United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

July 2017

Hydrology Resource 

Report

Craggy Vegetation Management Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

For Information Contact: Chris Ester (530-468-1241) cester@fs.fed.us

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or 

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-

8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

i

Table of Contents

Hydrology Resource Report ........................................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators and Measures .......................................................................................... 2

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ................................................................. 2

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 3

Stream Temperature and Shade .......................................................................................... 4

Stream Sedimentation and Channel Stability ..................................................................... 4

Peak Stream Flow ............................................................................................................... 6

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................. 7

Alternative 1........................................................................................................................ 7

Alternative 2........................................................................................................................ 8

Alternative 3...................................................................................................................... 12

Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................................. 13

Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan .............................................. 15

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A – Riparian Reserve Treatments.............................................................................20

Appendix B – Maps of Legacy Sites.........................................................................................23

List of Tables

Table 1: Streambed Particle Size, Humbug Creek vs. Reference Condition ................................................5

Table 2: Equivalent Roaded Area Modeled Results for the Current Condition in 7th Field Watersheds......5

Table 3: Craggy Project Area Current Indicator Conditions vs. Desired Conditions...................................6

Table 4: Alternative 1 - Equivalent roaded area modeling results................................................................7

Table 5: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Results for Alternative 2 (in acres)...........................................11

Table 6: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 2.....................................................................................12

Table 7: Equivalent Roaded Area Model Results for Alternative 3 ...........................................................13

Table 8: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 3.....................................................................................13

Table 9: Comparison of Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Risk Ratios for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 ............14

Table 10: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Model Results Due to Wildfire for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 

under the Wildfire Scenario ................................................................................................................14

Table A-1: Riparian Reserve Treatments....................................................................................................20

List of Figures

Figure B-1: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 1 of 4 ..........23

Figure B-2: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 2 of 4 ..........24

Figure B-3: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 3 of 4 ..........25

Figure B-4: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 4 of 4 ..........26

Figure B-5: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 1 of 4.............................................................27

Figure B-6: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 2 of 4.............................................................28

Figure B-7: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 3 of 4.............................................................29

Figure B-8: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 4 of 4.............................................................30

Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

1

Hydrology Resource Report

Introduction

This report analyzes the effects of the Craggy Project on water quality in the project area and 

eight relevant 7th field watersheds.

Methodology

Water quality is dependent on many interconnected processes that are influenced by both 

upslope and in-stream conditions. The analysis of existing conditions and potential effects of the 

alternatives considered the following: field reviews and inventories, monitoring data, scientific 

literature, specialist reports, geographic information system (GIS) data analysis and modeling, 

and best professional judgment. Riparian reserve area widths on perennial streams were checked 

in the field on April 26, 2016 for a number of proposed units.

The risk assessment for peak stream flow uses one of the three cumulative watershed effects 

(CWE) models, the equivalent roaded area model (ERA). The models are a tool to estimate the 

direct, indirect and cumulative watershed effects of management activities. The equivalent 

roaded area concept was initially based on formulations by Harr et al. (1975) that drew 

correlations between reduction in canopy and water yield increases on experimental forested 

watersheds.

The model “... provides a simplified accounting system for tracking disturbances that affect 

watershed processes, in particular, estimates in changes in peak runoff flows influenced by

ground-disturbing activities” (Bell 2012). This model provides a baseline by using the current 

level of disturbance which includes past events and actions in the project area. The level of 

disturbance from various proposed project activities (e.g., road construction, landings, thinning, 

etc.) within a given watershed is compared to the baseline to estimate effects of the proposed 

activities. This is expressed as percent equivalent roaded area (percent ERA); the theoretical 

maximum disturbance level acceptable is expressed as percent threshold of concern (percent

TOC).

“The threshold of concern (TOC) is a measure of watershed sensitivity” (Bell 2012). It is a 

designated percent beyond which there may be measureable or observable evidence of impacts to 

channels and floodplains. These impacts may include the increase of fine grain sediment delivery 

to streams and the increase of some peak flows due to canopy reduction. The percent threshold 

of concern is calculated based on soil erodibility, hydrologic response, slope stability, channel 

sensitivity, and beneficial uses of each watershed. The thresholds for percent equivalent roaded 

area are listed by watershed in Table 2. For example, a watershed with high sensitivity would 

have a low threshold of concern for percent equivalent roaded area.

Percent equivalent roaded area is used to calculate a risk ratio for the ERA model. The model is 

named a “cumulative watershed effects” model because it adds up the effects of all the activities 

being proposed for a project and provides a risk ratio for a set of activities in the proposed 

project or alternatives. A risk ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 (the threshold of concern for risk 

ratios for all watersheds) is a yellow flag and calls for a closer look at mitigation opportunities.

Cumulative Watershed Effects: the Abridged Version (Bell 2012) provides a more detailed 

description of the model, its uses and limitations. The model can also estimate the cumulative 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

2

risk ratio of adding the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions to the 

effects of a set of proposed activities or alternatives. It is only this last modeled risk ratio that is 

the “cumulative effect” of the project according to the NEPA definition of cumulative effects.

The equivalent roaded area model was also run under a wildfire scenario for Alternatives 1 

(taking no action) and 3 (taking action on the greatest number of acres of action alternatives). 

Potential wildfire watershed effects for Alternative 1 represent the effects of not implementing 

the project; Alternative 3 results represent the effects of implementing treatments. Since there are 

only very small differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 in risk ratios, the model results for 

Alternative 3 under the wildfire scenario will be used as a proxy for the effects of Alternative 2. 

The modeling was generated using the FlamMap modeling for fire potential for zero to five years 

after Project implementation (see the Fire and Fuels report for detailed methods). The resulting 

flame lengths were used with the equivalent roaded area modeling as proxy for fire severity in 

the project area units.

Analysis Indicators and Measures

Water quality indicators used in this analysis are stream temperature and stream shade, sediment, 

and peak flow. Quantifiable estimation of effects to indicators will be based on field data 

collection and compared with regulatory benchmarks, as well as ERA model results where 

effects are difficult to observe and measure.

Changes in stream shade due to each set of activities is measured using a solar pathfinder (an 

instrument that can measure percentage of shade and can be used to estimate effects to shade 

from project alternatives at the site scale). This indicator uses change to potential effective shade 

of action alternatives on perennial and late-flowing intermittent streams as a proxy for stream 

temperature.

