Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project

Fisheries Biological Assessment/Evaluation 

Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project 

Hayfork Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

USDA Forest Service Region 5 

Klamath Province 

Prepared by: John Lang 

Date: June 13, 2005 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Fisheries Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project 

ESA Biological Assessment for Section 7 Consultation 

{Note: acronyms used on this page are clarified elsewhere in the text} 

PROJECT NAME: Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration 

ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT: Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

South Fork Management Unit 

Hayfork and Yolla-Bolla Ranger Districts 

FOURTH FIELD WATERSHED: South Fork Trinity River 

FIFTH FIELD WATERSHED: Hidden Valley 

SEVENTH FIELD WATERSHEDS: Cave Creek-Swift Creek 

Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 

Miller Springs 

McClellen-South Fork Trinity River 

Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 

Wintoon Flat-Deep Gulch 

WATERSHED ANALYSIS: Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek & Rattlesnake Creek, 2001. 

NEPA DOCUMENTATION: Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration EA, 2005 

ESA SPECIES CONSIDERED: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ESU 

ESA CRITICAL HABITAT 

CONSIDERED: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ESU 

ESA DETERMINATIONS: May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon 

MSFCMA DETERMINATIONS: Will Not Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest – South Fork Management Unit – June 13, 2005 - 2


Executive Summary 

The Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project proposes the following road treatments and closures: 

1) 41.1 miles of system road decommissioning/recontouring, permanent removal of an estimated 92 

culverts, and 120,400 cubic yards of fill from stream crossings; 2) 5.5 miles of road hydro-closure 

(hydrologically disconnecting the road but it will be available for future use) and permanent removal of 

and/or installation of critical dips at approximately 20 stream crossings (up to 8,200 cubic yards of fill 

removed); 3) 60.5 miles of road upgrade including enlarging approximately 114 culverts to pass a 100 

year flow event; 4) 0.3 miles of road realignment; 5) imposing annual closure on 3.2 miles of road. All 

road treatments would intersect non-fish bearing streams. Four culverts would be removed from perennial 

non-fish bearing channels, the remaining 222 removed or upgraded culverts intersect intermittent non-fish 

bearing channels. All work activities will occur during periods of minimal surface flow. The Project may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, their 

critical habitat or Essential Fish Habitat. The Project would not cause a trend towards Federal listing of 

Forest Sensitive fish. 

The Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project would be implemented over ten years within the 

bounds of limiting operating periods for northern spotted owl and wet weather. Road miles treated per 

year would depend on the number and size of crossings encountered, and funding. Based on miles/year 

accomplished in past Forest Service projects on the South Fork Management Unit, 3 to 5 miles of road 

decommissioning can be accomplished per year. Hydro-closure, culvert upgrades/dip construction and 

realignment would occur concurrently. 

Project activities would directly affect non-fish bearing streams and indirectly affect critical habitat/EFH. 

The Project will have insignificant negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate in critical habitat/EFH due 

to summer thunderstorm activity. Slightly elevated turbidity levels are expected to result near the mouth of 

source creeks for a period of 1 to 2 hours and become diluted to immeasurable levels within a few 

hundred feet downstream. The Project will have insignificant negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate 

in critical habitat/EFH due to post-implementation channel adjustment. The amount of sediment input 

caused by Project activities will not increase significantly above background levels in the SFTR. The 

Project will have no negative (0) effects to turbidity and substrate in critical habitat/EFH due to erosion 

from decommission road prisms. Due to the relatively high background erosion, the additive effects of all 

project elements (road upgrade, realignment and rehabilitation) in critical habitat/EFH are not expected to 

result in turbidity levels significantly elevated above background levels. 

Analysis of the effects of the Project Elements on the habitat indicators has found that negative effects 

are of sufficient probability (discountable) and magnitude (insignificant) to affect SONCC coho salmon 

and its critical habitat. Therefore, the effects determination for the Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration 

Project is “May affect, not likely to adversely affect” SONCC ESU coho salmon or their critical habitat. 


that are of sufficient probability (discountable) and magnitude (insignificant) to affect Essential Fish 

Habitat. This Project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. In addition, The Project would not 

lead to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability of Forest Sensitive species. 


I. Introduction 


The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) would apply the USDA Forest Service Roads Analysis 

Process (RAP) (USDA Forest Service 1999) and Watershed Analysis (WA) recommendations (pages 6-1 

to 6-2, in Foster-Wheeler 2001) to reduce road-related erosion and sediment delivery to streams in the 

Hidden Valley Watershed and South Fork Trinity River (SFTR). The purpose of this Biological 

Assessment/Evaluation (BA/BE) is to review the Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration project (Project) in 

sufficient detail to determine if the actions may affect any endangered, threatened, proposed or candidate 

fish species, which may be in the Project area or affected by activities occurring within the Project area. 

The BA/BE is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA [19 

U.S.C. 1536 (c)], and follows the standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 

2672.42). 

The Hidden Valley assessment area is located on the Hayfork Ranger District of the STNF in T1N R6E, 

T1S R7E, T1N R7E, T1S R8E, T3N R7E, T2N R7E, T2N R6E, T3N R6E, Humboldt Meridian. The area is 

located west of Forest Glen, between the South Fork Mountain ridge and the SFTR, and south of 

Hyampom and is an estimated fourteen air miles west of Hayfork, California. 

Supporting documents to this BA/BE are attached and include the following: 

Appendix A: National Fire Plan ESA Compliance Statement 

Appendix B: Road treatment by road, approximate distance to CH and EFH, miles affected, 

culverts excavated, and estimate of the total volume (yards 3 ). 

Appendix C: Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Appendix D: Checklists for 5 th Field Watersheds within the action area 

This document addresses the following species and habitats: 

Threatened 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) ESU coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Designated Critical Habitat 

SONCC ESU coho salmon 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Coho salmon 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

STNF Forest Service Sensitive Species as of April 26, 2004. 

Upper Klamath/Trinity Chinook (UKTR) ESU-spring run (O. tshawytscha) 

Upper Trinity River Chinook (UTR) ESU-fall run (O. tshawytscha) 

Klamath Mountain Province Steelhead (KMP) ESU (O. mykiss) 

McCloud River redband trout (O. mykiss stonei) 

Rough Sculpin (Cottus asperrimus Rutter) 

Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus) 


Threatened 


The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publicly announced its status finding and intent to propose 

SONCC ESU coho salmon as threatened under ESA on July 19, 1995. Its finding on SONCC ESU coho 

salmon was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38011). NMFS made a final 

decision to list the SONCC ESU coho salmon as threatened under ESA on April 25 1997. Their finding 

was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588). 

Critical Habitat 

In the May 5, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 24049-24062), NMFS announced designation of Critical 

Habitat (CH) for the SONCC ESU coho Salmon. The notice defined critical habitat as follows: 

“Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape 

Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent 

riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches (including off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and 

counties identified in Table 6 of this part [includes the SFTR in Trinity County]. Accessible reaches are 

those within the historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied by any life stage of coho salmon. 

Inaccessible reaches are those above specific dams identified in Table 6 of this part or above 

longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e. natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred 

years).” No dams or barriers were identified on the SFTR. (NMFS 1999, 64 FR 24061). 

The “adjacent riparian zone” was defined in the preamble to the Critical Habitat Designation as follows: 

“…Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the area adjacent to a stream that provides the 

following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and input of 

large woody debris or organic matter.” (NMFS 1999, 64 FR 24055). 

The reach of SONCC ESU coho salmon critical habitat includes the reach of the SFTR adjacent to, and 

downstream of, the Project area. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act (MSFCMA), as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-297), requires all Federal agencies to consult with 

NMFS on all actions or proposed actions (permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency) that may 

adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and 

substrate necessary to commercially important fish, including various Pacific salmon species, for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. In addition to their listing under the ESA, coho 

salmon (O. kisutch) are also managed by NMFS under the MSFCMA, which prompts an EFH consultation 

in addition to an ESA consultation. Similarly, EFH consultation is required for Chinook salmon habitat, 

even if they are not listed under ESA. EFH consultation is being consolidated with ESA consultation 

based upon the NMFS finding that the ESA Section 7 consultation process used by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture – Forest Service (FS) can be used to satisfy the EFH consultation. In this regard, this 

BA/BE is also the EFH assessment of the action. 

Forest Sensitive Species 

The Sensitive Species Program is developed to meet obligations under the ESA, the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) and our national policy direction as stated in the FS Manual section 2670, and 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4. The Sensitive Species Program is our proactive 

approach to conserving species to prevent a trend toward listing under the ESA and assists in providing 

for a diversity of plant and animal communities [16 U.S.C. 1604(g) (3) (B)] as part of our multiple use 

mandate and to maintain "viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species in the 

planning area " as required by NFMA (36 CFR 219.19). An analysis of the potential effects of a proposed 

project on sensitive species is documented in this BA/BE. The following FS Sensitive fish species do not 



occur in the action area and will not be affected by activities occurring within the action area and 

therefore, will not be addressed: 

McCloud River redband trout 

Rough sculpin 

Hardhead 

ESA Consultation 

The Alternative Consultation Agreement (ACA) was prepared pursuant to the Joint Counterpart 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation Regulations issued on December 8, 2003 

(Federal Register, pages 68254-68265), to support implementation of the ESA. The counterpart 

regulations complement the general consultation regulations at 50 CFR 402 by providing an alternative 

process for completing section 7 consultations for Federal agency actions that authorize, fund, or carry 

out projects that support the National Fire Plan (NFP). The purpose of the counterpart regulations is to 

enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the consultation process under section 7 of the ESA for NFP 

projects by providing an optional alternative to the procedures found in §§ 402.13 and 402.14(b) when the 

Forest Service determines a project is “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) any listed species or 

designated critical habitat. Implementation of the counterpart regulations and this ACA is expected to 

maintain the same level of protection for threatened and endangered species and designated critical 

habitat as under 50 CFR Part 402, Subpart B. It is expected that projects with NLAA determinations by 

the Forest Service would have been considered to be NLAA determinations by the NOAA Fisheries. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The main purpose of this project is to improve the watershed condition of the Hidden Valley and SFTR 

watersheds by reducing overland flow diversion, road surface erosion, and mass failure potential through 

removal and maintenance of roads within the project area. This project is needed to help meet land 

management goals and objectives by reducing the amount of sediment entering the SFTR. The SFTR is 

water quality impaired due to excess sediment associated with poor road drainage and failure, and is 

critical habitat for the threatened coho salmon. 

The purpose and need has been developed through recommendations identified in the Hidden Valley, 

Plummer, and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis (September 2001), Hidden Valley Watershed 

Restoration RAP (February 2005), and through guidance and land allocation decisions provided by the 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the STNF (USDA Forest Service, 1995). 

Proposed activities would occur within a Key Watershed, and lands allocated for Late-successional 

Reserve, Adaptive Management Area and Matrix. 

Key Watersheds: 

The Forest Plan objective for Key Watershed lands is to provide high quality fish habitat. Key watersheds 

are also the highest priority for watershed restoration (USDA Forest Service, 1995. Page 4-161). 

Adaptive Management Areas (AMA): 

The Forest Plan objectives for AMA lands are to operate and maintain the minimum transportation system 

necessary to provide access for dispersed recreation opportunities, grazing allotments, future vegetation 

management activities, and fire suppression access, while minimizing potential adverse effects. 

Additional objectives are to reduce the potential for cumulative watershed effects, and provide for 

watershed restoration activities that will close or obliterate and stabilize roads based upon current and 

potential risks to attaining Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. Reconstruction of roads and 

associated drainage features that pose a substantial risk to aquatic organisms also meets ACS objectives 

(USDA Forest Service, 1995. Page 4-55). 



The project would eliminate vehicle access to a known “poaching” area (decommission to trail) in an effort 

to safe guard congregating spring-run Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. 

Restoration road work would reduce controllable erosion and mass failure associated with Forest roads 

by decommissioning and removing roads from the Forest roads network and reducing road maintenance 

obligations. ‘Stored roads’ (hydroclosure) will be available for future use; however, the roadbed will be 

kept in a state of reduced hydrologic connection. Upgrade present road drainage features or realign an 

existing road to make it less susceptible to erosion. Restrict vehicle travel during winter months allowing 

seasonal access only. 

On Late-Successional Reserve lands, the needs are: 

The Forest Plan objectives are to design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that 

is consistent with Late-Successional Reserve objectives (USDA Forest Service, 1995. Page 4-40). “Road 

construction in Late-Successional Reserves for silvicultural, salvage and other activities generally is not 

recommended unless potential benefits exceed the costs of habitat impairment. If new roads are 

necessary to implement a practice that is otherwise in accordance with these guidelines, they will be kept 

to a minimum, be routed through non-late-successional habitat where possible, and be designed to 

minimize adverse impacts” (USDA Forest Service, 1995. Page 4-39). 

The project will also realign a short length of access road to a private parcel that is surrounded by 

National Forest. 



II. Description of Proposed Action and ESA Action A Area 

Through the Roads Analysis Process, the Forest has identified approximately 120 miles of road treatment 

opportunities in the Hidden Valley 5 th Field Watershed. Roads are diverting stream flow, eroding soil, and 

delivering sediment to stream systems. Treatments include decommissioning, hydroclosure, upgrade, 

realignment, and annual closure (Table 1). 

Table 1. Project treatments. 

Road Treatment Type Miles 

Decommission to trail 3.1 

Decommission 38.0 

Hydroclosure 5.5 

Upgrade 60.5 

Realignment 0.3 

Annual Closure 3.2 

Total Road Treatment Length 119.9 

The USDA Forest Service, STNF, South Fork Management Unit, proposes to implement watershed 

restoration activities as described in Alternative 3 of the NEPA document. The following “Actions” 

summarize Alternative 3: 

Actions 

Decommission 

Approximately 92 culverts are identified for permanent removal on 41.1 miles of proposed road 

decommissioning (Table 2). 



Table 2. Alternative 3 road decommission 

summary, road identification and length. 

Road ID Road Length 

(miles) 

1S01 2.4 

1S01A 1.9 

1S01B 0.9 

1N05C 1.4 

1N11 0.3 

1N11A 0.3 

1N11B 1.5 

1N11C 0.7 

1N11D 0.7 

1N11F 0.3 

1N24 2.7 

1N24A 0.9 

1N24B 1.5 

1N24C 2.2 

1N24F 0.4 

1S07 0.3 

1S10 0.5 

1S11 3.0 

1S14F 0.3 

1S16 1.0 

1S23A 1.2 

1S23B 0.8 

1S26C 0.3 

1S36 0.6 

1S36A 0.3 

2N10M 0.6 

2N26A 0.3 

2N27 3.3 


(miles) 

2N36A 0.6 

3N19A 0.4 

3N19B 0.8 

3N19C 0.9 

3N19D 0.7 

3N26 0.6 

U1N05E 2.1 

U1N11EA 0.2 

U1N11EB 0.1 

U1N24E 0.2 

U1N24G 0.2 

U1N24H 0.3 

U1N24J 0.1 

U1S02A 0.1 

U1S04A 0.4 

U1S06A 0.2 

U1S30 0.6 

U2N36B 0.2 

U3N16B 0.2 

U3N19C 0.1 

U3N19CA 0.2 

U3N19CB 0.2 

U3N19CC 0.1 

U3N19F 0.1 

U3N19G 0.1 

U4N12C 0.7 

UV1S14F 0.4 

UV1S14FA 0.1 

Total 

Length = 

41.1 

Decommissioning a road involves one or more of the following restorative actions: 

Remove all culverts and cross-drains; 

Pull back road fill into the road cut. Out-slope and compact the excavated material to restore a 

more natural drainage pattern; 

Rip, outslope and/or install rolling dips on the road prism to restore a more natural route of 

drainage and accommodate dispersal/settling of sediment; 

Subsoil (or till) to road prism, seed and mulch. This activity will not occur in areas prone to exotic 

weeds; 

Retain a 36-inch foot path where the road is decommissioned to trail. The trail will follow the 

contour of the drainage to a convenient crossing point. No foot bridge construction is proposed. 

The terminal end of the road (new trailhead) may be widened to accommodate turn-around needs 

for vehicles pulling horse trailers; 

Create an earthen-berm at the start of the road or decommissioned road segment. 


Hydroclosure 


Approximately 20 culverts are identified for permanent removal or upgraded to accommodate 100 year 

peak flows and associated debris loads on 5.5 miles of proposed road hydroclosure. The road segment 

will be closed to vehicles on a long-term basis, and is stored for future use with minimal maintenance 

needs. 

Table 3. Alternative 3 road and hydroclosure summary by road identification. 


(miles) 

1S11 3.1 

1S13 2.4 

Total Length = 5.5 

Prior to hydroclosure, the road will be prepared to avoid future maintenance needs; the road will be left in 

an ”erosion-resistant” condition and may have one or more of the following actions taken: 

Armoring of stream-road crossings; 

Construction of critical dips; road fill pulled back into the road cut. Out-slope the excavated material 

to restore a more natural drainage pattern and reduce the potential of future crossing failure. 

Existing culverts may or may not be removed; 

Apply appropriate erosion control methods, including installing water bars where applicable; 

Create an earthen-berm or install a gate to effectively close the road from vehicle use. The road will 

be available for future use, however, with minor maintenance and will not be removed from the FS 

transportation system. 

If a culvert fails (plugs with debris, runoff exceeds the culvert capacity, etc.) critical dips are designed to 

funnel the water flowing over the road prism into the channel directly downstream of the road, and 

prevent the water from diverting down the road onto an unchanneled hillslope or into another drainage. 

Road fill at the critical dips may erode when a culvert fails, but the magnitude of the erosion should be 

much less than if the runoff diverted down the road to another location, where it can cause gullies or road 

failure. 

Upgrade 

Approximately 114 culverts will be upgraded on 60.5 miles of system road to accommodate Q100 flows 

and associated debris loads (Table 4). 



Table 4. Alternative 3 road upgrade summary by road identification. 

Road ID Road Length (miles) 

1N11 4.5 

1N20 0.3 

1N24 7.1 

1N24D 0.5 

1S01 3.4 

1S02 0.7 

1S03 0.1 

1S04 3.9 

1S05 2.5 

1S06 1.7 

1S12 1.4 

1S15 0.6 

1S20 0.1 

2N25 3.5 

3N10 10.3 

3N19 3.7 

3N30 3.1 

4N12 11.2 

4N12D 0.7 

6N01M 0.2 

U1N24I 0.6 

U6N01M 0.1 

Totals = 60.5 

A road upgrade may have one or more of the following actions: 

Grading and spot rocking the surface; 

Establishing cross-drains, installing waterbars and drainage dips; 

Installing stand pipes, placing splash aprons below culvert outlets, upsizing culverts, and adding 

drainage relief culverts; 

Road Realignment: Road spur 2N24E provides road access to private property. Presently an 

unclassified (UC) road, the access road is steep and rutted and delivers controllable sediment to the 

SFTR. The treatment would realign the road to better conform to topography and reduce erosion. The old 

UC road would then be decommissioned. 

Annual Closure: Restricts vehicle travel between October 31, and May 1. Restriction accomplished by 

installing a lockable gate. 

U-Roads: Unclassified roads are identified by systematic road inventories as part of the Forest Plan or 

specific projects. Depending on the type of road, they are either added to the FS transportation system or 

removed. 

Project Design Standards 

Permanent Culvert Removal 

Isolation of in-water work area shall be conducted in the following manner: 

Temporarily divert flow around the work area. Divert flow with structures such as cofferdams 

constructed with sandbags or straw bales. 



The temporary bypass pipes must be sized large enough to accommodate the predicted peak flow 

rate during construction. 

Pump water from the de-watered work area into a vegetated area sufficient to filter sediment prior 

to it entering the stream channel. 

Reconstruct the stream channel within the area formerly occupied by the culvert in a manner that 

reflects natural bankfull and floodplain dimensions. 

Excavate channel, bank, and floodplain contours and haul material off-site, or incorporate into the 

road prism as outsloped material. 

Culvert Upgrade 

All of the steps stated for culvert removal will apply to culvert upgrades with the following changes: 

Existing culverts will be replaced with the new culvert appropriately sized for its location in the 

drainage. In most cases this will result in the installation of a larger diameter culvert. 

Fill material will reincorporated and compacted into the crossing. However, due to soil expansion or 

use of a larger diameter culvert, excess fill material will be incorporated on to the existing road. 

Project roads were summarized by approximate distance to CH/EFH ( 0.75 miles), treatment type, road length affected, the number of culverts affected, estimated fill volume 

removed or disturbed, and an estimate erosion post excavation due to channel readjustment (Table 5). 

For culvert upgrades, fill estimates are an estimated measure of disturbance. 

Table 5. Summary of Proposed Action and an estimate of short-term erosion (yards 3 ). 

Est Fill Short-term erosion 

Proximity to CH/EFH Treatment Road Length (miles) Stream-xings (yd3) (max) (yds3) 1 

0.10 mi Decommission 1.8 4 1,000 36 

0.25-0.75 mi Decommission 21.7 64 95,849 1,247 

>0.75 mi Decommission 17.7 24 23,580 431 

Subtotal 41.2 92 120,429 1,714 


Proximity to CH/EFH Treatment Road Length (miles) Stream-xings (yd3) (max) (yds3) 1 

0.75 mi Hydro-close 2.4 8 4,000 63 

Subtotal 5.5 20 8,200 128 


Proximity to CH/EFH Treatment Road Length (miles) Stream-xings (yd3) (max) (yds3) 

0.10 mi Upgrade 0.1 0 0 0 

0.25-0.75 mi Upgrade 21.0 43 6,650 6 

>0.75 mi Upgrade 39.3 71 10,650 8 

Subtotal 60.4 114 17,300 14 


Proximity to CH/EFH Treatment Road Length (miles) Stream-xings (yd3) (max) (yds3) 

0.75 mi Realign 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Subtotal 0.3 0.0 0 0 

1 Estimates of erosion derived from the methodology in Madej et al (2001). 



Project Implementation 

In general, northern spotted owl (NSO) and wet weather Limited Operating Periods (LOP) will determine 

the operating window for on the ground disturbance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has excluded 

roads 1S01A, 1S01B, and 1S11 from a July 10th LOP, therefore these roads will be subject to the May 15 

to October 15 Forest Service LOP. All other roads will be under a NSP and wet weather LOP (July 11 to 

October 15). Project activities may extend past October 15 if weather forecasts do not anticipate 

significant precipitation, or if leaving a project site unfinished will result in a greater risk of sediment 

delivery to streams. A significant rain forecast is 1-inch expected in a 24 hour period. 

The number of road miles that can be treated in a given year is largely dependant on the size and number 

of crossing in a given mile of road. Project implementation is expected to begin July 11, 2005, and 

continue for approximately 10 years within the constraints of the LOPs. 

Erosion Control and Best Management Practices (BMP) 

An erosion control plan is required by the contractor and approved by the Forest Service. Appendix C 

provides a list of applicable BMPs, an example of areas covered and the authorities for ensuring that 

BMPs are implemented. 

