Cleveland/Ice House

Hydrology Report

Prepared by: Bill Overland Hydrologist

for: Pacific Ranger District

Eldorado National Forest

July, 2016

Reviewed by: Steve Markman

Hydrologist

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Resource Report Title of Project

i

Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Overview of Issues Addressed .................................................................................................... ii Location ...................................................................................................................................... ii Resource Indicators and Measures .............................................................................................. ii Methodology for Analysis .......................................................................................................... ii

Information Sources ................................................................................................................ ii Incomplete and Unavailable Information ............................................................................... iii

Affected Environment .................................................................................................................... iii Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... iii

Watershed Description and Condition .................................................................................... iii Geology ................................................................................................................................... ii GIS Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 1 Review of ERA Model for Cleveland/Ice House Project Watersheds ..Error! Bookmark not defined. Cleveland/Ice House ERA Modeling ...................................................................................... 2 Desired Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4

Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 Spatial and Temporal Context ................................................................................................. 6 Analysis of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 6

Adherence to the Forest Plan and Laws and Regulations ......................................................... 11 References ............................................................................................................................. 12

Resource Report Title of Project

ii

Introduction This report documents existing conditions and analyzes potential environmental effects to hydrologic resources, related to the proposed Cleveland- Ice House Forest Health Project (C-IH). The report also includes project design features and specific Best Management Practices that would be required to be implemented as part of this project.

Overview of Issues Addressed Two issues were brought up by the public during project scoping related to the hydrology discipline:

• Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) – A comment letter from Trout Unlimited states that the results of the Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis model run for the King Fire Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicates three Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 14 watersheds in common with the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE project are over the Threshold of Concern (TOC) and how that may impact watershed health.

• Yellow Legged Frog (Rana sierra) Habitat – The same comment letter from Trout Unlimited has concerns about the habitat of this species from the direct and indirect impacts of sedimentation on stream habitat.

Location The CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project area is located on the Pacific Ranger District (RD) of the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) about seven air miles east of the community of Pollock Pines, CA. Access to the project area is via US 50 at the Ice House Road exit.

Resource Indicators and Measures An indicator is a metric that can be calculated and used to compare differences in impacts between proposed alternatives. The following indicators will be used to compare the impacts between the No Action and Proposed Action alternative.

• Percent of Threshold of Concern (TOC) of Watershed ERA modeling

• Tons per acre of estimated erosion entering stream channels from proposed treatments

Methodology for Analysis

Information Sources To evaluate the existing hydrologic conditions and potential hydrologic, water quantity, and water quality effects related to the proposed project, this analysis relied on literature reviews, forest monitoring reports, Geographical Information System (GIS) data, professional judgment, and a field review conducted in October, 2015.

The potential for direct and cumulative effects was evaluated using the ERA model. The use of this model also fulfills the requirements of the ENF LRMP and the Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 50 (USDA Forest Service, 1990; Amendment 2). Modeling was completed for the six HUC 14 watersheds as displayed in Table 1.

Resource Report Title of Project

iii

Forest Service Water Erosion Prediction Project (FSWEPP) is an analysis model used to help assess the potential for sediment generation and evaluating the chance of sediment introduction into streams. FSWEPP is available at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/

Incomplete and Unavailable Information None known of at this time.

Affected Environment Existing Conditions

Watershed Description and Condition Project analysis for ERA modeling is conducted on what will be classified as United States Geological Survey (USGS) HUC 14 level in the general range of 3,000 to 10,000 acres. The ENF is delineated into 170 of these HUC14 watersheds. The CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project area is located within six of these watersheds. Elevation ranges from 2,000 to 6,700 feet.

Table 1: HUC 14 Watersheds

ENFID HUC 14 NAME Acres Project Acreage Percentage of HUC 14 Watershed

3315 Soldier Cr 3,563 57 1.6% 3325 SFAR-Brockliss Riverton 11,082 886 0.5% 3413 Silver Cr-Camino Res 12,344 525 0.5% 3433 L Silver Cr 6,646 49 0.9% 3515 SF Silver Cr 11,521 851 0.5% 3605 Union Valley Res 11,357 496 0.5%

Resource Report Title of Project

i

Figure 1. Watershed Map

Resource Report Title of Project

i

The southern portion of the project area drains into the South Fork American River with Bull Creek and Esmeralda Creek being the two main named tributaries. The middle and northwest portions of the project area flows into Junction Reservoir along the South Fork Silver Creek. The northeast portion drains into Union Valley Reservoir.

