Hydrology Report. Salmon Salvage Project. Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Siskiyou County, CA.

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Salmon Salvage Project Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Siskiyou County, CA Forest Service July 2014 Prepared By: Original Draft by Kyle Wright, Hydrologist, Klamath National Forest, 3/14/2014 Reviewed and Updated by Verna Yin, District Hydrologist, Klamath National Forest, 3/28/2014; July 18, 2014

2 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , by fax (202) or at program.intake@usda.gov. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) or (800) (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by . If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). i

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Methodology... 7 Analysis Indicators Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Literature Cited Appendices Appendix A- Aquatic Conservation Strategy Appendix B- Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling: The Abridged Version Appendix C- Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling Results ii

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Salmon Salvage Project is located in the North Fork Salmon River watershed, a tributary to the Klamath River. The project proposes to salvage harvest trees, remove hazard trees, and reduce fuels through prescribed burns. The focus of this report is to depict the existing conditions of North Fork Salmon River compared to the desired conditions outlined in the Klamath National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USFS, 2010) and Klamath National Forest North Fork Watershed Analysis (USFS, 1995), and the effects of the no-action and action alternatives on sediment delivery to streams, peak and base flow, temperature, and channel condition/geomorphology. The North Fork Salmon River watershed has high concentrations of dormant and active landslide terrain with a dense road network and a long history of mining and forest management. The residual effects of these past actions, in combination with the effects of floods and wildfires, have led to a watershed whose sedimentation and stream temperature are not currently meeting desired conditions. However, recent sediment monitoring within response reaches indicate that most indices measured, although elevated, fall within reference conditions (USFS, 2013b). The Salmon Salvage Project is designed to help move a portion of the North Fork Salmon River watershed towards the desired conditions. Methodology The effects of the project are analyzed based on information from field visits, GIS reports and modeling. The Forest Road Sediment Source Inventory (RSSI) is used to assess the risk to water quality and to be compliant with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Waiver of Discharge requirements, Category B (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010a). There are three elements to the Cumulative Watershed Effects model used by the Forest: surface erosion and sediment delivery (USLE); sediment delivery from mass wasting (GEO); and the disturbance index using Equivalent Road Acres (ERA). The USLE model is an index of predicted sediment delivery for the first year following project completion. The GEO model estimates sediment delivery for the first decade after project completion. The ERA model provides an accounting system for tracking disturbances that affect watershed processes, in particular changes in peak runoff flows influenced by ground disturbing activities. A complete description of the modeling process is available in the project record. A risk level is derived for each component (USLE, GEO, and ERA) of the model. In the USLE portion, the risk is found by dividing the difference between the current and background figures by 200%. In the GEO model, the difference between current and background is divided by 400%. The ERA component relies on the calculation of the watershed sensitivity level. This incorporates beneficial uses, channel sensitivity, soil erodibility, slope stability, and hydrologic response potential. This watershed sensitivity level is expressed as a threshold of concern which is the percent of a watershed that may be disturbed (acres of road, timber harvest, fire impacts) before peak flow impacts start to occur. This project is in the North Fork Salmon River 5 th field watershed comprised of the Lower Little North Fork Salmon, Shiltos Creek-North Fork Salmon River, Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River, Jackass Gulch, and Specimen Creek 7 th field watersheds. Specimen Creek and Jackass Gulch 7 th field watersheds will not be further evaluated since Specimen Creek only has two 1

5 hazard trees identified as part of the project and Jackass Gulch has very few hazard trees and is located close to the watershed divide, away from stream courses. Analysis Indicators Analysis indicators used to analyze the effects of this project include: Sediment delivery to streams (estimated by GEO and USLE models) Changes in peak and base flow (estimated by ERA model) Changes to temperature (estimated by stream shade or canopy cover) Channel condition/geomorphology (estimated by potential change in condition) Spatial and Temporal Context The watershed spatial scale is bound by the 7 th field and 6 th field watersheds based on information from the watershed boundary dataset. The North Fork Salmon River 5 th field watershed is composed of six 6 th field watersheds and twenty five 7 th field watersheds. The proposed treatments occur within five of the twenty five 7 th field watersheds. Effects are measured or estimated at the following spatial scales: (1) Site--effects located in stream channel adjacent to or nearby the treatment area and that do not extend downstream; (2) Reach--effects that can extend downstream for less than 100 meters; and (3) Watershed--effects can be measured in the response reach of a 7 th field watershed. The temporal scale is described as being either short- or long-term in duration. Short-term is usually one to three years after implementation but can be up to ten years. Long-term is any effect that persists for more than ten years. Affected Environment As a tributary to the Klamath River, North Fork Salmon River is listed in the 303(d) Clean Water Act for stream temperature impairment (please see the Hydrology Resource Report for more detail). Beneficial uses considered impaired include cold freshwater habitat; rare, threatened, and endangered species; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning, reproduction, and/or early development of fish. As a result of 303(d) listing, the Klamath River Stream Temperature Total Daily Maximum Load was developed to (1) reduce and prevent excess sediment inputs and (2) maintain and restore site potential stream shade, both in an effort to decrease water temperatures (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010b). Therefore, to help implement these goals a waiver of waste discharge requirements for non-point sources pollution on federal lands (waiver) was developed that includes conditions for (1) active treatment of legacy sediment sources and (2) maintenance and improvement of stream shade (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board,2010a). A stream sediment and temperature monitoring program is required to document existing conditions, develop reference conditions and track recovery. The only stream within the project area that is included in Forest-wide monitoring is the Little North Fork Salmon River. Stream sediment monitoring on the Forest from 2009 found that Little North Fork Salmon River (a managed stream) had a sediment indicator meeting reference conditions; however, stream sediment and turbidity are expected to increase as a result of increased erosion after the Salmon Complex fire until the landscape recovers. Stream temperature monitoring on the Forest from 2011 found that Little North Fork Salmon River was 17.9⁰ Celsius (C), which exceeds the maximum weekly water temperature of 16⁰C, or the temperature at which streams are considered over the threshold in beneficial uses for core 2