ESA Action Area 

For the purpose of ESA consultation the action area includes the Hidden Valley subwatershed (HUC 

1801021202) from Forest Glen down stream to Pelletreau Creek, and the Cave Creek 7 th field 

subwatershed (HUC 18010212020105) which is a small subwatershed in the Plummer Creek 5 th field 

watershed. (See Project Map, available on the Forest Service web page 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/documents/st-main/projects/ea/sfmu/hidden-valley-05/alt3-mapcontours.pdf). 



III. Species Accounts 

Coho Salmon 

The following excerpts for SONCC coho salmon was taken from Chapter 2 in the CDFG publication 

“Recovery strategy for California coho salmon, Report to the California Fish and Game Commission” 

(CDFG 2004). Note: Figure 2 (coho distribution on the STNF) was inserted by the Forest Service. 

“Coho salmon are now found in less than 60% of the SONCC Coho ESU streams that were historical coho 

salmon streams. However, these declines appear to have occurred prior to the late 1980s and the data do 

not support a significant decline in distribution between the late 1980s and the present. Some streams in 

this ESU have lost one or more brood-year lineages. The major stream systems within the California 

portion of the SONCC Coho ESU still contain coho salmon populations, although many tributaries may 

have missing runs. Department analysis of the SONCC data when grouped (1986 to 1991 vs. 1995 to 

2000) indicates that the decline is not statistically significant, whereas the NOAA Fisheries analysis of the 

ungrouped data (1989 to 2000) indicates that the decline in the northern ESU is significant. 

Because of the decline in distribution prior to the 1980s, together with the possibility of a severe reduction 

in distribution as indicated by the field surveys and the downward trend of most abundance indicators, the 

Department believes that coho salmon populations in the California portion of this ESU will likely become 

endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of the protection and management. 

Life History 

Adult coho salmon enter fresh water from September through January in order to spawn. In the short 

coastal streams of California, migration usually begins between mid-November and mid-January (Baker 

and Reynolds 1986). Coho salmon move upstream after heavy rains have opened the sand bars that form 

at the mouths of many California coastal streams, but may enter larger rivers earlier. On the Klamath 

River, coho salmon begin entering in early to mid-September and reach a peak in late September to early 

October. On the Eel River, adult coho salmon return four to six weeks later than on the Klamath River 

(Baker and Reynolds 1986). Arrival in the upper reaches of these streams generally peaks in November 

and December. Timing varies by stream and/or flow (Neave 1943; Brett and MacKinnon 1954; Ellis 1962) 

(Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Calendar indicating the seasonal presence of coho salmon in California coastal watersheds 

(Adapted from CDFG 2004). 

Generally, coho salmon spawn in smaller streams than do Chinook salmon. In California, spawning occurs 

mainly from November to January, although it can extend into February or March if drought conditions are 

present (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). In the Klamath and Eel rivers, spawning occurs in November and 

December (USFWS 1979). Shapovalov and Taft (1954) note that females usually choose spawning sites 

near the head of a riffle, just below a pool, where the water changes from a laminar to a turbulent flow and 

there is a medium to small gravel substrate. 



In California, eggs incubate in the gravels from November through April. The incubation period is inversely 

related to water temperature. California coho salmon eggs hatch in about forty-eight days at 48°F, and 

thirty-eight days at 51.3°F (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). After hatching, the alevins (hatchlings) are 

translucent in color (Shapovalov and Taft 1954; Laufle et al.1986; Sandercock 1991). This is the coho 

salmon’s most vulnerable life stage, during which they are susceptible to siltation, freezing, gravel scouring 

and shifting, desiccation, and predation (Sandercock 1991; Knutson and Naef 1997; Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council [PFMC] 1999). Alevins remain in the interstices of the gravel for two to ten weeks 

until their yolk sacs have been absorbed, at which time their color changes to that more characteristic of fry 

(Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Laufle et al. 1986, Sandercock 1991). The fry are silver to golden with large, 

vertical, oval, dark parr marks along the lateral line that are narrower than the spaces between them. 

Fry emerge from the gravel between March and July, with peak emergence occurring from March to May, 

depending on when the eggs were fertilized and the water temperature during development (Shapovalov 

and Taft 1954). They seek out shallow water, usually moving to the stream margins, where they form 

schools. As the fish feed heavily and grow, the schools generally break up and individual fish set up 

territories. At this stage, the fish are termed parr (juveniles). As the parr continue to grow and expand their 

territories, they move progressively into deeper water until July and August, when they inhabit the deepest 

pools (CDFG 1994a). This is the period when water temperatures are highest, and growth slows 

(Shapovalov and Taft 1954). Food consumption and growth rate decrease during the winter months of 

highest flows and coldest temperatures (usually December to February). By March, parr again begin to 

feed heavily and grow rapidly. 

Rearing areas used by juvenile coho salmon are low-gradient coastal streams, lakes, sloughs, side 

channels, estuaries, low-gradient tributaries to large rivers, beaver ponds, and large slackwaters (PFMC 

1999). The most productive juvenile habitats are found in smaller streams with low-gradient alluvial 

channels containing abundant pools formed by large woody debris (LWD). Adequate winter rearing habitat 

is important to successful completion of coho salmon life history. After one year in fresh water, smolts 

begin migrating downstream to the ocean in late March or early April. In some years emigration can begin 

prior to March (CDFG unpublished data) and can persist into July (Shapovalov and Taft 1954; Sandercock 

1991). Weitkamp et al. (1995) indicate that peak downstream migration in California generally occurs from 

April to early June. Factors that affect the onset of emigration include the size of the fish, flow conditions, 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, day length, and the availability of food. 

In Prairie Creek, Bell (2001) found that a small percentage of coho salmon remain more than one year 

before emigrating to the ocean. Low stream productivity, due to low nutrient levels or cold water 

temperatures, can contribute to slow growth, potentially causing coho salmon to postpone emigration 

(PFMC 1999). There may be other factors that contribute to a freshwater residency of longer than one 

year, such as late spawning, which can produce fish that are too small at the time of smolting to migrate to 

sea (Bell 2001). 

Habitat Requirements for Adults 

Migration 

Coho salmon usually migrate during late summer and fall and their specific timing may have evolved in 

response to particular flow conditions. For example, obstructions that may be passable in high waters may 

be insurmountable during low flows. Conversely, early-running stocks are thought to have developed 

because those fish could surmount obstacles during low or moderate flows but not during high flows. If flow 

conditions in a stream are unsuitable, the fish will often mill about in the vicinity of the stream mouth, 

sometimes waiting weeks, or even (in the case of early-run fish) months for conditions to change 

(Sandercock 1991). Although substantially greater depth may be needed to negotiate some barriers, 

minimum depth to allow passage of coho salmon is approximately 7.1 inches (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

Reiser and Bjornn (1979) indicate that adult migration normally occurs when water temperature is in the 45 

to 61°F range. Excessively high temperature may result in delays in migration (Monan et al. 1975). 

Additionally, excessively high temperature during migration may lead to disease outbreaks (Spence et al. 



1996) and may reduce the egg viability (Leitritz and Lewis 1980). The high-energy expenditure during 

sustained upstream swimming requires adequate concentrations of DO (Davis et al. 1963). 

Supersaturation of dissolved gases (especially nitrogen), however, has been found to cause gas-bubble 

disease in migrating salmonids (Ebel and Raymond 1976). 

Reid (1998) found that high turbidity affects all life stages of coho salmon. In the case of adults, high 

concentrations of suspended sediment may delay or divert spawning runs (Mortensen et al. 1976). As an 

example of a response to a catastrophic event (the eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington) coho 

salmon strayed from the highly impacted Toutle River to nearby streams for the two following years (Quinn 

and Fresh 1984). Salmonids have been found to wait rather than travel up a stream where the suspended 

sediment load reached 4,000mg/l (Bell 1986). Migrating coho salmon require deep and frequent pools for 

resting and to escape from shallow riffles where they are susceptible to predation. Deep pools are also 

necessary for fish to attain swimming speeds necessary to leap over obstacles. Pools need to be 25% 

deeper than the height of the jump for adult fish to attain the necessary velocity for leaping (Flosi et al. 

1998). 

Large Woody Debris (LWD) and other natural structures such as large boulders provide hydraulic 

complexity and pools. They also facilitate temperature stratification and the development of thermal refugia 

by isolating pockets of cold water (Bilby 1984; Nielsen et al. 1994). Riparian vegetation and undercut 

banks provide cover from terrestrial predators in shallow reaches. 

Spawning 

Coho salmon typically spawn in small streams where the flow is 2.9 to 3.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 

the stream depth ranges between 3.94 and 13.78 inches, depending on the velocity (Gribanov 1948; 

Briggs 1953; Thompson 1972; Bovee 1978; Li et al. 1979). On the spawning grounds, they seek out sites 

of groundwater seepage and favor areas where the stream velocity is 0.98 to 1.8 ft/s. They also prefer 

areas where water upwells through redds, eliminating wastes, and preventing sediments from filling the 

interstices of the spawning gravel. The female generally selects a redd site at the outlet of a pool or at the 

head of a riffle, where there is good circulation of oxygenated water through the gravel. A pair of spawning 

coho salmon requires about 126 square feet for redd and inter-redd space. 

About 85% of redds are located in areas where the substrate is comprised of gravel of 15cm diameter or 

smaller. There must be sufficient appropriately sized gravel and minimal fine sediments to ensure 

adequate interstitial space for egg survival. In situations where there is mud or fine sand in the nest site, it 

is removed during the digging process. LWD and other structures such as large boulders provide streambank 

support, which over time helps to reduce sediment input resulting from bank erosion. 

Eggs deposited within a zone of scour and fill can wash downstream. Large woody debris, riparian 

vegetation, and upslope stability enhance bank stability, which in turn promotes gravel stability and 

minimizes the risk to redds from the scouring effects of high flows. In addition to promoting bank stability, 

LWD also diversifies flows, reducing stream energy directed towards redds (Naiman et al. 1992). 

Habitat Requirements for Juveniles 

The coho salmon typically spends the first half of its life in the freshwater or estuarine environment. The 

following sections describe habitat requirements for the early life stages. 

Eggs and Alevin 

Incubation Low winter flows can result in the desiccation of redds or may expose eggs to freezing 

temperatures. High water flows can disturb redd gravel, resulting in eggs being dislodged and swept 

downstream. Winter storms often cause excessive siltation that can smother eggs and inhibit intragravel 

movement of alevins. Siltation from these storms can reduce water circulation in the gravel to the point 

where low oxygen levels become critical or lethal. According to Bjornn and Reiser (1991), the optimum 

temperature for coho salmon egg incubation is between 40 and 55°F. In one study, coho salmon embryos 

suffered 50% mortality at temperatures above 56.3°F (Beacham and Murray 1990). Because of the close 



connection between temperature and developmental processes, changes in thermal regime, even when 

well within the physiologically tolerable range for the species, can have significant effects on development 

time (and hence emergence timing), as well as on the size of emerging fry. A high proportion of fine 

sediments in the gravel effectively reduce DO levels and also results in smaller emergent fry. Embryos and 

alevins need high levels of oxygen to survive (Shirazi and Seim 1981), and Phillips and Campbell (1961) 

suggest that DO levels must average greater than 8.0 mg/l for embryos and alevins to thrive. Excessive 

sediment deposition may also act as a barrier to fry emergence (Cooper 1959). McHenry et al. (1994) 

found that when sediment particles smaller than 0.85 mm1 made up more than 13% of the total sediment, 

it resulted in intragravel mortality for coho salmon embryos because of oxygen deficiency. Cederholm et al. 

(1981) found that in the Clearwater River in Washington, the survival of salmonid eggs to emergence from 

gravel was inversely correlated with the percent of fine sediment when the proportion of fines exceeded the 

natural level of 10%. Tagart (1984) found that if sediment composition included a high concentration (up to 

50%) of fine sediment (


creation of microhabitats within reaches, thus providing more opportunities for inter- and intra-species 

stratification (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Terrestrial insects and leaves falling into streams from riparian 

vegetation constitute much of the food base for stream macroinvertebrates, which in turn are a major food 

source for juvenile coho salmon. 

Emigration 

Stream flow is important in facilitating the downstream migration of coho salmon smolts. Dorn (1989) found 

that increases in stream flow triggered downstream movement of coho salmon. Spence (1995) also found 

short-term increases in stream flow to be an important stimulus for smolt emigration. Thus, the normal 

range of stream flow may be required to maintain normal temporal patterns of migration. In years with low 

flows, emigration is earlier. Artificial obstructions such as dams and diversions of water may impede 

emigration where they create unnatural flow patterns. Water temperature affects timing of emigration of 

smolts by influencing their rate of growth and physiological development, and their responsiveness to other 

environmental stimuli (Groot 1982). Alteration of thermal regimes through land-use practices and dam 

operations can influence the timing of emigration. The probability that coho salmon smolts will migrate 

downstream increases with rapid increases in temperature (Spence 1995). Holtby (1988) found that coho 

salmon smolts in British Columbia emigrated approximately eight days earlier in response to logginginduced 

increases in stream temperatures. In addition, the age-class distribution was shifted from 

populations evenly split between one- and two-year-old smolts to populations dominated by one-year-old 

fish. If most smolts emigrate at the same age, poor ocean conditions would have a greater effect on that 

particular year class than if the risk were spread over two years. Coho salmon have been observed 

throughout their range to emigrate at temperatures ranging from 36.6°F up to as high as 55.9°F 

(Sandercock 1991). Coho salmon have been observed emigrating through the Klamath River estuary in 

mid- to late-May when water temperature ranged from 53.6 to 68°F (CDFG unpublished data). 

Supersaturation of dissolved gases (especially nitrogen) has been found to cause gas-bubble disease in 

downstream-migrating salmonids (Ebel and Raymond 1976). Smolts are particularly vulnerable to 

predation (Larsson 1985). Physical structures in the form of undercut banks and LWD provide refugia 

during resting periods and cover from predators. 

Estimates of coho salmon run-size, spawner escapement and angler harvest have been conducted in the 

Trinity River since 1977. Estimates are generated using mark-recapture methods. Fish are trapped and 

tagged at a mainstem trapping weir near the town of Willow Creek (RM 30). Recoveries occur at Trinity 

River Hatchery (TRH), the upper-most point of migration. Mean run-size (grilse and adults combined) 

between 1977 and 1999 was 15,959 coho salmon. Problems facing coho salmon in the Trinity River HU 

include degradation of spawning and winter rearing habitat due to sedimentation and past land-use 

practices, sparse spawning gravel recruitment, high summer water temperatures due to diversion of 

natural flow of Lewiston Dam, lack of deep pools, water diversions, irregular timing of flows, fragmentation 

of populations, possible genetic swamping from presumably inferior hatchery strains, migration barriers, 

water quality problems and unscreened diversions. 

Hyampom Hydrologic SubArea (HSA) 

The Hyampom HSA includes the South Fork of the Trinity River and its tributaries from Eltapom Creek up 

stream to Hayfork Creek. Historical data show that the SFTR and its larger tributaries were once important 

spawning grounds for coho salmon. The frequency and size of coho salmon runs in the South Fork are not 

well documented, though they have been reported to migrate as far upstream as Hyampom (Figure 2). 

Problems facing coho salmon in the Hyampom HSA include sediment load, unstable stream banks, 

migration barriers, low flows, the lack of pools and cover resulting from large-scale water diversions and 

other land-use practices, lack of high quality rearing habitat, and a substantial change in channel 

morphology. 

Hayfork HSA 

The Hayfork Valley HSA includes Hayfork Creek upstream of Little Creek. Coho salmon are thought to 

have been extirpated in this HSA. Problems in the Hayfork Valley HSA include mass wasting, erosion 



caused by fire, excessive stored sediment, migration barriers, low flows, lack of pools and cover due to 

large-scale water diversions, water pollution, and lack of high quality rearing habitat.” 

Figure 2. SONCC coho salmon CH/EFH distribution on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South 

Fork Management Unit. 


Chinook Salmon 


Chinook salmon historically ranged as far south as the Ventura River, California, and their northern extent 

reaches the Russian Far East. Life history strategies for Chinook salmon in coastal North American 

streams are predominately "ocean-type" (NMFS 1998). Ocean-type Chinook salmon migrate from the 

freshwater environment to the ocean environment within there first year. Ocean-type Chinook salmon 

tend to use estuaries within the first several weeks after emergence and prior to immigrating to the ocean. 

Residence in the Pacific Ocean is variable and complex with most fish returning to natal streams to 

spawn as adults between their third and fifth year (NMFS 1998). Chinook salmon die soon after 

spawning. 

Chinook salmon in the Klamath River Basin upstream of the Trinity River confluence comprises the UKTR 

ESU. The USDA-FS designated river-type “spring-run” Chinook salmon a “Sensitive” species. Adult 

spring Chinook salmon have a unique life history that involves migrating to the upper reaches of the natal 

stream during spring and summer. Much of the summer is spent holding in pools where they mature 

sexually. The spawning period usually begins during the latter part of September and continues through 

October. This life history pattern differs from the fall-run, which enter freshwater with almost mature 

gametes and spawn soon after during the fall period, usually lower in the watershed than spring-run 

Chinook salmon (Hillemeier, 1993). Hyampom located at the confluence of the SFTR and Hayfork Creek 

is loosely considered the break between the distribution of spring and fall Chinook salmon on the SFTR. 

However, during years of drought or years having above average precipitation and higher fall flows, there 

may be considerable overlap in the distribution and use of spawning areas. The approximate distribution 

of spring and fall-run Chinook salmon on the STNF South Fork Management Unit is depicted in Figure 3. 

Chinook salmon spawn in clean gravels in streams and in the mainstem of some rivers. Depending on 

temperature, eggs incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as alevins. Following yolk-sac 

absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as fry and begin feeding. They require cold water, deep pools, 

and cover. Fall-Chinook salmon fry grow quickly and will emigrate from freshwater between 60 and 120 

days after emergence (NMFS 1998). In contrast, Spring Chinook salmon will rear in river for 

approximately 1 year before immigrating to the ocean in early spring. A major limiting factor for juvenile 

Chinook salmon is water temperature which strongly affects growth and survival (Moyle 2002). For a 

complete life history description and status review see Meyers et al. (1998). For additional information 

regarding the freshwater habitat requirements for Chinook salmon see Bjornn and Reiser (1991). 

Studies conducted before the 1964 flood found that spring-run Chinook salmon spawning began near the 

SFTR around mid September and progressed downstream (La Faunce 1967). The peak of spawning 

activity occurred by mid October. The lower extent of spawning activity on the SFTR was at Hyampom, 

but also extended from approximately 2 to 7 miles up Hayfork Creek (PWA 1994). Recently spring-run 

Chinook salmon have been observed in the proximity of the Middle and Lower Hayfork Creek 5 th field 

watersheds (CDFG 2004a). Historically, spring-run Chinook salmon utilized the lower reaches of Salt 

Creek, Big Creek, Tule Creek, and East Fork Hayfork Creek (PWA, 1994). In August, CDFG and 

participating agencies and individuals conduct annual spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead 

counts on the SFTR. Reaches locations (A through N) are depicted in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Reach K 

and L occur adjacent to the Project area. From 1988 to 2004, adult survey reaches E, F, G and H, have 

had the highest concentrations of spring Chinook observed (Figure 6). 



Figure 3. Chinook salmon distribution on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit. 



Figure 4. South Fork Trinity River Upper and Middle reaches, A through I (adapted from Dean (1995)). 

Reach A and B (lower right hand corner) begin at the confluence of the East Fork and SFTR. Reach I ends 

just upstream of the community of Hyampom. 



Figure 5. South Fork Trinity River middle and lower reaches, I through N (adapted from Dean (1995)). 

Reach I (lower right hand corner) ends just upstream of the confluence with Hayfork Creek. Reach N ends at 

the confluence with mainstem Trinity River. 


Average Count (1988-2004) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

A (117.8) 


B (117.8) 

C (111.8) 

D (102.7) 

Spring Chinook (includes Jack's) 

E (89.5) 

F (79.5) 

G (68.4) 

H (58.2) 

I (49.6) 

J (40.2) 

Stream Reach (start) and River Kiometer 

Figure 6. Spring Chinook salmon oversummer holding distribution (1988 to 2004) in the South Fork Trinity 

River. 

Population Trend 

Spring-run Chinook in the Klamath-Trinity system are on the verge of disappearing (Moyle 2002). They 

are lumped in with fall-run and late-fall-run fish in the UKTR ESU by NOAA because of genetic similarities 

(Meyers et al. 1998). In the Klamath drainage the principle run is in the north and south forks of the 

Salmon River and in Wooley Creek, tributary to the Salmon River (Moyle 2002). The north and south fork 

of the Trinity River, and possibly New River, also support a few fish (CDFG 1990, in Moyle 2002). 

Salmon River spring-run Chinook salmon counts have been conducted annually since 1980. In the 24 

years 1980 and 2003, Salmon River spring-run Chinook salmon have averaged 739 fish annually, ranging 

from 1,300 fish in 1993, to 6 fish in 1983 (Brenda Olsen, Personal Communication 2005). 

Historically, salmonid spawning runs in the SFTR were dramatically larger than they are today; spring 

Chinook represented the largest salmonid runs in the SFTR basin. In 1963 and 1964, prior to the 

December 1964 flood, spring Chinook escapement was greater than 10,000 fish (Healey 1963, LaFaunce 

1967; in EPA 1998). This is consistent with anecdotal observations of large numbers of fish in the river 

(Berol 1995). The December 1955 flood probably also affected the fish population temporarily; an aerial 

redd count in 1958 noted only 101 spring Chinook redds (La Faunce 1967, citing USFWS 1960 in EPA 

1998). However, large sediment deliveries to the stream were not observed between 1944 and 1960. 

Furthermore, indications are that the spawning run had recovered prior to the 1964 flood. 

In the early 1960s, the intensity of road building and timber harvest increased significantly. Since the 

1964 flood, the spring Chinook population has not recovered to anywhere near those former levels. It is 

possible that the runs in 1963 and 1964 were anomalously large, and the goal of 6,000 spring Chinook 

estimated for the Trinity River Restoration Program may be more reasonable to indicate recovery of the 

run. It is therefore appropriate to assume approximately 4,000 spring Chinook would represent recovery 

in the South Fork basin (J. Glase, USFWS, pers. comm., 1998; as cited in EPA 1998). 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest – South Fork Management Unit – June 13, 2005 - 24 

K (31.7) 

L (22.3) 

M (13.2) 

N (2.3)


In the 16 years between 1989 and 2004, SFTR counts of adult spring-run Chinook salmon averaged 290 

fish annually, ranging from 1,097 fish in 1996, to 7 fish in 1989 (CDFG 2004a). During this same time 

period (1989-2004), Salmon River spring-run Chinook have averaged 681 fish annually, ranging from 

1,300 fish in 1993, to 148 fish in 1990 (Figure 7). The low number of spring-run Chinook salmon in the 

SFTR are largely a response to the 1964 flood, which triggered landslides that filled in holding pools and 

covered spawning beds (Moyle 2002). 

COUNT 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1989 

1990 

1991 

SPRING CHINOOK SALMON IN THE SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER 

AND THE SALMON RIVER (trib to the Klamath River) 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

YEAR 

1997 

1998 

1999 

Salmon River South Fork Trinity River 

Figure 7. Adult spring-run Chinook salmon counts for the Salmon River (Klamath River) and the South Fork 

Trinity River, 1989-2004. (Source: Brenda Olsen - Salmon River, CDFG 2004a). 