Effects to the sediment indicator in the watersheds will be estimated using the ERA model 

results and road condition. Road condition has been assessed through field inventory of humancaused active or potential sediment sources to streams (legacy sediment sites) between February 

2017 and May 2017.

The effects to peak flow in the watersheds are estimated using the ERA model and methods 

described in Grant et al. (2008) to translate the percent of a watershed with disturbance to 

changes in the hillslope water runoff that leads to changes in in-stream peak flows. Generally, 

peak flow increases are not measurable if less than 20 percent of basal area in a watershed is 

removed (Troendle et al. 2010).

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The watershed spatial scale is bound by eight 7th field watersheds that intersect the project area: 

Clear Creek, Greenhorn Creek, Upper Humbug Creek, Lower Humbug Creek, Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek, Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, and Long Gulch. There are 

several other 7th field watersheds that are within the Craggy Project area but they total less than 

one percent of the project area and, therefore, are not included in this analysis.

The site scale is bound by the area proposed for treatment and the extent to which a treatment 

could affect channel reaches immediately downstream. Appendix B of the environmental impact 

statement displays maps of the analysis area 7th field watersheds and the legacy sediment site 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

3

locations and treatment plan. The legacy sediment site locations and treatment plan are also 

included in this report.

The temporal scale for effects to stream shade in regard to percent of canopy reduction, is 

considered short-term for effects lasting less than 10 years or long-term where they persist for 10 

years or more. Ten years is the time frame by which most effects of vegetation management are 

naturally recovered through re-growth (Grant et al. 2008).

Non-road-related equivalent roaded area modeled disturbances recover gradually over forty 

years. Since roads are “forever” and do not recover like vegetative disturbance, road-related 

sedimentation is constant year after year (Bell 2012). Equivalent roaded area results that are 

provided are for the effects immediately post-treatment for action alternatives. The combined 

effects to water quality of various management activities were assessed in combination with past 

and foreseeable future activities through the watershed effects process modeling.

Affected Environment

The project is within the Yreka Creek-Shasta River and Humbug Creek-Klamath River 5th field 

watersheds. The Shasta River, a major tributary of the Klamath River, was listed as impaired for 

organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen in 1992, and as impaired for temperature in 1994, pursuant 

to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (State Water Resource Control Board 2012). Dissolved 

oxygen concentrations are regularly too low to comply with the Basin Plan dissolved oxygen 

objectives. Water temperature conditions regularly exceed temperature thresholds that are 

protective of salmonids. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations and elevated water temperatures 

in the Shasta River and its tributaries have resulted in degraded water quality conditions that do 

not meet applicable water quality objectives, and impair designated beneficial uses. The 

designated beneficial uses that are not fully supported in the Shasta River include: cold 

freshwater habitat; rare, threatened, and endangered species; migration of aquatic organisms; and 

spawning, reproduction, and early development of fish; commercial and sport fishing; and 

contact and non-contact water recreation.

The Klamath River is also listed as impaired for low dissolved oxygen, high water temperature, 

and high nutrient levels (State Water Resource Control Board 2012). The Klamath River has 

additional beneficial uses that are not designated for the Shasta River that may be adversely 

affected by inputs from the Shasta River. These beneficial uses include the Native American 

cultural use that supports cultural and traditional rights of indigenous people, such as ceremonial 

uses, and the subsistence fishing use.

North and east of Craggy Mountain the majority of riparian vegetation is on private land and has

been altered by mine tailings. The lower third of Humbug Creek is dominated by willows with a 

scattered overstory of cottonwoods. The stream gradient is relatively shallow with a wide 

floodplain.

Alluvium deposits at the mouth of Humbug Creek are a combined result of 19th century mine 

tailings and the subsequent construction of dams on the Klamath River which reduce the force of

high flows. The creek commonly runs subsurface through the private land adjacent to the mouth 

of Humbug Creek in Section 16 of Township 45 North, Range 7 West, of Mount Diablo 

Meridian.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

4

South and west of Craggy Mountain, including the headwaters of Humbug Creek and Cousins 

Gulch, the channel is constrained and a relatively narrow floodplain supports a riparian

community of conifers, alders and maples.

Stream Temperature and Shade

The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast Water Board 2011) uses 

lack of stream shade as an indicator for stream temperature impairment. The regulatory standard 

requires that site-specific potential effective shade (shade on a watercourse equivalent to that 

provided by topography and potential vegetation conditions at a site) must be maintained unless 

it can be demonstrated that the proposed activities will result in a net long-term benefit to water 

quality and stream temperatures (North Coast Water Board 2015). The justification for reducing 

stream shade must include the proposed canopy reduction, estimated recovery time, an estimate 

of the pre- and post- project shade or solar impacts.

Stream shade was estimated generally for perennial streams on the Forest using the Shade-a-lator 

model with inputs for vegetation derived from remote sensing data in 2011. Air photo 

interpretation was used to verify the remote sensing data, and to identify reaches where stream 

shade has been reduced by human activities. The amount of shade loss due to human activities 

was estimated by comparing the modeled shade in altered reaches with near-by stream reaches 

that lack human disturbance (reference streams). Of the 84.4 percent of stream length assessed of 

Humbug Creek, the watershed average for existing shade was 88.5 percent (USDA 2011), well 

above desired conditions (see stream temperature monitoring information in USDA 2012a).

However, site specific potential effective shade was still required to be determined within each 

project unit proposed within a riparian reserve to ensure no long term loss of shade occurs, in 

violation of the 2015 Waiver.

Units within riparian reserves mentioned in Appendix A of this report have been assessed by the

district hydrologist who determined that these riparian reserves could benefit from project 

activities: thinning or fuel reduction. Aquatic conservation strategy objectives would be 

maintained or restored in these riparian reserves (see Appendix F of the Craggy Environmental 

Impact Statement), shade buffers have been designed so as to have no negative effect to shade.

