hydrology specialist report -...

HYDROLOGY SPECIALIST REPORT

Big Hope Project Tahoe National Forest

American River Ranger District March, 2013

(updated, May 22, 2014)

Luke Rutten Hydrologist

American River Ranger District Tahoe National Forest

Big Hope Hydrology Report March 10, 2014

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this report is to analyze and compare the hydrologic impacts from the two proposed alternatives (one action alternative and a no action alternative) addressed in the Big Hope Project on the American River Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest. In particular, this analysis will focus on the effects of salvage harvesting of burned timber, and site preparation for planting on watershed resources, including: watershed condition (potential for increases in erosion and sediment), disturbances within the Riparian Conservation Areas, and water quantity and quality.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. Guiding Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Direction

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes as federal policy the control of point and non-point pollution and assigns the States the primary responsibility for control of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by national forests in California is achieved under state law. This project complies with the Clean Water Act through use of "Best Management Practices" designed to minimize or prevent the discharge of both point and non-point source pollutants from Forest roads, developments and activities. Under the Clean Water Act regulations, the Forest Service is required to obtain permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At this time, the Forest Service is working with the RWQCB to secure the appropriate permit(s) for this project. The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that incorporates all state laws related to water, including water rights, water developments, and water quality. The laws related to water quality (sections 13000 to 13485) apply to waters on the national forests and are directed at protecting the beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance is section 13369, which deals with nonpoint-source pollution and BMPs. The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006, is included in the California Water Code. This act provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which are authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in California. Regional Water Quality Control Boards are the primary regulatory agencies for water quality in California. Each Regional Board has a Basin Plan that includes identified beneficial uses and water quality objectives (standards) for water bodies within each region. Basin Plans may include prohibitions of pollutant discharges, and are incorporated into the California Water Code. As such, Basin Plans are enforceable laws. Regional Boards may establish Timber Waivers that regulate vegetation management activities on national forests. Timber Waivers include conditions and requirements for reporting and monitoring.

Non-point source pollution on national forests is managed through the Regional Water Quality Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000), which relies on implementation of prescribed best management practices. The Water Quality


Management Plan includes BMPs for timber harvesting, road building and maintenance, and protection of Riparian Conservation Areas. Working cooperatively with the California State Water Quality Control Board, the Forest Service developed pollution control measures, referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are applicable to National Forest System lands. The BMPs were evaluated by State Water Quality Control personnel as they were applied on site during management activities. After assessment of the monitoring data and completion of public workshops and hearings, the Forest Service’s BMPs were certified by the State and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most effective means to control non-point source pollution. The land treatment measures incorporated into Forest Service BMPs evolved through research and development measures, and have been monitored and modified over several decades with the expressed purpose of improving the measures and making them more effective. On site evaluations of the control measures by State regulatory agencies found the practices were effective in protecting beneficial uses and were certifiable for Forest Service application as their means to protect water quality. The Clean Water Act provided the initial test of effectiveness of the Forest Service non-point pollution control measures by requiring evaluation of the practices by regulatory agencies (State Board and EPA) and the certification and approval of the practices as the “BEST” measures for control. BMPs are designed to accommodate site-specific conditions. They are tailor-made to account for the complexity and physical and biological variability of the natural environment. In the 1981 Management Agency Agreement between the State Water Resources Control Board and the Forest Service the State agreed that: “The practices and procedures set forth in the Forest Service document constitute sound water quality management and, as such, are the best management practices to be implemented for water quality protection and improvement on NFS lands.” Further the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board states “Implementation of the BMPs, in conjunction with monitoring and performance review requirements approved by the State and Regional Boards, is the primary method of meeting the Basin Plan’s water quality objectives for the activities to which the BMPs apply.” Waiver for Timber Harvest Activities The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (CVRWQCB), on 28 April 2005, adopted Resolution No. R5-2005-0052 (Resolution) which provides for a conditional waiver of the requirement to file a report of waste discharge and obtain waste discharge requirements for timber harvest activities on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands within the Central Valley Region. The eligibility criteria for obtaining a conditional waiver are listed below. To be eligible for coverage under this waiver category, the project has met the definition of timber harvest activities, and will comply with all of the applicable eligibility criteria and conditions. Eligibility Criteria:


1. USFS has conducted a multi-disciplinary review of the timber harvest proposal, including review by watershed specialists, and has specified best management practices (BMPs), and additional control measures as needed, in order to assure compliance with applicable water quality control plans. 2. USFS has conducted a cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis and included specific measures needed to reduce the potential for CWEs in order to assure compliance with applicable water quality control plans. 3. USFS has allowed the public and other interested parties reasonable opportunity to comment on and/or challenge individual timber harvest proposals. This project has complied with all the “Eligibility Criteria” and “General Conditions” specified in the Regional Board’s Waiver. National Forest Management Act 1976 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) recognized the fundamental need to protect, and where appropriate improve, the quality of soil, water, and air resources. With respect to water and soils, NFMA requires that the Forest Service manage lands so as not to impair their water quality and long-term soil productivity. Further, activities must be monitored to ensure that productivity is protected. This law led to subsequent regulation and policy to execute the law at various levels of management. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) provides agency guidance for salvage harvests and protection of riparian areas. Directives for salvage sales are included in FSM 2435. Directives for riparian area management are provided in FSM 2526, which provides that riparian areas shall be managed under the principle of multiple-use and sustained-yield, with emphasis on protection and improvement of soil, water, and vegetation. Directives for water-quality management are provided in FSM 2532, which provides that BMPs will be applied to all management activities.

2.2 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA Forest Service 1990), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) USDA Forest Service 2004), provides direction for maintaining water quality and quantity; protecting streams, lakes, wetlands, and riparian conservation areas; and to prevent excessive, cumulative watershed impacts. Riparian Area Management The SNFPA requires that a site-specific project-level analysis be conducted to determine whether activities proposed within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) meet the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs). This analysis examines how well the Proposed Action for the Big Hope project meets the Riparian Conservation Objectives and/or how it would bring the project area closer to meeting these objectives. The following goals are part of the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) as presented in the SNFPA Record of Decision:


1. Water Quality -- Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment.

2. Species Viability -- Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations.

3. Plant and Animal Community Diversity -- Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions.

4. Special Habitats -- Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity.

5. Watershed Connectivity -- Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction.

6. Floodplains and Water Tables -- Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats.

7. Watershed Condition -- Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows.

8. Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes -- Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved.