Fall Chinook escapement in the SFTR basin has not been estimated as consistently as spring Chinook. 

La Faunce (1967) estimated 3,337 fall Chinook in 1964, prior to the flood. No estimates were made again 

until the 1980s, at which time the escapement was estimated to be as low as 345 in 1990 and as high as 

2,640 in 1985 (Jong & Mills 1994). Because the spring Chinook run was more significantly affected than 

the fall run, indicators for both runs are included to provide a more rounded picture of desired conditions. 

For example, spring Chinook return to the basin in the spring and hold in the streams over the summer, 

while fall Chinook run in the fall; over-summer factors may have caused the greater decreases in the 

spring Chinook population. For fall Chinook, which haven’t diminished in numbers in the SFTR basin as 

dramatically as spring Chinook, 3,000 returning spawners is a reasonable number to indicate population 

recovery (J. Glase, USFWS, pers. comm., 1998; as cited in EPA 1998). Steelhead populations have been 

inconsistently estimated and are not considered an appropriate indicator. 

Higher spring Chinook escapement in the 1990s (Figure 7) may reflect the early stages of population 

recovery, coincident with apparent movement of sediment downstream (Matthews 1998), or it may reflect 

better conditions in those particular years. The current size of the spawning population, while growing, still 

remains at less than 10% of the run in 1963 and 1964, and less than 20% of the Trinity River Restoration 

Program goal (4,000 fish). The diminished fish populations in the basin, which began both with the period 

of increased management and the record flood in the basin, are the strongest indication of impaired 

habitat conditions, and recovered populations will be the strongest indication of recovered habitat 

conditions. In the future, if salmonids naturally reproduce at numbers that are close to those observed 

prior to 1964, it would be reasonable to conclude that habitat conditions are adequately supporting 

beneficial uses. If sediment has limited habitat by aggrading the channel, then continued downstream 

movement of sediment would probably be required to restore the habitat conditions. However, it is also 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004


clear that: 1) habitat recovery, in the form of normal watershed processes moving both the natural 

sediment load and the elevated sediment load (i.e., due to land management activities) through the 

stream system, is a slow process, and may not be observed for another 50 years or more; and 2) other 

factors, such as habitat conditions or fishing pressures outside of the SFTR basin (e.g., downstream or 

ocean conditions) may retard progress on recovery of the fishery even if the habitat conditions have 

recovered. Thus, while a recovered Chinook spawning population would indicate recovery of the 

beneficial use support and attainment of water quality standards more clearly than any other indicator, it 

is not required that the spawning population recover in order to demonstrate attainment of water quality 

standards, if all other targets are met (EPA 1998). 

Rainbow Trout and Steelhead 

Life History, Ecology, and Status of Klamath River Steelhead (except for specific reference to the SFTR 

“Local population”), was incorporated from Israel J. A. (2003). 

Coastal steelhead (O. mykiss irideus) in Klamath basin, have evolved multiple life history and 

reproductive strategies for persisting in a system where critical habitat parameters are highly variable. 

Klamath River steelhead are recognized to constitute two distinct reproductive ecotypes that migrate from 

the ocean into tributaries during different time periods (Busby et al., 1996). However, different life stages 

of steelhead are found in the Klamath mainstem every month of the year, including a run of immature fish 

(commonly referred to as the “halfpounder”) which overwinter in freshwater before returning to the ocean 

the following spring (USFWS, 1998). Klamath River steelhead are an anadromous form of coastal 

rainbow trout (O. mykiss irideus). 

Steelhead exhibit the largest geographic range and most complex suite of traits of any salmonid species. 

Steelhead share many of the characteristics of rainbow trout that contribute to their ability to adapt to 

systems that are highly unpredictable and undergo frequent disturbance. Particularly important 

characteristics of Klamath River steelhead include anadromy (emigrating to the ocean and returning to 

spawn in freshwater) or nonadromous freshwater residency, iteroparity (multiple spawning migrations), 

and natal homing. Watershed disturbances caused by agriculture, timber harvest practices, past mining 

and water diversions have negatively affected the fishery resources within the basin (KRBFTF, 1991). 

During the past century, managing salmonid species for commercial and recreational purposes have 

focused on artificially producing large numbers of fish in hatcheries. Natural environmental fluctuations 

(climatic cycles and marine conditions) have likely played less of a role in the decline of this species than 

these human-induced impacts. However, the Klamath River and its tributaries support the largest 

population of coastal steelhead remaining in California (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Klamath River 

steelhead are part of the KMP ESU, which the NMFS determined was not warranted for listing under the 

ESA (NMFS, 2001). 

Life History 

Nonanadromous Phenotype (Coastal Rainbow trout) 

Coastal rainbow trout (resident) are the common wild rainbow trout in most of California, either as natural 

populations or through introductions in to other areas. Although the genetic identities of distinct local 

populations have been lost in many instances as a result of planting hatchery fish, wild strains adapted to 

local environmental conditions may persist (Gard and Seegrist 1965, in Moyle 2002). Some resident fish 

present above dams may represent landlocked versions of the original steelhead populations. 

O. mykiss irideus in the Klamath-Trinity River basins display one of the most diverse sets of life history 

patterns found in the Oncorhynchus genus. This species encompasses two distinct phenotypes. 

Typically, the resident form (called a rainbow or redband trout) spends their entire life in fresh water 

isolated above natural barriers (e.g., waterfalls, landslides, subsurface stream flows). This natural form of 

O. mykiss irideus is apparently uncommon in the Klamath River. 



Residualization of steelhead progeny in the Klamath River occurs, but is poorly understood. Possible 

hypotheses on this phenomena include accelerated growth rate of fish in hatcheries or excessively high 

water temperatures downstream delaying outmigrant behavior in these fish (Healey, 1991; Viola and 

Schuck, 1995). Steelhead have also residualized above recent manmade barriers in the basin like 

Lewiston, Iron Gate, and Dwinnell Dams, although the genetic integrity of these fish is questionable given 

the stocking on nonnative rainbow trout into the waterbodies. These potadromous fish remain migratory 

and utilize tributaries to these reservoirs. 

The relationship of steelhead to nonanadromous Upper Klamath redband trout (O. mykiss newberri, 

Benhke 1992) remains unknown, although redband trout inhabit the upper Klamath basin in Oregon now 

isolated by dams along the mainstem. Prior to the construction of Copco Dam in 1917, steelhead 

migrated up to the falls at the outlet of Klamath Lake. Benhke (1992) suggested that O. mykiss irideus did 

not reside above this location and designated the migratory Upper Klamath trout as a separate 

subspecies, O. m. newberrii. Moyle (2002) suggests steelhead invaded the upper Klamath basin during 

the Pleistocene and nonandromous coastal rainbow trout are present above Klamath Lake. Snyder 

(1930) and Fortune et al. 1996 in Hardy and Addley (2001) both suggested steelhead utilized tributaries 

above Upper Klamath Lake. It is likely that redband trout moved downstream of the outlet falls. 

Anadromous Phenotype (Steelhead) 

The second phenotype of coastal steelhead is the more common anadromous form. In the Klamath River 

basin, these fish display a variety of life history patterns constituting different freshwater and saltwater 

rearing strategies (ODFW, 1995). The differences between these different life history patterns are not well 

understood, and researchers group anadromous steelhead “races” depending on the timing of adult 

migration into the Klamath River. The classification of different adult migratory run-timings is not agreed 

upon (Table 6). 

Table 6. Classification of different run-timings and reproductive ecotypes of steelhead found in the 

Klamath River basin. [As cited in Isreal (2003)] 

Steelhead race KRSIC (1993) Hopelain (1998) USFWS (1979) Busby et al (1996) Moyle (2002) 

Spring/Summer May- July March-June April-June April- June 

Fall August- July-October August- 

October 

November 

Winter November- November- November- 

November- 

February March 

February 

April 

Stream-maturing April- October 

Ocean-maturing 

September-March 

NMFS does not classify Klamath River basin steelhead “races” based on run-timing of adults, but instead 

recognizes two distinct reproductive ecotypes of coastal steelhead in the Klamath based upon their 

reproductive biology and freshwater spawning strategy (Busby et al. 1996). Burgner et al. (1992) 

identified the stream-maturing type as entering the river sexually immature and still requiring several 

months before ripening to spawning condition. In the Klamath River, Busby et al. (1996) called these 

summer steelhead and found they migrated upstream between April and October with a peak in spawning 

behavior during January. The second type, ocean-maturing, enter the Klamath River between September 

and March with a peak in spawning in March. These fish enter the river sexually mature and spawn 

shortly after reaching spawning grounds (Busby et al., 1996). The overlap in migration and spawning 

periods make differentiating these ecotypes difficult (Roelofs, 1983). A genetic study determined that 

different runs of steelhead within a particular subbasin of the Klamath-Trinity system shared more genetic 

similarities than populations of similar run-timings in adjacent basins (Reisenbichler et al., 1992). 

Before establishing feeding locations, newly hatched steelhead move to shallow, protected margins of the 

stream (Royal, 1972, in McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Once aggressive behavior is exhibited, territories 

become established and are defended (Shapovalov and Taft, 1954) in or below riffles, where food 

production is greatest. Moffett and Smith (1950) found steelhead fry (individuals not yet surviving a 



winter) favored tributary streams with a peak in downstream movement during the early summer on the 

Trinity River. Possible physical influences leading to a decline in this behavior included decreasing river 

flows and increasing water temperatures. As higher flows and lower water temperatures returned to the 

mainstem during the late fall and winter, Moffett and Smith (1950) observed an increase in downstream 

movement. Steelhead parr (individuals surviving at least one winter) showed the greatest freshwater 

movement towards the end of their first year and spent their second year inhabiting the mainstem. The 

large majority of steelhead (86%) in the Klamath River basin apparently spend two years in fresh water 

before undergoing smoltification (the physiological process of preparing to survive in ocean conditions) 

and migrating to sea (Hopelain, 1998). Kesner and Barnhardt (1972) determined that steelhead rearing in 

fresh water for longer periods made their seaward migration more quickly. Klamath River basin steelhead 

remain in the ocean for one to three years before returning to spawn and their ocean migration patterns 

are unknown. It is believed that steelhead use their excellent homing sense to return to the same area 

they lived in as fry to spawn (Moyle, 2002). 

The presence of “half-pounder” steelhead in the Klamath River basin is a distinguishing life history trait of 

steelhead found in the KMP ESU. Half-pounder steelhead are subadults that have spent 2-4 months in 

the Klamath estuary or nearshore before returning to the river to overwinter. They overwinter in the lower 

and mid-Klamath regions before returning to the ocean the following spring. The presence of half-pound 

fish is uncommon above Seiad Valley (Kesner and Barnhardt, 1972). The occurrence of half-pounders 

was greater in spawning fish of mid-Klamath region tributaries (86-100%) when compared to the Trinity 

River (32-80%). There is a negative linear relationship between rates of half-pounder migration and firsttime 

spawning size. The lowest occurrence of half-pounders was from Lower Klamath River winter-run 

steelhead (17%), which also demonstrated the greatest first-year growth rate (Hopelain, 1998). The 

proportion of “half-pounders” that become stream- or ocean-maturing ecotypes is not known. 

Iteroparity (the ability to spawn more than once) is an important character of steelhead that makes them 

different from most all other Oncorhynchus species. Hopelain (1998) reported that repeat spawning 

varied between different run-timings. The frequencies of steelhead having undergone multiple 

reproductive events varied in range from 17.6 to 47.9% for fall run, 40.0 to 63.6% for spring run, and 

31.1% for winter run fish. Females make up the majority of repeat spawners (Busby et al., 1996), and lay 

between 200 and 12,000 eggs (Moyle, 2002). Nonandromous coastal rainbow trout typically contain 

fewer than 1,000 eggs, while steelhead contain about 2,000 eggs per kilogram of body weight (Moyle, 

2002). 

Habitat Utilization 

Steelhead require different habitats for each stage of life in the Klamath River. The abundance of 

steelhead in a particular location is influenced by the quantity and quality of suitable habitat, food 

availability, and interactions with other species. During the first couple years of freshwater residence, 

steelhead juveniles require cool, clear, fast-flowing water (Moyle, 2002). Although steelhead have a 

greater physiological tolerance than other salmonids, certain requirements must be met for a watershed 

to support these highly-adaptable fish, including cool water throughout their life history (Table 7). Many 

physiological cues during their lifecycle depend on temperatures remaining within these critical ranges. 



Table 7. Utilized (McEwan and Jackson, 1996) and optimal (Moyle, 2002) water temperatures (°C) 

for various steelhead life history stages. NR= Not Reported. 

Life History Stage McEwan and Jackson (1996) Moyle (2002) 

Spawning 3.8 to 11.0 O C (38.8 to 51.8 O F) NR 

Incubation and emergence 8.8 to 11.0 O C (47.8 to 51.8 O F) 10 to 15 O C (50.0 to 59.0 O F) 

Fry and Juvenile rearing 7.2 to 11.0 O C (44.9 to 51.8 O F) 15 to 18 O C (59.0 to 64.4 O F) 

Smoltification 7.2 to 15.0 O C (44.9 to 59.0 O F) NR 

Adult migration 7.7 to 11.0 O C (45.8 to 51.8 O F) NR 

Summer steelhead holding 10.0 to 15.0 O C (50.0 to 59.0 O F) 10 to 15 O C (50.0 to 59.0 O F) 

Length of time for eggs to hatch is a function of water temperature and dissolved oxygen. Hatchery 

steelhead take 30 days to hatch at 10.5°F (Leitritz and Lewis, 1980 in McEwan and Jackson, 1996), and 

emergence from the gravel occurs after two to six weeks (Moyle, 2002; McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Egg 

mortality begins at 13.3°C (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). 

Redd construction typically occurs in gravel substrates of 0.5 to 10.0 cm in diameter (Reiser and Bjornn, 

1979 in Spence et al., 1996). Water velocities over the redd is between 20 and 155 cm/sec, and depths 

are often 10 to 150 cm (Moyle, 2002). Low levels of sedimentation (>5% sand and silt) can reduce redd 

survival and emergence due to decreased permeability of the substrate and dissolved oxygen 

concentrations available for the incubating eggs (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Once out of the gravels, 

steelhead fry can survive at a greater range of temperatures, but have difficulty obtaining oxygen from the 

water at temperatures above 21.1°C (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). When physiologically stressed, 

steelhead have a more difficult time acquiring food, defending territories, avoiding predators, and are 

more likely to succumb to infectious diseases and parasites (Spence et al., 1996). 

Hawkins and Quinn (1996) found that the critical swimming velocity for juvenile steelhead was 7.69 body 

lengths/sec compared to juvenile cutthroat trout that moved between 5.58 and 6.69 body lengths/sec. 

Adult steelhead swimming ability is hindered at water velocities above 3 to 3.9m/sec (Reiser and Bjornn, 

1979 in Spence et al., 1996). Preferred holding velocities are much slower, and range from 0.19m/sec for 

juveniles and 0.28m/sec for adults (Moyle and Baltz, 1985). Physical structure like boulder, large woody 

debris, and undercut banks create hydraulic heterogeneity that increase the habitat available for 

steelhead in the form of cover from predators, visual separation of juvenile territories, and refuge during 

high flows (Everest et al., 1985). Reiser and Peacock (1985 in Spence et al., 1996) reported the 

maximum leaping ability of steelhead to be 3.4m and they require water approximately 18cm deep for 

passage (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, in Spence et al., 1996). 

Summer steelhead do not utilize the majority of Klamath River tributaries like the more common fall and 

winter steelhead. In particular, summer steelhead utilize Red Cap, Bluff, Elk, Dillon, Clear, Wooley, and 

Canyon Creeks and the Salmon, North and South Fork Trinity and New River. These rivers drain portions 

of the Klamath and Trinity Mountains providing deep pools for refugia through the summer for subadults 

to mature sexually. Nielsen and Lisle (1994) found coldwater pockets in these thermally-stratified pools to 

be 3.5°C cooler than midday ambient stream tempertures of 36-29°C. In the New River, summer 

steelhead were found to occupy covered areas under bedrock ledges and boulders. Densities of these 

fish were highest where water velocities averaged 9.3cm/sec (Nakamoto, 1994). 

Growth rate and feeding habitats 

The growth rate of steelhead is quite rapid after emergence and by the end of the first year individuals 

can reach between 10 and 12 cm (Moyle, 2002). Increased water temperature, which is one factor 

influencing production of aquatic invertebrates (Allan, 1995), accelerates growth rates until early fall 

(Moffett and Smith, 1950). By the end of the second year, steelhead are often 16 to 17 cm in length and 



sustain a short growth spurt during their third spring to prepare them for smoltification (Moyle, 2002). 

Smolts from Klamath River subbasins known to contain fall-runs of steelhead entered the ocean at 21-23 

cm (Hopelain, 1998). Feeding habits of steelhead varied through the different periods of their life, 

although mean growth rates in juveniles were similar between run-timings and tributaries (Hopelain, 

1998). In general, trout seem to specialize on an aquatic organism or terrestrial bug of choice, although 

they also seem to be somewhat opportunistic (Moyle, 2002). In April, Trinity River steelhead were found 

with ants in their stomachs (Boles, 1990). As they grow, their diets change to include larger prey, with fish 

being more important to nonandromous trout than parr preparing for smoltification. Kesner and Barnhardt 

(1972) observed Trichoptera larvae to be the primary food found in half-pounder steelhead stomachs. 

They also determined that half-pounders more frequently contained food in their stomachs compared to 

steelhead on a spawning migration. 

Community associations and species interactions 

Steelhead trout are found in two distinct assemblages depending on their phenotype (Moyle, 2002). O. 

mykiss irideus are found above and below barriers to anadromy. Above barriers in cold, fast-moving 

tributaries in the Lower Klamath River coastal rainbow trout are found alone or with coastal cutthroat trout 

(Moyle, 2002). The anadromous form of rainbow trout are found in an assemblage that includes other 

salmon, Klamath smallscale suckers, speckled dace, and marbled sculpin species in the Klamath River. 

This species association is a product of the physical landscape as well as interspecies interactions 

between fish. Potentially, environmental fluctuations keep the populations of each species from reaching 

a size where competition and territoriality is important (Moyle, 2002). Alternatively, in the reaches of 

streams where this diverse assemblage is observed, a high degree of habitat heterogeneity allows 

segregation of species into microhabitats and may eliminate interspecies interactions. In the presence of 

other juvenile salmonids (coho and Chinook), steelhead have been observed to distribute themselves in 

microhabitats different from the other species (Everest and Chapman, 1972). Steelhead are successful 

competitors and can display aggressive behavior to defend territories (Jenkins 1969, in Moyle, 2002). 

Juvenile rainbow trout have a positive interaction with suckers in the Sacramento River, and possibly form 

the same relationship in the Klamath River. In the Sacramento, juveniles were observed to follow large 

suckers around and feed on invertebrates disturbed by the suckers feeding (Baltz and Moyle, 1984). 

Studies of intraspecies interactions have reported steelhead segregating themselves spatially within the 

same stream into microhabitats (Moyle, 2002; Keeley and McPhail, 1998). However little is known about 

the relationship between different cohorts, including half-pounders, in the Klamath River. In one study on 

a coastal California stream (Harvey and Nakamoto, 1997), the intraspecific interactions among different 

cohorts were dependent on the habitat occupied by the fish. In deep water, Harvey and Nakamoto (1997) 

observed larger steelhead in the presence of small steelhead to grow faster than when these fish were 

observed together in shallow waters. Food availability has a larger impact on territory size than body size, 

and juvenile steelhead were observed to intrude into adjacent steelhead territories to capture food 

(Keeley and McPhail, 1998). Moffett and Smith (1950) observed schools of steelhead parr in the thalweg 

along the bottom during extended winter dry periods on the Trinity River. This may be favored habitat 

because this deeper, faster water contains more invertebrate drift (Britain and Eikeland 1988) and offers 

greater protection from predators. 

Status 

No long-term data is available to evaluate Klamath River steelhead population trends. The California Fish 

and Wildlife Plan (1965) estimated a basin wide annual run size of 283,000 adult steelhead (spawning 

escapement + harvest). Busby et al. (1994) reported winter steelhead runs in the basin to be 222,000 

during the 1960’s. Based on creel and gill net harvest data (Hopelain, 2001), the winter-run steelhead 

population was estimated at 10,000 to 30,000 adults annually in the early 1980’s. Population estimates of 

summer steelhead have also declined precipitously during the 1990’s. The apparent decrease in 

population size of steelhead in the Klamath River has multiple causes. Main factors impacting steelhead 

in the Klamath Basin include hatcheries, harvest, hydroelectric operations, and human impacts. 


Hatcheries 


Two hatcheries are currently operated by the CDFG as mitigation for lost habitat beyond Iron Gate and 

Lewiston Dams. While hatchery production has primarily relied upon native broodstock, numerous 

transfers of fish from outside the basin are documented. Prior to 1973, transfers came from the 

Sacramento, Willamette, Mad and Eel Rivers (Busby et al., 1996). Since the length of freshwater 

occupancy of juvenile Klamath River steelhead is long, wild fish are at a potentially increased risk from 

hatcheries. About 1,000,000 smolts per year are produced by the two hatcheries (Busby et al., 1994 in 

Moyle 2002). 

Historic returns of steelhead to both Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries do not seem correlated. No 

studies have been carried out to evaluate the impact of hatcheries releases on wild steelhead and other 

salmonids in the Klamath River, but studies elsewhere have shown that releases of large numbers of fish 

result in negative competitive interactions between wild steelhead and hatchery fish for food, habitat, and 

mates (Nickelson et al., 1986). Also, carrying capacity of rivers is often exceeded during the outmigration 

of hatchery smolts decreasing food availability (Steward and Bjornn, 1990 in Spence et al 1996). 

Hatchery steelhead have been documented to displace a large percentage of wild steelhead (79%, 

McMichael et al., 1999). 

Other risks from hatcheries include disease transmission (Steward and Bjornn, 1990 in Spence et al., 

1996), alterations of migration behavior in wild fish (Hillman and Mullen, 1989 in Spence et al., 1996), and 

genetic changes in the wild population (Waples, 1991). The behavioral and genetic interactions of 

residualized hatchery steelhead wild steelhead on the Klamath River has not been evaluated but is 

recognized as an issue requiring attention (CDFG, 2001). 

Currently, sport fishery regulation prohibits take of wild winter steelhead and does not allow fishing of 

summer steelhead. Poaching may pose a problem for these fish because of their concentration over a 

long period in particular locations (Eric Gerstung, pers. Comm. in McEwan and Jackson, 1996). 

Hydroelectric Operation 

Iron Gate Dam (and all the other dams in the basin) breaks the upstream-downstream connectivity of the 

Klamath River. A primary impact to steelhead is the elimination of free passage beyond these barriers 

upstream to historic spawning grounds and downstream to the ocean. Another direct impact Iron Gate 

Dam has on Klamath River steelhead is the alteration of natural flow regimes. A river’s flow regime 

controls the physical and hydrological processes of a river, and therefore is responsible for habitat and 

food availability, temperature regimes, and the concentration of dissolved gases (Spence et al., 1996). 