Not all activities proposed within riparian reserves have currently been assessed by a district 

hydrologist. In these cases, either standard Forest Plan riparian reserve widths will be applied 

(300 feet for fish bearing perennial streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing perennial streams and 

intermittent streams), or if it is determined that treatment within outer portions of these riparian 

reserves would be beneficial to aquatic conservation strategy objectives and have no effect to 

shade, modified riparian reserve buffer and equipment exclusion zones will be fully divulged in 

the application for Waiver coverage under the 2015 Waiver. Such site-specific recommendations 

will only decrease treatment unit size over their existing extent. No increases will be proposed.

Stream Sedimentation and Channel Stability

Streams adjacent to proposed treatment areas are mostly small, first order intermittent streams 

(and a few perennial streams) at the middle to upper slope position. In 2010 and 2013, the Forest 

stream sediment monitoring program (USDA 2010 and 2013) surveyed the Humbug Creek 

response reach which is just above the confluence of Humbug Creek and the Klamath River. 

Stream sediment measurements included: average percent surface fines in riffles, average percent 

subsurface fines in riffle crests and gravel patches, and average percent volume of fine sediment 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

5

filling pools (V-star) (USDA 2009). All stream sediment measures except for V-star (fraction of 

pools filled with fine sediment less than two millimeters in size) met reference conditions (Table 

1).

Table 1: Streambed Particle Size, Humbug Creek vs. Reference Condition

Sediment Index Humbug reach 

average (%)

Reference 

Condition (%)

Reference 

Condition ratio

Surface Fines < 2mm 4.5 6.4 0.70

Sub-surface fines < 0.85mm 14.3 16.2 0.88

Sub-surface fines < 6.35mm 44.3 46.1 0.96

Fraction of pools filled with fine sediment 

< 2mm (V-star) 0.126 0.108 1.17

The cumulative watershed effects models are one predictor of in-stream sediment (USDA 2016)

that is being used to measure this indicator. Modeled results that are lower than the threshold of 

concern (TOC) by watershed indicates that upslope conditions are presently not contributing

negative effects to water quality in the analysis area (Table 2).

Table 2: Equivalent Roaded Area Modeled Results for the Current Condition in 7th Field Watersheds

7th Field Watersheds 7th field Watershed 

Area (acres) % ERAs % TOC Current ERA Risk Ratio*

Upper Humbug Creek 8,037 2.8 9.5 0.30

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 4,978 2.9 10.0 0.29

Clear Creek 2,781 3.6 10.5 0.35

Lower Humbug 7,830 1.6 10.5 0.15

Greenhorn Creek 7,734 6.1 9.0 0.68

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 7,054 2.8 12.0 0.23

Long Gulch 2,834 3.0 11.0 0.27

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 2,102 1.5 11.5 0.13

*Threshold of concern for risk ratios is 1.0 for all 7th field watersheds.

Forest roads within highly erosive granitic soils have resulted in erosion problems throughout 

portions of the landscape and erosion can lead to sediment in streams. The legacy sediment sites, 

if not repaired and rehabilitated, have the potential to fail or divert as the result of a 100-year or 

smaller flood. Altogether the 293 legacy sites in the project area have an estimated volume of 

over 49,290 cubic yards of potential sediment available to be discharged to project area streams

(see Figure 1). The most frequently observed, but usually low risk, type of legacy sediment site 

is rill and gully erosion from off-highway vehicle trials, system roads, and unauthorized routes

that are closed to motor vehicle use; erosion usually results from improper, nonexistent, or 

malfunctioning drainage structures. Typically the higher risk sites are road crossings of large 

intermittent or perennial streams on undersized or failing culverts under large fill volumes. These 

sites often exhibit diversion potential (the potential for flow to divert down the road in the event 

that a large storm plugs the culvert) which can be the cause of large quantities of sediment 

discharge. All legacy sediment sites are prioritized based upon a complex risk rating formula 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

6

developed under the Road Sediment Source Inventory (USDA 2012b). Treatment of legacy sites 

as required by the 2015 Waiver for total maximum daily load implementation will be detailed in 

the discussion of Alternatives 2 and 3 below.

Peak Stream Flow

Annual precipitation rates follow a steep gradient, decreasing west to east from about 50 inches 

per year to 20 inches per year. Snow frequently occurs in winter months above 4,000 feet. The 

north facing peaks such as McKinley Mountain and Mahogany Point retain the greatest amount 

of snowpack in early spring (USDA 1993).

No stream-gauging stations have been installed on streams in the analysis area to provide direct 

measurements of stream flow. Streams in the area that have recorded stream flows respond 

quickly to rainfall events with prolonged low-flow recession limbs (rates of decrease in 

discharge as a stream’s level falls after a rain). Historically, rain on snow events typically result 

in the largest peak flow, flood and debris flow events (de la Fuente and Elder 1998).

Table 3 below outlines existing versus desired condition in the project area for the analysis 

indicators. Stream temperature as maximum weekly maximum temperature is not met in 

Humbug Creek, though shading exceeds desired levels by a large margin.

Table 3: Craggy Project Area Current Indicator Conditions vs. Desired Conditions

Indicator Measure Existing 

Condition Desired Condition Are desired conditions being met?

Stream 

Sedimentation

Surface fines 6.8 < 6.4 No

Subsurface 

sediment 16.0 < 16.2 Yes**

Subsurface 

sediment 44.0 < 46.1 Yes**

Pools filled with 

sediment (V-star) 0.136 < 0.108 No

CWE model: ERA 

(% of watershed 

roaded)

1.5% to 6.1% <0.4% No

Road density Average of 1 mile 

per square mile

Less than 2 miles per 

square mile Yes

Road Condition 293 Legacy Sites 0 Legacy Sites No

Stream Temp.

Maximum weekly 

maximum 

temperature

16.5°C to 17.6°C < 16°C No

Overall 

Average

Shade

Percent shade 

average for 

watersheds

88.5% > 69.7% Yes*

Peak Flow Equivalent roaded 

area

1.7% to 6.3% < 6.5% to 9.0% Yes

*Shade-a-lator model provides overall shade conditions. Site specific solar pathfinder measurements have been (and will be) 

taken within riparian reserves in treatment units. In some areas, shade is not meeting desired conditions.