Stream channels are classified as Rosgen Type B4 in the steeper headwaters transitioning to Type B3. The main SFAR is classified as type B2 with a few reaches classified as typeC2. More information about the Rosgen stream classification process is at http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/index.htm

The vegetation cover type for the project area is summarized in Table 2. The conifer component is primary sierra mixed conifer, ponderosa and Jeffrey pine. Existing vegetation (Eveg) for the project area (Zone 3, North Sierra) is accessible at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5347192

Table 2: Vegetation Types in the Project Area Watersheds

Vegetation Type Percent Barren 1% Conifer 74%

Hardwood 5% Herbaceous 1%

Mixed Conifer/Hardwood 10% Shrub 5% Urban 0% Water 4%

A historical USGS Stream Gauge Station (number 11439500- SF American R NR Kyburz (river only) CA)) (http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/11439500.htm) in operation between the years 1922 to 2003 indicates that the mean annual precipitation of 52.31 inches and is located a few miles upstream of the project area on the South Fork American River .

A customized FS WEPP Rock: Clime module (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/rc/rockclim.pl) created for the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE project area indicates that the mean annual precipitation of 49.39 inches which is in good agreement with the measured precipitation records for the nearby USGS station and the project area is lower in elevation. Figure 2 shows the modeled climate for the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project Area.

Resource Report Title of Project

ii

Figure 2: Modeled climate for the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project Area

Surface Water Quality Water quality in the project area is regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Designated beneficial uses, water quality objectives (standards), and a policy statement regarding maintaining high quality waters in California are in the Board’s Water Quality Control Plan (California EPA, CVRWQCB 1998).

The 1991 Forest Plan directs water quality on ENF lands to be maintained and improved through the use of state certified and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Best Management Practices (BMPs).

This direction conforms and complies with Sections 208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) and the guidelines established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (CVRWQCB, 2009).

The most recent listing was approved for California in 2010, which compiles all the information from each of the regional water boards. This information was reviewed in context of the project area boundary and proposed treatment units.

According to the 2010 Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments for the State of California; there are no stream channels or waterbodies listed in the project area. (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml )

Geology The summary of the geology rock types for the project watersheds is listed in Table 3. Geology rock types for the State of California are available at this USGS website http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=CA

Resource Report Title of Project

iii

Andesite is a fine grained, extrusive igneous rock found in lava flows and is found mostly on the ridgetops. (http://geology.com/rocks/andesite.shtml)

Argillite is a highly indurated mudstone (https://flexiblelearning.auckland.ac.nz/rocks_minerals/rocks/argillite.html) and is found within Units 5 and 6 and in the northeast portion of the project area.

Granodiorite is a plutonic rock that is the combination of biotite, hornblende, plagioclase, and quartz. (http://geology.about.com/od/rocks/ig/igrockindex/rocpicgranodiorite.htm)

Table 3: Geology Rock Types in the Project Area Watersheds Geology Rock Type

Total Acreage

Unit Acreage

Andesite 15,246 1,329 Argillite 23,475 691 Gabbro 107 0 glacial drift 680 0 Granodiorite 14,177 843 Water 2,829 0 Grand Total 56,514 2,863

Resource Report Title of Project

i

Figure 3. Geology Map

Resource Report Title of Project

i

For more detail on HSG classification, please refer to https://engineering.purdue.edu/mapserve/LTHIA7/documentation/hsg.html.

Two soil survey areas are located in the project watersheds. CA724 – Eldorado National Forest Area, California, Parts of Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, and Placer Counties and CA624 – El Dorado Area, California. GIS datasets for these soil survey areas can be downloaded at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

There are a total of four Hydrologic Soil Groups based on runoff potential for each soil map unit in a soil survey area (Table 4). Group A are excessively drained soils. Group B are moderately well drained soils; Group C have low infiltration soils. Group D has the highest runoff potential.

N/A is normally associated with water features (lakes and reservoirs). HSG C and D soils are most susceptible to compaction.

Table 5 shows the summary of Groups C and D types.

