Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange -...

United States Forest Service Department of Agriculture

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange

Trinity River and South Fork Management Units Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Trinity County, California

August 2009

Photo of the French Ranch Looking Northward at the South Fork of the Trinity River

Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange Environmental Assessment – August 2009

For information contact: Stephanie McKee

Trinity River Management Unit P.O. Box 1190 360 Main St.

Weaverville, CA 96093

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9401, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

i


ii – Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Table of Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT........................................................................... 1

For information contact: ................................................................................................. i

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Parcel Descriptions: ..................................................................................................... 1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................. 2 Background ................................................................................................................. 2 Federal Parcel.............................................................................................................. 3 French Ranch (non-Federal) Parcel ............................................................................. 4 Cold Creek (non-Federal) Parcel.................................................................................. 5 Regulations (40 CFR 1500)........................................................................................... 5 Forest Service Policy .................................................................................................... 6 Forest Plan Compliance ............................................................................................... 6

DECISION TO BE MADE................................................................................................. 6

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................ 7 Issues recognized included during scoping included the following:................................ 7

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 8 Alternative 1 (No Action). ............................................................................................ 8 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). .................................................................................. 9 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study ................................... 10 Alternative 3 (Direct Purchase). ................................................................................. 11

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 11

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, Effects Relative to Resources Affected ............ 12 BOTANY................................................................................................................... 12 HYDROLOGY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES......................................................... 14 FISHERIES ............................................................................................................... 15 WILDLIFE................................................................................................................ 19 MINERALS............................................................................................................... 22 HERITAGE RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 22 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................................... 23 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY .................................................. 23

CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION RELATIVE TO SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS ........................................................................................... 23

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................... 25

APPENDIX A - Maps ...................................................................................................... 28

APPENDIX B – Migratory Bird Report ........................................................................... 32

APPENDIX C – Response to Comments Table ................................................................. 33


INTRODUCTION This environmental assessment (EA) documents the results of a site-specific analysis concerning the proposal to exchange lands between the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Stephen Hagen of Hagen & Sons Timber Co., Inc. of Weaverville, CA. The EA discusses why the project is needed, the issues of concern, the existing condition of the project area, and the expected consequences of the alternatives, including a “no action” alternative.

This land exchange is proposed under the authority of the General Exchange Act of March 20, the Functions Transfer Act of June 11, 1960, the Federal Land Policy Management Act of Oct. 21, 1976, as amended; and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988.

PROPOSED ACTION The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is proposing to exchange Federal land in the Weaverville area for private lands along the South Fork of the Trinity River. The 140 acres of Federal (National Forest System) land proposed for exchange is within the Trinity River Management Unit, north of Highway 299, and west of Weaver Bally road within the burned area of the August 2001 Oregon Fire. There are two parcels of private land proposed for exchange to be acquired along the South Fork of the Trinity River, a designated “Wild and Scenic River.” The “French Ranch” parcel is 110 acres (the non-Federal land) located 6 miles south of Hyampom, approximately 2 miles west of Limedyke Mountain. The second non-Federal land parcel, called “Cold Creek”, is 65.97 acres in size and located about 2 miles north (downstream) of the French Ranch parcel. Maps of the Federal and non-Federal are located in Appendix A.

The lands are in areas identified for possible exchange in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Land Adjustment Guide. The proposed exchange would be on the basis of equal value (not on an acre-for-acre basis) which is determined by an appraisal of all parcels involved. Should the values of Federal land and non-Federal land be unequal, the amount of lands could be adjusted on either side, a cash equalization can be paid by either party up to 25% of the value of the Federal parcel, or the owner could voluntarily accept a lesser value for his land.

Stephen Hagen of Hagen & Sons Timber Co., Inc. (the proponent) approached the Forest Service with a proposal to exchange his land for Federal land within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. A mutually beneficial exchange was crafted by agreement of both parties. In order to determine values of both the Federal and non-Federal lands, a California licensed appraiser prepared an appraisal that is being reviewed by the Forest Service. Below are descriptions of the Federal lands and the Hagen lands to be exchanged.

Parcel Descriptions:

Non-Federal Parcels:

PARCEL ONE (Cold Creek):

Township 2 North, Range 6 East, Humboldt Meridian. Section 11, Lot 4 and E ½ SW ¼ SE ¼ APN: 016-010-14.

Shasta-Trinity National Forest – 1


PARCEL TWO (French Ranch): Township 2 North, Range 6 East, Humboldt Meridian, Section 25, E ½ NE ¼ SW ¼, NE ¼ SE ¼ SW ¼, NW ¼ SW ¼ SE ¼, S ½ N ½ NW ¼ SE ¼, South ½ NE ¼ NW ¼ NE ¼, E ½ SW ¼ NE ¼, S ½ NW ¼ SE ¼, SE ¼ NW ¼ NE ¼, N ½ NE ¼ NW ¼ SE ¼. APN: 016-959-07 There are no reserved rights on the private parcels.

Federal Parcel:

Township 2 North, Range 10West, Mount Diablo Meridian Section 1, W½ SE ¼ SW ¼, SW ¼ SW ¼, S ½ NW ¼ SW ¼, SW ¼ NE ¼ SW ¼; Section 2, SE ¼ SE ¼, SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼. The Federal parcel will have a reserved right-of-way for Sidney Gulch road to Sierra Pacific Industries and to the U.S.A. The U.S.A. will reserve a right-of-way for the Greasy Loop trail (part of the Weaver Basin Trail system) newly constructed on the parcel. Also, there will be language in the deed similar to the following: “a right of way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States” in order to protect any ditch rights on the parcel.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The analysis in this assessment responds to an offer from Stephen Hagen of Hagen & Sons Timber Co., Inc. to exchange 175.97 acres of property he currently owns within the South Fork Trinity River corridor, south of Hyampom, California, for 140 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land northwest of Weaverville, California. When considering lands for exchange the Forest Service follows criteria designed to improve its ability to manage NFS lands for efficiency and public benefit as described in the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This exchange would consolidate National Forest ownership in the South Fork Trinity River area by acquiring the non-Federal parcels.

The purpose of consolidation is to protect the French Ranch and Cold Creek parcels from development, prevent future access road development, provide additional protection of the South Fork of the Trinity River (a designated Wild and Scenic River), reduce land line costs, and consolidate National Forest ownership to provide for more efficient management.

The purpose of exchanging out of the Federal land parcel is to provide for expansion of the Weaverville area residential land base by increasing the amount of potentially developable land and, to place in private ownership, a parcel that is less suited for National Forest management due to its adjacency to existing private development. As the town of Weaverville continues to grow, the potential for unauthorized uses on the adjacent National Forest also increases. Common problems include illegal off-highway vehicle use, dumping of trash, and long-term occupancy.

Background

Pictures of the parcels proposed for this land exchange are provided in the following section:

2 – Shasta-Trinity National Forest


Federal Parcel

Since the Oregon fire, the USFS has replanted and in 2004 began completing fuels treatments such as cutting the dead trees, piling and pile burning. Within the 140 acres, some regeneration occurs of grass, forbs and brush species (picture #2). The private land immediately south was developed into 1-2 acre home sites. To the east lies Trinity High School and north and west is private land ownership.

Picture #2 was taken in September 2007. Some grass, forbs, hardwood, and brush regeneration is becoming obvious within the burned over area.



French Ranch (non-Federal) Parcel

This photo shows the South Fork of the Trinity River at French Ranch.

Looking southward at the first of two historically farmed areas of the French Ranch homestead. This area is on the east side of the river.

French Ranch – this photo is looking westward at the site of the ranch buildings and cultivated area. Most of the remnants of the old structures were destroyed when the meadow burned in the fires in 2008.

Looking north at the SF Trinity River from the French Ranch parcel.



Cold Creek (non-Federal) Parcel

Area on the lower (western) portion of the Cold Creek parcel. The parcel is intersected by the South Fork of the Trinity River.

Area in central portion of the Cold Creek parcel. Grassy areas with scattered conifers. Helicopter yarded timber removed in 2004.