**In stream sediment monitoring provides a snapshot of conditions within stream at a given time, and while desired conditions

may have been met at one time, that doesn’t mean that the watershed is at desired conditions at all times.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

7

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

In terms of temperature, it would be expected that conditions would remain the same or improve 

due to increasing streamside canopy in the absence of a wildfire occurrence. Peak streamflow is 

expected to remain as at present in the absence of wildfire but increase substantially with 

wildfire.

Alternative 1 will not address any of the legacy sediment sites in the project area. Those sites 

will remain with the potential to deliver sediment into channels. The amount of potential 

sediment that will remain in the watershed and at risk of being delivered to stream-courses if no 

action is taken to address the legacy sites is 49,290 cubic yards.

This alternative will not reduce the severity of negative effects to water quality from a potential 

wildfire in the project area. The equivalent roaded area model was run for a wildfire scenario to 

help illustrate how a wildfire under this alternative could affect the watershed health including 

changes to sediment regimes, peak flow and changes to shade (see Table 4).

The effects of this alternative in the short term, without the occurrence of a wildfire, are the same 

as what’s stated previously as current condition. The ERA risk ratios for Alternative 1 are below 

in Table 4. It may be expected that, in the event of a wildfire, stream shading and temperature 

would possibly be affected negatively; that is, a decrease in shading from burned riparian areas 

would lead to an increase in stream temperature.

Table 4: Alternative 1 - Equivalent roaded area modeling results

7th field Watershed Name Current ERA risk 

ratios

ERA Risk Ratios 

with future wildfire

Upper Humbug Creek 0.30 0.78

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.29 0.65

Clear Creek 0.35 0.76

Lower Humbug 0.15 0.94

Greenhorn Creek 0.68 1.04

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.23 0.24

Long Gulch 0.27 0.77

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek1 0.13 0.85

Cumulative Effects

Past actions are accounted for in the affected environment description and Table 2 through Table 

4. The ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the potential for positive or 

negative effects to sediment, temperature, or peak flow are the Yreka Flood Hazard Reduction 

project, the Lower Yreka Creek Full Restoration project and Side Channel project, the City of 

 1 Data are not available for Rocky Gulch so it is assumed that this 7th field watershed is similar enough to Long 

Gulch that data for that watershed are used as a starting point. The effects of the recent Grade Fire in Rocky Gulch 

are added.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

8

Yreka Wildland Urban Interface project, the Soap Creek Fuelbreak Maintenance, and the 

potential fuels reduction on Bureau of Land Management lands (see Appendix C of the 

environmental impact statement for the list of actions considered for cumulative effects).

The fuelbreak projects by the Bureau of Land Management lands (Long Gulch and Rocky 

Gulch-Yreka Creek 7th field watersheds), the City of Yreka Wildland Urban Interface (Rocky 

Gulch-Yreka Creek, Long Gulch, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, Greenhorn and Middle Humbug 7th

field watersheds), and the Soap Creek Fuelbreak Maintenance (Greenhorn Creek 7th field 

watershed) may have minor short-term negative effects on analysis indicators while they are 

being implemented but the treatments performed by these fuel reduction projects will also have 

beneficial effects to the hydrology analysis indicators by reducing negative effects if a fire were 

to occur without the Craggy Project being implemented.

The Yreka Flood Hazard Reduction project, Lower Yreka Creek Full Restoration project and 

Side Channel project will have long-term positive effects on peak flows in Yreka Creek. During 

the implementation of these projects there is likely a small increase in short-term sediment 

delivery to the stream systems. The change in sediment regimes is likely to last only through the 

first winter after implementation. These projects may reduce shade in the short term because of 

the activities proposed in the floodplain. They are also likely to improve conditions over all in 

the long term for Yreka and Greenhorn Creek.

The effects of the above projects are taken in account within the equivalent roaded area model 

runs (Table 4). Excluding the event of wildfire (the equivalent roaded condition model does not 

actually predict probabilities of stochastic events that cannot be precisely predicted) the threshold 

of concern is not exceeded in any project watershed, currently or from the cumulative future 

effects of planned projects.

Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to the effects of other projects is not likely to produce 

significant cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

The following effects from project activities will be mitigated by implementation of project 

design features and best management practices (see Chapter 2 and Appendix D respectively of 

the environmental impact statement). Project design features and best management practices are 

used to prevent or minimize negative effects to the extent that is possible and there are ones in 

place that are specific to protecting various indicators for water quality.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects include loss of ground cover, compaction and displacement of soil, and loss of 

canopy cover. Indirectly, loss of cover and displacement in the form of rutting can lead to surface 

runoff and erosion of soil surface layers. More information on the effects of this alternative on 

soil compaction and displacement are provided in the Soil Resource Report.

Periodic review of research on the effect of streamside buffers has found consistent results in 

terms of maintaining water quality (Castelle et al. 1994, Fischer and Fischenich 2000). Forest 

floors present a relatively high resistance to shallow surface flow. Contiguous buffers of any 

vegetative type, of about 100 feet will remove 80 to 90 percent of nutrient and sediment load, 

largely through resistance and dispersal of the transporting sheet wash.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

9

Loss of canopy cover can increase evaporation because of shading reduction, but research has 

shown the greater effect is in fact a decrease in transpiration, leading to increased soil moisture 

(Jones 2000). While increased soil moisture increases soil weight, and under the right conditions 

it can lead to landslips, a more typical response is an increase in small peak flows, often in the 

autumn months, with recurrence intervals of well under one year (Grant et al. 2008). However, 

the amount of canopy reduction needed for measureable gain in peak flows in areas that have 

transient snow cover is a minimum of greater than 20 percent of the watershed.

There is also evidence that canopy reduction from uplands can lead to increased runoff during 

snow melt, both in total yield and peak flow (Troendle and King 1987, Burton 1997, Troendle et 

al. 2001). Open spaces frequently accumulate greater snow depth on the ground than a forest 

canopy by exposing less of it to solar radiation and wind (Geddes et al. 2005, Musselman et al.

2008). The canopy structure spreads snowfall over a greater surface area than it would occupy on 

the ground below. Also, the larger proportion of snow melt occurs while soil temperatures are

cold enough to suppress plant activity and transpiration. Again these effects evidently require at 

least 20 percent or more of the total watershed canopy removed (Grant et al. 2008).