9. Stream Banks and Shorelines -- Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity.

A key element of the Aquatic Management Strategy is a set of land allocations, specifically riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges, that delineate aquatic, riparian, and meadow habitats, which are to be managed consistent with the riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) and associated standards and guidelines. The RCO analysis is included in the project environmental analysis. Water Quality Protection (V-35) Use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet water quality objectives and maintain and improve the quality of surface water on the Forest. Methods and techniques for applying the BMPs will be identifies and documented during project level environmental assessments and incorporated into the associated project plan and implementation documents. Current Science The environmental consequences of implementing an action alternative are interrelated in terms of watershed condition including: riparian, aquatic, soil and water resources. Watershed effects could include changes in erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to stream channels, road related sediment delivery to channels, and water quality. The major


factors that influence the amount of sediment that reaches streams include slope channel stability, distance of ground disturbance from a stream or other aquatic feature, slope of the ground surface, precipitation characteristics, percent and type of soil cover, geology, soil characteristics, and micro-topography. Tractor harvest has the highest potential to result in ground disturbance. The harvesting of felled trees has a potential to adversely impact water quality depending on the logging system employed. Skidding of felled trees has the potential to increase soil compaction and subsequent erosion on skid trails after as few as 1-2 round trips. Not only can soil porosity be reduced but also macropore space can be reduced to the magnitude that impedes the infiltration of water increasing surface flow, resulting in surface erosion. Disturbance of hydrologic and soil processes often result in adverse effects to aquatic systems.

2.2. Methodology

2.2.1. Tools Used to Predict Impacts The Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) of the Forest Service has developed a standardized cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis (FSH 2509.22) that serves as a surrogate method for determining the risk of delivering excess sediment to streams. There are two parts to CWE analysis: 1) determination of the Threshold of Concern (TOC) and 2) assignment of Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) coefficients to activities. The Tahoe NF has developed a standard method for determining watershed TOC values based on several factors. Each watershed is assessed for its ability to withstand erosional processes and handle sediment delivery to stream channels. The assessment is based on climatological, geologic and soils information; on-the-ground surveys of the stream channels and upland areas; and the experience and professional judgment of current and former TNF watershed specialists. A range of TOC values from a high of 0.18 (18%) to a low of 0.09 (9%) was determined using the information from the watershed assessment, the compaction guidelines in the TNF LRMP, and literature review of research on impacts of timber harvesting activities on sediment production. Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) are the combined effects of past, present, and future land management activities within a watershed that may affect the watershed’s structure or process. The CWE analysis considers a number of assessment methods at multiple scales. The most site-specific assessment is the individual forest assessments that assess the potential for adverse CWE by comparing the current level of watershed disturbance to an estimate of "the upper limit of watershed tolerance to externally applied factors such as climate and land use," called the Threshold of Concern (TOC). The Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) is used as the standardized unit of measure for land disturbance and the current level of watershed disturbance is expressed as “percent ERA”. The current “percent ERA” of a watershed is compared to the TOC to provide an assessment of CWE potential. The TOC does not represent the exact point at which cumulative watershed effects will occur. Rather, it serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed. Susceptibility of CWE generally increases from low to high as the level of land disturbing activities increase towards or past the TOC.


2.2.2. Field Observations The purposes of field work were to: (1) gather information on site-specific soil and hydrologic properties, (2) assess current soil and hydrologic conditions as affected by past management activities, and (3) develop predictions on cumulative watershed responses to the proposed treatments. Site observations included some reconnaissance surveys for erosion and/or sediment movement and looking at the range of existing conditions within the proposed activity areas. Luke Rutten, West Zone Hydrologist, and Nikos Hunner, Soil Scientist made field observations in the project area in the fall and winter of 2013-14 to document field conditions.

2.3. Affected Environment Watershed resources include riparian and aquatic habitats and water quality. Riparian and aquatic habitats within the project area include: springs/seeps, perennial streams, and seasonal streams. This report focuses on hydrologic effects (water quality, flow, erosion, etc) while the MIS Report and BE prepared for this project focus on effects of the project on riparian and aquatic habitats. The project area is primarily located on land that drains to the North Fork of Middle Fork American River (NFMFAR), which flows generally in a northeast to southwest direction into the Middle Fork American River. Small portions of the project drain info the North Fork American River and Duncan Creek which drains to the Middle Fork American River. The primary perennial streams in the project area include the NFMFAR along with Dark and Black Canyon, Little Secret and Secret Canyon, Lost Canyon, Antoine Canyon, Manilla Canyon, Screwauger Canyon, Deep Canyon, Bear Trap Creek and Little Grizzly Creek. State designated beneficial uses within the North and Middle Fork American River watersheds, include municipal and domestic water supplies, irrigation and stock watering, hydroelectric power generation, contact and non-contact recreation, canoeing and rafting, warm and cold freshwater fisheries habitat migration and spawning, and wildlife habitat (CRWQCB 2011). The project is located within eleven 14-digit hydrologic units (HU) which range in size from nearly 4000 to over 9000 acres. These 14-digit HUs are nested within larger HUs as shown in table 1. Watershed condition has been assessed at the 14-digit HU for this project. Table 1. Project Area Watershed Hierarchy. 10-digit HU Watershed

12-digit HU Subwatershed

14-digit HU “Drainages”

Acres

Upper North Fork American 1802012801

162367

Big Valley Canyon-North Fork American River 180201280103

21053


Sailor Canyon 18020128010302

7339

Humbug Creek-North Fork American River 180201280106

23298

Tadpole Creek 18020128010601

9143

Upper Middle Fork American 1802012803

71011

Duncan Creek 180201280301

15101

Upper Duncan Canyon 18020128030101

7277

Lower Duncan Canyon 18020128030102

7825

North Fork Middle Fork American 1802012804

59106

Secret Canyon-North Fork Middle Fork American River 180201280401

24341

Deep Canyon 18020128040101

5319

Screwauger Canyon 18020128040102

8533

Secret Canyon 18020128040103

6540

Upper North Fork of Middle Fork American River 18020128040104

3956

Eldorado Creek 180201280402 13151

Eldorado Canyon 18020128040201

6740

Peavine Creek-North Fork Middle Fork American River 180201280403

21613

Grouse Creek 18020128040301

5211

Bear Wallow 18020128040302

5946


2.3.1 Riparian Conservation Areas There are approximately 320 miles of stream channels within the project area. These channels are accompanied by 13013 acres of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and 3334 acres of riparian buffers. RCAs range in width from 300 feet on each side of perennial channel to 150 feet on intermittent and ephemerals. Within the RCAs, riparian buffers are 100 feet on each side of a perennial, 50 feet on intermittents and 25 feet on ephemerals. Table 2. Miles of Stream Type by HU14 in the Project Area. 14 digit HU HU