The loss of habitat from decreased flows intensifies inter- and intraspecies competition for suitable rearing 

and feeding of juvenile steelhead (Spence et al., 1996). Iron Gate Dam is responsible for changes in flow 

impacting the temperature regime on the mainstem Klamath River. Steelhead continuously exposed to 

temperatures above 24°C are unable to survive (Moyle, 2002). While water from Iron Gate Dam is not 

released at this temperature, the quantity of water released impacts the variability of downstream water 

temperatures (Moyle, 2002). 

Human Impacts 

Klamath River steelhead spend considerable part of their life in the tributaries where cool, high-quality 

water is typically common. Recent reports have documented the degradation of this habitat and potential 

impacts to juvenile salmonid production (Ricker, 1997; Jong, 1997; Borok and Jong, 1997). Particular 

impacts caused by increased sedimentation of spawning grounds include reduction of egg survival and 

sac fry emergence rates. Potential impacts from upslope erosion created by logging and road 

construction may negatively impact steelhead spawning (Burns, 1972). In many smaller Klamath River 

tributaries, where impacts from these activities are greatest, steelhead rely on unimpacted habitat for 

supporting the production and survival of juveniles. In some subbasins, road construction and placement 

of culverts has created barriers to migration. 



Agricultural and ranching land use practices can negatively impact adjacent waterbodies containing 

steelhead and other anadromous fish. The trampling and removal of riparian vegetation by grazing 

livestock destabilizes and denudes streambanks increasing sediment and temperature in the streams 

(Platts et al, 1991 in Spence et al., 1996). On the Klamath River, these activities have led to a reduction in 

canopy over the stream channel and siltation of pools necessary for juvenile rearing (Moyle, 2002). 

Agriculture practices can directly impact steelhead because of the massive alterations of the riparian and 

aquatic systems resulting from effort to increase the quantity of land converted for food production 

(Spence et al., 1996). This includes stream channelization, large woody debris removal, and armoring of 

banks (Spence et al., 1996). All of these activities homogenize the aquatic habitat to temperature and 

water conditions that are not favored by steelhead or other native biota, but do enhance the invasion of 

noindigineous fish (Harvey et al., 2002). Humans have introduced 13 exotic species in the Klamath River, 

although none have been observed to negatively impact steelhead. However, in other Northern California 

river systems, invasive species have played a role in the decline of steelhead through predation and 

competition (Brown and Moyle, 1991). 

SFTR Trends 

Winter-run steelhead are not at risk of extinction but their numbers are down from Historic levels. Local 

anglers on the SFTR have reported a substantial decline in the abundance of winter steelhead post 1964 

flood. This observation is consistent with findings of Rodgers (1972, 1973, as cited in PWA 1994). There 

are no current adult return estimates for winter-run steelhead. 

In the 13 years between 1989 and 2004, SFTR counts of adult summer steelhead averaged 41 fish 

annually, ranging from 95 fish in 1997, to 8 fish in 1991 (CDFG 2004a, Figure 8). 

COUNT 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER 

1994 

1995 

1996 

YEAR 

Figure 8. Adult summer steelhead counts in the South Fork Trinity River, 1989-2004. 

NOAA Fisheries has reviewed the biology and ecology of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead populations 

and trends. NOAA Fisheries also considered available information on resident rainbow trout. Preliminary 


1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004


conclusions are that KMP steelhead are not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and 

that Federal ESA listing is not warranted within the KMP ESU (NOAA Fisheries 2003). 

Steelhead Summary 

Listed as a candidate for Threatened Status by NMFS in 1998, steelhead in the Klamath-Trinity basin 

have had their range reduced by the construction of major dams on the Klamath, Trinity, and Shasta 

Rivers, with further declines caused by downstream changes to channels and water temperatures from 

decreased flows. Poor watershed management (connected with such practices as grazing, logging, and 

road building) has contributed to declines as well, especially as a result of siltation of holding pools and 

spawning riffles and increases in water temperatures due to loss of shading. Interactions with hatchery 

steelhead have contributed to further declines of wild populations, as may have fisheries, including catch 

of steelhead in gill nets on the high seas. Fall-Winter-run steelhead are still widely distributed and fairly 

common in the basin, although much less abundant than formerly. 

Summer steelhead populations remain the most imperiled runs in the Klamath River and are holding onto 

a small number of key populations. In addition to all the usual causes of decline, they are exceptionally 

vulnerable to poaching when oversummering in pools. As a consequence, during the 1990s there were 

perhaps 1,000-1,500 adults divided among eight populations—less than 10 percent of their former 

abundance (Moyle et al. 1995, in Moyle 2002). 

Key elements of the Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California (McEwan and Jackson, 

1996) for the Klamath River included greater flow releases through Iron Gate and Lewiston Dams and 

emphasized increasing naturally produced stocks. The plan recognized the importance of protecting 

functioning subbasins where natural processes take precedence to human impacts causing severely 

degraded habitat conditions. Watersheds identified by McEwan and Jackson (1996) requiring stream 

restoration to benefit steelhead included the SFTR, Scott River, and Shasta Rivers. 



IV. Environmental Baseline 

Upper South Fork Trinity River Subbasin Overview 

The SFTR basin is undammed and approximately 970 square miles in size, and is the largest tributary of 

the Trinity River. The terrain is predominately mountainous and forested, with only about 15 percent of 

the basin available for farmland, most of which occurs in the Hayfork Valley, the largest tributary of the 

SFTR. Elevations in the basin range from more than 7,800 feet above sea level in the headwater areas, 

to less than 400 feet at the confluence with the Trinity River (TCRCD 2003). 

Precipitation in the SFTR Watershed, as is typical of California, is highly seasonal, with 90 percent falling 

between October and April. Rainfall runoff dominates the hydrologic budget, although depending on 

location in the watershed and the water-year type, snowmelt runoff can be significant. There are few longterm 

annual precipitation records in the watershed, and instead records from Weaverville were used. 

Weaverville has a mean annual precipitation of 36.29 inches, for 1906-2001, excluding 1981-1983 during 

which the records are incomplete (TCRCD 2003). For Weaverville, the wettest year contained in this 

record is 1974, when precipitation totals reached 63.58 inches, only slightly wetter than 1998, the next 

highest, when 63.27 inches were recorded. The driest year at Weaverville was 1977, when only 12.57 

inches of precipitation were recorded. 

The Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis Area (WAA) lies in a 

region of deeply dissected mountains composed principally of the unstable rock formations of the South 

Fork Mountain Schist, the Galice Formation, and the Rattlesnake Creek terrane. As a result, the erosion 

rates in the watershed and sediment loads in the SFTR are extremely high compared to most rivers. The 

mean annual sediment discharge reported in a 1972 study was 1,650 tons/mile 2 for the SFTR for the 

period 1940 to 1965 (SCS 1972, in PWA 1994). In comparison, at two locations in the Klamath Mountain 

Province, the North Fork of the Trinity River at Helena had an annual suspended sediment yield of 210 

tons/mi 2 and the Trinity River at Lewiston had an annual suspended sediment yield of 160 tons/mile 2 

(Hawley and Jones 1969, in PWA 1994). 

The SFTR has been the subject of several studies following the 1964 flood, which was the largest on 

record. Following the flood, fish populations declined severely and currently remain below pre-flood 

levels. The continued high rates of erosion and sedimentation are considered a major contributor to the 

depressed anadromous fish runs in the river basin (PWA 1994). The SFTR has one of the highest 

sediment loads in northern California. The high sediment loads have been attributed to unstable geology, 

management activities, and storm activity (Raines 1998). 

In 1994, the SFTR was added to the Clean Water Act §303(d) list for sediment impairment triggering the 

development of a TMDL that was completed in 1998. In support of the TMDL, a detailed sediment source 

analysis was completed for the SFTR basin (Raines 1998), which included Hidden Valley, Plummer 

Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds. Raines (1998) used aerial photographs dating from 1944 to 

1990 to map landslides and mass wasting features, used road survey data with a GIS-based model 

(SEDMOD) to estimate road erosion rates, estimated erosion rates applied to the harvest history of 

upland areas to estimate hillslope erosion rates, and existing river data to estimate stream bank erosion 

rates. 

The sediment source analysis (Raines 1998) divided the entire SFTR watershed into three main 

subdivisions, and also into the smaller planning watersheds delineated by the Forest Service. The WAA 

falls into the Upper SFTR subdivision, which includes the planning watersheds above Hyampom to the 

headwaters and excludes the Hayfork Creek subdivision. The results from this subdivision can 

reasonably be applied to Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds since the 

geology, land management, and ecosystem processes are relatively similar throughout the whole 

subdivision (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 



The study divided the sediment sources into management-related and non-management-related sources, 

and three time periods based on aerial photograph availability and major changes in watershed activity. 

The first period was from 1944 to 1960, when timber harvest began in the basin; 1961 to 1975, when 

timber harvest was increased with pre-forest practices regulation and the largest storm event on record 

occurred; and 1976 to 1990, when timber harvest increased under newer regulations, and wildfires 

[Plummer and Rattlesnake watersheds] and three major floods occurred (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

Figure 9 shows the sources of sediment in the Upper SFTR subbasin from 1944 to 1990 and their relative 

contributions. Non-management sediment sources accounted for two thirds of the sediment supply in the 

Upper SFTR subbasin, and non-management related mass wasting contributed half of the total sediment 

to the SFTR (Foster-Wheeler 2001). Non-management related bank erosion accounted for 14 percent of 

the total sediment supply and road related erosion contributed 17 percent of the sediment supply. It 

should be noted that the separation of sediment loads into management- and non-management-related is 

somewhat arbitrary and difficult to estimate. For example, timber harvesting could increase peak flows, 

which in turn could increase the rate of inner gorge mass wasting (USFS 2000), which would not be 

considered management-related by Raines (1998). The results of the Raines (1998) report are based on 

a combination of methods to assess sediment delivery including aerial photo interpretation (for largescale 

mass wasting), complex numerical modeling (SEDMOD model for road erosion and delivery), and 

numeric estimates (for streambank erosion and surface erosion). Results from this study should be 

interpreted by keeping in mind the complexity of geomorphic responses and the differing methods used 

(Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

Figure 9. Sources of Sediment in the Upper South Fork subbasin of the Trinity River, 1944 to 1990. 

Source: Foster-Wheeler (2001) as adapted from EPA (1998). 

Mass wasting is the principal source of sediment in the SFTR basin accounting for 61 percent of the 

sediment supply to the SFTR, including road-related mass wasting (Figure 9). The underlying geology of 

the landscape determines the type and prevalence of landslides in the WAA (Foster-Wheeler 2001). The 

SFTR flows through a steep inner gorge composed of the Galice Formation, which is structurally weak 

and prone to shallow landslides. Although the Galice Formation underlies a relatively small portion of the 



WAA, it is a major source of sediment to the SFTR since the river flows through the formation most of the 

length of the WAA (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

The east-side of South Fork Mountain in the Hidden Valley watershed is underlain by the South Fork 

Mountain Schist, which is prone to deep-seated rotational-translational and block-glide landslides. Nearly 

the entire eastern slope of the mountain is covered by nested dormant rotational-translational slides 

(Foster-Wheeler 2001). Due to this inherent instability, the entire area was given an “Extreme” rating in 

the Instability and Erosion Hazard map by the California Department of Water Resources during sediment 

investigation in 1992 (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

The Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, which dominates Rattlesnake Creek and parts of Plummer Creek 

watersheds, has abundant inactive and ancient landslides composing 13 percent of the landscape, but is 

more stable than the Galice Formation or South Fork Mountain Schist. The Galice and South Fork 

Mountain Schist in the Hidden Valley watershed are the most prone to landsliding, with double the 

landslide density of Plummer Creek and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

The type and location of the landslide influences whether it will deliver sediment to the river (Foster- 

Wheeler 2001). Raines (1998) divided landslides into landslide type by combined geologic unit, slope 

position and size class. Five size classes were delineated on aerial photos, and measured in the field. 

Results from the study are summarized in Table 8. Table 9 shows the percentage of each landslide type 

contributing sediment by geologic type for the SFTR basin, which includes watersheds to the north and 

south of the WAA. Most of sediment was from shallow debris slides in the Galice Formation, which the 

SFTR flows through in the majority of the WAA (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

Table 8. Landslide Size Classes and Delivered Volumes for the SFTR Basin. 

Source: Foster-Wheeler (2001) as adapted from Raines (1998). 

Landslide Mean Volume 

Size Class (yd 3 Standard Median 

) Deviation Volume (yd 3 No. of 

) Measurements 

1 1,706 1,201 1,378 34 

2 6,607 5,476 5,385 44 

3 15,581 13,424 10,932 40 

4 77,370 62,716 50,925 16 

5 261,324 428,702 100,000 9 

Table 9. Landslide Types by Combined Geologic Unit for SFTR Basin. 

Source: Foster-Wheeler (2001) as adapted from Raines (1998). 

Combined 

Geologic Unit 

Igneous % 

volcanics (DG) 

Franciscan & 

affiliated (FR) 

Galice Formation 

(JG) 

Rattlesnake Ck. 

Terrane (RC) 

S.F. Mountain 

Schist (SC) 

Complex slides, slumps, Shallow rapid/ Debris Rock fall/ 

large deep-seated (%) debris slides (%) torrent (%) talus (%) 

54.2 40.8 5.0 0.0 

7.8 82.0 10.1 0.1 

22.7 74.4 2.9 0.1 

31.4 65.6 0.0 3.0 

5.6 85.2 8.6 0.6 


Project Area 


The drainage system of the Hidden Valley 5 th field watershed (HUC 1801021202, 46,264 acres) is 

composed of facial streams originating from the eastern slope of South Fork Mountain on the STNF. 

These facial drainages flow directly into the SFTR between Hyampom (River kilometer 50.0) and Forest 

Glenn (Rkm 89.5). And, with the exception of the first 150-feet in the largest facial drainages, all streams 

within the Project area are non-fish bearing. 

Cummulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis by Forest Service hydrologist Jim Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald 

2005) provided the baseline conditions for Project area 7 th field watersheds (Cave Creek-Swift Creek, 

Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley, Miller Springs, McClellen-South Fork, Trinity River, Hitchcock 

Creek-Oak Flat, Wintoon Flat-Deep Gulch). Watershed Analysis describing the Project area is 

incorporated within a broader WAA which includes descriptions of the Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek and 

Rattlesnake Creek 5 th field watersheds. Project area characterization is taken from Chapter 3 “Current 

Conditions” of the WA. Unless otherwise noted, applicable tables, figures, and text were incorporated 

directly from the WA. A small portion of Project activities occur in the Plummer 5 th field watershed 

(ridgeline roads 1N05C, 1S14F, U1N05E, UV1S14FA) and information for this watershed was retained. 

Temperature: Functioning At Risk 

The USFS maintains water temperature sites adjacent to the Project area. Data include maximum daily 

average, maximum weekly average, maximum temperature, and 7-day running maximum average 

temperature during the warmest periods, generally June through August. Water temperatures have been 

measured in the main channel of SFTR above Forest Glen, at Hyampom upstream of the confluence of 

Hayfork Creek; and in Glenn Creek (surrogate for Hidden Valley facial drainage water temperatures). 

Daily high water temperatures exceeding 69 °F were common in the mainstem SFTR from approximately 

mid-May through September/October each year temperatures were recorded (Table 10). The general 

north-south orientation of the SFTR, and long periods of direct solar radiation and is largely responsible 

for increased temperatures of the mainstem SFTR (Farber et al. 1998). Daily high water temperatures 

approach, and in some years (2001) exceed 80 °F during the same May through September/October 

period in the mainstem SFTR at Hyampom (Table 11). 

Table 10. SFTR Water Temperatures at Forest Glen. Source: FS unpublished data. 

Year # of days 

measured 

Beginning 

of Record 

End of 

Record 

Max 

Daily Avg 

(°F) 

Max 

Weekly 

Avg (°F) 

Max 

Temp 

(°F) 

Max Weekly 

Maximum 

(°F) 

Max Weekly 

Diurnal 

Fluctuation (°F) 

1994 100 07/15/94 10/23/94 73.8 72.8 79.8 78.4 11.0 

1997 137 05/21/97 10/05/97 72.2 71.1 77.5 76.3 9.3 

1999 147 06/17/99 11/11/99 68.9 66.8 72.4 71.1 8.4 

2002 125 06/11/02 10/14/02 72.0 71.3 76.1 75.4 9.9 

2003 108 06/13/03 09/29/03 72.9 71.3 75.9 74.3 7.1 

2004 153 05/07/04 10/06/97 72.5 71.9 76.2 75.5 8.4 

Avg 72.1 70.9 76.3 75.2 9.0 

Median 72.4 71.3 76.2 75.5 8.8 

Stdev 

1.7 2.1 2.4 2.4 1.4 



Table 11. SFTR Water Temperatures at Hyampom (upstream of Hayfork Creek). 

Source: FS unpublished data. 


measured 

Beginning 

of Record 

End of 

Record 

Max 

Daily 

Avg (°F) 

Max 

Weekly 

Avg (°F) 

Max 

Temp 

(°F) 

Max Weekly 

Maximum 

(°F) 

Max Weekly 

Diurnal 

Fluctuation 

(°F) 

1999 145 06/19/99 11/11/99 72.6 70.4 76.8 75.0 8.9 

2000 152 06/21/00 11/20/00 75.0 74.6 79.7 79.0 8.5 

2001 159 05/23/01 10/29/01 76.5 75.3 82.6 80.9 11.4 

2002 69 06/07/02 08/15/02 75.6 74.8 78.7 77.6 9.0 

2003 109 06/18/03 10/05/03 76.9 75.7 79.2 78.2 8.8 

2004 106 06/28/04 10/12/04 76.8 76.2 79.2 78.6 5.8 

Avg 75.6 74.5 79.4 78.2 8.7 

Median 76.1 75.1 79.2 78.4 8.8 

Stdev 

1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 

In addition, the USFS collected water temperature data in the mainstem SFTR below Butter Creek and 

Cave Creek in 1992 (Foster-Wheeler 2001). During the months of July and August 1992 the maximum 

water temperatures ranged from 65 to 78°F (18 to 26°C), with minimums of 57 to 70°F (14 to 21°C). 

These mainstem temperatures show stressful conditions exist for salmonids during the summer months. 

Rattlesnake Creek water temperatures, upstream of Flume Creek, were recorded in 1990 (USFS 1991, 

cited in Foster-Wheeler 2001). During the months of July and August 1990 the maximum water 

temperatures in Rattlesnake Creek ranged from 60 to 71°F (16 to 22°C), with minimums of 57 to 65°F (14 

to 18°C). The mixing of tributary water into larger streams can affect water temperatures in the receiving 

water. Farber et al. (1998) determined that Rattlesnake Creek was able to cool the SFTR water 

temperature by 0.4°C and Cave Creek by 0.1°C, but these small temperature influences quickly diminish 

downstream. However, the mouths of these cooler tributaries provide very important cool water refugia for 

salmonids during periods of high water temperatures (Foster-Wheeler 2001). 

Farber et al. (1998) analyzed SFTR water temperatures for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for their consideration during the development 

of the SFTR TMDL. Like many large watersheds the SFTR flows begin as small headwater streams at 

high elevations and ends at the confluence with the Trinity River as a wide lower elevation river. The 

SFTR like many rivers increases in width due to river flow and due to historic geomorphology processes. 

As river width increases the ability of topography and riparian canopy closure to shade the surface of the 

water diminishes to the point where it is no longer a factor. The general flow of the SFTR is from the 

south to the north. This is significant because this maximizes the amount of direct solar radiation that 

strikes the exposed water surface. As a large river system flows from high elevation where air 

temperatures are cooler to lower elevation where air temperatures are warmer the water temperature is 

constantly reaching equilibrium with the air temperature (Farber et al. 1998). Many researchers have 

found increase water temperatures as a function of lower elevations and subsequent high air 

temperatures (Sullivan et al 1990, in Farber et al. (1998). The result is a steady increase in water 

temperature as the SFTR flows from its headwaters in the Yolla Bolly Wilderness to the confluence with 

the Trinity River (Figure 10). Table 12 is a location key for Figure 10). 



Figure 10. Mainstem Maximum Weekly Average Temperatures from Headwaters to the confluence with the 

Trinity River. Source: Farber et al. (1998). 

Table 12. Location key for Figure 10. Source: Farber et al. (1998). 

River 

Kilometer 

Recorder Site Name 

2 Above Confluence with Trinity River 

19 Below Grouse Creek 

41 At Slide Creek (below Hyampom) 

55 Below Butter Creek 

67 At Plummer Creek 

81 Below Hwy 36 (Forest Glen) 

95 Above Smoky Creek 

104 At 30 Road Bridge 

117 Above Powell Creek (in Yolla Bolly Wilderness) 

Farber et al. (1998) felt the temporal and spatial understanding of stream temperatures in the SFTR 

watershed support the following conclusions: 

Historical pre-1964 flood data indicates that the SFTR mainstem maximum water temperatures 

exceeded 22°C (72.0°F). 

Historic pre-1964 flood water temperatures recorded throughout Northern California shows that 

water temperatures in the range of 20-30°C (68.4-86.6°F) were prevalent. 

Historical pre-1964 flood water temperatures demonstrate that the SFTR mainstem has never 

supported maximum water temperatures below 20°C (68.4°F) in previous 50 years. 

A range of natural variability is defined by the water temperatures found in the Yolla Bolla 

Wilderness of 16.6°C (62.2°F) and the North Fork Trinity River of 22.2°C (72.4°F). 

Average daily air and water temperatures are highly correlated (R2 = 0.93). 



Few tributaries to the SFTR have water temperatures outside the natural range of variability found 

within the SFTR watershed. 

Many mainstem water temperatures exceed 20°C (68.4°F) yet fall within the historic and natural 

range of variability found within SFTR watershed. 

It appears that the SFTR water temperatures are primarily controlled by topographic (elevation) 

and geomorphic characteristics (channel width). 

Water temperatures in the SFTR appear to be not influenced by tributary streams as no heating or 

cooling occurs immediately downstream of tributaries. [see comment under Refugia] 

Glen Creek (near Forest Glen), used a surrogate water temperatures in the Hidden Valley facial streams 

is Properly Functioning. Daily high water temperatures are significantly less then 69 °F (Table 13). 

Table 13. Water Temperatures for Glen Creek (2001-2004). Source: FS unpublished data. 


measured 

Beginning 

of Record 

End of 

Record 

Max Daily 

Avg (°F) 

Max 

Weekly 

Avg (°F) 

Max 

Temp 

(°F) 

Max 

Weekly 

Maximum 

(°F) 

Max Weekly 

Diurnal 

Fluctuation 

(°F) 

2001 200 04/12/01 10/29/01 60.3 59.4 61.9 61.0 6.0 

2002 146 05/22/02 10/15/02 61.2 60.3 62.8 62.0 5.3 

2003 121 05/31/03 09/29/03 62.4 61.7 63.9 63.0 5.1 

2004 152 05/07/04 10/06/04 60.3 59.8 61.6 61.1 4.6 

Avg 61.1 60.3 62.6 61.8 5.2 

Median 60.8 60.1 62.3 61.6 5.2 

Stdev 

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 

Turbidity: At Risk 

Mike Dean (CDFG Fishery Biologist) in a August 1993 memo to Richard Irizarry (Forest Fishery 

Biologist), indicated that the SFTR turbidity resulting from Hitchcock Creek was very heavy and had 

created a delta at its confluence with the SFTR about 10 feet deep and extending 60 feet into the SFTR. 

