Local Name HUC8 acres

Exist. Roads ERA

acres

Exist. THP ERA

acres

Exist. FACTS

ERA acres)

Exist.Total ERA

acres

Exist.ERA (%)

1802000401060201 East Bear Wallow 2134 30.0 97.6 58.0 185.6 8.7 1802000401060202 Bear Wallow 2271 38.0 17.7 11.0 66.7 2.9 1802000401060203 South Bear Wallow 2304 30.5 0.0 109.8 140.3 6.1 1802000401060204 Lower Ash Creek 2670 53.7 5.3 139.4 198.4 7.4 1802000402020301 Lower McKay Creek 2424 51.1 365.6 0.0 416.7 17.2 1802000402020302 Upper McCloud River 2901 60.6 402.4 3.0 466.1 16.1 1802000402030101 Upper Bull Creek 1805 26.5 28.8 0.0 55.3 3.1 1802000402030102 Lower Bull Creek 1866 37.6 139.4 9.8 186.8 10.0 1802000402030201 Middle McCloud River 2773 65.3 8.3 28.9 102.6 3.7 1802000402030202 Lower McCloud River 1046 24.1 1.5 8.9 34.5 3.3 1802000402030203 Raccoon Creek 2391 48.1 197.2 7.7 253.0 10.6 1802000402030204 Shady Gulch 2315 47.3 218.0 0.3 265.6 11.5 1802000402030205 Upper Raccoon Creek 1325 23.7 179.9 2.0 205.6 15.5 1802000402060101 Upper Tate Creek 1669 32.9 56.9 0.0 89.8 5.4 1802000402060102 Lower Tate Creek 1951 38.6 170.1 0.3 208.9 10.7

Table 10: Existing ERA for Algoma HUC 8 watersheds.

HUC 8 Local Name HUC8 Acres

Exist. ERA

Roads and Veg.

(acres)

Planned ERA Veg.

Treatments and Roads

(acres)

Total (post

project) ERA

(acres)

Total (post

project) Percent

ERA

1802000401060201 East Bear Wallow 2134 185.6 81.0 266.6 12.5 1802000401060202 Bear Wallow 2271 66.7 28.8 95.5 4.2 1802000401060203 South Bear Wallow 2304 140.3 160.7 301.0 13.1 1802000401060204 Lower Ash Creek 2670 198.4 42.6 241.0 9.0 1802000402020301 Lower McKay Creek 2424 416.7 30.2 446.9 18.4 1802000402020302 Upper McCloud River 2901 466.1 28.5 494.6 17.1 1802000402030101 Upper Bull Creek 1805 55.3 0.0 55.3 3.1 1802000402030102 Lower Bull Creek 1866 186.8 116.4 303.2 16.2 1802000402030201 Middle McCloud River 2773 102.6 334.8 437.4 15.8 1802000402030202 Lower McCloud River 1046 34.5 119.5 154.0 14.7 1802000402030203 Raccoon Creek 2391 253.0 39.1 292.2 12.2 1802000402030204 Shady Gulch 2315 265.6 22.0 287.7 12.4 1802000402030205 Upper Raccoon Creek 1325 205.6 8.3 213.9 16.1 1802000402060101 Upper Tate Creek 1669 89.8 0.0 89.8 5.4 1802000402060102 Lower Tate Creek 1951 208.9 16.8 225.8 11.6

Table 11: Existing and Planned ERA (Alternatives 1 and 3).




Existing ERA

Roads and Veg.

(acres)

Planned ERA Veg.


(acres)

Total (post

project) ERA

(acres)

Total (post

project) Percent

ERA


Table 12: Existing and Planned ERA (Alternative 2).


Existing ERA

Roads and Veg.

(acres)

Planned ERA Veg.


(acres)

Total (post

project) ERA

(acres)

Total (post

project) Percent

ERA


Table 13: Existing and Planned ERA (Alternative 5).



Reasonably Foreseeable Actions: Outside of the Algoma Project only 2 HUC 8 watersheds had future vegetation management projects planned within them that could be characterized as reasonably foreseeable actions. HUC 8 watershed #1802000401060204 had a reasonable foreseeable ERA of 2% bringing the total ERA for this watershed to 11% for Alternatives 1 and 3. HUC 8 watershed #1802000401060203 had a reasonable foreseeable ERA of 0.25% bringing the total ERA for this watershed to just over 13% for Alternatives 1 and 3. One other potentially reasonably foreseeable project would be Algoma 2. This project could consist of portions of the units that were analyzed in this analysis under Alternatives 1 and 3 but dropped from consideration in Alternative 5. The lack of reasonably foreseeable actions is partly due to the land allocation of Late-Successional Reserve on public lands. Large portions of the LSR area within the HUC 8 assessment area were not identified for treatment for the Algoma Project and there are currently no planning efforts to treat stands in these areas. Plantations located in the LSR will eventually require treatment however there are currently no planning efforts associated with plantations in the HUC 8 assessment area outside of the proposed action for the Algoma project. Some matrix land occurs within the HUC 8 watershed located in the northwestern corner of the assessment area however all of these lands were recently harvested in the Edson Timber Sale and no further activities have been identified.