6 juvenile salmonids. Stream shade measured in 2011 showed the existing percentage of shade in the watershed at 91% with human-caused reduction in shade at 1.5% (USFS, 2011). Stream temperature is expected to increase and stream shade is expected to decrease because of the Salmon River Complex. All of the risk ratios within the project are under the threshold of concern for all models except for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and Olsen Creek watersheds. Risk ratios are influenced by past actions and events; the current risk ratios are primarily affected by the Salmon River Complex. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 will not actively move existing conditions towards desired conditions. Most of the estimated 7,600 yd 3 of fill material contained in legacy sites will discharge into tributaries of North Fork Salmon River in the short- and long-term, resulting in adverse effects to water quality. Without treatment, legacy sites will continue to produce soil erosion and increase the potential for landslides near streams and within unstable areas. Some of the legacy sites have been repaired during the Burned Area Emergency Response implementation; however, 16 legacy sites remain within the project area. Alternative 1 will not repair any legacy sites; the remaining legacy sites will continue to degrade and negatively affect water quality without repair. Alternative 1 will not result in any short- or long-term improvements to watershed condition. Modeled risk ratios will slowly recover over time; stream sediment measured in response reaches is expected to remain the same or increase if untreated legacy sites continue to chronically or catastrophically fail over time. The burned riparian areas will be left to recover naturally. Areas that were burned with a moderate to high intensity lost their duff layer which provided protection from erosional processes, provided a supply of nutrients to the soil, and acted as a natural reserve of nutrients for long-term soil productivity. Future fires will burn with higher intensities, which will delay recovery and further degrade watershed conditions. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of this alternative added to effects of past actions are incorporated in the situation described as the affected environment. The ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect water quality are the Salmon Reforestation, Jess, and North Fork Roads projects and Burned Area Emergency Response work. Adding the effects of the Salmon Reforestation project which will affect water quality by accelerating landslide-risk recovery to the effects of alternative 1 will not increase the risk ratios but is unlikely to measurably reduce risk ratios. Adding the effects of the Jess project which will affect water quality by increasing the landslide volume by less than 0.5% in Shiltos and Olsen Creek 7 th field watersheds to the effects of alternative 1 will minimally affect the modeled GEO risk ratios. Adding the effects of both the North Fork Roads project and Burned Area Emergency Response work, which have minor shortterm negative effects but long-term beneficial effects to water quality, to the effects of alternative 1 will not have substantial cumulative effects. 3

7 Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Most of the direct and indirect effects of alternative 2 will be from treatment of legacy sites, and not from salvage, hazard tree, or fuels treatments. There are no fuels treatments within hydrologic Riparian Reserves. There are two existing helicopter landings within Riparian Reserves that may potentially be used; however, neither requires removal of trees before use and there will be no direct effect to hydrologic Riparian Reserves (see Potential Helicopter Landings, within the project record). Alternative 2 will treat 16 inventoried legacy sites, remediating approximately 7,600 yd 3 of fill material from being potentially discharged into streams. Project design features will minimize short-term sediment delivery and turbidity associated with culvert and road fill removal, soil disturbance and displacement from heavy machinery ingress/egress and road maintenance actions. It is expected that treatment of legacy sites at stream crossings will result in minor short-term increases in sediment delivery (minimized by implementation of project design features). In contrast, treatment of chronically-eroding legacy sites (gullies, rills and stream diversions) will result in major short- and long-term decreases in sedimentation. The treatment of roadbeds will result in short-term hill-slope instability (minimized by implementation of project design features). This alternative will result in a net short- and long-term reduction in sedimentation rates from the current situation. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of this alternative added to effects of past actions are incorporated in the situation described as the affected environment. The ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect water quality are the Salmon Reforestation, Jess, and North Fork Roads projects and Burned Area Emergency Response work. Adding the effects of the Salmon Reforestation project which will affect water quality by accelerating landslide-risk recovery to the effects of alternative 1 will increase the risk ratios by 0.09 for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and 0.06 for Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River. Adding the effects of the Jess project which will affect water quality by increasing the landslide volume by less than 0.5% in Shiltos and Olsen Creek 7 th field watersheds to the effects of alternative 2 will not cumulatively substantially increase the modeled risk ratios. The model does not account for the project design features included in the project intended to minimize impacts to unstable lands and landslide risk. Given this, the increase is nominal and the project will not lead to any significant cumulative effects. Adding the effects of both the North Fork Roads project and Burned Area Emergency Response work, which have minor short-term negative effects but long-term beneficial effects to water quality, to the effects of alternative 2 will not have substantial cumulative effects. The modeled risk ratios also do not include the effects of legacy site treatments; therefore, the cumulative long-term beneficial effects of alternative 2 are not displayed in these risk ratios. All other 7 th field watersheds are below the threshold of concern. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 on water quality are the same as alternative 2. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2. 4

8 Comparison of Effects Table 1 displays a comparison of the effects on water quality risk ratios among alternatives. Table 1- Comparison of effects of alternatives on water quality risk ratios Risk Ratios (effects of legacy site repairs not included) 7 th field Watershed name USLE GEO ERA Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Lower Little North Fork Salmon River Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River Shiltos Creek-North Fork Salmon River North Fork Salmon River 5 th Field The modeled hydrologic differences in outputs and risk ratios for alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would not change any of the drainages into a higher categorical risk status and would not be evident or measureable in the watershed. There is a lower risk of negative effects occurring for alternative 3 versus 2, however, future fires would burn with higher intensities, which would delay recovery and further degrade watershed conditions. Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1995) developed future desired conditions Forest-wide and in designated management areas. The Forest Service adopted the Aquatic Conservation Strategy for the Klamath National Forest (Forest Plan 4-6 and 4-7) and designated management area standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan to help achieve future desired conditions. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines #1-3 for best management practices (BMPs) helps meet geologic, water, soil and air quality objectives (LMRP, p. 4-18). Important Riparian Reserves (MA-10, ) Standards and Guidelines are as follows: MA 10-2 identifying interim widths for Riparian Reserves MA to -20 regarding fish and wildlife habitat management MA 10-42, -48 and -53 regarding roads management MA 10-54, -55, to -64 regarding vegetation management MA and -68 regarding fire management 5