Adult surveys were cancelled below Hitchcock Creek on the SFTR because the presence of fish could not 

be effectively documented owing to poor visibility. Donald Haskins (Forest Geologist) provided the 

following characterization of Hitchcock Creek: 

“Those creeks have historically given us [Forest Service] major problems, with Hitchcock Creek being the 

worst historically. Landslide activity historically began in earnest in 1964 on privately owned logged-over 

lands high in the watershed. These landslides contributed to debris torrents down Hitchcock Creek which 

scoured the inner gorges of three tributaries of Hitchcock Creek the whole way down to the SFTR. This 

activity resulted in extensive destabilization of the inner gorge, especially within the South Fork Mountain 

Fault Zone, at the lower portion of the drainage. Wholesale landslide reactivation last occurred in the 

Hitchcock Creek in 1983, during the last period of extensive precipitation. Alders have come back well over 

the last 15 years.” 

Depth-integrated turbidity and suspended sediment sampling was conducted in the action area for water 

years 2001, 2002, and 2003 (TCRCD 2003). All three years were classified “normal water years” (Jim 

Fitzgerald, Personal Comm., 2005). Measurements collected at Forest Glen range from 48 to 162 NTUs 

(TCRCD 2003). SFTR measurements collected downstream of Hyampom, range from 3 to 605 NTUs 

(TCRCD 2003). 

Within the action area, there is substantial background sediment discharge from naturally occuring mass 

wasting features that were exacerbated by upslope timber harvest on private lands (Fitzgerald 2005). 

Most notable are slides on Hitchcock and Sulphur Glade creeks that annually turn the mainstem SFTR 

turbid from April through June. These slides mainly produce silt to clay size sediment (Photo 1). Periodic 



suspended sediment samples are taken from these features to measure sediment input. The most recent 

(June 2003) measured suspended sediment concentration of the SFTR above the Sulphur Glade slide 

was 0.51 mg/l and 91.7 mg/l below the slide. An estimated flow in the SFTR was 200 cfs, and 0.6 cfs for 

Sulphur Glade. This material remains in suspension for several miles below the slide, sometimes all the 

way to the mainstem Trinity River. During discharge, the slide itself has a measured suspended sediment 

concentration of 36,885 mg/l. For an average season this slide can yield up to 6000 tons of fine sediment 

(Fitzgerald 2005). Suspended sediment concentration of 91.75 (mg/l) approximately correspondes to 55 

NTU (Figure11). 

Photo 1. South Fork Mountain Schist. Sediment delivered to the SFTR (~Rkm 61) from Sulphur Glade Creek 

slide (Source: Fitzgerald 2005). 



Figure 11. Suspended Sediment Concentration vs. Turbidity for water years 2001-2003. 

Source TCRCD (2003). 

Chemical Contamination: Properly Functioning 

There is little opportunity for chemical contamination to occur in the Project area due largely to the 

uninhabited remoteness and relatively steep forested landscape. There is no evidence for such having 

occurred historically. 

Physical Barriers: Properly Functioning 

The only barriers limiting anadromous fish access into Hidden Valley tributaries are natural barriers 

located at or near (within 150-feet) the confluence of the SFTR. Foster-Wheeler (2001) in error depicts 

the Hidden Valley watershed as being fish bearing to a greater extent then it actually is. This was due to 

inaccuracies in the Forest Service GIS corporate fish layer utilized by Foster-Wheeler at the time the 

watershed analysis was compiled. 

Sulphur Glade Creek was surveyed by the USFS (1979) to assess fisheries resources. The surveyors 

found it to be a small perennial stream with side slopes in excess of 100 percent. Stream gradients 

ranged from 15 to 25 percent, with a short reach of three percent near its mouth. Fish habitat was 

described as poor. Rainbow trout were observed only in the lower 150 feet of the stream. 

Glen Creek was surveyed by the USFS (1973) to assess fisheries resources. The surveyors found 

salmon and steelhead spawning to be limited to the lower 150 yards. Above that a series of rock falls and 



logjams limited upstream movement. Few spawning areas were seen, and those present were in poor to 

fair condition. Channel stability was rated as poor, with exposed cutbanks and large slides common. 

Johnson Creek was surveyed by the USFS (1975) to assess fisheries resources. A complete barrier, a 

slick-rock, cascade-waterfall starts at the mouth and continues upstream for 100-feet. 

Substrate: Not Properly Functioning 

Large areas of the SFTR aggraded significantly following the 1964 flood, particularly in the area of the 

Hyampom Valley (PWA 1994, Matthews 1998; in EPA 1998). This has caused loss of instream habitat, 

loss of habitat complexity, degradation of the stream’s ability to effectively move sediment downstream, 

and excess fine sediment in pools. 

Mass wasting and chronic inputs of fine sediment from roads and other sources has resulted in excess 

fine sediment in spawning gravels, and filling of pools with fine sediment in some locations. This can limit 

the development of eggs into fry and can secondarily limit the production of macroinvertebrates that 

function as a food source for the fish (Borok and Jong 1997). SFTR mainstem substrate conditions 

adjacent to Hidden Valley and Plummer Creek 5 th field watersheds are presented in Table 14. 

Table 14. Channel Substrate Characteristics for Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek, and Rattlesnake 

Creek Watersheds Watershed (Source USDA Forest Service, 2001). 

Watershed 

Hidden Valley 2 Plummer 3 Rattlesnake 4 

Substrate 

Composition & 

Embeddedness 1 Pools Riffles Pools Riffles Pools Riffles 

% Bedrock 9 2 9 6 9 9 

% Boulder 14 25 32 39 23 39 

% Cobble 13 35 19 31 23 27 

% Gravel 25 28 28 18 27 20 

% Sand 33 9 9 4.5 16 5 

% Fines 6 1 3 1.5 2 - 

% Embeddedness 42 23 38 38 27 5 

1. Measurements of substrate composition and embeddedness percentages are ocular qualitative estimates. 

2. USFS (1989a) 

3. USFS (1993) 

4 USFS (1989b) 

USFS. 1989a. Habitat Typing Report - South Fork Trinity River. Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Reclamation. Interagency Agreement No. 9- 

AA-20-08530. 

USFS. 1993. Plummer Creek Habitat Typing Report. Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Reclamation. Interagency Agreement No. 9-AA-20- 

08530. 

USFS. 1989b. Habitat Typing Report - Rattlesnake Creek. Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Reclamation. Interagency Agreement No. 9-AA- 

20-08530. 

A reach of the SFTR from Eltapom Creek (5 miles downstream from Hayfork Creek) upstream to the East 

Fork Trinity River was habitat typed in 1989 (USFS 1989a). This reach encompasses the Hidden Valley 

portion of the SFTR. Flatwater habitat types (runs, glides, step runs, pocket waters, and edgewater) were 

the dominant habitat types, with 58 percent of the survey length. Riffles (low gradient riffles, high gradient 

riffles, and cascades) were the second most common, with 25 percent of survey length. Pools (backwater, 

scour, corner, and mid-channel pools) were the least common types, with 16.5 percent of the survey 

length. Log and rootwad scour pools accounted for only 8 of the 1,142 habitat units surveyed. Riffle 

embeddedness averaged 32 percent and pooltail embeddedness averaged 42 percent. Gravel comprised 

28 percent of the substrate in all habitat types, with cobble (27 percent) and sand/fines (24 percent) in 

decreasing order. The Rosgen (1985) channel types varied between B2, C2, and C3 (USDA Forest 

Service, 2001). 



LWD: Not Properly Functioning 

Most of the wood in the SFTR system was flushed out by the 1964 flood, and following the flood, land 

management policy directed that wood be aggressively removed from stream channels (Llanos and Cook 

2001). The riparian areas have revegetated since the 1964 flood, but the dominant species appears to be 

alders, which break down quickly in the channel (Llanos and Cook 2001). 

There is no empirical census of downed LWD in Project area tributaries. The riparian area along Forest 

Service Roads in the Hidden Valley watershed are considered Late Successional Reserves (LSR) well 

stocked and in a mature to old-growth condition (Dennis Garrison, personal communication, 2005). This 

will provide for a continual source of large wood to riparian areas and stream channels within the Project 

Area. 

Pool Frequency: Functioning at Risk 

Prior to the 1964 flood, the Upper SFTR mainstem was characterized by scattered large, deep pools, 

interspersed with shallow pools, riffles and rapids. Gravel and fine sediments deposited during and after 

that flood infilled large pools, aggraded and broadened riffles, and destroyed riparian vegetation, leaving 

a wide flood plain, shallow pools and riffles with occasional deeper pools (Haskins and Irizarry 1988, in 

EPA 1998). 

River surveys upstream of the WAA found only five pools deeper than six feet from Forest Glen to the 

East Fork South Fork in 1970, but a re-survey in 1989 found 28 pools greater than six feet deep (USDA 

Forest Service, 2001). CDFG spring Chinook surveys 1994-1995 (Dean 1996a, in EPA 1998), indicated 

that many of the adult spring Chinook were holding in 16 pools, with only one of these located 

downstream of Hyampom and none upstream of Forest Glen (EPA 1998). Since 1996, spring Chinook 

have been found holding in pools upstream of Forest Glen (CDFG 2004a, and Figure 6 of this document), 

which may indicate a trend towards improving pool frequency. 

Pool Quality: Functioning at Risk 

Dean (1995) reported 21 holding pools in the mainstem SFTR and suggested that holding pools do not 

appear to be a limiting factor for spring Chinook. Low water levels and high temperatures appeared to 

limit production in the mainstem SFTR (Dean 1996a, in EPA 1998). Some pools that were judged to be 

“good habitat” were underutilized (1-2 fish [adults]), generally when those pools were located in areas of 

heavy human use. Conversely, “poor quality” pools in isolated areas often contained more fish. Based on 

the discussion under Pool Frequency (above), there are indications that pool quality is improving. 

Off-Channel Habitat: Properly Functioning 

Adjacent to the Project area, Rattlesnake Creek, Little Bear Wallow Creek, Plummer Creek, and Butter 

Creek offer significant amounts off-channel habitat from the mainstem SFTR. Smaller tributaries adjacent 

to the Project area (Cold Creek, Johnson Creek, Cold Creek, Sulphur Glade Creek, and Glen Creek) 

provide very limited off-channel habitat (up to 150-feet) due to steep gradients. Beyond the 150-feet, 

these streams are non-fish bearing. Hitchcock Creek and numerous unnamed tributaries provide zero offchannel 

habitats because creek mouths are significantly elevated above the SFTR or are have very steep 

gradients. These creeks are non-fish bearing. 

Refugia: Functioning at Risk 

As temperatures increase by mid to late spring in the SFTR, juveniles seek refuge in accessible 

tributaries (see list of fish bearing streams above). Coolwater habitat can also be sustained in deep pools, 

cold springs, hyporheic flow, or the junction of cooler tributary streams and in different segments of the 

mainstem SFTR. Thermal stratification can occur in pools 3 to 9 feet deep having large gravel bars at the 

upstream end, and shallow (1.5 feet) pools with subsurface seepage. Differences ranged from 7.0 - 8.0°F 

between the bottom and surface of the stream in the Eel River in northern California (Matthews et al. 



1994, Nielsen et al. 1994). Temperature differentials between cool pools and ambient stream have been 

documented at 6.3°F. 

Hillemeier (1993) observed the spring-run Chinook salmon utilize large deep pools in the SFTR. These 

large pools were sought to escape predators, to rest and congregate with other adults and for their 

thermal stratification. The same observations have been made repeatedly during August adult counts on 

mainstem SFTR and Hayfork Creek (John Lang, personal observation). 

Farber et al. (1998) stated water temperatures in the SFTR appear to be not influenced by tributary 

streams as no heating or cooling occurs immediately downstream of tributaries. However, during summer 

adult dives on the SFTR in August, there were noticeable changes (unmeasured) in water temperatures 

at the mouths of tributaries and near seeps providing a measure of thermal refugia (John Lang, personal 

observation). 

Width to Depth Ratio: Functioning at Risk 

There is no empirical data available. Functioning at risk was based on professional opinion (John Lang). 

The excess sediment storage in river bars, landslide toes, terraces, and riverbanks has provided a ready 

supply of sediment to the river. In addition to extra sediment stored in the river system (mostly in 

tributaries to the SFTR), streams have aggraded and widened in response to the sediment load causing 

bank undercutting and bank erosion in areas not confined by bedrock walls (Llanos and Cook 2001). 

Streambank Condition: Hidden Valley Not Properly Functioning 

Raines (1998) estimated streambank erosion by stream order in tons per year (Table 15). These 

estimates are based on observed erosion rates for the particular geology, but since the only two factors 

used to estimate the erosion rate were stream order and geology, they were not site-specific and are very 

rough estimates. Raines (1998) also did not distinguish between management and non-management 

related streambank erosion because it was difficult to separate. Hidden Valley watershed, with the SFTR 

running through the steep inner gorge composed of the Galice Formation, has the highest rate of 

streambank erosion. 

Table 15. Stream Bank Erosion (tons per year) by Stream Order in the Watershed Analysis Area. 

Adapted from Raines (1998). 


Hidden 

Valley 

Plummer 

Creek 

Rattlesnake 

Creek 

Stream Order 

Total 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (tons/ yr) 

1,900 6,500 10,100 1,700 0 0 40,200 60,400 

1,200 3,200 2,500 3,500 400 0 1,500 12,200 

1,300 4,200 2,900 4,200 500 4500 0 17,500 

Floodplain Connectivity: Properly Functioning 

SFTR has areas that are frequently hydrologically linked to main channel; overbank flows occur and 

maintain wetland functions and riparian vegetation. 

Peak/Base Flow: At Risk 

Hydrologic characteristics of the WAA have likely changed since the arrival of Euro-Americans, but the 

extent is difficult to quantify without accurate flow records. The four main management factors 

contributing to hydrologic changes are the building of roads, timber harvest, fire suppression, and flow 

diversions. Roads influence hydrologic flows through a watershed. Road cuts on hillslopes intercept 



surface runoff and subsurface flow and route it more quickly to streams. Roads, skid trails, and landings 

also compact soils, reducing infiltration for potentially long periods of time. This can result in increases in 

peak flows for floods with frequent return intervals and decreases in summer low flows by routing water 

out of the watershed more efficiently and decreasing the amount that infiltrates. Increases in peak flows 

from roads are related to the connection of road ditches to streams (i.e., they drain hillslopes directly to 

streams) or long inside ditches that drain through culverts to eroded gullies that connect to streams 

(Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 

The result of all of these factors on hydrologic characteristics is difficult to quantify. Potential changes 

include lower water yields and summer low flows, which, combined with wider than historic stream widths, 

could be detrimental to fish habitat. Lower summer flow levels could also stress riparian vegetation, 

especially since the late summer receives little precipitation. Peak flows may also be higher for higher 

frequency events, which could cause increased streambank erosion, but would also tend to flush instream 

sediments and large woody debris downstream (Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 

Drainage Network Increase: At Risk 

Roads, skid trails and landings in the SFTR basin that are improperly located, designed, constructed or 

maintained may cause: 1) increased surface erosion and chronic fine sediment production and delivery to 

streams, and 2) episodic and occasionally catastrophic delivery of fine and coarse sediment to streams 

from crossing failures, gully development and landslides generated from improper placement. This has 

direct and immediate adverse impacts immediately downstream from the failures, but it can also affect 

areas much farther downstream and much farther into the future. This appears to be especially 

problematic in the highly erodible and unstable geologic terranes in the western third of the watershed 

(EPA 1998). 

Road Density/Location: Not Properly Functioning 

Hidden Valley road densities are 3.8 mi/mi 2 , and 2.2 mi/mi 2 in Riparian Reserves (Table 16). Hidden 

Valley watershed, since it is composed almost entirely of South Fork Mountain Schist and the Galice 

Formation (Figure 12), has the highest length of roads in erosive lithologies, and has a correspondingly 

high erosion rate (655 yards/mile of road) and the most landslides (91 yards/mile of road) (Foster- 

Wheeler, 2001). The length of road in the Hidden Valley Watershed constructed on slopes >35% (38.8 

miles), and/or on South Fork Mountain Schist or Galice Formation is 128.7 miles (Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 

The length of road in the Plummer Watershed constructed on slopes >35% (21.8.8 miles), and/or on 

South Fork Mountain Schist or Galice Formation is 21.5 miles (Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 

Table 16. Hidden Valley Road Densities (Source: Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 

Road Type 

Hidden Valley Plummer 

Road Road density Road Road density 

Density in RR Density in RR 

Unknown 0.8 0.9 0.3 

4WD Road 0.5 

Highway 6.8 1.1 0.9 0.2 

Light Duty, Outside FS 31.6 6.7 5.9 1.5 

Unimproved 5.4 0.7 12.1 0.7 

Trail 4.2 1.1 9.9 3.5 

FS Dirt 73.7 11.4 79.1 13.4 

FS paved 28.5 1.7 0.3 0.3 

GS gravel 12.1 1.7 16.8 5 

Private roads 35.2 4.1 

Total Length 198.2 24.5 130.1 24.9 

Road Density (mi/sq. mi) 3.8 2.2 2.6 2.1 



Figure 12. South Fork Trinity River Geology. Source: TCRCD (2003). 



Roads contribute a significant amount to the total sediment budget for the basin, contributing about 17 

percent of the total sediment for the whole 1944 to 1990 time period (EPA 1998). Roads contributed 4 

percent of the sediment yield through mass wasting, leaving 13 percent attributed to surface erosion, 

washouts, gullies, and slides too small to show up on the aerial photos (Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 

Disturbance History: Not Functioning Properly 

Land management activities that historically and currently contributed to the decline in the cold water 

fishery include: timber operations (4,606 acres federal; 6,336 acres private) with road building (227 miles) 

on erodible terrain likely being the greatest cause of concern; with bank erosion contributing to excess 

sediment and diversion of water leading to higher water temperatures and nutrient contributions. 

Residential land uses and grazing probably do not contribute significant amounts to the problem due to 

low densities. The have been no wildland fires recorded in the Hidden Valley watershed. 

Management activities such as road building and timber harvest contributed to mass wasting sediment 

delivery and were analyzed by Raines (1998) for the period of the study, 1944 to 1990. Figure 13 shows 

the amount (in tons) of sediment contributed by management and non-management activities for the 

three watersheds in the WAA. Hidden Valley watershed has the highest management and nonmanagement 

related mass wasting of the three watersheds, and has a ratio of non-management to 

management sediment delivery of 7.8 to 1. Mass wasting in Plummer Creek watershed is less than in 

Hidden Valley, and the non-management to management ratio is higher at 12.5 to 1. This is likely due to 

the low level of management activity in the lower portions of the watershed that overlay the landslideprone 

Galice Formation. In contrast, Rattlesnake Creek watershed has a non-management to 

management related mass wasting ratio of 0.59 to 1. 

Figure 13. Mass Wasting Sediment Delivery in Watershed Analysis Area. Adapted from Raines (1998). 

Based on the results of the existing condition Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis (Fitzgerald 2005), 

all six of the 7 th Field HUC watersheds within the used to stratify the Project area, have CWE Risk Rating 

of four, which means there is a substantial increase in fine and coarse sediment above background 

(Tables 16, 17 and 18). The background sediment yield is defined as the background sediment input to a 

stream channel from surface, fluvial, mass, and bank erosion caused by natural disturbance processes 



(i.e., floods and fire) (Fitzgerald 2005). The Equvilent Roaded Area (ERA) model was ran at the 8 th Field 

HUC watershed to better characterize the existing watershed condition (see below). Excess sediment 

sourced from stream-road crossing failure and poor road drainage are the main factors causing adverse 

CWE. Sediment is presently having a major stress on fish and substantial increase in the bed-material 

load. 

Table 16. Summary of HV Watershed Restoration Project existing ERA CWE analysis results 

(Fitzgerald 2005). 

Watershed Name 

[7 th field drainages] 

Drainage 

Area 

(acres) 

TOC 

(%) 

Harvest & 

Fire ERA 

(acres) 

Road 

ERA 

(acres) 

Existing 

ERA 

(acres) 

Existing 

ERA (%) 


Condition 

Class 

Cave Creek-Swift 

Creek 

9,546 12 351 155 506 5 II 

Little Bear Wallow 

Creek-Hidden Valley 

9,919 12 143 119 262 3 I 

Miller Springs 6,994 12 163 72 235 3 I 

McClellen-South Fork 

Trinity River 

6,955 12 426 65 490 7 II 

Hitchcock Creek-Oak 

Flat 

11,793 12 1,203 136 1,338 11 III 

Wintoon Flat-Deep 

Gulch 

4,226 12 48 56 105 2 I 

Table 17. Summary of HV Watershed Restoration Project existing mass wasting CWE analysis 

results (Fitzgerald 2005). 



Drainage 

Area 

(acres) 

Background 

mass 

wasting 

(yds3/acre/ 

decade) 

Harvest & 

Fire mass 

wasting 

(yds3/acre/ 

decade) 

Road mass 

wasting 

(yds3/acre 

/decade) 

Total 

Mass 

Wasting 

(yds3/acre 


Condition 

Class 

Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,546 8,798 3,720 5,131 

/year) 

17,648 III 



9,919 11,613 3,124 3,613 18,350 II 

Miller Springs 6,994 8,438 2,323 2,005 12,766 II 


Trinity River 

6,955 7,885 2,088 1,308 11,281 II 


Flat 

11,793 12,996 5,342 2,707 21,045 II 


Gulch 

4,226 9,269 752 5,316 15,337 II 

49,433 58,999 17,349 20,080 96,427 



Table 18. Summary of HV Watershed Restoration Project existing surface erosion CWE analysis 

results (Fitzgerald 2005). 



Drainage 

Area 

(acres) 

Background 

surface 

erosion 

(yds3/acre/ 

year) 

Harvest & 

Fire surface 

erosion 

(yds3/acre/ 

year) 

Road 

surface 

erosion 

(yds3/ 

acre/year) 

Total 

Surface 

Erosion 

(yds3/acre 

/year) 


Condition 

Class 

Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,546 433 0 608 1042 III 



9,919 466 0 430 897 III 

Miller Springs 6,994 287 0 172 460 II 


Trinity River 

6,955 290 0 234 524 III 


Flat 

11,793 454 0 490 944 III 


Gulch 

4,226 118 0 152 270 III 

49,433 2048 0 2086 4137 

Riparian Reserves: Functioning at Risk 

Over 65 percent of the riparian areas are composed of conifer tree size 3 (13-24 feet, small to medium 

timber as of 1992, [it would be expected that tree size has increased since 1992]) or larger with 

approximately 61 percent of those stands with moderate-dense (>40 percent) crown closure and 39 

percent with sparse-open (0-39 percent) crown closure (page 3-26 in Foster-Wheeler, 2001). 