Table 4: Hydrological Soil Groups HSG Group

Watershed Acreage

Unit Acreage

N/A 2,933 2 A 6,572 85 B 32,611 2,299 C 5,819 243 C/D 316 0 D 8,262 234 Grand Total 56,514 2,864

Table 5: Treatments Units with HSG C and D Types in acres

Unit C D Grand Total

3 4 4 4 5 5 5 15 15 6 20 20 7 11 13 24

18 6 0 6 19 17 44 61 20 17 17 34 4 6 10 35 2 2 36 2 2 40 7 7 42 5 5 44 5 5

Resource Report Title of Project

ii

53 35 35 57 1 1 61 16 16 63 0 12 12 64 8 8 65 0 31 31 66 3 3 69 38 38 70 17 17 72 18 18 73 14 14 74 2 2 75 1 1 76 2 2 77 7 7 79 27 27 82 17 17 83 0 19 19 84 0 3 3 85 0 5 5 87 0 19 19

Grand Total 243 234 478

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

1

Figure 4. Hydrologic Soils Group (HSG) Map

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

1

GIS Analysis A review of the hydrology, geology, and soils layers for the project area shows a few subsets of sensitive areas that will be field verified to access the existing condition.

• Treatment units with HSG C and D soils

• Treatment units with contact zones along the boundaries of Geology types especially with the argillite geology type

• Hauling routes with either of the above two conditions

ERA Modeling of Existing Condition

The ENF uses the ERA method to determine cumulative watershed effects for project analysis. Table 6 shows the summary of the ERA method

Table 6. Description of the Method of Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) for assessing the risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE).

Summary

The risk of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) is assessed using the Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) method developed by R5 USFS. The process was further refined and adapted for the Eldorado National Forest (1993). In this method, an index is calculated for an entire watershed that expresses most land use in terms of the percent of the watershed covered by roads. Based on the ERA and a threshold of concern (TOC), a given watershed is assigned a relative risk – low, moderate, high, or very high - of CWE. The primary cumulative impact of concern is an increase in sediment delivery to streams and degradation of aquatic habitat.

Important aspects of the ERA method

Roads, which are considered to have the greatest potential to increase runoff and sediment to streams, are given a value of 1.0. The number of acres of roads in a watershed is divided by the size of the entire watershed (in acres). This gives the percent of the watershed covered by roads.

For each land disturbance activity other than roads, the number of acres is multiplied by a number less than 1.0. The result (for each land disturbance activity) is then divided by the number of acres of the entire watershed. This gives the percent of the “equivalent roaded acres” in the watershed for each type of land disturbance.

The values for equivalent roaded acres for all of the land disturbance activities are added together. The final number represents the percent of the watershed that is covered by the ‘equivalent’ of roads.

The threshold of concern (TOC) is usually between 10 and 18 percent. That is, when 10 to 18 percent of a watershed is covered by the equivalent of roads, there is a “very high risk” that increased peak flows of streams and sediment delivery to streams will occur. This does not mean these effects will occur precisely when the ERA reaches the TOC, or that an increase in peak flows and sediment delivery to streams will automatically result in a degradation of fish habitat or diminish the experience of recreationists. It is merely a warning that cumulative effects might occur.

Assumptions and limitations of the ERA method

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

2

The method is intended for watersheds between 3,000 and 10,000 acres in size, although the method is commonly used for watersheds slightly outside of this range.

ERA values, as well as the TOC, are only indicators of the risk of cumulative impacts occurring. They cannot be used to determine the percent or numerical amount of increase of sediment delivery to streams, stream channel eroded, fish habitat degraded or lost, or any other change in watershed condition. Such quantitative assessments require additional analysis.

The location of land disturbance activities within a watershed is not considered. For example, roads near streams are treated exactly the same as roads that are far from streams. In reality, roads located within or next to riparian areas tend to contribute more sediment to streams than roads in upland areas.

Recovery of the watershed from land disturbing activities occurs with time. For timber harvest activities, hydrologic recovery is assumed to be thirty years (i.e. ERA contribution is zero thirty years after timber harvest.)

The ERA calculations do not take into account site specific BMPs that will be applied. ERA values start one year after a land use is implemented.