9 INTRODUCTION The Salmon Salvage Project is within the perimeter of the 14,779-acre Salmon River Complex fires that burned from July 31, 2013 until contained on August 30, The fires were humancaused and burned exclusively on National Forest System lands except for a 5 acre parcel of private land. Fire severity ranged from low to high in a mosaic pattern in the project area. Only stands that burned in the high category were considered for salvage with some small inclusions of stands directly adjacent that had moderate mortality. Fire effects within the Salmon River Complex perimeter resulted in 72 percent unburned/very low to low soil burn severity. Figure 1 displays the soil burn severity map overlaid with watersheds. However, several of the smaller 7 th field watersheds had intense burns resulting in 28 percent moderate to high soil burn severity (USFS, 2013a). Tables 2 and 3 show the breakdown of burn percentage by 7 th field watershed. Table 2. Seventh-field Watersheds Affected by the Salmon Complex Fire 7 th Field ID Name Total Acres Burned Total Watershed (Acres) Percent Watershed Burned Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River 4,062 8,297 49% Shiltos Creek- North Fork Salmon River 1,414 3,910 36% Big Creek- North Fork Salmon River 3,758 7,786 48% Jessups Gulch- North Fork Salmon River 32 4,546 1% Crapo Creek 36 11,077 0% Yellow Dog Creek-North Fork Salmon River 75 9,200 1% Specimen Creek 209 5,009 4% Lower Little North Fork Salmon River 2,599 4,930 53% Jackass Gulch 2,526 2,788 91% Table 3. Three watersheds within project area with soil burn severity data. (All watershed units are in acres.) Name Lower Little North Fork Salmon River (NFSR) Olsen Creek- NFSR Shiltos Creek- NFSR Very Low/ Unburned Burn Severity Low Burn Severity Moderate Burn Severity High Burn Severity Total Watershed Burned Total Watershed Area Percent Watershed Burned 747 1, ,599 4,930 53% 418 1,955 1, ,062 8,297 49% ,414 3,910 36% 6

10 Figure 1. Map of Soil Burn Severity of the Salmon Complex The focus of this report is to depict the existing conditions of North Fork Salmon River compared to the desired conditions outlined in the Klamath National Forests LRMP (USFS, 2010) and Klamath National Forest North Fork Watershed Analysis (USFS 1995), and the effects of the no-action and action alternatives on sedimentation, stream temperature and channel condition/geomorphology. Methodology The effects of the proposed action, no action and action alternatives were analyzed through field visits, GIS reports and modeling. The analysis of potential hydrologic effects of proposed activities began with field-validation of existing base hydrologic information. Field reconnaissance consisted of evaluating existing data which included; consulting other forest personnel, reviewing the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and field checking every Hydrologic Riparian Reserve within unit boundaries. Mapped streams are defined in the Standard and Guidelines for management of Riparian Reserves (1994) and the Forest Plan (1995). The plans specify fish-bearing, permanently flowing non-fish bearing, and seasonally flowing or intermittent stream types. Seasonal flowing or intermittent channels are defined in the Forest Plan (pg ) as: Any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition 7

11 In addition, the Forest Road Sediment Source Inventory (RSSI) is used to assess the risk to water quality and to be compliant with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Waiver of Discharge requirements, Category B (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010a). There are three elements to the Cumulative Watershed Effects model used by the Forest: surface erosion and sediment delivery (USLE); sediment delivery from mass wasting (GEO); and the disturbance index using Equivalent Road Acres (ERA). The assumptions and caveats of the model can be found in Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis: Quantitative Models for Surface Erosion, Mass-wasting and ERA/TOC (USDA FS 2004). The USLE model is an index of predicted sediment delivery for the first year following project completion. The GEO model estimates sediment delivery for the first decade after project completion. The ERA model provides an accounting system for tracking disturbances that affect watershed processes, in particular changes in peak runoff flows influenced by ground disturbing activities. A complete description of the modeling process is available in the project record. A risk level is derived for each component (USLE, GEO, and ERA) of the model. In the USLE portion, the risk is found by dividing the difference between the current and background figures by 200%. In the GEO model, the difference between current and background is divided by 400%. The ERA component relies on the calculation of the watershed sensitivity level. This incorporates beneficial uses, channel sensitivity, soil erodibility, slope stability, and hydrologic response potential. This watershed sensitivity level is expressed as a threshold of concern which is the percent of a watershed that may be disturbed (acres of road, timber harvest, fire impacts) before peak flow impacts start to occur. This project is in the North Fork Salmon River 5 th field watershed comprised of the Lower Little North Fork Salmon, Shiltos Creek-North Fork Salmon River, Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River, Jackass Gulch, and Specimen Creek 7 th field watersheds. Specimen Creek and Jackass Gulch 7 th field watersheds will not be further evaluated since Specimen Creek only has two hazard trees identified as part of the project and Jackass Gulch has very few hazard trees and is located close to the watershed divide, away from stream courses. Several areas were refined within the project in order to apply the definition of various channel types. Figure 2 displays the map channels including adjustments made due to field observation. 8

12 Figure 2. Project area streams; streams south of North Fork Salmon River are not within the project area. Riparian Reserve widths are specified in the Forest Plan (1995) and in the North Fork Watershed Analysis (1995, Appendix J 1-2). Project Hydrologic Riparian Reserves are established at 170 feet (height of 1 site-potential tree) for all types of streams that s non-fish bearing and 340 feet for fish bearing streams. Gotvald et al USGS regional regression equations were used to analyze peak flow increases in the project area. Due to the Salmon Complex fire, an 8-year peak flow event has the same magnitude realized every 2 years, 2-year peak flow event. The lack of vegetation, bare ground, and dead trees will decrease interception, evapotranspiration and infiltration, therefore increasing runoff into streams. See table 4 for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year peak flow increases with equivalent peak flow recurrences. Table 4. Seventh-field Watersheds with Peak-Flow Increase due to the Salmon Complex fire 7 th -Field Watershed Name Watershed Area (acres) 2-yr event peak flow increase (%) 5 yr-event peak flow increase (%) 10 yr-event peak flow increase (%) 25 yr-event peak flow increase Big Creek 1, Boulder Gulch China Gulch Cronan Gulch 1, Garden Gulch (%) 9