V. Effects of the Proposed Action 

The STNF Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators (Appendix D of this document), was used to assist 

in the analysis of effect for the proposed action. The STNF Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators is 

functionally equivalent to the “Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use in the Northwest Forest 

Plan Area” provided in the Analytical Process, except for the “population characteristics” and “population 

and habitat” pathways. An ESA recovery plan for SONCC coho salmon has not been proposed or 

completed. Therefore, insufficient information exists to address the “population characteristics” and 

“population and habitat” pathways at this time. 

The analytical process contains efficiency measures to limit duplicative analysis. Project elements that 

have similar effects (or no causal mechanism) to an indicator may be grouped for analysis. Indicators that 

address similar habitat characteristics (such as substrate and turbidity) may be grouped for analysis since 

they are similarly affected by project elements. 

Direct effects to coho salmon are not expected to occur. There are no aspects of the Project that will 

occur where fish are present. 

Indirect effects to SONCC coho salmon, its critical habitat, and EFH will be analyzed by evaluating the 

expected effect of the Project elements on habitat indicators as described above. 

For evaluating effects, the Project is divided into Project Elements as described below. 

Road Upgrade 

System Road upgrade of 60.5 miles of existing system roads (including rocking, 

grading, culvert upgrade or drainage repair). 

Road Realignment 

Non system road of 0.3 miles accessing private property would be rerouted to better 

conform to topography (including rocking, grading, culvert upgrade or drainage repair). 

Road Rehabilitation 

Decommissioning or obliteration of 41.1 miles of existing system and nonsystem road 

including culvert removal, outsloping, ripping, waterbarring, slope stabilization and 

revegetation. Hydroclosure of 5.5 miles of existing system road (including culvert 

upgrade or installation of critical dips, and/or water bars). 

Each of the Project elements is analyzed for its effect on habitat indicators that are used to characterize 

the health of aquatic habitat. Changes to an indicator are evaluated using factor analysis to determine if 

there is an effect to individuals of the species or critical habitat/EFH. 

Water Temperature 

Road Upgrade 

Proximity – Approximately 0.1 miles (Road 3N10) is proposed for road upgrade (grading) within 0.1 mile 

of CH. Approximately 21.0 miles (43 culvert upgrades) proposed for road upgrade will occur between 

0.25 – 0.75 miles of CH/EFH. The remaining 39.3 miles (71 culvert upgrades) proposed for road upgrade 

will occur a distance greater than 0.75 miles from CH/EFH. 

Probability – Road rocking, grading, constructing rocked water dips, and drainage repair will not result in 

the loss of any canopy cover of any stream; therefore, there is no causal mechanism to change water 

temperature. 



It is probable that some hazard trees (small understory trees) be fell during culvert upgrades that may 

result in reductions in stream shade. There is low probability that tree removal for culvert upgrade will 

result in water temperature changes. This is due to the project occurring over a protracted time line (ten 

years) and dispersed locations (different streams) within any given year. 

Magnitude – Changes to stream shade resulting from removing individual hazard trees will be so small 

that no water temperature change will result. 

Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature. 


Proximity – Approximately 0.3 miles (Road 1N24E) is proposed for road realignment and is greater than 

0.75 miles upslope of CH/EFH. 

Probability – Road realignment will not result in the loss of any canopy cover of any stream; therefore, 

there is no causal mechanism to change water temperature. 



Proximity – Approximately 1.8 miles (Roads 1S26C, U1S30, and 1S01A) are proposed for road 

decommission including the removal of 4 culverts (Road U1S30) within 0.1 miles of critical habitat/EFH. 

Approximately 21.7 miles are proposed for road decommission including the removal of 64 culverts 0.25 

to 0.75 miles of critical habitat/EFH. 

Approximately 17.7 miles are proposed for road decommission including the removal of 24 culverts 

greater than 0.75 miles of critical habitat/EFH. 

Probability – It is probable that some hazard trees (small understory trees) would be felled during culvert 

removal that may result in reductions in stream shade. There is low probability that tree removal for 

culvert removal will result in water temperature changes. This is due to the project occurring over a 

protracted time line (ten years) and dispersed locations (different streams) within any given year. 

Magnitude – Changes to stream shade resulting from removing individual hazard trees will be so small 

that no water temperature change will result. 


Water Temperature Indicator Summary 

The project would have insignificant negative (-) effects on water temperature due to canopy loss 

resulting from road upgrade, realignment and rehabilitation. 

The project would brush vegetation to access roads identified for restoration treatment and within 50-feet 

immediately up and downstream of identified culverts. Trees felled in the RR would remain as down 

wood. Areas adjacent to culverts were previously disturbed when originally installed. An unknown number 

of small diameter (

Suspended Sediment 

Road Upgrade 


Proximity – Approximately 0.1 miles (Road 3N10) is proposed for road upgrade (grading) within 0.1 mile 

of CH. 

Approximately 21.0 miles (43 culvert upgrades) proposed for road upgrade will occur between 0.25 – 0.75 

miles of CH/EFH. 

The remaining 39.3 miles (71 culvert upgrades) proposed for road upgrade will occur a distance greater 

than 0.75 miles from CH/EFH. 

Probability – The probability for road upgrade activities (which includes ditch cleaning, culvert inlet 

cleanout, constructing rocked water dips, grading, and replacing culverts in non-fish streams) to 

negatively (-) affect coho salmon is low because of timing of sediment movement and because of the 

limited amount of sediment that could reach critical habitat. The likelihood that this project element would 

positively (+) affect (reduce) turbidity or improve substrate in critical habitat under average winter stream 

flow conditions is also low because relatively few road miles would be upgraded compared to total road 

miles in the watershed. However, the likelihood that this project element would positively (+) affect 

(reduce) turbidity or improve substrate in critical habitat is high long-term because over one-half of the 

crossings in the Project area are predicted to fail in a >25 year storm event. 

Magnitude – Road Upgrade would have a short-term negative (-) effect, as well as a long-term positive 

(+) effect on the indicator. The slight negative effects of road Upgrade on turbidity and substrate in critical 

habitat would be difficult to detect and would not measurably affect critical habitat. Project design criteria 

would be used to minimize the amount of soil that moves off-site. In addition, any soil that is flushed 

downstream at the beginning of the rainy season would be immediately diluted by the much greater 

volume of water in critical habitat and would become indistinguishable from the elevated levels of 

sediment entering channels from all sources at that time. 

The slight positive (+) effect for this element will occur for reducing road-related stream sediment in the 

long term. Positive effects will occur as a result of better cross drains moving water off the road surface, 

rock surfacing to reduce erosion from the running surface and larger culverts to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic failure. 

Element Summary – Road Upgrade will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to turbidity and 

substrate due to soil disturbance and long-term positive (+) effects resulting from better road drainage 

and lower risk of culvert failure. 


Proximity – Approximately 0.3 miles (Road 1N24E) is proposed for road realignment and is greater than 

0.75 miles upslope of CH/EFH. 

Probability – The probability for road realignment activities to negatively (-) affect coho salmon is low 

because of timing of sediment movement and because of the limited amount of sediment that could reach 

critical habitat. The likelihood that this project element would positively (+) affect (reduce) turbidity or 

improve substrate in critical habitat under average winter stream flow conditions is also low because of 

relatively few road miles repaired compared to total road miles in the watershed. 

Element Summary – This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on suspended sediment. 


Approximately 1.8 miles (Roads 1S26C, U1S30, and 1S01A) are proposed for road decommission 

including the removal of 4 culverts (Road U1S30) within 0.1 miles of SONCC coho salmon critical habitat. 



Approximately 21.7 miles are proposed for road decommission including the removal of 64 culverts 0.25 

to 0.75 miles of SONCC coho salmon critical habitat. 

Approximately 17.7 miles are proposed for road decommission including the removal of 24 culverts 

greater than 0.75 miles of SONCC coho salmon critical habitat. 

Probability –There is low probability that that road rehabilitation will have short-term (-) negative effects 

on turbidity and substrate in critical habitat/EFH and a long-term positive (+) effect in the SFTR. Localized 

erosion may result during implementation due to summer thunderstorms. Erosion control measures (daily 

mulching of bare soil near streams) would minimize sediment from entering channels from 

decommissioned road prisms in the event of thunderstorms. In addition, an excavator would remove all 

inchannel fill down to the original stream gradient and will reshape streambanks to approximate natural 

banks up- and downstream of the work area. This step will result in a net decrease of fines and restore 

the original channel grade. The channel will be dewatered at the time so that disturbed materials would 

not be transported downstream. There maybe a short-term localized increase in turbidity during the initial 

phase of rewatering at each site. Straw bale cofferdams (installed downstream of culvert work) would trap 

sediments inchannel while the channel is rewatered. Trapped sediments would then be excavated from 

the channel prior to leaving a site. Erosion control measures would be inplace over weekends. Due to the 

proximity of some road decommissioning within 0.1 miles of the SFTR, there is potential for small 

amounts of sediment to enter critical habitat/EFH. Turbidity associated with rewatering the stream 

associated with roads U1S30 and 1S01A, may reach the SFTR but would become mixed and diluted to 

an immeasurable level within a few hundred feet of origin. The area disturbed (~3-5 miles of road 

decommissioning per year) in relation to background sediment levels of the Hidden Valley 5 th field 

watershed would result in very low probability of suspended sediment and turbidity in the SFTR elevating 

above background levels. 

The likelihood that this project element would negatively (-) affect (increase) turbidity or adversely affect 

substrate in critical habitat/EFH due to post-implementation channel adjustments (i.e., short-term erosion 

and sediment delivery which may last 2 to 3 years) is low. The number and size of the culverts and 

associated erosion would be dispursed over 10 years. In any given year, the anticipated level of erosion 

in relation to background sediment levels of the Hidden Valley 5 th field watershed would result in very low 

probability of suspended sediment and turbidity in the SFTR elevating above background levels. And 

significant channel adjustments would be caused by significant storm events. It is anticipated such events 

would cause a corresponding increase in background suspended sediments in critical habitat/EFH. T 

The likelihood that this project element would positively (+) affect (reduce) turbidity or improve substrate 

in critical habitat/EFH is high long-term. Over one-half of the crossings in the Project would likely fail in a 

>25 year storm event (Fitzgerald 2005). 

A road restoration program at Redwood National Park was initiated in 1978 to reduce road related 

sediment. Madei (2001) summarized findings from field evaluation of post-treatment erosion on 

decommissioned roads in Redwood National Park post 1997 event. Conclusions were: treated roads 

contributed about one-fourth the sediment produced from untreated roads; eliminating the risk of stream 

diversions and culvert failures, road treatments significantly reduce the long-term sediment risk from 

abandoned roads. Madej (2001) stated that if restoration is effective, treated sites should have a lower 

frequency or volume of failure during large rain events than untreated sites. Over the long-term, improved 

watershed conditions should result in improved instream and fisheries habitat conditions. 

In addition, post-implementation monitoring for road decommissioning and culvert removal or upgrade on 

the STNF concluded that, if properly designed and implemented, road-stream crossing excavation is 

having discountable short-term effects on beneficial uses and water quality, and that restoration activities 

are improving watershed condition by reducing the magnitude, duration, timing, and frequency of hillslope 

runoff diversion, the risk of road-stream crossing failure (USDA Forest Service 2005). The most 

substantial measured short-term impact is increased suspended sediment and turbidity during crossing 

excavation in perennial streams. During excavation the increased suspended sediment concentration was 

not measurable ¼ mile downstream of the crossing and did not violate California State water quality 



objectives for suspended sediment or turbidity. No drainage scale sediment increases were measured 

during excavation or after the first runoff generating storm event (USDA Forest Service, 2005). 

Pacific Southwest Regional BMP monitoring results (1992-2002) found the Forest Service is effectively 

implementing road-stream crossing excavation projects 85 percent of the time (USDA Forest Service 

2004). 

Magnitude – Primary effects from summer thunderstorms and post-implementation adjustments (due to 

winter storms) include elevated turbidity in watercourses near treated roads, local channel erosion due to 

culvert removal and erosion from exposed decommissioned road prisms. 

An estimate of post-implementation erosion applied the methods described in Madej (2001), i.e., where 

post-treatment erosion was most strongly correlated to a surrogate for stream power (drainage area X 

channel gradient) and the amount of road fill excavated from the stream crossing. If the entire Project was 

to be conducted in one season and followed by a 7 to 10 year flow event, and estimated 1,714 yd 3 of 

sediment could be generated as a result of Road rehabilitation activities and subsequent channel 

adjustment (Table 5). Road treatments will however, occur over a 10 year period. An estimate of 

background erosion for the Hidden Valley watershed (management and non-management related) 

delivered to the SFTR is approximately 2,468 tons/sq. mile/yr (Figure 11). Background erosion converted 

to cubic-yards of sediment for the 53 sq.mile Hidden Valley 5 th field watershed is approximately 93,416 

cubic yards per year (Jim Fitzgerald, personal communication, 2005). Over the ten year project time line, 

the potential “maximum” erosion generated by road rehabilitation annually is approximately 1,865 yd 3 or 

0.2 percent over existing background erosion levels. 

Turbidity and Substrate Indicator Summary 

The Project will result in net reductions of sediment through removal of approximately 145,900 yds3 of 

existing fill material and will eliminate or reduce the risk of crossing failure. Overall, sediment delivery 

potential (which relates to both turbidity and substrate conditions) is improved (protected) in the long term 

by reducing risk of fill failure. It is assumed the short-term effects of sediment from road decommissioning 

would be immeasurable compared to present background levels. 

Road rehabilitation would have short-term negative (-) effects, as well as a long-term positive (+) effect on 

the habitat indicator. The negative effects of road rehabilitation related turbidity and substrate would be 

evident in the SFTR for a short distance (few hundred feet) downstream till it became diluted to 

immeasurable levels. An unknown amount (although 0.2 percent over existing background is an 

estimated maximum) of sediment will be mobilized into CH/EFH. If spawning fish were present, it is highly 

unlikely this additional sediment would adversely affect emergence of fry from redds. Because of 

implementing project design criteria and BMP’s, effects in the SFTR could not be meaningfully measured. 

The long-term positive (+) effect of this element for reducing road-related turbidity and decreasing fine 

sediment (approximately 120,429 yd3 will be removed from crossings) in the substrate in the long-term 

would be reducing the density of roads in the Hidden Valley subwatershed by approximately 0.8 mi/mi2. 

Hidden Valley facial tributaries would have positive effects that could not be meaningfully measured. 

Element Summary - Road rehabilitation would not have effects great enough to negatively (-) affect coho 

salmon and its critical habitat or EFH. This is because turbidity and changes in substrate as a result of 

road upgrade, road realignment and rehabilitation activities would not be significantly elevated above 

existing background levels. Road rehabilitation will have long-term positive (+) effects to turbidity and 

substrate in the SFTR due to decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the 

drainage network that are prone to erosion. 

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients 

Road Upgrade 





All Project elements have a common analysis for Chemical Contamination/Nutrients because the 

mechanism with potential to cause effects is the same. All equipment fueling sites will be located at 

existing landings well away from any watercourses and have appropriate spill containment (Appendix C). 

Chemical contamination in the form of a spill of petroleum products due to a motorized vehicle accident 

(log truck, tractor, and yarder) is, of course, not expected as part of the Project. Reinitiation of 

consultation will be initiated, as appropriate, if such an accident occurs. 

No project elements have a causal mechanism to affect the nutrient loading in any way. 

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Chemical Contamination/Nutrients. 

Physical Barriers 

Road Upgrade 



The Project neither corrects nor creates any fish passage barriers. There is no causal mechanism 

associated with the proposed Project to affect the indicator. 

Physical Barriers Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Physical Barriers. 

Large Woody Debris (LWD) 

Road Upgrade 



The Project would not change existing LWD loads or LWD recruitment to streams. There is no causal 

mechanism associated with the proposed Project to affect the indicator. 

Large Woody Debris Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Large Woody Debris. 

Pool Frequency/Quality 

Road Upgrade 



The Project would not significantly increase sedimentation to CH/EFH due to complete removal of fill 

materials and the net reduction in sediment from roads. Long-term, the Project will reduce the risk of 

road/fill failure and the potential for debris torrents/scouring of the channel and associated sediment from 

entering the SFTR, thus, benefiting downstream CH/EFH habitat. 

Pool Frequency/Quality Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have slight positive (+) effects on Pool Frequency/Quality long-term. 


Width-to-Depth Ratios 

Road Upgrade 




Channel widths can be modified by changes in riparian vegetation, changes in streamflow regimes, and 

changes in sediment supply. The Project has the potential to improve width-to-depth ratios ratio at the 7 th 

field scale as fill is removed; channel bottoms will be restored to native substrates and, channel banks will 

be recontoured to approximate natural banks up and downstream. Over the long-term, width-to-depth 

ratios ratio at the 5 th field scale may lead to a slight improvement as sources of chronic sediment are 

reduced. 

Width-to-Depth ratio Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have slight positive (+) effects on width-to depth ratios. 

Streambank Condition 

Road Upgrade 



Streambanks impacted by the large amount of fill from the old culverts will be restored. Streambanks will 

be mulched with weed-free straw or native brush to provide short-term erosion control until vegetation reestablishes. 

Floodplains would improve at the 7 th field, but measurable improvements are not likely to 

occur at the 5 th field scale. 

Streambank Condition Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Streambank Condition. 

Floodplain Connectivity 

Road Upgrade 



Floodplains are not well developed within the Project area streams. Those floodplains that exist would 

benefit slightly from stream crossing modifications proposed improved ability for crossings to pass 

bedload. 

Floodplain Connectivity Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have slight positive (+) effects on Floodplain Connectivity. 

Change in Peak/Base Flows 

Road Upgrade 





Watersheds with altered peak flow regimes are at greater risk of culvert failure. The stream crossing 

modifications proposed would result in a substantial reduction of failure risk and improve the ability for 

crossings to pass bedload, thus decreasing the risk of crossing failure. This is particularly beneficial in 

those watersheds that are at risk or not properly functioning because bedload transport may be elevated 

due to altered flow regimes. Thus, the Project would protect CH/EFH downstream from the impacts of 

future fill failures. 

Change in Peak/Base Flow Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Change in Peak/Base Flow. 

Road Density and Location 

Road Upgrade 



The Project will reduce road density and remove roads from RRs and will reduced the adverse effects of 

existing road stream crossings that are risk of failure. The Project will reduce the risk of crossing failure, 

which is one of the adverse impacts of roads, and will protect downstream CH/EFH from impacts 

associated with culvert failures. Due to road decommissioning, road density would be reduced at the 7 th 

field, but would be immeasurable at the 5 th field scale. 

Road Density and Location Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have slight positive (+) effects at the 7 th field watershed, but neutral (0) effects on Road 

Density and Location at the 5 th field watershed scale. 

Riparian Reserves 

Road Upgrade 



Vegetation removal will include the areas adjacent to each culvert that would need to be cleared have 

been previously disturbed when the original culvert was installed. Thus, large trees that provide primary 

shade to streams are not anticipated to be growing within the work area. It is anticipated that a low 

number of trees would be growing in the culvert work area and thus removal of an occasional tree would 

not measurably affect LWD in streams. This implementation step will not measurably change the function 

of RRs. RRs will continue to provide stream shade, filtering and LWD to streams. Benefits of the Project 

include enhanced routing of bedload and LWD through the modified crossings. Thus, the Project will 

improve or restore LWD transport from upstream RRs to downstream habitat. In general, road stream 

crossings represent a permanent loss of RR function commensurate with the roaded area within RRs. 

The Project would change the width and length of road that passes through RRs, thus RR condition 

would receive slight improvement at the 7 th field, but would be immeasurable at the 5 th field scale. 

Riparian Reserves Indicator and Element Summary 

The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Riparian Reserves. 



VI. Element Summary 

Road Upgrade 

Road Upgrade will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, 

Physical Barriers, Large Woody Debris, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank 

Condition and Floodplain Connectivity. 

Road Upgrade will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate due to soil 

disturbance and long-term positive (+) effects resulting from better road drainage and lower risk of culvert 

failure. 

The Project will have short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road Upgrade and road rehabilitation. 

Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network on 

critical habitat/EFH. 


Road Upgrade will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, 


Condition and Floodplain Connectivity, Peak/base flow and Drainage Network. 


Road Rehabilitation will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, 


Condition and Floodplain Connectivity. 

Road rehabilitation will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate in critical 

habitat/EFH due to ground disturbance and post implementation channel adjustment and insignificant 

long-term positive effects as a result of decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing 

the drainage network that are prone to erosion. Road Rehabilitation will not result in effects great enough 

to negatively (-) affect coho salmon and their habitat in the SFTR. Road rehabilitation will have long-term 

positive (+) effects to turbidity and substrate in the SFTR due to decreasing compacted surfaces, 

increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and re-vegetating bare surface that are prone to 

erosion. 

Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network in 

the SFTR. 



VII. Indicator Summary 

“Population Characteristics” and “Species and Habitat” Pathway indicators are not addressed in this 

document, since insufficient information exists to allow for their evaluation. A species recovery plan has 

not been drafted for SONCC coho salmon. 

Water Temperature Indicator Summary - The Project will have insignificant negative (-) effects on water 

temperature due to canopy loss resulting from road upgrades or road rehabilitation. 

Turbidity and Substrate Indicator Summary - The Project will have insignificant negative (-) effects to 

turbidity and substrate in critical habitat/EFH due to summer thunderstorm activity. Slightly elevated 

turbidity levels are expected to result near the source creek for a period of 1 to 2 hours and become 

diluted to immeasurable levels within a few hundred feet downstream. The Project will have insignificant 

negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate in critical habitat/EFH due to post-implementation channel 

adjustment. The amount of sediment input caused by Project activities will not increase significantly 

above background levels in the SFTR. The Project will have no negative (0) effects to turbidity and 

substrate in critical habitat/EFH due to erosion from decommission road prisms. Due to the relatively high 

background erosion, the additive effects of all project elements in critical habitat/EFH are not expected to 

result in turbidity levels significantly elevated above background levels. 

Long-term positive (+) effects will occur in critical habitat/EFH due to decreasing compacted surfaces, 

increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network that are prone to erosion. 

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Indicator and Element Summary - The Project will have neutral 

(0) effects on Chemical Contamination/Nutrients. 

Physical Barriers Indicator and Element Summary - The Project will have neutral (0) effects on 

Physical Barriers. 

Large Woody Debris Indicator Summary - Road upgrade, road rehabilitation will have insignificant 

negative effects to future LWD recruitment due to felling hazard trees. Road realignment will have neutral 

(0) effects on LWD. 

Pool Frequency Indicator Summary - The Project will have neutral (0) effects on pool characteristics in 

critical habitat/EFH. The Project is expected to have long-term positive (+) effects to pool frequency in 

critical habitat/EFH through a reduction in sediment supply. 

Off-Channel Habitat Indicator and Element Summary - Due severely limited off-channel habitat in the 

action area, the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator. 

Refugia Indicator and Element Summary - The Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator. 

Width/Depth Ratio Indicator and Element Summary - Due the nature of the stream channels in the 

action area the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator in critical habitat/EFH. 

Streambank Indicator Summary - The Project will have neutral (0) effects on streambank condition in 

critical habitat/EFH. 