HUC 8 18020004

Acres of ERA and Percent ERA by Action Alternatives

Existing ERA No Action

Preferred

Action Alternative 5

1 2 3 4 5

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

01060201 266.6 12.5 261.4 12.2 266.6 12.5 185.6 8.7 266.6 12.5 01060202 95.5 4.2 95.5 4.2 95.5 4.2 66.7 2.9 95.5 4.2 01060203 301.0 13.1 299.8 13.0 301.0 13.1 140.3 6.1 301.0 13.1 01060204 241.0 9.0 241.0 9.0 241.0 9.0 198.4 7.4 241.0 9.0 02020301 446.9 18.4 445.0 18.4 446.9 18.4 416.7 17.2 446.9 18.4 02020302 494.6 17.1 480.5 16.6 494.6 17.1 466.1 16.1 494.6 17.1 02030101 55.3 3.1 55.3 3.1 55.3 3.1 55.3 3.1 55.3 3.1 02030102 303.2 16.2 297.9 16.0 303.2 16.2 186.8 10.0 209.2 11.2 02030201 437.4 15.8 425.1 15.3 437.4 15.8 102.6 3.7 395.4 14.3 02030202 154.0 14.7 149.8 14.3 154.0 14.7 34.5 3.3 154.0 14.7 02030203 292.2 12.2 282.4 11.8 292.2 12.2 253.0 10.6 269.2 11.3 02030204 287.7 12.4 278.5 12.0 287.7 12.4 265.6 11.5 287.7 12.4 02030205 213.9 16.1 213.9 16.1 213.9 16.1 205.6 15.5 205.9 15.5 02060101 89.8 5.4 89.8 5.4 89.8 5.4 89.8 5.4 89.8 5.4 02060102 225.8 11.6 225.8 11.6 225.8 11.6 208.9 10.7 225.8 11.6

Table 14: ERA comparison by alternative.



The final (post-project) ERAs for each alternative are shown in Table 14. No change in ERA occurred between Alternatives 1 and 3 because the ground disturbance associated with thinning and sanitation treatments were similar to one another. Decommissioning of roads is not factored into the planned ERA because the roads already have the maximum disturbance value assigned to them. Decommissioning treatments will result in a reduction in ERAs over time as the road surfaces recover. The magnitude of these benefits is small when compared to the gradual changes in ERA occurring through natural vegetative recovery in harvest units. CWE Analysis Results (5th Field Scale): Watershed cumulative effects were orginally assessed in the Forest LRMP. Thresholds of concern and watershed condition classes were determined using data from Appendix H of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.48 The TOC’s and condition classes provided in Appendix H were determined for 5th order watersheds. The Algoma assessment area is located in the Upper McCloud River 5th order watershed. The TOC for this watershed is 18% and the watershed was in condition class 2 as of 1994.49 The Watershed Conditions Classes are defined as follows: • Watershed Condition Class I: ERA less than 40 percent of TOC; • Watershed Condition Class II: ERA between 40 and 80 percent of TOC; and • Watershed Condition Class III: ERA greater than 80 percent of TOC. A CWE Analysis at the 7th field scale was conducted for all watersheds on the Forest in 2009.50 The ERA calculated in this assessment for HUC 7 watersheds was aggregated to determine the total ERA on Forest Service lands for the two HUC 5 watersheds in which portions of the Algoma Project are located. Information from timber harvest plans from the California Department of Forestry was compiled for each watershed. The resultant ERA at the 5th field scale was 4.7 and 5.7 percent for the Ash Creek and Upper McCloud River HUC 5 watersheds, respectively (Table 15).

HUC 5 Watershed

HUC 5 # Acres

FACTS/ROADS Existing

ERA

THP Existing

ERA

Total Existing

ERA

% Existing

ERA

Ash Creek 1802000401 113858 3187 2197 5384 4.7 Upper McCloud River 1802000402 146247 4381 3999 8380 5.7

Table 15: Existing ERA for Algoma HUC 5 Watersheds. The planned ERA from the Algoma project (maximum ERA Alternatives 1 and 3) and planned ERA from reasonably foreseeable actions were factored into the existing ERA and the results are displayed in Table 16. Final post-project ERAs, with reasonably foreseeable actions factored in, were 6.0 and 8.3 percent for the Ash Creek and Upper McCloud River watersheds, respectively.

48 USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forests, 1994. Appendix H, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, 6 p. (FEIS, Appendix H). 49 USDA Forest Service, FEIS, Appendix H. 50 USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forests, 2008. Shasta-Trinity CWE 2009, Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis.



HUC 5 Watershed

Total Existing

ERA

Percent ERA

Planned ERA Max.