13 7 th -Field Watershed Name Watershed Area (acres) 2-yr event peak flow increase (%) 5 yr-event peak flow increase (%) 10 yr-event peak flow increase (%) 25 yr-event peak flow increase Jackass Gulch 2, Kanaka Gulch Kelly Culvert Murderers Gulch Olsen Creek Average 1, (%) Equivalent peak flow recurrence 8-year 48-year 200-year 500-year Analysis Indicators Sediment Delivery to Streams This indicator is analyzed using the estimated sediment delivery from the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) models USLE (universal soil loss equation) and the GEO (mass wasting) models. Change to Base Flow This indicator is analyzed based on the amount of water removed from streams for project implementation (i.e. water drafting for road watering). Changes in Peak Flow This indicator is analyzed using the CWE Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) model. It estimates the level of hydrologic disturbance or relative risk of increased peak flows and the consequent potential for channel alteration and adverse watershed impacts. In addition, Methods for Determining Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in California were used to estimate peak flow events. Changes to Temperature This indicator uses available shade to estimate the effects of the alternative on perennial and late-flowing intermittent stream temperature. Channel Condition/Geomorphology This indicator is analyzed qualitatively based on expected impacts to the channel during implementation and the increase in debris flow potential as a result of each alternative. Existing Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and trees available for recruitment as CWD are considered. Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area The watershed spatial scale is bound by the 7 th field and 6 th field watersheds based on information from the watershed boundary dataset. The North Fork Salmon River 5 th field watershed is composed of six 6 th field watersheds and twenty five 7 th field watersheds. The proposed treatments occur within five of the twenty five 7 th field watersheds. Effects are 10

14 measured or estimated at the following spatial scales: (1) Site--effects located in stream channel adjacent to or nearby the treatment area and that do not extend downstream; (2) Reach--effects that can extend downstream for less than 100 meters; and (3) Watershed--effects can be measured in the response reach of a 7 th field watershed. The temporal scale is described as being either short- or long-term in duration. Short-term is usually one to three years after implementation but can be up to ten years. Long-term is any effect that persists for more than ten years. Incomplete and Unavailable Information The only tributary that had temperature and sediment data within the project was Lower Little North Fork Salmon River. We do not have temperature and sediment data with the remaining tributaries within the project. Affected Environment The existing conditions within the project area were analyzed through a combination of office and field reviews. Existing data such as Road Sediment Source Inventory and the North Fork Watershed Analyses were reviewed in the office. Cumulative watershed effects models were also used to characterize the existing conditions. Field reviews of stream course, channel characteristics and sediment source identification confirmed the office assessments. This section has been organized into the most relevant aspects of water resource management and protection: beneficial uses, watershed condition, channel condition, riparian condition, and water quality and quantity. Salmon River is 303(d) listed under the Clean Water Act as impaired for water temperature. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) action plan for the Mid-Klamath River was recently developed with the Timber Waiver meeting compliance. The Mid-Klamath Hydrologic Area (HA) was listed for temperature in A TMDL for sediment was developed in 2006 (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2009). Recommendations for updates to the 303(d) list were released for public review and comment in 2014 (CRWQCB 2014) but have not been finalized as of the date of this report. Therefore, analysis was based upon the current 303(d) list. Beneficial Uses The North Fork of Salmon River watershed supports a highly productive anadromous fishery of steelhead, and Coho and Chinook salmon. Census data collected in 1990 indicates that water sources for a majority of households are from sources other than drilled or dug wells. Sawyers Bar Community Service District municipal system diverts water primarily from Tanner Gulch and Jessups Creek for use. Most households have open sources from creeks or springs and function by gravity flow. Sixteen residences have special use permits for domestic water transmission lines to extract water from the North Fork Salmon River (USFS, 1995). Most beneficial uses are met with the following exceptions: Cold, Freshwater Habitat (COLD) Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) 11

15 The (COLD) beneficial use is not meeting its full potential because of natural conditions and past management practices. The (RARE), (MIGR), (SPWN) beneficial uses is not meeting its full potential because of aquatic barriers due to past mining activities. The Basin Plan (NCRWQCB, 2009) lists the beneficial uses for the Sawyers Bar Hydrologic Subarea under the Salmon River Hydrologic Area as follows: Existing beneficial uses are: Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply. Agricultural Supply (AGR) Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing. Industrial Service Supply (IND) Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well repressurization. Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH) Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water quantity or quality (e.g., salinity). Navigation (NAV) Uses of water for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, military or commercial vessels. Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white-water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs. Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2) Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM) Uses of water for commercial, recreational (sport) collection of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms including, but not limited to, uses involving organisms intended for human consumption or bait purposes. Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Wildlife Habitat (WILD) Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered. 12

16 Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish. Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish. Potential beneficial uses are: Hydropower Generation (POW) Uses of water for hydropower generation. Aquaculture (AQUA) Uses of water for aquaculture or mariculture operations including, but not limited to, propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of aquatic plants and animals for human consumption or bait purposes. Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL) Uses of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels) for human consumption, commercial, or sports purposes. Industrial Process Supply (PRO) Uses of water for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality. Channel Condition The 7th field sub-watersheds within the project area are characterized by well-confined, steep gradient, high-energy lower order-streams (Rosgen A-type channels). There is generally a high bedload sediment transport that often occurs with step-pool, cascading channel that is often influenced by the occurrence of large woody debris. The North Fork Salmon River is characterized by moderately entrenched systems with deposits from active and stabilized landslides and debris flows (Rosgen B-type channel; Rosgen, 1996). Most of these watersheds were severely burned by the Yellow wildfire in Storm events over the four winters that followed ( ) delivered an estimated 14,600 cubic yards of sediment to the North Fork Salmon River from Olsen Creek (De la Fuente 1991). The underlying granitic parent material has a documented history of instability (both natural and human-caused) producing debris flows that strip away riparian vegetation and deliver sediment and fills into the North Fork Salmon River (De la Fuente et al. 2006). These past experiences combined with the predicted post-wildfire watershed response (Mikulovsky and Bell 2013; Rust 2013) suggest that impacts to water quality are likely to occur over the next 5 years. Sediment Between 2009 and 2012 the Klamath National Forest measured streambed sediment in low gradient stream channels located near the mouth of 79 watersheds (USFS 2013). Reference watersheds are used to define desired conditions and serve as benchmarks to measure effects and manage watersheds. Managed watersheds include all watersheds that do not meet the criteria for reference streams. Reference conditions were developed from 20 reference streams for V*, percent fine sediment on the riffle-surface, and percent fine sediment in the streambed subsurface. The only stream within the project area that is included in Forest-wide monitoring is the Little North Fork Salmon River. Stream sediment monitoring on the Forest from 2009 found that Little North Fork Salmon River (a managed stream) had a sediment indicator meeting reference conditions; however, stream sediment and turbidity are expected to increase as a result of increased erosion after the Salmon Complex fire until the landscape recovers. 13