Risk categories

Low risk of CWE - ERA is less than 50% of TOC Moderate risk of CWE - ERA is between 50% and 80% of TOC High risk of CWE - ERA is between 80% and 100% of TOC Very high risk of CWE - ERA is greater than TOC

Cleveland/Ice House ERA Modeling I created a 30 year harvest history for the project watersheds by using the forest activities layer (shows stand boundaries) and joining the FACTS database of harvest activities in the last 30 years. Private timber harvests GIS layers are available to the public to download at ftp://ftp.fire.ca.gov/forest/. A third source used to record the oldest timber harvests in the time period is the existing vegetation raster layer for the northern Sierra (2000 to 2009) using the reforestation status and origin year fields. Overlaps were removed in all three GIS datasets to avoid double counting of acreages. Thresholds of concern for each watershed was updated based on the current GIS datasets available. Site preparation was updated. Transportation was updated using the latest Roads and Trials GIS layers from the forest and the US Census Tiger Roads GIS layers available at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html. Fire history was updated and land uses updated via the existing vegetation type raster GIS dataset via the LandFire Data Access Tool. More info about this dataset is available at http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions21.php.

The large unknown in ERA modeling of fire salvage projects is the amount of private timber harvests. California Department of Forestry (CDF) classifies this type of timber harvests as Emergency Management (EM). These EM GIS harvests layers are not available via download and these have to be estimated by the project hydrologist.

The strategy I used to model these areas are to clip the private land ownership in the watershed to the high and moderate fire severity of the King Fire. This is the King Fire Modeled Salvage Column, below and used in the King Fire Salvage EIS.). Next, this is clipped to the amount of commercial size timber lands from the eveg layer (WHR Type, WHR Size). This is the Commercial Size Timber Column. This would be a good estimate of what a forester will recommend their client to harvest in order to recover economic value of the timber.

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

3

I completed a remote sensing analysis of LandSat 8 imagery of the project area for Julian Day 217, 2015 (August 5th) depicting harvest activity in the above commercial size timber harvest areas. The LandSat Analysis Salvage column shows the acreages.

Table 7: Estimates of Private lands salvage within the King Fire Area

ENFID ENFNAME King Fire Modeled Salvage Commercial Size Timber LandSat Analysis Salvage 3315 Soldier Cr 1101 715 377 3325 SFAR-Brockliss Riverton 433 214 150 3413 Silver Cr-Camino Res 3749 1408 494 3433 L Silver Cr 434 349 230

The results indicate that the King Fire Modeled Salvage for private timberlands were greatly overestimated from a factor of two in the L Silver Cr watershed to a factor of eight in the Silver Cr –Camino Res watershed. These results can easy skew if a watershed is over the threshold of concern (TOC).

The current results of the ERA modeling for the project watersheds are in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Existing Condition Percent of TOC for Project Watersheds

Existing Percent of TOC

Risk Category

Risk Category

ENFID ENFNAME Acres TOC 2015 2016 2015 2016 3315 Soldier Cr 3,563 12 to 14 274 76 Very High Moderate 3325 SFAR-Brockliss Riverton 11,082 10 to 12 103 85 Very High High 3413 Silver Cr-Camino Res 12,344 12 to 14 162 75 Very High Moderate 3433 L Silver Cr 6,646 10 to 12 259 67 Very High Moderate 3515 SF Silver Cr 11,521 12 to 14 96 94 High High 3605 Union Valley Res 11,357 10 to 12 89 85 High High

Watersheds 3315, 3325, 3413, and 3433 are modeled in the very high risk category in the year 2015 and will drop to a moderate or high risk in the year 2016. All watersheds are composed of multiple individual streams (sub drainages). The sub drainages that are most susceptible to mass movement are those within the King fire burn area. These sub drainages impacted by the King Fire in these four watersheds will be field verified to ascertain stability.

Units 4, 23, 42, and 43 are within the King Fire burn area. All four of these units did not burn at either a moderate or high burn severity. All four of these units will be field verified to ascertain stability.

Field Review A field review visit to the project area was completed during October, 2015 with soil scientist Burgoyne. General forest conditions are represented by HSG A and B soils (83 percent of treatment units). Multiple soil transect surveys through these general forest treatment units were completed. There were residual compaction in old skid trails through these units and are much lower than expected for residual compaction values in the ERA modeling for the age of harvests. There were no overt signs of mass movement or slope failures in these general forest stands.