Central portion of the Cold Creek parcel. Open areas of shallow soils with hardwoods. Some evidence of timber harvesting.

Area located on the upper (eastern) portion of the Cold Creek parcel.

Regulations (40 CFR 1500)

This area of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) includes the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 1502.16 outlines effects that must be disclosed. Section 1508.7 defines "cumulative impacts." Based on these references, effects of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes them, must be disclosed. The analysis initiated through the NEPA process provides the framework for determining the effects of the proposed land exchange. Impacts associated with the exchange and related activities, plus all other cumulative actions within the project area will be considered with the analysis.




Forest Service Policy

General policy for landownership modification includes:

Exchange out of the National Forest System lands that have lost their National Forest character or are no longer suitable for National Forest purposes

Complete land-for-land exchanges to consolidate National Forest System lands and private…land patterns; to permit needed urban or industrial expansion; or to make other adjustments in landownership that the Forest Service deems to be in the public interest.

Forest Plan Compliance

The Forest Plan Land Adjustment Guide identifies the Federal parcel in Theme Area T-6, whereby land exchanges in this area will be on an opportunity basis based on environmental analysis and management direction. The Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) shows the Federal parcel as being located in Management Area #7, the Weaverville/Lewiston Management Area. The management prescription for this parcel is for “Roaded Recreation” of the Matrix Lands within the Weaverville Adaptive Management Area. Supplemental management direction for this Management Area states, make National Forest land available for established community expansion when there is evidence that the land is needed and suited for that use and it does not conflict with a higher purpose. Over the course of the last two decades, the Forest Service has traded out of lands along Highway 299 and along Weaver Bally road in the same vicinity. In this case, the Federal parcel is a logical next step in the expansion of the town to the west. Adjacent lands have been developed into residential areas and the County is requesting permanent easement on Weaver Bally road going north to facilitate orderly development.

The Forest Plan’s Land Adjustment Guide shows the non-Federal parcels as “Type 4.” Type 4 lands are “Lands High Priority to Acquire.”1 Acquisition of parcels along the South Fork Trinity River in this area will contribute to the goal of preventing incompatible uses and promoting special resource management goals of Wild and Scenic River management and protection of the fishery. The quality of the habitat at and near the river makes these parcels highly desirable. The intrinsic values here: scenery, outstanding fish habitat, and lack of development make these parcels excellent additions to the National Forest.

DECISION TO BE MADE The decision is to be made in two parts. First, a determination on whether the public interest is well served by this exchange proposal shall be made. Second, the decision to be made is whether or not to implement the project described as the proposed action, and if so, under what conditions. The Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, has the authority to make this decision.

1 Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Land Adjustment Guide, a supplemental map, 1994.



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A scoping letter for the proposed project was mailed September 12, 2006, to thirty-nine individuals and organizations collectively that were expected to have interest in the Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange Project. In addition, the notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Record Searchlight, and in the Trinity Journal – a local newspaper. The proposed project was also listed quarterly from September 2006 to September 2008 (8 quarters) in the Schedule of Proposed Environmental Actions, a Shasta-Trinity National Forest publication. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted regarding the proposed action in the scoping process. In addition, members of the interdisciplinary planning team met directly with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast Region) and reviewed the proposed action. Eight responses were received during this scoping period. However, no “significant issues” (issues which identify a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of the proposed action) resulted from these letters.

Issues recognized included during scoping included the following:

Janine Blaeloch, representing the Western Lands Project, requested detailed maps of the parcels involved and information regarding future uses of the parcels.

Resolution of Ms. Blaeloch’s request: Detailed maps of the parcels were provided to Ms. Blaeloch and she was personally contacted via telephone and e-mail by project planner Sam Frink. Ms. Blaeloch stated that she recognizes that others may consider the exchange proposal as controversial, but as Director of Western Lands she has said that her organization will not oppose this exchange.

Jim French, representing the Trinity County Office of Education, indicated strong support for the land exchange proposal citing both the need for developing a residential area and the value of protecting the French Ranch area from future development.

Resolution of Mr. French’s issues would be satisfied with the implementation of the proposed action.

Howard Freeman, representing Trinity County Board of Supervisors, indicated strong support for the land exchange proposal citing the compatibility of the exchange with the Weaverville Community Plan and the Trinity County General Plan.

Resolution of Mr. Freeman’s issues would be satisfied with the implementation of the proposed action.

Mary Reynolds, representing Realty World – Trinity River Realty, expressed her concerns for the values2 of the parcels involved. She indicated that the value of the Federal parcel may be very high due to the opportunity to develop residential parcels.

Resolution of Ms. Reynold’s issue: The proposal is based on an equal value basis, not an acre-for-acre basis. Ms. Reynolds is very knowledgeable of the land values in the Weaverville area and was concerned that the Forest Service would be receiving lands of lesser value than the lands that could eventually be developed for residential uses

2 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (FLPMA) Section 206 (b), requires that properties be equal in value or, if the values are not equal, either party may make them equal by payment of cash not to exceed 25% of the federal value. By law, the Forest Service is not allowed to trade acre for acre, if their values are not equal. Both Parcel A and Parcel B are appraised to their highest and best use based on a State certified appraiser’s professional analysis.


adjacent to Weaverville. Since Federal Policy requires exchanges to be on an assessed value basis, Ms. Reynolds concerns would be resolved with the implementation of the proposed action.

Nancie Loche, a landowner adjacent to the Federal parcel, expressed her concern with the future construction and water rights involving the portion of the Moon Lee Ditch that intersects the Federal parcel.

Resolution of Ms. Loche’s issues: Deed language in the patent deed from the U.S.A. will contain the following exception: “reserved from such lands a right of way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States.” Future construction and maintenance within the Federal Parcel would be changed from National Forest jurisdiction to Trinity County jurisdiction (including subsequent parcel deeded rights and County ordinances/construction codes). The indirect effects of future construction are addressed in this EA (primarily in the fisheries evaluation of the Environmental Consequences section) and the environmental determination indicates a beneficial cumulative effect resulting from proposed action implementation (although landowners adjacent to the Federal parcel would have a new neighbor owning the parcel under County jurisdiction). Water rights would not be affected by the project proposal.

Scott Morris, Chairman of the Weaverville Basin Trail Committee, indicated no opposition to the land exchange providing that a new trail be constructed and maintained to replace the existing trail which currently bisects the Federal parcel.

Resolution of Mr. Morris’ issue would be satisfied with the implementation of the proposed action. A new trail is planned to be constructed along the eastern edge of the Federal parcel. The new trail will have a reserved deeded easement to the U.S.A. for use by the public and for continued maintenance. Outside of the Federal parcel, an extension of the new trail will be constructed to reconnect to the area currently accessed by the existing trail.

Bob Robertson, a landowner near the French Ranch parcel, expressed support for the land exchange citing his desire to prohibit future logging and logging equipment in this area of the South Fork of the Trinity River.

Resolution of Mr. Robertson’s issue would be satisfied with the implementation of the proposed action.

Mary Roberts, representing Weaverville Community Services District (WCSD), provided a letter stating that WCSD is very supportive of this (land) trade and that a new water storage tank may be located on the existing Federal parcel (upon transfer of ownership) to provide ample water storage for domestic use and fire protection for an area of town that currently has none.

Resolution of Ms. Roberts’ issues would be satisfied with the implementation of the proposed action.

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 (No Action).

The No Action alternative provides a point of reference from which to evaluate action alternatives. This alternative would implement no activity at this time, allowing the



existing conditions to remain unchanged. No changes in land ownership would occur. The Federal parcel identified would remain in Federal ownership; the private parcels would remain in private ownership. Land uses would be unchanged and future actions would be guided by the Land Management Plan for the Federal Parcel and according to county zoning and state law for the private parcels.

This alternative does not meet the identified purpose and need to pursue land adjustment opportunities as identified in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).

The Forest Service is proposing to exchange a maximum of 140 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Weaverville area for 175.97 acres of privately-owned lands along the South Fork of the Trinity River called the “French Ranch” and “Cold Creek” parcels. The exchange will be on an equal value basis which is determined by an appraisal of all parcels. Should the values of Federal land and non-Federal land be unequal, the amount of lands could be adjusted on either side, a cash equalization can be paid by either party up to 25% of the value of the Federal parcel, or the owner could voluntarily accept a lesser value for his land.