17 Stream shade measured in 2011 showed the existing percentage of shade in the watershed at 91% with human-caused reduction in shade at 1.5% (USFS, 2011). Stream temperature is expected to increase and stream shade is expected to decrease because of the Salmon River Complex. As provided in the 2013 USFS report, [t]he 85 th percentile was selected to represent conditions that fully support beneficial uses based on the judgment of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sediment statistics for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River are shown in table 5 below. Table 5. Sediment statistics for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and the 85 th percentile reference conditions are as follows: Stream Lower Little North Fork Salmon River Reference Streams (85 th Percentile) Pool sediment V* Surface sediment <2mm (%) Subsurface sediment <6.35 mm (%) Subsurface sediment <0.85mm (%) Temperature Stream temperature monitoring on the KNF from 2011 found that Little North Fork Salmon River exceeded maximum weekly water temperature at 17.9⁰C. Stream temperatures warmer than 16⁰C are considered over the threshold in beneficial uses for core juvenile salmonids. Stream shade measured in 2011 showed existing percentage of shade in the watershed at 91% with human-caused reduction at 1.5% (USFS, 2012). Stream temperature is expected to increase and stream shade is expected to decrease because of the Salmon Complex fire. Riparian Condition The North Fork Salmon River watershed has a long history of mining and timber harvest resulting in altered vegetation and stream channels. Past timber harvest created a relatively dense road network throughout most of the 7 th -field watersheds. Table 6 lists the watershed road density of Forest Service system and existing roadbeds that were previously known as non-system roads as well as county and private roads. Table 6 does not include decommissioned or existing temporary logging roads. Approximately 12.4 percent of the road system is hydrologically connected. (previously known as non-system roads that are no longer available for motorized vehicle use per the July 29, 2010 Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision). Riparian vegetation is typical of the area and includes Douglas fir, white fir, western red cedar, alder, vine maple, dogwood, madrone, Indian rhubarb, and various ferns. Non-native blackberries may be present, particularly near the County Road. Tributaries within the project area are generally well-shaded, and moss may be present on rocks, logs, and other surfaces. As to be expected, wider streams like Little NF Salmon River exhibit less shade. The exact species composition of local vegetation includes elements of fire history, elevation, aspect, soils, and 14

18 microclimate; additional considerations include scouring resulting from historic mining practices, as well as natural processes such as flood (especially 1964). Table 6. Fifth-Field Watershed Road/ Water Summary 5 th -Field Watershed Name North Fork Salmon River Watershed Drainage Area (mile 2 ) Road Density (miles/mile 2 ) Relative Road Density in Streamcourse Hydrologic Riparian Reserves (%) (mile/mile 2 ) Hydrologic Connectivity 1 Sediment Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) are analyzed on the KNF using three models (see appendix B for detail on CWE methodology and appendix C for CWE results). The equivalent roaded area (ERA) methodology, a Region 5 standard, scales vegetative disturbances as being equivalent to a road. The threshold of concern (TOC), ranging from 4.5 to 17 percent, is the acceptable percent ERA within a particular watershed. The other two models predict sediment volume delivered to stream courses by surface soil erosion (USLE) and mass-wasting (GEO). A watershed s TOC is reached when model-predicted current (accelerated) sediment delivery exceeds background by 400 and 200 percent for USLE and GEO, respectively. Table 15 lists the project watersheds current risk ratios for the three models. USLE risk ratios are calculated by dividing accelerated sedimentation values due to surface sediment erosion by an inference point value of 400 percent. Accelerated sedimentation is figured as percent over background, which is calculated from current model-estimated sediment delivery less background divided by background values. GEO risk ratios are calculated by dividing accelerated sedimentation values due to mass-wasting by an inference point value of 200 percent. Accelerated sedimentation is figured as percent over background, which is calculated from current model-estimated sediment delivery less background divided by background values. ERA risk ratios are calculated by dividing ERA values by an inference point value equal to the Threshold of Concern. All of the risk ratios within the project are under TOC for all models except for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and Olsen Creek watersheds (table 15). The high levels in GEO include highly erosive soils, past logging/roading, and fires, including the 2013 Salmon River Wildfire complex. Peak and Base Flow Stream flow data is not available for this project. However, peak flows of various return intervals were estimated using USGS regression equations. Table 7 displays estimates of the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year discharges for six streams within the project area. Both peak and base flow are expected to increase due to the Salmon River Complex fire. See table 4 for increases in peak flow. 15

19 Table 7. Seventh-Field Watersheds Hydrology within the Project Area 7 th -Field Watershed Drainage Area (mi 2 ) Mean Annual Precip. (inches) 2-yr peakflow recurrence (cfs) 5-yr peakflow recurrence (cfs) 10 year peakflow recurrence (cfs) 25 year peakflow recurrence (cfs) 50-year peakflow recurrence (cfs) 100-year peakflow recurrence (cfs) Boulder Gulch Cronan Gulch Garden Gulch Kanaka Gulch Kelly Culvert Olsen Creek