Acres Ephemeral miles

Intermittent miles

Perennial miles

Total

Sailor Canyon 18020128010302 7339

0.09

0.09

Tadpole Creek 18020128010601 9143

1.37

0.01

1.38

Upper Duncan Canyon 18020128030101 7277

Lower Duncan Canyon 18020128030102 7825

0.35

0.35

Deep Canyon 18020128040101 5319

34.72

1.96

16.59

53.27

Screwauger Canyon 18020128040102 8533

59.07

9.28

20.09

88.43

Secret Canyon 18020128040103 6540

46.91

6.36

14.90

68.16

Upper North Fork of Middle Fork American River 18020128040104 3956

48.12

2.68

10.88

61.67 Eldorado Canyon 18020128040201 6740

0.20

0.20

Grouse Creek 18020128040301 5211

3.71

1.41

5.12

Bear Wallow 18020128040302 5946

27.94

4.52

8.99

41.45

Total 222.48 24.81 65.10 320.12 Table 3. Acres of RCA and Riparian Buffers in the Project Area. 14 digit HU HU Acres Riparian Conservation

Area Acres Riparian Buffer Acres

Sailor Canyon 18020128010302 7339

12.7

0.8

Tadpole Creek 18020128010601 9143

65.2

9.0

Upper Duncan Canyon 18020128030101 7277



23.4

2.4

Deep Canyon 18020128040101 5319

2318.4

622.4


3668.8

937.5

Secret Canyon 18020128040103 6540

2705.9

703.9


2272.6

566.4 Eldorado Canyon 18020128040201 6740

18.9

1.5

Grouse Creek 18020128040301 5211

239.1

57.7

Bear Wallow 18020128040302 5946

1688.1

433.3

Total 13013.2 3334.9

2.3.2 Existing Condition of the Post-Fire Watershed The American Fire altered the condition of the watersheds in the project area. The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) assessment determined that around 57% of the burned area was at a moderate (43%) or high (14%) soil burn severity (USDA Forest Service 2013a). Figure 1 shows the distribution of the soil burn severity. The primary change in condition due to the fire is the amount of soil cover from organic duff, which in turn changes the risk of erosion. In areas of high soil burn severity, most of the duff layer was consumed. Also, most of the leaves and needles in standing vegetation were consumed. This left very little organic material available to cover the soil and protect the soil from erosion from rainfall impact and water flowing on the surface. Therefore, the post-fire risk of erosion increased in high burn soil severity areas. Areas within moderate soil burn severity also have little to no duff remaining. However, most of the needles and leaves were burned, but not completely consumed. This material, referred to as ‘needle cast’ has been falling out of the standing dead trees since the fire and has provided good cover for the soil surface. This needle cast has moderated the increase in post-fire erosion risk. Outside of the high and moderate soil burn severity areas, the post-fire condition is little changed from pre-fire. Some of the organic duff was consumed and some standing live trees were burned. However, exposure of bare soil in these areas due to the fire was limited in size and scattered throughout the burn. The risk of increased soil erosion and sedimentation in the low and unburned areas of the fire is low. Figure 1. American Fire Soil Burn Severity Map.


In response to these post-fire conditions, the BAER team proposed several treatments to reduce the risk of post-fire impacts to certain critical values. These treatments were implemented during the fall and winter of 2013/14. The treatments included over 200 acres of mastication of burned brush and trees in Black Canyon and Macedon Ridge. This mastication was done to provide organic cover in areas of high and moderate soil burn severity to reduce erosion and protect highly productive soils. Many miles of roads and trails were maintained in order to provide adequate drainage, prevent erosion and prevent damage to this infrastructure. An additional benefit of these treatments was the reduction of impacts to water quality. As of the date of this report, the 2014 water year, which began October 1, 2013, has been dry. The fire area experienced around 15% of normal precipitation through January, according to the gage in Foresthill. However, during February 6-10, 2014, the Foresthill RAWS gage received over 13 inches of precipitation. Monitoring of the burn area since that storm has shown that little significant hillslope erosion occurred. This was seen on slopes that had received the BAER mastication treatment as well as on slopes that were untreated and had little to no soil cover. Evidence of erosion was limited to areas where surface flows were concentrated, such as in small swales or headwater drainages and at outlets of road drainage features. Also, water flowing in the stream channels the day after the storm was clear, indicating that active erosion had ceased and any soil that was eroded had already been flushed through the system.


This result can be explained by three factors; the soils have a high infiltration rate, the soils were very dry prior to the storm, and the storm started as snow prior to switching to rain. This snow cover reduced the amount of raindrop impact occurring on bare soil and also soaked up some of the rain, allowing it to further infiltrate into the dry soil.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

3.1 Bounding Of Effects Analysis For watershed resource assessment, the spatial analysis is bounded by the eleven 14 digit HU drainages that have the potential to be impacted directly, indirectly or cumulatively by the proposed activity. These are listed in table 1. The temporal boundary is approximately twenty years for past projects and any known, foreseeable projects that have enough detail to reasonably analyze in the CWE analysis and that would contribute to effects of proposed actions.

3.2 Management Requirements Environmental effects are assessed with the following management requirements effectively applied to the proposed action. Management requirements are prescriptive measures that are designed to prevent adverse effects upon the soil resource, rather than traditional mitigation which aims to resolve the problem once it has occurred. Management requirements incorporated into the proposed action are designed to reduce the risk of accelerated erosion and sedimentation adversely impacting aquatic and riparian habitats due to the proposed action activities. Some management requirements incorporate mitigation measures to be conducted in conjunction with operations for treating unavoidable adverse effects. Management requirements incorporated into all proposed actions to reduce the risk of soil movement and accelerated erosion due to proposed project activities are listed in table 4 below. Table 4. Management Requirements included as part of the Big Hope Project proposed action.