The Federal land parcel is in an area identified for possible exchange in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Land Adjustment Guide. Previously, lands were exchanged out of Federal ownership in the China Gulch area and Sidney Gulch area (Zabel exchange, 1995) and, in the Ash Hollow area north of the High School (Moores exchange, 1994). Should the lands leave Federal ownership, they could ultimately be developed into single family home sites; the number and acreage to be determined by County zoning. Land in Section 2 would probably fall under the “Open Space” zoning according to the County. Private lands immediately to the south of the Federal parcel were developed into 1-2 acre home sites. The Federal lands were burned over in the Oregon fire and have few surviving large trees. The area has revegetated with grasses, forbs, and brush. The Forest Service has cleaned up some of the burned-over lands by cutting the dead trees and brush and piling for disposal. The parcel is within the boundaries of the 11,000 plus-acre Weaverville Community Forest Stewardship Project, a partnership between the Shasta-Trinity NF and various community groups. This designation does not affect the disposal of lands by the Forest Service within the boundary.

Jurisdiction for uses along the Moon Lee Ditch, a historic and active water conveyance ditch crossing the Federal parcel would change from Forest Service authority to Trinity County authority, as would additional land uses within the existing Federal parcel. The patent deed will have language as follows: “ reserving a right-of-way for the West Weaver Ditch, also known as the Moon Lee Ditch, to Weaverville Community Services District, not of record, under the authority of Section 9, of the Act of July 26, 1866 (30 U.S.C. 51; R.S. 2339)..” This exception in the deed will protect the rights to the ditch now held by the CSD and the water users. As the ditch already exists and is being used and maintained, there will be no change to the use and maintenance should the parcel become private.



The U.S.A. will not reserve any mineral or water rights.

A new trail is being constructed and will be maintained to replace the existing Greasy Loop trail, a part of the Weaver Basin Trail System, within the Federal parcel. The new trail has a separate NEPA decision and analysis – separate from the decision and analysis associated with this Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange Environmental Assessment. The U.S.A. will reserve a right-of-way easement for this trail, which will be used by the public and maintained by the Forest Service. The existing trail was used by hikers, horse riders and mountain bike riders (non-motorized uses). Plans are for the new re-route to be managed as a non-motorized, multi-use trail. The easement will allow the public to access the trail and the Forest Service to manage and maintain the trail. Because the use is on the east edge of the parcel, this public use should not overly impact the rest of the Federal parcel should it change hands.

Also reserved is a right of way to Sierra Pacific (SPI) and to the U.S.A. for Sidney Gulch road that bisects the parcel in the northeast corner. This road is currently gated closed to the public but it is still used for Forest Service administrative traffic as well as available to SPI for use in managing its landholdings. The land exchange will not change how this road is currently managed for the Forest Service and Cooperator needs.

In exchange, the U.S.A. would receive the 110-acre French Ranch parcel (named after its original settlers) and the 65.97-acre Cold Creek Parcel (named after the creek adjacent to the parcel) to be managed by the Forest Service as part of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. There will be no reserved rights (mineral or water) on either parcel. A prior water right to Sulfur Glade Creek (crossing French Ranch), held by the current owner, has been relinquished.

These parcels are owned by the proponent, Stephen Hagen, president of Hagen & Sons Timber Co., Inc, and are remote and primarily accessible by hiking. French Ranch is almost entirely surrounded by National Forest System lands. Cold Creek is adjacent to NFS lands on two sides and partially on a third side. They are located along the South Fork of the Trinity River, designated as a Wild and Scenic River because of its outstanding remarkable values. Should this land be added to the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, it would be managed as Wild and Scenic River corridor and as Late Successional Reserve lands for old-growth dependent species.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action may provide suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. No significant issues were identified in the public scoping process. However, the project planning team did consider an additional alternative which has been dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.



Alternative 3 (Direct Purchase).

Alternative 3 proposed to have the Forest Service purchase the non-Federal parcels. The proponent refuses to sell the parcels outright as it is his desire to acquire a specific piece of National Forest System lands as a homesite. Generally, the Forest Service does not have authority to sell lands outright. The proponent could only acquire the desired parcel via a land-for-land swap and so he is unwilling to sell the non-Federal parcels to the Forest Service. This would result in lost opportunity to acquire the French Ranch and Cold Creek parcels and protect them from development. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed study.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section summarizes the impacts and outputs of each alternative. The differences between alternatives can be found by comparing the impacts and outputs shown in the following table:

Table 2-4 – Comparison of Impacts & Outputs

Alternative 1 (no action)

Alternative 2 (land exchange)

Botany Effect on Sensitive Plant and Fungi species

No Impacts No Adverse Effect

Effect on Survey and Manage species

No Impacts In compliance with the 2001 Survey and Manage Record Of Decision (ROD)

Hydrology and Aquatic Resources Effects to wetlands and floodplains No effect Net gain in wetland and floodplain habitat,

potential effects to portion of Sidney and McKinzey Gulch function if Fed parcel is developed after exchange. Net gain to the USA of river, net loss of perennial and intermittent creek.

Fisheries Endangered Species Act (ESA) Effect

No effect According to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion: not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SONCC coho salmon, and not likely to destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Effect No effect Future development of Federal parcel may adversely affect essential fish habitat (ESH) for Chinook and coho salmon. Implementation of conservation recommendations will minimize adverse impacts to ESH.

Wildlife Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate wildlife species

No Effect No Effect

Effects to Forest Service Sensitive species

No Effect May effect Western red bats, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability

Effects to Survey and Manage species

No Impacts In compliance with the 2001 Survey and Manage Record Of Decision




Table 2-4 – Comparison of Impacts & Outputs

Alternative 1 (no action)

Alternative 2 (land exchange)

Effects to MIS assemblages No Effect No impact on forest-level habitat trends. Positive effect on the amount of Hardwood and Late Seral habitats for old-growth dependent species (net gain).

Minerals Effects to mineral related issues No Effect No Effect Heritage Resources Effect on National Register Properties

No Effect No Effect

Real Estate (Lands) Resources Effects to land base No Effect Net increase in U.S.A. ownership in Trinity

County of 35.97 acres

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, Effects Relative to Resources Affected

The environmental effects of implementing each of the alternatives are discussed in relation to the resources affected to determine the significance of impacts expected. Biological Evaluations and a Biological Assessment specific to the topics identified in this section are available as part of the project file for this EA.

BOTANY

Sensitive Plant and Fungi Biological Evaluation

Habitat in the Federal parcel is primarily oak and grey pine woodland with mixed conifers along north and east aspects and in drainages. The parcel burned in the 2001 Oregon fire. While scattered trees survived, annual grasses and chaparral dominate in the understory. Elevation ranges from 2300 to 2600 feet. Soils are metamorphic with some isolated patches of serpentine soils, but without serpentine outcroppings. Riparian areas are ephemeral with the exception of Sidney Gulch which lies just inside the boundary of the proposed area, for approximately 200 feet. No late-successional conifer forest habitat is present. The Federal parcel area has been visited and observed on numerous occasions, including a field visit in 2002 to assess vegetation recovery after the 2001 fire. No Sensitive plant or fungi species have been observed in any past visits or previously recorded in site records and no suitable habitat for any Sensitive plant or fungi species has been observed.

Based on the lack of suitable habitat, the Trinity-side Zone Botanist has determined that neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 would directly affect or indirectly affect any Sensitive plant or fungi species. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected.

Survey and Manage Species Evaluation

The following species must be considered for all ground-disturbing activities within the range of the northern spotted owl as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan.