20 Desired Condition The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1995) developed future desired conditions Forest-wide and in designated management areas. The Forest Service adopted the Aquatic Conservation Strategy for the Klamath National Forest (Forest Plan 4-6 and 4-7) and designated management area standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan to help achieve future desired conditions. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines #1-3 for best management practices (BMPs) help meet geologic, water, soil and air quality objectives (LMRP, p. 4-18). Important Riparian Reserves (MA-10, ) Standards and Guidelines are as follows: MA 10-2 identifying interim widths for Riparian Reserves MA to -20 fish and wildlife habitat management MA 10-42, -48 and -53 roads management MA 10-54, -55, to -64 vegetation management MA and -68 fire management The general forest-wide theme for the desired future condition of watersheds is that [h]igh quality water in Forest streams and rivers will continue to provide the medium for healthy riparian and aquatic habitats (Forest Plan, page 4-14). Watersheds in poor condition due to wildfire or legacy effects from land management will begin to respond to restoration practices. Important future desired conditions for Riparian Reserves are in the KNF Forest Plan (pp and 4-136). Desired conditions and management opportunities for Riparian Reserves and streams were identified in the North Fork Salmon River Ecosystem Analysis (USFS, 1995), as shown in table 8 below. Table 8. Project related management opportunities that would help move the North Fork Salmon River watershed towards desired condition Desired Condition Habitat is sufficient for sustainable populations of indigenous aquatic species. Fine sediment input, and accumulation are reduced to reference levels. Management Opportunity Promote and/or maintain vegetative growth, especially conifer, on burned land and on active landslides Delineation of Riparian Reserves continues through the project level planning Further refine delineation of Riparian Reserves at the project level to: a) Facilitate project planning while meeting Riparian Reserves objectives; b) Ensure location of Riparian Reserves in relation to project locations; and c) Validate both watershed level and Forest Plan level Riparian Reserve mapping. Project level Riparian Reserve delineation should be completed in areas where management activities are planned. 17

21 Desired Condition Tributaries continue to provide cold, high quality water and perennial connection to the North Fork Salmon River Riparian vegetation conditions along North Fork Salmon River and its tributaries, tributaries to the Klamath River, and the mainstem Klamath are at full potential Management Opportunity Design future management activities to maintain water quality, including suitable water temperatures. Protect mid to late seral stands from catastrophic wildfire. Insure the perennial connection of tributaries within North Fork Salmon River and smaller tributaries. Monitor crucial cold water streams. Restore native vegetation, especially conifers, in Riparian Reserves. Increase the conifer component in riparian stands. Maintain conifer growth in riparian reserves located in plantations harvested prior to the establishment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (usually along intermittent and in various plantations scattered throughout the analysis area, including those in LSRs). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 will not actively move existing conditions towards desired conditions. Most of the estimated 7,600 yd 3 of fill material contained in legacy sites will discharge into tributaries of North Fork Salmon River in the short- and long-term, resulting in adverse effects to water quality. Without treatment, legacy sites will continue to produce soil erosion and increase the potential for landslides near streams and within unstable areas. Some of the legacy sites have been repaired during the Burned Area Emergency Response implementation; however, 16 legacy sites remain within the project area. Alternative 1 will not repair any legacy sites; the remaining legacy sites will continue to degrade and negatively affect water quality without repair. Alternative 1 will not result in any short- or long-term improvements to watershed condition. Modeled risk ratios will slowly recover over time; stream sediment measured in response reaches is expected to remain the same or increase if untreated legacy sites continue to chronically or catastrophically fail over time. The burned riparian areas will be left to recover naturally. Areas that were burned with a moderate to high intensity lost their duff layer which provided protection from erosional processes, provided a supply of nutrients to the soil, and acted as a natural reserve of nutrients for long-term soil productivity. Stream temperatures may decrease, and shade increase, due to the growth of brush and re-sprouting of hardwoods, and due to the recruitment of large wood from the fire into the streams. Future fires will burn with higher intensities, which will delay recovery and further degrade watershed conditions. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects included analysis of the direct and indirect effects for the no action alternative described above combined with the existing condition and effects of reasonably 18

22 foreseeable future actions at the 5 th and 7 th field watershed scale. All of the risk ratios within the project are under TOC for all models except for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and Olsen Creek watersheds (table 9). The high levels in GEO include highly erosive soils, past logging/roading, and fires, including the 2013 Salmon River Complex fire. The risk ratio represents the cumulative disturbance and effect on landslide risk to the watersheds. The current condition risk ratios are elevated due to the 2013 wildfire. The Salmon Reforestation project proposes to prepare the sites and plant trees. This will increase reforestation rates, thereby speeding up the landslide risk recovery in the 7 th -field watersheds analyzed. The risk ratios will not be increased by the no action alternative combined with the Salmon Reforestation project. The Jess project does increase the landslide volume by less than 0.5% in Shiltos and Olsen Creek 7 th field watersheds. The model does not account for the project design features included in the project intended to minimize impacts to unstable lands and landslide risk. Given this, the increase is nominal and the project will not lead to any significant cumulative effects. Table 9. Cumulative Watershed Effects models (risk ratios) with no action alternative with future foreseeable actions by watershed with risk ratios over TOC in bold 7 th field Watershed name Lower Little NF Salmon River Olsen Creek-NF Salmon River Shiltos Creek-NF Salmon River 5 th Field Watershed Name Current Risk Ratio USLE 1 GEO 2 ERA NF Salmon River USLE risk ratios are calculated by dividing accelerated sedimentation values due to surface sediment erosion by an inference point value of 400 percent. Accelerated sedimentation is figured as percent over background, which is calculated from current model-estimated sediment delivery less background divided by background values. 2- GEO risk ratios are calculated by dividing accelerated sedimentation values due to mass-wasting by an inference point value of 200 percent. Accelerated sedimentation is figured as percent over background, which is calculated from current model-estimated sediment delivery less background divided by background values. 3- ERA risk ratios are calculated by dividing ERA values by an inference point value equal to the Threshold of Concern (TOC) Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Beneficial Uses The proposed action will not affect beneficial uses which include sediment delivery to streams, temperature, peak and base flow, riparian condition, and channel condition. Beneficial uses are expected to degrade due to the Salmon River Complex fire, not from the proposed action. No 19