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

4

Units 70, 73, and 79 are representative of HSG C soil types. These units are more sparsely stocked with smaller sized ponderosa pine than that of similar stands of their age in HSG A/B soils. Soil transect surveys shows a minor increase in compaction than the HSG A/B soils in the general forest type and are much lower than expected for residual compaction values in the ERA modeling for the age of harvests. Temporary road construction can have impacts due to a higher rate of compaction and drainage issues. The northern portion of unit 7 has a HSG C and all of unit 69 may have issues with temporary road placements and these temporary roads will need to be approved by a hydrologist prior to implementation.

A field review of HSG D soil areas shows a number of drainage issues along roads and a few mass movement events that occurred off of Roads PT +T and SMUD Yard Road. Peavine Ridge Road is situated upon a contact plane between granodiorite (Granite) and andesite (volcanic) geologic types and a HSG D area. Water can accumulate along these contact planes and in a large atmospheric river storm can initiate larger peak flows similar to a 30 to 100 year flood event. PT + T road is downstream of this contact plane. This road shows evidence that such events have occurred before. The large culvert (36 inch) crossing at the north end of the road near unit 83 has been flushed downstream and put back in place during repair work in 1994. The rust lines of the culvert indicates that the culvert was repositioned. Repair work was completed in preparation of the Cleveland Fire Salvage project in 1994 and there is large rip-rap in numerous places along the road. The northern portion of PT +T road was abandoned (10 to 20 year old regen growing on the road bed) after harvests.

The riparian layer derived from Land Fire indicates that mudflow from these events will concentrate at the junction of the SMUD Yard Road at the project boundary (just northwest of Unit 86). Much larger events (100 year flood events) have made it to the South Fork American River (SFAR) and US 50 road corridor. A similar event has happened in the active slump between Units 84/85 on the PT +T Road. This section of the road crosses another HSG D area.

Units 5 and 6 were visited to investigate a larger HSG D area. Soil transects surveys indicate that compaction from previous harvests was much higher in these two units from the background HSG A/B soils types. The soil survey indicates that the soil is highly cemented. Skid trail placements will be preapproved by the sale administrator and hydrologist prior to harvest.

Units 4, 23, 42, and 43 were visited in the field trip. Soil transects were completed and no elevated compaction was observed. There are no issues with units 23 and 43. The discussion on HSG D soils for units 4 and 42 were summarized in the previous paragraph.

Desired Conditions The following Standards and Guides for Riparian Conservation Areas pertinent to the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project as listed in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 2004)

Evaluate new proposed management activities with CARS and RCAs during environment analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives (RCO) at the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems, and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- -or- riparian dependent plant and animal species

Ensure management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages.

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

5

Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where necessary to restore connectivity.

Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to in stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Where possible, maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features

Prior to activities that could adversely affect streams, determine if relevant stream characteristics are within the range of natural variability. If characteristics are outside the range of natural variability, implement mitigation measures and short-term restoration actions needed to prevent further declines or cause an upward trend in conditions. Evaluate required long-term restoration actions and implement them according to their status among other restoration needs.

Prevent disturbance to stream banks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities (for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, and dispersed recreation) from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does not apply to developed recreation sites and designated off-highway vehicle routes. In stream reaches occupied by the Lahonton, Little Kern Golden, and Paiute cutthroat trout, limit streambank disturbance from livestock to 10 percent of the occupied stream reach. Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to develop streambank disturbance standards for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Use the regional streambank assessment protocol. Implement corrective action where disturbance limits have been exceeded.

Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is within the range of natural variability in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to sustain stream channel physical complexity and stability. Ensure proposed management activities move conditions toward the range of natural variability.

Use screening devices for water drafting pumps. (Fire suppression activities are exempt during initial attack.) Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitat.

Allow hazard tree removal within RCAs or CARs. Allow mechanical ground disturbing fuels treatments, salvage harvest, or commercial fuelwood cutting within RCAs or CARs when the activity is consistent with RCOs. Utilize low ground pressure equipment, helicopters, over the snow logging, or other non-ground disturbing actions to operate off of existing roads when needed to achieve RCOs. Ensure that existing roads, landings, and skid trails meet Best Management Practices. Minimize the construction of new skid trails or roads for access into RCAs for fuel treatments, salvage harvest, commercial fuelwood cutting, or hazard tree removal.

Environmental Consequences Introduction The CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project proposes one action alternative and the no action alternative. The no action alternative means that no vegetation, fuels, or road management would occur on Forest System lands. Alternative 1 includes vegetation and fuels management.