Potential Resource(s) Affected

Management Requirements Designed to Reduce or Prevent Adverse Effects

Responsible Person(s)

Transportation System, Road Maintenance and Safety

Maintain haul roads before, during, and after use. Place emphasis on post haul maintenance of road surface, and the surface drainage crossings to reduce erosion potential. Clean all activity debris from ditches and culvert inlets. Use Timber Sale contract road maintenance specifications T-802 Ditch Cleaning, T-803 Surface Blading, T-805 Drainage Structures, and T-809 Waterbars (or something comparable for service or stewardship contracts).

Maintenance Engineer, Contract Specialist, Sale Administrator and Fuels Implementation Team





Watershed, Soils, and Aquatic Resources

Establish Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) for all aquatic features, as specified below. Ensure Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) are met within RCAs by adhering to the Project Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) Guidelines. These guidelines specify the types of activities that can be conducted within RCAs and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to aquatic feature and riparian ecosystems. RCA widths are as follows:

Stream Type Width of the Riparian Conservation Area

Perennial Streams

300 feet each side, measured from bank-full edge

Seasonal Flowing Streams

150 feet each side, measured from bank-full edge

Streams In Inner Gorge

Top of inner gorge

Meadows, lakes, and springs

300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater

Planning Forester, Prep Forester, Sale Administrator, and Riparian Specialist


Establish a 100-foot “riparian buffer” zone along each side of perennial streams and special aquatic features, 50-foot “riparian buffer” along each side of intermittent streams and establish a 25-foot “riparian buffer” zone along each side of ephemeral streams. No harvest or ground based equipment is allowed in riparian buffers unless agreed to by a riparian specialist.


Watershed, Soils and Aquatic Resources

Under coordination with a riparian specialist, hazard trees within the riparian buffer will be felled to mitigate the hazard. They will be felled away from the channel and other aquatic features to minimize disturbance of riparian vegetation. Hazard trees felled within the RCA may be removed by end-lining. End-lining is not permitted through riparian vegetation. Grooves and bare soil created by end-lining will be mitigated with hand-built water bars and/or slash placement. Slash in the RCA will be lopped and scattered (not to exceed 18”). Removal of trees across a perennial, intermittent or ephemeral stream will require full suspension across the entire channel. If full suspension cannot be obtained then the portion of the log that cannot be suspended will be left in the riparian buffer.



Limit ground-based equipment to slopes less than 20% within all RCAs. To reduce ground disturbance created by equipment within RCAs, vary the routes the equipment uses and minimize turning of equipment.



Within RCAs having slopes less than 20%, and outside of the riparian buffer, rubber-tired skidders may enter to retrieve logs but are limited to 1-2 passes over the same piece of ground. Note: Document on harvest cards if entering RCAs with high-ground-pressure equipment to retrieve logs.


Watershed, Soils, and

No new landings or roads will be located within RCAs. Consult with a riparian specialist before using an existing

Planning Forester, Prep Forester, Sale





Aquatic Resources

skid trail, landing, or road located within an RCA. Administrator, and Riparian Specialist


Mechanical site preparation for reforestation may occur within RCAs, outside of the riparian buffer, when such operations do not result in detrimental soil compaction, meet soil moisture requirements, and maintain minimum effective soil cover (ESC) of 50%.

Planning Forester, Prep Forester, Sale Administrator, Riparian Specialist, Soil Scientist


Designated skid trails crossing ephemeral stream channels may be approved for access to otherwise inaccessible areas, but only upon consultation with a riparian specialist.



Place rock on roads at stream crossings and segments within identified RCAs to reduce the impact of sediment delivery to associated stream courses. Place rock, slash, or certified NNIP free mulch at the outlets of rolling dips and/or waterbars to dissipate water where identified by road engineer and soil scientist, and/or hydrologist.



Water Source Use: Water sources shall be approved prior to use.

Planning Forester, Prep Forester, Sale Administrator, Road Maintenance Engineer, and Riparian Specialist


Water Source Use: Armor road approaches as necessary from the end of the approach nearest a stream for a minimum of 50 feet, or to the nearest drainage structure.



Water Source Use: Where overflow runoff from water trucks or storage tanks may enter the stream, effective erosion control devices shall be installed.



Water Source Use: All water-drafting vehicles shall be checked routinely and shall be repaired as necessary to prevent leaks of petroleum products from entering RCAs.



Water Source Use: Water-drafting vehicles shall contain petroleum spill kits. Dispose of absorbent pads according to the Hazardous Response Plan.



Hazard Tree Removal: Within Black Canyon Units 16, 17,18,19,20 and 21. Maintain >50% ground cover across units and 50% cover on all skid trails post-harvest. Establish a 150-foot “riparian buffer” zone along each side of Black Canyon Creek. When an existing road is located within the 150-foot “riparian buffer” the stream-side edge of the road will become the boundary of the “riparian buffer”. Hazard trees located on the up-slope side of the road may be harvested following the above guidelines. Hazard trees located within the buffer, on the stream-side of the road, that pose an immediate safety hazard to harvest operations may be dropped and left on site. Removal of hazard trees within the buffer on the stream-side of the road, may be approved upon consultation with a riparian specialist and will require full suspension across the entire buffer.






Hazard trees located within the buffer, on the upslope side of the road from the stream may be treated following guidelines listed above.


Limit tractor skidding to less than 30 percent slopes unless a watershed specialist evaluates operations on the steeper slopes. Where skidding occurs on slopes greater than 15 percent and effective soil cover off of skid trails is less than 50 percent, scatter slash on skid trails to achieve at least 50 percent effective soil cover. Effective soil cover could include plant litter, woody material in contact with the soil, living vegetation, and rock fragments with a diameter of ½ to 3 inches. Use of weed free straw, wood chips, or mulch may be used where on-site material is insufficient.

Planning Forester, Prep Forester, Sale Administrator, Soil Scientist, and Hydrologist


When possible, use existing skid trails and landings except where this could cause unacceptable resource damage. Limit new and existing skid trails, temp roads, and landings to less than 15 percent of the unit area. Space skid trails at least 75 feet apart.