23 salvage operations are proposed inside hydrologic Riparian Reserves but salvage operations will occur within geologic Riparian Reserves; see Geology Report for details. There will be no fuels treatments within hydrologic Riparian Reserves. There are two existing helicopter landings within Riparian Reserves that may potentially be used; however, neither requires removal of trees before use and there will be no direct effect to hydrologic Riparian Reserves (see Potential Helicopter Landings, within the project record). Some salvage units will overlap geographically with roadside hazard tree removal within the Hydrologic Riparian Reserves. Table 10 and figure 3 show the break down in types of treatment within Riparian Reserves. Table 10. Salmon Salvage Project by unit, unit size, treatment type, Riparian Reserve acreage, and other treatments Unit Acres Total acres of Riparian Reserves (Hydrologic & Geologic) Hazard abatement only (acres) Treatment Ground Skyline Helicopter Temp Road Access Unit X Unit X Unit X Unit X Unit X Unit X Yes Unit X Yes Unit X Unit X Unit X Unit X Unit X Unit X Yes Unit X Unit X Unit X Total Other Treatments Hazard Trees ~23 road miles treated -- 20

24 Figure 3. Salmon Salvage Project area with treatment units and Riparian Reserves. Highlighted Riparian Reserve segments include those within the hazard tree abatement corridor (red) and no treatment zones within salvage unit boundaries (black). Only portion of Project area with treatments is displayed. Legacy Sites As part of the Salmon Salvage Project legacy sites were identified as threats to water quality, in accordance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (Order No. R ). All sources of threats to water quality were evaluated including but not limited to: historic mining, old skid trails, unauthorized routes and forest system roads. During the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) process, many of the legacy sites were corrected along the 40N51 road between November and October, As part of that process, approximately 22 culverts were replaced or upgraded and 20 diversion potentials mitigated resulting in more than 27,000 cubic yards of road fill protected. The sites that still remain within the project area are on roads 40N42 and 40N39. These sites include two under-sized culverts, and 14 diversion potentials, resulting in 7,600 yards of road fill yet to be protected. As part of the project, the remaining sites will be prioritized and scheduled to be fixed. Figure 4 and table 11 below show the location and description of the remaining legacy sites. 21

25 Figure 4. Map of Remaining Legacy Sites within the Project Area Table 11. Remaining Legacy Sites within the Project Area Name Description Notes Mitigation 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Undersized Culvert On main stem Kelly Gulch, also a fish passage issue Install 100 yr. culvert, reduce fill 40N Diversion Potential Bottom Part of Rock Pit Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential/ Undersized Culvert Install 100 yr. culvert, reduce fill, install rolling dip 22

26 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Cross-Drain Culvert Relief Needs another culvert to reduce collection potential. Install Cross-drain relief culvert 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Fix diversion potential and reduce large fill volume Rolling Dip and reduce Large fill volume 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip 40N Diversion Potential Rolling Dip Cumulative Effects The elevated risk ratio does not significantly change for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River from alternative 1 (table 12), therefore the proposed action will not affect sediment regimes for those watersheds. All other watersheds are below the TOC. The cumulative effects of the proposed action result in greater improvements in watershed condition than alternative 1 because all potential sediment discharge sites (legacy sites) within the project area will be fixed which includes updating all culvert crossings to pass 100-yr. floods, fixing diversion potentials, and the reduction of large fills over culverts. The current condition risk ratios are elevated due to the 2013 wildfire. The Salmon Reforestation project proposes to prepare the sites and plant trees. This will increase reforestation rates, thereby speeding up the landslide risk recovery in the 7th field watersheds analyzed. The addition of the fire salvage and Salmon Reforestation activities increase the risk ratios by 0.09 for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and 0.06 for Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River. The Jess project does increase the landslide volume by less than 0.5% in Shiltos and Olsen Creek 7th field watersheds. The model does not account for the project design features included in the project intended to minimize impacts to unstable lands and landslide risk. Given this, the increase is nominal and the project will not lead to any significant cumulative effects. 23

27 Table 12. Alternative 2 s influence on cumulative watershed effects risk ratios (numbers in parentheses indicate the increase in risk ratio from no action). The increases in risk ratio do not account for Legacy Site repairs. Risk Ratio after treatments (Increase in Risk Ratio) 7 th field Watershed name Lower Little NF Salmon River Olsen Creek-NF Salmon River Shiltos Creek-NF Salmon River 5 th Field Watershed Name NF Salmon River USLE 1 GEO 2 ERA (0.04) 0.55 (0.02) 0.68 (0.04) 0.21 (0.01) 1.05 (0.09) 1.73 (0.06) 0.67 (0.11) 0.60 (0.02) 0.34 (0.09) 0.30 (0.05) 0.16 (0.08) 0.20 (0.01) Future foreseeable Federal actions include (1) Salmon Reforestation; (2) Jess Vegetation Management; and (3) Yellow Jacket Thinning and Fuel Break. Within the Project area, a future foreseeable federal action is the Salmon Reforestation project. Analysis was underway at the time of this document. This project is expected to have a decision signed in mid-2014, with implementation concurrent with the Salmon Salvage Project. Proposed activities include replanting suitable areas within the Salmon Complex fire perimeter with conifer species, with a focus upon severely burned plantations. Where necessary, brush, undesirable hardwoods, and dead and dying conifers would be removed by hand to prepare sites for planting. The activities of the Salmon Reforestation project overlap with the Salmon Salvage project, but there will be no cumulative impact. Cumulative watershed effects modeling is insensitive to low impact activities such as site preparation and tree planting, especially, as is this case, everything will be done by hand. Overall, additive disturbance by the two projects, even where planting is proposed to occur within salvage units, is not expected given prescription differences. Furthermore, the Salmon Complex Reforestation project is expected to accelerate recovery from salvage logging and the Salmon Complex fire by revegetating the portions of the landscape faster than possible given local conditions and seed bed reserves. Adjacent to the Project area, a future foreseeable action is the Jess Vegetation Management project. Analysis was underway at the time of this document. This multi-year project is expected to have a decision signed in mid-2014, with implementation beginning that fall or in the year following. Proposed activities include variable-density thinning, pre-commercial thinning, pile burning and underburning, meadow restoration, legacy site repair, and water drafting. The Salmon Salvage Project and the Jess project intersect via the 7 th -field watersheds of Olsen Creek- NF Salmon River and Shiltos Creek-NF Salmon River. These watersheds are compound, 24