Alternative

Post Project Percent

ERA

Reasonably Foreseeable

ERA

Final Percent

ERA

Ash Creek 5384 4.7 904 5.5 552 6.0 Upper McCloud River 8380 5.7 301 7.8 814 8.3

Table 16: HUC 5 Post-Project ERA (Existing, Planned and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions). Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (5th Field Scale): Reasonably foreseeable actions within the Algoma assessment area and the Ash Creek and Upper McCloud 5th Field Watersheds include numerous vegetation management projects on both private and public lands throughout each watershed. Activities within both watersheds can be expected to occur at similar levels as are currently occurring. The following projects are reasonably foreseeable on Federal Lands within these watersheds. Pilgrim Vegetation Management (Ash Creek) Trout Creek Vegetation Restoration (Ash Creek) Bartle Range EA (Ash and Upper McCloud River) Elk LSR Enhancement (Ash Creek) Mudflow Vegetation Management (Upper McCloud River) Moosehead Vegetation Management (Upper McCloud River) East McCloud Plantation Management (Upper McCloud River) Black Fox Vegetation Management (Ash Creek) Bolam Plantation Management (Ash Creek) Toad Range EA (Upper McCloud River) Algoma 251 Conclusions: This cumulative watershed effects analysis indicates that the TOC of 18% will not be exceeded at the 5th field watershed scale for the preferred action and all other action alternatives. For Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 5 the ERA at the 8th field scale was below 18% in all but one watershed, Lower McKay Creek, where ERA would increase from an existing value of 17.2% to 18.4% for these four action alternatives. It is important to note that the TOCs developed at the 5th Field Scale cannot be extrapolated to the 8th field scale. The ERA value of 18.4% provides an indicator that this HUC 8 should be monitored to insure that implementation of any of the action alternatives will not negatively impact runoff or water quality. Additional monitoring activities will occur during implementation of the project within the Lower McKay Creek watershed in order to insure that harvest activities do not negatively impact water quality and aquatic/riparian habitats (see Part 5: Design Criteria and Monitoring Needs). The Lower McKay Creek Watershed is almost entirely located on private lands. The project hydrologist reviewed the portion of this watershed where treatments are proposed for

51 Algoma 2 is a potential project that may include portions of the units that were analyzed in alternatives 1 and 3 but dropped from alternative 5 in this environmental analysis.



hydrologic resource concerns in October, 2011. There are no stream channels within or immediately downslope of the proposed treatment areas. McKay Creek is the only mapped stream channel in the HUC 8 watershed. The McKay Creek channel is located over 1 mile to the east of the harvest units. McKay Creek only flows intermittently one out of every two years. Based on the limited hydrologic features located in this HUC 8 and the absence of channels within the treatment areas the unit hydrologist concluded that there was little potential for timber harvest activities to affect runoff downstream of the treatment areas. Based on the results of the Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis the proposed actions and alternatives for the Algoma Vegetation and Road Management Project will not adversely affect water quality, riparian and aquatic habitats, and fisheries located downstream and outside of the project area. The following factors support the conclusion drawn in the CWE Analysis:

• Ground verification of the proposed treatment units and vicinity indicates that proposed mitigation measures will protect riparian and aquatic habitats. Buffers where treatments would not occur or where equipment is excluded (equipment exclusion zones) occur around each riparian feature. The buffers for all channels have been ground verified by the project hydrologist to ensure that each buffer provides sufficient protection of water quality and aquatic and riparian habitats within Riparian Reserves. No harvest or equipment disturbance will be permitted within 200 feet of the McCloud River and within 75 feet of all fish-bearing perennial and intermittent streams (excepting one Cottonwood restoration area along an intermittent reach of Bull Creek). No equipment entry will be allowed within 20 feet of any intermittent stream channels in order to ensure protection of redband trout and aquatic habitats. On the north side of Highway 89 several temporary crossings will be designated so that equipment can cross intermittent streams. In all cases the Sale Administrator will have the unit hydrologist approve the location of temporary crossings where required. All crossings will cross the channel perpendicular to channel flow. Equipment crossing at fords will not be permitted during periods when intermittent streams are flowing.

• Vegetation management activities proposed for the assessment area are all

intended to improve late-successional habitat irrespective of the land allocation in which they occur (e.g. LSR and Riparian Reserves). Riparian Reserve treatments and road actions were only planned for the proposed action and action alternatives if they were designed to improve stand conditions, enhance late-successional habitat and have no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to aquatic and riparian environments.

• Best Management Practices have been identified for the proposed activities in the

project area. Objectives and implementation strategies have been identified for key practices that will protect aquatic and riparian resources and prevent degradation of water quality (see Part 5: Design Criteria and Monitoring Needs).

• Best Management Practices are designed to protect beneficial uses of water and will

be implemented for each management practice. Because of these measures, no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to water quality are expected to occur, thus



meeting Clean Water Act requirements. The Regional Water Board enforces compliance with BMP implementation and may impose control actions above and beyond what is specified in the agreements if the practices are not applied correctly or do not protect water quality.52

• Due to lack of maintenance activities there are numerous erosion problems

associated with the existing transportation system. While road reconstruction and maintenance activities will resort in short term disturbance to the road prism and shoulder areas, in the long term these projects should benefit riparian and aquatic habitats by improving road drainage and reducing road sediment sources to streams (see ACS discussion for more information). Replacement of damaged or undersized culverts will improve fish passage and reduce erosion from crossing failures. Spot rocking will reduce erosion of the road prism on selected road segments. Planned closures and decommissioning activities will provide long term benefits to aquatic and riparian environments.

• This CWE analysis slightly overestimates treatment acres for the Algoma Vegetation

and Road Management Project. The treatment areas contain small inclusions protected ‘no treatment’ areas where all activities, including equipment, are excluded. No treatment areas (unthinned patches) are required in all Late-Successional Reserves. When considered cumulatively the no treatment areas result in a net reduction of 10% for acres treated under all action alternatives. Based on this information the estimates of planned ERA can be considered to be conservative estimates.