Where end-lining has gouged out soil forming a path for concentrating runoff, use hand tools to install cross drains or rake berm over gouged out area. Use cross drain spacing guidelines listed below. Pull berms back on skid trails where ground conditions are appropriate.

Sale Administrator, Soil Scientist, Hydrologist,


Allow mechanical operations only when soil moisture conditions are such that compaction, gullying, and/or rutting will be minimal. Equipment may operate on designated skid trails when soils are dry to a minimum of 4 inches. Low-ground-pressure equipment may operate off of designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. High-ground-pressure equipment may operate off of designated skid trails when soils are dry to a minimum depth of 8 inches. Off of designated skid trails, limit all equipment passes over the same piece of ground to reduce the potential for adverse soil compaction. Outside normal operating season (NOS) or during wet periods within the NOS, utilize the TNF Wet Weather Operations Guidelines.

Sale Administrator, COR, Soil Scientist, and Hydrologist


Temporary roads: Following temporary road use, remove culverts, eliminate ditches, out-slope roadbed, remove ruts and berms, effectively block the road to normal vehicular traffic where feasible under existing terrain conditions, and build cross ditches and water bars.

Subsoil all temporary roads and add effective soil cover to bare soil.



Log Landings: re-use log landings to the extent feasible. Limit new landings to ¼ to ½ acre in size.



Deep till temporary roads, landings, and portions of skid trails within 200 feet of landings (where soils permit). Mulch temporary road barriers with slash, wood chips or weed free straw as needed.

Planning Forester, Prep Forester, Sale Administrator, Soil Scientist, Hydrologist,






Cable corridors: hand waterbar and scatter slash to achieve at least 60 percent effective soil cover. On slopes 35 to 50 percent apply at least 75 percent effective soil cover.

Sale Administrator, Soil Scientist, and Hydrologist


Recommended spacing for cross drainage spacing on skid trail and temporary roads:

Slope Gradient Cross Drain Spacing 1-6% 250’ 7-9% 150’ 10-14% 125’ 15-20% 60’ 21-40% 30’

Sale Administrator, Soil Scientist, Hydrologist,


To reduce the potential for adverse cumulative watershed effects, implement state certified Best Management Practices (BMPs). Site specific BMPs applicable to this project are located in the project record file.


These measures would reduce the risk of accelerated erosion and sediment production and movement. These measures have been used on many projects on the Tahoe National Forest and on other National Forests in California to reduce the risk of accelerated erosion and sediment production and movement.

3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of ALTERNATIVE A

Forest management activities have the potential to affect the hydrologic, soil, and aquatic resources by causing soil disturbance, altering vegetative cover, and changing local drainage patterns. The effects of the proposed management activities are most closely related to the salvage harvesting and reforestation techniques used. Ground-based mechanical systems have the highest potential impacts. Applying the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) reduce the magnitude of the effects to soil, water, and aquatic resources. In addition, management requirements were developed to avoid sensitive watershed areas or minimize soil/water/aquatic concerns. The primary concern to water quality is the impairment of beneficial uses due to an increase of fine sediment caused by accelerated erosion from the proposed projects. The risk of direct effects to forest soils, water quality, and aquatic species would be low, because project design minimizes activities that might otherwise have an impact to these resources. Effectiveness of the BMPs in mitigating direct and indirect effects is largely related to proper implementation and the magnitude of climatic events the first several seasons after project completion. There is a risk that heavy precipitation or rain on accumulations of snow could overwhelm erosion control structures and render them ineffective. The increased sediment delivery to channels would occur only during rare events and for short periods of time where overland flow from disturbed areas occurs. BMPs have been selected using specific information regarding soil, slope, geology, and climate conditions typically found in the project area.


The proposed action for Alternative A includes the following treatments: (1) Mechanical removal of burned trees, including the removal of roadside hazard trees within unit boundaries and along roads accessing units (2) Hand piling/Machine piling and subsequent burning of slash, brush, small trees and existing debris, (3) Repairing existing roads to implement project activities. The following section describes the effects of the proposed project in terms of direct and indirect effects. 3.3.1 Mechanical Salvage Harvest with Ground Based and Aerial Equipment, including the removal of roadside hazard trees. Erosion, sediment and water quality Mechanical harvest involves the use of mechanical, ground-based equipment, and aerial-based equipment (including skyline yarding systems and/or helicopters). Mechanical harvest with ground-based equipment would be conducted on slopes generally less than 30 percent with chainsaws and/or mechanical harvesters. Mechanical harvest with aerial equipment would be conducted on slopes generally greater than 30 percent with chainsaws. The potential direct effects of aerial-based harvest on soils include reduction in soil cover when logs are yarded, mainly within the skyline corridors, and the compactive impact on soil of the landing locations and associated temporary roads. The potential direct effects of mechanical, ground-based equipment on soils include a reduction in soil cover; an increase in compaction due to the building of new and the reopening of existing, temporary roads, skid trails, and landings; soil displacement during skidding operations; and a loss of nutrients and organic material through removal of small material, such as tree tops and limbs. The potential direct effects of the harvest on hydrology and water quality would depend on how much ground is detrimentally compacted, how much cover is removed, steepness of the treated slopes, and the proximity to stream channels. The project plans to use a conventional logging system, one where the trees are felled, limbed and bucked in place with chainsaws and then skidded or cable-yarded to the landing. This system would result in the reduction of ground cover on the skid trails and landings. However, limbs and other slash, would be lopped and scatted in place, therefore increasing cover on the units outside the skid trails and landings. Also, as stated in the management requirements, additional cover would be added to the skid trails in areas where the overall cover is less than desired. Compaction would be reduced by placing skid trails a minimum of 75 feet apart, operating when soils are dry, and subsoiling after operations are complete. Where appropriate, mechanical equipment may be used on up to 25% of the area to fell trees and stack them in bundles to be skidded to the landing. Trees felled in this manner will not be limbed in place, but rather will be whole-tree skidded to the landing where limbing would take place. This method would reduce the amount of slash left on the ground. However, if deemed necessary, slash from the landing will be brought back out into the unit by the skidders on the return trips to pick up more bundles. This method would be limited to area where sufficient ground cover is expected to remain after harvest without having to bring the slash from the landing back out into the unit.