Ptilidium californicum Pacific fuzzwort non-vascular/liverwort Tetraphis geniculata ----- non-vascular/moss Schistostegia pennata goblin’s gold non-vascular/moss Cypripedium montanum mountain lady’s-slipper vascular plant Cypripedium fasciculatum fascicled lady’s-slipper vascular plant Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort vascular plant Botrychium montanum mountain moonwort vasculart plant Buxbaumia viridis bug-on-a-stick non-vascular/moss Leptogium cyanescens ----- lichen Eucephalus vialis wayside aster vascular plant

Field surveys to determine presence/absence are required for any of these species in which suitable habitat is present and there will be a significant negative effect to habitat or persistence of any of these species at the proposed site. All species except Leptogium cyanescens, Eucephalus vialis, Tetraphis geniculata and Shistostegia pennata are currently also on the Pacific Southwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list and receive protections as Sensitive species.

Although the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004) identifies potential habitat for Tetraphis geniculata, Shistostegia pennata, and Eucephalus vialis within the California Klamath Province, both species are found in moister, more coastal habitats than those found on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. There is no suitable habitat for those species.

Leptogium cyanescens occupies the bark of riparian hardwood tress. There are no riparian areas within the Federal parcel area that have the potential to develop habitat sufficient to support this species. There will be no impact to this species under the proposed action.

The Trinity-side Zone Botanist has determined that both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be in compliance with the 2001 Survey and Manage ROD, having no direct or indirect affect any Survey and Manage species. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected.



HYDROLOGY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

Summary of Floodplain and Wetland Analysis

Aquatic Feature French Ranch (non-

Federal parcel)

Cold Creek (Non-

Federal Parcel)

Federal Parcel

Perennial and Intermittent

Streams

South Fork Trinity

River – 3,000 feet

Sulfur Glade Creek –

200 feet

South Fork Trinity River

– 634 feet

Sidney Gulch – 800 feet

McKinzey Gulch - 1400

feet

Floodplains 12 Acres SF Trinity

River

2.6 acres SF Trinity

River

4.2 acres Sidney and

McKinzey Gulch

Wetlands 5 acres - Wetland and

palustrine wetland

meadow

.01 acres wetland SF

Trinity River

0 wetland acres

General Functioning

Condition

Yes Yes No

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to aquatic resources because the lands would stay in their current ownership and management. Any future activities on the Federal parcel would require separate environmental analysis to disclose impacts at that time. Activities on the non-Federal parcels would be under authority of the State and local governmental agencies. Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects of this action.

Alternative 2 - Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The change in ownership would not in itself cause any direct effects to the resources. Indirect effects due to projected hypothetical development of the Federal parcel into homesites with associated roads, buildings, and utilities, would include possible increase in sedimentation resulting in a reduction of pool habitat. The two creeks, Sidney and McKinzey Gulches, are currently not in properly functioning condition due to fire effects, active incising of the channel, and poor floodplain function (see Floodplain and Wetland Analysis Report and the Fisheries Biological Assessment in the project file). The non-Federal parcel would be managed under the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management plan as Late Successional Reserves and Wild and Scenic River. Any projects proposed in the parcels would have to support the objectives for both prescriptions and would be evaluated under specific NEPA documents. Currently, only trail tread maintenance on Forest Service trail 7E30 (.2 miles estimated) is occurring approximately every five years.

Cumulative effects are a net gain to the U.S.A. of 5.01 acres of wetlands, 10.4 acres of floodplains, and 3,634 linear feet of river and a net loss of 2000 feet of perennial or intermittent creeks.



FISHERIES

Determination of Fisheries Effects - Summary of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Effect Determination

Consultation was completed with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NMFS biological opinion (BO) is that the proposed implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SONCC coho salmon, and it is not likely to destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. Regarding Essential Fish Habitat (ESH), NMFS finds that implementing Alternative 2 may adversely affect ESH for endangered salmon. NMFS recommended best management practices and erosion control measures to minimize potential sediment delivery into Sidney Gulch. The BO concluded that, “Should this EFH Conservation Recommendation be adopted, potential adverse impacts to EFH will be minimized.”

Baseline information (described in detail in the Fisheries Biological Assessment in the project file for this EA)

Federal Parcel. The Sidney Gulch baseline description is based primarily on the professional judgment and observation of Fishery Biologist Loren Everest. Observations of the Sidney Gulch area have occurred over the period of six years and have included spawning surveys, post fire evaluations, post fire large woody debris (logs) placement and fish passage surveys. The small, intermittent nature of Sidney Gulch does not lend itself to the full (Forest Service) Region 5 Stream Condition Inventory Survey methods; however selected elements were measured using the methodology. Sidney Gulch is in Watershed Condition Class III, one that exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Large woody debris is infrequent, pools are shallow, and the streambanks are vulnerable to erosion. While the Sidney Gulch subwatershed is slowly recovering form past land use practices, migration barriers, poor water quality and lack of deep pool habitat limit the conservation value of critical habitat within the exchange parcel.

According to the biological assessment and the biological opinion (BO), the threatened coho salmon are known to utilize the portion of Sidney Gulch within the Federal Parcel, however the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), authors of the BO, expect that very few coho salmon would use the habitat within the parcel.

Non-Federal parcels. The South Fork of the Trinity River baseline description of fish habitat is developed from the Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis (WA). The French Ranch area is located in the upper third of the watershed. Historically, the French Ranch ran cattle and was cultivated on flat areas. The Cold Creek parcel is two miles north of the French Ranch parcel, in the same drainage. This parcel was lightly logged in the early 1990’s. Project area characterization is taken from Chapter 3 “Current Conditions” of the WA.

According to the Watershed Analysis, stream channels are high to moderately entrenched with log to moderate sinuosity with gradients between .5 and 10 percent. A flood affected the area in 1964, causing considerable movement of soil and gravel downstream. This alluvium continues to be eroded by the South Fork Trinity River.



Sulfur Glade Creek that crosses the southern end of the French Ranch parcel was surveyed and rainbow trout were found along the reach within the parcel. The South Fork Trinity River supports anadromous runs of summer and winter steelhead trout and spring chinook salmon. Fall chinook and coho salmon may occupy this stretch of river when fall stream flows are high enough to allow it. Spring chinook spawn and rear in the mainstem South Fork.

Effects to Fish and Fish Habitat (described in detail in the Fisheries Biological Assessment and the Biological Opinion in the project file for this EA)

Alternative 1

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – For the Federal parcel there would be no new or increased direct or indirect effects to fish and their habitat under the no action alternative. There are currently no actions pending for this parcel. Any new proposed Federal action on this parcel would be subject to new Endangered Species Act consultation. For the non-Federal parcels, French Ranch and Cold Creek, the existing conditions would be perpetuated. Keeping the parcels in private ownership would allow them to be further developed or managed. Selective timber harvest was conducted on both parcels in the early 1990’s and fire underburned the French Ranch parcel in 2008 (Cold Creek was not involved). Any further harvesting of trees would be subject to the Forest Practice Rules of the State of California, as administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. While no harvest plans are active or planned for filing, harvesting of trees may be possible should the market improve. Activities that involve ground disturbance may cause erosion and sedimentation into the South Fork Trinity River.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects. Transferring ownership of the McKinzey Gulch Parcel (Federal Parcel) from the U.S.A. to private ownership and the French Ranch and Cold Creek parcels (non-federal parcels) to the U.S.A. under Alternative 2 would not result in any direct effect to SONCC coho salmon or its designated critical habitat. “Direct effects” are caused by the action in that they occur at the same place and time. Changing ownership would not, in itself, have direct effects on the resource.

Indirect Effects. “Indirect effects” are those effects caused by a given action but, occur later in time or farther removed in distance but which are reasonably foreseeable.

Non-Federal Parcels. Transferring ownership of the French Ranch and Cold Creek parcels to the U.S.A. as proposed in Alternative 2 would provide additional protection to these properties as they would primarily be managed by the USFS under the Shasta Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan as Late Successional Reserves and consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy within the Wild and Scenic river corridor. Acquisition would protect 0.8 miles of the South Fork of the Trinity within the French Ranch parcel and 0.1 mile of the same river within the Cold Creek parcel for a total of 0.9 miles of river that is critical habitat for the coho salmon (listed as threatened under ESA). Any new USFS project that occurred in the area would be subject to Endangered Species Act consultation. So the indirect effect to the non-Federal parcels



is beneficial due to the decreased potential for development or logging activities within the Cold Creek and French Ranch parcels along the South Fork of the Trinity River.