Over the past century paired catchment studies, many in the Pacific Northwest, have been 

conducted detailing impacts of canopy reduction on stream flow. These studies have been 

reviewed, with progressively more cases (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Stednick 1996, Brown et al. 

2005, Grant et al. 2008). These reviews have come to similar conclusions summarized as 

follows:

• Reducing cover has the greatest effect to increased runoff;

• However, canopy reduction of less than 20 percent does not typically have a measureable 

effect;

• Effects are greatest in runoff months; and

• Effect are greatest for small peaks with recurrence intervals of much less than 1 year.

The total canopy reduction in the Craggy Project watersheds, after project implementation, 

which may be approximated by the percent equivalent roaded area, is between 1.9 and 4.75

percent if no wildfire should occur; this is well below the level typical to initiate changes in peak 

flow or yield.

The equivalent roaded area method of the cumulative watershed effects modeling process 

provides an accurate, if proxy, estimate of canopy reduction and thus of primary project effects 

to hydrology. In both logging systems (ground-based and skyline) there would be a certain 

amount of disturbed ground adjacent to felled trees and their subsequent cabling along skid trails 

or cable corridors, though the effects will likely be of less intensity for cable corridors than for 

ground-based systems which has the potential to become sediment. It is also possible that 

amount of traveled ground in ground-based units would exceed the initial planning. Tepp (2002)

showed in research from northeast Washington that supplemental skid trails are necessary when 

planned travel corridors were at 130 foot intervals, and the end result was little different than 

corridors set at 40 foot intervals, although detrimental disturbance is likely much less on 

supplemental corridors, and less likely to become sediment in streams, because of fewer passes.

The main objective for watershed project design features in regards to logging operations is to 

maintain integrity of the riparian reserves and connected network of small zero-order draws and 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

10

swales that may be only ephemeral in nature. As displayed in the project design features in

chapter 2 of the environmental impact statement, yarding of logs will completely avoid perennial 

channels and cross only intermittent channels at designated channels. Swales and small draws 

will not be used for yarding routes, nor approached closer than 20 feet except for purpose of 

crossing. Landings will not be constructed in riparian reserves, nor existing landings used that 

are less than 50 feet from a stream. Implementation of these project design features will 

minimize or eliminate negative effects to water quality.

The effects of the project on shade (and therefore, stream temperature) will be very minimal. 

Units within riparian reserves mentioned in Table A-1 of Appendix A have been assessed by the

district hydrologist; it was determined that these riparian reserves could benefit from project 

activities (thinning or fuel reduction). Aquatic conservation strategy objectives would be 

maintained or restored in these riparian reserves, and there will be no negative effect to shade 

since buffer width will be applied as indicated in this table.

Not all activities currently being proposed within riparian reserves have currently been assessed 

by a district hydrologist. In these cases, either standard Forest Plan riparian reserve widths will 

be applied (300 feet on each side of fish-bearing perennial streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing 

perennial streams and intermittent streams) or, if it is determined that treatment within outer 

portions of these riparian reserves will be beneficial to aquatic conservation strategy objectives 

and have no effect to shade, modified riparian reserve buffer and equipment exclusion zones will 

be fully divulged in the application for Waiver coverage under the 2015 Waiver. Such sitespecific recommendations will only decrease treatment unit size over their existing extent; no 

increases will be proposed.

Shade has been measured on several streams within active treatment units (see Table A-1 of 

Appendix A). Equipment exclusion and no cut boundaries have been set at distances that will 

eliminate any reduction in shade to streams. As mentioned above, several treatment units which 

are within or very near (with some mapping error) riparian reserves have not yet been assessed. 

In these cases either of these two scenarios will be implemented:

1. Forest Plan, riparian reserve widths of 300 feet for perennial fish bearing streams, or 150 

feet for perennial (non-fish bearing) and intermittent streams.

2. In riparian reserves not meeting desired conditions for shade or vegetation composition, 

the outer portions may be treated by hand thinning or thinning from below. Equipment 

exclusion and no cut buffers will be set to prevent removal of shade, and those locations

(along with the precise buffer widths) will be divulged within the application for 

coverage under the 2015 Waiver.

Effects of treatment of legacy sediment sites as required by the 2015 Waiver for total maximum 

daily load implementation will be as follows.

The effects to in-stream sediment will be significant and positive from addressing the legacy 

sediment sites in the watersheds. Approximately 29,200 cubic yards of potential sediment will be 

treated through the implementation of a legacy sediment site treatment plan in compliance with 

the 2015 Waiver. This plan will treat 78 of the 293 legacy sites (but more than one-half of the 

total potential sediment from all legacy sites in the project area) by stormproofing and hydrologic 

stabilization.

Stormproofing will involve all or some of the following activities:
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

11

• Installation of critical dips over stream crossings to eliminate diversion potentials.

• Replacement of undersized culverts.

• Outsloping to restore natural drainage patters.

• Installation of rolling dips to restore natural drainage patterns.

• Maintenance or removal of inboard ditches and cross drains.

• Spot rocking and surface hardening.

• Fill reduction over culverts.

• Any other action necessary to reduce the risk of water quality degradation from human 

caused sediment sources.

Hydrologic stabilization of unauthorized routes and mining related structures:

• Removal of all fill from stream crossings.

• Redirection of diverted springs.

• Stabilization of sliver fill failures on over-steepened road fill.

• Significant outsloping of old road surfaces enough to restore nearly natural drainage 

patterns.

• Removal of old culverts.

• Any other actions necessary to reduce the risk of water quality degradation from road 

sediment and fills.

The legacy site treatment plan will not be finalized until after enrolled under the 2015 Waiver, 

which will take place soon after the Record of Decision is signed. Hydrologic stabilization 

indicated on Figure 2 and stormproofing on 46N22 and 45N39 are certain; however, the other 

roads indicated on Figure 2 as “potential stormproofing” are less certain. Seventy-eight legacy 

sediment sites will be treated in compliance with the 2015 Waiver. However, the Waiver allows 

for trading of those legacy sites for those that are higher risk within the larger planning boundary 

of a project (or adjacent HUC12 watershed). Though not finalized, this is the Forest’s plan for 

compliance with the Waiver requirements for legacy site treatment. Roughly 50 legacy sites will 

be treated via hydrologic stabilization. The rest of the required legacy sites (roughly 28) will be 

treated via stormproofing two or more sections of the roads indicated as such on this map.