Analysis Assumptions and Limitations: The CWE Assessment Method used for the Algoma Vegetation and Roads Management Project makes the following assumptions:

• Increased peak flood flow and sedimentation are the limiting factors that drive the analysis. Increases in ERA will have less influence on runoff processes north of Highway 89 because surface flow is largely absent from this area. Many of the channels on the north side of the highway that have been identified for protection only flow for several days per year (some less than that) during years of normal precipitation. The ERA values will provide a disturbance index useful for determining existing and planned disturbance in each HUC 8 watershed.

• Existing data layers for FACTS and information provided by private landowners

adequately depict the distribution, size and types of vegetation management activities that have occurred in the analysis watersheds. This data is provided by the State of California which has made THP information available in digital formats. This has greatly improved the quality and amount of information available for tracking activities on private lands.

• This analysis relies heavily on existing (core) data layers stored in Geographical

Information Systems and maintained through several databases (Table 9). Some 52 Basin Plan, Ch. IV-3.00.



discrepancies may exist between spatial information in the databases and actual ground conditions.

• Planned ERA is based on proposed management activities identified by an interdisciplinary team. Unit boundaries are preliminary and identified from field reconnaissance and aerial photographs. Acres of planned activities are approximate and could change slightly when units are posted and mapped using Global Positioning Systems.

4d. Effects of Proposed Management Activities on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Project and Watershed Scales) The Forest Plan contains the components, objectives and standards and guidelines for the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.53 The four components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy are: 1) establishment and management of Riparian Reserves, 2) Key Watersheds, 3) Watershed Analysis and 4) Watershed Restoration. There are also nine objectives that are evaluated to determine that a project or management action “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Riparian Reserves types and widths are described in section 3 of this report. The action alternatives for the Algoma project are consistent with recommendations in the watershed analyses associated with the assessment area. The project is not in a Key Watershed. Watershed restoration, including fish passage improvement, decommissioning, and storm damage repair, is an ongoing program on the Forest. The Algoma proposed action and alternatives were evaluated to determine whether the project “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 (action alternatives) all have been grouped in order to avoid redundancy because there is not enough difference between the alternatives to result in different determinations with respect to how each alternative meets or does not prevent attainment of each ACS objective.54,55 Refer to sections 4a, 4b and 4c of this report for additional information on direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Objective 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

53 All of the guidelines in the Forest Plan are based on the Standards and Guidelines from the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA & USDI, 1994), as guided by Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen’s Assn. et al v. Natl. Marine Fisheries Service, et al and American Forest Resource Council, Civ. No. 04-1299RSM (W.D. Wash)( (USDA and USDI 2007).

54 (Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1994, 4-53) 55 Alternatives 1 and 2 have identical actions (and portions of units) proposed within Riparian Reserves, only acreage of treatment differ (640 acres vs. 600 acres). Alternatives 1 and 3 have the same acreage (and portions of units) proposed for Riparian Reserve treatment; however Alternative 3 treats about 58 acres of Riparian Reserve with a thinning prescription instead of a thinning with sanitation prescription in Alternative 3. As such, Alternative 3 will leave some diseased trees in the stand which would continue the root disease cycle within these stands and to adjacent stands and continue to increase fuel loads in those areas. Because the Riparian Reserve treatment areas are small (ranges from 0.3 acres 22 acres, with the majority 10 acres and less) and scattered, the differences are still considered small enough to not warrant distinct evaluations for the action alternatives.



Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will meet objective 1 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 1 at the watershed scale. Use of variable thinning treatments will promote structural and age variability and reduce overcrowding within stands in the short term, and accelerate their development towards late-successional forest conditions, enhancing habitat in the long term. Thinning will open the canopy of the stands and allow sunlight to reach the forest floor promoting under-story species vigor and encourage diversity in composition in both the short and long term.

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 1 because no actions would occur. Under the No Action alternative the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features will remain static. Stand complexity will continue to decline over time. The risk of catastrophic fire will continue to increase due to overcrowded conditions. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 1 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 1 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on Objective 1 as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 but less acres will be treated (220 acres less Riparian Reserves and 695 acres less of adjacent stands). The effects described for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will not occur on the untreated acres.

Objective 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will meet objective 2 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 2 at the watershed scale. Thinning within and adjacent to Riparian Reserves is expected to improve spatial and temporal connectivity by improving stand conditions and by accelerating the development of late-successional habitats in the long term. Thinning will allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor which should benefit understory species and increase vegetation diversity. Thinning activities occurring adjacent to and within Riparian Reserves will improve connectivity within Riparian Reserve corridors by reducing overcrowding and fuel loads. Reduction of stand density may also have some beneficial effects on connectivity by reducing the risk of fire within and adjacent to Riparian Reserves. At the watershed scale, improving connectivity will contribute to both riparian habitat and late-successional forest connectivity in the watershed. Road decommissioning treatments will reduce fragmentation of Riparian Reserves by roads and improve drainage connectivity at locations where culverts and fills are removed. Road reconstruction and maintenance activities will improve fish passage and the flow of sediment and water at stream crossings, thereby improving connectivity for aquatic and riparian dependent species. Open road density within Riparian Reserves will be reduced by 50% within Riparian Reserves which will reduce habitat fragmentation and increase habitat connectivity.



Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 2 because no actions would occur. Stands will remain overcrowded and the risk of wildfire will remain static or increase. A large wildfire could reduce connectivity in late-seral habitats. Current erosion problems associated with legacy roads (e.g. undersized culverts, poor road drainage) will continue. Water quality will continue to be impacted by drainage problems associated with poorly located roads. Open road density within Riparian Reserves would remain unchanged. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 2 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 2 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on spatial and temporal connectivity as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 but less acres will be treated (220 acres less Riparian Reserves and 695 acres less in adjacent stands).

Objective 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will not prevent the attainment of objective 3 at the project and watershed scales. With the exception of temporary crossings and stream crossing improvements no equipment will be allowed to operate directly within riparian or aquatic habitats. All temporary crossings will be removed and obliterated. Decommissioning of roads within Riparian Reserves will benefit the physical integrity of the aquatic system particularly in those instances where continued use of the road would have disturbed streambanks such as Road 39N11Y along Shady Gulch Creek and Road 39N68 in the Raccoon Creek Riparian Reserve. Stream crossing improvements on Forest roads will have temporary impacts (ground disturbance associated with fill removals/replacements) but will result in improved flow conveyance and reduce the risk of crossing failures. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 3 because no actions would occur. The risk of stand replacing fires would continue to increase. The potential for stand replacing fires to burn vegetation adjacent to and within Riparian Reserves would be higher which could compromise the physical integrity of the aquatic system due to increased sedimentation, excessive short term increases in large wood recruitment, long term decreases in large wood recruitment, and loss of vegetative structure and canopy cover. Roads that were targeted for decommissioning would remain and continue to have negative impacts to stream channels in some locations. Road maintenance, drainage improvements and crossing improvements would not occur. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 3 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 3 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on the physical integrity of the aquatic system as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 but less acres will be treated (220 acres less Riparian Reserves and 695 acres less of adjacent stands). Alternative 5 will result in less ground disturbance to the aquatic system because fewer temporary stream crossings will be required due to elimination of Units 47, 48, 49 and 60 from this alternative.



Objective 4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will meet objective 4 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 4 at the watershed scale. No treatment buffers occur around every fish bearing stream and equipment exclusion zones occur along every intermittent stream. Riparian buffers on the latter were selected based on water quality protection factors including slope and buffer ability to protect water quality. In addition to the treatment buffers Best Management Practices designed to protect water quality will be implemented for all management activities. Thinning of overcrowded stands may have long term benefits to water quality by preventing catastrophic, stand replacing fires. Road management activities such as rocking, closures, reconstruction, stream crossing improvements and decommissioning may result in short term, localized increases in turbidity but in the long run will improve water quality by reducing sediment sources to streams. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 4 because no actions would occur. Road systems would not be maintained. Open road density would remain the same. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 4 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 4 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on water quality as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 but less acres will be treated (220 acres less Riparian Reserves and 695 acres less of adjacent stands).

Objective 5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will meet objective 5 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 5 at the watershed scale. Equipment exclusion zones will prevent sediment movement from treatment areas to hydrologic features. Road management activities such as maintenance, reconstruction, rocking and decommissioning may result in short term increases in turbidity and some mobilization of sediments from activity locations but these effects will be of short duration (less than one runoff season) and within the range of natural variability for the sediment regime. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 5 because no actions would occur. Poorly maintained road systems will continue to deliver sediment to stream courses.



Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 5 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 5 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on the sediment regime as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 but less acres will be treated (220 acres less Riparian Reserves and 695 acres less of adjacent stands). Despite the drop in treatment acres the effects will still be similar due to the mitigation criteria developed for all alternatives (e.g. equipment exclusion zones).

Objective 6. Maintain and restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high and low flows must be protected.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will not prevent the attainment of objective 6 at the project or watershed scales. Surface flow in the project area is primarily intermittent. A reduction in evapotranspiration could temporarily prolong and increase seasonal runoff/base flows in the project area until vegetation becomes re-established, however any base flow increases would be subtle and not measurable and well within the range of natural variability for instream flows. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 6 because no actions would occur. No changes to instream flows would occur.

Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 6 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 6 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on instream flows as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 at the project scale, however the potential for this alternative to increase instream flows will be less than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 because less acres will be treated.

Objective 7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will not prevent the attainment of objective 7 at the project or watershed scales. Thinning within and adjacent to Riparian Reserves should have no measurable effects on the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation. Thinning activities may have slight but no measurable effects on water table elevations in floodplains. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 7 because no actions would occur. The timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands would remain unchanged. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 7 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 7 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on the timing, variability and duration of floodplain inundation as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.



Objective 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will meet objective 8 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 8 at the watershed scale. Thinning of stands in the outer extents of Riparian Reserves should have a beneficial effect on late-successional habitat. Reducing overcrowding in stands adjacent to hydrologic features should improve late-successional or developing late-successional habitat within Riparian Reserves. Thinning of conifers within the outer extents of Riparian Reserves will also allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor adjacent to riparian and aquatic features which should in turn increase the vigor and diversity of understory species. Thinning activities will also reduce the risk of stand replacing fire thereby preserving late-successional or developing late-successional habitats. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 8 because no actions would occur. Stands would remain overcrowded and the risk of wildfire would remain the same. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 8 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 8 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will not have as great an effect on the structural diversity in riparian plant communities as Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 because 220 less acres of Riparian Reserve will be treated.

