SCRP Environmental Assessment

Strawberry Creek Restoration Project
Environmental Assessment
Redwood National Park Humboldt County, CA
Prepared by
EcoLogic
Letting nature take its course
December 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document assesses the potential environmental impacts of the Strawberry Creek Restoration Project (SRCP) in Redwood National Park (RNP) in Orick, California pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The lead agency for the SCRP is RNP with funding coming from the National Park Service, California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Conservancy (Arguello 2012). The purpose of the SCRP is to create suitable habitat for the anadromous salmonids coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and includes four phases. The first phase is the planning, environmental review and permit attainment period. The second phase involves the excavation a new stream channel, culvert replacement and the removal of invasive reed canary grass (RCG)( Phalaris arundinacea). Currently fish have not been able to migrate into Strawberry Creek due to the poor downstream estuary conditions caused by an abundance of RCG in and around the stream channel, which has limited the amount of dissolved oxygen and degraded water quality (Arguello et al. 2012). The third phase involves planting a dense riparian vegetation buffer along the new stream channel to shade out RCG and stabilize the streambank, as well as placing temporary electric fences around the project area to keep wildlife out (Arguello et al. 2012). Phase four includes the restoration of four upper hillslope stream crossings to reduce sediment input from erosion into the stream. The proposed alternative to the SCRP is to reduce the density vegetation buffer by planting trees every six feet rather than every two feet, with all other components the same. However, to ensure the best possible habitat for salmonids, all four components of the proposed action should be completed. Due to the nature of this project, the short-term negative impacts resulting from sedimentation during the construction phase will be offset by mitigation and long term positive habitat improvements to salmonids.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Scoping Considerations and Permits Required ................................................................................... 9 1.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................................... 12 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION .......................................................... 14 2.1 Threatened & Endangered Species ................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Geology & Soils ................................................................................................................................. 18 2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 23 2.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................................... 29 2.5 Socioeconomics................................................................................................................................. 33 2.6 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 37 2.7 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................... 42 2.8 Forest and Agriculture Resources ..................................................................................................... 48 2.9 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 51 2.10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................... 55 2.11 Impacts to Remaining Categories ................................................................................................... 60 3.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, & MITIGATION/MONITORING PLAN............................................................................................................... 64 3.1 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................ 64 3.2 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ......................................................................................... 65 3.3 Mitigation & Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................... 65 4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE....................................... 68 5.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................................................... 73 6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix A: NEPA Checklist ........................................................................................................................ 81 Appendix B: figures ..................................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix C: Tribal Contact Information ..................................................................................................... 94 Appendix D: NMFS Indicators of Aquatic Habitat Suitability for Coho Salmon .......................................... 95
Appendix E: Impact Matrix.......................................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description The Strawberry Creek Restoration Project (SCRP) is located in Redwood National Park in Humboldt County, California, one mile southwest of the city of Orick. The SCRP involves the restoration of a stream that is highly channelized and degraded. The project area is approximately 185 acres and consists of a wetland area, stream channel, two culverts, an unpaved service road, and hillsides to the east and south (Figures 1, 1a, and 2). The current stream channel is linear with no vegetative buffer which creates an unsuitable habitat for fish and stresses the need for this restoration. A new stream channel will be excavated and will contain sinuous curves which will intersect the current stream. Surrounding the new stream channel will be a dense riparian vegetation buffer. This vegetative buffer is critical to the project because, by providing shade, it will act as the necessary agent to rid the stream of the shade intolerant reed canary grass (RCG)(Phalaris arundinacea), which has encroached into the current stream channel and is the leading cause of salmonid habitat loss. The four phases of this project include the planning phase, construction of the new channel, planting of the riparian buffer, and lastly, the pulling RCG, stabilizing the hillslopes and monitoring. The initial phase of the project includes assessing the purpose and need of the project, which is to restore historically abundant salmonid habitat as a consequence of habitat loss due to invasive RCG. Phase one also includes preparing the Environmental Assessment and applying for the necessary permits.
STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 5
Phase two involves the construction aspect of the project, which includes the dewatering and excavation of the stream channel and the replacement of two undersized culverts in order to provide an easier pathway for fish to pass through. The major part of phase two is excavating the new stream channel, which will include strategic instream log placement to create ideal habitat for fish spawning (Appendix B, Figures 6 and 7). Phase two also includes the installation of an electric fence around the project area to keep wildlife away.
Phase three is the planting of the vegetative riparian buffer. A native tree species, either Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), red alder (Alnus rubra) or willow (Salix spp.) will be planted every 2 feet. Also included in phase three is installation of an electric fence around the planting mounds to protect saplings from elk and beaver disturbance.
Phase four includes manually pulling RCG during the initial tree growth period when enough shade cannot be produced by the saplings to inhibit the growth of RCG and also includes the upper hillslope stream crossing restorations of the main tributary watershed to the south (Figure 1). This portion of phase four will entail excavating the ground where abandoned logging roads currently are in order to create a tributary stream channel. This will allow for increased headwater flow and a reduction in sediment and erosion. Also included in this phase is the monitoring of the new stream channel to document the restoration efforts.
Some activities associated with the construction period are building a temporary access road from the current road for excavator access and acquiring the necessary permits. In order to create this access road for the excavator, approximately 15 trees would need to be cut and erosion
mitigation tools put in place. After the construction period is over, trees would be re-planted where they were cut to restore the slope integrity and aesthetics. The project once completed will contain a more historically natural stream channel adjoined to and stemming from the main tributary from the watershed to the south. The new stream channel will contain a dense riparian vegetative buffer whose shade will disable any RCG growth. Within the new stream channel native logs will be secured in place to create favorable fish spawning environments. Collectively the new channel, logs, shade-providing vegetation and improved hillslope channels will create and allow for healthy stream flow and enhanced salmonid habitat.
1.2 Purpose and Need Strawberry Creek is a perennial tributary of Redwood Creek in the lower Orick valley that once supported a productive coastal cutthroat trout fishery and healthy populations of Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and North California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Historically, Strawberry Creek flowed from its upland watershed across an alluvial fan and through a wetland system into the lower part of Redwood creek. The site, originally a Sitka spruce forest, began to be converted from forest to agriculture land in the 1800s and was mostly pasture and agriculture land by 1935 (Arguello et al. 2012). In order for the site to be converted into agriculture land, Strawberry Creek was channelized and adjacent forested wetlands were cleared and drained which created favorable conditions for invasive RCG (Arguello et al. 2012). The current reed canary grass-dominated channel blocks fish passage and greatly decreases water quality, specifically by reducing dissolved oxygen, raising water levels and flood occurrences on adjacent lands, by increasing water temperature and by promoting turbidity within the channel (Arguello et al. 2012).
The Wilderness Society estimates that in California, coho salmon are extinct throughout 26% of their historic range, endangered in 22%, and threatened in the remaining 52%. Furthermore, reports have shown that habitat degradation has been associated with 90% of documented extinctions or declines in pacific salmon stocks (Gregory & Bisson 1997). Coho salmon and steelhead have demanding habitat requirements and are most abundant in the least disturbed and more heavily forested watersheds. The restoration of Strawberry Creek by reconstructing the stream channel and replacing RCG with native Sitka spruce, red alder, and willow is an important step toward improving the current ecological issues mentioned above, returning the ecosystem to its native state, and protecting endangered fish populations. This project falls in line with the Humboldt County General Plan, which cites that restoring habitat for threatened salmonids is an important priority (Humboldt 2012). Although coho and steelhead are not currently found in the proposed project area, they are known to occupy downstream reaches of the creek and also in Redwood Creek, which Strawberry Creek is a tributary to. Restoration will directly benefit habitat within the project area and indirectly benefit nearby waterways and salmonid populations, consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recovery plan to establish inter- and intra-stream connectivity in Strawberry Creek as to not inhibit the possible passage of migrant fish from nearby populations (NMFS 2021a). Aside from the potential ecological benefits of restoring Strawberry Creek, the potential socioeconomic benefits include increased fishery stocks that will benefit fishermen, the incorporation of ecotourism into the project site with trails and educational signs, and the opportunity to learn from this attempt at saving salmonids through ecosystem restoration.
1.3 Scoping Considerations/Permits Required During the scoping process of SCRP there were factors that had to be considered such as what permits needed to be obtained, determination of which agencies would need to be consulted, and which specific individuals and/or groups would be affected in the process of the project. This section of the EA will go into further detail about each of these considerations.
The SCRP is contingent to the permits from necessary federal, state and local agencies, specifically those agencies who deal with federally threatened species such as coho salmon or steelhead, which is the pinnacle purpose of SCRP. An Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) had to be awarded after receiving a biological opinion from United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The lead agency for this project, the National Park Service (NPS), is responsible for contacting USFWS or NMFS to obtain ITPs and a biological opinion. Since the SCRP is near the coastal zone, the California Coastal Commission will also be consulted with. The rechannelization of the stream is an essential part of the project which also calls for permits. These permits would be for the use of heavy machinery and approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the excavation of the culverts and filling of the old streambed. Concerns about the water quality due to increased sediment loading from the culvert replacement and channel realignment will have to get a Section 404 permit pursuant of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agency that will be responsible for the quality of water and wetlands is the USACE. A CWA Section 402-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater general permit will also need to be attained because the SCRP will disturb more than one acre of soil and will discharge stormwater into surface waters of the state (Washington State
Department of Transportation 2012). A Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permit will also need to be attained, which requires a permit for any work in, over or under navigable waters of the U.S. (Washington State Department of Transportation 2012). The confirmation of wetlands, soil series and a detailed soil analysis has been done by the US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS 2011). In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, a Section 106 compliance permit is needed because SCRP activities may potentially impact historic properties and archaeological resources. Pursuant to California state law, a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is required due to the potential impacts on historic cultural resources within the project footprint (California State Parks 2012). The specific groups that will be affected by this project range from tribal constituents to environmentalist groups based on the preservation of plants or the threatened coho and steelhead salmonids. The main tribes affected by this project will be the Yurok and Hoopa tribes. Contact information for both tribes is listed in Appendix C. The tribes livelihoods are dependent on increased fish populations. Other groups that will support the increase of wildlife into the watershed are Salmon Forever, Ducks Unlimited, and the National Wildlife Federation. A group with a vested concern in the plant life in the project area is the California Native Plant Society, who is in favor of the restoration. Environmental Assessments are not only important for public transparency, ecological health and long term planning, they are also critical for protection against litigation from private interest groups (Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) and Northcoast Environmental Center) that are against a specific cause. However, since
this project will be benefiting fish habitat and the greater ecosystem, there is no anticipation that SCRP will encounter resistance from these private interest groups. In order to ensure transparency, we will consult with the public and various non-governmental organizations via public meetings, newspaper announcements and internet postings describing the proposed SCRP and its purpose and need. The most immediate public affected by this project will be the downstream landowner, who is also undergoing a restoration plan to remove RCG and benefit salmonid habitat. Coordination between the downstream restoration and this restoration is critical to the success of the SCRP. If downstream RCG does not get removed and salmonid habitat not improved, the SCRP will not be successful or viable into the future. Neighbors and other landowners downstream will be affected by this project if noise is increased by the use of heavy machinery during construction. Residents of Orick and Redwood National Park visitors will also be affected by this project in the future, by being provided with a new recreational area for activities such as wildlife spotting or birding. Branching out farther from the epicenter of the SCRP, the Humboldt State University (HSU) community will benefit from this project because it is an example of a restoration project in action, and could pose further research and educational opportunities as well. Additionally, HSU students could monitor the progress of the SCRP into the future, which again would provide educational resources to the University and local community. The last community that will be affected in a positive way from this project will be commercial fisherman and other native tribes in the coastal area, since increased salmon stocks will benefit their livelihood.
1.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action: The proposed action is to restore the Strawberry Creek ecosystem and provide suitable habitat for endangered salmonid species by reconstructing the stream channel through excavation and the installation of wood structures, removal of invasive RCG from in and around the stream channel, planting of a dense riparian buffer of Sitka spruce, red alder, and willow to provide ample shade to the creek and create conditions that prevent the growth of RCG, and restoring four hillslope stream crossings to reduce sediment delivery into the creek.
Alternative 1: The first alternative considered is to leave the channel as it currently is, remove the invasive RCG, and replant the riparian zone with a native vegetation buffer. The main difference between this alternative and the proposed action is the realignment of the stream channel. This alternative would cut the cost of the project as well as decrease the amount of work due to no excavation, but if the channel remains as is, it will lack important in-stream structures such as pools, glides and riffles that control channel bed elevation, dissipate energy flow, and provide fish habitat. Alternative 2: The second alternative considered is to restore the stream channel as in the proposed project and remove the RCG. However, this alternative entails a less dense riparian buffer due to planting trees every 6 ft. rather than every 2 ft. and the use of herbicides. By reconstructing the stream channel the creek will have in-stream structures beneficial for salmonid habitat, but the reduced planting and herbicide use will likely affect the long-term success of RCG removal due to less shade and the introduction of chemicals.
Alternative 3: The third alternative considered is to manage RCG by practicing mowing at least five times per year, which would reduce the RCG seed germination from further sprouting for the following spring. Possible use of a shade cloth or herbicides after mowing could be a viable option to keep these shade intolerant plants from further growth. This alternative would neither restore the stream channel nor revegetate the riparian zone with native spruce, alder, and willow. Alternative 4: The fourth alternative involves the introduction of grazing onto the project area to remove the RCG. Riparian vegetation will be planted every two feet as well as other combined treatment methods such as shade cloths which in conjunction with goat and sheep grazing could be used in eliminating the growth of RCG, but could also eliminate the growth of desired plant species. This alternative would replant the riparian area with native tree seedlings, but this alternative would not restore the stream channel. No Action Alternative: The no action alternative would not change the stream channel nor remove the RCG. This no action alternative would continue to limit access of coho salmon and steelhead into and within the tributaries.
CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION
CORINNE KENNAH (1)
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