Federal Parcel. In order to evaluate the indirect effects of Alternative 2 to coho salmon and their critical habitat in Sidney Gulch of the Federal Parcel, the analysis was done by evaluating the expected effect based upon a hypothetical plan for development into 5-acre homesites with associated roads, buildings, and utilities (Appendix A of the Fisheries Biological Assessment). Future development of the Federal parcel would likely result in a slight reduction of habitat quality in Sidney Gulch downstream of the parcel until the effects are overshadowed by the effects of urban development within the town of Weaverville. The conclusion of the NMFS is that the indirect effects of the Alternative 2 are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, and the project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2.

Non-Federal Parcels. Since there are no direct or indirect effects on the non-Federal parcels should they become part of the National Forest, there are no cumulative effects.

Federal Parcel. The cumulative effects area for this project consists of lands within .75 miles of the center of the project (Federal Parcel) which would allow for about .5 miles of distance from the parcel boundaries. The BO indicates that the effects of land development on Sidney Gulch would diminish within .5 miles and the effects of land development (turbidity, reduction in pool habitat) while decreasing with time would last over “several years”. The timeframe for this analysis is 2000 to 2018. The Oregon Fire of 2001 burned almost 90% of the vegetation across the analysis area, followed by private land mechanized logging on approximately 53 acres. Between 2005 and 2008, the Forest Service cut down dead trees along selected roads and trails (approximately 3 acres) and hand-piled branches and other slash. Because of vegetation recovery, this hand work is not expected to contribute to any effects. Development on lands in private ownership includes housing construction south of the Federal parcel in the China Gulch subdivision of 55 acres (various houses constructed from 2000-2008). 20 acres of private lands to the immediate north of the Federal parcel were cleared and graded and a large garage structure was built as of 2008. The following tables show a comparison between the current condition and the amount of land that could be developed under Alternative 2.

Current Estimated Acres by Ownership

Federal lands* (est. acres)

Percent Private lands (est. acres)

Percent Total

824 75 278 25 1102

*includes lands administered by BLM and Forest Service



Acres by Ownership after Implementation of Alternative 2

Federal lands* (est. acres)

Percent Private lands (est. acres)

Percent Total

684 62 418 38 1102

New parcel subdivision and land development have occurred on 75 privately-held acres (total parcel acres, not disturbed acres) during the timeframe. An additional 32.5 acres of private land has not yet been subdivided. Potentially, subdivision and housing development could occur on a portion of the Federal Parcel totaling 90 acres (Trinity County has indicated that 50 acres in Section 2 may be zoned as “open space” and not available for housing).

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Determination (described in detail in the Fisheries Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion) in the project file for this EA)

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) set forth new mandates for NMFS and Federal action agencies to identify and project important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The requirement is to delineate “essential fish habitat” in fishery management plans. Federal agencies which carry out activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding potential adverse effects of the actions on EFH and respond to NMFS’ conservation recommendations.

Direct Effects: there are no direct effects to EFH on either the non-Federal or the Federal parcels by exchanging lands.

Indirect Effects: The project fishery biologist has determined that analysis of the effects of the project elements (the hypothetical development of homesites with associated roads, utilities, and buildings) on the habitat indicators has found that Alternative 1 would have no EFH effects;

NMFS has determined that implementing Alternative 2 may adversely affect EFH for Chinook and coho salmon due to a potential increase in turbidity/substrate and the frequency and quality of pool habitat downstream in Sidney Gulch upon development of the parcel should it become private.

Conservation Recommendation: NMFS has provided the following recommendation for minimizing potential adverse impact to EFH: “Any road construction, utility construction, and house and outbuilding construction within the McKinzey Ranch (sic) Parcel should employ best management practices and erosion control measures to minimize potential sediment delivery into Sidney Gulch.

In response, the Forest Service proposes to submit the Conservation Recommendations in writing into escrow for formal delivery to the proponent should the exchange be completed.

Cumulative Effects: The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Consultation and Conservation Recommendations document refers to the Biological Opinion for effects. Refer to the above fisheries impacts section for a summary of the cumulative



effects area and timeframe. The NMFS identified Sidney Gulch subwatershed downstream to the confluence with East Weaver Creek as the area covered by the consultation containing EFH. Of the lands within this defined drainage area and within the .75 miles of the center of the proposed exchange parcel, the linear feet of EFH streamcourse affected by current, future and past actions is:

.2 miles of Sydney Gulch (proposed exchange)

.26 miles of West Weaver Creek (past exchange)

According to the BO, “The Sidney Gulch subwatershed has experienced a great deal of historical habitat degradation…” They refer to historical hydraulic mining, timber harvesting and residential activity as examples. These activities, coupled with the unstable soils, have resulted in embedded gravels and few low quality pools; the Oregon fire has destroyed shade structure and future large woody debris. The area is slowly recovering from these disturbances. The document goes on to say that the .2 miles within Sidney Gulch contributes marginally to overall coho salmon reproduction, numbers and distribution in the Trinity River Basin. Given this analysis, the total cumulative effect of .46 miles of EFH would not be significant. NMFS did not anticipate that the Project would appreciably diminish the likelihood of survival and recovery of the coho salmon on a larger scale.

WILDLIFE

This wildlife analysis addresses the effects species and/or habitat only on the 140 acres of USFS land (Federal parcel) proposed in the exchange. The following text summarizes the analysis included in the Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment and for the Hagen-French Land Exchange Project, prepared in October 2007.

Habitat

The 2001 Oregon fire modified most of the vegetative characteristics of the entire 140 acres. Due to the legal and political environment, the US Forest Service could not implement salvage logging and instead fuels treatments have occurred such as mastication, pile burning, community firewood gathering and some dead tree removed for use in ornamental construction.

These fire-affected acres do not provide suitable habitat for any federally threatened or endangered species. No suitable habitat for USFS sensitive species exists except minimal foraging habitat for the Western red bat. Many dead trees still remain standing today and there are no USFS foreseeable actions to enhance the development of forest conditions desired by most of these species. The Federal parcel is not expected to recover (no foreseeable action to enhance habitat) and contribute even minimal habitat conditions for the above species. Therefore, should the land exchange happen and be developed into residential sites, the effects to the existing habitat would be neutral.

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species

The action addressed does not fall within Critical Habitat for the Northern spotted owl (USDI, F&W Service, 1992) and is not within suitable habitat for Pacific fisher.



Candidate species, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, will not be further discussed because the project area is located beyond the known range of this species. Therefore, the project biologist has determined that there would be “No Effect” on threatened, endangered, and candidate terrestrial species.

Forest Service sensitive species

The project wildlife biologist has determined that: The proposed project would have no effect on the American marten because: Suitable

habitat does not occur and this species typically occurs above 4000 feet elevation. Approximate elevation in project is 700 feet.

The proposed project would have no effect on the bald eagle because: Suitable habitat does not occur, there are no known sightings and the closest fish bearing, large body of water is approximately 5 miles.

The proposed project would have no effect on the California wolverine because: This species is typically located in remote areas away from humans and human development.

The proposed project would have no effect on the Pallid bat because: Suitable oak woodland habitat for foraging does not exist. There are no known sightings of this bat.

The proposed project would have no effect on the Townsend’s big-eared bat because: Caves, buildings, bridges and mines for roosting do not occur in the project area.

The proposed project may impact individual Western red bats but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability because: Western red bats using the riparian in McKinzey Gulch (although limited) for foraging, may move should the exchange take place and home sites are built near this Gulch.

The proposed project would have no effect on the Northern goshawk because: Suitable habitat for this accipiter does not occur and the closest known nest site is 1.5 miles northeast.

The proposed project would have no effect on the willow flycatcher because: Suitable habitat such as meadows, ponds, or thickets of willows does not occur within or in close proximity to the project area.

The proposed project would have no effect on the foothill yellow-legged frog because: Rocky streams, rivers with shaded river bars along riffles and pools do not occur within the project area.