Ground-based equipment would be operating on slopes with a gradient of generally less than 30%. The slope limitations for each unit were determined based on soil erosion hazard rating, topography, and proximity to streams. There should be minimal alteration of drainage patterns, because runoff would be dispersed by implementation of effective erosion control structures on roads, skid trails, and landings. The harvest operation as proposed should have little direct effects on soil productivity, water quality and/or quantity or flow regime (Litschert and MacDonald 2009). The potential indirect effects of the harvest operation include increased risk of erosion due to isolated removal of soil cover and increased compaction resulting in greater overland flow caused by reduction in infiltration and soil water storage. The ground-based harvest operation has the potential to indirectly affect hydrology and water quality by increasing water yields, peak flows, and the timing of runoff by compacting forest soil and decreasing transpiration. The amount of cover removed should not increase the risk of erosion. Maintaining slash on skid trails and implementing effective erosion control structures would reduce erosion from compacted skid trails. The harvest operation as proposed, both ground-based and aerial-based, should result in a minimal increase in the risk of erosion. The treatment prescriptions as proposed would not remove the amount of basal area necessary to generate increases in water yield or peak flow. The hydrologic effects in areas treated with the primary prescription are expected to be minimal. The effects of compaction on water yield should be minimal when management recommendations are combined with falling to the lead wherever possible. Slash left in the aerial-based harvest areas would be distributed over the landscape and decrease overland flow of water. Grass, shrubs, and herbaceous ground cover would quickly establish or reoccupy harvested areas. Remaining canopy cover and expected revegetation would aid in reestablishing infiltration rates. Roots of residual and newly established vegetation would hold soil masses together and provide for erosion control. Up to 7 miles of temporary roads are included in the propose action. However, based on information gained from project layout efforts, it is likely the only 3-5 miles will be needed (Smith, pers comm. 2014). The direct and indirect effects of constructing new, temporary roads would be the removal of the topsoil layer and compaction of the road surface. This could increase and redistribute surface drainage and has the potential to increase erosion and sediment delivery to streams downhill of the road. New road cuts have the potential to affect hydrologic function by disrupting and increasing surface drainage by interrupting the shallow subsurface water flow. The temporary roads would be closed and rehabilitated following completion of harvest activities. This would include subsoiling to minimize compaction, reshaping to facilitate drainage and closure to eliminate further use. These treatments would minimize the impact and facilitate revegetation of the road surface. Near stream soil disturbance Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) have been established on all streams within the project area to protect the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. See table 3 above. The following RCA widths would be established for the project area: perennial streams – 300 feet, seasonal streams, including intermittent and ephemeral streams – 150 feet, and Special Aquatic Features such as springs/seeps and ponds – 300 feet. Within the RCA, a riparian buffer would be established where harvest would generally not occur except after direct coordination with a riparian resource specialist.


There are 13013 acres of RCAs in the HU14 watersheds within the project area boundary. As shown in table 5, the proposed action includes ground-based harvest activities on 2223 acres and aerial-based activities on 197 acres of the RCAs. However, following the management requirements listed above will limit operations on a significant portion of these acres. No harvest will occur within the riparian buffer. This will reduce aerial harvest in the RCA to 153 acres. Harvest-related impacts in these acres will be limited to cable corridors. Ground disturbance from skidding logs will be minimal and scattered. Corridors will be treated to prevent concentration of flow. In units with ground-based harvest, equipment will only be allowed to travel in the RCA on slopes less than 20%. And, even in these areas, the number of passes equipment can make over the same piece of ground will be limited. This restriction, along with excluding harvest from the riparian buffer will result in mechanical equipment operating on 496 acres. The remaining acres in the ground-based units may be harvested through the use of endlining. This will minimize ground disturbance. Furrows created by endlining will be treated to prevent concentration of flow and associated soil erosion. Implementation of management requirements will minimize the disturbance in the RCAs. Ground based equipment will enter less than 4 percent of the RCA acreage in the project area. The project is expected to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and EOs 11988 and 11990. Table 5. Acres of Harvest Treatments within RCAs in the Project Area. RCA

(ac) Aerial (ac)

Ground-based Equipment (ac)

Treatment Total (ac)

Proposed Action 13013 197 2223 2420 Following Management Requirements

13013 153 496

649

3.3.2 Site Preparation for Planting and Release of Competing Vegetation Erosion, sediment and water quality Reforestation efforts are proposed for 7295 acres within the project area. Reforestation involves a combination of preparing the sites for planting and future release of competing vegetation. Site preparation will be done mechanically through mastication on 2476 acres and piling on 1148 acres. Site prep by hand will occur on 445 acres, and 3226 acres will be planted without site prep. Piled vegetation will be burned or retained for wildlife cover. Release of competing vegetation may be done mechanically on 4956 acres and by hand on the remaining 2339 acres. All reforestation treatments will follow the management requirements listed above. The most relevant will keep mechanical equipment on slopes under 30 percent and out of the riparian buffers. Also effective ground cover will be maintained at or above 50%. Mastication will chip and spread vegetative material, providing additional ground cover to the burned area. Site prep by hand will also add cover where needed by lopping and scattering material.


Mechanical piling and pile burning would result in a reduction of soil cover. Cover would be eliminated in portions of activity areas where concentrations of fuels are burned. Mechanical piling has the potential to cause detrimental levels of compaction. Hand piling would have little if any detrimental levels of compaction. Recent monitoring of reforestation treatments on National Forests in California has shown that following the management requirements above and associated BMPs to protect water quality are 98% effective and have resulted in no adverse impacts (USDA Forest Service 2013b). Table 6. Acres of Site Preparation and Release in the Project Area.