2.1 Threatened & Endangered Species Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment:
The reach of Strawberry Creek that would be affected by this project is not currently accessible to the federally threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) or the Northern California steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). However, both are known to occur in the lower reaches of the stream and also in Redwood Creek, to which Strawberry Creek is a tributary. Within the project area, an undersized stream crossing and the dense growth of invasive RCG in the channel inhibit fish passage, and the channelized nature of the stream and problems associated with the growth of RCG lead to decreased water quality and a habitat that is overall unsuitable to supporting the anadromous salmonids. Other protected species which can be found locally, such as the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, or California red-legged frog, are not know to occur within the project footprint and will not be affected by this project or analyzed in this report.
Impact Analysis: Criteria: The criteria that will be used to assess the impacts this project may have on salmonids in Strawberry Creek and nearby waterways is taken from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Draft SONCC Coho Recovery Plan and describes quantitative measures of habitat suitability for the following parameters: floodplain, channel structure, sediment supply, water
STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE14
CORINNE KENNAH (1)
quality, and riparian conditions (NMFS 2012a). A detailed description of this criterion can be found in Appendix D. Impacts of the Proposed Project: Due to the low gradient nature of the stream it is not expected that construction of the stream channel or removal of RCG will negatively impact salmon habitat in the downstream reaches of Strawberry Creek or in Redwood Creek. However, preventative measures will be taken during the project implementation and monitoring phases to further reduce the possibility of harm, and are discussed in the mitigation section below. Overall, this project is expected to provide greatly positive impacts to threatened coho and steelhead populations. Excavation of the stream channel to restore a sinuous flow to the channelized portion may cause minor temporary increases in sediment loads traveling downstream, indirectly affecting water quality in downstream areas. Once the construction of the channel is complete, the sinuous nature of the creek will directly improve the in-stream habitat for salmonids by slowing the rate of water flow, decreasing sediment inputs from bank erosion, and lowering the potential for flooding. Indirect benefits of restoring the channel include creating an environment that is less suitable to the growth of invasive RCG. The removal of RCG during the construction phase of this project may also lead to temporary minor increases of sediment traveling downstream, but once completed the resulting impacts to coho and steelhead will be greatly positive. Removal of RCG from within the stream will directly improve the ability of fish to pass through the channel, which is currently not possible because RCG growth within the creek bed is so dense that it chokes the channel and impedes fish
CORINNE KENNAH (1)
passage. In addition to the direct impact of allowing fish passage, removing RCG will also benefit the salmonids by improving factors that are disturbed by RCG growth, such as dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, and flooding potential. These positive impacts are supported by data collected after removal of RCG from downstream areas in a 2006-2007 project by Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association that showed immediate results of lower water levels, increased dissolved oxygen, and even the presence of juvenile salmonids in the stream after RCG removal (FWS 2010). The SONCC coho recovery plan lists that road crossing barriers in the lower Strawberry Creek basin are one of the major factors causing impediments to fish passage (NMFS 2012b). The replacement of the undersized culvert in the West Tributary will directly improve fish passage into the channel and will also control flooding in upstream areas. Some minor increases in sedimentation may occur during the brief installation period, but it is not expected that there will be a negative impact on downstream areas. The installation of in-stream structures including rock and log steps and weirs during the construction phase of the project will cause direct positive improvements in habitat quality for salmonids. The pools, glides, and riffles created by placing large woody debris in the stream channel create excellent areas for salmonid spawning and juvenile rearing, and will also help to control the channel bed elevation and dissipate energy flow in the channel. Finally, decommission and restoration of the four hillslope stream crossings will indirectly benefit water quality in the portion of Strawberry Creek within the project area and also in downstream reaches. The existence of these former logging roads in upstream areas currently
CORINNE KENNAH (1)
causes increased sediment levels in the creek due to erosion of the roads, which decreases water quality and overall habitat of the coho and steelhead. Determination of Impacts: By implementing minor mitigation measures to decrease any temporary negative effects to coho and steelhead, this project will have greatly positive impacts to the federally listed anadromous salmonids. Mitigation/ Minimization Measures: To decrease the possibility of harm to salmonids in the downstream areas of Strawberry Creek and in Redwood Creek during the construction phase of the project, particularly from increased sediment load traveling downstream, no construction activities will occur during the peak spawning season which runs from November through January. Fish nets will be installed in both downstream and upstream locations of the project area to prevent any fish that may migrate through the channel from entering the portion of the creek under construction. Furthermore, a NMFS biologist will be contracted to assess the water quality in areas downstream of the project and in the portion of Redwood Creek that meets Strawberry Creek. The NMFS biologist will conduct this analysis during the construction phase of the project and again at project completion. Once the project is completed and the habitat within the project area is restored and capable of supporting salmonids, a NMFS biologist will be contracted to survey for the presence of fish in the creek. If either or both of the listed salmonids are present in the restored reach of Strawberry Creek, Redwood National Park staff will work with NMFS to develop a separate management plan to regulate the protection of these threatened species.
TONY FERNANDEZ (1)
2.2 Geology & Soils Environmental Settings/ Affected Environment:
The current environmental settings surrounding the Strawberry creek are composed mainly of forested coastal slopes and wetland meadows with a diverse set of soil characteristics. There are four major soil units surrounding this project site. On the lower portion of the wetlands, the soil units 119 and 171 meet the criteria for hydric indicators because of their parent materials that consist of silty clay loam and silt loam characteristics. These soils tend to become inundated during the growing season. The soil units 174 and 553 that are found along the hill slopes tend to have a lower frequency of ponding primarily because of their slope and drainage class. Soil characteristics consist of sandy loam to silty loam material for map unit 174 with slopes of 2-9% and 30-50% for soil map unit 553, which consist of a more gravelly clay loam characteristic thus allowing further infiltration through its profile (Web Soil Survey). There are several soil types along Strawberry Creek (see Appendix B, Figure 8). Impact Analysis: Criteria: The criteria used to assess the levels of significance are taken from the comprehensive watershed restoration strategy for the Strawberry Creek (RCWG 2006) which encompasses both channel restoration and upslope erosion control. The project being implemented will improve water quality and aquatic habitat by reducing soil erosion and sedimentation along the lower portions of the tributary. The levels of erosion will be determined along slopes exceeding 15 percent and the levels of saturation in the soil. However, impacts will be non-significant because the timing
TONY FERNANDEZ (1)
when the restoration will take place is expected to take place during the drier months of June through the end of October. Low levels of water are expected for this period of time which also enables listed fish species to access this tributary and allows for construction to take place during these times of low precipitation. Short term impacts may be significant once the system is functioning, however long-term outcomes for this project will be overall beneficial to the biological integrity of this tributary. Impacts of the Proposed Project: There are several impacts that may have negative environmental effects along the restoration site. Many of these sites will be most affected during the initial stages of its construction and during the times of heavy water flows. Long term conditions are expected to improve the overall biological integrity of the project site by reducing sediment accumulation along the stream thus improving water quality and stabilizing the soil along sloping terrain and stream banks. Some of the major components that play a major influence on soil characteristics along the proposed project include: Channel Restoration: In the attempt to implement a comprehensive watershed restoration strategy for the Strawberry Creek, the proposed project is expected to excavate a new meandering channel that would allow for a more natural stream flow. Some indirect impacts associated with the excavation is the removal and translocation of the soils to a new site, I is suggested that soil be disposed of accordingly because of the threat of possible invasion from the soil seed bed which contains the noxious RCG. Once in operation the new functioning stream is expected to initially discharge sedimentation
TONY FERNANDEZ (1)
and increase turbidity during its first high water flows. Furthermore bank erosion and stream landslide may directly impact the stream if not given enough time to stabilize its stream banks with vegetation. Plantings along the stream banks during the months of June 15 through October 31 are expected to provide optimal conditions for the planted species to become well established along the stream banks, thus reducing the chances of stream side erosion. (EXHIBIT- A, 2010) Upslope erosion control: Altering sediment on the upslope portion of the watershed by removing trees and vegetation cover would provide stress to all life stages of the Strawberry Creek, such as logging and road construction. With proper restoration efforts, tree removal along with large movements of earth can be properly managed so as to reduce direct impacts along the hillslopes. Erosion is expected to occur on slopes greater than 10-15%. Soils along the upper watershed of the strawberry creek are highly permeable and have high runoff potential as well as high risk of erosion when saturated; therefore soil structure and vegetative cover must be mitigated so as to retain a healthy vegetative cover for it soil structure. Humboldt crossings/ Decommissioned Roads: Stream crossing removal is intended to reduce mass-wasting and surface erosion by eliminating anthropogenic problems such as roads, landings, and stream crossings. The purpose is to restore natural riparian topography and surface hydrology thereby increasing the stability and rehabilitation of the site (BMP 2003). The decommissioning of roads and the removal of Humboldt crossings may directly impact soil erosion along the slopes thus transporting sediment to riparian channels, however with mitigation; hill slopes can be protected with a mantle of mulch that allows for structure develop in the soil profile.
TONY FERNANDEZ (1)
Culvert Replacement: Along the channel there are two culvers that will need replacement thus allowing for a greater volume of water transport through the riparian stream. During the replacement stage of the culverts, large amounts of soil are expected to cause direct impacts on the water quality thus causing increase in turbidity and decrease in water quality along the lower portion of the tributary. Erosion control methods will be used to avoid additional loss of top soil.
Determination of Impacts: The channel restoration is expected to have an environmental impact during its initial construction stage; however the level of determination for its impact would indicate a less than significant impact if mitigation is incorporated. Upslope erosion is expected to provide sediment runoff along disturbed areas, however it is most significant during times when soil is saturated, the level of significance would indicate less than significant if mitigation is incorporated. Humboldt crossings removal along with the decommissioning of the roads would significantly reduce erosion runoff at the top of the headwaters thus making its determination of impact less than significant if mitigation is incorporated. The replacement of the culverts is considered to have a less than significant impact to soils therefore no mitigation will be needed. Mitigation/ Minimization Measures: To decrease the levels of sedimentation and bank erosion along the strawberry creek, mitigation measures will be implemented so as to provide the soil some structure from further erosion. Mitigation measures will need to be put in place for the removal of trees during the construction
TONY FERNANDEZ (1)
stage, which may increase the chances of erosion. Trees will be replanted along the slopes where they had once been removed by allowing sufficient time for the soil to become stabilized thus improving infiltration rates and surface vegetation. Minor slope adjustments to surface erosion may occur after treatment; however mitigation to minimize surface erosion will be conducted with the addition of mulch cover to bare ground cover and near stream channels. Mitigation for the removal of Humboldt crossing should be intended to protect fisheries from sediment delivery from construction and other debris. Mitigation will include efforts to excavate the remaining fill and either leave the crossing in an excavated state or replace the crossing with modern culverts. Similarly the removal of decommissioned roads would mitigate to restore the integrity of the hillslopes, channels, flood plains and their related ecological processes. Mitigation for culvert replacement should include erosion control methods that can be used to avoid additional loss of topsoil.
KERRY McNAMEE (2)
2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting/Affected Environment:
The present water quality and hydrologic conditions within the project footprint are poor due to historic land manipulations. By 1935 a large portion of the alluvial bottoms had been drained and cleared of trees in order to transform the perennial wetland and Sitka spruce forest to livestock ranches and pastureland (Arguello et al. 2012). The actions associated with this conversion include straightening Strawberry Creek, its tributaries and installing culverts. These actions greatly disrupted the natural hydrology of the riparian plane, reduced salmonid habitat and caused favorable conditions for invasive RCG to thrive. The landscape has continued to deteriorate since 1935 due to the abundant growth of RCG, which reduces water quality in an array of facets: oxygen depletion, increased sedimentation, increased temperatures and decreased habitat quality as well as decreased hydrologic flow (Arguello et al. 2012). The thick mats of RCG also increase water levels which exacerbates flooding, blocks fish passage and intrusively chokes the Strawberry Creek channel causing a negative shift in the entire ecosystem. Currently, the water quality is poor which is verified by the absence of fish, abundance of RCG and a lack of flow within the stream channel (Arguello 2012). Impact Analysis: Criteria: In order to accurately determine the significance of impacts from the SCR, thresholds of significance should be determined regarding quantifiable water quality criteria, as well as qualitative water quality indicators (see Table 1). Some foreseeable initial impacts of the
KERRY McNAMEE (2)
proposed project include increased sedimentation and turbidity, increased temperatures, altered dissolved oxygen, chemical contamination and disrupted hydrologic flow (CA Department of Fish and Game 34). However, after phase two of the SCR these impacts will be alleviated. Table 1. Quantitative Water Quality Criteria of Significance
Impact
Threshold of Significance
Suspended Fine Sediment and Turbidity
Not more than 20% of pre-construction levels [1]
Dissolved Oxygen
At least 5 mg/L [2]
Temperature
Salmonid fish growth stops at 17.5 C [3]
Sources: [1]: CA Department of Fish and game 34. [2]: Environmental Protection Division, Government of British Columbia Table 10. [3]: Sensitivity by Lifestage 2011
Impacts of Proposed Project: The SCR will have long term positive effects on water quality and hydrologic movement, however during various phases of the restoration there will be negative implications to hydrology and water quality. Phase one of the project will not bring about any environmental impacts because phase one is the visioning, scoping and planning rather than the actual physical restoration work.
KERRY McNAMEE (2)