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

6

Spatial and Temporal Context Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The effects analysis for this project considers direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

Detectable changes from the proposed action are analyzed at the sub-watershed (HUC 14) scale and would be considered direct/indirect effects from a single activity. The six sub watersheds listed in Table 9 below was determined to be the cumulative effects area because it contains all potential project activities and defines the largest area that allows for the greatest level of resolution at various geographic and temporal scales.

Analysis of Alternatives The analysis of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives is guided by the resource indicators and measures, or metrics, defined at the beginning of this report.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative no commercial thinning or mastication would occur. Proposed connected actions consisting of temporary road construction and reconstruction, temporary road decommissioning, landing construction or reconstruction and landing decommissioning would also not occur. As a result, no direct or indirect effects related to proposed activities would occur under this alternative.

The existing transportation network (roads and trails) will degrade over time with no maintenance. This may cause culverts and road drainage features to fail causing downstream erosion into aquatic habitats. Road P T + T will continue to erode and will become impassable for fire resources to use in case of a wildfire.

The threat of wildfire will continue to rise over time due to overstocking of the vegetation and growth in highly combustible chaparral species. This will increase the quantity of ladder fuels in the landscape and will create a higher burn severity in the majority of the area. A wildfire will greatly increase short term erosion into the stream channels between an estimated 2.5 to 6.5 tons per acre based on slope percentage and burn severity. This will impact aquatic habitat by burying stream channels and overwhelming the road drainage structures.

Existing conditions in the six HUC14 level watersheds associated with this project would continue including present conditions for water quality.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Under the No Action Alternative no treatment activities would be proposed for the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project. All other harvest activities for the King Fire EIS, private salvage logging and the nearby Pilliken Project proposed treatments will still occur.

Table 9: Percent of TOC for the NO ACTION Alternative Proposed Percent

of TOC Risk

Category

ENFID ENFNAME Acres TOC 2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

7

3315 Soldier Cr 3,563 12 to 14 76 91 84 Moderate High High

3325 SFAR-Brockliss Riverton

11,082 10 to 12 85 88 79 High High Moderate

3413 Silver Cr-Camino Res

12,344 12 to 14 75 91 79 Moderate High Moderate

3433 L Silver Cr 6,646 10 to 12 67 93 82 Moderate High High

3515 SF Silver Cr 11,521 12 to 14 94 91 88 High High High

3605 Union Valley Res 11,357 10 to 12 85 80 75 High High Moderate

The risk category for watersheds 3325 and 3413 will reduce from high to moderate for the year 2020 as compared to Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Erosion, Sediment and Water Quality

Erosion Erosion modeling using the disturbed WEPP module at the FSWEPP website (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/) was completed for the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE Project area and using the FSWEPP customize climate explained in the climate discussion in the existing condition.

Various scenarios were run to model erosion from hillsides from harvest treatments to stream channels.

Table 10: FSWE11PP Erosion Modeling Results WEPP Runs (tons per acre)

Event Average Year

15 Year Event 30 Year event

100 Year Event

Mature Forest 0 0 0

Shrubs 0 0 0.02

Wildfire 0.02 0.12 0.15

Wildfire in Drought 0.04 0.14 0.35

Wildfire in Drought - Entire hillside 0.35 1.34 1.8

Thin 0 0 0.01

Thin with no 100 foot RHCA buffer 0 0 0.01

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

8

Rx Fire 0 0.01 0.04

Worst case scenario 100 year atmospheric river event

2.36

These scenarios in erosion modeling do not include any erosion control measure best management practices (BMP). No temporary roads or landings will be constructed within 100 feet of stream channels.

Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during project operations that are designed to protect water quality, soils, and vegetation. The implementation and effectiveness of the BMP’s from 2008 through 2012 in the Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service is summarized below.

• Approximately 91 percent of the prescribed BMPs were implemented on-the-ground. This includes all major activities – timber, roads, recreation, grazing, fuels, mining, and vegetation management.

• Approximately 80 percent of the implemented BMPs were rated as “effective,” 14 percent were rated as “at risk,” and 6 percent were rated as “not effective.” This includes all major activities.

• For timber related activities alone, approximately 88 percent of the implemented BMP’s were rated as “effective.”

• For fuels related activities alone, approximately 92 percent of the implemented BMP’s were rated as “effective.”

• For road related activities alone, approximately 68 percent of the implemented BMP’s were rated as “effective.”