Objective 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will meet objective 9 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 9 at the watershed scale. All action alternatives will improve late-successional or developing late-successional habitat within and adjacent to Riparian Reserves which should in turn benefit native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species that use late-successional habitat within Riparian Reserves. In addition to reducing the risk of stand replacing fire thinning activities should improve the health of stands within the Late Successional Reserve. Road decommissioning and drainage improvement activities within Riparian Reserves will also meet objective 9. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 will not prevent the attainment of objective 9 because no actions would occur. Stand species composition and structural diversity will remain the same.

Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will meet objective 9 at the project scale and not prevent the attainment of objective 9 at the watershed scale. Alternative 5 will have a similar effect on habitat as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 but less acres will be treated (220 acres less Riparian Reserves and 695 acres less of adjacent stands).



The preferred action, action alternatives and no action alternative will either meet or not prevent the attainment of each ACS objective at the project scale. Because the preferred action and all alternatives would have no negative effects at the project scale the preferred action and alternatives will also meet or not prevent the attainment of the ACS objectives at the 5th field watershed scale (Upper McCloud River Watershed - HUC 1802000402 and Ash Creek Watershed – HUC 1802000401). This determination is supported by the cumulative effects analysis that showed that the preferred action and alternatives for the Algoma Vegetation and Road Management Project will not adversely affect water quality, riparian and aquatic habitats, and fisheries located downstream and outside of the project area.

5. Design Criteria and Monitoring Needs

Design criteria and monitoring necessary for protection of aquatic and riparian resource and water quality are discussed below within the context of Resource Protection Measures, Best Management Practices and monitoring to be conduced as part of the Timber Harvest Waiver program administered by the Water Quality Control Board (see 5c).

5a. Resource Protection Measures The interdisciplinary team identified design criteria to minimize or eliminate potential environmental effects. The following design criteria were developed for water resources:

1. Protection of water quality a) Implement all Best Management Practices (Appendix E - FEIS). b) Exclude skidding equipment for 20 feet extending outward from the stream bank or

inner gorge in all Riparian Reserves. Minimize soil disturbance in Riparian Reserves by requiring directional felling and minimizing turning of harvest equipment. No new landings are anticipated to be needed within Riparian Reserves.

c) When watering roads for dust abatement, adhere to the following rules:56 Allow drafting from creeks provided that sufficient water quantity and quality is maintained to support associated wildlife species and riparian values. Never allow drafting to remove more than 50 percent of any stream discharge at the time of drafting. Establish alternative water sources when drafting needs would remove more than 50 percent of any stream discharge. Allow drafting from fishery streams only where immediate downstream discharge is maintained at 1.5 cubic feet/second or greater.

56 USDA Forest Service 1995, page 4-25.



5b. Best Management Practices The use of Best Management Practices will enable the implementation of the proposed action or action alternatives in and around Riparian Reserves and prevent negative impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats and water quality. The selected Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be applied for all activities occurring in the Algoma Vegetation Management Project Area. A complete description of each best management practice is provided in the publication 'Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California'.57 In addition to periodic inspections, implementation of BMPs will be monitored under the timber harvest waiver described in Section 5c of this report.

Timber Harvest BMPs 1-1: Timber sale planning process. The objective of Practice 1-1 is to incorporate water quality and hydrologic considerations into the timber sale planning process. This BMP was addressed by including a hydrologist and soil scientist on the ID Team for the Algoma Vegetation and Road Management Project. Representatives from the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game also were consulted during development of Riparian Reserve treatment recommendations. All recommendations developed during field reviews of the project area have been incorporated in the Sale Area Map and FEIS for the Algoma Project. 1-2: Timber harvest unit design. The objective of Practice 1-2 is to ensure that timber harvest unit design will secure favorable conditions of water quality and quantity while maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and watershed conditions. This practice was implemented by ground verifying hydrologic conditions for all units that were in close proximity to or within Riparian Reserves and prescribing appropriate no-treatment buffers and equipment exclusion zones. 1-3: Determination of surface erosion hazard for timber harvest unit design. The objective of Practice 1-3 is to identify high erosion hazard areas in order to adjust treatment measures to prevent downstream water quality degradation. The erosion hazard for soils in the Algoma Project Area was assessed by a soil scientist using the Soil Resource Inventory for the project area and through ground verification of soil characteristics in each of the proposed harvest units. The soil survey was used to determine the soil mapping unit for each of the proposed treatment areas. The interpretations listed in the soil map unit description include an assessment of the Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR). The soil scientist also completed a unit by unit assessment of soil erosion hazard using the methodology provided in the USDA Forest Service

57 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sept. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California Best Management Practices.



Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22), Computation of Erosion Hazard Rating (2/90).58 1-4: Use of sale area maps (SAM) and/or project maps for designating water quality protection needs. The objective of Practice 1-4 is to ensure recognition and protection of areas related to water quality protection delineated on a Sale Area or Project Map. This practice will be accomplished by displaying all stream channels located adjacent to or within the units on the Sale Area Map for each timber sale area. 1-5: Limiting the operating period (LOP) of timber sale activities. The objective of Practice 1-5 is to ensure that the purchasers conduct their operations, including erosion control work and road maintenance in a timely manner and within the timeframe specified in the timber sale contract. The extent of the wet weather and snowmelt season in Northern California can be very unpredictable, therefore a fixed LOP for wet weather conditions will not be set for any of the proposed actions described in the Algoma FEIS. Timber sale contract provision B6.6 can be used to close down operations because of wet weather, high water, or other considerations in order to protect resources. Prior to entering harvest units with equipment the sale administrator will verify that ground conditions are such that operations will not cause resource damage using the current standard for soil conditions and operability (e.g. “Wet Weather Operation” guide and “Field Guide to Soil Moisture Conditions Relative to Operability”). The timber sale administrator will consult with the unit soil scientist and hydrologist if there is any doubt as to whether ground conditions are satisfactory for operation.