Phase two will produce the majority of impacts because of the rigorous channel excavation, culvert removal and replacement and RCG removal. In order to excavate the new channel without water present, the current channel will be blocked at its entrance into the wetland with logs causing direct impacts to hydrology (Arguello 2012). This disruption in hydrology would result in a saturated area lacking flow thus adding to the nature of the marsh landscape. Once the proposed channel is dredged, the log blockage to the current channel will be removed allowing natural surface and predominantly subsurface flow movement to come into confluence with the proposed channel (Figure 1a). Direct effects of RCG removal regarding dissolved oxygen are positive for water in close proximity of the RCG removal (Arguello et al. 2012). However indirectly, the water buttressed behind the blocked channel, a consequence of the construction, will continue to decline in dissolved oxygen because it is still in an area with RCG present.. The culvert will be removed and replaced with a larger culvert producing a direct impact of increased water flow, which will improve hydrology and increase oxygen due to the increased velocity over rocks, woody debris and other riffles causing bubbles (Wilzbach 2012a). Other direct impacts include increased sedimentation and turbidity resulting from the magnitude of force into the soil by heavy machinery during channel excavation and culvert removal, which loosens soil particles and allows them to become entrained in waterways (Pennekamp et al. 10). Indirect impacts of the channel excavation are positive and will result in a more natural meandering channel which balances the potential and kinetic energy within the channel, and reduces flooding (Wilzbach 2012c). A foreseeable indirect impact involves the oil and chemicals that could drip from heavy machinery and therefore negatively impact water quality via nonpoint source pollution.
KERRY McNAMEE (2)
Phase two would directly increase temperatures to the buttressed water in the current riparian channel due to decreasing its depth and thus increasing its surface area contact with the atmosphere (Wilzbach 2012d). However, indirectly the water temperature within the proposed stream channel will eventually decrease because of increased depth and shading from vegetation resulting in a positive impact. Phase three of the SCR, planting the vegetative riparian buffer, will not have negative impacts on water quality nor hydrology. Phase three may directly cause some sedimentation and erosion in the stream channel due to human interaction close to the stream bank during planting. However, once established the riparian vegetation will create stability in the stream bank and will reduce future erosion and sedimentation (Welsh et al. 3). Indirectly, the mature trees will continue to strengthen the stream banks, increase flow velocity and input energy into the stream via leaf debris (Welsh et al. 3). Phase four involves manually pulling RCG while the riparian vegetation saplings are growing and unable to provide shade, as well as construction to abandoned logging roads. The direct impacts of manually pulling RCG include possible increases in sedimentation and turbidity to the stream depending on how carefully the RCG is pulled. The excavation and decomissioning of abandoned logging roads will directly negatively impact turbidity and sedimentation levels due to the slackened soil particles on the upstream hillslopes. Indirectly, the dredging will create stream channels which will eventually greatly reduce sediment loads to downstream Strawberry Creek and also increase infiltration and ground water recharge (Brown et al. 329). In a similar project, the infiltration rate on an abandoned logging road was 0-12 mm/hour and post road decommissioning was 14-31 mm/hour, a significant positive impact (Brown et al. 330).
KERRY McNAMEE (2)
Determination of Impact: The proposed SCR project will produce an array of impacts, with the majority being negative in the short term and positive long term. Due to the present degraded water quality and hydrologic conditions, the direct negative impacts from phase two are minor especially because they are precursors to the desired outcome: a healthy ecosystem able to support endangered salmonids (Arguello et al 1). Therefore the proposed SCR project will have an insignificant environmental impact on water quality and hydrology. Mitigation/Minimization Measures: The SCR project will overwhelmingly produce long term positive environmental impacts to water quality and hydrology. The initial negative impacts associated with construction are all minimized as the project proceeds, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, flow, turbidity and sedimentation. The elimination of RCG allows the stream ecosystem to regenerate itself and find homeostasis, thus not requiring additional mitigation. Of all the negative impacts to water quality and hydrology, turbidity and sedimentation are environmental impacts that can readily be minimized as they are being produced. A minimization measure that can be taken to reduce sedimentation and turbidity in the water column is to place sand bags or screens at streambanks with a high slope in areas downstream of the channel excavation taking place in phase two. Another mitigation measure would be to create a buffer with sand bags downstream of where the logging roads will be decommissioned in phase four. After the earth is dredged and the stream channel created, the accumulated earth material would be removed from behind the buffer and out of the stream channel. A minimization measure to alleviate turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temperature fluctuations and flow
KERRY McNAMEE (2)
inconsistencies would be to undertake the project in the dry season, specifically July-October. This time period will not disturb endangered fish species because they are currently not present in the project area. As the wet weather commences, it is expected that there will be an initial high amount of turbidity in the creek, however that will subside as the stream channel stabilizes. Monitoring will be an important aspect of the SCR and will include routinely removing RCG and ensuring that when ready, the riparian vegetation is properly shading the RCG out. Strawberry Creek water will also be sampled and monitored to ensure turbidity is substantially less than it was before the proposed project, that temperature is facilitating optimal fish growth at a range of 9 degrees C and 17.5 degrees C and that dissolved oxygen is above the threshold 6 mg/L (Sensitivity by Lifestage 2011;Environmental Protection Division, Table 10). Monitoring of the stream ecosystem via invertebrate abundance will also be undertaken to ensure adequate biological health (Wilzbach 2012b). Future monitoring will be implemented for at least twenty years subsequent to the projects completion to ensure the integrity of the SCR, as well as the efficiency of other partner projects such as the downstream restoration project.
CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION
SABRENA AMBREZEWICZ (1)
2.4 Biological Resources Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment:
Strawberry Creek watershed before the SCRP is infested with reed canary grass ( RCG) this invasive grass is choking out native plants and decreasing dissolved oxygen in the stream making it impossible for anadromous fish species to survive. The two anadromous species of fish addressed in this project are coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) since there is no supporting evidence that these species are in the creek no harm can be done to them. The other biological resources that will be modified during this project is the wetlands, riparian plants, and wildlife that can be affected by electric fences. Impact Analysis: Criteria: Assessing impacts of these resources the criteria of each resource must be explicitly stated. The threshold of significance for the removal of RCG is that 90 percent or more of the invasive species is eliminated to give room for proper water flow and plant species. This threshold is to be met during phase four of the project. The threshold of significance for replanting of alders (Alnus rubra), willows (Salix) and sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) is that the survival rate of the planted riparian vegetation will exceed 80 percent of the total number initially planted for at three years. This threshold must be met during phase three of the project and after the completion of the project. The threshold of significance for the electric exclusion fences have an average voltage between 3,500 to 7,500 (deCalesta and Witmer 2005). The criteria for wetlands section 404 a of
the clean water act will be used to address the adverse effects of removal of wetlands to increase water quality into the creek. Directly from the EPA website explains section 404, (a) The Secretary may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites. Water quality will be measured by sensitive macroinvertebrates that will be counted after the project. These insects mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) are bioagents for great water quality. Insects such as midge flies (Chironomidae), black flies (Simuliidae),earthworms (Annelida), and flatworms (Platyhelminths) are evidence of poor water quality since they have a high tolerance to pollutants. Impact of proposed Project: The proposed project is split up into four phases which addresses the biological resources that will be affected by SCRP. The construction phase of the project will increase minimal sediments into the stream this would be a concern about water quality. The water quality will be monitored by sensitive or highly tolerant insects.The water measurement will be done after the construction to see the effects. The second phase of the project planting of the riparian buffer will have a positive impact on the surrounding area. Once the trees mature the will shade out the RCG and create an overall beneficial habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. The monitoring of the survival of the alders, willows, and spruces will be done for three to five years to make sure the threshold is met. The third phase of the project is putting the six strand exclusion fences around the riparian buffer. There has been multiple studies and versions of these fences that show the fences as a deterrent after the first jolt a large elk or beaver will experience, the elk will avoid the fence altogether (Byrne 1989). The exclusions fences are extremely durable and require very low
maintenance since they are a form of lined fencing if a strand falls off it can be easily to re-tie a broken fence. A broken fence could be a source of harm from this project, however the monitoring of this fences will be done by the National Park Service and immediate attention will be given to a malfunctioning fence (Arguello 2012). The last phase is pulling the RCG which will have direct and indirect effects of benefiting the watershed. In the Montana Interagency Plant Materials Handbook by Smoliak et al, the description of RCG is that it thrives in disturbed areas along ditches and canals, this dense mat of grass can cause limited water movement. In the case of strawberry creek this is the main reason for adopting this plan. The impact will be negative to RCG but beneficial to the rest of the watershed. Determination of impacts: The following table determines whether each impact is significant or not based on thresholds and the proposed project description. Impacts No Impact Less than Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation x x x x x Significant
Wetlands Water quality Riparian buffer Exclusion Fences Pulling of RCG
Mitigation/ Minimization measures: The creation of the new stream channel will result in a permanent loss of a portion of the wetland. This was considered a significant effect that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Restoring another wetland within Redwood National Park is a way of mitigating this impact; however the water being brought into this watershed will benefit the surroundings. Monitoring the quality of water (with sensitive macroinvertebrates) going into the remaining wetland will be assessed by biologist from National Park Service monthly after the project is complete. A mitigation measure for the riparian buffer is that the planting mounds will be created from material excavated from the stream channel and the upslope stream crossings. The other essential part of this impact is that only native trees will be planted before the growing season to ensure best plant growth. Monitoring of the buffer will go up to three years or until the canopy produces enough shade to prevent RCG from growing. During this time more seedlings will be planted as necessary and several photopoints will be used to document the development of the riparian zone. The fall season is an optimal time to replant since there is when the raining season starts and to maintain integrity with the photopoints they will be taken approximately at the same time each year for ten years at the same reference location. The monitoring for the exclusion fences will be done monthly to check for signs of damage and malfunction by the National Park Service. A Mitigation measure for RCG is that the recently pulled RCG can be used for composting within the park or burned to prevent spreading. The monitoring of RCG will continue until the riparian trees are large enough to shade out the grass.
CORINNE KENNAH (2)
2.5 Socioeconomics
Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment: The proposed site of the SCRP currently has a negligible influence on local socioeconomics. The only source of economic input generated from the project area is from the salaries paid to the RNP employees who manage the area in addition to their duties managing other areas of the park. Unlike other areas in the park, this site currently receives no recreational visitors, and thus does not contribute to the economic benefits that RNP ecotourism brings to local businesses. Sport and commercial fishing are important ways that many locals, including Native Americans, earn or supplement their income. Sport fishing is permitted in RNP, but the current creek channel is so overgrown with invasive RCG that it creates a barrier which makes the creek inaccessible to fish, so at this time no sport fishing occurs on the site. In addition, since the creek is inaccessible to fish that otherwise might spawn in the creek, before making their way to the ocean as adults, Strawberry Creek does not currently have any impact on the commercial ocean fishing industry. Impact Analysis: Implementation of this project will have direct and indirect effects on opportunities for socioeconomic growth in Humboldt County. Direct short-term economic gains will be achieved by purchasing the materials needed to implement the project from local suppliers whenever it is feasible to do so, and through utilizing the local workforce for the construction phase of the project, and possibly after the project is completed for monitoring activities. It is anticipated that indirect long-term social and economic gains may be had in the future when and if the creek is opened for sport fishing and the creation of suitable habitat in the creek benefits the stocks of local commercial ocean fisheries.
CORINNE KENNAH (2)
Criteria: The criteria that will be used to analyze the effects this project will have on local socioeconomics, through the creation of jobs and the purchasing of materials from local suppliers, is that the impacts will be considered positive if any money is circulated into the local economy by these means. The criteria used to assess the impacts this project will have on the commercial and sport fishing industry is taken from the California Department of Fish and Games (DFG) Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon. The effects of this project will be considered positive if Strawberry Creek is restored to the point that it becomes suitable habitat for the ESA listed salmonids and thus fosters the recovery of these vulnerable species so that the DFG recovery goal of restoring coho salmon numbers to the point where tribal, sport, and commercial can occur is achieved (DFG 2004). Impacts of the Proposed Project: Short-term positive economic impacts will occur as a result of this project due to the creation of jobs during the construction phase of the project. Workers will need to be hired to operate the heavy machinery needed for the removal of RCG, culvert replacement, excavation of the new stream channel, placement of in-stream structures within the new channel, and restoration of the four upslope stream crossings. It is possible that RNP will also intermittently require additional workers for monitoring activities once the construction phase of the project has been completed. Purchasing the materials needed to complete the project will create a one-time positive economic impact for the local businesses from which the supplies are purchased from. Some of the
CORINNE KENNAH (2)
materials that are needed to implement this project include mulch, top soil, timber used for instream structures, and many Sitka spruce, red alder, and willow seedlings. The most significant socioeconomic gain that could occur as a result of this project is currently hypothetical and depends on whether the project is successful in restoring suitable salmonid habitat to the creek, and if this restoration helps foster the recovery of the ESA listed anadromous salmonids, coho salmon and steelhead trout. The commercial and sport fishing industries have historically had a prominent influence on Humboldt Countys economy. An article from Humboldt State Universitys Osprey Magazine reported that Northern California coastal communities generated between $60 and $70 million dollars per year during the 1970s from commercial fishing for coho salmon alone (Preston 2001). Currently, however, the profits generated by these communities has almost completely ceased due to the heavy fishing restrictions put in place to protect the listed salmonids. Freshwater and Ocean Fishing Regulations for 2012 to 2013 mark another year that sport fishing for coho in any freshwater or ocean habitat is prohibited, and fishing for steelhead is heavily restricted such that it is prohibited in most locations, but acceptable in others provided that the steelhead caught is a hatchery fish (DFG 2012). Commercial fishing for coho and steelhead is also prohibited. The Humboldt County Draft General Plan estimates that these restrictions have caused the local commercial fishing industry to shrink by two-thirds (Humboldt 2012), negatively effecting local socioeconomics. In addition, ESA restrictions on coho negatively impact economic growth driven by other local industries, such as timber harvesting, ranching, and development. Since ESA restrictions for coho encompass most of the Northern California coast, the economic impacts of such restrictions being removed as a result of a stable recovery of the listed species, would be very significant.