Modeled equivalent roaded area results for Alternative 2 are displayed in Table 5. Please see the 

discussion under Alternative 3 for the results for the equivalent roaded area model that was run 

using a modeled wildfire scenario.

Table 5: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Results for Alternative 2 (in acres)

7th field Watershed Name ERAs added by Alternative 2 Total ERAs for Alternative 2

Upper Humbug Creek 292 519

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 55 200

Clear Creek 88 189
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

12

7th field Watershed Name ERAs added by Alternative 2 Total ERAs for Alternative 2

Lower Humbug 71 196

Greenhorn Creek 34 508

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 16 210

Long Gulch 20 104

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 8 39

Cumulative Effects

Only in the Lower Humbug 7th field watershed are ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future 

actions expected to result in any cumulative effects for the Craggy Project. Therefore, risk ratios 

are the same as for direct and indirect effects for all other 7th field watersheds as displayed on 

Table 6.

The effects are the same for Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1 from ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. These projects will not measurably increase the magnitude of effects 

to water quality when added to actions in Alternative 2 from the Craggy Project.

Table 6: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 2

7th field Watershed Name ERA risk ratios for Alternative 2 from direct 

and indirect effects and past actions and events

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 2 when the 

effects of ongoing and future actions are added

Upper Humbug Creek 0.68 0.68

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.40 0.40

Clear Creek 0.65 0.65

Lower Humbug 0.24 0.26

Greenhorn Creek 0.73 0.73

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.25 0.25

Long Gulch 0.34 0.34

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.16 0.16

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative was developed in response to concerns related to hazardous fuels reduction 

adjacent to private lands and sediment displacement resulting from log-haul and road 

construction. For a description of the differences between alternatives, see Chapter 2 of the

environmental impact statement.

The direct and indirect effects from project activities would be the same generally, as for 

Alternative 2 as displayed in Table 7. Legacy site treatment would not change between 

alternatives because the same requirements from the 2015 Waiver apply to both action 

alternatives because the alternatives have a very similar overall footprint. At least 29,200 cubic 

yards of potential sediment will be removed.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

13

Table 7: Equivalent Roaded Area Model Results for Alternative 3

7th field Watershed Name ERAs added by Alternative 3 Total ERAs for Alternative 3

Upper Humbug Creek 248 475

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 36 181

Clear Creek 76 178

Lower Humbug 57 182

Greenhorn Creek 34 508

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 10 204

Long Gulch 18 102

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 8 39

Cumulative Effects

As for Alternative 2, only in the Lower Humbug 7th field watershed are ongoing and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions expected to result in any cumulative effects for Alternative 3 of the 

Craggy Project. Therefore, risk ratios are the same as for direct and indirect effects for all other 

7th field watersheds as displayed on Table 8.

Table 8: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 3

7th field Watershed Name

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 3 

from direct and indirect effects and 

past actions and events

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 3 

including effects of ongoing and 

reasonable foreseeable actions

Upper Humbug Creek 0.62 0.62

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.36 0.36

Clear Creek 0.61 0.61

Lower Humbug 0.22 0.24

Greenhorn Creek 0.73 0.73

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.24 0.24

Long Gulch 0.33 0.34

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.16 0.16

Comparison of Alternatives

The wildfire scenario was run with Alternative 3 vegetation thinning treatments considered as 

described in the methodology. Risk ratios modeled as equivalent roaded area acres from 

treatments on potential fire severity were reduced in the watersheds by an average of at least 20 

percent from what they would be without treatment; this indicates that risk from the effects of 

wildfire is less after treatment than in the event of a wildfire without treatment. The exercise was 

not repeated for Alternative 2 because of the relative similarity of the two action alternatives and 

because Alternative 3 would treat more acres than Alternative 2. It is assumed that the results 

will be similar for Alternative 3 as for Alternative 2. Effects on mass wasting (using the GEO 

cumulative watershed effects model) and one soil erosion (using the universal soil loss equation 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

14

(USLE) model) are similar to those modeled as ERA (see the tables on the project website). 

Table 10 displays the changes in risk ratios results for each watershed under the future wildfire 

scenario.

Table 9: Comparison of Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Risk Ratios for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

7th field Watershed Name ERA risk ratios for 

Alternative 1

ERA risk ratios for 

Alternative 2

ERA risk ratios for 

Alternative 3

Upper Humbug Creek 0.30 0.68 0.62

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.29 0.40 0.36

Clear Creek 0.35 0.65 0.61

Lower Humbug 0.15 0.24 0.22

Greenhorn Creek 0.68 0.73 0.73

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.23 0.25 0.24

Long Gulch 0.27 0.34 0.33

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.13 0.16 0.16

Table 10: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Model Results Due to Wildfire for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 under 

the Wildfire Scenario

7th field Watershed Name ERA risk ratios under wildfire scenario 

for Alternative 1

ERA risk ratios under wildfire scenario 

for Alternative 2 or 3

Upper Humbug Creek 0.78 0.26

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.65 0.04

Clear Creek 0.76 0.25

Lower Humbug 0.94 0.06

Greenhorn Creek 1.04 0.03

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.24 0.01

Long Gulch 0.77 0.05

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.85 0.03

The thresholds for canopy removal that would actually result in measureable changes to peak 

flow regime are far in excess of the project proposals, as well as the cumulative total of those 

proposals with current conditions and foreseeable future management (see Appendix C of the 

environmental impact statement for a description of foreseeable future impacts). The result of 

equivalent roaded area modeling is that no more than 4.75 percent total canopy would be 

removed in any watershed in the analysis area with implementation of action alternatives 

(Alternatives 2 or 3). Vegetation manipulation effects are short term as re-growth occurs and in 

some cases exceeds pre-project levels. Canopy cover for Alternative 1 is expected to remain the 

same or increase due to natural growth without the event of a wildfire. It is expected to decrease 

in the event of a wildfire.

Riparian reserve buffers have minor effects on flow regime, they are effective in preventing

some amount of erosion that would occur in their absence. Stream shading is an important factor 

in maintaining water temperatures, and will be maintained despite some activities in riparian 

reserves. Project design features that minimize negative effects to analysis indicators, including 
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

15

those related to management of riparian reserves, are displayed in chapter 2 of the environmental 

impact statement.