• Approximately 98 percent of the 2,237 on-site evaluations found that there were “no significant adverse impacts” on water quality (USDA 2012).

The BMP monitoring fulfills commitments by the U.S. Forest Service to the State Water Quality Resources Control Board. The BMPs are described in: Water Quality Management Handbook for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (December 2011).

Implementation of proposed treatments will not initiate erosion beyond a negligible level into stream channels and therefore, will not produce sedimentation beyond a negligible level within Rana sierra habitat.

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

9

Design Features Equipment exclusion zones are based on stream type as listed in Table 11.

Table 11. Exclusion Zones for Ground-Based Equipment

Aquatic Feature Ground-based equipment exclusion zone (feet)

< 15 % slope 15 – 25 % slope 25 – 35 % slope > 35 % slope

Perennial stream1 100 100 150

Requires recommendation from a resource specialist after an on-site visit.

Intermittent stream1 100 100 150

Ephemeral stream1 25 25 50

Draws2 10 25 25

Special aquatic features3 100 100 150

1For streams, distances are as measured from the edge of the channel or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

2 For draws, distances are as measured from the bottom of the draw. Draws have a poorly defined channel, and generally do not show evidence of recent flow.

3 For special aquatic features, distances are as measured from edge of wet area or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, Special aquatic features includes lakes, ponds, meadows, wetlands, springs, seeps, etc.

An engineering assessment of Road PT +T (11N04B) will be required prior to the implementation of the project due to an active slide along the road between units 85 and 87.

The portions of units 4, 5, 6, 7, 34, 40, 42, 83, 84, 85, and 87 with HSG D soils may have issues with temporary road placements and these temporary roads will need to be approved by a hydrologist prior to implementation.

The northern portion of unit 7 has a HSG C and all of unit 69 may have issues with temporary road placements and these temporary roads will need to be approved by a hydrologist prior to implementation.

Municipal Watersheds There are no municipal watersheds within the project area; therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects from the project treatments. However, the SFAR does drain into Folsom Dam about 25 air miles downstream of the project area. The 3,000 acre project will not have an impact on the drinking water

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

10

supply for the South Fork American River (SFAR) HUC 8 watershed of 543,952 acres or about 0.0055 percent of the watershed.

Water Quantity Direct and indirect effects associated with vegetation treatments include a decrease in tree canopy and an associated increase in water available for stream flow and modifications to peak flow timing. The increase in water available for stream flow is due to decreases in interception and transpiration. In wet climates, this can increase annual water yield.

Stednick (1996) noted that changes in annual water yield from forest cover reduced (or catchment area harvested) by less than 20 percent could not be determined through hydrometric or stream-flow measurement methods. However, other research indicates that up to 25 percent must be harvested before changes are detected.

Grant et al. (2008) document that although any disturbance that reduces the density of live vegetation cover will locally increase runoff from forested watersheds; flow increases are generally not measurable until about 25 percent of the basal area of a forested watershed has been harvested. These discussions generally pertain to 6th level watersheds.

The project treatments equate to 0.51 percent of the watershed acreage. This will not show any increase in water quality from project treatments since this is greatly under the 25 percent threshold as described by Grant et al.

ERA Modeling Table 12 shows the summary of the proposed percent of TOC for the six HUC14 watersheds if ALL proposed harvest treatments occur on the CLEVELAND/ICE HOUSE project, King Fire Salvage, Pilliken Project, and private timber salvage. The watersheds that were over TOC in 2015 are recovering to a point to drop the overall rating from very high to high. Timber harvests will create an elevated pulse in the percent of TOC in 2018 and will recover quickly when the impacts from the timber salvage after the Cleveland Fire of 1994 are recovering much faster than the impacts of new salvage occurring.

Table 12: Percent of TOC for the ACTION Alternative Proposed Percent of

TOC

Risk Category

ENFID ENFNAME Acres TOC 2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020

3315 Soldier Cr 3,563 12 to 14

76 93 85 High High High

3325 SFAR-Brockliss Riverton

11,082 10 to 12

85 96 86 High High High

3413 Silver Cr-Camino Res

12,344 12 to 14

75 94 81 Moderate High High

3433 L Silver Cr 6,646 10 to 12

67 94 82 Moderate High High

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

11

3515 SF Silver Cr 11,521 12 to 14

94 96 91 High High High

3605 Union Valley Res

11,357 10 to 12

85 84 77 High High Moderate

The risk category for watersheds 3325 and 3413 will remain as high for the year 2020 as compared to Alternative 1. The cutoff in the risk category from Moderate to High is 80 percent. Both of these watersheds will have a value of 79 percent in Alternative 1. Therefore, there is no significant difference in risk category with the adoption of the proposed treatment activities.