CORINNE KENNAH (2)
Determination of Impacts: Based on the analysis it is determined that the impacts of this project can only be positive. The effects range from immediate short-term minimally positive impacts to long-term greatly positive impacts in the future. Mitigation/ Minimization Measures: Although it has been determined that no negative socioeconomic impacts will occur a result of this project, SCRP attempts to enhance the likelihood that positive impacts will occur. The new stream channel will be closely monitored into the foreseeable future to determine the success of the project in terms of providing suitable salmonid habitat that is capable of supporting the rehabilitation of coho and steelhead populations. Every effort will be made to ensure that the conditions of the stream are fit to support thriving populations that will contribute to the recovery of these species and pave the road for reopening of commercial and sport fishing opportunities that will greatly benefit the local economy. In addition, if RNP staff should find that they could use additional help for post-project monitoring and follow-up activities, they will offer volunteer opportunities to Humboldt State University students who are seeking to pursue careers in ecosystem restoration after graduating.
KERRY McNAMEE (1)
2.6 Noise Environmental Setting/Affected Environment:
The present noise levels within the project footprint are minimal. The landscape is currently an open space wetland surrounded by thick forest to the west, south and east (Figure 1 and 2). The small city of Orick is situated approximately one mile north east of the SCR project area, and does not contribute to the ambient noise levels in the SCR area. The SCR area of RNP is available to visitors by foot, however it is not heavily used by pedestrian visitors. No unauthorized (personal) vehicles are allowed into the park, which partially contributes to the low ambient noise levels as well. Current noise levels are generated from large trucks on highway 101, wildlife, hunters, visitors, and the occasional gate opening/closing due to authorized park employee vehicles, and are estimated to be approximately 45 dBa or below (Perea 376). Impact Analysis: Criteria: In order to determine whether the proposed SCR project will produce significant noise impacts, various criteria to determine significance must be established. The Humboldt County General Plan is one of the resources that set guidelines from which future decisions, development and thresholds can be determined, and thus serves as the threshold of significance regarding noise levels in the SCR project. The maximum allowable short-term noise level in a Timber Production Zone (TPZ) is 85 decibels (dBA) between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm (Humboldt County Planning Commission 3).
KERRY McNAMEE (1)
Impacts of the Proposed Project: The potential impacts resulting from an increase in noise would be minimal due to the location of the project. The SCR project area is not in a residential area, approximately one mile away from the nearest residences and businesses. Therefore the increase in short-term noise would have a minor effect on any human population residing in the area, rather predominantly it would have an effect on workers operating the machinery and wildlife present inside and near to the SCR project area. Phase One of the project wont entail any construction, thus wont produce any extra noise. Phase Two includes the majority of the construction, in which earthen materials will be excavated to create the new stream channel. There will be a short term increase in traffic and thus noise from the increase in vehicles and machinery entering the site. However, the increase in traffic would take place during the time window of 6am-10pm approved by the Humboldt County Planning Commission. The heavy equipment that will be used in the SCR project are excavators, bull dozers, dump trucks and back hoes. Manual labor using various hand tools will also be a big part of the SCR project. The associated noise levels with each piece of machinery can be found in Table 1. Phase Three will not include much heavy machinery, due to the fragility of planting saplings. The upslope restorations of Phase Four will result in noise due to heavy machinery use, in which large amounts of earth will be moved from abandoned logging roads. The 85 dBA threshold of significance falls between the general 76-92 dBA noise outputs.
KERRY McNAMEE (1)
Table 1. Average noise levels associated with various heavy equipment Sound Source (distance) Excavator (50 ft.) Bull Dozer (50 ft.) Dump Truck (50 ft.) Backhoe (50 ft.)
1
dBA1 80-92 80-92 76-88 80-92
:A-weighted noise levels approximates the frequency response of the human ear (King County 8-2). Table Source: King County 8-2.
Direct effects occur at the same time and place of the action. The direct effects of increased noise include heightened sound and ground vibrations. Both will be felt by the workers and wildlife in the vicinity. There will be approximately 15-20 people working at the site, enduring loud noise which will probably result in some miscommunications and ear ringing. There are no threatened or endangered terrestrial animals within the project boundary, however wildlife such as elk, birds, beavers and rodents are abundant. Ground vibrations could create false cues to wildlife, triggering a changed behavior (Schlaepfer et al. 474). The well-known endangered species northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet nest in old growth redwoods. However since there are no old growth redwoods within the project area, the noise restrictions dont have to be as stringent as they typically would if that caliber of protection was necessary. Indirect effects occur later in time and/or are farther removed in distance, yet are still reasonably foreseeable. An indirect effect of increased noise relating to the SCR project will affect the City of Orick, however it will be minimal because of the one mile distance between the project site
KERRY McNAMEE (1)
and the residential area. The sound level will decrease by 6 dBA every time distance is doubled from the point source of noise. Therefore at 50 ft there is an average sound production of 85 dBA from all heavy machinery, thus at 100 ft the sound level would be 79 dBA and so on (Table 2) At 6400 ft the City of Orick is able to hear the remaining emanated noise. The sound associated with 43 dBA is comparable to a loud whisper (US Dept of Labor 2012). Table 2. Sound levels from source to city center Average Sound Level 85 dBA 85 dBA 85 dBA 85 dBA 85 dBA 85 dBA 85 dBA 85 dBA Source: Perea 376 Distance 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 400 ft 800 ft 1600 ft 3200 ft 6400 ft * dBA Heard 85 dBA 79 dBA 73 dBA 67 dBA 61 dBA 55 dBA 49 dBA 43 dBA *=6400 ft equates to 1.2 miles
Determination of Impacts: The proposed SCR project will produce an insignificant amount of noise, and thus will not impact the environment. The short temporal nature of the project and its location away from
KERRY McNAMEE (1)
civilians, residences, businesses and endangered species are the grounds for deeming this impact insignificant. Minimization Measures: Of all the groups affected by noise, the construction workers bear the brunt of the noise pollution due to their close proximity to the heavy equipment. To minimize the harmful impacts to hearing, construction and site personnel will be required to wear hearing protection devices such as ear plugs whenever heavy machinery is in use. Another minimization measure will limit heavy equipment use to a time frame of 9 am-7 pm, so as to allow for nocturnal wildlife to carry on as they normally would, and to allow for citizens of Orick to sleep without any additional sound no matter how slight. Phase Two of the SCR project, in which the majority of construction takes place, will take place from July-September, and the construction component of Phase Four is slated to take place in late September-mid October. Therefore the construction will be relatively short-lived and neither mitigation/minimization measures nor hearing conservation plans are necessary.
TONY FERNANDEZ (2)
2.7 Aesthetics Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment:
The Strawberry Creek is a tributary situated inside the lower portion of the Orick valley which is roughly found between the town of Orick and the Pacific Ocean. About one mile inland from the coast this tributary connects to the much larger Redwood Creek; from here the flows make their way into the ocean. Its ecological values have decreased over time because of many environmental factors such as agriculture, and the straightening of the channel which have affected the coastal fisheries that once supported cutthroat, coho salmon and steelhead populations. This tributary is not very easily identifiable when driving through along highway 101; however its ecological contribution to the ecosystem still remains valuable to many species and is most noticeable during the wet season when the area tends to become inundated. The agency responsible for the maintenance and upkeep for the ecological setting is the Redwood National Park (NPS), whose contributions with this restoration project are intended to provide suitable habitat for both native and invasive species thus providing pleasant scenic vistas to the observer. The State Redwood Highway (101) provides passage for travelers in both directions along this roadway where the viewer can enjoy scenic vistas that are typical of Northern Californias coastal landscapes. For the typical viewer who travels through these landscape settings, it is important that they observe the appropriate visual characters that are mandated by the Californias official designated State Scenic Highway (CODSH).
TONY FERNANDEZ (2)
Impact Analysis: Criteria: The visual characteristics for the Strawberry Creek are determined by how well the landscape settings blend with the surrounding landscape for this general project area. The criteria used to assess the levels of significance are referenced from the comprehensive watershed restoration strategy for the Strawberry Creek (SCWR) which encompasses the project goals including the qualitative measures of habitat suitability for the affected environments such as: excavation, tree removal, erosion and sedimentation, and impacts on water quality (SCWR 2006). The CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G) provide an environmental checklist that allows the viewer to evaluate the significance of the affected environment in relation to the aesthetics. These guide lines are used to help evaluate the significance of impacts on the visual quality for the project site. The alterations on the landscape from the excavation and the revegetation are expected to change the aesthetic characteristics for this project site during and after the construction stage. Impacts of the Proposed Project: There are several impacts that may have negative effects on the proposed project. The project site will have the greatest influence during the initial stages; however this will contribute to the short term visual impacts on the aesthetic values. The visual character will temporarily be influenced by heavy equipment that will be used to excavate the new meandering channel, thus exposing the soil in large stock piles, including culvert replacement, impacts on roads from transport of construction material, and the removal of vegetation and potential damage to slopes. When transporting soils to different sites, it should be noted the potential of re-emerging invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) at new site. Sediment control on the upper watershed
TONY FERNANDEZ (2)
would be small scale; this includes the decommissioning of the roads inside the forested areas. Impacts to visual resources will directly have the greatest impact on the viewers traveling alongside the Redwood Highway. Those who decide to access the public road to the Redwood National Park decommissioned service station along Hilton Rd will witness the greatest adverse effects on the scenic vista, since this is where the project will take place. The project would involve the excavation of the Strawberry Creek channel for approximately 0 .6 miles, where the removal of wetland vegetation would temporarily impact the dominant vegetative features. The visual character would change from a densely vegetated facultative wetland species to the densely growth of newly planted willows and alder trees alongside the stream channel. The long term conversion of planted tree species would significantly change the appearance of the tributary. The wetland meadows surrounding the project area would have a less probability of becoming hydric soil indicators after the construction of the new meandering stream given the right weathering conditions. Probabilities of flooding would be less likely since the new stream is expected to support more volumes of water, thus reducing the flooding potential for the project area. In the attempt to closely recreate historic condition for this site, the short term visual characteristics will appear to have negative impacts on the appearance and aesthetic value to this ecological site, however the long term conditions are expected to improve the overall biological integrity of the system. The proposed revegetation is expected to restore the biological function along the stream channel including the decrease in sedimentation; this would reduce the visual impacts to a less significant level. The visual character would be further altered by the removal
TONY FERNANDEZ (2)
from the two culverts along the existing channel; this would result in an increase in sedimentation during the early stages of significant water flows. Sediment runoff from the top of the tributary would not change significantly the visual character of the surrounding project area except for the minor revegetation strategies that will be needed to stabilize and restore the natural character from further damage on eroded sites. The long term project improvements would blend well with the existing surrounding conditions, thus providing open views to the wet meadows, riparian areas, and forested slopes. The wildlife that that is currently inhabiting the area include elk and neighboring sheep grazing operation located on the private side of the property which would remain consistent with the natural resources and would not have significant impact on the quality and character of any scenic view from the redwood highway. There will be no effects from any new lighting or reflective surfaces that would cause any glare from heavy machinery inside the project area. Construction for the restoration site will take place during the daylight hours; therefore no lighting components will be used during the construction stage. The minimal light and glare from the project site would have no significant impact to viewers. Determination of Impacts : The visual characteristics for the proposed project at the strawberry creek will impact many of the current aesthetic values that influence the scenic vistas. The changing characteristics for the site will substantially damage scenic resources including the new meandering channel, the removal of trees along the hill slopes, increase in suspended sediment load in the stream, light and glare, and other visual characteristics from the roadway. However the initial stages of the
TONY FERNANDEZ (2)
project are expected to have the greatest impacts on the site characteristics of the restoration, yet the long-term components to the projects will yield positive results to the whole biological function of the system and thus provide positive character to the project site. Therefore, the proposed projects would have a less than significant impact to any of the proposed project alternatives. Mitigation/Minimization Measures: The degree of impacts on the project site along the Strawberry Creek will not require mitigation for any of the aesthetic requirements; however minimization measures to reduce the level of footprint will be applied to each of the proposed actions. Several design elements have been projected for the project that will further enhance the visual character and will resemble a more natural approach to the landscape setting. With the excavation of the new meandering channel, the removal of aquatic vegetative species will be replaced with beneficial pioneer species such as willow trees which will help improve the overall function of the stream, thus reducing sediment loads, providing benefits to aquatic species such as the increase in shade and higher volumes of water flow. The channel will be densely vegetated alongside the stream which will not only enhance the biological function of the tributary but will also provide long term visual character that naturally resembles the surrounding landscape settings. Along slopes where tree removal will take place and in other sites at the top of the headwaters, mulch cover will be applied and seeded with native vegetation so as to enhance and provide structure to the soil thus reducing the potential from erosion and sediment. In conclusion, time and proper management practices will help guide this restoration effort to a successional stage where the landscape settings will provide a natural visual character that blends with the surrounding landscape. Viewers along the redwood
TONY FERNANDEZ (2)
highway will experience the essence of aesthetic value that can only be witnessed here in Northern Californias coastal landscape settings.
KEO SKUDLARICK (1)
2.8 Forest and Agriculture Resources

Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment:
The Strawberry Creek restoration site is surrounded by forestland on the south, west and east. The north facing side of the project area is not forested and is zoned as a wetland. It was previously used for pastureland but is not currently utilized for any agriculture. It is in this nonforested wetland section of the project area where the stream excavation, removal of RCG and tree replanting will take place. The location of the two culverts to be replaced is along the western side of the project area where the forestland meets the dirt service road. On the upper hill slope to the west of the dirt service road are decommissioned logging roads that will be excavated to create a tributary stream channel. The affected environment exists within the Redwood National Park (RNP). Impact Analysis: Criteria: The criteria used for determining the level of impact to forest resources comes from information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forestland. The criteria used for determining the level of impact to agricultural resources comes from the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model used in assessing impacts on agriculture. The criteria determine any conflict, conversion and/or loss of forest or agricultural land.
KEO SKUDLARICK (1)
Impacts of the Proposed Project: The potential impacts of the proposed project to forest and agriculture resources are expected to be primarily positive due to the goal of restoration being to return the ecosystem to its native state. Nonetheless, there is potential for short-term negative impacts to occur. During the construction phase of the project when heavy machinery is used, soil will be directly affected and some amount of compaction is expected to occur, which may indirectly lead to increased runoff and erosion. These indirect effects of heavy machinery use are expected to be short-term and minimal. Phase two involves the construction aspect of the project, pertaining to the replacement of culverts and stream excavation. Both culverts will be replaced by larger culverts and in the process of doing so, trees may be directly affected by contact with heavy machinery. The longterm impacts of the larger culverts to forest and agriculture resources will be less runoff and erosion due to more water moving in the stream as oppose to on the surface of the land. To transport the heavy machinery to the stream channel for excavation, approximately 15 trees are needed to be removed. This involves a short-term negative impact but through excavating the stream channel, water will move more appropriately through the landscape and the stream channel will be heavily replanted with native trees, significantly affecting Strawberry Creek in a positive way. Phase four involves excavating the decommissioned logging roads to create a tributary stream channel. During this process, forestland is vulnerable to the effects of heavy machinery. However, the long-term positive impacts are expected to outweigh any short-term negative impacts.
KEO SKUDLARICK (1)
Determination of Impact: The positive impacts of the Strawberry Creek restoration combined with implementing simple mitigation measures will offset any potential negative impacts and thus is expected to benefit forest and agriculture resources. Mitigation/Minimization Measures: Mitigation can begin by conducting an initial tree survey that can be compared with a postconstruction survey. This allows for an opportunity to study any effects that may occur during the construction phase. In replacing the two culverts, any trees within the project area should be considered and given an adequate buffer. This may mitigate potential impacts such as direct damage caused by heavy machinery contacting a tree, or indirect damage caused by soil erosion. Replacing the old culverts with larger culverts will allow more headwater to flow through the channel, decreasing soil erosion and sediment. This is indeed a positive impact as soil health is the foundation of productive forest and agriculture land. The removal of the 15 trees to transport the excavation equipment to the stream channel will be quickly mitigated by replanting the removed trees. After the stream channel is excavated, over 20,000 trees are planned to be planted, which will further offset any potential negative impacts to forestland. Former logging roads in the project area are planned to be decommissioned, which will both reduce the runoff and erosion caused by the compacted surface and create a tributary stream channel further adding to increased headwater flow from the newly replaced culverts. As conditions improve, forest regrowth is expected to occur and ecosystem restoration will be well underway.
2.9 Recreation Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment: The proposed project area currently has no infrastructure for typical recreation that takes place in RNP. Examples of common recreation that takes place in RNP is hiking, camping, river rafting/ kayaking, and fishing (RNP 2012). The area around Strawberry Creek (SC) does not have any designated trailheads or campgrounds because there is unmanaged vegetation, protected wetland and ranger housing that limits use of recreationist. Even though recreation activities do not occur in the project area there is a recreation site two miles west of the project area called Thomas H. Kuchel Visitor Center (NPS 2012). The Thomas H. Kuchel Visitor Center will be positively affected by the SCRP because SC will be more accessible to the general public and create an ideal tourist site.The housing infrastructure close to the head waters of SC which is currently used for RNP ranger residency will be affected by the new channel because the old channel will be abandoned and lead to increased flooding (Figure 1a and 6). Nevertheless, these building are uninhabited and will not be during and after the construction of the SCRP so if public access does increase from the project then it will have a negligible effect on the neighborhood. Currently the SC water flow is reduced to the point of non-existent so this also limited fishing and water sport activities. Impact Analysis: Criteria: Before determining impacts of SCRP on recreation activities: hiking, camping, river rafting/ kayaking and fishing thresholds of significance must be specified. The thresholds will be determined by the common recreation activities available in RNP with reference to basic
designated infrastructure set in place, feasibility of action, and if a recreationalist accomplishes it safely. For instance, hiking in RNP is highly encouraged on designated trails to reduce compaction in the understory of the Redwood trees and to increase safety. Thus the criteria for unobtrusive hiking is if there is a designated trail then it will be plausible. In RNP there are designated campsites so campers will not leave trash and start possible fires. Thus the criteria for proper camping is if there is a designated campsite then it will be plausible. The criteria for river rafting/ kayaking is if the water level is at normal flow (1200-3000 CFS) or high flow (50008000 CFS) for a stream similar to Salmon River in Klamath National Forest because depending on the flow it will increase safety of the rafter/kayaker (All-Outdoors 2012). The criteria for fishing is dependent on the fish populations, if the proper fishing permit it present when attempting this activity, and if the fish are endangered species. Impact of proposed project: Without the SCRP the baseline conditions to hiking, camping, and fishing will stay the same which is less than desirable conditions. During the construction of SCRP the activities will not be affected because there is no plausible way these activities can take place near SC based on the thresholds. However to decrease the chance of it affecting potential recreationists signs will be posted at the gate off the main access road to inform them about the construction. The main aspect of the project is the creation of the new channel which will increase flows and make for a better fish habitat for the salmonids.If the fish populations increase then fishing will increase creating a positive impact on this recreation activity. However the flows will still not be high enough for water sports since high water flow is being compared to already functioning river in Klamath National Forest. After completion of SCRP indirect impacts will be positive for activities such as hiking and fishing. SC will be more accessible to the public and the stream will
be a suitable habitat for salmonids. The new channel and riparian buffer will lead to increase wildlife such as bird, this is another positive impact on bird watching and hiking. There can only be positive impacts on common recreation activities upon the completion of SCRP. Determination of Impacts: Table 1. Determines whether each recreation activity is significant or not based on thresholds after the proposed
project is completed.
Recreation Activities
no impact
< significant
<significant w/ mitigation
Positive significant
Hiking
Commercial Fishing
Kayaking
Camping
Local visitor sites x Mitigation Measures: The main mitigation measure that needs to be implemented is postage that will be placed on the gate on the main access road during the construction of the channel. This sign will warn unexpecting recreationalist that there is no access during the months of the project.However,
since there is no access to trails or campsites this is unnecessary. A way to increase recreation near SC after completion would be to create information placard that will show before and after picture of SC, there can also be background information how the steps and process behind the new SC.
KEO SKUDLARICK (2)
2.10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment: The current air quality within the Strawberry Creek restoration site is relatively unpolluted. The project site is surrounded by forest on the south, west and east, which is beneficial to the air quality of the area. The north facing side of the project area is not forested and is zoned as a wetland. The city of Orick is also located on the north facing side of the project area with highway 101 intersecting the town. The vehicles using highway 101 are the main source of air pollution in this rural area. The project area will experience an increase in vehicle activity and heavy machinery will be used for stream excavation and replacing culverts, which may affect the air quality of Strawberry Creek. The affected environment exists within the Redwood National Park (RNP) boundary. Impact Analysis: Criteria: The criteria used to determine if the Strawberry Creek restoration project will affect air quality is based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) define clean air, and were established to consider even the most sensitive people. An air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a pollutant that can exist in outdoor air without harming the public's health. California law authorizes the Air Resources Board (ARB) along with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set ambient (outdoor) air pollution standards (California Health & Safety Code section 39606) in consideration of public health, safety and welfare. Of the ten kinds of pollutants in CAAQS, those of concern for this project are
KEO SKUDLARICK (2)
ozone, particulate matter and nitrous oxides with concentrations listed below in Figure 1 (L. Smith, 2009). Figure 1: California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Impacts of the Proposed Project: Given the scale and restoration objective of the project, and it being located in a rural area with minimal greenhouse gases, the pollutant concentrations generated from the project are not expected to exceed California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The initial phase of the project involves assessing the purpose of the project, preparing the EA and acquiring any necessary permits. Other than the increase of vehicle emissions from visiting the Strawberry
KEO SKUDLARICK (2)
Creek project site, there is not expected to be any significant effects to air quality during the first phase. The second phase of the project is when construction will occur. The construction will involve considerable use of heavy machinery to replace two culverts and excavate the stream channel. This phase has the greatest foreseeable potential to negatively affect air quality from the use of heavy machinery and the release of carbon from excavated soil. Phase three of the project involves the planting of native tree species along the riparian buffer and is expected to offset any temporary negative effects to air quality. The fourth phase is the manual removal of reed canary grass and the excavation of the upper hillslope logging roads to restore the tributary stream channel. The construction of this phase raises similar concerns to air quality as phase two but the restoration of the tributary stream channel is expected to mitigate any negative impacts. The main direct source of air pollutants will come from the fuel combustion of heavy machinery for excavation and increased automobile emissions from employee vehicles. Assuming that the excavator uses diesel fuel, the three pollutants of concern are ozone, particulate matter and nitrous oxide. Ozone causes a range of health problems related to breathing, including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath. Particulate matter (PM) is deposited deep in the lungs and causes premature death and increased respiratory symptoms and disease. In addition, ozone, NOx, and PM adversely affect the environment in various ways, including crop damage, acid rain, and visibility impairment (EPA, 2012). It is expected that an indirect source of stored carbon will be released into the atmosphere from the excavation of soil with temporary insignificant impacts to air quality. Though trees are generally accepted as improving air quality, the increase in pollen may impact sensitive individuals. Despite the short-lived minor effects of air pollution, the removal of reed canary grass (RCG), planting of thousands of native trees and returning the stream channel to its original condition is
KEO SKUDLARICK (2)
expected to offset any negative impacts to air quality that may occur. The project is expected to improve the health of the soil which can remove gaseous pollutants from the air. Soil has a significant ability to assimilate and convert these gases in or through microbial, physical and chemical processes (W. Smith, 1990). Regarding the many trees that will be planted, the shading and cooling of the canopy will reduce evaporative emissions from vehicles and prevent RCG from growing. Leaves and needles have surface area that can allow for removal of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and to a lesser extent particulate matter (Lashgari, 2012). Trees provide a large leaf surface onto which particles are deposited and gases removed. Pollution is removed by nearly all parts of a tree; the soil, roots, and vegetative portions (Nowak, 1994). According to American Forests, an acre of trees uses about 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide per year (ADNR). Determination of Impact: The positive impacts of the Strawberry Creek Restoration in conjunction with implementing some mitigation measures will offset any potential significant impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. It is expected that the air quality of the area will improve with the restoration of the Strawberry Creek. Mitigation/Minimization Measures: In order to restore the stream channel and replace the culverts, an excavator is required. The choice of the excavator however could make a difference in how much exhaust is emitted and the amount of fuel required. For example, Doosan Infracores first hybrid excavator will be a 22-ton model with an approximate 35% reduction in CO2 and fuel consumption when compared with the DX225 standard hydraulic excavator. The increase of fuel efficiency will save approximately $10,000 in fuel cost per machine each year (Doosan, 2009). This option may not be feasible with
KEO SKUDLARICK (2)
the project budget, but the most efficient excavator should be considered. To understand pollutant concentrations, an initial test could be conducted, followed by monitoring during and after the construction. Doing this will inform the project along the way and can provide accurate data to study the effects on air quality. For individuals that may be sensitive to the pollen concentration from the increase in trees, an appropriate flora buffer could be planted between the affected group and the project area.
2.11 Impacts to Remaining Categories Land Use Planning: Less than Significant Impact The land use planning within Redwood National Park will be altered due to the construction of the abandoned logging roads. Although the logging roads were abandoned and have not been in use, once the stream channel is excavated and intersecting the road, the logging road will be undriveable. This has foreseeable conflicts because a portion of the project footprint is zoned as TPZ (timber production zone), which is the necessary zoning for timber harvesting which is not currently being done in RNP, as well as for forest thinning which is currently taking place in the park (National Park Service 2012, Figure 3). The channel excavation does not significantly change any land use planning within the park boundary. The proposed SCRP will have less than significant impacts to land use planning. Cultural Resources: No Impact The project footprint borders Yurok tribal land and is approximately 70 miles west of the Hoopa tribal reservation. Research of the presence of cultural resources and foreseeable impacts to potentially present cultural resources was undergone pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (Arugello 2012; Perea 143). Upon finishing the cultural resources research and analyses, the SCRP attained SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) permitting, which states that consideration of impacts were given to the potential cultural resources within the project footprint (California State Parks 2012). Due to the alignment with federal and state policies and the absence of cultural resources, the SCRP poses no impact to cultural resources.
Transportation and Traffic: Less than Significant Impact There will be an increase in traffic during phase two, three and four of the project due to construction and vegetation planting. The California Conservation Corps (CCC), construction workers, RNP scientists, workers and project managers will be accessing the sites in trucks, vans and cars, and will contribute to a moderate increase in short term traffic. There will be heavy machinery entering the park during phases two and four, which can potentially cause traffic on Highway 101. Due to the short term increase in transportation and traffic, which will span approximately six months, this impact is insignificant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No Impact In order for the SCRP to have significant impacts regarding hazardous material, the site would need to be included in a list of hazardous material sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Perea 263). The SCRP footprint does not contain any hazardous material (Envirostor 2012). The SCRP is within the tsunami and flood zone however upon completion, the SCRP would alleviate water inundation and thus have a positive impact if there were a tsunami or flood (California Emergency Management Agency 2009, Figure 5). Due to these circumstances the SCRP poses no significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials. Mineral Resources: No Impact The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act sets the regulatory framework for designating specific geographic areas as significant for mineral resources. Classification of mineral resource land is completed by the state geologist in accordance with the State Mining and Geology Boards priority list into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) (Perea 362-363). According to the CA
Geological Survey, the SCR project does not fall in any MRZs and therefore poses no significant impact on mineral resources (California Geological Survey 2007). Population and Housing: No Impact The proposed SCRP will be undertaken by CCC workers, construction workers, RNP scientists, RNP project managers and HSU students. There will not be a high demand for additional housing for any of these groups, because the CCC are housed through its program, RNP scientists, program managers, workers and HSU students already live in the vicinity. The construction worker group is not definitive in where they are traveling from to get to the SCRP site and may pose a housing demand, however the number of construction workers will be under ten. There will be no one displaced by the SCRP either. Upon completion, the SCRP does not pose any indirect increases in housing demands. There is no foreseen population changes as a result of the SCRP either. As a result of the direct and indirect negligible fluctuation in demand for housing, the lack of housing displacement and the unchanged population the SCRP poses no impact to population and housing. Public Services: No Impact The SCRP will not cause any negative changes in public services or government facilities. There will be no change to fire and police protection or schools. The SCRP may cause an increase in visitors to RNP into the future, however no significant changes are likely to occur as a result. The SCRP has no significant impact on public services.
Utilities and Service Systems: No Impact Strawberry Creek is located in an area of RNP where there are no campgrounds or hiking trails. Service systems such as wastewater infrastructure exist as septic tanks for the park ranger cabin on site, and will not be affected by the proposed SCRP. The project includes a routine suspension to the water line during phase two, however water service will return after phase two (Arguello 2012). There is no stormwater system in the SCR area, and the proposed SCRP would have a positive impact on stormwater movement due to a decrease in erosion and a higher efficiency of water flow within Strawberry Creek (Arguello et al 2012). There are no landfills or solid waste facilities in the project footprint. The SCRP poses an insignificant impact to utilities and service systems.
CHAPTER 3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, & MITIGATION/MONITORING PLAN
3.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, & MITIGATION/MONITORING PLAN
3.1 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects will range from increasing fish populations to increasing water quality and flow in Strawberry Creek. The increased water flow will improve water quality to other watersheds and the ocean. Completion of this project may combine with other projects in the past, present, or foreseeable future to produce cumulative effects. The project involving the decommissioning of logging roads upstream of Strawberry Creek (Appendix B, Figure 1) will have a direct effect on this project since it will reduce erosion and the amount of sediment traveling into the creek. The restoration project being conducted by landowners downstream is a dependent project of SCRP since the coho salmon will need continuous stream habitat to migrate from ocean to tributary, and currently the channel immediately downstream of the project site is choked with RCG and impassable to fish. This project will also support the continuous efforts by Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association to restore portions of Strawberry Creek further downstream. Streelow Creek Trail was established on an old logging road along Streelow Creek between Davison Road and Davison Trail along Prairie Creek in RNP. Improvements which will be completed later this year were started in September 2010. This project will have an indirect effect on SCRP because Streelow Creek is known to contain spawning habitat for anadromous salmonids, including coho salmon (Bundros and Parkinson 2010). Other restoration projects occurring in the future are foreseeable, and it is predicted that the cumulative effects of those projects with SCRP will yield similarly positive results for anadromous salmonids.
3.2 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts It is not foreseen that this project will cause any unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. Due to the nature of this project, and steps taken during the implementation of this project to avoid any potentially adverse impacts, it is predicted that most of the impacts resulting from this project will be positive. The negative impacts that will result from this project will all be temporary, with the exception of the permanent loss to a small portion of wetland where the new stream channel and riparian buffer will be. Each negative impact associated with this project will be made less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures.
3.3 Mitigation & Monitoring Plan Although most of the impacts associated with this project are temporary and will eventually lead to long-term positive impacts, certain mitigation measures can be implemented to even further reduce the possibility of environmental harm. Wetlands are one potential area within the project that will be negatively affected, since excavation of the new stream channel will directly result in a small net loss of wetland area (Appendix B, Figure 2). A compensatory mitigation measure that will be taken is to restore a different site in RNP where there is a degraded wetland, rather than unnaturally expanding the one in the Strawberry Creek basin. Noise levels reached during the construction phase of the project could slightly exceed noise levels outlined in the Humboldt County General Plan for short-term noise standards (Humboldt County Planning Commission 2011). Mitigating by ensuring that workers wear ear protection and that construction occurs only during daytime hours will reduce negative effects to workers, residents in the the local community, and local wildlife. Soil erosion and the possibility of decreased water quality with increased sedimentation to the creek are other areas of concern in this project. To mitigate for
these negative effects, particular attention will be paid to prevent erosion on slopes greater than 15% by using topographical maps to identify these sensitive areas and to avoid construction in them whenever possible. Application of mulch or woody debris to the new planting stands and to areas that have been excavated will help reduce soil erosion and sediment release. During construction, screens will be placed in areas of the stream where sediment inputs from erosion are high. As part of the project design, the channel slope will gradually decrease from upstream to downstream before entering the low sloped wetland slough, which will even out the sediment transport, rather than have an abrupt dumping at the mouth of the flat wetland portion. Nurse logs and large woody debris placement in the stream channel will support the bank, lessening erosion. In addition to these mitigation measures, air quality measurements will be conducted during the construction phase to ensure that pollutant levels from heavy machinery comply with California air quality standards. Strawberry Creek Restoration monitoring plan will entail checking for tree mortality and regrowth of RCG, assessing the functionality of the new channel and the surrounding wetland, inspecting electric fences, testing water quality, inspecting for erosion, and monitoring for the presence of salmonids in the stream. RCG will be removed on a continuous basis as needed until the shade created from the riparian buffer can effectively shade out its growth. The riparian buffer and the new stream channel will be tracked by photo points established at various places in the project area. Mortality of the trees planted on the banks of the channelized stream will be assessed and replanting will occur as needed to ensure that there is a minimal survival rate of 80% of the original number of trees planted. The electric fences meant to keep elk from browsing on the newly planted riparian vegetation buffer will be inspected on a normal basis for the duration that the fence is needed, which is expected to be about 10 years. The RNSP staff
will be evaluating the fences after the replanting is finished. If at any time these fences are malfunctioning they will be repaired or replaced immediately. A number of monitoring techniques to assess the health and quality of the stream and wetlands will be utilized, such as biomonitoring for macroinvertebrates and frequently taking and analyzing water quality samples for parameters such as turbidity, sediment load, dissolved oxygen levels, pH, and temperature. Once restoration of the site has reached a stage where the stream could possibly be accessed by ESA listed coho salmon and steelhead trout, a NMFS biologist will be consulted to monitor for the presence of fish in the creek. If and when either or both of these species are detected, RNP will work with NMFS to develop a separate management plan to ensure the species are protected as required by federal law.
CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As required by NEPA, the SCRP alternatives will be analyzed to ensure the alternative with the least environmental impact is selected. The criteria for selecting a preferred alternative is based upon meeting optimal requirements for habitat, fisheries, water quality, erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, RCG management and the long term efficiency of the proposed stream channel regarding the entire watersheds hydrologic health are criteria of importance. This section of the EA considers the possible environmental effects of the four proposed alternatives. Alternative 1: Partial Ecosystem Restoration (No Excavation) The first alternative considered is to leave the stream channel as it currently is, remove RCG and plant a riparian vegetation buffer. This alternative does not consider the unnatural hydrology currently impacting the channel, exemplified by recurrent flooding. If chosen, alternative 1 would exacerbate future flooding and disable the hydrologic function of the entire watershed system. Alternative 1 may initially alleviate the RCG problem, however would not address the heart of the issue, which is a lack of salmonid habitat. By keeping the current channel as-is, the aquatic ecosystem would not improve due to the lack of riffles, pools and bends in the channel, all which provide valuable spawning habitat for salmonids. Additionally, the current lack of riffles, pools and bends continues to deplete oxygen, thus affecting water quality as well. This alternative has been rejected because it does not meet the requirements needed to properly support salmonid species and fully sustain the integrity of the tributary system.
Alternative 2: Ecosystem Restoration with Reduced Planting Densities and Herbicide Use Alternative 2 includes the excavation of a new meandering stream channel, capable of accommodating higher volumes of water through the main culvert from the watershed to the southwest. The excavation would recreate a close representation of historic landscape characteristics and provide hydrologic function benefits, including flood protection and balanced intra-stream energy as well as improved salmonid habitat (Wilzbach 2012c). However, the implementation of native tree species along the stream channel at densities of 6 feet apart rather that 2 feet apart may decrease the likelihood of the trees providing enough shade to effectively prevent re-growth of RCG, which may become problematic for long-term management practices. The use of herbicides introduces chemicals into an environment that is supposed to be pristine. National Parks were created to preserve and protect nature free from human pollution or intrusive infrastructure, herbicide use would counter the preservation ideology. As a result of alternative 2 mirroring the proposed project, with the exception of a differing vegetation buffer and the use of herbicides, an analysis as to the critical threshold of shading and necessary herbicide use to remove RCG should be completed to make an accurate selection of alternatives. Herbicides contain chemicals that often inadvertently come into contact with the plants and animals that are not targeted for herbicide use. Due to the nature of Strawberry Creek being critical habitat for steelhead and coho salmonids, it would be counterproductive to introduce herbicides into an ecosystem that is undergoing a restoration. According to studies done in the Pacific Northwest shade cloths have been effective at removing RCG, however little studies convey the effectiveness of vegetation as a means of shading (Tu 2004). Due to the uniformity and effectiveness of shade cloth, it can be determined that a thicker riparian vegetation buffer would be more appropriate and less risky than the vegetation buffer associated
with alternative 2. Due to these circumstances alternative 2 is not the environmentally preferred alternative. Alternative 3: Multi-Use Management Practices The third alternative considered would not excavate a new channel nor vegetate the riparian buffer, rather it involves removal of RCG through a variety of approaches: mowing, shade cloths, and herbicides. This alternative does not address salmonid habitat regarding the hydrology of the stream, such as the importance of large woody debris, riffles or pools. This alternative focuses solely on the removal of RCG and would require year round maintenance, such as mowing at least five time a year, shading and chemical control. This alternative was rejected because it would not meet the requirements for a self-sustaining system, and would result in a costly management practice in the long run. Alternative 4: Grazing Alternative 4 suggests the introduction of grazing animals as an option for reducing the amount of RCG in the project area in addition to excavating a new stream channel and planting a vegetative buffer. Grazing animals may inadvertently trample the riparian vegetation, enhance erosion and degrade water quality, which would exacerbate current problems which are trying to be remediated through this restoration project. In addition to grazing animals presenting additional unnecessary problems, the wetland landscape in which the SCR project footprint exists is not appropriate for grazing animals. Fencing around the newly planted riparian buffer species may provide suitable water quality and plant protection, however the understory will be left unattended therefore causing a disconnect between the grazing animals and the possible
future RCG area the animals are supposed to repudiate. Alternative 4 has been rejected due to the counterproductive issues the introduction of grazing animals brings. Alternative 5: No Action Alternative The no-action alternative is not feasible because the project area is in such a degraded condition that it demands active restoration. Strawberry Creek would unlikely recover on its own resulting in further environmental impacts to the tributary and to salmonid populations. Environmentally Preferred Alternative: The original SCR project description is expected to have some environmental impacts during the initial stages of the project. These impacts are relatively short-lived and revolve around water quality, specifically increased sedimentation, and soil compaction within the wetland. However the SCRP will provide many long term ecological benefits such as suitable habitat for salmonid species, erosion and sedimentation control, improved water quality, increased stream flow, flood alleviation, reduction in RCG and improvements in the biological integrity of the ecosystem. As described in the project description, the planting of native vegetation along streambanks at densities of every 2 feet has the greatest potential to outcompete RCG populations without harmful lingering chemicals. The excavation will further reduce invasive RCG abundance, open the channel allowing for flood protection while maximizing water flows and sediment transport, thus reducing sediment deposit from upslope erosion. The implementation of the vegetative buffer alongside the channel will reduce sunlight to the understory, decrease water temperature and increase allochthonous energy inputs, all beneficial to fish. Upland stream channel excavation and erosion control from the decommissioning of the forest roads will reduce sediment delivery, and enhance surface flow. Overall, the preferred alternative is expected to
have no adverse effects and considerably benefit Strawberry Creek. The project will not require much maintenance since the objectives are to return the ecosystem to its original self- sustaining condition. The project description is the environmentally preferred alternative because it meets the objectives of the project as listed in the project description (Arguello et al. 2012).
CHAPTER 5 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
5.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