The proposed project would have no effect on the cascade frog and Northwestern pond turtle because: These two species inhabit permanent water sources such as lakes and ponds and do occur in the Trinity River. These habitat types do not occur and there are no known sightings within the project area.

The proposed project would have no effect on the Southern torrent salamander because: Seeps, small streams, and waterfalls in mesic, coastal forested habitat do not occur within the project area.



Survey & Manage Wildlife Species

The Hagen-French Land Exchange Project complies with pre-disturbance surveys and management of known sites required by protocol standards to comply with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004). The Hagen-French Land Exchange Project also complies with any site management for any Category B, D, and E species as identified in the 2001 ROD (as modified).

Therefore, regarding the status of surveys and site management for Survey & Manage wildlife species, The Hagen-French Land Exchange Project complies with the provisions of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004). For the foregoing reasons, Alternatives 1 and 2 are in compliance with the 2001 ROD as stated in Point (3) on page 14 of the January 9, 2006, Court order in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. v. Rey et al.

Management Indicator Species

A Management Indicator Species report was prepared by Forest Service biologists and is titled, “Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Hagen-French Land Exchange, Project-level Wildlife Management Indicator Assemblage Report” in the project file.

Management indicator assemblages

Management Indicator Assemblages

Category for Project Analysis1

Project Level Assemblage Example Species

Aquatic See fisheries report NA

Riparian 2 NA

Openings and Early Seral 2 NA

Late Seral 1 NA

Snag and Down Log 2 NA

Hardwood Assemblage 1 NA

Chaparral 2 NA

Cliffs, Caves, Talus, and Rock Outcropping

1 NA

Multi-habitat 1 NA 1 Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the

project; Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project;

Alternative 1 would result in no activity implemented at this time, allowing the existing conditions to remain unchanged. No changes in land ownership would occur. The NFSL parcel identified would remain in federal ownership; the non-Federal parcels would remain in the ownership of Hagen & Sons Timber Co. Land uses would remain unchanged.

Alternative 2 - The vegetation present on the Federal parcel is primarily openings and early seral, snag and down log and chaparral and is likely to remain that way in



the absence of management activities. The 2001 Oregon fire modified most of the conifer large trees and hardwood components and these acres are not expected to recover (no foreseeable action to enhance habitat to its pre-fire state). Fire and Beetle mortality contributed to the post-fire habitat conditions. The above mentioned assemblage habitat would not change in quality or availability and therefore, have no impact on forest-level habitat trends.

Conclusion - The 2001 Oregon fire modified most of the vegetative characteristics of the entire 140 acres of the Federal Parcel. The adjacent lands are encompassed by similar open habitat types and privately owned lands (Sierra Pacific Industries) tend to be cut when the stand reaches a harvestable size. If the land exchange occurs, the Cold Creek and French Ranch Parcels would be managed as Wild and Scenic River corridor and as Late Successional Reserve lands. This project would benefit the Shasta-Trinity National Forest by increasing the amount of Hardwood and Late Seral habitats for old-growth dependent species.

MINERALS

Based on the general geology of the Cold Creek and French Ranch non-Federal parcels, the lack of historical mining, and no incidence of ongoing mining related activities in the vicinity of these two parcels, the project geologist representing the Regional Mineral Examiners Team has determined through the information reviewed for this evaluation that there are no mineral related issues that may affect the inclusion of these non-Federal parcels for the proposed exchange.

The Federal parcel is within the Weaverville Formation, an alluvial deposit known historically to carry values of placer gold and has been mined extensively since the mid-1800 era. A sampling program to make a determination on the mineral potential for locatable minerals on the Federal parcel is not planned. A mineral review was conducted by a Forest Service mineral examiner and his determination is that the Federal parcel has no valuable mineral deposits that would cause us to remove it from exchange or to reserve the mineral estate. The report sent to the Bureau of Land Management for final determination regarding this finding.

HERITAGE RESOURCES

This heritage resource analysis addresses the area of potential effect (APE) which is the 140 acres of USFS land proposed in the exchange. The following text summarizes the analysis included in the Archaeological Reconnaissance Report for the Hagan-French Land Exchange Project.

Six sites are within the exchange parcel and were evaluated by the Forest Service archaeologist. One site, the Moon Lee Ditch that crosses a small portion of the southwest corner of the parcel, has the potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The other five sites were determined not to be eligible for the National Register. The sites lack association with any person or historic event of importance and exhibit no



architectural or artistic element of significance. Finally, their potential to increase our historic knowledge of the local area is limited. They represent a winter seasonal campsite for workers mining the immediate area around the camp. These camps were abandoned once summer came on. The cultural deposit at these sites is mainly surface down to no more than 20 cm. Consequently, the archaeologist does not consider these sites to have unique, important, or amount of cultural material present to justify their eligibility to the National Register. Because no other cultural material was found in the APE, the Forest Service archaeologist has determined the implementation of Alternative 2 would have no effect on National Register Properties. For consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) concurred with the finding by the Forest Service that the sites, other than Moon Lee Ditch, are not eligible and, that there will be “no adverse effect” pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 (b) on the Moon Lee Ditch. Moon Lee Ditch was constructed and then continuously maintained since the latter part of the 1800’s and, is a right established under the 1866 Mining Act. The existence and use of the Ditch will be recognized and protected by language in the patent deed transferring the property.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

There are no hazardous materials or potentially recognized environmental conditions associated with either the Federal or the non-Federal parcel. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments were completed by a qualified environmental professional.

PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY

There are no ground-disturbing activities included as part of the proposed action which would be evaluated as direct effects. Indirect effects evaluated, as activities that may occur within the affected land areas subsequent to the land exchange, indicate that a net benefit to natural resources is expected to occur as a result of this land exchange since the parcels that would be acquired by the USFS are cumulatively larger and have more and better river/riparian habitat than the existing Federal parcel. Additionally, the parcels to be acquired are located in an area that has more potential to benefit resources managed by the Forest Service.

Therefore, the cumulative effects of the land exchange has both a positive effect to consolidate National Forest ownership in the South Fork Trinity River area (by acquiring the non-Federal parcels) and a positive effect of providing protection of natural resources (by the Forest Service managing land along the South Fork of the Trinity River itself). In addition, the proponent’s objective of expansion of the Weaverville area residential land base would be met, resulting in a cumulative effect of more land for development.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION RELATIVE TO SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS

In 1978 the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These regulations (40 CFR



Parts 1500-1508) include a definition of “significantly” as used in NEPA. The elements of this definition have been considered in identifying the significance of impacts resulting from the intensity of the actions considered. The following elements have been considered in evaluating significance:

1. Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Both beneficial and adverse effects have been taken into consideration and displayed within the Environmental Consequences section. Beneficial effects have not been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects. Singularly and collectively, the resources affected by both alternatives are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts. The indirect effects to fisheries in Alternative 2 would be minimal due to the poor quality and small amount of the habitat. The long-term beneficial effect of Alternative 2 would include increased protection for natural resources and a better “wilderness” experience in the South Fork Wild and Scenic River area.

2. The Degree to Which the Proposed Action Affects Public Health or Safety Public health and safety would not be adversely affected by the alternatives considered.

3. Unique Characteristics of the Geographic Area The non-Federal parcels are along the designated Wild and Scenic South Fork of the Trinity River. Preservation of these unique areas would be provided under implementation of Alternative 2.

4. The Degree to Which the Effects on the Human Environment Are Likely to be Highly

Controversial The interdisciplinary planning team (IDT) did not find that the effects to the human environment were highly controversial. Also, the IDT found the proposed action would be consistent with all applicable Land Management Plan standards and guidelines.

5. The Degree to Which the Possible Effects on the Human Environment Are Highly

Uncertain or Involve Unique or Unknown Risks The effects associated with this land exchange proposal are neither highly uncertain nor involve unique or unknown risks. There is no uncertainty involved in evaluating the effects.

6. The Degree To Which The Action May Establish A Precedent For Future Actions With

Significant Effects Or Represents A Decision In Principle About A Future Consideration The alternatives considered do not set a precedent for future decisions. A separate NEPA decision would be necessary to determine significance of effects before implementation of future actions.