Fine grain, largely suspended sediment from road runoff will continue, and is probably the 

largest component of negative direct effects on water quality (Bilby et al. 1989, Luce and Black 

1999, Sugden and Woods 2007). The availability of material to move from roads is strongly and 

positively correlated to traffic and maintenance level and so is impossible to dis-entangle from 

the need for roads to access resources. Addressing legacy sediment sites will reduce sediment 

from roads, either by stabilizing potential fill and cut slope failures that constitute potential mass 

wasting or attending through maintenance to minor issues such as rills on the road surface from 

small seeps.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan

The conditions in the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges 

Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands in the 

North Coast Region are met for this project as mentioned in the above report. Details about 

compliance including legacy site treatment plan and no effect to shade determination and 

complete cumulative watershed effects modeling results will be included in the application for 

coverage under the 2015 Waiver. Meeting the Waiver requirements equals compliance with the 

Clean Water Act. Forest Plan standards are met by consistency with the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy (Appendix F of the environmental impact statement) and the Forest Plan Consistency 

Checklist, available on the project website.

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines, management areas and practices, and the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy, provide guidance for maintaining water quality. The primary mechanism 

for protecting aquatic resources within the framework of the Klamath Forest Plan are riparian 

reserves.

A waiver from the State Water Board addresses nonpoint source pollutants from activities 

associated with specific uses of National Forest System lands. Most of the potential water quality 

impacts are associated with erosion and sediment delivery or alterations to riparian systems that 

may reduce shade and affect water temperatures (North Coast Region Water Quality Control 

Board (Regional Water Board) 2015).

The waiver also requires that all active and potential legacy sediment sites be identified, 

prioritized, and scheduled for treatment, for all Category B projects which include vegetation 

management. Site‐specific activities covered under the Waiver must implement on‐the‐ground 

prescriptions to meet best management practices goals to avoid water quality impacts.

The Forest Plan (1995) incorporates elements from the Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (1994, also known as the Northwest Forest Plan). The Craggy Project is in 

compliance with stated goals of the Forest Plan that are relevant to hydrology: achieve water 

quality through best management practices, and provide instream flows of sufficient quality to 

support riparian area and aquatic habitat.

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives from the Forest Plan as it regards this project are

discussed in more detail in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy report, in Appendix F of the 

environmental impact statement.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

16

Incorporation of best management practices through project design features satisfies conditions 

of the waiver for non-point pollution with the Regional Water Board, and provides a measure of 

protection from excessive sediment delivery to perennial waterways, and maintenance of water 

temperature. Design of projects to watersheds so that thresholds of impacts to runoff are well 

above actual project effects is the principal means of maintaining overall integrity of aquatic 

systems for habitat, water quality and functional passage of floods.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

17

Literature Cited

Bell, A. 2012. Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling: The Abridged Version. Prepared for the 

Klamath National Forest.

Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The Generating and Fate of Road-Surface 

Sediment in forested Watersheds in Southwestern Washington. Forest Science 35(2) 453-

468.

Bosch, J.M., and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect 

of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology (55) 3-

23.

Brown, A.E., L. Zhang, T.A. McMahon, A.W. Western, and R.A. Vertessy. 2005. A review of 

paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations 

in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology. 310: 28-61

Burton, T.A. 1997. Effects of basin-scale timber harvest on water yield and peak streamflow.

Journal of the American Water Resources Association. (33)6 1187-1196.

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size 

requirements—A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882

de la Fuente, J., and D. Elder. 1998. The flood of 1997 Klamath National Forest Phase I Final 

Report: November 24, 1998. Yreka, CA.

Fischer, R.A., and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Design recommendations for riparian corridors and 

vegetated buffer strips. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Design Center. ERDC-TNEMRRP-SR-24.

Geddes, C.A., D.A. Brown, and D.B. Fagre. 2005. Topography and vegetation as predictors of 

snow water equivalent across the alpine treeline ecotone at lee ridge, Glacier National 

Park, Montana, U.S.A. 37(2): 197-205

Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest practices 

on peakflows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon and 

Washington. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, GTR-760. Reston, VA.

Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, J.T. Krygier, and F.S. Hsieh. 1975. Changes to Storm Hydrographs 

after Roadbuilding and Clearcutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources 

Research11 436-444.

Jones, J.A. 2000. Hydrologic Processes and Peak Discharge Response to Forest Removal, 

Regrowth, and Roads in 10 Small Experimental Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water 

Resources Research. 36(9) 2621-2642.

Luce, C.H., and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from forest Roads in Western Oregon. 

Water Resources Research 35(8) 2561-2570.

Musselman, K.N., N.P. Molotch, and P.D. Brooks. 2008. Effects of vegetation on snow 

accumulation and ablation in a mid-latitude sub-alpine forest. Hydrological Processes 22. 

2767-2776, published online 21 April 2008 in Wiley InterScience.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

18

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). 2011. Water 

Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region. California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board, North Coast Region. Santa Rosa, CA.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). 2015. Order No. 

R1-2015-0021, Waiver of Waste Discharge for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to 

Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands in the 

North Coast Region. Santa Rosa, CA.

State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2012. California Integrated Report

sections 303(d) and 305(b) Staff Report dated April 8, 2015.

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology. 176: 79-95.

Sugden, B.D., and S.W. Woods. 2007. Sediment Production for Forest Roads in Western 

Montana. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43(1) 193-206.

Tepp, J.S. 2002. Assessing Visual Soil disturbance on eight Commercially Thinned Sites in 

Northeastern Washington.

Troendle, C.A., and R.M. King. 1987. The effect of partial and clearcutting on streamflow at 

Deadhorse Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology (90) 145-157.

Troendle, C.A., M.S. Wilcox, G.S. Bevenger, and L.S. Porth. 2001. The Coon Creek water yield 

augmentation project: implementation of timber harvesting technology to increase 

streamflow. Forest Ecology and Management (143) 179-187.