PREPARERS: Sabrena Ambrezewicz, Environmental Science Ecological Restoration Major. Prepared Recreation and Biological Resources Impact Analyses. Luis Fernandez, Rangeland Resource Science Ecological Restoration Major. Prepared Geology & Soils and Aesthetics Impact Analyses. Corinne Kennah, Environmental Science Ecological Restoration Major. Prepared Endangered Species and Socioeconomic Impact Analyses. Kerry McNamee, Environmental Management and Protection Planning Major. Prepared Hydrology & Water Quality and Noise Impact Analyses. Erik Skudlarick, Environmental Science Ecological Restoration Major. Prepared Forest & Agricultural Resources and Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Impact Analyses. CONTRIBUTORS: Leonel Arguello, Redwood National Park Botanist Contributed information about the proposed Strawberry Creek Restoration Project.
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
6.0 REFERENCES
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (ADNR). Division of Forestry. Trees and Forests Improve the Urban Environment. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/forestry/pdfs/Trees_improve_environ.pdf All-Outdoors California Whitewater rafting. 2012. California Salmong River Rafting. http://www.aorafting.com/river/cal-salmon/trip-details.htm All-Outdoors California Whitewater rafting. 2012. Real-Time Flow Reports for California Rivers. http://www.aorafting.com/river/flows.htm Arguello et al. 2012. Draft. Description of the Proposed Action-Strawberry Creek.Redwood National Park. Arguello, Leonel. Strawberry Creek Site Visit. Redwood National Park, 6 Oct. 2012. B.R. Merrill, E. Casaday, 2003. Best Management Practices for road rehabilitation: Road-Stream Crossing Removal. NCRD. California State Parks. pg 10-11. http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/23071/files/streamcrossingremovalbmp5_03.pdf Brown, Timothy M., Randy B. Foltz, and Kristina A. Yanosek. 2007. "Sediment Concentration and Turbidity Changes during Culvert Removals." Journal of Environmental Management http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008_foltz_r001.pdf Bundros, Greg, and Parkinson, Aida. 2010. Streelow Creek Trail Improvements in Redwood National Park. http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=24701 Byrne, A. E. 1989. Experimental applications of high-tensile wire and other fencing to control big game damage in northwest Colorado. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop. 9:109-115. California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Environmental Checklist Form. 2012a. Fisheries Restoration Grant Program.
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Freshwater and Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations for 2012-2013. California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 2004. State of California Resources Agency. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon. California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 2012. "Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration for DFG's 2012 Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Projects." Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Administration/Grants/FRGP/Mit-Neg-Dec.asp California Department of Fish and Game. "Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration for DFG's 2012 Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Projects." Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form. 2012. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Administration/Grants/FRGP/MitNeg-Dec.asp California Department of Transportation (DOT). 2012. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. California Emergency Management Agency, et al. 2009. "Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning." Map. California State Government. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ California Geological Survey. 2007. "Mineral Resources." California Geological Survey. State of California Department of Conservation. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ California State Parks. 2012. "Office of Historic Preservation." California State Parks. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov "Construction Noise Handbook. 2012. " 9.0 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges. U.S. Department of Transportation.
DeCalesta, D. S. and Witmer, G.W. 2005. Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Department of Fish and Game. EXHIBIT A. Strawberry Creek Restoration-RNSP Reach. Scope of Work. Humboldt (projects HB 001, HB 098, HI 058, HI 059, HI 060, HI 065). Pg.3542. Doosan Infracore. 2011. Environmentally Friendly, High-Efficiency Hybrid Development Plan. Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration. King County Government. http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/facilities/documents/Final_EIS_Chapter_8.pdf E. Perea. 2010. Guide to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Aesthetics, p. 1-20. "Envirostor". 2012. Department of Toxic Substances Control. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Environmental Protection Division. 2012. Water Quality: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. Government of British Columbia. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/do/do-03.htm EPA. 2012a. Diesel Fuel: Fuel and Fuel Additives. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/dieselfuels/ EPA. 2012b. "Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/peg_caa/ EPA. 2012. Clean Water Act, Section 404. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Excavator. 2009 Equipment World. http://www.doosanequipment.com "Factors Affecting Soil Erosion". 2012. http://www.spindigo.com/doctorluke/www/Transcripts/agriculture_eng/2_10_soil_erosio n_factors.htm
Grassetti Environmental Consulting. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Report: Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project. SCH#SD2007-05-6.pg. 3.7-1-3.7-14. Gregory & Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of anadromous salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. In D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman (editors), Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: Status and future options, p. 277-314. Chapman and Hall. New York. Humboldt County Draft General Plan. 2012. Humboldt County Planning Commission. 2011. "Outstanding Issues for Chapter 13, Noise Element." Humboldt County Planning Commission General Plan Update Meeting of Dec. 15 2011, Eureka CA. http://co.humboldt.ca.us/ Kilbride, K.M. and Paveglio, F.L. 1999. Intergrated Pest Management to control Reed Canarygrass in Seasonal Wetlands of Southwestern Washington. Wildlife Social Bulletin. 27(2):292-297. King County Government. 2010. Final EIS: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. Lashgari, Ash. 2012. "Tree and Air Quality. Air Resources Board. California Environmental Protection Agency. Lavergne S, and Molofsky J. 2004. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a Biolgical Model in the Study of Plant Invasion. Critical Review in Plant Sciences. 23(5) 415-429. Management. Cooperative Extension Division Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Nebraska -Lincoln. Michael Love & Associates. 2012. Design Plans for Construction of Strawberry Creek Restoration Project. Technical paper.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012a. SONCC Coho Recovery Plan (Draft). Chapter 4: Conservation and Recovery Goals, Objectives, and Criteria. Southwest Regional Office. Arcata, CA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012b. SONCC Coho Recovery Plan (Draft). Chapter 2: Strawberry Creek Population. Southwest Regional Office. Arcata, CA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012c. SONCC Coho Recovery Plan (Draft). Chapter 4. Southwest Regional Office. Arcata, CA. National Park Service. 2012. "Area History." Redwood National and State Parks. National Parks Service. http://www.nps.gov/redw/historyculture/area-history.htm Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.1994: 63-82. Nowak, D.J. Air Pollution Removal by Chicagos Urban Forest. In: Chicagos urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. NPS. 2012. Current Conditions. http://www.nps.gov/redw/planyourvisit/conditions.htm NPS. 2012. Visitor Centers. http://www.nps.gov/redw/planyourvisit/visitorcenters.htm#CP_JUMP_281946 Paveglio, F.L. and K.M. Kilbride. 1996. Integrated management techniques show promise for control of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) in seasonal wetlands (Washington). Restoration and Management Notes 14(1): 79-80. Pennekamp, Joh. G.S. et al. 1996. "Turbidity Caused by Dredging; Viewed in Perspective." Terra Et Aqua 64: 10-17. http://www.terra-et-aqua.com/ Perea, Ernest. 2010. Guide to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist. PlanTech.
Preston, Becky. 2001. "Coho Salmon Not Your Average Fish; Keeping the Salmon Running in the Right Direction Proves to Be a Difficult Task. Osprey Magazine. http://www.humboldt.edu/journalism/osprey/fall01/story_html/salmon.html Redwood Creek Watershed Group. 2006. Strawberry Creek Watershed Restoration, p. 40-42. http://www.nps.gov/redw/parkmgmt/upload/RWC%20IWS%20Final.pdf Reinhardt C., Galatowitsch S. M . 2005. Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass): Rapid growth and growth patterns in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience. 12(4):569-573. Schlaepfer, Martin A et al. 2002. "Ecological and Evolutionary Traps." TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution 17.10: 474-80. http://learn3.humboldt.edu/course/view.php?id=46168 "Sensitivity by Lifestage." 2011. Stream Temperature. KrisWeb. http://www.krisweb.com/stream/temperature.htm Smith, Linda. 2009. "California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)." Air Resources Board. California Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm Smith, W.H. 1990. Air Pollution and Forests: Interactions between Air Contaminants and Forest Ecosystems. New York, NY. Springer-Verlag. Smoliak et al. 2006. Publications and Information Animal and Range Sciences, State of California Department of Transportation. 2002. McBrindle Creek Culvert Replacement. Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration. Geology and Soils. Pg18. Tu, Mandy. 2004. "Reed Canarygrass: Control and Management in the Pacific Northwest." Invasive Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. Recovery Investements. Strawberry Creek Restoration. Department of the Interior. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Arcata, CA. U.S. Department of Labor. "Occupational Noise Exposure." Safety and Health Topics. 2012. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation US Department of Agriculture, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. "Custom Soil Resource Report for Humboldt and Del Norte Area, California and Redwood National and State Parks, California. Strawberry Creek Restoration." Washington State Department of Transportation. 2012. "Federal Environmental Permits and Approvals." Washington State Government. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Permitting/permitfsl.htm Welsh, Hartwell H et al. 1998. Comments on the PALCO HCP/SYP and EIS/EIR With Regard to the Maintenance of Riparian, Aquatic, and Late Seral Ecosystems and Their Associated Amphibian and Reptile Species. US Deptarement of Agriculture; US Forest Service; Redwood Sciences Laboratory. http://resources.ca.gov/headwaters/feis/comments/hhw.pdf Wilzbach, Margaret. 2012a. "Channel Morphology. http://learn.humboldt.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=82598 Wilzbach, Margaret. 2012b. "Macroinvertebrates. http://learn.humboldt.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=82598 Wilzbach, Margaret. 2012c. "River Profiles and Networks. http://learn.humboldt.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=82598 Wilzbach, Margaret. 2012d. "Temperature and Light. http://learn.humboldt.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=82598
APPENDIX A NEPA CHECKLIST
APPENDIX A: NEPA CHECKLIST