Floodplain Connectivity Indicator Summary - The project will have neutral (0) effects on floodplain 

connectivity in critical habitat/EFH. 

Change in Peak/Base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network Indicator Summary - The Project 

would result in slight short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road upgrade and road rehabilitation. 



Road Density & Location Indicator Summary - The Project will have positive (+) long-term effects on 

Road Density and Location, and effects will be of sufficient magnitude to change the road density 

baseline category in Appendix D. 

Disturbance History Indicator Summary - CWE modeling shows that at the watershed scale the project 

maintains (neutral effects) or insignificantly improves (+) disturbance history in the action area. 

Riparian Reserves Indicator Summary - The Project will have neutral (0) effects due to Riparian 

Reserve in critical habitat/EFH. 



VIII. ESA Effect Determination 

Project Effects Determination Key for Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

1) Do any of the indicator summaries have a positive (+) or negative (-) conclusion? 

Yes – Go to 2 

No – No Effect 

2) Are the indicator summary results only positive? 

Yes – NLAA 

No – Go to 3 

3) If any of the indicator summary results are negative, are the effects insignificant or discountable? 

Yes – NLAA 

No – LAA, fill out Adverse Effects Form 

Direct effects to coho salmon are not expected to occur. There are no aspects of the Project that will 

occur where fish are present. 


that are of sufficient probability (discountable) and magnitude (insignificant) to affect SONCC coho 

salmon and its critical habitat and EFH. This Project May Affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 

SONCC coho salmon and its critical habitat. 

Aggregated Federal Effects 

There are no aggregated Federal effects 



IX. ESA Cumulative Effects 

The ESA defines cumulative effects in 50 CFR. § 402.02 as “those effects of future State or private 

activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Project area of the 

Federal action subject to consultation.” Available information on past and present Federal, State and 

Private actions are reflected in the existing condition discussions under each indicator in the previous 

section of this BA/BE. Future Federal actions will be analyzed through separate section 7 consultations 

and are not considered in this section. There are no known future State actions planned in the subject 

watersheds. The Project area includes some private industrial timber lands. In addition, there are 

scattered private/residential blocks of land. The predominant past land use on private lands was timber 

harvest, and it is likely that timber harvest will continue to be the predominant land use into the future. 

Mining, timber harvest, grazing, and roads have all contributed cumulatively to habitat degradation in 

addition to natural events including wildland fires and unstable geology. Sediment is the most common 

indicator determined to be at risk or not properly functioning in the subject watersheds. The Projects will 

result in a net reduction of fill/sediment in channel profiles and a discountable amount of sediment will be 

input as a result of the Project. The Project would not add measurably or incrementally to cumulative 

effects. Each removed or upgraded stream crossing reduces the risk of additional future sediment 

impacts at the 7 th and 5 th field watershed scales. 



X. Essential Fish Habitat Determination 

A description of the proposed action appears in Part III of this Biological Assessment. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), in concordance with the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coho 

and Chinook salmon (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12). The MSA defined EFH as “...those waters and 

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (Federal Register, Vol. 

67, No. 12).” EFH for coho salmon and Chinook salmon in the Action Area is identical to coho critical 

habitat displayed in Figure 2. 


that are of sufficient probability (discountable) and magnitude (insignificant) to affect essential fish habitat. 

This Project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. 

NEPA Cumulative Impact 

“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 actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individual minor but collectively significant action taking place over a period of time. 

Fitzgerald (2005) summarized pre and post project Watershed Condition Class by 8 th Field HUC 

watershed. In the short-term, the Project will result in a net reduction of fill/sediment in channel profiles 

and a discountable amount of sediment will be input into fish-bearing streams as a result of the Project. 

Within 10 years of Project implementation, there will be a net reduction in controllable sediment. The 8 th 

Field HUC watersheds within Forest Service ownership will improve substantially. There will be less 

improvement in watersheds with dominantly private ownership. 

Foreseeable actions within the project area planned by the Forest Service, include precommericial 

thinning, other watershed restoration, fuels treatements and power/gas-line maintenance. No commercial 

timber harvest is being planned on public lands. These actions are expected to further reduce the risk of 

cumulative watershed effects. Several timber harvest plans have been filed for private lands within the 

Hidden Valley Watershed. These harvests will likely increase the risk of adverse Cumulative Watershed 

Impacts (Fitzgerald 2005). Due to the predominately non-fish bearing status of the Hidden Valley 

watershed (only first 150-feet of the major tributaries are fish-bearing), impacts of harvest on private lands 

will not lead to significant adverse effects to anadromous and resident fish in the SFTR. 

Forest Sensitive Species 

It is my determination that the implementation of the Project may insignificant affects to individuals but is 

not likely to trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability of Forest Sensitive species. 


XI. Literature Cited 


Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters. Chapman Hill, New York, NY. 

Argent, D. G. and P. A. Fleebe. 1999. Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory streams. 

Fisheries Research. 39:253-262. 

Baltz, D.M. and P.B. Moyle. 1984. “Segregation by species and size classes of rainbow trout, Salmo 

gairdneri, and Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, in three California streams.” 

Environmental Biology of Fish 10: 101-110. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 6. 

Bethesda MD. 

Berkman, H. E. and C. R. Rabeni. 1987. Effects of siltation on stream fish communities. Environmental 

Biology of Fishes. 18:4:285-294. 

Bjornm, T. C. and 6 co-authors. 1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and its effects on insets 

and fish. University of Idaho, Idaho Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Research Technical 

Completion Report, Project B-036-IDA Bulletin 17. 

Bjornn T.C., D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 in W. R. 

Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Boles, G.L. 1990. “Food habits of juvenile wild and hatchery steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the 

Trinity River, California.” Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No 90-10. 

Borok, S.L. and H.W. Jong. 1997. “Evaluation of salmon and steelhead spawning habitat quality in the 

South Fork Trinity River basin, 1997.” Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 97-8. 

Britain, J.E. and T.J. Eikeland. 1988. Invertebrate drift- a review. Hydrobiologia. 166:77-93. 

Brown, L.R. and P.B. Moyle. 1991. “Changes in habitat and microhabitat partitioning within an 

assemblage of stream fishes in response to predation by Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus 

grandis).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 43:849-856. 

Burgner, R.L., J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz and S. Ito. 1992. “Distribution and origins of 

steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean.” International 

North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin No. 51. 

Burns, J.W. 1972. “Some effects of logging and associated road construction on Northern California 

Streams.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 101:1-17. 

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, R.S. Waples. 1994. Status review of Klamath Mountain Province steelhead. 

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-19. 261 pages. 

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. 

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and 

California. National Marine Fisheries Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-27. Seattle WA. 261 

pages. 



CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2001. “Final report on anadromous salmonid fish 

hatcheries in California.” California Department of Fish and Game and National Marine Fisheries 

Service Southwest Region Joint Hatchery Review Committee. Review draft, June 27, 2001. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon. 

Report to the Fish and Game Commission. February 4, 2004. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004a. South Fork Trinity River spring 

Chinook/Summer Steelhead Snorkel Survey Totals. (Unpublished memo to file by Patrick Garrison, 

Biologist, Department of Fish and Game - Northern California, North Coast Region). September 2, 

2004 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2001. “Final report on anadromous salmonid fish 

hatcheries in California.” California Department of Fish and Game and National Marine Fisheries 

Service Southwest Region Joint Hatchery Review Committee. Review draft, June 27, 2001. 

Chapman, D. W. 1988. Critical review of variables use to define effects of fines in redds of large 

salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 1-21. 

Dean, M. 1995. Survey report. Snorkel and redd surveys of spring chinook salmon in the South Fork 

Trinity River (1995 season). Prepared for Huber , Harpham, and Associates. 17 pp. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek Sediment 

Total Daily Maximum Loads. Region 9. 

Everest, F.H., J.R. Sedell, G.H. Reeves, and J. Wolfe. 1985. Fisheries enhancement in the Fish Creek 

basin—an evaluation of in-channel and off-channel projects, 1984. 1984 Annual Report, Bonneville 

Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Project 84-11, Portland Oregon. 

Everest, F. H. and D. W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile Chinook 

salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

29:91-100. 

Federal Register, 62(87):24588-24609. May 6, 1997. Endangered and threatened species; threatened 

status for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho 

salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Fitzgerald 2005. Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project Hydrologist Report Cumulative Watershed 

Effects Analysis. May 26, 2005. Draft 

Foster-Wheeler. 2001. Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis. 

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Redding, CA. 96001. 

Hardy, T.B. and R.C. Addley. 2001. “Evaluation of interim instream flow needs in the Klamath River. 

Phase II. Final Report.” Institute for Natural Systems Engineering.” Utah Water Research Laboratory. 

Utah State University. Logan UT. 

Harvey, B.C., J.L. White, and R.J. Nakamoto. 2002. Habitat relationships and larval drift of native and 

nonindigenous fishes in neighboring tributaries of a coastal California river. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. 131: 159-170. 

Harvey, B.C. and R.J. Nakamoto. 1997. Habitat-dependent interactions between two size classes of 

juvenile steelhead in a small stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 54:27-31. 



Hawkins, D.K. and T.P. Quinn. 1996. Critical swimming velocity and associated morphology of juvenile 

coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and their 

hybrids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:1487-1496. 

Hayfork Ranger District (HRD), 1992. Unpublished data. Grapevine Creek Habitat Assessment. Hayfork 

Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Hayfork, CA. 

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-394 in C. 

Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press. 

Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 

Hillemeier, D. C. 1993. Summer habitat utilization by adult spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), South Fork Trinity River, California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 93 

pp. 

Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by juvenile 

chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

116: 185-195. 

Hopelain, J.S. 2001. Lower Klamath River angler creel census with emphasis on upstream migrating fall 

Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout during July through October, 1983 through 1987. 

Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 01-1. 

Hopelain, J.S. 1998. Age, growth, and life history of Klamath River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss irideus) as determined from scale analysis. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 98-3. 

Jong, H.W. 1997. Evaluation of Chinook spawning habitat quality in the Shasta and South Fork Trinity 

River, 1994. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 97-5. 

Kaczynski, V. 1994. Wildfire impacts on stream habitats. in: Prescribed Burning Issues and Notes, 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Vol. 4: No. 1. 

Keeley, E.R. and J.D. McPhail. 1998. Food abundance, intruder pressure, and body size as determinants 

of territory size in juvenile steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss). Behavior 135:65-82. 

Kesner, W.D. and R.A. Barnhardt. 1972. Characteristics of the fall-run steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri 

gairdneri) of the Klamath River system with emphasis on the half-pounder. California Fish and Game 

58: 204-220. 

Lisle, T. E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal 

California. Water Resources Research. 25:6: 1303-1319. 

Lisle, T. E. and S. Hilton. 1991. Fine sediment in pools: an index of how sediment is affecting a stream 

channel. R-5 Habitat Relationship Technical Bulletin No. 6. USDA- Forest Service, Redwood 

Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 

Llantos A., C. Cook. 2001. Assessment of sediment storage and stream bank erosion in the South Fork 

Trinity River Basin, Northwestern California. Eureka, Ca: USDA Forest Service. Six Rivers National 

Forest. 

KRBFTF (Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force). 1991. Long Range plan for the Klamath River 

Basin Conservation Area Fisheries Restoration Program. 

KRSIC (Klamath River Stock Identification Committee). 1993. “Salmon and steelhead populations of the 

Klamath-Trinity basin.” Report to the Klamath River Task Force. 



La Faunce, D.A. 1967. A king salmon spawning survey of the South Fork Trinity River, 1964. California 

Dept. of Fish and Game. Marine Res. Admin Report. 67-10 13pp. 

Madej, M. A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms. Vol. 26 175-190. 

Matthews K.R., N.H. Berg, D.L. Azuma. 1994. Cool water formation and trout habitat use in a deep pool 

in the Sierra Nevada, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 549-564. 

McEwan, D. and T.A. Jackson. 1996. Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California. 

Department of Fish and Game. 

McMahon, T. E. and D. S. de Calesta. 1990 Effects of Fire on Fish and Wildlife. In: Natural and 

Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Chapter 18. Edited by J. D. Watstad et al. Oregon State 

University Press. 

McMichael, G.A., T.N. Pearson, and S.A. Leider. 1999. Behavioral interactions among hatchery-reared 

steelhead and wild Oncorhynchus mykiss in natural streams. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 19: 948-956. 

Meyers, J.M. R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D.Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status Review of Chinook salmon of 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. USDC NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC- 

35. 

Moffett, J.W. and S.H. Smith. 1950. “Biological Investigations of the fishery resources of Trinity River, 

California.” Special Scientific Report- Fisheries No. 12, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Moyle, P. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, 2nd Ed. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 

Moyle, P.B. and D.M. Baltz. 1985. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of California stream fishes: 

Developing criteria for instream flow determinants. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

114:695-704. 

Nakamoto, R. 1994. Characteristics of pools used by adult summer steelhead oversummering In the New 

River, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 123: 757-765. 

Newcombe, C. P. and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and Fisheries: A synthesis for 

quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 

16:693-727. 

Newcombe, C. P. and D. D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11:72-82 

Nielson J.L., T.E. Lisle, V. Ozaki. 1994. Thermally stratified pools and their use by steelhead in northern 

California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 613-625. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Species: West Coast 

Chinook Salmon; Listing Status Change; Proposed Rule. Fed. Reg. Vol. 63 (45) 11481-11484. March 

9, 1998. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Designated Critical habitat; Central California Coast 

and Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon; Final Rule. Fed. Reg. Vol. 64 (86) 

24049-24062. May 5, 1999 



NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001. Notice of Determination; endangered and threatened 

species: final listing determination for Klamath Mountains Province steelhead. Federal Registrar 

[Docket No. 010118020-1082-02, 04 April 2001] 66(65): 17845-17856. 

Nickelson, T.E., M.F. Solazzi, and S.L. Johnson. 1986. Use of hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) presmolts to rebuild wild populations in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 43:2443-2449. 

Nielsen, J.L. and T.E. Lisle. 1994. “Thermally stratified pools and their use by steelhead in 

Northern California streams.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:613-626. 

NOAA Fisheries 2003. Preliminary conclusions regarding the updated status of listed ESUs of West 

Coast salmon and steelhead. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995. “Biennial report on the status of wild fish in 

Oregon.” Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland OR. 

PWA (Pacific Watershed Associates). 1994. Action Plan for Restoration of the South Fork Trinity River 

Watershed and its Fisheries. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Trinity River Task 

Force. 

Raines, M.A. 1998. South Fork Trinity River Sediment Analysis. Prepared for Tetra-Tech, Inc. Appendix to 

EPA – South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. 66p. 

Reid, L M. 1998. Review of the: Sustained yield plan/habitat conservation plan for the properties of the 

Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific Holding Company, and Salmon Creek Corporation. Report 

prepared for Congressman George Miller, U.S. House of Representatives. 

Reiser D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish 

habitat in Western North America. USDA Forest Service anadromous fish habitat program. GTP 

PNW-96. 56 pp. 

Relyea, C. D., G. Y. Minshall, R. J. Danehy. 2000. Stream insects as bioindicators of fine sediment. 

Watershed Management 2000 Conference. Water Environment Federation. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A Stream Classification System. In Riparian Ecosystems and their Management. First 

North American Riparian Conference. RM-120:91-95. USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 

Sandercock, R.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C. Groot 

and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver. 

Shapovalov, L. and A.C. Taft. 1954. “The life history of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and 

silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California and 

recommendations regarding their management.” California Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin No. 98. 

Sigler, J. W., T. C. Bjornn, R. H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of 

steelhead and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 142-150. 

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitski. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 

salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., 

Corvallis, OR. 



(TCRCD) Trinity County Resource Conservation District. 2003. South Fork Trinity River Water Quality 

Monitoring Project - Agreement No. P0010340 Final Report. Prepared for California Department of 

Fish and Game by TCRCD, with assistance from Graham Matthews . Weaverville, CA. 77 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 

Redding CA. 

USDA Forest Service, 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California: Best 

Management Practices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, September 2000. 

USDA, DOI, DOC. 2004. Analytical Process for Development of Biological Assessments for Federal 

Actions Affecting Fish within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan. November, 2004. 

USDA Forest Service, 2005. Road-Stream Crossing Excavation Effectiveness Monitoring Report (working 

draft). Trinity Zone, Shasta Trinity National Forest, Pacific Southwest Region (unpublished report). 

Viola, A.E. and M.L. Schuck. 1995. “A method to reduce the abundance of residual hatchery steelhead in 

rivers.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15: 488-493. 

Waples, R.S. 1991. “Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids: lessons from the Pacific 

Northwest.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Supplement 1):124-133. 

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples, 1995. 

Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. USDC NOAA Fisheries 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. Available at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm24/tm24.htm 



Appendix A: National Fire Plan Project ESA Compliance 

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS, USING THE 

COUNTERPART CONSULTATION REGULATIONS 

USDA FOREST SERVICE 

PROJECT NAME: Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project 

STATE: California 

FOREST SERVICE REGION: Region 5 

NATIONAL FOREST/GRASSLAND: Shasta-Trinity 

RANGER DISTRICT: Hayfork and Yolla Bolla 

DATE OF COMPLETED BE or BA/BE: June 9, 2005 

NAME OF JOURNEY-LEVEL BIOLOGIST WHO COMPLETED THE BE or BA: 

John S. Lang, Fishery Biologist 

Hayfork and Yolla Bolla Ranger Districts 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

As proposed the project is within the scope of, and will support, the National Fire Plan, because: 

The Project will replace aging road/stream crossings that are undersized and susceptible to failure; 

Create a maintainable an accessible road system for fire suppression. The Project is within the 

scope of road maintenance and culvert replacement/upgrade, leaving needed roads available and 

accessible by fire suppression personnel; 

The present road system is not maintained. Removing roads not needed for future use and 

improving the needed system roads will ensure rapid access to remote areas for fire suppression 

actions; 

Improve long-term watershed condition to facilitate vegetation treatment to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic fire. The watersheds are in a condition that limits near term vegetation options. 

Improving watershed condition will allow short-term impacts from vegetation treatments designed 

to reduce fuel loads. 

The effects analysis completed and documented in the above BE or BA was done under the 

Section 7 counterpart regulations of the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register, 

December 8, 2003), and is in compliance with those regulations and the March 4, 2004 

Alternative Consultation Agreement between the Forest Service, FWS and NMFS. 

SIGNATURE OF LINE OFFICER: __________________________ 

NAME OF LINE OFFICER: Donna F. Harmon____________ 

TITLE OF LINE OFFICER: District Ranger_______________ 

DATE: ___________________________ 


Appendix B – Road Slope Positions 


Roads with slope positions located in the lower 3 rd of the watershed and 0.1 to 0.75 miles to CH/EFH. 

Slope position Proximity to CH/EFH Treatment Road ID Road Length (miles) Stream-xings Est Fill (yd3) Short-term erosion (max) (yds3) 

Lower 3rd 

0.1 

Decommission 

1S26C 0.3 0 0 0.0 

U1S30 0.6 4 1000 36.4 

Decommission Total 0.9 4 1000 36.4 

Decommission to trail 

1S01A 0.9 0 0 0.0 

Decommission to trail Total 0.9 0 0 0.0 

Upgrade 

3N10 0.1 0 0 0.0 

Upgrade Total 0.1 0 0 0.0 

0.1 Total 1.9 4 1000 36.4 

0.25-0.75 mi 

Decommission 

1N24C 2.2 5 7853 98.2 

1S01 1.2 5 17500 185.2 

1S01B 0.9 2 2373 48.7 

U1N11EB 0.1 0 0 0.0 

U1N24J 0.1 0 0 0.0 


Decommission to trail 

1S01 1.2 3 10500 122.0 

1S01A 1.0 2 331 30.3 

Decommission to trail Total 2.2 5 10831 152.4 

Upgrade 

1S12 1.4 3 450 1.0 

U1N24I 0.6 2 500 1.0 

Upgrade Total 2.0 5 950 2.0 

Annual Closure 

1S26 3.2 0 0 0.0 

Annual Closure Total 3.2 0 0 0.0 

0.25-0.75 mi Total 11.8 22 39507 486.4 

Lower 3rd Total 13.7 26 40507 522.8 



Roads with slope positions located in the middle 3 rd of the watershed and 0.25 to 0.75 miles to CH/EFH. 

Middle 3rd 

0.25-0.75 mi 

Decommission 

1N11 0.3 0 0 0.0 

1N11A 0.3 0 0 0.0 

1N11B 1.5 4 3513 59.0 

1N11C 0.7 5 3504 58.9 

1N11D 0.7 2 941 35.8 

1N11F 0.3 1 480 31.6 

1N24 2.7 7 24500 248.3 

1N24A 0.9 5 3504 58.9 

1N24B 1.5 0 0 0.0 

1N24F 0.4 0 0 0.0 

1S10 0.5 0 0 0.0 

1S16 1.0 6 3000 54.3 

U1N11EA 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U1N24E 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U1S06A 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U2N36B 0.2 0 0 0.0 

UV1S14F 0.4 1 250 29.5 


Decommission Segment 

1S11 3.0 16 17600 186.0 

Decommission Segment Total 3.0 16 17600 186.0 

Hydro-close Segment 

1S11 3.1 12 4200 65.2 

Hydro-close Segment Total 3.1 12 4200 65.2 

Realign 

1N24E 0.3 0 0 0.0 

Realign Total 0.3 0 0 0.0 

Upgrade 

1N11 4.5 16 2400 1.0 

1S01 3.4 11 1650 1.0 

1S02 0.7 4 600 1.0 

1S06 1.7 7 1050 1.0 

2N25 3.5 0 0 0.0 

3N19 3.7 0 0 0.0 

3N30 1.5 0 0 0.0 

Upgrade Total 19.1 38 5700 4.0 

0.25-0.75 mi Total 37.4 97 67192 831.5 

Middle 3rd Total 37.4 97 67192 831.5 

Grand Total 37.4 97 67192 831.5 



Roads with slope positions located in the upper 3rd of the watershed and >0.75 miles to CH/EFH or along ridgelines. 