7. Whether the Action Is Related To Other Actions with Individually Insignificant But

Cumulatively Significant Impacts The alternatives considered are not components of any larger action. In addition, the BE/BAs for botany, fisheries, and wildlife concluded that both alternatives considered would have no significant impact and that any related foreseeable actions within the



context of the analysis area would require future NEPA analysis before an action could be initiated.

8. The Degree To Which the Action May Adversely Affect Districts, Sites, Highways,

Structures, Or Objects Listed In Or Eligible For Listing In The National Register Of

Historic Places, Or May Cause Loss Or Destruction Of Significant Scientific, Cultural, Or

Historic Resources The project area has been inventoried for heritage resources. Known sites will be protected to ensure there are no adverse effects. The consequences of implementing Alternative 2 are not expected to alter any of the characteristics of the historic properties that qualify for the National Register.

9. The Degree to Which the Action May Adversely Affect an Endangered Or Threatened

Species Or Its Habitat That Has Been Determined To Be Critical Under The Endangered

Species Act (ESA) Of 1973 In compliance with requirements of ESA, The Forest Service prepared Biological Assessments of this project’s possible impacts on the endangered or threatened species (northern spotted owl and Southern Oregon Northern California Coast coho salmon) within the affected area. The Wildlife BA concluded that Alternative 2 would result in No Effect to endangered, threatened, or candidate species.

The biological evaluation completed for botany concluded that no threatened or endangered plants within the project area. Therefore no adverse effects to botanical species or habitat would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.

The biological opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service states the proposed implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SONCC coho salmon, and it is not likely to destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 would be beneficial to ESA fisheries due to the decreased potential for development or logging activities within the Cold Creek and French Ranch parcels and the net increase of river/riparian habitat.

10. Whether the Action Threatens a Violation of Federal, State, or Local Law or Other

Requirements Imposed For the Protection of the Environment Neither of the alternatives considered would threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The alternatives considered in this analysis are fully consistent with the National Forest Management Act and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest LRMP.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 1. Agencies and Tribes Consulted

The following were consulted during the planning process for the Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange Project:

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries, Garwin Yip

Office of Historic Preservation, State of California



US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Management, California State Office Environmental Protection Agency, Arcata CA California Regional Water Quality Control Board Trinity County Board of Supervisors Trinity County Planning Department Fire Safe Council, Trinity County Resource Conservation District Weaver Basin Trail Committee Trinity County Chamber of Commerce Trinity County Resource Conservation District Natural Resources Advisory Council, Trinity County

2. Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members and Preparers The following provided written input and/or management direction in the planning process for the Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange Project:

Kathy Valenzuela: Lands Forester: 29 years experience in the Forest Service, BS Forestry, experience in recreation, resources management, special uses administration, and land adjustments. Realty specialist for the Pacific Southwest Region, responsible for case processing.

Sam Frink: Forester: 30 years experience in fuels, timber sale planning, and silviculture; BS Resource Management (Forestry), expertise as Certified Silviculturist; responsible for writing and editing, Interdisciplinary Team Leader.

Loren Everest: Fishery Biologist: 20 years experience in fisheries; BS Fisheries, expertise in anadromous and cold water fishes; responsible for fisheries analysis and fisheries Biological Assessment.

Heidi George: Hydrologist: 20 years experience in geosciences; BS and MS in geoscience, Registered Professional Geologist, responsible for wetlands and floodplains report.

Thomas Quinn: Wildlife Biologist: 20 years experience in wildlife/forest management and Endangered Species Act consultation; BS Wildlife Management; responsible for habitat and wildlife analysis and Wildlife Biological Evaluation/Assessment.

Becky Rogers: Biological Science Technician: 20 years experience in wildlife/forest management, responsible for habitat and wildlife analysis, Wildlife Biological Evaluation/Assessment and Management Indicator Species summary.

Susan Erwin: Botanist: experience as a professional botanist for 11 years BS Forest Management, MS Forest Biology. Provided botany and weed input to document.

Mark Arnold: Archaeologist: 25 years experience in archaeology; BA Anthropology, expertise in Heritage Resource management, responsible for heritage resource reconnaissance, analysis and report.



Jim DeMaagd: Geologist: 16 years with the Forest Service as a geologist, certified mineral examiner. BA and MS in Geology, provided initial mineral evaluations for non-Federal and Federal lands.

Mike Hunnerlach: Geologist: 2 years with the Forest Service as a geologist, journeyman mineral examiner. BA and MS in Geology, provided in-depth mineral evaluations for non-Federal and Federal lands.

3. Others

Joyce Andersen, District Ranger (retired)

Dave Morton: Rights-of-Way specialist, Pacific Southwest Region

Robert Remillard: Forest Environmental Coordinator

Mike Mitchell: Recreation Officer (retired) South Fork Mgt Unit



APPENDIX A - Maps

Vicinity Map

Map of the Proposed Private Exchange Parcels

Site Map of Federal Parcel



French Ranch Proposed Land for Land Exchange Map of Non-Federal Parcels

T. 2N, R.6E., HM Shasta-Trinity National Forest



Site Map of the Federal Parcel Proposed Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange

Township 33 North, Range 10 West, Mount Diablo Meridian Scale: 1 inch approx 1600 feet

K. Valenzuela February 2009



APPENDIX B – Migratory Bird Report

Migratory Land Bird Conservation on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Hagen-French Land Exchange Project

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Trinity River Management Unit

June 2009 Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning. On December 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (MOU) was signed. The intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is proposing to exchange out of National Forest system lands totaling 140 acres known as the Sidney Gulch parcel, on the Trinity River Management Unit and located in the Grass Valley – Weaver fifth field watershed. In exchange, the U.S.A. would receive lands along the South Fork of the Trinity River, Parcel One: Cold Creek, and Parcel Two: French Ranch, for a total of 175.97 acres. These parcels are within the South Fork Management Unit and located in the Middle South Fork Trinity River fifth field watershed. The proposed exchange is in line with direction contained within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, USFS 1995). For the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, the bird species of management concern are those species listed under the Endangered Species Act as Threatened or Endangered and those species designated by the Regional Forester as Sensitive Species. These species are listed in Table 1.



Table 1. Species listed as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), or Sensitive (S)

Common Name

Scientific Name

Shasta-Trinity NF

Management Concern

Considerations Addressed in BA/BE Report

Northern spotted owl

Strix occidentalis Threatened BA, No suitable habitat

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Sensitive species BE, No suitable habitat

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis Sensitive species BE, No suitable habitat

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

Sensitive species BE, No suitable habitat

The species in table 1 have been analyzed in the project BA or BE. Suitable habitat does not occur within the proposed project area for these species and therefore would have no effect on the Northern spotted owl, Bald eagle, Northern goshawk or willow flycatcher. No bird species were selected for analysis in the Project-level Wildlife Management Indicator Assemblage Report because no MIS habitat would be affected by the project. The French-Hagen land exchange project:

will not adversely impact migratory land bird species or their associated habitats. will result in a net increase in high quality migratory land bird species habitat. There will

be a net gain of 5 acres of wetland habitat acquired with the properties on the South Fork Trinity River. Lesser quality habitat along McKinzey Gulch (no identified wetlands) will leave Federal ownership and be subject to County zoning and approval for development, if requested.

will benefit by increasing the quality and availability of hardwood and late-seral habitats.

References: CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. Version 2.0. The oak woodland bird conservation

plan: a strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S. Zack, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html.