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
EcoLogic
Letting nature take its course
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING CHECKLIST

A. PROJECT INFORMATION Park Name: Redwood National Park Project Title: Strawberry Creek Restoration Project Project Type: Restoration Project Location: SW of Orick County, State: Humboldt County, California Project Leader: Redwood National Park B. RESOURCE EFFECTS TO CONSIDER:
Identify potential effects to the following physical, natural, or cultural resources

1. Geologic resources soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc. 2. From geohazards 3. Air quality
No Effect
Negligible Effect
Longterm Negative Effect
Shortterm Negative Effect
Longterm Positive Effect
X X X X X X X X
4. Soundscapes
5. Water quality or quantity
6. Streamflow characteristics
7. Marine or estuarine resources

8. Floodplains or wetlands
No Effect
Negligible Effect
9. Land use, including occupancy, income, values, ownership, type of use 10. Rare or unusual vegetation old growth timber, riparian, alpine 11. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat 12. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage Sites 13. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat 14. Unique or important fish or fish habitat 15. Introduce or promote non-native species (plant or animal) 16. Recreation resources, including supply, demand, visitation, activities, etc. 17. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources 18. Archeological resources
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
19. Prehistoric/historic structure
20. Cultural landscapes
21. Ethnographic resources 22. Museum collections (objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript collections)

24. Minority and low income populations, ethnography, size, migration patterns, etc. 23. Socioeconomics, including employment, occupation, income changes, tax base, infrastructure 25. Energy resources 26. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies 27. Resource, including energy, conservation potential, sustainability 28. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc. 29. Long-term management of resources or land/resource productivity 30. Other important environment resources (e.g. geothermal, paleontological resources)?
No Effect
Negligible Effect
X X X X X X X X
C. MANDATORY CRITERIA
Mandatory Criteria: If implemented, would the proposal:
Yes
No
A. Have significant impacts on public health or safety? B. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas?
Mandatory Criteria: If implemented, would the proposal:
Yes
No
D. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks? E. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects? C. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA section 102(2)(E))? F. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant, environmental effects? G. Have significant impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by either the bureau or office? H. Have significant impacts on species listed or proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species? I. Violate a federal law, or a state, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment? J. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898)? K. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007)? L. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112)?
X X X X X X X X X X
APPENDIX B MAPS
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
APPENDIX B MAPS
APPENDIX B MAPS
APPENDIX B MAPS
APPENDIX B MAPS
APPENDIX B MAPS
APPENDIX B MAPS
Figure 6: Map of Proposed Design Plans
Figure 6. Design plans for the construction of Strawberry Creek. (Source: Love & Associates 2012)
APPENDIX B MAPS
Figure 7: Placement of In-Stream Structures
Figure 7. Intra-stream log placements. (Source: Love & Associates 2012)
Figure 8: Strawberry Creek Soils
Soil Name 119-Arlynda Series: Silty clay loam. 0-2 % slope 171-Workswick-Arlinda Complex: Silt Loam. 0-2 % slope 174-Bigtree-Mystery Complex: sandy, silty loam. 2-9% slope 553-Ladybird-Stonehill complex: gravelly clay loam. 30-50% slope NOTCOM- mapping not completed
Figure 8. Strawberry Creek USDA Web Soil Survey Report for Redwood National and State Parks, California (CA796)
APPENDIX C TRIBAL CONTACT INFORMATION
APPENDIX C: TRIBAL CONTACT INFORMATION