Total Tree Planting 7,295 Tree Planting Areas With Mechanical Site Preparation and Release

• Mastication on 2,476 acres • Mechanical Piling on 1,148 acres

3,624

Tree Planting Areas With Hand Site Preparation and Release 445 Tree Planting Areas With Mechanical Release Only (no site preparation) 1,332 Tree Planting Areas With Hand Release Only (no site preparation) 1,894

Near stream soil disturbance There are 1197 acres of site prep and release proposed within RCAs in the project area. The proposed activities would follow project management requirements, which would limit operations in riparian buffers while meeting the Forest Plan soil cover requirements and should not lead to the direct or indirect effect of near stream soil disturbance. 3.3.3 Repairing existing roads to implement project activities. (Alternative A) Erosion, sediment and water quality Project activities would require approximately 125 miles of road repair. This includes roughly 13 miles of level 1 (closed) roads being upgraded to level 2 and opened for administrative use only. Types of repairs include: roadside brushing, reconditioning and installation of drainage structures such as dips, water bars, and roadside ditches, culvert cleaning, surface grading, hazard tree felling, and potential spot rocking. It is well documented that road related erosion is a primary source of accelerated erosion in forests throughout the western United States (Kattleman 1996). Road erosion rates are typically much greater than hillslope erosion rates and are highly variable, dependent on factors such as percent hillslope, location on slope, parent material, and years since construction or maintenance (Reid and Dunne 1984). The proposed repairs would both increase and reduce sources of erosion and sediment delivered to the stream system. Grading road surfaces and clearing ditches loosens and exposes bare ground, temporarily increasing sediment erosion (Coe 2006). Opening and using previously closed roads will also increase erosion during project activities (Reid and Dunne 1984). However, unmaintained roads can also be a major erosion problem. Drainage features such as cross drains or culverts on unmaintained roads often plug with debris and fail. This can lead to concentration of flow on the road surface, causing significant erosion of the road prism and damage to the infrastructure. These erosion features are often permanent and chronic sources of erosion. Repair of this damage is more difficult and costly than periodic maintenance. Near stream soil disturbance


These road repair activities would have little direct or indirect effects on riparian and aquatic resources when management requirements, RCA Guidelines, and BMPs are implemented. The resulting repair work of identified roads would have direct and indirect benefits to the stream system by reducing erosion and sediment sources coming from the road system, reducing the hydrological connectivity of the existing road system, and improving the road effects on downstream beneficial uses.

3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of ALTERNATIVE B Erosion, sediment and water quality Under Alternative B, existing conditions in the eleven HU14 drainages would continue to proceed through natural processes. Natural processes include: hill slope erosion and stream channel sedimentation, recruitment of coarse large woody debris (CWD), and balancing stream flow, stream gradient and stream substrate composition. Alternative B would have both positive and negative impacts on watershed conditions. A positive outcome of the No Action Alternative is that no short-term ground disturbance would occur, thus reducing the potential for increased sediment transport to streams, loss of soil cover, or degradation of riparian or aquatic habitats associated with land management activities.

3.5 CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Ground-disturbing activities can cause both direct and indirect effects that persist through time. The cumulative result of all these effects is the potential to adversely affect downstream beneficial uses of the water. Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis may reveal that even though the proposed activities themselves may not be sufficient to substantially impact the watershed, when analyzed in connection with past and future activities on all ownerships, they may become a cause for concern. The Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) of the Forest Service has developed a standardized cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis (FSH 2509.22) that serves as a surrogate method for determining the risk of delivering excess sediment to streams. This cumulative watershed effects analysis compares (a) the existing level of land disturbance across all ownerships within a watershed with (b) an estimate of the upper limit of watershed tolerance to disturbance, referred to as the Threshold of Concern (TOC). The level of land disturbance is measured using Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs), whereby all disturbances are equated to an acre of road. The cumulative watershed effects analysis then recovers these disturbances over some period of time following a specified recovery curve. Using this analysis, the calculated ERA of a watershed is compared to the TOC to provide an assessment of the potential for cumulative watershed effects. The TOC is not an exact point at which effects will occur. It is an indicator that a watershed is more susceptible to impacts. As ERA approaches or exceeds the TOC, additional measures are employed to protect and monitor watershed conditions.


The Tahoe National Forest has developed a standard method for determining watershed TOC values. Each watershed is assessed for its ability to withstand erosional processes and handle sediment delivery to stream channels. The assessment is based on climatological, geologic and soils information, on-the-ground surveys of the stream channels and upland areas; and the experience and knowledge of current and previous TNF hydrologists. A range of TOC values, from a high of 0.15 (15%) to a low of 0.11 (11%), have been established for each 14 digit HU in the project area. ERA coefficients and recovery rates have been developed based on soil monitoring results, literature reviews, and consultation with other hydrologists. Coefficients and recovery rates assigned to the project are shown in table 7. Table 7. ERA coefficients and recovery rates. Landscape impact ERA

coefficient Recovery Rate

high soil burn severity 0.25 7 years moderate soil burn severity 0.10 3 years roadside hazard tree harvest 0.10 20 years aerial salvage harvest 0.10 20 years ground-based salvage harvest 0.15 20 years Temporary roads 1.00 7 years mechanical piling 0.20 20 years mechanical release 0.02 3 years mastication -0.02 3 years

3.5.1 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A (Proposed Action) The CWE calculations for the project area, shown below in table 8, are dominated by the effects of the American Fire. The vast majority of the fire was located within 4 of the 11 HU14 drainages being analyzed for this project. These watersheds experienced large areas of high and moderate soil burn severity ranging from 2000 to 5000 acres. This condition is shown in the ERA results, where those four watersheds have higher existing condition values than the rest. In the Deep Canyon and Secret Canyon watersheds, the fire resulted in the existing condition approaching the threshold of concern. However, the recovery rate for burned areas is quick. Elevated rates of erosion from the burn are expected to recover to prefire conditions within 3 to 7 years (MacDonald and Robichaud 2008). This is supported by field observations. Burned leaves and needle debris along with branches and logs are continually adding cover to the soil. New vegetative growth is also helping the recovery. The short recovery time will result in the ERA decreasing sharply over the next three years. The watersheds with the most severe burn area, logically, also have the most acres of proposed salvage harvest and reforestation activities. The amount of treatment proposed has resulted in ERA values in excess of the TOC in Deep and Secret Canyon. This means that implementation of the proposed actions will require extra attention to the implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of management requirements and BMPs intended to protect watershed conditions. Restricting activities within RCAs will decrease impacts dramatically. In unit 18 along Black Canyon, which is in the Secret Canyon watershed, the riparian buffer equipment exclusion zone has been set at 150 feet from the channel to protect a sensitive