Upper 3rd 

0.75-2.0 mi 

Decommission 

1N05C 1.4 5 2500 49.8 

1S07 0.3 0 0.0 

1S14F 0.3 1 500 31.8 

1S23A 1.2 0 0 0.0 

1S23B 0.8 0 0 0.0 

1S36 0.6 0 0 0.0 

1S36A 0.3 0 0 0.0 

2N10M 0.6 1 500 31.8 

2N26A 0.3 1 500 31.8 

2N27 3.3 6 15000 162.5 

2N36A 0.6 2 1000 36.3 

3N19A 0.4 0 0 0.0 

3N19B 0.8 4 2500 49.8 

3N19C 0.9 0 0 0.0 

3N19D 0.7 0 0 0.0 

3N26 0.6 4 1080 37.0 

U1N05E 2.1 0 0 0.0 

U1N24G 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U1N24H 0.3 0 0 0.0 

U1S02A 0.1 0 0 0.0 

U1S04A 0.4 0 0 0.0 

U3N16B 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U3N19C 0.1 0 0 0.0 

U3N19CA 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U3N19CB 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U3N19CC 0.1 0 0 0.0 

U3N19F 0.1 0 0 0.0 

U3N19G 0.1 0 0 0.0 

U4N12C 0.7 0 0 0.0 

UV1S14FA 0.1 0 0 0.0 


Hydro-close 

1S13 2.4 8 4000 63.3 

Hydro-close Total 2.4 8 4000 63.3 

Upgrade 

1N20 0.3 2 300 1.0 

1N24 7.1 25 3750 1.0 

1N24D 0.5 1 150 1.0 

1S03 0.1 0 0 0.0 

1S04 3.9 14 2100 1.0 

1S05 2.5 0 0 0.0 

1S15 0.6 2 300 1.0 

1S20 0.1 0 0 0.0 

3N10 10.2 16 2400 1.0 

3N30 1.6 0 0 0.0 

4N12 11.2 9 1350 1.0 

4N12D 0.7 2 300 1.0 

6N01M 0.2 0 0 0.0 

U6N01M 0.1 0 0 0.0 

Upgrade Total 39.3 71 10650 8.0 

0.75-2.0 mi Total 59.5 103 38230 502.0 

Upper 3rd Total 59.5 103 38230 502.0 

Grand Total 59.5 103 38230 502.0 



Appendix C. Best Management Practices 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are measures certified by the State Water Quality Board and 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most effective way of protecting water 

quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of pollution. 

Forest Service BMPs have been monitored and modified over several decades to make them more 

effective. On-site evaluations by State regulatory agencies found the practices were effective in protecting 

beneficial uses. 

The following list of BMPs will be implemented. A description of the objective of each BMP is included. 

BMP 1.19 - Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection 

Objectives: 

1. Conduct management actions within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves riparian 

and aquatic values. 

2. Provide unobstructed passage of stormflows. 

3. Control sediment and other pollutants entering streamcourses. 

4. Restore the natural course of any stream as soon as practicable, where diversion of the stream 

has resulted from timber management activities. 

Area of disturbance will be confined to the stream crossing and associated road prism. New crossing 

structures will be designed to accommodate unobstructed passage of stormflows. Fill and sediment will 

be removed from streambed to expose native substrates. Duration of disturbance will be less than two 

weeks at each site. 

2.2 – Erosion Control Plan 

Objective: To limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation through effective planning prior to initiation of 

construction activities and through effective contract administration during construction. 

An erosion control plan is part of the contract and is the responsibility of the contractor with the FS 

reviewing and approving. 

2.3 – Timing of construction Activities 

Objective: To minimize erosion by conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. 

The aquatic period of operation (APOO) will be from July 11 to October 15. No ground disturbing activities 

will occur from October 16 through July 10. No new work will begin after October 14. Work may proceed 

after October 15 with fisheries biologist and/or hydrologist approval. This will only occur if dry weather is 

forecasted. Typically this situation is approved when a project is not complete and more damage may 

occur by leaving it unfinished. 

2.4 – Stabilization of Road Slopes and Spoil Disposal Areas 

Objective: To minimize erosion from exposed cut slopes, fill slopes, and spoil disposal areas. 

Erosion control measures such as seeding and mulching will be implemented on all exposed soils. 



2.6 – Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage from Cut and Fill Slopes 

Objective: To minimize the possibilities of cut or fill slope failure and the subsequent production of 

sediment. 

Stream banks will be reshaped to avoid over steepened slopes after culvert is removed. 

2.7 – Control of Road Drainage-roads and drainages will be outsloped 

Objective: To minimize the erosive effects of water concentrated drainage features; to disperse runoff 

from disturbances within the road clearing limits; to lessen the sediment yield from roaded areas; to 

minimize erosion of the road prism by runoff from road surfaces and from uphill areas. 

Road drainage will be corrected if needed at each crossing site. 

2.9 – Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream 

Crossing Projects 

Objective: To minimize erosion and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects. 

Aquatic Period of Operation (APOO) of July 11 – October 15. 

Erosion control measures will be implemented on or before October 15 or in the event of substantial 

precipitation events during the summer. If there is approval by a fisheries or earth scientist to work 

beyond October 15, erosion control measures will be in place at the end of each workday. 

2.10 – Construction of Stable Embankments 

Objective: To construct embankments with materials and methods, which minimize the possibility of 

failure and subsequent water quality degradation. 

Layer placement and/or controlled compaction will be implemented. 

2.11 – Control of Sidecast Material 

Objective: To minimize sediment production originating from sidecast material during road construction 

or maintenance. 

All material will be placed in existing roadway as outslope materials. Material will not be sidecasted. 

2.8 – Servicing and Refueling of Equipment 

Objective: To prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens and other harmful materials from 

being discharged in or near river, streams and impoundments, or into man-made channels. 

Servicing and refueling of equipment will occur outside of RRs and will not occur where spilled material 

can flow downslope into a waterway/drainage feature. 

2.13 – Control of Construction in Streamside Management Zones 

Objective: To protect water quality by controlling construction and maintenance actions within and 

adjacent to any streamside management zone 

If a stream is flowing during the work period, it will be dewatered. Where appropriate, erosion control 

measures such as silt fencing, hay bales, seeding and mulching will be implemented. 



2.14 – Controlling In-channel Excavation 

Objective: To minimize stream channel disturbances and related sediment production. 

Activities will be limited to only that area of stream associated with the crossing. Duration of project will be 

less than two weeks per site. 

2.15 – Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites 

Objective: To ensure that all stream diversions are carefully planned, to minimize downstream 

sedimentation, and to restore stream channels to their natural grade, condition, and alignment as soon as 

possible. 

Streams will be dewatered if necessary. All loose sediment will be removed prior to rewatering/fall rains. 

2.17 – Culvert Installation 

Objective: To minimize sedimentation and turbidity resulting from excavation for inchannel structures. 

Same as 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15. 

2.20 – Specify Riprap Composition 

Objective: To minimize sediment production associated with the installation and utilization of riprap 

material. 

If riprap is deemed necessary, it will be appropriately sized. For these sites, it will most likely be no 

smaller than 8” and no larger than 2 feet in diameter. 

2.8 – Maintenance of Roads 

Objective: 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. 

Each construction site will be maintained as needed to minimize any source of erosion or sedimentation. 

2.23 – Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials 

Objective: To minimize the erosion of road surface materials and consequently reduce the likelihood of 

sediment production from those areas. 

The approaches for each stream crossing will be compacted and surfaced as needed. 

2.24 – Traffic Control during Wet Periods 

Objective: To reduce road surface disturbances and rutting of roads, to minimize sediment washing from 

disturbed road surfaces. 

Wet Weather Operations Guidelines will be followed/implemented. 

Wet weather operations implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

Hauling activities may occur outside of the APOO, defined as July 11 to October 15, providing that the 

following guidelines are adhered to. 



Daily monitoring of access routes consisting of BMP forms or daily diaries will document implementation 

and effectiveness of BMPs. Project activities will be curtailed and corrective action taken when any of the 

following are encountered or expected: 

Ponding 

Ponding present on road surface that is causing fill subsidence or otherwise threatening 

integrity of fill. 

Ruts/Rills 

More than 10% of road segment length has rills more than 2 inches deep and 20 feet in 

length that continue off road. 

Ruts formed that can channel water past erosion control structures. 

Numerous rills present at stream crossing (>1 rill per lineal 5 feet), apparently active or 

enlarging, evidence of some sediment delivery to stream. 



Appendix D: Shasta Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of 

Factors and Indicators 

(This matrix shows criteria used to determine baseline conditions in 8 th and 5 th field watersheds). 

Diagnostic or 

Pathway 

SPECIES 

Population 

Characteristics 

HABITAT 

Water Quality: 

Indicators Properly 

Functioning 

Population Size and 

Distribution 

Growth and 

Survival 

Life History 

Diversity and 

Isolation 

Persistence and 

Genetic Integrity 

Temperature (1) 

1 st – 3 rd Order 

Streams 

[instantaneous] 

4 th -5 th Order 

Streams 

[7 Day Maximum] 

Insufficient 

Information 

Insufficient 

Information 

Insufficient 

Information 

Insufficient 

Information 

At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning 

Insufficient Information Insufficient 

Information 


Information 


Information 


Information 

67 F degrees or less > 67 to 70.0 degrees F > 70.0 degrees F 

70.0 degrees F or 

less 

> 70.0 to 73.0 degrees F > 73.0 degrees F 

Turbidity (2) Turbidity Low Turbidity Moderate Turbidity High 

Chemical/Nutrient 

Contamination (3) 

Habitat Access: Physical Barriers 

(3) 

Habitat 

Elements: 

Low levels of 

contamination from 

agriculture, 

industrial, and other 

sources; no excess 

nutrients. 

Any man-made 

barriers present in 

watershed allow 

upstream and 

downstream passage 

at all flows. 

Substrate (4) Less than 15% fines 

(

Diagnostic or 

Pathway 


Indicators Properly 


Functioning 

Functioning 

Large Woody More than 40 pieces 40 pieces or less of large Less than 20 pieces 

Debris (5) 

of large wood (>16 wood (>16 inches in of large wood (>16 

inches in diameter diameter and > 50 feet in inches in diameter 

and > 50 feet in length) per mile OR and > 50 feet in 

length) per mile current riparian vegetation length) per mile 

AND current condition below site AND current 

riparian vegetation potential for recruitment riparian vegetation 

condition near site of large woody debris. condition well below 

potential for 

site potential for 

recruitment of large 

recruitment of large 

woody debris. 

woody debris. 

Pool Frequency (4) At least 1 pool every At least 1 pool every 3 to Less than 1 pool 

3 to 7 bankfull 7 bankfull channel widths. every 7 bankfull 

channel widths. These pools should channel widths 

These pools should occupy at least 50% of the and/or less than half 

occupy at least 50% low-flow channel width. of the pools have a 

of the low-flow At least half of the pools maximum depth of 

channel width and all have a maximum depth of at least 36 inches. 

have a maximum 

depth of at least 36 

inches. 

at least 36 inches. 

Off-channel Habitat Backwaters with Some backwaters and Few or no 

(3) 

cover, and low high energy side channels. backwaters or off- 

energy off-channel 

areas (ponds, 

oxbows, etc.). 

channel ponds. 

Refugia (important Habitat refugia exist Habitat refugia exist but Adequate habitat 

remnant habitat for and are adequately are not adequately refugia do not exist. 

sensitive aquatic buffered (eg. by buffered (eg. by intact 

species) (3) intact riparian riparian reserves); 

reserves); existing existing refugia are 

refugia are sufficient insufficient in size, 

in size, number and number and connectivity 

connectivity to to maintain viable 

maintain viable populations or sub- 

populations or subpopulations.populations. 



Shasta Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators: 

Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning 

Channel Width/Depth W/D ratio < 12 on all More than 10% of the More than 25% of the 

Condition Ratio (6) reaches that could surveyed reaches are reaches are outside of 

and 

otherwise best be outside of the ranges given the ranges given for 

Dynamics: 

described as 'A', 'G', and for Width/Depth ratios for Width/Depth ratios for 

'E' channel types. W/D the channel types specified the channel types 

ratio > 12 on all reaches in "Properly Functioning" specified in "Properly 

that could otherwise block. Braiding has Functioning" block. 

best be described as 'B', occurred in some alluvial Braiding has occurred 

'F', and 'C' channel reaches because of in many alluvial reaches 

types. No braided excessive aggradation due as a result of excessive 

streams formed due to to high sediment loads. aggradation due to high 

excessive sediment 

loads 

sediment loads 

Streambank > 90% stable; ie., on 80 - 90% stable < 80% stable 

Condition (3) average, < 10% of 

banks are actively 

eroding. 

Floodplain Off-channel areas are Reduced linkage of Severe reduction in 

Connectivity (3) frequently 

wetland, floodplains, and hydrologic connectivity 

hydrologically linked to riparian areas to main between off-channel, 

main channel; overbank channel; overbank flows wetland, floodplain, and 

flows occur and are reduced relative to riparian areas; wetland 

maintain wetland historic frequency, as area drastically reduced 

functions, riparian evidenced by moderate and riparian 

vegetation, and degradation of wetland vegetation/succession 

succession. 

function, riparian 

vegetation/succession. 

altered significantly. 

Flow / Change in Use ERA model to Use ERA model to Use ERA model to 

Hydrology: Peak/Base estimate risk of change estimate risk of change in estimate risk of change 

Flows (7) in flow. Watershed flow. Some evidence of in flow. Pronounced 

hydrograph indicates altered peak flow, changes in peak flow, 

peak flow, base flow, baseflow and/or flow baseflow and/or flow 

and flow timing timing relative to an timing relative to an 

characteristics 

undisturbed watershed of undisturbed watershed 

comparable to an similar size, geology, and of similar size, geology, 

undisturbed watershed geography. Condition and geography. 

of similar size, geology, Class II Watershed Condition Class III 

and geography. 

Condition Class I 

watershed. 

watershed. 

Increase in Zero or minimum Moderate (5%) increases Significant (20-25%) 

Drainage increases in drainage in drainage network increases in drainage 

Network (3) network density due to density due to roads. network density due to 

roads. 

roads. 


Conditions: 

Road Density 

and Location (3) 

Less than 2 miles per 

square mile, no valley 

bottom roads. 

Two to three miles per 

square mile, some valley 

bottom roads. 


Over 3 miles per square 

mile, many valley 

bottom roads.


Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning 

Disturbance CWE model indicator CWE model indicator CWE model indicator 

History (8) values are not above values are above threshold values are above 

.80. Clarify and verify of .80 and 1.0. Clarify and threshold of 1.0. Clarify 

conditions and risk verify conditions and risk and verify conditions 

through field reviews through field reviews and risk through field 

and/or other available and/or other available info, reviews and/or other 

info, as available. as available. 

available info, as 

available. 

Riparian The riparian reserve Moderate loss of 

Riparian reserve system 

Reserves system provides connectivity or function is fragmented, poorly 

(hydrologic) (3) adequate shade, large (shade, LWD recruitment, connected, or provides 

woody debris 

etc) of riparian reserve inadequate protection of 

recruitment, and habitat system, or incomplete habitat and refugia for 

protection and 

protection of habitat and sensitive aquatic species 

connectivity in all refugia for sensitive (approx. less than 70% 

subwatersheds, and aquatic species (approx. intact), and/or for 

buffers or includes 70-80% intact), and/or for grazing impacts; 

known refugia for grazing impacts; percent percent similarity of 

sensitive aquatic species similarity of riparian riparian vegetation to 

(> 80% intact), and/or vegetation to the potential the potential natural 

for grazing impacts; natural 

community/composition 

percent similarity of community/composition is 25% or less. 

riparian vegetation to 

the potential natural 

community/composition 

> 50%. 

25-50% or better. 

Footnotes to Trinity River tributaries matrix of factors and indicators 

(1) Stream Order according to Strahler (1957). Proper Functioning criterion for 4 th /5 th Order streams 

derived from temperature monitoring near the mouth of streams considered to be pristine or nearly 

pristine (North Fork Trinity and New Rivers - 5 th order, East Fork North Fork Trinity and New Rivers near 

East Fork- 4 th order (Data on file at the Weaverville Ranger District). 7 day maximum temperatures as 

high as 71.8 degrees F have been recorded on these streams, however, the average is just less than 70 

degrees F. At Risk criterion for 4 th /5 th order streams derived from monitoring in streams that support 

populations of anadromous fish, although temperatures in this range (70 to 73.0 degrees F) are 

considered sub-optimal. Not Properly Functioning is sustained temperatures above 73.0 degrees F that 

cause cessation of growth and approach lethal temperatures for salmon and steelhead. 

Properly Functioning criterion for 1 st – 3 rd order streams is derived from Proper Functioning criterion for 3 rd 

order streams derived from temperature monitoring near the mouth of streams considered to be pristine 

or nearly pristine (Devils Canyon Creek, East Fork New River, Slide Creek, Virgin Creek). At Risk and Not 

Properly Functioning are assigned on a temperature continuum with values given for 4 th /5 th order streams, 

with the maximum instantaneous temperature of At Risk of 1 st – 3 rd order streams coinciding with the 

minimum 7 day maximum of 4 th /5 th order At Risk streams. Similarly for the Not Properly Functioning 

category. 

(2) Properly Functioning: Water clarity returns quickly (within several days) following peak flows. 

At Risk: Water clarity slow to return following peak flows. 

Not Properly Functioning: Water clarity poor for long periods of time following peak flows. Some 

suspended sediments occur even at low flows or baseflow. 



(3) Criteria unchanged from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) matrix (NMFS 1996). 

(4) Properly Functioning criterion from Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan EIS p 3-68 

(USDA 1995a). At Risk and Not Properly Functioning criteria defined through professional judgment. 

(5) Properly Functioning LWD criteria derived from stream surveys of 25 stream reaches on the Trinity 

River Management Unit. The reaches from which the properly functioning criteria were derived have not 

been “cleaned” or had extensive mining activity that removed LWD and support anadromous fish (or 

historically did). The Properly Functioning criterion is clearly defined, whereas the At Risk and Not 

Properly functioning criteria are ambiguously defined based on professional judgment of the Shasta- 

Trinity Level 1 team. 

(6) Width to depth (W/D) ratio for various channel types is based on delineative criteria of Rosgen (1994). 

Properly Functioning means that W/D ratio falls within expected channel type as determined by the other 

four delineative factors (entrenchment, sinuosity, slope, and substrate). Aggradation on alluvial flats 

causing braiding is well known phenomenon that often accompanies changes in W/D ratio as watershed 

condition deteriorates. 

(7) Criteria changed from NMFS matrix. Shasta Trinity National Forest uses Equivalent Roaded 

Area/Threshold of Concern (ERA/TOC) Model (Haskins 1986) to determine the existing risk ratio as well 

as the effect risk ratio. Therefore, the ECA values are not used in Region 5 analysis; instead the 

ERA/TOC model is used. ERA/TOC provides a simplified accounting system for tracking disturbances 

that affect watershed processes, in particular, estimates in changes in peak runoff flows influenced by 

disturbance activities. This model is not intended to be a process-based sediment model, however it does 

provide an indicator of watershed conditions. This model compares the current level of disturbance within 

a given watershed (expressed as %ERA) with the theoretical maximum disturbance level acceptable 

(expressed as %TOC). ERA/TOC (or “risk ratio”) estimates the level of hydrological disturbance or 

relative risk of increased peak flows and consequent potential for channel alteration and general adverse 

watershed impacts. TOC is calculated based on channel sensitivity, beneficial uses, soil erodibility, 

hydrologic response, and slope stability. The TOC does not represent the exact point at which cumulative 

watershed effects will occur. Rather, it serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for 

significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed. 

Susceptibility of CWE generally increases from low to high as the level of land disturbing activities 

increase towards or past the TOC (FS Handbook, 2509.22-23.63a). 

CWE Analysis Threshold of Concern and Watershed Condition Class: The LRMP established TOC 

for 5 th field watersheds and defines Watershed Condition Class (WCC) (USDA Forest Service, 1995b). 

The WCC are defined as follows: 

Watershed Condition Class I: ERA less than 40 percent TOC; 

Watershed Condition Class II: ERA between 40 and 80 percent TOC; and 

Watershed Condition Class III: ERA greater than 80 percent TOC. 

The following summarizes the FSM 2521.1 - Watershed Condition Classes. The ERA evaluates 

watershed condition and assigns one of the following three classes: 

1. Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and 

biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in 

terms of supporting beneficial uses. 

2. Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable 



drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and 

riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. 

3. Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, 

chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support 

beneficial uses. 

(8) The components of the STNF CWE model (Haskins, 1986) are used to determine conditions and risk 

to this Indicator. The STNF CWE model components replace use of ECA that was originally identified in 

the Checklist. ECA is not used in Region 5. 

References 

Haskins, D.M. 1986. A Management Model for Evaluating Cumulative Watershed Effects; Proceedings 

from the California Watershed Management Conference, West Sacramento, CA, November 19-20, 

1986, pp125-130. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Conference Opinion. Implementation of Land and Resource 

Management Plans 31p. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1994.A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena, vol 22:169-199 Eisevier Science, B.V. 

Amsterdam. 

Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical Union 

Transactions. 38: 913-920. 

USDA, Forest Service. 1995a. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. Klamath National Forest, Yreka CA. 

USDA, Forest Service. 1995b. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA. 



Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed 

Action(s) on Relevant Indicators 

PROJECT AND SITE # Plummer Creek 

Pathways: ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION(S) 

INDICATORS 

Properly 

Funct 

Water Quality 

Temperature PLUM 

Sediment PLUM 

Chemical Contam 

Habitat Access 

PLUM 

Physical Barrier 

Habitat Elements 

PLUM 

Substrate PLUM 

LWD PLUM 

Pool Frequency PLUM 

Pool Quality PLUM 

Off-channel Habitat PLUM 

Refugia 

Channel Cond & Dyn 

PLUM 

W/D Ratio PLUM 

Streambank Cond. PLUM 

Floodplain Cond. 

Flow /Hydrology 

PLUM 

Peak/Base Flow PLUM 

Drainage Net Incrs PLUM 

Watershed Cond. Road 

Dens/Lo PLUM 

Disturbance History PLUM 

Riparian Reserves PLUM 


Funct 

Restore Maintain Degradg 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X


PROJECT AND SITE # Hidden Valley Watershed 

Pathways: 

INDICATORS 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Properly 

Funct 

At Risk Not 

Properly 

Funct 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION(S) 

Restore Maintain Degrade 

Water Quality 

Temperature J. Lang X 

Sediment J. Lang 

Longterm 

Shortterm 



J. Lang X 

Physical Barrier J. Lang X 

Habitat Elements Non-fish bearing/No 

Substrate 

Information 

Non-fish bearing/No 

X 

LWD 

Information 


X 

Pool Frequency 

Information 


X 

Pool Quality 

Information 


X 

Off-channel Habitat 

Information 


X 

Refugia 

Information X 


W/D Ratio 

LongtermShorttermLongShort- 

Streambank Cond. 

termtermLongShort- Floodplain Cond. 


termterm Peak/Base Flow X 

LongShort- Drainage Net Incrs 

termterm Watershed Cond. Road 

LongShort- Dens/Lo J. Lang 

termtermLongShort- Disturbance History J. Lang 

termterm Riparian Reserves J. Lang X 



PROJECT AND SITE # South Fork Trinity River Watershed 

Pathways: 

INDICATORS 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Properly 

Funct At Risk 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION(S) 

Not 

Properly 

Funct Restore Maintain Degrade 

Water Quality 

Temperature So. Fork X 

Sediment So. Fork 

Longterm 

Shortterm 



So. Fork X 

Physical Barrier So. Fork X 

Habitat Elements 

Substrate So. Fork 

Longterm 

Shortterm 

LWD So. Fork X 

Pool Frequency So. Fork X 

Pool Quality So. Fork 

Longterm 

Shortterm 

Off-channel Habitat So. Fork X 

Refugia So. Fork X 


W/D Ratio So. Fork X 

Streambank Cond. So. Fork X 

Floodplain Cond. So. Fork X 


Peak/Base Flow So. Fork X 

Drainage Net Incrs So. Fork X 

Watershed Cond. Road 

Dens/Lo So. Fork X 

Disturbance History So. Fork X 

Riparian Reserves So. Fork X

Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?