Yurok (707) 482-1350 Hoopa (530) 625-4211 billy.colegrove@hoopa-nsn.gov watershed@yurok.com
APPENDIX D NMFS INDICATORS OF AQUATIC HABITAT SUITABLITY FOR COHO SALMON
APPENDIX D: NMFS INDICATORS OF AQUATIC HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR COHO SALMON

Stress (Limiting Factor) Lack of Floodplain and Channel Structure
Indicators
Good
Very Good
Pool Depths Pool Frequency (length) Pool Frequency (area) D50 (median particle size) LWD (key pieces/100 m) LWD <20 ft wide LWD 20-30 ft. wide LWD >30 ft. wide
3-3.3 ft
> 3.3 ft
41-50% 21-35%
>50 >35%
51-60 & 95-110 mm
60-95 mm
2-3 54-84 pieces/mi 37-64 pieces/mi 34-60 pieces/mi
>3 >85 pieces/mi >65 pieces/mi >60 pieced/mi
Altered Sediment Supply
% Sand <6.4mm (wet) % Sand <6.4mm (dry) % Fines <1mm (wet) % Fines <1mm (dry) V Star (V*) Silt/Sand Surface (% riffle area)
15-25%
<15%
12.9-21.5%
<12.9%
12-15%
<12%
8.9-11.1% 0.15 - 0.21
<8.9% <0.15
12-15%
<12%
APPENDIX D NMFS INDICATORS OF AQUATIC HABITAT SUITABLITY FOR COHO SALMON
Turbidity (FNU) Embeddedness (%)
120-360 hrs> 25 FNU 25-30
<120 hrs > 25 FNU <25
Impaired Water Quality
pH (annual maximum) D.O. (COLD) (mg/l 7-DAMin) D.O. (SPAWN) (mg/l 7-DAMin) Temperature (MWMT) Aq Macroinverts (EPT) Aq Macroinverts (Richness) Aq Macroinverts (B-IBI)
8.25-8.5
<8.25
6.6-7.0 mg/l
>7.0 mg/L
10.1-11 mg/l 16-17 C 19-25
>11.0 mg/l <16 C >25
31-40
>40
60.1-80
>80
Degraded Riparian Forest Conditions
Canopy Cover (% shade) Canopy Type (% Open + Hardwood) Riparian Condition (conifers > 36" dbh / 1000 ft for 100 ft wide buffer)
71-80%
>80%
20-30%
<20%
125.1-200
>200
(NMFS 2012c)
APPENDIX E IMPACT MATRIX
APPENDIX E: IMPACT MATRIX

Log Step & Weir Installation
Vegetation Replanting
2 0 3 2 1 1 2 -1 0 3 0 3 2 18
Environmental Characteristics
Air Quality (GHG) Noise Aesthetics Water Quality Socioeconomic Geology (Soils ) Erosion Wetlands Cultural Resources Endangered Species Recreation Flora Fauna Total:
-1 -1 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2
-1 0 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 1 0 3 0 -1 -2 -4
-1 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 0
-1 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 -1 -1
-1 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -9
0 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2
0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 -2
0 -1 0 2 1 0 -1 -1 0 2 0 -1 0 1
0 -1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 8
0 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2
-7 -11
Scoring Scale Value -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Anticipated Effect Highly Negative Moderately Negative Minimally Negative No Effect Minimally Positive Moderately Positive Highly Positive
Stream Realignment
0 -1 2 2 1 0 2 -1 0 3 0 2 3 13
Culvert replacement
Vegetation Removal
Equipment storage
Road Construction
Project Components
Transporation
Site Machinery
Imported Soil
Electric fence
Excavation
APPENDIX E IMPACT MATRIX
The scoring system is qualitatively based and also includes some quantitative thresholds of significance (TOS). The foreseeable impacts of each project component were analyzed, resulting in a numerical score ranging from positive three to negative three. A score of -2 is considered a significant negative impact, and requires further analysis and mitigation. Part of the water quality analysis includes creek and wetland TOS water heights, derived from the project plan document, and also information from Redwood National Park (RNP) including dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH levels, and visual observations. A component of the geology (soils) and erosion categories use a TOS from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) including slope, texture, and soil type percentage within the project area of impact (AOI). TOS regarding endangered species is derived from historical steelhead and coho salmon run numbers. The matrix reveals short-term negative environmental impacts, with the majority becoming positive long-term environmental impacts. Air quality and GHG, noise, aesthetics, water quality, soils, erosion, flora and fauna all have short term negative impacts during construction that will become positive long term effects of the restoration. Socioeconomic impacts will be positive due to increased job creation and an increase in numbers of lucrative steelhead and coho salmon. Cultural resources and recreation were found to not be negatively affected. The wetlands in the project AOI will be negatively affected in the construction phase due to the intrusive nature of the excavation and RCG pulling, and will slightly be negatively affected after the restoration is complete due to decreased water flow into the wetland because of the new stream channel. Endangered species, such as steelhead and coho salmon will be greatly positively affected after the restoration is complete due to improved habitat.
APPENDIX F MITIGATION AND MONITORING TABLE
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Biological Resources Removing the Reed Canary Grass (RCG)
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Arguello et al. 2012-5
Phase 2,3 & 4
Elimination of 90% of the current extent
Positive impact
Excavated material will be used for composting within the park
Planting of Alders, Willows, and Sitka Spruce
Departme nt of Fish and Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 36-42 Arugello et al. 5-6
Phase 3&4
Survival of planted trees should exceed 80 percent of the total number initially planted for at least five years (DFG Pg.10)
Positive impact
Planting mounds will be created from material excavated from the stream channel and upslope stream crossings, in addition to other supplemen tary materials. Only native trees will be planted.
Manual removal until the planted trees are large enough to shade out the grass Additional plantings will occur as needed. Site monitoring until the canopy produces enough shade to prevent RGC growth. Photograph s taken annually at several photopoints to document the developme nt of the riparian zone.
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Electric fencing around the replanted riparian area
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Arguello et al. 6
Phase 3&4
Adverse effects on wetlands from excavating the new stream channel through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means Forest and Agriculture Resources Loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
CA Departme nt of Fish and Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 28; US Fish and Wildlife Service 2010
Phase 2
Effective protection of new planting mounds by excluding wildlife Presence of macroinver tebrates
No significant adverse impact
Less than significant with mitigation
Mitigation will entail restoration of a degraded wetland in a different site in RNP
Fencing will be monitored for signs of damage on a monthly basis Biomonitori ng for macroinvert ebrates in areas of the remaining wetland
CA Departme nt of Fish and Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 24
Phase 2&4
Any loss of forestland
No significant impact
To ensure there is no loss of forestland during constructio n, trees will have a minimum buffer distance and a tree survey will be conducted
Tree count and habitat surveys to determine if any forestland was affected from project
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
CA Departme nt of Fish and Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 24
Phase 2, 3 & 4
Any loss of agricultural land
No mitigation measures are necessary to protect farmland
No monitoring required
Soils/ Geology Erosion resulting from culvert removal and replacement CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 28 Phase 2, 3 & 4 and times of heavy water flows Visual evidence of erosion or water quality test showing increased accumulati on of sediment in stream Not significant with mitigation Boulder steps installed within the new culvert to help control the channel profile. Gravel laid at the base of new channel to balance load of sediments delivered downstrea m. Visual monitoring during the project and then monthly for the first year after project completion
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Tree removal may cause erosion problems on sloped terrain during heavy rains
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Ground disturbance from decomi ssioned roads and impacts from erosion at the headwaters
CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 28; Factors Affecting Soil Erosion 2012 CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 22
Phase 2, 3 & 4
Visual evidence of erosion or water quality test showing increased accumulati on of sediment in stream
Not significant with mitigation
Particular attention will be paid to slopes of 10-15% or greater Application of mulch on and around planting stands to reduce erosion Application of wody debris on finished slopes of decomissio ned roads to reduce surface erosion
Visual monitoring during the project and then monthly for the first year after project completion
Phase 4
Visual evidence of erosion or water quality test showing increased accumulati on of sediment in stream
Visual monitoring during the project then monthly for the first year after project completion
Aesthetics
Scenic vista during the construction phase will be negatively affected
CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n, 24
Phase 2,3 & 4
Not significant
Roadway profile will be kept to a minimum.
None
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Noise
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Increased noise from excavators, chainsaws and other construction machinery will have a foreseeable noise level of 75-85 dba.
Constructi on Noise Handbook 2012; Humboldt County Planning Commissi on 11.
Phase 2&4
85 dba in TPZ zone
Enforcing personnel to wear hearing protection while operating machinery. Constructio n from 9am-6 pm only. Operate machinery only during day time hours
None
Increased ground vibrations during construction phase
CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 25; Humboldt County DEIR GPU 3.6-11
Phase 2&4
Varies by location and level of constructio n
Not significant
None
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Water Quality
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Increased turbidity
Contribute a large amount of runoff that the system could not contain
CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 34 CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 34
Phase 2, 3 & 4
Phase 2, 3 & 4
Turbidity level shall not be increased more than 20% of preconstructio n turbidity levels No threshold because there is no stormwater system and because precipitatio n varies yearly.
Placing screens at areas of headwater s where there are high amounts of soil loss. A series of retention ponds will be dug away from the new stream channel during its excavation to allow for water infiltration without causing increased sedimentati on in the new stream channel before its completed.
Bi-weekly water sampling
Possible negative short-term impact
Documenti ng sites for bank erosion or flooding which would indicate a surge of stormwater runoff.
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Deplete other general water quality standards: chemical contaminatio n, dissolved oxygen, pH changes, temperature increases.
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 34; Environme ntal Protection Division 2012.
Phase 2, 3 & 4
Dissolved oxygen at least 5 mg/L, normal pH range: 5.77.0, maximum 17.5 C
Short termnegative impact
Line banks with hay after the excavator passes through the channel to catch tail pipe emissions, and placement of hay on grounds in where heavy machinery is at work. Nurse logs and LWD to create riffles, increasing oxygen. Riparian vegetation will shade the stream, keeping water temperatur e low, and oxygen levels high.
Weekly water samples to test for chemical contaminan ts from the machinery, dissolved oxygen, pH and temperatur e.
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Socioeconomics Increased local employment
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Humboldt General PlanChapter 9
Phase 1
Goal to hire at least 90% of contracted workers from within Humboldt County
Short-term After positive constructio impact n, possibly look to offer internershi ps to Humboldt State University students.
None
Boost local economy
Humboldt General PlanChapter 9
Phase 1
Goal to purchase at least 90% of materials and supplies needed from within Humboldt County
Short-term Ensure positive stream is fit impact to support recovery of salmonids to support goal of eventually reopening fishing industry.
None
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Endangered Species Restoration of stream to provide suitable habitat for ESA listed salmonids
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
NMFS 2012a
Phase 4
Stream meets suitable habitat requiremen ts under NMFS Draft SONCC Coho Recovery Plan (Appendix D)
Short-term impacts not significant with mitigation Long-term positive impact
No constructio n during spawning season. Install fish nets during constructio n.
A NMFS biologist will be hired to monitor several parts of the channel and its associated pools for the presence of fish.
Air Quality & GHGs Violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 25 Phase 2, 3 & 4 Exceeding California Air Quality Standards No significant Impact Air quality measurem ents conducted during constructio n phase to determine if pollutant levels comply with standards Orick residents will be consulted to determine any impacts from odor. Air quality measurem ents conducted after project completion to ensure pollutant concentrati ons met standards None
Creation of objectionabl e odors affecting a substantial number of people
CA Departme nt of Fish & Game, Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaratio n 25
Phase 2, 3 & 4
Negative feedback and complaints from residents of Orick
No significant Impact
Brief Description of Foreseeable Impact or Monitoring Measure Recreation Limited access to the project area during construction
Reference
Phase
Criteria/ TOS
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Arguello et al. 2012-5
Phase 2&4
None
Signs will be placed at the gate off the main access road to alert any potential recreationi sts.
Note any increased public recration use.

SCRP Environmental Assessment

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SCRP Environmental Assessment

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Strawberry Creek Restoration Project

Appendix E: Impact Matrix.......................................................................................................................... 97

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 5

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 8

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 10

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 11

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 12

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

CORINNE KENNAH (1)

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE14

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

CORINNE KENNAH (1)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE15

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

CORINNE KENNAH (1)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE16

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

CORINNE KENNAH (1)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE17

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

TONY FERNANDEZ (1)

2.2 Geology & Soils Environmental Settings/ Affected Environment:

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

TONY FERNANDEZ (1)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE19

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

TONY FERNANDEZ (1)

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

TONY FERNANDEZ (1)

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

TONY FERNANDEZ (1)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE22

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

KERRY McNAMEE (2)

2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting/Affected Environment:

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 23

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

KERRY McNAMEE (2)

Suspended Fine Sediment and Turbidity

Not more than 20% of pre-construction levels [1]

At least 5 mg/L [2]

Salmonid fish growth stops at 17.5 C [3]

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 24

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

KERRY McNAMEE (2)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

KERRY McNAMEE (2)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 26

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

KERRY McNAMEE (2)

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, & MITIGATION

KERRY McNAMEE (2)

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION

SABRENA AMBREZEWICZ (1)

2.4 Biological Resources Environmental Setting/ Affected Environment:

STRAWBERRY CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PAGE 29

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION

SABRENA AMBREZEWICZ (1)

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION

SABRENA AMBREZEWICZ (1)