The rate of recovery was field checked to see if the thirty year standard recovery time was appropriate for the project watersheds. Standard residual compaction after a thirty year period averages 3 to 5 percent for harvest activities. The residual compaction for the Cleveland fire units harvested in 1994 is modeled as between 10 to 12 percent. The results of the soil transit surveys using the Howes protocol completed by the project soil scientist and hydrologist shows a range of 3 to 7 percent of residual compaction. The units with the 3 to 4 percent residual compaction were all located within hydrological soil groups (HSG) A and B areas. These units are in line with what is expected for full recovery and the recovery time in years for HSG A and B soils in the project watersheds is 20 years instead of 30. The units with a residual compaction of 5 to 7 percent all occurred on HSG C soils. Seven percent is still a bit high for complete recovery so a 30 year recovery time for HSG C and D soils is appropriate.

The differences in the ERA modeling between the King Fire EIS and this project is a function of the differences in estimated salvage harvesting of private lands and the changes in recovery time from 30 years to 20 years in HSG A and B areas from soil transect field work.

Adherence to the Forest Plan and Laws and Regulations Forest Plan The proposed activity would not affect long-term productivity of the hydrological resource because there would be negligible increase in sedimentation into the streams in the project area. Design features and best management practices would be applied to the proposed activities. The proposed activities would not occur near a public water system or in a municipal watershed.

Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains) The rules for protecting floodplains are incorporated as BMPs in the California Water Quality Standards. Floodplain size, elevation and function will not be altered because culverts will be designed to accommodate a variety of flows while allowing flow to access floodplains.

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) The rules for protecting floodplains are incorporated as BMPs in the California Water Quality Standards. There would not be any effects to floodplains, wetlands or municipal watersheds as these are not present where activities are proposed (Arias, 2015).

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

12

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas With incorporation of design features listed in Chapter 2 and criteria established in the 2004 ROD, Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Management Objectives would not be compromised. A Riparian Conservation Report (RCO) has been written for this project.

Clean Water Act and California Water Quality Law With incorporation of design features listed in Chapter 2, the project will comply with the Clean Water Act and California Water Quality Law, because the pollutant sediment has been reduced and no consequential increase in temperature is expected.

References Cal Fire – internet site containing timber harvesting plan GIS data for private lands in the state of California. Accessed July, 2015.

CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Internet Site containing the proposed 303(d) list for the central valley region of California http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/r5_final303dlist.pdf

CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2012. Internet site containing Basin Plan for the Central Valley Region. http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans

Eldorado National Forest. 1993. Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects (CWE) Analysis Process. Version 1.1

Elliot, William J.; Hall, David E. 2010. Disturbed WEPP Model 2.0. Ver. 2014.04.14. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Online at <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp>.

Grant, Gordon E.; Lewis, Sarah L.; Swanson, Frederick J.; Cissel, John H.; McDonnell, Jeffrey J. May 2008. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 76 p.

Stednick, John, D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber on annual water yield, Journal of Hydrology, 176 (1996) 79-95

United States Census Bureau. 2015. Internet site accessing GIS road datasets. Accessed June, 2015. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Region 5. Section 2509.22, Chapter 20. Cumulative off-site watershed effects analysis.

USDA Forest Service. January 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision.

USDA Forest Service. March 2012. Water Quality Protection on National Forest in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program, 2008-2012.

Hydrology Report Cleveland/Ice House

13

USDA Forest Service - Pacific Southwest Region - Remote Sensing Lab. April 2014. ExistingVegSouthSierra2000_2008_v1.

USGS. Stream Stats: A Water Resources Web Application. Accessed March 5th, 2016

USGS Open-File Report 2005-1305. Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States - western states: California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah

USDA NRCS – CA 624 – Soil Survey of the El Dorado Area, California.

USDA NRCS – CA 724 – Soil Survey of the Eldorado National Forest Area, California, Parts of Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, and placer Counties