1-8: Streamside management zone designation. The objective of Practice 1-8 is to designate a zone along riparian areas, streams and wetlands that will minimize potential for adverse effects from adjacent management activities. This practice was accomplished by ground verifying all hydrologic features, excluding sensitive areas from proposed units and prescribing no-treatment and/or no equipment use buffers for each feature. Hillslopes exceeding 35% are rare within the Algoma project area. All protected features will also be included on sale area maps. 1-9: Determining tractor loggable ground. The objective of Practice 1-9 is to minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging systems. As a general guideline tractor logging should not occur on slopes greater than 35 percent. This objective was accomplished by using the Geographical Information System to identify areas in the Algoma assessment area where slopes averaged 35 percent or greater and ground verification. All ground disturbing equipment will be excluded from areas having slopes of 35% or greater. 1-10: Tractor skidding design. The objective of Practice 1-10 is to design skidding patterns to best fit the terrain, the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water in order to minimize erosion and sedimentation. As a general guideline the skid trail network cannot exceed 15% of the area in each treatment unit. The sale administrator will accomplish this practice by reviewing and approving by agreement the skid trail design as provided by the purchaser (applicable contract provision C6.42# - Ground Based Skidding).

58 USDA Forest Service, 1990. USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22). Computation of Erosion Hazard Rating.



1-12: Log landing location. The objective of Practice 1-12 is to locate new landings in such a way as to avoid watershed impacts and associated water quality degradation. This objective will be accomplished by following guidelines for proper landing locations as described in Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California (2000).59 All landings will be approved prior to their use by the sale administrator. Standard Provision B6.422 (Landing and Skid Trail Location) will apply to all units located within or partly within Riparian Reserves. All existing and new landings will be evaluated for restoration following completion of all harvest-related activities. Activities that may occur include ripping or scarification of landings (dependent on degree of compaction and runoff risk) and revegetation with native vegetation. 1-13: Erosion prevention and control measures during timber sale operations. The objective of Practice 1-13 is to ensure that the purchaser’s operations will be conducted reasonably to minimize soil erosion. Drainage and erosion control work on temporary roads, skid trails, and permanent roads should be kept current during harvest activities. Equipment shall not be operated when ground conditions are such that excessive damage will result. The timber sale administrator will implement this practice through regular site visits and inspections. 1-16: Log landing erosion control. The objective of Practice 1-16 is to reduce the impacts of erosion and subsequent sedimentation associated with log landings by use of mitigating measures. The timber sale administrator will implement this practice through regular site visits and inspections. 1-17: Erosion control on skid trails. The objective of Practice 1-17 is to protect water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation derived from skid trails. Skid trail erosion control work should be kept current during implementation. Erosion control and drainage of skid trails should be complete prior to shutting down operations due to wet weather. The timber sale administrator will implement this practice through regular site visits and inspections. 1-19: Streamcourse and aquatic protection. The objective of Practice 1-19 is to control sediment and other pollutants entering streamcourses. This objective was accomplished by identifying all hydrologic features in the project area, excluding sensitive areas, and prescribing no-treatment buffers. 1-21: Acceptance of timber sale erosion control measures before sale closure. The objective of Practice 1-21 is to ensure adequacy of the required erosion control work on timber sales. The sale administrator will implement this practice. Prior to closure of the sale each unit will be inspected to ensure that skid trails and landings have water-bars in place and/or are properly drained.

Road and Building Site Construction BMPs 2-1: General guidelines for the location and design of roads. The objective of Practice 2-1 is to locate and design roads with minimal resource damage. This BMP is included to ensure that resource protection needs are factored into the design and layout of temporary roads. This

59 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sept. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices, pgs. 31-32.