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, C.H. Luce, and I.J. Larsen. 2010. Cumulative Watershed 

Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States, Chapter 7, Fuel Management 

and Water Yield. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General 

Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-231.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Humbug Landscape Analysis, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents 

within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Response Reaches Stream Monitoring Field Guide, Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Sediment and temperature monitoring plan and quality assurance 

project plan, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Stream Shade Monitoring on the Klamath National Forest, 2010. 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2012a. Stream temperature monitoring on the 

Klamath National Forest: 2010 - 2011. Yreka, CA.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

19

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2012b. Road Sediment Source Inventory and 

Risk Assessment. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2013. Stream sediment monitoring on the 

Klamath National Forest 2009 - 2012. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2016. Streambed Sediment Conditions on the 

Klamath National Forest, 2009 - 2015. Yreka, CA.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

20

Appendix A – Riparian Reserve Treatments

Units within riparian reserves mentioned in this table have been assessed by a district hydrologist 

and determined that these riparian reserves could benefit from project activities: thinning or fuel 

reduction. Aquatic conservation strategy objectives would be maintained or restored in these 

riparian reserves, and there will be no negative effect to shade if buffer width is applied as 

indicated in this table.

Not all activities currently being proposed within riparian reserves (RR) have currently been 

assessed by a district hydrologist. In these cases, either standard Forest Plan riparian reserve 

widths will be applied (300 feet for fish bearing perennial streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing 

perennial streams and intermittent streams), or if it is determined that treatment within outer 

portions of these riparian reserves will be beneficial to aquatic conservation strategy objectives 

and have no effect to shade, modified riparian reserve buffer and equipment exclusion zones will 

be fully divulged in the application for Waiver coverage under the 2015 Waiver. Such site 

specific recommendations will only decrease treatment unit size.

Table A-1: Riparian Reserve Treatments

Unit Prescription System Stand type Water 

feature Shade

Riparian 

Reserve 

Buffer

Equipment 

exclusion Comments

137-6 Thin from 

below Skyline Natural Intermittent 

streams 86% 100' 100'

Middle intermittent stream 

in unit is not a stream, no 

annual scour or 

deposition. Buffered 

intermittent streams on 

either side of middle

134-145 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation

Perennial 

and 

intermittent 

stream

98% 100' 100'

134-240 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based 

and PCT

Plantation

Perennial 

and 

intermittent 

stream

91%

100' 

intermittent, 

150' perennial 

stream

100'

134-39 Thin from 

below

Skyline 

and PCT Natural

Intermittent 

stream to 

Humbug 

Creek

96% 100' 100'

134-38 Thin from 

below Skyline Natural Intermittent stream 90% 100' 100' Intermittent stream is the boundary on one side

134-83 Thin from 

below

Skyline 

and 

Ground 

Based

Plantation Headwaters 95% 100' 100'

134-33 Thin from 

below Skyline Natural Intermittent 

headwaters NA NA NA

Could not find a channel, 

only found inner gorges, 

no riparian reserve 

restrictions

134-34 Thin from 

below Skyline Plantation Intermittent stream 88% 75' 75'

Elmo Gulch headwaters75' riparian reserve 

buffer, not less than 50' 

or break in slope.
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

21

Unit Prescription System Stand type Water 

feature Shade

Riparian 

Reserve 

Buffer

Equipment 

exclusion Comments

134-2 Thin from 

below Skyline Natural Intermittent 

stream 92% 50' 50'

134-83 Thin from 

below

Skyline 

and 

Ground 

based

Plantation Intermittent 

stream 91% 100' 100'

Intermittent stream North 

and South, both with 100' 

riparian reserve buffer 

and 100' equipment 

exclusion zone.

134-41 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Perennial Stream 89% 100' 50'

136-18 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Intermittent 

stream 95% 50' 50'

136-57 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Intermittent stream 91% 50' 50'

136-24 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Intermittent 

stream 88% 50' 50'

136-26 Thin from 

below

PCT and 

Ground 

Based

Natural NA NA NA NA

No stream channel found, 

no riparian reserve 

restriction

138-12 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Natural

Perennial 

and 

intermittent 

stream

90%

100 

intermittent 

150' Perennial

100'

Riparian reserve buffer 

for intermittent channel is 

100' and 150' for 

perennial

138-1 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Natural Intermittent stream 91% 100' 100'

138-151 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based natural Intermittent stream 93% 100' 100'

138-532 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Intermittent stream 40' currently

134-70

Manual Thin, 

Handpile 

Brush and 

Trees <10"

PCT Plantation Intermittent 

stream

0' on southern 

stream, 20' on 

northern by 

maps

134-250 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Perennial Stream 60' then 0'

134-29

Manual Thin, 

Handpile 

Brush and 

Trees <10"

PCT Plantation

Not mapped 

as 

intermittent 

stream 

(ephemeral) 

but has 

riparian 

reserve

0

134-27 Thin from 

below Skyline Natural

Not mapped 

as 

intermittent 

stream 

(ephemeral) 

but has 

riparian 

reserve

0
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

22

Unit Prescription System Stand type Water 

feature Shade

Riparian 

Reserve 

Buffer

Equipment 

exclusion Comments

134-244

Manual Thin, 

Handpile 

Brush and 

Trees <10"

PCT Plantation Intermittent 

stream 0

134-31 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Perennial Stream 70' on map

136-22 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Intermittent stream 0

136-47 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Intermittent stream 0'-50' on map

136-146 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Perennial 

Stream

County road is 

boundary (50-

75')

Likely no effect to shade 

because unit is on the cut 

bank side of a county 

road.

136-145 Thin from 

below

Ground 

Based Plantation Perennial 

Stream

County road is 

boundary (50-

75') mostly 75'

Likely no effect to shade 

because unit is on the 

other side of a county 

road.

138-53

Manual Thin, 

Handpile 

Brush and 

Trees <10"

PCT Natural Perennial 

Stream

50'-100' on 

map Probably mis-mapped
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

23

Appendix B – Maps of Legacy Sites

Figure B-1: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 1 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

24

Figure B-2: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 2 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

25

Figure B-3: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 3 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

26

Figure B-4: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all 293 Project Area Legacy Sites-page 4 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

27

Figure B-5: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 1 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

28

Figure B-6: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 2 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

29

Figure B-7: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 3 of 4
Hydrology Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

30

Figure B-8: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 4 of 4