28 meaning they consist of drainages north and south of the NF Salmon River which do not physically connect to each other. The activities proposed by the Salmon Salvage Project minimally overlap with the Jess project. Both projects may utilize the same NF Salmon River drafting sites to attain water, but the overall use intensity is expected to be low, so there will be no additional impact to beneficial uses, sediment delivery to streams, changes in peak and base flow, changes in temperature, riparian condition, and channel condition/geomorphology. While there is no physical overlap of units, there will be overlap in affected 7 th -field watersheds, however, the overall effect to the CWE models from these two projects is minimal, and there will not be sufficient cumulative effect to exceed model thresholds in the shared drainages, nor amplify metrics already over threshold. The CWE modeling for the Salmon Salvage project took into account the addition of the Jess project. As presented in table 13 with the model effects of the Jess project removed, there is very little change in CWE output, and nothing sufficiently additive to be discernable over background variability or impact from the Salmon River Complex fire. Table 13. Comparison of CWE model outputs of shared 7 th -field drainages baseline, Salmon Salvage with all future activities, and Salmon Salvage without Jess project Drainage Olsen Creek-NF Salmon River Shiltos Creek-NF Salmon River Baseline Salvage Project (with all future activities) Salvage Project (without Jess) ERA USLE GEO ERA USLE GEO ERA USLE GEO A third foreseeable Federal action with in the Project area is the Yellow Jacket Thinning and Fuel Break. Implementation is currently on-hold due to the Salmon Complex fire burning through the project area. Furthermore, suppression activities during the fire included the bulldozing of control lines along the ridge where the project s shaded fuel break was planned; and some post-fire salvage and replanting activities (Salmon Salvage; Salmon Complex Reforestation) are occurring within units associated with the Yellow Jacket project. Therefore, the Yellow Jacket project is currently undergoing re-evaluation. It is near certain that the Salmon Salvage project, except for legacy repair in Kelly Gulch, will be fully implemented before the Yellow Jacket project is redesigned. Without an updated project description, consideration of cumulative effects cannot be determined; and by the time the Yellow Jacket project is reevaluated, Salmon Salvage will have become part of the baseline, existing environment. Finally, while past events within the Project area e.g., mining, timber harvest, road building, grazing, flood, fire to the existing condition, this Project will not produce an additive effect. In summary, there will be minimal cumulative impacts from future foreseeable actions. Where there is spatial or temporal overlap of projects currently undergoing implementation, they have already been accounted for in the existing environment. Where future actions do overlap with the Jess Vegetation Management Project, there will be insufficient additive impact to adversely affect anadromous salmonids, Forest Service Sensitive species, or Management Indicator Species. 25

29 Compliance with law, regulation, and policy The intent of the Clean Water Act is met on National Forest System land by complying with water quality standards developed by the State of California, as authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act of The Porter- Cologne Act, California s corresponding state law, assigns responsibility for protection of water quality within North Coast watersheds to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). The NCRWQCB implements and enforces the Porter-Cologne Act, and the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin (Basin Plan). Water quality objectives are outlined in the Basin Plan. The primary purpose for maintaining water quality is to assure that the beneficial uses of water are not adversely affected. When water quality objectives are met, and beneficial uses protected, then the State considers that a project meets water quality standards. The Forest Service entered into a Management Agency Agreement (1981) with the NCRWQCB and State of California requiring the Forest Service to institute a water quality management program to meet applicable water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses. Under the agreement, implementation of State-approved and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- certified best management practices (BMPs) are considered sufficient to protect water quality from non-point sources of pollution (USFS, 2000). Compliance with the Clean Water Act and the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan are achieved by meeting the conditions of the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands (NCRWQCB Order No. R ; 2010 Waiver). Compliance with the conditions of the waiver also constitutes compliance with the sediment, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient requirements of the Klamath TMDL. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Legacy site repair is the same for alternative 2. Most activities required to support salvage harvest, such as landing and temporary road reconstruction, would no longer be required, although water drafting for dust abatement may still occur. Shading A Solar Pathfinder was used along Hydrologic Riparian Reserves adjacent to roads to measure current shade compared to estimated shade after hazard tree harvest. Solar Pathfinder measurements were conducted on February 21 st and 27 th, 2014 to evaluate the potential impact to stream shade due to hazard tree removal within the project. Fifty-one sites were measured and only six showed a measureable reduction in shade. For the six sites identified, only two showed a reduction in shade to less than 80% after salvage tree harvest. Both sites are small ephemeral channels with the total extent of reduction less than one-hundred feet of channel. The first site is on road 40N42 near road mile 2.7 and has an estimated reduction from 90% to 65% over forty feet of channel. The second site is on road 40N33 near road mile 0.3 and has an estimated reduction from 83% to 75% over twenty feet of channel. Both sites will not contribute to stream temperature increases due to the ephemeral nature of the streams. Although the other four sites measured had a reduction in shade, it was not less than 80% with the hazard tree removal. 26

30 Stream temperatures on the KNF are highest during summer months when the ephemeral streams will be dry, therefore, they will not have any effects to stream temperatures downstream. Figure 5. Results of Solar Pathfinder Survey for Hazard Trees Cumulative Effects Alternative 3 will have less ground disturbance than alternative 2 which is reflected in the CWE models (table 14). There will be no significant effects to water quality because the models either remain below the critical threshold or do not contribute to existing over-threshold risks. The current condition risk ratios are elevated due to the 2013 wildfire. The Salmon Reforestation project proposes to prepare the sites and plant trees. This will increase reforestation rates, thereby speeding up the landslide risk recovery in the 7th field watersheds analyzed. The addition of the fire salvage and Salmon Reforestation activities increase the risk ratios by 0.09 for Lower Little North Fork Salmon River and 0.06 for Olsen Creek-North Fork Salmon River. The Jess project does increase the landslide volume by less than 0.5% in Shiltos and Olsen Creek 7th field watersheds. The model does not account for the project design features included in the project intended to minimize impacts to unstable lands and landslide risk. Given this, the increase is nominal and the project will not lead to any significant cumulative effects. All other watersheds are below the TOC. 27