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2004. Version 2.0. The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird

Conservation Plan: a Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California (J. Lovio, lead author). PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html.


http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html



USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, D.C. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds. Migratory

Bird Program Strategic Plan 2004-2014. Migratory Birds and State Programs, Arlington, VA. http://birds.fws.gov/

Prepared: /S/ Becky L. Rogers Date: June 12, 2009 Biological Sciences Technician Trinity River Management Unit Reviewed: /S/ Thomas A. Quinn____________Date: June 16, 2009 Trinity River Management Unit Wildlife Biologist

http://birds.fws.gov/


APPENDIX C - Response to Comments Table

Project Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange Publication Date June 22, 2009 End of Comment Period July 23, 2009 This response to comments table summarizes the comments received as per 36 CFR 215.6 (a) (3) requirements and how those comments were considered by the responsible official in relation to the EA or the Decision. Comment letters and documentation are in the Project File available at the Officer of the Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, California. Comments are summarized unless italicized – italics indicate a direct quote. Comment Submitted By:

Date Comment Received

Comment

Responsible Official’s Consideration of the Comment

#1 Dick Morris, President Moon Lee Ditch Users Association

6/24/09 He represents the Ditch Users Association. They are concerned about the Federal parcel becoming private as they use water out of the Moon Lee Ditch that crosses the corner of the parcel. The Association wants to protect their water rights and asks if the deed to the private landowner can contain language to the affect that the deed conveys no water right.

The concern was noted and understood. This is a long-standing use and the desire is to protect that use when the land leaves National Forest. More research into deed language was conducted by the Forest Service realty specialist who contacted the BLM department in charge of writing “patent deeds” (a kind of deed issued by the government when the land has never been in private hands). The BLM representative said that general language regarding water rights would not be written into the deed as that is a state issue (water rights). Because of the research, however, specific deed language identifying the ditch (called the West Weaver or Moon Lee Ditch) as an exception will be requested by the Forest Service and the BLM has previously inserted this language in a prior deed. This will protect the ditch specifically, rather than relying on the general “ditches and canals” exception to protect it.

#2 Scott Morris – Chairman of Weaver Basin Trails Committee

6/29/09 Reiterated concern voiced by Dick Morris regarding protection of water right for Moon Lee Ditch Users.

Understood, addressed by Dick Morris comment #1 response.




Comment Submitted By:


Comment



6/29/03 Wants an additional 10-foot added to the Moon Lee ditch easement to accommodate public use for a trail.

Mr. Morris is understandably looking for public opportunities prior to the lands leaving the National Forest. The ditch is owned by the Weaverville Community Services District (CSD) and the exception in the patent deed (see #1 above) will name them specifically. The Weaverville CSD representative did not want the Forest Service to establish a 10-foot trail easement along the current ditch; he felt it should be the responsibility of the Weaverville CSD. Also, because the easement width of the historic ditch is undefined, there may be a danger in the Forest Service granting an easement that might adversely impact the ditch and its use. There may be further opportunities for this trail if the County considers a subdivision proposal. Therefore, I will not include this request in a revision to the Proposed Action.


6/29/03 Wants the re-route of the Greasy Loop trail to be 20 feet wide (rather than the proposed 10 feet) to accommodate a scenic buffer.

The width of the re-route trail easement was decided in consultation with the District recreation department and the District Ranger along with direction on multi-user trail construction guidelines. Mr. Morris recognizes that the location of the re-routed trail, on a narrow, low ridge, will probably preclude adjacent development anyway. Because of these reasons, I will not revise the Proposed Action.

#5 Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress

7/8/09 Concerned that the Shasta-Trinity will conduct vegetation management projects within lands designated as Wild and Scenic River and Late Successional Reserve (LSR). Doesn’t want to see logging in this parcel.

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest has no current plans to do vegetation management in the vicinity of the non-Federal parcels. Neither parcel has road access and the terrain is steep. Any projects proposed by the Forest Service on these newly acquired lands would be subject to separate NEPA decisions. Any Land and Resources Management Plan changes (to prescriptions and allocations) would also be subject to NEPA. This is not within the scope of this document.


7/8/09 “Will any livestock grazing be permitted on the lands obtained by the STNF?”

The Cold Creek parcel is within the boundary of a grazing allotment. The French Ranch parcel is outside of grazing allotment boundaries. The Forest Service allotment is covered by a separate NEPA decision. Any changes to the allotment, such as adding new lands, would require a new NEPA decision on that allotment. This would be beyond the scope of this document.





Comment



7/8/09 The EA should address having the Federal lands in private ownership, that will increase the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) This will increase pressure on the Forest to protect community from fire.

The increase of 140 acres in private ownership will potentially add to the community of Weaverville developable land base. This vacant parcel is already adjacent to an existing development. Incrementally, the number of acres will not significantly increase the amount of WUI, and any development proposed would have to be approved by the County as to density and setback. In recent years and especially since the Oregon Fire endangered the town, a number of steps have been taken to reduce the threat to the Weaverville community. The Forest Service has proposed a comprehensive fuels reduction project (currently in NEPA stages). In addition, the Forest Service has recently partnered with the local community to delineate a Community Forest. The Federal parcel is within this Community Forest. This Stewardship project is designed to promote healthy forest stands and reduce hazardous fuels near residences.


7/8/09 “In the final decision document for this project please elaborate more on the right-of-ways to SPI; the ROW easement for the Greasy Loop trail (is this an ATV/OHV trail); and the ROW for ditches or canals.” What are the ramifications of these actions?

Thank you for your comment. The EA document contains expanded explanations of the easements. In brief, the SPI right-of-way is an easement for the existing Sidyney Gulch road that crosses the northeast corner of the parcel. This easement stays with the land should ownership transfer and it will not change how the road is being used or maintained by the company. The right-of-way easement for the re-route of the Greasy Loop trail will be reserved to the USA and managed by the Forest Service similar to other trails in the Weaver Basin trail system. These are multi-user, non-motorized trails and include foot and horse traffic as well as mountain bikes. The right-of-way for the existing Moon Lee Ditch (West Weaver Ditch), a historic water-carrying ditch, will now be specified in the patent deed in addition to the standard “ditches and canals” clause. This ditch was built in the latter part of the 1800’s to serve the mines and is now being used to convey water for the Weaverville Community Services District and the Moon Lee Ditch Users Association. Wording will be included in the final EA document.


7/8/09 Will private landowner incorporate the Conservation Recommendations to protect Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon made by the National Marine Fisheries into any building plans or otherwise make them binding?

The Forest Service will put a letter into escrow outlining the recommendations of the NMFS and include the relevent sections of Forest Service Best Management Practices documentation. Mr. Hagen will receive the recommendations formally. While he is under no obligation to follow them, following the recommendations may assist him if and when he submits a subdivision plan to the County for approval.





Comment


#11 Christopher Krupp, Western Lands Project

7/23/09 Clarify whether the submission of the NMFS’s conservation recommendations will legally bind the proponent to implement those recommendations.

The conservation recommendations by NMFS (NOAA – Fisheries) were made to the Forest Service and are not binding on a private party. Any future construction activities by the proponent would be subject to relevant State and local authority and the associated requirements imposed by those authorities in order to minimize potential sediment delivery into Sidney Gulch.


7/23/09 Is there any data to support the efficacy of the recommended best management practices and erosion control measures? (relates to above-mentioned conservation recommendations)

The NMFS Conservation Recommendations referred to specific use of “best management practices and erosion control measures”. The Forest Service in California uses the guidance in the document, “Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices”, published by the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, September 2000. The practices and procedures in this document are in conformance with, and comply with provisions in the Federal Clean Water Act and the US EPA guandance for the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment. They are also within the guidelines of the Water Quality Control Board developed by the Water Boards within the State of California. The Forest Service has used the practices for many years in different landscapes and also conducts reviews of the efficacy. In 1992, the Forest Service Region 5 instituted an evaluation program. The results of the data from 1992 through 2002 are contained in an executive summary “Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) Monitoring Results and Corrective Actions” November 2004, said that effectiveness was 92% for all activities combined, with no significant trends over time. Elevated effects on water quality occurred 2% of the time, typically caused by lack of or inadequate BMP implementation. This document will be added to the Project File for reference.


7/23/09 Concerned about long-term cumulative inpacts to essential fish habitat in the area of Hwy 299 and Weaver Bally Road caused by community expansion partly due to land exchanges by the Forest Service.

Additional information about cumulative impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is included in the final EA document. NMFS had made the determination that the project, combined with effects of previous and historical actions, would not appreciably diminish the likelihood of survival and recovery of the coho salmon on a larger scale.

Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange -...

Documents

Transcript of Hagen-French Ranch Land Exchange -...