section of stream channel. Providing adequate cover on skid trails, and subsoiling landings and main skid trails will also reduce impacts. Project wide, salvage harvest will not occur within the riparian buffer. This retains those trees to provide a source of large woody debris to the channels and riparian zones. This material plays a crucial role in the functions of these areas (Reeves et al. 2006). One key role it can play in this project area is the capture and storage of sediment. Large wood in channels captures and stores sediment and thus helps stabilize stream beds (Mongomery et al 2003). It also influences the formation of pools, riffles and overall stream morphology which directly drives aquatic habitat. In ephemeral, headwater drainages, large wood provides stabilizing ground cover that can prevent or reduce landslide and debris flow potential (Montgomery et al 1996). It can also reduce the extent of such mass movements (Lancaster et al 2003). Monitoring of watershed conditions within the project area began immediately after the fire and will continue until well after the proposed project is completed. The project activities will be monitored following the best management practices evaluation program (BMPEP) in accordance with the soil and water quality handbook (USDA Forest Service 2000, 2002, and 2011). This will entail randomly selected and targeted monitoring of the project with the primary objective of confirming that appropriate measures were implemented and determining whether those measures are effective in controlling erosion and protecting water quality. The handbook also requires stream condition inventory monitoring in watersheds at or above TOC. Therefore, two or three such sites will be established. One of these will be located in Black Canyon. Forensic monitoring is required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in watersheds at or above the TOC (Hartzel, pers comm 2014). This is part of the conditional waiver of the requirement to file a report of waste discharge and obtain waste discharge requirements for timber harvest activities on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. Forensic monitoring will be conducted in the Deep and Secret Canyon watersheds and entails on-site visits of project related erosion control measures to determine if such measures are effectively protecting water quality. This monitoring is done following significant precipitation events of a magnitude specified by the waiver or in the spring or early summer if wintertime access is not feasible. The Forest Service has been monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs for many years (USDA Forest Service 2013). The results of this monitoring show that, overall, the BMP program is adequately protecting water quality. Monitoring conducted between 2008 and 2010 showed that BMPs were implemented 91% of the time, and 80% of implemented BMPs were rated as effective. It should also be noted that the ERA results in table 8 are based on the maximum footprint of the proposed actions. This in effect, shows the most conservative result. Detailed design and on the ground layout of the treatments is ongoing. Once finalized, the footprint of the units is likely to be considerably less than what was used to calculate the ERAs. In fact, preliminary information obtained from the layout efforts suggests that the implemented footprint could be as little as 50% of what was proposed in some areas. Overall, the footprint is expected to be about one-third from what was proposed (Smith pers comm. 2014). This actual footprint is difficult to model at this stage of the project. However, it is a


piece of information that needs to be considered and it provides some important context for the analysis of CWEs associated with this project. Table 5. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis Results

Existing

Condition Proposed

Action Drainage Name Acres % TOC % ERA % ERA Sailor Canyon 18020128010302 7339 13 0.7 0.7 Tadpole Creek 18020128010601 9143 14 0.7 0.7 Upper Duncan Canyon 18020128030101 7277

13 2.0 2.1


13 2.1 2.5

Deep Canyon 18020128040101 5319

12 10.4 14.4


12 6.3 9.8

Secret Canyon 18020128040103 6540

11 10.6 16.5


12 7.1 9.4 Eldorado Canyon 18020128040201 6740

13 2.5 2.6

Grouse Creek 18020128040301 5211

14 3.9 4.5

Bear Wallow 18020128040302 5946

14 3.4 5.7

3.5.2 Alternative B (No Action) Under Alternative B, existing conditions in the eleven HU14 drainages would continue to proceed through natural processes. Natural processes include: hill slope erosion and stream channel sedimentation, recruitment of coarse large woody debris (CWD), and balancing stream flow, stream gradient and stream substrate composition. Alternative B would have both positive and negative impacts on watershed conditions. One positive outcome of the No Action Alternative is that no short-term ground disturbance would occur, thus reducing the potential for increased sediment transport to streams, loss of soil cover, or degradation of riparian or aquatic habitats associated with land management activities. The cumulative effect within the project area of lands impacted by past management activities and the soil compaction effect of roads, landings, and skid trails would continue to recover over time. Alternative B (No Action Alternative) represents the existing condition in


the drainages including activities on private land. No drainages exceeded the TOC for the existing condition.

4. References Cited Coe, D. 2006. Sediment Production and Delivery from Forest Roads in the Sierra Nevada,

CA. M.S. Thesis. Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523. 117 pp.

Kattleman, R., 1996. Hydrology and Water Resources. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project:

Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options, pp. 855-920. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis.

CRWQCB 2011. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional

Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Fourth Edition, The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin.

Hartzel, Marty. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Personal

communication, February 25, 2014. Lancaster, S.T., S.K. Hayes, and G. E. Grant, 2003. Effects of wood on debris flow runout in

small mountain watersheds, Water Resour. Res., 39(6), 1168. Lischert, S.E. and L.H. MacDonald, 2009. Frequency and characteristics of sediment

delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 259, 143-150.

MacDonald, L.H., P.R. Robichaud. 2008. Post-fire erosion and the effectiveness of

emergency rehabilitation treatments over time. Stream Notes. January 2008: 1-6. Montgomery, D.R., T.B. Abbe, J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, K.M. Schmidt, and J.D.

Stock, 1996. Distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels in forested mountain drainage basins. Nature, Vol. 381. p 387-389.

Montgomery, D.R., B.D. Collins, J.M. Buffington and T.B. Abbe, 2003. Geomorphic

Effects of Wood in Rivers. American Fisheries Society Symposium. Reeves, G.H., P.A. Bisson, B.E. Rieman, and L.E. Benda. 2006. Postfire Logging in

Riparian Areas. Conservation Biology. Volume 20 No, 4, 994-1004. Reid LM, Dunne T. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources

Research. 20(11): 1753-1761. Smith, Dan. USDA Forest Service. Personal communication, February 25 and March 7,

2014.


USDA Forest Service, 1990, Land and Resource Management Plan. Tahoe National Forest USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2000, Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California: Best Management Practices: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2002, Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region, Best Management Practices Evaluation Program User’s Guide, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2004,Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2011, Water Quality Management Handbook, Pacific Southwest Region: Forest Service Handbook R5 FSH 2509.22-2011-1, 237 pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/field/r5/fsh/2509.22/r5-2509-22-10-2011-1.docx

USDA Forest Service 2013a. Burned Area Report. American Fire. September 17, 2013.

USDA Forest Service, 2013b, Water Quality Protection on National Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program, 2008-2010: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 44 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013, Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (4 ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 11–A3, 63 p.

hydrology specialist report -...

Documents