practice is implemented through a combination of planning and implementation activities accomplished by the unit transportation planner and Algoma interdisciplinary team, as well as the timber sale administrator. 2-2: Erosion control plan. The objective of Practice 2-2 is to limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation through effective planning prior to initiation of new construction and reconstruction activities and through effective contract administration during construction. This practice will be accomplished by the authorized individual(s) (i.e. transportation planner, engineering representative or sale administrator). 2-3: Timing of construction activities. The objective of Practice 2-3 is to minimize erosion by conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. This practice will be accomplished by the sale administrator, engineering representative, contract inspector, unit transportation planner, hydrologist and/or soil scientist who will make the determination of when conditions are dry enough to allow work to proceed in the project area. 2-7: Control of road drainage. The objective of Practice 2-7 is to minimize the erosive effects of water concentrated by road drainage features; to disperse runoff from disturbances within the road clearing limits; to lessen the sediment yield from roaded areas; and to minimize erosion of the road prism by runoff from road surfaces and from uphill areas. This objective will be accomplished by incorporating road drainage features (e.g. outsloping, dips) into the design of temporary roads and reconstructed roads. 2-9: Timely erosion control measures on incomplete roads and stream crossing projects. The objective of Practice 2-9 is to minimize erosion and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects. This practice will be implemented through periodic inspections by the sale administrator or engineering contracting representative. 2-12: Servicing and refueling of equipment. The objective of Practice 2-12 is to prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens and other harmful materials from being discharged into or near rivers, streams and impoundments, or into natural or man-made channels. The sale administrator will implement this practice by designating the location, size and allowable uses for service and refueling areas. 2-17: Bridge and culvert installation. The objective of Practice 2-17 is to minimize sedimentation and turbidity resulting from excavation for in-channel structures. Forest engineering contract representatives will monitor installation of all bridges and culverts. Mulching and other methods of erosion control will be utilized to prevent construction generated sediments from entering stream courses. 2-22: Maintenance of roads. The objective of Practice 2-22 is to maintain roads in a manner which provides for water quality protection by minimizing rutting, failures, sidecasting and blockage of drainage facilities all of which can cause erosion and sedimentation, and deteriorating watershed conditions. This practice will be accomplished by the purchaser and sale administrator. 2-23: Road surface treatment to prevent loss of materials. The objective of Practice 2-23 is to minimize the erosion of road surface materials and consequently reduce the likelihood of



sediment production from those areas. This objective will be accomplished under direction specified by the sale administrator that can include watering roads for dust abatement during dry periods, restricting operations during wet periods and/or spot rocking portions of roads that could be degraded. 2-24: Traffic control during wet periods. The objective of Practice 2-22 is to reduce road surface disturbance and rutting of roads and to minimize sediment washing from disturbed road surfaces. The sale administrator in conjunction with Practices 1-5, 1-13, 1-16 and 1-17 will implement traffic control during wet periods. A soil scientist or hydrologist will assist in the determination of the need for wet weather restrictions as requested by the sale administrator. 2-26: Obliteration or Decommissioning of Roads. The objective of Practice 2-26 is to reduce sediment generated from temporary roads, unneeded system (classified) and non-system (unclassified) roads by obliterating or decommissioning them at the completion of intended use. This practice will be implemented by specifying in the Timber Sale Contract that all temporary roads will be completely obliterated following the completion of their intended use. Sale area improvement dollars may also be used to complete obliteration of roads that are not required for the sale. The District Hydrologist will oversee the decommissioning of roads located within Riparian Reserves including Road 39N11Y adjacent to Shady Gulch and Road 39N68 in the Raccoon Creek Riparian Reserve.

Vegetative Manipulation BMPs 5-2: Slope limitation for mechanical equipment operation. The objective of Practice 5-2 is to decrease sediment production and stream turbidity while mechanically treating slopes. As a general guideline, tractors should not be used on slopes exceeding 35 percent. Hillslopes exceeding 35% are rare within the Algoma project area. All steep slopes within inner gorge areas adjacent to water courses were excluded from proposed units. 5-6: Soil moisture limitations for mechanical equipment operations. The objective of Practice 5-6 is to prevent compaction, rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment production and turbidity. The sale administrator or other Forest personnel (e.g. CORs) will normally make this determination. If they are unable to make the determination they will consult with a Forest Service soil scientist or hydrologist.

Fire Suppression and Fuels Management BMPs 6-2: Consideration of water quality in formulating fire prescriptions. The objective of Practice 6-2 is to provide for water quality protection while achieving the management objectives through the use of prescribed fire. Prescribed burn plans should consider potential water quality impacts that may arise as a result of increased erosion due to increased soil water repellency and loss of vegetative cover. This practice was implemented by incorporating soil and hydrologic input into the prescriptions for each unit during planning or the Algoma Project.



5c. Compliance monitoring for Timber Harvest Waiver All timber sales occurring as a result of the Algoma FEIS will be enrolled in the Timber Harvest Waiver Program administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) under Resolution No. R5-2010-0022.60 In order to comply with the timber harvest waiver the Forest Service will conduct implementation, effectiveness and in some cases forensic monitoring as described in Guidelines for Conducting Required Monitoring for Timber Harvest Related Discharges Enrolled Under the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements (CVRWQCB, 2007).61 Forensic monitoring activities are planned for the Lower McKay Creek HUC 8 watershed and will consist of photo photo-point monitoring and observations of runoff events (note there are not stream channels in or in close proximity to treatment units in this watershed). The monitoring program will accomplish the following objectives:62

1. Determine if best management practices, mitigations, and management measures have been properly put into place before the start of the winter period (November 15th through April 1st).

2. Determine if significant pollution occurs as a result of timber harvest activities during the winter period.

3. Determine if the management measures were effective in preventing significant pollution during the winter period.

Monitoring of implementation activities will be accomplished by District resources personnel including the hydrologist and the sale administrators. If problems are identified the Forest Service will consult with the CVRWQCB and take corrective actions (e.g. suspension of work, temporary closure, spot rocking).

60 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. R5-2010-0022, Renewal of Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges Related to Timber Harvest Activities, 2010. . 61 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 2007. Guidelines for Conducting Required Monitoring for Timber Harvest Related discharges Enrolled under the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements. 44 p. 62CVRWQCB – Waiver Monitoring Guidelines, p. 1.